Hi Joe –
So wouldn't this make the flesh without power, therefore limiting the very idea of God as a limited being?
The flesh is not a limitation of the divine, it’s a condition of the human. The key is in the understanding that God as the Second Person of the Trinity took on human form, so the Jesus Christ who walked and talked, who hungered and thirsted, felt heat and cold, etc., is God manifesting Himself in human form, as indeed God can manifest Himself in any form, but the form that God chooses will be limited according to its nature.
God can ‘work through’ anything, and so when the Prophets speak, it is the utterance of the Divine on their tongues, but they are not God, and they are still themselves.
In Christ, God did not manifest Himself ‘through’ a man – that is Fred or Jim was not ‘overtaken’ or ‘possessed’ or ‘assimilated’ into the Divine, it’s not the case of a Divine Being in some form taking over a human being, rather it’s a Divine Being manifesting Itself as a human being, so the being-ness of the Incarnation is uniquely God’s, not some man’s whom God is using, but God’s power is limited in the sense that a human body could not contain it, but again, it’s not God or the Divine that is limited, rather simply the human nature and its physical faculty can only do so much …
In that I see the same thing in Jesus (PBUH), God said be and it was.
Well we would say that Christ as the Second Person of the Trinity is God, and was before the world was made – as Christ Himself said, ‘before Abraham was, I am’.
The Arian dispute was over that very point – that at some point God the Father created the Son, or rather ‘there was a time when the Son was not’ – this was hotly disputed and refuted by the Orthodoxy. It continued in certain regions of the empire where the local political will supported the Arian schismatics. As an aside, the Arian dispute continued for as long as it did because of imperial interference by emperors after Constantine.
Jesus (PBUH), being limited, had to request the power of God from him, for he had no power himself.
As man, yes. As the Son of God, no. All things the Father has the Son has. Everything the Father is the Son is. He said so Himself. What He constantly shows us is the proper relation and respect due the Father by creation.
His will was not his own, but that of "the Father" (in quotes because it is language used then, but not necessarily the classical definition of Father in my opinion).
We would say that His
human will is, like ours, limited and therefore suffers unknowing, uncertainty, etc., but the Son wills what the Father wills, and where the Son does not ‘know’, His faith and trust in God is absolute – so the whole thing is really a model for man to follow.
This is marked when the Centurion asks Jesus to heal his daughter. Christ says lead the way, and the Centurion says why? we don’t have to be there, all you have to do is say the word — and Jesus marvelled at his faith, the faith that He was trying to demonstrate by example over and over again.
If he was God, why did he need to invoke the power from the "Father”.
To show that everything is dependent on God for its being. Again this is in reference to his humanity rather than His divinity.
I ask this, because in his actions he mimics prophets before him. His words indicative of following their same message, which never consisted of a separation or a union, but rather unity.
Well the message is the same because it’s the message of God. Jesus is not a messenger of God, He’s the manifestation of God.
The prophets never claimed to be ‘one with God’. Rather they claimed to be instruments of the Divine will. God says to the prophet, ‘Tell them this: …’
Jesus however differs in a most significant way in that He speaks and acts from
His own authority – the prophets were always clear that they acted as God directed, whereas Jesus acted on his own account. He gave a new commandment
in His own name which a prophet could not do. He healed sin
in His own name which a prophet could not do. It was these actions that inspired His audience to attempt to stone Him on more than one occasion for blasphemy.
[QUOTE="BigJoeNobody, post: 306371, member: 18746”]… and as Thomas pointed out, it was not even solidified in belief 300+ years later, and even today.[/quote]
Ah no, that’s not quite right.
It was the faith of the Church from the beginning. It was Arius’ teaching that was new, and that’s why Arius’ congregation, dockers and fisherman in Alexandria, complained to their Bishop that Arius was teaching something different to the catechism they were taught, the gospel they had received, and the declarations they made at their baptism.
(Really it was always a local problem. Arius was a priest in Alexandria. The ‘problem’ was that Arius had imperial connections, and used his political influence to try and over-rule his bishop because his bishop told him to stop teaching his own version of Christology. If Arius had not had those political links, it would have been a minor upset along the way.)
Things only get defined by a Council when there’s a persistent error that the Church is trying to iron out.
[QUOTE="BigJoeNobody, post: 306371, member: 18746”]So I guess my main question is: What evidence is there that he is actually divine? He never claims to be… [/quote]
Scripture. Tradition. The Faith of the Church. What
empirical evidence is there? None. How could there be?
[QUOTE="BigJoeNobody, post: 306371, member: 18746”]Jesus (PBUH) never does such.[/quote]
Oh He does. If you read the NT from the viewpoint of a Jew, it's crystal clear. Some examples: His miracles, His healings. Also His words and the reception He received: Matthew 2:2, 14:33, 28:9, John 8:58, 9:35-38, 10:30-33 …
Jesus made an unmistakable claim to deity before the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin. Caiaphas the high priest asked Him: “‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?’ ‘I am,’ said Jesus.
‘And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven’ (Mark14:61–62). A biblically illiterate person will miss the significance of Jesus’ words. Caiaphas and the council, however, did not. They knew that in saying he was “the Son of Man” who would come “on the clouds of heaven” he was making an overt reference to the Son of Man in Daniel’s prophecy (Dan. 7:13–14). In doing so, He was not only claiming to be the preexistent Sovereign of the universe but prophesying that He would vindicate His claim by judging the very court that was now condemning Him. Moreover, by combining Daniel’s prophecy with David’s proclamation in Psalm 110, Jesus was claiming that He would sit upon the throne of Israel’s God and share God’s very glory. To students of the Old Testament this was the height of “blasphemy,” thus “they all condemned him as worthy of death” (Mark14:64–65).
Finally, Jesus claimed to possess the very attributes of God. For example, He claimed omniscience by telling Peter, “This very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times” (Matt.26:34); declared omnipotence by not only resurrecting Lazarus (John11:43) but by raising Himself from the dead (John2:19); and professed omnipresence by promising that He would be with His disciples “to the very end of the age” (Matt.28:20). Not only so, but Jesus said to the paralytic in Luke5:20, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.” In doing so, He claimed a prerogative reserved for God alone. In addition, when Thomas worshiped Jesus saying “My Lord and my God!” (John20:28), Jesus responded with commendation rather than condemnation.
Then there are the 'I am' statements...
To most Hindus, God is an all encompassing Holy Spirit. No physical mass as we know it, but capable of manifesting in the flesh. In doing so however, that all encompassing Holy Spirit does not cease to exist, but rather coincides with it's own manifestation. Which continues on in spiritual form once the flesh has perished. Most Hindus believe this to have happened multiple times throughout history allowing numerous representations of a single God to simultaneously exist. The significance of Jesus is that he was not born to the flesh, but rather of the flesh. A perfect union between God and ourselves. Allowing God to walk among us, lead by example and bear the brunt for our sins. Sitting on the right hand of God simply means the power of the Holy Spirit rests with him.