Is Jesus the Christ a human Person?

[Matthias]

'waiting for our blessed hope,
the appearing of the glory
of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,'
(Tit 2:13) ESV

“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;”

(Titus 2:13, KJV)

Do you see the difference?

Titus 2:13 -> listed in Raymond E. Brown under the title TEXTS WHERE THE USE OF “GOD” FOR JESUS IS DUBIOUS

 

[Administrator]

This Thread is being monitored. Please stop the sword fighting.

 

[Complete]

“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;”

(Titus 2:13, KJV)

Do you see the difference?

Titus 2:13 -> listed in Raymond E. Brown under the title TEXTS WHERE THE USE OF “GOD” FOR JESUS IS DUBIOUS

'Looking for that blessed hope,
and the glorious appearing
of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
(Tit 2:13) KJV

Hello @Matthias,

The word itself is dubious only in the opinion of man.

* In this verse there are three figures of speech:-

1) In relation to the words, 'The glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour' the figure of speech is called 'Antimereia', where, as in this case, two nouns are both of them in regimen, and only one of them is used for the adjective, sometimes it is the former. In relation to this example the former of the two nouns is used for the adjective i.e., 'the glorious appearing of the great God, even our Saviour Jesus Christ'.

2) The words, 'Looking for that blessed hope' is a figure of speech called, 'metonymy', where one name (noun) is used for another, in which it stands in relation. in this case :- 'that blessed object of hope, the appearing of Christ'.

3) The figure of speech 'hendiadys' meaning two things spoken but one thing meant: is found in relation to the words, 'Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing'. Not two things but one: our hope is the glorious appearing! The latter clause is also Hendiadys: One Person being meant, not two: ie., 'the appearing of the great God, yes - even our Saviour Jesus Christ': ie., our Divine Saviour.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Ref: 'Figures of Speech found in the Bible' by E.W. Bullinger.

https://www.holybibleinstitute.com/files/Bullinger-Figures_of_Speech_used_in_the_Bible_b_.pdf

 

[civic]

“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;”

(Titus 2:13, KJV)

Do you see the difference?

Titus 2:13 -> listed in Raymond E. Brown under the title TEXTS WHERE THE USE OF “GOD” FOR JESUS IS DUBIOUS

Wrong and once again appeal to authority fallacy. 2 Peter 1:1 is the same Greek construction as Titus 2:13. You are way out of your league here once again. The Greek grammar refutes your false claims.

2 Peter 1:1
τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

2 Peter 1:11
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

2 Peter 1:1
our God and Savior, Jesus Christ

2 Peter 1:11
our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

We have a second person possessive pronoun "Our" modifying two different improper nouns (God and Savior) joined by "and" (Kia) to identify a proper noun (Jesus) [Granville/Sharp's]. Therefore, by basic grammar, we are identifying Jesus as God and Savior. We don't even have to know the Greek to see that Jesus is being called both God and Savior/ Lord and Savior in Peters 2nd Epistle. 2 Peter 2:20 and 2 Peter 3:18 also have the same Greek construction as 1:1 and 1:11.

But for those interested in the Greek here is the comparison of 1:1 and 1:11.

τοῦ is the same.
ἡμῶν is the same.
καὶ is the same.
Σωτῆρος is the same.
Ἰησοῦ is the same.
Χριστοῦ· is the same.

And all in the same order.

The only difference is the noun "Θεοῦ" in v.1, while "Κυρίου" is in v.11.

So if he wants to deny that Jesus is "God" ("theou") in v.1, then he has to deny that Jesus is "Lord" ("kuriou") in v.11. Otherwise he's being inconsistent and dishonest with the text. To say otherwise is proof positive one has an agenda when reading scripture and using eisegesis rather than exegesis of the biblical text in question.

Sound biblical hermeneutics triumphs once again over eisegesis. What I have demonstrated is sound exegesis that any 1 semester Greek student can understand.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Matthias]

'Looking for that blessed hope,
and the glorious appearing
of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
(Tit 2:13) KJV

Hello @Matthias,

The word itself is dubious only in the opinion of man.

* In this verse there are three figures of speech:-

1) In relation to the words, 'The glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour' the figure of speech is called 'Antimereia', where, as in this case, two nouns are both of them in regimen, and only one of them is used for the adjective, sometimes it is the former. In relation to this example the former of the two nouns is used for the adjective i.e., 'the glorious appearing of the great God, even our Saviour Jesus Christ'.

2) The words, 'Looking for that blessed hope' is a figure of speech called, 'metonymy', where one name (noun) is used for another, in which it stands in relation. in this case :- 'that blessed object of hope, the appearing of Christ'.

3) The figure of speech 'hendiadys' meaning two things spoken but one thing meant: is found in relation to the words, 'Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing'. Not two things but one: our hope is the glorious appearing! The latter clause of also Hendiadys: One Person being meant, not two: ie., 'the appearing of the great God, yes - even our Saviour Jesus Christ': ie., our Divine Saviour.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Brown isn’t one who would ever have said that the word is dubious. He points out what many other trinitarian (and non-trinitarian) exegetes point out - this is a passage of scripture (there are others) where “obscurity arises from syntax”.

 

[civic]

Brown isn’t one who would ever have said that the word is dubious. He points out what many other trinitarian (and non-trinitarian) exegetes point out - this is a passage of scripture (there are others) where “obscurity arises from syntax”.

appeal to authority fallacy by a catholic lol. getting pretty desperate now I see.

soon you will be using mormonism or islam as an authority.

where does it stop ?

when will you make your own arguments ?

 

[Matthias]

appeal to authority fallacy by a catholic lol. getting pretty desperate now I see.

soon you will be using mormonism or islam as an authority.

where does it stop ?

when will you make your own arguments ?

You’ve been bested by your trinitarian betters.

They make my argument for me to an audience who couldn’t care less what I believe.

 

[TibiasDad]

“You cannot posit a ‘human person’ in Jesus Christ in any sense and avoid heresy.”

Is Jesus a Human Person? - TimStaples.com

After writing my last post, “When the Word was Made Flesh, Did God Change?” I received an excellent follow-up question. One of my readers still could not get past just how we can say Christ was truly and “fully man,” and yet not be a “human person.” He asked if we could say that somehow Christ...

timstaples.com

According to the article you posted, a human is, at its foundation, “a body and soul composite” and yet it proposes that

There is nothing in the definition of a “human” (being a body/soul composite) that requires it to be a person. Thus, even though this only actually happens in the case of Christ, there is nothing unreasonable about positing the possibility.

But it is the presence of a soul that constitutes the “living being” called man. (Gen 2:7) So, according to the argument made, there is nothing “human” about the body without the soul, however, there is no soul without the living rational being of a personal entity.

In a tragic situation, it might be said that ‘20 souls were lost’, meaning 20 people are lost, thus, a soul = a personal, rational being. This is the dividing point between humans and all other beings. It is the image of God that defines being human, otherwise, we are merely “dust of the earth”. The image of God necessarily means personhood. Thus, to be human is to be a personal being. The body, in itself, is just substance, and there is no dynamic difference between a dog’s body and a man’s without life, but a living dog is dynamically different from a living man, and that difference is the Imago Dei.


Doug

 

[civic]

I stand on Scripture as my authority you do not but constantly quote outside sources as your guide. I quote scripture and exegete it on my own and use sources to back up my claims. Big difference. I have no "trinitarian" betters. Its an equal playing ground.

My only betters are the Apostles. They were inspired by God with all truth. They are the only ones who were given All authority by our God and Savior Jesus Christ. All other men are just mere humans with error as you have demonstrated on a daily basis.

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

According to the article you posted, a human is, at its foundation, “a body and soul composite” and yet it proposes that

There is nothing in the definition of a “human” (being a body/soul composite) that requires it to be a person. Thus, even though this only actually happens in the case of Christ, there is nothing unreasonable about positing the possibility.

But it is the presence of a soul that constitutes the “living being” called man. (Gen 2:7) So, according to the argument made, there is nothing “human” about the body without the soul, however, there is no soul without the living rational being of a personal entity.

In a tragic situation, it might be said that ‘20 souls were lost’, meaning 20 people are lost, thus, a soul = a personal, rational being. This is the dividing point between humans and all other beings. It is the image of God that defines being human, otherwise, we are merely “dust of the earth”. The image of God necessarily means personhood. Thus, to be human is to be a personal being. The body, in itself, is just substance, and there is no dynamic difference between a dog’s body and a man’s without life, but a living dog is dynamically different from a living man, and that difference is the Imago Dei.


Doug

Good post brother

 

[Matthias]

According to the article you posted, a human is, at its foundation, “a body and soul composite” and yet it proposes that

There is nothing in the definition of a “human” (being a body/soul composite) that requires it to be a person. Thus, even though this only actually happens in the case of Christ, there is nothing unreasonable about positing the possibility.

But it is the presence of a soul that constitutes the “living being” called man. (Gen 2:7) So, according to the argument made, there is nothing “human” about the body without the soul, however, there is no soul without the living rational being of a personal entity.

In a tragic situation, it might be said that ‘20 souls were lost’, meaning 20 people are lost, thus, a soul = a personal, rational being. This is the dividing point between humans and all other beings. It is the image of God that defines being human, otherwise, we are merely “dust of the earth”. The image of God necessarily means personhood. Thus, to be human is to be a personal being. The body, in itself, is just substance, and there is no dynamic difference between a dog’s body and a man’s without life, but a living dog is dynamically different from a living man, and that difference is the Imago Dei.


Doug

”Jesus is not a human person” is the teaching of historical orthodox trinitarianism.

I reject it.

I make people aware of it who should be but aren’t - I blame the trinitarian clergy, primarily, for their plight - and then I wait to see what they will do with it.

 

[civic]

”Jesus is not a human person” is the teaching of historical orthodox trinitarianism.

I reject it.

I make people aware of it who should be but aren’t - I blame the trinitarian clergy, primarily, for their plight - and then I wait to see what they will do with it.

reminnds of the unitarians that reject the deity of Christ and the ones like you who accept it and worship Him.

just pointing out your own groups inconsistencies.

as they say whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

hope this helps !!!

 

[TibiasDad]

Someone who embodies 2 persons will suffer from a dual personality (schizophrenic) syndrome. Therefore, there cannot be 2 persons in 1 body. You know what they say about schizophrenics: you're never alone if you're a schizophrenic.

Nevertheless, there can exist 2 wills as Christ clearly proved when he said the following, knowing that Christ does have a Divine will:

Luke 22:42 saying, Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me. Yet not My will, but Yours be done.

But logically, will can only exist in a rational, volitional being. How can a singular person have two wills?

Doug

 

[Matthias]

reminnds of the unitarians that reject the deity of Christ and the ones like you who accept it and worship Him.

just pointing out your own groups inconsistencies.

as they say whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

hope this helps !!!

I’ve said many times that I’m in a minority - a tiny minority - even among unitarians.

I reject much that is taught in unitarianism. The majority of unitarians reject what I believe.

Just as I would encourage trinitarians to flee from orthodox trinitarianism (once they become persuaded that what it teaches isn’t the truth), I would encourage unitarians to flee from the majority of unitarianism (once they become persuaded that what it teaches isn’t the truth).

 

[civic]

But logically, will can only exist in a rational, volitional being. How can a singular person have two wills?

Doug

the will does with the nature- The Trinity shares one will since there is one divine nature. the human nature has a will so that Christ having 2 natures has 2 wills. the will is not associated with the person when it comes to God. Thats how it is explained in orthodox circles and Chalcedon. Martin Chemnitz a Lutheran scholar has a book on the 2 natures in Christ that goes into great detail on those issues in the church.

Does Jesus Have One or Two Wills?

In this brief clip from his teaching series A Survey of Church History, W. Robert Godfrey examines how the early church understood the relationship between natu

www.ligonier.org

 

[APAK]

1 John 4:2
By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;


2 John 7
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Honing in on 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7. These verses are usually glossed over or their meanings just ignored or superimposed by religious doctrine.

Here's some other translations:

(1Jn 4:2) and you can know which ones come from God. His Spirit says that Jesus Christ had a truly human body.(CEV)

(1Jn 4:2) This is how you will be able to know whether it is God's Spirit: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus Christ came as a human being has the Spirit who comes from God.(GNB)

(1Jn 4:2) The test by which you may recognize the Spirit of God is that every spirit which acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come as man is from God,(Weymouth)

(1Jn 4:2) The test by which you may recognize the Spirit of God is that every spirit which acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come as man is from God,(WNT)

(1 John 4:2) By this you know the spirit of God: every spirit which confesses Jesus Messiah as the one coming as a fully human being is from God. (OGFOMMT)

(2Jn 1:7) Many liars have gone out into the world. These deceitful liars are saying that Jesus Christ did not have a truly human body. But they are liars and the enemies of Christ. (CEV)

(2 John 7) For many deceivers have gone out into the world, who do not accept that Jesus Messiah has come as a fully human being, (OGFOMMT)

Note: as in most translations available, the expressions 'came as', 'is come' 'has come' 'the one coming' all mean the same thing: The Messiah was created and begotten uniquely as a fully human male being and person, and born of Mary from God, at one place and time in human history.

Additionally, those that believe also in the pre-existence of the Messiah cannot comply with 1 John 4:2 or 2 John 7. They also cannot believe that the Messiah was a genuine human being and person.

They believe only in a metaphysical abstraction of, as a human being and person, as only in his 'human nature'!

 

[civic]

Honing in on 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 7. These verses are usually glossed over or their meanings just ignored or superimposed by religious doctrine.

Here's some other translations:

(1Jn 4:2) and you can know which ones come from God. His Spirit says that Jesus Christ had a truly human body.(CEV)

(1Jn 4:2) This is how you will be able to know whether it is God's Spirit: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus Christ came as a human being has the Spirit who comes from God.(GNB)

(1Jn 4:2) The test by which you may recognize the Spirit of God is that every spirit which acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come as man is from God,(Weymouth)

(1Jn 4:2) The test by which you may recognize the Spirit of God is that every spirit which acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come as man is from God,(WNT)

(1 John 4:2) By this you know the spirit of God: every spirit which confesses Jesus Messiah as the one coming as a fully human being is from God. (OGFOMMT)

(2Jn 1:7) Many liars have gone out into the world. These deceitful liars are saying that Jesus Christ did not have a truly human body. But they are liars and the enemies of Christ. (CEV)

(2 John 7) For many deceivers have gone out into the world, who do not accept that Jesus Messiah has come as a fully human being, (OGFOMMT)

Note: as in most translations available, the expressions 'came as', 'is come' 'has come' 'the one coming' all mean the same thing: The Messiah was created and begotten uniquely as a fully human male being and person, and born of Mary from God, at one place and time in human history.

Additionally, those that believe also in the pre-existence of the Messiah cannot comply with 1 John 4:2 or 2 John 7. They also cannot believe that the Messiah was a genuine human being and person.

They believe only in a metaphysical abstraction of, as a human being and person, as only in his 'human nature'!

flesh is sarx in 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 1:7. It means He came as a man ( in flesh ) and remains as a man in flesh not in the present.

the greater question which I addressed is who is Christ ?

and we know all the passages in Johns gospel showing He existed in heaven with the Father prior to being sent and became a man, in the flesh.

 

[synergy]

What would lead me to believe that your attitude about that (an acronym for words spoken by Jesus in the parable of the sower) isn’t, or wouldn’t be, the same about this?

As long as you refrain from your "Donkey Show" antics, we'll be ok.

It does, but why do you want to hear it?
Do you? Given how you’ve acted when I’ve explained other things on this forum, tell me why I should cast my pearls before you?

The way I acted is to present Bible verses to you. If you have a problem with those Bible verses then you can register your complaint at your nearest Church.

Now if you wish to keep running away from John 8:58-59, I will fully understand.

 

[APAK]

flesh is sarx in 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 1:7. It means He came as a man ( in flesh ) and remains as a man in flesh not in the present.

the greater question which I addressed is who is Christ ?

and we know all the passages in Johns gospel showing He existed in heaven with the Father prior to being sent and became a man, in the flesh.

You think you might know of such passages, although I wager you really do not know scripture sufficiently to tell either way. And besides, you have shown you are driven solely by your sources and books, by your religious convictions over the word of God and what your religious teachers and their doctrines teach you to know.

Fortunately there are no scripture verses, passages, chapters that speak to Christ's pre-existence. John especially would not speak of such nonsense and fantasies as his main theme was the discovery and advertisement of the Son of God, his Father, who God first created him on earth and then lived within him, even today.

Do you believe that God lives within Jesus today civic? Now you can find scripture that does support this critical salvation question, right? And you do not even have to lift another book or other sources in support....

 

[civic]

You think you might know of such passages, although I wager you really do not know scripture sufficiently to tell either way. And besides, you have shown you are driven solely by your sources and books, by your religious convictions over the word of God and what your religious teachers and their doctrines teach you to know.

Fortunately there are no scripture verses, passages, chapters that speak to Christ's pre-existence. John especially would not speak of such nonsense and fantasies as his main theme was the discovery and advertisement of the Son of God, his Father, who God first created him on earth and then lived within him, even today.

Do you believe that God lives within Jesus today civic? Now you can find scripture that does support this critical salvation question, right? And you do not even have to lift another book or other sources in support....

He is God so all the fullness of deity dwells in Him as man. Fully God and fully man.