Was Jesus a Human Being?

[jwoodie]

The central tenets of Christianity are that Jesus was God in human form, died on the Cross, was physically resurrected and then ascended to Heaven. From a logical viewpoint, I have the following questions:

1. If Jesus was a human being, he would have had 64 chromosomes, 32 from his mother and 32 from his father. The only exception would be if he was cloned from his mother. In that case wouldn't he have been female?

2. After Jesus died on the Cross, was he physically resurrected as a human being? If so, how did he ascend to Heaven? Is Heaven a physical place? Do other human beings live there as well? If not, why not?

 

[Harry Dresden]

if he was who he said he was he was not from this planet....

 

[JoeMoma]

The central tenets of Christianity are that Jesus was God in human form, died on the Cross, was physically resurrected and then ascended to Heaven. From a logical viewpoint, I have the following questions:

1. If Jesus was a human being, he would have had 64 chromosomes, 32 from his mother and 32 from his father. The only exception would be if he was cloned from his mother. In that case wouldn't he have been female?

2. After Jesus died on the Cross, was he physically resurrected as a human being? If so, how did he ascend to Heaven? Is Heaven a physical place? Do other human beings live there as well? If not, why not?

Humans have 46 chromosomes, 23 chromosome pairs. Just saying.

 

[tyroneweaver]

The central tenets of Christianity are that Jesus was God in human form, died on the Cross, was physically resurrected and then ascended to Heaven. From a logical viewpoint, I have the following questions:

1. If Jesus was a human being, he would have had 64 chromosomes, 32 from his mother and 32 from his father. The only exception would be if he was cloned from his mother. In that case wouldn't he have been female?

2. After Jesus died on the Cross, was he physically resurrected as a human being? If so, how did he ascend to Heaven? Is Heaven a physical place? Do other human beings live there as well? If not, why not?

Luke 24:36-39
gives you the answer

 

[Canon Shooter]

I believe that Jesus Christ lived.

I believe that he had disciples and that he was crucified.

I do not believe he was the son of God. If Mary got pregnant and Joseph didn't know about it, well, then Mary was a tramp.

I do not believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Given the devotion which was shown to him by so many, I think it's likely that his body was stolen.

I do not believe anyone saw Jesus Christ walking among the masses after he died.

I do not believe that Jesus Christ "ascended" anywhere.

Just my thoughts...

 

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

The central tenets of Christianity are that Jesus was God in human form, died on the Cross, was physically resurrected and then ascended to Heaven. From a logical viewpoint, I have the following questions:

1. If Jesus was a human being, he would have had 64 chromosomes, 32 from his mother and 32 from his father. The only exception would be if he was cloned from his mother. In that case wouldn't he have been female?

2. After Jesus died on the Cross, was he physically resurrected as a human being? If so, how did he ascend to Heaven? Is Heaven a physical place? Do other human beings live there as well? If not, why not?

If you want to get technical:

Jesus was fully man and fully God. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. said that Jesus Christ was one 'hypo- stasis' (ΰποστάφσις) who had two natures (φύσεις), a divine nature and a human nature, perfectly joined together in one person.

This theology is called the Hypostatic Union

Hypostatic Union

Hypostatic Union

The Greek word hypostasis describes that which lies at a foundation. To the philosophers, it is used to describe a hidden reality upon which other realities are...

www.catholic.com

The Greek word hypostasis describes that which lies at a foundation. To the philosophers, it is used to describe a hidden reality upon which other realities are built, even if they cannot be seen through appearances. The hypostatic union, therefore, is a theological term aided by metaphysics used to describe the revealed truth that in Christ, as one person, there subsist two distinct natures: divine and human.

This was known and taught in a general sense from the beginning of the Christian Church but was developed and defined as challenges were made to the orthodox teachings on Christ and his human and divine natures. Heretical challenges of every kind were posited: a co-mingling of these two natures, a single nature, no material body, a post-incarnation addition of the divine nature, that the union does not subsist in the person, that one of the natures was created, and so forth.

This topic was brought to a close and dogmatically established by the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451), which declared that in Christ the two natures, each retaining its own properties, are united in one subsistence and one person.

 

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

Did the Incarnation Cause God to Change?

If God Became Man, Didn't God Change?

But God can't change . . . so all of Christianity is refuted. That's how the argument goes, anyway, but it's based on a misunderstanding.

www.catholic.com

An excellent question that we get here at Catholic Answers maybe five or six times a year is this:

If at the Incarnation “the Word was made flesh,” doesn’t that mean that God changed? And if he changed, how can he be God?”

Because this question is connected to Mary’s title Theotokos (“God-bearer), I address it at length in my book, Behold Your Mother. (Check it out!) But this is such a good and important question that it bears treating over and over again.

The short answer is no, God cannot change (see Mal. 3:6), so he did not change in the Incarnation. In order to understand how this is so, we have to define a very important term: the hypostatic union. At the Incarnation 2,000 years ago, the second person of the Blessed Trinity acquired a human nature; ever since then, the second person of the Blessed Trinity possesses two natures, one divine, and one human, subsisting within the one divine person. (End of definition.)

Please take note that there is no “mixing” of natures here. The divine and human natures of Christ are absolutely distinct. Yet they are not divided or separated, either: they are “joined” in the hypostatic union—a created union “within” the one divine hypostasis (person) of Christ.

What do we mean by this union existing “within” the one divine person? That seems to imply a change in God, right?

St. Thomas Aquinas explains:

Since the divine Person is infinite, no addition can be made to it: Hence Cyril says [Council of Ephesus, Part I, ch. 26]: “We do not conceive the mode of conjunction to be according to addition”; just as in the union of man with God, nothing is added to God by the grace of adoption, but what is divine is united to man; hence, not God but man is perfected (Summa Theologiae, Pt. III, Q. 3, Art. 1, Reply Obj. 1).

When we speak of the hypostatic union of the divine and human natures of Christ in the one divine person, we have to qualify what we mean by the union being “in the person” of Christ. St. Thomas explains that since the hypostatic union is a “created union,” it cannot be “in God”:

[E]very relation which we consider between God and the creature is really in the creature, by whose change the relation is brought into being; whereas it is not really in God, but only in our way of thinking, since it does not arise from any change in God. And hence we must say that the union of which we are speaking is not really in God, except only in our way of thinking; but in the human nature, which is a creature… Therefore we must say it [the hypostatic union] is something created (Ibid., Q. 2, Art. 7).

And so when the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon speak of the hypostatic union being “in the person of Christ,” it is so inasmuch as the human nature assumed by Christ now has as its subject the divine person of Christ. As Aquinas says, it is “not really in God, except in our way of thinking”—that is, because the human nature has as its subject a divine person.

“But wait a minute,” someone might say. “The second person of the Blessed Trinity used to be just God, but at the Incarnation he became a God/man mixture. That’s a change!”

It’s true that, at the Incarnation, the second person of the Blessed Trinity added a human nature that he did not have before, but he (the divine person) did not change in his divine essence. The only real change took place in his human nature, which received infinite dignity in and through the hypostatic union but God did not change in the process. But because of the hypostatic union, when one refers to the human nature of Christ, the subject is the divine person. This is why we can worship the man, Jesus Christ. This is why we can affirm that God, the second person of the Blessed Trinity, was born, suffered, and died. The divine nature cannot die, but a divine person did, because of the hypostatic union.

Likewise, we also worship the whole Christ, not part of him. Mary gave birth to the whole Christ, not to one of his natures. When we speak of Jesus we speak of his divine person, to which everything fully human and divine is attributed.

This is a great mystery, and we should not shy away from admitting it. 1 Timothy 3:16 says, “Great is the mystery of godliness. He [God] was manifest in the flesh, seen of angels preached on unto the gentiles and received up into glory.” The truth of the hypostatic union is beyond our ability to comprehend fully, but there is nothing about it that is contrary to reason.

But to posit a change in one of the three divine persons of the Blessed Trinity is clearly contrary to reason. And that is no mystery at all. The Council of Ephesus (431) affirmed by the later Council of Chalcedon (451), says quite succinctly and accurately:

He did not cast aside what he was, but although he assumed flesh and blood, he remained what he was, God in nature and truth. We do not say that his flesh was turned into the nature of the godhead or that the unspeakable Word of God was changed into the nature of the flesh. For he (the Word) is unalterable and absolutely unchangeable and remains always the same as the scriptures say (Mal. 3:6).

Even the heretical Nestorians, who effectively saw two persons in Christ, did not make so obvious a mistake as to claim there was “change” in God.

Ultimately, the error in those who think that God changed in the Incarnation is rooted in a lack of understanding of the difference between person (who someone is) and nature (what someone or something is). In Jesus’ case, the “who” does not necessarily change by adding another “what.” And neither is there a change to the other “what”—the divine nature. The only change we can speak about is the radical change to human nature that occurs by the grace of the hypostatic union wherein the human nature of Christ is lifted up, as it were, into the divine person, receiving infinite dignity as a result. Thus, “the man, Jesus Christ” (1 Tim. 2:5) has not merely become a “[partaker] of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4) as we Christians are. The “man” Jesus Christ is God because of the hypostatic union.

And isn’t this exactly what we see in Sacred Scripture? Examine Colossians 1:15-22 and you will see the “he,” or the one person of Christ, being referred to as both “the creator” of all things (as God) and as having suffered and died on the cross for our salvation (as man):

He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities — all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him (emphases added).

He is both God the creator and the man who died on the cross. How? Because any phenomenon of which we speak, finding its source, location, or both in Christ, must ultimately be attributed to the one divine person. This is why we can say with confidence that God became man yet God does not change.

 

[alang1216]

This was known and taught in a general sense from the beginning of the Christian Church but was developed and defined as challenges were made to the orthodox teachings on Christ and his human and divine natures. Heretical challenges of every kind were posited: a co-mingling of these two natures, a single nature, no material body, a post-incarnation addition of the divine nature, that the union does not subsist in the person, that one of the natures was created, and so forth.

I think you have it backwards. The different visions of Jesus were there from the very beginning of Christianity, before there was an 'orthodox' school. The trinity was an attempt, by the Church of Rome, to impose a single theology on the different Christian churches. It was a theological compromise built on the paradox of three natures in one.

 

[alang1216]

He is both God the creator and the man who died on the cross.

So why did Jesus have to die on the cross? Did He demand that He be a sacrifice to Himself? It almost sounds like he was following someone else's rules.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So why did Jesus have to die on the cross? Did He demand that He be a sacrifice to Himself? It almost sounds like he was following someone else's rules.

Old testament

Zechariah 13:7 is the scripture Jesus quoted: “God will strike the shepherd and his sheep will scatter.” Isaiah 53:7b says, “He was led like a lamb to the slaughter and as a sheep is silent before shearers, He never said a word.” Psalm 22:16 states, “My enemies surround me like a pack of dogs; an evil gang closes in on me. They have pierced my hands and feet.”

 

[Ringtone]

Did the Incarnation Cause God to Change?

If God Became Man, Didn't God Change?

But God can't change . . . so all of Christianity is refuted. That's how the argument goes, anyway, but it's based on a misunderstanding.

www.catholic.com

An excellent question that we get here at Catholic Answers maybe five or six times a year is this:


Because this question is connected to Mary’s title Theotokos (“God-bearer), I address it at length in my book, Behold Your Mother. (Check it out!) But this is such a good and important question that it bears treating over and over again.

The short answer is no, God cannot change (see Mal. 3:6), so he did not change in the Incarnation. In order to understand how this is so, we have to define a very important term: the hypostatic union. At the Incarnation 2,000 years ago, the second person of the Blessed Trinity acquired a human nature; ever since then, the second person of the Blessed Trinity possesses two natures, one divine, and one human, subsisting within the one divine person. (End of definition.)

Please take note that there is no “mixing” of natures here. The divine and human natures of Christ are absolutely distinct. Yet they are not divided or separated, either: they are “joined” in the hypostatic union—a created union “within” the one divine hypostasis (person) of Christ.

What do we mean by this union existing “within” the one divine person? That seems to imply a change in God, right?

St. Thomas Aquinas explains:


When we speak of the hypostatic union of the divine and human natures of Christ in the one divine person, we have to qualify what we mean by the union being “in the person” of Christ. St. Thomas explains that since the hypostatic union is a “created union,” it cannot be “in God”:


And so when the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon speak of the hypostatic union being “in the person of Christ,” it is so inasmuch as the human nature assumed by Christ now has as its subject the divine person of Christ. As Aquinas says, it is “not really in God, except in our way of thinking”—that is, because the human nature has as its subject a divine person.

“But wait a minute,” someone might say. “The second person of the Blessed Trinity used to be just God, but at the Incarnation he became a God/man mixture. That’s a change!”

It’s true that, at the Incarnation, the second person of the Blessed Trinity added a human nature that he did not have before, but he (the divine person) did not change in his divine essence. The only real change took place in his human nature, which received infinite dignity in and through the hypostatic union but God did not change in the process. But because of the hypostatic union, when one refers to the human nature of Christ, the subject is the divine person. This is why we can worship the man, Jesus Christ. This is why we can affirm that God, the second person of the Blessed Trinity, was born, suffered, and died. The divine nature cannot die, but a divine person did, because of the hypostatic union.

Likewise, we also worship the whole Christ, not part of him. Mary gave birth to the whole Christ, not to one of his natures. When we speak of Jesus we speak of his divine person, to which everything fully human and divine is attributed.

This is a great mystery, and we should not shy away from admitting it. 1 Timothy 3:16 says, “Great is the mystery of godliness. He [God] was manifest in the flesh, seen of angels preached on unto the gentiles and received up into glory.” The truth of the hypostatic union is beyond our ability to comprehend fully, but there is nothing about it that is contrary to reason.

But to posit a change in one of the three divine persons of the Blessed Trinity is clearly contrary to reason. And that is no mystery at all. The Council of Ephesus (431) affirmed by the later Council of Chalcedon (451), says quite succinctly and accurately:


Even the heretical Nestorians, who effectively saw two persons in Christ, did not make so obvious a mistake as to claim there was “change” in God.

Ultimately, the error in those who think that God changed in the Incarnation is rooted in a lack of understanding of the difference between person (who someone is) and nature (what someone or something is). In Jesus’ case, the “who” does not necessarily change by adding another “what.” And neither is there a change to the other “what”—the divine nature. The only change we can speak about is the radical change to human nature that occurs by the grace of the hypostatic union wherein the human nature of Christ is lifted up, as it were, into the divine person, receiving infinite dignity as a result. Thus, “the man, Jesus Christ” (1 Tim. 2:5) has not merely become a “[partaker] of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4) as we Christians are. The “man” Jesus Christ is God because of the hypostatic union.

And isn’t this exactly what we see in Sacred Scripture? Examine Colossians 1:15-22 and you will see the “he,” or the one person of Christ, being referred to as both “the creator” of all things (as God) and as having suffered and died on the cross for our salvation (as man):


He is both God the creator and the man who died on the cross. How? Because any phenomenon of which we speak, finding its source, location, or both in Christ, must ultimately be attributed to the one divine person. This is why we can say with confidence that God became man yet God does not change.

Splendid job. I was about to address this when I encountered your post. I'm a student of divinity. I'm not Catholic, but, of course, that's immaterial to the fundamentals of Christology, pneumatology, paterology, and the Trinity, given that orthodox Protestants and Catholics are of one mind in that wise.

Despite our differences, I'm willing to wager that you and I would agree that Aquinas' Summa Theologiae is arguably the most important theological work in history.

Are you familiar with Henry's seminal work God, Revelation and Authority, 6 vols?

[PDF] God Revelation And Authority God Who Stands And Stays Vol 6 Download [EBOOK]

 

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

I think you have it backwards. The different visions of Jesus were there from the very beginning of Christianity, before there was an 'orthodox' school. The trinity was an attempt, by the Church of Rome, to impose a single theology on the different Christian churches. It was a theological compromise built on the paradox of three natures in one.

We are not talking about the visions of Jesus. We are talking about what his nature actually is. His real nature is as I explained.

And your language is all wrong when you say three natures in one.

• Jesus Christ, as he walked on earth, was one person with two natures perfectly joined, human and divine. That is what I explained.
• God, on the other hand, is three persons (not natures, persons) and one being. That is Trinity.

Lets not get all mixed up in what we are talking about here.

the Church of Rome

It was not the Church at Rome, it was The Church - THE Church - in council, with all the bishops in attendance.

So why did Jesus have to die on the cross?

THAT you will have to ask God. His ways and his reasons for doing things are his own.

 

[alang1216]

Old testament

Zechariah 13:7 is the scripture Jesus quoted: “God will strike the shepherd and his sheep will scatter.” Isaiah 53:7b says, “He was led like a lamb to the slaughter and as a sheep is silent before shearers, He never said a word.” Psalm 22:16 states, “My enemies surround me like a pack of dogs; an evil gang closes in on me. They have pierced my hands and feet.”

I'm still confused, I thought the OT was the word of God, so Jesus was just quoting himself. Couldn't God have said anything He wanted it to?

 

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

Splendid job. I was about to address this when I encountered your post. I'm a student of divinity. I'm not Catholic, but, of course, that's immaterial to the fundamentals of Christology, pneumatology, paterology, and the Trinity, given that orthodox Protestants and Catholics are of one mind in that wise.

Despite our differences, I'm willing to wager that you and I would agree that Aquinas' Summa Theologiae is arguably the most important theological work in history.

Thank you. It is good when we can find common ground. And yes, Aquinas' work IS arguably the most important theological work in history. The fact that is came forth from a Medeival mind makes it all the more fascinating. Surely God was with him.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I'm still confused, I thought the OT was the word of God, so Jesus was just quoting himself. Couldn't God have said anything He wanted it to?

Now you get it...

 

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

I'm still confused, I thought the OT was the word of God, so Jesus was just quoting himself. Couldn't God have said anything He wanted it to?

It is far too simplistic to just call the Bible the Word of God.

The Bible is divine revelation consigned to writing, by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

If I may quote something important:

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture". Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80​

113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By "analogy of faith" we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;​

The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87​

 

[Wyatt earp]

It is far too simplistic to just call the Bible the Word of God.

The Bible is divine revelation consigned to writing, by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

If I may quote something important:

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78

112 1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture". Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80​

113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By "analogy of faith" we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.84

2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".85

3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;​

The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87​

John had dementia in old age when he wrote his books and Paul was retarded

 

[Not a Monkeys Uncle]

John had dementia in old age when he wrote his books and Paul was retarded

There you go alang1216 , you definitely do not want to ask scriptural questions to Wyatt

 

[Ringtone]

I think you have it backwards. The different visions of Jesus were there from the very beginning of Christianity, before there was an 'orthodox' school. The trinity was an attempt, by the Church of Rome, to impose a single theology on the different Christian churches. It was a theological compromise built on the paradox of three natures in one.

That's not true, alang. Biblically orthodox protestants and Catholics are of one mind with regard to the Trinity and the persons thereof.

 

[ding]

So why did Jesus have to die on the cross? Did He demand that He be a sacrifice to Himself? It almost sounds like he was following someone else's rules.

Maybe God has a wicked sense of humor and he wanted to put himself on trial before you did. It's not like you don't do it everyday.