tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1081631727760066049.post9192816671882131841..comments2023-07-13T00:09:18.439-05:00Comments on Preaching the Gospel: Dennis Luker: Jesus Christ Was Fully Man and Fully Godauthor@ptgbook.orghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13775228362728122027noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1081631727760066049.post-42735592437728227452010-10-19T09:50:34.238-05:002010-10-19T09:50:34.238-05:00I fully understand that Mr. Luker is overwhelmed w...I fully understand that Mr. Luker is overwhelmed with emails. That is no doubt why he has not replied. Eventually he may reply and that can clarify what he meant. But in any case, I thought it would be a good post to highlight the difference between Church of God teachings and the teachings of traditional Christianity. We need to be reminded of these things because these issues still come up in the Church. One minister with a Church of God background, not in UCG, recently emailed me about the nature of Christ, saying that Christ as a person did not pre-exist before His birth (I wrote and published an article for him showing he is wrong). Other members of the Church may hear that phrase "fully man and fully God" from their Catholic or Protestant friends, and we need to know what people mean by that.<br /><br />As far as Jesus and God being tempted, God cannot be tempted in that He does not have to struggle to resist a temptation. He is not drawn to sin. He has no desire to sin, and He does not have to struggle against the pulls of the flesh. Whereas, Jesus, when He was human, DID have to struggle. It was not easy for Him. He was PULLED in the direction of sin and had to resist that pull in a way that God does not have to do. It was hard for Him just as it is hard for us. That is one reason why Christ cried out to God (Hebrews 5:7-8).<br /><br />That is my understanding.author@ptgbook.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13775228362728122027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1081631727760066049.post-14793924282367220702010-10-19T09:34:32.148-05:002010-10-19T09:34:32.148-05:00I'm using your post for Bible study, so my que...I'm using your post for Bible study, so my questions and comments may come piece-by-piece and slowly.<br /><br />But you say of God: "nor can He be tempted.... but Jesus Christ could be tempted...."<br /><br />Isn't this parsing at words? Doesn't the fact that Jesus never yielded to temptation show He "cannot" be tempted, either?<br /><br />For instance: someone could come up to me and offer a $100,000 bribe. If I listen to him and turn him down, does the mere listening prove I "could" be tempted? Would I have to stop the offer before it starts, to prove I "cannot" be tempted?<br /><br />Are you saying Jesus made a big mistake by going into the wilderness -- because God the Father would have rejected such a step out of hand?<br /><br />P.S. President Luker said during at the Feast site I attended he is inundated with daily e-mails, and wishes he could answer them all -- but finds he's not able to do so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1081631727760066049.post-35014264244941688572010-10-15T19:30:17.394-05:002010-10-15T19:30:17.394-05:00Part of the problematic thing about growing in kno...Part of the problematic thing about growing in knowledge. It has been my experience that it tends to add phrases. Sometimes to the point that when they are used, the person may not actually know what they are talking about. However it is also possible that the author knows how added phrases are meant to be used. Which may not be how the the reader is perceiving them.<br /><br />Sometimes all a person can do is hope for the best for their neigbour.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1081631727760066049.post-87080902998558035822010-10-13T13:44:51.955-05:002010-10-13T13:44:51.955-05:00You are right that the fully-man fully-God idea do...You are right that the fully-man fully-God idea does not make sense with a trinity, nevertheless, trinitarians do use that term. Anything that does not make sense in the trinitarian doctrine they explain by saying, "it is a mystery", or in other words, we cannot understand it because of our limited human minds. I think that in regards to Jesus as a man, they think that somehow the second person of the trinity manifested Himself as a human on earth while that person was still in heaven, sort of like a projection of some kind. If you put a slide in a projector, the original slide is still in the project, but an image of the slide is projected on the screen. They also seem to think that the second person of the trinity did not die, but remained alive and conscious in heaven during the time Jesus was in the grave.<br /><br />To me, to be "fully" something means completely, lacking nothing, having EVERY attribute. Jesus Christ was given authority to ask the Father in prayer for angels, and God would answer His prayer (Matthew 26:53). We also have authority to ask things of God, and God through Jesus Christ gave His disciples authority to command demons and the demons had to obey (Luke 10:17), but this did not make the disciples fully God, in fact, they did not even have God's Holy Spirit. <br /><br />If Jesus were "fully" God while He was human, He would have every attribute of God, nothing lacking. He would have all of God's power, His immortality, His immunity to temptation, everything. Otherwise, I do not see how we can use the label "fully".<br /><br />But if Mr. Luker meant that Jesus Christ was fully God before His birth and after His resurrection, and fully man between His birth and resurrection, both fully man and fully God, but at different times, then of course he is right. My concern is that this term "fully man and fully God" is used much among trinitarians, but not at all in the Church of <br />God that I have seen (until I saw Mr. Luker's letter). The only other time I heard or read this phrase in the Church of God might have been when Mr. Tkach was changing doctrine.author@ptgbook.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13775228362728122027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1081631727760066049.post-56010772529802922292010-10-10T15:14:17.881-05:002010-10-10T15:14:17.881-05:00It may be that "Traditional Christianity, whi...It may be that "Traditional Christianity, which believes in the trinity doctrine, believes that Jesus Christ was not really a man like other men, that He was somehow God and man at the same time, and trinitarians often state that Jesus was fully God and fully man to express this." However, this has never made any sense to me.<br /><br />If God is a "trinity", then how could Jesus be "fully man"? As you said, part of Him would have to still be in Heaven. That also means He couldn't have died. How can 1/3rd of a being die? The other 2/3rds would still have to be alive, right?<br /><br />However, if Jesus was "fully man" because He was still the same person, the same character and the same mental identity that He was before, I could buy that. I could also buy the fact that He was and is Creator God. He created it all, He still held that rank, and He still had the <b>authority</b> to call down a legion of angels -- if He so desired. In that sense, He was still "fully God" and wasn't replaced by anyone.<br /><br />I think the "fully God and fully man" makes more sense in the non-trinitarian view, as long as we are agreed that "fully human" also means the ability to die.John D Carmackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06784870966782777711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1081631727760066049.post-2294904850186953822010-10-08T06:27:03.956-05:002010-10-08T06:27:03.956-05:00This is an excellent general summation on the natu...This is an excellent general summation on the nature of God. Whether or not you receive a reply, I do hope Mr. Luker and many others have read what you are expressing.Norberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14759620283225256852noreply@blogger.com