Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: vm0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent Paul Mulhern) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Jesus as a human Message-ID: Date: 20 Jul 90 07:35:01 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 69 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu First...who is clh and why does he comment on posts? a bboard administrator or owner? Just curious... About Jesus being human. I said in a post on 7/17 that Jesus isn't human anymore. I still affirm that statement. What "Christian doctrine" says He is still human? I fully recognize that, while on earth, He was indeed human and God. But I do not think He still posesses any characteristics which make Him human. He is not still living on earth. He is not still experiencing the temptations He experienced as a human. He doesn't need to perform any of the functions we do to live (eat, sleep, etc.). He was humbled to be human, but now he has been "un-humbled", i.e. exalted, and above all other names. He now uses the authority which was always His to use, but which He did not avail Himself of when here on earth. Of course He still has His memories, and the experiences He went through on the earth are still a part of Him. This is no mean claim, either...it is a good thing that we have a high priest who understands us. I think it is wrong to say that He is still human, though. Just because He has been a human, we cannot say He still is. (There are many people who have been thieves that aren't, anymore. And pregnant, sick, etc.). What aspect of Jesus's BEING is there that is human? I really cannot think of any. (And if someone can demonstrate otherwise, I'm quite willing to admit to having misconceptions. But demonstrate through God's word, and not just 'tradition'... ) I think He has fulfilled all His responsibilities as a human, and is now His old inhuman (no offense, Lord) self. In Jesus, -Vince Mulhern. [I'm sending him the introduction to soc.religion.christian via email. I'm not sure whether we have here simply a disagreement over definitions. We certainly agree that there are great differences between what people are like on earth and in heaven. If you're simply pointing this out, then there's nothing wrong with what you're saying, but you are using words in a nonstandard fashion. If you're saying that after his resurrection Jesus was not the same sort of entity that we will be after our resurrection (though of course in addition, he is also fully God, which we aren't), then you are rejecting very basic Christian doctrines. As moderator it's not my job to force any beliefs on you, but I'd at least like to make sure you realize that your position is not the typical Christian one. First, let's look a Biblical terminology. There are many places where Christ is referred to as a man, but in many cases it may be hard to prove that his situation specifically after his resurrection is being referred to. However I Tim 2:5 seems clear. It calls Christ Jesus a man (the Greek is in fact anthropos, i.e. human) specifically in the context of his redemptive role. See also I Cor 15. In case you are thinking of saying that Christ after his resurrection is different than we will be, I Cor 15 makes it clear that Paul envisioned our resurrection as being the same sort as Christ's. See particularly 15:21. Christian theology has followed the Biblical tradition. The basic doctrinal standards also talk of Christ as a man. In some cases you might try to argue that it was limited in time. E.g. the Nicene Creed says of Christ "and was made man". It doesn't say "and continued to be man forever", but that's certainly the way it has generally be meant. Chalcedon clearly speaks of Christ as fully man and fully God, and is referring to his nature in eternity, not just something temporary. I'd say most people use the term "human" to refer to both earthly people and resurrected people. To distinguish them I'd use adjectives such as "glorified". --clh]