• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jesus 100% man?

BobbyisStrange

The Adversary
I know a lot of Christians accept that Jesus was 100% man and 100% God...But doesn’t the very fact that in the story, Jesus being born of a virgin (not to mention his many miracles), negate the idea that he was 100% man? I mean, why don’t Christians just call him a demigod since he fits all the criteria? I know other religious sects consider him to be just that...it is obvious that the Bible's portrayal of Jesus, though made flesh and blood, is much more than a man. So by 100% man are we just saying made of flesh and blood?
 

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
He has two natures. None of those natures is diluted or lessened by the other but exist in a hypostatic union, I hope this clears it up.
 

BobbyisStrange

The Adversary
Answer me this...In order to be man or human we have to have both a mother and a father..correct? Jesus didnt have this...he was born through immaculate conception...this alone would mean he cant be 100% man...unless we just mean flesh and blood.
 

BobbyisStrange

The Adversary
"Virgin" is a loose -- pardon the bad pun -- translation. A closer translation is "young woman."

I'll give you that…it is exactly how I read it…though that isn’t how its taught...The fact that Jesus could walk on water would show he was more than a man...we could go on and on, there are many examples that contradict Cynthia's premise.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I'll give you that…it is exactly how I read it…though that isn’t how its taught...The fact that Jesus could walk on water would show he was more than a man...we could go on and on, there are many examples that contradict Cynthia's premise.
I've witnesses several 100% human beings perform miracles. "Lack of miracles" is not included in the definition of "100% human."
 

CynthiaCypher

Well-Known Member
As the Logos he existed prior to the foundation of the universe as God. When born of Mary, he partook of human nature just like all other human babies and is 100% human...given that he has human DNA. If you have human DNA methinks that makes you like human.

But his Divine nature and human nature are not diluted by each other because they are in hypostatic union so he remain 100% divine and 100% human
 

robo

Active Member
But his Divine nature and human nature are not diluted by each other because they are in hypostatic union so he remain 100% divine and 100% human

Is there any other example anywhere in the world where someone has been 100% human/animal and 100% divine? Or is Jesus the only example? If he is the only example, methinks it is special-pleading fallacy.
 

BobbyisStrange

The Adversary
I've witnesses several 100% human beings perform miracles. "Lack of miracles" is not included in the definition of "100% human."

I’ll give you that for now. Do you believe Jesus was born of God? You gave me a translation, but what is your view? Was he born of a virgin through the divine power of God or was his biological father Joseph?

You see, I don’t believe in miracles or God…So I tend to hold the position that the historical Jesus (if he existed) was only man…I would also argue that if someone has the ability to perform miracles, they somehow have the divine working through them and the fact that not every human has the ability to achieve this power would absolutely make them more than man, however that is my opinion.

Either way, I like the cut of your jib.
 

BobbyisStrange

The Adversary
As the Logos he existed prior to the foundation of the universe as God. When born of Mary, he partook of human nature just like all other human babies and is 100% human...given that he has human DNA. If you have human DNA methinks that makes you like human.

But his Divine nature and human nature are not diluted by each other because they are in hypostatic union so he remain 100% divine and 100% human

Wouldnt Jesus have needed a biological father to get DNA??? You dont just get it from your mother.
 

ChristineES

Tiggerism
Premium Member
I know a lot of Christians accept that Jesus was 100% man and 100% God...But doesn’t the very fact that in the story, Jesus being born of a virgin (not to mention his many miracles), negate the idea that he was 100% man? I mean, why don’t Christians just call him a demigod since he fits all the criteria? I know other religious sects consider him to be just that...it is obvious that the Bible's portrayal of Jesus, though made flesh and blood, is much more than a man. So by 100% man are we just saying made of flesh and blood?

Jesus being 100% man and 100% God is what we believe (not all Christians, but most). We do not believe He was a "demi-God" by any means. If you don't like our beliefs, you don't have to follow them.
When Jesus was here with His Apostles He was totally human and when with His Father He was God. That is our beliefs.
 

Shermana

Heretic
"Virgin" is a loose -- pardon the bad pun -- translation. A closer translation is "young woman."

This is in dispute as there seems to be valid reason to believe the Septuagint had it right with "Virgin" and that the Masoretic accidentally or deliberately changed this centuries later.

Try to find anywhere in the anti-Septuagint article here that is based on observable facts. Where's the reason to believe the "2nd century B.C. Hebrews were telling the Greeks it was wrong?"

THE SEPTUAGINT AND THE "VIRGIN-BIRTH" FRAUD

I say it would be silly to say "Behold I give you a sign: A young woman shall give birth!!" Wow. What a sign. A young woman having a birth. That doesn't happen every day! Truly something to behold as a sign.
 
Last edited:

BobbyisStrange

The Adversary
Jesus being 100% man and 100% God is what we believe (not all Christians, but most). We do not believe He was a "demi-God" by any means. If you don't like our beliefs, you don't have to follow them.
When Jesus was here with His Apostles He was totally human and when with His Father He was God. That is our beliefs.

I don’t follow them...however I thought this was a debate board??? Was I wrong??? If I’m not wrong, don’t comment if you’re not here for the discussion.
 

BobbyisStrange

The Adversary
Not overly familiar with the vagaries of biology are you?

Parthenogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"On June 26, 2007, International Stem Cell Corporation (ISCC), a California-based stem cell research company, announced that their lead scientist, Dr. Elena Revazova, and her research team were the first to intentionally create human stem cells from unfertilized human eggs using parthenogenesis."

So prior to this, it only happened once in history and that was with Jesus?

Also

Virgin birth of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Parthenogenesis has been hypothesized as a possible biological mechanism for the virgin birth of Jesus. But this hypothesis has received no general scholarly support."
 
Top