To have been or not to have been...

[Greg Logan]

But how is Jesus different than Adam who also had no human father? (cf. Luke 3:38)

Ontologically he isn't - see ICor15:21, Heb2:11ff. BEHAVIORALLY He is different - He did not sin...

BTW - did my other post get through - I may have lost it it accidentally.

[TJ]

Greg,

Unfortunately it seems that your other post did not go through. Could you summarize it?

But how is Jesus different than Adam who also had no human father? (cf. Luke 3:38)

Ontologically he isn't - see ICor15:21, Heb2:11ff. BEHAVIORALLY He is different - He did not sin...

We were talking in reference to a virgin birth, or no human father. Does that mean Adam is a monogenes Son of God like Jesus?

Why is it, in your view, that no one else throughout history has behaved like Jesus, choosing to not sin?

[Greg Logan]

We were talking in reference to a virgin birth, or no human father. Does that mean Adam is a monogenes Son of God like Jesus?

I do not recall scripture describing Adam in this manner (do you?). I do think a good study would be on the relevance/value of the monogenes - I have never done that other than note that broad use of the term as applied to Abraham and Issac - and others as well. Would like to do that study at some point? I cannot do it in the near future I suspect but perhaps in a month.

Why is it, in your view, that no one else throughout history has behaved like Jesus, choosing to not sin?

I do not believe we have any Biblical data on the subject. In light of that - I would simply say that He chose not to sin. The point is - you do not have to sin - but you have chosen to sin. The man Christ Jesus made it - you failed. Therefore you need Him. And I need Him - and greatly admire a man who so fully walked with God!! An interesting study would be to look at all the texts we have re sinlessness of Jesus - and the Messiah (OT references).

[Greg Logan]

OK - here is the post.

-Literally NOT ONE MAN is righteous. (Rom 3:10)
-Jesus is a MAN.

Why wouldn't you find this argument persuasive?

TJ - I addressed this earlier - "ALL" can have formal exceptions. "Formal" means formally stated (of course, we may not have a formal statement). An example of a formal statement is in ICor15 (God is excepted from "the ALL that is submitted to Jesus). We see similar such concepts elsewhere and I am sure if we dug a bit we would find more - it always happens. There are VERY few absolutes in the Bible - I only know of two - the Holy Spirit is never seen in heaven (at least as the HS) and is not seen in the new earth. Jesus is never said to create anything - particularly using ek as the preposition - the fundamental creation preposition (cf ICor8:6a).

In this case - scripture repeatedly, formally and clearly states that Jesus is a MAN - NOT a divine being in some sort of nifty guise. "Since death came a man - by a man comes the resurrection (ICor15:21). It is just this simple. Likewise Jesus is sinless. Therefore, we know that this is a silly disputation which we are called to reject - there is no point or benefit in it.

Jesus IS a man. Jesus did NOT sin. Therefore, the issue is that your first line is simply wrong. You are, as it were, misquoting - or at least misunderstanding - Paul. This is the fundamental Arian flaw throughout - throwing out the simple clear texts for ambiguous and horribly exegeted texts.

[TJ]

Hi Greg,

TJ - I addressed this earlier - "ALL" can have formal exceptions.

OK, so the reason why that argument would not be persuasive to you is because you believe there is scriptural precedent for Jesus to be the lone exception (again, I believe this too). So when you argue like this:

• -Literally NOT ONE MAN pre-existed.
  -Jesus is a MAN.

Do you not see how someone could use the very same rationale you used in response to that?

[TJ]

Just to give you some feedback, these are 4 important questions that don't seem to have clear answers if I were to adopt your view of Jesus (they do make sense to me in my current view):

• 1. What was the purpose of Jesus' virgin birth?
  2. How was Jesus able to be the only man throughout history that did not sin?
  3. In what way is Jesus the monogenes Son of God?
  4. Is the resurrected Jesus currently divine?

[Greg Logan]

-Literally NOT ONE MAN pre-existed.
-Jesus is a MAN.

Do you not see how someone could use the very same rationale you used in response to that?

No.

Men don't pre-exist. This is fundamentally ontological.

Men can not sin. This is behavioral.

[Greg Logan]

Just to give you some feedback, these are 4 important questions that don't seem to have clear answers if I were to adopt your view of Jesus (they do make sense to me in my current view):

• 1. What was the purpose of Jesus' virgin birth?
  2. How was Jesus able to be the only man throughout history that did not sin?
  3. In what way is Jesus the monogenes Son of God?
  4. Is the resurrected Jesus currently divine?

If there are not clear answers to these in scripture, I have little to know interest in them. I don't have a need to have an answer to any of them. They are irrelevant to a Biblical Christology which is both VERY simple, VERY obvious, VERY clear and unambiguous.... Unfortunately because we have been propgandized so heavily by tradition, that grid can be hard to break through (oh, and Jesus through around a little of the "tear down this temple" language....to keep those who have hard hearts from hearing the truth).

[TJ]

Hi Greg,

Thanks for your responses.

Men don't pre-exist. This is fundamentally ontological.

Men can not sin. This is behavioral.

OK, let's review this. We have our two arguments:

• 'BAD' ARGUMENT
  -Literally NOT ONE MAN is righteous. (Rom 3:10)
  -Jesus is a MAN.
  -Therefore, Jesus is not righteous.

• 'GOOD' ARGUMENT
  -Literally NOT ONE MAN pre-existed.
  -Jesus is a MAN.
  -Therefore, Jesus did not pre-exist.

So the reason why the 'bad' argument is bad is because the implicit 'all' can have exceptions. And the reason the 'good' argument is good is because the implicit 'all' cannot have exceptions? That is what you're saying?

You are now bringing up ontology as the distinction and arguing that there's no such thing as a sinful nature (which may or may not be believed by other Unitarians). But exactly how does a previous (or post) state of existence have any affect on a current one? Is Jesus currently, right now, a man or a divine person?

If there are not clear answers to these in scripture, I have little to know interest in them.

Interesting response. These questions do interest me (as I'll explain below) and so I have a few follow-up questions if you'd be kind enough to answer them:

• 1. Given that you believe anyone can choose to not sin, how do you know that no one else throughout history has been sinless like Jesus? Can there be another exception to Romans 3:10?
  
  2. Do you believe that the virgin birth is completely unrelated to Jesus' sinless life? In other words, do you believe Jesus would have lived a flawless life regardless of whether or not he had a human (biological) father?

I believe these questions are important because they affect the entire message of the Bible, such as what it says about the condition of the human family and our need for a savior. It sounds as though the consequence of your belief is that we don't need a savior if we just make the choice to not sin, but, for some mysterious reason, nobody has or ever will decide to make that choice besides Jesus. I have a really hard time accepting that large of a collective coincidence...unless I'm missing something?

[Greg Logan]

TJ

I actually fully answered your first half. Just curious - what is your goal in pursuing these questions - why are you taking the time and life that God has given each of us to do so?

1. Given that you believe anyone can choose to not sin, how do you know that no one else throughout history has been sinless like Jesus? Can there be another exception to Romans 3:10?

I don't know - and don't care. I do know I sinned - and that is all that matters to me.

2. Do you believe that the virgin birth is completely unrelated to Jesus' sinless life? In other words, do you believe Jesus would have lived a flawless life regardless of whether or not he had a human (biological) father?

I have no idea - and find no relevance in the question - there is nothing in the question that leads to agape out of a pure heart....