In 1 Corinthians 15:45, Paul writes: >“The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” (ESV) In context, Paul is contrasting Adam and Christ, particularly in relation to life and resurrection. The phrase “life-giving Spirit” seems to attribute to Jesus a role that, elsewhere in Scripture, is closely associated with God (i.e., giving life; cf. Genesis 2:7, John 5:21). From a Bible Unitarian perspective, Jesus is understood as a fully human Messiah and not ontologically divine. - How is the ability to give life explained without attributing divinity to Christ? - How is this reconciled with other passages where giving life appears to be a uniquely divine prerogative?

In Epistle to the Hebrews 1:8, the text says: >“But about the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever…’” This appears to depict the Father speaking to the Son in a way that suggests a distinction between them. Modalism (often associated with Oneness theology) teaches that the Father and the Son are not distinct persons, but rather different manifestations or modes of the one God. Given this, how do Modalists understand passages like Hebrews 1:8 where: - One speaker (identified as God) addresses another (the Son), and - The Son is explicitly called “God” while still being spoken to? Additionally, how do they reconcile this with other similar passages where the Father and Son appear to interact (e.g., prayers of Jesus or statements like “the Father is greater than I”)?

According to Reformed Theology (the predominant view or an overview of slight variations within), how is the impeccability of Jesus reconciled with the idea that his temptations were authentic to the point he can sympathize with our own (sinful) human temptations? There would seem to be a contradiction that if he was unable to sin then how was he legitimately tempted to sin? And yet we are told he has in [Hebrews 4:15](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews+4%3A15&version=ESV) , > For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, **but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.** [ESV] And James could be understood as saying it is our fallen heart that allows us to be tempted: > But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. ([James 1:14](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+1%3A14&version=ESV)) **If Jesus is sinless and cannot sin then in what way is his temptation comparable to our own?** ----- *"This is not a duplicate" Disclaimer:* While a good answer may discuss the exact nature of Jesus' temptation and impeccability, the focus of the question is in the context of their interaction with Hebrews 4:15 and how the tension between the two is resolved. *Assumptions:* - Reformed Protestant perspective. - Jesus is and was impeccable. - Impeccability is the inability to sin. - Jesus experienced temptation in a way that is meaningful to us. ----- Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/14809/24841 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/14116/24841

Psalm 2:7 says: “I will declare the decree:The Lord has said to Me,‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You"... See also Hebrews 1:5; 5:5 (and compare with Mark 1:9-11). Psalms 2:7 (ignoring those that say it talks about David); and Hebrews 5:5 - clearly speak in terms of "TODAY" I have begotten thee". (emphasis on "today"). What was the relationship of Jesus to God "the father" before the day Jesus became a begotten son of God? NOTE: I have taken care to read the posts that speak about Jesus as a son of God. They don't ask the same question as to what he was before. Edit: Question is addressed to those who believe that Jesus is "the word" spoken of in John 1:1; those who accept him to be the "only begotten son" or the second person in the Trinity. I am not sure whether only Trinitarians subscribe to these ideas. My understanding of "mainstream" Trinitarian Christianity is that God has always been "the father", "the son ("word")", and "the Holy spirit". When one reads Hebrews 5:5: "Today I have begotten you", it signifies a change in relationship. Does it mean that before "THAT day", divine Jesus or "the Word" was something else to God but not a son? That is the relationship I am inquiring about.

In Gospel of John 14:28, Jesus says, “the Father is greater than I,” which is often used in arguments about the relationship between the Father and the Son. Some interpret the “I” here as referring specifically to Jesus’ human nature (e.g., in an incarnational or functional sense), rather than His divine nature. However, in the same Gospel, Jesus also says in John 8:58, “before Abraham was, I am,” where the “I” appears to refer to His divine identity. My question is: On what basis do interpreters distinguish the “I” in John 14:28 as referring to Jesus’ human nature, while the “I” in John 8:58 refers to His divine nature?

For those who believe that God is outside of time, is Jesus also outside of time? On the one hand Jesus existed in time on Earth during His incarnation and perhaps as the Word of God in the Old Testament. >But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God - Heb.10:12. **Conclusion** The answers below agree that yes, Jesus' spiritual self is outside of time. His physical body was within time.

In historical Christian belief (of almost any type), it would be considered heresy to say that God the Son was created. The term "begat" is preferred, where this term does not imply creation. In such a tradition, Christ became incarnate . Is it correct/acceptable in such a tradition to refer to the body of this incarnation as being _created_? Why or why not?

I have heard it described as cutting off a limb to describe the agony, separating conjoined twins... I believe it is far more painful, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. However, not sure what analogy to use. Thank you in advance. Sincerely, Perry

On a different question I got an answer and some comments. One of which said: > Generally, when a Christian says that Jesus is the "Son of God" they are referring to the doctrine of the Trinity, where Jesus is a person of a three-part godhead. It's a complicated doctrine that necessitates antinomy. As for your friend's reasoning, it is sound, and is the same reason we call Adam, from Genesis, the son of God also, for he also had no human father, instead God fashioned him from the clay of the Earth and breathed life into him. – fredsbend yesterday If that is what Trinitarians usually mean when they call Jesus the "Son of God", what do non-trinitarians mean when they say it?

I find the Catholic title "Mother of God" for the Virgin Mary confusing. It is clear that she was the mother of Jesus, the Son. But the title suggests (indeed, not literally, but still) that Mary is mother of God as a Trinity. Is that correct? If so, it creates the problem that a human (or is there reason to say that Mary wasn't (entirely) human?) gave birth to God, while God created mankind. This problem doesn't exist when Mary is only mother of Jesus, because then it could be merely a way of speaking to say that Mary was the one through whom the Word became flesh, which would be the Protestant view as described in https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/15779/5729

The "Clarity Principle" ensures a message be told clearly without any iota of confusion or ambiguity. It seems Jesus' alleged divinity claims (that were forcefully attributed to him) don't follow that principal, which is quite highly unlikely of God to do. If Jesus was God, there would have been non metaphorical verses in the Bible clearly stating Jesus was God, but we find 0. What does this signify? Why did God have to be so shy and hesitant in claiming his divinity that he didn't once order in clear cut non ambiguous terms or told his folks to worship him? P. S : Kindly don't refer to metaphorical verses of Bible that in no case seem convincing enough to be deemed as monotonous when related to other verses or read in full context

In passages such as First Epistle to the Corinthians 15:45–49, Paul the Apostle contrasts the first man, Adam, with the second man, Christ: >“The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit… Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.”
(1 Cor 15:45–49) This seems to suggest that humanity bears the image of Adam in a physical or natural sense (“man of dust”). My question is: In what sense do Christians bear the image of the second man, Christ? - Is this image spiritual (e.g., regeneration, righteousness, new nature)? - Is it future, referring primarily to the resurrection body?

All of us know that Jesus had ascended to God the father after he had resurrected, we know that he will come again at the end of time to judge the people and found the kingdom of God on earth. The question is, will he descend as an adult man as he ascended to God the father, or will he be reborn again as an infant in a new incarnation?. Note: there are many who claimed to be incarnations or reincarnations of Jesus, some of them belong to new Christian denominations, look: [Wikipedia List of people claimed to be Jesus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_claimed_to_be_Jesus) Esoteric Christianity like Liberal Catholic Church adopts reincarnation and oneness of god who is both transcendent and immanent and accept Tritheism as three persons in that one God,i.e: the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are manifestations of that one transcendental immanent God. Look: [The Liberal Catholic Church](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.thelccusa.org/about/doctrine.html&ved=2ahUKEwiJqtDln9vmAhVaBGMBHVuACIgQFjAVegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw3tmC-K73qW9T0pMn8NF4yE&cshid=1577636090716) and [Liberal Catholic Church (Wikipedia)](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Catholic_Church&ved=2ahUKEwiJqtDln9vmAhVaBGMBHVuACIgQFjATegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1jVuej_N56fVnUqmJKBsJ5&cshid=1577637685926) I would like answers to be biblically based, it's preferred to be by scholars of Christianity, especially of orthodox Christianity.

Malachi 3:1-5 (ESV): > “Behold, **I send** my messenger, and he will prepare the way **before me**. And **the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple**; and **the messenger of the covenant** in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, **says the LORD of hosts**. 2 But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap. 3 He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, and they will bring offerings in righteousness to the LORD. 4 Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the LORD as in the days of old and as in former years. > > 5 “Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the LORD of hosts. Trinitarians usually interpret Malachi 3:1-5 as evidence that Jesus is Jehovah, by picking up on the fact that Jehovah is speaking in the first person about himself, but then it turns out that the one who came was Jesus. For more details, here are [two](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/56076/38524) [examples](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/a/56079/38524) of this kind of exegesis on the passage, taken from the hermeneutics site. Of course, this way of exegeting Malachi 3:1-5 totally contradicts the Christological views of Biblical Unitarians. How do Biblical Unitarians exegete Malachi 3:1-5?

Christian theology affirms that Jesus Christ is fully divine and fully human. At the same time, Scripture describes real human limitations during his earthly life (e.g., growth in wisdom, learning, and dependence on ordinary means of communication). Given this, I am asking how Christian doctrine understands Jesus’ knowledge of human languages during his earthly ministry. - Did Christ, by virtue of his divinity, possess complete knowledge of all human languages while incarnate? - Or did the incarnation (often discussed in terms of kenosis) entail genuine limitations such that his linguistic knowledge was exercised within normal human bounds? - How do major Christian traditions (e.g., Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) reconcile divine omniscience with apparent human limitations in this area?

According to the doctrine of the trinity the Son is eternal. Is this in reference to his divine nature only or the physical and divine? If it is both physical and divine, then did the body shrink down into Mary?

Many Christians believe that the Archangel Michael is actually Jesus, most notably the Jehovah's Witnesses and Baptist preacher [Charles H. Spurgeon](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/63123/6071) . We have a question asking [for the Biblical basis for this belief](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/26253/6071) . This question asks: what is the Biblical basis **against** this belief, that Michael is not Jesus, but a separate angelic being?

In John 20:27, after His resurrection, Jesus invites Thomas to touch the wounds in His hands and side. That detail has always struck me — if Jesus was raised in a glorified body, why were the wounds from His crucifixion still visible? Paul describes the resurrection body in 1 Corinthians 15 as imperishable and glorious, which makes me wonder: shouldn’t that mean it would be healed or perfected, without any remaining scars? I’m curious how Christians understand this. Is there a theological reason why Jesus kept the marks of His suffering? And what does that say about the nature of the resurrection body, or about His mission?

In Trinitarian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are considered co-eternal, meaning none was created or came into existence at a different time. However, in John 3:16, Jesus is described as **“the only begotten Son,”** which seems to imply that He had a beginning. How do Trinitarians reconcile this idea of Jesus being begotten with the belief that He is co-eternal with the Father? I’m looking for theological explanations or interpretations that address this apparent tension in Scripture.

Congregations such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists believe that Jesus is Michael. What is the Biblical basis for the belief that Jesus is Michael? **Jehovah's Witnesses** >...it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role. [Source](http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/who-is-michael-the-archangel/) **Seventh-day Adventists** >Moses passed through death, but Michael came down and gave him life before his body had seen corruption. Satan tried to hold the body, claiming it as his; but Michael resurrected Moses and took him to heaven. Satan railed bitterly against God, denouncing Him as unjust in permitting his prey to be taken from him; but Christ did not rebuke His adversary, though it was through his temptation that the servant of God had fallen. He meekly referred him to His Father, saying, "The Lord rebuke thee." Early Writings, p. 164.