Mainstream Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God the Father and Mary, a virgin. So my question is, have any Christian theologians discussed whether Jesus only resemble his mother Mary, or whether he also resembled his adopted father Joseph? God could easily have arranged it so that Jesus resembled Joseph, even if Joseph played no role in the conception of Jesus.

In [John 17:3](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2017:3&version=NIV) it says that Jesus called the Father the "only true God" and called himself sent by the Father. Also, in [Matthew 4:10](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%204:10;&version=NIV;) , Jesus himself says to: > ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’` What is the biblical basis for accepting Jesus as not only divine, but "god in the flesh"?

There is a related question here: hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/56196/… We are told in various imagery that Messiah would come in the line of David and be a branch or rod that sprouts from Jesse's roots: > And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord; - Isaiah 11:1-2 > Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the Branch. - Zechariah 3:8 > And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The Branch; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord: - Zechariah 6:12 Later, in Revelation, we are told that Jesus is the root of David: > And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. - Revelation 5:5 And then Jesus himself claims to be both the root and the offspring of David: > I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. - Revelation 22:16 This is much like when Jesus asked about whose son the Christ is "“How is it then that David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet”’? If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?” (Matthew 22:43-45). For those who believe Jesus did not pre-exist his incarnation, How can Jesus be the root of David if he is David's offspring?

Is the *esse* that perfected the humanity of the Word, common to all three Persons of the Blessed Trinity or to only the Word? I ask because the divine *esse* is identical to the divine nature. And the term "divine nature" could be understood in two senses. In one sense, it refers to all three Persons of the Blessed Trinity. In another sense, it refers to a particular Person of the Blessed Trinity, which is in this case the Word. Or is it the case that it's both depending on which sense is used?

I am a Catholic and I notice there has been a growing movement within the Catholic Church to accept anyone who wants to join the Church regardless of whether or not they will go to Confession or regardless of the lifestyles that they choose to live. Basically, for this movement, the Catholic Church needs to become a church of unquestioned inclusiveness. This has made me wonder if this movement is acceptable to God. Moreover, it makes me contemplate **what was the primary purpose of God sending His only Son to the Earth to save sinners**? God sending his Son to the Earth to save sinners implies that God does not approve of Sin and thus does not approve of people committing sins and/or leading a lifestyle that is sinful in the eyes of God. (Recall what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah.) God decided to send his Son to the Earth and Jesus did the Will of the Father by preaching a message that people should not sin, for sin and sinful lifestyles are displeasing to His Father. Yet, God also sent Jesus to take away the sins of the world and this was accomplished through His Passion and His Crucifixion. This makes me wonder why was it necessary for the Son of God to come to the Earth and to tell people not to sin and to not lead sinful lifestyles if the Father's Plan of Salvation was for all of mankind's sins to be forgiven by Jesus's death on the Cross. This is an apparent contradiction by God because by Jesus taking away everybody's sins means that everybody can commit an unlimited number of sins and/or lead sinful lifestyles yet everybody will go to Heaven. **Was Jesus sent to the Earth so people could commit sin and lead sinful lifestyles yet still go to Heaven?** I am seeking to get answers from other Catholics, but I am also open to answers from those of other Christian denominations.

Does the Power of the Most High overshadowing or enveloping Mary describe the incarnation of the Son of God, his transformation from divinity to mortality? Luke 1:35 ESV > And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and > **the power of the Most High will overshadow you**; therefore the child to > be born will be called holy—the Son of God. The Son is identified as the "Power of God" and the Wisdom of God in 1 Corinthians 1:24 > but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, **Christ the power > of God** and *the wisdom* of God. The Wisdom of God existed with God from the beginning according to Proverbs 8:30 > Then **I was a skilled craftsman at his side**, and his delight day by > day, rejoicing always in his presence. The Wisdom of God is also the Word of God according to John 1:1 > **In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God**, and the Word > was divine. The Son became flesh according to John 1:14 > And **the Word became flesh and dwelt among us**, and we have seen his > glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and > truth. The Son was at the Father's side during creation, and the Son became flesh at his conception by the Holy Spirit. Again my question is, Does Luke 1:35 imply that the Son pre-existed his human incarnation as a divine personage, and did this personage overshadow Mary at the spiritual conception of Jesus to undergo the kenosis and incarnate into flesh as described in Philippians 2:6?

In Catholic doctrine, both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition teach that Jesus Christ died specifically for the expiation of our sins. Historical Christianity professes that God became a man by way of Incarnation to restore man's fallen nature to full communion with the Godhead. > Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all > people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life > for all people. (*Romans 5:18*) > > > > > For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that > whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."For > God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that > the world might be saved through Him.… (*John 3:16*) > The Nicene-Constantinopalitan Creed professes: > ...for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was > incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.. The current Catholic Catechism states about man's specific responsibility for "nailing" Jesus to the Cross with our sin: > **All sinners were the authors of Christ's Passion** > > **Paragraph 598** In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that "sinners > were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the > divine Redeemer endured." Taking into account the fact that our > sins affect Christ himself, the Church does not hesitate to impute > to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted > upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often > burdened the Jews alone: > > *We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the > cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify > the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him > up to contempt. And it can be seen that our crime in this case is > greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness > of the Apostle, "None of the rulers of this age understood this; for > if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." We, > however, profess to know him. And when we deny him by our deeds, we in > some way seem to lay violent hands on him*.(1) > > *Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins*.(2) > > 1. Roman Catechism I, 5, 11; cf. Heb 6:6; 1 Cor 2:8. > 2. St. Francis of Assisi, Admonitio 5, 3. The Church *also* teaches that God gave man free will...beginning with Adam. > **MAN'S FREEDOM** > > **Paragraph 1730** God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. > "God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' > so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain > his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."(1) > > Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will > and is master over his acts.(2) > > **MAN'S FIRST SIN** > > **Paragraph 397** Man, tempted by the devil, let his trust in his Creator die in his heart and, abusing his freedom, disobeyed God's > command. This is what man's first sin consisted of.(3) All subsequent > sin would be disobedience toward God and lack of trust in his > goodness. > > **Paragraph 398** In that sin man preferred himself to God and by that very act scorned him. He chose himself over and against God, against > the requirements of his creaturely status and therefore against his > own good. Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be > fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to > "be like God", but "without God, before God, and not in accordance > with God".(4) > > > 1. GS 17; Sir 15:14. > 2. St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 4,4,3:PG 7/1,983. > 3. Cf. Gen 3:1-11; Rom 5:19. > 4. St. Maximus the Confessor, Ambigua: PG 91,1156C; cf. Gen 3:5. ---------- **However, paradoxically speaking...** Scripture *also* explicitly teaches that Jesus Christ is God - who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. > In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word > was God. He was with God in the beginning. (*John 1:1-2*) > > Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. *(Hebrews > 13:8*) The Miaphysite heresy - **which holds that the human nature and pre-incarnate divine nature of Christ were united as one divine human nature from the point of the Incarnation onward** - was officially denounced at the Council of Chalcedon. The Confession of Chalcedon provides a clear statement on the human and divine nature of Christ: > We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach > people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the > same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and > truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial > [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and > consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like > unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according > to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our > salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to > the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be > acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, > inseparably; (ν δύο φύσεσιν συγχύτως, τρέπτως, διαιρέτως, χωρίστως – > in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) > the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, > but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring > in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted > or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only > begotten God (μονογεν Θεόν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the > prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the > Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy > Fathers has handed down to us. **Considering all this...it seems to me that, although the Incarnation is a temporally necessary for Man's salvation, it ultimately is eternal in essence since the essence of God eternally transcends time.** **Question:** If Adam, by exercising his free will, had chosen *not* to partake of the forbidden fruit (a.k.a. Original Sin), **would the Incarnation still have taken place due to God's omnipresence?** I'm looking for authoritative Catholic/Orthodox teaching about this subject.

After the Fall, was the protoevangelium transmitted to all men so much so that all men have knowledge of the protoevangelium even if that knowledge was distorted? Every mythology has something analogous to the protoevangelium. Also, everyone descends from Adam and Eve, so Adam would have told his offspring about the protoevangelium.

Trinitarians assert that Jesus is the Eternal Word of God. From John 1 they assert personified pronouns in order to claim this chapter supports this idea. This assertion of ambiguous Greek pronouns can be discussed and debated at length. However, in the context of this question, let us assume Jesus is actually the personified Eternal Word of God. Furthermore, let us assume every theoretical detail of the Trinity. I often ask Trinitarians why God(Jesus) has a God(the Father) and the response is that the human _part_ of Jesus _has a_ God, but the divine _part_ of him _does not_ have a God because he is God. The common Trinitarian belief is that Jesus began to have a God when he took on flesh. He currently still has his flesh (now glorified) and is still a man. This Jesus then, is now and forever fully man and _not only_ fully God Almighty as he was eternally with the Father. This God-man _has_ a God now and forever who he will serve into eternity as high priest. The Risen Son is not a high priest to himself. Heb 2 >16 For indeed he does not give aid to angels, but he does give aid to the seed of Abraham. 17 Therefore, in all things ***he had to be made like his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest*** in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that he himself has suffered, being tempted, he is able to aid those who are tempted. Heb 7:20 > And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any > oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: > > “The LORD(YHWH) has sworn > and will not change his mind: > ***‘You are a priest forever.’***” Heb 8 >1 Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 2 a **Minister** of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man. > >3 For every high priest is **appointed to offer** both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer. 4 For if he were on earth, he would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 5 who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, “See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” 6 But now he has obtained a more excellent **ministry**, inasmuch as he is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. Jesus was glorified and exalted beyond the angels... beyond every creature to ever exist. But this Eternal person, the *Logos*, seems to have been diminished in stature to that of a servant/minister of God (high priest) instead of his former status as fully God Almighty. **My questions**: 1. How do Trinitarians understand this change in stature and place of the *Logos* within the Kingdom of God? 2. How do Trinitarians make a case that his stature was not diminished, when formally he was not subordinate to anyone?

Docetism is the belief that Jesus never took a physical, corporeal form, but He was instead solely spiritual in nature. Passages such as 1 John 2:15 , Galatians 5:17 , and Romans 7:18 could be construed to support their argument, but is there anything in the Bible that Docetists claim(ed) directly implies that Christ was not of flesh? On another note, I'd also like to find documentation of a Docetist actually defending their belief with Scripture. Does anyone know of such a case or where I could find one?

I think this is one of the reasons the we can call Mary the Mother of God. But I'm confused about the exact meaning of Human Nature and Human Soul. So my question is mainly this. What was created at the Incarnation?

As I've looked around the internet at reactions to Athanasius' magnum opus *On the Incarnation*, I've seen some accusations of latent Apollinarism. The work was published before the Apollinarian heresy was formally defined and condemned, but they say that it was materially there in his writings. That's just background, it's not what my question is about. You need not defend his orthodoxy to me. Before the heresy was condemned at the ecumenical First Council of Constantinople, it was condemned at a local council in Alexandria headed by none other than Athanasius. So clearly Athanasius was as opposed to this heresy as he had famously been opposed to Arianism. But are there any surviving writings I can read where he lays out the case against Apollinarism?

Hosea 11:9 (ESV): > I will not execute my burning anger; I will not again destroy Ephraim; **for I am God and not a man**, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath. Recently someone brought this up to argue against the doctrine of the incarnation and the divinity of Jesus. How do Trinitarians respond? ____________ Related: [Trinitarian Christianity and Numbers 23:19 - Was Jesus a man?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/47058/trinitarian-christianity-and-numbers-2319-was-jesus-a-man)

I recall reading some years ago in some Christian publication that "God did not become man in order for man to become a theologian." The quote has stuck with me but I cannot recall who said it. Does anyone know what the exact quote is and who said it?

From what I understand, Biblical Unitarians believe that the pre-incarnational existence of Jesus (as trinitarians propose it) is actually a notional existence in the mind of God. In other words, the Logos was not a person but only the notion (sure foreknowledge) of a person. In John 17:5 Jesus says: > And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. It appears that the glory Jesus is asking to be returned to is the glory of the Father's own self. I doubt anyone thinks the Father's glory is notional. Do Biblical Unitarians think Jesus was asking to be glorified notionally just like he was before the world was? If so, is he now glorified only notionally at the right hand of God just like before?

Are there any theologians (Doctors or Fathers of the Church) who thought that, regardless whether Adam had sinned , Christ still would have incarnated, primarily to reveal the doctrine of the Trinity?

The Bible describes God as: God is the All-Powerful Creator of the universe. If the God is All-Powerful - how would a human (who is the less powerful) be able to crucify the All-Powerful God (Jesus) - how would I worship a God who can't protect himself and one day when he was baby, he needed the human to protect him and feed him to stay alive! - what was he before he becomes an embryo? and where was he? was he nothing? - if yes, how was he created? - if yes, who then created the human before he gets created?

The Bible mentions in a passage that the flesh cannot have life without the spirit. Both the spirit and the flesh need to be present for that person to be considered a living soul and for this I am going to quote several passages in the Bible. In the beginning when God created Adam out of the mud of the earth. He breathed into Adam's flesh his own spirit and Adam became a living soul. **Genesis 2:7** >Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being. The preacher Ecclesiastes also mentions that the spirit goes into the womb from God when new life is formed. **Ecclesiastes 11:5** >As you do not know the way the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything. Other translations use the word *wind* instead of *spirit* but the same *wind* is much similar to the *breath of life* God breathed into the nostrils of Adam so wind could well be substituted for spirit. Jesus also made a statement to prove that this *wind spirit* theology is closely related and I am going to quote **John 3:8** **John 3:8** >The wind blows where it wishes. You hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit. The final one is the spirit of Jesus who was God moving into the child who was formed in Mary's womb. Again, I think Ecclesiastes was prophesying of Jesus without the benefit of knowing the previous verse. Now let's fast forward to **Revelation 13:11** where there is an attempt to prove to the world through deception that the false prophet is from God, and for this deception to materialize he then needs to cause an image which I will assume is the image of a man to speak so that the world would marvel and say "Who is this man (false prophet), that he even gives life to lifeless objects that they are able to speak, could he have been sent by God?". This is very similar to what Jesus did during his time on earth: he walked on water and people marveled that who was Jesus that even the seas obey him. The devil is copying God's moves desperately to ensnare the world into a trap. Now here is my question, **does the false prophet cause the spirit of Satan to move into the image of the beast so that this image (who is Satan incarnated into flesh), speaking and causing many who would not worship the first beast to be slain?**

Pretty much in the title. I was listening to a sermon where the incarnation had some significant parallels with Moses’ departure from Midian- namely, someone stepping out from comfort and paradise to live amongst God’s people and rescue them. I can’t seem to find any writings or material that address this - is it a commonly agreed upon concept?

According to the catholic doctrine, Jesus is "true God and true human." That nature of Him was taken in order to redeem the humanity of sin. My question is: > Since he is God since all times, did he _become_ true human in the incarnation or he was already man before it? If He has became human there, and now He is human also nowadays due to His simple and eternal attributes, excent (indifferent, alien, unaffected, etc) of time and space: **Wouldn't He has to been human since all times since He lives in eternity?**