So you're denying we are human? What are we then? In your own words...

All language is secular...all language about God is at best metaphor. It is not as though "God is love" is an expression which constricts God to whatever is meant by the term John uses for "love." Where we cannot live to the ideal of the term, God is beyond, other, holy. Indeed to say Jesus was fully human and fully divine is to say that Jesus was and is the fullness of what it means to be human...all that falls short of Jesus is anti-human.

It's possible I'm not getting your point...it was not someone from outside of those who experienced and physically followed Jesus that claimed he was human...

All throughout the synoptic gospels, but especially throughout John, the point is made clear, Jesus is fully human. "The Word (logos) became flesh (sarx)." It is suspected that John is reacting to the Gnostics, who believed Jesus was God only appearing to be a human.

The Greek Orthodox have a doctrine of theosis, which in essence points to the New Creation being "clothed" in the Holy Spirit, as Paul talks about when he speaks of resurrection. The belief is not that Creation becomes God, but that Creation (including humanity, with possible exception for those who refuse redemption) becomes enveloped by God. This is, of course, metaphoric language, however the point is that from the beginning, YHWH's purpose for Creation was to envelope Creation in the perichoresis or "circle dance" that is the Trinity. While God remains wholly other, he would permeate all things, while all Creation will partake in the kenotic relationship modeled by the Trinity. The holiness of God will remain and yet envelope the New Creation.

That being said, it is key for the gospel-writers to point to Jesus' humanity. He enters creation as a creature, though he was not a creature, he became a creature...bound to the creature's curse.

What I mean by "God" is the character attested to and revealed as YHWH in the OT scriptures and as the Father, Son, and Spirit in the NT. It is an assumption I, and most Christians, make that God is as God has revealed Godself to be. So, if God exists, I am talking about that God.

...and that God becoming fully human whilst maintaining his full divinity.

I'm sorry...that's just not what the Judeo/Christian faith is about according to Scripture. Jesus talks about the kingdom of heaven (aka the kingdom of God) as near. The disembodied hope of heaven is a fallacy of mixing Platonism, pagan beliefs, and Christianity. We are created and meant to be embodied. The final hope is a New Creation where heaven and earth are one. And none of it, none of us, are the point...God is the point and the ultimate; yet he pours himself out continually, showing us that worrying about me, mine, and my making it is a misunderstood Gospel. There is more than our relationships...but Jesus says that loving God and neighbor are intrinsically intertwined. Outward focussed, self-sacrificial, unfair taking on of what will never benefit me, is what it looks like to love and serve others. If I've learned anything from my divorce it is this: that relationships are work and self-sacrifice...and like those two things, they are easier said that practiced. "Unfair" and "foolish" are simply worldly ways of describing "love like Christ." What I experience when I am judged for a label I did not choose is not love. When I am told I am not good enough to be considered as a potential mate because of that label, I am not seeing a love that pours out as God does. Once again, anyone can believe what they will, but there is something specific Jesus proclaims and it's not about us making it to heaven at all costs...

Ironically, Messi has proved my point about history and understanding contexts, etc.

Conrad,

It's an unavoidable conundrum of where we place our faith, or perhaps less "churchy," what story we are willing to believe. Personally, I have formally studied Christianity for 10 years and I am still coming to times where I ask myself that question. I'm not an overly emotive or excitable guy...but when I look at the history, asking the question, "Why did the Church begin?" There's not another story that takes the vast majority of the data into account and explains it with the simplicity a historian would look for. In the end, I have been convinced (not brainwashed or cohearsed) to bet my life on the seemingly impossible resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. If he didn't resurrect, the Apostle Paul says Christians are to be pitied...if he did resurrect, then we will be vindicated as the world is redeemed. I think the story of Jesus of Nazareth presented by orthodox Christianity rings of truth and life.

In short, I don't count on my guarantee or Wikipedia's...but I think it's well worth the 70 yrs.

Returning to the topic, though still 3 degrees of separation removed from the original, Jesus' humanity is specifically how and why he could and did become the firstfruits of the expected New Creation. We need to keep in mind the issues of the Council of Chalcedon: Jesus fully divine or fully human? Their answer was "Yes...both...inseparably." Yes, Jesus maintains his divinity, but the depth of his kenotic descent to earth extended to the necessity of his eventual death and thus his representational role as he took on the need to be delivered from the grave itself. Jesus is the firstborn of the New Creation and in becoming that demonstrates his divinity. Without the resurrection, Jesus is a failed Messiah.

Once again, I'm making an effort at describing the Christian faith...what you believe is your own business, I'm simply attempting to describe the ideal that Christians are called to, should believe in, and often fail at...to bring it back to the original question.

Messi,

I guess I don't know what you mean by "prove." Is there some sort of historical scientific method, because if there is you should write that dissertation today! But because there isn't a scientific method to apply to those past events, we have to work from the effects of those past events, while maintaining a skeptical eye if the ideal "proof" comes forward. What we 21st century people may assume is "contradiction" is actually something historians look for as they search for as evidence of the authenticity of sources...this rule is called similarity and dissimilarity.

But to name a few ancient authors who point to the effects of Jesus of Nazareth: Josephus and Pliny the Younger. The problem with your ad hoc oversimplification is that you do not seem to be aware that no one amongst the scholarly historical community - even those who share your skepticism for religion - who wishes to be taken seriously, would suggest that Jesus of Nazareth never existed.

There are plenty of reasons to criticize and rally against Christianity, and I agree with most of the complaints, especially when they are legitimate, but you have named something being relegated to silence even by those who agree with your critique of religion.

1 Cor 15...

Jesus of Nazareth was made a New Creation. The transformation that is part and parcel of what resurrection means was Jesus becoming the firstborn of the New Creation...Paul also calls him the "firstfruits." This is why Paul can claim that we are a new creation "in Christ." He is speaking of something anticipatory and yet so sure to happen that he uses language of it already happening. We do the same when we refer to ourselves as "saved." We must still go through death, carry out cross, etc., so obviously we have not been fully saved from that...but salvation is assured and the faithful count that guarantee so sure as to speak of it as if it has already happened.

I meant to be describing the New Creation, not meaning to imply it had already happened or been fulfilled.

- an act of New Creation is an act of the Holy Spirit. Looking back on his ministry, Paul does not differentiate between his own efforts and those of the Holy Spirit...though his ministry was filled with acts of New Creation.

- this would probably be more clearly understood if we taught the early Christian presumption that the Holy Spirit's action is intrinsically eschatological. In essence, the Spirit-filled Church is pulling the New Creation into the present broken world...but that doesn't mean the New Creation has come to fruition or that the faithful Church has yet been vindicated.

For all, I hope it remains apparent that I am describing what I understand to be the Christian perspective/belief and nothing more.

I haven't read the entire thread, but I'll take a couple shots at the original question :)

- Integrity is in a sense, being whole, complete...it isn't necessarily doing what you say you will do, but that is part of it. Follow this definition through to the end and you will recognize the most intregrity-filled thing you can say is "I don't have integrity!"
- I use this as an illustration simply to point out, the higher the ideal held, the more you may seem a hypocrite, and the closer you come to that ideal in admitting your failure to live it out!

- The Judeo-Christian tradition holds that Heaven and Earth were created to be one. This whole disembodied ascent or descent into heaven or hell is at best a misunderstanding of 1st century Judaism...at its worst a bastardized hybrid of Platonism and pagan Judaism. Christians SHOULD understand and believe that Jesus' resurrection is the first act of New Creation, where heaven and earth become one, the dead are resurrected (ie. Are very truly physical, transformed, fully clothed in the Holy Spirit, and will never die), and God dwells among a newly redeemed, newly created Creation. So in many ways Christianity holds the highest of ideals in that the Earth is not abandoned, we were created to be embodied, and God brings a justice that is overtly merciful (there probably is a hell, but leading scholars are seeing that hell is a place people choose, not a place people are sent). This is all a pretty complex paradigm shift from where the Conservative Evangelicals are today, so I'm sure I'm doing a poor job of communicating this clearly.
- If we could agree, for argument's sake, that Christianity holds out an ideal too high for anyone to achieve, let alone completely grasp, since it involves the cosmic redemptive movement of God, it would not be hard to come to the conclusion that Christians, who are supposed to be living out the New Creation in this broken world, are closer to living that New Creation out when they embrace the fact that they are indeed extremely hypocritical. This isn't to say they have a pass; however, it is to say, there is specifically a call in Christianity that makes little of no sense according to how our world works, yet this way of living is one which will be vindicated in God's New Creation.

I'm not necessarily interested in defending Christian hypocrisy, especially since much of it is power-driven and actually anti-New Creation. That being said, the more I come to understand the true message Jesus proclaimed, the more I realize my first task is simply to admit where I fall completely and utterly short...not even in sin, just in my own ability.

Thanks for weigh-ins from fellow broken people.

The Matt 19 verses serve to illustrate my point precisely: nothing was said! No interpretation given. Verses taken out of textual and (I infer) cultural context.

Being fearful of God's judgment is problematic for those who take Paul seriously. You will never gain that righteousness and Jesus seems to have come simply to impose a more strict law! If that's how you are convicted, that's your business, but there's a very clear line of thought and belief in the New Testament that contradicts that approach and actually makes it a key issue for what it means to follow Jesus.

All of this being said: My plea remains the same. Please Christians, allow for the grace and mercy of Jesus, whose name you claim, to permeate even the most personal decisions, even when looking for a mate.

The irony being that we're talking about those who were victims of others...the challenge to us, the victims, becomes forgiveness, for those who hurt us and those who have perpetrated similar offenses.

I know I have not misunderstood what has been said in this forum because I have not read other threads in the forum. What I have experienced is a subtle and sometimes blatant refusal to see past the label of "divorced."

I am proposing and defending a position on divorce that will not only take the text of the Bible seriously, but the overall narrative as we see YHWH act. Single verses and passages are misused and abused all around us by people unwilling to wrestle with the original language, let alone the alternate conjugations that are present in the thousands of scrolls we have...even then, a "literalist interpretation" is simply a way of covering up biases that are inevitably present.

So when I point to self-righteousness and judgment, I'm not accusing anyone in particular. My position is simply that refusing to get to know someone you would otherwise be interested in simply because they wear the label of "divorced" is clearly an anti-gospel tendency.

Let me make this clear from the start: God hates divorce. God desires that we work out our problems in marriage, seek redemption and reconciliation, even in the face of abuse or adultery. A Christian is called to live out the New Creation in the broken Creation, so it is a duty if nothing else. Clear?

What many Christians fail to realize is that the Exile of the Jews is the opposite of what happens on Mt. Sinai. What does that mean? It means that the covenant is broken in an irreparable way. It means YHWH and Israel are "separated"...even "divorced," if you will. Don't jump ahead! It's important to understand that the Exile doesn't end when they come back to Jerusalem. It doesn't end when Herod rebuilds the Temple. Why? Because YHWH never comes back to the Temple. He brings Israel back to the land, but only as tenants...and he does that for his own name's sake. This angst cannot be undersold for the Jews for the last four centuries BCE. They abandoned YHWH and YHWH allowed such an act of divorce.

I need to pause the story there, because we Christians seem to get so caught up in this religiousity where because someone is divorced they are untouchables. We seem to think that a divorced person is incapable of respecting marriage for everything it should be. We are self-righteously, Pharisaic as we pass hurting and broken people on the road to do whatever it is we believe is somehow more important. We seem to forget that Hosea's wife doesn't have to come back to him in our culture. We seem to forget that marriage is mutual and so is redemption and reconciliation.

That's why Jesus comes. He represents Isreal as her fulfillment of the covenant, so that a new covenant might be forged. That's why Jesus tells people to change their minds and accept the story he is telling. Because Jesus doesn't make that choice for us. He offers a new way of living and telling our story. He waits for our response.

As I allow my ex-wife to leave me for a lesser man, a corrupt, evil, and false man, I have tried in every way to plead with her, but I am powerless to make that decision for her. I know the sanctity of marriage and what it means for me to become divorced. I am well aware that I contributed to my present state. I am constantly aware of the brokenness my family, my daughter, my future spouse will have to deal with, and I will go through it with them. I can only trust that Jesus will fulfill the covenant as I failed to do.

So to those who turn away from the divorced, seeing them as corrupted and devaluing the sanctity of marriage, I must challenge you to be more Christ-like in your search for a mate. Jesus will redeem my situation, along with the rest of this broken world, so who are you, his servant, to contradict the work of your Master? I'm not saying you should only marry divorced people! I'm simply saying that "divorced" isn't a deal breaker for a Jesus-follower. If it is, then you must deal with a God who allowed his people to divorce him.