Jesus with a box of tissues

[Blitz]

I think Christ became flesh to not only fufill prophesy to identify himself with his creation in away.

[John Chrysostom]

Why was it important that He identify Himself with us?

[Blitz]

To show us he loves us.

[jelly]

To show us he loves us.

This is about the only thing you've said so far that actually falls in line with any sort of traditional, theological understanding of who Jesus was/is. Now that you have the thesis statement covered, it would be apt to backtrack in order to reconcile a proper understanding of who Jesus was, both in a historical and religious context, for the sake of properly understanding what that love actually looks like.

Your default interpretation of Jesus (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to paint an image of a kind of Hercules; a god who's humanity is mostly farce, a half-hearted cloak for his supernatural awesomeness. He's only human so much as he sort of looks like a human, albeit with incredibly good genes so as to be as attractive and admirable as possible in the physical sense. He must be like Wolverine in the way that he's immortal and can heal instantly and probably doesn't get sick, and maybe he even looks like Hugh Jackman with his shirt off. But Superhero Jesus doesn't account for the dual nature of Christ held by proper Christian theology and understanding. It misses out on the purpose of the incarnation: for Jesus to completely humble himself as Paul explains in his letter to the Philippians:

"Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death-- even death on a cross!"
Philippians 2:6-8

Making himself "nothing" doesn't exactly sound like Hercules or Wolverine to me. It sounds like a man who you might pass on the street without a second glance. It sounds like a man who probably didn't win any awards for "Sexiest Man Alive." It sounds like a man who occasionally needed a box of tissues, because there was nothing magical in his genes that gave him Wolverine-like immunity to injury or sickness.

Blitz, your "opinions" appear to have more in common with Docetism and other ancient heresies that have been long since dismantled and disowned by the Church. It is theologically heretical to believe in a version of Jesus that wasn't completely human as Scripture foretold, because by building up a fantasy version of Jesus you miss out on what Paul is actually talking about in his letter to the Philippians. You miss out on the very purpose of Christ's dual nature.

[Wakko]

To show us he loves us.

This is about the only thing you've said so far that actually falls in line with any sort of traditional, theological understanding of who Jesus was/is. Now that you have the thesis statement covered, it would be apt to backtrack in order to reconcile a proper understanding of who Jesus was, both in a historical and religious context, for the sake of properly understanding what that love actually looks like.

Your default interpretation of Jesus (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to paint an image of a kind of Hercules; a god who's humanity is mostly farce, a half-hearted cloak for his supernatural awesomeness. He's only human so much as he sort of looks like a human, albeit with incredibly good genes so as to be as attractive and admirable as possible in the physical sense. He must be like Wolverine in the way that he's immortal and can heal instantly and probably doesn't get sick, and maybe he even looks like Hugh Jackman with his shirt off. But Superhero Jesus doesn't account for the dual nature of Christ held by proper Christian theology and understanding. It misses out on the purpose of the incarnation: for Jesus to completely humble himself as Paul explains in his letter to the Philippians:

"Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death-- even death on a cross!"
Philippians 2:6-8

Making himself "nothing" doesn't exactly sound like Hercules or Wolverine to me. It sounds like a man who you might pass on the street without a second glance. It sounds like a man who probably didn't win any awards for "Sexiest Man Alive." It sounds like a man who occasionally needed a box of tissues, because there was nothing magical in his genes that gave him Wolverine-like immunity to injury or sickness.

Blitz, your "opinions" appear to have more in common with Docetism and other ancient heresies that have been long since dismantled and disowned by the Church. It is theologically heretical to believe in a version of Jesus that wasn't completely human as Scripture foretold, because by building up a fantasy version of Jesus you miss out on what Paul is actually talking about in his letter to the Philippians. You miss out on the very purpose of Christ's dual nature.

I was gonna post something, but this sums it up better than I would have.

[IrishTiger]

Jelly. Thank you.

[Blitz]

You misinterpret what I say. Jesus is ruler of this universe. I cannot tell you how he felt or if he got sick. I simply am saying is that whatever he felt was because he chose to feel it. He chose to die, He chose to come to this earth. That is what I am saying. Not that he was some handsome hulk. I simply am saying that each side is a possibility.

[Wakko]

I simply am saying is that whatever he felt was because he chose to feel it.

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting, are you saying that Jesus only felt to choose certain feelings? That his feelings didn't happen naturally?

[John Chrysostom]

And Jelly and I are saying that no, each side is not a possibility. The side you're advocating as possible would not fit with the Traditional understanding of Christ

[Blitz]

Not feeling BMW, physical ailments. Is it not true John that Jesus has control over all the world? So would it not be plausible that he could easily not get sick? I can't imagine the disciples tell the crowds that Jesus was sick so they should come again tommorow.

[John Chrysostom]

As Jelly and I are saying, Christ humbled Himself He made Himself to be a servant He lived like we do as humans. You are dangerously close to denying the human nature of Christ and making it out to be some kind of illusion by saying He never actually experienced anything as we humans did, if that's the case why did He need to be fully human? What does fully human mean to you?

[Blitz]

One simple question before I answer you, "Where Adam and Eve fully human?"

[John Chrysostom]

A question in return, did they live in a fallen world?

[Blitz]

No, they did not, but Jesus is God. The only time sin could touch him was on the cross and even then he was not corrupted by it. For him to be sick, he would have to have been corrupted by sin.

[Whitty Whit]

That post does not make sense. "The only time sin could touch him was on the cross and even then he was not corrupted by it." Could you explain that for me please?

So Blitz, what you're telling me is that Jesus chose not to get sick? He, in His divine nature, chose not to let any particle of bacteria or any virus into body/bloodstream? If I'm tempted to complain because I'm sick (which I complain alot), are you telling me God can't help me overcome that sin because He doesn't know what sickness is like?

[Blitz]

Sickness is a result of the entropy of the body and the world. So theoretically, if Jesus's body was like the original man uncorrupted by sin, he would ever get sick.

[Whitty Whit]

That post does not make sense. "The only time sin could touch him was on the cross and even then he was not corrupted by it." Could you explain that for me please?

So Blitz, what you're telling me is that Jesus chose not to get sick? He, in His divine nature, chose not to let any particle of bacteria or any virus into body/bloodstream? If I'm tempted to complain because I'm sick (which I complain alot), are you telling me God can't help me overcome that sin because He doesn't know what sickness is like?

[Blitz]

Who knows? I mean if you think about it, Jesus controls nature. He could have. It is a possibility although unlikely.

[Whitty Whit]

That post does not make sense. "The only time sin could touch him was on the cross and even then he was not corrupted by it." Could you explain that for me please?

[John Chrysostom]

We seem to have come back around to the claim that sickness is the result of sin. But then you say, rightly so, that sickness is the result of entropy. So which is it? If this is simply a possibility although unlikely why do you keep defending the position?

Also if Christ were human like Adam and Eve were in the Garden then He was not human like us or even Adam and Eve since they fell and became like us, so Christ's incarnation would save no one.