 Alright guys, welcome back to the channel. If you're new, man, it's Bobby. Interesting video today, we're gonna check out how can Jesus be both God and human on the channel Questioning Christianity. Despite the title and the channel's name, the producer of the video is actually a Christian himself. So today we're gonna look into the psyche of a Christian, so to speak, and how he justifies the statement that Jesus is supposedly God and man at the same time. Guys, before we jump into the video, if you enjoy my content, leave me a thumbs up, subscribe to the channel if you haven't already, and check out the links in the description box below to further support. And now, with no further ado, let's have a look. How could Jesus not know something like the day or hour of his return, if as God, he's meant to be or not? If the second person did the Trinity upholds all creation, how did the universe not cease to exist or else fall into chaos when Jesus died on Calvary's cross? And how exactly does the infinite become finite? Well, these and other questions don't simply come thick and far from Christianity's critics, but they're also pondered upon by curious Christians, who like me are awed by the beauty of Christ's incarnation, this bridge between heaven and earth, but who also may be struggled to comprehend how it all works, and especially how to capture it in words. So how do the reasons of the Christian story weigh in on the mystery and beauty of the word becoming flesh? How can Jesus be both God and human? For starters, if you wonder why historic Christianity holds that Jesus is God incarnate, or God the Eternal Son becomes human, check out our other video, Is Jesus God? There we lay out the case from these dozens of places in the New Testament, where Jesus and his apostles clearly believed and taught that Jesus is God. From his unparalleled power of creation and authority to forgive sins directly, to his personal claim to divine titles and his welcome of worship, right down to his resurrection from the dead as the prophesied sign vindicating his claims, the positive evidence of Jesus' divinity is everywhere. So let me share a few things that I found helpful in wrestling through the logic of the Atonement, how it answers Christianity's critics, and what it means for you and for me personally if it is true. First, a scripture draws helpful boundary markers around orthodoxy. Even though all the raw materials of Jesus' humanity and divinity are there from the first chapters of the New Testament, it took time for the apostles and early generations of Christians to construct their proper theological edifice to give them full expression. Enter what's known as the... It doesn't make any sense. He has expected a lot of word games, a lot of mental gymnastics, but ultimately what he has to admit is of course that the Trinity was not preached by Jesus nor his direct apostles. There is no mention of the Trinity and my argument is very, very simple. I say if Jesus is God, God came to earth. Of course he would come with a message that is crystal clear and he would point out the differences to the previous messages because up until the moment that Jesus incarnates allegedly, you had many, many prophets that preached pure monotheism. They were preaching to the idolaters and they are telling them to not worship the golden car for example, but to worship God alone. But now Jesus quote unquote, God comes into this world and has to teach you about the Trinity supposedly, but there is no mention of that in the Bible whatsoever. There are a lot of vague passages I admit and therefore 325 years later the church fathers at the council of Nicaea have to discuss and vote democratically if Jesus was the son of God, if he was God himself, if the nature of God is a Trinity and whatnot. There is so much confusion, so much dispute in the teachings of Jesus Christ or what remained of them that they needed 1800 priests and bishops and whatnot that had to discuss and vote if the Trinity is the right doctrine or not. That just shows you clearly that Jesus never preached it. While there were a number of councils and creeds that served these precursors, in 451 AD an ecumenical gathering of over 500 bishops hashed out the enduring theological boundary markers for orthodoxy. Essentially they sought to capture in words a base on the authority and affirmations of Scripture, what should Christians believe about Jesus's incarnation? Now I know this may seem like deep theological territory for any newcomers watching, but what they thought was the right thing. So it might appear as deep theological discourse and whatnot, but ultimately it's very very simple. You said it yourself. Over 400 years after the death of Jesus Christ, the proto-orthodox Christians still didn't know what their creed was. They didn't understand the nature of God. Hence we have to admit that Jesus Christ did not sufficiently apparently convey the message. Apparently things got lost and those people 400 years after Christ did not know what the true reality of God is and therefore they had to discuss, therefore they had to vote as I said 400 years after the death of Jesus Christ, they come to the conclusion, okay therefore it needs to be a trinity even though we certainly know that Jesus Christ did not preach it himself. What they landed on was the language of the hypostatic union of Christ, which is shorthand for the affirmation of three core beliefs. One, that there is only one person Jesus Christ. Two, that Jesus Christ had two natures, divine and human. Jesus was fully God and fully man. And three, that these two natures, while united and indivisible, are yet distinct and preserved. Not thrown together in a blender that either changes, confuses or corrupts their nature. This Chelsedonian Confession explains why it makes sense. The hypostatic union doesn't make sense because it presupposes that the second head of the Godhead, the second person of the Godhead of the trinity is the Son. The Son is fully man and fully God. But the same time there is the admission of course that the Son, the Word of God incarnated and became man. Therefore this nature had to become something. They of course claim that it has been eternally begotten and it never changed, but this doesn't make sense because prior to the incarnation the Word of God, the Son, was not man. And this is why they create another loophole yet again. Yeah, this is all through the hypostatic union. No, it is not. It tells you simply that there was the Word of God that incarnated into the flesh and now has a human experience. The Father on the other hand has no human experience. So experientially speaking, the Son is even further above than the Father. Don't you see? This of course circles back to the equality argument. How can they be co-equal if they have different experiences? This doesn't make any sense whatsoever and it doesn't befit God. God is absolutely free from need of experience because he is already perfect. Christological heresies had been soundly rejected. Running a fowl of the laneway mark is in either direction by denying the full divinity or humanity of Jesus. So that's what Christians should believe from Scripture. But translating their what of theological affirmation into the how or coming up with a workable model of the incarnation that can answer the opening salvo of skeptical and curious questions, that tends to be where Christians disagree. Which is my second point. Christians have options for modeling Christ's incarnation. Over the centuries, Christian theologians and philosophers have offered a range of models for making sense of the data of Scripture. The Canotic models from the Greek Canosis, meaning to empty, they interpret the Christ, him and Philippians 2 as saying that the eternal Son emptied himself of some divine attributes in order to become fully human. That's the argument that he is sometimes fully man and sometimes fully God, but at the same time he is always fully man and fully God, right? But when he says about the last hour only the father knows, well this is when he is fully human and shows you his full human side, just swapping back and forth. This doesn't make any sense whatsoever. As a more recent set of models, historically these theologians argue that God the Son willingly gave up or set aside whatever omnis were not compatible with being human. That means that Jesus was not omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent. Even though by identity or relationship they argue, he still present. Yeah man, because it goes directly against the claim that he is fully man and fully God. If he lets go of godly attributes, then he is fully human and partially God, don't you see? So silly. So how do these Canotic models explain the travel pastors like in Matthew 24 36 where Jesus says he does not know the day or hour of his return? Well easy, these Canotic theologians simply say Jesus was ignorant of the emails because God the Son had given up the attribute of being all-knowing to become Incarnate in Christ. At least setting it aside. Then there are the cryptic models from the Greek cryptos meaning to conceal which interpret the Christ him in Philippians 2 not as saying the eternal Son gave up divine attributes but that he veiled his divinity when he added humanity to himself. Not grasping onto but rather full. There you go, it's a contradiction after contradiction because there he just admitted after adding humanity to himself. This yet again presupposes that the word of God was not human prior and had to go through a human experience which in turn means that God needs an experience which goes against God because God is already perfect and is free of need. Alhamdulillah for Islam, it's so insane. Comprised for a number of specific proposals that stand in various traditions, these cryptic models say that Jesus still possessed the omnis but that he could choose when and how to give the expression in order to fulfill his redemptive purposes. Almost like the undercover box. So how do the cryptic models then answer the travel passage? Well that depends on which version of these models. John Kelvin for instance made sense of Christ's ignorance in Matthew 24 36 by saying that despite Christ's divine mind being omniscient, according to his limited human mind, Jesus did not know the day or the hour. This doesn't make sense. I mean at this point I'm just repeating myself but just for good measure, yet again if he doesn't know something that the Father knows, that then implies that he is not fully God. Don't you understand? Jesus did not know the day or the hour. For Kelvin and other cryptics, the distinct two natures of Christ in the hypostatic union, the finite and the infinite, opened the door to saying ignorance and omniscience can be true of the one person Jesus at the same time, depending on what nature is behind the stars. It couldn't be that he is a messenger of God. And that the divine loveless retains all his attributes and is united to yet not entirely encompassed within the human nature of Jesus? That means Christ's death on the cross, it does nothing to reduce the trinity to a binity or to cause creation to descend into chaos. But this cryptic proposal of two minds, it's unsatisfying to some current theologians and philosophers like William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland, for instance, who proposed a controversial third option, turned the Neo-Apollinarian model. On this model the Divine Logos, God the Son, supplied the human body of Jesus with all the attributes necessary for a limited human consciousness that had to develop and learn across time. But with all of the superhuman elements of the Divine Logos being located in the subconscious layer of Jesus. Yeah, all I'm hearing is partially this, partially that. That's it. It's a demigod, basically. Like in Greek mythology. Yeah. And as with the other models, this one can easily account for the various scenes in the Gospels which seem to show Jesus as limited in knowledge or power or as being subservient to the Father's will. Yes, but not as fully God. Who knows? The conodic model potentially runs afoul of explaining how the omniscient Yeah, all of this brings us back to the meme. You ask 10 Christians about the Trinity and you get 10 opinions. Alhamdulillah for Islam. La ilaha illallah. There is no God worth your worship, but Allah. Everybody agrees. No matter if you look into different sects or madhaps or whatnot, the core of the religion is always the same. The absolute unity and transcendence of God alone. Or how Jesus can be fully God without any claim to these defining attributes. Yeah, man. The Neanderthalian model potentially runs afoul in the other direction, as some charge it as a divine possession model, where Jesus has a less... Your Lord is not a Lord of confusion. And the purpose of this model is to reduce differences in two minds with stunted explanations of how they interact in one person. Now, if you're confused, that's totally okay. Yeah, it's totally okay. The purpose of this whole survey in philosophical terms. As I just said in the Bible, it says that your Lord is not a Lord of confusion, but if you are now confused, the creation says that it's totally okay. Just relax and accept it. Our doctrine is confusing. Let's all accept Christianity today. If you're confused, that's totally okay. The point of this small survey in philosophical options is to show that each model can go a long way towards answering the speeders of critics and the curious questions of Christians. And if it is possible for us as finite and fallen human beings to come up with possible models to make sense of God's revelation, then shortly Christianity is off the hook. For an infinite and all-wise God has vastly superior explanatory resources than anything we can construct. No, Christianity is not off the hook whatsoever, because the claim is that previously to Jesus Christ we had prophets. All of those prophets came with the same message. Worship one God alone, do not worship idols. And now finally, the grand finale, God himself incarnates. And he comes with a new message. This is what you claim, but to this very day you're still confused and don't know what that message is or what that message was. And therefore you need to reinterpretation from the truth that is allegedly guided by the Holy Spirit. But even those people that are guided by the Holy Spirit still have no answer to the Trinity. Could this be a false doctrine? So we don't need to get too caught up on the exact mechanism. No, don't. Like C.S. Lewis said of atonement theories in mere Christianity, when it comes to our models of the Incarnation, the thing itself is infinitely more important than any explanations that theologians can bring. Okay, why? Which leads to my third point. Why? Christ's Incarnation transcends mere explanation. The Christmas story of God, the Eternal Son entering our human story, is told through supernatural signs and cosmological conspiracies. And the whole thing, it's loaded with mystery and meaning. A peasant parent's pluck from obscurity, Yeah, sure. It's packed with mystery and meaning, and this is why we find very, very similar stories within Greek mythology, within Egyptian mythology, and many other pagan mystery schools from back in the day. The rising after three days, the defeat of death, those stories have been known before. Denisius, for example, is another character that is extremely similar to the Christian perspective of Jesus Christ. So therefore mythologically speaking, yes, those stories have value, they have archetypes that can teach you something, but that doesn't make them true. Now, if you're wondering what difference this all makes, think of the Incarnation as God's response to life's deepest question. Things like, who am I? What is my life's purpose? Is God even real? How does he feel about the stuff that he bought in the world? Has God really a man? Tell me. Can I change? Is there hope? Now, in answer to these questions, God could have sent a why, but he doesn't. Why? Well, because words come cheap. It's the biggest why. What sends us a who? It's the biggest how. He comes himself as Jesus, being God's answer wrapped up in a human being. You see, as God, Jesus shows us who God is so that we get him, and chasing away any doubts over his character. But do you? As human, Jesus experiences our life so that he gets us, feeling every pain and loss and temptation and betrayal common to our raw experience. That's not true either. Man, this guy really likes to talk, but it's all falsehood. Jesus Christ's experience, Jesus Christ's human experience is nothing like ours. He didn't get married. He didn't have children. He didn't have the same hardships like ours. If we suppose that he got crucified, of course, that is a huge burden that he had to go through. But nevertheless, his life is nothing like ours. At the center of God's purposes in the incarnation, as both God and human, Jesus is uniquely qualified to heal the rift between the two as an all-sufficient savior. A paying a price that only God could pay, but also one that only humanity should pay. This is but a glimpse of the good news wrapped up in the word becoming flesh to dwell among us. So please, you're welcome to wrestle with the logic of the incarnation. Truth invites questions. There is no logic. And so Christians have sent out a range of reasonable options in trying to make sense of God's revelation. But the beauty of our Creator entering his creation, it transcends mere explanation, which is why more than any sophisticated models of the incarnation, I've always found that the Christmas story is best experienced and expressed through songs. Songs that capture the mystery of the incarnation and songs that back in all who hear them I'll just sing a song guys. That will explain it. Don't fix it. The flesh that God had seen. Hail the incarnate deity. A pleased as man with man to dwell. Jesus our Emmanuel. All right, that's it for today's video. I'm going to cut it off here because I said pretty much everything I needed to say throughout the video. It all boils down to, hey guys, there's a mystery. Hey guys, it explains how, why night actually doesn't. You are maybe confused, but that doesn't matter either. Ultimately so beautiful. Listen to songs guys. Bro, then I can become Hindu as well. Those guys love to chant songs and they believe that God incarnated in millions of Abba tales. How? I suppose it's a mystery after all as well. Why not go with that doctrine? As if life is not confusing enough, let's make it even more confusing with confusing mythology. Yeah, that makes sense. Why would we use our God given intellect and actually look at the scripture ourselves and recognize the red thread, the red thread of prophets being sent with one message. Worship God alone. Worship the Creator. Do not worship the creation. Do not worship sticks, stones, the golden calf, other humans, pharaohs and what not. Simply worship the invisible God. Worship the ever-living sustainer of the universe. Worship him alone. This is what we can find within the scriptures. Why would it be any different for Jesus? Especially if we take into account that his message has not been preserved. Apparently you can see it yourself because even the highest church fathers cannot make any sense of it. 300 years after Jesus Christ's demise, they come up with the Trinity. They have to reinterpret yet again 600 years, 700 years after his death. They still do not know if they should venerate icons or not. The original message of Jesus is obviously lost. But if we look into the scripture ourselves and we use our God given intellect, our God given rationale, of course we come to the conclusion that there is only one Creator that created everything. He is the only one that we should worship and this is why prophets have been sent over and over and over again. But anyways, ultimately this is a test of free will. If you want to stay within your confusion and you want to worship a man, a God, maybe both through hypostatic union, I don't know, maybe I'm going to sing a song yet again for Christmas. That will make sense. I'm wrestling with my faith. It all doesn't matter because it is all so beautiful. Okay, you do you, I do me. Alhamdulillah for Islam. All right guys, but this is it for today's video. If you liked it, leave it a thumbs up, subscribe to the channel if you haven't already and check out the links in the description box if you want to further support my work. And now, as always, make God one God. Bless you all, much love and peace.