Hebrews Ch. 2

[anon12438761]

14 Since then the children have shared in flesh and blood, he also himself in the same way partook of the same
17 Therefore he was obligated in all things to be made like his brothers

This is a theme that we are all familiar with, so I’ll not gather any more verses at this time. And my questions are not new either, but I would like your thoughts, perhaps they have changed over time?

1. I wonder if there is a consensus here on the sort of commonsensical notion that the pre-incarnate Son gave up His consciousness and awareness when his mother’s egg was fertilized? The the fetus developed just as the rest of us did? That at birth, he was a baby like the rest of us in all ways?
2. That he had no extra awareness than we as babies did? No memories of pre-existence? He did not ‘remember’ the universe being created through him?
   He had NO special gifts - he partook of flesh and blood in the same way we partake of flesh and blood, he was made IN ALL THINGS LIKE HIS BROTHERS?
3. He resisted temptation like we do - no special powers of resisting, no ‘I’m Lord of the Universe’ powers that would make his dealings with the devil more of a condescension than a real temptation?
4. When I mentioned to a friend that it was entirely possible that Jesus struck his finger with a hammer, or made a chair leg incorrectly, or was embarrassed around girls at a certain age, my friend almost disowned me. So I got him a cookie and he quite forgave me.

What I’m getting at of course, are the entailments (deduction: something that is inferred (deduced or entailed or implied) of the verses I quoted above. The idea that it was a God-Man hitting his finger, being embarassed, screwing up a chair, almost makes no sense at all to me; only if the Son was made like us in all ways, am I able to feel the real drama of the Story.
The whole Chalcedon solution is, for me, no understandable solution. I will refrain from using the words Mumbo-Jumbo because I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings (though of course I snuck them in anyway, darn me).
I’m not anti-trinitarian; I am agnostic about it, and those Hebrew verses are way more convincing to me than the logic-chopping of councils.

Any thoughts?

Edit: if this is a topic that has been exhausted here already, let me know - I don’t want to tread old ground, and I can remove this easily enough.
Thanks.

[Cindy_Skillman]

I think Jesus came as a human child, only without sin (rebellion) – that is, He wasn’t born into the inheritance of bondage to sin. So He was (as Paul said) the second Adam. I think He was born innocent (not mature), and that as He gained maturity he still did not sin in the sense of rebellion. For example, Jesus’ staying in Jerusalem while His parents went along home thinking Him in their company might be construed as sin since He caused them unnecessary pain. But as soon as this was pointed out to Him, He followed them obediently and continued to be subject to them. Making a mistake is in some ways “sin” in the sense of “missing the mark,” but I don’t think that’s the kind of sin we learn about in the Garden. Adam and Eve chose to depend on their OWN knowledge of good and evil rather than being guided by God’s life and because of this fell into bondage to sin and death.

Little children do many things we would consider to be sin (biting their older sister, hoarding their toys, screaming to get their way) yet until they’re able to understand that these things are wrong, we can hardly accuse them of sin. Paul said that once he was alive without the law, but then the law revived and he died. I think what that might mean is that once Paul knew what was right to do and wrong, and he did the wrong, he “died” because the law slew him.

I think I probably shared my view of the Trinity with you (and I sure don’t require or need for you to accept that), but to make sure this isn’t a stumbling point – the idea of Jesus being on earth as a human, and Father being in heaven as God, simultaneously, isn’t a problem for me because I see the Trinity as a community – like a marriage only unified as an ideal marriage might be so that the Three really are One.

But, back to the point – I do think Jesus had to have an edge, but that the edge was the exact same edge Adam and Eve had on first being brought to consciousness (however that worked) – that they could choose whether to depend on themselves or on God. They chose themselves (as do we all – that, I believe, we inherit) and Jesus chose His Father. He lived His life as an example to us, so He had to live as a true and mere human being. He had the advantage of the Holy Spirit, and of constant communion with Father. But through His life, death & resurrection as our representative and the head/source of the “one new man”, we also now have access to the guidance of the Spirit and the communion of the Father. So we can live just as Jesus lived. We have the same resources. Granted we have the handicap of a beast nature that has been fed and encouraged and nurtured, so I think that does make it harder. Jesus never fed that nature, but to compensate, He had some particular trials not many of us will ever have to face, not to mention being singled out by the enemy for special attention. (I do believe in a personal devil as opposed to viewing him as an anthropomorphization of evil/temptation.)

Concluding, I do believe Jesus lived as a genuine human being from conception to His last breath. I don’t think He was “Einstein playing at kindergarten” as they say. I think it was real.

Love, Cindy