Did Christ suffer from Multiple Personality Disorder

[agedman]

Percho,

You have asked some good questions, and some I would consider rhetorical. I will leave out those I think you ask that are rhetorical, and consider the others.

Would the form of God be glorious divine nature?
What would you call the nature of a bond servant, one, humbled and self becoming obedient unto death?

Philippians 2 is not mainly about explaining the nature(s) of Christ, but of Paul bringing the Philippians to remembering what was important. The aspect of being of one accord, of one mind. Not squabbling, but living a life of servitude and submission. Within that context, Paul uses the example of Christ.

Permit me to reverse the verse order to further emphasize the basic contextual meaning of the passage.
Paul says, "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others."

A few rhetorical questions:
Did Christ ever seek vain glory?
Do you remember Him washing the feet esteeming Himself as servant?
Did Christ ever look upon His own things - Did He even have a pillow to lay His head?

So it is in that context that the balance of the statement relating to Christ is made.

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.​

A few more rhetorical questions:
Who exalted Christ? God
For what ultimate goal? God the Father's glory.

To answer your questions:
The word "form" (verse 6 &7) is "morphe" which is the visual appearance or outward appearance.
So, the Scriptures are basically stating that the visual aspects of Christ were that of God, and that Christ abased himself and seized the visual aspects of being a servant in the likeness of a human. Isaiah is in agreement in stating "... as a root out of the dry ground He has no form nor comeliness, and when we shall see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him..."

Just what did God self empty himself of in becoming as a man, from Hebrews 2 a little lower than the angels, emptied unto the point of being able to taste death? Emptied of what?

Hebrews 2 is a great passage and made better (in my opinion) when read from the NIV rather than the KJV. There isn't any doctrinal difference, but the way it is laid out is a better read. The online version here is one of the best I have seen: Hebrews 2

Jesus was the Son of the Living God.
Does that mean, the Living God was the Father of Jesus of Nazareth?
How did God the Father become the Father of the Son of God? Or, did he become the Father of a Son? Are these just words thrown in the scripture for our understanding of God which really do not help in understanding unless they mean the same as in a human relationship of Father and Son?

Again I would refer you to Hebrews 2.

It is important to note that Hebrews does lay out that believers are joint heirs with full rights and privileges that heirs enjoy.

I will say that there are no "words thrown in the Scriptures" and the marvels of the trinity are beyond human capability to fully comprehend. What believers do rationally parse out is little and that completely shrouded in great mystery.

The prophet in the likeness of Moses made some statements in John 5 relative to a Father and the Son.

V26 for, as the Father hath life in himself, so He gave also to the Son to have life in himself,

Is this a true statement. Did the Son of God have to be given by God his Father life in himself? Is this speaking of just life, like having been born of Mary the life poured out upon the cross or quickening resurrected life, eternal life?
V21 `For, as the Father doth raise the dead, and doth make alive,
Was it God the Father that raised from the dead the Son of God and made him alive? Gal. 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead
When God the Father resurrected him from the dead was that a declaration of something?

Perhaps these questions are rhetorical. I will add this small insight. Throughout this part of John 5, Christ is establishing His authority as the same as the Father's and to be recognized and evaluated by humankind as such. There is not some scheme of transferring who is responsible for what area (the Father or the Son), but that the Son and the Father are on equal footing. This is one area in which the union of natures is clearly shown as undivided, inseparable, and completely in one concurrence (agreement). See in this passage Christ in the flesh declaring divine authority over all matters and in more specifically over life and death.

Rom. 1:4 And declared the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: What kind of power?

When God the Father laid on The Son of God the iniquity of us all, when the Son of God who knew no sin was made to be sin for us, did he die the death of; The soul that sins it shall die and the death of; Dying thou shall surely die, or did he just die a bodily physical death? If he paid a bodily physical death only for us why do we still die physically?

The Scriptures clearly state in Acts 2 (which quotes from the Psalms) that the soul of Christ was not left in hell.

Here are some rhetorical questions to review what is death:
When the rich man died, where was he? Was he alive? Then what died?
When the beggar died, where was he? Was he alive? Then what died?

If the first death is the flesh losing vitality, what is the second death?

 

[OldRegular]

Not at all. The fact is that the two natures are inseparable and in complete union.

That does not mean that the two natures cease to exist as separate entities. In fact Chalcedon addresses this issue very clearly.

*****************************************************************

It is YOU who want to maintain that the natures are separated and distinctive which is in direct conflict with the Chalcedonian Creed, the Nicene Creed, the LBC (1689) and even the Westminster as it applies to this thread.

Agedman, you are deliberately misrepresenting my responses to you! In my post #29 I stated:

Originally Posted by OldRegular
You continue to misrepresent what Chalcedon states. They are inseparably joined but not indistinguishable. Chalcedon says:

the characteristics of each nature being preserved.

You obviously have a problem comprehending that which is plainly stated in Chalcedon. I once again post the Chalcedon Creed, this time two versions. The texts are slightly different but have the same message so you, agedman, will have no excuse for repeatedly making false statements:

*******************************************************************************************
The Chalcedon Creed from: http://www.gci.org/history/creeds

The Definition of Chalcedon (a.d. 451)
We then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men 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 [coessential] 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; 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 and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God 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.​

The Chalcedon Creed from: From: http://www.reformed.org/documents/in...chalcedon.html

The Definition of the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D)
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.​

​

*******************************************************************************************

I am going to list, as I have previously, the pertinent teachings from Chalcedon:

1.0 our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood;

2.0 truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body;

3.0 begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation,

4.0 one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures; inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved,

Now , agedman, note what Item 4.0 states: one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, Do you see the words? TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED IN TWO NATURES THE DISTINCTION OF NATURES BEING BY NO MEANS TAKEN AWAY BY THE UNION, BUT RATHER THE PROPERTY OF EACH NATURE BEING PRESERVED. Do you see that, two natures?

Now as to the words: inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably. The first two have to do with the two natures.

1. Inconfusedly means without confusion, that is, without disorder or chaos in each nature.

2. Unchangeably means without change or conversion, that is, no change in each nature.

The words indivisibly and inseparably have to do with the union of the two natures.

****************************************************************

In your OP you deny that Jesus Christ has two natures: You say:

According to some on a recently closed thread, Christ had two natures.

I do not hold this view.

Christ was "God in the flesh" and that in that statement He had no dual competing natures as believers must contend, but a single nature as the Scriptures state - fully God and fully human.

The Nicene creed and LBC (1689) both reflecting this phenomena. The Holy God Nature of the Word (being coexistent and equal with God) and the nature of human without sin (as the First Adam was created - formed without sin) were united and became the single nature of The Lord Jesus Christ. The two natures did not "coexistent" but became completely united and inseparable.

You are wrong agedman and that you cannot deny!

I will respond to the remainder of your post in another!

 

[agedman]

The Chalcedon Creed from: http://www.gci.org/history/creeds


The Chalcedon Creed from: From: http://www.reformed.org/documents/in...chalcedon.html

Old Regular,

You missed the point I was making. You keep posting about one part of the Creed, but miss completely the union.

Look carefully at the wording:

"concurring (in agreement) in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son..."

"... and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ..."​

The union brought the natures TOGETHER to form ONE person and subsistence.

The union is NOT "parted or separated into two persons, but ONE and the SAME Son..."

Yet, by your posts, you would seem to desire to separate them and attempt to place certain Scriptures as manifesting one or the other of the natures. The Creed indicates that is not possible.


Christ did not have dueling personalities and natures within him. He was completely human and completely God - the God/man a union of the two natures. What impacted His humanity effected Him divinely. What He divinely enjoyed effected His humanity.

The Creed clearly states the natures did not merely co-exist, but were united - "coming together" functioning inseparably as a single unit in concurrence (agreement).

Just as the LBC (1689) states:

"So that the Lord Jesus Christ is truly God and truly man, yet He is one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man.
The Lord Jesus, His human nature thus united to the divine, once in the person of the Son, was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure, having in Himself all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."​

Where you are reading the first part of the Creeds and making a stand,
I acknowledge that part and point to the latter to show the application.

Christ did not have two wills, two hearts, two minds, two strengths. He was singular.

The believer in the earthly flesh has two wills, two hearts, two minds, two strengths. The believer while residing in this competing natures estate longs (as Paul) to be released from the earthly form and nature and be transformed into that heavenly estate.

We get a small glimpse of that estate when we view the figures on the mount at the transfiguration.

Readers, did you ever wonder why Christ could be transformed while still in flesh and blood? Because the human nature and divine nature were in union and cannot be separated. Another glimpse into the union and how nothing could effect the natures in isolation, but that both natures, each responding as in perfect oneness, performed not in harmony as a duet but in unison as one voice.

On the matter of the OP.

Perhaps the wording may be mistaken when I wrote,

"Christ was "God in the flesh" and that in that statement He had no dual competing natures as believers must contend, but a single nature as the Scriptures state - fully God and fully human."​

The point was being made that the nature of Christ was not two competing natures.

The nature of Christ was singular just as the Creeds and SofF state. The two natures were UNITED.

I am sorry that you seemed to have stumbled at my poor wording, but I honestly thought that by making such statements in the OP that Christ was "fully God and fully human," and that I was in total agreement with the Creeds and SofF that the wording was clear.

You zeroed in on the "single nature" part of the statement and that is unfortunate.

Old Regular, when you are speaking of the authority and work of Christ and must talk of the character and displays of His moods, do you refer to that as the "NATURES" or "NATURE" of Christ?

Do you use the singular or the plural?

If you truly hold that Christ had two natures, and that these natures can be shown in Scriptures to manifest separately, then certainly you must never refer to the "nature" of Christ, but the "natures" of Christ.

However, in doing so, is that not a violation of the Creed?

 

[OldRegular]

Old Regular,

You missed the point I was making. You keep posting about one part of the Creed, but miss completely the union.

Look carefully at the wording:

"concurring (in agreement) in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son..."

"... and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ..."​

The union brought the natures TOGETHER to form ONE person and subsistence.

The union is NOT "parted or separated into two persons, but ONE and the SAME Son..."

Apparently, agedman, you are incapable of understanding the difference between nature and person.

Jesus Christ is two natures in one person; that is what Chalcedon states and that is what I believe. That is what you deny in your OP and subsequent posts.

God is Three Persons but ONE Nature. That is what the Bible teaches, that is what the doctrine of the Trinity states, and that is what I believe.

Agedman, you are deliberately misrepresenting my responses to you! In my post #29 and again in #42 I stated:

Originally Posted by OldRegular
You continue to misrepresent what Chalcedon states. They are inseparably joined but not indistinguishable. Chalcedon says:

the characteristics of each nature being preserved.

I have never denied the union, I have simply tried to get to get you to understand that the two natures are still preserved as Chalcedon states.

one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures; inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; 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 and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons,

****************************************************************

Yet, by your posts, you would seem to desire to separate them and attempt to place certain Scriptures as manifesting one or the other of the natures.

That is exactly what I have done, that is what Chalcedon and the London Baptist Confession state, and that is what I have demonstrated by Scripture, two natures in one person.

***************************************************************

Christ did not have dueling personalities and natures within him.

You are the one obsessed with multiple personality disorder in Jesus Christ!

***************************************************************

He was completely human and completely God - the God/man a union of the two natures.

Yes He was but the two natures were preserved as Chalcedon states: One more time!

the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved,

**************************************************************

What impacted His humanity effected Him divinely. What He divinely enjoyed effected His humanity.

To say that the human nature changed the divine nature, changed God, is utter nonsense agedman and heretical to say the least! I will simply present one passage of Scripture and quit:

Malachi 3:6. For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

mandym had it right [post #11]. I thought so at the time but also thought I could help you understand but you continue to distort what Chalcedon states and what Scripture teaches.

That being said, if you want to continue to obsess about the supposed personality disorder of Jesus Christ feel free.:wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey:

 

[Yeshua1]

You are the second to place the heresy label upon me in this thread.

You quoted Philippians in which I have repeatedly posted, too. It was in full agreement with the Creeds and SofF's posted in the thread.

Then you make an issue of the first chapter of John.

Again, there really is no disagreement with what you have stated, and with what I have stated.

Perhaps the problem is that folks are attributing my statements with those who teach that the two natures are somehow mixed to form an alloy like a chemist might chemically mix atomic elements are to make some new form. That is not Scriptural, neither is it what I have consistently held. The two natures (human and God) were not destroyed, amalgamated, mixed together as if blended... but each retained the full property values, yet joined in unison as a singularity.

Unfortunately, I did attempt to apply examples of tossed salad and cake. But, as I stated, the union has no parallel examples that can be fully applied. The use of the example was to point out that one can separate the elements of the salad and cannot of the cake. It is that way with the nature of Christ.

When Christ spoke, He spoke with the full authority of both human and God in union. He never spoke from only human nature or from God nature.

When He was tired, thirsty, hungry it was with the full authority of both human and God. Even Satan recognized this when he tempted Christ in saying that He could change the stones and dirt into food and drink.

I have stated that the two natures were as the SofF and creeds state, unified, inseparable, and indistinguishable. Christ did not have two minds, two spirits, two wills, two hearts, two desires, two strengths, two...

When Paul states, "let this mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus" the believer is not left wondering, "which one?"

jesus was born in the very FORM of man, JUST as he is the very FORM of God!

IF one denies that jesus was both God/man, 2 natures in one being, was called heretic !

For the Church has held that jesus is 2 natures, One being, no mixing/mingling, anything else outside of orthodoxy!

 

[asterisktom]

jesus was born in the very FORM of man, JUST as he is the very FORM of God!

IF one denies that jesus was both God/man, 2 natures in one being, was called heretic !

For the Church has held that jesus is 2 natures, One being, no mixing/mingling, anything else outside of orthodoxy!

Where is the verse in the Bible that says that Jesus has, right now and forever, two natures ("form of man")?

 

[percho]

Where is the verse in the Bible that says that Jesus has, right now and forever, two natures ("form of man")?

Question Tom

Gal. 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. Heb. 7:14 For [it is] evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Hebrews 7:9,10 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

Did Jesus also pay tithes in Abraham?

Just for thought provoking info: Hebrews 5:4-10 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another [place], Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.


Why did we even need to know that Levi paid tithes in his father Abraham?

 

[righteousdude2]

Before I Opened this, and After...

...I crawled under a metal table and prayed God wouldn't strike me with lightning for even approaching this post. The title is INANE, and borders on the sacrilegious. To even suggest a mental disorder is questionable, however, I see where you are coming from with the responses and comments made. :type: