Featured Do our systems of thought teach that Jesus is really the One True God?

Brother,

Things are getting confused with all of these posts.

I know that you believe Christ had two natures, a human nature and a divine nature, that can be distinguished.

That said, you have not provided a passage of Scripture stating that Christ had more than one nature. So please stop the false claims that I've ignored such Biblical evidence. Personally, I do not believe any biblical evidence exists. What you've thus far seems more akin to fourth century Nicene philosophy developed to explain the nature of the Trinity than it does Scripture.

That said, I am open to any verse of Scripture that states...i.e., not infers if one is using the "correct" philosophy....that Jesus had two natures. Is there a verse that states Jesus hungered in His "human nature" but not His "divine nature"? Is there one that says Jesus grew in His 'human nature" but not His "divine nature"?

I believe that you may be a better philosopher than theologian, but am always open to you proving me wrong by providing that passage (not commentary....passage) that proves your position.

In humble anticipation,

John

 

Yep...no philosophy at all.

 

I disagree. The reason is that I have not made a statement that is not present (literally) in Scripture. Philosophy is not needed to state that all the fullness of God dwells in Christ bodily. It is not needed to say that God became flesh. Nor is it needed to say that Jesus and the Father are One.

Philosophy is needed, however, to say that Jesus suffered the cross in His "human nature" but not in His "divine nature". The only time I have really studied this type of dualism in religious thought has been studying the development of doctrine during the early fourth century....and perhaps with the god Ahura Mazda. As far as I know, it is foreign to any biblical description of Jesus Christ.

 

My explanation could probably use a slight adjustment insofar as the physical body goes. I believe what we are looking at is Immanuel, God with us. The body is temporary. However humanity is not. Even now there is man in the glory as Jesus has been glorified with the Father. But in my argument I can accept that I may have pushed the boundaries a bit.

That said, what Christ took on was not a “second nature” but flesh. He became man and experienced what it is to be born, live, and die as a human being. And He is the Firstborn of many brethren.

I believe had Jesus taken on a “second nature” He could not have redeemed mankind (not only because that is known as a mental illness but because through Him God was reconciling the world to Himself – not to a second nature to kill but to God).

 

I disagree. The reason I disagree is for your statement to be accurate I would have to recognize that fourth century council as an authority. I don't.

Biblically it is wrong to present Christ as possessing two natures. Four centuries later the "majority" of the Church (the "pre-RCC") developed a philosophy to explain and address the Trinity. I affirm the Trinity (Father, Son, and Spirit) but disagree with the arguments concerning Jesus possessing two natures as Scripture only approaches this type of thing when dealing with a man possessed by demons.

That said, you are right that presuppositions should be listed prior to argument in order to avoid this type of thing. I argue from the standpoint that Scripture is the final authority. Therefore it is up to those who would argue from the standpoint the Chalcedonian definition is an authority to prove that point.

 

Goodbye. And thanks for the discussion. Maybe next time you can find something to take with you.

 

Don't worry. @The Biblicist isn't the only one on the BB that prefers to consider those who disagree with him as being "confused". Ad hominem is often a coping mechanism, nothing more.

That said. ... we all have our moments.

 

argumentum ad verecundiam

Argumentum ad misericordiam,

Non sequitur

Ad Honinem

Argumentum Ad Traditionem

Au contraire

Ad Honinem

What I understand you to be saying ...i.e., may be saying per my understanding and removing the fallacies and insults..... is that I have to accept the fourth century definition and explanations as a whole because they form "Orthodox Christianity". This is a very "romish" way of expressing things.

My argument is that our authority for doctrine is Scripture alone. It is not a creed or counsel. When discussing these things one must be able to defend their claims via Scripture. We simply go back to Scripture. I am simply not interested in an appeal to human counsels. I do not belong to your "orthodoxy".

That said, I welcome a discussion but you have to stop becoming so insulting. We do not know each other and there is no need to "go there" simply because I disagree with you.

John

 

Friend,

If your final authority if Scripture (I never implied otherwise, I was just stating it was mine to explain why I don't accept Chalcedon as authority) then let's go there. No need to short-cut it by looking at the definitions of men. While I may not accept creeds and counsels as an authority, I do accept Scripture. If Chalcedon is correct to your understanding, and Jesus has two natures, then show it is correct via Scripture.

Any time we appeal to an "authority" other than Scripture (like Chalcedon) the burden of proof falls on us.

Respectfully,

John

 

Do you see what you just did by this post....pots and kettles...you joined "us"

Welcome to the Cookery Club.

 

A little history lesson, Brother.

This creed was adopted at the Fourth Ecumenical Council, held at Chalcedon, in 451. Almost immediately after this there was a schism as the language of two natures was viewed as Nestorianism. The Eastern Orthodox Church and most Protestant churches viewed the Chalcedonian creed as heresy ("Chalcedon, the Ominous").

It is the Orthodox Christian view if you are a Roman Catholic. I don't believe @agedman holds to RCC doctrine and I know I don't. Frankly, I was a little surprised to find out that you hold the creed in such high regard. But denominational lines have blended quite a bit these days.