Featured What the sin nature is not.

Jesus was "tempted in all ways as we are".

I do not think that it is good to get into the philosophical here because the point of that passage is to demonstrate that Jesus went through temptations "as common to man," and can therefore identify with us when we ate tempted.

I disagree that Jesus had two natures. I believe that the point of the Incarnation, the method of redemption, and the hope of our resurrection us dependent on Jesus having one nature (a solidarity with man....the Word be coming flesh). I am not sure, however, that this is a disagreement (reading your post you kinda hit on my point - Spirit-flesh, God-man).

But Jesus did nothing of His own accord. He relied on the Spirit, He submitted His will to the will of the Father. We are to be that way.

Was it impossible for Jesus to sin? Yes. Just as it is impossible for natural man to please God. It is not a matter of ability (Jesus had the power to come down from the cross) but a matter of the will.....of desiring the things of God over the things of the flesh.

 

If you do believe Jesus is a human nature AND a divine nature you are guilty of heresy.

The point is that Jesus is not less than God in His Divinity, greater than man in His humanity, but these Natures are indivisable and without mixture (the "indivisable" abd "without mixture" part coming from the criteria historically establishing orthodox doctrine).

Jesus did not have two natures and He did not have an amalgamation of a human and divine nature. He is God/man. Fully God and fully man. Non-schizophrenic.

 

You are pitting your interpretation of a verse against orthodox theology.

Your position is called Nestorianism. And yes, it is a heresy. But I am not sure that it is a heresy that would ban you from this Christian forum.

You reject the basic concept of what is called the hypostatic union.


Let me ask you, given that you have chosen to take a heretical view of Christ, do you believe the Doctrine of the Trinity is even remotely correct?

 

I disagree. The difference is that while @SavedByGrace believes an actual heresy (Nestorianism, that Jesus is essentially two persons in one, inseparable).



The orthodox Christian position is that the two natures are united so that they cannot be spoken of as mixed or separated.

One, for example, cannot speak of Jesus as doing one thing in His humanity or another in His divinity.


The point of the Incarnation is this solidarity between God and man. I believe that the Word became flesh. @SavedByGrace seems to prefer the idea that flesh was added to the Word.

 

Nestorianism.

The main difference I'm trying to point out is that Jesus is God/man - 100%God, 100%man

Not God and Man (100% God plus 100%man added as a second nature).

The Word actually became Flesh. God/man, two natures without mixture (not less than God, not more than man) but also not schizophrenically embodied. He is God/man.

We are also of two natures, but without possessing two natures. Saved, we have one nature but at the same time are a union of Spirit and flesh, born of the Spirit.

 

You said that my belief that Jesus did not have two natures (a schizophrenic embodiment) or an amalgamation of natures, that He is fully God and fully man, was a heresy that should disqualified me from being a moderator.

No passage that you have posted contradicts what I posted about my position. If you believe otherwise you are foolishly illiterate.


Personally, I thought we agreed on this issue until you declared orthodox Christianity heresy.

So my response is based on both what you stated you believe (two natures) and what you called "heresy" (hypostatic union).

 

Maybe, after clarification.....and once you apologize to me for calling me a heretic, that I shouldn't be on staff for holding a heresy, and compared my view to monophysitism (divine or human nature).