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

[Yeshua1]

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

The orthodox Church view has though stated that Jesus has both natures within Himself, so up to you to prove that He does not!

 

[Yeshua1]

My understanding is that Jesus is Man, man as if He were not God. He is also God, God as if He were not man. I didn't coin that, but I heard it so long ago that I can't remember who did.
The most simple and elegant Scriptural proof of that is the 'stilling of the storm.' The Lord Jesus comes on board the boat, and He goes to sleep. He's tired and weary; He's a man. Man as if He were not God. But then the storm arises and the disciple go to Him in a panic. He gets up, rebukes the wind and the waves, and 'there was a great calm.' He didn't pray to God to calm the storm; He Himself ordered it to be still. Who else can do that but God. Jesus Christ is God; God as if He were not man.

If Jesus did not have the nature of Humanity within Himself, than God actually did die in full upon that Cross, as The man who died was just God there, not his humanity...
I wonder , does JonC hold to there was no need for the Virgin Birth, since Jesus was just God in nature, and thus no humanity would get affected/corrupted by the fall to deal with?

 

[agedman]

The orthodox Church view has though stated that Jesus has both natures within Himself, so up to you to prove that He does not!

Do you include two minds, two thoughts, two perspectives, two impulses...

The problem with using “nature” is how the “nature” is considered.

That some desire “100% human” to include in some manner the fallen will that had to be subjected, or the body in some manner was subject to the fallen nature is just not ultimately supportable by Scripture.

Christ was not some Devine that took on the human form, as appeared before Abraham and wrestled with Jacob, but was “a man” (flesh and blood, bones and innards).

That is what the creed states.

However, what some in this modern time seem to do is present a Christ that is doing combat with the nature of God, having to subject Himself, and conquer the flesh and temptations.

That is not the presentation of Scripture.

 

[Yeshua1]

Do you include two minds, two thoughts, two perspectives, two impulses...

The problem with using “nature” is how the “nature” is considered.

That some desire “100% human” to include in some manner the fallen will that had to be subjected, or the body in some manner was subject to the fallen nature is just not ultimately supportable by Scripture.

Christ was not some Devine that took on the human form, as appeared before Abraham and wrestled with Jacob, but was “a man” (flesh and blood, bones and innards).

That is what the creed states.

However, what some in this modern time seem to do is present a Christ that is doing combat with the nature of God, having to subject Himself, and conquer the flesh and temptations.

That is not the presentation of Scripture.

Jesus was fully God and fully Man, as in Nature of God and of man, just sinless in His humanity, as Adam once was, but not as Adam was afterwards!

 

[The Archangel]

That view would be defined as holding to a heretical view in regards to the person of Jesus, correct?

What view?

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

Since you are denying something so widely accepted, again, the onus is on you to say why the Chalcedonian formula is wrong.

The Archangel

Then here is our impasse.

I do not accept the Fourth Ecumenical Council as an authority for belief. I hope you understand. To me it is like insisting I must prove paedobaptism wrong before we can discuss covenants. If that were orthodox Baptist belief (I am Baptist) and we were in that company then perhaps I could see your point.

But as it stands I (along with many Protestants and all...that I know of....Eastern Orthodox) do not recognize an acceptance of the creed as the official view of the Church. The burden is on you.

So if it ends here, I hope you have a wonderful Christmas.

John

 

[JonC]

Well you asked for Scripture; I have given you Scripture. What have you to say about the Scripture for which you asked and I have given?

I say "great Scripture"!!!

If we were arguing that Christ was not God-man then the passages would work. But I agree that Juses us fully God and fully man. I disagree that this constitutes two separate natures within the Person of Christ. That is what you have to prove.

And @The Archangel is right to lean on early RCC doctrine. This is where you have to go because it is not contained in Scripture.

 

[JonC]

'The [Chalcedonian] Creed accepted the Alaexandrian view that Christ was one single Person, and ir implied(if it did nor explicitly state) that this Person was "the only-begotten, God the Logos." It also affirmed the Alexandrian belief that the divine Son went through all the human experiences of Jesus Christ, so that it was proper to say that God the Son was born of Mary.........But the Creed also accepted the Antiochene view that Christ's human and divine natures each kept their own distinctive qualities and properties, Christ's humanity was as real and complete as ours; it was not swallowed up or absorbed by His deity. Christ had two complete and distinct natures, fully and truly human, fully and truly divine. Finally, the Creed made it clear that physis and hypostasis were no longer to be understood in the same sense in the doctrine of the incarnation; physis meant "nature," and hypostasis meant "person," not "nature." In this way, the unclear language which had confused the whole debate between Alexandria and Antioch was decisively settled. Christ was one hypostasis in two physeis-- one person in two natures.
[Prof. N. Needham: 2,000 Years of Christ's Power]

I wonder if @JonC regards this as a reasonably accurate summary of the Creed of Chalcedon, and, if so, what his objections are to it.

Yes. But then again - I never claimed that you believed in a Son of two persons. I am saying Jesus did not have to natures but one nature that pre existed the Incatnation. Those are very different things.

@The Archangel 's presentation of the creed was, IMHO, sufficient.

 

[The Archangel]

Then here is our impasse.

I do not accept the Fourth Ecumenical Council as an authority for belief. I hope you understand. To me it is like insisting I must prove paedobaptism wrong before we can discuss covenants. If that were orthodox Baptist belief (I am Baptist) and we were in that company then perhaps I could see your point.

But as it stands I (along with many Protestants and all...that I know of....Eastern Orthodox) do not recognize an acceptance of the creed as the official view of the Church. The burden is on you.

So if it ends here, I hope you have a wonderful Christmas.

John

I do not accept Chalcedon as equal with Scripture. You have yet to provide any scripture to state your position and you have yet to say how and why Chalcedon does not jivve with Scripture. That is the impasse. You have made a claim and yet you refuse to substantiate it. Until you do so, because the onus is on you, we will remain at this impasse.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

And @The Archangel is right to lean on early RCC doctrine. This is where you have to go because it is not contained in Scripture.

And yet you've never tried to prove your assertion by citing Scripture.

The Archangel

 

[Yeshua1]

And yet you've never tried to prove your assertion by citing Scripture.

The Archangel

Why would there have to have been the Virgin birth then, cease Jesus did not have a real humanity, so no need to bypass the fall of Adam. correct?

 

[JonC]

And yet you've never tried to prove your assertion by citing Scripture.

The Archangel

Oops....that's another logical fallacy Bro.

It is not up to me to prove something does not exist. The burden of proof is on the one claiming something exists. That's basic argument.

 

[JonC]

I do not accept Chalcedon as equal with Scripture. You have yet to provide any scripture to state your position and you have yet to say how and why Chalcedon does not jivve with Scripture. That is the impasse. You have made a claim and yet you refuse to substantiate it. Until you do so, because the onus is on you, we will remain at this impasse.

The Archangel

Ok. Perhaps I can teach you something here -

There are NO passages of Scripture that state Jesus had two natures. As proof I offer no passages of Scripture. Unless you can rebut my claim by providing Scripture your argument is lost.

Do you see now why this is a fallacy?

 

[The Archangel]

Ok. Perhaps I can teach you something here -

There are NO passages of Scripture that state Jesus had two natures. As proof I offer no passages of Scripture. Unless you can rebut my claim by providing Scripture your argument is lost.

Do you see now why this is a fallacy?

Seriously, you need to learn the fallacies. Everyone you tried to cite today has been cited wrongly.

Oops....that's another logical fallacy Bro.

It is not up to me to prove something does not exist. The burden of proof is on the one claiming something exists. That's basic argument.

You claimed that Christ did not have two natures. The vast majority of Christendom--from Chalcedon onward--claims He did. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to say why Chalcedon's conclusions were wrong.

What you're engaging in is the fallacy of onus probandi. You've made a claim against the majority view. The onus is on you to say why the majority view is wrong; it is not on me to explain why the majority view is right. For the purposes of debate, it simply does not matter what you recognize as authoritative or lacking authority--the onus is on you as the initiator of the claim in this thread that Christ does not have two natures.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

Seriously, you need to learn the fallacies. Everyone you tried to cite today has been cited wrongly.



You claimed that Christ did not have two natures. The vast majority of Christendom--from Chalcedon onward--claims He did. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to say why Chalcedon's conclusions were wrong.

What you're engaging in is the fallacy of onus probandi. You've made a claim against the majority view. The onus is on you to say why the majority view is wrong; it is not on me to explain why the majority view is right. For the purposes of debate, it simply does not matter what you recognize as authoritative or lacking authority--the onus is on you as the initiator of the claim in this thread that Christ does not have two natures.

The Archangel

Again, Bro., you are wrong. But I appreciate your attempt to "hang in there". Too often some members quickly learn they are in over their heads and abandon threads.

Why, if Scripture is your final authority, are you so hesitant here to go there??????

 

[JonC]

The irony here is t by at @The Archangel 's position also demands orthodox Christian belief abandon the Theory of Penal Substitution. The majority of those involved in the present debate deny that theory.

It may be an acceptable trade off (Penal Substitution Theory is heresy but Jesus had two natures). It would be interesting, anyway.....that is....if we can hold "majority rules" mentality across the board as @The Archangel implies.

 

[The Archangel]

Again, Bro., you are wrong. But I appreciate your attempt to "hang in there". Too often some members quickly learn they are in over their heads and abandon threads.

Why, if Scripture is your final authority, are you so hesitant here to go there??????

1.) Not wrong.

2.) Not hesitant. See quoted post above.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

1.) Not wrong.

2.) Not hesitant. See quoted post above.

The Archangel

I did., Bro.

You are intelligent and I always appreciate your words.

I understand your claims to be implying that there are no passages stating that Jesus had two natures so we should look to the RCC. Of course, I could be mistaken. I will wait on Scripture to make that determination.

In Christ

John

 

[The Archangel]

I did., Bro.

You are intelligent and I always appreciate your words.

I understand your claims to be implying that there are no passages stating that Jesus had two natures so we should look to the RCC. Of course, I could be mistaken. I will wait on Scripture to make that determination.

In Christ

John

Again, you miss the point. I am not implying anything, as have told you--so you know better than to misrepresent my position (regardless of what you "understand"). You are trying to bait me. I have a whole Bible full of things that demonstrate the necessity of the Chalcedonian formula. However, the burden of proof is not on me.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

Again, you miss the point. I am not implying anything, as have told you--so you know better than to misrepresent my position (regardless of what you "understand"). You are trying to bait me. I have a whole Bible full of things that demonstrate the necessity of the Chalcedonian formula. However, the burden of proof is not on me.

The Archangel

Great brother!!!!!

A whole Bible that demonstrates the creed is correct. Let's start there.

Give me one verse stating that Jesus has two natures. We can go from there.

I look forward to the passage you will provide.

In Christ,

John