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

[The Archangel]

Ahhhh.....I think you may still be confused a bit. Let me help you.

I never called Penal Substitution Theory a heresy on this thread. Words have meaning. If you need help I can schedule a time (off the public form) to help you.

Wrong:

​

The irony here is t by at
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.

I also never questioned your emotional health. Again, reading what is said BEFORE posting is a good thing.

Wrong:

I dont mean to hurt you but if you are taking our conversation as a personal attack then maybe you need to step back and take care of your emotional health before we continue.

Now, I'm sure there'll be some backtracking of "I didn't say that," but....

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

Wrong:

​

I also never questioned your emotional health. Again, reading what is said BEFORE posting is a good thing.


Wrong:



Now, I'm sure there'll be some backtracking of "I didn't say that," but....

The Archangel

Read the posts you quoted, brother.

I questioned neither Penal Substitution Theory (much less called it heresy) and I didn't question your emotional health.

But enough playing around. We could act stupid all day and not get anywhere.

What verse in that whole Bible of yours did you find stating Jesus had two natures?

And how did that work (as I am sure you aren't calling God a babbling schizophrenic)?

Thanks.

 

[The Archangel]

...it seems obvious to me you may not be able to provide even one passage proving your ideas,

You need to learn the difference between able to, which I am, and willing to, which I am not--since the onus of the argument is on you for making the initial claim that Jesus did not have two natures. I'm starting to think you can't support your position and that's why you're trying to place the onus on me.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

You want to know?

When it comes to God I refuse to argue against what is not in Scripture when that something has not been defended by Scripture.

As Christians we don't have the burden of proof against other Christians who hold ideas like evolution, demon seed theology, and a dual natured God. The burden is against those who assault the Church with ideas they can't back up through Scripture and insist they be proven wrong.

I respect you and know you to be an intelligent man just from your posts. But here I think that you may have made a few pretty foolish claims (the primary one being your refusal to go to God's Word).

I hope that answers your question.

John

Again, the onus is on you. Chalcedon isn't in the same league with evolution, demon seed theology, and dual-natured God. Chalcedon is the majority view of historic Christianity. I do not have to prove it. In fact, if it is true--as the council affirmed from scripture--it is you who are in the position of having to prove it wrong by your own definition above.

The Archangel

 

[agedman]

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!

That didn’t answer the basic question of the problem in some scheme of that suggested.

Here is a restatement of the post with some revision editing.

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

The problem with using “nature” is how the word “nature” is considered. Is nature the physical aspect or is nature the emotional, intelligence, spiritual, and other such non tangible aspects.

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.

However neither was 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) as some apparition.

The creed states uses “two natures” and it is imperative to discern what is meant by use of the word. “ nature”

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.

 

[agedman]

My basic distrust of modern folks interpreting creeds is putting the terms in the context of modern thinking.

Is there documentation that nature included the intangible items such as intellect, emotions, intelligence, temperament, ...

Rather, If I recall the word “nature” would not include such, but referred strictly to the physical touchable visually seen and able to handle attributes.

This is exactly how John uses the subject in the opening of his account.

The will and spirit, intellect and talents, temperament and skillful ness were typically not considered “nature” but endowments.

This is the bottom line confusion of this thread.

Folks would disputed by not coming to agreement of the meaning of words.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Can you again give the Scripture reference. I don’t want to hash back through posts finding it.

Thank you.

I refer you to post #166. The text is Mark 4:35-41 and the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke.

 

[JonC]

I refer you to post #166. The text is Mark 4:35-41 and the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke.

35 And the same day, when the even was come, he saith unto them, Let us pass over unto the other side.
36 And when they had sent away the multitude, they took him even as he was in the ship. And there were also with him other little ships.
37 And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full.
38 And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish?
39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.
40 And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? how is it that ye have no faith?
41 And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?

Which verse, Martin, are you speaking of that states Jesus had two natures?

I see Jesus presented as God-man, but not as relying on a human nature at times (like when He is suffering or hungering) and relying on a divine natures at others (like when He calms the sea).

Again, are there any verses that speak of Jesus as having two natures (not that he is 100% God and 100% man, but that within Jesus there existed two natures)?

Thanks for your suggestion, and I look forward to the verse you will provide.

John

 

[agedman]

I refer you to post #166. The text is Mark 4:35-41 and the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke.

Thank you.

Such a passage is very good at showing the physical attributes and also the Creator authority.

As such it demonstrates to very position I have tried to point out on this thread.

The use of the word “nature” is not as it once was held.

Recall John used the words have seen, touched, handled.

That is what was considered the nature. It was the construction blocks that distinguishes various life forms.

Paul stated that Christ was found in the form of man. (not home causes me lack of attaching quotes and references but I would trust you know of what I am referring ).

Could it be that the contention on this matter is nothing other then missing the used thinking of the word when the creed was formed?

 

[JonC]

This thread has exceeded the number of posts for closure.

Please be advised it will close soon.

The conversations can continue on a new thread if desired.

Thank you.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I say "great Scripture"!!!

But not great enough to interact with Why am I notsurprised?

If we were arguing that Christ was not God-man then the passages would work. But I agree that Juses us [sic] 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.

Well, fortunately, Mark 4:35-41 and the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke are perfectly sufficient to do that.
The Lord Jesus goes to sleep. Why does He sleep? Because He is tired and weary. But 'Do you not know? Have you not heard? [apparently not ] The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary' (Isaiah 53:28). There was a human nature within Christ that could grow tired. It was entirely unaffected by His divine nature.
But then the storm arises and the disciples come to Him in fear. 'Then He arose and rebuked the wind, and said to the waves, "Peace, be still!" And the wind ceased and there was a great calm. Now is that something that human nature can do? Yes or no? Is it something that divine nature can do? Yes, bur entirely unaffected by human nature. 'O God of our salvation........You who still the noise of the seas, the noise of the waves....' (Psalms 65:5-7; c.f. Psalms 89:9).

Thus two separate natures are present in Christ. case proved.

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.

That is priceless!!! Now I know why you are constantly objecting (falsely) that Penal Substitution does not appear before the Reformers. Keep the comments coming! I haven't laughed so much in weeks![/QUOTE]

 

[TCassidy]

Thread closed.