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

Do you beleive "the Father became flesh and dwelt among us"?
Do you beleive "the Spirit became flesh and dwelt among us"?
Do you believe "the Godhead (Father, Son and Spirit) became flesh and dwelt among us?

If so, then why does the bible use seperative language that only includes the Son, the Word becoming flesh if the entire Godhead became flesh?

 

Ok, then explain how the humanity of Jesus born of a virgin Mary in Bethlehem relates to the nature of God by incarnation so that neither loses its distinctive nature? So that humanity cease to be humanity and becomes deity or deity ceases to be deity but becomes humanity or a totally new nature comes into existence as a hybrid God/human nature?

 

Ok, so the term Godhead is not inclusive of the three persons but only the God nature or the pleroma of attributes that make God to be God.

 

Ok, but you never responded to my following questions:

Ok, then explain how the humanity of Jesus born of a virgin Mary in Bethlehem relates to the nature of God by incarnation so that neither loses its distinctive nature? So that humanity cease to be humanity and becomes deity or deity ceases to be deity but becomes humanity or a totally new nature comes into existence as a hybrid God/human nature? The answers would speak directly to the question or assertion of the OP would it not?

 

Diety did not sin, humanity sinned. Hence, the Father's wrath is not directed or in response to the sin of deity but directed toward and in response to the sin by humanity. Isn't the purpose of the incarnation to provide a sacrifice suitable to the nature of the beings that sinned? If that sacrifice does not satisfy God's just wrath toward sin and sinful humanity then what does? God's wrath was not directed toward the person of the lamb as it was without blemish but toward what it legally represented when presented on the altar. God's wrath is not against His Son as His son was without blemish but toward what he legally represented when presented on the cross - our sins.

 

Nothing to argue here.

The issue is not about our human nature or man in general or non-preexistent entities as the new birth and glorification certainly changes us. The issue is about the human nature of Christ, did it change or cease being human nature when the incarnation occurred? Is there a continuing co-existence of humanity with deity without one becoming the other or mixing with the other so that some kind of hybrid between natures occur?

 

Do you believe that Deity could atone for sin or that deity had to "prepare a body" and take upon himself a nature foreign, distinct and separate from his eternal nature as God? If so, then why do you object the continuation of that logic with the natural conclusion that his deity did not provide atonement but it was provided in the adopted nature?

 

You are either not understanding my question or avoiding it. Did the preexistent divine nature upon incarnation merge with human nature or did both natures remain distinctly different, one distinctively divine with all divine attributes and one distinctively human with all human attributes (besides the sin principle) both co-existing in one Person but without ceasing to be what they are by nature?

 

So, God's nature did not take upon human nature as a hybrid nature? So, human nature taken on by Christ did not merge with the divine nature but both natures remained distinct but coexistent in one person??

How can it be flawed when the divine nature is unable to provide a sin offering for man? if it is necessary to take upon a human nature to provide that atonement does it no naturally lead to the conclusion that it was his human nature that provided the atonement without denying the coexistent union with the divine nature?

 

How can it be a "back door" to the Atonement when deity cannot provide atonement but only humanity can??? Rather than a "back door" it becomes the only possible avenue to achieve that goal. Neither does it deny Christ made the atonement or that diety is co-existent with humanity in one Person. Satisfaction is not found in His deity but in his humanity because deity has no legal libability with regard to sin or sinners nor could provide any legal basis for atonement in behalf of humanity.

It is not inconsistent with the coexistent natures found in one person to distinguish between humanity that is mutable and impotent in contrast to his deity that is immutable and omnipotent because the Scriptures declare both equally.

 

That statement certainly runs afoul of Chalcedon.

ETA: As does this:

The Archangel

 

That is like saying ice is neither cold or hot or both. The scriptures say he "took upon himself" which is the formula for addition not non-distinction as your position demands.