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

[agedman]

The primary problem I have with your assessment is that our body clothes a HUMAN spirit which is inseparable from human nature whereas the body of Christ clothed a Divine preexistent Spirit in addition to clothing a human spirit as part of human nature.

the former is totally human in nature whereas the latter is not but demands two different natures coexisting in one person.​

At no time was the human body of Christ with two spirits. To place Christ as having two separate spirits one divine and one human would require that the human be the fallen spirit, and therefore sinful. That is impossible. For He was "without sin."

This is assuming that you are not talking of the "will" but the eternality of the "living soul" in which each body contains (with or without Christ).

The life (that which was the "living, "I" of the human body) was Devine. "“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the Holy One to be born will be called the Son of God."

Christ did not have dual spirits.

 

[JonC]

That is certainly not my position! I state they can be distinguished and they do exist and again you ignored the Biblical evidence provided in the form of necessary inferences of clearly stated texts.

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

 

[JonC]

You are ignoring the exegetical sound principle of necessary inferences

Yep...no philosophy at all.

 

[JonC]

What I am saying is that philosophy is as much a part of your presentation as you accuse it to be of others.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

well, Gentlemen I leave you in your confusion.

 

[The Archangel]

I think your first task is to prove Christ possessed two natures. Can you do this apart from philosophy? If so, it'd be great.

Well, no. By asking The Biblicist to make his claim, you are committing a logical fallacy. If you are going to deny 1500+ years of Christian orthodoxy, the onus is on you, not The Biblicist, to say why the Chalcedonian definition of Christology should be ignored.

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

Perhaps it would be best to look at 2 Corinthians 5 and see if you both need to consider a very slight adjustment into closer agreement.

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).

 

[JonC]

Well, no. By asking The Biblicist to make his claim, you are committing a logical fallacy. If you are going to deny 1500+ years of Christian orthodoxy, the onus is on you, not The Biblicist, to say why the Chalcedonian definition of Christology should be ignored.

The Archangel

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.

 

[JonC]

well, Gentlemen I leave you in your confusion.

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

 

[agedman]

Well, no. By asking The Biblicist to make his claim, you are committing a logical fallacy. If you are going to deny 1500+ years of Christian orthodoxy, the onus is on you, not The Biblicist, to say why the Chalcedonian definition of Christology should be ignored.

The Archangel

Correct me if I am wrong (for I am going on memory) but Biblicist would contend that the "nature" included all that was fallen human: including soul, body, will, spirit... and all of what comprises a fallen spiritual being.

However, such (again if I recall) was not the original Chalcedonian thinking. Rather, the Calcedonian thinking was all that encapsulated human body as a human body (blood, mind, bones, intestines, lungs...) was inseparably linked to all that comprised the God (for God is spirit). The human spirit was what God breathed into Adam, and therefore became the fallen human spirit and was NOT part of that considered the body taken on by Christ. Did not the Calcddonians state Christ was perfect in manhood. Perfect being taken as complete, no missing parts such as fingers and toes, grasp reflex intact, lungs working, startle and swallow reflexes working - such things as the doctor checks for at the time of a birth?

Therefore, there was no "fallen nature" in Christ. He was as the first Adam prior to the fall, completely human with no fallen nature and He was completely Devine in every essence of that which comprised God.

As the angel expressed to Mary, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God."

 

[agedman]

well, Gentlemen I leave you in your confusion.

That you wish to consider me confused may not be far from what my wife would agree.

I am more often forgetful, and most will think of me at times as aimlessly confused.

Yet, I have been trying to figure out just how the contention on this thread had not resolved to Scriptures.

Perhaps it is that when you consider the nature of Christ, you also would consider that He took on a post fall human nature.

That is just inaccurate. He was born Holy. There was no unholiness in which he had to repudiate, conquer or in some manner overcome. That is failed thinking.

Rather, Christ came as a Pre-fall Adam. One who remained in that condition by the same choices given to the first Adam who failed.

The Christ had no two natures.

 

[JonC]

That you wish to consider me confused may not be far from what my wife would agree.

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.

 

[The Archangel]

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.

Saying you reject Chalcedon is one thing; proving the creed wrong is an entirely different exercise you have yet to engage in.

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.

You have not yet proven that "it is wrong to present Christ as possessing two natures."

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.

The implication that I don't "argue from the standpoint that Scripture is the final authority" is quite plain. Again, you demonstrate a constant inability to argue the issue rather than insult the person. Since Chalcedonian Christology has been the orthodox definition for 1500 years--and since you have not demonstrated any expertise on the matter and since you yourself are not the authority on Christology, you must demonstrate Chalcedon to be wrong scripturally. The so-called Monty-Python-esque defense here simply will not do.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Correct me if I am wrong (for I am going on memory) but Biblicist would contend that the "nature" included all that was fallen human: including soul, body, will, spirit... and all of what comprises a fallen spiritual being.

However, such (again if I recall) was not the original Chalcedonian thinking. Rather, the Calcedonian thinking was all that encapsulated human body as a human body (blood, mind, bones, intestines, lungs...) was inseparably linked to all that comprised the God (for God is spirit). The human spirit was what God breathed into Adam, and therefore became the fallen human spirit and was NOT part of that considered the body taken on by Christ. Did not the Calcddonians state Christ was perfect in manhood. Perfect being taken as complete, no missing parts such as fingers and toes, grasp reflex intact, lungs working, startle and swallow reflexes working - such things as the doctor checks for at the time of a birth?

Therefore, there was no "fallen nature" in Christ. He was as the first Adam prior to the fall, completely human with no fallen nature and He was completely Devine in every essence of that which comprised God.

As the angel expressed to Mary, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God."

I don't know what The Biblicist would affirm or deny. Your other questions are outside the scope of my interests here. Suffice it to say that Chalcedon defines Christ as One Person; two natures. The creed, as with nearly all the ones of that era, were in response to Christological heresies like Nestorianism and Apollinarianism.

Here is the Chalcedonian creed itself:

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.​

The Archangel

 

[JonC]

Saying you reject Chalcedon is one thing; proving the creed wrong is an entirely different exercise you have yet to engage in.
You have not yet proven that "it is wrong to present Christ as possessing two natures."

argumentum ad verecundiam

The implication that I don't "argue from the standpoint that Scripture is the final authority" is quite plain.

Argumentum ad misericordiam,

The implication that I don't "argue from the standpoint that Scripture is the final authority" is quite plain.

Non sequitur

Again, you demonstrate a constant inability to argue the issue rather than insult the person.

Ad Honinem

Since Chalcedonian Christology has been the orthodox definition for 1500 years--and since you have not demonstrated any expertise on the matter

Argumentum Ad Traditionem

since you yourself are not the authority on Christology, you must demonstrate Chalcedon to be wrong scripturally.

Au contraire

The so-called Monty-Python-esque defense here simply will not do.

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

 

[JonC]

Saying you reject Chalcedon is one thing; proving the creed wrong is an entirely different exercise you have yet to engage in.

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

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Ad hominem is often a coping mechanism, nothing more.

You would know. Pots and kettles again.

 

[JonC]

You would know. Pots and kettles again.

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

Welcome to the Cookery Club.

 

[JonC]

I don't know what The Biblicist would affirm or deny. Your other questions are outside the scope of my interests here. Suffice it to say that Chalcedon defines Christ as One Person; two natures. The creed, as with nearly all the ones of that era, were in response to Christological heresies like Nestorianism and Apollinarianism.

Here is the Chalcedonian creed itself:

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.​

The Archangel

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.

 

[37818]

The passage I have been advocating is Paul speaking of all the fullness of Deity dwelling in
bodily form in Christ (this is post resurrection).

Colossians 1:18-19.