The Chalcedonian Creed: Fact, Fiction, or Something Between?

[JonC]

The language here is problematic. Christ doesn't simply reveal God; He is God. Christ is not, however, the sum-total of God's self-revelation. If Christ is the sum-total of God's self-revelation, then we have a dichotomy between Jesus and Scripture, which cannot be.

God reveals Himself in the Old Testament--especially to Moses. It is hard to make the case that Moses is speaking with the Son (with the warning about seeing God's face) since Peter didn't die seeing Jesus' transfigured face.



The issue isn't seeing God, per se. People did that as seen here:

[9] Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, [10] and they saw the God of Israel. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. [11] And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank. (Exodus 24:9–11 ESV)
​

The issue, of course, seems to be seeing God's face. Moses does see God's glory, the "afterglow," so to speak. It is of note that the only thing described by Moses is what was under God's feet, suggesting that they were face-down before Him.

"Seeing" God is clearly an allusion to seeing Him in His fullness.



This is a Red Herring, really. It avoids the question I asked earlier: If God tells Moses, "no one can see my face and live" and if that was Jesus (Logos, to use your word) and if during His earthly life Jesus was transfigured before Peter (among others), then why didn't Peter die when he saw His transfigured face?

What is more, the Father does speak audibly in both the Old and New Testaments. He speaks at the aforementioned baptism of Jesus and He spoke audibly to all Israel at Mt. Sinai. So, there's no change of operation.

The Archangel

I understand the objection. And I agree that if my intent was that Christ only reveals God it would be an issue. But my comments have been that Jesus is no less God than God.

I don't see the language itself problematic.

From Matthew 11:27
no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him

 

[JonC]

You are bordering on a shameful accusation here--that I am arguing Jesus did not exist before the incarnation. You know, I find it funny that you tell @Martin Marprelate not to "lie" about you, but you seem to feel all the freedom in the world to do so with me, but I digress.

The purpose of John's prologue is to demonstrate the eternality of the Son. But, that's not how you started your argument, is it? You cited John 1:18 to support the idea that the Son was the one Abraham, Moses, etc. saw in the Old Testament. It is outside the scope of John's argument to say which person of the Trinity was seen by Abraham. What is more, the usage of the word "seen" is interesting as it may refer to more than just beholding with they eyes.

As I stated earlier, there is some argument to be made that the Son is present at times in the Old Testament. But, it is quite a far stretch to say that every appearance of God in the Old Testament is the Son.

The Archangel

I am not exactly sure what accusations you think I may be boarding. You suggested John may not have intended his words in John 1 as I took them. The only statement I claimed regarding John 1 is that the prologue teaches that “Jesus existed prior to the Incarnation”. That was it. So the fault you find with my use of John 1 is really very limited in scope as I used it for only that one point.

By your reply I take it you misspoke. That's something we all do at times.

When it comes to the Word I think you will also find, by reading my posts, that I stated there are times when the God acts in such a way that it cannot be the Logos as the second Person of the Trinity. We agree there.

When Genesis speaks of Jehovah as appearing to Abraham on the plain I actually believe this is literal (that He appeared, literally, to Abraham). So my answer to your question remains. I believe this to be the second Person of the Trinity.

To be fair, I had never considered the passage to indicate that Jehovah "appeared" in such as way as not to literally be seen. I am not sure that this position can be sustained from the text. Can you provide more detail to your view of the identity of Jehovah in Genesis 1:18?

We may simply disagree. There is room for it.

 

[Yeshua1]

No. I quoted Paul - "all the fullness of God dwells in Him bodily" and the author of Hebrews that He "is the exact representation of His [God's] nature", and Jesus "I and my Father are One.".

I should have clarified those were passages rather than my own words. Sorry.

Jesus and his father are one as in both being God, but Jesus is not the Father though, correct?
And even while on earth, there was also God in heaven, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

I understand you mean well, and are just trying to argue your position. But please be careful with the assumptions and suggestions. I am not lying. I do not “know perfectly well” that you are not disagreeing with Chalcedon and in fact I believe that is EXACTLY what you are doing.:

I believe your view of “nature” does not seem consistent with the Chalcedonian formula. I believe it is a result of postmodernism (which has a tendency to reach back to antiquity, decontextualize ideas only to reinvent them as their own). What I believe you may hold to is not the Chalcedonian Creed but a neo-Calcedonian Creed because your view appears to deny the original by redefining terms.

What I believe you affirm in this neo-Calcedonian view, that Jesus was “God as if he were not man” and “man as if he were not God” is a separation that the Creed sought earnestly to guard against.



Given your misunderstanding in the previous statement (that I was saying one thing while in fact aware of the opposite), I do not doubt you really believe my view that Jesus is no less God than God and no more man than man to be Sabellianism.

Here is where you are wrong – I do believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct Persons of the Trinity. You never bothered to consider how I believed that but instead jumped onto my comment that “all the fulness of God dwells in Christ bodily”. Thay may be your denial of my position but that is not the main part where we differ.

Where I mostly object to your view (and where you fail the Calcedonian standard as I understand the Creed) is that you seem to replace God-man with God + man. You seem to present Jesus as God speaking to the seas to be calm (ignoring, of course, He was in a physical body on a boat using that physical body to utter the words to calm the sea).

So it seems (to me) that you are suggesting Jesus was man as if he were not God and He was God ss if He were not man.

Here is exactly where I stand – If anyone says that Jesus was man is if He were not God then that person has committed heresy. If anyone says that Jesus was God as if He were not man then that person has committed heresy. We can NEVER belittle Christ in order to support our theories or theologies.

Jesus is God and Jesus is man. There is nothing to be taken away from that statement. God-man. As the Creed states – inseparable. Period.

Jesus as both fully God and fully man must have the natures that each would have, correct?
And why the need for the Virgin Birth if he was not with a human nature, so he would not be born a sinner and not touched by Original Sin as all the rest of us were?

 

[JonC]

Jesus and his father are one as in both being God, but Jesus is not the Father though, correct?
And even while on earth, there was also God in heaven, correct?

I believe the Persons of the Trinity are distinct (Father, Son, and Spirit). But there is One God. I would say One God in Three Persons.

Christ prayed "our Father in heaven".

Jesus as both fully God and fully man must have the natures that each would have, correct?

To use your explanation of nature, Jesus was both the "substance" of God and the "substance" of man. He had both "natures", distinct and inseparable.

And why the need for the Virgin Birth if he was not with a human nature, so he would not be born a sinner and not touched by Original Sin as all the rest of us were?

There are several reasons. First, it was prophesied. Second, it was anticipated. The anticapation of a deliverer born of a virgin is even seen in ANE paganism. Third, the Christ was begotten of God.

I do not believe in the idea sin is a genetic condition passed in semen. I believe it a spiritual issue. So I do not put much credibility in the "bypassing" genetic sin theory. I also do not believe in the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe the Persons of the Trinity are distinct (Father, Son, and Spirit). But there is One God. I would say One God in Three Persons.

Christ prayed "our Father in heaven".

To use your explanation of nature, Jesus was both the "substance" of God and the "substance" of man. He had both "natures", distinct and inseparable.
There are several reasons. First, it was prophesied. Second, it was anticipated. The anticapation of a deliverer born of a virgin is even seen in ANE paganism. Third, the Christ was begotten of God.

I do not believe in the idea sin is a genetic condition passed in semen. I believe it a spiritual issue. So I do not put much credibility in the "bypassing" genetic sin theory. I also do not believe in the Immaculate Conception.

Did Jesus have to come as he did though?
All humans save him were born with sin natures, how did He miss having One?

 

[37818]

Did Jesus have to come as he did though?
All humans save him were born with sin natures, how did He miss having One?

If you read Genesis 3:22, what became the sin nature in man was of God's divine nature, being the knowledge of good and evil.


What Jesus received from Adam through His mother was what He brought with Himself as God in the flesh.

So it is written, "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin." (Hebrews 4:15)

 

[JonC]

Did Jesus have to come as he did though?
All humans save him were born with sin natures, how did He miss having One?

I don't know what God had to do or did not have to do. I know what He did.

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't know what God had to do or did not have to do. I know what He did.

Do you deny original Sin, and that due to the fall all humans save Jesus were born as sinners?

 

[Yeshua1]

If you read Genesis 3:22, what became the sin nature in man was of God's divine nature, being the knowledge of good and evil.


What Jesus received from Adam through His mother was what He brought with Himself as God in the flesh.

So it is written, "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin." (Hebrews 4:15)

ALL humans, due to the fall, were born as sinners, except for Jesus...

 

[JonC]

Do you deny original Sin, and that due to the fall all humans save Jesus were born as sinners?

I believe the wages of sin is death, and that death spread to all men because all have sinned, if that answers your question. Insofar as theories about original sin, whether sin is a spiritual or biological issue...start a thread if you want to discuss it. It could prove an interesting topic (it just isn't this topic).

 

[Yeshua1]

I believe the wages of sin is death, and that death spread to all men because all have sinned, if that answers your question. Insofar as theories about original sin, whether sin is a spiritual or biological issue...start a thread if you want to discuss it. It could prove an interesting topic (it just isn't this topic).

Are we born as sinners in our natures, or born clean, and just become sinners when we choose to sin?
Were we affected by the Fall of Adam in our humanity at all?

 

[robycop3]

All creeds are man-made, and if any creed does not comply totally with SCRIPTURE, it's false.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

In the O.P. @JonC wrote:

The Counsel of Chalcedon is important to our understanding of the nature of Christ as he is “truly God and truly man”.

It might be thought that this meant that JonC accepts Chalcedon. However, in the ‘Do our Systems of Thought teach that Jesus is the one true God?’ thread, we read in Post #113:

Christ's nature did not change at all. He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. He did not have two natures.

And in post #117:

What I am saying is I believe the two natures of Christ (a human nature and a divine nature) did not exist separately or combined. I believe He did not have two natures.

In post #119, @The Archangel commented:

That statement certainly runs afoul of Chalcedon.

To which JonC replied (Post #123):

I agree. Not that I see them as unimportant, but I am not indebted to these philosophies. I believe we can understand things many ways.

Then in response to @The Biblicist (post #122), he wrote:

I don't believe you are getting what I am saying. I believe the whole philosophy is wrong. I can't argue how something works if I believe that something a fiction expanded by Catholic dogma.

I do not believe Jesus had two natures - so I don't believe they existed separately or as some hybrid.

And a little later in post #148:

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.

And then in post #159:

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.

The 'history lesson' is wrong in several respects, chiefly because Chalcedon is the basis for most Protestant Confessions, including the Baptist 1689.

Now here is the Creed as written out by @JonC in the O.P. Emphases mine:

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 soul and body; consubstantial 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 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 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 Chalcedon Creed established that Christ is one Person in two natures: one hypostasis in two physeis, ' the distinction of natures by no means taken away by the union.' This is what @The Archangel, @The Biblicist and myself have been arguing. So let us be quite clear: it is @JonC who is in disagreement with Chalcedon, and indeed with orthodox Christianity down the ages. Lest there be any doubt of this, here is the 1689 Confession 8:2-3, emphases mine:

2._____ The Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God, the brightness of the Father's glory, of one substance and equal with him who made the world, who upholdeth and governeth all things he hath made, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the Holy Spirit coming down upon her: and the power of the Most High overshadowing her; and so was made of a woman of the tribe of Judah, of the seed of Abraham and David according to the Scriptures; so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion; which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man.
( John 1:14; Galatians 4;4; Romans 8:3; Hebrews 2:14, 16, 17; Hebrews 4:15; Matthew 1:22, 23; Luke 1:27, 31, 35; Romans 9:5; 1 Timothy 2:5 )

3._____ The Lord Jesus, in his human nature thus united to the divine, in the person of the Son, was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure, having in Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell, to the end that being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, he might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of mediator and surety; which office he took not upon himself, but was thereunto called by his Father; who also put all power and judgement in his hand, and gave him commandment to execute the same.
( Psalms 45:7; Acts 10:38; John 3:34; Colossians 2:3; Colossians 1:19; Hebrews 7:26; John 1:14; Hebrews 7:22; Hebrews 5:5; John 5:22, 27; Matthew 28:18; Acts 2:36 )

 

[Martin Marprelate]

1. When the Lord Jesus came on board the boat, He was tired and weary so He went to sleep (Mark 4:35ff).
2. God does not get tired or weary (Isaiah 40:28)
3. However we all know that Isaiah is speaking of God as spirit.
4. But the Logos became flesh, so God could tire physically (in a body)
5. Therefore Jesus as God-man grew weary.

Here @JonC claims that God can 'tire physically,' contra Isaiah 40:28, and confuses the separation of the two natures of Christ-- His human nature impacting upon His divine nature, so that He becomes 'less God than God.'

 

[JonC]

In the O.P. @JonC wrote:

It might be thought that this meant that JonC accepts Chalcedon. However, in the ‘Do our Systems of Thought teach that Jesus is the one true God?’ thread, we read in Post #113:


And in post #117:

In post #119, @The Archangel commented:

To which JonC replied (Post #123):

Then in response to @The Biblicist (post #122), he wrote:

And a little later in post #148:

And then in post #159:

The 'history lesson' is wrong in several respects, chiefly because Chalcedon is the basis for most Protestant Confessions, including the Baptist 1689.

Now here is the Creed as written out by @JonC in the O.P. Emphases mine:

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 soul and body; consubstantial 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 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 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 Chalcedon Creed established that Christ is one Person in two natures: one hypostasis in two physeis, ' the distinction of natures by no means taken away by the union.' This is what @The Archangel, @The Biblicist and myself have been arguing. So let us be quite clear: it is @JonC who is in disagreement with Chalcedon, and indeed with orthodox Christianity down the ages. Lest there be any doubt of this, here is the 1689 Confession 8:2-3, emphases mine:

2._____ The Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God, the brightness of the Father's glory, of one substance and equal with him who made the world, who upholdeth and governeth all things he hath made, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the Holy Spirit coming down upon her: and the power of the Most High overshadowing her; and so was made of a woman of the tribe of Judah, of the seed of Abraham and David according to the Scriptures; so that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion; which person is very God and very man, yet one Christ, the only mediator between God and man.
( John 1:14; Galatians 4;4; Romans 8:3; Hebrews 2:14, 16, 17; Hebrews 4:15; Matthew 1:22, 23; Luke 1:27, 31, 35; Romans 9:5; 1 Timothy 2:5 )

3._____ The Lord Jesus, in his human nature thus united to the divine, in the person of the Son, was sanctified and anointed with the Holy Spirit above measure, having in Him all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge; in whom it pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell, to the end that being holy, harmless, undefiled, and full of grace and truth, he might be thoroughly furnished to execute the office of mediator and surety; which office he took not upon himself, but was thereunto called by his Father; who also put all power and judgement in his hand, and gave him commandment to execute the same.
( Psalms 45:7; Acts 10:38; John 3:34; Colossians 2:3; Colossians 1:19; Hebrews 7:26; John 1:14; Hebrews 7:22; Hebrews 5:5; John 5:22, 27; Matthew 28:18; Acts 2:36 )

I think it is obvious with my words in the exact same thread that I do not hold the position you would twist me into holding. If you recall (or look) I also said that I affirm the Creed insofar as I define "nature". I also said that I believed you were substituting the definition of "person" for "nature".

I also stated on that thread that I had overstated my position in rejecting what had been made of the "orthodox" view. The Creed is not an authority for me. But I believe it correct as a whole (I believe your removal of "inseparable" leans towards heresy).

That said, I still prefer the biblical use of "nature" in that Jesus is the exact representation of God's nature (singular). But I can work with the Creeds use of divinity and humanity as "nature" (I can't work with your use of "persons").

That is one danger of lifting quotes across threads. Sometimes your claims prove unfaithful to what was actually said simply because you removed them from their own context.

I believe that Jesus had two natures (divinity and humanity) in one Person. I believe these natures distinct yet inseparable. I cannot say Jesus experienced tiredness in His human nature but not His divine nature for two reasons. First, I believe these distinct natures are inseparable. Jesus becoming weary is an example of His humanity. But that does not mean Jesus experienced this apart from His divine nature. Second, we do not experience things or act in our nature. Experience and action are qualities of "person", not "nature". This is why I believe you may have made a serious error in claiming to accept the Creed as a whole.

Here @JonC claims that God can 'tire physically,' contra Isaiah 40:28, and confuses the separation of the two natures of Christ-- His human nature impacting upon His divine nature, so that He becomes 'less God than God.'

I think I see your confusion. You seem to think that I am speaking of God as tiring in a way that is not a human weariness. But that is not true. We all know that God is spirit. But I believe that God became a human being. I believe "the Word became flesh" is literal. I believe that God not only experienced physical weariness but that God also experienced a physical death (a human death).

You do believe that God became flesh....right? Even though the Bible says that God is spirit and is not man?

Even though your arguments would suggest otherwise, I think you do.

 

[The Archangel]

I am not exactly sure what accusations you think I may be boarding. You suggested John may not have intended his words in John 1 as I took them. The only statement I claimed regarding John 1 is that the prologue teaches that “Jesus existed prior to the Incarnation”. That was it. So the fault you find with my use of John 1 is really very limited in scope as I used it for only that one point.

The point I was making, that you are missing or ignoring completely, is that you cited John 1:18 as a proof that the Logos was the one who appeared to people, like Abraham and Moses, in the Old Testament. I stated your point--that the Logos met with Moses and Abraham--was outside the scope of John's argument in his prologue. You stated you only considered John's prologue to affirm the eternality of Christ. I pointed out you didn't use the passage that way in your initial argument. Then, you launched into a paragraph insinuating that I was denying the eternality of Christ. Nothing could be further from the truth. That is the accusation I spoke of.

By your reply I take it you misspoke. That's something we all do at times.

I did not misspeak. And, of course, the error in understanding couldn't be with you...

When it comes to the Word I think you will also find, by reading my posts, that I stated there are times when the God acts in such a way that it cannot be the Logos as the second Person of the Trinity. We agree there.

I do not recall you arguing this. I, however, did.

When Genesis speaks of Jehovah as appearing to Abraham on the plain I actually believe this is literal (that He appeared, literally, to Abraham). So my answer to your question remains. I believe this to be the second Person of the Trinity.

To be fair, I had never considered the passage to indicate that Jehovah "appeared" in such as way as not to literally be seen. I am not sure that this position can be sustained from the text. Can you provide more detail to your view of the identity of Jehovah in Genesis 1:18?

We may simply disagree. There is room for it.

Now, I'm not disagreeing that it is likely the pre-incarnate Christ that appears to Abraham in Genesis. However, that appearance is not the one I've been asking you about. You've been engaging in the classic Red Herring and you still haven't answered my question: If God tells Moses, "no one can see my face and live" and if that was Jesus (Logos, to use your word) and if during His earthly life Jesus was transfigured before Peter (among others), then why didn't Peter die when he saw His transfigured face?

The Archangel

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six hour Warning

This thread will be closed sometime after 7:15 AM Pacific.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I think it is obvious with my words in the exact same thread that I do not hold the position you would twist me into holding. If you recall (or look) I also said that I affirm the Creed insofar as I define "nature". I also said that I believed you were substituting the definition of "person" for "nature".

I am using the translation of the Creed that you copied out in the O.P. If you believe that it is incorrect, why did you use it? Just read it again; it is perfectly clear. One Person in two natures.

I also stated on that thread that I had overstated my position in rejecting what had been made of the "orthodox" view. The Creed is not an authority for me. But I believe it correct as a whole (I believe your removal of "inseparable" leans towards heresy).

Now where have I ever removed 'inseparable'? If I had, it would indeed have been a form of Nestorianism, but of course I never have and so your allegation is false. What I do say is that you cannot take the word 'inseparable' and bounce up and down on it like a trampoline without taking into account the other words in the Creed. The Person of Christ cannot be separated into two as Nestorius sought to do, but He has a human and a divine nature. As man, He could be in only one place at a time (John 11:6, 15) but as God He was in heaven at the same time He was on earth (John 3:13), but it is the same Son of Man. If you say that as God He could only be in one place at a time, you have made Christ less God than God.

That said, I still prefer the biblical use of "nature" in that Jesus is the exact representation of God's nature (singular). But I can work with the Creeds use of divinity and humanity as "nature" (I can't work with your use of "persons").

Not my use, but the usage of Chalcedon and all the Protestant confessions that I am aware of. Are you possibly confusing the ousia of Nicea with the physeis of Chalcedon?

 

[JonC]

The point I was making, that you are missing or ignoring completely, is that you cited John 1:18 as a proof that the Logos was the one who appeared to people, like Abraham and Moses, in the Old Testament. I stated your point--that the Logos met with Moses and Abraham--was outside the scope of John's argument in his prologue. You stated you only considered John's prologue to affirm the eternality of Christ. I pointed out you didn't use the passage that way in your initial argument. Then, you launched into a paragraph insinuating that I was denying the eternality of Christ. Nothing could be further from the truth. That is the accusation I spoke of.



I did not misspeak. And, of course, the error in understanding couldn't be with you...

I do not recall you arguing this. I, however, did.

Now, I'm not disagreeing that it is likely the pre-incarnate Christ that appears to Abraham in Genesis. However, that appearance is not the one I've been asking you about. You've been engaging in the classic Red Herring and you still haven't answered my question: If God tells Moses, "no one can see my face and live" and if that was Jesus (Logos, to use your word) and if during His earthly life Jesus was transfigured before Peter (among others), then why didn't Peter die when he saw His transfigured face?
The Archangel

Good morning Archangel.

I understand that you may respond without recalling exactly what I had said (I referred to Christ’s baptism). That’s fine. We all make mistakes at times. But I am not going to take time at length to discuss the errors you made as you attempted to present my view. My experience is that you often find yourself emotionally tied to these dialogues so I'll just cut to the chase.

My point is that the all the fullness of God dwells in Christ bodily. We know God only through Christ. And I believe that the Old Testament saints also knew God only through the Word. I believe that God is immutable and the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity is not something that changes. I believe that the Old Testament Promise was always the Word becoming flesh, i.e., "God with us". And I believe the the Old Testament foreshadowed this not only in prophetic word but also in God interacting with mankind.

Perhaps our disagreement is in my affirmation that the Word is eternally begotten. If this is something you reject (which would explain a lot) then we can examine this on the thread concerning that topic.

We can disagree on these things without being enemies. You do know this, right?