The Pre-incarnate Christ

[JonC]

So are the ecumenical creeds true? Chalcedon says Christ is God in one person with two natures. One fully human and one fully divine. I can't imagine how you and others would find this so challenging. So taxing to run into a discussion of this length.

Do you believe that these two natures are "inseparable" while not being "confused" (a mixture)?

In other words, do you agree with the creeds that Christ is fully God and fully man (not God with a human nature, not man with a divine nature but two natures inseparable and without confusion)?

Your post seems to reject both the Athanasian Creed by rejecting that Christ is fully human and perhaps even the Chalcedonian Creed by rejecting that these natures are inseparable (you seem to say that Christ is not fully human but is Divine with a human nature added, which would contradict not only Scripture but also both creeds).

I am just asking for clarification. Are you comfortable at least with saying that Jesus is fully human and fully God?

 

[JonC]

Let me clarify, @1689Dave ,

I am not Catholic so I do not view the creeds as the foundation of our faith. I do not care if one adheres to the creeds. BUT it does matter if people reject what at least the Athanasian Creed and Chalcedonian Creed have in common - and that is a basic doctrine of the Trinity (and here as it applies to Christ). If someone rejects that Jesus is fully human and fully God then they reject not only that the Word became flesh but they reject both of these creeds. The former, not the latter, would be my primary concern.

I am simply asking a yes or no question. Do you believe that Jesus is fully man and fully God - one person with two "natures", inseparable yet with no "mixture" - not more man than man, not less God than God.

You seem to be trying to reinvent the wheel. I am just asking if you agree if the wheel is round. Do you believe that Jesus is fully God and fully man?

 

[37818]

. . . our Lord Jesus Christ . . . .

Regardless of your opinion it is my firm understanding "Lord" in the phrase "our Lord Jesus Christ," refers to Jesus in His humanity (Matthew 22:45) and "Christ" in that phrase refers to His deity (Ephesians 5:5). And that Greek use of the term "Lord" in the NT is a whole study in of itself. The Greek term "Lord" can indeed refer to Jehovah God, such as in Romans 10:13.

Paul frequently refers to Jesus as `Lord' in such a way as to identify him as, or equate him with, the Lord (Jehovah) of the Old Testament....

My point being more often the Apostle's use of the term "Lord" to Jesus refers to His humanity not to His deity. Romans 10:9 refers to Jesus in His humanity. This Lordship is according to Psalms 110:1, Matthew 22:43-45.

 

[37818]

Jesus returns with the angel Michael, they are 2 seperate beings!

That is an interpretation. (I agree with). The text does not explicitly say that (1 Thessalonians 4:16).

 

[37818]

What you are missing is the sum total of Christ. In Christ, the man, dwelt the trinity who spoke through the second person the eternal Son. He did not have a human person which is Nestorianism, condemned as heresy a couple of times and is popular today in several cults.

You are saying this. I never made anys such claim that Jesus was two persons.

 

[37818]

The trinity does not change but took on sinless human nature in his virgin birth. That is, the Trinity did not die on the cross, only the sacrificial body died and returned to life for the redemption of the elect.

What most Christians fail to know, Jesus' body did not die unitil after the atonement was completed, as stated in John 19:28, ". . . Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, . . ."

 

[37818]

Stick with the Symbol of Chalcedon for the precision of the doctrine.

Never. I will not take other men's interreations over the pure word of God.

 

[1689Dave]

Never. I will not take other men's interreations over the pure word of God.

Really... does this mean you are wrong since they are right? Do you agree with them? The cult books don't think too highly of you if you do not.

 

[1689Dave]

What most Christians fail to know, Jesus' body did not die unitil after the atonement was completed, as stated in John 19:28, ". . . Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, . . ."

So not one drop of blood fell to the ground when they removed him from the cross?

 

[1689Dave]

You are saying this. I never made anys such claim that Jesus was two persons.

That's good.

 

[1689Dave]

Let me clarify, @1689Dave ,

I am not Catholic so I do not view the creeds as the foundation of our faith. I do not care if one adheres to the creeds. BUT it does matter if people reject what at least the Athanasian Creed and Chalcedonian Creed have in common - and that is a basic doctrine of the Trinity (and here as it applies to Christ). If someone rejects that Jesus is fully human and fully God then they reject not only that the Word became flesh but they reject both of these creeds. The former, not the latter, would be my primary concern.

I am simply asking a yes or no question. Do you believe that Jesus is fully man and fully God - one person with two "natures", inseparable yet with no "mixture" - not more man than man, not less God than God.

You seem to be trying to reinvent the wheel. I am just asking if you agree if the wheel is round. Do you believe that Jesus is fully God and fully man?

So if the creeds are true, shouldn't you encourage their teaching benefits instead of trying to discount them?

 

[1689Dave]

Do you believe that these two natures are "inseparable" while not being "confused" (a mixture)?

In other words, do you agree with the creeds that Christ is fully God and fully man (not God with a human nature, not man with a divine nature but two natures inseparable and without confusion)?

Your post seems to reject both the Athanasian Creed by rejecting that Christ is fully human and perhaps even the Chalcedonian Creed by rejecting that these natures are inseparable (you seem to say that Christ is not fully human but is Divine with a human nature added, which would contradict not only Scripture but also both creeds).

I am just asking for clarification. Are you comfortable at least with saying that Jesus is fully human and fully God?

I stick to the creeds.

 

[JonC]

I stick to the creeds.

That is what you say, but your posts call this into question. I can say that I only type in German but if I am typing in English my actions kinda betray my words.

I will, however, accept your statement as a declaration that you do indeed believe that Christ is fully man and fully God, one Person, two inseparable yet distinct natures, not more than man in his humanity nor less than God in His divinity.

A simple "yes" would have worked when I quoted the Athanisian Creed and asked you if you believed it correct.

 

[JonC]

So if the creeds are true, shouldn't you encourage their teaching benefits instead of trying to discount them?

No. I am not creedal (I do not believe that creeds are equal to God's Word).

What I do teach, and what the Creeds do teach, is that Christ is fully God and Fully man. But I prefer to lean on Scripture rather than Catholic creeds for support. The Gospel of John is one example of proof that Christ is fully God and fully man and I prefer to rest in God's Word.

 

[Yeshua1]

Jesus Christ is the NT name for the Trinity.
“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” Colossians 2:9 (NCPB)

Jesus was/is JUST God the Son!

 

[Yeshua1]

Is the trinity?

No, ONLY the Son became Jesus!

 

[Yeshua1]

Regardless of your opinion it is my firm understanding "Lord" in the phrase "our Lord Jesus Christ," refers to Jesus in His humanity (Matthew 22:45) and "Christ" in that phrase refers to His deity (Ephesians 5:5). And that Greek use of the term "Lord" in the NT is a whole study in of itself. The Greek term "Lord" can indeed refer to Jehovah God, such as in Romans 10:13.
My point being more often the Apostle's use of the term "Lord" to Jesus refers to His humanity not to His deity. Romans 10:9 refers to Jesus in His humanity. This Lordship is according to Psalms 110:1, Matthew 22:43-45.

Paul use of the title Lord was to indicate that He is the same as Yahweh of the OT!

 

[Yeshua1]

No. I am not creedal (I do not believe that creeds are equal to God's Word).

What I do teach, and what the Creeds do teach, is that Christ is fully God and Fully man. But I prefer to lean on Scripture rather than Catholic creeds for support. The Gospel of John is one example of proof that Christ is fully God and fully man and I prefer to rest in God's Word.

I am unsure what Jesus being the name of the trinity and being the trinity means, would that not sound like Jesus only?

 

[Yeshua1]

I stick to the creeds.

Over the scriptures?

 

[Yeshua1]

So if the creeds are true, shouldn't you encourage their teaching benefits instead of trying to discount them?

well. were they or scriptures inspired?