Featured The Two Natures of Christ

I would disagree on the words “inside Christ”.

The nature of the body is to have cycles of sleep, hunger, thirst,...

But they are not particularly or even peculiar to “human nature”; rather such is constant with all life forms.

What in modern times we associate with nature, the ancients viewed as endowments.

So, the intangibles such a intellect, skillful ness, talent, ... were considered endowments or gifts.

For example: when the construction of the tabernacle was to begin, Moses was told to seek certain, and even given the name of one to use. The nature of these folks was no different than any other, but the endowment of gift was remarkable.

The Scriptures state that humans were made in the image and likeness of God.

Paul states that Christ, “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.”

That is as John states, “ 14And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Sond from the Father, full of grace and truth.“

And later in life, John wrote, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life...”

Therefore, the nature of humankind was that which is distinguishing humans from other life forms.

Because sin of the first Adam marred the image of God, the the Second Adam was formed “as a servant” but also had the fullness of God. Not two minds but one. Not two wills but one, not two intellects, two sets of endowments butone...

It is not Scriptural to place the “holy one” as other than that first Adam prior to the fall. Christ is God made in the image (the physical attributes) of man.

 

This is the crux of why I do not that Christ was controlled or had to subjugate his the divine.

The first Adam had no such conflict prior to the fall.

There was no battle of the wills of flesh versus Devine in the Garden no avoidance but total submission displayed. Of course the question was ask, “if it be your will...” but that does not conform to some timidity or avoidance desire. It did speak to others that the crucifixion was God’s imperative as well as the resurrection.

One must not relegate “The Holy One” to less then Holy.

 

By having two completely separate natures including “personhood” (wills, thoughts, emotions....) it cannot be consistent with the hypostatic union. This is were some carry the “two natures” to the extreme, and inconsistent with aspects of early Greek influenced philosophy.

For example 700 years before chalcedonian creed was Plato. In simple terms he presented good human nature as the physical lived out in introspection (self examination).


Paul stated, “...examine yourselves ....”. There has always been the physical and the spiritual understood as two separate but united in the humanhood of how God created us all.

The Greek thinking was that the examination, the intellectual exercising, was not the human nature (the physical), but the determination of how good the human nature (the physical) was living or the value of the nature (the physical).

Again by recal which is at best frail, the word “physis” from which we get “physical” and was used by pre -chalcedonian creed teaching rather than “natura” (nature’s). Modern folks seem to smush the two into a single unit.


It is typically understood that politics and power struggles were the greater part of the influencers of the chalcedonian creed, which is why I hold it loosely and rely more toward the light of the earlier teaching of the incarnation rather than how some have expressed the two “natures” in some posts.
.

To put it into terms of the typical modern thinker, the rejection of the Chacedonian creed’s esteem is not disputing the earlier teaching of the union of 100% human physical body to 100% the Word. “The Word became flesh...” is therefore held in higher regard (imo). This was the teaching from Antioch, and the more closely aligned with conservative or literal rendering from Scriptures.

In contrast to the Antioch teaching (which was and is particular about preciseness - the Antioch school of thinking on matters of Christology was dominate from the time of the apostles until the chalcedonian creed) of the Scriptures, the chalcedonian creed power play folks (who were aligned more toward the Alexandrian school) ended up splitting the church.

Btw, the earliest use of the word “trinity” comes from a work by Theophilus a leader of the Antioc School in the second century. This is not the Theophilus that Luke addressed his writing, nor the Theophulis of the 400’s.

Enough history on with the thread!

Isn’t history boring?

 

In the confession, I have not ever been comfortable with the words "...common infirmities thereof...".

Infirmities come from the fallen estate of the human condition, and Christ was not a fallen creation, but as the first Adam without infirmities. Again, the Lord Jesus Christ pronounced to may as "the Holy One."

That said, the "Chalcedonian creed" was NOT the first to present, " ...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."

What was prior to the Chalcedonian creed was the same thinking, but in terms of the FLESH as the Scriptures state. "...taking the form of man..." as Philippians 2 states, "...a body you prepared for me...: as Psalms 40 states, "...the Word became flesh..." as John states.

What some want is to insert personality, intellect, thinking, things which the flesh have available, but not particular or peculiar to the flesh. The flesh consists of blood, bones, innards, that which as John states can be touched, handled, seen,...

What I think some desire is to place the endowment of God (intellect, personality, skill, ...) as part of the human nature and not as gifts from God.

We are all created equal in that we all have a flesh body, but we are not all equally endowed by the creator with the same skill sets, the same intellectual ability, the same personality.

To even consider that the Christ had two mind sets, to personalities, two skill sets, ... is NOT what was taught by the earliest accounts of the church.

Rather, the earliest hypostatic union taught was that of the 100% human FLESH as existed prior to the fall was placed in union with the 100 % Christ who was the creator and sustainer of all that was ever made.

The Lord Jesus Christ did not have split personality in any form.

 

IF Jesus was just having the nature of God alone, why would he ever get tired, weak, hungry, or even be able to get killed off?
And why even have that Ole Virgin birth in order to bypass the fall of Adam and sinful humanity if jesus never even was fully Human? Can He be full human and yet have no human nature then?

 

I have a sin nature and the new nature in Christ, don't you?

 

Jesus received his humanity from mary, sinless due to the Virgin Birth, correct?

 

So you no longer have the sin nature?

 

So Jesus did not need to be Virgin Born in order to bypass the sin nature of the fall, as he is just the nature of God then? How can one be human and have no humanity? Doe he have a soul? A will?

 

The physical nature, as my new nature is dealing with spiritual component!

 

Do you still have the sin nature then?