Is Jesus God?

[hedrick]

Indeed, the specific idea that each person of the Trinity must have Aseity is actually Tritheist, and is incompatible with Trinitarian theology. It is worth noting that the Monophysite sect founded by Eutyches had, within the span of a hundred years, degenerated into Tritheism, by the time it was led by the Egyptian philosopher John Philoponus in the sixth century.

I‘m staying out of this discussion in general, because the results of current NT scholarship are not acceptable under CF rules. But I would point out that Calvin considered the Son to be autotheos, and I don’t think he was alone. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/688974

 

[hedrick]

Ceallaigh said:​

I said that the notion is Christ Himself put certain Godly attributes He had on hold. I think most Christians believe that Jesus could have obliterated His enemies any time he wanted to rather than choosing to go as a sheep to slaughter. That the only reason anyone had any kind of power over Him whatsoever is because He allowed it.​

That would still constitute change in the Incarnation, and thus depart from the anti-Monophysite side of the formula of Christological Orthodoxy.​

What are you suggesting as an alternative? As I understand it, Athanasius sees Christ as a single subject with two natures, who sometimes chooses to suffer as a man and sometimes to do miracles as God, and sometimes do things that require both. In order to suffer, and not simply "obliterate his enemies" he would have to act through his human nature, thus setting aside his divine powers, powers which as the Logos he certainly has. I'm not a fan of Athanasius, but your response seemed to support his Christology.

 

[The Liturgist]

I was using hyperbole to make a point.

Indeed you were, but I opted to answer you literally so as to make a counter-point to encourage you as my friend and brother in Christ for fear that you might be selling yourself short.

The average person, like myself, isn't familiar with most of the references you've been citing. Rather than sending me a copy of of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky etc etc etc... I think you should try coming down to the average person's level, rather than expecting them to come up to your hugely impressive level.

When I preach in Church, I have to accommodate children and people whose comprehension of English is less substantial, but the way preaching works in any liturgical church is we begin with a set of predefined scripture lessons for each church service over a period of time* , which are read during the liturgy, and then the sermon expounds upon these. A competent liturgical preacher will not need to ask the laity to open their Bibles to page X, nor should laity be expected to bring their Bibles with them, although some might be included in pews. And in delivering the homily (the sermon), while in expounding upon the meaning of the appointed scripture lessons (there might be an Old Testament prophecy, a Psalm, an Epistle and a Gospel, for instance; in most churches the laity stand when the Gospel is read, and it is read last, with the utmost reverence, based on how the Torah Scroll was read in the liturgy of Second Temple Judaism as established by St. Esdras (Ezra) the Priest and St. Nehemiah the Prophet, and still is in the modern forms of Judaism that postdate the ministry of Christ.

Thus my job is to explain what these scriptures are believed to mean, and their relevance to the liturgical occasion, and this will require referring to other scriptures and to Church Fathers, but since I am not debating the congregation it not always relevant to provide the exact chapter and verse. Indeed in some liturgical churches, people might be more easily recalled to, for example, the Gospel lesson read on the third Sunday in Lent, then to the specific chapter and verse.

My goal must be to enable as many people to understand the liturgical occasion and to explain the scriptures so as to provide an easily understandable exposition of the Bible in support of that objective. Additionally, I try to preach for no longer than fifteen minutes, and this goal is made achievable since in a liturgical church the liturgy and hymns themselves provide a catechtical mystagogy as well as a focus for prayer and devotional worship. Indeed in many monasteries normally there are no homilies, the appointed hymns and scripture lessons doing all the work, and this is restful. The sermon is the most dangerous part of the church service for a clergyman because it is where he is given the access to confuse the people or cause them to believe in a heresy. Unitarianism, Arianism, Iconoclasm, Collyridianism, Marcionism, all started with an ill-conceived sermon. So I myself prefer to base my sermons directly on those preached by the Fathers, which sometimes are very concise, and in other cases were preached apart from the Eucharist at a separate service and were very long, for example, some of the sermons of St. Chrysostom.

Whereas a great many were metrical homilies that were sung, this format being particularly popular among Aramaic speaking Christians, the deacon St. Ephraim the Syrian being the most beloved exponent of that form, venerated as “the harp of the Spirit.” The Syriac Orthodox have as their contender for “the flute of the Spirit” St. Jacob of Sarugh, whose short metrical homily on the Eucharist, Haw Nurone, is frequently used as a communion hymn, and I love it. Sadly his Assyrian counterpart, Mar Narsai, actually was a bona fide Nestorian, and composed my least favorite hymn of the early church, in which he would alternately name activities of Christ that he assigned either to the humanity or the divinity of our Lord.

As much as I some day hope to reintroduce the Metrical homily, people would be weirded out if I or, due to my illness, one of my brethren were to start singing the sermon.

+

In the context of an online discussion such as this however the goal is intellectual stimulation and mutual edification, and so the strictures I and my colleagues must apply when preaching are undesirable. Rather, here, my desire is to challenge and bw challenged, intellectually, and I believe you @Ceallaigh are graced with ample intellectual ability to do that. Indeed I think you are probably more intelligent than I am.

* For the primary lectionary used in any historical Christian or Second Temple Jewish liturgical rite, this was traditionally one year, but was increased to three years in the case of the 1969 Roman Catholic Novus Ordo lectionary and the Revised Common Lectionary based on it, which is defective in my opinion unless one adds a fourth year, Year D, as plaX by a Presbyterian seminary professor, a Dr. Slemmons, so that one year is based on each Gospel rather than each Synoptic Gospel, and certain important passages read in the traditional lectionaries but not in the RCL, such as 1 Corinthians 11:27-34, are restored.

** Excepr obviously in the case of those Orthodox Churches where most laity will stand for the entire liturgy, although seating is always provided for the elderly, infirm and anyone else who requires it regardless of whether or not pews exist, but if pews exist the first priority should be to stock them with appropriate liturgical books such as hymnals, missals or the Anglican Book of Common Prayer or the Coptic Euchologion, and then with Psalters, since the Psalms are the scripture the laity are most likely to need during the service, but in the near future I believe we will have Linux tablets at every pew containing all of the above, and bibles.

 

[Daniel9v9]

The name Jesus is a Hellenization of the Hebrew name Joshua, which also exists in Judean Aramaic as Yeshua and in West Syriac Aramaic as Isho, which literally means “YHWH saves,” so it is quite apt. And YHWH literally means “I am that I am.” So when Jesus Christ declared “Before Abraham was, I AM,” he was expressly declaring His status as the incarnation of God.

Yep, you got it!

 

[JosephZ]

I want to also say that I appreciate your attempt to witness the Christian faith before Muslim apologists; the problem is they do not fight fair, but will intentionally gaslight honest Christians like yourself and many other friends of mine who have tried to debate them, and it requires quite a bit of careful study into the Islamic religion to take them on, and what they will do if you then actually make progress, in many cases, is to stop debating you, or they will accuse you falsely of Islamophobia. For example, if anyone dares mention the immoral and disgusting marriage of Muhammed to Aisha, who was six at the time of their wedding, which was consummated when she was only nine, they will resort to that tactic, and it is extremely distressing.

A Christian who suggests to a Muslim that their prophet Muhammad was a pedophile because of his marriage to Ayesha or that his marriage to her was disgusting is going to be seen as both ignorant of history and a hypocrite. This approach will also shut the door on any possibility of this Christian sharing the gospel with that Muslim in the future. While we see child marriage as socially unacceptable today, it wasn't viewed that way in 632 and was the social norm in all Semitic cultures in the 7th century.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Indeed you were, but I opted to answer you literally so as to make a counter-point to encourage you as my friend and brother in Christ for fear that you might be selling yourself short.




When I preach in Church, I have to accommodate children and people whose comprehension of English is less substantial, but the way preaching works in any liturgical church is we begin with a set of predefined scripture lessons for each church service over a period of time* , which are read during the liturgy, and then the sermon expounds upon these. A competent liturgical preacher will not need to ask the laity to open their Bibles to page X, nor should laity be expected to bring their Bibles with them, although some might be included in pews. And in delivering the homily (the sermon), while in expounding upon the meaning of the appointed scripture lessons (there might be an Old Testament prophecy, a Psalm, an Epistle and a Gospel, for instance; in most churches the laity stand when the Gospel is read, and it is read last, with the utmost reverence, based on how the Torah Scroll was read in the liturgy of Second Temple Judaism as established by St. Esdras (Ezra) the Priest and St. Nehemiah the Prophet, and still is in the modern forms of Judaism that postdate the ministry of Christ.

Thus my job is to explain what these scriptures are believed to mean, and their relevance to the liturgical occasion, and this will require referring to other scriptures and to Church Fathers, but since I am not debating the congregation it not always relevant to provide the exact chapter and verse. Indeed in some liturgical churches, people might be more easily recalled to, for example, the Gospel lesson read on the third Sunday in Lent, then to the specific chapter and verse.

My goal must be to enable as many people to understand the liturgical occasion and to explain the scriptures so as to provide an easily understandable exposition of the Bible in support of that objective. Additionally, I try to preach for no longer than fifteen minutes, and this goal is made achievable since in a liturgical church the liturgy and hymns themselves provide a catechtical mystagogy as well as a focus for prayer and devotional worship. Indeed in many monasteries normally there are no homilies, the appointed hymns and scripture lessons doing all the work, and this is restful. The sermon is the most dangerous part of the church service for a clergyman because it is where he is given the access to confuse the people or cause them to believe in a heresy. Unitarianism, Arianism, Iconoclasm, Collyridianism, Marcionism, all started with an ill-conceived sermon. So I myself prefer to base my sermons directly on those preached by the Fathers, which sometimes are very concise, and in other cases were preached apart from the Eucharist at a separate service and were very long, for example, some of the sermons of St. Chrysostom.

Whereas a great many were metrical homilies that were sung, this format being particularly popular among Aramaic speaking Christians, the deacon St. Ephraim the Syrian being the most beloved exponent of that form, venerated as “the harp of the Spirit.” The Syriac Orthodox have as their contender for “the flute of the Spirit” St. Jacob of Sarugh, whose short metrical homily on the Eucharist, Haw Nurone, is frequently used as a communion hymn, and I love it. Sadly his Assyrian counterpart, Mar Narsai, actually was a bona fide Nestorian, and composed my least favorite hymn of the early church, in which he would alternately name activities of Christ that he assigned either to the humanity or the divinity of our Lord.

As much as I some day hope to reintroduce the Metrical homily, people would be weirded out if I or, due to my illness, one of my brethren were to start singing the sermon.

+

In the context of an online discussion such as this however the goal is intellectual stimulation and mutual edification, and so the strictures I and my colleagues must apply when preaching are undesirable. Rather, here, my desire is to challenge and bw challenged, intellectually, and I believe you @Ceallaigh are graced with ample intellectual ability to do that. Indeed I think you are probably more intelligent than I am.

* For the primary lectionary used in any historical Christian or Second Temple Jewish liturgical rite, this was traditionally one year, but was increased to three years in the case of the 1969 Roman Catholic Novus Ordo lectionary and the Revised Common Lectionary based on it, which is defective in my opinion unless one adds a fourth year, Year D, as plaX by a Presbyterian seminary professor, a Dr. Slemmons, so that one year is based on each Gospel rather than each Synoptic Gospel, and certain important passages read in the traditional lectionaries but not in the RCL, such as 1 Corinthians 11:27-34, are restored.

** Excepr obviously in the case of those Orthodox Churches where most laity will stand for the entire liturgy, although seating is always provided for the elderly, infirm and anyone else who requires it regardless of whether or not pews exist, but if pews exist the first priority should be to stock them with appropriate liturgical books such as hymnals, missals or the Anglican Book of Common Prayer or the Coptic Euchologion, and then with Psalters, since the Psalms are the scripture the laity are most likely to need during the service, but in the near future I believe we will have Linux tablets at every pew containing all of the above, and bibles.

Even a learned intellectual isn't going to know what someone is talking about when they deliver a slew of terms, names and occasions that are completely unfamiliar to him.

 

[The Liturgist]

Even a learned intellectual isn't going to know what someone is talking about when they deliver a slew of terms, names and occasions that are completely unfamiliar to him.

I believe we had an unproductive meta-discussion along these lines last month, and I noted at the time that i am far from the only theologian on CF.com who uses academic theological terminology. The difference being I have the time and the will to teach you what this terminology means, if you want to challenge yourself to learn it.

Also, I would note that an understanding of such terminology is rather important if one seriously intends to challenge a Patristic doctrine on an issue such as Christology (the identify of Christ) or Soterioiogy (the theology of salvation in Christ).

The field of theology, which this forum is dedicated to discussing, is, like any field of intellectual activity, one that has its own specific terms of art, a great many of which owe their existence to the Protestant reformers and many more of which are due to the Roman Catholic Scholastics.

I note with irony that I myself actually try to avoid using theological terms of art as much as possible, which is why in this thread I have spoken of the persons of the Trinity instead of the Prosopa, despite the fact that the Greek word prosopa more accurately describes who the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are.

At any rate, if you want to learn, I am here, and I am willing to teach, to explain, to provide reading material, to go the extra mile to help you get a grasp on not just what I write, but on what many far more challenging and less patient authors have written on the subject of the Trinity. I am not a clericalist; I do not believe that knowledge of advanced Christian theology should be withheld from the unwashed masses. And indeed I am deeply frustrated with clergy who talk down to the laity, who adopt not just a holier than thou but a knowier than thou attitude, which is something I encountered in the mainline denomination I was associated with, and have seen elsewhere as well.

Conversely, as I see it there no excuse for an anti-intellectual attitude towards theological study, particularly given the extremely egalitarian way in which the Early Church defined, and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and other Eastern Christian churches continue to define, a theologian, which is to say, someone who prays. Or to quote the ancient dictum, a theologian is one who prays, and one who prays is a theologian. This was the belief of the early church because the saints of the early church believed, from their interactions with the Apostles, that through prayer one can obtain experiential knowledge of God which in many cases simply cannot be expressed, but only hinted at given the limitations of human language, which is why the Greek fathers and the Syrian fathers of the early church always preferred what we call apophatic theology, also known as the via negativa, which is the next term I will define for you to avoid any confusion, although usually I don’t as I expect people posting in General Theology to know it or to use Google, but apophatic theology is defining God using statements of negation derived from revelations in Scripture and from the implications of those statements.

For example, from scripture and what it says about God, we can say that God is not bounded, God is not complex, God is not the same as creation*, God is not changing, God is not spiteful, there is nothing God does not know, there is no limit to God’s mercy, there is no virtue not fulfilled and perfected in God, and so on.

*Of course God made Himself a part of His creation through the Incarnation of the Word of God in the Person of Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, through whom the glory of the Father has been shown to us, by means of having God in the person of the Holy Spirit impregnate the Virgin Mary, who gave birth to God the Son in a human body carried in her womb for nine months, and in this manner Christ our True God was able to take our entire human experience and glorify it and defeat death and make it possible for us to be resurrected unto life everlasting.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

My answer to the question, "Is Jesus God.":

As far as human beings who are Gods imagers on Earth are concerned, yes, he's God in the flesh.

If there are sentient beings God planted on other planets in other galaxies as his imagers there, I don't believe he is. They exist under a different plan, if they exist at all.

 

[The Liturgist]

A Christian who suggests to a Muslim that their prophet Muhammad was a pedophile because of his marriage to Ayesha or that his marriage to her was disgusting is going to be seen as both ignorant of history and a hypocrite. This approach will also shut the door on any possibility of this Christian sharing the gospel with that Muslim in the future. While we see child marriage as socially unacceptable today, it wasn't viewed that way in 632 and was the social norm in all Semitic cultures in the 7th century.

That’s not accurate. In Judaism, and Christianity, thanks to the residual influence of the Torah on the canon law of the Christian church, the minimum age of marriage and for the consummation of marriage was at the time twelve for girls and fifteen for boys, which is still too young, but I would note that until recently that was the age of consent in much of Mexico and in Spain the age of consent for girls was until very recently thirteen, and there are many countries where it is fourteen or fifteen, even, in all of these cases, with regards to relations with older adults. And of course Muhammed was not a 15 year old boy, so this was not a situation where some states in the US and some foreign countries have what are called “Romeo and Juliette” exceptions to laws on statutory rape, but rather, was a well-traveled merchant caravaner and a theocratic dictator in his fifties. The power differential and the age differential between himself and Aisha was enormous, and was one of the most massive one encounters in the history of a religion.

What is more, it remains the fact that because of Muhammed’s marriage to Aisha, there are several Islamic countries where the Shariah law is, or until very recently was, implemented, which sets the age of consent for the consummation of a marriage for girls at the age of nine. This is also why when the Islamic State raided the Yazidi town of Sinjar in Iraq and killed all the men, and enslaved all the women and children because of the common belief among Muslims that Yazidis are devil-worshippers*, it was the case that the majority of slaves were sold for purposes of carnal knowledge and sexual abuse to ISIS jihadis.

So I cannot accept your assertion that what Muhammed did was normal in 632, because it wasn’t, at least not among the Jews and Christians who existed alongside the Muslims in Medina after Muhammed and his followers were banished from Mecca, until Muhammed came to believe the Jews were plotting against him and killed all of them.

Now, will mentioning Muhammed’s paedophilia at least temporarily alienate a Muslim you are having dialogue with? Of course. However, it is an effective approach towards dealing with dishonest Islamic apologists who engage in the kind of gaslighting that my friend @Andrewn experienced, in which they intentionally tried to undermine his faith by making claims about the nature of Christ which are inapplciable, since no Christian denomination believes that, but rather, if one were to address the points they raise, one would literally have to embrace the heresy of Monophysitism or Tritheism. It is a strawman move that I have seen Muslims engage in that is inherently dishonest. And it is desirable not to engage in dialogue with Muslims who engage in such tactics but rather to point out to them the extent to which the conduct of their leader is singularly revolting among the founders of major religions in the 2,000 year period in which he existed, since the founders of the other false religions dating from this era, such as Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Confucianism, Taoism, Pythagoreanism, Neo-Platonism, Stoicism, Mandaeism and even Manicheanism and most of the heretical offshoots of Christianity including Arianism, Marcionism, Valentinism and Tatianism, were much better behaved than Muhammed. They were much less violent, much less promiscuous in most cases, and on the whole, a cut above Muhammed in terms of their moral, religious and sexual ethics.

The Holy Spirit convicts us of sin through causing us to be ashamed, and I believe that shame can be used effectively from an apologetics perspective concerning Islam, and particularly this is the case when Muslim apologists such as some notorious British and American citizens or permanent residents who argue for Shariah Law engage in exceptionally shameful conduct.

You see, we have God on our side, and the majority of Muslims, being created in the image of God, while still burdened by original sin, or ancestral sin as it is also known in Eastern Christianity, have a sense of personal morality which is more upright and less psychopathic than that of Muhammed. And indeed many of them have been lied to by their own Mullahs, for example, they have been told that Aisha was not nine when Muhammed consummated his relationship with her.


*Even if true, this would not justify the attrocitiy, and i note that the idea might be true from an Islamic perspective but is false from a Yazidi perspective, and considering that Jibreel was, if not a figment of Muhammed’s imagination, then a fallen angel impersonating St. Gabriel the Archangel (which we are warned in scripture that demons and the devil will try to do, which is why Christians are instructed to test every spirit, to make sure a seemingly friendly angel actually is an angel and not an imposter from below), and considering Islam has caused more deaths of Christians than any other quasi-religious belief system with the possible exception of Communist Atheism of the Bolshevist, Maoist, Jucheist and Hoxhaist forms, well, suffice it to say I take it with a large grain of salt when the Muslims allege someone to be a devil worshipper.

 

[The Liturgist]

My answer to the question, "Is Jesus God.":

As far as human beings who are Gods imagers on Earth are concerned, yes, he's God in the flesh.

If there are sentient beings God planted on other planets in other galaxies as his imagers there, I don't believe he is. They exist under a different plan, if they exist at all.

Forgive me, but General Theology is reserved for Christians who agree with the Christian Forums Statement of Faith, which is located here: CF Statement of Faith

I would respectfully ask that you clarify your previous post as it looks at first glance like you are denying the validity of Nicene Christianity as expressed by our very ecumenically oriented Statement of Faith, which has been readily agreed to by Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox of all varieties.

I will also quote the Statement of Faith for your convenience:

Statement of Faith​

The Nicene Creed​

We believe in (Romans 10:8-10; 1John 4:15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6:4, Ephesians 4:6)
the Father (Matthew 6:9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6:3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1:1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1:15-16)
And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11:17)
the Son of God, (Mathew 14:33; 16:16)
the Only-Begotten, (John 1:18; 3:16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1:2)
Light of Light; (Psalm 27:1; John 8:12; Matthew 17:2,5)
True God of True God; (John 17:1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1:18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10:30)
by whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1:1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1Timothy 2:4-5)
came down from Heaven, (John 6:33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1:35)
and became man. (John 1:14)
And was crucified for us (Mark 15:25; 1Cointhians 15:3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:6)
and suffered, (Mark 8:31)
and was buried. (Luke 23:53; 1Corinthians 15:4)
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures. (Luke 24:1 1Corinthians 15:4)
And ascended into Heaven, (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father. (Mark 16:19; Acts 7:55)
And He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24:27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10:42; 2Timothy 4:1)
whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1:11)
And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14:26)
the Lord, (Acts 5:3-4)
the Giver of Life, (Genesis 1:2)
Who proceeds from the Father; (John 15:26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3:16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19:20 ; Ezekiel 11:5,13) In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2:5,9)
catholic*, (Mark 16:15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2:42; Ephesians 2:19-22)
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins**. (Ephesians 4:5; Acts 2:38)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11:24; 1Corinthians 15:12-49; Hebrews 6:2; Revelation 20:5)
and the life of the world to come. (Mark 10:29-30)
AMEN. (Psalm 106:48)

Notes​

* The word "catholic" (literally, "complete," "universal," or "according to the whole") refers to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not necessarily or exclusively to any particular visible denomination, institution, or doctrine.
** May be interpreted as baptism is a matter of obedience and not a requirement for salvation or as a regenerating ordinance.
Faith groups and individuals that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation whereby He, as God, took on human flesh (becoming fully God and fully man in one person), are considered non-Christians at CF. Posts that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation are considered non-Christian theology and are not allowed in "Christians Only" forums. Discussions in all "Christians Only" forums must be in alignment with Trinitarian beliefs.
Challenging Paul's position as an Apostle of Jesus Christ who (although not one of the original twelve) was sent forth by Christ after his conversion [Acts 9:15-16], or arguing against the inclusion of Paul's writings in the New Testament canon, is not allowed in any "Christians Only" forums (including the Controversial Christian Theology forum). You may disagree on the interpretation and application of his writings, but not their place as canon or Paul as an inspired author of Scripture.
Unorthodox Christian theology may only be discussed in the Controversial Christian Theology forum. These unorthodox topics do not directly oppose the Nicene Creed, but are not considered to be orthodox on CF. These unorthodox topics may not contradict the Nicene Creed. Non-Trinitarianism may only be discussed in the Outreach category forums. Gnosticism may not be discussed in any CF forums. The Controversial Christian Theology forum is open to Christian members only (faith groups list). Unorthodox Christian theological topics include (but are not limited to):

• Annihilationism
• Full Preterism
• Open Theism
• Universalism

 

[The Liturgist]

I‘m staying out of this discussion in general, because the results of current NT scholarship are not acceptable under CF rules. But I would point out that Calvin considered the Son to be autotheos, and I don’t think he was alone. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/688974

What results of current NT scholarship? There is no New Testament scholarship that is contrary to the Nicene Creed, unless one counts as legitimate the “New World Translation” advocated by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Also, contemporary New Testament scholarship is a somewhat broad field, and there is a distinction between textual criticism, higher criticism, and also different language-specific fields of study. But I am not aware of any consensus opinion among New Testament scholars which contradicts the CF.com statement of faith or the rules for this forum.

Ceallaigh said:​

I said that the notion is Christ Himself put certain Godly attributes He had on hold. I think most Christians believe that Jesus could have obliterated His enemies any time he wanted to rather than choosing to go as a sheep to slaughter. That the only reason anyone had any kind of power over Him whatsoever is because He allowed it.​

What are you suggesting as an alternative? As I understand it, Athanasius sees Christ as a single subject with two natures, who sometimes chooses to suffer as a man and sometimes to do miracles as God, and sometimes do things that require both. In order to suffer, and not simply "obliterate his enemies" he would have to act through his human nature, thus setting aside his divine powers, powers which as the Logos he certainly has. I'm not a fan of Athanasius, but your response seemed to support his Christology.

Forgive me but I believe you are confusing Nestorius with Athanasius. St. Athanasius taught that Jesus Christ was the incarnate Son and Word of God, fully God and fully man. Nestorius taught that there was a separation or division between the human and divine natures of Christ, to such an extent that at times, he seemed to suggest as though the man Jesus and the divine Christ were separate persons in a union of will, since Nestorius rejected Theopaschitism on an absolute level, whereas St. Athanasius and St. Cyril did not (and neither did St. Severus of Antioch, but St. Severus was really more of an Alexandrian theologian, particularly since after the Council of Ephesus the more hardline members of the School of Antioch moved to the more remote town of Nisibis, still alas within the borders of the both the former Ottoman Empire and Turkey, so yet another place where our Christian population and cultural heritage was destroyed by genocide and ethnic cleansing starting in 1915.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Forgive me, but General Theology is reserved for Christians who agree with the Christian Forums Statement of Faith, which is located here: CF Statement of Faith

I would respectfully ask that you clarify your previous post as it looks at first glance like you are denying the validity of Nicene Christianity as expressed by our very ecumenically oriented Statement of Faith, which has been readily agreed to by Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox of all varieties.

I will also quote the Statement of Faith for your convenience:

Statement of Faith​

The Nicene Creed​

We believe in (Romans 10:8-10; 1John 4:15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6:4, Ephesians 4:6)
the Father (Matthew 6:9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6:3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1:1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1:15-16)
And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11:17)
the Son of God, (Mathew 14:33; 16:16)
the Only-Begotten, (John 1:18; 3:16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1:2)
Light of Light; (Psalm 27:1; John 8:12; Matthew 17:2,5)
True God of True God; (John 17:1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1:18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10:30)
by whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1:1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1Timothy 2:4-5)
came down from Heaven, (John 6:33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1:35)
and became man. (John 1:14)
And was crucified for us (Mark 15:25; 1Cointhians 15:3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:6)
and suffered, (Mark 8:31)
and was buried. (Luke 23:53; 1Corinthians 15:4)
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures. (Luke 24:1 1Corinthians 15:4)
And ascended into Heaven, (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father. (Mark 16:19; Acts 7:55)
And He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24:27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10:42; 2Timothy 4:1)
whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1:11)
And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14:26)
the Lord, (Acts 5:3-4)
the Giver of Life, (Genesis 1:2)
Who proceeds from the Father; (John 15:26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3:16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19:20 ; Ezekiel 11:5,13) In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2:5,9)
catholic*, (Mark 16:15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2:42; Ephesians 2:19-22)
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins**. (Ephesians 4:5; Acts 2:38)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11:24; 1Corinthians 15:12-49; Hebrews 6:2; Revelation 20:5)
and the life of the world to come. (Mark 10:29-30)
AMEN. (Psalm 106:48)

Notes​

* The word "catholic" (literally, "complete," "universal," or "according to the whole") refers to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not necessarily or exclusively to any particular visible denomination, institution, or doctrine.
** May be interpreted as baptism is a matter of obedience and not a requirement for salvation or as a regenerating ordinance.
Faith groups and individuals that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation whereby He, as God, took on human flesh (becoming fully God and fully man in one person), are considered non-Christians at CF. Posts that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation are considered non-Christian theology and are not allowed in "Christians Only" forums. Discussions in all "Christians Only" forums must be in alignment with Trinitarian beliefs.
Challenging Paul's position as an Apostle of Jesus Christ who (although not one of the original twelve) was sent forth by Christ after his conversion [Acts 9:15-16], or arguing against the inclusion of Paul's writings in the New Testament canon, is not allowed in any "Christians Only" forums (including the Controversial Christian Theology forum). You may disagree on the interpretation and application of his writings, but not their place as canon or Paul as an inspired author of Scripture.
Unorthodox Christian theology may only be discussed in the Controversial Christian Theology forum. These unorthodox topics do not directly oppose the Nicene Creed, but are not considered to be orthodox on CF. These unorthodox topics may not contradict the Nicene Creed. Non-Trinitarianism may only be discussed in the Outreach category forums. Gnosticism may not be discussed in any CF forums. The Controversial Christian Theology forum is open to Christian members only (faith groups list). Unorthodox Christian theological topics include (but are not limited to):

• Annihilationism
• Full Preterism
• Open Theism
• Universalism

There is nothing there I really disagree with. I will throw out one thing, though: There is a reason there are so many Christian sects in the world. I've heard it's over 30,000. I doubt any of them agree, word for word, with every single bullet item on that list. I agree with all of those things, if one has the perspective, as I do, of adding to each line, "as far as mankind on earth is concerned". And since I'm part of mankind on earth, I agree with that list. the things I brought up in my previous post are there just to suggest there are a lot of things - A LOT - that the bible is silent on. It's one of those "need to know" things, as far as I can tell.

 

[JosephZ]

That’s not accurate. In Judaism, and Christianity, thanks to the residual influence of the Torah on the canon law of the Christian church, the minimum age of marriage and for the consummation of marriage was at the time twelve for girls and fifteen for boys, which is still too young,

We don't even have to look back as far as the 7th century to find evidence of child marriages taking place in Jewish and Christian cultures.

David Sassoon noted in his book entitled Masa Bavel [ Travel in Babylon] (1910), that in earlier days, girls got married at the age of nine and boys at fifteen. Benjamin the Second, who visited Baghdad in 1849, reported the custom of marrying daughters at age eight to ten, and sons age eighteen to twenty. He added that the government issued a decree setting up a three-tier system for the age of marriage: a) daughters of the elite class should not marry before the age of ten, b) daughters of the middle class cannot marry before they reach the age of eleven, and c) daughters of the poor cannot marry before they reach the age of twelve. The lower the economic level of the family the higher the marriage age. He goes on to explain: “And if the maiden does not get married until the age of fifteen she has no hope of marriage, because she would be considered an old maid... also a widow is likely to remain without a man until she dies...” It was further disclosed to him: “there are about 400-500 Jewish widows in the city of Baghdad with no hope of getting remarried...”

Twenty years later, in 1868, Rabbi Shlomo Huchein criticised this unacceptable custom of marrying “the daughters of the city at the age of ten, and sometime at the age of eight or nine; therefore, their match is not successful." Jacob Obermayer treated this matter in 1876: “A son of fifteen years old and a virgin of eleven or twelve cannot marry with love and desire, but forced into the marriage by their parents.”

This condition worried the community; in 1894, its leaders reversed the rules. They instituted many new regulations, of which most the important were that a girl should not get married before she reached the age of sixteen. The sum of the dowry and the expenses of the marriage ceremony were also limited. Anyone who broke these regulations was not able to get married or get a ketubah [a marriage certificate], and a groom would not be called to read from the Torah.

At the end of the nineteenth century, despite these regulations, families still married their daughters at the age of twelve and thirteen. On the eve of World War I, the situation changed somewhat for the better when the legal age for marriage was raised to fifteen, with the consent of the parents, who set the amount of the dowry.

After the war this situation improved as Jewish society became liberalized and education became more universal, particularly for girls. The average age of marriage was raised to eighteen.

View of Changes in the Social Status of Urban Jewish Women in Iraq as the Nineteenth Century Turned

According to William of Tyre, Agnes was only eight on her arrival at Constantinople, while Alexius was thirteen; in fact Alexius was born on 14 September 1169. Child brides, whether Byzantines or foreign princesses, were the norm rather than the exception, especially from the late twelfth century. Irene Ducaena, wife of Alexius I Comnenus, was twelve at her marriage, and empress before she was fifteen; the Byzantine princess Theodora, Manuel's niece, was in her thirteenth year when she married Baldwin III of Jerusalem; and Margaret-Maria of Hungary married Isaac II Angelus at the age of nine. Agnes's age, then, was not unusual, especially as it was customary for young engaged couples in Constantinople to be brought up together in the house of the socially superior partner.

Roman Emperors DIR Agnes of France

In 1298, as a result of a huge Byzantine military defeat, Emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos promised a marriage alliance of his 5-year-old daughter Symonis to the Serbian ruler King Milutin. The Orthodox Diocese in Constantinople opposed the marriage because of the king’s previous marriages and the vast age difference, but the Byzantine Emperor was determined to do so. In late 1298, he sent his trusted minister Theodore Metochites to Serbia to conduct the negotiations. On his part, King Milutin too was eager to accept this marriage and divorced his wife, Anna Terter. Princess Symonis [Age 6] and King Milutin’s [Age 41] marriage was celebrated in Thessalonica in the springtime of 1299, and the couple departed for Serbia.

Stefan Uroš II Milutin Nemanjić (1282–1321) | Encyclopedia MDPI

Encyclopedia is a user-generated content hub aiming to provide a comprehensive record for scientific developments. All content free to post, read, share and reuse.

encyclopedia.pub

 

[Reasonably Sane]

We don't even have to look back as far as the 7th century to find evidence of child marriages taking place in Jewish and Christian cultures.

David Sassoon noted in his book entitled Masa Bavel [ Travel in Babylon] (1910), that in earlier days, girls got married at the age of nine and boys at fifteen. Benjamin the Second, who visited Baghdad in 1849, reported the custom of marrying daughters at age eight to ten, and sons age eighteen to twenty. He added that the government issued a decree setting up a three-tier system for the age of marriage: a) daughters of the elite class should not marry before the age of ten, b) daughters of the middle class cannot marry before they reach the age of eleven, and c) daughters of the poor cannot marry before they reach the age of twelve. The lower the economic level of the family the higher the marriage age. He goes on to explain: “And if the maiden does not get married until the age of fifteen she has no hope of marriage, because she would be considered an old maid... also a widow is likely to remain without a man until she dies...” It was further disclosed to him: “there are about 400-500 Jewish widows in the city of Baghdad with no hope of getting remarried...”

Twenty years later, in 1868, Rabbi Shlomo Huchein criticised this unacceptable custom of marrying “the daughters of the city at the age of ten, and sometime at the age of eight or nine; therefore, their match is not successful." Jacob Obermayer treated this matter in 1876: “A son of fifteen years old and a virgin of eleven or twelve cannot marry with love and desire, but forced into the marriage by their parents.”

This condition worried the community; in 1894, its leaders reversed the rules. They instituted many new regulations, of which most the important were that a girl should not get married before she reached the age of sixteen. The sum of the dowry and the expenses of the marriage ceremony were also limited. Anyone who broke these regulations was not able to get married or get a ketubah [a marriage certificate], and a groom would not be called to read from the Torah.

At the end of the nineteenth century, despite these regulations, families still married their daughters at the age of twelve and thirteen. On the eve of World War I, the situation changed somewhat for the better when the legal age for marriage was raised to fifteen, with the consent of the parents, who set the amount of the dowry.

After the war this situation improved as Jewish society became liberalized and education became more universal, particularly for girls. The average age of marriage was raised to eighteen.

View of Changes in the Social Status of Urban Jewish Women in Iraq as the Nineteenth Century Turned

According to William of Tyre, Agnes was only eight on her arrival at Constantinople, while Alexius was thirteen; in fact Alexius was born on 14 September 1169. Child brides, whether Byzantines or foreign princesses, were the norm rather than the exception, especially from the late twelfth century. Irene Ducaena, wife of Alexius I Comnenus, was twelve at her marriage, and empress before she was fifteen; the Byzantine princess Theodora, Manuel's niece, was in her thirteenth year when she married Baldwin III of Jerusalem; and Margaret-Maria of Hungary married Isaac II Angelus at the age of nine. Agnes's age, then, was not unusual, especially as it was customary for young engaged couples in Constantinople to be brought up together in the house of the socially superior partner.

Roman Emperors DIR Agnes of France

In 1298, as a result of a huge Byzantine military defeat, Emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos promised a marriage alliance of his 5-year-old daughter Symonis to the Serbian ruler King Milutin. The Orthodox Diocese in Constantinople opposed the marriage because of the king’s previous marriages and the vast age difference, but the Byzantine Emperor was determined to do so. In late 1298, he sent his trusted minister Theodore Metochites to Serbia to conduct the negotiations. On his part, King Milutin too was eager to accept this marriage and divorced his wife, Anna Terter. Princess Symonis [Age 6] and King Milutin’s [Age 41] marriage was celebrated in Thessalonica in the springtime of 1299, and the couple departed for Serbia.

Stefan Uroš II Milutin Nemanjić (1282–1321) | Encyclopedia MDPI

Encyclopedia is a user-generated content hub aiming to provide a comprehensive record for scientific developments. All content free to post, read, share and reuse.

encyclopedia.pub

Louis Lamour, author and American historian on the old west, said that in the "old west", a 19 year old single woman was considered a spinster. I think the correct age for marriage, morally speaking, depends on the culture, but personally I'd say the line is at puberty.

 

[The Liturgist]

We don't even have to look back as far as the 7th century to find evidence of child marriages taking place in Jewish and Christian cultures.

David Sassoon noted in his book entitled Masa Bavel [ Travel in Babylon] (1910), that in earlier days, girls got married at the age of nine and boys at fifteen. Benjamin the Second, who visited Baghdad in 1849, reported the custom of marrying daughters at age eight to ten, and sons age eighteen to twenty. He added that the government issued a decree setting up a three-tier system for the age of marriage: a) daughters of the elite class should not marry before the age of ten, b) daughters of the middle class cannot marry before they reach the age of eleven, and c) daughters of the poor cannot marry before they reach the age of twelve. The lower the economic level of the family the higher the marriage age. He goes on to explain: “And if the maiden does not get married until the age of fifteen she has no hope of marriage, because she would be considered an old maid... also a widow is likely to remain without a man until she dies...” It was further disclosed to him: “there are about 400-500 Jewish widows in the city of Baghdad with no hope of getting remarried...”

Twenty years later, in 1868, Rabbi Shlomo Huchein criticised this unacceptable custom of marrying “the daughters of the city at the age of ten, and sometime at the age of eight or nine; therefore, their match is not successful." Jacob Obermayer treated this matter in 1876: “A son of fifteen years old and a virgin of eleven or twelve cannot marry with love and desire, but forced into the marriage by their parents.”

This condition worried the community; in 1894, its leaders reversed the rules. They instituted many new regulations, of which most the important were that a girl should not get married before she reached the age of sixteen. The sum of the dowry and the expenses of the marriage ceremony were also limited. Anyone who broke these regulations was not able to get married or get a ketubah [a marriage certificate], and a groom would not be called to read from the Torah.

At the end of the nineteenth century, despite these regulations, families still married their daughters at the age of twelve and thirteen. On the eve of World War I, the situation changed somewhat for the better when the legal age for marriage was raised to fifteen, with the consent of the parents, who set the amount of the dowry.

After the war this situation improved as Jewish society became liberalized and education became more universal, particularly for girls. The average age of marriage was raised to eighteen.

View of Changes in the Social Status of Urban Jewish Women in Iraq as the Nineteenth Century Turned

According to William of Tyre, Agnes was only eight on her arrival at Constantinople, while Alexius was thirteen; in fact Alexius was born on 14 September 1169. Child brides, whether Byzantines or foreign princesses, were the norm rather than the exception, especially from the late twelfth century. Irene Ducaena, wife of Alexius I Comnenus, was twelve at her marriage, and empress before she was fifteen; the Byzantine princess Theodora, Manuel's niece, was in her thirteenth year when she married Baldwin III of Jerusalem; and Margaret-Maria of Hungary married Isaac II Angelus at the age of nine. Agnes's age, then, was not unusual, especially as it was customary for young engaged couples in Constantinople to be brought up together in the house of the socially superior partner.

Roman Emperors DIR Agnes of France

In 1298, as a result of a huge Byzantine military defeat, Emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos promised a marriage alliance of his 5-year-old daughter Symonis to the Serbian ruler King Milutin. The Orthodox Diocese in Constantinople opposed the marriage because of the king’s previous marriages and the vast age difference, but the Byzantine Emperor was determined to do so. In late 1298, he sent his trusted minister Theodore Metochites to Serbia to conduct the negotiations. On his part, King Milutin too was eager to accept this marriage and divorced his wife, Anna Terter. Princess Symonis [Age 6] and King Milutin’s [Age 41] marriage was celebrated in Thessalonica in the springtime of 1299, and the couple departed for Serbia.

Stefan Uroš II Milutin Nemanjić (1282–1321) | Encyclopedia MDPI

Encyclopedia is a user-generated content hub aiming to provide a comprehensive record for scientific developments. All content free to post, read, share and reuse.

encyclopedia.pub

It is evident by the fact that the Jewish and Christian Rabinniical and Ecclesiastical authorities you quote opposed these child marriages, they were not normative among Christians or Jews. I never denied such things existed, but our religions always viewed them as perverse aberrations of the rights of the young. Conversely, Islamic religious authorities have historically advocated for such marriages.

 

[The Liturgist]

There is nothing there I really disagree with. I will throw out one thing, though: There is a reason there are so many Christian sects in the world. I've heard it's over 30,000. I doubt any of them agree, word for word, with every single bullet item on that list. I agree with all of those things, if one has the perspective, as I do, of adding to each line, "as far as mankind on earth is concerned". And since I'm part of mankind on earth, I agree with that list. the things I brought up in my previous post are there just to suggest there are a lot of things - A LOT - that the bible is silent on. It's one of those "need to know" things, as far as I can tell.

Jesus Christ is either God, as the Nicene Creed confesses, or He is not. We believe in one God, not one God for each specific inhabited planet. Although the idea of planetary deities makes for good science fiction of the Leigh Brackett 1930s space opera variety, or if they are the right kind of planetary deity, of the Lovecraftian form, for example Cthulu, obviously such a view is inconsistent with Christianity where there is one God who rules all of creation, which would include any non-human intelligent species, if they exist, which I doubt (I am an enthusiast of science fiction, but I doubt that any other intelligent life forms in the Milky Way would be remotely like us such as the aliens in Star Trek, and if we did encounter seemingly human aliens, it would be most likely they were not aliens at all but demons).

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Jesus Christ is either God, as the Nicene Creed confesses, or He is not. We believe in one God, not one God for each specific inhabited planet. Although the idea of planetary deities makes for good science fiction of the Leigh Brackett 1930s space opera variety, or if they are the right kind of planetary deity, of the Lovecraftian form, for example Cthulu, obviously such a view is inconsistent with Christianity where there is one God who rules all of creation, which would include any non-human intelligent species, if they exist, which I doubt (I am an enthusiast of science fiction, but I doubt that any other intelligent life forms in the Milky Way would be remotely like us such as the aliens in Star Trek, and if we did encounter seemingly human aliens, it would be most likely they were not aliens at all but demons).

As far as I'm concerned, he is God. And yeah, your use of the phrase "science fiction" is appropriate. I'm making comments on something on which the bible is silent, so it's all nothing but conjecture on my part. I probably should have clarified that.

It's sort of in the realm of the C. S. Lewis science fiction regarding Mars and Venus.

I really, REALLY try to not put God in a box, so I sometimes consider possibilities that the bible doesn't address as true or false. I see Jesus as God in the flesh, for earth. Is he also God in the flesh for other worlds? I see man's role as sort of caretakers for this planet. Did He create caretakers for other planets? Don't know. And if he did, does he visit them in the same flesh as he does here? Is it important that he does - at least as far as those possible sentient beings are concerned? I dunno. A lot of times I bring stuff like this up as a sort of mental exercise to test my understanding of what the bible actually says, vs what someone may have told me it said, back when I was very young and gullible and simply believed them.

i.e. it's a way of refining my beliefs.

BTW, speaking of the milky way, would it not be fascinating to discover that every galaxy has just a single plenet where God has set it up as his place to commune with his imagers for that planet, and that galaxy. i.e. one "habited planet" per galaxy. When you think of the vastness of space, it means we would never see his creation in other galaxies. Simply too far away. Anyway, I just like to think about such stuff to remind myself that God is bigger than I can imagine, and though I know more than those shepherds of olde, I still have no clue about His true vastness.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I believe we had an unproductive meta-discussion along these lines last month, and I noted at the time that i am far from the only theologian on CF.com who uses academic theological terminology. The difference being I have the time and the will to teach you what this terminology means, if you want to challenge yourself to learn it.

Also, I would note that an understanding of such terminology is rather important if one seriously intends to challenge a Patristic doctrine on an issue such as Christology (the identify of Christ) or Soterioiogy (the theology of salvation in Christ).

The field of theology, which this forum is dedicated to discussing, is, like any field of intellectual activity, one that has its own specific terms of art, a great many of which owe their existence to the Protestant reformers and many more of which are due to the Roman Catholic Scholastics.

I note with irony that I myself actually try to avoid using theological terms of art as much as possible, which is why in this thread I have spoken of the persons of the Trinity instead of the Prosopa, despite the fact that the Greek word prosopa more accurately describes who the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are.

At any rate, if you want to learn, I am here, and I am willing to teach, to explain, to provide reading material, to go the extra mile to help you get a grasp on not just what I write, but on what many far more challenging and less patient authors have written on the subject of the Trinity. I am not a clericalist; I do not believe that knowledge of advanced Christian theology should be withheld from the unwashed masses. And indeed I am deeply frustrated with clergy who talk down to the laity, who adopt not just a holier than thou but a knowier than thou attitude, which is something I encountered in the mainline denomination I was associated with, and have seen elsewhere as well.

Conversely, as I see it there no excuse for an anti-intellectual attitude towards theological study, particularly given the extremely egalitarian way in which the Early Church defined, and the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox and other Eastern Christian churches continue to define, a theologian, which is to say, someone who prays. Or to quote the ancient dictum, a theologian is one who prays, and one who prays is a theologian. This was the belief of the early church because the saints of the early church believed, from their interactions with the Apostles, that through prayer one can obtain experiential knowledge of God which in many cases simply cannot be expressed, but only hinted at given the limitations of human language, which is why the Greek fathers and the Syrian fathers of the early church always preferred what we call apophatic theology, also known as the via negativa, which is the next term I will define for you to avoid any confusion, although usually I don’t as I expect people posting in General Theology to know it or to use Google, but apophatic theology is defining God using statements of negation derived from revelations in Scripture and from the implications of those statements.

For example, from scripture and what it says about God, we can say that God is not bounded, God is not complex, God is not the same as creation*, God is not changing, God is not spiteful, there is nothing God does not know, there is no limit to God’s mercy, there is no virtue not fulfilled and perfected in God, and so on.

*Of course God made Himself a part of His creation through the Incarnation of the Word of God in the Person of Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, through whom the glory of the Father has been shown to us, by means of having God in the person of the Holy Spirit impregnate the Virgin Mary, who gave birth to God the Son in a human body carried in her womb for nine months, and in this manner Christ our True God was able to take our entire human experience and glorify it and defeat death and make it possible for us to be resurrected unto life everlasting.

I'm 62 not 19 and I'm not seeking to learn advanced whatever it is you're trying to teach me. This is just a discussion forum, not a classroom, and I'm too old to be the protege you're seeking.

 

[hedrick]

Forgive me but I believe you are confusing Nestorius with Athanasius. St. Athanasius taught that Jesus Christ was the incarnate Son and Word of God, fully God and fully man. Nestorius taught that there was a separation or division between the human and divine natures of Christ, to such an extent that at times, he seemed to suggest as though the man Jesus and the divine Christ were separate persons in a union of will, since Nestorius rejected Theopaschitism on an absolute level, whereas St. Athanasius and St. Cyril did not (and neither did St. Severus of Antioch, but St. Severus was really more of an Alexandrian theologian, particularly since after the Council of Ephesus the more hardline members of the School of Antioch moved to the more remote town of Nisibis, still alas within the borders of the both the former Ottoman Empire and Turkey, so yet another place where our Christian population and cultural heritage was destroyed by genocide and ethnic cleansing starting in 1915.

I was thinking of statements like this:

"Accordingly, when inspired writers on this matter speak of Him as eating and being born, understand that the body, as body, was born, and sustained with food corresponding to its nature, while God, the Word Himself, Who was united with the body, while ordering all things, also by the works He did in the body showed Himself to be not man, but God the Word. But these things are said of Him, because the actual body which ate, was born, and suffered, belonged to none other but to the Lord: and because, having become man, it was proper for these things to be predicated of Him as man, to show Him to have a body in truth, and not in seeming. 2. But just as from these things He was known to be bodily present, so from the works He did in the body He made Himself known to be Son of God. Whence also He cried to the unbelieving Jews; If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not. But if I do them, though you believe not Me, believe My works; that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father. " (On the Incarnation)

This, and the rest of the work, shows that for Athanaius, Christ is a single subject, who is God but has a body*. The body does bodily things such as suffering and eating. The statement to which you objected said "Jesus could have obliterated His enemies any time he wanted to rather than choosing to go as a sheep to slaughter. That the only reason anyone had any kind of power over Him whatsoever is because He allowed it." If Christ is actually God with a body, and in fact does works of God in his body, then he had the power to obliterate his enemies. Since he didn't, it must be that he chose not to. The only other alternative I can see is that he didn't have the power to do so. That's the alternative that I think would be Nestorian.

* Generally he speaks of Christ as having a body, or in fact using a body as an instrument (42). However in the Oration Against the Arians he clarifies that Scripture uses flesh to speak of a human being as a whole.

 

[The Liturgist]

This, and the rest of the work, shows that for Athanaius, Christ is a single subject, who is God but has a body

Well yes, that is what St. Athanasius meant, and what the Orthodox mean, when we say that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. Having a body means to be incarnate. That is why the Nativity is the Feast of the Incarnation.