Physical Divinity of Christ

[Ishraqiyun]

Is a physical divinity a divinity composed of matter?

 

[Goinheix]

So are you saying the the RCC, EO, OO, Lutheran, Anglican, Moravian, and a bunch more are heritics honoring Mary as Theotokos, Mother of God, Mother of our Lord? That would be the vast majority of Christians, Christians who have held this belief from the very beginning.

Be mindful of our rules here at CF when you answer this question. Likewise, speaking against the Statement of Faith, the Nicene Creed, is also against the rules; rules which you agreed to when you became a member here.

I can not give you an answer because it is against the Forum rules.

 

[Goinheix]

Chalcedonian Christology: Jesus Christ is one person in two natures; human and Divine. The Word, the second Person in the Trinity, is God and by incarnation became both fully God and fully man. These two natures are not mixed, yet not separated. This is the historic orthodox teaching, best explained in the Athanasian creed and the Chalcedonian definition.

Regarding "Theotokism": "Theotokism" (calling Mary the "God-bearer") only affirms that for ca. 9 months, Mary had Jesus Christ in her womb. She is in no way the originator of Jesus Christ's Divinity; she only bore it (or, brought it into the world). Here's a syllogism:

1. Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man.
2. Mary carried Jesus Christ in her womb.
C. Therefore, she carried the incarnation of God in her womb.

I understand that it might sound a little pagan to call her God-bearer and Mother of God, but to deny this would be to deny orthodox Christology. If Jesus Christ is fully God, Mary have to be the mother of He who is fully God. And there's nothing pagan about that. To say that she is only the mother of His human nature, would be Adoptionism or Nestorianism.

This (above) is my understanding of christology. But I still have a question that was not answer; or I didnt understood the answer: Did God the Son; the Word; had a phisical body from the beggining; or is it that he got a human body at incarnation?

 

[PaladinValer]

to PaladinValer:

You presnt yourself as Orthodox Christian.

I am an Anglican, which is "o"rthodox. I am not "O"rthodox, because I am not a member of either the Eastern or the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

In other words, "o"rthodox means "right/correct belief" whereas "Orthodox" means either a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Oriental Orthodox Church.

Also I have noticed that very easely you acuse others of being heretic of claim that some posts don fit with the Nicene Creed.

I said the beliefs are heretical based on the Creed. The person who said them might not realize what is being said by the words he or she uses. A person always should be given a chance to amend his or her theology. Besides, it is the Church, not individuals, who condemn heretics.

For your information the fount of the true faith is in the Bible and not in any creed.

That is outside historical Christian teaching and outside historical Christian belief. And I should know because I am a historian by professional education.

In this Forum, those techings not fitting with Nicene will be moved into not orthodox, but it dont mean that are false.

It is implied, however, that they are false, by that rule.

This is Christian Forums, not "Believe-Whatever-You-Want" Forums. The staff and the owner have decided for a LONG TIME to use the Nicene Creed because for the very reason it is the orthodox and historic way to determine.

Not only that, but you not even understand what Nicene is saying

Sir, with all due respect, I teach theology and religious education. I know full well what the Nicene Creed says and its history.

and in many ocations you just use it despite Nicene not saying anything about the topic in question.

No, the correct way to phrase this is "and on many occasions you just use it despite Nicene I believe not saying anything about the topic in question"

Just because you don't believe it is relevant doesn't mean it truly isn't. I know the Creed, I affirm the Creed, I teach the Creed. I know what it means and the logical conclusions of what it says and means.

If somebody is saying something contrary to your believe, you asume that is contrary to Nicene - without checkinjg Nicene - and label it as heretic.

Your opinion, which is incorrect.

Well...I have news for you: I am not an heretic, I am not nestorian; and until today I didnt know of that christialogy. Today I did check Wikipoedia and found:
"Nestorianism is a Christological doctrine advanced by Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople from 428–431. The doctrine, which was informed by Nestorius's studies under Theodore of Mopsuestia at the School of Antioch, emphasizes the disunion between the human and divine natures of Jesus. Nestorius' teachings brought him into conflict with some other prominent church leaders, most notably Cyril of Alexandria, who criticized especially his rejection of the title Theotokos ('Mother of God") for the Virgin Mary. Nestorius and his teachings were eventually condemned as heretical at the First Council of Ephesus in 431 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451, leading to the Nestorian Schism in which churches supporting Nestorius broke with the rest of the Christian Church. Afterward many of Nestorius' supporters relocated to Sassanid Persia, where they affiliated with the local Christian community, known as the Church of the East. Over the next decades the Church of the East became increasingly Nestorian in doctrine, leading it to be known alternately as the Nestorian Church".

The most amusing founding is that you are mentioning both natures of Jesus. Aparently who is Newstorian is you. If you claim not to be nestorian you should never mention both natures of Jesus. Jesus had one nature and that is all (unless you are nestorian)

No....sir...you didn't get what the article was saying.

Nestorius' teachings implied Jesus as two persons and not One Person. In other words, he taught a Jesus the God and Jesus the Man as completely separate within the body of Christ. This is because he formally rejected St. Mary the Virgin as theotokos, and thereby separating the natures and wills of Jesus into two separate people and not recognizing Jesus as One Person of two natures and wills.

Anyone who believes and supports theology that supports those views or directly affirms those views is promoting Nestorianism. That's a fact of Christian orthodoxy. That view is, rightly and correctly, shared by Christian Forums.

Such posts will be automatically deleted from Paterology, Christology & Pneumatology and brought immediately to the Unorthodox Theology forum because they are heretical according to the Nicene Creed and orthodox Christianity.

If this troubles you, you should discuss it with staff.

The second founding is the reason why nestorians have been declared heretics. It is because you want Mary to be the Mother of God. Not just the mother of the body of Jesus, but the mother of God, the mother of the trinity.

This proves you have no clue what orthodox Christianity teaches about the Trinity.

The Father isn't the Son or the Holy Spirit
The Son isn't the Father or the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit isn't the Father or the Son

The Father is God
The Son is God
The Holy Spirit is God

There is only One God

That is the only acceptable belief in Christianity. Try this resource if you need (a most excellent) visual and explanation: Shield of the Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

St. Mary is the Mother of God for Jesus is the Incarnation of God the Son, who is truly and fully God. She is not the Mother of the Trinity, nor has anyone, including myself, suggested as such. The above proves it without any doubt and without any rebuttals.

Another herecy is the theokokism. All protestant churches concider theokokism as an herecy.

I'm sorry, but you are dead wrong. Protestants outright reject Nestorianism because they do believe St. Mary to be the theotokos and therefore the Mother of God. Look at the statements of faith from any major Protestant denomination and you'll see they use the Nicene Creed.

Mary, the Mary on the Bible is not other than the woman that delivered Jesus baby. God is eternal and creator. Before God, it was not Mary to give birth to Him. Theokokism is an herecy from paganism, worshiping pagan godess in the disguise of Mary.

This is Nestorianism. I have proven so above.

Nestorianism

nestorianism

nestorianism

You have shown you have no clue what Nestorianism is. The fact that you truly believe I am a Nestorian is, forgive me, laughable.

So are you saying the the RCC, EO, OO, Lutheran, Anglican, Moravian, and a bunch more are heritics honoring Mary as Theotokos, Mother of God, Mother of our Lord? That would be the vast majority of Christians, Christians who have held this belief from the very beginning.

Be mindful of our rules here at CF when you answer this question. Likewise, speaking against the Statement of Faith, the Nicene Creed, is also against the rules; rules which you agreed to when you became a member here.

QFT.

Here is staff telling you everything I've ever told you from the start, Goinheix. If you don't wish to listen to me or believe me, listen to a member of staff.

Mark_Sam, excellent post explaining the heresies. You might want to add one doctrine which is reconcilable with the Nicene Creed, which is Miaphysitism, which is the Christology of the Oriental Orthodox Church.

 

[PaladinValer]

This (above) is my understanding of christology. But I still have a question that was not answer; or I didnt understood the answer: Did God the Son; the Word; had a phisical body from the beggining; or is it that he got a human body at incarnation?

Incarnation is defined as a divine being manifesting in a material form.

Jesus is the Incarnation of God the Son. Jesus is fully human and fully God, as per the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian Defintion, which was promulgated by the Church as the logical conclusive explanation of the Nicene Creed.

 

[Goinheix]

Incarnation is defined as a divine being manifesting in a material form.

Jesus is the Incarnation of God the Son. Jesus is fully human and fully God, as per the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian Defintion, which was promulgated by the Church as the logical conclusive explanation of the Nicene Creed.

When did God the Son incarnate? Was it at Mary, or was it at the begginig of times? The question is not that hard to understand.

 

[PaladinValer]

When did God the Son incarnate? Was it at Mary, or was it at the begginig of times? The question is not that hard to understand.

My response isn't hard either.

Based on the response, when did God the Son Incarnate? In other words, when was Jesus conceived? Answer is nine mouths before He was born, after St. Mary the Theotokos replied "yes" to God's message delivered by the Archangel St. Gabriel.

 

[Goinheix]

This (above) is my understanding of christology. But I still have a question that was not answer; or I didnt understood the answer: Did God the Son; the Word; had a phisical body from the beggining; or is it that he got a human body at incarnation?

Obviously I dont have a clue on what nestorian means; and I dont care a bit on any other herecy. But my question remain. Is that the second person of the Trinity did always had body, or he had a when entered the World?

 

[PaladinValer]

Obviously I dont have a clue on what nestorian means; and I dont care a bit on any other herecy.

You should...

But my question remain. Is that the second person of the Trinity did always had body, or he had a when entered the World?

I answered it above.

 

[Mark_Sam]

Mark_Sam, excellent post explaining the heresies. You might want to add one doctrine which is reconcilable with the Nicene Creed, which is Miaphysitism, which is the Christology of the Oriental Orthodox Church.

Thank you.

Miaphysitism: Jesus Christ is one person in one nature, the Word (Logos) Incarnate, which is fully human and fully Divine. His Divinity and humanity is united in one nature, but they are not blended as in Eutychianism.

My response isn't hard either.

Based on the response, when did God the Son Incarnate? In other words, when was Jesus conceived? Answer is nine mouths before He was born, after St. Mary the Theotokos replied "yes" to God's message delivered by the Archangel St. Gabriel.

I second that.

 

[Goinheix]

You should...



I answered it above.

Sorry; I didnt see it.
I was concern because some christians (it hapens to be catholics) in a forum stated that God the Son did have body all the time since before the creation. They also claim that Adam was created in the phisical image of Jesus.

Now I understand what you are nad are not saying. The next question is how a physical body can have some divinity? Because that is the topic of the thread.

IMO, if we like to say that Jesus was fully man (and fully God), it implies that Jesus was human in all the extend that we are. IMO Jesus had a body and soul similar to Adam (dont confuse with the herecy above) in that he was not fallen. Jesus had a body free of healt problems.

 

[Mark_Sam]

Sorry; I didnt see it.
I was concern because some christians (it hapens to be catholics) in a forum stated that God the Son did have body all the time since before the creation. They also claim that Adam was created in the phisical image of Jesus.

Now I understand what you are nad are not saying. The next question is how a physical body can have some divinity? Because that is the topic of the thread.

IMO, if we like to say that Jesus was fully man (and fully God), it implies that Jesus was human in all the extend that we are. IMO Jesus had a body and soul similar to Adam (dont confuse with the herecy above) in that he was not fallen. Jesus had a body free of healt problems.

Now, this is where things get interesting!
I agree with your last paragraph. He was truly human, body and soul, unfallen, like Adam was originally. Adam, as the original sinless head of humanity, failed, and therefore the second Adam (Jesus Christ) became the new sinless head of humanity.

How can His physical (human) body have some divinity? In Lutheran Christology, we have something called genus majestaticum, which means that His human nature has been clothed in attributes of the Divine nature. This doesn't mean that His human nature is Divine, but that it can have some Divine "marks".
For example, we believe that Christ's body and blood are present in the Eucharist, and therefore His human nature is (in some sense) omnipresent (it can be present anywhere He wants it to be).

So as far as I know, He doesn't have a "physical Divinity" (since the physical is His human nature), but the physical (bodily) has been magnified by the Divine nature. How this happens, I don't know.

I hope this made sense ...

 

[Goinheix]

Now, this is where things get interesting!
I agree with your last paragraph. He was truly human, body and soul, unfallen, like Adam was originally. Adam, as the original sinless head of humanity, failed, and therefore the second Adam (Jesus Christ) became the new sinless head of humanity.

How can His physical (human) body have some divinity? In Lutheran Christology, we have something called genus majestaticum, which means that His human nature has been clothed in attributes of the Divine nature. This doesn't mean that His human nature is Divine, but that it can have some Divine "marks".
For example, we believe that Christ's body and blood are present in the Eucharist, and therefore His human nature is (in some sense) omnipresent (it can be present anywhere He wants it to be).

So as far as I know, He doesn't have a "physical Divinity" (since the physical is His human nature), but the physical (bodily) has been magnified by the Divine nature. How this happens, I don't know.

I hope this made sense ...

unless you - the lutherans - can provide any biblical support, then it will be an herecy.

 

[PaladinValer]

Sorry; I didnt see it.

Just in case, here it is again, with added emphasis: Based on the response, when did God the Son Incarnate? In other words, when was Jesus conceived? Answer is nine mouths before He was born, after St. Mary the Theotokos replied "yes" to God's message delivered by the Archangel St. Gabriel.

I was concern because some christians (it hapens to be catholics) in a forum stated that God the Son did have body all the time since before the creation. They also claim that Adam was created in the phisical image of Jesus.

God the Son didn't have an earthly body. No orthodox Christian believes that because of what the Holy Writ says. Jesus is the Incarnation of God the Son. Before the Incarnation, there was no Jesus as we know Him today. However, since Jesus is just as much God as He is human, He did exist as a pre-Incarnate God the Son, although since this is pre-incarnation, He didn't have an earthly body, though He certainly had a "Form."

All people are made in the image of God. When God the Son (pre-incarnate Jesus) is depicted in iconography, He is usually showed to be as Jesus, although it must be understood that it isn't Jesus as we know Him today. Instead, it is God the Son before the Incarnation of Him as Jesus. Iconographers do this to illustrate that humanity is made in God's Image and Likeness.

Now I understand what you are nad are not saying. The next question is how a physical body can have some divinity? Because that is the topic of the thread.

Read again the Nicene Creed. Just because Jesus is the Incarnation doesn't mean He ceases to be Divine. Furthermore, since Jesus is ONE PERSON, then the entirety of that Person is both human and God. Therefore, it is only logical to conclude that His Body and not just His Soul is Divine.

Again, we see this most clearly in the story about His Transfiguration atop Mount Tabor. Jesus' physical Body doesn't disappear but is transfigured before Sts. Peter, John, and James the Greater. They get a glimpse of Jesus' Divinity, which included His Body. He always is like this, but since humanity hasn't fully reconciled with God, we cannot see Him like that, nor could the Apostles, for if they did, they would die, but also because they could not see for their nature was corrupt and their souls were broken.

At the Transfiguration, Jesus allows those three of His Apostles to see Him as He truly Is, always. Since they saw Him in His earthly Body, then we must conclude that His Flesh is truly Divine.

Furthermore, there is the Chalcedonian Definition, which I gave earlier.

IMO, if we like to say that Jesus was fully man (and fully God), it implies that Jesus was human in all the extend that we are. IMO Jesus had a body and soul similar to Adam (dont confuse with the herecy above) in that he was not fallen. Jesus had a body free of healt problems.

Jesus was without sin at all, as per His Divinity, yes.

However, as per His humanity, Jesus was susceptible to all the infirmaries that humans can have. Otherwise, He couldn't have been hurt by the nails, the spear, the scourge, the beatings, or the crown of thorns. To say He never could have "health" problems (and being beaten or pierced is a health problem) is not logical, for it denies His humanity.

Now, this is where things get interesting!
I agree with your last paragraph. He was truly human, body and soul, unfallen, like Adam was originally. Adam, as the original sinless head of humanity, failed, and therefore the second Adam (Jesus Christ) became the new sinless head of humanity.

How can His physical (human) body have some divinity? In Lutheran Christology, we have something called genus majestaticum, which means that His human nature has been clothed in attributes of the Divine nature. This doesn't mean that His human nature is Divine, but that it can have some Divine "marks".
For example, we believe that Christ's body and blood are present in the Eucharist, and therefore His human nature is (in some sense) omnipresent (it can be present anywhere He wants it to be).

So as far as I know, He doesn't have a "physical Divinity" (since the physical is His human nature), but the physical (bodily) has been magnified by the Divine nature. How this happens, I don't know.

I hope this made sense ...

That also is not possible. Again, see the Transfiguration. Jesus didn't lose His physical Body. His Body and Blood are Divine.

unless you - the lutherans - can provide any biblical support, then it will be an herecy.

Stop labeling everything "heresy" (note the spelling) when you have clearly shown you haven't a clue what heresy is. The idea that anything not found in the Bible is "heresy" is not a historic belief of Christianity. What would be heresy would be something which contradicts the Holy Writ. Otherwise, you fall into the Fallacy of Appealing to Ignorance, which is NEVER true.

 

[Goinheix]

Stop labeling everything "heresy" (note the spelling) when you have clearly shown you haven't a clue what heresy is. The idea that anything not found in the Bible is "heresy" is not a historic belief of Christianity. What would be heresy would be something which contradicts the Holy Writ. Otherwise, you fall into the Fallacy of Appealing to Ignorance, which is NEVER true.

According to you, to be heretic or not, has nothing to do with the Bible, but with what the different creeds have decreted. I am not interested in what some creed declare but what the Bible teach, and we lern. Heretic is not that declared heretic by a creed, but that contradicting the Bible.

 

[PaladinValer]

According to you, to be heretic or not, has nothing to do with the Bible, but with what the different creeds have decreted. I am not interested in what some creed declare but what the Bible teach, and we lern. Heretic is not that declared heretic by a creed, but that contradicting the Bible.

Except the Creed doesn't contradict the Bible.

It does, however, contradict your incorrect interpretation of it, which I have shown many times over.

 

[Mark_Sam]

That also is not possible. Again, see the Transfiguration. Jesus didn't lose His physical Body. His Body and Blood are Divine.

I never claimed that He ever lost His physical Body. This only seeks to explain how His Body and Blood can be Divine without mixing the natures.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

According to you, to be heretic or not, has nothing to do with the Bible, but with what the different creeds have decreted. I am not interested in what some creed declare but what the Bible teach, and we lern. Heretic is not that declared heretic by a creed, but that contradicting the Bible.

Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1:2)

Except the Creed doesn't contradict the Bible.

It does, however, contradict your incorrect interpretation of it, which I have shown many times over.

I never claimed that He ever lost His physical Body. This only seeks to explain how His Body and Blood can be Divine without mixing the natures.

Did Christ have a physical body before His incarnation?

No. Before the incarnation, he was true God only. Only after he was "conceived by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary" did He have a physical human body.

and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1:35)
and became man. (John 1:14)

You and I are genetically a blend of our mother and fathers physical makeup.

Christ too did not get his physical body only from Mary, but from both Mary and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, I believe His physical incarnation retains the divine attributes of God as well as human flesh and blood (Mary's contribution). As I posted before, Scripture reveals this to us in the account of the Transfiguration.

I see no heresy or heterodoxy in these beliefs at all.

 

[PaladinValer]

I never claimed that He ever lost His physical Body. This only seeks to explain how His Body and Blood can be Divine without mixing the natures.

I can understand this much better.

I do not believe, as per the Chalcedonian Definition, that the natures or wills can be mixed (they are inconfused and unchanged) but they do exist fully in His entire Person (they are indivisible and inseparable).

That is why I do believe His Body to be Divine.

Did Christ have a physical body before His incarnation?

No. Before the incarnation, he was true God only. Only after he was "conceived by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary" did He have a physical human body.

I agree. However, The fact that God has been depicted in the Bible with the ability to do things that require a "Form" of some kind makes me believe that even beings of pure spirit have some sort of "shape." The angels, for example. Obviously this isn't an earthly form but I believe the Transfiguration points at giving us an idea of sorts (note: Isaiah and Elijah are there too, physically, and possibly transfigured as well). This isn't to suggest that we lose our earthly forms upon our transfiguration as we continue our theosis (we cannot cease being human), but we take on becoming increasingly like being in the image of God (the Energies only of course, and never the Substance).

That Divine Form doesn't cease upon the Incarnation and continues as God the Son takes up human nature and therefore, an earthly body.

In addition, we must consider the Holy Communion. As Lutherans and Anglicans, we believe that Christ is not just spiritually but physically Present in the Elements. If Jesus is both Divine and Man, then when we receive Him by Host or Chalice, His full Person is there, for as Chalcedon suggests, we cannot separate the two natures or wills as much as we cannot absorb them into one or confuse them.

If Jesus is Truly Present, and found in each minute particle of each Species of the Blessed Sacrament, to suggest that we are only receiving His humanity seems suspicious to me, as it would be impossible. Since Jesus is, however, also Divine, it makes it possible, because He is as Chalcedon rightly declares Him to be. That would mean that when we receive His Flesh and His Blood, we are partaking of Him entirely: humanity and Deity.

That is at least my understanding. Truly, I leave it at Chalcedon and let the matter be at that.

 

[Goinheix]

Except the Creed doesn't contradict the Bible.

It does, however, contradict your incorrect interpretation of it, which I have shown many times over.

You see? It is you who spend all time accusing others of contradicting this and that creed. You dont care at all to do a direct investigation on the Bible but take for granted what the creed sauy. Not only that...if one brother concider the creed to be wrong, you immediately warn him that he will be expulsed from the forum. You dont defend chrustian truth but your denomination truth.