God the Son didn't have a human nature.—RC Sproul

[PaladinValer]

No problem. A forum who recognizes Catholicism as "orthodox", is not one that I could possibly "respect".

Thank you for your time.

Note my faith icon: it says "Anglican"

And the other four individuals disagreeing with your unorthodox theology are a Baptist, an Eastern Orthodox, a Presbyterian, and someone who is of an unknown denomination of Christianity but, I'm certain, is not of the Church of Pope Francis.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Note my faith icon: it says "Anglican"

And the other four individuals disagreeing with your unorthodox theology are a Baptist, an Eastern Orthodox, a Presbyterian, and someone who is of an unknown denomination of Christianity but, I'm certain, is not of the Church of Pope Francis.

The Catholics had enough sense to stay away from this thread.

 

[PaladinValer]

I can hardly think of a sillier statement.

See the edit, although the rest of the post should have clued anyone in that the opposite was being written and thus, obviously it was a clerical error.

 

[PaladinValer]

The Catholics had enough sense to stay away from this thread.

But you and I are Catholic, just not Vatican Catholic.

...I wonder if that will be misread too

 

[Mama Kidogo]

The safest solution is always to say the following:

"I trust in the Scriptural Nicene Creed's statement to be accurate and don't venture to try to understand it"

Salvation is very unintellectual. Mere trust is all that is required. That is why in orthodoxy there are no barriers unlike in heterodox and unorthodox theology for any possible type of person to find salvation. Absolutely no barriers at all.

So, that may be simplistic, but it is a surefire way of avoiding any theological entanglements. For those who are new to or may just not be gifted with that particular charism, it is the best solution to any question relating to Trinitarian or Christological theology.

The theology of salvation is by faith. Salvation it's self (being Christ) is pure wisdom.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

But you and I are Catholic, just not Vatican Catholic.

...I wonder if that will be misread too

More likely than not.
unsubscribing

 

[Calminian]

In his quote.

Where?

I'm saying that the Bible does not teach that Jesus has two natures. If it does, show me. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke. The Bible does. I just quoted the verse that denies that Jesus is a "natural man". Do you read the Bible, or just quote what ancient men say about the Bible?

Now you're getting defensive. I'm just ask'n.

Let's try again. Do you believe Jesus is God? Perhaps then it's the deity of Christ you deny. Just trying to discern your view. Once you got defensive you started being evasive. We're just talking here.

 

[sozo]

Do you believe Jesus is God?

For you to ask me that question confirms to me that you are just trolling, and have not read my responses. Is that the "orthodox" way of communicating on this site?

"But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." Heb 2:9


Jesus (God in the flesh) was "made" lower than the angels. This verse clearly shows it is the same PERSON who was "made" lower. Not a new person, but the SAME PERSON who was "made" lower, by becoming a man, who suffered and experienced death for EVERY man.

"In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety. Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered." Heb 5:7-8

The writer of Hebrews points out that God, for a time, suffered in the flesh. It was HIS FLESH, not the flesh of an "added" person, but God in the flesh. This period of time were the days of "His flesh". God became a man, and learned what it was like to be in the flesh, through that which He suffered.

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Phil 2:5-8


When Jesus "made Himself" a servant, having also been "made" in the likeness of men, and fashioned (appearance) as a man, He abandoned (voided) His reputation as God, and as a man humbled Himself unto death.

When Jesus came into this world, He was conceived of the Holy Spirit (God), and took on human flesh. As a human he experienced hunger, pain, weariness, and death. He submitted Himself to His Father's will at all times. Not out of reluctance, but because His will was to do the will of the Father.


Like all men, Jesus had a brain, heart, lungs, etc. Unlike other men, Jesus was God in the flesh. From the moment of conception Jesus was one Spirit with the Father, and whatever the Father revealed to the child or the man Christ Jesus, was not tainted by the wisdom of this world. All revelation that Jesus received came directly from the Father. Jesus was never a "natural man", for the natural man does not understand the things of God.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

To meet the demand of the new law of the kingdom, the higher life of the new creation is needed. Jesus accomplished that before His death and after His death the way for resurrected life became available to His church, those who are new creatures in Him. Therefore imo the nature of Jesus was human/divine from birth in the form of the new creation. Limited by God's plan to what we as humans of the new creation would experience. After death in resurrected life His Kingship will still be human/divine in resurrected bodily form, until eternity when all be be handed over to divinity.

 

[Calminian]

For you to ask me that question confirms to me that you are just trolling, and have not read my responses. Is that the "orthodox" way of communicating on this site? ….Jesus (God in the flesh)….

Okay, you're giving really long answers for simple questions, but we're getting there. You've affirmed Jesus as God, as well as Jesus as human.

Now finally do you think human and God are the same thing?? Or are they distinct? Is God the same exact thing as human? Is human the same exact thing as God?

 

[Cappadocious]

I just quoted the verse that denies that Jesus is a "natural man".

It doesn't say natural man.

 

[sozo]

Okay, you're giving really long answers for simple questions, but we're getting there. You've affirmed Jesus as God, as well as Jesus as human.

Now finally do you think human and God are the same thing?? Or are they distinct? Is God the same exact thing as human? Is human the same exact thing as God?

They are distinctly different. God is uncreated. The human flesh that God was in was created.

 

[sozo]

It doesn't say natural man.

In the KJV and NASB it does.

 

[PaladinValer]

In the KJV and NASB it does.

The KJV was translated under the auspices of my church, which affirms the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian Formula, and the very purpose of that translation is to promote Anglicanism.

Thus, your interpretation is not correct.

 

[Calminian]

They are distinctly different. God is uncreated. The human flesh that God was in was created.

So then, guess what? You believe Christ had two natures, human and God. He had one eternally, and took on one that was created. One person, two natures. One who, two whats.

Plus looking at some of your other comments, it appears you're conflating the terms nature and person. You also have conflated soul with these as well. No one here in this thread to my knowledge thinks those terms are synonymous. One's nature is not the same as their person or soul. The disagreement may just be an equivocation error (on your part).

Hope that helps.

 

[Cappadocious]

In the KJV and NASB it does.

Yeah, but that's not what it actually says.

 

[Nanopants]

I wonder if there is any merit to the idea that a lot of confusion may be caused by the real nature of the Incarnation. When I read the Gospels, I get the impression that Jesus at times spoke as a mere man, saying things like He could do nothing of Himself, then at other times He spoke as God, rebuking the winds and the waves and what not. It almost seems as if the real, organic Incarnation was non-static, as though it fluctuated in a sense or that Jesus was phasing in and out of being man and God, leaving us with a puzzle that was never guaranteed to be philosophically friendly.

 

[ViaCrucis]

And this is what happens when we don't care about theology and don't bother insisting on the historic language and teaching of the Christian Church.

We get people who say Jesus was God inhabiting a human suit. And that's why the theology of Ephesus and Chalcedon are important. The theology of Nicea and Constantinople important.

Jesus is a real human being, with a real human body, a real human mind, a real human will, a real human soul, a real human everything. Like us in all ways except sin.

And Jesus is God, fully and entirely God, God of God and God with God, "the Logos was with God and the Logos was God ... no one has ever seen God, the only-begotten God/Son that is in the bosom of the Father has made Him known" For "He is the fullness of Deity in bodily form".

This One was in the beginning with God and is God.
This One became man, real man, in Mary's womb.

This One is both God and man, fully God and fully man, Theanthropos, the God-Man.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Calminian]

I wonder if there is any merit to the idea that a lot of confusion may be caused by the real nature of the Incarnation. When I read the Gospels, I get the impression that Jesus at times spoke as a mere man, saying things like He could do nothing of Himself, then at other times He spoke as God, rebuking the winds and the waves and what not. It almost seems as if the real, organic Incarnation was non-static, as though it fluctuated in a sense or that Jesus was phasing in and out of being man and God, leaving us with a puzzle that was never guaranteed to be philosophically friendly.

I think you're right. The idea that you're not going to run into mysteries in trying to understand the nature of God is unfathomable. I think it's the pitfall that all good theologians need to watch out for. Sometimes they do damage trying to unravel every mystery.

 

[hedrick]

I wonder if there is any merit to the idea that a lot of confusion may be caused by the real nature of the Incarnation. When I read the Gospels, I get the impression that Jesus at times spoke as a mere man, saying things like He could do nothing of Himself, then at other times He spoke as God, rebuking the winds and the waves and what not. It almost seems as if the real, organic Incarnation was non-static, as though it fluctuated in a sense or that Jesus was phasing in and out of being man and God, leaving us with a puzzle that was never guaranteed to be philosophically friendly.

I understand this. Athanasius and Calvin both said that Christ acted sometimes as a man, sometimes and God, and sometimes in a way that required both.

However I'm not convinced. At times Jesus explicitly attributed miracles to his father, and said that his followers would be able to do them too. My sense is that every one of his actions is both a human action and God's, both the miraculous and the non-miraculous. We can certainly see that some actions are things that are within human capabilities and some aren't. But distributing the actions between the man and God sounds pretty iffy to me.