Do you affirm the fundamentals?

[OzSpen]

Nice sermon. Totally wasted on me.

Here is the point again, in the most simple terms, because you are clearly having a problem understanding.

Useful =/= perfect

It wasn't a sermon, but I tried to deal with an exegetical point.

'Totally wasted on me' was your assessment! I agree.

 

[OzSpen]

Sola Scriptura would beg to differ.

Irony is a wonderful thing.

I beg your pardon!

 

[98cwitr]

MOD HAT ON

Thread has undergone a small cleanup. The Staff at Christian Forums would like to encourage and remind you that our site rules call you to address one another with respect. I am posting the rule for everyone's review

Flaming and Harassment
Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue. Refrain from insulting, inflammatory, or goading remarks. When you disagree, remember to address the content of the post and not the poster personally.
If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.
Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian is not allowed.
Be considerate and do not make another member's experience on this site miserable. This includes making false accusations or persistently attacking them in the open forums.
Respect another member's request to cease personal contact.


Statement of Purpose and Off-Topic
Read and abide by each forum's Statement of Purpose; Statement of Purpose threads are sticky threads located at the top of the forum's page. Not all forums have a Statement of Purpose thread. Start threads that are relevant to that forum's stated purpose. Submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion.

If your post is missing, it is due to a violation of the above rule or because you quoted a post containing this violation.

Again, please be kind to one another, as Christ has called us to do.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Erik Nelson]

Would it be accurate to say, that "Jesus was God...incarnate in human flesh" ?

That "Jesus the man" from Earth was inspired by an especial helping of the Holy Spirit from God in heaven, e.g. Matt 3:16-4:1 ? That Jesus' mortal human nature was infused with Divine Will, from long before conception and throughout his life, so making him the Christ Messiah ?

Jesus Christ = man + God in man ("more directly & powerfully than any other human in history") ?

I mean, Jesus had human flesh & human blood & human needs for food & shelter, yes? All his "human nature". Yet, God in heaven had been gradually & inexorably "cultivating" a Messianic savior of humanity from "before Abraham" (John 8) presumably from the original Fall of Man in Eden before the Flood. Thousands of years of Divine Plan, wrought by Holy Spirit, culminated in Mary & Jesus. Jesus' mortal human nature was wondrously & miraculously inspired by an extra-heavy helping of Holy Spirit from before his Earthly mother even conceived him.

"Jesus the man" and the "Divine Presence of God" converged to craft one person, Jesus Christ, via a mystically miraculous "consensus" of Earthly human nature & Heavenly Divine Will ?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Would it be accurate to say, that "Jesus was God...incarnate in human flesh" ?

That "Jesus the man" from Earth was inspired by an especial helping of the Holy Spirit from God in heaven, e.g. Matt 3:16-4:1 ? That Jesus' mortal human nature was infused with Divine Will, from long before conception and throughout his life, so making him the Christ Messiah ?

Jesus Christ = man + God in man ("more directly & powerfully than any other human in history") ?

I mean, Jesus had human flesh & human blood & human needs for food & shelter, yes? All his "human nature". Yet, God in heaven had been gradually & inexorably "cultivating" a Messianic savior of humanity from "before Abraham" (John 8) presumably from the original Fall of Man in Eden before the Flood. Thousands of years of Divine Plan, wrought by Holy Spirit, culminated in Mary & Jesus. Jesus' mortal human nature was wondrously & miraculously inspired by an extra-heavy helping of Holy Spirit from before his Earthly mother even conceived him.

"Jesus the man" and the "Divine Presence of God" converged to craft one person, Jesus Christ, via a mystically miraculous "consensus" of Earthly human nature & Heavenly Divine Will ?

I'm just wondering how this differs from the ideas of Arius? Could you explain that please?

 

[Philip_B]

Would it be accurate to say, that "Jesus was God...incarnate in human flesh" ?

Hi Eric, in fairness this is an awkward expression partly because of the tautology embedded in it (made flesh in flesh). The same can be said of the later expression "Divine Presence of God", given that the presence of God must by its very nature be divine.

My real issue however is that I am not sure what you are suggesting, on the one hand it sounds a lot like Monophysitism, with shades of Monothelitism, or maybe not quite either.

I am not sure how you would respond to Chalcedonian Christology - 451AD

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.​

I understand that it is a bit of a beast of a sentence, however it is what I understand that most of the Church for most of the life of the Church has agreed is the accepted position of the Church. I say that with some apology to my sisters and brothers of the Oriental Orthodox tradition, for I realise understandably your position on this statement is but finely distinguished from it.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Well, we're all on the same page, namely John 1, yes?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men...

There was the true Light which enlightens every person coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him... And the Word generated [ginomai] flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only-one-generated [mono-ginomai] from the Father, full of grace and truth"
​

And 1 John 5:7-8,

For there are three that testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in one.​

So, from time human-immemorial, in heaven there has long long existed "God the Father", "the Word of God", and the "Holy Spirit of God". All three are of "one" and the same Divine Essence, and certainly "God the Father" and "the Word of God" have (per John 1) existed "from the Beginning" ("from the Big Bang" so to speak), and have existed continuously ever since, and will exist continuously into the future and so be "co-eternal".

"The Word of God" is some sort of "matter animating life spark of light" that can organize and structure matter throughout the Universe. Per John 1, every organized structure that exists does so because it was "generated" and "caused to be" [ginomai] by the "matter animating life giving spark" of the Word.

The Word manifested within Mary, and so -- unique in human history -- "generated" and "wrought" and "caused to be" [mono-ginomai] human flesh into the wondrously miraculously born baby Jesus, "infused" and "inspired" with the "incarnated Divine Presence of God in heaven" from pre-conception to birth and throughout Jesus' life on Earth... all, moreover, according to ancient Prophesies proclaiming a Divine Plan pre-dating Abraham (John 8). Such was the "inspiring incarnated Divine Presence of God" within the "Word-wrought flesh" of Jesus on Earth, that all beholding him witnessed the "glory... grace & truth" of "God the Father in heaven" (John 1).

Of course, "no one has seen God [the Father] at any time", but by that wondrously miraculous & mighty "inspiring incarnated Divine Presence of God's Word" within the "God-crafted flesh" of Jesus on Earth, the same was Divinely Guided to be the long-Prophesied Christ Messiah, who "explained Him [= God the Father]" (John 1:18).

I interpret all this to mean, that Jesus' bodily form on Earth was that of a human male, with flesh & bones & muscle tissues & neurons & body organs, having 46 DNA chromosomes including one X and one Y... none of which was, per se, "God the Father in heaven" Whom "no one has seen"...

But the miraculous mystery was the wondrous "inspiring incarnating Divine Presence of the eternal Word of God inhabiting" that physical fleshly form, from pre-conception throughout Jesus' Earthly life, all according to even-then-ancient Prophesy, communicated repeatedly to people upon this planet, via "inspiration" from the Holy Spirit.

So there was a "Jesus the man" on Earth with a mortal "human nature" whose limitations he often prayed to overcome (Matt 4, Wilderness Temptations; Luke 22:42, "not my will but Thine Will be done") ... yet he always miraculously existed in "extremely close communion" with the wondrous "inspiring incarnating Divine Presence of the eternal Word of God inhabiting" that physical fleshly form, so "infusing" the same with "Divine Nature" in a completely harmonious united union in the one person of "Jesus Christ" = [God-generated, God-wrought] man + God's Word in man.

I don't perceive this to be "adoptionist" or "Arian" or otherwise incompatible with the Chalcedonian Credo, whose language is of course extremely sophisticated & complex and not necessarily obvious the first time around.

 

[Philip_B]

Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.
John 1:14 Greek

And the word flesh became and tabernacled in our midst and we have seen the glory of him as of an only begotten of a Father full of grace and truth.
John 1:14 word by word

And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.
John 1:14 NRSV​

I am not sure where you are pushing this, however the words are ἐγένετο and μονογενο. I am just not sure what you are trying to say.

Perhaps @SteveCaruso could help us here.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας.
John 1:14 Greek

And the word flesh became and tabernacled in our midst and we have seen the glory of him as of an only begotten of a Father full of grace and truth.
John 1:14 word by word

And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.
John 1:14 NRSV​

I am not sure where you are pushing this, however the words are ἐγένετο and μονογενο. I am just not sure what you are trying to say.

Perhaps @SteveCaruso could help us here.

Thanks, I only know how to read "Strong's Greek"

Strong's Concordance identifies the words only as variants of ginomai & mono+ginomai. In turn, Strong's defines them as "generate" in the sense of "cause to be".

Maybe the specific spellings you noted have to do with conjugating Greek verbs for person, plurality, tense and so on ? But they still reflect the same Greek root verb, with the same meaning ?

 

[SteveCaruso]

Perhaps @SteveCaruso could help us here.

I'm still trying to sort the conversation out myself.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Christotokos vs. Theotokos

Nestorius developed his Christological views as an attempt to understand and explain rationally the incarnation of the divine Logos, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity as the man Jesus... Nestorius's teachings became the root of controversy when he publicly challenged the long-used title Theo-tokos (Bringer forth of God) for Mary. He suggested that the title denied Christ's full humanity, arguing instead that Jesus had two persons (dyo-prosopism), the divine Logos and the human Jesus. As a result of this prosopic duality, he proposed Christotokos (Bringer forth of Christ) as a more suitable title for Mary.

Nestorius' opponents found his teaching too close to the heresy of adoptionism – the idea that Christ had been born a man who had later been "adopted" as God's son. Nestorius was especially criticized by Cyril of Alexandria, Patriarch of Alexandria, who argued that Nestorius's teachings undermined the unity of Christ's divine and human natures at the Incarnation. Some of Nestorius's opponents argued that he put too much emphasis on the human nature of Christ, and others debated that the difference that Nestorius implied between the human nature and the divine nature created a fracture in the singularity of Christ, thus creating two Christ figures.​

I think I can understand Nestorius' line of reasoning. However, according to John 1:1, "the Word was with God, and the Word was God".

So, Christian Scriptures, as they now stand, do appear to equate:

Christ = Word = God (John 1:1)​

Accordingly, if Nestorius, or one espousing his views, were to suggest the term Christotokos (which in fact is the more obvious term, the first one you'd think of, given that prima facie Mary bore Christ)...

Then perhaps a Christian-Scripturally-valid response would be to note John 1:1:

Christotokos [true]
Christ = Word = God [John 1:1]
God = Theos [Greek language]
------------------------------------
Christotokos = Theotokos [also true by logical deduction]​

So, it seems to me, that:

Christotokos [pretty obvious from the Gospels]
Christotokos = Theotokos [John 1:1]​

I don't know how to deny the Chalcedonian position, and accept the Nestorian opinion, without overlooking John 1:1.


ADDENDUM:

Nestorius appears to have tried to "disentangle" the human & Divine natures within the person of Jesus Christ.

That does not appear to be what Christian Scriptures allege.

In the 8th century BC, the Prophet Jonah was "Adopted" by God in heaven. Which is to say, Jonah was "just a regular guy" for his whole life, until one day God "contacted" him, communicating Divine Voices & Visions to Jonah via Holy Spirit.

But while God sent Holy Spirit to Mary (Luke 1), God also sent Divine Word, the matter-organizing & structuring creative principle God uses to fashion everything, as described in Genesis (NIV 1st Century Study Bible). Divine Word prepared Mary's very body "at the cellular level" until she miraculously conceived the Christ-child.

Thus, Jesus Christ's very physical form was shaped, not only the natural action of his mother's human womb, but also by Divine Word (John 1:14). The Christ-child's physical flesh was wrought, crafted, and generated "at the cellular level" by Divine Word, from the womb onwards. Jesus Christ was not a natural born man, but a "God crafted man".

In Sci-Fi terms, Mary conceived & carried Jesus "in an Elysium healing pod" from the movie Elysium. And Jesus was born & lived entirely inside of one.

This is an important claim. Divine Word "generated" the Christ-child within Mary's womb (=Incarnation). And about 33 years later, Divine Word "re-generated" Jesus Christ (=Resurrection).

According to Christian Scriptures as they stand, Jesus Christ never had any "independent, isolated, separate" existence apart from God. Rather, Divine Word "generated" the Christ-child in his mother's womb, and actively guided his physical development, such that all those who beheld Jesus Christ in His "God crafted flesh" did perceive an obvious & supra-natural "glory... grace & truth" (John 1:14). In Sci-Fi terms, His flesh glowed with a supra-natural health & vigor. And, ultimately, Divine Word "re-generated" Jesus Christ after the Crucifixion to Resurrection.

So although Jesus Christ did possess a natural human form "composed of terrestrial carbon & organic molecules with 46 DNA chromosomes including one X and one Y", that human form had always been under deep influences from Divine Word, continuously at all times from the womb onwards, which ceaselessly generated & re-generated him "at the cellular level".

It isn't possible to "dis-entangle" human & Divine in the person of Jesus Christ. He did have a natural human element, yet the same was always, ceaselessly, perpetually, continuously, and at all times under the generative (and re-generative) influences of Divine Word (as well communicative inspirations of Holy Spirit). Holy Spirit & Divine Word were both continuously "locked on" to Jesus Christ on Earth.

The same generative powers of Divine Word which wrought the Incarnation were the re-generative powers which wrought the Resurrection. Logically, then, Nestorius' efforts to "dis-entangle" human & Divine in the person of Jesus Christ implicitly deny the miraculous generative action of Divine Word in causing the Incarnation of the Christ-child in the first place... which then denies the miraculous re-generative action of Divine Word in causing the Resurrection.

They do in fact smack of "Adoptionism", which Cyril of Alexandria appears to have noted 1600 years ago. You can in some sense "dis-entangle" human from Divine in cases of "Adoption" , as with Jonah or even most regular Christians who are born naturally but later in life subsequently receive Holy Spirit to witness to God's acceptance of their baptism & belief (cp. 1 John 5:7). But not in the unique one-of-a-kind case of Jesus (John 1:14), whose very physical form was crafted & shaped by the wondrous action of Divine Word from the womb onwards.

 

[Paidiske]

Erik, you seem not to see the divine word, the Logos, as a person?

 

[Radagast]

glory as of the only-one-generated [mono-ginomai] from the Father, full of grace and truth"

Modern translations interpret that word as mono-genos, i.e. unique, of one kind.

 

[Radagast]

"The Word of God" is some sort of "matter animating life spark of light" that can organize and structure matter throughout the Universe.

The Word or Logos is the Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son.

 

[Zoii]

I have a problem. I am told I have to accept everything as written in the bible if I want to call myself a christian. So even starting with Genesis - noone knows who wrote it (theres a few vague theories) and noone knows when it was written (depending on your source its between 1000 BC and 6 BC). In our life if something so critical to your welfare was put to you, you'd want to know "who says" "when did he/she say that" and "what makes him/her the expert". How do we know he/she was telling the truth. Noone ever questioned the author that we know of. And since then theres been editions.

Im being asked to not question a document thats been edited from an original that noone knows who wrote, or when or the veracity of that unknown person. Its so much to ask of a person and then I have to use that information to refute all scientific evidence on issues such as the age of the earth.

Is it possible that their are lessons to be learned from the scriptures without demanding that it is word for word correct.

 

[Philip_B]

I am not really sure what to say Eric. I think the Chalcedonian Definition is a much clearer position and easier to understand. I don't know If I agree or disagree with you, and I am not a fan of over-simplification but there seems to be a surfeit of complexity in what you present. The issues addressed at Chalcedon had a lot to do with Monophysitism, which you have not really addressed (that I can see) and sometime later stemming from it Monothelitism. Nestorianism was anathematised at Ephesus some years before, so I am not sure why that seems to be much of the substance of what you write. I also note that the Chalcedonian definition is probably a little advanced to be part of the fundamentals.

 

[Erik Nelson]

The Word or Logos is the Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son.

Well, "Person" [Greek prosopon] in an abstract, Theological sense...

In this context, the word "Person" does not mean "two legs, two arms & a head on top" with "46 DNA chromosomes"...

But, yes, in a Theological sense, the Divine Word [Greek Logos]... which is understood as some sort of "matter organizing & structuring creative power" (John 1:3, NIV 1st Century Study Bible)... is the second "Person" of the Holy Trinity, which collectively testifies in heaven (1 John 5:7)...

That Divine Word miraculously Incarnated into the Christ-child within Mary's womb, so begetting ("causing to be", "generating") Jesus Christ, the uniquely one-of-a-kind only begotten Holy Son (John 1:14)... having a human nature united with a Divine Nature... of God the Father in heaven...

For the sake of not actively trying to antagonize anyone, I understand the term "Father" to also be an abstract, Theological term. It doesn't mean "some old guy with a long white beard who looks like Gandalf and has lots of kids on his knees". Rather, it is a Theological term connoting Authority, Relationship, Trustworthiness.

Yet, without disputing the Christian Scriptures as they now stand (and appear to have stood as far back as any fragments survive), one cannot of course deny the Christian claim, that the Divine Word did work a miraculous "generative" wonder in the womb of Mary... as 33 years later the Word likewise worked a miraculous "re-generative" wonder in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea... such that the biological-sounding term "Father" would not then be quite as inappropriate as some seem to feel.

In Sci-Fi terms, the Divine Word was allegedly able to re-generate Jesus Christ at the Resurrection "like a healing pod" in the movie The Matrix or Elysium or Starship Troopers within approximately 36-72 hours. Vaguely similarly, the Word was allegedly able to generate the Christ-child in Mary's womb, at, with profound symbolism, some time around the Jewish Passover of Mar/Apr 7 BC, such that the Christ-child was born around Dec 7 BC / Jan 6 BC. Perhaps even whilst Mary was at the Temple for the festival ?

Romans 1:20 appears to require Christians to acknowledge, that God in heaven's supra-natural, supra-human, supra-terrestrial "super-capacities" have been miraculously manifested amongst mankind many times at many places upon this planet, throughout human history (and beyond?), and that Scripture is, at the minimum, a brief "high-lights reel" recording a few of the most major such miracles. All of which leaves without excuse anyone who chooses to mentally deny, in their minds, the actual factual existence of God in heaven. Because all these things happened, they were all widely reported at the time, and even continuously re-reported until today, such that people can "stick their heads in sands of Earth" until Judgement Day, but it won't change anything that God already did do on Earth, much less anything that God will do on Earth.

According to Christian records, the Incarnation & Resurrection are, in fact, two of God's perhaps more wondrous miracles upon this planet to date.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Modern translations interpret that word as mono-genos, i.e. unique, of one kind.

Yes, I think I'm saying that... mono-genes = uniquely generated, only one generated...

The miracle of the Incarnation was, according to John 1:14, a unique-in-human-history event. Jesus Christ was the only example of a Divinely Incarnated person on planet Earth.

 

[Radagast]

In Sci-Fi terms, the Divine Word was allegedly able to re-generate Jesus Christ at the Resurrection "like a healing pod" in the movie The Matrix or Elysium or Starship Troopers within approximately 36-72 hours.

I can't agree with that aspect; the Resurrection was an instantaneous miracle, like the raising of Lazarus.

 

[Radagast]

Yes, I think I'm saying that... mono-genes = uniquely generated, only one generated...

You miss my point. The older thinking was that monogenēs derives from mono-ginomai; the newer thinking (based on other uses of the term) is that it derives from mono-genos instead (genos = "kind"), and hence means "one of a kind" or "unique" or "only."