Fully God and Fully Man, how does that work?

[Daniel Marsh]

7. Nestorians, another group of early Christians, believed that the human and divine persons of Jesus remained separate; thus for them “Jesus Christ” and “the Son of God” are not quite one and the same. Nestorian churches remained active in Persia and China as late as the eighth century.

1. Arians have been called the “archetypal” Christian heretics; accusations of Arianism have been made in almost every century since the fourth. Taking its name from an Egyptian priest, Arius, this heresy holds that Jesus, while the son of God, is neither eternal nor as fully divine as God the father.
https://news.fordham.edu/inside-fordham/top-10-heresies-in-the-history-of-christianity/

Sabellianism: Sabellianism is named for its founder Sabellius (fl. 2nd century). It is sometimes referred to as modalistic monarchianism. The father, son, and holy ghost are three modes, roles, or faces of a single person, God. This, of course, implies that Jesus Christ was purely divine, without humanness, and therefore could not truly have suffered or died.

Docetism: The name comes from the Greek word dokesis, meaning "to seem." Along the same lines as Sabellianism, Docetism says that Christ was not a real human being and did not have a real human body. He only seemed to be human to us. In a nutshell...

Monophysitism: Monophysite comes from the Greek words for "one body." This heresy says that Jesus Christ was a joining of the eternal Logos with the human person Jesus, which occured at incarnation. He therefore is two separate natures joined in one body. Monophysitism is very much alive in several present-day Egyptian and Middle Eastern sects of Christianity.

Adoptionism: Adoptionism says that Jesus was a human being who was "adopted" by God at his conception, at which point he developed a divine nature. Later versions sometimes suggest that he was adopted later, such as when he was baptized by John the Baptist.

Nestorianism: Supposedly, Nestorius, Patriarch of Antioch (fl. 410), believed that Jesus Christ had two natures -- man and God -- which remained separate throughout his period on earth. This is not really what Nestor said (although he did deny virgin birth) but the name stuck. You can still find a few Nestorian churches in Iran.

Socianism: A version of Arianism called Socianism (from the Latin socius, meaning "companion), simply says that Jesus was an extraordinary man. This heresy still lives on in two very different forms, the Unitarians and the Jehova's Witnesses.
Early Christian Heresies

How did the two natures relate? Where they blended together in one nature? or what? I am only interested in what the Orthodox Doctrine is.

 

[disciple Clint]

7. Nestorians, another group of early Christians, believed that the human and divine persons of Jesus remained separate; thus for them “Jesus Christ” and “the Son of God” are not quite one and the same. Nestorian churches remained active in Persia and China as late as the eighth century.

1. Arians have been called the “archetypal” Christian heretics; accusations of Arianism have been made in almost every century since the fourth. Taking its name from an Egyptian priest, Arius, this heresy holds that Jesus, while the son of God, is neither eternal nor as fully divine as God the father.
https://news.fordham.edu/inside-fordham/top-10-heresies-in-the-history-of-christianity/

Sabellianism: Sabellianism is named for its founder Sabellius (fl. 2nd century). It is sometimes referred to as modalistic monarchianism. The father, son, and holy ghost are three modes, roles, or faces of a single person, God. This, of course, implies that Jesus Christ was purely divine, without humanness, and therefore could not truly have suffered or died.

Docetism: The name comes from the Greek word dokesis, meaning "to seem." Along the same lines as Sabellianism, Docetism says that Christ was not a real human being and did not have a real human body. He only seemed to be human to us. In a nutshell...

Monophysitism: Monophysite comes from the Greek words for "one body." This heresy says that Jesus Christ was a joining of the eternal Logos with the human person Jesus, which occured at incarnation. He therefore is two separate natures joined in one body. Monophysitism is very much alive in several present-day Egyptian and Middle Eastern sects of Christianity.

Adoptionism: Adoptionism says that Jesus was a human being who was "adopted" by God at his conception, at which point he developed a divine nature. Later versions sometimes suggest that he was adopted later, such as when he was baptized by John the Baptist.

Nestorianism: Supposedly, Nestorius, Patriarch of Antioch (fl. 410), believed that Jesus Christ had two natures -- man and God -- which remained separate throughout his period on earth. This is not really what Nestor said (although he did deny virgin birth) but the name stuck. You can still find a few Nestorian churches in Iran.

Socianism: A version of Arianism called Socianism (from the Latin socius, meaning "companion), simply says that Jesus was an extraordinary man. This heresy still lives on in two very different forms, the Unitarians and the Jehova's Witnesses.
Early Christian Heresies

How did the two natures relate? Where they blended together in one nature? or what? I am only interested in what the Orthodox Doctrine is.

"One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.”
What happened at the Council of Chalcedon? | Zondervan Academic
more detail: CHURCH FATHERS: Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451)

 

[Neogaia777]

7. Nestorians, another group of early Christians, believed that the human and divine persons of Jesus remained separate; thus for them “Jesus Christ” and “the Son of God” are not quite one and the same. Nestorian churches remained active in Persia and China as late as the eighth century.

1. Arians have been called the “archetypal” Christian heretics; accusations of Arianism have been made in almost every century since the fourth. Taking its name from an Egyptian priest, Arius, this heresy holds that Jesus, while the son of God, is neither eternal nor as fully divine as God the father.
Top 10 Heresies in the History of Christianity

Sabellianism: Sabellianism is named for its founder Sabellius (fl. 2nd century). It is sometimes referred to as modalistic monarchianism. The father, son, and holy ghost are three modes, roles, or faces of a single person, God. This, of course, implies that Jesus Christ was purely divine, without humanness, and therefore could not truly have suffered or died.

Docetism: The name comes from the Greek word dokesis, meaning "to seem." Along the same lines as Sabellianism, Docetism says that Christ was not a real human being and did not have a real human body. He only seemed to be human to us. In a nutshell...

Monophysitism: Monophysite comes from the Greek words for "one body." This heresy says that Jesus Christ was a joining of the eternal Logos with the human person Jesus, which occured at incarnation. He therefore is two separate natures joined in one body. Monophysitism is very much alive in several present-day Egyptian and Middle Eastern sects of Christianity.

Adoptionism: Adoptionism says that Jesus was a human being who was "adopted" by God at his conception, at which point he developed a divine nature. Later versions sometimes suggest that he was adopted later, such as when he was baptized by John the Baptist.

Nestorianism: Supposedly, Nestorius, Patriarch of Antioch (fl. 410), believed that Jesus Christ had two natures -- man and God -- which remained separate throughout his period on earth. This is not really what Nestor said (although he did deny virgin birth) but the name stuck. You can still find a few Nestorian churches in Iran.

Socianism: A version of Arianism called Socianism (from the Latin socius, meaning "companion), simply says that Jesus was an extraordinary man. This heresy still lives on in two very different forms, the Unitarians and the Jehova's Witnesses.
Early Christian Heresies

How did the two natures relate? Where they blended together in one nature? or what? I am only interested in what the Orthodox Doctrine is.

Jesus was the God-Man, etc. His Father biologically was God the Spirit, or God in and of the OT, or YHWH, etc, and since He was born in the flesh, but was conceived by the Holy Spirit, He was both God and Man, etc, no other person had ever been conceived of before in this manner until or from ever before that time ever, etc, the closest to it would have been Adam in the Garden, but this Man was greater than that even, and had His ancestry way, way before him, or from way before the very first man was ever made or conceived, and when there was only spirits before that, which made Him a Son of God, etc, but not just any Son of God either, but the one and only Son of God the Spirit, being conceived by Him, etc...

He also had the task of reconciling us to God the Spirit as well, etc, and for this He would have to show or remind God the Spirit of the Man side of Himself, and take that One's wrath upon Himself, etc, and maybe even be a subject of great controversy even for Him or that One, etc...

And then, THEN, He also had the task of showing us, and maybe even showing God the Spirit, and maybe all the other spirits, etc, who was God and what God was like from before the beginning, or anything was created or made, etc, from which God the Spirit had strayed away from when Creation fell, etc, and Jesus stood to remind Him of all of that, etc, and the One who could do this was greater than all, and was and would be forever equal to that One, etc...

God the Spirit after Christ is different now, I believe, and is the Spirit of Christ now, after the effect Jesus had on Him or that One, etc, and that is how Jesus reconciled us to Him or that One, etc...

Anyway, I think that's enough for now I think, etc...

God Bless!

 

[dzheremi]

For Chalcedonian boiler plate, the descriptions you have found may be good enough. I don't know.

For the supposedly 'heretical' Egyptians, however, this is what we affirm:

Amen. Amen. Amen. I believe, I believe, I believe and confess to the last breath, that this is the life-giving body that your only-begotten Son, our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ took from our lady, the lady of us all, the holy Theotokos Saint Mary. He made it one with his divinity without mingling, without confusion and without alteration. He witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate. He gave it up for us upon the holy wood of the cross, of his own will, for us all. Truly I believe that his divinity parted not from his humanity for a single moment nor a twinkling of an eye. Given for us for salvation, remission of sins and eternal life to those who partake of him. I believe, I believe, I believe that this is so in truth. Amen.

+++

This is directly quoted from the Coptic liturgy of St. Basil, where it is the priest's public confession before the Eucharist. The bolded section in particular completely shuts out the monophysite heresy of Eutyches and his followers, as his heresy was (in)famously that at/with the incarnation, the divinity of Christ consumed or absorbed the humanity "as a drop of vinegar in the ocean." (Chalcedonian source, and non-Chalcedonian source...and they say we never agree!)

Obviously we couldn't believe that and also proclaim in our liturgies that His divinity and His humanity are made one "without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration", so the good doctor is quite simply wrong to attribute to us belief in this heresy. In truth, the 'non-Chalcedonians' officially condemned Eutyches and the Eutychianism that we were accused of following in the wake of Chalcedon before even the Chalcedonians condemned the crypto-Nestorianism that we accused them of in the wake of the same council. The Chalcedonians did this at their fifth ecumenical council, Constantinople II in 553, while the non-Chalcedonians did this in 475 at Ephesus III for the Copts and Syrians, and a little while later in 506 at Dvin for the Armenians (the latter council was actually the council at which the Armenians officially anathematized Chalcedon, just by the way). If we look at it outside of conciliar proclamations, we can even say that the direct successor to HH Pope Dioscorus (the Pope of Alexandria who was deposed at Chalcedon in the first place), HH Pope Timothy II (r. 457-477), did so by refusing communion with a group of Eutyches' supporters in Constantinople unless they confessed our Lord's fleshly consubstantiality with us, which would be a mighty odd thing to require if we ourselves denied this reality. (See here Ebied and Wickham 1970 for an English translation of some previously unpublished Syriac letters of HH Pope Timothy II in the Journal of Theological Studies 21)

 

[Norbert L]

How did the two natures relate? Where they blended together in one nature? or what? I am only interested in what the Orthodox Doctrine is.

Fully God and Fully Man, how does that work?

Historically not very well and extremely poorly in the east. It lacks the explanatory power of the second Temple theology that was accepted by Jewish community at the time Jesus became fully God and fully man.

 

[inquiring mind]

7. Nestorians, another group of early Christians, believed that the human and divine persons of Jesus remained separate; thus for them “Jesus Christ” and “the Son of God” are not quite one and the same. Nestorian churches remained active in Persia and China as late as the eighth century.

1. Arians have been called the “archetypal” Christian heretics; accusations of Arianism have been made in almost every century since the fourth. Taking its name from an Egyptian priest, Arius, this heresy holds that Jesus, while the son of God, is neither eternal nor as fully divine as God the father.
https://news.fordham.edu/inside-fordham/top-10-heresies-in-the-history-of-christianity/

Sabellianism: Sabellianism is named for its founder Sabellius (fl. 2nd century). It is sometimes referred to as modalistic monarchianism. The father, son, and holy ghost are three modes, roles, or faces of a single person, God. This, of course, implies that Jesus Christ was purely divine, without humanness, and therefore could not truly have suffered or died.

Docetism: The name comes from the Greek word dokesis, meaning "to seem." Along the same lines as Sabellianism, Docetism says that Christ was not a real human being and did not have a real human body. He only seemed to be human to us. In a nutshell...

Monophysitism: Monophysite comes from the Greek words for "one body." This heresy says that Jesus Christ was a joining of the eternal Logos with the human person Jesus, which occured at incarnation. He therefore is two separate natures joined in one body. Monophysitism is very much alive in several present-day Egyptian and Middle Eastern sects of Christianity.

Adoptionism: Adoptionism says that Jesus was a human being who was "adopted" by God at his conception, at which point he developed a divine nature. Later versions sometimes suggest that he was adopted later, such as when he was baptized by John the Baptist.

Nestorianism: Supposedly, Nestorius, Patriarch of Antioch (fl. 410), believed that Jesus Christ had two natures -- man and God -- which remained separate throughout his period on earth. This is not really what Nestor said (although he did deny virgin birth) but the name stuck. You can still find a few Nestorian churches in Iran.

Socianism: A version of Arianism called Socianism (from the Latin socius, meaning "companion), simply says that Jesus was an extraordinary man. This heresy still lives on in two very different forms, the Unitarians and the Jehova's Witnesses.
Early Christian Heresies

How did the two natures relate? Where they blended together in one nature? or what? I am only interested in what the Orthodox Doctrine is.

This is what you get when you dwell too much on man’s interpretation (religion) of who Jesus was, including His oneness with the Father. For any Bible verse you point to claiming His oneness with God, someone of the opposite view can point to a verse that appears to make them separate. I’ve experienced the debate many times. The early church fathers probably wanted Him divine because if He was a man, they couldn’t live up to Him in any way, and they sure didn’t want that. And, if you question, you’ll likely get the Nicene Creed thrown at you along with charges of heresy. Personally, I believe Jesus is who He said he was… whatever He meant. I didn’t understand the whole Trinity concept at ten years old when He came into my heart, and somehow I don’t think it was that important to Him that I did. If I become confused by Trinity interpretations, I read John 10:34-38 which is Jesus’ instructions.

 

[disciple Clint]

7. Nestorians, another group of early Christians, believed that the human and divine persons of Jesus remained separate; thus for them “Jesus Christ” and “the Son of God” are not quite one and the same. Nestorian churches remained active in Persia and China as late as the eighth century.

1. Arians have been called the “archetypal” Christian heretics; accusations of Arianism have been made in almost every century since the fourth. Taking its name from an Egyptian priest, Arius, this heresy holds that Jesus, while the son of God, is neither eternal nor as fully divine as God the father.
Top 10 Heresies in the History of Christianity

Sabellianism: Sabellianism is named for its founder Sabellius (fl. 2nd century). It is sometimes referred to as modalistic monarchianism. The father, son, and holy ghost are three modes, roles, or faces of a single person, God. This, of course, implies that Jesus Christ was purely divine, without humanness, and therefore could not truly have suffered or died.

Docetism: The name comes from the Greek word dokesis, meaning "to seem." Along the same lines as Sabellianism, Docetism says that Christ was not a real human being and did not have a real human body. He only seemed to be human to us. In a nutshell...

Monophysitism: Monophysite comes from the Greek words for "one body." This heresy says that Jesus Christ was a joining of the eternal Logos with the human person Jesus, which occured at incarnation. He therefore is two separate natures joined in one body. Monophysitism is very much alive in several present-day Egyptian and Middle Eastern sects of Christianity.

Adoptionism: Adoptionism says that Jesus was a human being who was "adopted" by God at his conception, at which point he developed a divine nature. Later versions sometimes suggest that he was adopted later, such as when he was baptized by John the Baptist.

Nestorianism: Supposedly, Nestorius, Patriarch of Antioch (fl. 410), believed that Jesus Christ had two natures -- man and God -- which remained separate throughout his period on earth. This is not really what Nestor said (although he did deny virgin birth) but the name stuck. You can still find a few Nestorian churches in Iran.

Socianism: A version of Arianism called Socianism (from the Latin socius, meaning "companion), simply says that Jesus was an extraordinary man. This heresy still lives on in two very different forms, the Unitarians and the Jehova's Witnesses.
Early Christian Heresies

How did the two natures relate? Where they blended together in one nature? or what? I am only interested in what the Orthodox Doctrine is.

On the surface this is an easy question to answer but it becomes very difficult when you get into how the two natures related to each other, how they communicated, which nature was acting in specific situations, we get into the Communicatio idiomatum and some of the same mystagogy that is associated with the Trinity.

 

[jamiec]

7. Nestorians, another group of early Christians, believed that the human and divine persons of Jesus remained separate; thus for them “Jesus Christ” and “the Son of God” are not quite one and the same. Nestorian churches remained active in Persia and China as late as the eighth century.

1. Arians have been called the “archetypal” Christian heretics; accusations of Arianism have been made in almost every century since the fourth. Taking its name from an Egyptian priest, Arius, this heresy holds that Jesus, while the son of God, is neither eternal nor as fully divine as God the father.
https://news.fordham.edu/inside-fordham/top-10-heresies-in-the-history-of-christianity/

Sabellianism: Sabellianism is named for its founder Sabellius (fl. 2nd century). It is sometimes referred to as modalistic monarchianism. The father, son, and holy ghost are three modes, roles, or faces of a single person, God. This, of course, implies that Jesus Christ was purely divine, without humanness, and therefore could not truly have suffered or died.

Docetism: The name comes from the Greek word dokesis, meaning "to seem." Along the same lines as Sabellianism, Docetism says that Christ was not a real human being and did not have a real human body. He only seemed to be human to us. In a nutshell...

Monophysitism: Monophysite comes from the Greek words for "one body." This heresy says that Jesus Christ was a joining of the eternal Logos with the human person Jesus, which occured at incarnation. He therefore is two separate natures joined in one body. Monophysitism is very much alive in several present-day Egyptian and Middle Eastern sects of Christianity.

Adoptionism: Adoptionism says that Jesus was a human being who was "adopted" by God at his conception, at which point he developed a divine nature. Later versions sometimes suggest that he was adopted later, such as when he was baptized by John the Baptist.

Nestorianism: Supposedly, Nestorius, Patriarch of Antioch (fl. 410), believed that Jesus Christ had two natures -- man and God -- which remained separate throughout his period on earth. This is not really what Nestor said (although he did deny virgin birth) but the name stuck. You can still find a few Nestorian churches in Iran.

Socianism: A version of Arianism called Socianism (from the Latin socius, meaning "companion), simply says that Jesus was an extraordinary man. This heresy still lives on in two very different forms, the Unitarians and the Jehova's Witnesses.
Early Christian Heresies

How did the two natures relate? Where they blended together in one nature? or what? I am only interested in what the Orthodox Doctrine is.

It's important to avoid thinking of them as material, or as extended in space-time.

They are not "blended", or mixed or confused in any. Each keeps the character and action proper to it.

I find it helps to think of the Divine Nature, which has a certain priority over the other, as indwelling the other, and being expressed by the other.

The human nature of the Logos is a real human nature, assumed by the Logos, and inseparably united with the Divine Nature. The Logos Who for our sakes condescended to take "into" Himself our human nature, did not take it off when He Ascended to the Father - because it became a part of Who He is; it was not like a piece of clothing, but it is an essential element of Who He is for us. Our King, High Priest, Mediator, and Intercessor did not condescend to become our Kinsman-Redeemer, King & Saviour in order to stop being our Kinsman Who is our Redeemer, Mediator. He is qualified to be all these because, far from distancing Himself from us, He has to the very fullest degree become "one of us", to the point of sharing in our alienation from God by "becoming a curse for us", by being "made sin" for us.

If He had dispensed with His Sacred Humanity at His Resurrection or Ascension, He would in effect be undoing what He undertook to become & to do for us. Being human is not sinful, unclean or unholy - sin, which has sickened human nature, is these things.

 

[Randy777]

Jesus on the cross-"Father into your hands I commit My spirit"

A body was prepared for Him.
Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me;

The Son who was, (His Spirit), was in that body.

You would have to assume the Spirit Jesus called His own is Divine.

 

[J_B_]

If anyone could ever fully understand God, I'd be worried.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

thanks

 

[Clare73]

Fully God and Fully Man, how does that work?

Only God knows.

 

[The Liturgist]

Monophysitism is very much alive in several present-day Egyptian and Middle Eastern sects of Christianity.

No it is not. The Oriental Orthodox have always anathematized Monophysitism, and Eutyches, as soon as they found out what he believed. They are miaphysites, whose Christology is entirely compatible with Chalcedonian Christology, in that both agree that our Lord’s divinity and humanity are hypostatically united without change, confusion, separation or division. The only difference is that that the Oriental Orthodox felt compelled to retain the Christological formula of St. Cyril of Alexandria.

Nestorian churches remained active in Persia and China as late as the eighth century.

Actually the Assyrian Church of the East, commonly called the Nestorian church, still exists mostly in the Nineveh Plains Iraq, with a smaller number elsewhere in the country, and in Iran and Syria, in the region we could call Mesopotamia, its historic homeland, with some members also present in India. As for those in China, Tibet, Mongolia and Central Asia, they were the victims of a 12th century genocide by Tamerlane, and they also experienced another genocide at the hands of Muslims in 1915, along with the Armenians, Suroye (Syriac Orthodox) and Pontic Greeks, this time conducted by Turks. I just wrote a post about it in this thread. However, it should be noted that while the Assyrians do venerate Nestorius, and theoretically violate the Council of Ephesus by referring to St. Mary the Theotokos as “Christotokos”, their actual Christological system was worked out by one of their bishops, Mar Babai the Great, around the year 500, and is basically a translation of Chalcedonian Christology into Syriac. Like the Oriental Orthodox and the Chalcedonians, the Church of the East confess the humanity and divinity of Christ in hypostatic union without change, confusion, division or separation.

So in answer to your OP, there are three valid answers: Oriental Orthodox, Chalcedonian (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and most Protestants) or Assyrian.

Nestorianism also complies with the Nicene Creed, and many people on CF.com believe in some form of it, but I regard it as seriously defective because of the distinction and separation it imposes on the humanity and divinity of Christ. In its most extreme form, advocated by Diodore of Tarsus if I recall correctly, the man Jesus Christ and the Word of God, the Logos, are two separate persons, in a union of perfect will. This to me poses serious problems with the incarnation, indeed, all Nestorian Christology strikes me as devaluing the incarnation and the passion of our Lord, because if that isn’t God the Son in the womb of Mary or the manger or on the cross, it just doesn’t make that much sense. Even Nestorius denied that he believed this; he endorsed the Council of Chalcedon when it came out, so the heresy which bears his name is really the product of the Catechtical School of Antioch, which was later banished to Nisibis, more specifically, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret.

Of these three, the only one I admire is Theodore of Mopsuestia; I think given the church glorified people previously who had made theological errors but had died in the peace of the church and had also made a positive contribution, a very positive contribution, including St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Cyril of Jerusalem (not to be confused with the aforementioned St. Cyril of Alexandria) and St. Augustine of Hippo, there was no basis for anathematizing either Theodore of Mopsuestia or Origen, by either Justinian or the Fifth Ecumenical Council. So the fact that neither is anathema in the Church of the East makes me like them quite a bit.

 

[The Liturgist]

For Chalcedonian boiler plate, the descriptions you have found may be good enough. I don't know.

For the supposedly 'heretical' Egyptians, however, this is what we affirm:

Amen. Amen. Amen. I believe, I believe, I believe and confess to the last breath, that this is the life-giving body that your only-begotten Son, our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ took from our lady, the lady of us all, the holy Theotokos Saint Mary. He made it one with his divinity without mingling, without confusion and without alteration. He witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate. He gave it up for us upon the holy wood of the cross, of his own will, for us all. Truly I believe that his divinity parted not from his humanity for a single moment nor a twinkling of an eye. Given for us for salvation, remission of sins and eternal life to those who partake of him. I believe, I believe, I believe that this is so in truth. Amen.

+++

This is directly quoted from the Coptic liturgy of St. Basil, where it is the priest's public confession before the Eucharist. The bolded section in particular completely shuts out the monophysite heresy of Eutyches and his followers, as his heresy was (in)famously that at/with the incarnation, the divinity of Christ consumed or absorbed the humanity "as a drop of vinegar in the ocean." (Chalcedonian source, and non-Chalcedonian source...and they say we never agree!)

Obviously we couldn't believe that and also proclaim in our liturgies that His divinity and His humanity are made one "without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration", so the good doctor is quite simply wrong to attribute to us belief in this heresy. In truth, the 'non-Chalcedonians' officially condemned Eutyches and the Eutychianism that we were accused of following in the wake of Chalcedon before even the Chalcedonians condemned the crypto-Nestorianism that we accused them of in the wake of the same council. The Chalcedonians did this at their fifth ecumenical council, Constantinople II in 553, while the non-Chalcedonians did this in 475 at Ephesus III for the Copts and Syrians, and a little while later in 506 at Dvin for the Armenians (the latter council was actually the council at which the Armenians officially anathematized Chalcedon, just by the way). If we look at it outside of conciliar proclamations, we can even say that the direct successor to HH Pope Dioscorus (the Pope of Alexandria who was deposed at Chalcedon in the first place), HH Pope Timothy II (r. 457-477), did so by refusing communion with a group of Eutyches' supporters in Constantinople unless they confessed our Lord's fleshly consubstantiality with us, which would be a mighty odd thing to require if we ourselves denied this reality. (See here Ebied and Wickham 1970 for an English translation of some previously unpublished Syriac letters of HH Pope Timothy II in the Journal of Theological Studies 21)

This is entirely correct.

 

[The Liturgist]

Jesus was the God-Man, etc. His Father biologically was God the Spirit, or God in and of the OT, or YHWH, etc, and since He was born in the flesh, but was conceived by the Holy Spirit, He was both God and Man, etc, no other person had ever been conceived of before in this manner until or from ever before that time ever, etc, the closest to it would have been Adam in the Garden, but this Man was greater than that even, and had His ancestry way, way before him, or from way before the very first man was ever made or conceived, and when there was only spirits before that, which made Him a Son of God, etc, but not just any Son of God either, but the one and only Son of God the Spirit, being conceived by Him, etc...

He also had the task of reconciling us to God the Spirit as well, etc, and for this He would have to show or remind God the Spirit of the Man side of Himself, and take that One's wrath upon Himself, etc, and maybe even be a subject of great controversy even for Him or that One, etc...

And then, THEN, He also had the task of showing us, and maybe even showing God the Spirit, and maybe all the other spirits, etc, who was God and what God was like from before the beginning, or anything was created or made, etc, from which God the Spirit had strayed away from when Creation fell, etc, and Jesus stood to remind Him of all of that, etc, and the One who could do this was greater than all, and was and would be forever equal to that One, etc...

God the Spirit after Christ is different now, I believe, and is the Spirit of Christ now, after the effect Jesus had on Him or that One, etc, and that is how Jesus reconciled us to Him or that One, etc...

Anyway, I think that's enough for now I think, etc...

God Bless!

There is a major error there, and that is your pneumatology violates the Scriptural principle of Divine Immutability: What is the immutability of God? | GotQuestions.org

The immutability of God is actually one of the most attested or I should say revealed attributes, so we cannot discard it in the interests of some hyper-Anselmian soteriological model (Anselm of Canterbury was an 11th century monk who introduced the error that Jesus Christ had to die in order to placate God’s sense of wounded honor, based on medieval chivalry, and it gave rise to penal substitutionary atonement and other models which are less disagreeable, but still strike me as lacking compared to the Patristic model, which I documented here: Early Church Soteriology: The Old-new Way Of Evangelizing

 

[Daniel Marsh]

No it is not. The Oriental Orthodox have always anathematized Monophysitism, and Eutyches, as soon as they found out what he believed. They are miaphysites, whose Christology is entirely compatible with Chalcedonian Christology, in that both agree that our Lord’s divinity and humanity are hypostatically united without change, confusion, separation or division. The only difference is that that the Oriental Orthodox felt compelled to retain the Christological formula of St. Cyril of Alexandria.




Actually the Assyrian Church of the East, commonly called the Nestorian church, still exists mostly in the Nineveh Plains Iraq, with a smaller number elsewhere in the country, and in Iran and Syria, in the region we could call Mesopotamia, its historic homeland, with some members also present in India. As for those in China, Tibet, Mongolia and Central Asia, they were the victims of a 12th century genocide by Tamerlane, and they also experienced another genocide at the hands of Muslims in 1915, along with the Armenians, Suroye (Syriac Orthodox) and Pontic Greeks, this time conducted by Turks. I just wrote a post about it in this thread. However, it should be noted that while the Assyrians do venerate Nestorius, and theoretically violate the Council of Ephesus by referring to St. Mary the Theotokos as “Christotokos”, their actual Christological system was worked out by one of their bishops, Mar Babai the Great, around the year 500, and is basically a translation of Chalcedonian Christology into Syriac. Like the Oriental Orthodox and the Chalcedonians, the Church of the East confess the humanity and divinity of Christ in hypostatic union without change, confusion, division or separation.

So in answer to your OP, there are three valid answers: Oriental Orthodox, Chalcedonian (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and most Protestants) or Assyrian.

Nestorianism also complies with the Nicene Creed, and many people on CF.com believe in some form of it, but I regard it as seriously defective because of the distinction and separation it imposes on the humanity and divinity of Christ. In its most extreme form, advocated by Diodore of Tarsus if I recall correctly, the man Jesus Christ and the Word of God, the Logos, are two separate persons, in a union of perfect will. This to me poses serious problems with the incarnation, indeed, all Nestorian Christology strikes me as devaluing the incarnation and the passion of our Lord, because if that isn’t God the Son in the womb of Mary or the manger or on the cross, it just doesn’t make that much sense. Even Nestorius denied that he believed this; he endorsed the Council of Chalcedon when it came out, so the heresy which bears his name is really the product of the Catechtical School of Antioch, which was later banished to Nisibis, more specifically, Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret.

Of these three, the only one I admire is Theodore of Mopsuestia; I think given the church glorified people previously who had made theological errors but had died in the peace of the church and had also made a positive contribution, a very positive contribution, including St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Cyril of Jerusalem (not to be confused with the aforementioned St. Cyril of Alexandria) and St. Augustine of Hippo, there was no basis for anathematizing either Theodore of Mopsuestia or Origen, by either Justinian or the Fifth Ecumenical Council. So the fact that neither is anathema in the Church of the East makes me like them quite a bit.

I was quoting a source that I did not know was wrong. sorry

 

[The Liturgist]

I was quoting a source that I did not know was wrong. sorry

No problem! And since you are a hug monster:

 

[Neogaia777]

There is a major error there, and that is your pneumatology violates the Scriptural principle of Divine Immutability: What is the immutability of God? | GotQuestions.org

The immutability of God is actually one of the most attested or I should say revealed attributes, so we cannot discard it in the interests of some hyper-Anselmian soteriological model (Anselm of Canterbury was an 11th century monk who introduced the error that Jesus Christ had to die in order to placate God’s sense of wounded honor, based on medieval chivalry, and it gave rise to penal substitutionary atonement and other models which are less disagreeable, but still strike me as lacking compared to the Patristic model, which I documented here: Early Church Soteriology: The Old-new Way Of Evangelizing

I care not what "you" think.

Whatever rings true will ring true, and whatever is false will not, and we'll just have to see who (and what) is right and who (and what) is wrong in the end.

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

I only know the Bible, and God, and have not been too steeped in man's theories or ideas or "traditions" to cloud or confuse the issue (thank God)...

And I and Jesus are "right"... But doubt him if you like... I personally don't want to be on that side of the fence come judgement day...

Because you now have "no excuse" now that you have been told "the truth", etc...

God Bless!

 

[The Liturgist]

I only know the Bible, and God, and have not been too steeped in man's theories or ideas or "traditions" to cloud or confuse the issue (thank God)...

And I and Jesus are "right"... But doubt him if you like... I personally don't want to be on that side of the fence come judgement day...

Because you now have "no excuse" now that you have been told "the truth", etc...

God Bless!

This is not an issue of tradition; the Bible plainly says that God does not change, in over ten places. You are saying God did change. There is actually a theological solution to this conundrum, which is to embrace Chalcedonian-compatible Christology, which provides you with access to communicatio idiomatum ; Jesus Christ is mutable in his humanity to the same extent as any human, and the principle of communicatio idiomatum allows for any action of Christ, including change, to be attributed to either the human or divine nature, bidirectionally. So we can say “The Virgin Mary is the Mother of God” and “The Son of Man will judge Mankind” because Jesus Christ is God, and non-Nestorian Christology rejects the separation of His actions into divine and human actions in such a way as would separate His humanity from His divinity.

If you used that approach, you could potentially make your argument. You would want to be careful about how you discussed changes, as communicatio idiomatum does not apply to other persons in the Godhood, however, all three persons are consubstantial, sharing one essence. But that essence flows from the Father, according to Patristic theology, and when scripture says God is immutable, I think there is a very good chance this is what it is talking about.

I apologize for not mentioning it to you in my initial post; it did not occur to me.