was Jesus omnipresent?

[Simonline]

John 3:13-ss are not words of Jesus but of John. John is saying that Jesus has ascended into Heaven. That is a reference for the ascencion after resurrection. For John. writing in 90DA it is past time. It makes not sence Jesus saying that he has ascended already.

Not true. All Scripture [from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21] is God breathed (2Tim.3:16). He inspired/authored the lot. If the Messiah/Christ is the human incarnation of God (Matt.1:23) then the Messiah also inspired/authored the lot?! It is for this reason that I passionately believe that all 'red-letter' edition bibles should be burned as heretical at the first available opportunity since they heretically inculcate the idea into the faithful that what God said as incarnate takes precedence over what He said as discarnate through the other forty human authors of Scripture(?!) To try and play God off against Himself like that is nothing short of blasphemous.

Jn.3:13 "No-one has gone into Heaven except the one who came from heaven and is in heaven - the Son of Man" is a reference to the Omnipresence of the Messiah as Divine even whilst He is also incarnate as the human creature Jesus of Nazareth (Matt.1:23). It has nothing to do with 'Jesus after the Ascension'. John is quoting the Messiah speaking to Nicodemus and the Messiah spoke to Nicodemus before He ascended back to His Father.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

And while Jesus was on earth in the flesh, and even while his body was a mass of cells with no heart beat, he was ordering the universe and holding all things together.

Not true.

Firstly, the Messiah as the human creature Jesus of Nazareth is an authentic human creature just like the rest of us (Heb.2:17). The Messiah is not 'God in a human gorilla suit', 'God on the inside and human on the outside'. Were that true then the Messiah would neither be authentically Divine or authentically human?! The Messiah is an authentic human creature existing as body, soul and spirit, just like the rest of us. If the Messiah was in any way defective as a human creature (i.e. missing bits) then he would never be acceptable as the 'Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world' (Jn.1:29) and we would all still be dead in our trespasses and sins?!

Secondly, the One Who brought the Creation into Existence and continues to sustain it in existence is the Divine Creator YHWH (Gen.1:1) not the human creature Jesus of Nazareth. The very idea of a human creature bringing the Creation (including himself) into existence let alone sustaining it in existence is just absurd in the extreme.


Whilst it is true that the Son (along with the Father and the Spirit) brought the Creation into existence and sustains it in that existence (Col.1:15-16) it is only true of the Son existing as Divine Creator but not true of the Son existing as human creature. In the same way it was the Son existing as human creature who died upon the cross because the Son existing as Divine Creator is by Nature Immortal and therefore incapable of experiencing death (since death is separation from Life and God is Life (Jn.14:6; 17:3) God cannot be separated from Himself) which is why God has incarnated as the human creature Jesus of Nazareth in the first place.

Jesus says something interesting in John chapter 3. He said that "no one has ascended into heaven except he who who has come down from heaven, even the Son of man who is in heaven." Right there, while he was still on earth, Jesus was claiming to be in heaven.

Thirdly, no, it was not the human creature Jesus of Nazareth who was declaring Himself to be Omnipresent but the Divine Creator YHWH. It was the Messiah existing as the Divine Creator YHWH rather than the Messiah existing as the human creature Jesus of Nazareth [i.e. the same Person [the Son] but simultaneously existing in two different ways as Divine Creator and human creature].

Simonline.

 

[Crandaddy]

Jesus is one Person, but He has two distinct natures (Divine and human), and He exists in different ways according to them. In His Divine nature, Jesus is omnipresent--He's everywhere (actually, it would be more precise to say that everywhere is in Him, but I won't get into technicalities). In His human nature, on the other hand, He's not omnipresent.

So, to answer the OP's question, both yes and no. He is omnipresent according to one of His natures (Divine), but He's not omnipresent according to the other (human).

 

[Simonline]

Jesus is one Person, but He has two distinct natures (Divine and human), and He exists in different ways according to them. In His Divine nature, Jesus is omnipresent--He's everywhere (actually, it would be more precise to say that everywhere is in Him, but I won't get into technicalities). In His human nature, on the other hand, He's not omnipresent.

So, to answer the OP's question, both yes and no. He is omnipresent according to one of His natures (Divine), but He's not omnipresent according to the other (human).

No. The Son is One Person who simultaneously exists as Divine Creator [YHWH] and human creature [Jesus of Nazareth] and whilst the Person of the Son is the same in both cases the Divine Creator and human creature are not since humans can't even bring the Creation into existence let alone sustain it in existence and God can't die?!

Your post (like so many others all over this website) totally confuses the distinctions between what it means to exist as Divine Creator and what it means to exist as human creature. YHWH is Omni-everything. Jesus is Omni-nothing. It is the Messiah/Christ who exists as both Divine Creator and human creature not YHWH Who is exclusively Divine Creator and not Jesus of Nazareth who is exclusively human creature. The Son is YHWH. The Son is Jesus of Nazareth but the existence of the Son as Jesus of Nazareth is NOT the same as the existence of the same Son as YHWH. Therefore Jesus of Nazareth is no more Divine than YHWH is human but the Messiah/Christ exists as both Divine Creator and human creature.

Simonline.

 

[Crandaddy]

Simon,

Either you're simply repeating me in different words, or what you propose is basically Nestorianism. To be clear, the two natures are distinct. You are quite right that Divinity is very different from humanity. I am not blending them together, as the Monophysites were wont to do.

What happens in the Incarnation is the Divine Person of the Logos becomes hypostatically united to an individual human nature, so that the same Person becomes both Divine and human in Jesus Christ. Christ's individual human nature is fully human--i.e. it lacks absolutely nothing that is essential to humanity, and this even includes a human soul--but it is not a human person in its own right (i.e. simply by itself), because its Personhood consists in its hypostatic union to the Divine Person of the Logos.

 

[Simonline]

Simon,

Either you're simply repeating me in different words, or what you propose is basically Nestorianism. To be clear, the two natures are distinct. You are quite right that Divinity is very different from humanity. I am not blending them together, as the Monophysites were wont to do.

But by referring to 'Jesus' rather than the Messiah or the Christ as existing with Divine attributes then you are actually confusing the distinction between what it means to exist as Divine and what it means to exist as human.

No human exists with Divine attributes and that includes the Messiah (Mk.13:32) just as God does not exist with human attributes otherwise there would be no need for God to incarnate as a human? I am definitely not saying the same thing as you but using different terminology and neither am I advocating Nestorianism since I believe that the Messiah/Christ is strictly mono-personal. I believe that the Messiah/Christ is a single Person simultaneously existing in two distinct and entirely different ways not two Persons, one Divine and the other human nor a Divine Spirit indwelling and animating a human corpse?!

What happens in the Incarnation is the Divine Person of the Logos becomes hypostatically united to an individual human nature, so that the same Person becomes both Divine and human in Jesus Christ. Christ's individual human nature is fully human--i.e. it lacks absolutely nothing that is essential to humanity, and this even includes a human soul--but it is not a human person in its own right (i.e. simply by itself), because its Personhood consists in its hypostatic union to the Divine Person of the Logos.

If that is true then how could the Divine Logos, incarnate as a man, not know the day or the hour of the Day of the Lord (Mk.13:32)?! Either the Divine Logos is NOT Omniscient (and therefore not God) or the Messiah was lying to His disciples (in which case He is definitely NOT 'the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world' (Jn.1:29))?

Simonline.

 

[Crandaddy]

But by referring to 'Jesus' rather than the Messiah or the Christ as existing with Divine attributes then you are actually confusing the distinction between what it means to exist as Divine and what it means to exist as human.

“Jesus” is the name of the second Person of the Holy Trinity, and that Person is both God and man.

No human exists with Divine attributes and that includes the Messiah (Mk.13:32) just as God does not exist with human attributes otherwise there would be no need for God to incarnate as a human? I am definitely not saying the same thing as you but using different terminology and neither am I advocating Nestorianism since I believe that the Messiah/Christ is strictly mono-personal. I believe that the Messiah/Christ is a single Person simultaneously existing in two distinct and entirely different ways not two Persons, one Divine and the other human nor a Divine Spirit indwelling and animating a human corpse?!

Yes, Divinity is necessarily distinct from humanity, if that's the point you're trying to make. I've already stated my agreement with it. I fail to see how you're not just quibbling over my choice of words.

If that is true then how could the Divine Logos, incarnate as a man, not know the day or the hour of the Day of the Lord (Mk.13:32)?! Either the Divine Logos is NOT Omniscient (and therefore not God) or the Messiah was lying to His disciples (in which case He is definitely NOT 'the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world' (Jn.1:29))?

Because it was not part of His mission to reveal such knowledge. I'd also say that He truly was ignorant of it in His humanity, but not in His Divinity. The Incarnate Logos has two distinct modes of knowledge: Divine and human. According to His Divine mode of knowledge, He's omniscient, but according to His human mode, He's not.

I say there are two distinct modes of knowledge and not two distinct knowing agents, because if we pull the two natures apart to such a degree that we have two distinct agents, then we wind up with something dangerously close to Nestorianism. There is only one Agent--only one Person--who knows, and that is the Logos, but He knows in two very different ways.

 

[Simonline]

“Jesus” is the name of the second Person of the Holy Trinity, and that Person is both God and man.

That is only true of the Person of the Son existing as incarnate (i.e. as human) It is absolutely not true of the Person of the Son existing as discarnate (i.e. as Divine (Jn.4:24)).

According to the Scriptures (rather than ecclesiastical convention which is what you are clearly following) Jesus (of Nazareth) is the name given to the human incarnation of God (Matt.1:18-25) not God Himself (Ex.3:14).

According to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, God [Father, Son and Holy Spirit] is called YHWH, not 'Jesus'. It is the human incarnation of God [i.e. the Messiah/Christ] Who, as human, is called Jesus of Nazareth whilst as Divine He is called YHWH.

Yes, Divinity is necessarily distinct from humanity, if that's the point you're trying to make. I've already stated my agreement with it.

But then you fundamentally deny it by insisting that both God and man are called 'Jesus' when, according to the Scriptures. God [i.e. that which exists as Divine] is YHWH whilst man [i.e. that which exists as human] is Jesus of Nazareth?! Either there IS a distinction between what it means to exist as Divine and what it means to exist as human or there is no such distinction(?!) but you cannot eat your cake and still have it?

I fail to see how you're not just quibbling over my choice of words.

Then you must also fail to see how what you (along with most of the rest of the Church) are saying is nothing more than metaphysical nonsense?! YHWH [i.e. God] cannot die upon the cross just as Jesus [i.e. man] can neither bring the Creation into existence nor continue to sustain it in that same existence, therefore there is most definitely a great distinction between what it means to exist as Infinite Divine Creator and what it means to exist as finite human creature.

Because it was not part of His mission to reveal such knowledge.

That's not the issue. The issue is whether Jesus as Divine (according to you and most of the rest of the Church) was lying to his disciples when he told them that He didn't know the hour?! If Jesus is both Divine and human and a prerequisite of Divinity is Omniscience then Jesus MUST have been lying to His disciples when He declared to them that he was unaware of the hour, in which case the Messiah is a miserable wretched sinner no different from the rest of us?!

Now do you understand why I insist upon maintaining the distinction between what it means to exist as Divine Creator and what it means to exist as human creature and why Jesus of Nazareth is NOT Divine any more than YHWH is human.

I'd also say that He truly was ignorant of it in His humanity, but not in His Divinity.

Sorry, but I'm not letting you get away with that. Jesus of Nazareth (i.e. the human incarnation (1Jn.4:1-3)) is not Divine. Only YHWH is Divine. If you keep insisting that Jesus is both Divine and human then you must also accept responsibility for the 'Divine Jesus' lying to His disciples (Mk.13:32) and therefore being a miserable wretched sinner?

The Incarnate Logos has two distinct modes of knowledge: Divine and human. According to His Divine mode of knowledge, He's omniscient, but according to His human mode, He's not.

Again, you're moving the goalposts. I have been consistently arguing this all along whilst you have been arguing that Jesus of Nazareth is both Divine and human (a metaphysical nonsense) but now I have pressed you on the matter you have changed tack in order to try and argue on the same basis as me which for you is impossible whilst you are trying to maintain that Jesus is both Divine and human. Only once you concede that Jesus is not Divine and YHWH is not human will your arguments then become both logically and metaphysically consistent?

I say there are two distinct modes of knowledge and not two distinct knowing agents, because if we pull the two natures apart to such a degree that we have two distinct agents, then we wind up with something dangerously close to Nestorianism.

No. That is Nestorianism which is heresy. There is only one agent / one Person - the Son. Existing as Divine that Person is YHWH but is NOT Jesus of Nazareth whilst existing as human that same Person is Jesus of Nazareth but is NOT YHWH. One Person simultaneously existing in two different and distinct (but absolutely NOT separate) ways according to two distinct and different natures - Divine and human.

There is only one Agent--only one Person--who knows, and that is the Logos, but He knows in two very different ways.

Again, you're changing tack?! How can this possibly be true if Jesus is both Divine and human?! The Son existing as human creature is NOT the same as the same Son existing as Divine Creator. It is the Messiah/Christ who simultaneously exists as both Divine Creator and human creature, not YHWH who is exclusively Divine Creator nor Jesus of Nazareth who is exclusively human creature. The Son is the Messiah/Christ and the Messiah/Christ is both Divine Creator and human creature but YHWH is only Divine Creator and Jesus of Nazareth is only human creature...otherwise Jesus of Nazareth is a liar and a miserable wretched sinner to boot (Mk.13:32)?!

Simonline.

 

[Crandaddy]

[/color]

That is only true of the Person of the Son existing as incarnate (i.e. as human) It is absolutely not true of the Person of the Son existing as discarnate (i.e. as Divine (Jn.4:24)).

According to the Scriptures (rather than ecclesiastical convention which is what you are clearly following) Jesus (of Nazareth) is the name given to the human incarnation of God (Matt.1:18-25) not God Himself (Ex.3:14).

Okay, so Jesus is the name of the incarnate second Person. It's still the name of a Person, not the name of a nature.

According to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, God [Father, Son and Holy Spirit] is called YHWH, not 'Jesus'. It is the human incarnation of God [i.e. the Messiah/Christ] Who, as human, is called Jesus of Nazareth whilst as Divine He is called YHWH.

Well then, what do you make of the fact that the man Jesus claims the Divine Name for Himself (Jn. 8:58)?

But then you fundamentally deny it by insisting that both God and man are called 'Jesus' when, according to the Scriptures. God [i.e. that which exists as Divine] is YHWH whilst man [i.e. that which exists as human] is Jesus of Nazareth?! Either there IS a distinction between what it means to exist as Divine and what it means to exist as human or there is no such distinction(?!) but you cannot eat your cake and still have it?

I think you're hung up on names. Jesus and YHWH are both names for the same Person.

Then you must also fail to see how what you (along with most of the rest of the Church) are saying is nothing more than metaphysical nonsense?! YHWH [i.e. God] cannot die upon the cross just as Jesus [i.e. man] can neither bring the Creation into existence nor continue to sustain it in that same existence, therefore there is most definitely a great distinction between what it means to exist as Infinite Divine Creator and what it means to exist as finite human creature.

But YHWH and Jesus are not separate persons. You can't divorce Jesus from His Divinity and say that only the man died on the cross. You're venturing into Nestorian territory here. Jesus is God in the incarnate Person of the Son. This is why we say that Mary is the Mother of God. We don't mean by it that she's His mother in His eternal Divinity (that would be absurd). She's His mother in His humanity, but since Jesus' humanity was hypostatically united to His Divinity from the very moment of His conception, we call her the Mother of God.

Similarly, we would say that God died on the cross, but we wouldn't mean by it that Jesus in His eternal Divinity, as Creator and Sustainer of the world, died on the cross. Rather, we would mean that Jesus in His humanity died on the cross, but since His humanity was hypostatically united to His Divinity, it was the Divine Person of the Son Who died on that cross.

That's not the issue. The issue is whether Jesus as Divine (according to you and most of the rest of the Church) was lying to his disciples when he told them that He didn't know the hour?! If Jesus is both Divine and human and a prerequisite of Divinity is Omniscience then Jesus MUST have been lying to His disciples when He declared to them that he was unaware of the hour, in which case the Messiah is a miserable wretched sinner no different from the rest of us?!

Now do you understand why I insist upon maintaining the distinction between what it means to exist as Divine Creator and what it means to exist as human creature and why Jesus of Nazareth is NOT Divine any more than YHWH is human.

Sorry, but I'm not letting you get away with that. Jesus of Nazareth (i.e. the human incarnation (1Jn.4:1-3)) is not Divine. Only YHWH is Divine. If you keep insisting that Jesus is both Divine and human then you must also accept responsibility for the 'Divine Jesus' lying to His disciples (Mk.13:32) and therefore being a miserable wretched sinner?

He says in Mark 13:32 that only the Father knows the day and the hour, not the Son. It seems that your position would undercut even the Son's Divine omniscience.

And again, there's Jesus' claiming for Himself the Divine Name (Jn. 8:58). What do we do with that?

Again, you're moving the goalposts. I have been consistently arguing this all along whilst you have been arguing that Jesus of Nazareth is both Divine and human (a metaphysical nonsense) but now I have pressed you on the matter you have changed tack in order to try and argue on the same basis as me which for you is impossible whilst you are trying to maintain that Jesus is both Divine and human. Only once you concede that Jesus is not Divine and YHWH is not human will your arguments then become both logically and metaphysically consistent?

I haven't moved the goalposts one nanometer. I've held this position all along. Jesus is both Divine and human, because Jesus is the name of the incarnate Person of the Son (Logos), in Whom are united two full, distinct, and unmingled natures (Divine and human).

Maybe you're confused by my use of the term “nature.” By it I don't mean something abstract. Both natures are concrete entities. Jesus' human nature is individual, meaning that it's the same thing that you and I are as individual human persons, but it's not a person by itself, because its Personhood consists in its hypostatic union to the Divine Person of the Son.

Again, you're changing tack?! How can this possibly be true if Jesus is both Divine and human?! The Son existing as human creature is NOT the same as the same Son existing as Divine Creator. It is the Messiah/Christ who simultaneously exists as both Divine Creator and human creature, not YHWH who is exclusively Divine Creator nor Jesus of Nazareth who is exclusively human creature. The Son is the Messiah/Christ and the Messiah/Christ is both Divine Creator and human creature but YHWH is only Divine Creator and Jesus of Nazareth is only human creature...otherwise Jesus of Nazareth is a liar and a miserable wretched sinner to boot (Mk.13:32)?!

If you were to physically hear Jesus speak with your own ears, would you be hearing the voice of a mere man, or would you be hearing the voice of God incarnate?

 

[Simonline]

Okay, so Jesus is the name of the incarnate second Person. It's still the name of a Person, not the name of a nature.

Agreed but it is the name of the Person existing as the finite human creature Jesus of Nazareth not existing as the Infinite Divine Creator YHWH (in which case His name is YHWH not Jesus of Nazareth). Only in this way can it be said that the Scriptures are not self-contradictory in relation to the Messiah/Christ.

Well then, what do you make of the fact that the man Jesus claims the Divine Name for Himself (Jn. 8:58)?

Not true. It is the Messiah/Christ existing as the Divine Creator YHWH who makes that declaration. How could it possibly be true that a finite human creature exists as Eternal?! The Scriptures themselves declare that the human creature Jesus of Nazareth came into existence long after his forefather Abraham (Matt.1:18-25; Lk. 2:1-20) which, if what you are arguing is true (which it isn't), blatantly contradicts what the Messiah declares in Jn.8:58. That fact simply cannot be ignored

I think you're hung up on names. Jesus and YHWH are both names for the same Person.

But the names must reflect reality and the reality is that YHWH is the Infinite Divine Creator whilst Jesus of Nazareth is the finite human creature. Jesus of Nazareth is NOT God. He is the human incarnation of God (Jn.1:14; Jn.14:28; Heb.217; 1Jn.4:1-3). Otherwise the Judeo-Christian Scriptures are nothing more than a collection of metaphysical contradictions that should be rejected as absolute metaphysical nonsense?!

But YHWH and Jesus are not separate persons.

So now you're confessing to being a Unitarian modalist heretic as well? YHWH exists as Tri-Personal [Father, Son and Holy Spirit] rather than Mono-Personal [a single Person who changes from Father to Son to Holy Spirit at will (Mal.3:6)] and the Son is neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit but all three Persons are YHWH?!

You can't divorce Jesus from His Divinity and say that only the man died on the cross.

I am not 'divorcing' the Divine and human natures. I am distinguishing between them both because Divine Nature is Immortal and therefore cannot experience Death (which is why God has had to incarnate as a human in the first place) and human nature is utterly incapable of bringing the Creation (including itself) into existence ex nihilo or sustaining that Creation so that it doesn't instantaneously return to nothing (Col.1:16-17)?! To insist that the human creature Jesus of Nazareth is both Divine and human is to fly in the face of all reality?! Maybe the atheistic Communists are right to incarcerate Christians in psychiatric units as insane since, purely on the basis of Christians' own arguments, they are?!

You're venturing into Nestorian territory here.

No, I am not. Nestorius believed that the Messiah/Christ is two Persons, a Divine Person and a human person (effectively schizophrenic). I, on the other hand, believe that the Messiah/Christ is a single Person [the Son] who simultaneously exists as both Divine Creator [YHWH] and human creature [Jesus of Nazareth]. A single Person [the Son] simultaneously existing in two different, distinct, but NOT separate, ways. The Son existing as the human creature Jesus of Nazareth is NOT the same as the same Son existing as the Divine Creator YHWH otherwise everything that exists as Divine also exists as human (and vice versa) and that is simply absurd.

Jesus is God in the incarnate Person of the Son.

No. Absolutely not. Don't start in the middle with the human creature [Jesus] and work backwards to God. Follow the Scriptures themselves and start at the Beginning with God (Gen.1:1; Jn.1:1) and work forward to the Incarnation (Jn.1:14). It is God Who has incarnated as the man Jesus of Nazareth (1Jn.4:1-3) not the man Jesus of Nazareth who just also happened to exist as God, which is nothing short of metaphysical nonsense?!

The Messiah/Christ is the [Divine] Son incarnate as the human creature Jesus of Nazareth but the Son existing as Divine cannot be the same as the Son existing as human otherwise God would not be Immortal (in which case why has God even bothered to incarnate?) and any human creature could bring a Creation into existence ex nihilo?! That is just plain nonsense.

This is why we say that Mary is the Mother of God. We don't mean by it that she's His mother in His eternal Divinity (that would be absurd). She's His mother in His humanity, but since Jesus' humanity was hypostatically united to His Divinity from the very moment of His conception, we call her the Mother of God.

I know why Mary is referred to as Theotokos ('the God bearer'), thank you. The Messiah/Christ is both Divine Creator and human creature and for that reason the Church is right to refer to Mary as Theotokos but that does not alter the fact that the Messiah/Christ existing as human creature is NOT the same as the Messiah/Christ existing as Divine Creator. Even Mary could not give birth to the Infinite Divine Creator?! She could only give birth to His finite human incarnation but the One to whom she gave birth still exists as Infinite Divine Creator as well as finite human creature and it is for this reason that Mary is quite rightly called Theotokos.

Similarly, we would say that God died on the cross, but we wouldn't mean by it that Jesus in His eternal Divinity, as Creator and Sustainer of the world, died on the cross. Rather, we would mean that Jesus in His humanity died on the cross, but since His humanity was hypostatically united to His Divinity, it was the Divine Person of the Son Who died on that cross.

No. That is metaphysically impossible and therefore nonsense. Divinity is inherently Immortal and therefore incapable of experiencing death (i.e. separation from Life, otherwise how could God possibly exist as Immutable(Mal.3:6)?!). If Divinity could experience death then there would be no need for God to incarnate as human. He could just die as Divine...but then. were God to die as Divine then absolutely everything (including God Himself) would be no more (Col.1:16-17)?!

It is the Son existing as human who died upon the cross but because the Son also exists as Divine it can be said on the basis of the hypostatic union that God also died (Acts.20:28(b)) even though the Divine Nature, being inherently Immortal, did not actually die and it was YHWH [Father, Son and Holy Spirit] Who resurrected the human creature Jesus of Nazareth from the dead.

He says in Mark 13:32 that only the Father knows the day and the hour, not the Son. It seems that your position would undercut even the Son's Divine omniscience.

Not at all. My position is entirely consistent with the Divine Revelation that is the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. My position does not confuse what it means to exist as Divine Creator with what it means to exist as human creature and therefore equate to nothing but metaphysical nonsense?!

Mk.13:32 is simply declaring that only the Divine Creator [Father, Son and Holy Spirit] is aware of the details of the eschatological timetable and that God is withholding that information from all finite human creatures including His own Messiah/Christ as His human incarnation. This is entirely consistent with my theology but completely vitiates yours?!

And again, there's Jesus' claiming for Himself the Divine Name (Jn. 8:58). What do we do with that?

The human creature is not claiming for himself the Divine name since that would be blasphemous. It is the Divine Creator Who is claiming for Himself His own Name (Ex.3:14). As I keep saying, the Son existing as human creature is not the same as the Son existing as Divine Creator even though it is the same Son in both cases.

I haven't moved the goalposts one nanometer.

Oh, yes you have, as I have consistently demonstrated.

I've held this position all along. Jesus is both Divine and human, because Jesus is the name of the incarnate Person of the Son (Logos), in Whom are united two full, distinct, and unmingled natures (Divine and human).

But what you can't seem to grasp is that your theological position is metaphysically incongruous with Scripture. Divinity and humanity cannot be identical (i.e. synonymous and interchangeable) therefore it simply isn't true or metaphysically congruous to declare that 'Jesus' is both human creature and Divine Creator (which is effectively to declare that there is no difference between what it means to exist as Divine and what it means to exist as human). It is the Messiah/Christ (not YHWH or Jesus of Nazareth) who is both Divine Creator and human creature. YHWH exists as Divine Creator and Jesus of Nazareth exists as human creature but somehow the Son [i.e. the Messiah/Christ] simultaneously exists as both Divine Creator and human creature.

Maybe you're confused by my use of the term “nature.”

Not at all. I'm not even confused by your incorrect use of the term 'Jesus' when, unless you are referring to something that is exclusively human, you should be using the term Messiah or Christ or the Name YHWH when referring to something that is exclusively Divine (Jn.8:58 for example).

The fundamental problem is that much of the Church has taught herself to have a lop-sided perception of the Messiah/Christ that perceives Him only through a human lens (i.e. as Jesus) whilst ignoring the fact that there is also a Divine lens through which the Church should also be perceiving the Messiah/Christ (i.e. as YHWH) so that she thinks of the Messiah/Christ equally as YHWH as she thinks of Him as Jesus. Sadly, I believe the Church's warped perception of the Messiah is a direct result of her abandoning her Jewish roots/heritage (See Our Hands are Stained with Blood and/or The Real Kosher Jesus by Michael L. Brown Ask Dr. Brown)

By it I don't mean something abstract. Both natures are concrete entities. Jesus' human nature is individual, meaning that it's the same thing that you and I are as individual human persons, but it's not a person by itself, because its Personhood consists in its hypostatic union to the Divine Person of the Son.

Then explain Heb.2:17? If the Person of the Messiah/Christ is a Divine/human hybrid as you claim then He is neither authentically Divine nor authentically human?! What you are saying in effect is that all humanity apart from the Messiah are defective as persons because we don't exist as hypostatic unions in the same way that the Messiah does?! What you are also saying is that the Messiah/Christ is nothing more than a 'Divine Person' in a human gorilla suit [God on the 'inside' but human on the 'outside']?! That is insulting both to God and the rest of humanity?!

If you were to physically hear Jesus speak with your own ears, would you be hearing the voice of a mere man, or would you be hearing the voice of God incarnate?

I would be hearing the voice of the Word (Jn.1:1)/ Truth (Jn.14:6; 17:17) incarnate (Jn.1:14) as an authentic human creature (Matt.1:23; Jn.14:28).

Simonline.

 

[Crandaddy]

Not true. It is the Messiah/Christ existing as the Divine Creator YHWH who makes that declaration. How could it possibly be true that a finite human creature exists as Eternal?! The Scriptures themselves declare that the human creature Jesus of Nazareth came into existence long after his forefather Abraham (Matt.1:18-25; Lk. 2:1-20) which, if what you are arguing is true (which it isn't), blatantly contradicts what the Messiah declares in Jn.8:58. That fact simply cannot be ignored

The incarnate Person of the Son makes that declaration in reference to His Divine nature. He's basically telling them that He's God, which He is. He's not God in His humanity, however. I've never claimed otherwise.

But the names must reflect reality and the reality is that YHWH is the Infinite Divine Creator whilst Jesus of Nazareth is the finite human creature. Jesus of Nazareth is NOT God. He is the human incarnation of God (Jn.1:14; Jn.14:28; Heb.217; 1Jn.4:1-3). Otherwise the Judeo-Christian Scriptures are nothing more than a collection of metaphysical contradictions that should be rejected as absolute metaphysical nonsense?!

But Jesus is the name of a Person, remember? That Person IS God. He's not God in His humanity, but He is God in His Divinity.

So now you're confessing to being a Unitarian modalist heretic as well? YHWH exists as Tri-Personal [Father, Son and Holy Spirit] rather than Mono-Personal [a single Person who changes from Father to Son to Holy Spirit at will (Mal.3:6)] and the Son is neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit but all three Persons are YHWH?!

I'm not a modalist. Each of the Divine Persons is a distinct Person from each of the others. I'm simply acknowledging the fact that Jesus (i.e. the incarnate Divine Person of the Son) claims the Divine Name (i.e. YHWH, “I AM”) for Himself.

I am not 'divorcing' the Divine and human natures. I am distinguishing between them both because Divine Nature is Immortal and therefore cannot experience Death (which is why God has had to incarnate as a human in the first place) and human nature is utterly incapable of bringing the Creation (including itself) into existence ex nihilo or sustaining that Creation so that it doesn't instantaneously return to nothing (Col.1:16-17)?! To insist that the human creature Jesus of Nazareth is both Divine and human is to fly in the face of all reality?! Maybe the atheistic Communists are right to incarcerate Christians in psychiatric units as insane since, purely on the basis of Christians' own arguments, they are?!

Jesus' humanity is NOT both Divine and human, as I have stated repeatedly. Are you even trying to understand my position, or are you just looking for a fight?

No, I am not. Nestorius believed that the Messiah/Christ is two Persons, a Divine Person and a human person (effectively schizophrenic). I, on the other hand, believe that the Messiah/Christ is a single Person [the Son] who simultaneously exists as both Divine Creator [YHWH] and human creature [Jesus of Nazareth]. A single Person [the Son] simultaneously existing in two different, distinct, but NOT separate, ways. The Son existing as the human creature Jesus of Nazareth is NOT the same as the same Son existing as the Divine Creator YHWH otherwise everything that exists as Divine also exists as human (and vice versa) and that is simply absurd.

Which is pretty much what I've been saying all along.

No. Absolutely not. Don't start in the middle with the human creature [Jesus] and work backwards to God. Follow the Scriptures themselves and start at the Beginning with God (Gen.1:1; Jn.1:1) and work forward to the Incarnation (Jn.1:14). It is God Who has incarnated as the man Jesus of Nazareth (1Jn.4:1-3) not the man Jesus of Nazareth who just also happened to exist as God, which is nothing short of metaphysical nonsense?!

Of course the man Jesus of Nazareth didn't just happen to exist as God! How you're getting that from what I've said I have no idea.

The Messiah/Christ is the [Divine] Son incarnate as the human creature Jesus of Nazareth but the Son existing as Divine cannot be the same as the Son existing as human otherwise God would not be Immortal (in which case why has God even bothered to incarnate?) and any human creature could bring a Creation into existence ex nihilo?! That is just plain nonsense.

Yes, that's right.

I know why Mary is referred to as Theotokos ('the God bearer'), thank you. The Messiah/Christ is both Divine Creator and human creature and for that reason the Church is right to refer to Mary as Theotokos but that does not alter the fact that the Messiah/Christ existing as human creature is NOT the same as the Messiah/Christ existing as Divine Creator. Even Mary could not give birth to the Infinite Divine Creator?! She could only give birth to His finite human incarnation but the One to whom she gave birth still exists as Infinite Divine Creator as well as finite human creature and it is for this reason that Mary is quite rightly called Theotokos.

Yep...

No. That is metaphysically impossible and therefore nonsense. Divinity is inherently Immortal and therefore incapable of experiencing death (i.e. separation from Life, otherwise how could God possibly exist as Immutable(Mal.3:6)?!). If Divinity could experience death then there would be no need for God to incarnate as human. He could just die as Divine...but then. were God to die as Divine then absolutely everything (including God Himself) would be no more (Col.1:16-17)?!

It is the Son existing as human who died upon the cross but because the Son also exists as Divine it can be said on the basis of the hypostatic union that God also died (Acts.20:28(b)) even though the Divine Nature, being inherently Immortal, did not actually die and it was YHWH [Father, Son and Holy Spirit] Who resurrected the human creature Jesus of Nazareth from the dead.

Jesus didn't stay dead because it's impossible for death to defeat God. Otherwise, you're just repeating me in different words.

Mk.13:32 is simply declaring that only the Divine Creator [Father, Son and Holy Spirit] is aware of the details of the eschatological timetable and that God is withholding that information from all finite human creatures including His own Messiah/Christ as His human incarnation. This is entirely consistent with my theology but completely vitiates yours?!

Looks to me like this is modalist (“only the Divine Creator [Father, Son and Holy Spirit] is aware...”) and possibly Nestorian as well (“God is withholding that information from . . . His human incarnation”).

The human creature is not claiming for himself the Divine name since that would be blasphemous. It is the Divine Creator Who is claiming for Himself His own Name (Ex.3:14)

And yet, the Divine Creator Who is incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth...

Oh, yes you have, as I have consistently demonstrated.

In your imagination, perhaps. Nowhere else.

But what you can't seem to grasp is that your theological position is metaphysically incongruous with Scripture. Divinity and humanity cannot be identical (i.e. synonymous and interchangeable) therefore it simply isn't true or metaphysically congruous to declare that 'Jesus' is both human creature and Divine Creator (which is effectively to declare that there is no difference between what it means to exist as Divine and what it means to exist as human). It is the Messiah/Christ (not YHWH or Jesus of Nazareth) who is both Divine Creator and human creature. YHWH exists as Divine Creator and Jesus of Nazareth exists as human creature but somehow the Son [i.e. the Messiah/Christ] simultaneously exists as both Divine Creator and human creature.

I'll say it again--“Jesus” in my lexicon refers to the incarnate PERSON of the Son. Word games, pure and simple...

Not at all. I'm not even confused by your incorrect use of the term 'Jesus' when, unless you are referring to something that is exclusively human, you should be using the term Messiah or Christ or the Name YHWH when referring to something that is exclusively Divine (Jn.8:58 for example).

Then take issue with my choice of words, not with what I mean by them.

The fundamental problem is that much of the Church has taught herself to have a lop-sided perception of the Messiah/Christ that perceives Him only through a human lens (i.e. as Jesus) whilst ignoring the fact that there is also a Divine lens through which the Church should also be perceiving the Messiah/Christ (i.e. as YHWH) so that she thinks of the Messiah/Christ equally as YHWH as she thinks of Him as Jesus. Sadly, I believe the Church's warped perception of the Messiah is a direct result of her abandoning her Jewish roots/heritage (See Our Hands are Stained with Blood and/or The Real Kosher Jesus by Michael L. Brown Ask Dr. Brown)

It is through His humanity that we see His Divinity. His Divinity and His humanity don't sit side-by-side so that we might consider each independently of the other. To be sure, His Divinity IS distinct from His humanity, but His humanity is the single lens through which we might be able to glimpse His Divinity. It is for this reason that He is called the “Truth.”

Then explain Heb.2:17? If the Person of the Messiah/Christ is a Divine/human hybrid as you claim then He is neither authentically Divine nor authentically human?! What you are saying in effect is that all humanity apart from the Messiah are defective as persons because we don't exist as hypostatic unions in the same way that the Messiah does?! What you are also saying is that the Messiah/Christ is nothing more than a 'Divine Person' in a human gorilla suit [God on the 'inside' but human on the 'outside']?! That is insulting both to God and the rest of humanity?!

I'm not saying anything of the sort. The incarnate humanity of the Son is fully and authentically human--i.e. human in every way that we are.

I would be hearing the voice of the Word (Jn.1:1)/ Truth (Jn.14:6; 17:17) incarnate (Jn.1:14) as an authentic human creature (Matt.1:23; Jn.14:28).

Correct.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Jesus came from the Father, co-existing, co-equal... John 1, the people were still made through Him, like the Ark of the Covenant, God seemed to occupy a finite space, but was still unchanged. I think His presence was thickened in His new Earthly body. His glory hidden as in a sleep. But even the unconscious mind is active. According to the Creed, Jesus came down in presence and now the Holy Spirit has, but He too is omnipresent, and I must think over the verse that says Jesus' "presence fills the universe", now after the ascension.

 

[Simonline]

The incarnate Person of the Son makes that declaration in reference to His Divine nature. He's basically telling them that He's God, which He is. He's not God in His humanity, however. I've never claimed otherwise.

But you do! Every time you refer to the Messiah/Christ as 'Jesus' [i.e. the human creature Jesus of Nazareth] in relation to his Divinity you are effectively confusing the distinction between what it means to exist as Divine Creator and what it means to exist as human creature.

The Incarnate Person of the Son does not exist as Divine. He exists as human. The whole point of incarnating is to exist as human so that He can experience death precisely because Divinity is incapable of experiencing death. It is the Son existing as Discarnate who exists as the Divine Creator not the Son existing as Incarnate?!

But Jesus is the name of a

Person, remember?

So God as Divine has no name (Ex.3:14)?!

That Person

IS God. He's not God in His humanity, but He is God in His Divinity.

You're missing the point (obtusely so). As Divine Creator the Son is YHWH but NOT Jesus of Nazareth whilst as human creature the Son is Jesus of Nazareth but NOT YHWH otherwise there is no distinction between what it means to exist as Divine Creator and what it means to exist as human creature which, by implication means that the Mormons are correct, God really is a finite human creature and all finite human creatures are also God...meanwhile, back in the real world...

Incidentally, do you believe that the Second Person of the Trinity existing as discarnate is actually God Himself or just the Son of God (Matt.1:23)?

I'm not a modalist. Each of the Divine Persons is a distinct Person from each of the others. I'm simply acknowledging the fact that Jesus (i.e. the incarnate Divine Person of the Son) claims the Divine Name (i.e. YHWH, “I AM”) for Himself.

There is no such thing as an incarnate Divine Person?! Such a thing is a metaphysical impossibility. Only existing as discarnate is the Son exclusively Divine (Jn.4:24). Existing as incarnate the same Son is exclusively human (Jn.14:28). This is in strict accordance with his respective natures which are incapable of being amalgamated into a Divine/human hybrid nature.

It is the Son existing as Divine who is claiming Divinity but He is doing it through his human incarnation. It is YHWH, NOT Jesus, who is making the claim

Jesus' humanity is

NOT both Divine and human, as I have stated repeatedly. Are you even trying to understand my position, or are you just looking for a fight?

No. I'm just pointing out the monumental inconsistencies of your position. If you insist on seeking to eliminate the distinction between what it means to exist as Divine Creator and what it means to exist as human creature by using the name Jesus in any and every reference to the Messiah/Christ then I will just keep parading these inconsistencies before you until you finally understand

Which is pretty much what I've been saying all along.

If that were true then you would have referred to the Messiah/Christ as YHWH as well as Jesus to reflect the fact that the Messiah/Christ exists as both Divine Creator and human creature. As it is you have only ever referred to the Messiah/Christ as 'Jesus' thus confusing the distinction between what it means to exist as Divine Creator and what it means to exist as human creature.

Of course the man Jesus of Nazareth didn't just happen to exist as God! How you're getting that from what I've said I have no idea.

But you only ever refer to the Messiah/Christ as 'Jesus'. You're defining the Messiah/Christ only according to his temporal human nature even though you also make reference to His Eternal Divine Nature. It's not so much your theology that's wrong as your metaphysical emphasis.

Yes, that's right.

If only you really believed that?

Yep...

If only you really believed that as well? You make agreeing noises but I don't think you're actually grasping the point I'm trying to make?

Jesus didn't stay dead because it's impossible for death to defeat God.

Like I said, you're just not getting it. The Messiah/Christ existing as Divine Creator is absolutely impervious to death [that's why YHWH has had to incarnate as human creature in order to experience death]. It is the Messiah/Christ existing as the human creature Jesus of Nazareth Who died upon the cross and atoned for our sin. The only part played by the Messiah/Christ existing as the Divine Creator YHWH was (along with the Father and the Spirit) to resurrect the human creature three days later. The Son existing as Divine Creator is absolutely impervious to death and therefore did NOT die upon the cross. However, what was achieved upon the cross by the human creature was, on the basis of Communicatio Idiomatum (communication of attributes), also attributed to the Divine Nature (Acts.20:28(b)) even though the Divine is absolutely impervious to death.

Otherwise, you're just repeating me in different words.

Far from it.

Looks to me like this is modalist (“only the Divine Creator [Father, Son and Holy Spirit] is aware...”) and possibly Nestorian as well (“God is withholding that information from . . . His

human incarnation”).

How can you say it is modalist? This is about the Infinite Tri-Personal Creator [Father, Son and Holy Spirit] withholding information from his finite human creatures, including the Messiah/Christ. Mark.13:32 is crucial in having a correct understanding of the difference between what it means to exist as Infinite Divine Creator and what it means to exist as finite human creature. If this is not the correct understanding then it means that in declaring to his disciples that only the Father knew the day and the hour the Omniscient Messiah/Christ lied to his disciples and that, by definition, precludes him from being the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (Jn.1:29). The bottom line is that there can be no salvation and all Creation is forever doomed?! Again, you can't eat your cake and still have it?

How can you say that it is Nestorian? It has already been agreed that the Messiah/Christ is a single Person simultaneously existing as Divine Creator and human creature. If the Infinite and Omniscient Divine Creator choses to withhold any information from His finite human creatures including Jesus of Nazareth how is that Nestorian?

Again, the conclusion is inescapable. If my interpretation/understanding is wrong then according to the Word of God (Mk.13:32) the Messiah/Christ is a liar and therefore not the Saviour of the world?!

And yet, the Divine Creator Who is incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth...

Agreed but the human incarnation is manifestly not the same as the Divine Creator (Jn.14:28) in spite of the fact that you keep insisting that they are?!

In your imagination, perhaps. Nowhere else.

All over this thread actually as any reasonable and independent person would confirm?

I'll say it again--“Jesus” in my lexicon refers to the incarnate

PERSON of the Son. Word games, pure and simple...

There is no point in constantly emphasising the word 'Person'. There is no dispute about whether or not either God or the Messiah are personal. The dispute is about whether or not existing as a finite human creature (i.e. incarnate) is the same as existing as the Infinite Divine Creator (i.e. discarnate). You insist that it is whilst equally I insist that it isn't. We cannot both be correct on this point. One of us is wrong.

Then take issue with my choice of words, not with what I mean by them.

No because words by definition have meaning. Words do not exist independent of their meaning. If you only refer to the Messiah/Christ as 'Jesus' but never as YHWH then by definition what you are actually saying is that there is no essential difference between what it means to exist as Divine Creator and what it means to exist as human creature?! It is this confusion with which I take issue.

It is through His humanity that we see His Divinity. His Divinity and His humanity don't sit side-by-side so that we might consider each independently of the other. To be sure, His Divinity IS distinct from His humanity, but His humanity is the single lens through which we might be able to glimpse His Divinity. It is for this reason that He is called the “Truth.”

That's not what the Bible says (Jn.1:1; 17:17). The Son is called Truth because that is what He is, eternally so. YHWH Himself is Truth in the absolute sense which is why YHWH rather than Man is the true measure of all things.

Since the two natures of the hypostatic union are entirely distinct from each other whilst not being separate (since that would destroy the singularity of the Person) and definitely not amalgamated into one in order to equate with the singularity of the Person which is metaphysically impossible then it could indeed be said that his two natures 'sit side by side so that we might consider each independently of the other'. I believe that it is because we don't do this enough that far too many of us have a warped understanding of the Messiah/Christ.

I'm not saying anything of the sort. The incarnate humanity of the Son is fully and authentically human--i.e. human in every way that we are.

I suggest that you go back and read your original comments in the light of my response. Maybe you'll think differently when you compare the two together but I stand by my original comments.

Correct.

I'm glad we agree on something.

I also like the fact that we are both sticking at it without being uncivil to each other. I'm enjoying this debate. How about you?

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

Jesus came from the Father, co-existing, co-equal... John 1, the people were still made through Him, like the Ark of the Covenant, God seemed to occupy a finite space, but was still unchanged. I think His presence was thickened in His new Earthly body. His glory hidden as in a sleep. But even the unconscious mind is active. According to the Creed, Jesus came down in presence and now the Holy Spirit has, but He too is omnipresent, and I must think over the verse that says Jesus' "presence fills the universe", now after the ascension.

With respect whilst this might be conventional dogma it's also metaphysical nonsense.

The One who has incarnated is YHWH (Ex.3:14) and in doing so He has come into existence as the human creature Jesus of Nazareth (Matt.1:23; Jn1:1; 1:14; 1Jn.4:1-3) whilst remaining absolutely unchanged as YHWH (Mal.3:6).

How can the presence of a finite creature fill the universe? Whilst the Messiah/Christ simultaneously exists as Infinite Divine Creator and finite human creature Absolute Reality dictates that no finite human creature can fill the universe just as no finite human creature can either bring that universe into existence ex nihilo (from nothing) or sustain that universe so that it doesn't instantaneously return to nothing (Col.1:16-17)?


Simonline.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

When it says "though the world was made through Him, they did not know Him" in John 1, and considering twenty one year olds looking at a thirty year old, alike Mark, how does that work?

And what was the nature of the Ark of the Covenant in Moses' and Solomon's Temple? A box coated in gold. Non natural, man made, and full of God's presence. A time when God's presence did not move out and fill people. Instead, touch and die. Surely God in the Ark or the Angel of the Lord was omnipresent, and the glory of God's back as witnessed by Moses, was a central presence right, not a unit?

 

[Living in the Light]

Yes Jesus is Omnipresent, He is Divine.

Heaven is in our immediate midst; it's just not physical. It is a different realm. Have you read about Jesus' transfiguration? Matthew 17:1-13

 

[Crandaddy]

But you do! Every time you refer to the Messiah/Christ as 'Jesus' [i.e. the human creature Jesus of Nazareth] in relation to his Divinity you are effectively confusing the distinction between what it means to exist as Divine Creator and what it means to exist as human creature.

The Messiah/Christ is incarnate as Jesus. “Jesus” is the name of the Messiah/Christ insofar as He is human.

The Incarnate Person of the Son does not exist as Divine. He exists as human.

So He stops being Divine once He's incarnate?

The whole point of incarnating is to exist as human so that He can experience death precisely because Divinity is incapable of experiencing death.

Agreed.

It is the Son existing as Discarnate who exists as the Divine Creator not the Son existing as Incarnate?!

Yes, but the “as” is important. The incarnate Person of the Son exists both as Divine and as human, though these two modes of existing are distinct from each other. One and the same Person is both truly God and truly man, but these two natures are quite distinct from each other. A single Divine/human hybrid nature is a metaphysical absurdity (not to mention heresy)! I have held this position all along.

So God as Divine has no name (Ex.3:14)?!

One and the same Person is named “YHWH” insofar as He's Divine and “Jesus” insofar as He's human.

As Divine Creator the Son is YHWH but NOT Jesus of Nazareth whilst as human creature the Son is Jesus of Nazareth but NOT YHWH otherwise there is no distinction between what it means to exist as Divine Creator and what it means to exist as human creature which, by implication means that the Mormons are correct, God really is a finite human creature and all finite human creatures are also God...meanwhile, back in the real world...

Agreed--again, so long as we remain mindful of the “as.” The “as” serves to indicate that we're talking about two very distinct modes of existing, but only one Person who exists according to both of them.

Incidentally, do you believe that the Second Person of the Trinity existing as discarnate is actually God Himself or just the Son of God (Matt.1:23)?

Insofar as He is Divine (but not insofar as He is human), the Second Person of the Trinity is God in the Person of the Son. He is fully Divine, just as the Father and the Spirit are fully Divine, but He is a distinct Person from each of them.

There is no such thing as an incarnate Divine Person?! Such a thing is a metaphysical impossibility. Only existing as discarnate is the Son exclusively Divine (Jn.4:24). Existing as incarnate the same Son is exclusively human (Jn.14:28). This is in strict accordance with his respective natures which are incapable of being amalgamated into a Divine/human hybrid nature.

The Person of the Son is always and of metaphysical necessity Divine. In the Incarnation, He unites an individual human nature to His Person, so that one and the same Person has two distinct, unmixed, unmingled, unconfused modes of existing. Christ's individual human nature is the exact same thing that you and I are as individual human beings. We, as ordinary human beings, are individual human natures--since our individual personhood does not consist in hypostatic unity with the Son's Divinity, as Christ's does, our individual human natures by themselves comprise ourselves as individual personal beings.

It is the Son existing as Divine who is claiming Divinity but He is doing it through his human incarnation. It is YHWH, NOT Jesus, who is making the claim

Yes, it is the Son Who makes the claim as Divine (YHWH), but not as human (Jesus).

No. I'm just pointing out the monumental inconsistencies of your position. If you insist on seeking to eliminate the distinction between what it means to exist as Divine Creator and what it means to exist as human creature by using the name Jesus in any and every reference to the Messiah/Christ then I will just keep parading these inconsistencies before you until you finally understand

Again, Jesus is the Person of the Son as incarnate.

If that were true then you would have referred to the Messiah/Christ as YHWH as well as Jesus to reflect the fact that the Messiah/Christ exists as both Divine Creator and human creature. As it is you have only ever referred to the Messiah/Christ as 'Jesus' thus confusing the distinction between what it means to exist as Divine Creator and what it means to exist as human creature.

Okay then, the Messiah/Christ is YHWH as Divine and Jesus as human. If I refer to Jesus as Divine or as the Messiah/Christ, it's because I take “Jesus” to be a name for the Person of the Son. It's the proper name of the Son as incarnate, but it's not the name of His individual human nature by itself. Jesus' humanity simply taken by itself has no name, as it's not a person in its own right.

But you only ever refer to the Messiah/Christ as 'Jesus'. You're defining the Messiah/Christ only according to his temporal human nature even though you also make reference to His Eternal Divine Nature. It's not so much your theology that's wrong as your metaphysical emphasis.

I'll say it again: “Jesus,” as I use it, refers to the Person of the Son as incarnate. I might speak loosely of, say, “Jesus' Divinity,” but I don't mean by it that Jesus' humanity is Divine. What I mean, rather, is something more like “the Divinity of the Person of the Son, Who is also incarnate as the man Jesus of Nazareth.”

 

[Crandaddy]

Continued...

Like I said, you're just not getting it.

I get that by my use of “Jesus” you think that I'm confusing the Divine and human natures and/or somehow fusing them together into some sort of hybrid nature. I assure you that I am not, any appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. I am quite aware of the need to properly distinguish the two natures.

The Messiah/Christ existing as Divine Creator is absolutely impervious to death [that's why YHWH has had to incarnate as human creature in order to experience death]. It is the Messiah/Christ existing as the human creature Jesus of Nazareth Who died upon the cross and atoned for our sin. The only part played by the Messiah/Christ existing as the Divine Creator YHWH was (along with the Father and the Spirit) to resurrect the human creature three days later. The Son existing as Divine Creator is absolutely impervious to death and therefore did NOT die upon the cross. However, what was achieved upon the cross by the human creature was, on the basis of Communicatio Idiomatum (communication of attributes), also attributed to the Divine Nature (Acts.20:28(b)) even though the Divine is absolutely impervious to death.

Yes, it's by virtue of the human nature's dying on the cross that we can say that God died on the cross, just as it's by virtue of the human nature's being born of the Virgin that we can say that she's the Mother of God. The Son in His Divine nature can neither be born nor die.

How can you say it is modalist? This is about the Infinite Tri-Personal Creator [Father, Son and Holy Spirit] withholding information from his finite human creatures, including the Messiah/Christ.

So long as we're clear that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct Persons.

Mark.13:32 is crucial in having a correct understanding of the difference between what it means to exist as Infinite Divine Creator and what it means to exist as finite human creature. If this is not the correct understanding then it means that in declaring to his disciples that only the Father knew the day and the hour the Omniscient Messiah/Christ lied to his disciples and that, by definition, precludes him from being the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (Jn.1:29). The bottom line is that there can be no salvation and all Creation is forever doomed?! Again, you can't eat your cake and still have it?

But if we take Mark 13:32 literally, then we must conclude that even the Son as Divine doesn't know the day or the hour, and therefore that He isn't omniscient even in His Divinity, for notice that He says that only the Father knows the day and the hour.

How can you say that it is Nestorian? It has already been agreed that the Messiah/Christ is a single Person simultaneously existing as Divine Creator and human creature. If the Infinite and Omniscient Divine Creator choses to withhold any information from His finite human creatures including Jesus of Nazareth how is that Nestorian?

So long as we're clear that the human “creature” we're talking about here is an individual human nature whose Personhood consists in its hypostatic union to the Divine Logos. In other words, it's not an individual personal being in its own right.

Again, the conclusion is inescapable. If my interpretation/understanding is wrong then according to the Word of God (Mk.13:32) the Messiah/Christ is a liar and therefore not the Saviour of the world?!

But, correct me if I'm wrong, your interpretation would preserve the Son's Divine omniscience. Again, notice that He says that only the Father knows the day and the hour. Taken literally, this would mean that the Son does not know the day or the hour even in His Divinity. So He would still be lying to His disciples!

There is no point in constantly emphasising the word 'Person'. There is no dispute about whether or not either God or the Messiah are personal. The dispute is about whether or not existing as a finite human creature (i.e. incarnate) is the same as existing as the Infinite Divine Creator (i.e. discarnate). You insist that it is whilst equally I insist that it isn't. We cannot both be correct on this point. One of us is wrong.

They are not the same. I have held this position from the start. This is why I talk about different “modes” of existing in the incarnate Son. The Divine and human modes are two very different ways of existing, but yet one and the same Person exists according to both of them. You are quite right that it is a metaphysical absurdity to suppose that they could be fused together into some sort of Divine/human hybrid.

That's not what the Bible says (Jn.1:1; 17:17). The Son is called Truth because that is what He is, eternally so. YHWH Himself is Truth in the absolute sense which is why YHWH rather than Man is the true measure of all things.

If I may wax metaphysical for a moment, Truth is YHWH by another name. This is because in revealing to us His name YHWH (“I AM”), God is reveling to us that His Divine nature is simply to BE. truth is a property of being, so that whatever has being is also true insofar as it has being. Therefore, since God is absolute Being (as He reveals to us in His name YHWH), He also is absolute Truth. truth is simply being as it is intelligible to rational minds.

But, since Being and Truth are by themselves two of the most abstract and 'distant' concepts that our rational minds can grasp, in order for God to show Himself to us, He has to 'enflesh' Himself as one of us, and demonstrate His Truth to us by His Life, Death, and Resurrection.

Since the two natures of the hypostatic union are entirely distinct from each other whilst not being separate (since that would destroy the singularity of the Person) and definitely not amalgamated into one in order to equate with the singularity of the Person which is metaphysically impossible then it could indeed be said that his two natures 'sit side by side so that we might consider each independently of the other'. I believe that it is because we don't do this enough that far too many of us have a warped understanding of the Messiah/Christ.

We can consider Divinity as distinct from humanity, because of course Divinity is distinct from humanity. But rather than saying that they sit side-by-side, I'd say that Christ's humanity is, in a way, superimposed over His Divinity, so that it's through His humanity that we see His Divinity. This should by no means be taken to imply that His humanity and Divinity are in any way fused together, however.

I'm glad we agree on something.

Seems to me that we agree on a bit more than just 'something.' As I see it, the crux of the problem is that we're using different terms and emphases. Just as I use wording that might suggest to you monophysititsm, so you at times use wording that appears to me more Nestorian than I'm comfortable with--by placing such heavy emphasis on the distinction between the natures, and your use of the term "creature" to describe Jesus' humanity--but even so, I don't see sufficient evidence to label you a Nestorian.

I also like the fact that we are both sticking at it without being uncivil to each other. I'm enjoying this debate. How about you?

I'm always up for a robust exchange!

 

[Brandon Hickman]

To ullift understanding upon what is known as the Christian Trinity ( Father, Son, Holy Spirit) it is important to always remember here the scriptures of their being ONLY One God. There are many false spirits whom claim to be Good and are not, but there still truly is only one God. This one God is most definately Omnipresent. You can Find Him under any rock. He is Omnipresent to the point of living in every cave, every cabinet, even living in every drop of blood. Alive He is & seeing even in every drop of water. There is nowhere that the one God Jesus does not live always. Jesus must always know the thoughts of all life, and shall always. Yet Jesus is Master of forethought, living mostly in the future among His own plans of a noble truth.