Why we reject the Council of Chalcedon ?

Aner · May 17, 2010

He is a genuine man.

Lanky - So I am a bit confused - but maybe your answer to these two questions will help clarify.

1. If the Logos left Jesus (hypothetically), would Jesus be able to independently function the same way you and I do?

2. Who was the "MY" (person/consciousness/"I"/ego) in "not MY will be done but THY will be done"?

Best,
Aner

lankyknight1990 · May 18, 2010

Aner said:
Lanky - So I am a bit confused - but maybe your answer to these two questions will help clarify.

1. If the Logos left Jesus (hypothetically), would Jesus be able to independently function the same way you and I do?

2. Who was the "MY" (person/consciousness/"I"/ego) in "not MY will be done but THY will be done"?

Best,
Aner

1. the logos cannt theoretically leave Jesus. Jesus is the Logos, the Incarnated Logos. The WOrd who pre-existed before all time. We dont theorise heresy.
2. Jesus is not the Father, but is the Son. By saying this he is declaring he is doing this of his own free choice. He is not saying that he doesn't want to do it however. He chose to do it and wanted to. He knew it was the only way. "My will" is Jesus, the Incarnated Logos.

Aner · May 18, 2010

1. If I understand right - then there is no independently functioning genuine man like you and me - simply a deity in a non-autonomous functioning human body (since you are saying the human body cannot live without the deity) - sort of like a human puppet which the deity moves around (vs. a genuine man who IS capable of autonomous functioning).

2. You are saying the "MY" in "My will" is the Logos. That certainly is consistent. HOWEVER, you are saying that he "wanted to do it" whereas Jesus said "NOT My will.."; therefore, Jesus is clearly saying that he DID NOT want to do it. You have me puzzled on both your statement as well as the notion that one person of God has a divergent will than the other other person of God (just as an aside - do you see that each person of God has their own independently functioning will?).

Aner

lankyknight1990 · May 18, 2010

Aner said:
1. If I understand right - then there is no independently functioning genuine man like you and me - simply a deity in a non-autonomous functioning human body (since you are saying the human body cannot live without the deity) - sort of like a human puppet which the deity moves around (vs. a genuine man who IS capable of autonomous functioning).

2. You are saying the "MY" in "My will" is the Logos. That certainly is consistent. HOWEVER, you are saying that he "wanted to do it" whereas Jesus said "NOT My will.."; therefore, Jesus is clearly saying that he DID NOT want to do it. You have me puzzled on both your statement as well as the notion that one person of God has a divergent will than the other other person of God (just as an aside - do you see that each person of God has their own independently functioning will?).

Aner

Peace,

In regards to your last post

1. He is not just God in a human body. He is divine because his daddy was God. He is man because his mummy was human. But he is Fully God and fully man at the same time. How exactly this works is a mystery of the faith, but I seem to understand it I just dont understand what you are getting at.
2. We in the OO Church believe that everything Christ Did was for an example to us. For example, did Jesus have to fast? I say no. I mean he never sinned, nor was he born with the stain of Sin. He was like adam before the fall. Did adam fast before sin? i dont think so. What need would there have been. Secondly when he is praying in the garden, who heard him? The others were asleep. Now is the gospel just written to show us a biography, or to teach us how to live? To suggest Jesus did not want to go to the Cross takes away his free will, and turns God into a horrible being. However Jesus Chose to Go to the Cross, but by declaring not my will but your will he is saying its the fathers will, showing his will is that of the father by CHOICE.

Macarius · May 18, 2010

lankyknight1990 said:
Peace,

In regards to your last post

1. He is not just God in a human body. He is divine because his daddy was God. He is man because his mummy was human. But he is Fully God and fully man at the same time. How exactly this works is a mystery of the faith, but I seem to understand it I just dont understand what you are getting at.
2. We in the OO Church believe that everything Christ Did was for an example to us. For example, did Jesus have to fast? I say no. I mean he never sinned, nor was he born with the stain of Sin. He was like adam before the fall. Did adam fast before sin? i dont think so. What need would there have been. Secondly when he is praying in the garden, who heard him? The others were asleep. Now is the gospel just written to show us a biography, or to teach us how to live? To suggest Jesus did not want to go to the Cross takes away his free will, and turns God into a horrible being. However Jesus Chose to Go to the Cross, but by declaring not my will but your will he is saying its the fathers will, showing his will is that of the father by CHOICE.

Are you saying there are, then, 3 wills within the Trinity? Does the Father have a separate will from the Son from the Holy Spirit?

Why is it more problematic to introduce three wills into the Trinity (and risk tri-theism) than to introduce two wills into Christ? At least the Chalcedonian / di-physite can speak of those two wills as stemming from His complete humanity (which must, by extension, include a human will) and complete divinity (which must, by extension, include the Divine Will) and simply assert that in His one personhood the humanity submitted to the divinity.

But how are there three wills in the Trinity if they only have one nature / essence / being?

lankyknight1990 · May 18, 2010

I never said there are three wills of the trinit? there is one will of the trinity. As for Christ it is orthodox to suggest that if Christ was in two natures (as suggested By St Leo) then
he must have 2 wills, one for man and one for God, and the wills would HAVE to be in full union. I personally think its alot more simple to just say that Christ was one Nature, fully God and Fully Man, and that He had one Will, Fully God and Fully Man, and that he had free Choice. His humanity had the freedom that Adam had. He chose to follow the Father. and to suggest otherwise would take away from the humanity of christ.

Aner · May 18, 2010

7Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

What is this all about?? And who is the person that "he"/"him" refers to? The human person of Jesus - or the divine Logos? And, if the divine Logos - well - that is just bizarre to see God crying with tears to be saved from death...........

Aner · May 18, 2010

At least the Chalcedonian / di-physite can speak of those two wills as stemming from His complete humanity (which must, by extension, include a human will)

If by extension "complete humanity" MUST include a "human will" why doesn't "complete humanity" by extension include a genuine person/consciousness/ego/"I"?? In fact, is the notion of "complete humanity" even relevant without a genuine person/consciousness/ego/"I"?? Have you ever met a man/woman without??

Best,
Aner

lankyknight1990 · May 19, 2010

Aner said:
If by extension "complete humanity" MUST include a "human will" why doesn't "complete humanity" by extension include a genuine person/consciousness/ego/"I"?? In fact, is the notion of "complete humanity" even relevant without a genuine person/consciousness/ego/"I"?? Have you ever met a man/woman without??

Best,
Aner

I am now completely lost. I have no idea what your talking about sorry.

Aner · May 19, 2010

Lanky

Let's go back to the OP - the OP denies the human person of Christ - thus denying the genuine man Christ Jesus. I am uncertain why that is so hard to understand. There is no genuine, independently functioning man in the hypostatic union - whereas in scripture, Jesus MUST be a genuine man in order for their to be a ressurection of mankind (ICor15:21) and to be a mediator (ITim2:5), etc.

Jesus is "a man attested to by God with signs and wonders". Jesus is not "a human nature with God dancing it around attested to by God with signs and wonders". The difference seems pretty blatant to me.

Best
Aner

Macarius · May 19, 2010

lankyknight1990 said:
I never said there are three wills of the trinit? there is one will of the trinity. As for Christ it is orthodox to suggest that if Christ was in two natures (as suggested By St Leo) then
he must have 2 wills, one for man and one for God, and the wills would HAVE to be in full union. I personally think its alot more simple to just say that Christ was one Nature, fully God and Fully Man, and that He had one Will, Fully God and Fully Man, and that he had free Choice. His humanity had the freedom that Adam had. He chose to follow the Father. and to suggest otherwise would take away from the humanity of christ.

You suggested three wills in the Trinity by suggesting that Christ's words of prayer in the Garden indicated that it was not His (the Son - one will) will but that of the Father (the Father - a second will) to which He voluntarily submitted.

By extension, if you wished to preserve the co-equality of the Holy Spirit you'd have to say it also has an independent will. That would be three wills.

Alternatively, you could assert that Christ had only the divine will. But that gives you two problems. If His will was just the divine will, then He wasn't fully human. If His will was just the divine will, then His prayer to the Father in the garden makes no sense. If His will was purely human than that gives you one problem: He wouldn't be fully God.

Unlike natures (which aren't real things, but are rather just lists of attributes that are "natural" for a given category of things - like all rocks have / demonstrate "rock nature") wills are REAL things. Like fingers or a soul, all humans have a human will. God has the divine will. Language about Christ having one nature works in the framework of the OO because you basically say that Christ's one nature is a FULL combination of humanity and divinity. In other words, everything on the human list Christ has, and everything on the Divine list, Christ has.

But on that human list is a human will. On that divine list is the Divine Will. So doesn't Christ HAVE to have two wills? How else could He be fully human and fully divine?

Macarius · May 19, 2010

Aner said:
If by extension "complete humanity" MUST include a "human will" why doesn't "complete humanity" by extension include a genuine person/consciousness/ego/"I"?? In fact, is the notion of "complete humanity" even relevant without a genuine person/consciousness/ego/"I"?? Have you ever met a man/woman without??

Best,
Aner

It does not include a separate / distinct ego because there is no separation between the natures or wills. They are, at all times, located in the single person of Jesus. That's the whole point. That's the ONLY point. The Divine literally BECAME HUMAN. It didn't co-habitate alongside a human ego while remaining distinct as a Divine ego. It BECAME the human ego. As such, it (the pre-Incarnate Logos) still possessed all the ATTRIBUTES (including will) of the Divine nature, and gained all the human ATTRIBUTES (including will) of humanity, but always there has been one person: the Divine Son, Jesus Christ.

If you separate them into two ego/"I"s you destroy the Incarnation because that would imply that the divine only "contacted" or "came near" the human. For us, it MUST be that the Divine BECAME human. I will defend the doctrine of Two Wills for that, but I will likewise attack any hint of Nestorianism for the same reason. Jesus MUST be ONE - an inseparable hypostatic (essential) unity of humanity and divinity.

You say a human must have identity. Jesus has identity. The one person Jesus is an identity. That identity / ego / person / self happens to have everything it means to be human and divine.

In Christ,
Macarius

Aner · May 19, 2010

7Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

What is this all about?? And who is the person that "he"/"him" refers to? The human person of Jesus - or the divine Logos? And, if the divine Logos - well - that is just bizarre to see God crying with tears to be saved from death...........

Aner · May 19, 2010

Mac

Thanks for your input - I enjoyed your description of nature above and have filed it into my records.

As such, it (the pre-Incarnate Logos) still possessed all the ATTRIBUTES (including will) of the Divine nature, and gained all the human ATTRIBUTES (including will) of humanity, but always there has been one person: the Divine Son, Jesus Christ.

Thanks - the bold is my point - there is no human person - no man Christ Jesus - in the hypostatic union - in contrast to "a man attested to by God through signs and wonders" (A2:22).

You say a human must have identity. Jesus has identity. The one person Jesus is an identity. That identity / ego / person / self happens to have everything it means to be human and divine.

A human must have (obviously) a HUMAN identity - if there is no human identity - there is no human - there is something else - whatever it may be. The hypostatic union denies that Jesus had a human identity - denies that he was a genuine man - in contrast to Paul who asserts that He MUST be a genuine man for the ressurection to be a reality for manking (ICor15:21).

Best,
Aner

Macarius · May 20, 2010

Aner said:
Thanks - the bold is my point - there is no human person - no man Christ Jesus - in the hypostatic union - in contrast to "a man attested to by God through signs and wonders" (A2:22).

You are, by your phrasing, demanding a human person and divine person. In other words, you are arguing circularly.

There is a person. Jesus. This person is human. This person is divine. This is one person.

A human must have (obviously) a HUMAN identity - if there is no human identity - there is no human

What do you mean by identity? I feel like your argument rests on an ambiguous term; if you define it that may help.

I mean, as far as I can see, Christ HAS a human identity: Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary. The Divine Person, the Logos Son of God, pre-exists the Incarnation, yes. And it is this person who becomes man. But this in no way compromises the humanity of Jesus. This is the miracle.

- there is something else - whatever it may be. The hypostatic union denies that Jesus had a human identity - denies that he was a genuine man -

No. Rather, it FULLY AFFIRMS that the Divine Logos became FULLY human. That's the whole point. If you assert / demand two persons then you destroy the unity required for the cross.

If there is no unity of the humanity and divinity in the one person, then it was not God who was born (just a human identity) and not God who died (just the human person). This UTTERLY destroys the Gospel. God was born as Jesus Christ - a human. God died as Jesus Christ - a human. For only a human is capable of death (God isn't), yet only God could fill death with infinite life (a human can't).

Incidently, we have moved a bit away from the topic of this sticky. If you'd like to continue, pop over to The Ancient Way: St. Justin Martyr's Corner and we can continue this as far as we'd like to

In Christ,
Macarius

Aner · May 20, 2010

There is a person. Jesus. This person is human. This person is divine. This is one person.

A single person who both is human and divine? This sounds like the grand imagination of a pre-medieval mind.

Let's try to bring this into reality. Was this single person created in time? Every human person that has ever existed has been created in time. If your person was not created in time - you don't have a genuine human person - regardless of the label you attach to the person for whatever reason including philosphical convenience.

Best,
Aner

Aner · May 20, 2010

What do you mean by identity? I feel like your argument rests on an ambiguous term; if you define it that may help.

Mac - I actually used the term you employed above. I don't use this term myself and would gladly dispense with it. The notion of allocating an entity into a person as distinct from a nature is an fictional abstraction created a millenium and half ago for philosphical purposes. I don't see such a conception in scripture. I am sort of forced to work with this language to communicate with those who use it.

Best,
Aner

Aner · May 20, 2010

If there is no unity of the humanity and divinity in the one person, then it was not God who was born (just a human identity) and not God who died (just the human person). This UTTERLY destroys the Gospel.

Why?

HEY - I just saw your end-note re: St Justin's corner. I am leaving these posts here for reference but I will copy them over to the area you suggested - probably tonight or later today - can't spend any more time - break is over!

Macarius · May 20, 2010

Aner said:
A single person who both is human and divine? This sounds like the grand imagination of a pre-medieval mind.

Let's try to bring this into reality.

That's an ad-hom attack. So because my statement sounds like it comes before the middle ages it is de-facto false?

I have brought it into reality - or rather, I have summarized the reality of the mystery of Christ.

Was this single person created in time?

The Divine Logos pre-exists the Incarnation. His humanity (that is to say, the human Jesus) was born in time, born of a woman. So yes. His human nature was created in time, as is proper to that nature.

Every human person that has ever existed has been created in time.

Incorrect. Every human nature has as an attribute "being created in time" (that is, temporal and subject to change). Christ's human nature made Him just as much a part of time as you or I. The person Jesus underwent birth. His human nature is full.

But you assert that every human PERSON is created. That is true for all other human persons because all other human persons aside from Christ are strictly and only human. Christ is NOT strictly and only human. He is the Divine-made-flesh. His human nature has a moment of "beginning" (conception at the Annunciation), and at that miracle (where the Incarnation occured) the Divine Logos became fully human.

As I said above Jesus is one person. Jesus is human (and therefore has a beginning). Jesus is divine (and therefore pre-exists all things). This is the miracle: the divine has been joined to the human in one person: Jesus.

This is the last reply I'll make in this thread. If you wish to continue, pop over to "The Ancient Way: St. Justin Martyr's Corner" and make a thread there and we can continue. I don't want to clog up the OO's board when I have an EO one so close by.

In Christ,
Macarius

Macarius · May 20, 2010

Aner said:
Why?

HEY - I just saw your end-note re: St Justin's corner. I am leaving these posts here for reference but I will copy them over to the area you suggested - probably tonight or later today - can't spend any more time - break is over!

Sounds good! See you there

Why we reject the Council of Chalcedon ?

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Progressive Orthodox Christian

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Progressive Orthodox Christian

Progressive Orthodox Christian

Newbie

Newbie

Progressive Orthodox Christian

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Progressive Orthodox Christian

Progressive Orthodox Christian

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency