The 2 Natures in Christ

[Eleanor]

Clean up of post #160

Hypostatic Union

5. The (one) Person of Jesus will always be both Divine and human. (John 1:1,14,20:28, 1 John 5:20, 1 Timothy 2:5) Those who deny this fact are the spirit of antichrist. (1 John 4:1-4,2 John 7)

Jesus has two natures, divine and human, in one person.

No He is a Divine Person with a human nature from mary.

You are contradicting yourself: both divine and human vs. only divine with a human nature.

If he is both divine and human, he has two natures in his one person.

If He was a human person and a divine person that is the heresy known as Nestorianism condemned by the church councils/creeds.

No, Nestorianism is that Jesus had two persons.

He is one person with two natures, divine and human.

And the Trinity is one God in three persons.

 

[Eleanor]

That is what I said its just worded differently to expose the Nestorian heresy.

No, you avoided stating two natures because you misunderstand the Nestorian heresy as two natures in one person,
when the heresy is he had "two persons."

 

[civic]

No, you avoided stating two natures because you misunderstand the Nestorian heresy as two natures in one person,
when the heresy is he had "two persons."

No the HU I presented is 100% Orthodox. He has both a Divine nature and a human nature. He is a Divine Person with a human nature. He has 2 natures hence the 2 natures I Christ. His human nature is not a human person ( Nestorianism) . Nothing in my HU in the OP needs editing. IT’s Orthodox and biblical . You are seeing things that are not there or reading into it some other intent. I’m the author and I j JW what I said and know what I meant . It’s worded very carefully

hope this helps !!!

 

[civic]

No, you avoided stating two natures because you misunderstand the Nestorian heresy as two natures in one person,
when the heresy is he had "two persons."

I understand Nestorianism more than most. I debated it for years daily on CARM with a very astute unitarian named Milton who tried trapping me all the time with scripture , orthodoxy, creeds to try and trip me up. He could not do it and was unsuccessful. And he knew what trinitarianism taught more than most trinitarians did and corrected them often .

The old time CARM posters here would remember those debates .

 

[civic]

Anhypostasia is essential to a trinitarian understanding of the person of the God-man. It is impossible to be a trinitarian without a confession of it. Classical Christology has described the relationship of the two natures of Christ by using the rather arcane-sounding terms anhypostasis and enhypostasis. What does this mean? Well, firstly, the human nature of Jesus has no hypostasis, or "person", of its own, but subsists only as the human nature of the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity. His human nature is anhypostatic in that it has no personhood, or independent reality of its own (the word 'subsists' is used rather than 'exists’' to indicate this dependence): rather it is hypostatized in union with, in (so, enhypostasis), the person of the Logos. This is how Chalcedon is explained: we have in Jesus one person in two natures. The subject of this human nature is divine. Thus Jesus is a divine person and not a human person! Here's Louis Berkhof, A Summary of Christian Doctrine, The Banner of Truth Trust, 1938, p. 87:

"Christ has a human nature, but He is not a human person. The Person of the Mediator is the unchangeable Son of God. In the incarnation He did not change into a human person; neither did He adopt a human person. He simply assumed, in addition to His divine nature, a human nature, which did not develop into an independent personality, but became personal in the Person of the Son of God. After this assumption of human nature the Person of the Mediator is not only divine but divine-human; He is the Godman, possessing all the essential qualities of both the human and the divine nature. He has both a divine and a human consciousness, as well as a human and a divine will. This is a mystery which we cannot fathom."

 

[donadams]

No only through Jesus who is our High Priest as taught in the book of Hebrews.

So a priest is required?

Christ is high priest, who are the low priests?
Thanks

Only through the sacrifice offered by our High Priest, who offered himself as the sacrifice

Then who are the low priests

 

[Eleanor]

No the HU I presented is 100% Orthodox. He has both a Divine nature and a human nature. He is a Divine Person with a human nature.

Self-contradictory.

If he has two natures he is both a divine and a human person.

He has 2 natures hence the 2 natures I Christ. His human nature is not a human person ( Nestorianism) .

He is one person with two nature, his person is both human and divine.

Your ontology needs more work.

 

[Eleanor]

I understand Nestorianism more than most. I debated it for years daily on CARM with a very astute unitarian named Milton who tried trapping me all the time with scripture , orthodoxy, creeds to try and trip me up. He could not do it and was unsuccessful. And he knew what trinitarianism taught more than most trinitarians did and corrected them often .

The old time CARM posters here would remember those debates .

If you are that good, then I expect you to get "would've" correct.

"Would've" is the contraction of "would have."
"Would of" is incorrect.

 

[Eleanor]

Then who are the low priests.

All believers in Christ are the holy priesthood of believers (1 Pe 2:5, 9) offering spiritual sacrifices (Ro 12:1, Php 4:8) of praise (Heb 13:15) and doing good (Heb 13:16).

 

[civic]

Self-contradictory.

If he has two natures he is both a divine and a human person.

He is one person with two nature, his person is both human and divine.

Your ontology needs more work.

Natures are not persons . The Trinity is one Divine nature and 3 Persons, Christ has 2 natures ( Divine and human ) and is One Person.

Anhypostasia is essential to a trinitarian understanding of the person of the God-man. It is impossible to be a trinitarian without a confession of it. Classical Christology has described the relationship of the two natures of Christ by using the rather arcane-sounding terms anhypostasis and enhypostasis. What does this mean? Well, firstly, the human nature of Jesus has no hypostasis, or "person", of its own, but subsists only as the human nature of the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity. His human nature is anhypostatic in that it has no personhood, or independent reality of its own (the word 'subsists' is used rather than 'exists’' to indicate this dependence): rather it is hypostatized in union with, in (so, enhypostasis), the person of the Logos. This is how Chalcedon is explained: we have in Jesus one person in two natures. The subject of this human nature is divine. Thus Jesus is a divine person and not a human person! Here's Louis Berkhof, A Summary of Christian Doctrine, The Banner of Truth Trust, 1938, p. 87:

"Christ has a human nature, but He is not a human person. The Person of the Mediator is the unchangeable Son of God. In the incarnation He did not change into a human person; neither did He adopt a human person. He simply assumed, in addition to His divine nature, a human nature, which did not develop into an independent personality, but became personal in the Person of the Son of God. After this assumption of human nature the Person of the Mediator is not only divine but divine-human; He is the Godman, possessing all the essential qualities of both the human and the divine nature. He has both a divine and a human consciousness, as well as a human and a divine will. This is a mystery which we cannot fathom."

hope this helps !!!

 

[Eleanor]

Natures are not persons . The Trinity is one Divine nature and 3 Persons, Christ has 2 natures ( Divine and human ) and is One Person.

Anhypostasia is essential to a trinitarian understanding of the person of the God-man. It is impossible to be a trinitarian without a confession of it. Classical Christology has described the relationship of the two natures of Christ by using the rather arcane-sounding terms anhypostasis and enhypostasis. What does this mean? Well, firstly, the human nature of Jesus has no hypostasis, or "person", of its own, but subsists only as the human nature of the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity. His human nature is anhypostatic in that it has no personhood, or independent reality of its own (the word 'subsists' is used rather than 'exists’' to indicate this dependence): rather it is hypostatized in union with, in (so, enhypostasis), the person of the Logos. This is how Chalcedon is explained: we have in Jesus one person in two natures. The subject of this human nature is divine. Thus Jesus is a divine person and not a human person! Here's Louis Berkhof, A Summary of Christian Doctrine, The Banner of Truth Trust, 1938, p. 87:

"Christ has a human nature, but He is not a human person. The Person of the Mediator is the unchangeable Son of God. In the incarnation He did not change into a human person; neither did He adopt a human person. He simply assumed, in addition to His divine nature, a human nature, which did not develop into an independent personality, but became personal in the Person of the Son of God. After this assumption of human nature the Person of the Mediator is not only divine but divine-human; He is the Godman, possessing all the essential qualities of both the human and the divine nature. He has both a divine and a human consciousness, as well as a human and a divine will. This is a mystery which we cannot fathom."

hope this helps !!!

I'm sticking with Chalcedon without Karl Barth's appendium.

 

[civic]

I'm sticking with Chalcedon without Karl Barth's appendium.

I’m 100% inline with Chalcedon . I’ve debated that creed against Unitarians for years . It’s my favorite creed . You are arguing a strawman.

 

[Eleanor]

I’m 100% inline with Chalcedon . I’ve debated that creed against Unitarians for years . It’s my favorite creed . You are arguing a strawman.

Not if Jesus was not both a divine person and a human person.

 

[civic]

Not if Jesus was not both a divine person and a human person.

Oh C'mon please quote me ever saying Jesus is a human person that is the heresy of Nestorius. I have denied that every single post here and every other place online for the past 20 years. He is a Divine Person ( the 2nd Person of the Trinity ) who assumed a human nature in the womb of mary. His human nature is not a person, His Divine nature as the Son is His Person. That is the orthodox position, I'm orthodox and you are arguing a strawman.

 

[Eleanor]

Oh C'mon please quote me ever saying Jesus is a human person that is the heresy of Nestorius.

You'll have to show where I stated that you said "Jesus is a human person that is the heresy of Nestorius" in order for me to do so.

I have denied that every single post here and every other place online for the past 20 years. He is a Divine Person ( the 2nd Person of the Trinity ) who assumed a human nature in the womb of mary. His human nature is not a person

Correct, that is the Nestorian heresy; i.e., that Jesus had two persons, one human and one divine.

Orthodoxy is that both his human nature and his divine nature are possessed in the one person.
His one person is both human and divine.

Only a pefect human personhood could atone for the spiritual sin of humans.

His Divine nature as the Son is His Person. That is the orthodox position,

Contraire. . .

The orthodox position is that his person is both God and man.

and you are arguing a strawman.

And you are using "strawman" incorrectly.

 

[civic]

You'll have to show where I stated that you said "Jesus is a human person that is the heresy of Nestorius" in order for me to do so.

Correct, that is the Nestorian heresy; i.e., that Jesus had two persons, one human and one divine.

Orthodoxy is that both his human nature and his divine nature are possessed in the one person.
His one person is both human and divine.

Only a pefect human personhood could atone for the spiritual sin of humans.

Contraire. . .

The orthodox position is that his person is both God and man.

And you are using "strawman" incorrectly.

It’s exactly what you are doing .

Essentially, the person using the straw man argument pretends to argue against their opponent's original position, while in reality they have created a distorted version of that position—one that their opponent doesn't necessarily support and that is easy to rebuke. Straw man fallacy is an informal logical fallacy.

 

[Eleanor]

It’s exactly what you are doing .

Essentially, the person using the straw man argument pretends to argue against their opponent's original position, while in reality they have created a distorted version of that position—one that their opponent doesn't necessarily support and that is easy to rebuke. Straw man fallacy is an informal logical fallacy.

No, a strawman substitutes an irrelevant point for the real point.

It being orthodoxy, two natures in one person is anything but irrelevant.

 

[civic]

No, a strawman substitutes an irrelevant point for the real point.

It being orthodoxy, two natures in one person is anything but irrelevant.

Like I said you are arguing a strawman since Christ is One Divine person having 2 natures, a human and divine nature. The natures are not the Person that is what nestorious taught. His human nature is not a human person. He is a Divine Person. His Person is Divine, not human. I'm 100% orthodox, always have been always will be. I have believed and taught this for several decades and I have been consistent with no contradictions with orthodoxy, the creeds or scripture.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Eleanor]

Like I said you are arguing a strawman since Christ is One Divine person having 2 natures, a human and divine nature. The natures are not the Person that is what nestorious taught. His human nature is not a human person. He is a Divine Person. His Person is Divine, not human. I'm 100% orthodox, always have been always will be. I have believed and taught this for several decades and I have been consistent with no contradictions with orthodoxy, the creeds or scripture.

Previously addressed.

 

[Eleanor]

Like I said you are arguing a strawman since Christ is One Divine person having 2 natures, a human and divine nature. The natures are not the Person that is what nestorious taught. His human nature is not a human person. He is a Divine Person. His Person is Divine, not human. I'm 100% orthodox, always have been always will be. I have believed and taught this for several decades and I have been consistent with no contradictions with orthodoxy, the creeds or scripture.

In orthodoxy, Christ has two natures, human and divine, in one person.

In Nestorianism, Christ has two natures, human and divine in two persons.

Your solution to the erroneous two persons of Nestorianism, is to agree that there
cannot be two natures in one person and, therefore, to deny the human person,
asserting a divine person only, with a human nature simply added.
It is still Nestorianism, for in resolving the two persons error, you simply delete one of the persons and ascribe human nature to no person.
The remedy is worse than the malady.

Two problems:
1) Ontologically, there cannot be a human nature without a human person.
2) A perfect human person is required to qualify as the atoning sacrifice for the sins of human persons.

In orthodoxy, the one person of Christ is both divine and human due to his two natures.