Did Jesus bear Gods wrath and was He forsaken ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
ReverendRV said:
I think Civic and I agree but the word person is the problem...
Click to expand...
Since that is the issue defining "person" is in order.

If someone asked me if Jesus existed as a human being my answer would be yes. We all know it is beyond that as well, but I think human pride likes to over complicate the issue in personal discussions with their heresy detector setting cranked to the max.

In my opinion we really do not understand it much, and we are only conveying our best insights by the revelation we have, and one day we will be more mind blown and humbled than we are today. It reminds me of Job getting lined out by God.

Now, I agree Jesus had two natures in His one Person, and He is one Person of Three who make the One Being God. And that we really do not comprehend.

So since He is God, and we are not, consider how God rebuked Job, and we ought to humble ourselves.
 
ReverendRV said:
I think Civic and I agree but the word person is the problem...
Click to expand...
I would say Chalcedon defined a human person as a non-God. Thus we couldn't call Jesus a human person. Jesus was just God or He's not.

But they defined only the Logos as the Person and that person was only ever just divine.

But they did this to show that an existing human person did not enter the union, which otherwise would cause either dual conjoined persons (Nestorianism) or a Nestorian hybrid into a new third single person nature (Eutychianism/Monophysitism). ...

But just a personless human nature entered the union to the divine Logos (along with the effect of the Comunicatio Idiomatum and all).

So if we can except why they didn't call Jesus a human person ie non-God we get idea right.

But making sure we know this we can still call Jesus a human person per a different definition ie the divine Logos was subjectively immersively being human thus a human being, under the influence of the non-omniscient human senses/nature, also constituting a human being. ... So Jesus was %100 divine and %100 human in two different contexts.

But still ontologically the only person present is the divine Logos which is solely ontologically divine ie not a human person.
 
Kampioen said:
I would say Chalcedon defined a human person as a non-God. Thus we couldn't call Jesus a human person. Jesus was just God or He's not.

But they defined only the Logos as the Person and that person was only ever just divine.

But they did this to show that an existing human person did not enter the union, which otherwise would cause either dual conjoined persons (Nestorianism) or a Nestorian hybrid into a new third single person nature (Eutychianism/Monophysitism). ...

But just a personless human nature entered the union to the divine Logos (along with the effect of the Comunicatio Idiomatum and all).

So if we can except why they didn't call Jesus a human person ie non-God we get idea right.

But making sure we know this we can still call Jesus a human person per a different definition ie the divine Logos was subjectively immersively being human thus a human being, under the influence of the non-omniscient human senses/nature, also constituting a human being. ... So Jesus was %100 divine and %100 human in two different contexts.

But still ontologically the only person present is the divine Logos which is solely ontologically divine ie not a human person.
Click to expand...
A personless Human Nature? There is no such thing. Jesus was Created in All things like us but without Sin. The Creed doesn't except anything like us except Sin. The Creed does allow for the fullness of Humanity to be true of Jesus...

The Creed is opposed to Christ being two people, and so am I...
 
Last edited:
civic said:
Xmas eve dinner see ya sometime after
Click to expand...
Very Christmas all! :love: Here is my one and only post for Christmas Day.

Who put the X in Xmas?

The X in Christmas is used like the R in R.C. My given name at birth was Robert Charles, although before I was even taken home from the hospital my parents called me by my initials, R.C., and nobody seems to be too scandalized by that.

X can mean so many things. For example, when we want to denote an unknown quantity, we use the symbol X. It can refer to an obscene level of films, something that is X-rated. People seem to express chagrin about seeing Christ's name dropped and replaced by this symbol for an unknown quantity X. Every year you see the signs and the bumper stickers saying, “Put Christ back into Christmas” as a response to this substitution of the letter X for the name of Christ.

There’s No X in Christmas​

First of all, you have to understand that it is not the letter X that is put into Christmas. We see the English letter X there, but actually what it involves is the first letter of the Greek name for Christ. Christos is the New Testament Greek for Christ. The first letter of the Greek word Christos is transliterated into our alphabet as an X. That X has come through church history to be a shorthand symbol for the name of Christ.

We don't see people protesting the use of the Greek letter theta, which is an O with a line across the middle. We use that as a shorthand abbreviation for God because it is the first letter of the word Theos, the Greek word for God.

X Has a Long and Sacred History​

The idea of X as an abbreviation for the name of Christ came into use in our culture with no intent to show any disrespect for Jesus. The church has used the symbol of the fish historically because it is an acronym. Fish in Greek (ichthus) involved the use of the first letters for the Greek phrase “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.” So the early Christians would take the first letter of those words and put those letters together to spell the Greek word for fish. That’s how the symbol of the fish became the universal symbol of Christendom. There’s a long and sacred history of the use of X to symbolize the name of Christ, and from its origin, it has meant no disrespect.

This excerpt is adapted from Now, That’s a Good Question! by R.C. Sproul.
 
preacher4truth said:
Sounds like a zombie, this "personless human nature."
Click to expand...
Regarding the OP, if Jesus is not a Human person, then God did directly punish his Son...

TomL will return now. He's either sympathetic to the Personhood or Jesus of Nazareth and wants to stay out of it, or he's been asked to stay out of it. He's been on CARM throughout all this...
 
ReverendRV said:
A personless Human Nature?
Click to expand...

Yes. The added nature was the human nature without it's own awareness. The Divine Word was the source of awareness.

There is no such thing. Jesus was Created in All things like us but without Sin.
Click to expand...

Like another non-divine Adam without sin? I'm not saying you believe that.

No. The divine Logos was His awareness, being human under the influence of the non-omniscient human senses/nature but still divine.

The Creed doesn't except anything like us except Sin. The Creed does allow for the fullness of Humanity to be true of Jesus...
Click to expand...

Yes. But the divine nature, under the influence of the non-omniscient human senses takes the role of full humanity as the source of supernatural awareness.

The Creed is opposed to Christ being two people, and so am I...
Click to expand...

But two people merged into one hybrid new third nature is opposed to being two people too. That is Eutychianism. I'm not saying you believe that. I'm making a point.
 
ReverendRV said:
Then that means we will be Omnipresent too Doug; since we will have a body like his. Omnipresence would make us Divine...
Click to expand...

Merry Christmas Rev,

Do we have the natural capacity for omnipresence? Are we not created in being? Being made like him does not imply us becoming exactly like him in every aspect of his being, we would all be Mormons if that were true.

Doug
 
Kampioen said:
Yes. The added nature was the human nature without it's own awareness. The Divine Word was the source of awareness.



Like another non-divine Adam without sin? I'm not saying you believe that.

No. The divine Logos was His awareness, being human under the influence of the non-omniscient human senses/nature but still divine.



Yes. But the divine nature, under the influence of the non-omniscient human senses takes the role of full humanity as the source of supernatural awareness.



But two people merged into one hybrid new third nature is opposed to being two people too. That is Eutychianism. I'm not saying you believe that. I'm making a point.
Click to expand...
I deny Nestorianism, and affirm the Hypostatic Union and the Chalcedonian Creed; Jesus is only One person...

But of course the Nature of the son of Mary was Aware...
 
TibiasDad said:
Merry Christmas Rev,

Do we have the natural capacity for omnipresence? Are we not created in being? Being made like him does not imply us becoming exactly like him in every aspect of his being, we would all be Mormons if that were true.

Doug
Click to expand...
I'm just saying our bodies will be just like his, so if his body can be Omnipresent, our should be capable of the same thing. His body is still Spatial...
 
ReverendRV said:
I deny Nestorianism, and affirm the Hypostatic Union and the Chalcedonian Creed; Jesus is only One person...

But of course the Nature of the son of Mary was Aware...
Click to expand...
However, Eutychianism says Jesus was only one person too as he hybridized the two persons into one new nature.

But do you believe the One person is solely the divine Logos?
 
ReverendRV said:
I'm just saying our bodies will be just like his, so if his body can be Omnipresent, our should be capable of the same thing. His body is still Spatial...
Click to expand...
No otherwise we become gods.....................................

The Son has always remained God pre Incarnation and Post. Omni All never ceased. :) Immutable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top