Jesus' person is not God,

Kampioen

Member
Are there any Trinitarians on this forum who DISAGREE with the following statement?

" Biblican said:
Jesus' person is not God, He is begotten from God and unified with Him through the Holy Spirit which is illustrated in Isaiah 42:1. Jesus is God through His union with God, that is the Biblical Trinity that is supported 100% by the scriptures. "

I disagree although maybe it is just that I don't understand his context.

I would say Jesus' person is God but is just not the Father. His human nature was begotten from Mary but His divine nature is God ie the Word.

Jesus is God ie the Word under the influence of the non-omniscient human senses/nature while still otherwise omnisciently upholding the universe. The hypostatic union.

Jesus' soul is non-divine but the awareness in His soul is the divine Word as opposed to a created "the word" as other humans have.

If Jesus were merely God by union with God then that would be two united persons ie a human and the divine Word conjoined as one ie Nestorianism.
 

cjab

Active member
I disagree although maybe it is just that I don't understand his context.

I would say Jesus' person is God but is just not the Father. His human nature was begotten from Mary but His divine nature is God ie the Word.

Jesus is God ie the Word under the influence of the non-omniscient human senses/nature while still otherwise omnisciently upholding the universe. The hypostatic union.

Jesus' soul is non-divine but the awareness in His soul is the divine Word as opposed to a created "the word" as other humans have.

If Jesus were merely God by union with God then that would be two united persons ie a human and the divine Word conjoined as one ie Nestorianism.
What you are saying is that if Jesus be credited with two "natures," a human and a divine, then it forces the conclusion that he was God, because his divine nature cannot and does never stop being "God." Yet by analogy with the ordinary human being commanded to put on the divine nature, this logic is fallible. For no ordinary human being can become "God" just by partaking of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) or by becoming Christ-like. The hypostatic invites the question, "if humans can participate in the divine nature without a hypostatic union, why was the hypostatic union required in the case of Christ?"

The perspective of the two "natures" is an artificial one and irrelevant because the divine and the human natures can become fused, uncontroversially so, even in an adopted son of God.

The real issue concerns "persons" i.e. hypostases. The hypostatic union is fraught with internal contradiction. It wants to credit Jesus as a God-man, even God the Son, but from the way in which it is theorized, it must posit two, albeit "joined," living entities within Christ to preserve the "God the Son" epithet coming down from heaven and being born in a human body with human soul, which is in no sense akin to an ordinary human being. And just how do two jurisdictionally separate entities become "one person." Isn't that a fraud on the intellect? Why did Jesus make no mention of it?

For he said "I am from above." John 2:23. So for Jesus there was just the one person, the divinely originated person, and yet a human person at the same time. For Jesus distinguished himself from humanity by asserting that his (single) person was "from above." If the hypostatic union was true, he would have been obligated to say ""I am from above and from below." Note that he could adopt the human nature to become a human person without relinquishing his divinity, for the human nature was secondary, and adopted. Jesus makes that clear, by referring to his body as a temple that could be destroyed.

Nestorius and his teaching and what Nestorianism really denotes are entangled in misrepresentation and in misunderstanding. The uncontroversial aspect is that he substituted the prosopic union, the union of faces, or manifestations of the hypostasis, for the hypostatic union (the fusion of human and divine hypostases into one).

Nestorius himself was in a difficult position in maintaining the orthodox verbiage of the Nicene crede, yet desirous also of stressing Jesus' humanity which, although the Nicene creed does do this,, in the sense it affirms his incarnation in a formal manner, in contradicts itself by stressing that the "son of God" is "God from God and begotten of God before all worlds" i.e. not in any sense human. This is extra-biblical language, for in John 1:1 says that the "word is God" (and not "the word is the son of God"). So the Nicene creed uses the term "son of God" in a way that the bible does not.

Nestorius taught that Jesus reveals the face of God, but also the face of a human being. The two faces are distinguishable and yet conjoined in the one person (hypostasis). Nestorius taught that is imperative to emphasize Jesus's humanity, as is done throughout the first chapters of Acts. For this reason "Jesus is the (human) son of God" is much to be prefered over "Jesus is God." It is so very regretable that the Ninene creed effectively abolished his title "son of God" by rendering it subordinate to the "God the son" motif, so that in "orthodoxy" it became seen as heretical to affirm Jesus as just the "son of God."

Moreover calling Jesus a human person doesn't deny his divine origin, as Jesus himself taught, where it was he himself who called himself the "son of man."

E.g. Acts 3:22 For Moses said, "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you."

So in consequence, I cannot seen that Jesus the man should be called God, which is really no more than deference to and enforcement of the Nicene tradition of God begetting the "son of God" in heaven. Many would rank the idea of God begetting another (son of) God in heaven as a carry-over from Greek paganism, where that idea was already well established before Christ.
 
Last edited:

Kampioen

Member
What you are saying is that if Jesus be credited with two "natures," a human and a divine, then it forces the conclusion that he was God, because his divine nature cannot and does never stop being "God."

Yes.

Yet by analogy with the ordinary human being commanded to put on the divine nature, this logic is fallible. For no ordinary human being can become "God" just by partaking of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) or by becoming Christ-like.

The divine nature for Christians is participating in divine behavioral experience, not in being a divine nature.

The hypostatic invites the question, "if humans can participate in the divine nature without a hypostatic union, why was the hypostatic union required in the case of Christ?"

Christ's divine nature is actual ie not just behavioral nature.

The perspective of the two "natures" is an artificial one and irrelevant because the divine and the human natures can become fused, uncontroversially so, even in an adopted son of God.

In Christ the human and divine nature are in juxtaposition, not fused.

The real issue concerns "persons" i.e. hypostases. The hypostatic union is fraught with internal contradiction. It wants to credit Jesus as a God-man, even God the Son, but from the way in which it is theorized, it must posit two, albeit "joined," living entities within Christ to preserve the "God the Son" epithet coming down from heaven and being born in a human body with human soul, which is in no sense akin to an ordinary human being.

Maybe not ordinary but a human being nonetheless. Having a human awareness and perspective in and due to a human nature/body constitutes a human person.

And just how do two jurisdictionally separate entities become "one person." Isn't that a fraud on the intellect? Why did Jesus make no mention of it?

It is not two persons becoming one person ie becoming a third nature Eutychianism, it is the divine person subjectively experiencing non-omniscient human awareness and perspective due to the human senses/nature like all human beings.

For he said "I am from above." John 2:23. So for Jesus there was just the one person, the divinely originated person, and yet a human person at the same time. For Jesus distinguished himself from humanity by asserting that his (single) person was "from above." If the hypostatic union was true, he would have been obligated to say ""I am from above and from below."

The Word is from above while the humanity is subjectively non-omniscient.

Note that he could adopt the human nature to become a human person without relinquishing his divinity, for the human nature was secondary, and adopted. Jesus makes that clear, by referring to his body as a temple that could be destroyed.

That is the case and what I believe.

Nestorius and his teaching and what Nestorianism really denotes are entangled in misrepresentation and in misunderstanding. The uncontroversial aspect is that he substituted the prosopic union, the union of faces, or manifestations of the hypostasis, for the hypostatic union (the fusion of human and divine hypostases into one).

Nestorianism teaches two persons, ie a divine person and a human person in a sort of lockstep union.

Nestorius himself was in a difficult position in maintaining the orthodox verbiage of the Nicene crede, yet desirous also of stressing Jesus' humanity which,

although the Nicene creed does do this,, in the sense it affirms his incarnation in a formal manner, in contradicts itself by stressing that the "son of God" is "God from God and begotten of God before all worlds" i.e. not in any sense human.

The s(S)on of God is one person but His humanity was contributed from Mary and His divinity was contributed from God.

This is extra-biblical language, for in John 1:1 says that the "word is God" (and not "the word is the son of God"). So the Nicene creed uses the term "son of God" in a way that the bible does not.

The creeds are not inerrent. But the Biblical presentation is that the "son of God" is a human being but the fact that the Word is God that became flesh and He had no human Father implies that the human being was nonetheless divine.

Nestorius taught that Jesus reveals the face of God, but also the face of a human being. The two faces are distinguishable and yet conjoined in the one person (hypostasis). Nestorius taught that is imperative to emphasize Jesus's humanity, as is done throughout the first chapters of Acts. For this reason "Jesus is the (human) son of God" is much to be prefered over "Jesus is God." It is so very regretable that the Ninene creed effectively abolished his title "son of God" by rendering it subordinate to the "God the son" motif, so that in "orthodoxy" it became seen as heretical to affirm Jesus as just the "son of God."

But again, a son is actually only half each of the parents. In Jesus' case God contributed to His divinity (the person part) and Mary contributed to His humanity (the body and subjective non-omniscient humanity).

Moreover calling Jesus a human person doesn't deny his divine origin, as Jesus himself taught, where it was he himself who called himself the "son of man."

I agree.

E.g. Acts 3:22 For Moses said, "The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you."

Jesus was a human being and did come from among the people ie from the human being like Moses. But apparently it didn't prevent Him from being otherwise different than Moses ie born of a virgin and rose from the dead. So it shouldn't prevent other differences like being a man none other than God.

So in consequence, I cannot seen that Jesus the man should be called God, which is really no more than deference to and enforcement of the Nicene tradition of God begetting the "son of God" in heaven. Many would rank the idea of God begetting another (son of) God in heaven as a carry-over from Greek paganism, where that idea was already well established before Christ.

God engendering the existence of a whole other person all in heaven would be paganism.

But the intent is not a coming into existence of a new person in heaven but an unveiling of the existence of the Word.
 

cjab

Active member
Yes.

The divine nature for Christians is participating in divine behavioral experience, not in being a divine nature.

Christ's divine nature is actual ie not just behavioral nature.
I think the one implies the other, per scripture (Paul and Jesus talk about a new creation).

In Christ the human and divine nature are in juxtaposition, not fused.

Maybe not ordinary but a human being nonetheless. Having a human awareness and perspective in and due to a human nature/body constitutes a human person.
If they were in juxaposition, how could Paul say in 2 Cor 5:17 "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!" So you're saying "the old has not in fact gone but is juxatposed?" I think this is a real problem for Catholicism. It seems to want to accept that Christ and the sinful nature can coexist indefinitely.

Human nature obeys the senses. The question is, does it obey the divine will?

The idea of a "divine nature" is a concept that needs clarification. For divinity supervenes nature, or else concedes the fusion of divinity with nature. The idea of "two natures" together (i.e. a human nature and divine nature) is confusing, as nature is nature. Two natures exist only in the realms of philosophy, not practical experience. As Jesus said, "a house divided must fall." The question is, what is your true nature? The divine nature wherever it is found incorporates the human nature when it refers to a human being. Strictly speaking, God doesn't have a divine "nature", as he is not subject to nature as he is Spirit. Divinity is Spirit and transcends nature. Only figuratively or anthropomorphically does God have a "divine nature."

If the human nature does not give way to the divine, the end result is Simon Magus, one who is worse off than before.

Human beings are required to put on divinity, or the nature of Christ ("If you have seen me, you have seen the Father" & "God is Spirit").

It is not two persons becoming one person ie becoming a third nature Eutychianism, it is the divine person subjectively experiencing non-omniscient human awareness and perspective due to the human senses/nature like all human beings.
Yes, I think Eutychianism has some issues in positing a "third nature" for Christ, as it is described as doing, but as so much of theology in those days was mere politics and slagging off one's opponents incoherently, I don't want to digress into what he taught. Those who nominally triumphed in those days and got to critique their opponents were not necessarily the godly party. After all, the Nestorian church envangelized Asia which the Catholic church never did.

Yet I am not sure you have understood the orthodox perspective fully. Jesus has a human soul per orthodoxy. (Jesus had a human soul (CCC 470-475). Because “human nature was assumed, not absorbed.) If Jesus was a divine person with a human soul, there are undoubtedly two persons (without the hypostatic union).

The Word is from above while the humanity is subjectively non-omniscient.
Hardly an adequate or a relevant reply. We are talking about Jesus' "person." Where was it from? He had a human soul per orthodoxy. How come then he was not also from below, if his human nature (i.e. person) was assumed and stands in juxaposition to his divine person? There must have been absorption between the divine and human (without the hypostatic union) to create one person. Why was Christ not from below, if as you say, his human "nature" is juxaposed to his divine "nature?"

Nestorianism teaches two persons, ie a divine person and a human person in a sort of lockstep union.
What people say Nestorius taught on this point is not necessarily what he actually taught. What Nestorius actually taught was a "prosopic union" (encyclopedia Britannica - https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nestorius). So it doesn't matter how distinct or separate the faces, because they both derive from the one hypostasis.

The s(S)on of God is one person but His humanity was contributed from Mary and His divinity was contributed from God.
I won't disagree.

The creeds are not inerrent. But the Biblical presentation is that the "son of God" is a human being but the fact that the Word is God that became flesh and He had no human Father implies that the human being was nonetheless divine.

But again, a son is actually only half each of the parents. In Jesus' case God contributed to His divinity (the person part) and Mary contributed to His humanity (the body and subjective non-omniscient humanity).
I won't disagree that Jesus the man is "divine" in the sense that he came from God, and was not of this world as other human beings.

Jesus was a human being and did come from among the people ie from the human being like Moses. But apparently it didn't prevent Him from being otherwise different than Moses ie born of a virgin and rose from the dead. So it shouldn't prevent other differences like being a man none other than God.

God engendering the existence of a whole other person all in heaven would be paganism.
I pointed out that it is neither sinful nor heretical to describe Jesus as a man. There are many churches and many forums where if you say "Jesus was a man" you will become instantantly excommunicated or be accused of denying his deity, his divine origin and his divine nature. You will be called an Arian or a unitarian, i.e. someone who thinks that Jesus' divinity came only by the Holy Spirit after his birth, or not at all, and / or that he didn't pre-exist. All such is quite uncalled for by scripture.

Jesus can be construed both as pre-existing as God, and as fully human at the same time, because he was a human being, where the Word absorbed human nature to become a human soul. Yet the Word didn't stop being divine. Divinity wasn't displaced by humanity, but stripped of all its divine power, some of which, but by no means all of which, was then given back to Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.

But the intent is not a coming into existence of a new person in heaven but an unveiling of the existence of the Word.
The Word was revealed on earth, but in heaven kept secret from men until the appointed time. So the word was not "begotten before all ages" but "begotten today" Ps 2:7 (which infers the human perspective) when Jesus was conceived.
 
Last edited:

Kampioen

Member
I think the one implies the other, per scripture (Paul and Jesus talk about a new creation).

However the physical body and soul has no analytical change, except happier. The Spirit just comes in and assists towards a behaviorally divine life.

If they were in juxaposition, how could Paul say in 2 Cor 5:17 "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!" So you're saying "the old has not in fact gone but is juxatposed?" I think this is a real problem for Catholicism. It seems to want to accept that Christ and the sinful nature can coexist indefinitely.

If someone says he's a new man it doesn't means his species changed but his outlook is new. Likewise a person becomes a new creation in Christ.

Human nature obeys the senses. The question is, does it obey the divine will?

Why not? If it's assisted towards divine behavior.

The idea of a "divine nature" is a concept that needs clarification. For divinity supervenes nature, or else concedes the fusion of divinity with nature. The idea of "two natures" together (i.e. a human nature and divine nature) is confusing, as nature is nature. Two natures exist only in the realms of philosophy, not practical experience. As Jesus said, "a house divided must fall." The question is, what is your true nature? The divine nature wherever it is found incorporates the human nature when it refers to a human being. Strictly speaking, God doesn't have a divine "nature", as he is not subject to nature as he is Spirit. Divinity is Spirit and transcends nature. Only figuratively or anthropomorphically does God have a "divine nature."

Ok. Then Jesus is the divine personal Spirit (ie a "non-nature", still the Word) under the influence of the non-omniscient impersonal human nature. But your view is still a juxtaposition or overlap of two of something.

If the human nature does not give way to the divine, the end result is Simon Magus, one who is worse off than before.

The human being does give way to the divine influence and behavior. But he remains just human.

Human beings are required to put on divinity, or the nature of Christ ("If you have seen me, you have seen the Father" & "God is Spirit").

Morality and actions by the influence of the Father are seen in the plainly human Christian.

Yes, I think Eutychianism has some issues in positing a "third nature" for Christ, as it is described as doing, but as so much of theology in those days was mere politics and slagging off one's opponents incoherently, I don't want to digress into what he taught. Those who nominally triumphed in those days and got to critique their opponents were not necessarily the godly party. After all, the Nestorian church envangelized Asia which the Catholic church never did.

ok.

Yet I am not sure you have understood the orthodox perspective fully. Jesus has a human soul per orthodoxy. (Jesus had a human soul (CCC 470-475). Because “human nature was assumed, not absorbed.) If Jesus was a divine person with a human soul, there are undoubtedly two persons (without the hypostatic union).

That is assuming the human soul itself is necessarily a person. A man can say "Bless the Lord, O my soul", (Psa 103:1) putting himself outside the soul … an awareness and a soul. In Jesus' case the awareness is the Word under the non-omniscient influence of the created human soul, rather than the soul having a created awareness.

Hardly an adequate or a relevant reply. We are talking about Jesus' "person." Where was it from? He had a human soul per orthodoxy. How come then he was not also from below, if his human nature (i.e. person) was assumed and stands in juxaposition to his divine person? There must have been absorption between the divine and human (without the hypostatic union) to create one person. Why was Christ not from below, if as you say, his human "nature" is juxaposed to his divine "nature?"

Jesus' awareness is the Word from above but the human nature had no awareness ("person") of it's own.

There was "absorption" like a magnet affects nearby metal, not the magnet mixing with the metal, but juxtapositioned.

The awareness in Jesus' created human soul is the divine Word as opposed to a "created the word" in our soul.

What people say Nestorius taught on this point is not necessarily what he actually taught. What Nestorius actually taught was a "prosopic union" (encyclopedia Britannica - https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nestorius). So it doesn't matter how distinct or separate the faces, because they both derive from the one hypostasis.

But which hypostasis was this? … created? or uncreated? a third nature? other?

I understand that Nestorius was said to possibly have not been "Nestorian". But I use the traditional definition of two persons lockstep portraying as one, which of course is Christ..

" Kampioen said:
The s(S)on of God is one person but His humanity was contributed from Mary and His divinity was contributed from God. "

I won't disagree.

Ok. But only the divine nature contributed the person/awareness. The human nature provided the non-omniscient subjective virtual immersive absorbant mindset, together constituting a human being.

I won't disagree that Jesus the man is "divine" in the sense that he came from God, and was not of this world as other human beings.

But I'm saying He's divine because He is still the divine Word although shrouded in created human nature.

I pointed out that it is neither sinful nor heretical to describe Jesus as a man. There are many churches and many forums where if you say "Jesus was a man" you will become instantantly excommunicated or be accused of denying his deity, his divine origin and his divine nature. You will be called an Arian or a unitarian, i.e. someone who thinks that Jesus' divinity came only by the Holy Spirit after his birth, or not at all, and / or that he didn't pre-exist. All such is quite uncalled for by scripture.

Jesus can be construed both as pre-existing as God, and as fully human at the same time, because he was a human being, where the Word absorbed human nature to become a human soul. Yet the Word didn't stop being divine. Divinity wasn't displaced by humanity, but stripped of all its divine power, some of which, but by no means all of which, was then given back to Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.

So the Word morphed and lost His divine power so as to become a divine human soul but did not become the body? That sounds more like Apollinarianism where He is just God walking around operating a human body. But Isn't that still a juxtaposition which you are denying? And can God lose His power? Not so.

I would not say that the Word lost power but came under the influence of the non-omniscient human senses while still upholding the universe. He acquired a created soul, becoming the divine awareness for the soul rather than it having a created awareness.

Jesus human soul was formed naturally like for any human being but the awareness was the Word rather than forming a natural "the word".

The Word was revealed on earth, but in heaven kept secret from men until the appointed time. So the word was not "begotten before all ages" but "begotten today" Ps 2:7 (which infers the human perspective) when Jesus was conceived.

Your Scripture is quoted as referring to His resurrection as well, as a birth (Acts 13:33).

Acts 13:33 (KJV) God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

But He preexisted His resurrection "birth". And He was said to have made the world (John 1:10). And He is said to have been the firstborn of all creation (Col 1:15). And thus of course He could preexist that. He existed with the Father before creation (John 17:3).

I would say the begotteness of the Word in heaven refers to the unveiling of the Word by virtue of creation suddenly existing to see it.
 
Top