I think the one implies the other, per scripture (Paul and Jesus talk about a new creation).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.
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.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.
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").
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.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.
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).
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?"The Word is from above while the humanity is subjectively non-omniscient.
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.Nestorianism teaches two persons, ie a divine person and a human person in a sort of lockstep union.
I won't disagree.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 that Jesus the man is "divine" in the sense that he came from God, and was not of this world as other human beings.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 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 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.
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.
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.But the intent is not a coming into existence of a new person in heaven but an unveiling of the existence of the Word.