Who is God’s Christ?

johnny guitar said:
Yep, AND The Son of God.
Unlike All other men, Jesus was NOT conceived, procreated by a Man.
Click to expand...
The Son of God is a man. Yes?

Matthew 16
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He questioned His disciples: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15“But what about you?” Jesus asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven.
 
johnny guitar said:
Yep, AND The Son of God.
Unlike All other men, Jesus was NOT conceived, procreated by a Man.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that Jesus was not born of a woman under the law as you were? You dont believe Jesus came in the flesh as you did -- do you? That is exactly what you separate yourself from him instead of being one with him in the Father.
 
Runningman said:
The Son of God is a man. Yes?

Matthew 16
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He questioned His disciples: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15“But what about you?” Jesus asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven.
Click to expand...
False. The Son of God is The Son of God.
 
johnny guitar said:
The Son of Man is A MAN.
Click to expand...
The Son of Man is the Son of God. Same person.

Matthew 16
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He questioned His disciples: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15“But what about you?” Jesus asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven.
 
Binyawmene said:
Jesus Christ being "human" would be identified by his nature. For example, Jesus Christ being Fully Human is derived from the human nature being composed of the whole body and soul/spirit, with all of the human attributes and properties. That is what qualify him as human. And "God" and "Man" are not properties and attributes of the Natures or of the Person. Rather it's what the natures have constituted what the Son-person to be, like: the Divine Nature constitutes the Son-person to be God and the Human Nature constitutes the selfsame Son-person to be Man.
Click to expand...

God and Man define the set of properties and attributes within the natures, for example "immortal", "mortal", "potent", "impotent", etc. . . . and necessarily entails that the natures have certain attributes and properties.

Your claim: "God" and "Man" are not properties and attributes of the Natures or of the Person" is not valid.

Binyawmene said:
This is a straw man. We both know that the natures are not added together.
Click to expand...

My description was per the hypostatic union, that Jesus "added" a human nature to himself. I don't know if they are "added together" or not, but that the person Jesus added one to himself.

Binyawmene said:
Right. Are you catching-on about the same sense. But you can chew bubble gum and walk at the same time because they are not the same sense. The two natures of Christ is not the same sense but different categories and it's best not to make a category mistake.
Click to expand...

Simply claiming that "divine" and "human" natures are not the same sense i.e. "nature" is going to require more than just a claim. It needs an explanation. Your logical contradiction lies here.

Binyawmene said:
This is a straw man. We both know the Hypostatic Union teaches that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man.
Click to expand...

That was an example, and not attributed to your argument.

Binyawmene said:
The two natures are not in the same sense. Comparing 'both apples and oranges' is a false analogy.

The Trinity teaches that there is one God, and no other gods exist. There is no ontological identical and opposite of himself or some other god being identical and opposite of himself. The God of the Bible is God alone and in a category of himself. There is no other of his kind and class, God is one. He cannot have any known or unknown ontological directional opposites and absences of himself. And there is no others before and after, above and below, backwards and forward, beside and in-between, etc.

Also, the Hypostatic Union teaches that Jesus Christ is both God and man, but "God" and "man" are not directional opposites, they are in two different categories, and cannot be ontologically equivalent. The same applies to angels, the devil is not the opposite of God, as often depicted of good versus evil in context of opposite words. Angles are different categories, regardless of if you can draw out opposites based on their attributes, it's a categorical difference and not the same sense. God has no opposites of himself. Or any other known and unknown created thing. There is simply no identical and opposites of himself.
Click to expand...

There are some subtleties here that aren't quite true. The Hypostatic union teaches that Jesus Christ has both a "human nature" and a "divine nature". The doctrine itself is discussing the "category" of "nature". The two natures have some properties that are the same, and some properties that are different.


Binyawmene said:
For example, Jesus Christ is a man entails that he is not a woman. The opposite of man is a woman from its ontological category or its kind and class of human beings. It would be a category mistake to assume that human properties being found in the category of a potent man, and then place it into the category of omnipotent God. As if God is both potent and omnipotent. Both "God" and "Man" may have similarities and differences, but they will never be each other’s ontological directional opposites, and they will never collide or overlap into each other categories.
Click to expand...

Here is a case in point to the discussion above. Man and woman are ~99% the same, and yet being a man necessarily entails that he is not a woman. A man is only the opposite of woman within the tiny category of gender within the species, and species is the lowest category within the common method of animal classification:
  1. Domain<--- Man and Woman are the same
  2. Kingdom<--- Man and Woman are the same
  3. Phylum<--- Man and Woman are the same
  4. Class<--- Man and Woman are the same
  5. Order<--- Man and Woman are the same
  6. Suborder<--- Man and Woman are the same
  7. Animal Families<--- Man and Woman are the same
  8. Genus<--- Man and Woman are the same
  9. Species<--- Man and Woman are the same
  10. Gender ,---- Man and Woman are different

Even though man and woman share the same "Domain" through "Species" being a "man" necessarily entails that he is not a "woman" and as you claim that makes them opposites. "Man" has male properties, and "woman" has female properties.

Likewise "human nature" and "divine nature" may share many of the same things, and may even be directionally the same, but if they have a single property that is directionally the opposite (for example "mortal" and "immortal") then they are "opposites" and being one necessarily entails that you are not the other.

Binyawmene said:
The two natures of Christ are not the same sense. Since Jesus Christ is both God and Man, then there exist a incompatibility binary relationship of having opposite properties. Because both God and Man are in different categories and not the same category. The relationship is not in the same sense because there are two different natures having their own respective properties and the Person is just a subject of predication. Whatever attribute the subject does according to the Divine Nature means he cannot do the opposite as being God alone (both omnipresent and non-omnipresent). And vice versa, whatever attribute the subject does according to the human nature means he cannot do the opposite as being Man alone (both localized and non-localized). The subject can do both at the same time from his two distinct natures, but not from the same sense based on their different categorical differences.

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource: Incarnation, by David Werther, stated: This would indeed be problematic if God the Son Incarnate had to have and lack omnipotence at the same time and in the same respect. However, given that God the Son Incarnate has two natures, he can have some properties with respect to one nature and lack them with respect to the other nature. God Incarnate, with respect to his divine nature, is omnipotent, but with respect to his human nature, is not. God Incarnate, with respect to his human nature, is ignorant of some things, but, with respect to his divine nature, is not.​
Click to expand...

In the article Mr. Werther is explaining Elenor Stump's "borrowed property" method of reconciling the hypostatic union with the law of non-contradiction. What Ms. Stump is doing is claiming that Jesus himself has no intrinsic properties (as the subject heading in the article states), but rather Jesus borrows properties from the natures as needed.

This view is problematic from a trinitarian perspective (even more so from the Unitarian perspective) in that it affirms that.
  • Jesus is not intrinsically God nor Man,
    • Jesus simply has the ability to borrow properties from his natures.
  • The natures are what possess the properties, not Jesus. The nature is omniscient, not Jesus. The nature is mortal, not Jesus, etc.
  • The natures are fully separated from each other and used as needed.
The standard definition of "Nature" is related to the "essence" or "intrinsic properties" of what somebody or something is and her claim is that Jesus has no intrinsic properties. Further, the standard definition of the Hypostatic Union is that the "natures" are unified, and her claim is that they are separated and borrowed from independently.

While this view may have skirted the LNC, it does great violence to the definition of the word "nature" and contradictions the trinitarian doctrinal requirement of the natures being united. If you are affirming Ms. Stump's view, you've moved far afield of the trinitarian doctrine of the hypostatic union.



The problem isn't that unitarians don't understand logic, but rather it is that the version of the hypostatic union you are defending has different definitions of very key words and violated the standard doctrine of the hypostatic union.
 
Runningman said:
The Son of Man is the Son of God. Same person.

Matthew 16
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He questioned His disciples: “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”
14They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15“But what about you?” Jesus asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven.
Click to expand...
False. Jesus Christ is The Son of Man AND The Son of God.
 
Runningman said:
I said they are the same person. You said it's false then after that agreed they are the same person. You're agreeing with me.
Click to expand...
My reply did not deny they are the same Person. Strawman.
Your assertion that Jesus is a man who is The Son of God is false.
He is BOTH.
 
johnny guitar said:
My reply did not deny they are the same Person. Strawman.
Your assertion that Jesus is a man who is The Son of God is false.
He is BOTH.
Click to expand...
Only because you dont know what it is to be a son of God yourself. Jesus was Gods child, a son, just as all His children are. .
 
Stephen said:
God and Man define the set of properties and attributes within the natures, for example "immortal", "mortal", "potent", "impotent", etc. . . . and necessarily entails that the natures have certain attributes and properties.
Click to expand...

Right. But "God" and "man" is not a property or an attribute.

Is an "apple" a property of that apple?
No. A "seed" is a property of an apple.

Is an "apple" an attribute of that apple?
No. But "juicy" is an attribute of an apple.

I'm sure you can distinguish between what is God and what is man.

Your claim: "God" and "Man" are not properties and attributes of the Natures or of the Person" is not valid.
Click to expand...

Unless you wish to be inconsistent with your above quoted statement.

This is what I've said:
Jesus Christ being "human" would be identified by his nature. For example, Jesus Christ being Fully Human is derived from the human nature being composed of the whole body and soul/spirit, with all of the human attributes and properties. That is what qualify him as human. And "God" and "Man" are not properties and attributes of the Natures or of the Person. Rather it's what the natures have constituted what the Son-person to be, like: the Divine Nature constitutes the Son-person to be God and the Human Nature constitutes the selfsame Son-person to be Man.​

If I say, "This apple is red and juicy."
Redness is an essential quality of an apple and juicy is the attribute of an apple.

If I say, "God is spiritual and omniscient."
Spiritual is an essential quality of God and omniscient is the attribute of God.

If I say, "This man is physical and ignorant."
Physical is an essential quality of man and ignorant is the attribute of man.

My description was per the hypostatic union, that Jesus "added" a human nature to himself. I don't know if they are "added together" or not, but that the person Jesus added one to himself.
Click to expand...

Right. The two natures are not added together that causes the union. It's a "hypostatic union" the "union" is the Son-person (the second person in the Trinity) to the human nature. That's it. Nothing more needs to be added. The word "in" implies the "union" like, "in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16, 1 John 4:2, 2 John 7) or the unity for example between the Father-person and the Son-person according to the Divine Nature (John 10:38, John 14:10-11, John 17:21). Eternally the Son is consubstantial with the Father and subsist in the Divine Nature. And the Divine Nature is automatically present with the Son-person in the union. It's the Son-person that causes the hypostatic union and not the Divine Nature.

Simply claiming that "divine" and "human" natures are not the same sense i.e. "nature" is going to require more than just a claim. It needs an explanation. Your logical contradiction lies here.
Click to expand...

The two natures are not the same sense. To say that they are is a category mistake. Is the Divine Nature identical and directional opposite of the human nature? No. Both the Divine Nature and the human nature is classified as natures, but they are not the same nature. They are two different categories of natures. Or, both apple and orange is classified as fruits, but they are not the same fruit. They are two different categories of fruits. The Divine Nature eternally exist, and the human nature is created. The properties and attributes are distinguishable. A negation is basically means the "opposite" of what it is essentially, like not-Divine Nature opposite of Divine Nature within its category.

First, let's define the Law of Non-Contradiction as:
“It is impossible for the same thing to belong and not to belong at the same time to the same thing and in the same respect”.​

Take the Law of Identity "A" as being identical to itself "A".

Same Thing To Belong
A = A positive
Divine Nature is Divine Nature <----- identical to itself
Human Nature is Human Nature <----- identical to itself
Apple is Apple <----- identical to itself
Orange is Orange <----- identical to itself​

The underlying the "A" is in the positive and identical to itself. Let's say the underlying "A" is not in the positive but in the negative. Then you have "A" as being in an unequivocal opposite of itself "non-A" or contradiction.

Same Thing Not To Belong
A ~A negative
Divine Nature not Divine Nature <----- opposite of itself
Human Nature not Human Nature <----- opposite of itself
Apple not Apple <----- opposite of itself
Orange not Orange <----- opposite of itself​

The Hypostatic Union teaches that "Jesus Christ has both Divine Nature and human nature." But you don't negate the logical conjunction by using the Law of Non-contradiction. That's just silly is regards to the basic logic in general. Read post 68 again.

That was an example, and not attributed to your argument.
Click to expand...

There is only one doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. Any form of versions of the doctrine is a deviation and heretical from the original historical position of the Chalcedonian definition. So, whatever version of the doctrine you are trying to refute is irrelevant. But either way it's a straw man, nevertheless.

There are some subtleties here that aren't quite true. The Hypostatic union teaches that Jesus Christ has both a "human nature" and a "divine nature". The doctrine itself is discussing the "category" of "nature". The two natures have some properties that are the same, and some properties that are different.
----
Likewise "human nature" and "divine nature" may share many of the same things, and may even be directionally the same, but if they have a single property that is directionally the opposite (for example "mortal" and "immortal") then they are "opposites" and being one necessarily entails that you are not the other.
Click to expand...

Go with "Domain."
Domain: The Divine Nature is restricted to "one" and not "all."
There is not more than one divine natures in existence.

For example, "all" (universal) natures or 'some" (particular) nature of their members as belonging to a specific type of classification. In Predicate Logic the symbol ∃ is called the existential qualifier which is technically a backwards "E" (which means 'there exist' or 'there is' or 'for some' etc.). It's always used with a variable, such as x, with ∃x being translated into English as "There exist an x such that..." is equivalent to I-statement "Some S are P" in Category Syllogism. The word "some" is almost always taken to mean "at least one" of its kind and class, or commonly it often means "more than one of the specified thing in existence," of its kind and class, like there are many members of the human nature, but there is only one Divine Nature. But since we are specifically referring to one particular type of "nature" (the Divine Nature) that is one, alone and only, of its kind and class, then it simply means "at least one" Divine Nature and no other of its kind and class exist.

To suggest that the Divine Nature and the human nature are in the same sense, identical, and opposites is a flat-out straw man and a category mistake. Jesus Christ has both the Divine Nature and human nature. There is only one Divine Nature in three persons, and not three divine natures. And the Son-person function from both natures. Reread post 71. The two natures are not in the same sense. Comparing 'both apples and oranges' is a false analogy.
 
Binyawmene said:
Right. But "God" and "man" is not a property or an attribute.

Is an "apple" a property of that apple?
No. A "seed" is a property of an apple.

Is an "apple" an attribute of that apple?
No. But "juicy" is an attribute of an apple.
Click to expand...

"God" is an attribute of YHWH.
"Man" is an attribute of Weird Al Yankovic.
 
shroom said:
YHWH IS God. YHWH is His name.
Click to expand...

YHWH is God.
YWHH is His name.
"God" is an attribute of YHWH.

shroom said:
I thought you believed God became a man…
Click to expand...

You "thought" correctly.
Although I'm not sure why you put "believed" in past tense, since it is still my belief.

May I ask you a favour, to not make claims about what I do or do not believe? (Yeah, I didn't think you'd be respectful.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top