Who died on the cross? - a Hall of Fame thread.

[Sozo]

I'm an idiot who can't comprehend simple sentences, and fully reject the Bible as authoritative in any respect.

Yep.

 

[Traditio]

Then Jesus has two souls, two identities, and is two different beings.

Not really. You are making a big jump here. Let's say that you have a building, and this building is entirely wooden and entirely large. Does it have to be two different buildings? No. One building can both be entirely wooden and entirely large. Woodeness and largeness are two different things.

Same thing with divinity and manhood. They are two different sorts of things entirely.

 

[Sozo]

Not really. You are making a big jump here. Let's say that you have a building, and this building is entirely wooden and entirely large. Does it have to be two different buildings? No. One building can both be entirely wooden and entirely large. Woodeness and largeness are two different things.

Same thing with divinity and manhood. They are two different sorts of things entirely.

This has nothing to do with anything that has been discussed. Just like the brainless WizardofOz, you are completely clueless about the discussion.

 

[WizardofOz]

This has nothing to do with anything that has been discussed. Just like the brainless WizardofOz, you are completely clueless about the discussion.

:kookoo:

Please o holy Mystery, I mean Sozo, point out where I erred.......Maybe by trying to have a discussion resembling substance with a :troll: like you.

I know you concede when you make quotes in my name that I did not write. I'm so glad the mods tolerate this type of behavior. You're a joke.

:mock: Sozo/Mystery

Now - show me a statement I made that you disagree with. What sentence did I not comprehend? Or are you just trying to sabotage the thread because you've painted yourself into a corner?

 

[Sozo]

I'm a :troll:

Yep.

 

[WizardofOz]

Sozo - what statement did I make that you don't agree with? Where, in your opinion, did I fail to comprehend?

Back up your claims instead of making a fool of yourself with all these childish antics. I am not trying to derail the thread.

 

[Sozo]

Sozo - what statement did I make that you don't agree with?

How many posts have you made?

 

[WizardofOz]

How many posts have you made?

:bang: Strawman. You said: "I'm an idiot who can't comprehend simple sentences, and fully reject the Bible as authoritative in any respect."

Show me what I failed to comprehend. Show me how I reject the bible. (with my words please, not made up Sozo garbage)

Stand by your false claims.:loser:

 

[Sozo]

Take a hike, you moron. You're not intelligent enough to converse with. Everytime I give you answers, you cannot comprehend them. You're a waste of time, and nothing more than a :troll: on this site.

 

[Traditio]

This has nothing to do with anything that has been discussed. Just like the brainless WizardofOz, you are completely clueless about the discussion.

I was primarily referencing what AMR said about the "nature" suffering while God departed. Aside from that, I did say that I was coming in fairly late. :idunno:

 

[WizardofOz]

Take a hike, you moron. You're not intelligent enough to converse with. Everytime I give you answers, you cannot comprehend them. You're a waste of time, and nothing more than a :troll: on this site.

Well in order not to make a complete mess of this thread; I will bow out in the hopes in can be put back on track by those still eager to civilly discuss the issues here.

Sozo; you once told me (as Mystery perhaps) that you would debate me on anything. I accept your challenge here

 

[Sozo]

I was primarily referencing what AMR said about the "nature" suffering while God departed. Aside from that, I did say that I was coming in fairly late. :idunno:

Traditio... If God "departed", did he take His mind with Him? Did the "nature" that remained, also have a mind? If so, then you conclude that Jesus was double-minded, double-souled, double-natured. Two individuals in one body.

 

[kmoney]

In my oppinion AMR is missrepresenting the theology of the early church. Christiologically speaking there was clearly a tension in understanding the relation between the two natures of Christ in the early church. The Church wanted to affirm the humanity of Christ fully, because if Christ does not take humanity upon himself we are left with a problem soteriologically speaking (what is not taken on cannot be redeemed). At the same time there was a struggle with how exactly Christ participates in the Godhead (because for the early church and for early theologians Diety is defined primarily using Greek Philosophical categories [immutability/impassibility - discussions of perfection]). If one holds to such categories with regards to the nature of God, than clearly God cannot suffer on the cross (for such suffering would imply a change in God's nature, thus making God out to be less than perfect, or at least not fully actualized).

Out of this tension takes rise a battle over Christology. AMR only presents one side of the discussion with regards to the two natures of Christ (i.e. that of Nestorius in the fifth century which was denounced as heretical by the church Catholic and Orthodox). Though Nestorius really doesn't die away in the church (the West in particular seems more comfortable with pulling the two natures further appart) AMR's position cannot be sustained for the church because it, in the end, fails in its soteriology. First of all, with regards to the atonement, if Christ (the Son of Man) is nothing more than human, there is no reason why his death would be any more advantageous for humanity than another human's death (i.e. the atonement is left bereft of meaning). Why would God need to dwell in flesh at all if he could simply create a perfect human being to die for sin. At the same time, if God does not truly take on human nature (if humanity is not taken up in Christ's divinity) than there really is no redemption (you are left with the same problem of gnosticism, in which the God of Creation is truly an inept God or even an evil God, who cannot make the project of Creation work).

On the other side of the discussion are monophysites, who go in the opposite direction (i.e. Christ is a conglomeration of humanity and diety). This of course was declared heretical [in the 7th century] because of the problem it presented with mixing up the divine with the Creation (moving towards idolatry), turning Christ into a third type of being. The Eastern Church tends towards this more than the West.

The Church in the end does not fully support either extreme. It is rather confined to paradox (living in the middle, though there cannot be a rational explanation for it).

Peace,
Michael

Good to see you back, SA. :up:

 

[Traditio]

Traditio... If God "departed", did he take His mind with Him? Did the "nature" that remained, also have a mind? If so, then you conclude that Jesus was double-minded, double-souled, double-natured. Two individuals in one body.

I was specifically saying that God couldn't have departed, insofar as it is impossible for a nature to suffer. Persons suffer. Do you see the relevence now?

 

[Sozo]

I was specifically saying that God couldn't have departed, insofar as it is impossible for a nature to suffer. Persons suffer. Do you see the relevence now?

Yes, Jesus is ONE person with ONE nature.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Weak, your force, is.

Ignore you, I must.

Expected. After all, your favorite line here is to avoid arguments by declaring a speaker aligned with some heresy of ages past. As if that poisoning of the well is all one needs to do to dismiss their argument.

It's like the Protestant schisms where the Roman Catholic Church denounced the the Protestants; the Protestants denounced the Roman Catholic Church; and finally the Protestants then each denounced one another. It's bizarre and unhelpful.

 

[Traditio]

Yes, Jesus is ONE person with ONE nature.

Lemme ask you something: How do you define "nature"?

 

[ApologeticJedi]

On the other side of the discussion are monophysites, who go in the opposite direction (i.e. Christ is a conglomeration of humanity and diety). This of course was declared heretical [in the 7th century] because of the problem it presented with mixing up the divine with the Creation (moving towards idolatry), turning Christ into a third type of being. The Eastern Church tends towards this more than the West.

The Armenian Orthodoxy actually does not hold to turning Christ into a "third type of being", that is the difference between monophsitism and miaphysitism. They teach that Christ put his nature into a human shell. God was given a human body, and emptied the personality of the Son into a human soul. There was no separation, but neither needed there to be alteration involved.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

One's nature is one's very essence.

 

[Traditio]

One's nature is one's very essence.

Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on the subject.

It seems to be defined (if I may use Aristotelian/Platonist terminology) the individual reflection of a species. For example, a horse has a nature of being a horse, whereas horseness is the essence of the thing.

So in the case of Christ, to say that Christ has human nature is to say that in Christ there is an individual reflection of the species. Which is to say, that Christ truly possesses manhood, and all which can rightly be predicated of manhood (As an Ideal...not as what is generally found in men, for example, the tendency towards sin, and moral weakness, which are not part of the Form, but actually a deficiency from the Form).

This is to say, that Christ had a human body and a human soul.

This cannot be denied by any Christian. This is what we read in the Epilogue of St. John's Gospel. See John 1:14. "Et Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis." And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.

So Christ having a human nature cannot be denied.

However, we cannot deny that Christ is God. See verse 1. "Et Deus erat Verbum." And God was the Word.

So the next step, then, is then to ask: Is Manhood identical to Godhood?

If you don't understand the question, I'll ask the question using Leibniz's Law:

Is it the case that Manhood possesses all of the same properties as God?

For example: God is all powerful. Is man all powerful? God brings things into being merely through speaking. Does man?

The answer is no. Godhood is not identical to manhood.

Yet, we say that Christ is both God and Man.

Is Christ in any way not God? The answer is no.

Is Christ in any way not a man? Again, the answer is no.

Therefore, we must say that He is both fully God and fully Man.

Christ is both fully God and fully Man.

Yet, he is not two persons, but one person.

This is what is rightly called the "Hypostatic union." Two natures are hypostatically united in one person. So is this to say that Christ is two individuals? No. Christ is one individual, possessing all of the properties of two "sorts" of things. Granted, one sort of thing is sui generis.