- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Martian,
Please calm down. I know you think the Definition of Chalcedon is irrational, but millions of Christians have believed it for 1500 years. Please don't just dismiss us. I've enjoyed talking about this with you, and I hope you will continue to do so.
I think it would help to understand the Definition of Chalcedon if we continued to apply the doctrine of Dualism and borrow analogies from mathematics. Suppose you have two objects, a square and a cube, that granted are different objects, but suppose the base of the cube has the same dimensions as the square? Then when you place the cube on the same plane as the square, they are the same in that plane. But the cube also has another dimension, wholly other than those of the square. And for all intents and purposes in the plane of the square, the cube is exactly the same as the square. Wherever it is necessery to have the square in the plane, it is sufficient to have the cube's intersection with the plane.
Now consider dualism, the doctrine that God is completely other than creation. This means there are two categories of being, or, if you will, “dimensions” -that of God, and that of creation. Even more than a 2 dimensional object is incapable of moving in three dimensions or having volume, creation does not intersect or impact God at all. But just as a three dimensional space passes through a plane, God transcends all of creation and is omnipresent throughout it. (This is only an analogy. I am not saying God is 4 dimensional.) My point is that just as it is possible for two points to share one coordinate on a plane, and yet be different points, it is possible for God to become immanent in a human being, not to fuse with that human, but to form one person with that human.
So again, using dualism, you can imagine a creation axis and a God axis, (C, G), and you could plot all of creation as (C,0), for example, (tree, 0), (car, 0), (human, 0). Likewise, up until the incarnation, God would always be plotted as (0, God), because God is not creation. But with the incarnation, we have Jesus =(human, God).
Now you are right to say that this is illogical if we are talking about the natures of two creatures. For the natures of created beings cannot exist side by side, for God has made that impossible. But because God is entirely other, He is capable of existing side by side with the nature of a created being to form a person, and of course it is impossible for God's nature to mix with that of creation.
Again, on a plane, you would be right to say, “An object cannot be both a rectangle and a circle.” But an object can be both a square and a circle in two different planes, which is the case of a cylinder when viewed from two perpendicular planes.
Tim
Quote (Tim2 @ May 31 2007,11:16) Martian, Please calm down. I know you think the Definition of Chalcedon is irrational, but millions of Christians have believed it for 1500 years. Please don't just dismiss us. I've enjoyed talking about this with you, and I hope you will continue to do so.
I think it would help to understand the Definition of Chalcedon if we continued to apply the doctrine of Dualism and borrow analogies from mathematics. Suppose you have two objects, a square and a cube, that granted are different objects, but suppose the base of the cube has the same dimensions as the square? Then when you place the cube on the same plane as the square, they are the same in that plane. But the cube also has another dimension, wholly other than those of the square. And for all intents and purposes in the plane of the square, the cube is exactly the same as the square. Wherever it is necessery to have the square in the plane, it is sufficient to have the cube's intersection with the plane.
Now consider dualism, the doctrine that God is completely other than creation. This means there are two categories of being, or, if you will, “dimensions” -that of God, and that of creation. Even more than a 2 dimensional object is incapable of moving in three dimensions or having volume, creation does not intersect or impact God at all. But just as a three dimensional space passes through a plane, God transcends all of creation and is omnipresent throughout it. (This is only an analogy. I am not saying God is 4 dimensional.) My point is that just as it is possible for two points to share one coordinate on a plane, and yet be different points, it is possible for God to become immanent in a human being, not to fuse with that human, but to form one person with that human.
So again, using dualism, you can imagine a creation axis and a God axis, (C, G), and you could plot all of creation as (C,0), for example, (tree, 0), (car, 0), (human, 0). Likewise, up until the incarnation, God would always be plotted as (0, God), because God is not creation. But with the incarnation, we have Jesus =(human, God).
Now you are right to say that this is illogical if we are talking about the natures of two creatures. For the natures of created beings cannot exist side by side, for God has made that impossible. But because God is entirely other, He is capable of existing side by side with the nature of a created being to form a person, and of course it is impossible for God's nature to mix with that of creation.
Again, on a plane, you would be right to say, “An object cannot be both a rectangle and a circle.” But an object can be both a square and a circle in two different planes, which is the case of a cylinder when viewed from two perpendicular planes.
Tim
a person has two or more distinct personalities, each with its own thoughts, feelings, and patterns of behavior. The personalities often are direct opposites and dominate at different timesSorry my post did not go on. Here it is again
You say –
Please calm down. I know you think the Definition of Chalcedon is irrational, but millions of Christians have believed it for 1500 years. Please don't just dismiss us. I've enjoyed talking about this with you, and I hope you will continue to do so.
Response –
What kind of argument is that? ANOTHER IRRATIONAL STATEMENT. So millions have believed in it. Millions have believed the Earth was flat for thousands of years. Is that proof that the Earth is flat?As for your mathematical examples I am not going to even waste my time with them. You are not rational enough to know that this is no more then the old dodge of explaining the Trinity by using the Egg (shell, yoke and white) You have intelectualised it a bit and made it sound oh so educated but it is a pig in a tuxedo. No matter how you dress it up it is still a pig of a definition.
Now you say that Christ is a dual natured creature. I was doing more research on the subject and came up with this definition. Would you say this explains your belief?
Jesus is a person has two distinct personalities, each with its own thoughts, feelings, and patterns of behavior. The personalities are direct opposites and dominate at different times.
To martian .
Quote (martian @ May 31 2007,06:50) Quote (t8 @ May 30 2007,10:24) Jesus emptied himself and came as a man.
So he came in the flesh.
What did he empty himself of?His privileges? His divine nature? His former glory and position?
If he indeed swapped his divine nature for human nature, then he was truly 100% man (the Word became flesh) and he could have been tempted as a man and also learned obedience to God like a man.
If he had both divine nature and flesh nature, then I find it hard to see how Christ was tempted and how he learned obedience?
If Jesus was like Adam, then he could be tempted like Adam.
Anyway, where is it written that Jesus was a dual natured when he was here?
I think everyone at least agrees that he had human nature (except those of the antichrist spirit) and scripture does say that he HAD divine nature before coming in the flesh. Where is the proof that he had divine nature while in the flesh or that any being can have 2 natures for that matter?
Philippians 2:5-11
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
I can take scriptuers out of context and form doctrines too! —
Say what?All I did was quote a scripture and repeat that which was written and intermingled some questions.
If you disagree with Philippians 2:5-11, then that is your problem not mine.
If you read Philippians 2:5-11 as it is presented, then you have to agree that:
- He was/is in very nature God
- But made himself nothing
- Took on the nature of a servant, being made in human likeness
- Appeared as a man
- Died
- Was exhalted to the highest place
So he had divine nature, became a man, died, and then was exalted to the highest place.
If you disagree with this, then you have a problem with the scripture (or the way the scripture is translated), not me.
Martian,
I cite the wide acceptance of the Definition of Chalcedon not as proof that it is true, but as encouragement for you to show us more respect. Please engage us in polite discussion.
The egg, the yoke, and the shell is a horrible analogy for the Trinity and I am ashamed that it has been used.
My point with the mathematical examples is to show how the otherness of God makes it possible for Jesus to have two natures. A third dimension is in a sense “other” than a plane, so an object in a plane can be exactly the same as other objects in the plane, and it can also have properties in a third dimension. But those properties in the third dimension do not affect the object in the plane at all, so the object truly is the same as other objects in the plane, but possesses other attributes in 3 dimensional space as well.
Similarly, God is entirely other than creation, such that He can't be fused with or changed by creation when He becomes immanent in creation. This is entirely different than the case when two pieces of creation intersect -they change each other through actions and reactions. But God cannot be changed by creation, and by His sovereignty He can spare creation from being changed by the force of His imminance.
This, I believe, should be sufficient proof that God can be immanent in a part of creation without either nature being changed.
This leads us to the unitary personality of Christ, which, in response to your question, no, absolutely not, Jesus does not have two distinct personalities. This is really the same, I think, as saying He is two persons, which is the heresy of Nestorianism. I would follow Louis Berkhof in defining a person as “a complete substance endowed with reason, and consequently, a responsible subject of its own actions.” The Definition of Chalcedon states that the two natures come together to form such a being. Thus, the two natures form one person with one authority over His actions. I don't see anything in the Bible that would say it is impossible for the Son of God to assume flesh and remain one person.
Tim
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 31 2007,14:58) T8,
The problems you have with this interpretation of Philippians 2:7 are twofold:1. You imply two divine being existed before the preincarnate Yeshua emptied Himself and was “found in appearance as a man”. Thus you have affirmed bi-theism was in effect throughout much of human history, at least until 2000 years ago anyway.
2. The writer of Hebrews explained that Yeshua was “made for a little while lower than the angels” (Heb 2:9). So whatever it was that was forfeited at the incarnation has now been restored. Consequently, according to your premise bi-theism is again the order of the day, two divine beings are running the Universe.
There is, and has only ever been, One divine being t8, YHWH.
To Is.The Divine shares his nature. His nature is of course divine nature.
Do you not know that some will partake of divine nature?
If you know that, then do you believe in a millionity or billionity?
I think you can see my point. There is one Divine identity, but he shares his nature. Partaking of one's nature doesn't make you the one who's nature you partake of.
2 Peter 1:4
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.t8,
Since you mention 2 Peter 1:4, I will re-post this comment I made on the dualism thread, which no one ever responded to:
(tim2)
Quote John 1:1 -“and Theos was the Word.” Some scholars believe that Theos, though a noun, is used here in a qualitative sense, as in, “The Word had the nature of God.”
Acts 17:29 -“We ought not to think that the Theion is like gold, silver, or stone.”
Romans 1:20 -“His eternal power and Theiotes have been understood …”
Colossians 2:9 -“In Him dwells all the fullness of the Theotetos bodily.”
2 Peter 1:3 -“His Theias power has granted to us …”
2 Peter 1:4 -“That through these you may become koinonoi Theias fuseos …”I believe these are all of the qualitative uses of Theos, Theios, and Theotes in the New Testament. Note that the angels are not described by these words in the New Testament, so your only connection to them is that they are spirits, which I'll discuss below.
Trenchard's Dictionary of New Testament Greek gives these definitions:
Theos (noun) -“deity, god, goddess; God (of Christ); God (in Israelite and Christian contexts); god (of humans and of the belly); god (of the devil). Theos is used 1317 times in the New Testament.
Theotetos (noun) -divine character or nature, deity, divinity. Used once, in Colossians 2:9.
Theios (adjective) -divine; divine being, divinity. Used three times, which are above: Acts 17:29, 2 Peter 1:3-4.
Theiotes (noun) -divinity, divine nature, divineness. Used once in Romans 1:20.My first observation is that Theotetos and Theiotes, are used exclusively of God in the New Testament. According to http://www.antioch.com.sg/cgi-bin/bible/vines/get_defn.pl?num=1213#1 Theos is used exclusively of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, except for (1) the Israelite judges in John 10:34, (2) the pagan gods in Acts 14:11; Acts 19:26; Acts 28:6; 1 Cor 8:5; Gal 4:8, (3) the devil in 2 Corinthians 4:4, and (4) the belly in Philippians 3:19. Clearly cases 2, 3, and 4 refer not to these things actually being gods, but to them being the rulers or leaders of these people (who follow paganism, the devil, and their belly).
So, the angels are never called by these words in the New Testament, and one of the words, Theias, is used with reference to men once, in 2 Peter 1:4, where it said they will koinonoi Theias phuseos. Calvin, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom45.vii.ii.i.html notes that the “nature” here is not “essence”, ousia, but “quality,” phuseos. He explains, ” they only intended to say that when divested of all the vices of the flesh, we shall be partakers of divine and blessed immortality and glory, so as to be as it were one with God as far as our capacities will allow.” His editor explains, “Escaping the corruption of the world is “godliness,” is “virtue;” and partaking of the divine nature is “life,” is “glory.”
I think we already agreed that 2 Peter 1:4 (and 1 John 3:2) refers to believers receiving a spiritual body like Jesus received at the resurrection. But this has nothing to do with Him in the beginning being Theos. Likewise, I don't think you believe that the spiritual body Jesus received at the resurrection is the same as the Spirit that the Father is. The most you can show from 2 Peter 1:4 is that believers will receive bodies that are incorruptible, which again is falling into the “not” fallacy I showed in my second post. “God and X are not A. Therefore, God and X have something in common.” My point was that you can draw an infinite number of such comparisons between any two things; but you can make zero positive comparisons between God and anything. You can't say, “God and X are both B.”
Quote (Tim2 @ May 31 2007,15:29) Martian, I cite the wide acceptance of the Definition of Chalcedon not as proof that it is true, but as encouragement for you to show us more respect. Please engage us in polite discussion.
The egg, the yoke, and the shell is a horrible analogy for the Trinity and I am ashamed that it has been used.
My point with the mathematical examples is to show how the otherness of God makes it possible for Jesus to have two natures. A third dimension is in a sense “other” than a plane, so an object in a plane can be exactly the same as other objects in the plane, and it can also have properties in a third dimension. But those properties in the third dimension do not affect the object in the plane at all, so the object truly is the same as other objects in the plane, but possesses other attributes in 3 dimensional space as well.
Similarly, God is entirely other than creation, such that He can't be fused with or changed by creation when He becomes immanent in creation. This is entirely different than the case when two pieces of creation intersect -they change each other through actions and reactions. But God cannot be changed by creation, and by His sovereignty He can spare creation from being changed by the force of His imminance.
This, I believe, should be sufficient proof that God can be immanent in a part of creation without either nature being changed.
This leads us to the unitary personality of Christ, which, in response to your question, no, absolutely not, Jesus does not have two distinct personalities. This is really the same, I think, as saying He is two persons, which is the heresy of Nestorianism. I would follow Louis Berkhof in defining a person as “a complete substance endowed with reason, and consequently, a responsible subject of its own actions.” The Definition of Chalcedon states that the two natures come together to form such a being. Thus, the two natures form one person with one authority over His actions. I don't see anything in the Bible that would say it is impossible for the Son of God to assume flesh and remain one person.
Tim
Hi Tim2,
The definition of Chalcedon you quote shows the Son begotten before the ages so how does it relate to your god of two conjoint beings?
Of course Christ was anointed and empowered by God and before this was as ordinary as you or I so how do you see Christ before this anointing-as a disempowered God?Tim2.
I will post quickly in response to your last post and may follow it up later with a more indepth response.
'elohiym' is used to describe gods who should worship the true God.
7 All who worship images are put to shame,
those who boast in idols—
worship him, all you gods!'elohiym' also describes the sons of the Most High.
Psalm 82:6
“I said, 'You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.'The same word 'elohiym' is translated as 'theos' in the following verse:
John 10:34
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods' ?Sons of the Most High are called both elohiym and theos. Therefore is it any wonder if Christ who is the son is also called by these titles?
John 10:34-36
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?
35 If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—
36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?Quote (t8 @ May 31 2007,15:29) To martian . Quote (martian @ May 31 2007,06:50) Quote (t8 @ May 30 2007,10:24) Jesus emptied himself and came as a man.
So he came in the flesh.
What did he empty himself of?His privileges? His divine nature? His former glory and position?
If he indeed swapped his divine nature for human nature, then he was truly 100% man (the Word became flesh) and he could have been tempted as a man and also learned obedience to God like a man.
If he had both divine nature and flesh nature, then I find it hard to see how Christ was tempted and how he learned obedience?
If Jesus was like Adam, then he could be tempted like Adam.
Anyway, where is it written that Jesus was a dual natured when he was here?
I think everyone at least agrees that he had human nature (except those of the antichrist spirit) and scripture does say that he HAD divine nature before coming in the flesh. Where is the proof that he had divine nature while in the flesh or that any being can have 2 natures for that matter?
Philippians 2:5-11
5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
I can take scriptuers out of context and form doctrines too! —
Say what?All I did was quote a scripture and repeat that which was written and intermingled some questions.
If you disagree with Philippians 2:5-11, then that is your problem not mine.
If you read Philippians 2:5-11 as it is presented, then you have to agree that:
- He was/is in very nature God
- But made himself nothing
- Took on the nature of a servant, being made in human likeness
- Appeared as a man
- Died
- Was exhalted to the highest place
So he had divine nature, became a man, died, and then was exalted to the highest place.
If you disagree with this, then you have a problem with the scripture (or the way the scripture is translated), not me.
t8So Jesus is not the “Express image of the invisible God” or the “exact representation of his substance”?
But he like us just shares the nature of God?
Quote (t8 @ May 31 2007,15:33) Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 31 2007,14:58) T8,
The problems you have with this interpretation of Philippians 2:7 are twofold:1. You imply two divine being existed before the preincarnate Yeshua emptied Himself and was “found in appearance as a man”. Thus you have affirmed bi-theism was in effect throughout much of human history, at least until 2000 years ago anyway.
2. The writer of Hebrews explained that Yeshua was “made for a little while lower than the angels” (Heb 2:9). So whatever it was that was forfeited at the incarnation has now been restored. Consequently, according to your premise bi-theism is again the order of the day, two divine beings are running the Universe.
There is, and has only ever been, One divine being t8, YHWH.
To Is.The Divine shares his nature. His nature is of course divine nature.
Do you not know that some will partake of divine nature?
If you know that, then do you believe in a millionity or billionity?
I think you can see my point. There is one Divine identity, but he shares his nature. Partaking of one's nature doesn't make you the one who's nature you partake of.
2 Peter 1:4
Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
t8So Jesus is not the “Express image of the invisible God” or the “exact representation of his substance”?
But he like us just shares the nature of God?
Hi w,
Of course Christ expressed the nature of God- because God was in him, not AS him.
And God is at work in us too to will and to do as Philippians tells us, so yes we follow him, the weak and insignificant man transformed by the Spirit of God.Quote (Nick Hassan @ May 31 2007,16:32) Hi w,
Of course Christ expressed the nature of God- because God was in him, not AS him.
And God is at work in us too to will and to do as Philippians tells us, so yes we follow him, the weak and insignificant man transformed by the Spirit of God.
NHSo again, Jesus is not the “Express image of the invisible God” or the “exact representation of his substance”?
But he like us just “expresses” the nature of God?
Hi W,
His origins as inner man are another matter entirely. He is the monogenes Son. But this fact distracts men and they forget he is the son of God and think he is our God and they want to worship him so it is of less importance. His being the Son of God is vital for us to establish and maintain our relationship with the One True God, his Father.To WJ.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ June 01 2007,11:25) t8 So Jesus is not the “Express image of the invisible God” or the “exact representation of his substance”?
But he like us just shares the nature of God?
Jesus is a divine being. He has God's nature, but for a time he partook of human nature.He has God's nature.
We can partake of this same nature.He is the image of God.
We are made in the image of God.He is the son.
We are sons.He is our brother
We are his brothers.He isn't the Most High God.
We are not the Most High God.1 John 3:2
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.Quote (t8 @ May 31 2007,16:18) Tim2. I will post quickly in response to your last post and may follow it up later with a more indepth response.
'elohiym' is used to describe gods who should worship the true God.
7 All who worship images are put to shame,
those who boast in idols—
worship him, all you gods!'elohiym' also describes the sons of the Most High.
Psalm 82:6
“I said, 'You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.'The same word 'elohiym' is translated as 'theos' in the following verse:
John 10:34
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods' ?Sons of the Most High are called both elohiym and theos. Therefore is it any wonder if Christ who is the son is also called by these titles?
John 10:34-36
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'?
35 If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—
36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?
t8,We've discussed this before, and I've tried to tell you that Elohim is not the equivalent of Theos, and the Scripture you gave, Psalm 97:7, proves it, because the author of Hebrews saw fit not to translate it as theoi but as angels.
I would also hope that you would agree that there is a fundamental difference between the “gods,” the plural, theoi, which is used in John 10:34, and God, the singular, Theos. Jesus is never said to be one of the gods/theoi. He distinguishes Himself from the theoi in John 10, saying, in fact, that the only reason they are called theoi is that He, the Word of God, came to them.
I believe the rest of the New Testament has only disparaging things to say about anyone called theos or theoi other than the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Tim
Quote (Tim2 @ May 31 2007,15:29) Martian, I cite the wide acceptance of the Definition of Chalcedon not as proof that it is true, but as encouragement for you to show us more respect. Please engage us in polite discussion.
The egg, the yoke, and the shell is a horrible analogy for the Trinity and I am ashamed that it has been used.
My point with the mathematical examples is to show how the otherness of God makes it possible for Jesus to have two natures. A third dimension is in a sense “other” than a plane, so an object in a plane can be exactly the same as other objects in the plane, and it can also have properties in a third dimension. But those properties in the third dimension do not affect the object in the plane at all, so the object truly is the same as other objects in the plane, but possesses other attributes in 3 dimensional space as well.
Similarly, God is entirely other than creation, such that He can't be fused with or changed by creation when He becomes immanent in creation. This is entirely different than the case when two pieces of creation intersect -they change each other through actions and reactions. But God cannot be changed by creation, and by His sovereignty He can spare creation from being changed by the force of His imminance.
This, I believe, should be sufficient proof that God can be immanent in a part of creation without either nature being changed.
This leads us to the unitary personality of Christ, which, in response to your question, no, absolutely not, Jesus does not have two distinct personalities. This is really the same, I think, as saying He is two persons, which is the heresy of Nestorianism. I would follow Louis Berkhof in defining a person as “a complete substance endowed with reason, and consequently, a responsible subject of its own actions.” The Definition of Chalcedon states that the two natures come together to form such a being. Thus, the two natures form one person with one authority over His actions. I don't see anything in the Bible that would say it is impossible for the Son of God to assume flesh and remain one person.
Tim
Sorry, I do not deal with irrational people. Perhaps you should consider getting some help.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
