The Hypostatic union.

This topic is empty.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 202 total)

12 3…9 10 11 →

Author
Posts

April 27, 2011 at 10:19 pm#244721

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Hi All

Kathi and I have been having a discussion about the “nature” of Jesus in reference to the Father.

The early Church Fathers used the term to explain the “Oneness” of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit and their respective Ontology.

The early Church battled with heresies and had to adopt scripturally based creeds to defend the faith and head off the false teachings in their day.

The biggest battle of all was the Arians (followers of Arius) and the Trinitarians and it took several councils of the Church coming together to bring about the final blow to the “Arian” heresy.

I created this thread so that we can discuss what the early Fathers believed and their understanding of certain words like “Hypostatic Union”, “Essence”, 'Substance”, “Being”, “Hypostasis”, or “subsistence” which is a technical term in Christian theology employed in mainstream Christology to describe the union of Christ's humanity and divinity in one hypostasis.

The Forefathers spoke of the “hypostasis” of God. The word is found in the Bible in Heb 1:3…

The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being (hypostasis),…

Jesus in very nature is God! His nature is of the same stuff that makes God, God.

I realize that many will scorn this thread but I think it is important to know what the early Fathers believed since they were closer to Jesus and the Apostles time.

So if you have any input please feel free to stay on topic and enlighten us.

To start here is a link to some info that I shared above. Click here

I will provide other pertinent links as I go.

Blessings WJ

April 27, 2011 at 10:29 pm#244722

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Hi Kathi

Since we are dealing with the nature of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, I thought I would bring this conversation to this thread.

When you asked me if I was going to address your post, well I was letting you off the hook because I had other fish to fry, but if you want to go down this road then let’s do it. I would love to walk down the road of the beginnings of the early Church and Orthodoxy with you. I am quite sure we can learn something.

Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2011,19:17)

Keith,
You have argued endlessly over the term 'begotten God' and now you are acting like you didn't.

Yes Kathi, and you have argued endlessly that Jesus had a beginning and was born from God as the literal son of God. But it seems you have changed your view. However I haven’t changed my mind, I only use the term “begotten” because even though it is misleading to readers today it still had other meanings in the early Church era.

But I still believe that today the word “begotten” in reference to Jesus is still misleading because it implies Jesus is the “Offspring” of God as in God bringing literal birth to a Son which also implies a beginning.

As you know there are different meanings of the word “begotten” in scriptures and it does not always mean to “bring birth to” as in procreation.

However it seems that to you the word “begotten” in referring to Jesus has a whole new definition. To you it doesn’t mean Jesus was literally conceived and born as in procreation but to you it also does not mean Jesus is the begotten son by “divine choice” because he is “uniquely” one with the Father and has always been one with the Father.

Mike has chosen what he calls the “default” use of the word begotten which simply means procreation. I have chosen that definition that Jesus by divine choice is the “Begotten Son” like Israel, or Isaac yet with Jesus he is “eternally Begotten” meaning like the sun rays that has always been with the sun as part of the sun and proceeds from the sun. The sun could not exist without the sun rays and the sun rays could not exist without the sun.

* God from God, Light from Light,

A favorite analogy of the Athanasians was the following: Light is continuously streaming forth from the sun. (In those days, it was generally assumed that light was instantaneous, so that there was no delay at all between the time that a ray of light left the sun and the time it struck the earth.) The rays of light are derived from the sun, and not vice versa. But it is not the case that first the sun existed and afterwards the Light. It is possible to imagine that the sun has always existed, and always emitted light. The Light, then, is derived from the sun, but the Light and the sun exist simultaneously throughout eternity. They are co-eternal. Just so, the Son exists because the Father exists, but there was never a time before the Father produced the Son. The analogy is further appropriate because we can know the sun only through the rays of light that it emits. To see the sunlight is to see the sun. Just so, Jesus says, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” (John 14:9) Source

Your theology that Jesus was “always” within the Father as a son and at some point he had a beginning as the “begotten son” and came forth from God or that God literally “beget” another identical god is not what the majority of the Forefathers believed.

They did not believe in 2 identical co-equal Gods.

Can you show me where a Forefather believed Jesus was another being as a “Son” in the Father but yet he was not the “Begotten Son”?

Can you show me where the Forefathers believed the Father God at some point was the Father but not the “unbegotten God” that you speak of?

Was Jesus an “unbegotten son” in the Father before he became a “begotten son”?

To be honest Kathi I don’t know of anyone who believes like you do, not here or in Christendom. In fact I might add I am a little bit confused about what you believe.

Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2011,19:17)

What is your use of the word 'begotten' as a verb?

The verb “begotten” (gennaō) means:
1) of men who fathered children
a) to be born
b) to be begotten
1) of women giving birth to children

Now since it can mean “of men who fathered children” then the word can be applied to “Israel” the firstborn or to Isaac the “Only (Monogenes) Son who was not the literal firstborn but was chosen by divine providence as his “firstborn” or Only Son of the promise. This would apply to Jesus since he also was not “literally begotten” as in child birth but speaks of the “eternal relationship” he has always had with the Father for the Father was always in him and he was always in the Father.

Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2011,19:17)

So the Nicene Creed is not the foundation of the orthodox faith. Can you show me where the foundation of the orthodox faith began?

Sure, I can show you where it began and where it ended. But you are not interested in where it ended are you?

First of all I believe it starts with the scriptures. But here is some info on the developing of the “Orthodox faith” in relation to the Creeds…

There have been a number of times when alternative theological ideas arose to challenge the ORTHODOX FAITH. At such times the Church deemed it necessary to convene a general or “Great” council of all available bishops throughout the world. The Church considers the first seven Ecumenical Councils (held between the 4th and the 8th century) to be the most important; however, there have been more, specifically the Synods of Constantinople, 879–880, 1341, 1347, 1351, 1583, 1819, and 1872, the Synod of Iaşi (Jassy), 1642, and the Pan-Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem, 1672, all of which helped to define the ORTHODOX POSITION. Source

Notice all the councils that took place were to head off heresies and especially the heresy of Arius the Father of “Arianism”. The Nicene creed you hold onto is one of the first which didn’t head off and bring a death blow to “Arianism”….

Athanasius' Ad Afros Epistola Synodica in 369;[7] and the Letter in 382 to Pope Damasus I and the Latin bishops from the First Council of Constantinople.——>

One purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to God the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was the literal son of God or was he a figurative son, like the other “Sons of God” in the Bible. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius claimed to take the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arianism comes, is
said to have taken the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but two voted against Arius.[9]) Source

April 27, 2011 at 10:33 pm#244723

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Hi Kathi

Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2011,19:17)

Did I ever say that I accept early 'orthodox' trinitarian views or did I simply say that I agree with an early trinity view?

You said…

Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2011,13:07)

That is still a mystery, so yes, there still is mystery but I understand a whole lot more than I used to and I am comfortable to call myself a trinitarian according to the EARLY CHURCH VIEWS…,…

So I am trying to show you that you are not a Trinitarian according to the “early church views” for they believed in the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Trinity.

This is what the literal rendering of the Nicene Creed say…

We believe in the Holy Spirit, ”THE LORD, the giver of life”, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]. With the Father and the Son ”HE is worshipped and glorified”. HE has spoken through the Prophets.

The above clearly show the Spirit as “HE” who is worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son!

Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2011,19:17)

The early church and I agree that there was one essence and they use the term 'being' to mean essence at times.

Yes One being, One Essence, or One God, and not 2 “beings or 2 essences or 2 gods!

Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2011,19:17)

They all spoke of more than one person which I consider a being. Therefore, according to my use of the word 'being,' they all agree to more than one person/being and one essence.

Where do you find the Forefathers speaking of more than “One Essence” or “One Being”?

Here is what was decided in the councils…

of one being with the Father.
This line: “of one essence with the Father, of one substance with the Father, consubstantial with the Father,” (in Greek, HOMO-OUSIOS TW PATRI) was the crucial one, the acid test. It was the one formula that the Arians could not interpret as meaning what they believed. Without it, they would have continued to teach that the Son is good, and glorious, and holy, and a Mighty Power, and God's chief agent in creating the world, and the means by which God chiefly reveals Himself to us, and therefore deserving in some sense to be called divine. But they would have continued to deny that the Son was God in the same sense in which the Father is God. And they would have pointed out that, since the Council of Nicea had not issued any declaration that they could not accept, it followed that there was room for their position inside the tent of Christian doctrine, as that tent had been defined at Nicea. Arius and his immediate followers would have denied that they were reducing the Son to the position of a high-ranking angel. But their doctrine left no safeguard against it, and if they had triumphed at Nicea, even in the negative sense of having their position acknowledged as a permissible one within THE LIMITS OF CHRISTIAN ORTHODOXY, the damage to the Christian witness to Christ as God made flesh would have been irreparable.

Incidentally, HOMOOUSIOS is generally written without the hyphen. The OU (in Greek as in French) is pronounced as in “soup”, “group”, and so on, and the word has five syllables HO-mo-OU-si-os, with accents on first and third, as shown. The Greek root HOMO, meaning “same,” is found in English words like “homosexual” and “homogenized”, and is not to be confused with the Latin word HOMO, meaning “man, human”.
The language finally adopted in the East was that the Trinity consists of three HYPOSTASES (singular HYPOSTASIS) united in one OUSIA. The formula used in the West, and going back at least to Tertullian (who wrote around 200, and whose writings are the oldest surviving Christian treatises written in Latin), is that the Trinity consists of three PERSONAE (singular PERSONA) united in one SUBSTANTIA. IN ENGLISH, WE SAY “THREE PERSONS IN ONE SUBSTANCE.” Source

Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2011,19:17)

Not all of the early church fathers mentioned that the Holy Spirit was a person.

As you know not mentioning something is not proof that they didn’t believe it. In fact that is why they called more council's and eventually came up with the “Athanasian Creed” to head off and deliver the final death blow to the “Arians” and their ability to teach that heresy in the Church.

Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2011,19:17)

Not all early church father's agreed on everything either, in fact not all 'orthodox trinitarians' or contemporary trinitarian pastors agree on everything.

I am glad you finally agree for I agree also, but they were unanimous in their confession according to their understanding of the scriptures when it came to Jesus having any kind of beginning other than Jesus being born in the flesh. So the “Athanasian Creed” headed off any heresy in respect to the nature of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit as being totally and eternally one God, one essence or one being.

Quote (Lightenup @ April 23 2011,19:17)

The Holy Spirit is not listed as a person here:

The Trinity
But if, owing to your sharp intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire further what is meant by the Son, I shall briefly explain. He is the first offspring of the Father. I do not mean that he was created, for, since God is eternal mind, he had his Word within himself from the beginning, being eternally wise. Rather did the Son come forth from God to give form and actuality to all material things, which essentially have a sort of formless nature and inert quality, the heavier particles being mixed up with the lighter. The prophetic Spirit agrees with this opinion when he says, “The Lord created me as the first of his ways, for his works.”
Indeed we say that the Holy Spirit himself, who inspires those who utter prophecies, is an effluence from God, flowing from him and returning like a ray of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear those called atheists who admit God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and who teach their unity in power and their distinction in rank? Nor is our theology confined to these points. We affirm, too, a crowd of angels and ministers, whom God, the maker and creator of the world, appointed to their several t
asks through his Word. He gave them charge over the good order of the universe, over the elements, the heavens, the world, and all it contains.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.x.iii.iii.html

First of all I would think you can do better than that. The quote is by Athenagoras, the Athenian who was a Philosopher and a Christian and not a Forefather that I can tell.

But thanks for the link anyway because he is one of the earlier Christians that defended against there being any other Gods but one…

He first complains of the illogical and unjust discrimination against the Christians and of the calumnies they suffer, and then meets the charge of atheism (a major complaint directed at the Christians of the day was that by disbelieving in the Roman gods, they were showing themselves to be atheists). He establishes the principle of monotheism, citing pagan poets and philosophers in support of the very doctrines for which Christians are condemned, and argues for the superiority of the Christian belief in God to that of pagans. This first strongly-reasoned argument for the unity of God in Christian literature is supplemented by an able exposition of the Trinity. Source

Clearly he was a Trinitarian that believed in the “unity” of God in three persons.

So he does not imply the Holy Spirit is not a third person.

First the title of the section you quote is “The Trinity” which implies he believes in the Trinity since he did not say anything against it.

Secondly he speaks of the Holy Spirit as a person distinct from the Father and Jesus when he says…

“The prophetic Spirit ”AGREES” with this opinion when ”HE” says, “The Lord created me as the first of his ways, for his works.” Indeed we say that the Holy Spirit ”HIMSELF’, who inspires those who utter prophecies, is an effluence from God, flowing from him and returning like a ray of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear those called atheists who admit God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and who teach ”THEIR” unity in power and ”THEIR” distinction in rank?

Can you show any Forefathers that say there are 2 gods, 2 beings, or 2 essences?

April 27, 2011 at 11:01 pm#244727

karmarie

Participant

I realise that this thread is not about how reliable the 'forefathers' were, that could make another thread, but I just have to say: how trustworthy are their writings?

The Bible warns us about trusting in man. Israel’s “fathers” often led God’s people into idolatry. So have the church fathers of Roman Catholicism led their people into idolatry.

When Jesus was tempted of Satan, He came back with these words, “It is written”. This is the example our Lord Jesus set before us. Jesus did not combat lies with the traditions of the fathers. Actually, He warned Israel that the traditions of their fathers was making the word of God of none effect.

The leaders of Israel often caused her people to go into apostasy. Jeremiah 9:13-15 says,

“And the LORD saith, Because they have forsaken my law which I set before them, and have not obeyed my voice, neither walked therein; But have walked after the imagination of their own heart, and after Baalim, WHICH THEIR FATHERS TAUGHT THEM: Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will feed them, even this people, with wormwood, and give them water of gall to drink.”

Notice how the Lord says that it was the fathers that taught them to commit idolatry. Israel’s fathers taught them to serve Ashteroth, the “queen of heaven”. Rome has done the same thing, they just call their “queen of heaven” by another name. One of the fathers of Israel, Jeroboam, the king of Israel, set up golden calves in Bethel and Dan and had the people go up to worship there instead of Jerusalem. Israel fell into great apostasy by obeying their fathers who led them away from the God’s word. God sent a prophet to Jeroboam.

“And, behold, there came a man of God out of Judah by the word of the LORD unto Bethel: and Jeroboam stood by the altar to burn incense. And he cried against the altar in the word of the LORD, and said, O altar, altar, thus saith the LORD; Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of David, Josiah by name; and upon thee shall he offer the priests of the high places that burn incense upon thee, and men's bones shall be burnt upon thee.” (I Kings 13:1-3)

God named Josiah by name long before he came. God wants men to know that He is in control. He wants men to know that His word stands and you can trust it. 2 Kings 22 tells us that Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign, and the Bible says that he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD and walked in the way of David. In the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign, it was on his heart to repair the breaches in the house of the Lord, but it was the heart of God to repair the hearts of His people. God knows that there is only one way to do this. The people needed to hear His word.

“And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the LORD. And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. And Shaphan the scribe came to the king, and brought the king word again, and said, Thy servants have gathered the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of them that do the work, that have the oversight of the house of the LORD. And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes.” (2 Kings 22:8-11)

Notice the heart of Josiah. He heard the words of the book of the law and rent his clothes. He didn’t hear the words and question if God really said that or not! He knew they were the words of the living God. They pierced him to the heart. Verse 13, Josiah say:

“Go ye, enquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, BECAUSE [Now notice this}because OUR FATHERS HAVE NOT HEARKENED UNTO THE WORDS OF THIS BOOK, TO DO ACCORDING UNTO ALL THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN concerning us.”

Notice it was the Israel’s fathers that led their children into sin. They didn’t hearken unto the written word. “THAT WHICH IS WRITTEN”. Let’s continue, they went to Huldah the prophetess, who dwelt in Jerusalem and they communed with her. Starting in verse 15,

“And she said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Tell the man that sent you to me, Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah hath read: Because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore my wrath shall be kindled against this place, and shall not be quenched. But to the king of Judah which sent you to enquire of the LORD, thus shall ye say to him, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, As touching the words which thou hast heard; Because thine heart was tender, and thou hast humbled thyself before the LORD, when thou heardest what I spake against this place, and against the inhabitants thereof, that they should become a desolation and a curse, and hast rent thy clothes, and wept before me; I also have heard thee, saith the LORD. Behold therefore, I will gather thee unto thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered into thy grave in peace; and thine eyes shall not see all the evil which I will bring upon this place. And they brought the king word again.”

When Josiah heard the word of the Lord and repented, the Lord heard him. Do you know what Josiah did? This man who’s heart was tender when he heard the word of God?

“And the king sent, and they gathered unto him all the elders of Judah and of Jerusalem. And the king went up into the house of the LORD, and all the men of Judah and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem with him, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the people, both small and great: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of the LORD. And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant.” (2Ki.23:1-3)

Josiah went on to destroy and tear down the idolatry in Israel, and he did mighty works simply because he believed God’s word. Don’t be deceived by so called “church fathers” and all the forgeries of Rome. God did not promise to preserve the words of men, He promised to preserve His words. And even though Israel fell into apostasy many times, not one promise of the Lord failed. Our God promised, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

The center of the Bible is Psalms 118:8. The shortest chapter in the Bible is Psalms 117 and the longest chapter in the Bible is Psalms 119. There are 594 chapters before Psalms 118 and 594 chapters after. These numbers add up to 1188. Psalms 118:8, the center of the Bible, is the best way to end this article:

“It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.”

http://www.cuttingedge.org/articles/RC144.htm

April 27, 2011 at 11:12 pm#244729

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Why do you post something in this thread that is not about the topic?

April 27, 2011 at 11:25 pm#244730

karmarie

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 28 2011,13:12)

Why do you post something in this thread that is not about the topic?

WHAT DID THE FOREFATHERS BELIEVE, thats PART of the title of the thread.

You are trying to investigate something using the forefathers as proof.

I can read WJ?

April 28, 2011 at 2:28 am#244744

Worshipping Jesus

Participant

Quote (karmarie @ April 27 2011,18:25)

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 28 2011,13:12)

Why do you post something in this thread that is not about the topic?

WHAT DID THE FOREFATHERS BELIEVE, thats PART of the title of the thread.

You are trying to investigate something using the forefathers as proof.

I can read WJ?

Yes, exactly “WHAT DID THE FOREFATHERS BELIEVE concerning the The Hypostatic union?

But there is not a single mention of the Forefathers in your post or anything that relates to the topic. So I have to assume it is meant as an attack or to divert off of the topic.

PLEASE do not post spamming post that do not relate to the topic in this thread.

I am trying to have serious dialoge about the topic and hoping to learn more about church history.

It is your right not to want to learn about the Forefathers or church history, but if you post another post like that I will report it as spam.

April 28, 2011 at 3:36 am#244749

karmarie

Participant

WJ, what is wrong with questioning the validity of (a part of) what the topic is about?
If you actually read what I had posted then you will see that it is actually about the forefathers and what SCRIPTURE could be saying about it. (You call scripture spam?)

The Church Fathers were in disagreement about MANY things.

The SCRIPTURES are what is given to us and sent around the World in fullfillment of prophecy and although it is tempting to look at other things, dont forget that there was an apostacy which was prophesised to happen, and this is evident in the fact that the Early Church Fathers disagreed on a lot of things.

Yes they may have been Martyrs, but it doesn't mean that what they wrote was 100% true as it seems that bit by bit they changed things, and ended up with all kinds of beliefs not scriptural, such as the adoration of Icons and Pictures and Statues, the Pope who they call Holy Father (call no Man on Earth your Father… Jesus would have seen that one coming)

The Earliest Church was warned this would happen.
Should I not question for fear of what you may think, of me?

April 28, 2011 at 4:01 am#244752

kerwin

Participant

Quote (WorshippingJesus @ April 28 2011,04:19)