Archive through October 12, 2004 Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 3 » What God Has Revealed About Himself » Archive through October 12, 2004 « Previous Next »

Author Message
33ad
Registered user
Username: 33ad

Post Number: 40
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 11:44 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Speakeasy,
From earliest times the Christian Church has known that Dec 25 is NOT the birthday of our Lord. In the 1st century after Christ, christians in Egypt were observing the Birth of Christ about mid-May month. There was a lot of debate about when to observe it, but finally all the Bishops decided on December 25 to counteract the pagan festival arount the same time. To make matters more complicated, Pope Gregory changed the calender in February 1582. This makes Western Christmas (Roman Catholic & Protestant) 13 days before the Eastern Church's Christmas on January 7 (Although it is December 25 on their Julian Calenders).
Galatians 4:9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?
10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain."
In other words, don't become concerned about when a specific event occured. Just believe in Jesus Christ, and that he saves you, and that He is in the Past, Present and Future, and it is not always told us of times.
Blessings
Loren
33ad
Registered user
Username: 33ad

Post Number: 41
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Monday, October 11, 2004 - 11:48 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Speakeasy,
From earliest times the Christian Church has known that Dec 25 is NOT the birthday of our Lord. In the 1st century after Christ, christians in Egypt were observing the Birth of Christ about mid-May month. There was a lot of debate about when to observe it, but finally all the Bishops decided on December 25 to counteract the pagan festival arount the same time. To make matters more complicated, Pope Gregory changed the calender in February 1582. This makes Western Christmas (Roman Catholic & Protestant) 13 days before the Eastern Church's Christmas on January 7 (Although it is December 25 on their Julian Calenders).
Galatians 4:9 But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again?
10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain."
In other words, don't become concerned about when a specific event occured. Just believe in Jesus Christ, and that he saves you, and that He is in the Past, Present and Future, and times of events are not always revealed to us.
I also find trying to date the Birth of Christ facinating. It should be quite easy, as somewhere should be recorded when Caesar's census was. But no body seems to know when.
Blessings
Loren
33ad
Registered user
Username: 33ad

Post Number: 42
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 4:55 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

OOPS!!sorry about the double post. My finger must have slipped.
Loren
Speakeasy
Registered user
Username: Speakeasy

Post Number: 158
Registered: 9-2002
Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 6:41 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

33ad but we still do not know.

1)At what time did the AD start?
2)When did mankind know when to stop using BC and then started AD? What ever time that was and who ever started it.
3) and what made them chose and pick when they started this dating system?

Still the AD/BC dating system is flawed because it is is centered at the time of when the people that picked the BC/AD time change and that change was centered around Jesus's life time on earth but we know Jesus was born somewere around 3 bc to 5 bc. If Jesus was born at that time. From the beginning of using this dating system it has been flawed. It could be flawed because the gregorian calander that we use is off and known to be off as many as 4 to 8 years. This could count for this. But to say that the church started at 33ad. when we know that the AD/BC is off 3 to 5 years. Even though scholars know that this is true there is nothing that can change it. Because in doing so the NON-believer and atheist's would go nuts if some one would try to move the years forwords or backwords. Because new technics telling us that Jesus was born 3 to 5 years diference. Can you see the uproar from the atheist's or any other non christian beleiver.

speakeasy
Speakeasy
Registered user
Username: Speakeasy

Post Number: 159
Registered: 9-2002
Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 6:56 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Chris I have not had time to re-read your posts. What do you mean that your posts have been archived? I can see the whole thread and see all the posts?

I don't want to jump the gun. Because I have not been able to re-read and study what you posted. But you posted #429

. There is only one God, YHWH, there are no others.
2. The Father, Son, and Sprit are personally distinct.
3. a) The Father is God.

We are still working on, but coming near the end of, truth #3 b) ìThe Son, Jesus Christ, is God.î

So if There is only ONE G-d. And I believe that. How can the Father be G-d and also his son Jesus Be G-d at the same time? Does this mean that G-d dead for all man kind? I thought and have been taught that G-d does not die?

As you can see I still do not understand. BUT I want to re-read and re-study what you posted. Chris You are again very knowledgeable about this subject and If I didn't think you could answere my questions I would never ask them.

Thanks for all of your hard work and posting what you know.

I am as all of you may have to come to the conclusion that there is no way I will ever understand this topic. I will and probably will have to just except the Trinity and move on. Is this a bad attitude in saying this? I just don't want someone down the road a few months or so. Ask me about this subject or hear a sermon or a hym about this subject and not know what it means to have G-d in three persons Blessed Trinity. And sing the hym and not really understand it and I have to explain the trinity to some one that asks and tell them "I don't know what it is But we believe it is true" I guess you could say this about G-d himself. I have never seen G-d but I Believe G-d is real. Is this a good way of thinking that I don't know if G-d is real because I have never seen him. But I believe G-d is real.

Also one last thing On my spelling of G-d. I want to break myself from doing this. But it is hard for me to do this. I want to pay respect to G-d. It is very hard for me to bring G-d down to a human leval and make him a lower level than I have made him all my life. You guys have been great to me. Hanging in there with me. And giving me your input on everything that I asked.

thanks
speakeasy
Speakeasy
Registered user
Username: Speakeasy

Post Number: 160
Registered: 9-2002
Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 9:09 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Doc; Isn't John supposed to be born about the same time as Jesus as well?

speakeasy
Melissa
Registered user
Username: Melissa

Post Number: 531
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 11:19 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

John should have been a few months older than Jesus...when mary went to Elizabeth, the baby within her jumped and Jesus was pretty newly conceived....so I'd say 4-6 months apart? Just a guess based upon scripture and the typical pregnancy term.

Speakeasy, I don't think any of us would advocate going against your conscience. If you do write "G_d" as an act of respect, I'm sure God would honor that as he does those of us who don't. If you look at Romans 14, it talks about not judging about how one man serves his master. Though the spelling of God's name isn't specifically mentioned, I would bet there is a greater principle that how you serve your master, within scriptural bounds, is between you and God. Please don't feel pressured to change something if your conscience is not comfortable. But if you really want to change it, that's okay too. God may be growing you in that area.

On believing God is real...I have to say there are times I have wondered if I'm going through all this heartache to do the "right" thing for nothing...if God isn't even real at all. But then I spend some time looking at my children, their perfect bodies in miniature form and contemplate how male and female are perfectly created to make children....I've always wondered how they explain that in evolution. The Bible says by looking at the creation around us we can know God is real, even though we don't see him, we see his handiwork. To look at all the human body goes through to create a human being, the detailed perfection to create eyes that can see and ears that hear... That cannot be by chance. It is completely illogical, when contemplated by the evidence nature provides, to conclude ANYTHING other than a creator. So, though I occasionally contemplate the logic of faith in creation, I think it takes greater faith to believe in evolution or any other non-creation beginning to the world and it's inhabitants.

Some day, we will see with our eyes the concepts we all work to understand. Thank you for challenging me to better be able to explain my faith ... I appreciate your thoughtful questions.
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris

Post Number: 430
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 4:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Speakeasy, you're questions go into two areas:

1) the differences in the terms "Being" and "Persons" and what they mean as applied to God and

2) The dual nature of Jesus Christ from the incarnation onward.

The latter question is beyond the scope of this particular study and would be quite lengthy in itself, but I will touch upon it as I wrap up this study. For now, be assured that the divine nature of Christ did not die. In respect to His human nature, His body was asleep in the grave, but His Spirit was committed into the hands of His Father. Never at any point did Christ cease being God.

2) Speakeasy, when I sat down I started out to answer your first question. I actually typed quite a little bit, then changed my mind and decided to save it for the end of this study. When I wrap up this study I will devote most of one post to discussing the differences in the terms "Being" and "Persons" as they are applied to YWHW. I have decided to do this not to put off your question, but because I want whatever I say to be firmly rooted in the basis of the truths we have studied from scripture. I don't want it to just be a discussion of what this or that creed or this or that theologian says. I want it to develope out of looking at each scirptural truth, then saying, "So how might all these truths fit together, be complementary to each other, and all be true at the same time?" That is ultimately the heart of your question and I promise you we are getting very near the point were we can pull it all together and examine if what we come up with conforms with scriptural truth. Above all, I want this to be about scriptural truth.

Finally, let me say that my main concern in this particular thread is not that you come away understanding the "Trinity". Let's face it, both you and I are finite limited creatures and neither one of us are ever going to fully understand a God that is infinite and that stands outside the dimensions of space and time. All we can hope to do is apprehend the truths He saw fit to reveal to us.

My MAIN prayer for this thread, above all else, is that you come to know Jesus Christ as the LORD YHWH, the only true God, the God of Abrahan, Isaac, and Jacob, the Creator, our Lord, God, and Savior. I truly and deeply believe that coming to know the fully Divine Jesus that is presented in scripture will wash away your doubts and fears and will bring you peace that passes all understanding.

Chris
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris

Post Number: 431
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 4:51 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

We have looked a very large amount of scripture that teaches that Jesus is Himself God. So what does it mean when Jesus is referred to as the Son of God? This is what we will focus on tonight.

1. "Son" in Scripture can mean simply one possessing the nature of something, whether literal or figurative. Consider the fact that the title "Son of man" would suggest having the nature of a man, "sons of thunder" in Mark 3:17 is an indication that John and James had the nature of thunder in a figurative sense, "sons of disobedience" in Eph. 2:1 indicates having a disobedient nature.

2. Whenever "son of" is used in relation to a person (son of man, son of Abraham, son of David, etc.), the son possesses the nature of his father. Jesus is the Son of God in that He possesses the very nature of God Himself.

3. Jesus is clearly not the Son of God in a literal sense, i.e., He was not physically procreated by God

4. On the other hand, Jesus is clearly the Son of God in a unique sense "one and only Son," and in a preeminent sense (in other words, the term is more fitting for Him than for anyone else).

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 1:14 (NIV)

16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:16 (NIV)

18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
John 3:18 (NIV)

9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.
1 John 4:9 (NIV)

5. Scripture is explicit that the Son possesses God's essence or nature. See all my postings above to confirm this.

6. Jesus' repeated claim to be the Son of God was consistently understood by the Jewish leaders as a blasphemous claim to equality with God, an understanding Jesus never denied:

Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." 18 For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.
John 5:17-23 (NIV)

58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.
John 8:58-59 (NIV)

30 I and the Father are one."

31 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

33 "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

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'? 37 Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38 But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
John 10:30-39 (NIV)

7 The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God."
John 19:7 (NIV)

63 But Jesus remained silent.

The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."

64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.
Matt 26:63-65 (NIV)

7. Jesus is therefore God's Son, not God's creation, God's servant, God's agent, etc. Jesus is God's Son who became a servant for our sake and for the Father's glory:

"You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.
John 13:13-15 (NIV)

I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do.
John 17:4 (NIV)

6 Though he was God, he did not demand and cling to his rights as God. 7 He made himself nothing; he took the humble position of a slave and appeared in human form. 8 And in human form he obediently humbled himself even further by dying a criminal's death on a cross. 9 Because of this, God raised him up to the heights of heaven and gave him a name that is above every other name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Phil 2:6-11 (NLT)


Next time I will wrap up our study of this particular truth by briefly reviewing the many ways that scripture teaches that the Son, Jesus Christ, is God.
Chris
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 30
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 6:40 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Chris, something you said concerns me. I want to make a new thread pertinent to this, but I'll just post a little bit here.

You said: "For now, be assured that the divine nature of Christ did not die. In respect to His human nature, His body was asleep in the grave, but His Spirit was committed into the hands of His Father. Never at any point did Christ cease being God."

That almost sounds like you're quoting Ellen G. White.

How can you separate Jesus' divine and human "natures"? How can you try to separate His divinity and humanity?

And if His divinity did not die, then that means that just a mere man died for us. How can a mere man dying for us save us? I fully believe that the Bible teaches that God died for us. In fact Acts 20:28 says that God's blood purchased us.

Also, the teaching that Jesus' "humanity" is not divine is Gnostic heresy, which the Bible calls antichrist. I have discovered that Ellen G. White teaches the same thing the Gnostics taught.

I'll try to make a new thread on this right away. Please read the link I'll give and respond in the new thread.

Jeremy
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris

Post Number: 432
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 7:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jeremy, I don't think we will end up disagreeing on this. You are right. The error was mine in trying to explain a complex subject off the cuff without thinking my answer through thoroughly. What I was trying to communicate was that God was not non-existant for a period of time nor did Jesus cease to be God for a period of time. I communicated very poorly in this case.

Here in a nutshell is what I believe about Jesus' two natures:

Jesus was fully 100% God and fully 100% man. He was truly God and truly man. These two natures were not confused or mixed nor were they divisible or seperate. These natures were in union and yet distinct with the properties of each nature preserved in one Person without any division into two persons. So, no, I do not think you can seperate Jesus' divine and human natures and that was not actually my intent to suggest this.

My off the cuff comments were very poor. Your reproof and correction are accepted and appreciated. I would also every much enjoy reading and learning from anything further you post on Christ's death.

Chris
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 32
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 7:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I just wanted to add one more thing to my above post.

Jesus does not have a "divine nature"! He IS divine, He is God. He became flesh. He became human. Therefore His flesh, His body, His humanity IS fully divine/fully God. "For in him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." (Colossians 2:9 KJV.)

Jeremy
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 33
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 7:15 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

My above post may have been worded poorly. When I say Jesus does not have "divine nature" I mean that I don't think Jesus has two natures. I think saying that He has one divine-human "nature" (if you want to call it that) may be more accurate. But this can get tricky, and as you said is complex. I do believe that Jesus is fully 100% God and fully 100% human.

Jeremy
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 34
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 7:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

About Jesus' death. There is only a problem with that if you believe the SDA view that humans are only physical. If you understand that Jesus' humanity and body was divine, then God could indeed die for us, and yet the Trinity would still exist. Jesus' divine-human spirit was still very much alive.

The SDA view about death is what caused the necessity of Ellen saying that only Jesus' humanity died, and not His divinity. In order for one member of the Godhead to not "cease to exist" the SDAs have to say that His divinity did not die. But this is wrong. God did indeed die for us, and purchase us with His own blood, as Acts 20 says.

Jeremy
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris

Post Number: 433
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 7:29 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jeremy, perhaps we are saying something just a little different. Nonetheless, thank you for pointing out my poor explanation of the nature of Christ and his death. Even if we're saying something different my wording was poor to begin with. Since I did such a poor job the first time, I would like to convey what I was really trying to say by quoting conservative (evangelical) reformed theologian Wayne Grudem from his Systematic Theology. I am in agreement with Dr. Grudem on this point and would have liked to express myself as cogently as he:

ìIn a similar way, we can understand that in his human nature, Jesus died (Luke 23:46; 1 Cor. 15:3). But with respect to his divine nature, he did not die, but was able to raise himself from the dead (John 2:19; 10:17-18; Heb. 7:16). Yet here we must give a note of caution: it is true that when Jesus died his physical body died and his human soul (or spirit) was separated from his body and passed into the presence of God the Father in heaven (Luke 23:43, 46). In this way he experienced a death that is like the one we as believers experience if we die before Christ returns. And it is not correct to say that Jesusí divine nature died, or could die, if ìdieî means a cessation of activity, a cessation of consciousness, or a diminution of power. Nevertheless, by virtue of union with Jesusí human nature, his divine nature somehow tasted something of what it was like to go through death. The *person* of Christ experienced death. Moreover, it seems difficult to understand how Jesusí human nature alone could have borne the wrath of God against the sins of millions of people. It seems that Jesusí divine nature had somehow to participate in the bearing of wrath against sin that was due to us (though Scripture nowhere explicitly affirms this). Therefore, even though Jesusí divine nature did not actually die, Jesus went through the experience of death as a whole person, and both human and divine natures somehow share in that experience. Beyond that, Scripture does not enable us to say more.î

I hope this quote from Dr. Grudem better explains my position on this subject.

Chris
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris

Post Number: 434
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 8:43 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jeremy, one last point in regards to Christ's two natures. I would like to quote from The Chalcedonian Creed of 451 AD. The Chalcedonian definition guarded against Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, and Eutychianism. It has been taken as the standard, orthodox definition of the biblical teaching on the person of Christ since that day by Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox branches of Christianity alike.

"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [coessential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the other of god, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and on Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has been handed down to us.î

My understanding of Christís natures is well expressed by this creed and I believe this to be the standard accepted definition of all branches of Christianity. It is considered to be orthodoxy because it is in harmony with the biblical data available to us.

Chris
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy

Post Number: 36
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 9:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Chris,

What it sounds to me like Grudem is saying is that nothing "divine" died. But how could a mere human's death save us? Also, that seems to be getting dangerously close to Gnosticism:


quote:

"The Gnostics wrote apocryphal Gospels (such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary) to substantiate their claim that the risen Jesus told his disciples the true, Gnostic interpretation of his teachings: Christ, the divine spirit, inhabited the body of the man Jesus and did not die on the cross but ascended to the divine realm from which he had come. The Gnostics thus rejected the atoning suffering and death of Christ and the resurrection of the body. They also rejected other literal and traditional interpretations of the Gospels." ("Gnosticism," MicrosoftÆ EncartaÆ 97 Encyclopedia. © 1993-1996 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.)




Jeremy
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris

Post Number: 435
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 9:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

No Jeremy, Grudem's position is entirely and solidly orthodox and it is not Gnosticism at all.

The Gnostics basically felt that matter was bad while spirit was good, so they rejected the physicality of Christ's suffering, death, and resurrection, and downplayed His truly human nature.

The council of Chalcedonia agreed upon the doctrine of Christ's two natures to counteract three heresies that were plaguing the church. The Apollinarianism heresy claimed that Christ had a human body, but not a human mind or spirit. The mind and spirit of Christ were from the divine nature of the Son of God. This seems a bit similar to the earlier Gnostic view in my mind, but I would have to research it a bit further to see if there is any kind of a direct connection. The second heresy was Nestorianism which taught that there were two separate persons in Christ, a human person and a divine person, a teaching that is distinct from the biblical view that sees Jesus as one person. The third heresy was monphysitism (Eutychianism) which claimed that Christ had one nature only. This heresy denied that the human nature and the divine nature in Christ remained fully human and fully divine. This heresy taught that the human nature was absorbed into or mixed with the divine nature. None of these views were adequate or fit the biblical data. The Chalcedonia definition is the only one that is accepted as orthodox within the conservative Christian world because it refutes all these heresies and takes into account the biblical data that portrays both Christís deity and His humanness.

Chris
Chris
Registered user
Username: Chris

Post Number: 436
Registered: 7-2003
Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 10:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I thought of another reference that might be helpful in understanding this matter. The following quotation is by well respected conservative theologian, educator, and author, R.C. Sproul. Dr. Sproul is thoroughly orthodox in all aspects of his theology and is a great proponent of the careful, diligent study and statement of scripturally based doctrine. The following material is excerpted from his book, ìEssential Truths of the Christian Faith: 100 Key Doctrines in Plain Languageî. I would agree with Dr. Sproul that this is indeed a key orthodox doctrine of the historic Christian faith:



THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST

That God the Son took upon Himself a real human nature is a crucial doctrine of historic Christianity. The great ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451 affirmed that Jesus is truly man and truly God and that the two natures of Christ are so united as to be without mixture, confusion, separation, or division, each nature retaining its own attributes.

The true humanity of Jesus has been assaulted chiefly in two ways. The early church had to combat the heresy of docetism, which taught that Jesus did not have a real physical body or a true human nature. They argued that Jesus only "seemed" to have a body but in reality was a phantom sort of being. Over against this, John strongly declared that those who denied that Jesus came truly in the flesh are of the Antichrist.

The other major heresy the church rejected was the monophysite heresy. This heresy argued that Jesus did not have two natures, but one. This single nature was neither truly divine nor truly human but a mixture of the two. It was called a "theanthropic" nature. The monophysite heresy involves either a deified human nature or a humanized divine nature.

Subtle forms of the monophysite heresy threaten the church in every generation. The tendency is toward allowing the human nature to be swallowed up by the divine nature in such a way as to remove the real limitations of Jesus' humanity.

We must distinguish between the two natures of Jesus without separating them. When Jesus hungers, for example, we see that as a manifestation of the human nature, not the divine. What is said of the divine nature or of the human nature may be affirmed of the person. On the cross for example, Christ, the God man, died. This, however, is not to say that God perished on the cross. Though the two natures remain united after Christ's ascension, we must still distinguish the natures regarding the mode of His presence with us. Concerning His human nature, Christ is no longer present with us. However, in His divine nature Christ is never absent from us.

Christ's humanity was like ours. He became a man ìfor our sakes." He entered into our situation to act as our Redeemer. He became our substitute, taking upon Himself our sins in order to suffer in our place. He also became our champion, fulfilling the law of God on our behalf.

In redemption there is a twofold exchange. Our sins are imparted to Jesus. His righteousness is imparted to us. He receives the judgment due to our imperfect humanity. In His humanity Jesus had the same limitations common to all human beings, except that He was without sin. In His human nature He was not omniscient. His knowledge, though true and accurate as far as it went, was not infinite. There were things He did not know such as the day and the hour of His return to earth. Of course in His divine nature He is omniscient and His knowledge is without limit.

As a human being Jesus was restricted by time and space. Like all human beings He could not be in more than one place at the same time. He sweated. He hungered. He wept. He endured pain. He was mortal, capable of suffering death. In all these respects He was like us.


SUMMARY

1. Jesus had a true human nature that was perfectly united with His divine nature.
2. Docetism said that Jesus did not have a real body.
3. The monophysite heresy involves the deification of the human nature by which His humanity is eclipsed by His deity.
4. Christ's humanity is the basis of His identification with us.
5. Jesus took our sins upon Himself and imparts His righteousness to us.
6. Jesus' human nature had the limitations of normal humanity, except that He was without sin.


BIBLICAL PASSAGES FOR REFLECTION

John 1:1 14
Galatians 4:4
Philippians 2:5 11
Hebrews 2:14 18
Hebrews 4:15
33ad
Registered user
Username: 33ad

Post Number: 45
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 11:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi Chris,
You Quoted "The Chalcedonian definition guarded against Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, and Eutychianism. It has been taken as the standard, orthodox definition of the biblical teaching on the person of Christ since that day by Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox branches of Christianity alike." Thanks for bringing up this point. The Orthodox position on this has not changed, it is very clear. Christ was born with Two Natures.(He inherited His human Nature from His mother and his Divine nature from the Holy Spirit.) An interesting point to remind us about this.
Quote from "A GUIDE TO ORTHODOX LIFE" by Father David Cownie and Presbytera Juliana Cownie.
"To make the Orthodox "Sign of the Cross" we place the thumb and the first and second fingers of our right hand together, representing the Three Persons or Hypostases of the Holy Trinity. Next, we fold the fourth and fifth fingers against our palm, representing the TWO NATURES of Christ, Who came down from Heaven to the earth, in order to save mankind. Holding our right hand in this way, we touch the tips of the three fingers to our forehead, our abdomen, the right shoulder, and the left shoulder. We then put our hand down to the side of our body."(Emphasis is mine) The decicion made at the council of Chalcedonia (Second Council) is the accepted doctrine for ALL Christians. Jeremy, if you find this hard to accept, please read the following link:http://www.carm.net/doctrine/2natures.htm and this one:http://www.pcea.asn.au/allpers8.html
Both are Protestant sites not connected to Orthodoxy or R/Catholisism.
God Bless you in your search for truth.
Loren

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration