What would be the point of avoiding what the Bible crucially says about it?
The Nature of Jesus Christ
- Thread starter face2face
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The possibility of adding clarity. Recognition that the Bible may not say everything there is to say on the topic. Appreciation of the early Church Fathers' contributions to the subject during the patristic period. Identification of definitional as opposed to analytical objections to the concept of being both God and man.
then you explain these verses.
Psalm 19
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Lk 3:2 2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
(did a book fall out of the sky?)
acts 1:8 acts 2:42 not the Bible alone!
Something I've discovered on this forum in particular, there truly is a wide range of views out there.
Don't they speak of "hypostatic union" as the Divine joined to the human? I've always heard this describing Jesus' incarnation, taught by trinitarians.
Much love!
Everything I base my knowledge on is what the Bible says about God and man. Just the same, what did you want to say? I'm interested.
Much love!
If you cut off your arm, are you less you?
? ?
I'm surprised by this question!
Much love!
That same wide range of views is typical on public forums.
It depends on how well instructed they are in their theology and how precise they are in their language.
The logic behind the hypostatic union isn’t particularly difficult to grasp, as long as we begin with the premise that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, and therefore a divine (i.e. deity) person. Since Jesus is only one person, and that person is divine, he is not / cannot be a human person. It is the divine person who takes upon himself impersonal human nature at the postulated incarnation of a literally preexistent “God person”.
If we begin with the premise that Jesus is a human person then the logic doesn’t work at all.
In my experience, the majority of those who self-identify as trinitarian - Catholic and Protestant - are unaware that the Jesus of trinitarian theology is not a human person. There are, of course, many trinitarians who are aware that their theology insists that he wasn’t, isn’t and never will be a human person.
I was raised trinitarian. The teaching that Jesus is not a human person is but one of the reasons that I’m no longer a trinitarian.
Check this out farouk: The expression 'Son of man' that really doesn't need its 'S' to be capitalized, is a common local expression in that time for an average joe, like you or me. It has no glory in it and it is not a special title. just saying...
Daniel 7:13-14 KJV
13) I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14) And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
This is a singular person foretold.
Much love!
13) I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14) And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
This is a singular person foretold.
Much love!
This is the standard objection to the incarnation, I think. If you are this, then obviously you cannot be that. I don't think that's the correct answer.
Much love!
I agree with trinitarian theology that God is not a human person. I’m not in agreement with trinitarian theology that Jesus is not a human person.
When you read about Jesus in the Bible, do you come away with the impression that he is a human person?
It’s trinitarian theology which teaches that Jesus was human but not a human person. Are you familiar with Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church?
I’ve always found this helpful in understanding why trinitarianism teaches that Jesus of Nazareth wasn’t / isn’t / cannot be a human person.
“The anhypostasia, impersonality, or, to speak more accurately, the enhypostasia, of the human nature of Christ. This is a difficult point, but a necessary link in the orthodox doctrine of the one God-Man; for otherwise we must have two persons in Christ, and, after the incarnation, a fourth person, and that a human, in the divine Trinity.”
(Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, §142. The Orthodox Christology - Analysis and Criticism)
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*
If a person truly wants to be a trinitarian then he or she must buy into the teaching that Jesus isn’t a human person.
“The anhypostasia, impersonality, or, to speak more accurately, the enhypostasia, of the human nature of Christ. This is a difficult point, but a necessary link in the orthodox doctrine of the one God-Man; for otherwise we must have two persons in Christ, and, after the incarnation, a fourth person, and that a human, in the divine Trinity.”
(Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, §142. The Orthodox Christology - Analysis and Criticism)
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH*
If a person truly wants to be a trinitarian then he or she must buy into the teaching that Jesus isn’t a human person.
Then trinitarianism must make no sense to you.
As a non-trinitarian, nothing. A human is a human person.
I believe Jesus is a human person.
Last edited:
Behold
Well-Known Member
It would be impossible for Jesus to say....>"I and my Father are One"..... Which is a reference to John 1:1.....if it was not true.
No, it's your distinction between human and human person that makes no sense to me. "Person" is what the lawyers say, a man is a person, a corporation is a person, it's all legalese.
What you mean, I have no idea, except that you seem to hold to a Rule that No Divine can be a Human Person, therefore, Christ was not a human person, or, I'm still having a difficult time following what you are saying.
To me this seems an arbitrary distinction, and I think we are better served using the terminology of Scripture instead of lawyers.
Jesus is the Last Adam, He is Human. Jesus is the Lord of Heaven, Jesus is the Word made flesh, Jesus is my Lord and my God.
Much love!
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
I said “you are Elohim”
and really it is a short stretch from Jesus of Nazareth to “John Doe, from Nowhere”
It’s not my distinction. It’s trinitarianism’s distinction.
It’s trinitarian theology which says Jesus is not a human person. I say Jesus is a human person.
Jesus is my Lord. His God is my God.
Similar threads
