Who is Jesus to a Non-Trinitarian?

[Matthias]

I'm a bit confused by you're making this statement. Are you saying this in refutation of the Chalcedonian Creed? Or are you saying this is what it essentially says?

I’m saying it in refutation of the Chalcedonian Creed.

And what makes you think that trinitarians and the folks who comprised the Council of Chalcedon are at odds? Because it seems not...

You say Jesus is a human person. Those who comprised the Council of Chalcedon oppose the idea that Jesus is a human person.

The Catholic Church opposes the idea that Jesus is a human person. Protestant trinitarian denominations oppose the idea that Jesus is a human person.

I oppose the idea that Jesus is not a human person. They support the idea that Jesus is not a human person.

See that's odd, because I'm not in disagreement. What I and Christophany and Enoch have said is very much in accordance with the Council of Chalcedon.

The Council of Chalcedon does not posit that Jesus is a human person.

No, those are very much all yours...

Grace and peace to you.

I provided the documentation demonstrating that it isn’t.

 

[PinSeeker]

I’m saying it in refutation of the Chalcedonian Creed.

Right, because you're not a trinitarian. Sure. You're the "hound of Jewish monotheism." I get it. Sure.

You say Jesus is a human person.

Right...

Those who comprised the Council of Chalcedon oppose the idea that Jesus is a human person.

Um... no, not at all. That's what you're foisting upon them (and us).

The Council of Chalcedon does not posit that Jesus is a human person.

LOL! See above. He's not absolutely the same as all other human persons, because they're not also God...

I provided the documentation demonstrating that it isn’t.

Ah, yes, documentation. Yes, the great thing about the internet is that you can find anything you want to find. But the terrible thing about the internet is (also) that you can find anything you want to find.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Matthias]

Right, because you're not a trinitarian. Sure. You're the "hound of Jewish monotheism." I get it. Sure.

“The hound of Jewish monotheism” is a moniker which a trinitarian derisively pinned on me some years ago. The hound of Jewish monotheism is the Messiah’s theology.

Right...

So do I.

Um... no, not at all. That's what you're foisting upon them (and us).

What I’ve foisted on you is the commentary of orthodox trinitarian scholars and theologians - Catholic and Protestant.

LOL! See above. He's not absolutely the same as all other human persons, because they're not also God...

He is a unique human person, contra the teaching of historical orthodox trinitarianism

Ah, yes, documentation. Yes, the great thing about the internet is that you can find anything you want to find. But the terrible thing about the internet is (also) that you can find anything you want to find.

Grace and peace to you.

What I’ve quoted so far from the Internet are orthodox trinitarian sources. That was for the convenience of readers. I’ll also be quoting from orthodox trinitarian sources which aren’t on the Internet. The documentation for that will be provided; all that will be missing is the convenience of clicking on a link to verify the quotes.

 

[PinSeeker]

“The hound of Jewish monotheism” is a moniker which a trinitarian derisively pinned on me some years ago.

Ah. It is what it is, I guess.

The hound of Jewish monotheism is the Messiah’s theology.

Sure it is. But then that begs the question, who are true Jews? Paul tells us in Romans 2:28-29, Romans 9:6-8, and Romans 11:25-26 (see above). And the writer of Hebrews, too (Hebrews 1:1-2).

What I’ve foisted on you is the commentary of orthodox trinitarian scholars and theologians - Catholic and Protestant.

Right... your incorrect take on their commentaries. Yes, that's my point.

He is a unique human person, contra the teaching of historical orthodox trinitarianism...

See, here it is. Wow. Historical orthodox trinitarianism teaches this very thing, that He is a unique human person. Incredible. Your turning that around is quite astounding.

What I’ve quoted so far from the Internet are orthodox trinitarian sources. That was for the convenience of readers. I’ll also be quoting from orthodox trinitarian sources which aren’t on the Internet. The documentation for that will be provided; all that will be missing is the convenience of clicking on a link to verify the quotes.

Do what you want, my friend.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Matthias]

Ah. It is what it is, I guess.


Sure it is. But then that begs the question, who are true Jews? Paul tells us in Romans 2:28-29, Romans 9:6-8, and Romans 11:25-26 (see above). And the writer of Hebrews, too (Hebrews 1:1-2).


Right... your incorrect take on their commentaries. Yes, that's my point.


See, here it is. Wow. Historical orthodox trinitarianism teaches this very thing, that He is a unique human person. Incredible. Your turning that around is quite astounding.


Do what you want, my friend.

Grace and peace to you.

You’re doing exactly what I said you would do.

 

[Matthias]

Jesus is not a human person - in trinitarian theology.

“But Christologies from below evade the real mystery, namely, that Jesus is truly human yet he is not a human person, but a divine person, the Son of God, who reveals the still deeper mystery that God is a Trinity of Persons.”

(International Catholic University, “Philosophy For Theologians - Study Materials”

028-11: Personhood and Incarnation – International Catholic University

“The real mystery” - “Jesus is truly human yet he is not a human person...”

Well, International Catholic University, meet the false trinitarians who say you are false trinitarians and that Jesus IS a human person.

 

[PinSeeker]

Jesus is not a human person - in trinitarian theology.

No, He absolutely is.

“But Christologies from below evade the real mystery, namely, that Jesus is truly human yet he is not a human person, but a divine person, the Son of God, who reveals the still deeper mystery that God is a Trinity of Persons.”

I'm not a Catholic, but in this quoted statement, they say that Jesus is truly human. So what does it even mean that He is truly human, but not a human person? It's a very clumsy statement in itself... quite astounding.

Catholics notwithstanding, trinitarians absolutely affirm that He is both human and divine in his personhood. Again, Jesus is not merely a "human person." Not merely human in His personhood. My goodness. He was, as Paul says, both in the form of God and the form of man (Philippians 2).

(International Catholic University, “Philosophy For Theologians - Study Materials”

028-11: Personhood and Incarnation – International Catholic University


“The real mystery” - “Jesus is truly human yet he is not a human person.”

Well, Catholic University, meet the trinitarians who say you are false trinitarians and Jesus is a human person.

Yes, Catholics have their theological problems, but I think you're misunderstanding, which is understandable, considering the clumsiness of that statement. As for me, though, there are many reasons why I'm not a Catholic, the main reason being that they pretty much assign co-Redeemer status to Mary and pray to the dead.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Matthias]

No, He absolutely is.


I'm not a Catholic, but in this quoted statement, they say that Jesus is truly human. So what does it even mean that He is truly human, but not a human person? It's a very clumsy statement in itself... quite astounding.

Catholics notwithstanding, trinitarians absolutely affirm that He is both human and divine in his personhood. Again, Jesus is not merely a "human person." Not merely human in His personhood. My goodness. He was, as Paul says, both in the form of God and the form of man (Philippians 2).


Yes, Catholics have their theological problems, but I think you're misunderstanding, which is understandable, considering the clumsiness of that statement. As for me, though, there are many reasons why I'm not a Catholic, the main reason being that they pretty much assign co-Redeemer status to Mary and pray to the dead.

Grace and peace to you.

You heard what the International Catholic University said. You categorized it as “very clumsy” and “quite astounding”. My favorite part of your post is when you asked, “What does it even mean?”

It means that you don’t understand what they’re teaching.

They are the guardians of the Council of Chalcedon. Protestant trinitarianism inherited it from them, and agrees with them.

They are saying precisely what every orthodox trinitarian scholar and theologian I’ve quoted to this point has said.

 

[PinSeeker]

You heard what the International Catholic University said.

Yeah, Catholics. What to do with them? What're ya gonna do?

You categorized it as “very clumsy” and “quite astounding”. My favorite part of your post is when you asked, “What does it even mean?”

Yes, that was what's called "sarcasm."

It means that you don’t understand what they’re teaching.

No, actually, that's all you. But like I said, understandable, based on that clumsy statement. They're teaching that in His personhood, He is both human and divine, and not merely human.

They are the guardians of the Council of Chalcedon.

"Guardians..." Sounds like somebody's been watching too many Marvel movies...

I'm hackin' atcha in good clean fun, Matthias. Hope you have a sense of humor.

Protestant trinitarianism inherited it from them, and agrees with them.

Well, okay, I mean it is what it is, "inherited" (which is quite silly) or not. But still, you misstate it, making it into something different than it is. See above.

They are saying precisely what every orthodox trinitarian scholar and theologian I’ve quoted to this point has said.

Sure, and you're misunderstanding it. Again, Jesus is not merely human in His personhood. But in the form of man (human) He is; that's just not all there is to Him. This is what qualifies Him as Mediator between God and man.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[APAK]

Review these links and the video. Should be quite eye-opening to any serious Binitarian or Trinitarian. There is a gross flaw in the nature of Christ that make him humanly impersonal and not truly human, with only an abstract human nature. A lot of word games and smoke and mirrors have been played here, on purpose. This flaw has never been reconciled and only hidden. One of the best kept secrets of originally the Catholics and then the Protestants.

Was Jesus a true human person as we are? Did Jesus have only a human "nature" as the Trinity asserts? Is the Trinitarian doctrine that Jesus was "man" but not "a man" biblical? Bill Schlegel brings to his audience in Tennessee a clear refutation of the Trinitarian view of the person of Jesus.

And all these source all say Christ was truly and “fully man,” and yet not a “human person.” He was only "a divine person" not a "human person." Incredible!

Is Jesus a Human Person?
Is Jesus a Human Person?

And this source is deceptive and skirts around it whilst avoiding their belief that Jesus was never a human person.
Jesus Is Fully Human

I would read all these source just because it exists in your doctrine whether you are ignorant of it or not.

 

[Matthias]

Yeah, Catholics. What to do with them? What're ya gonna do?


Yes, that was what's called "sarcasm."


No, actually, that's all you. But like I said, understandable, based on that clumsy statement. They're teaching that in His personhood, He is both human and divine, and not merely human.


"Guardians..." Sounds like somebody's been watching too many Marvel movies...

I'm hackin' atcha in good clean fun, Matthias. Hope you have a sense of humor.


Well, okay, I mean it is what it is, "inherited" (which is quite silly) or not. But still, you misstate it, making it into something different than it is. See above.


Sure, and you're misunderstanding it. Again, Jesus is not merely human in His personhood. But in the form of man (human) He is; that's just not all there is to Him. This is what qualifies Him as Mediator between God and man.

Grace and peace to you.

Which trinitarian theologian or scholar I quoted do you think said, or even implied, “Jesus is not merely human in His personhood”?

 

[PinSeeker]

Which trinitarian theologian or scholar I quoted do you think said, or even implied, “Jesus is not merely human in His personhood”?

I think at least most of them, if not all, but can't be sure. Who cares? What is is. Generally speaking, I think if you asked any good Catholic theologian ~ which is a bit of a misnomer concerning several things... ~ for clarification, that's the answer you would get. Like I said, Catholics... whaddarryagonnado?

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Matthias]

I think at least most of them, if not all, but can't be sure. Who cares? What is is. Like I said, Catholics... whaddarryagonnado?

Grace and peace to you.

Thanks. In fact, none of them said, or even implied, it.

 

[PinSeeker]

Thanks. In fact, none of them said, or even implied, it.

You're welcome to your opinion, and I'm not going to argue with it. But I think any reasonable person can look at that statement you posted...

"But Christologies from below evade the real mystery, namely, that Jesus is truly human yet he is not a human person, but a divine person, the Son of God, who reveals the still deeper mystery that God is a Trinity of Persons.'

...and honestly say, "Okay, that can conceivably be understood this way..." (the way you are understanding it) "...but also in that way" (the way I am stating). That's all I'm saying. To not acknowledge those two possibilities regarding that statement is a bit iron-headed. I mean either way, He's a person, and thus His human state is acknowledged and affirmed. Surely we would agree that it's quite impossible to be truly human, which they are explicit in affirming, and not be a person. To think it possible to be truly human yet not a person is quite ridiculous.

Grace and peace.

 

[Matthias]

You're welcome to your opinion, and I'm not going to argue with it. But I think any reasonable person can look at that statement you posted...

"But Christologies from below evade the real mystery, namely, that Jesus is truly human yet he is not a human person, but a divine person, the Son of God, who reveals the still deeper mystery that God is a Trinity of Persons.'

...and honestly say, "Okay, that can conceivably be understood this way..." (the way you are understanding it) "...but also in that way" (the way I am stating). That's all I'm saying. To not acknowledge those two possibilities regarding that statement is a bit iron-headed. I mean either way, He's a person, and thus His human state is acknowledged and affirmed.

Grace and peace.

There aren’t “two possibilities” in their statements. They are unequivocally presenting the teaching of historical orthodox trinitarianism.

 

[PinSeeker]

There aren’t “two possibilities” in their statements. They are unequivocally presenting the teaching of historical orthodox trinitarianism.

Right; I agree. Good Lord. This is not what I was suggesting. Read what I wrote again.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Matthias]

Right; I agree. Good Lord. Read what I wrote again.

Grace and peace to you.

I’ve carefully read everything you’ve said about them and what you’ve said about what they said.

I quoted them precisely because they accurately present the teaching of historical orthodox trinitarianism.

 

[PinSeeker]

Okay well again... don't really care what Catholics say. But again, if you read just this one statement ~ and I fully acknowledge that one statement is not enough, many times, to get a comprehensive picture ~ but if you read this one statement:

"But Christologies from below evade the real mystery, namely, that Jesus is truly human yet he is not a human person, but a divine person, the Son of God, who reveals the still deeper mystery that God is a Trinity of Persons."

It is a valid understanding of that statement in the way you are understanding it, and it is just as valid an understanding of that statement to understand it in the way I am understanding it. But it is not possible for one to have both understandings at the same time, as they are contradictory. That's all I'm saying, Matthias. Having to spell this out for you...

But, let me say it one more time: For the most part, I do not care what Catholics say.

It certainly seems we should let this go.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Matthias]

Okay well again... don't really care what Catholics say. But again, if you read just this one statement ~ and I fully acknowledge that one statement is not enough, many times, to get a comprehensive picture ~ but if you read this one statement:

"But Christologies from below evade the real mystery, namely, that Jesus is truly human yet he is not a human person, but a divine person, the Son of God, who reveals the still deeper mystery that God is a Trinity of Persons."

It is a valid understanding of that statement in the way you are understanding it, and it is just as valid an understanding of that statement to understand it in the way I am understanding it. But it is not possible for one to have both understandings at the same time, as they are contradictory. That's all I'm saying, Matthias. Having to spell this out for you...

But, let me say it one more time: For the most part, I do not care what Catholics say.

It certainly seems we should let this go.

Grace and peace to you.

I understand it exactly as they do, and have said so multiple times. You, on the other hand, have vacillated wildly. If you agree that what they said - and I remind you that I quoted both Catholic and Protestant scholars and theologians - is an accurate presentation of historical orthodox trinitarianism then you should have said so from the beginning. All of this could have been, would have been, avoided if you had.

 

[PinSeeker]

I understand it exactly as they do, and have said so multiple times.

Right, you think you do.

You, on the other hand, have vacillated wildly.

Not one iota.

If you agree that what they said - and I remind you that I quoted both Catholic and Protestant scholars and theologians - is an accurate presentation of historical orthodox trinitarianism...

I do, if ~ again, if ~ regardless whether it is coming from Catholic or Protestant theologians, it is meant in the way that I said it is very possible to correctly understand that statement, that Jesus is not merely a "human person."

...then you should have said so from the beginning.

I did. I did, Matthias. I get that you somehow don't think so, but I did.

All of this could have been, would have been, avoided if you had.

Agreed. But that's quite because you supposed me to have said anything differently from what I have said in the last few posts now.

By all means, though, let's see how long we can keep this ridiculous conversation going. LOL!

Grace and peace to you.