/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

There isn't one. Within the last few years or so the Catholics and nonchalcedonians came to an agreement that they were expressing the same belief, but it was translation errors between Greek, Latin, and Egyptian that caused the split. The reason for the schism is not seen as a problem for reunion anymore, as it was in the past.

I can't find the article on it right now. Sorry.

Miaphysite: Jesus has the one nature of God-man, because His human nature and His divine nature cannot be understood separately from one another after the hypostatic union.

Chalcedonian: Jesus has a human nature and a divine nature, without separation and without confusion, after the hypostatic union, and His human nature and His divine nature can be understood separately after the union even if they cannot be separated from one another (so, Jesus can know something in His divinity but not in His humanity for instance, something not allowed in Miaphysite Christology and one reason they call us Nestorians).

But as >>549217 says, only polemicists think this is a problem anymore. We already implicitly recognized Miaphysitism back at the second council of Constantinople, and Orientals are growing to tolerate Chalcedon (and to recognize that the language of "two natures" isn't automatically Nestorian).

>>549217

The Copts and the Byzantines used the same Greek, language wasn't the issue. The issue was Dioscoros being stubborn and prideful and thus fighting against the emperor's orders, thus getting himself put in the same bag as Eutyches.

>>549224

>cannot be understood separately from one another after the hypostatic union.

>can be understood separately after the union

Why isn't this a problem anymore?

>>549228

Because it really doesn't matter whether we think it's more logical to talk of two natures after the union, or to avoid doing so. The historical dispute has rather been that we thought they were Eutychian Monophysites (Jesus has one God-man nature, so that His divinity engulfs His humanity) and they thought we were Nestorians (Jesus the Logos and Jesus the man are separate nature-persons, but united in the one manifestation-person of Jesus).

If anything, the only real issue left is whether it is correct to say that Jesus in His humanity could have been ignorant of things Jesus knew in His divinity, but we have a solid defense for that, and we ourselves have anathematized the idea that Jesus could have somehow been truly ignorant of anything.

Today, the bigger issue is on theosis… The Copts are disagreeing with one another on whether it is a heresy or not, and frankly they don't even seem to have the same definition of "theosis" in mind whenever one side brings up an argument to the other. Then there's also how Armenians use unleavened bread (which triggers the Ordodox) and how Ethiopians are the trads of the Oriental communion so many are wary of us and still insist we are Nestorians.

>>549238

>If anything, the only real issue left is whether it is correct to say that Jesus in His humanity could have been ignorant of things Jesus knew in His divinity, but we have a solid defense for that

What is the defense pls, am n00b and would like to know, ty in advance

>>549238

I'd rather not pour fuel on this fire, but I need to ask is there supposed to be some difference between Jesus the Logos and Jesus the Word?

>>549275

The Scriptures are pretty clear when they say that Jesus grew in wisdom and obedience to God, in Luke 2:52 and Hebrews 5:8. That can only be in His humanity, not in His divinity. But furthermore, we also defend that Jesus was never truly ignorant of anything - He may have emptied Himself out, letting go of His knowledge to re-attain it, but He was never ignorant in either His humanity or His divinity. He did not know all things at certain points in time in His humanity, but because He allowed Himself to let go of this knowledge and re-attain it later, not because of ignorance of things divine.

>>549282

According to Nestorius, yes. The Logos is eternal and divine, the incarnate Christ is temporal. But the two nature-persons are united in the one manifestation-person of Jesus. For instance, his argument that the Virgin Mary shouldn't be called Mother of God but rather only Mother of Christ is that she gave birth to Jesus's humanity, not to His divinity.

To put things simply: Nestorianism focuses too much on Jesus's humanity and divinity being without confusion. Monophysitism focuses too much on Jesus's humanity and divinity being without separation.

>>549292

I'm not even talking about monophysitism right now. I'm talking rather about why you feel it's necessary to leave the word logos untranslated. Doesn't that obscure his attribute of being the word of God by whom the Father made the worlds? And if it does, why necessitate that distinction by choosing not to translate the word "Logos" itself, as if it doesn't mean Word.

>>549294

Logos only roughly means word, it has more implied meanings in Greek

>>549296

I know that it means more than just a written or spoken word but rather the concept of the thought/idea itself, and things of that nature. Still, "logos" and "logoi" nevertheless refers to actual words itself, in the most abstract and purest sense. No media for the Logos is implied. Likewise words or "the Word" cannot be broken down or limited to a medium, so there truly isn't anything lost in translation.

>>549292

>The Scriptures are pretty clear when they say that Jesus grew in wisdom and obedience to God, in Luke 2:52 and Hebrews 5:8. That can only be in His humanity, not in His divinity. But furthermore, we also defend that Jesus was never truly ignorant of anything - He may have emptied Himself out, letting go of His knowledge to re-attain it, but He was never ignorant in either His humanity or His divinity. He did not know all things at certain points in time in His humanity, but because He allowed Himself to let go of this knowledge and re-attain it later, not because of ignorance of things divine.

If Jesus didn't know everything then He ceased to be omniscient, which means He ceased to be God. Jesus was not without knowledge of anything, the emptying was not a veiling to Himself but to the world.

>>549337

>If Jesus didn't know everything then He ceased to be omniscient,

His divine nature never did.

>>549377

If Jesus has two 'knowledges' then Jesus is two persons

>>549303

"Logos" as used in John 1:1 is most closely translated to "Tao" actually. It means, all at once, "mind," "reason," "rational intellect," "rational order," "spirit," "expression," "manifestation," "revelation," "original principle," "spiritual principle," "divine principle," and in John 1 it is used with the intention to mean the "secondary god," "expressed divine principle," through which God interacts with His creation.

>>549337

Jesus has all things in His divine nature, but by taking onto our human nature, He had to make it grow and sanctify it gradually until it was perfect as His divine nature. It's not correct to say He was not knowledgeable or that He was ignorant, but rather, in His human nature, He had to grow in knowledge (and in everything else).

The kenosis was a veiling to Himself because our human nature had to be grown and sanctified through Him, which was only possible because He has a divine nature to begin with.

>>549390

That Jesus has one will is monothelitism and it is anathematized. Rather, He has two wills, a human will and a divine will, perfectly attuned to one another. After the Monophysite controversy, Monothelitism rose up as a "compromise," but St Maximus the Confessor fought against it as he saw it as only a thinly veiled form of Monophysitism. I haven't read his arguments yet so I'll let you do that.

>>549562

>secondary god

Enjoy your ban

>>549575

You're seriously looking for trouble if 1) you think I'm an Arian and 2) you think that Arians didn't use John 1 to defend their doctrine as much as Trinitarians did.

>>549562

>Jesus has all things in His divine nature, but by taking onto our human nature, He had to make it grow and sanctify it gradually until it was perfect as His divine nature

The question is not if Jesus grew in His humanity, but if He retained all knowledge. To say He was at all limited in knowledge is to say either that He ceased being God or became two persons.

And His humanity never became as perfect as His divinity, nothing can be as perfect as God

>The kenosis was a veiling to Himself

No, it was a veiling to the world, because otherwise they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory. He didn't cease being holy, He didn't cease being glorious, He didn't cease being eternal.

>That Jesus has one will is monothelitism and it is anathematized. Rather, He has two wills, a human will and a divine will, perfectly attuned to one another. After the Monophysite controversy, Monothelitism rose up as a "compromise," but St Maximus the Confessor fought against it as he saw it as only a thinly veiled form of Monophysitism. I haven't read his arguments yet so I'll let you do that

What does this have to do with anything I said