/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>561247

It ain't wrong, though. So you're good. No worries.

>>561250

Well it's clearly wrong Biblically, cause Mary is called the Mother of the Lord in The Bible. I'm asking why the distinction doesn't exist

>>561247

>>561254

If you know it's wrong, then why are you asking?

>>561254

No. She gave birth but she didn't make his soul. Jesus talks about David on this and he pysically descends from David.

42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.

43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,

44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

>>561257

Oh, I see. That makes sense! Carry on.

>>561257

The thing is that most people think of adoptionism whenever you start talking about Nestorianism. That is of course easily heresy, see John 1:1.

Now in practice, a lot of people who say Mary created the soul of God the Son will immediately accuse you of being Nestorian if you try to show why that's false. I honestly believe that though God took on humanity, his nature didn't come into existence, or else it would be created.

>>561247

If Jesus was two persons, which one died on the cross?

>You wouldn't say God died/ceased to exist at any point in time

if it were just the human person that died, then was the atonement sufficient to cleanse us of our sins?

>>561264

>people who say Mary created the soul of God the Son

Do people actually believe that?

>>561267

As real as I'm typing here.

>>561268

Wouldn't that then mean that Jesus didn't exist firever then? Are catholics really this big if heretics

>>561271

>>552616

>>561274

See my reply to that post

>>561271

>Wouldn't that then mean that Jesus didn't exist firever then?

no, He didn't exist since past eternal as a soul, He existed as the Word.

souls are created things (I don't think Mary created His soul, He just assumed one at His incarnation, in Mary.)

42 In a loud voice she exclaimed, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why am I so honored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

>>561281

It says the Word became flesh, Not that the Word became a soul, because He was already alive. Let's try to keep the word of God separate from the legend of Semiramis in this thread.

>>561281

>>561281

How didn't his soul exist before? People saw him before he became flesh

>>561288

>How didn't his soul exist before?

i'm not saying He didn't exist before, just not as a soul, He existed as the Word.

you're talking about pre-incarnate manifestations of the Word.

a soul isn't necessary for Him to be seen or exist.

>>561304

Kinda is boi

>>561267

No one who proclaims Mary to be Theotokos believes this any more than the Sola Fide folks think you have license to sin freely.

What do you mean by Christ's two natures?

As in Son of Man and Son of God?

Is this Nestorianism just some kind of attempt to solve the Mystery of the Trinity?

>>561312

Spoons can't think

Watch from 1:24:00 heretic

>>561366

This guy posting this tard again

Okay at 31:00 he talks about Matthew 7:21 without even quoting the next two verses where Jesus gives an example of people doing that and it was them relying on their works.

Also the Father's will is just believe on Jesus. Funny that he didn't bother looking it up.

John 6

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

>>561333

>What do you mean by Christ's two natures?

Jesus is fully God and fully man. There's no separate nature:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyophysitism

The thing that is separated is the Will. Jesus has two wills, one for each nature:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyothelitism

>>561366

Also no, Anderson does not believe that. He believes she is not the mother of God because Jesus existed before Mary. Jesus physically descends from David he says he is not David's son spritually.

Matthew 22

42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.

43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,

44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

>>561334

how would you (not google) define what a soul is?

>>561371

A spirit I guess. And again it says the Word became flesh not flesh and soul

>>561373

Like how God the Father is a spirit

>>561247

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10755a.htm

>But the Antiochene writers did not mean that the "man assumed" (ho lephtheis anthropos) was taken up into one hypostasis with the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. They preferred to speak of synapheia, "junction", rather than enosis, "unification", and said that the two were one person in dignity and power, and must be worshipped together. The word person in its Greek form prosopon might stand for a juridical or fictitious unity; it does not necessarily imply what the word person implies to us, that is, the unity of the subject of consciousness and of all the internal and external activities. Hence we are not surprised to find that Diodorus admitted two Sons, and that Theodore practically made two Christs, and yet that they cannot be proved to have really made two subjects in Christ. Two things are certain: first, that, whether or no they believed in the unity of the subject in the Incarnate Word, at least they explained that unity wrongly; secondly, that they used most unfortunate and misleading language when they spoke of the union of the manhood with the Godhead — language which is objectively heretical, even were the intention of its authors good.

My question to you, then, anon, is how many Jesuses are there?

>>561366

Jesus is the root and offspring of David. You should learn how that is, before making cheap shots at people.

A human being did not create the soul of God, much less so is his Person created. That is utmost heresy on both counts.

Colossians 1:13-17

Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

>>561267

From my memory someone tried to prove other believed that by saying they must if they didn't believe Jesus had a human soul that existed before His incarnation, and they of course disagreed because Jesus did have a soul, but it was a divine soul, not a human one

>death means to cease to exist.

End this meme

>>561416

Death means to go to heaven and hell which are the same place with different mindsets :DDD

>>561271

>Nestorian baptist accuses Catholics of being heretics

I've seen it all now

>>561267

No one believes that.

>Jesus was only 50% God and 50% man

>>561247

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3509.htm

Should help you.

>>561373

>>561374

I see, you're not a Nestorian, you're an Apollinarian. You believe Jesus isn't a man, His humanity is just a flesh puppet.

>>561578

>You believe Jesus isn't a man

I never said that

>>561703

I really wish I had that pic of James White with a sword right now

>>561703

Council of Ephesus, the one before Chalcedon and completely approved by it says:

The holy and great Synod therefore says, that the only begotten Son, born according to nature of God the Father, very God of very God, Light of Light, by whom the Father made all things, came down, and was incarnate, and was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven.

These words and these decrees we ought to follow, considering what is meant by the Word of God being incarnate and made man. For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh, or that it was converted into a whole man consisting of soul and body; but rather that the Word having personally united to himself flesh animated by a rational soul, did in an ineffable and inconceivable manner become man, and was called the Son of Man, not merely as willing or being pleased to be so called, neither on account of taking to himself a person, but because the two natures being brought together in a true union, there is of both one Christ and one Son; for the difference of the natures is not taken away by the union, but rather the divinity and the humanity make perfect for us the one Lord Jesus Christ by their ineffable and inexpressible union.

I really wish that blasphemy laws were still in place

>>561714

how would you go about demonstrating the flaw in it to someone who doesn't think that the findings of those councils are authoritative/infallible?

>>561438

That's what happened the first time around, isn't it?

>>561438

Can you explain what Nestorianism is? I keep seeing people say it but no one's really actually explained it.

>>561744

Essentially denying that the human and divine natures of Jesus Christ are in hypostatic union and that they are separable. It's worth reading the proceedings of the Council of Ephesus (https://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/ephesus.htm) to fully understand the controversy (you can probably just read the 12 anathemas if you want only the meat of it), but particularly relevant for Protestants where you start talking about, "oh, well, Mary birthed Jesus the man, but not the Word of God" you are falling into heresy.

>>561784

She did birth the Word because it said the Word became flesh but she didn't make the Word

>>561792

Nobody said that Mary made the Word… Theotokos is translated as Mother of God but literally mean "God-birther." If what she held in her womb for 9 months was God, then she is the Mother of God.

>>561797

She didn't being Jesus i to existence so no. Like how Jesus is called the Son of David but he also says he texhnically isn't

Matthew 22

42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David.

43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,

44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.

>>561811

Wait, are you outright denying that Jesus got His humanity from her?

>>561820

No he got the dlesh from Mary obviously. He still had a soul before and was still a male. And the Father is obviouslt male and he is just a spirit

John 4:24King James Version (KJV)

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

>>561822

So why do you disagree that what Mary held in her womb was God?

>And the Father is obviously male

What? God made mankind male and female, it does not mean that God is properly male or female. Jesus is male, and that is because He inherited a male human flesh from Mary's flesh.

>>561823

Yes Jesus is God and Jesus was in Mary

>>561825

So then she is the Mother of God, isn't she? She biologically birthed Him.

>>561703

>1. We agree with the Council…

>find a flaw

Alright, what if I don't agree with the premise of deciding truth by council? What if that's the whole problem here.

>>561714

Nothing about God coming into existence here. Flesh coming into existence yes, God no. How can Jesus Christ be the root and offspring of David at the same time? Because he's not typical in that respect. The Lord Jesus Christ did not "come into existence" at any point, whereas we did.

>>561823

>Jesus is male, and that is because He inherited a male human flesh from Mary's flesh.

He is male for the same reason the Father and the Holy Spirit are actually. And He always was. Before Abraham, He was.

>>561827

She didn't bring him into existence though.

>>561830

Jesus is infinently older than Mary

>>561829

"Male" and "female" only refer to humanity, not to divinity. God made mankind male and female, but what is spiritual is not male or female - see Galatians 3:28 and Matthew 22:30.

>>561830

>>561831

You're the one talking about "bringing into existence." I'm talking about her being the mother of Jesus.

Furthermore, did Jesus inherit anything from Mary, or not?

>>561834

She helped make his flesh

>>561834

>what is spiritual is not male or female - see Galatians 3:28 and Matthew 22:30.

Neither of those says that actually.

>>561829

>what if I don't agree with the premise of deciding truth by council?

i completely get what you're saying, but with the way that premise is worded, you don't have to.

>we agree with the council of chalcedon that in Christ we have one person with two natures - human and divine.

it's just saying that they (hypothetical proponents of the view he's espousing, neo-apollinarianism isn't actually william lane craig's position, he's just giving a possibility) agree with that part of what the council concluded (that in Christ we have one person with two natures - human and divine.)

that doesn't mean that it's true because they said it was true, just that they agree with this.

>>561845

If you want to know what I think, I fully agree with dyophysitism and dyothelitism and the hypostatic union, insofar as the substance of God is uncreated. Everything about the Son is uncreated and pre-existent, except the flesh only is created— which He took on humanity and united himself to (and since then, that flesh will always remain uncorrupted, as well, Acts 2:31 & 13:37). His human nature and will and soul were the first to exist, not only His divine. See Colossians 1:15.

Whereas everything about us is created. And this point of difference between us and Him is stressed in Matthew 22:45. Which is the same reason why I do not call a created man the father, or mother, of God. It would be out of order.

And also, the second two points venture too far into the unknown for comfort.

>>561811

It doesn't say he isn't, it asks how he is and the answer is that Jesus was preexistent and was given birth to. How hard is this and how many times do we have to go over this?

>>561858

If he didn't take on a created human nature in its fullness then he wasn't fully human. If he only "wore the flesh" like some sort of alien in a disguise then he was not fully human.

We humans don't have uncreated souls, uncreated human natures, uncreated minds, etc….So if the only resemblence Jesus had to us is that he "took on a flesh" disguise then humanity was not restored on the cross, only our skin was…whatever that even means.

If you deny his dual nature, in their fullness, then the cross was pointless. But at least you can avoid calling Mary the mother of God, I guess…since that takes so much primacy for baptists.

>>561890

>We humans don't have uncreated souls, uncreated human natures, uncreated minds, etc…

You're right we don't. But his was the first human nature, will, and soul. That belonged to him. He is and ALWAYS WAS IN human nature, and by him all things consist. And in him was life. John 1:4. He was always with us from the beginning. If he only put on the nature of a human at a certain time, then Jesus Christ was not before all things.

The life was in him at the beginning. And the life was then manifested when the Word became flesh. His nature is the first nature, and by Him all things consist, and if you truly believe that then how would Him manifesting in the flesh be anything other than a true manifestation of his nature and mind. How would it be alien to him?

His human nature and mind and image having been originally used to create us.

>So if the only resemblence Jesus had to us is that he "took on a flesh" disguise

The resemblance Jesus has to us is that he is the image of the invisible God, and that's always been true.

>>561920

Are you implying something other than the divine essence pre-existed creation?

>>561925

One thing I'm saying is that by the Son all things were created. And I believe in the hypostatic union as the result of the Word manifesting in the flesh. Now whether you want to merely define various aspects of the Son as being created or uncreated is up to you, but I'm not beholden to those definitions, nor implicitly agreed to them if they are wrong definitions. But I will try to let you know as best I can when that is the case, because I'm trying to make a coherent point here.

>>561929

does human nature pre-exist creation?

does Jesus' human nature pre-exist creation?

Our human nature is finite and created, so if Jesus' human nature is infinite and uncreated he isn't fully human, in the sense that we are, he really wasn't like us.

>>561934

I'd say he's more fully human than any of us, being uncorrupted by the fall.

>>561929

Did anything other than the divine essence exist before creation?

>>561937

Sorry man, I honestly don't know what that is. Isn't that just defined as the only uncreated thing? If so then why would I even try to contradict that?

I would only try to argue what is and isn't included in the divine essence if I were to accept that term. I'm not trying to be vague, I just don't know if it's the best idea to implicitly accept every term that the councils used.

>>561938

I just honestly can't tell if I'm misunderstanding you or if you're a complete heretic. God is the only thing that existed before creation, the three persons of the Trinity always existing and being distinguished from each other as the Father, from whom the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds, the Son, who is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father. God is not divisible, each person of the Trinity is fully God, distinguished not by parts but by procession as stated above. For this reason one Godhood eternally exist, the Trinity. All three persons of the Trinity being distinguished by relations not portions of Godhood are all of one divine essence, the one thing of sorts which is what God is. If we were to try to say that the Son was always human we would either need to accept that there is no distinction between the divine essence and human essence, which would be the blasphemy of claiming equality with God, or one of the persons of the Trinity was unlike the others in a way other than relations, which would imply more than one eternal essence and an eternal inequality of sorts of persons in the Trinity

>>561939

If you say there's an eternal inequality of persons in the Trinity right now what does that make you?

Why do I even talk to Baptists anymore

>>561950

Maybe you should accept the distant possibility it might be wrong to even talk in terms of essences at all. It's not even mentioned in the Bible.