/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Nestorianism asserts that there are two persons coexisting in the one body of Jesus. The Bible, on the other hand, makes it clear that we only have one mediator, the man Jesus, see 1 Timothy 2:5, and that that that man is also equal to God and worthy of the same worship because he is the Lord God himself, see 1 Corinthians 8:6. Although Jesus is referenced alternately as equal to God and below God in, the Bible never references him in dualistic terms because he simply would not be a man otherwise.

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

>>651227

heresy often leads to other heresy, and it's not too far a slope from saying Jesus's godhood wasn't mysteriously fully integrated yet separate from his humanity, to saying that godhood could leave him, turning Jesus into just some guy like Mohammedans and (((others))) believe.

Nestorianism is materially a denial that Mary is Mother of God. This is a major problem, because it denies the full divinity of Jesus Christ.

For a more detailed explanation, see the CE article

>>651291

>>651227

>Can someone explain to me in brainlet terms cuz i am one

I will try my best to.

Scripture teaches that the one true God has always been. Jesus Christ is Lord. As the Lord Jesus Christ says in Revelation 1:11, "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last." He is directly asserting his Godhood as the person of the Son, and like the Father, the Son has always been. He has both a divine and a human nature in one person in what is called the Hypostatic union. That's who he is.

In Colossians 1:17, the word of God when speaking of the same Son, brings up the fact—

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

So from this and the many well-known scriptures like the gospel of John chapter 1, we know that the triune God has always been; Jesus Christ, God the Son has always been. John the Baptist said "This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me."

Now eventually, there was a controversy where some people taught that Jesus Christ was somehow lesser than the Father, that he was not always completely who he is now, and various things like that. But basically they were trying to "demote" in their own minds the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ as not being God in the fullest sense like God the Father is, and we know this today as Arianism. It left its mark on some groups which then began to say that the God the Son came into existence, as a concession to the Arians. However, this wasn't directly stated, but it was rather built in the sentiment of the "mother of God" because this teaching implies that God the Son came into existence at a certain time.

That is what they want to imply here.

There had to be a way to defend against people who realized the implications of this, so someone took the name of a long-dead theologian and made up a heresy which no one actually believes: that there are "two Sons." Since that time, if you try to point out this very blatant Arian concession that some people have made, you may simply be accused of Nestorianism as a way to shut down the conversation. Although, it's doubtful whether anyone believed such a philosophy at any time.

The board owners even changed the rules recently to institute and enforce the very same "gag order" here. That in basic terms is where this came from.

>>651846

I don't know what you're argument is supposed to be, but suffice to say that Jesus is not denying his title as Son of David (which is affirmed right from Matthew 1:1). He's just pressing the Pharisees to think harder about the nature of his messianic identity.

>>651868

You're guilty of the very thing you're complaining about. When Christians use the title "Mother of God," they do not mean that Mary created God or gave existence to God. That is not what the word "mother" means. The word mother, especially in the terms Theotokos and Deipara, are primarily connected with the fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to the Divine Second Person of the Trinity. And she certainly is his mother in other senses. He was conceived in her womb and after she have birth, she raised him from infancy to adulthood.

To deny that Mary is the Mother of God is either to confuse the meaning of mother with "one who gives existence to" or "one who creates ex nihilo," or alternatively it's a denial of Christ's divinity. Your pick.

>>651227

Ok, here are the main Christological viewpoints from both ends of the extreme. You will find that mainstream Christianity holds to Orthodoxy, the most mid way out of all of these. But groups like the Jehovah's Witnesses could be considered Arians, and Gnostics are typically Docetist or Monophysites.

>Adoptionism: Jesus is not pre-existent but was born a normal human being who became the Messiah, the Son of God, at baptism through the decent of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is not God, but a normal human being who was exalted by God through divine grace because he took on our sins on the cross. Held by: Ebionites

>Arianism: Jesus is the pre-existent Son of God, the Logos, who created the universe. He is not God but rather a divine being created by God through whom God created the universe. He became human by virtue of his incarnation where he took on all of our sins on the cross. Held by: Arians. Jehovah's Witnesses also hold a very similar doctrine to Arianism although some elements of Adoptionism are combined with it.

>Nestorianism: The Logos is the second person of the holy Trinity, consubstantial to the Father, equal with the Father and Holy Spirit. He is God the Word. The Logos became incarnate in Jesus by way of grace, and not by way of person/hypostasis. Thus Jesus and the Logos are separate persons who are united with each other by way of grace. So the Word was not born in the flesh, nor was he crucified in the flesh. Held by: Churches of the East.

>Orthodoxy: Jesus existed as God the Word/God the Son from all eternity. He is the second person of the holy Trinity, consubstantial with the Father. He is equal with the Father and Holy Spirit. He became incarnate of the virgin Mary through the Holy Spirit. He is both fully God and fully man, two distinct natures, but one person/hypostasis who is Jesus/God the Son/God the Word. Because of this, Mary may rightfully be called the Mother of God since she gave birth to God in the flesh by way of personhood but not nature. It can also be said that God the Son died on the cross by way of personhood but not nature. Jesus is not simply united to the Word, but he is the Word himself in the flesh. Yet his human nature is not mixed with his divine nature. Held by: Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants.

>Monophysitism - Jesus existed as God the Word/God the Son from all eternity. He is the second person of the holy Trinity, consubstantial with the Father. He is equal with the Father and Holy Spirit. He came to earth born of the virgin Mary through the Holy Spirit by way of both person and nature. Thus Jesus's human nature and his God nature when united together form a single nature which is wholly divine and which is not separate into two natures. God the Son died on the cross in both person and in nature. God the Son was born in the flesh by way of person and nature. His physical body is wholly divine and apart of God. Held by: Oriental Orthodox Church, Euthycheians

>Docetism - Jesus is wholly a spiritual being who came from God, he is united to God and is one of the many emanations of God. Jesus only appeared as a physical being while on earth, but this was an illusion. He has always been and will always be a pure spiritual being. Thus Jesus was never truly born because he just is. Jesus also was never truly crucified since he is not a carnal being but wholly a spiritual being. His birth and crucifixion were mere illusions to the mind and did not happen in reality. Held by: Gnostics

>>651876

>He's just pressing the Pharisees to think harder about the nature of his messianic identity.

This entire passage of Scripture is incredibly hard to understand on your own without understanding what Tradition/Church Fathers teach about it.

>>651891

I noticed how, in describing your own worldview, you wrote your first sentence in the past tense. This is the biggest hint as to how your philosophy implies that God the Son has somehow changed. In other words, you imply he was not the Lord Jesus Christ that we know today, and that he was not always in the fullest sense who he is now.

In reality though, every other position except the true and correct one fails to affirm the full, complete deity of Christ. As you can see here on this scale, all of the preceding positions fail to fully affirm the deity of Christ in some way or another. They all come up short. By making him or at least part of him created (although they do not always acknowledge it).

<Monophysitism: Jesus Christ is fully a created person, and yet somehow is God, having been born into existence with a single merged divine/human nature. Held by: fully insane people

<Arianism: Jesus Christ is fully a created person and is not God. Held by: blasphemous people

<Roman Catholic: Jesus Christ WAS in the beginning an incomplete shell, a disembodied philosophical abstraction known as "the Word" with just one divine nature, until being born, then the hypostatic union "occurred" in a moment in time, and from that time forward the Son of God is complete as he is now. Held by: Educated Catholics

>Orthodoxy: The person of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only begotten Son of God and the Word of God, has always existed in perfect hypostatic union, neither separating the natures from the person nor mergeing them, and he is unchanging in his person. Having existed in his present state since eternity, he was himself manifest when the Word became flesh (e.g. John 1:14, 1 John 1:1-2). Held by: Saved believers

>>652314

Orthodoxy has the same Christology as Catholicism, they accept the first 7 ecumenical councils

>>651891

Thank you so much for this post friend

>>652314

>Orthodoxy

>has always existed in perfect hypostatic union

Council of Chalcedon:

We confess, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, perfect God, and perfect Man of a reasonable soul and flesh consisting; begotten before the ages of the Father according to his Divinity, and in the last days, for us and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, of the same substance with his Father according to his Divinity, and of the same substance with us according to his humanity; for there became a union of two natures. Wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord.

He is also called the Man from heaven, being perfect in his Divinity and perfect in his Humanity, and considered as in one Person. For one is the Lord Jesus Christ, although the difference of his natures is not unknown, from which we say the ineffable union was made.

But when Eutyches, on being questioned in your examination of him, answered, I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the union, but after the union I confess one nature; I am astonished that so absurd and perverse a profession as this of his was not rebuked by a censure on the part of any of his judges, and that an utterance extremely foolish and extremely blasphemous was passed over, just as if nothing had been heard which could give offense: seeing that it is as impious to say that the Only-begotten Son of God was of two natures before the Incarnation as it is shocking to affirm that, since the Word became flesh, there has been in him one nature only.

For it opposes those who would rend the mystery of the dispensation into a Duad of Sons; it repels from the sacred assembly those who dare to say that the Godhead of the Only Begotten is capable of suffering; it resists those who imagine a mixture or confusion of the two natures of Christ; it drives away those who fancy his form of a servant is of an heavenly or some substance other than that which was taken of us, and it anathematizes those who foolishly talk of two natures of our Lord before the union, conceiving that after the union there was only one.

Shoo with your OrthoLARP

>>652337

>proving my point

>Shoo with your OrthoLARP

I was using Orthodoxy in the true sense of the word. So, no sacerdotal councils are ever referenced for any point, just Scripture. All you've done is neglect to actually disagree with anything I just said, and in effect, admitted it.

>>652401

>denying that council of Chalcedon is orthodox

Do yourself a favor, read this >>520608 and then ethier convert to real orthodoxy or gtfo, Word was made Flesh, not was Flesh.

>>652314

Jesus was not eternally created you heretic

>>652406

>eternally created

Indeed, that's a contradiction in terms. Where did that post say that? Are you just making stuff up right now?

>>652405

>Word was made Flesh

Yes, that is what John 1:14 says.

>>652418

>Yes, that is what John 1:14 says.

And you say that Christ "has always existed in perfect hypostatic union". Hypostatic union is union of divine and human nature. Thus if it existed eternaly Word was not made flesh but was flesh.

>>652418

>Where did that post say that?

<always existed in perfect hypostatic union

>>652822

>>652837

You err here, in not fully knowing what having a human nature means.

>>652314

Blasphemy! Jesus has not always been human. To say there has been an eternal hypostatic union is to deny the reality of Christ's human nature and to mix his human nature together with his divine nature since you're saying his human nature is eternal when only the divine nature is eternal so you're making his human nature apart of God and then making God into parts which goes against divine simplicity.

You're also denying he could have been truly conceived or born of the virgin Mary and just appeared. Your heresies will not be tolerated.

Repent or burn in hell heretic.

>>653131

You're denying the humanity of Jesus?

>To say there has been an eternal hypostatic union is to deny the reality of Christ's human nature

No, actually to deny the hypostatic union is to deny Christ's human nature, which you are apparently doing.

>and to mix his human nature together with his divine nature since you're saying his human nature is eternal when only the divine nature is eternal so you're making his human nature apart of God and then making God into parts which goes against divine simplicity.

What are you mumbling about in this sentence? There's like three different accusations here and none of them logically follow. I guess this is where the false accuser aspect comes from.

>You're also denying he could have been truly conceived or born of the virgin Mary and just appeared.

Blasphemy if I ever heard it. Take it back.

>>653151

>No, actually to deny the hypostatic union is to deny Christ's human nature, which you are apparently doing.

No, I am in no way denying it. I am affirming it in the orthodox way. You by principle are denying it by mixing it together with Christ's divinity.

>What are you mumbling about in this sentence? There's like three different accusations here and none of them logically follow. I guess this is where the false accuser aspect comes from.

You're just retarded.

>Blasphemy if I ever heard it. Take it back.

But it's true. You are denying the virgin birth of Jesus because you're saying being human is apart of him being God.

You should probably watch this, not a whole lot that is talked about but it's something.

>>653131

>Jesus has not always been human.

This right here smacks of blasphemy.

>>651846

You know I could report you and youd get banned by our retarded mods

How does it feel that I have that little bit of power over you? Faggot

>>653180

No you can't