More on the deity of Christ

[Matthias]

To be honest, I can't understand their words at all, because I have never heard a reasonable understanding process and explanation from them.

Therefore you don’t affirm orthodoxy. That’s fine but the new rules prohibit you from discussing it with other members unless you change your registration to “Other Faith”.

So I never understood exactly what they were trying to say.

It’s their responsibility to help you understand what they’re saying.

So I live three hundred years later, and I'm still in China.LOL.

Even if you lived in Western civilization now, orthodoxy isn’t enforced today as it was in the past.

 

[marks]

Question for Admin

@lforrest @Rita @Nancy @Angelina @willy t Are the Christian forums for Christians only? So that only those with "Christian" as their designated faith can post in the Christian forums, and all others may only post in the Non-Christian forums? Do I understand correctly? Much love!

www.christianityboard.com

 

[Matthias]

Question for Admin

@lforrest @Rita @Nancy @Angelina @willy t Are the Christian forums for Christians only? So that only those with "Christian" as their designated faith can post in the Christian forums, and all others may only post in the Non-Christian forums? Do I understand correctly? Much love!

www.christianityboard.com

Well, since I’m the only one posting in this thread who is registered “Other Faith”, I assume you posted it in this thread primarily because of me. You didn’t direct it to my attention but I’ll respond to it. (I have to do that here rather than in the forum you initiated it in.)

As a member who is registered “Other Faith” I‘m prohibited from posting - or even reacting - in forums marked “Christians Only”.

Members who are registered “Christian” are probably not aware that a member who isn’t registered “Christian” is able to read posts in forums marked “Christians Only”. When a member who isn’t registered “Christian” goes to any of the forums marked “Christians Only” there is a message displayed in gray at the bottom of every thread which reads: “You have insufficient privileges to reply here.”

There are forums which aren’t marked “Christians Only”. A member who isn’t registered “Christian” is allowed to post and react in any of them. Those forums are: 1. Community Announcements; 2. Christian Formation & Apologetics and 3. NonChristian Forums.

This thread (and forum) is available for me and others who aren’t registered “Christian” to post and react in. Admin is fully aware of my registration status and that I’m posting in this thread (I’ve had several conversations with Admin about it in this very thread).

Until such time as Admin changes the rules again, or moves the “Christian Formation & Apologetics” forum to forums marked “Christians Only” I’ll continue posting in it from time to time.

I’m abiding by the new rules. If you want them changed again to suit your personal agenda, you’ll need to ask Admin to consider making additional changes to the rules and / or forum setup.

I’ll abide by whatever rules and forum setup Admin establishes. I’ve gone out of my way to convey that message to them, publicly and privately, on several occasions.

P.S.

@lforrest

 

[marks]

Not word play but the natural consequence of rejecting dualism.

Look again at the statement I objected to.

“There is only one person who is Christ, and that person is divine. Thus, there is no human person named ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’”

Do you see the problem? The hidden presuppostion? Think about it a bit. You use this objection yourself, in other terms. But does this reflect something Scriptural? What I see is that it denies Scripture.

Much love!

 

[Wrangler]

There is only one person who is Christ, and that person is divine. Thus, there is no human person named ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’”

Do you see the problem? The hidden presuppostion?

How come you didn’t make explicit the premise? And no response Dr to my doing so below?

Not word play but the natural consequence of rejecting dualism.
P1. There is one person in the house.
P2. There is one person outside the house.
C. There are 2 persons.

The dualistic boundary is the metaphorical house, where the perimeter serves as the limit of the concept.

 

[marks]

How come you didn’t make explicit the premise?

I wasn't actually posting to you.

And I already know your objections to the Trinity.

Much love!

 

[Matthias]

Look again at the statement I objected to.

“There is only one person who is Christ, and that person is divine. Thus, there is no human person named ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’”

Orthodoxy teaches us that Jesus is a divine Person, not a human Person.

The orthodox Christian scholar I quoted is “making a stand for orthodox Christian beliefs.” That is the explicitly expressed desire of the Board administration and moderators.

Do you see the problem? The hidden presuppostion? Think about it a bit. You use this objection yourself, in other terms. But does this reflect something Scriptural? What I see is that it denies Scripture.

Much love!

TAHOT.

 

[Wrangler]

I wasn't actually posting to you.

If you actually look at post #164, you'll see that you were actually posting to me.

 

[marks]

Orthodoxy teaches us that Jesus is a divine Person, not a human Person.

Your claims about what you consider Orthodoxy do not diminish the Bible's teachings. You do realize, don't you, that there is more than one claim to "orthodoxy", just the same, the true "orthodoxy" is what agrees with Scripture. So we go to the Scriptures, do we not? We don't reject our own Biblical beliefs because some commentary tells us too. Right?

Besides, this is just the objection, "God cannot be a man", in which case, you are superimposing what makes sense to you over how the Bible presents the Christ.

Parsing "divine person" and "human person" shows your intent to diminish Who Jesus is according to the Bible by humanistic word games.

Jesus is Fully God and Fully Man.

Is your issue that Jesus was monogene? Of a single generation? That this means to you that Jesus was not Adam's Humanity, therefore, He was not Human? I'm just guessing here.

Oh, and you are on the wrong forum, it turns out.

Question for Admin

@lforrest @Rita @Nancy @Angelina @willy t Are the Christian forums for Christians only? So that only those with "Christian" as their designated faith can post in the Christian forums, and all others may only post in the Non-Christian forums? Do I understand correctly? Much love!

www.christianityboard.com

Much love!

 

[marks]

If you actually look at post #164, you'll see that you were actually posting to me.

This is your reply?

Why not back up a couple more posts where I was posting to Matthias, and you replied to my post.

OK.

Enough silliness for the day, I have a floor to mop!

Much love!

 

[Matthias]

Your claims about what you consider Orthodoxy do not diminish the Bible's teachings.

I’m simply regurgitating the teaching of historical orthodox trinitarian teaching. It’s what trinitarianism has taught since 451.

You do realize, don't you, that there is more than one claim to "orthodoxy", just the same, the true "orthodoxy" is what agrees with Scripture. So we go to the Scriptures, do we not? We don't reject our own Biblical beliefs because some commentary tells us too. Right?

Sure. Trinitarians decided what Christian orthodoxy is. The powers that be on this platform have decided to make a stand for it.

Besides, this is just the objection, "God cannot be a man", in which case, you are superimposing what makes sense to you over how the Bible presents the Christ.

Orthodoxy does not make the objection “God cannot be a man.” You’re accusing orthodox scholars and theologians of superimposing what makes sense to them over how the Bible presents the Christ.

I’m a Jewish monotheist, not a trinitarian. I teach that God can be a man.

Parsing "divine person" and "human person" shows your intent to diminish Who Jesus is according to the Bible by humanistic word games.

It‘s orthodox scholars and theologians whom your accusing of showing their intent to diminish Who Jesus is according to the Bible by humanistic word games.

Jesus is Fully God and Fully Man.

Orthodoxy does teach us that.

Is your issue that Jesus was monogene? Of a single generation? That this means to you that Jesus was not Adam's Humanity, therefore, He was not Human? I'm just guessing here.

My issue is that trinitarians haven’t been properly instructed in what orthodoxy teaches. If you had been, you wouldn’t be objecting to that teaching.

Oh, and you are on the wrong forum, it turns out.



Much love!

I’m posting on a forum that is currently open to me.

You’re “Christian” who is speaking against orthodoxy.

 

[marks]

is speaking against orthodoxy.

You keep saying "orthodoxy" as though there is a specific list of beliefs shared by all under the banner of othrodoxy, which, given your seeming level of education, strikes me as very disengenuous.

Much love!

 

[Matthias]

You keep saying "orthodoxy" as though there is a specific list of beliefs shared by all under the banner of othrodoxy, which, given your seeming level of education, strikes me as very disengenuous.

I keep saying “historical orthodox trinitarianism”. That covers the Council of Nicaea (325), the Council of Constantinople (381) and the Council of Chalcedon (451). That is “orthodoxy“. That is where what constitutes Christian orthodoxy was finally settled on by the Church.

That’s what you’re speaking against. That’s also the very thing which the new rules were designed to prevent “Christian” members from doing.

Color me surprised!

Much love!

 

[Wrangler]

Your claims about what you consider Orthodoxy do not diminish the Bible's teachings.

Marks, what @Matthias is saying is very simple and not dependent on his considerations. The official dogma as shown by credal statements evolved over time.

If you don’t want to admit there was an evolution of what is considered orthodoxy, it doesn’t change the fact. And @Matthias has done a very good job of showing the evolution from a fact based perspective.

 

[Matthias]

Bob Stanley, writing to affirm Christian orthodoxy.

“Is Jesus the Christ a Human Person?
Think before you answer that question.

I asked the question of so many of my friends recently and almost all, save for only one, gave me the wrong answer. Some even became indignant for my even asking the question. Why they became indignant, I have no clue. Nevertheless it is an important question about the person of Jesus the Christ.

1. Is Jesus the Christ a human person?

2. Is Jesus the Christ a Divine person?

3. Is He both?

4. Is He neither?

What answer do you have for each of these four simple questions?

In order to come to the correct answers to those four questions, we must first lay some groundwork as to definitions. …

So, let us review those first two very important questions one last time.

Is Jesus the Christ a human person?
NO!
Holy Scripture has clearly instructed us that He could not be a human person.

Is Jesus the Christ a Divine person?
YES!
Holy scripture has clearly taught us that He is a Divine person.”

Is Jesus Christ a human person?

Anyone who wants to read and study the groundwork may do so using the link I provided.

Whether or not we agree with historical orthodox trinitarianism - @marks doesn’t and neither do I - it is what the Church decided 1700 years ago is orthodoxy. It is affirmed by Catholic and Protestant trinitarians.

When people recite the trinitarian creeds they are affirming orthodoxy.

To dissent from it is to affirm heterodoxy and heresy.

This is nothing more than basic Church history, and it is well-documented.

 

[Matthias]

Dr. Beaumont, writing to explain why historical orthodox trinitarianism teaches us that Jesus is not a human person.

“It may sound idd (or even blasphemous) to say that Jesus Christ is not a human person, but this is precisely true. The problem is that this is a very metaphysically precise statement and most people have not been introduced to the relevant philosophical distinctions required to make proper sense of it. Here I will try to explain these in as simple manner as I can. …

Thus, it is true to say that Jesus Christ is a human being (because he is a person with a human nature), but it is false to say that he is a human person (because his human nature did not generate a new person).”

Why Jesus Christ is Not a Human Person

It may sound odd (or even blasphemous) to say that Jesus Christ is not a human person, but this is precisely true. The problem is that this is a very metaphysically precise statement and most peopl…

douglasbeaumont.com

@marks doesn’t want historical orthodox trinitarianism to be taught on Christianity Board. It anathematizes him. (And me.)

Interested readers should read the article and decide for themselves whether or not they find the argument for orthodoxy persuasive.

The problem for those who aren’t persuaded is what to do about it. Where to turn. Where to go.

In my experience, most people will ignore it; pretend they didn’t hear it. Even say that it doesn’t matter. It’s not something that is going to come up in church.

And it’s something that the administrators and moderators don’t want members registered as “Christian” to discuss with one another.

Because it isn’t orthodoxy? No. Only someone who is ignorant of church history or intent on misrepresenting orthodoxy would make that accusation.

@marks has made it perfectly clear that he doesn’t affirm historical orthodox trinitarianism. He desires to redefine orthodoxy to align with what he thinks it should be. That’s precisely what dissenters have done throughout Christian history.

 

[Matthias]

The beauty of the OP is its appeal to the witness of post-biblical church history. More time and attention should be focused on it. Everyone should read the Ante Nicene and Nicene writers. It’s impossible to read them and come away not knowing what is and what isn’t settled Christian orthodoxy.

 

[soberxp]

The beauty of the OP is its appeal to the witness of post-biblical church history. More time and attention should be focused on it. Everyone should read the Ante Nicene and Nicene writers. It’s impossible to read them and come away not knowing what is and what isn’t settled Christian orthodoxy.

I've always thought that people complicate simple things.

One true God is One true God.

Even if One true God "made" Jesus to be God.

We still have one true God. God of Gods.

Even the word "God of Gods" In the Bible,Doesn't mean we worship polytheism.

 

[Wrangler]

“Is Jesus the Christ a Human Person?

Why they became indignant, I have no clue.

I gave you a clue with this post but you ignored it.

Here is the wordplay that I think @marks referred to. He's not Jesus of East LA. He's not Jesus from the Bronx. The expression refers to where he was raised, not his parentage or spiritual origins.

I had a friend growing up across the street. He grew to be politically and religiosity opposite from me. This is not unlike Jesus and the kids he grew up with. To say Jesus is divine, OF God, does not make him not physically from Nazareth. 1 Samuel 1 reveals he (and his father) are from Ramathaim. This does not mean Samuel was not a prophet, not speaking divine words, not OF God.

It's sufficient to show that the doctrine of the trinity evolved over time. No need to rely on a semantic exercise, which confuses the issue. IMO, there are more effective ways to get your point across.

This approach @Matthias invites criticism as word play as @marks has stated. If Jesus is not physically from Nazareth, then where is he physically from, East LA, the Bronx? Rejecting dualism is defensible but not this word play.

Here I will try to explain these in as simple manner as I can. …

Thus, it is true to say that Jesus Christ is a human being (because he is a person with a human nature), but it is false to say that he is a human person (because his human nature did not generate a new person).”

This is not an explanation at all but a contradictory assertion. The part in parentheses need to be explained. A being is a person. The terms are synonymous.

In addition, the claim that a person's nature generates a new person is false. Where does this requirement come from and where is it successfully applied, putting Jesus aside? IMO, you are being philosophically cute without making the case under the guise of keeping it simple. Don't make it simple on our account. Be explicit in your explanation no matter how complicated it needs to be. (The truth is simple; complexity suggests something is untrue).

Jesus Christ is a human being MEANS he is a human person. Simple. Just as true as saying Mary is a woman, which means she is a human female.

Starting with simple facts and parts of speech. Jesus is a person. A person is a noun. A noun is either a person, place or thing. By denying he is a person, you are absurdly implying he must be a place or thing. From Person - Wikipedia

A person (pl.: people or persons, depending on context) is a being who has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness​

Now, if you want to delve into what type of person Jesus is, now you are introducing adjectives.

• A human person is not a type of non-person.
• A divine person is not a type of non-person.

The Bible repeatedly says Jesus is a man, which means human person, which means a human being. It is a contradiction to say that a man is not a human being. It is a contradiction to say that a deity is not a person. Combining the 2 is the evolution of duality doctrine under discussion.

 

[soberxp]

The focus has never been on whether Jesus is man or God. The only one true God and Jesus Christ teaches us that God is invisible. God wants people to know him in the flesh, so the focus is on whether we know Jesus Christ and whether we know God's word. That's the point.

Do we really Know the word of God?
Do we really Obey the word of God? then we could say we never do Idol worship.