Nestorianism

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Harley4Him, Feb 21, 2004.

  1. Harley4Him

    Harley4Him
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    0
    First, Jesus' human nature was created. Then, His divine nature was placed into the human nature.

    In THIS THREAD Bob wrote
    This is a heresy called Nestorianism, which you can read about HERE

    This is what happens when you spend too much time scouring obtuse RCC documents and not enough time in the bible.
     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    About 850-1000AD the Nestorian Church
    (AKA: East Syrian) exceeded the
    Roman Catholic Curch (RCC) in size,
    influence, and spiritual endeavor.
    The following years saw it smashed
    in what is now Iraq, Iran, Afganastan,
    Pakastan, etc by the war machines
    of the Muslim. There are more
    Nestorian marytrs than RCC marytrs.

    But most histories i've read mention
    the Nestorians only as a minor heresy.
    RCC history revisions sold as Protestant
    truth -- sad but true.

    [​IMG]
     
  3. D28guy

    D28guy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    0
    Harley4Him;

    You said...

    This is a heresy called Nestorianism, which you can read about HERE

    </font>[/QUOTE]Hmmmm. Thats interesting.

    Where are these evangelicals who try to cut Jesus in half? I've never met anyone who tries to do that. Every evangelical I know acknowledge that Christs incarnation consisted of Christ being fully God and fully man. Theres absolutly nothing in Bob Ryans statement to suggest that Bob believes in cutting Jesus in half.

    Here again is what Bob said...

    Nope. Nothing about cutting Christ in half. Simply articulating the incarnation.

    As a matter of fact, what Bob said was no more problematic then these 2 statements, from a Catholic apologetics web-site...

    "For if the incarnation was a figment then our salvation was a figment. Christ was twofold; he was man in what was visible; he was God in what was invisible. He ate, as being really man like us (for he had the feelings of the flesh just as we have); but he fed the five thousand with five loaves, as being God. He died, as being really man; but as God he raised the body four days dead."

    "Jesus has two natures: A Divine Nature and a human nature, he is true God and true man. Only God is Divine, therefore, Jesus is Divine. He came down from heaven and took on flesh and became true man but never ceased from being God almighty."


    Is this Catholic apologist proclaiming heresy? No? Then neither is Bob.

    Usually its a sign of desperation when someone sinks to the level of inventing heresy....just to try and discredit someone.

    My my my.

    Mike

    Here is the URL to the catholic apologetics web-site: www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a5.htm

    (I dont know how to do links on these boards, so you'll have to put it in your browser)
     
  4. Harley4Him

    Harley4Him
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have no idea where they are. I never met any, and until you suggested the idea of "cutting Jesus in half" I never heard of anything so ridiculous.

    So you acknowledge that Bob's beliefs are at least as problematic as Catholic. In this instance, they're more problematic. Bob wrote that Jesus existed in human form first, and then God added the divine nature later. This is hardly an orthodox Christian belief about the nature of God. At what stage was the divine nature added? What happened to His merely human soul?

    Ahhh, I see. Like your invention about "cutting Jesus in half" :rolleyes:
     
  5. D28guy

    D28guy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    0
    Harley4Him,

    Regarding "cutting Jesus in half", I have heard catholics make that charge when evangelicals speak of Mary not being the mother of the "divine part" of Jesus Christ. Needless to say, to say what we said is in no way "cutting Jesus in half", but they seem to have some need to say that.(sometimes the terminology is "seperating Jesus", but the silliness of it is the same either way)

    You said...

    Thats not what he said. You have "flipped flopped" what he said. Here is what he said...

    That is a simple, non-problematic atriculation of the incarnation. Jesus Christ, who has existed eternally(being God), at a point in time became a human being.(while still remaining God)

    God bless,

    Mike
     
  6. Harley4Him

    Harley4Him
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're right, that is kind of silly. Catholics shouldn't put words into evangelical's mouths like that.

    I don't think so, but I could be wrong. To me, what he wrote reads like this:

    1. The second person of the trinity existed before the human Jesus.

    2. Jesus existed in his human form.

    3. Sometime after that, God placed the second person into the already existing human form.
     
  7. D28guy

    D28guy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    0
    Harley,

    Hmmm. Well, I guess eventually he can clairify. The statement didnt come across that way to me. It sounded to me like he was just saying that Jesus Christ, fully divine, was joined with the human part 2000 years ago. Or, the divine Jesus took on human form 2000 years ago.

    What you are saying would be correct if he said...

    "Rather GOD places the pre-existing second Person of the Godhead - ALREADY alive from eternity in that human form."

    But he said this...

    "Rather GOD places the pre-existing second Person of the Godhead - ALREADY alive from eternity into that human form."

    He said "into", not "in".

    That would make it error if the into was an in instead...and your objection would be justified.

    Grace and peace,

    Mike
     
  8. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Nestorianism is the belief that Christ consisted of two separate persons, one human and one divine.

    Sadly for Harley's poor attempt - that is NOT the same thing as a zygote being a human cell but NOT the full person of God Himself. Failing to grasp the point - Harley simply opts for RC methods in the dark ages "again".

    The "point" that was being made is that Mary did not have the "power to pro-create God".

    In human procreation - a HUMAN is fully capable of CREATING a new human being using the physical ability that God created in mankind. But in the INCARNATION we do NOT have the CREATION of God nor even the PROCREATION of God. So the title (Harley so desperately seeks to defend) of "MOTHER of GOD" is heresy.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  9. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    However - I would expect Catholic members here and those in the dark ages to find some form of agreement with Harley's rather simplistic strawman approach.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  10. Harley4Him

    Harley4Him
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was focusing on the into v in, rather on the statement that there was a human form for the 2nd person to be placed into/in. The implication being that there was at one time a merely human Jesus.
     
  11. Harley4Him

    Harley4Him
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob, if you can find a post of mine saying that Mary created God then you are not a liar.

    Also, I don't think I ever defended (even in an un-desperate manner) the title "Mother of God." I hope that I can add that to the list of things-i-forgot-about-in-my-old-age, instead of to the list of thing-bob-lies-about-in-his-anger.

    Praying that you may someday experience the joy of truthfulness,
    Harley
     
  12. D28guy

    D28guy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,713
    Likes Received:
    0
    Harley,

    You said...

    Now I see what you were talking about.

    When Bob said this...

    ...I took Bobs statement "into that human form" to mean the baby concieved in Mary.

    Blessings,

    Mike
     
  13. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Yes Mike - that is the part about the "zygote". As Psalms says "A body you have prepared for Me".

    But this is the "easy part" that Harley often finds "so challenging".

    He is constantly trying to spin things around - "as if" that constitutes "substance" in his posts.

    Though I have to admit - I detect a small bit of progress now and then in his posts. I am just hoping he will be able to keep up with the adults some day.

    But in the mean time... we have these threads.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     

Share This Page

Loading...