Featured The Nature of Christ

On another thread (on the Baptist only section) there is a discussion regarding the nature of Christ.

I believe that all here would agree that Jesus is God Incarnate (God become flesh). I can see three options:

Jesus is part God and part man (God/man)
Jesus is God as if he is not man, man as if he is not God (God + man)
Jesus is no less God than God, no more man than man (God-man)

Some on the Baptist section argue Jesus' nature is God + man (God as if he is not man, and man as if he is not God).

I believe the third option correct (God is no less God than God - God of very God and God is no more man than man, in every human way made like us, yet without sin). It simply seems to me that Scripture never speaks of Jesus as if He were not God, and also never as if He were not man. I do not understand why we should either. He is God-man, God with us, Immanuel, the Word made flesh. We cannot leave out either Christ's divinity or His humanity (they are inseparable).

 

That is the 3rd option - the Chalcedonian Creed:

" begotten before all ages according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures; inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ"

Jesus is One Person with two natures (human and divine), no less God than God, no more man than man.

The idea is Christ is truly God and truly man.

 

You may disagree with the teaching but it is not without biblical basis. For one, it may be viewed as implied in the word Logos. It may also be implied in the truth He is the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

Regardless, the Creed is not speaking of Jesus as having a human nature before the Incarnation (which is the topic).

So in what way do you disagree with the statement Jesus is no less God than God and no more man than man?

 

How do you reconcile

Hebrews 9:26
Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by x the sacrifice of Himself.

With Christ being the Lamb slain FROM the foundation of the world?


Edit - and to clarify, I am comfortable with "from" the foundation. My point is simply that the Logos was and is always the Logos (which implies a going forth from).

 

Sorry. I did not mean to ignore your question.

I understood your rejection of "Jesus is no less God than God, no more man than man " in your first post as representative of your view to be a rejection of the idea Jesus is no less God than God and no more man than man.

 

I am not exactly sure now.

I believe Jesus is God and man. I believe there are two natures that cannot me mixed (a hybrid nature that would be less than God and more than man) or separated (they are united in the Person of Christ).

So I can say that Jesus' divinity is on display when He calms the sea. I can say we see His humanity in His suffering. But I do not believe Jesus experiences or acts utalizing two natures separately (which would redefine "nature" as "person" or "personality").

When Jesus calmed the sea I believe He did so as Immanuel, as the Word become flesh. When Christ suffered on the cross I believe He did so as Immanuel, as the Word become flesh.

 

Well yes...of course. I have not seen anyone denying that truth. It seems you are striking at windmills, Don Quixote.

Which of the above choices best reflects your understanding (or do you hold an entirely different perspective)?

 

Yes. I do. I believe these "two-natures" are distinct but inseparable. QUOTE="Yeshua1, post: 2470255, member: 11334"]that he is "just" God in a human body, correct?[/QUOTE]No, I don't.

I have affirmed that I believe the Chalcedonian Creed acceptable (two natures- distinct but inseparable). I said Jesus is no less God than God, no more man than man. FYI - most Christians affirm the Creed's definition.

Can you point me to a post where I claim Jesus is "just God in a human body"?

Can you justify your departure from the "orthodox position" of the Chalcedonian Creed by changing "distinct and inseparable" to "distinct and separate"?