Do Trinitarians here agree with these points?

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

OrthodoxBerean

Guest
  1. Jesus has a human consciousness and a divine consciousness.
  2. Jesus was a divine person.
  3. Jesus could not perform a human action that is not prescribed to the divine person.
  4. The human consciousness of Christ is posited by his divine person acting through his human nature.
  5. Christ is different than us in that his human consciousness is a conscious of a divine person and not a human person.
  6. When Jesus says I, his divine person expresses in human word and concept his human consciousness of a divine self.
  7. This means that Jesus Christ speaks as a divine person and not solely as a man
 
No. Those points are heretical. In fact that is basically Nestorianism. So it just an outline of an ancient heresy.

I am curious as to the source?

Mel
 
40.png
Melchior:
No. Those points are heretical. In fact that is basically Nestorianism. So it just an outline of an ancient heresy.

I am curious as to the source?

Mel
This came from a Catholic source. How would it be Nestorian? I am pretty familiar with Nestorianism. What would be the difference you see between the above statements and Nestorianism?
 
1. Jesus has a human consciousness and a divine consciousness.

Human intellect and Divine intellect? If so, yes. ( 482*CCC *)

2. Jesus was a divine person.

Yes. ( 466, 468*CCC *)

3. Jesus could not perform a human action that is not prescribed to the divine person.

Hmm. Tricky. I would say…yes… I think 470 *CCC * addresses it.

4. The human consciousness of Christ is posited by his divine person acting through his human nature.

“Posited”? Not sure about this one. 482*CCC * might be the reference.

5. Christ is different than us in that his human consciousness is a conscious of a divine person and not a human person.

Absolutely yes. He is a divine person, not a human person, and he is conscious of his own divinity, so his human intellect would be aware that he is the divine person of God the Son. ( 473*CCC *).

6. When Jesus says I, his divine person expresses in human word and concept his human consciousness of a divine self.

I think that goes with #5.

7. This means that Jesus Christ speaks as a divine person and not solely as a man

Again, since Jesus is not a human person, he can’t speak as a human person. But He speaks as a divine person through the human nature that He has assumed to Himself. (CCC 468, 470).

Hopefully I haven’t made made heretical points here. :praying:
 
I’m certainly not a theologian, but did read comments such as those from a Catholic priest and also heard the same type of comments described as Apollinarian from someone else. When I did some research on Apollinarius and the doctrine coming from him, what I read from the priest sounded very much like comments you posted. ISTM that there has always, at different times in the church, those that go to either extreme on the humanity/divinity issue regarding Jesus.
 
If point three means that Christ could do not evil, then I would say most definately
 
Vincent said:
1. Jesus has a human consciousness and a divine consciousness.

Human intellect and Divine intellect? If so, yes. (*CCC * 482)

2. Jesus was a divine person.

Yes. (*CCC * 466, 468)

3. Jesus could not perform a human action that is not prescribed to the divine person.

Hmm. Tricky. I would say…yes… I think *CCC * 470 addresses it.

4. The human consciousness of Christ is posited by his divine person acting through his human nature.

“Posited”? Not sure about this one. *CCC * 482 might be the reference.

5. Christ is different than us in that his human consciousness is a conscious of a divine person and not a human person.

Absolutely yes. He is a divine person, not a human person, and he is conscious of his own divinity, so his human intellect would be aware that he is the divine person of God the Son. (*CCC * 473).

6. When Jesus says I, his divine person expresses in human word and concept his human consciousness of a divine self.

I think that goes with #5.

7. This means that Jesus Christ speaks as a divine person and not solely as a man

Again, since Jesus is not a human person, he can’t speak as a human person. But He speaks as a divine person through the human nature that He has assumed to Himself. (CCC 468, 470).

Hopefully I haven’t made made heretical points here. :praying:

Ok, I must say I love how you did that!
 
40.png
Dolly:
I’m certainly not a theologian, but did read comments such as those from a Catholic priest and also heard the same type of comments described as Apollinarian from someone else. When I did some research on Apollinarius and the doctrine coming from him, what I read from the priest sounded very much like comments you posted. ISTM that there has always, at different times in the church, those that go to either extreme on the humanity/divinity issue regarding Jesus.
I guess since these are mere bullets of information it could appear that way.

The difference between that doctrine and the one stated above is that the one above allows for a complete human nature that is really human. The main point is that the humanity was not actualized by a human person but a divine person.
 
Since “Apollinarius of Laodicaea asserted that in Christ the divine Word had replaced the soul or spirit” ( 471CCC), he would have disagreed with 1, 4, 5, and 6 (at least).

And after thinking about it, I would say that 3 and 4 are definitely “yes” from an orthodox Christological standpoint.
 
40.png
OrthodoxBerean:
This came from a Catholic source. How would it be Nestorian? I am pretty familiar with Nestorianism. What would be the difference you see between the above statements and Nestorianism?
I don’t know, but it certainly seems like the author is combining/confusing the two natures. I may be reading it wrong, but the wording used does not seem Chalcedonian. It does seem dangerously speculative.
Council of Chalcedon, 451 A.D., Act V
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance (homoousios) with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer (Theotokos); one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the Fathers has handed down to us.
Mel
 
I think I agree with Vincent’s assessment. I think # 3 should say human action is “ascribed to” the divine person; and not sure what is being said in #4.

Even so, I think it is rather dangerous for us to try to psychoanalyze the consciousness of Christ. It would be rather forward of me to try to analyze your consciousness, let alone that of the Son of God.

JimG
 
40.png
JimG:
I think I agree with Vincent’s assessment. I think # 3 should say human action is “ascribed to” the divine person; and not sure what is being said in #4.

Even so, I think it is rather dangerous for us to try to psychoanalyze the consciousness of Christ. It would be rather forward of me to try to analyze your consciousness, let alone that of the Son of God.

JimG
Well, I am gathering information and so that I can accurately rebut a modalistic heresy that I am encountering quite frequently that pertains to the consciousness of Christ.
 
  1. Jesus has a human consciousness and a divine consciousness.
  2. Jesus was a divine person.
  3. Jesus could not perform a human action that is not prescribed to the divine person.
  4. The human consciousness of Christ is posited by his divine person acting through his human nature.
  5. Christ is different than us in that his human consciousness is a conscious of a divine person and not a human person.
  6. When Jesus says I, his divine person expresses in human word and concept his human consciousness of a divine self.
  7. This means that Jesus Christ speaks as a divine person and not solely as a man
Jesus is God. Jn.1:1-3, 8:58
Does that answer your question. 🙂

jean8
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top