Filioque??

[Formosus]

Now for your part. If Wheelock psudoLatin is what you like and the kind of sexual immorallity it teaches is what you live for than I might as well stop praying for communion between the Catholic and the orthodox. The orthodox are not holy enough to part of the Catholic Church is this is what they are about. If you are not willing to stand up to preach the Gospel and live the Gospel as an example to others, than we can not be in communion. Lord Jesus said to be Holy, to be Perfect. I would rather someone not learn Latin at all than to learn from Wheelock for fear that they loose their soul.

This is way off topic, but I can not beleive you are being serious. My latin proffesor whom I learned latin from freshman year of college taught my class using wheelock, and guess what , he is the Abbot of a Catholic Benedictine Monastary, has a doctorate in Patristics and proffessionally translates patristic texts. I suppose though, sense he uses wheelock to teach, that he must not really be Catholic or a proffessional latinist. Stop acting so high and mighty. I do not even know what your talking about as far as “sex” on every page. There is nothing wrong with reading the classics, and for your information we also translated parts of Augustine’s commentary on psalms. Using wheelock does not mean one isn’t going to be studying both Catholic and classical latin works. I suppose my new latin proffessor’s use of Ovid is offensive to you as well?

Anyways. Sorry for the off topic rant.

 

[Claudius]

This is way off topic, but I can not beleive you are being serious.

They asked for a quote from Wheelock, which has no place on this forum.

My latin proffesor whom I learned latin from freshman year of college taught my class using wheelock, and guess what , he is the Abbot of a Catholic Benedictine Monastary, has a doctorate in Patristics and proffessionally translates patristic texts.

I suppose though, sense he uses wheelock to teach, that he must not really be Catholic or a proffessional latinist.

Did I say that? No. But I would be surprised that a Catholic teacher would willingly expose their students to the filth in Wheelock.

Stop acting so high and mighty. I do not even know what your talking about as far as “sex” on every page.

Then you haven’t read Wheelock.

There is nothing wrong with reading the classics

I never said their was, but there is something wrong with reading pornography. There are houndreds, thousands even, of classical sources that Wheelock could have picked from but he choose to put quotes for translation in his book about Oral Sex, lebians, and raping dead bodies. There is no excuse for that.

, and for your information we also translated parts of Augustine’s commentary on psalms. Using wheelock does not mean one isn’t going to be studying both Catholic and classical latin works. I suppose my new latin proffessor’s use of Ovid is offensive to you as well?

Good for you. Did you translate the parts in the book about oral sex or did your teacher know enough to not ask you to do that?

Anyways. Sorry for the off topic rant.

I just wish they had not asked for a Wheelock quote to begin with.

 

[Aramis]

Wheelock is a well accepted standard introductory level reference on Latin Grammar.

Claudius, your statements against it are akin to saying one can’t read Song of Solomon (which, while scripture, is also QUITE erotic) because someone might get impure thoughts.

Or that one may not cite the OED because it includes cusswords.

 

[Ignatios]

Yes, and I agree with this condemnation, since it follows the Fathers of the Church. It does not force the use of the filioque, however. It does assert that the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds (procedere, not ekporousis) from the Father and the Son, something that can’t be denied on Patristic grounds.

We presented you with the facts from history that this condemnation was in order to force the use of the Filioque ( maybe in a nice way if anything), If not, then, you may wanna start with the explanation of what is condemnation, and what is the purpose of it, If someone is condemned then he has no salvation which it means that this someone is outside the church etc…further as I have showed from your own posting how rome told the Maronites to use the fiflioque , and again how when they (the Romans) excommunicated the eastern churches, one of the major reasons was the Issue of the fiflioque . I think we put forth enough evidence to confute your claim based on historical evidences.

ALL of the Latin Fathers, including St. Leo the Great and St. Ambrose, two very significant Fathers for the Eastern Orthodox,

I will not go into the western Fathers since it is understood what the West beleif was.

As for the being significant Fathers for the Orthodox Church, yes indeed they are. BUT, not because of what they have said about the FATHER and the SON. as you know that not everything the Fathers said was correct, besides I am sure if they had defined the Filioque the way the Modern RCC does then there would have been some more things to read about from the History concerning this.

Continue…

 

[Ignatios]

…and definitely St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Cyril of Alexandria (who wrote: “The Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding substantially in it and from it”, care of this link) for the East. If we throw out the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son, we throw out the testimony of ALL these Saints on the matter, and that’s something I’m not willing to do.

Now as for St Gregory of Nyssa, this Great saint again, he was not trying to define the Filioque, as a matter of fact he was in line with the other Cappadocian Fathers, the same mind, if he was not then we would have saw something that would indicate so, and we can only see what St Gregory of Nyssa was saying if we only read his letters entirely, not take something out in order to prove the fiflioque and then let go of the rest, Example of some his writings:

“…*We, for instance, confess that the Holy Spirit is of the same rank as the Father and the Son, so that there is no difference between them in anything, to be thought or named, that devotion can ascribe to a Divine nature…”… *If the FATHER and the SON can spirate then so does the HOLY SPIRIT, BUT whom should HE spirate? and if the HOLY SPIRIT is spirated then so does the FATHER and the SON ( may GOD forgive us from those sayings, we do not believe in such things. †††)
again St Gregory of Nyssa
" … We confess that, save His being contemplated as with peculiar attributes in regard of Person, the Holy Spirit is indeed from God, and of the Christ, according to Scripture…"
Note the words "of the CHRIST and not from CHRIST.

again

“… By saying that He is absolutely immortal, without turning, or variableness, always beautiful, always independent of ascription from others, working as He wills all things in all, Holy, leading, direct, just, of true utterance, “searching the deep things of God,” “proceeding from the Father,” “receiving12421242 λαμβανόμενον from the Son,” and all such-like things, what, after all, do you lend to Him by these and such-like terms?”
Again Note the word “Receiving” and Not “Proceeding” and just before this one also NOTE the word Proceeding from the FATHER.
Ghosty I can put many sentences from his writing but for the sake of space I posted the above only, I invite you to read ALL of his writing, and only when you do so it will become clear to you, however is he without error, of course not, listen to what Fathers of the Church had to say about him when the Romans used his writing in order to assert their claims:

“…Only one Father remains,” they continued, “Gregory the blessed priest of Nyssa, who, apparently, speaks more to your advantage than any of the other Fathers. Preserving all the respect due to this Father, we cannot refrain from noticing, that he was but a mortal man, and man, however great a degree of holiness he may attain, is very apt to err, especially on such subjects, which have not been examined before or determined upon in a general Council by the Fathers.” The orthodox teachers, when speaking of Gregory, more than once restrict their words by the expression: “if such was his idea,” and conclude their discussion upon Gregory with the following words: “we must view the general doctrine of the Church, and take the Holy Scripture as a rule for ourselves, nor paying attention to what each has written in his private capacity (idia).”
And I say AMEN AMEN AMEN.
As for St Cyril of Alexandria: One things we got to remember that the definition of the Trinity was not that of St Cyril but of the Cappadocian Fathers, HOWEVR, and again if we read St. Cyril writings we see that he didn’t have in mind the Filioque, just to give one for example:

*"…St Cyril of Alexandria says that “the Holy Spirit flows from the Father into the Son (en to Uiou),” (Thesaurus, XXXIV, PG 75, 577A)." *
IAW Proceed from the FATHER through the SON, Orthodox Formula, as long as we do not make out of the “through the SON” from “eternal” that is.

As for the Other Cappadocian Fathers I will not bring them up for now, simply because it is all Orthodox and you wouldnt have anything to converse about.

Interestingly, no one has ever presented any evidence that the Holy Spirit only proceeds from the Son temporally; it is always simply assumed by those who are against the filioque. I would like to see some explicit citations that indicate that this procession is temporal only, preferably by pre-Schism Fathers.

the word Temporal means and according to the dictionary: 1. of or pertaining to time.
2. pertaining to or concerned with the present life or this world; worldly: temporal joys.
3. enduring for a time only; temporary; transitory (opposed to eternal).
4. Grammar. a. of, pertaining to, or expressing time: a temporal adverb.
b. of or pertaining to the tenses of a verb.

So when the Bible says in John 20:22
And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.” Did this happened in eternal or Temporal, it would be so absurd to say Eternal, don’t you think so.?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ignatios,

Now as for St Gregory of Nyssa, this Great saint again, he was not trying to define the Filioque, as a matter of fact he was in line with the other Cappadocian Fathers, the same mind, if he was not then we would have saw something that would indicate so, and we can only see what St Gregory of Nyssa was saying if we only read his letters entirely, not take something out in order to prove the fiflioque and then let go of the rest, Example of some his writings:

“…We, for instance, confess that the Holy Spirit is of the same rank as the Father and the Son, so that there is no difference between them in anything, to be thought or named, that devotion can ascribe to a Divine nature…”… If the FATHER and the SON can spirate then so does the HOLY SPIRIT, BUT whom should HE spirate? and if the HOLY SPIRIT is spirated then so does the FATHER and the SON ( may GOD forgive us from those sayings, we do not believe in such things. †††)
again St Gregory of Nyssa
" … We confess that, save His being contemplated as with peculiar attributes in regard of Person, the Holy Spirit is indeed from God, and of the Christ, according to Scripture…"
Note the words "of the CHRIST and not from CHRIST.

again

*"… By saying that He is absolutely immortal, without turning, or variableness, always beautiful, always independent of ascription from others, working as He wills all things in all, Holy, leading, direct, just, of true utterance, “searching the deep things of God,” “proceeding from the Father,” *“receiving12421242 λαμβανόμενον from the Son,” and all such-like things, what, after all, do you lend to Him by these and such-like terms?"
Again Note the word “Receiving” and Not “Proceeding” and just before this one also NOTE the word Proceeding from the FATHER.
Ghosty I can put many sentences from his writing but for the sake of space I posted the above only, I invite you to read ALL of his writing, and only when you do so it will become clear to you, however is he without error, of course not, listen to what Fathers of the Church had to say about him when the Romans used his writing in order to assert their claims:

“…Only one Father remains,” they continued, “Gregory the blessed priest of Nyssa, who, apparently, speaks more to your advantage than any of the other Fathers. Preserving all the respect due to this Father, we cannot refrain from noticing, that he was but a mortal man, and man, however great a degree of holiness he may attain, is very apt to err, especially on such subjects, which have not been examined before or determined upon in a general Council by the Fathers.” The orthodox teachers, when speaking of Gregory, more than once restrict their words by the expression: “if such was his idea,” and conclude their discussion upon Gregory with the following words: “we must view the general doctrine of the Church, and take the Holy Scripture as a rule for ourselves, nor paying attention to what each has written in his private capacity (idia).”
And I say AMEN AMEN AMEN.
As for St Cyril of Alexandria: One things we got to remember that the definition of the Trinity was not that of St Cyril but of the Cappadocian Fathers, HOWEVR, and again if we read St. Cyril writings we see that he didn’t have in mind the Filioque, just to give one for example:

*"…St Cyril of Alexandria says that “the Holy Spirit flows from the Father into the Son (en to Uiou),” (Thesaurus, XXXIV, PG 75, 577A)." *
IAW Proceed from the FATHER through the SON, Orthodox Formula, as long as we do not make out of the “through the SON” from “eternal” that is.

As for the Other Cappadocian Fathers I will not bring them up for now, simply because it is all Orthodox and you wouldnt have anything to converse about.

the word Temporal means and according to the dictionary: 1. of or pertaining to time.
2. pertaining to or concerned with the present life or this world; worldly: temporal joys.
3. enduring for a time only; temporary; transitory (opposed to eternal).
4. Grammar. a. of, pertaining to, or expressing time: a temporal adverb.
b. of or pertaining to the tenses of a verb.

So when the Bible says in John 20:22
And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit.” Did this happened in eternal or Temporal, it would be so absurd to say Eternal, don’t you think so.?

Your erudite response is well-noted, but its main point is already a non-issue. Everyone here already agrees that when Latins say “proceeds,” they don’t mean the same thing as what Greeks intend when Greeks say “proceeds.” So your explanation of the Cappadocians and Pope St. Cyril doesn’t do damage to the Latin Catholic position. Their statements agree completely with the Latin teaching on Filioque - that the eternal Procession FROM the Father occurs THROUGH the Son.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ignatios]

Dear brother Ignatios,
…Their statements agree completely with the Latin teaching on Filioque - that the eternal Procession FROM the Father occurs THROUGH the Son.

Can you explain to me how does it agree with the Filioque as defined by the RCC, and show me where and wich statement from St Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian and St Gregory of Nyssa ( The Cappadocian Fathers)? because I certainly dont see it.
GOD bless you all †††

 

[Allyson]

I am not even an native English speaker and I know that is not how you are supposed to spell it.

…

Claudius,

A. I am a Catholic.

B. Of course I know pornography is a sin, I just find your initial response to the mention of Wheelock to be hilariously out of proportion to the initial request of another poster.

C. I went to a CATHOLIC college which used the text, and I heard of no complaint there. And, this was/is a school where students have been known to complain about Walker Percy!

D. “Pu-lease” is a phonetic spelling of an American English idiom which has the meaning “give me a break.” I don’t know that the Brits use it.

E. You need to stop making uninformed assumptions about other posters which lead you to slander true Churches.

F. Please do give an example from a Latin grammar which might demonstrate the point you have been trying to make, and as was requested by another poster. If “and through the Son” is truely a more proper translation, as you claim, then why is that not done?

God Bless,
R.

 

[theistgal]

Claudius,

D. “Pu-lease” is a phonetic spelling of an American English idiom which has the meaning “give me a break.” I don’t know that the Brits use it.

Actually, Allyson, Claudius was right - you did misspell it. Here’s the correction :

Pu-lease!

 

[Allyson]

Actually, Allyson, Claudius was right - you did misspell it. Here’s the correction :

Pu-lease!

LOL

Thank you, I humbly accept your correction.

 

[buffgbob]

Let us please keep this thread on topic and treat each other with respect. I have been enjoying this thread thus far, and I would be upset if it were closed because of such a tangent.

 

[theistgal]

Let us please keep this thread on topic and treat each other with respect. I have been enjoying this thread thus far, and I would be upset if it were closed because of such a tangent.

FYI: there’s a little button at the top right corner of each post which you can use to request moderator action, if you feel it’s warranted.

 

[JohnVIII]

Originally Posted by JohnVIII
Personally, I also have a problem with the phrase: “through the Son”. Although I admit that some Orthodox have used this phrase. The reason I have a problem with it is because it still seems to at least imply at the Holy Spirit obtains it essence in the person of the Son, which, if true, the Holy Spirit must share in the humanity of Jesus.

This would only be the case if the essence of Christ changed in the Incarnation. Instead we have the Divine Essence, and the human nature, not united and mingled on the level of nature, but in the Person of Christ. If they were mingled and merged we would have to confess something similar to the Monothelites or the Monophysites, and we do not.

The divine and human nature are in union with each other. Therefore, it doesn’t matter whether you confess that Christ has two distinct natures or that he has only one distinct nature; either way the divine and the human must remain together, you cannot divide and separate them with the Holy Spirit as He passes “through” the Son.

Pope Vigilius (537-555) of Rome did confess “something similar to the Monothelites or the Monophysites” as he said the monophysite teaching is correct provided that that the nature of Christ is human and divine. This matter was also taken up by the Roman Church at the Balamand Council and by the Orthodox at the Chambesy Council. The fact is that most of the so-called “non-Chalcedonian” Christians are in agreement with the Council of Chalcedon even though they are called “Monophysite”, because they reject the teaching of Eutyches as well as Nestorius.

The union of the divine and human nature in Christ, though hard to be understood, is a reason why I have to reject the filioque. If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, or through the Son, but only through the divine nature of the Son, then this divides the unity of the divine and human nature of Christ.

I also find it very interesting that every time each particular point of heresy with regard to the filioque is pointed out, someone tries to show that isn’t exactly what the Roman Church teaches. And thus, the teaching of the filioque continues to be redefined so that it can be held up as an orthodox teaching. And yet the confession of the Nicene Creed was intended to be the confession of the Faith by all individual Christians, most of whom are very simple Christians. Simple Christians who believe in the filioque are easily led to believe in two divine sources, double-procession, confused natures of both Christ and the Holy Spirit, etc. … Most of these simple Christians cannot understand the complicated redefinitions concerning the filioque. And yet we see that the Roman Church absolutely requires any Eastern Christian who wishes to be a part of the Roman Church must accept the filioque; even though supposedly its addition does not change any theology in the original Nicene creed!

Will anyone try to refute that the addition of the filioque causes confusion in the church? (1 Corinthians 14:33) “For God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.”

 

[chrisb]

The divine and human nature are in union with each other. Therefore, it doesn’t matter whether you confess that Christ has two distinct natures or that he has only one distinct nature; either way the divine and the human must remain together, you cannot divide and separate them with the Holy Spirit as He passes “through” the Son.

Grace and Peace dear brother,

Are you suggesting that prior to the ‘Incarnation’ the Logos was in union with the not-yet-existent ‘human nature’ of Jesus of Nazareth?

This sounds incorrect. Anyone else wish to offer us some help here?

 

[JohnVIII]

Are you suggesting that prior to the ‘Incarnation’ the Logos was in union with the not-yet-existent ‘human nature’ of Jesus of Nazareth?

This sounds incorrect.?

“Prior” must mean the same thing as “before time”. When we say that God is so-n-so “before time” we are only saying that we are looking at Him from the perspective of “before time”. When we look at him from a different perspective, i.e. “in time”, we are looking at the same God. Orthodox Christians confess that God became man without change. But, it is also true that the Son is not human “outside of time”. God does not change, the only thing that changes is the perspective. Hebrews 13:8 “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”

 

[chrisb]

“Prior” must mean the same thing as “before time”. When we say that God is so-n-so “before time” we are only saying that we are looking at Him from the perspective of “before time”. When we look at him from a different perspective, i.e. “in time”, we are looking at the same God. Orthodox Christians confess that God became man without change. But, it is also true that the Son is not human “outside of time”. God does not change, the only thing that changes is the perspective. Hebrews 13:8 “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”

Let me ask you again… are you arguing that Jesus of Nazareth, the God-Man, in his human nature and will was in union with the Second Person of the Holy Trinity prior to the “Incarnation”?

Maybe third time is the charm for me to understand what you are really saying.

Thanks.

 

[Taboric_Light]

The divine and human nature are in union with each other. Therefore, it doesn’t matter whether you confess that Christ has two distinct natures or that he has only one distinct nature; either way the divine and the human must remain together, you cannot divide and separate them with the Holy Spirit as He passes “through” the Son… The union of the divine and human nature in Christ, though hard to be understood, is a reason why I have to reject the filioque. If the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, or through the Son, but only through the divine nature of the Son, then this divides the unity of the divine and human nature of Christ.

The eternal procession of the Spirit through the Son does not divide the divine and human natures of Jesus. The two natures of Christ are united hypostatically in the hypostasis of the Son. Hypostatically united they reamain distinct. They are not mixed together forming another, a new nature. This would result in a amalgamization (I made that word up based on “amalgam”) which would definitely contradict Christ, GOD, becoming man without change. “Becoming man without change” is simply affirming that while the Son became man He still remained completely and totally divine. In other words, His becoming man had absolutely no effect on His divinity. If the divine and human nature mixed together into one nature then you would have two parts of a whole. Keeping in mind that the two natures are hypostatically united, while remaining distinct, we must remember that we cannot predicate to one nature what is proper to the other. For instance, Jesus was hungry, tired, felt afraid and died. Did He do these things in His divinity or in His humanity? In His humanity, of course. If we predicate these things to His divinity then we must say that the Father and the Holy Spirit can get hungry, tired, fearful, or suffer death too. How atrocious! Finally, do we say that the Father begot the Son with both a divine and human nature? Of course not. Everyone reading this including you knows full well that the Son received His human nature from the Holy Theotokos. The point is that the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit through the Son does not divide the divine and human natures of Christ because “in the beginning” the Father begot the Son without a human nature and, therefore, the eternal procession of the Spirit through the Son is proper to His divinity, not His humanity, and we do not predicate what belongs to the divine nature to the human nature.

I also find it very interesting that every time each particular point of heresy with regard to the filioque is pointed out, someone tries to show that isn’t exactly what the Roman Church teaches. And thus, the teaching of the filioque continues to be redefined so that it can be held up as an orthodox teaching.

Perhaps the teaching of the filioque is not being redefined. Rather, maybe you’re misunderstanding what Rome really teaches concerning the filioque. Possible? Please give it serious consideration.

In Christ through Mary

 

[Ignatios]

I beleive what JohnVIII is saying, as I gather from his postings ( although I could be wrong) that his main focus is on contending the " through the SON" and the way he is seeing it is that, without any changes to the word “proceed” as understood by the Greeks and applying the word “through” after the fact that the H.S. already had been proceeded, does not fit, because then, if the H.S. proceeded through the SON In “temporal” tense then the Holy Spirit would be proceeded through the Human and the Divine of CHRIST therefore it would lead to an error. since the H.S. was proceeded through the Humanity of CHRIST as well then that would be like the H.S. also must have some humanity in HIM in which that also could turn to a mess such as the FATHER can be understood by some as grand father ( a type of heresy or an idea exist on the time of St. Gregory the Theologian) and so on so forth.

However something like this was brought up by some of the Orthodox scholars or theolgians but not exactly the same, they only said that they would preffer not to use the word “through” out of fear that it can/might be understood by some the wrong way, and they said as far as I remember from reading some of the books that they permit it within the theologians/scholars discussion as long as it will be understood that the word “through” is not to be taken anything else than “mnifestation” in which biblicaly grounded.

This is my 2cents worth concerning this.

 

[JohnVIII]

Let me ask you again… are you arguing that Jesus of Nazareth, the God-Man, in his human nature and will was in union with the Second Person of the Holy Trinity prior to the “Incarnation”?

I am very sorry that my answer was not the answer to your question apparently. This question above seems a little different then the last question. And I’m not sure I’m going to answer correctly now either because I find it hard to believe that you’re actually asking me ‘was Jesus in unity with the second person of the Holy Trinity!’ Because Jesus is the second person of the Holy Trinity! In any event, you are asking me if this is my argument, so in answer to that I must say it is not. Such an argument would go nowhere, it seems to me. :banghead:

I think I’ve gone as far as I know how to at this point. I’m just going to have to say that I will agree that we (those who confess the filioque and myself) agree to disagree. I would like to add a few more thoughts however –

I read an article called “The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity - The Procession of the Holy Spirit in Greek and Latin Traditions” by “the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity”, and therein it asserts that St. Maximus the Confessor said that “the Father and the Son are consubstantial source of the procession of this same Spirit”, but it made this assertion without quotation marks! I do not believe St. Maximus the Confessor said any such thing. I read a book on the life of St. Maximus the Confessor and believe that he is a saint, but if in fact he did say such a thing a will reject him as a heretic. I only say this to draw a clear distinction between my faith and that of Rome. Here is one last reaffirmation –

In “The Catholic Encyclopedia” by Charles George Herbermann p54 it says, “it is plain that these Fathers [St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. John Damascene] whould have rejected no less firmly than the Latins the later Photian heresy that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone”. I say there is no such thing as a “Photian heresy”, St. Photius was a great saint of the Orthodox Church! likewise, so was St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. John Damascene, whom I do not believe were any different in matters of Faith! Surely this affirmation will make my faith distinct from that of Rome, because nowhere have I ever read that St. Photius “actually taught the filioque” or any such thing. In fact, Rome hates St. Photius so much that she has blamed the split of the East and the West on him personally! Somewhere (I don’t remember where) I even read that an Eastern Christian MUST deny St. Photius as a saint in order to be allowed to join the Roman Church! So, this is where I stand. Of course, I respect anyones right to believe as they so choose.

Blessings of the Father, and the Son, together with the Holy Spirit be with you!:bowdown2:

 

[chrisb]

I am very sorry that my answer was not the answer to your question apparently. This question above seems a little different then the last question. And I’m not sure I’m going to answer correctly now either because I find it hard to believe that you’re actually asking me ‘was Jesus in unity with the second person of the Holy Trinity!’ Because Jesus is the second person of the Holy Trinity! In any event, you are asking me if this is my argument, so in answer to that I must say it is not. Such an argument would go nowhere, it seems to me.

Jesus of Nazareth has ‘two’ Natures only one of which is that of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. The Incarnation wasn’t the Second Person of the Holy Trinity walking around in a ‘flesh suit’… it was the Hypostatic Union of Man and God. I think this is vitally important for us to have a real understanding of the the submission of Our Lord’s Human Will to that of the Divine Will. Far more subtle teaching of the Incarnation than conflating Jesus the God-Man with the Logos prior. It was the submission of the Human Will to that of the Divine that makes Jesus a suitable “Lamb who takes away the sin of the World”. Yes it was God reconciling man to Himself but through the real submitted Human Will of the God-Man.

Is this point missed by everyone but me? Am I alone in this?