Y
ynotzap
Guest
Amen.
- Status
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
You took it out of context. Jesus is talking of the power of the Spirit vs human power. And John 1:1-4 speaks of Jesus as the Incarnate Word.
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
So you deny the divinity of Jesus and take Thomas’ statement out of context.
P
PNEUMA
Guest
This is what I have been saying the whole time.
This doesn’t of course make Jesus Christ a spirit, he is a human of flesh and blood.
P
PNEUMA
Guest
"We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"PNEUMA;13993630 said:
John 20:28 “Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!””
Lord = Jesus Christ
God = the Father
John 8:16 "my judgement is valid; for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me. In your law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is valid"
John 8:29 *“he who sent me is with me”*So you deny the divinity of Jesus and take Thomas’ statement out of context.
No, Thomas is here shown to be the only one who understands. And could as well be the beloved disciple.
P
patrick457
Guest
I don’t think anybody has said that Jesus is only spirit - if by ‘spirit’ you mean a bodiless entity. That obviously is a denial of the Incarnation.This is what I have been saying the whole time.
This doesn’t of course make Jesus Christ a spirit, he is a human of flesh and blood.
That being said, I think you will agree that Jesus is not just flesh and blood either.
P
PNEUMA
Guest
No, John 1:1-4 clearly says the word is God and life, just as John 6:63 says the word is spirit and life.
P
patrick457
Guest
To be honest I still don’t get clearly your beliefs, but I’m interpreting it like this.
JESUS = ‘Flesh and blood’ (His human body) + ‘Spirit’ (the Father?)
In other words, Jesus the person is made up of a human body, plus the ‘Spirit’ dwelling inside Him. If I’m getting you right, we are to understand this ‘spirit’ inside Him as being the Father or/and the Holy Spirit. In other words:
Is this what you’re saying?
JESUS = ‘Flesh and blood’ (His human body) + ‘Spirit’ (the Father?)
In other words, Jesus the person is made up of a human body, plus the ‘Spirit’ dwelling inside Him. If I’m getting you right, we are to understand this ‘spirit’ inside Him as being the Father or/and the Holy Spirit. In other words:
Is this what you’re saying?
P
PNEUMA
Guest
Jesus = a human with a holy spirit inside of him, contrary to a human with a unclean spirit inside of him.
P
PNEUMA
Guest
That’s not a denial of the incarnation, that’s a denial of his flesh and blood resurrection.
P
patrick457
Guest
Do you accept that Jesus had a human soul (not just a human body), or not?
P
patrick457
Guest
Just a quick explanation of the key words used in theology as far as I understand it (if I misstated something please correct me):
Substance / Essence (ousia): The innermost aspect, the “thisness” of a being, what makes something that something and not something else. “All that subsists by itself and which has not its being in another.”
Person / Being (hypostasis): Literally means ‘to stand under’ (hence ‘sub-stance’). Used at the council of Nicaea as a synonym for ousia, but eventually came to mean ‘entity / existence’ or ‘individual, substantive reality’ or even "distinct manner of existing’. It is less abstract than ousia.
‘Person’ (prosopon): More literally means ‘mask’ or ‘face’. In Greek theatre, actors wore masks to reveal their character and emotional state to the audience. By extension, prosopa means the ‘face’, the ‘person’ that we present to others, the concrete form in which the abstact ousia and the underlying hypostasis appears. In other words, someone’s or something’s ‘natural qualities’, ‘condition’, ‘disposition’, or ‘appearance.’
Nature (physis): The most confusing term. One definition of physis is “personal nature,” which puts it in the same category as hypostasis and prosopon. The other definition of it is as a synonym for ousia.
In the case of the Trinity: There is one ousia / physis, but three hypostases (“persons”). The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are of the same ousia (‘consubstantial’ or ‘co-essential’), but each are His own distinct hypostasis.
In the case of Jesus: There is one hypostasis / prosopon, but two physeis (divine and human), and two wills (thelemata) corresponding to the two physeis.
Nestorius used the former definition of physis; so for him, saying that Jesus had two physeis meant that there are two separate personal natures / persons (the assumed man and the indwelling God the Son) within Jesus. The orthodox interpretation since the council of Chalcedon however is to take physis to mean ‘inner reality’ or ‘nature’, which is why we also say that Jesus had two physeis but reject Nestorius’ definition of the word.
By contrast, St. Cyril of Jerusalem spoke of Jesus having a single physis, but he did not mean it in the Monophysite sense (that Jesus only had one personal nature as opposed to two). Rather, he used physis as a synonym for ousia or hypostasis.
Substance / Essence (ousia): The innermost aspect, the “thisness” of a being, what makes something that something and not something else. “All that subsists by itself and which has not its being in another.”
Person / Being (hypostasis): Literally means ‘to stand under’ (hence ‘sub-stance’). Used at the council of Nicaea as a synonym for ousia, but eventually came to mean ‘entity / existence’ or ‘individual, substantive reality’ or even "distinct manner of existing’. It is less abstract than ousia.
‘Person’ (prosopon): More literally means ‘mask’ or ‘face’. In Greek theatre, actors wore masks to reveal their character and emotional state to the audience. By extension, prosopa means the ‘face’, the ‘person’ that we present to others, the concrete form in which the abstact ousia and the underlying hypostasis appears. In other words, someone’s or something’s ‘natural qualities’, ‘condition’, ‘disposition’, or ‘appearance.’
Nature (physis): The most confusing term. One definition of physis is “personal nature,” which puts it in the same category as hypostasis and prosopon. The other definition of it is as a synonym for ousia.
In the case of the Trinity: There is one ousia / physis, but three hypostases (“persons”). The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are of the same ousia (‘consubstantial’ or ‘co-essential’), but each are His own distinct hypostasis.
In the case of Jesus: There is one hypostasis / prosopon, but two physeis (divine and human), and two wills (thelemata) corresponding to the two physeis.
Nestorius used the former definition of physis; so for him, saying that Jesus had two physeis meant that there are two separate personal natures / persons (the assumed man and the indwelling God the Son) within Jesus. The orthodox interpretation since the council of Chalcedon however is to take physis to mean ‘inner reality’ or ‘nature’, which is why we also say that Jesus had two physeis but reject Nestorius’ definition of the word.
By contrast, St. Cyril of Jerusalem spoke of Jesus having a single physis, but he did not mean it in the Monophysite sense (that Jesus only had one personal nature as opposed to two). Rather, he used physis as a synonym for ousia or hypostasis.
P
PNEUMA
Guest
Every human has a soul.
P
PNEUMA
Guest
I don’t see the point in all this, can’t you just accept that the Son is a human with the Holy Spirit (the Father) dwelling in him.
John 14:8 “Philip said to him, ‘Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, “Show us the Father”? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.”
P
patrick457
Guest
Very good.
The holy and great synod, therefore, stated that
—1. the only begotten Son, begotten of God the Father according to nature, true God from true God, the light from the light, the one through whom the Father made all things, came down, became incarnate, became man,
—2. suffered, rose on the third day and ascended to heaven.
We too ought to follow these words and these teachings and consider what is meant by saying that the Word from God took flesh and became man. For we do not say that the nature (physis) of the Word was changed and became flesh, nor that he was turned into a whole man made of body and soul. Rather do we claim that the Word in an unspeakable, inconceivable manner united to himself hypostatically flesh enlivened by a rational soul, and so became man and was called son of man, not by God’s will alone or good pleasure, nor by the assumption of a person alone. Rather did two different natures (physeis) come together to form a unity, and from both arose one Christ, one Son. It was not as though the distinctness of the natures was destroyed by the union, but divinity and humanity together made perfect for us one Lord and one Christ, together marvellously and mysteriously combining to form a unity.
(Letter of Cyril of Jerusalem to Nestorius)
—2. suffered, rose on the third day and ascended to heaven.
We too ought to follow these words and these teachings and consider what is meant by saying that the Word from God took flesh and became man. For we do not say that the nature (physis) of the Word was changed and became flesh, nor that he was turned into a whole man made of body and soul. Rather do we claim that the Word in an unspeakable, inconceivable manner united to himself hypostatically flesh enlivened by a rational soul, and so became man and was called son of man, not by God’s will alone or good pleasure, nor by the assumption of a person alone. Rather did two different natures (physeis) come together to form a unity, and from both arose one Christ, one Son. It was not as though the distinctness of the natures was destroyed by the union, but divinity and humanity together made perfect for us one Lord and one Christ, together marvellously and mysteriously combining to form a unity.
(Letter of Cyril of Jerusalem to Nestorius)
Because putting it that way is kind of too vague that it’s open to (borderline- or even outright heretical) misinterpretation. Is the Son just a human by nature - one that happened to have God inside Him, but human otherwise? Is Christ’s divinity caused by His body being indwelt by a divine spirit / the divine Spirit?
P
PNEUMA
Guest
It’s not too vague for, I perfectly understand what kind of human I am supposed to be.
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
All the others got it. Peter got it. Nathanael got it. Seriously, why must one go by your logic to get it, when it clearly borders on heresy? There is also a stronger case for John being the beloved disciple. Is this one of your fringe theories?
Y
ynotzap
Guest
In His human nature, but don’t forget that Jesus is God, and God is Pure Spirit in Jesus’ divine nature, you must make this distinction His divinity is united to His humanity, and you must view each nature individually yet united, Jesus is God-man So when you speak of Jesus, your are speaking of the human Jesus, and of the divine Jesus, who is the Son of God, co-equal with the Father, and the Holy Spirit When speaking of Jesus you must necessarily address both natures, they are united in Him, you can not ignore one or the other.This is what I have been saying the whole time.
This doesn’t of course make Jesus Christ a spirit, he is a human of flesh and blood.
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
The Word is the Son who became incarnate in the womb of Mary. The Word in this context is Jesus.
T
tweedlealice
Guest
Salutations.
John was an eyewitness. He was the beloved Apostle. Jesus may have said things to John, He didn’t share with others. Also, John may have picked out things that meant more to the message he felt Jesus wanted to convey.
If 5 people see a car accident there will be 5 different reports of the accident. The three evangelists that walked with Jesus saw things they thought were important. Luke wrote from hearsay. Still there are similarities.
So, we are all to let the words of Jesus bathe over us in faith.
Looking for the truth in complexity, one can lose the simplicity of Christ’s love for us.
in Christ’s love
Tweedlealice
- Status