Posted by A2 on 4/6/2001, 5:20 pm

Pardon me? Posted by Steve B. on 3/21/2001, 3:24 pm , in reply to "Of course YOU DON'T, but others do" A2, You write In that Steve's sources are not considered conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early church... What? Another unsupported assertion? Which creeds? What statements in the creeds? How do the sources not conform? If they don't conform, how are they getting by posted on the Web without raising a controversy among other trinitarians? Your assertion is not clear, much less convincing. It's begging the question. The very thing you wish to prove is that my position is not orthodox Trinitarianism. You can't slide it into one of your sentences as a premise. At least, not if you're interested in building a valid case. And regarding your quotation from this book you cite, who is Macquarrie? What group published his book? Is he representative of Trinitarian opinion? Is he even really a trinitarian? Do other Trinitarian writers refer to him as “orthodox,” or as having, perhaps, an unusual interpretation of the Trinity? With his talk of “potentiality for being,” he doesn't sound like an “orthodox” trinitarian at all. And besides all of that, how do you know that Macquarrie does not believe that Jesus' person is divine as well as human? The short passage you quote does not necessarily rule out that possibility. A referal to Jesus as a “human person” does not really say anything about how the writer views the deity of Jesus. It is not really an adequate quotation for the purposes you wish to use it. You also write: Notice that even Steve's source contradicts his assertion: "Jesus' two natures are not "mixed together," nor are they combined into a new God-man nature. They are separate yet act as a unit. This is called the Hypostatic Union." Which assertion of mine is this supposed to contradict? The assertion you were talking about in your last posting was that "Jesus was both a human and divine person." How does this source contradict that assertion? How do you read it to get out of it the meaning that Jesus is not both a human and divine person? The quotation says that the two natures are separate yet act as a unit. They are not to be thought of as mixed together—they each retain their distinct characters—and still less are they to be thought of as combining to form a new third nature. The natures remain two distinct natures, yet one person possesses both, just as I have said. Wouldn't you have to establish that my own position requires a “mixing together” of the natures, or the creation of a “new God-man nature” in order to satisfactorily show that this passage contradicts my assertion? Yet there is no attempt in your posting to do that. Do you expect us to believe these blunt statements just because you post them? Sincerely, Steve ---------- Sorry for the confusion. Posted by Anon.II on 3/21/2001, 5:25 pm , in reply to "Pardon me?" The discussion was not that Jesus is a human and divine person, but that his personage is not both human and divine. Oneness also believes that Jesus is a person that is both human and divine, but that the personage is human not divine, and His deity is Spirit, not a person. (Forgive me for dropping the “age” on the word person above) Macquarrie is published by Charles Scribner’s Sons/New York, and yes the Catholic Church does consider him orthodox. I sought orthodoxy according to the defined doctrine and creeds. In reference to your first quoted source, it does not speak of the combined personage issue, but rather that the "natures" are not combined. Also, I was interested to see the "adding" to God concept, because I think that needs to be covered further. ---------- Posted by Steve B. on 3/21/2001, 8:38 pm , in reply to "Sorry for the confusion." A2, What is your definition of the word “personage”? Why is it acceptable to you in a statement about Jesus' nature when you have so strongly objected to the word “person” as being unBiblical in this context? Sincerely, Steve ---------- I thought you understood this already. Posted by Anon.II on 3/21/2001, 10:29 pm , in reply to "Re: Sorry for the confusion." The word personage means the being of a human person. My objection is simple, the bible does not use the word person in reference to the nature of deity at all. The word is biblical in reference to the human nature of Christ as man. When I see Jesus, I see a fully divine Spirit (fully God), and a fully human person (fully man). Jesus Christ is one with the Father. How, is the mystery, but what the bible does and does not say is pretty clear. ---------- Posted by Steve B. on 3/22/2001, 9:24 am , in reply to "I thought you understood this already." A2, You write My objection is simple, the bible does not use the word person in reference to the nature of deity at all. Yes, I realized that was your objection. My question was why then you accept “personage,” when the Bible does not use it in reference to the being of a human person, or to Jesus, at all. The introduction of this term seems to me to only further obscure the issues at stake. And I am still unclear about the basis for your claim that I am misrepresenting “orthodox” Trinitarianism, and that the issue somehow involves the “personage,” concept when I haven't used the word, and neither have any of the sources cited by either of us. The issue seems to me to stem from the disagreement we have over including non-human, spiritual beings in the definition of “person.” That is, if a being (either spiritual or human) has will, the ability to reason, and the ability to communicate that reasoning in human language, I would include it in my definition of “person” and you would not. In the past, I think you have objected to my definition because by it apes would be persons. But besides for the fact that apes are neither spiritual nor human, this to me is not a valid objection, because it is not based on an unambiguous classification of the subject—it is doubtful if apes are really reasoning in human language when they communicate with sign language. It is more like their instincts have been reprogrammed by humans to mimic human behaviour. Your definition of both “person” and “personage” seems to boil down to simply “human.” And therefore you naturally object to God being described as a “person.” If that is all that is at stake, then I of course agree that God cannot be described as human. However, I do continue to claim that Oneness doctrine inadequately accounts for the statements of Jesus' deity in the scriptures. I see the scriptures describe a person who is not simply human, but who existed as the active, conscious Word in the beginning with God and as God; who is also described as being in the form of God before he was made in the likeness of men, and who had no beginning and will have no end. Except for John 1:1 (for which it did indeed have an elaborate explanation), I now see in my notes that the Chapel simply glossed over most of these statements by saying we don't really know for sure how they apply but, obviously, they can't mean that Jesus was a pre-existent person of God. But the more I have studied the Scriptural statements in the past year, I have realized that it is not so obvious at all. If I read them without consciously trying to preserve the truth of Oneness dogma, I find myself admitting that the picture I get from them is really much closer to trinitarian doctrine. A lot closer. Oneness advocates say that because all of these statements occur in the context of monotheistic belief, they cannot mean what they appear to mean. Trinitarians on the other hand say that the number and weight of such statements means that the Scriptures must be trying to show us that there is something more to be apprehended about God than the simple acceptance of his “oneness.” By the definitions I have stated, it now seems to me that in describing Jesus, the Bible is describing a person with both the nature of man and the nature of God, not a person (or even a “personage”) with God inside of him. That is all I am saying, and I still do not see how it violates the Scriptures, or how (by claiming this is the same picture that the Trinity shows us) I am straying from “orthodox” Trinitarian doctrine. Sincerely, Steve