Posted by A2 on 4/6/2001, 5:35 pm

Posted by Steve B. on 3/22/2001, 2:16 pm , in reply to "Thanks for understanding what I said" A2, The only reason I keep repeating myself is because I don't ever seem to be successful in conveying to you what I mean. I always see you post it back to me in inaccurate ways. Or when I ask questions, I see a different question answered than the ones I asked. So, since I enjoy writing, I don't mind once more spelling out my position. However, if you find that my repeated attempts to make myself clear are annoying, you do not have to read what I write. To repeat something else I've often said, this is only an Internet message board, you know. Nobody's forcing you to read it, I hope. Also, you write Orthodoxy Trinitarianism is an “established doctrine”, not the commentary of 20th century theologians. If commentary becomes “established doctrine” in the 20th century, I’m interested in where this source is located and what it does say. Wait a minute. One source is apparently your 25 anonymous Trinitarian friends. A few postings ago you were telling me that their word was good enough for you as a source of orthodox Trinitarian doctrine. How can they recite “established doctrine” off the cuff while the NT theology professor who explicitly claims to be reporting “standard Christian orthodoxy” in an encyclopedia article is only writing “commentary”? What an odd view of reality. Well then, here is another source that shows Jesus is regarded as both a human and divine person in Trinitarian theology. It's from a Roman Catholic encyclopedia article (at http://www.newadvent.org/) on the Council of Chalcedon, the council it regards as establishing an authoritative statement of trinitarian doctrine. The pope was unable to go, but sent three delegates as his representatives and bearers of letters to prominent personages of the East and to the impending synod. Among these letters, all of which bear the date of 13 June, 449, is one known as the "Epistola Dogmatica", or dogmatic letter, of Leo I, in which the pope explains the mystery of the Incarnation with special reference to the questions raised by Eutyches. Thus, he declares that after the Incarnation what was proper to each nature and substance in Christ remained intact and both were united in one person, but so that each nature acted according to its own qualities and characteristics. ...The second session (10 October) was occupied with the reading of testimonia bearing on questions of faith, chiefly those under discussion. Among them were the symbols or creeds of the Councils of Nicaea (325) and of Constantinople (381); two letters of St. Cyril of Alexandria, viz. his second letter to Nestorius and the letter written to the Antiochene bishops in 433 after his reconciliation with them; finally the dogmatic epistle of Pope Leo I. All these documents were approved by the council. When the pope's famous epistle was read the members of the council exclaimed that the faith contained therein was the faith of the Fathers and of the Apostles; that through Leo, Peter had spoken. Is that “orthodox” enough for you? Then you ask Isn’t this the point where we agree to disagree? Well, actually, I haven't even succeeded in getting to the point of figuring out what it is we would be agreeing to disagree about. Sincerely Steve ---------- Hey! I just noticed something else... Posted by Steve B. on 3/22/2001, 2:51 pm , in reply to "Thanks for understanding what I said" A2, I just noticed that you got your definition of “personage” from www.yourdictionary.com. At least, the definition there is identical in wording and format to the one you give. Since you accept that source as authoritative, let's look at their definition of “person,” OK? Main Entry: per.son Pronunciation: 'p&r-s[^&]n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old French persone, from Latin persona actor's mask, character in a play, person, probably from Etruscan phersu mask, from Greek prosOpa, plural of prosOpon face, mask -- more at PROSOPOPOEIA Date: 13th century 1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL -- sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes 2 : a character or part in or as if in a play : GUISE 3 a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b : the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures 4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing 5 : the personality of a human being : SELF 6 : one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties 7 : reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection - per.son.hood /-"hud/ noun - in person : in one's bodily presence Imagine that! All this bickering, and all along the whole question could have been settled if only we would have checked a little bit further in one of your own sources! Sincerely, Steve ---------- Very funny Posted by Anon.II on 3/22/2001, 3:27 pm , in reply to "Hey! I just noticed something else..." ---------- The Council of Chalcedon Posted by Anon.II on 3/22/2001, 4:59 pm , in reply to "Re: Thanks for understanding what I said" What you believe is what you believe. Do you mean that because you “like to write” that we have to be patient with nagging? We are in fact rejecting your understanding, whether you think we are fully comprehending it or not. I’m not arguing that Trinitarians consider opinions orthodox, and I believe that their opinion is just as good as yours and the 20th century commentators (you will note that Webster includes “opinion” is one of the definitions of orthodoxy). That is why I seek the “established doctrine” of the Trinity. What the Council of Chalcedon asserts that “after the Incarnation what was proper to each nature and substance in Christ remained intact and both were united in one person” does not answer the assertion that the personage is a combined human and divine one. This assertion by the CofC is the same as Oneness, but the “one person” of Oneness is human, and the one person the Trinity is the 2nd person of God. The point that we should agree about is that your conscience and my conscience disagree.