Posted by Anon.II, et al on 4/25/2001, 3:28 pm

Posted by Anon.II on 4/3/2001, 10:57 am Is Jesus “one person that has both a human and divine nature” OR is He “both a human and divine person”? Steve said he did not agree that Jesus is one person that is both a human and divine nature: “That is, if by “combined human/divine person” you mean that the one person has both a human and divine nature, then my answer to your above question is "no." Steve says he believes that Jesus is both a human and divine person: “I'm simply continuing to say that Jesus is both a human and divine person.” OBVIOUSLY, STEVE IS MAKING A DISTINCTION HERE. [NOTE: The “combined human/divine person” is Steve’s assertion. 1. (Steve B. on 2/22/2001, 11:53 am) “Still again, this is not what Trinitarians say, or at least not any that I have run into. The ones that I’ve read say that Jesus speaks always as one person—a person of combined deity and humanity.” 2. (Steve B on 1/22/2001, 4:30 pm) It’s because we believe the person who is Jesus is not only a human but is also God. We believe that to describe him (in a definitive description of who he is) as a “human person” would be scripturally inadequate and inaccurate, unless one were also to say that the same person is deity as well.”] I offered, as proof of Steve’s un-orthodox assertion, that the creeds do not teach that Jesus was, both a human and divine person. [NOTE: If you read these creeds closely, you will notice that they DO NOT say that Jesus is both a human and divine person at all. In fact, the statement that Steve rejects, is affirmed in Article III of the Lutheran Augsburg Confession, which is the Protestant version of the Trinity, which says: “THERE ARE TWO NATURES, THE DIVINE AND THE HUMAN, INSEPERABLY ENJOINED IN ONE PERSON”.] Steve said: “But in the creeds you post, these are the places that teach Jesus is both a human and divine person: From the Nicene Creed: We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. From the Athanasian Creed: For the right faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and human flesh subsisting. From Article III, Augsburg Confession: Also they teach that the Word, that is, the Son of God, did assume the human nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, so that there are two natures, the divine and the human, inseparably enjoined in one Person, one Christ, true God and true man, who was born of the Virgin Mary, truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, that He might reconcile the Father unto us, and be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men. “ (Posted by Steve B. on 4/2/2001, 11:45 am) In his own words, Steve DENIES what these creeds affirm. ---------- Posted by Steve B. on 4/3/2001, 12:28 pm , in reply to "If this is true, then I rest my case." A2, I think I finally see the source of our problem. I have always said that the two statements you quote ("Jesus is one person with both a human and divine nature" and "Jesus is both a human and divine person") are synonymous. You have somehow perceived me as saying they are not. As evidence that I do not regard these statements as having the same meaning, in your above posting you quote this earlier statement of mine: That is, if by “combined human/divine person” you mean that the one person has both a human and divine nature, then my answer to your above question is "no." But you do not quote the question to which I was responding. That question was Are you now saying that you do not believe that the person of Jesus is a combined human/divine person? A “no” answer to this question means “No, I am not saying that I do not believe Jesus is a combined human/divine person.” I can see how the triple negative created by a “no” answer could cause some confusion, but the meaning of my answer is “I still stay that Jesus is a combined human/divine person, if you are defining that as meaning that his person has both a human and divine nature.” Surely that must be obvious by the way I go out of my way to specify the sense in which I took the question to which I was responding. And even after that, in an attempt to further clarify the meaning, in the very next sentence I also said, “Put yet another way, I am not now saying anything different than I've said before.” This is because even at the time of the posting above, I had already told you Your characterization of my own position is, however, not accurate. For one thing of course, I meant it to be simply synonymous with Jesus having two natures... (“Re: A repost of "My answers,” 3/29/2001, 3:51 pm) I think this will probably also resolve your confusion over whether my position and “orthodox” trinitarianism are different in this regard. Sincerely, Steve Born Email: srborn@seanet.com Home page: http://www.seanet.com/~srborn/ ---------- Posted by Anon.II on 4/3/2001, 1:18 pm , in reply to "Re: If this is true, then I rest my case." You said: I have always said that the two statements you quote ("Jesus is one person with both a human and divine nature" and "Jesus is both a human and divine person") are synonymous. Where have you asserted this before? How did my question: ("Are you now saying that you do not believe that the person of Jesus is a combined human/divine person?")prompt you to give a "NO" answer and to re-word your distinction? YOU DO believe that the person of Jesus is a combined human/divine person, but you wanted to give me a "no" answer? This is very deceptive to me. In support of your combined person theory you've stated: "The ones(Trinitarians) that I've read say that Jesus speaks always as one person--a person of combined deity and humanity." You also said that: “I said that when we speak of the deity of Christ we speak NOT of a person but of a nature.” Here we see, that for you it OK to make a distinction between "person" and "nature", saying that they have different meanings, but now you say the meanings are synonymous. The fact remains that you do make a distinction in the statements above, and that your HAVE NOT always believed these two statements to be synonymous. Furthermore, you have disregard for the English definition of "nature" that says it is: "the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing". This understanding causes a lot of problems for the Trinitarian concept of one nature(person or thing) + another nature (person or thing)= two natures (persons or things). Not to mention that three persons or things in the Godhead = three natures (persons or things). Furthermore, my question of the 1st and 3rd persons of the Trinity being "combined persons" has been past over several times. I believe you ARE saying something different than you did before, and that if the Trinitarian creeds wanted to convey the concept you do, they would have used the words they meant. Like your handling of God's word, you do not believe that the words necessarily need to be the same. ---------- If this is my case, then I rest the truth. Posted by Steve B. on 4/3/2001, 1:54 pm , in reply to "Re: If this is true, then I rest my case." A2, The tangle of your words leads me to confess that I am unable to understand the difference you see in the two statements we have been discussing, or to understand why you believe that I do not think they are synonymous. Speaking only for myself, I have always seen them as synonymous, I thought that's what I had been saying, and I continue to think of them as synonymous. You also write Furthermore, my question of the 1st and 3rd persons of the Trinity being "combined persons" has been past over several times. Yes, because first of all, it has been unclear to me what you are asking, and secondly, you don't accept what I say as accurate in regards to trinitarianism anyway, so there's no use in trying to explain to you what trinitarian doctrine means. And thirdly, if I say what I myself believe, you then insist I really believe something else, no matter how much I subsequently tell you that isn't what I believe. So what would be the purpose of accompanying you on yet another journey through the looking glass? Sincerely, Steve ---------- A relative truth Posted by Anon.II on 4/3/2001, 2:14 pm , in reply to "If this is my case, then I rest the truth." You have not subsequently told me that you believe differently. The fact remains that you do make a distinction in the statements above, and that your HAVE NOT always believed these two statements to be synonymous as demonstrated in the "distinctions" that you make between "person" and "nature". If "there's no use in trying to explain to you (me) what trinitarian doctrine means." Why do you keep answering my posts? Finally, if my question was unclear, why didn't you clarify it with me? I think the implication is plain to all.