God a Trinity.

[Tassman]

To my knowledge "fully God and fully man" is a popular paraphrase, and not standard doctrine. Chalcedon says "truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood;" That does not have the problem you point out.

Chalcedon says that the Logos assumed a human nature. The human nature is, of course, fully human. Because they are united in the same person, that person is truly God and human. But the Logos is human only by virtue of being hypostatically united to the human nature.

Still, there's something which I'm going to translate "interpenetration." While the human can't be simply confused with God, there's a sense in which the human is God. The human is the incarnation of God, and God shines through it. It shows us God and is God for us. Similarly, the Logos is active in all of Jesus' human actions, and thus is fully present in the human. But still, God and humanity are always maintained as distinct.

I tend towards N T Wright's negative view of this whole approach, but it's not obviously self-contradictory. The main issues I have are (1) that while it makes Christ human, it implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) denies that there's an actual human being that we might call Jesus, and (2) it imposes an alien philosophical framework on Biblical language. But the critique quoted isn't right, I don't think.

[Tassman]

No idiot, that's not modalism at all and the definition you quote is something entirely different from what Sparko is describing.

[JonathanL]

I've yet to find anyone who could provide a scriptural reference that supports the proposition of Jesus simultaneously being God and man.
Tassman (for once) is voicing a reasonable objection.

But his objection wasn't that scripture doesn't mention Jesus being simultaneously both God and man. His objection was that Jesus cannot be fully God and fully human at the same time, presumably because if he's fully one of the two there's no parts of him that can be the other.

And we do have scriptural references where Jesus divinity and humanity is mentioned/alluded to simultaneously (the text I colorcode with red refers to his divinity, blue to his humanity):

Source: Philippians 2:5-11 ESV

5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Romans 8:3 ESV

3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Galatians 4:4 ESV

4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,

© Copyright Original Source

Source: John 1:1-18

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

9 The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. 11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

© Copyright Original Source

[JonathanL]

That's not what he said at all.

He's talking about the interpenetration of the two natures in Christ, or, as it is also referred to, Communicatio idiomatum.

[JonathanL]

But that's not what Sparko was saying at all. He was talking about how Jesus can be fully God and fully man at the same time just as Trump could be identified as fully being all of the things he listed in his post. Of course, Jesus being fully God and fully man (or rather, true God and true man), is not even remotely close to Jesus being true God and true man simultaneously, but I don't think that was Sparko's intention in the first place, but rather to show that there's nothing illogical about being multiple things simultaneously.

[37818]

Understand?!?!!? It is very literally so!

This selective quote is great for monotheism, but unfortunately . . .

. . . for the belief that Christ is God incarnate, and than there is Holy Ghost.

The Trinity is the name of the interpretation and explanation for God being the Father (Philippians 1:2) and the Son of God (John 5:18-23) being the revealer of God (John 1:18; John 14:6-9) with the Holy Spirit being both the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9) being another person sent from the Father and Son (John 14:16-17). The Trinity as a NT theological explanation is well established.

That God as a Trinity has not been understood as philosophical argument by tradition of the Church. But must be - being God is eternal and infinite and a cause of finite and temporal things must be finite and temporal as a cause. Which means there must always been finite and temporal attribute in some way with God - God being a Creator of all finite and temporal things (Ephesians 3:9).

[Sparko]

This is Modalism, in the good ole days you would have been burned at the stake for such heresy.

gah. No it isn't Tassy. Modalism would be saying that the Father came down to earth as the Son and just pretended to be the second person in the trinity. That it is a role.

"Modalism, also called Sabellianism, is the unorthodox belief that God is one person who has revealed himself in three forms or modes in contrast to the Trinitarian doctrine where God is one being eternally existing in three persons. According to Modalism, during the incarnation, Jesus was simply God acting in one mode or role, and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was God acting in a different mode. Thus, God does not exist as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time. Rather, He is one person and has merely manifested himself in these three modes at various times. Modalism thus denies the basic distinctiveness and coexistence of the three persons of the Trinity".

derp. Which has nothing to do with Jesus having two natures: God the Son and Human.

But Trump hasn't always been fully president nor always fully a father etc, which is the point. The Doctrine of the Trinity claims that each person of the Trinity has existed eternally as one God.

The doctrine of the hypostatic union is that The Son was not always fully human. He was always fully God. He took on a second nature, humanity, at his incarnation. He was always God the Son. Not always Jesus the man.

[Sparko]

I've yet to find anyone who could provide a scriptural reference that supports the proposition of Jesus simultaneously being God and man.
Tassman (for once) is voicing a reasonable objection.

Do you think while he was a man, Jesus, he was not God?

There are plenty of passages calling Jesus God. Do you need me to post them for you?

[37818]

. . .

The doctrine of the hypostatic union is that The Son was not always fully human. He was always fully God. He took on a second nature, humanity, at his incarnation. He was always God the Son. Not always Jesus the man.

OK. The question becomes, what about preexistent finite and temporal attribute that God displayed? Creation (Genesis 1:1) and God walking in the garden (Genesis 3:8). It is opposite being infinite and eternal, which God is.

[Sparko]

OK. The question becomes, what about preexistent finite and temporal attribute that God displayed? Creation (Genesis 1:1) and God walking in the garden (Genesis 3:8). It is opposite being infinite and eternal, which God is.

I already told you that your lack of understanding of the terms mean I cannot discuss this with you.

[37818]

I already told you that your lack of understanding of the terms mean I cannot discuss this with you.

Ah, "attribute" was not one of the terms aforementioned.

Attribute = an inherent quality.

[Kbertsche]

If Jesus is fully man then there is no part of him which is not man. Conversely if he is fully god there's no part of him that is not god. He is one or the other, he cant be both simultaneously. Similarly the persons of the Trinity

And if a photon is fully a particle, there is no part of it which is not particle. Conversely, if it is fully a wave, there is no part of it which is not wave. It is one or the other; it can't be both simultaneously.

The hypostatic union and the Trinity are counter-intuitive, but they are no more inconsistent than wave-particle duality.

[JonathanL]

Of course, Jesus being fully God and fully man (or rather, true God and true man), is not even remotely close to Jesus being true God and true man simultaneously, . . .

The bolded should read "Trump being fully all the things Sparko listed in his post", but I'm an idiot who doesn't proofread his posts before clicking the reply button.

[Tassman]

And if a photon is fully a particle, there is no part of it which is not particle. Conversely, if it is fully a wave, there is no part of it which is not wave. It is one or the other; it can't be both simultaneously.

The hypostatic union and the Trinity are counter-intuitive, but they are no more inconsistent than wave-particle duality.

[Tassman]

gah. No it isn't Tassy. Modalism would be saying that the Father came down to earth as the Son and just pretended to be the second person in the trinity. That it is a role. .