Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology

[37818]

What's your point? The fact that the writers of the OT and deuterocanonical wisdom literature speaks of Wisdom as a she does not mean that Wisdom can't be identified with Jesus. And it doesn't deal with the fact that the writers of the New Testament themselves explicitly tell us that Jesus is Wisdom, and indirectly by drawing parallels between Jesus and things said about Wisdom in Jewish wisdom literature. As I said, I would rather stand with Jesus Himself and Paul on this issue, rather than someone who objects that Jesus can't be God's Wisdom because Wisdom is described as a she.

http://www.tektonics.org/af/cdelsandjesus.php

Quote
The tract also says that "unfortunately" Wisdom is "personified as a woman" which is only a problem for our modern, gender-concerned society. Gender for the ancients was a matter of role, not equipment; Wisdom played a "feminine" role (that of maintainer of the universal "household") and this has no bearing on the masculine incarnation of Jesus as Wisdom (whom, as we note in the article linked atop, claimed to be this Wisdom anyway). Indeed, widows were allowed to assume "male" roles to survive and were considered as "male" in role by others.

Mark Smith in The Origins of Biblical Monotheism adds another salient point: "Attribution of female roles to gods was by no means an Israelite invention." [91] Even the OT attributes female imagery to Yahweh (Deut. 32:18, Ps. 22:9-10, Is. 46:3, 66:9, 13) as Jesus applies female imagery to himself (as a mother hen over Jerusalem).

Yahweh and other ancient deities were beyond sexuality, but nevertheless expressed themselves in "genderly" ways. The Ugaritic deity Athtar is called in inscriptions both "father" and "mother". The "male" deities Shamash, Istanu, and Gatumdug are called a "mother". Female deities could also be ascribed male qualities. The Christadelphian objection is anachronistic.

-JPH

"The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. . . ." -- Proverbs 8:22.
The LORD meaning Yehwah. The Son is Yehwah who possessed all things.

[37818]

What is believed that is agreed upon? What is the difference being disagreed upon? Make the two lists. We take the common ground and work from there. When ever there is disagreement of any kind, there is always something being believed differently. But then we need to understand what that fundamental is.

A high level argument has some low level key difference. We need to identify it.

For me the Apostolic authority is the written word of God. [The 66 book Book we call the Bible. ] Not merely some statement of belief [creed].

[37818]

But that's what we're telling you. By assuming a human nature Christ's Person DOESN'T CHANGE. As more than one old theologian put it, Christ's Person didn't change by assuming a human nature anymore than your person changes when you put on clothes.

To paraphrase Aquinas' view,

Source: Christ the 'name' of God: Thomas Aquinas on Naming Christ by Dr. H.J.M. Schoot

The creation of good things does not add anything to God's goodness, and similarly one should not think that the union of uncreated goodness with something good created, i.e. Christ's human nature, adds something to the uncreated goodness.

© Copyright Original Source

Because you're asserting that Christ had some sort of nature that co-existed with his divine nature that was neither divine nor human. As far as I know, no one's ever heard of this before. Its some sort of strange stop-gap you're using to explain how God can work in time before Christ's incarnation and yet remain immutable, as though God's immutability suggested that his divinity were absolutely static, and that his divine nature was unable to interact with creation.



Yes, I realize that you believe that. But you're suggesting that Jesus transformed into a human through some non-divine second nature that, as far as I know, has never been mentioned by orthodoxy's greatest theologians. The standard orthodox belief is that Christ assumed a second nature upon his incarnation through Mary so that he was human in all ways like we are human. Here, read the Chalcedonian Creed:

Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin." He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.

Jesus assumed his human nature by Mary. His second nature didn't pre-exist in some sort of non-human temporal state. If it did pre-exist, and he is like us in all things but without sin, then what you're suggesting is that we too had a pre-existing non-human, non-divine nature before we were born.



Meaning his divine nature was with God.

You are not making any sense to me. So your line of argument does not do me any good.

[37818]

But it wouldn't be a change in His divine nature. His divine nature remains unchanged, but He takes on a human nature in addition to His divine nature.

That is a change. There is no way around that. From only being divine to not solely being divine. That is a change and so negates any supposed claim of immutability. Given: only being divine to begin with.

[Adrift]

You are not making any sense to me. So your line of argument does not do me any good.

Honestly, I guess I shouldn't be surprised...

[DesertBerean]

What is believed that is agreed upon? What is the difference being disagreed upon? Make the two lists. We take the common ground and work from there. When ever there is disagreement of any kind, there is always something being believed differently. But then we need to understand what that fundamental is.

A high level argument has some low level key difference. We need to identify it.

For me the Apostolic authority is the written word of God. [The 66 book Book we call the Bible. ] Not merely some statement of belief [creed].

Nope. You dug yourself into this hole and refused the ladder.

[JonathanL]

"The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. . . ." -- Proverbs 8:22.
The LORD meaning Yehwah. The Son is Yehwah who possessed all things.

When are you going to deal with the fact that the New Testament writers and Jesus Himself makes the connection between Wisdom and the Son?

[37818]

Nope. You dug yourself into this hole and refused the ladder.

So there is no common ground? I believe in one God. I believe that God is the Father, Son of God and the Holy Spirit. I believe the Father, Son of God and Holy Spirit are three different persons. I believe the Bible (66 books).

What did I say that is not true? Quote me. Give the holy scripture.

[37818]

When are you going to deal with the fact that the New Testament writers and Jesus Himself makes the connection between Wisdom and the Son?

I did. You seem not to what to acknowledge it.

The Son of God is the Yehwah of the OT. That the connection is that He as God possesses her.
"But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." -- 1 Corinthians 1:24.
"All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." -- John 1:3.

[Adrift]

So there is no common ground? I believe in one God. I believe that God is the Father, Son of God and the Holy Spirit. I believe the Father, Son of God and Holy Spirit are three different persons. I believe the Bible (66 books).

What did I say that is not true?

That Jesus did not assume or add his human nature at the incarnation through Mary, but that Jesus had two natures before his incarnation; An "eternal" divine nature (which is true), and another nature that you call a "temporal" nature (which is not true). You then suggest that this "temporal" nature changed into his human nature at the incarnation.

Quote me.

Now I believe the Son of God only became human in the incarnation. That the Son of God has two natures, an eternal one, and temporal one. His human nature was a change in His temporal nature. And as the resurrected, now immortal man, He is "the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." temporal but not temporary. He was always also eternal, and that never changed.

I believe the Son of God was always both eternal and temporal being God's temporal agent.

Not when I was explicit that was before the incarnation that the Logos always had two natures. Prior to the incarnation the Logos was nevertheless in the form of God. His eternal nature never changed. In His temporal nature, in which He as God created heaven and earth (John 1:3). Creation is a temporal act of God. He being the only begotten became human (John 1:14) is a temporal act. When He being the LORD God walked in the garden of Eden, that was a temporal act before His incarnation. He the Logos is the Uncaused Cause. Uncaused being eternal, being a cause it being temporal. Uncaused Cause is to have two natures. Eternal is a differnet nature than being temporal. He was both. Understand? His incarnation becoming human now forever, does not change this either. Since only how his temporal nature was, it only needed to change, and that is being temporal in nature, in that, is not a change. How He was temporal changed. How He was "with God" changed. That He "was God" never changed.

Give the holy scripture.

Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

Hebrews 2:14-17 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

[One Bad Pig]

"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." -- 2 John 9.

Sure.

In my view all three are the one Yehwah.

Sure.

All three are the One uncaused.

Not possible. If all three were uncaused, there would be three Gods, not one.

Only the Son is the uncaused cause.

This makes absolutely no sense (and is contradictory to your last assertion, to boot).

[One Bad Pig]

"The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. . . ." -- Proverbs 8:22.
The LORD meaning Yehwah. The Son is Yehwah who possessed all things.

This was a favorite Arian proof-text (granted, the LXX reads "The LORD created me in the beginning of his way...").

[JonathanL]

I did. You seem not to what to acknowledge it.

Huh?

The Son of God is the Yehwah of the OT.

Your refusal to connect Jesus with God's Wisdom seems to be connected with your belief that YHWH in the OT always denote the Son. Do you have any reasons for this claim? While I do not deny that YHWH sometimes refer to the Son, there are instances where it undeniably refers to the Father, such as Psa 2:7 and 110:1

[37818]

Huh?

I had typed "what" for the word "want."

Your refusal to connect Jesus with God's Wisdom seems to be connected with your belief that YHWH in the OT always denote the Son. Do you have any reasons for this claim? While I do not deny that YHWH sometimes refer to the Son, there are instances where it undeniably refers to the Father, such as Psa 2:7 and 110:1

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." -- John 1:18.
All appeances of God is the Son.
"Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts." -- Isaiah 6:5.
". . . shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed." -- Isaiah 6:10.
". . .These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him." -- John 12:41.

[JonathanL]

I had typed "what" for the word "want."

Thank you for the clarification.

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." -- John 1:18.
All appeances of God is the Son.
"Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts." -- Isaiah 6:5.
". . . shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed." -- Isaiah 6:10.
". . .These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him." -- John 12:41.

All appearances of God/YHWH in the OT might be of the Son (and I would be inclined to agree with you on that), but that does not mean that all references/mentions of YHWH/God in the OT is of the Son. Proverbs 8:22 is not an appearance of the LORD, but rather a reference, which means that you cannot use the fact that no one has seen the Father to argue that it couldn't possibly refer to Him.