What does it "REALLY" mean that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?

[Mattathias]

Just to be clear Jesus Christ is a human person.

We are agreed on that point: Jesus Christ is a human person.

As I have documented, historical orthodox trinitarianism teaches us that Jesus is not a human person. He is fully human, even a human being, man, but not a human person. His human nature is impersonal.

Please explain to us all here in what respect is He not a human person?

See the Council of Chalcedon. See Church history. See again the quotes from Trinitarian scholars, both Catholic and Protestant, I provided in this thread.

I‘ve said a number of times, and in various ways, that Jesus is presented in scripture as a human person.

Is it still unclear to you that, while I presented the position of historical orthodox trinitarian Christianity [“Jesus is only one person, a divine person, not a human person”] in response to your comment [“Jesus was God who became a human person”], I disagree with the position of historical orthodox trinitarian Christianity and disagree with your unorthodox presentation on the incarnation?

And another thing, I ask you in one of my post why did Jesus bring up Psalm 82:6 at John 10:30-38? What do you think the point He was making to the Jews?

I responded to your question in the thread which lead to you starting this thread. Remember?

Btw, I have every word Dr.Martin said. In written form, every tape and now cd his teachings and also numerous VHS tapes of his debates. He did debate Father Paqua regardinc Catholic teaching.

Then you should know that he was in agreement with the decision reached by the Council of Chalcedon - Jesus is a divine person, not a human person.

I was taught this in the Baptist Church. (Though in a special class, not from the pulpit. - That’s my complaint against the trinitarian clergy.) My wife was taught this in the Roman Catholic Church (and in the Catholic school system she was educated in.) I was taught this in college by a trinitarian professor. Church history teaches this.

 

[bluto]

We are agreed on that point: Jesus Christ is a human person.

As I have documented, historical orthodox trinitarianism teaches us that Jesus is not a human person. He is fully human, even a human being, man, but not a human person. His human nature is impersonal.



See the Council of Chalcedon. See Church history. See again the quotes from Trinitarian scholars, both Catholic and Protestant, I provided in this thread.

I‘ve said a number of times, and in various ways, that Jesus is presented in scripture as a human person.

Is it still unclear to you that, while I presented the position of historical orthodox trinitarian Christianity [“Jesus is only one person, a divine person, not a human person”] in response to your comment [“Jesus was God who became a human person”], I disagree with the position of historical orthodox trinitarian Christianity and disagree with your unorthodox presentation on the incarnation?



I responded to your question in the thread which lead to you starting this thread. Remember?



Then you should know that he was in agreement with the decision reached by the Council of Chalcedon - Jesus is a divine person, not a human person.

I was taught this in the Baptist Church. (Though in a special class, not from the pulpit. - That’s my complaint against the trinitarian clergy.) My wife was taught this in the Roman Catholic Church (and in the Catholic school system she was educated in.) I was taught this in college by a trinitarian professor. Church history teaches this.

When I said Jesus is a human person I mean it in the sense that Jesus became s human being. The words are synomous. Besides, it's a iniversal law that a son shares the same nature as his father. There was a reason Jesus often refered to Himself as the "Son of man" and the "Son of God." Man on His mothers side and Deity on His Fathers side. Two natures in the one person of Jesus Christ.

IN GOD THE SON,
bluto

 

[Mattathias]

Why the change?

Thank you for asking. It’s a long story. I’ll try to be brief.

It was impressed on me early in life by my Sunday School teacher that we should listen to Jesus, believe what he said, and obey him. This same dear man gave a lesson on loving our enemies. Whatever else he taught us, these are the two things which I took to heart and remember over 50 years later.

I am a pacifist. I’ve never believed that killing my enemies is loving my enemies. I don’t believe Jesus is pleased with Christians killing non-Christians, nor with Christians killing Christians. The Baptist Church tolerates pacifists but doesn’t preach pacifism. As the years passed I sought out historical documentation on pacifism, particularly documentation from Christian sources. It was during that effort that I learned about the Anabaptists. They were persecuted by Catholics and Protestants for their beliefs.

Anabaptists have a trinitarian line and a unitarian line. (For the unitarian line, see the Radical Reformation). I was no longer welcome in the Baptist Church after I came to believe that the God of Jesus (the Father alone) is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Those are the major issues which lead to me moving from Baptist to Anabaptist.

 

[Mattathias]

When I said Jesus is a human person I mean it in the sense that Jesus became s human being. The words are synomous.

The point is that the words are not synonymous in the religious terminology of historical orthodox trinitarianism.

When I say “Jesus is a human person” I am saying “Jesus is a human being.”

When historical orthodox trinitarianism says “Jesus is a human being” it is not saying “Jesus is a human person.” This is made clear in the statements of their scholars - “Jesus is not a human person.”

 

[Dino246]

Like the Spirit of Christ who dwells in these earthen bodies of death? Call no man on earth teacher one is our father not seen

Blah blah blah. You need help.

Prove that the three do not make up the very essence of God.

I have no need to prove what I have not asserted.

 

[fredoheaven]

I’d like to respond to the OP by establishing the historical orthodox trinitarian belief of the two natures of Jesus, quoting from two trinitarian sources. I may later introduce additional quotes from trinitarian sources in my defense of trinitarianism.

“The anhypostasia, impersonality, or, to speak more accurately, the enhypostasia, of the human nature of Christ - This is a difficult point, but a necessary link in the orthodox doctrine of the one God-Man; for otherwise we must have two persons in Christ, and, after the incarnation, a fourth person, and that a human, in the divine Trinity.“

(Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church)

”The orthodox doctrine of the incarnation promulgated at the Council of Chalcedon is emphatic that in the incarnate Christ there is one and only one, undivided person who has two distinct natures, one human and one divine. That one person is the second person of the Trinity, the Son, and is therefore divine. He is not a human person... There is only one person who is Christ, and that person is divine. Thus, there is no human person named ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’ Jesus is a divine person, and medieval theologians were careful never to refer to Jesus as a human person.”

(William Lane Craig, “Is Worship of Jesus Idolatry?”)

https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-book-blog/2015/is-worship-of-jesus-idolatry

There is no human person named ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’”

So where is the scripture? That's putting yourself in a bad light...

 

[Mattathias]

The point is that the words are not synonymous in the religious terminology of historical orthodox trinitarianism.

When I say “Jesus is a human person” I am saying “Jesus is a human being.”

When historical orthodox trinitarianism says “Jesus is a human being” it is not saying “Jesus is a human person.” This is made clear in the statements of their scholars - “Jesus is not a human person.”

If you can bear it, here is one more article (and my intention is to make it the final one) addressing the uncommon way language is used in discussing the doctrine. From the National Catholic Register, in an article titled “Is Jesus a Human Person?: Fully God and fully man, yes. A person with a human nature, yes. A human person?”

”If your eyes are glazing over reading that, here’s a non-technical shorthand version: However we understand or explain what is one in the God-Man Jesus, it must be understood as being divine - not human. And, historically, the Church has used ‘person’ for precisely what is one in Jesus - as well as what is three in God.

Therefore, the ‘person’ in Jesus is divine, not human....

In other words, the objection to the incarnation is that God’s perfection excludes the possibility of change, and if he can’t change, he can’t ‘become‘ a man. The answer to the objection is that God assumes human nature to the divine Person of the Word without any change taking place in the Word. He took to himself a human nature, but the change was entirely on the human side, not on the divine side...

I can understand people’s eyes glazing over all this theological hair-splitting - not that anyone ever accused patristic or scholastic theologians of being averse to hair-splitting. I can understand my combox interlocutor feeling that if a Person with a divine nature is a ‘divine Person,” then a Person with a human nature (even if he also has a divine nature) is a ‘human person’ (or ‘human Person’).

This, though, is not the way Catholic thought has historically expressed itself, and with good reason.”

https://www.ncregister.com/blog/steven-greydanus/is-jesus-a-human-person

The same may be said - in fact, is said - by Protestant scholars and theologians about how Protestant thought has historically expressed itself.

So why does Joe Average Trinitarian (JAT) not know this? Why does JAT recoil when confronted with it?

JAT, typically, hasn’t studied Church history, and doesn’t read/listen to his scholars and theologians. It’s not what JAT sees when he reads scripture. And finally, JAT doesn’t hear it preached from the pulpit.

I have many friends, relatives and acquaintances who are trinitarian clergymen. When I’ve asked them why they don’t preach it from the pulpit I commonly receive two responses: (1) It’s too complicated; and 2. That’s not what the congregation wants us to preach about.

 

[Mattathias]

So where is the scripture?

The scripture which trinitarians believe supports the two natures of Christ teaching is contained in one of the links I provided.

That's putting yourself in a bad light...

I’m a former trinitarian. Ex, if you prefer. When I discuss theology with my trinitarian friends, family, students and acquaintances it’s important to have a clear understanding established about what historical orthodox trinitarianism teaches.

I appreciate your feedback. Why do you think what I’ve written is putting myself in a bad light? Is it simply because the scripture was liked rather than posted? Is it something else?

 

[Mattathias]

So where is the scripture? That's putting yourself in a bad light...

I’d like to ask you two questions:

1. Are you a trinitarian?; and
2. If you are, have you ever heard a sermon preached in any trinitarian church you’ve attended where the subject was, or included the phrase, “Jesus is not a human person”?

 

[fredoheaven]

“The orthodox doctrine of the incarnation, promulgated at the Council of Chalcedon is emphatic that in the incarnate Christ there is one and only one, undivided person who has two distinct natures, one human and one divine. That one person is the second person of the Trinity, the Son, and is therefore divine. He is not a human person...” - William Lane Craig

Dr. Craig is doing nothing more than telling his readers what the Church decided was orthodox (i.e. right, correct, true) belief. He’s giving us a (Church) history lesson.

Do you hear this preached from the pulpit? Not likely.

Dr. Craig is only a human and messing something. Christ has two natures, human and divine. I see it your views on the technical side, and Christ as the Son in its pre-incarnate could be said not a human person and that I would think that is the difference. What he misses is the incarnate Son which is the unity of the divine and human hence Christ is fully God and fully man.

 

[fredoheaven]

I’d like to ask you two questions:

1. Are you a trinitarian?; and
2. If you are, have you ever heard a sermon preached in any trinitarian church you’ve attended where the subject was, or included the phrase, “Jesus is not a human person”?

Jesus is a human name

 

[Lafftur]

”The Baptist Faith and Message is a clear, strong voice for the essential doctrines for which the ancient church contended at Nicaea and Chalcedon...”

I was raised a Baptist. I am now an Anabaptist.

Oh no, another LABEL! I never heard of "Anabaptist" apparently it's been around for a long time. Ughhhhh....

Can't we all just say, I am of CHRIST - One Spirit, One Baptism, One Body, One God, One Savior, One Lord, One King.......WHY so many different labels that serve only to divide us??????

I am now of Christ ALONE. Amen!

 

[fredoheaven]

Oh no, another LABEL! I never heard of "Anabaptist" apparently it's been around for a long time. Ughhhhh....

Can't we all just say, I am of CHRIST - One Spirit, One Baptism, One Body, One God, One Savior, One Lord, One King.......WHY so many different labels that serve only to divide us??????

I am now of Christ ALONE. Amen!

Drop Ana and there we have have it the Baptist, but it's good to say I am of Christ. Amen!

 

[Mattathias]

Dr. Craig is only a human and messing something. Christ has two natures, human and divine. I see it your views on the technical side, and Christ as the Son in its pre-incarnate could be said not a human person and that I would think that is the difference. What he misses is the incarnate Son which is the unity of the divine and human hence Christ is fully God and fully man.

He doesn’t miss it, fred. Neither does historical orthodox trinitarianism, be it Protestant or Catholic. They would all agree with you that the pre-Incarnate Jesus is a divine person, the second person of the Trinity, not a human person. That’s the easy part to understand in the two natures of Christ doctrine.

The difficulty of the doctrine is the second part - human nature. They acknowledge that it’s logical that a person with human nature is a human person. The doctrine, however, teaches us that the divine person did not become a human person; the human nature assumed by the divine person - who cannot change - is impersonal. That is why trinitarianism has historically said that Jesus is only one person, a divine person, not a human person.

 

[Mattathias]

Oh no, another LABEL! I never heard of "Anabaptist" apparently it's been around for a long time. Ughhhhh....

Can't we all just say, I am of CHRIST - One Spirit, One Baptism, One Body, One God, One Savior, One Lord, One King.......WHY so many different labels that serve only to divide us??????

I am now of Christ ALONE. Amen!

Yes, but we don’t. Why? The answer to that question is found in Church history.

Hypothetical. You’re sitting next to a person at church this week who enthusiastically says exactly what you just said. At the conclusion of the service, you rise to leave and the person next to you says, “Wasn’t that a splendid sermon? All praise, glory and honor to our God, all nine persons!”

What would your reaction be? How would you respond to that person?

 

[Mattathias]

Jesus is a human name

Agreed.

I’ll hazard a guess. Please correct me if I guessed incorrectly.

You are a trinitarian and you’ve never heard a sermon on the subject “Jesus is not a human person”, nor have you ever heard that phrase used in a sermon.

 

[Mattathias]

Drop Ana and there we have have it the Baptist...

Do you know why the “Ana” is there? It comes from a belief in adult baptism. Adults who were baptized as infants or children chose to be re-baptized once they obtained an intelligent understanding of the gospel.

What message does that send to Catholics and Protestants? That message caused the Catholics and the Protestants to despise the Anabaptists, to persecute them, to banish them, to torment them, to torture them, to kill them. Being pacifists, they were easy prey for their zealous enemies to abuse. Many of their stories are preserved in Martyrs Mirror. You can read it online at no cost. http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/

…but it's good to say I am of Christ. Amen!

Indeed.

 

[Lafftur]

Yes, but we don’t. Why? The answer to that question is found in Church history.

Hypothetical. You’re sitting next to a person at church this week who enthusiastically says exactly what you just said. At the conclusion of the service, you rise to leave and the person next to you says, “Wasn’t that a splendid sermon? All praise, glory and honor to our God, all nine persons!”

What would your reaction be? How would you respond to that person?

Our divisions is not because of Church history, it's because of our human reasoning in our flesh because we're not fully matured in Christ, knowing how to be continually be filled with the Holy Spirit and rightly dividing the Word of God......understanding correctly.

In response to your hypothetical.........who cares what I think?!

What would be God's reaction? How would God respond to that person?

Where's our focus? Building walls or finding our place in the Body of Christ.....some an eye, some a hand, some are feet......all members of the same body only different in function but not in beliefs - Mind of Christ and Holy Spirit focused on the Father's Will.

 

[Mattathias]

Our divisions is not because of Church history, it's because of our human reasoning in our flesh because we're not fully matured in Christ, knowing how to be continually be filled with the Holy Spirit and rightly dividing the Word of God......understanding correctly.

In response to your hypothetical.........who cares what I think?!

What would be God's reaction? How would God respond to that person?

Where's our focus? Building walls or finding our place in the Body of Christ.....some an eye, some a hand, some are feet......all members of the same body only different in function but not in beliefs - Mind of Christ and Holy Spirit focused on the Father's Will.

I care what you think. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t have asked.

In the hypothetical, my spirit would be grieved. I couldn’t smile, say nothing and walk away with a clear conscience. I would gently and lovingly attempt to help my brother.

 

[Lafftur]

I care what you think. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t have asked.

In the hypothetical, my spirit would be grieved. I couldn’t smile, say nothing and walk away with a clear conscience. I would gently and lovingly attempt to help my brother.

Thank you for your sweet reply, you're very kind.

What I meant was that what REALLY matters is what God thinks.....I need to ask Him what He thinks.....not myself. lol!