Confusion re Statement of Faith

[francisdesales]

The church does not create, provide, invent, originate etc., the truth, rather the church supports the truth, is the pillar and ground of the truth, I Tim.3:15.

:amen

(no papist will like hanging around you my brother!)

Which "papist" makes that claim, my fine red herring friends?

I see you are at your games of sophistry again...

 

[Anth]

I'm not quite sure if there is any conspiracy to eliminate the MAN Jesus Christ because I presume that classical Christian doctrine or orthodoxy affirms that Jesus Christ is truly or fully man, truly or fully God.

Stranger - Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

I provide you a critical snippet from Schaff's Church history. Here you will find that the blatent denial of the man Christ Jesus and what I believe is a blasphemous substitution of a "human nature" embedded with the Logos.

The simple question to ask is "if there is one person in two natures - who is missing" Yup, you guessed - the human person - the real human ego/consciousness/I - the man Christ Jesus - that which is essential to who you and I are.

Anytime someone mentions this (most people don't have a clue what they are saying) simply ask them - what did you do to the man Christ Jesus - where is the human person - the man???

Jesus knew what He was - Jn 8:40, Paul likewise - ITim2:5, etc., etc.

Hope this helps,
Best,
Anth


http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.xii.xxvi.html

“History of the Christian Churchâ€Â, Philip Schaff, Vol III, p.757

7. 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. The impersonality of Christ’s human nature, however, is not to be taken as absolute, but relative, as the following considerations will show.
The centre of personal life in the God-Man resides unquestionably in the Logos, who was from eternity the second person in the Godhead, and could not lose his personality. He united himself, as has been already observed, not with a human person, but with human nature. The divine nature is therefore the root and basis of the personality of Christ. Christ himself, moreover, always speaks and acts in the full consciousness of his divine origin and character; as having come from the Father, having been sent by him, and, even during his earthly life, living in heaven and in unbroken communion with the Father.1653 And the human nature of Christ had no independent personality of its own, besides the divine; it had no existence at all before the incarnation, but began with this act, and was so incorporated with the preexistent Logos-personality as to find in this alone its own full self-consciousness, and to be permeated and controlled by it in every stage of its development. But the human nature forms a necessary element in the divine personality, and in this sense we may say with the older Protestant theologians, that Christ is a persona suvnqeto", which was divine and human at once.1654
Thus interpreted, the church doctrine of the enhypostasia presents no very great metaphysical or psychological difficulty. It is true we cannot, according to our modern way of thinking, conceive a complete human nature without personality. We make personality itself consist in intelligence and free will, so that without it the nature sinks to a mere abstraction of powers, qualities, and functions.1655 But the human nature of Jesus never was, in fact, alone; it was from the beginning inseparably united with another nature, which is personal, and which assumed the human into a unity of life with itself. The Logos-personality is in this case the light of self-consciousness, and the impelling power of will, and pervades as well the human nature as the divine.1656

 

[stranger]

Anth,

Thanks for your post. Call our discussion: ‘Where is the missing (human) person of Christ in the Trinity?’ The question assumes that the definition ‘one person two natures’ eliminates the human person called the MAN Jesus Christ. Is this ok?

Firstly a question about the MAN Jesus Christ:

Do you see any essential distinction between (the human body of) the MAN Jesus Christ AND the glorified MAN Jesus Christ?

blessings

 

[Anth]

Stranger,

I sure appreciate your positive interaction. In light of you and I continuing and the fact that you are thoughtfully reflecting - I will try to do the same - I will start a new thread with something like your suggested title. I want to keep this thread in the vein of where I started it. However, I am quite overwhelmed - please give me a few days.

Best,
Anth