Christology thread

Could you back that up with scripture?

You people worship a being which claimed to be both God and Man

Why are you over complicating it?

Well, sure, Scripture says the Word *became* flesh, what part of this isn't clearly indicated by that?

>seperate
>ziggerates (from another thread)
Veeky Forums is falling to ever new depths.

It's part of the Extended Universe fanfiction series.

Exactly, this is about the consequences of Christ's incarnation, that's where the argument begins, it doesn't imply any position.

Oh, and as for Christ having a human mind and soul, that's very manifest when says stuff like, "I don't know, only the Father does," etc.

It firmly rules out Doceticism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism and Apolloniarism, for starters.

>Nestorianism, Eutychianism
It rules out neither, both assumes this

The natures are not separate, but they are distinct and united in the person of Christ.

The Communication of Attributes also occurs though it is the human nature getting deified, following the context of deification where the deification of the human nature of Christ enables the deification of humanity

No, Nestorianism is incompatible with Theopaschism (since it states that while Christ's humanity and divinity shared one hypostasis, what happened to his humanity didn't happen to his divinity)..

Eutychianism isn't compatible with Christ being ignorant of things God knows, since it precludes Christ's human mind.

>millions of people died in pointless wars over trivial nitpicks like this

Why is Christianity a literal inversion of basic human dignity?

Eutychianism has Christ having a new nature, a combination of human and divine

the religion's just there to help people sleep at night. it doesn't actually make them less shitty to one another. god's true followers have waged war against god's true followers so mny fucking times now that it's staggering to me that anyone still buys all this nonsense

>trivial
It could be the difference between heaven and hell

It says Christ is cosubstantial with God, but not cosubstantial with man. The new nature has only a divine substance, in other words, meaning it "swallows up" the humanity, though the divinity remains.

No divine and universal would possibly give a shit about something so tedious.
This is clearly something that autistic monks waste their lives "figuring out" to feel superior.

It's not important in itself, but because it has Soteriological implications, like Theopaschism and Communicatio idiomatum

Wrong
It does not involve the destruction of his human nature, but it's fusion with his divine, resulting in a new nature neither human nor divine

It involves the destruction of the human ousia, though

"Nature" (physis) just means the properties of a hypostasis.

I am aware

Well Eutyches wasn't anathematized for the semantics of his Christology, he was anathematized because of how he said it worked, which was the dissolving of the human ousia.

Dissolving the same way a pill does in water

Right, but according to him, that made it so Christ was not cosubstantial with humanity, just God.

Correct. Now please debunk it, using scripture alone.

Scripture shows that Christ had a human essence because he displays lack of omniscience at times.

Again, the view has both human and divine traits
You actually seem pretty Nestorian

Cyril doesn't agree. Although that said, Christ does however due to human nature feels pain, hunger and so on

Felt pain, hunger and so on*
Christ's divine form does not

Natures don't feel things...it is the Logos that felt that.

Of course such isn't of the Divine Nature but the Human, which are experienced by the Divine person

Nestorianism rejects Mary being the Theotokos, as well as Theopaschism,

You haven't read Saint Cyril, he was an ardent Theopaschist. See his Twelve Anathemas

Yes the Logos felt that because of his human nature, which he no longer feels because of his divine nature.

Whenever a passage implying ignorance pops out that he discusses about, he doesn't seem to say Jesus doesn't know

Do you have any Scripture to back that up?

What do you mean?

God cannot feel pain or hunger because these are the consequences of original sin
Christ is no longer in human form, ergo he no longer suffers the consequences of humanity

Jesus's hypostasis knew, his human mind didn't. So Jesus as a person knew, but he also knew the limitations of his human mind simultaneously. You can see something similar when he says to God, be it not his will (or desire), but the Father's.

Hence, Christ as subject (hypostasis) had the sole will and knowledge as the Father, but he also experienced human desire and knowledge, though it shared with his divinity a oneness of purpose.

>God cannot feel pain or hunger because these are the consequences of original sin
So are you saying that the Word is not God, or rather that the Word did not suffer?

>Christ is no longer in human form
His Resurrection was bodily, and in bodily form he was assumed into heaven, so....

So he discarded the humanity he made as his own?

Ok...I guess this is where the two wills come in, am I correct to say this?

>TFW no theologian gf ;___;

The Word is God and the Word did suffer, but the Word did this in it's human form.

Difference form, same God.

Are you a Calvinist?

Yes, his resurrection was bodily, but the flesh was changed by death.
Why?

>Ok...I guess this is where the two wills come in, am I correct to say this?
Yes, but the will shared a oneness (the differences between "sole" and "one" is immensely important in Christian theology).

>TFW no theologian gf ;___;
Are you that K-Pop fan who kept pestering me?

Wtf do Calvinists even believe in that?

I know some like Sproul do flirt around with Nestorianism

>Yes, his resurrection was bodily, but the flesh was changed by death.
So? It didn't destroy his humanity. If it did, then the Resurrection promised to Christians would destroy their humanity, and since they don't have a divine nature as Christ does, well then they're done

>Why?
Because Reformed theology is the only Christian theology that rejects Theopaschism

Wait...you are that smart Reformed user?

I only brought that out since it sound quite similar to Maximus' Dyothelitism

That was a major difference Calvin and Luther had, yeah

No, I'm Constantine

Christ is the syzygy of Sophia, the divine plasmate established to overthrow her aborted son Yaldabaoth Samael's control over the material world.

OP you have to really understand that to have decent discussions on this matter you need to set out your criteria for validity.

Do you want these questions answered by logic?
Oral tradition?
Biblical reference?
Revelation?

I know the truth :3

I do know that the Reformed would charge the Lutherans as being nestorian due to differences over Eucharistic theology.

>So? It didn't destroy his humanity. If it did, then the Resurrection promised to Christians would destroy their humanity, and since they don't have a divine nature as Christ does, well then they're done
Ours is not a bodily resurrection

>Because Reformed theology is the only Christian theology that rejects Theopaschism
Yes, i am Calvinist.

Regular human body (except for wherever his Y chromosome came from), happened to have the Son/Word/Logos instead of a regular human soul.

>I do know that the Reformed would charge the Lutherans as being nestorian due to differences over Eucharistic theology.
Uhh, i think you have that backwards.

Wtf I thought the Resurrection of the body is believed even by the Calvinists

>I do know that the Reformed would charge the Lutherans as being nestorian due to differences over Eucharistic theology.
Since Calvin denied Theopaschism, I'd say he was the more Nestorian, even though both denied Mary as Theotokos

>Ours is not a bodily resurrection
So you reject 1 Corinthians 15:43?

It was the opposite?

I thought Calvin and Luther both accepted that Mary is Theotokos.

The Early Reformers had quite a high Mariology. Luther's arguably more higher than Calvin's

> natures are only distinct conceptually, not concretely, and he may be said to have one nature where nature is used to mean an extension of hypostasis

Can someone expand on this/ provide examples?

>I thought Calvin and Luther both accepted that Mary is Theotokos.
Not in the Patristic sense of the term. The term for their view in ancient times would have been that Mary is the Christokos.

"Nature", in Christian theologies, means the properties of a hypostasis. Christ had one hypostasis, so it makes sense to say he had one nature, but that nature included both human and divine properties, and it makes sense to say two natures in that sense.

This tbqh.

I'm not even trying to piss off any Christians but if he wasn't God, the son of God, or at least a prophet, then his only accomplishments were being insane and dying.

And being the most influential thinker in Western history.

Explain more :3

>So you reject 1 Corinthians 15:43?
Nice cherrypick, read the next verse
>both denied Mary as Theotokos
Luther called her Mother of God
I don't see many corpses floating to heaven, do you?
Yes
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_calvinisticum

Betting nailed to a tree and starting something of a philosophical and religious revolution.

Besides, "insane" is relative to culture. Plenty of people thought they were prophets in those days, Jesus was just the most famous.

Monophysitism

Dichotomizing "bearing" from "mothering" in ancient times would have made about as much as sense in ancient times as dichotomizing "begetting" and "fathering". "Theotokos" was very much synonymous with "Mother of God", and still is in Orthodox theology. "Christokos" was title used by those who denied Mary was the Mother of God, though acknowledging she was the Mother of Christ's humanity.

That's because the Resurrection of the body is more of a future thing that will happen.

Also, the whole extra calvinisticum kinda contradicts Cyril

Augustine's Eucharistic theology is also still akin to the Lutherans though much more spiritualized

But can you break down the whole somehting having to distinct properties but only conceptial not concrete?

>. Christ had one hypostasis, so it makes sense to say he had one nature, but that nature included both human and divine properties, and it makes sense to say two natures in that sense.

Is that something that is derived by faith? Because that doesnt seem to make much sense without coming to heritical conclusions.

>Nice cherrypick, read the next verse
What about it? "Natural" here is not a translation of φυσιkόν, it's a translation of ψυχιkόν. It's literally "soulful" in Greek, that just sounds weird in English so they don't translate it that way; it doesn't mean "corporeal" or "material", the most materialist way it can be used is to mean breath (but "spirit" can also be used to mean that, as well as to mean wind).

Hes not Plato

But seriously Jesus importance was more in his inspiration of others, there isnt really anything profound or well argued in his teachings and they literally rely on authority alone for their validity.

Theotokos is (while technically true) extraordinarily misleading, it leads to heresy like Eutychianism
Christokos is much more accurate.
>That's because the Resurrection of the body is more of a future thing that will happen.
For what purpose, when the saved dead are already alive in and with Christ?

>It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
Clearly a distinction is being made between natural and spiritual.

"Mono" is a prefix that means "sole" or "alone" (like, "Man shall not live on bread alone").It's often used to mean Christ had either humanity or divinity alone, which is why Copts prefer miaphysite ("mia" is a prefix for "one").

Wow...we really have a Nestorian here and a person who denied the Nicene Creed

I heard that "Mia" can also mean "unity"

Mono in this context means "one"
In what way have i denied the creed?

The Creed explicitly states that the Christian professes the belief in the Resurrection of the Body

...of christ

Read it again anglicansonline.org/basics/nicene.html

Is this what you're talking about?
>We look for the resurrection of the dead
This says nothing of bodily resurrection.

That is the resurrection of the body

No it's the resurrection of the soul through Jesus Christ

Tell that to 2nd century apologist Justin Martyr

His hypostasis had both divine and human properties, but since "nature" is used to mean "the properties of a particular hypostasis", the division is just conception; two natures concretely would imply two hypostases. So we can particularize, say, a human body or soul (but these are also God's body and soul, being that they are the body and soul of the hypostasis), but when we say "two natures", that's purely conceptional, or at least can't be anything but insofar as nature is used to mean "the properties of a particular hypostasis".

Right, but you're assuming "natural" (which is, again, not a translation of the Greek word for natural, but a translation of the Greek word for soulful) means "material". The term being translated doesn't mean that at all, it just means the lower-level lifeforce (like that which animates animals) as opposed to the higher-level lifeforce. It's a question of what animates the body.

>Mono in this context means "one"
Doesn't actually mean that in Christology or just plain Greek, it means "solitary". It's a very different term from that Christ uses, for instance, when he says, "I and my Father are one," or "all of them may be one." It is the term used when Christ says, for instance, "Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him ONLY shalt thou serve."

No one considers him a Church Father. He's held as a saint and a martyr, but not as a reliable authority on theology, especially since he was overly-concerned with reconciling pagan philosophy and Christianity.

Damnit not you again
Begone, you shitposting retard