Sarassin:


Straight from the desk of S. Michael Houdmann, Christianity dumbed down for the incredibly daft. This doctrine of the “Hypostatic Union” is hogwash and is merely the latest in a long litany of erroneous teachings from the stable of this fellow. Christianity should take care that it does not go the way of others long gone.

The gods of Egypt shrugged off their burden of stones and fled to the Nubian desert, to be free among those who are still free from knowing.

The gods of Greece and Rome vanished into their own sunset. Having become too much like men and imbibing of the ecstasy of Man. The groves in which their divinity was born long cut down by the axes of the Greeks and the Romans and turned into luxury high-rises.

Roman Emperors taught us the blindingly obvious that no one conceived of a woman can be God.

Wrong. Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and not by Mary (Luke 1:35).

TopsyKrete:


It is written, "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God" (John 1:1).
John 1:2 could be rewrite like this "in the beginning was God, and God was with the Word, and God was the Word"

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Word of God?

Yes.

CAPTIVATOR:


This guy makes God Justice stupid .......... Adam that sinned is a perferct human , so if Jesus Is A God-man then the ransom has not been paid (inequality), So All humans are still in their sins !!! Is jesus a God -man ?? Here what his apostles have to say " for there is one God, and one mediator between God and man, a man,Christ Jesus" 1tim 2:5 ! A Man , That Scripture Says A Man, infact it calls him an intercessor btw God and man, a man !!! Once again, i have to remind u that we humans are made a little lower than angels as written in psalm 8:5,6 , what about Jesus ?? Here is it Jesus " was made a little lower than the angels" heb 2:9 !! Can u see dat ! How can a God - man be lower than angels ?? Is it not written in psalms 8:4-6 that humans are those lower than angels!! @ op ... U need to sit down and meditate and stop all dis copy and paste of urs

Jesus is fully divine and fully human.

simplex2:


Still didn't answer me question: when Jesus was at the cross, who did he pray to in heaven saying 'father, why hath thou forsaken me?'

You already answered your question in the bolded above.

[quote author=CAPTIVATOR post=28103977]

This guy makes God Justice stupid .......... Adam that sinned is a perfect human , so if Jesus Is A God-man then the ransom has not been paid (inequality at its peak), So All humans are still in their sins !!!

Is jesus a God -man ?? Here what his apostles have to say " for there is one God, and one mediator between God and man, A MAN,Christ Jesus" 1tim 2:5 ! A Man , That Scripture Says "A Man" , infact it calls him an intercessor btw God and man, a man !!!

Once again, i have to remind u that we humans are made a little lower than angels as written in psalm 8:5,6 , what about Jesus ?? Here is it Jesus " was made a little lower than the angels" HEB 2:9 !! Can u see dat ! How can a God - man be lower than angels ??

Is it not written in PSALMS 8:4-6 that humans are those lower than angels!! @ op ... U need to sit down and meditate and stop dis ur copy and paste

OLAADEGBU:


What are confused about?

Does this your post even make sense to you?

Abeg I dont want to argue with you this evening..my battery saver just told me..."Take a rest and save your eyes"

johnydon22:


oh am sorry if i stepped on ur toes... but this thread is one out of many that potrays the confusion in christianity... why are y'all still debating if Jesus is God or not

Are you asking a question instead of answering the question of the OP?

OLAADEGBU:


Are you asking a question instead of answering the question of the OP?

lmao... na talk i talk oo no be question...

johnydon22:


lmao... na talk i talk oo no be question...

Can you explain why you think the thread portrays confusion in Christianity?

OLAADEGBU:


Can you explain why you think the thread portrays confusion in Christianity?

This man, you even dey online sef. You nor see questions dey wait you on top your Book of Enoch thread. Please go and stand up for your claims.

PastorAIO:


This man, you even dey online sef. You nor see questions dey wait you on top your Book of Enoch thread. Please go and stand up for your claims.

Those questions have been answered.

OLAADEGBU:


Those questions have been answered.

No they haven't, you LIAR! You too dey lie, you dis man. You nor fear to even lie on top God's head. Nothing you cannot lie about. twisting and turning and avoiding questions like a writhing slippery serpent. You head will soon be crushed.

PastorAIO:


No they haven't, you LIAR! You too dey lie, you dis man. You nor fear to even lie on top God's head. Nothing you cannot lie about. twisting and turning and avoiding questions like a writhing slippery serpent. You head will soon be crushed.

Prove that I'm a liar or forever hold your peace.

OLAADEGBU:


Prove that I'm a liar or forever hold your peace.

OLAADEGBU:


Below is a link for your perusal as to the inaccuracies of the book of Enoch and why it cannot be considered to be God breathed. When you are done reading this I will then give you the measuring stick by which the inspired Word of God is ascertained.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/book_of_enoch.htm

PastorAIO:


Ola, the questions are piling up o. Please don't leave us hanging. remember your promise, Keep it and let the devil be ashamed.


Let me list out the questions thus far:

1)What are the criteria that we can apply to any text to find out if it is God breathed or not?

2)What does the book of Enoch say that is historically inaccurate?

3)How do you know that Enoch is historically inaccurate and would you apply that criteria to other books in the bible?

4)For FemideJulius: When the bible was being compiled How were the inspired books distinguished from the uninspired books?

After the mendacious promises we then get this:

OLAADEGBU:


I remember giving you the answer to your question sometime ago, which you either read or pretended ignorant. Go back to the answer I gave you.

OLAADEGBU:


I already answered your question. If you haven't forgotten asking me this same question before you will remember my answer.

See lies!! Even if you gave the answer before why did you promise to answer it again when you knew that you would/could not?

You never ever answered these questions, not after they were asked and never before as you later claimed. In fact this is how I ended discussing that with you:

PastorAIO:



Let me list the questions for you again:



1)What are the criteria that we can apply to any text to find out if it is God breathed or not?

2)What does the book of Enoch say that is historically inaccurate?

3)How do you know that Enoch is historically inaccurate and would you apply that criteria to other books in the bible?

[size=14pt]
Now, you lying little vermin, where did you answer any of these questions. The only thread that I was on of those links that you put up is the first one and you didn't answer any question I asked you then. In fact this was my last comment at the end of the page:[/size]


https://www.nairaland.com/1795370/how-does-translation-process-impact#24702445


Question: Why did I say 'you haven't answered my question'?
Answer: Because you did not answer my question.

Question: So why do you claim to have answered my question?
Answer: Because you are a lying vermin.

Question: Do you just stop short at being a lying vermin?
Answer: No, you continue to wallow in all manner of other depravities like claiming that your personal opinions are God's word and hiding behind the word christian to disseminate all manner of contemptible hate speech.

I might be a fake pastor, but you are a fake christian.



Your post is this one: https://www.nairaland.com/1795370/how-does-translation-process-impact#24695578
You said:' to start with ....' You didn't even continue. Why for example would a book like the The sayings of Hosai not be in the canon?

PastorAIO:


After the mendacious promises we then get this:

See lies!! Even if you gave the answer before why did you promise to answer it again when you knew that you would/could not?

You never ever answered these questions, not after they were asked and never before as you later claimed. In fact this is how I ended discussing that with you:

The accuser of the brethren is accusing me of telling lies. I told you that you are not doing bad following your mentor, Simon the sorcerer (alias Magus).

PastorAIO:


No they haven't, you LIAR! You too dey lie, you dis man. You nor fear to even lie on top God's head. Nothing you cannot lie about. twisting and turning and avoiding questions like a writhing slippery serpent. You head will soon be crushed.

slippery serpent? Lol, he loves to dodge sometimes.

Let me try my hands on this.

PastorAIO:


The question that I want to ask, dear doctor, is this ....

Before Jesus was conceived in Mary, when he was in heaven ...... was he also fully Human then? Or did the Hypostatic, 2 natures thingy only start when he was conceived in Mary.

no, Jesus was had no human nature before the incarnation, the word took flesh in the womb of mary. Though i remember the book of daniel talking about one like the son of man in heaven centuries before the incarnation....that not withstanding i believe Christ took human nature at the incarnation and not before.

because the way you are talking it seems as if you want to redefine the word 'nature'. Nature, from 'natus' in latin, meaning the way you were Born. Nature thus suggests an intrinsic aspect of your being. Apart from the logical difficulty with having 2 natures ( it would be easier if it were 1 nature that manifested in 2 different ways but this matter has already been thrashed out with the Monophysites long time ago), a nature is something that has always being with you from the beginning, therefore Jesus must always have been Human too.

not really, you said nature is from the word 'natus', meaning the way you were BORN, not the way or sequence of existence but the way you were born. Jesus was born human and divine, he thus rightly has two natures. I am aware that is a simplistic way of saying it but i believe it should stick. Since he was born he has had these natures, and from birth onward he will always be both God and man.

When and if we get to heaven we will be "changed", the so-called intrinsic parts of our present condition will be transformed and changed, st paul says what is corruptible will put on incorruptibility....etc. Does that mean our new state is not our nature because we weren't always like that? If we will take on a new state in heaven and that will be our nature then i don't see why Christ can't be human because he previously wasn't. My analogy limps but i believe it will stand.

Ubenedictus:
Let me try my hands on this.
no, Jesus was had no human nature before the incarnation, the word took flesh in the womb of mary. Though i remember the book of daniel talking about one like the son of man in heaven centuries before the incarnation....that not withstanding i believe Christ took human nature at the incarnation and not before.

not really, you said nature is from the word 'natus', meaning the way you were BORN, not the way or sequence of existence but the way you were born. Jesus was born human and divine, he thus rightly has two natures. I am aware that is a simplistic way of saying it but i believe it should stick. Since he was born he has had these natures, and from birth onward he will always be both God and man.

When and if we get to heaven we will be "changed", the so-called intrinsic parts of our present condition will be transformed and changed, st paul says what is corruptible will put on incorruptibility....etc. Does that mean our new state is not our nature because we weren't always like that? If we will take on a new state in heaven and that will be our nature then i don't see why Christ can't be human because he previously wasn't. My analogy limps but i believe it will stand.

Nice try. There have been lots of attempts to square this particular circle. The one that I like the most, even though it got condemned by the church, is that of Apollinarius of Laodicea.

He said something like, The part that is the human soul in man is replaced in Jesus with the Logos. But actually since man's soul is fashioned on the logos, we are just poor images of the Logos. A photocopy, so to speak. It would then follow that Jesus is the pure version of humanity, and our humanity is an inferior humanity to Christ's.

In other words the Logos and Man are essentially and intrinsically the same thing, but Man is a corrupted version.

But that would extend the Hypostatic union to man too. So we too are fully human and fully divine. Only that our humanity and our divinity is in a corrupted form. Interestingly this fits in sweetly with what Paul says about the 'corruptible putting on incorruptibility'.

But the hypostatic union does no favours for the concept of Original sin. Because if our sinful nature is inherited then how come Jesus did not inherit sinful nature from Mary?

PastorAIO:


Nice try. There have been lots of attempts to square this particular circle. The one that I like the most, even though it got condemned by the church, is that of Apollinarius of Laodicea.

He said something like, The part that is the human soul in man is replaced in Jesus with the Logos. But actually since man's soul is fashioned on the logos, we are just poor images of the Logos. A photocopy, so to speak. It would then follow that Jesus is the pure version of humanity, and our humanity is an inferior humanity to Christ's.

In other words the Logos and Man are essentially and intrinsically the same thing, but Man is a corrupted version.

But that would extend the Hypostatic union to man too. So we too are fully human and fully divine. Only that our humanity and our divinity is in a corrupted form. Interestingly this fits in sweetly with what Paul says about the 'corruptible putting on incorruptibility'.

i hope u are aware of the problems that theory causes, if Christ has not human mind but it was replaced by d logos, then christ isn't really human, that renders the redemption invalid. If the hypostatic union exended to humans then we are Gods by nature and so we cant sin, that renders original sin moot and nullifies salvation history.

It also make passages that say Jesus grew in wisdom sound silly.

But the hypostatic union does no favours for the concept of Original sin. Because if our sinful nature is inherited then how come Jesus did not inherit sinful nature from Mary?

that question has been answered long ago, don scotus wrote some stuff on it. First we must understand what original sin is.

In catholicism we like to talk of sin as a stain in the soul, the stain is washed by the blood of Christ, but in reality original sin or even sin in general isn't a stain as sin isn't a substance.

Actually the effect of original sin is the absence of grace, original sin simply means man is born "outside" of God grace and friendship, God since adam has created souls without sanctifying grace, we are thus outside God's friendship in a manner of speaking and under the dominion of our human/carnal limited nature. That is original sin.

The soul of Christ and his body were at once united to the logos in the womb of mary, he thus was Concieved in grace sin the logos is God.

I see no difficulty between the original sin and the hypostatic union. I also believe you are aware that this arguement may bear little significance for a catholic because we already believe that mary through a singular act of grace was preserved from original sin. She thus couldn't transmit sin to christ. And since original sin is simply an absence of Grace, christ humanity couldn't suffer from it as it it united to the divine logos the eternal source of grace.

Ubenedictus:




i hope u are aware of the problems that theory causes, if Christ has not human mind but it was replaced by d logos, then christ isn't really human, that renders the redemption invalid. If the hypostatic union exended to humans then we are Gods by nature and so we cant sin, that renders original sin moot and nullifies salvation history.

That depends on what you mean by human. Apollinarius argues that since man is made in the image of the logos, then which is more real the original or the copy. Man is modelled on the Logos. So as the photocopy man is a corruption. Therefore the pure and incorrupt version of humanity is that which is the Logos itself, not the copy of the logos.
Unless you want to say that to be human you must necessarily be corrupt because human by definition is a corruption of Logos. Then the original Logos cannot would not be human.

It also make passages that say Jesus grew in wisdom sound silly.

Not really. We know from the parable of the sower that the Logos is likened to a seed which grows in the heart of the man and all kinds of things can happen to it. It can be eaten by birds, fall on stony rock etc, and in others it can flower and flourish yielding many fruits.
In other words Logos is something that grows in man.

that question has been answered long ago, don scotus wrote some stuff on it. First we must understand what original sin is.

In catholicism we like to talk of sin as a stain in the soul, the stain is washed by the blood of Christ, but in reality original sin or even sin in general isn't a stain as sin isn't a substance.

Actually the effect of original sin is the absence of grace, original sin simply means man is born "outside" of God grace and friendship, God since adam has created souls without sanctifying grace, we are thus outside God's friendship in a manner of speaking and under the dominion of our human/carnal limited nature. That is original sin.

This is a new understanding of original sin for me.
-If we are born within the grace and friendship of God, would we still be able to sin?

-Is sinful acts a result of being outside of God's grace?

- When you say that 'we are under the dominion of our human/carnal nature', are you suggesting that there is another nature that we have that should actually have the dominion? if so, what is that nature? How is the loss of it's influence equivalent to original sin?

The soul of Christ and his body were at once united to the logos in the womb of mary, he thus was Concieved in grace sin the logos is God.

I see no difficulty between the original sin and the hypostatic union. I also believe you are aware that this arguement may bear little significance for a catholic because we already believe that mary through a singular act of grace was preserved from original sin. She thus couldn't transmit sin to christ. And since original sin is simply an absence of Grace, christ humanity couldn't suffer from it as it it united to the divine logos the eternal source of grace.

Yes I'm aware that in order for christ to be free from an hereditary original sin then Mary will have to be free of sin.
I also happen to believe that sinful nature is acquired from other sources apart from hereditary.

The God-man

The brain washed souls showcasing the silliness of their book. Surely this farce of a religion is on borrowed time? How many more generations are to be subjected to this madness?

PastorAIO:


That depends on what you mean by human. Apollinarius argues that since man is made in the image of the logos, then which is more real the original or the copy. Man is modelled on the Logos. So as the photocopy man is a corruption. Therefore the pure and incorrupt version of humanity is that which is the Logos itself, not the copy of the logos.
Unless you want to say that to be human you must necessarily be corrupt because human by definition is a corruption of Logos. Then the original Logos cannot would not be human.

if the logos is already the "true man" then there was no "incarnation", God was always man and i see why the fathers had a hard time accepting this teaching. It confuses the godhead and humanity.

If Christ is the true image of man in the sense you just explained it then he should always have had a "flesh". The human body is an intrinsic part of been "man", it is part of his nature. Without a body it is not a man, it is a ghost.

This is also ignoring the fact that scriptures usually talk of man and God as two separate natures.

Sorry, allow me to turn this over in my head, a really human Jesus before the incarnation seem to me rather funny. I'll get back to you.

Not really. We know from the parable of the sower that the Logos is likened to a seed which grows in the heart of the man and all kinds of things can happen to it. It can be eaten by birds, fall on stony rock etc, and in others it can flower and flourish yielding many fruits.

please elaborate, in what sense will we explain passages that says Jesus grew in wisdom and knowledge. And may i quickly point out that it will be funny to claim the divine mind grows in wisdom, i believe you are aware that will present a phisolophical imposibility.

In other words Logos is something that grows in man.

you already said the logos was man in the perfect sense, so i don't get what this means.

This is a new understanding of original sin for me.
-If we are born within the grace and friendship of God, would we still be able to sin?

probably, yes like adam, or no like the saints. I do not have a one answer to d question.

-Is sinful acts a result of being outside of God's grace?

not all sinful act is as a result of being outside grace, it may be as a result of ignoring grace etc and the other is our deformed nature's affinity to sin.

- When you say that 'we are under the dominion of our human/carnal nature', are you suggesting that there is another nature that we have that should actually have the dominion? if so, what is that nature? How is the loss of it's influence equivalent to original sin?

i believe you've read some church fathers... They all had this crazy idea that baptism wipes out original sin, why do you think they thought so?

As to you question
I like to called the nature "graceture". It simply human nature place under the dictates of God's grace and in conformity to his will.

Yes I'm aware that in order for christ to be free from an hereditary original sin then Mary will have to be free of sin.

i hope you are aware i don't believe what you wrote above. I do not believe d above condition is strictly necessary. I believe Jesus would still have been free from original sin if mary was a muderer.

I also happen to believe that sinful nature is acquired from other sources apart from hereditary.

i'll like to hear your take on this. This happens to be one of those question in catholic theology left in the veil of mystery. How do u think original sin is propagated?

eeyah! I forgot about this. Please bear with me, I'll come back to it soon.

Ubenedictus:
if the logos is already the "true man" then there was no "incarnation", God was always man and i see why the fathers had a hard time accepting this teaching. It confuses the godhead and humanity.

If Christ is the true image of man in the sense you just explained it then he should always have had a "flesh". The human body is an intrinsic part of been "man", it is part of his nature. Without a body it is not a man, it is a ghost.

This is also ignoring the fact that scriptures usually talk of man and God as two separate natures.

Sorry, allow me to turn this over in my head, a really human Jesus before the incarnation seem to me rather funny. I'll get back to you.



please elaborate, in what sense will we explain passages that says Jesus grew in wisdom and knowledge. And may i quickly point out that it will be funny to claim the divine mind grows in wisdom, i believe you are aware that will present a phisolophical imposibility.
you already said the logos was man in the perfect sense, so i don't get what this means.

probably, yes like adam, or no like the saints. I do not have a one answer to d question.

not all sinful act is as a result of being outside grace, it may be as a result of ignoring grace etc and the other is our deformed nature's affinity to sin.

i believe you've read some church fathers... They all had this crazy idea that baptism wipes out original sin, why do you think they thought so?

As to you question
I like to called the nature "graceture". It simply human nature place under the dictates of God's grace and in conformity to his will.





i hope you are aware i don't believe what you wrote above. I do not believe d above condition is strictly necessary. I believe Jesus would still have been free from original sin if mary was a muderer.


i'll like to hear your take on this. This happens to be one of those question in catholic theology left in the veil of mystery. How do u think original sin is propagated?