Death

[earl40]

The person of Jesus had two wills because he had two natures. Will belongs to the category of nature, not person.

Are you saying I said the Jesus is two persons?

 

[RamistThomist]

Are you saying I said the Jesus is two persons?

No, I am saying that your linking soul (or mind) with person confuses the category of nature and person, which leads to the conclusion of two persons (or prosopa) of the Logos.

 

[earl40]

No, I am saying that your linking soul (or mind) with person confuses the category of nature and person, which leads to the conclusion of two persons (or prosopa) of the Logos.

How else should on link the soul unless to that of a person? Edit...I can say the soul is linked to a body but sometimes the soul is no longer in the body when the body dies.

 

[RamistThomist]

How else should on link the soul unless to that of a person? Edit...I can say the soul is linked to a body but sometimes the soul is no longer in the body when the body dies.

Linking the soul to the person is fine. Making a 1:1 identity statement is not.

 

[earl40]

Linking the soul to the person is fine. Making a 1:1 identity statement is not.

Why not? I think you may have stated why before, but one more time for me in language I will understand.

 

[RamistThomist]

Why not? I think you may have stated why before, but one more time for me in language I will understand.

Because if Person = Mind, and Jesus has two minds (which we haven't affirm to avoid the Apollinarian heresy), then we have two Persons of Jesus, which is Nestorian.

 

[earl40]

Because if Person = Mind, and Jesus has two minds (which we haven't affirm to avoid the Apollinarian heresy), then we have two Persons of Jesus, which is Nestorian.

What word is missing here?

"which we haven't affirm to avoid the Apollinarian heresy"

 

[RamistThomist]

What word is missing here?

"which we haven't affirm to avoid the Apollinarian heresy"

Sorry. "Have to affirm" If you say it fast it sounds the same.

 

[earl40]

Sorry. "Have to affirm" If you say it fast it sounds the same.

OK. So what I am saying is that Jesus took on a human mind which means he took on human personhood, while still retaining His divinity personally.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

OK. So what I am saying is that Jesus took on a human mind which means he took on human personhood, while still retaining His divinity personally.

Else one denies anhypostasis, the human nature assumed was not an individualized person.

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/anhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-Jesus-take

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/enhypostasis-what-kind-of-flesh-did-the-word-become

 

[RamistThomist]

OK. So what I am saying is that Jesus took on a human mind which means he took on human personhood, while still retaining His divinity personally.

That....could work, as long as we are saying it is a single divine Person who is assuming the rest, with the end result being still a single divine Person.

Taking on human personhood is fine, as long as it doesn't mean taking on one more person.