Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He knows in his divine person but from his human natureAdditional question here that I asked before in a worse form.
For something like the Son not knowing the day or the time, how do you handle this without falling into Nestorianism by completely bifurcating the 2 natures and wills? Does that make sense?
Is there a typo here? Seems to be missing a *notHe knows in his divine person but from his human nature
Correct. He knows in his divine person but not from his human nature.Is there a typo here? Seems to be missing a *not
Should have called you out as a Monophysite!Correct. He knows in his divine person but not from his human nature.
And now follow up. How does this compare to the Reformed argument against depictions of Christ? If He knows the time in his divine person, but not his human nature what's the response to the same method flipped: "we are depicting the human man, not his divine nature"?He knows in his divine person but from his human nature
And now follow up. How does this compare to the Reformed argument against depictions of Christ? If He knows the time in his divine person, but not his human nature what's the response to the same method flipped: "we are depicting the human man, not his divine nature"?
Back to the Mt. 24:36 text, many interlocutors point out that the text states "Son" even as a follow up to the Angels not knowing, but only the Father. (The emphasis is on the person, and not nature(s)). Unitarians utilize this passage to put forward their arguments against the divinity of Jesus.
The divine person still knows. He just doesn't get that knowledge from his human nature.And now follow up. How does this compare to the Reformed argument against depictions of Christ? If He knows the time in his divine person, but not his human nature what's the response to the same method flipped: "we are depicting the human man, not his divine nature"?
Back to the Mt. 24:36 text, many interlocutors point out that the text states "Son" even as a follow up to the Angels not knowing, but only the Father. (The emphasis is on the person, and not nature(s)). Unitarians utilize this passage to put forward their arguments against the divinity of Jesus.
So is it inappropriate then to call Jesus a human person? But rather a divine person who assumed a human nature?The divine person still knows. He just doesn't get that knowledge from his human nature.
THIS is my exact quandary. If we say He knew in his divine self, how is this NOT Nestorianism? This is what I'm having an issue understanding.There is only one subject who acts or knows. To deny this is to affirm Nestorianism. It doesn't matter whether the text refers to the Son or to Jesus Christ, for they are the same subject.
The question, then, is how it can be true that the one subject, the Son (Jesus Christ), does not know the day or hour if that same subject is omniscient (due to His divine nature). But that is easily explained by the fact that same subject not only has a divine nature but also a human nature.
Correct, though when people say human I get what they are sayingSo is it inappropriate then to call Jesus a human person? But rather a divine person who assumed a human nature?
Because there is still only one acting subjectTHIS is my exact quandary. If we say He knew in his divine self, how is this NOT Nestorianism? This is what I'm having an issue understanding.
Thanks all for the great responses!
THIS is my exact quandary. If we say He knew in his divine self, how is this NOT Nestorianism? This is what I'm having an issue understanding.
Thanks all for the great responses!
But isn't the crux of Nestorianism "over separating" the natures? i.e. the opposite of what ended up being the Chalcedonian Definition? I know the natures aren't "swallowed up" into each other like Eutychianism though.
I think the issue is our Western mind immediately goes to "ghost in the machine" concepts of the incarnation.Correct, though when people say human I get what they are saying
The document in the following post helped me better understand person vs. nature: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/mike-riccardis-notes-on-the-recent-trinity-debates.110867/But isn't the crux of Nestorianism "over separating" the natures? i.e. the opposite of what ended up being the Chalcedonian Definition? I know the natures aren't "swallowed up" into each other like Eutychianism though.
i think it has to do with separating the natures into two different acting subjects. The natures are separate, not confused or mingled, in one acting subject.But isn't the crux of Nestorianism "over separating" the natures? i.e. the opposite of what ended up being the Chalcedonian Definition? I know the natures aren't "swallowed up" into each other like Eutychianism though.
Can't seem to access this. Could you paste maybe the gist of it?The document in the following post helped me better understand person vs. nature: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/mike-riccardis-notes-on-the-recent-trinity-debates.110867/
Some of what I found useful (mostly direct quotes):Can't seem to access this. Could you paste maybe the gist of it?