Rockson
Well-known member
Your first quote in my post #1095
The Hypostatic Union- the 2 Natures in Christ
- Thread starter civic
- Start date
GeneZ
Well-known member
Might help if you simply said that you did not understand what I was saying...
Might have proven more productive than saying the following....
That simply means you can not understand,,,
But, said in a manner that is not open to hear another out to maybe learn something.
So.... Should I bother?
How you get that from what I said is beyond me.
I know what you are saying. I agree. But you keep thinking He only added His second nature at a later date in time. The Word was with and is God. Two natures.
GeneZ
Well-known member
Not sure why you asked that.
Its the human soul (not our bodies) that was created in God's image.
Our soul was created to be able to partake of the divine.
Proof of that is what we are destined for in the Resurrection.
Yes. It's at the Incarnation where he received his human nature composed of both human soul and human body. To say that he already possessed a soul before the Incarnation is to fall headfirst into the heresy of Neo-Apollinarianism.
Besides, there is no record anywhere of any disembodied soul being born or created.
The Word of God is with God the Father and is God by nature. There is nothing about human nature anywhere in John 1:1.
Rockson
Well-known member
No Gene I'm not going to say that I don't understand what you said FOR IT DO understand what you said. If I said I didn't that leaves room for you to imply you still have valid truth in what you're saying....I'm just too misinformed to see it.
If you would say something like this, God sent Jesus into the world and he took on flesh and in doing so he revealed God to man I'd agree with you. But your saying,
His Soul, being God's means to express God to men,
Sorry but that's language no where found in scripture. . You've made this up . If you were to say that you put the 2 and 2 of things together and this is how you see things I'd say fine.....;now let's assess it on that basis. But don't say the Bible actually teaches this.
Up to you. I'm not looking for you to do so or hoping you will....for I believe I already understand what you said. If you have something more to add I'll consider having a look at it.
GeneZ
Well-known member
I am not sure you got that right at all....
What is an example of Apollinarianism?
Apollinarianism heretically claims that Jesus had no human soul or mind but that he did have a human body.
It explained the incarnation in a way that tried to preserve Jesus' divinity over his humanity. He argued that
Jesus had a human body and a human soul but that the divine Word (Logos) replaced Jesus' human mind.Jun 5, 2023
https://www.christianity.com/wiki/c...llinarianism-jesus-humanity-and-divinity.html
The heresy is called Neo-Apollinarianism, not Apollinarianism. It is being promoted by Dr. William Lane Craig. In a nutshell, the heresy says that the Word of God already had a mind and soul so there was only a body that was needed at the Incarnation. Here is an excerpt from an internet site:
Craig postulates that the divine Logos had all the attributes sufficient for human personhood, except a body. Thus, in the incarnation, the only thing which was assumed was a human body, and instead of a human mind the Logos takes up residence. This move is where the model gains the name Neo-Apollinarianism. Christ did not take a human soul, a human mind, a human spirit. He only took the additional physical attributes that a human person has, without taking any immaterial attributes that a human person has.
Here it is in Dr Craig's words:
On my model the Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity, is the soul of Jesus Christ. By taking on a human body the Logos completed the human nature of Christ, making him a body/soul composite. So Christ has two complete natures, divine and human. (Craig 2011)
Source:
William Lane Craig – Neo-Apollinarianism (5) - Reformed Arsenal
William Lane Craig actually names his Christological model after someone whom the Church declared to be a heretic, naming it Neo-Apollinarianism.
reformedarsenal.com
Last edited:
GeneZ
Well-known member
The heresy is called Neo-Apollinarianism, not Apollinarianism. It is being promoted by Dr. William Lane Craig. In a nutshell, the heresy says that the Word of God already had a mind and soul so there was only a body that was needed at the Incarnation. Here is an excerpt from an internet site:
Craig postulates that the divine Logos had all the attributes sufficient for human personhood, except a body. Thus, in the incarnation, the only thing which was assumed was a human body, and instead of a human mind the Logos takes up residence. This move is where the model gains the name Neo-Apollinarianism. Christ did not take a human soul, a human mind, a human spirit. He only took the additional physical attributes that a human person has, without taking any immaterial attributes that a human person has.
Source:
William Lane Craig – Neo-Apollinarianism (5) - Reformed Arsenal
William Lane Craig actually names his Christological model after someone whom the Church declared to be a heretic, naming it Neo-Apollinarianism.
Glad to see there are still some independent - Spirit filled - thinkers amongst us in the body of Christ....
Not too many amongst us these days....
And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight,
so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ.
Philippians 1:9-10
Last edited:
He sure is independent - independent of the Bible and Christology.
As such, he tests positive for Neo-Apollinarianism and so does everyone else who follows that heresy.
GeneZ
Well-known member
You have your own sect trained to think a certain way. Fine.
Never seen so many posters throwing around the word "heresy" as much as I have witnessed to here.
I was even accused of being a Mormon for a nano second after the old clubs were no longer connecting with anything.
That is very telling.
That way is the Bible and Christology. If you choose to shun the Bible and Christology then that's on you.
GeneZ
Well-known member
You are limited in your scope. I accept that.
Each sect has its set of taboos that they will bond around.
I am not afraid of your misguided accusations.
Of course.. the mantra of this sect claims biblical accuracy and heresy if one does not agree, even when the heresy used does not truly align with what was being said. It shows an attitude of needing to use heresies as a means to attack, rather than sound understanding of Scripture.
It is very disrespectful to call the Bible a "taboo".
You didn't even explain how they're "misguided". You only decreed that from your royal throne.
The heresy aligned perfectly with your thoughts. You're just desperate to get away from the embarrassing spotlight that you just found yourself in.
GeneZ
Well-known member
I did not call the Bible taboo...
What are you after?
Everything said gets distorted.
And, good night, sir..
What we "bond around" is the Bible. So you calling the Bible a "taboo" is very disrespectful.
The only thing I'm after is the Truth which I try to never foresake nor shy away from.
Dizerner
Well-known member
lol ok
GeneZ
Well-known member
I agree. It would be disrespectful....
Its your assumption that keeps distorting my words into something I did not say.
I have patience. But, I might have to put you back on Ignore again...
Its been: "distort what was said, and then attack the distortion. "
I think that about sums it up....
Similar threads
