The Hypostatic Union- the 2 Natures in Christ

Since you love Got Questions maybe you will listen to them. :)

The Nestorians are followers of Nestorius (c. AD 386–451), who was Archbishop of Constantinople. Nestorianism is based on the belief put forth by Nestorius that emphasized the disunity of the human and divine natures of Christ. According to the Nestorians, Christ essentially exists as two persons sharing one body. His divine and human natures are completely distinct and separate. This idea is not scriptural, however, and goes against the orthodox Christian doctrine of the hypostatic union, which states that Christ is fully God and fully man in one indivisible Person. God the Son, Jesus Christ, took on a human nature yet remained fully God at the same time. Jesus always had been God (John 8:58; 10:30), but at the Incarnation Jesus also became a human being (John 1:14).

In the first few centuries of the church, a great debate arose: what is the exact nature of Christ? How can a being be completely divine and completely human? In the West, the Roman Catholic Church decreed Jesus to be “two natures in one person,” and went on to other things. In the East, the definition of Christ’s nature was as much about politics as it was about religion, and the discussion went on far longer.

The Alexandrines, so named because the political loyalties of most who held the view were Alexandrian, were “monophysites.” They insisted that Jesus was, above all, divine. He was the teacher of divine truth and, in order to have had that truth, must have been primarily divine. To emphasize His humanity over His deity led to unthinkable assertions like “God got tired, injured, hungry, thirsty, and then died.” Apollinaris of Laodicea summarized the thought by saying the Word of God took the place of a rational soul so that a human body could preach the truth of God; the body was a mouthpiece.

The Antiochenes from Antioch thought this was ridiculous. A sacrifice that was not fully human could not redeem humans. Antiochenes were “dyophysites.” The Godhead dwelt in Jesus, no doubt, but not in any way that undermined His humanity. Jesus’ two natures were distinct from one another—although no one could precisely explain what that meant.

When Constantine had moved the political capital from Rome to Byzantium (later Constantinople), the church of the West centralized into the religious and political power of the Roman Catholic Church. The church of the East didn’t have that chance. They had several important churches spread throughout the region, each led by their own bishops. Alexandria and Antioch were two of the oldest and most important, but the church in Constantinople was considered as close to Rome as the East had. The clergy of Alexandria and Antioch constantly fought over the bishopric in Constantinople in hopes of uniting the scattered churches into a regional powerhouse.

In AD 428, Nestorius became patriarch of Constantinople. He was from Antioch, and his theological (and political) leanings became clear when he declared Mary to be Christotokos (“bearer of Christ”), not theotokos (“bearer of God”). In so doing, he said more about Jesus than Mary. He said that, above all else, the humanity of Jesus must be emphasized, His nature firmly divided, and that He was comprised of “two natures and two persons.” The human nature and person were born of Mary. The divine were of God.

The Bishop of Alexandria, among others, didn’t agree. He and his supporters marched into Constantinople and held a trial that relieved Nestorius of his position. Shortly after, Nestorius’s supporters finally arrived and held a smaller trial that convicted the Bishop of Alexandria. After much theological debate and political wrangling, Nestorius was exiled back to Antioch.

The Alexandrians exerted more pressure on the Antiochenes. The Antiochenes were forced to leave Antioch; Nestorius lived out his days in Egypt. But many of the Antiochenes fled east into Persia, where they were called “Nestorians” whether they had politically supported Nestorius or not.

The church already in Persia had its own problems. The rulers in Persia were quite religiously tolerant, but politically they hated Rome and anything that came out of Rome. The church in Persia carefully explained that they were not the same church as in Rome, and the Persians alternated between persecuting them and leaving them alone. Several Nestorian theologians settled in Persia, where the Persian church heard their thoughts on the two natures of Christ and told them, “Yee blind s, of course, we’ve believed that all along.” So Nestorians were readily absorbed into the local church there.
Interesting history. Thanks for sharing that. It is said that Muhammad came across Nestorians in his caravan business missions to the north of Arabia. Talk about the blind leading the blind!
 
Your point proves you're wrong.

We have referenced instances where Jesus Christ did things that a human can not do. Things only HE could do. By your own standard, you're misunderstanding what you read.

"like" is not identical. If He were identical, then He would sin like us. He never sinned. There is a difference between personally sinning and dying for sin. Not recognizing this difference is a huge part of your issue.
And I've shown you He did nothing on His own authority/power (ie. in His own right as God) but everything He said and did was on the authority of the Father in the power of the Spirit.

He was not born with a sin nature like us (he had no human father) nor did He commit any personal sin, but He was made to become as if He was a sinner for our sakes, so I do know the difference thankyou.
 
And I've shown you He did nothing on His own authority/power (ie. in His own right as God) but everything He said and did was on the authority of the Father in the power of the Spirit.

He was not born with a sin nature like us (he had no human father) nor did He commit any personal sin, but He was made to become as if He was a sinner for our sakes, so I do know the difference thankyou.
I know what you said. As witnessed before...you have several issues.

1. Please clarify this time, do you see the Father when Christ was transfigured before the disciples?

2. Did the Father empower any other man in such a manner as Christ?

@civic @synergy

It looks like to me they are really monotheists.
 
Last edited:
So you agree with @sawdust that Jesus is a human Person and a Divine Person ? yes or no

Thanks
I'm really starting to get tired of this. I didn't say He was a human person. Please read what I say within it's context to fully understand what I'm saying and stop trying to make those who differ with your thinking look like we are in error.

I must admit. This constant misrepresentation I find extremely worrying.
 
And I've shown you He did nothing on His own authority/power (ie. in His own right as God) but everything He said and did was on the authority of the Father in the power of the Spirit.

He was not born with a sin nature like us (he had no human father) nor did He commit any personal sin, but He was made to become as if He was a sinner for our sakes, so I do know the difference thankyou.

His only purpose is to wear you out, not to be corrected.

So be careful...
 
I'm really starting to get tired of this. I didn't say He was a human person. Please read what I say within it's context to fully understand what I'm saying and stop trying to make those who differ with your thinking look like we are in error.

I must admit. This constant misrepresentation I find extremely worrying.
The person he asked said yes. Reread the entire conversation
 
I'm really starting to get tired of this. I didn't say He was a human person. Please read what I say within it's context to fully understand what I'm saying and stop trying to make those who differ with your thinking look like we are in error.

I must admit. This constant misrepresentation I find extremely worrying.
Did you mean its exhausting?

We wrestle not against flesh and blood, though on the surface its not immediately apparent.
 
Did you mean its exhausting?

We wrestle not against flesh and blood, though on the surface its not immediately apparent.
You have no spiritual authority. Just claims. When Paul used His authority, people died.

Do you care to take the same action? There is no reason to imply we are controlled by Satan.
 
I'm really starting to get tired of this.
We all are.... some are already talking about pulling out of here if this is all its going to be.

Its like they are waiting for victims to enter, not looking for edification.

To me it sounds like a Chinese training for interrogators for how to treat Christians after they take over a nation...

Its all book knowledge... No sense of the Spirit. None makes sense...
 
Last edited:
I don't see the word "person" in Hebrews 2:17. Can you point it out to me?

"Person" is more than flesh. More than characteristics. Person involves "essence". Jesus did not have the "character" of a sinful man.

Most people don't spend much time dealing with these types of issues. There are clear lines to be drawn here. You're oversimplifying and creating a "necessity" in Hebrews 2:17 that isn't required by the Scriptures.
So you're not a person? Would certainly explain a lot. ;)

Maybe you can show me where I said He had a sinful character? He was born into this world without sin and never committed any personal sins. When he was placed on the Cross he became like us in all things as he was made to be sin for our sakes. The context is the dying for our sin as our High Priest.

Why do you find it so hard to believe God the Son can limit Himself to the point of becoming just like a real boy?

Sure, Christ becoming sin for our sakes was completely unnecessary. :rolleyes:
 
So you're not a person? Would certainly explain a lot. ;)

Maybe you can show me where I said He had a sinful character? He was born into this world without sin and never committed any personal sins. When he was placed on the Cross he became like us in all things as he was made to be sin for our sakes. The context is the dying for our sin as our High Priest.

Why do you find it so hard to believe God the Son can limit Himself to the point of becoming just like a real boy?

Sure, Christ becoming sin for our sakes was completely unnecessary. :rolleyes:
You're still trying to be reasonable....
 
So you're not a person? Would certainly explain a lot. ;)

Maybe you can show me where I said He had a sinful character? He was born into this world without sin and never committed any personal sins. When he was placed on the Cross he became like us in all things as he was made to be sin for our sakes. The context is the dying for our sin as our High Priest.

Why do you find it so hard to believe God the Son can limit Himself to the point of becoming just like a real boy?

Sure, Christ becoming sin for our sakes was completely unnecessary. :rolleyes:

God is the eternal prototype for all persons.

After all?

Man was created in His "shadow" image. tzelem elohim.

Man as he now is, is only a reflected shadow of God's true person...
 
So you're not a person? Would certainly explain a lot. ;)

It might but that has nothing to do with the fact you're trying to establish a doctrine based upon a misunderstanding of what you quoted as evidence.

Maybe you can show me where I said He had a sinful character? He was born into this world without sin and never committed any personal sins. When he was placed on the Cross he became like us in all things as he was made to be sin for our sakes. The context is the dying for our sin as our High Priest.

So you're restricting Christ from being fully human until we He was crucified. Do you see how this creates many problems?

Why do you find it so hard to believe God the Son can limit Himself to the point of becoming just like a real boy?

Sure, Christ becoming sin for our sakes was completely unnecessary. :rolleyes:

Maybe you can show me where I said Christ didn't become sin for us. You can't.

God can't lie. Which means that Christ couldn't commit sin. Which is the doctrine of Impeccability. I'm not trying to criticise you but you should realize by now that there is vast difference in our level of experience with this topic. The issue isn't mine.

Heb 5:14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.

I've had this conversation.... so many times. We maybe talking "past one another" at times but the issue isn't mine.
 
I know what you said. As witnessed before...you have several issues.

1. Please clarify this time, do you see the Father when Christ was transfigured before the disciples?

2. Did the Father empower any other man in such a manner as Christ?

@civic @synergy

It looks like to me they are really monotheists.
I see the Father in everything Jesus did.

Who among you is without sin? Why on earth would the Father give that level of power to anyone of us sinners? Are you crazy???

Well maybe you need to go to Spec Savers? ;)
 
Did Jesus ever function as God in His 33 years on this earth or only as a man ?
I've answered that question. He said Himself He did and said nothing on His own authority as God.

John 14:10
Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
 
Back
Top Bottom