Personally, I think a variation of the Nestorian (heresy) view is pretty convincing.

Nestorius, an Antiochene priest who was elected Patriarch of Constantinople (Eastern Church) in the early 5th century, maintained that Jesus was one person, but had two distinct natures (human and divine).

I believe that God is one - no distinct "persons" within the Godhead... but that Jesus clearly displayed these two distinct natures. Without two distinct natures, He could not have been fully human AND fully God.

And it was His humanity that hungered, was ignorant, suffered, died... and OVERCAME death. (What accomplishment is there for an all-powerful, all-knowing immortal to overcome death?) It was His humanity that needed to, and did pray.

This isn't modalism. It isn't a "shell." It's the perfect union of God and human in Jesus - perfect because it does not diminish either His divinity or His humanity in the process.

Claiming that He CHOSE to be ignorant, etc... makes no sense at all to me. It not only virtually eliminates the humanity factor from the victory of Christ (thereby eliminating the victory itself), but I think it even tarnishes the power and authority of God.

He was sinless because He was born without sin thanks to the perfection of His Father. He remained sinless by never sinning, thanks to His divine nature.

It wasn't the Holy Spirit giving him guidance. Nobody was whispering in His ear that He shouldn't do this, and should do that. His humanity could not have remained sinless on its own - all men fall short. But by being FULLY human *AND* FULLY God, He was capable of being the perfect lamb.

And... He was not pretending. He was not acting. He was not masking His abilities to SEEM human.

He was not God in some blank shell.

a) When does the Father submit to the Son?

b) The "shell" analogy does not exist in Oneness. NOBODY in Oneness would deign to remove the humanity of Christ in favor of a lifeless bag of flesh. The fact that you think it does is further confirmation that you never really came to understand the Oneness theology.

c) The Nestorian view is that Jesus had two natures, not persons. In fact, Nestorius argued AGAINST the "two person" theory. What got the Church all bent out of shape was, at least in part, that Nestorius was maintaining that the two natures were distinct.

d) Why can't a "nature" suffer? What makes you think that a "person" does? If God is three "persons," does that mean that each can and does suffer (and independently), because your prerequisite for suffering is personhood?

If you or I did not have our "natures" and someone tortured our flesh, would we truly suffer?

I'd maintain no... because without our "nature," we lack our essence and do not live. Dead things don't suffer.

So Oneness and Trinity seem to agree (at least we do) that Jesus had two natures as one person... the divine nature of Christ clearly distinguished from His human nature.

Thank you ALL!  This has been a great discussion.  My husband
and I have yet to agree on this same subject.  I guess it's not
too disturbing now, considering this is one of "the most difficult
questions in all of Christianity" - according to Acumen.

I will keep reading and try to find time to read of this Nestorianism. 
I look forward to reading more of your posts.  Thanks again.



Take care,
GracebyFaith

Wow... now THERE is quite a statement. So God submits to me??? Fascinating.

I think you are seriously confused here... the power to respond to requests is held by the sovereign. He is in control - deigning to grant a petition is hardly submission, it's an exercise of sovereignty.


... says the person who clearly never did understand it.


A divine nature and a human nature. Seriously, El... this isn't terribly complicated.


Well, no.. that's not what you said - but what difference does it make? Clearly the flesh of Jesus was involved in the suffering, so what makes up a "person" in your view? Perhaps you are just needing a little help understanding the difference between a "person" and a "nature."

Incidentally, are you conceding that a nature can suffer? I'm not quite sure what the "can and does isn't the same thing" comment meant...


Is there a point somewhere in this response?


... says the person who never did understand Oneness.


REALLY? Hmm. Maybe you don't quite understand Nestorianism, either. Not that I hold to all aspects of Nestorianism, but you don't seem to have a very firm grasp on the "heresy."


Nestorianism does not maintain that Jesus was two persons, and you didn't prove anything, regardless how often you insist otherwise.


So Jesus' human nature no longer exists? Interesting.


Humanism has no place in this discussion.

I have to say, though, that this is rather confusing. You seem to maintain that Jesus' human nature "gave way" when it died, but that humans are divine? Did God sacrifice His human nature for us so that we could be like gods?

If that is the case, what was the accomplishment? God had no human nature before Jesus, and no human nature after Jesus... so, basically, He spent some 36 years doing what He could have done in .36 seconds with a proverbial wave of His hand - make us "divine?"

Pardon me while I scratch my head... 



[/quote]

El,

This does not address the fact that Nestorianism separates the unity of the person of Jesus.

And this may very well be the case, but Roman Catholicism makes a bigger mess of the unity of the person of Jesus.  Personally, I'm more inclined to accept the position with fewer inconsistencies.

So is it God who sympathizes or is it some other creature that God controls who sympathizes and is our savior?

You are presenting an unnecessary false dichotomy.  Who said anything about God "controlling" the man Jesus?   Nestorians believe that the human nature or humanity of Jesus endured the full consequences of the human experience.  It is apparent that God cannot experience temptations because it entails weakness in one's strength.  How would the Roman Catholic answer the charge that a completely infused divine/human nature simply cannot undergo the same sort of temptations that a mere human does without the added benefit of a divine nature?

Acumen:  How can one explain that Jesus had knowledge limitations without distinguishing between the divine and human natures?  Logical analysis shows us that if the divine nature has unlimited knowledge, and Jesus lacked knowledge at certain times, then his divine nature wasn't responsible for the lack of knowledge.  Logic tells us, therefore, that there is only one nature left, by process of elimination, that explains the limitation without subsequent contradictions.  If you can give another explanation that is logically coherent, I would like to hear it.

El:  I have already explained this to you over the phone

No, you didn't.  On the phone, you answered a question (that I never asked btw) about the purpose of God sending His son for reconciliation.  You didn't answer those questions that pertain to the paradox of the incarnation.

Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.
1 Timothy 3:15-16

The oneness theology has great difficulty with passages like this, but from a Trinitarian point of view this is consistent with the distinct personhood of Jesus.  "He appeared in a body" ...who appeared in a body?  If God is only one person, then why would He need to be "vindicated by the Spirit?"

As a oneness pentecostal, I've never had a problem understanding this passage.  In fact, I never had a difficult time explaining it either -- because it was never brought up, in the course of a debate, by trinitarians as a proof text against the oneness position.  And it's my bet they never used it as a proof text because they didn't think it was an anti-oneness text. 

The answer to your question about "who" appeared in a body is "God."  There is no difficulty with that answer.  If I were to deny this point, then I would have to deny the incarnation also.  As to your second question is, the man Jesus Christ was vindicated by the very Spirit that resurrected him from the grips of death.  In fact, the trinitarian would have more difficulty explaining this passage than the oneness do.  Why would a perfect person of the trinity need to be vindicated by anything at all, let alone by another person of the trinity?  Once again, the trinitarian explanation is riddled with more problems than answers.  I would like to hear your explanation of why God needs vindication by Himself?

The mystery of the incarnation is both knowable and unknowable.  What is knowable is who God is and why He did/does what He did/does.  What is not knowable is how an omnipotent God submits Himself to the flesh.  I could pontificate but I don't see the purpose, the "why" is more important than the "how."

Like I told you on the phone, for the purposes of discussion, I am more interested in the how, then the why.

What I will suggest is that you don't get caught up in transitional period of Mankind through Jesus Christ.  The 33 years He was on earth was the deification of humanity, and you seem to be only concerned with this point in time. 

I'm not caught up on anything.  I was simply attempting to give the best answer to Grace's question about the incarnation, which I believe I did.

9But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

Who was made a little lower than the angels?  First, God cannot be made.  Second, God cannot be lower than the angels.  And third, God cannot die.  This entire verse points to the humanity of Jesus.

10In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering.

Since God is already perfect, He doesn't need to be perfected by suffering.  This, of course, leaves us with the humanity of Jesus that was perfected by suffering.

11Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers...

No commentary needed.

14Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil

This is probably your best challenge to Nestorianism yet.  First, we don't even know who wrote Hebrews, so I highly doubt anything in this book could be relied upon as truly inspired from God. 

JUST KIDDING!!!!  Could you imagine if I started saying things like that?   

Again, Nestorians believe that God inhabited the body of Jesus, and therefore He did share in Jesus' humanity.  IF God truly infused Himself into every aspect of Jesus' humanity including his blood, organs, tissues, then what is to prevent people from arguing that his humanity is no longer human?  Wouldn't you be espousing the divine flesh theory of the gnostics?  Or better yet, when Jesus said "Not my will, but thine be done", who was speaking here?  Was God's will opposed to God's will?  Again, your view raises more questions than it answers.

I don't know why you insist that suffering denotes weakness.  We just read above that Jesus was made "Perfect" though suffering.

Suffering made Jesus perfect because it perfectly achieved God's plan of reconciliation.  Jesus fulfilled his Father's plan for him, and therefore it can be said that he was perfected or complete.  Suffering as it applies to an already perfect being makes no sense.  Suffering entails weakness because it requires harm to the object of suffering.  Harm contributes to the degeneration of a thing, and so when we are harmed emotionally or physically, it leaves evidence of damage such as scars or strange patterns of behavior.  God cannot be reduced, degenerated, or damaged in any way, shape, or form.  This isn't a difficult concept.

So now you are saying that Jesus isn't God?  Or are saying that only a part of Jesus is God and if that is what your saying then Jesus is not one complete person, and most definitely does not "share in our humanity" as it says in the scripture above.

Jesus, the person, is God by virtue of His divine nature.

I can only account for your lack of understanding as a brain fart.  Why couldn't God die in the flesh or to the flesh.  Either you are having a brain fart or you need to look into what the nature of human death is, according to Christianity.  

God cannot die in the flesh any more than He can die in a bowl of cool aid.  Don't be stubborn on this point, El.

El:  But I am questioning the Nestorians view of the nature of Christ after the resurrection.  Is Jesus still 50% man and 50% God in His resurrected body or is the separate creature (human aspect) just 100% submissive to His Divine part?

I'm not sure what the Nestorian view is concerning post resurrection.  We would know more if the Catholic church didn't burn Nestorius' books on Christology.

It explains everything if you remove the stumbling block from before your eyes.

How gnostic of you.

-Acumen

El,

Would you care to name your first inconsistency and how Nestorianism rectifies it?

I'll be happy to.  Concerning your first question, the first inconsistency created, by the Roman Catholic view, is that a complete infusion between the human and divine natures of Jesus subsequently results in a demigod because, although Jesus had abilities beyond any human being (sinlessness, walking on water, etc.) he retained his human frailty such as limitation of knowledge and wisdom, experiences of pain and suffering, and of course, his death and resurrection.  The logical inconsistency lies in the understanding of a God who is omniscient and omnipotent.  If God, by nature, is all-knowing and all-powerful as one would expect of a perfect being, then Jesus' subsequent ignorance of certain truths and death logically confute his divinity status.  This is the first inconsistency.

Concerning your second question, Nestorianism rectifies this inconsistency by distinguishing between the two natures and keeping them in their proper place.  Although the natures are united into one body and person, they have a sense of autonomy they need in order to retain the identity of each nature.  When Jesus failed to know the time of his second coming, it wasn't God that was ignorant or limited, but the man Jesus Christ.  By making this distinction in natures, God stays God.  What are we left with?  Although Nestorianism doesn't espouse a complete infusion of the natures, it can espouse divine influence in much of the same way the Holy Ghost influences us through an infilling.  I would suspect though, that unlike us, Jesus had the fullness of the infilling, and is therefore fully God.

-Acumen 

Acumen: 
El: 
First, thanks for the thoughtful reply.  But unfortunately, this doesn't resolve the inconsistency.  The Catholic position (your position) is that the natures are completely infused together.  If the infusion is complete, the one will cannot respond in separation from the other will.  And this is exactly what appears to be happening.  The problem, as I see it, is really one of definition.  If man is defined as a limited being, and God is defined as a limitless being, then the complete infusion of these beings must result in the ultimate compromise of one of the beings involved in the merger.  It's like merging a circle with a square.  If they are infused, one of them must change in definition, if not both of them.

Acumen: 
El: 
I would say no.

Acumen: 
El: 
I don't think you understood what I wrote, or else you wouldn't characterize my position of Jesus as a shell without a will.

Long before the Son became a creature, the Son was eternally Son, God, and eternal in His divinity. God mingling with His creation man isn't a contradiction in terms. It's God mingling with His creature in His image: man

"Begotten" in Matthew 1:20 "that which has been begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit" refers to incarnation 9 months before Bethlehem.

"Begotten" in John 1:14 and 3:16 "the only Begotten from the Father/His only begotten Son" refers to eternally begotten. That is, never not begotten. Since there isn't an eternal Father (Isaiah 9:6) without an eternal Son (Hebrews 7:3)