Respectful conversation. My take from the little I have listened to so far: one has to get into a lot of unhelpful, non-biblical weeds to argue that Jesus has two natures. On the other hand, I appreciate getting to listen to Dr. Nemes.
Obviously the conversation was Abt logical coherency not if its supported by the Bible, in this conversation it's a given that two natures can be reasonably infered from the Bible. Yall should stop being scared of philosophy!
@@Weebgamer236yeah literally lmfao, they could of at least granted that there’s no logical contradiction within the model but here’s some other exegetical biblical cases that seem to be counter examples to this view or something.
The distinction between divinity and glory is a crucial point often overlooked in these discussions. Divinity pertains solely to the Father's essential nature, while glory is seen as an attribute of the Father's divinity that can be shared with creation. It's a common challenge for us, as fallen humans, to fully comprehend the idea of being without sin. This often leads us to elevate the sinless part of Jesus to a divine level, rather than acknowledging that both sinful and sinless natures are integral parts of human existence. Jesus stands out as a remarkable example, being conceived miraculously like Adam, and having a pure human nature despite not having a biological father (as sin is pass through the father's seed). Yet, he remained fundamentally human. It was not some alleged ontological hybridity that afforded Jesus full integration with the divine but rather it was his sinless human nature that allowed it to be so. It's simply inconceivable for one being to embody two completely different natures. Not even the Father, the ultimate archetype, possesses such a dual nature.
@@EmJay2022 so how is this distinction meaningful though?at the very least it seems to me that God sharing his Glory with another being entails giving said to that other being. Or maybe you mean sharing in Gods Glory which in this case the only scripture that explicitly says Jesus had a shared glory with God explicitly states that he was with the father before the world was!
@@Weebgamer236 Isaiah 42:8 God states, “I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not GIVE My glory to another" Romans 8:17-18 Now if we are children, then we are heirs-heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. To give your glory to someone else means losing or relinquishing ownership of that glory. Sharing glory involves keeping possession of it while letting someone else benefit from it in a relational way.
It's almost like all of this work is required because people were making it up as they went along which is why there is all of this harmonizing/retconning.
This is great for the nerds and geeks among us, but for thick-headed, high school dropouts, with just one small degree in communications, I need you to break it down to my level...barely adept at tying my shoes.
You're not understanding what he is saying. He is defining human attributes (hunger, limitations, mortality, etc) as modes of a kind/generic nature, but not the nature itself. Same thing with the divine nature: Sijuwade is saying that omnipotence/omniscience is a mode that is normally active from the divinity kind/nature, but he is expressly denying that they are the same thing or that having the divine nature necessitates that the divine attributes, as mere modes of the nature, are always in operations.
@IAmisMaster The Burning Bush that spoke to Moses did it have only a plant nature or also a divine nature? If Jesus was 100% procent God and 100% human than the burning Bush must have been 100% plant and 100 % God.
@@economician to me it is fairly simple and straightforward. The messiah was a man and the father dwelled in him fully by his spirit. This is what Paul means when he says that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.
@JacobRobin81 I was hinting here specifically to trinitarians when they say that Jesus made claims that he Jesus is indeed God and God incarnate. My point is this. The burning Bush litteraly says to Moses the following: ” I am the God of your father,[a] the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.”” Hence based on trinitarian logic the burning Bush must be God since it is claiming that it the burning Bush is The God of Abraham. It must hence be 100 % Bush 100 % divine 100% God.
Seems like Josh is saying that Jesus can be God because he instantiates the kind God while not being omnipotent (a mode of divinity.) It seems like Steven is suspicious of the move where a being can be divine/God and not omnipotent (perhaps the idea is that being truly God requires being omnipotent.) Josh seems to be happy with his logical possibility being sufficient to ward of the charge of incoherence.
I think that’s a good thing since the field of metaphysics and philosophy is constantly learning through collaboration. Finding a plausible logically coherent model is a spring board for an even more plausible one later on.
I think you have to start with essentials of humanity. Humanity has something to do with the structure of embodiment of the conceptual being. That is to say we are of body but interact in a deep conceptual abstraction of physical stand. We sit on the boundary of emergent realities. Being human is an emergent narrative from egg to thereafter. Humanity is also a deep relational and cultural embeddedness, I am inseparable from the context in which I live (very thick sense of person). Importantly, I would not attribute limitations to humanity that would preclude divinity. I would challenge that humans are essentially mortal for example: you could conceptualize a sci-fi world where life is effectively unending but the beings are emerging, growing, adapting humans. A human brain could have mental access to or embedded deep Truth and function remain human embodiment with similar functional consciousness, etc . If we hold that we are made in the image of God, our human nature aligns the divine nature in ways that are complimentary within the reality/complexity we exist in. Christ on Earth never disconnects from relationship with the Father through the Spirit. Just as we experience the Spirit of God working in us, Jesus totally/ideally one with the Father. As Jesus emerged in his humanity from child to death, he constantly lived with the deep love of God. The experience is human proper relationship with God, but perfected in the person of Christ. Jesus isn't Jesus without being embedded in the relationship with Father and Spirit. As a human he has access to divine power within that relationship not of human means. Even in our imperfect relationships with the divine, we access divine grace. Anyway, incarnation doesn't make sense divorced from Trinity. You need perpetual relationship of the persons. Christ is God in Trinity. (The relationships and persons are essentially and necessarily the nature of God, none of it is coherently reducible). Obviously I'm asserting this and full discussion longer, but I really think you need to start from humanity to make the case.
If I can humbly put in a small plug we've been we've reading Introduction to Christianity by Ratzinger and are slated to release a video late next week on the section that deals with Christology. One of the somewhat aggravating things to this Protestant who grew up in the Strobel and McDowell era is his strong insistence the Trinity and incarnation can not be reasoned to. The critics of orthodox Christology have a point. If you don't adopt either a purely Gnostic or materialistic hermeneutic though and especially if you remain somewhat biblicist, I am not convinced the critique really gets you that far in explaining the person of Christ.
Which human can possess the fullness of deity in human form?the incarnation may seem contradictory but if its not true then christians are definitely idolators worshiping a man!
Joshua Sijuwade Christology is analogous to Open Theism view on God's relation with creation. That the acts of creating changes Him to be succeptible to time and emotion. So here we have Christ dispositionally divine but no longer divine. This is a departure from Cyriline Christology at Ephesus. That the union didn't alter the two properties. Cyril argued just as soul and flesh united at conception similarly incarnation united divinity and humanity into one Logos incarnate. There's no confusion or alteration. Cyril gives another analogy using ignited sword. Sharp metal can cut and fire can burn but ignited sword can do both. Because it's the union of two properties. Fire can't cut and metal can't burn but ignited sword can do both. No mixture, no confusion, no separation, no alteration.
But dying and being incapable of dying are mutually exclusive. Feeling sorrow and being impassible are mutually exclusive. Being ignorant of the day or hour and being omniscient are mutually exclusive. And to say that only one of his natures participated in that activity is no different than Nestorius, who said only Christ's human nature was begotten of Mary. So no dice to you and Cyril of Alexandria. Your analogy of the ignited sword does not solve the dilemma.
@@IAmisMaster the two natures are not themselves independent. That's why Nestorius was wrong. A human nature can't be conceived. A hypostasis with human nature can be begotten. A human nature can't die. A hypostasis with a human nature can experience death. So the confusion comes from Joshua Sijuwade proposal that there's this thing called dispositional relations. His view is the most logical conclusion for Open Theism application on Christology. Similar to ignited sword analogy or psychosomatic union between soul and body. They're not two independent reality. Because each nature has no independent existence. Fire nature can't burn. Just as human nature can't born. But because the two natures are united then we can address it as united reality. The sharp metal which alone can't burn but after its union with fire can burn. Fire which alone can't cut but after its union with sharp metal can cut objects. Similarly what's impossible for one nature stay impossible according to that particular nature but not for another. Because the subject no longer the two natures but the hypostasis in which the two natures united. Which nature walk on water? Humanity can't walk on water. Divinity also can't walk on water because divinity has no spatial distance to transverse. The question is obsolete because nature doesn't acts, a hypostasis acts not nature. Christ walked on water because He is a deified human, or theantropos. Human can't walk on water and divinity doesn't transverse spatial distance but a person with two natures can walk on water. Just as ignited sword can simultaneously cut and burn which is contrary to each natural property. Because fire can't cut and sharp metal can't burn. But united they can. This explains how two mutually exclusive natures divinity and humanity united in one person. When Logos was in Mary's womb he never separated from God because as Logos he is God's mind. So same Logos was conceived and localized in Mary's womb but also simultaneously with God outside space and time. Death is separation of human soul from human flesh. The Logos assume both human soul and human flesh. His soul and flesh were separated and he died. But his soul never separated from the Logos after union. So he did experience human death by having his human soul being separated from his human flesh. He can't die in divine nature because any nature including humanity can't die. I hope this clarify 🙏
@@AdithiaKusno You're not addressing the mutual exclusivity issue of the examples presented. Notice all your cherry picked examples, like walking on water, happen to fit neatly into your "two operative natures in one physis" framework. But the examples we are discussing are not comparable. There is a massive difference between a sword not naturally burning and fire not naturally cutting, and characteristics like wet and burning, or sharp and dull, which are logically contradictory.
My challenge to you is to try to explain Christ's own admission that He did not know the day or hour of His return, without either denying His plain words, or falling into the same Nestorian nature distinction you say that you do not ever do.
@@IAmisMaster I did directly answer your question by pointing out that any experience can't apply to nature. Your "mutually exclusive" thesis assume nature has experience. It doesn't because any experience is property of hypostasis only a person experience. Experience is not a natural property. So you're trying to reduce the argument to make it absurd as follow: Fire and sharp metal, hot and wet, immortal and mortal, omniscient and limited are mutually exclusive. But this is not incarnation. Incarnation is not two subsets combined. Using Group Theory we're not talking about two groups but rather in one reality we have two natures united. In incarnation Cyril argued it was three natures: divinity, human soul, and human flesh. But because human soul and human flesh united into humanity the two are considered as one composite human nature. So now we have two sets instead of three: divinity and humanity. Cyril argued just as we can united soul and body into humanity similarly we can united divinity and humanity into one Logos incarnate. That's why I used his analogy of ignited sword. In itself sword can't burn because fire has mutually exclusive nature. But when the two natures united then the reality is only one as burned sword which now can burn. Before the union the sword only able to cut and can't burn but after the union it acquires another nature. So goes back to your specific question about immortality and mortality, or omniscient and limited. The analogy apply. Just as all of these grouping mutually exclusive in themselves. After union they're not in themselves experiencing it because nature has no sensation. Experience is property of hypostasis. An ignited sword is a composite hypostasis. Hypostasis is instantiation of physis. Because you seem unable to connect the dot let me help aiding you to understand it. In this analogy immortality is fire and mortality is sword. Sword/humanity has no heat/immortality to burn objects. And fire/divinity has no sharpness/mortality to cut objects. In themselves these two natured are mutually exclusive. Because no nature could experience birth, death, or remember any knowledge then any experience must be referred to hypostasis who has a nature or two natures or more natures. Cyril has shown that Logos incarnate has three natures: divinity, human soul, and human flesh. Because soul and body can be united into one composite human nature similarly we can unite divinity and humanity united into one composite of Logos incarnate. You'll say to me, wait not that easy. I understand, so let me continue. I know you want to tell me that Cyril's ignited sword analogy not compatible with immortality and mortality or omniscient and limitation. But I will show to you why it's not only compatible but it's consistent. As follow. Fire can actually cut object if the heat is very hot. Take for an example blow torch. Even metal will be cut into two. Sharp metal is conglomeration of atoms in low excited state. Fire is nothing other than oxygen atoms being highly excited states. Immortality is simply unending life with auto generative cells. Mortality is simply lack of auto generative cells. So how can Christ be both immortal in divinity and mortal in humanity? The answer is simple he doesn't. Because again experience is not a property of nature. So you can't associate immortality to divinity while mortality to humanity. This is condemned in Cyril's twelves anathemas at Ephesus. Property can't be applied to nature but only applies to person who experience them. The death of God on the Cross is not mere human death. Had that be the case Theotokos who is sinless could save all mankind too. Eastern Orthodox saints such as Dimitri of Rostov and Palamas both taught Theotokos is sinless her entire life full of grace. Christ the only who can save mankind because his death is not merely human but rather immortal death. Mortal died by having separation between soul and flesh. This experience is passive, it's being done to you. Immortal death or passionless suffering on the Cross is not passive being experienced by you but rather active as giver or cause of that experience. Gavrilyuk's Impassible Suffering book is highly recommended. He experienced death on earth in incarnation and had limited knowledge while simultaneously never departed from God and in this sense the same Logos not incarnated. Because incarnation is in space and time. While his existence as God's mind with God is outside space and time. Outside space time the Logos didn't experience changes. Because as God's own mind the Logos remain asarkos not incarnated. While inside space and time on earth that same Logos incarnate. He experienced immortal death and kenotic omniscient. Does this contradictory? No. I give you one more analogy from Metaverse. An avatar is entirely human and a character. As character it has limitations and mortal. But the human who control it not limited and not mortal in Metaverse. Meaning if you kill the character the human wouldn't die. You may disagree with this analogy and this analogy is not perfect but it convey answer to your question. In the real world the human never becomes a character. But in the Metaverse his character could die and limited in knowledge. I won't claim you'll be satisfied but give it enough consideration. I disagree with Joshua Sijuwade. I believe his Christology not compatible with historical Christology because he introduced real changes in incarnation. While the view I detailed here affirm real incarnation. When the character killed it dies truly not in appearance. And when the character is spawned back alive it would be miraculous to NPCs in that Metaverse.
☦️Now, let's clarify - the whole is the Father, and the Son & Spirit are His parts, so to speak, and the Father who is the one God. The theosis is sharing of divinity from the human soul which has the spark of divinty, but not fully God as Christ is.
All those remarks are based on metaphysical assertions that are highly debated! The two nature doctrine os the only way for making sense of christ obvious divine claims in the bible like sharing Glory with the father begore the world was,having life in him like the father, being the firsrt and last,being called our Great God and saviour by Paul etc and his clear human attributes like being visible.getting tired etc! Other alternative like Unitarianism lead us to call a creature great God,the first and the last etc oneness is just completely unintelligible! Thé meophysites like coptic could also be a good option though!
Wrong. That's the whole point - that Christ used the hunan nature he assumed as a tool to show man how to deify it & unite with God. It doesen't mean he wasn't also fully human, because he chose to be as such. But his divine person as the Logos of the Father belongs to him alone antologically, so your whole premise is shallow & false, unitarians. Christ is fully God & fully man in way which befots his majesty & not for us to know how.
Watched only some of the presentations of each. Steven presents sound argumentation against classic trinitarian dual nature Christology. (I do hold to incarnation, but not the trinitarian sense.) Joshua was wearisome to listen to. Another trinitarian fool. Empty philosophical assertions. The audience of the Messiah would never comprehend such flotsam. Always the starting point of the creedal church fathers instead of Moses and the prophets. Words can go where reality cannot. The Scriptural narrative fact that no one in the Bible ever discusses the Trinity is completely ignored. He will answer to God for promoting these lies that support the Catholic Trinity myth.
☦️I am really surprised at Josh when it comes to the hypostatic union, he is so wrong...Christ emptying himself doesn't mean he *anthologically* really emptied himself literally! Christ put his divinity on the shelf only to *teach* men, to be personal & only to *taste* human temptation & death, but couldn't be tempted & die in a final sense or be ignorant, but only TASTE it, to show & teach man from his human nature as the Son of Adam, how to CONQUER it - that is the whole point & what the Church fathers teached. Lord Jesus never seized to be divine & of course he is depended on the Father God who is the one God & superior to His Logos (Speech). Moreover, what the Blessed Tertullianus taught is not that the Son was not before the incarnation ontologically, but only in TITLE as Son, but always was Son of God, as being His Speech. Christ couldn't be tempted as human, because he was always both God & man at the same time, as St. Athanasius teached!
I think this is something Chalcedonian Christians should be able to disagree on. Athanasius is not infallible. In fact, I think you wrongly cite Tertullian, since in Against Praxeus, he actually lists Christ’s incarnational ignorance of the day or hour of His return as a personal distinguisher from the Father contra the modalists. St. Irenaeus held that Jesus was ignorant of the day or hour in Against Heresies Book II chapter 28. So one can hokd to Christ being fully God and fully Man and have a different explanation how Christ could do that while exhibiting mutually exclusive characteristics of humanity, like death, ignorance, loss of power when the woman touched Him, etc
@@IAmisMaster That is so false, brother. The Blessed Tertullianus meant that he was only regarding his human nature but not in a final sense, and so did St. Ireneus, who I studied all of their works. And St. Athanasius as ALL fathers are, is *infallible* and as St. Palamas said, anyone who doesn't know that or that they cannot contradict each other is ignorant. All fathers are harmonized with one another.
@@IAmisMaster In other words, they meant only in a way he was, in some aspect, having being his Father's Logos, and 2nd to Him, hense the Father transmits His will to the Son.
@@EasternRomanOrthodox. That’s silly, there is no evidence Irenaeus thought Christ was only ignorant of the day or hour in one sense and not another. Irenaeus’ entire point in AH Book 2, ch. 28 against gnostic claims to know the manner of the Son’s generation makes no sense if the Son secretly knew the day or hour when He said that in the Gospels.
@@IAmisMaster That is so silly & twisting of the Saint's words. There is no proof that he DIDN'T meant it only regarding his human nature as the Son of Adam, and by that he also taught them that the One God is the Father & comes first.
