The Divine Nature of Christ. [Archive]

Tomoz

15th November 2006, 06:17 AM

I believe He was fully divine.
I understand the arguments from those Christians who believe he isn't/wasn't uniquely divine, but I personally am just not convinced by them.
I believe Jesus to be fully divine, but I think we need to be constantly reminding ourselves of his full humanness as well. I find that if I don't remember that he was actually a historical figure I can fall into an overly mythological idea of Christ.
In acknowledging His divinity must never lose sight of Christ's earthyness and grit, of the palestinian dust that was caught between his toes, and the tension that must have existed within him, as a man with feelings and physical limitations, but also a fully divine vocation as the Son of God.
It truly is an awesome mystery.

higgs2

15th November 2006, 08:18 AM

fully human, fully divine.

SumTinWong

15th November 2006, 09:06 AM

100% human 100% God

JoshuaCh1v9

15th November 2006, 10:14 AM

We should haver a sub poll.

Will this be the most one sided poll ever in the history of CF?

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

No Swansong

15th November 2006, 11:59 AM

All God, All Man
Can't figure out how but hey I'm not Him.

bellantara

15th November 2006, 12:09 PM

Is there a denomination that even questions this? :scratch:

ChessCastle

15th November 2006, 01:30 PM

Is there a denomination that even questions this? :scratch:

A few months ago I thought this was something that everyone who considered themselves christian could agree upon. But since then I have come to realise that there are some who won't acknowledge Christ's divine nature. I made the poll hoping to find that this was one of the few things all of us can sit in agreement upon.

JasonV

15th November 2006, 01:35 PM

I voted no for some variety.

gtsecc

15th November 2006, 01:36 PM

Is there a denomination that even questions this? :scratch:
Yes, and no.
This was formulated at the 4th Council in Clacedon, 451 AD.
At this council, the See of Mark said Christ was of 2 natures, and the rest said He was in 2 natures.
The Church split over this.
In 1973 HH Pope Shenuda of the Copts and the See of Mark, and HH Pope Paul VI of the Roman Catholics reconciled this, and agreed they were saying the same thing.
I believe the Eastern Orthodox also reconciled this with the Copts in the 70's, but I can't cite the people and place.
The Eastern Orthodox now have no theological differnces preventing reunion between the 2, and our prayers are that they will be fully in communioon in a few years.

ChessCastle

15th November 2006, 02:17 PM

I voted no for some variety.

Because of course variety is much more important than affirming the divinity of our Lord.

JasonV

15th November 2006, 03:09 PM

Because of course variety is much more important than affirming the divinity of our Lord.

Don't you think you're taking this a bit too seriously? :scratch:

No Swansong

15th November 2006, 03:28 PM

Don't you think you're taking this a bit too seriously? :scratch:
What do you think he is taking too seriously? The truth of the Divinity of our Lord or your response? While I strongly hold that belief in Christ's Divinity is essential to be a Christian I thought your response was meant tongue in cheek and gave it the chuckle I felt it deserved. However if you do seriously deny the Divinity of Christ that is a different issue.

JasonV

15th November 2006, 04:01 PM

What do you think he is taking too seriously? The truth of the Divinity of our Lord or your response? While I strongly hold that belief in Christ's Divinity is essential to be a Christian I thought your response was meant tongue in cheek and gave it the chuckle I felt it deserved. However if you do seriously deny the Divinity of Christ that is a different issue.

It was tongue in cheek and I figured that was pretty obvious. :doh:

JoshuaCh1v9

16th November 2006, 03:38 AM

To be honest, I kinda agree with Jason.

There might be some out there on the fringes that would differ on this, but the vast majority of us are going to be united on this, demonstrating which has been stated as the aim of the OP in this thread.

So, we have demonstarated that Christians can actually agree with one another from time to time, now where do we go from here?

JoshuaCh1v9

16th November 2006, 03:42 AM

Problem is we are actually running out of things to disagree on.

Harry Potter seems to be out of favour as a topic at the moment. We have kinda flogged the women Priest issue to death and then some, and the gay Bishops thing is a little like the seed on stony ground that Jesus spoke about. Flares up quickly but never takes root for long.

JoshuaCh1v9

16th November 2006, 03:51 AM

What do you think he is taking too seriously? The truth of the Divinity of our Lord or your response? While I strongly hold that belief in Christ's Divinity is essential to be a Christian I thought your response was meant tongue in cheek and gave it the chuckle I felt it deserved. However if you do seriously deny the Divinity of Christ that is a different issue.

I would be VERY surprised if we find anyone in STR who would seriously deny the divinity of Christ.

You'll certainly get no arguement from Salvationists on the issue:thumbsup:

ChessCastle

16th November 2006, 04:47 AM

I would be VERY surprised if we find anyone in STR who would seriously deny the divinity of Christ.

In the middle of a discussion with JasonV, when it appeared he was implying that Christ was not divine, I asked him directly...twice if he believed in the divinity of Christ, and no answer was ever given.

Combine this with the "No" vote given 'for variety', and perhaps its not as big of a surprise as it might originally seem.

You'll certainly get no arguement from Salvationists on the issue:thumbsup:

I certainly hope you're right. In fact this is one thing that I'd hoped that every congregational forum on STR would be in complete agreement on. I certainly didn't post this poll because we're running out of things to disagree on...I am regularly in respectful disagreement with some members of this forum, but the divinity of Christ is not some small issue of disagreement...and it certainly isn't something to deny in humor.

Tomoz

16th November 2006, 05:37 AM

Perhaps a more controversial poll would be who believes Christ was/is uniquely divine.

JoshuaCh1v9

16th November 2006, 10:42 AM

Perhaps a more controversial poll would be who believes Christ was/is uniquely divine.

:eek: Any more of that young man and it'll be.......the comfy chair:cool: ;)

pilgrimgal

16th November 2006, 02:38 PM

Would this be considered a mandatory belief among the Anglican/Episcopal Church? Is there a middle path to take with something this crucial?
Belief in the Divinity of Christ is an essential...no middle path in that..one is either on the path or not. e.g. Nicene Creed.

JasonV

16th November 2006, 03:57 PM

In the middle of a discussion with JasonV, when it appeared he was implying that Christ was not divine, I asked him directly...twice if he believed in the divinity of Christ, and no answer was ever given.

Combine this with the "No" vote given 'for variety', and perhaps its not as big of a surprise as it might originally seem.

ChessCastle want's to play the defender of the faith and expose me as a heretic. I've not given him enough ammo to shoot me with yet, but I suppose a few more sticks and he can light me on fire for heresy.

TomUK

16th November 2006, 04:20 PM

Please could all posters remain on topic. Personal attacks or insinuations will not be tolerated.

ChessCastle

17th November 2006, 04:10 AM

ChessCastle want's to play the defender of the faith and expose me as a heretic. I've not given him enough ammo to shoot me with yet, but I suppose a few more sticks and he can light me on fire for heresy.

For the record, I have no desire to expose anyone or anything. Nor do I have any desire to burn anyone. Asking for clarification of someone's belief, if that belief seems to be contrary to Christianity, is a logical step, since STR is located in the 'Christians Only Section'.

ChessCastle

17th November 2006, 04:12 AM

Belief in the Divinity of Christ is an essential...no middle path in that..one is either on the path or not. e.g. Nicene Creed.

I would agree completely, do you feel there are any other 'essential' beliefs?

Simon_Templar

17th November 2006, 05:58 AM

Jesus was fully human, and fully divine.

If you don't believe this, you are not a christian.
That wouldn't necessarily preclude you being an Anglican.. or even a bishop ;)

No Swansong

17th November 2006, 08:21 AM

There is no way I could agree more.

JasonV

17th November 2006, 01:30 PM

For the record, I have no desire to expose anyone or anything. Nor do I have any desire to burn anyone. Asking for clarification of someone's belief, if that belief seems to be contrary to Christianity, is a logical step, since STR is located in the 'Christians Only Section'.

Look bro. Before I acquired my non-denom icon and later my shiney new Anglican Icon, I had the "other religion" icon. I was a neo-gnostic. Enough said.

I read a couple of Bishop John Shelby Spong's texts, and some Thomas Merton, and decided I could call myself a Christian after all.
And here I am.

No Swansong

17th November 2006, 04:34 PM

For the purposes of this forum "Christian" is defined as belief in the Trinity and acceptance of the complete Nicene Creed within the allowable addendum. While we may discuss any doctrine this is a reminder that it is not up to us to call upon anyone to prove their beliefs if they have already assented to these basic tenets of the faith. To have a Christian icon one has indeed made this affirmation. With that said also please keep in mind that rule 1.3 forbids misrepresentation of beliefs in order to obtain a Christian Icon. It is my hope that we can continue discussion of this issue without it degrading. Let us remember above all things charity.

pilgrimgal

17th November 2006, 07:11 PM

I would agree completely, do you feel there are any other 'essential' beliefs?

Chess (love your user name cause Chess is my favorite board game). :thumbsup:

I was mainly interested in replying to the original question regarding the Divinity of Christ...but may I suggest you check out the BCP (Book of Common Prayer) and the information starting with page 845 (An Outline of the Faith)

and (Historical Documents of the Church) which follows. on page 864.

As others have probably shared here...I think unity of worship is an essential. And Anglicans surely have that!!!

When I first began to look into the Anglican faith a few years ago I found the following book informative:

Welcome to the Episcopal Church: An Introduction to Its History, Faith, and Worship by Christopher L. Webber

This book stresses that the worship of God is the most important thing that can be said about Anglicans and that worship is the source of all Anglican community, committment to justice, and evangelistic outreach.

In Christ,

pilgrimgal :)

AngCath

17th November 2006, 09:06 PM

Would this be considered a mandatory belief among the Anglican/Episcopal Church? Is there a middle path to take with something this crucial?

Ummm, if you deny the divinity of Christ you are not only not within right thinking for Anglicanism but Christianity.

No Swansong

17th November 2006, 09:27 PM

Ummm, if you deny the divinity of Christ you are not only not within right thinking for Anglicanism but Christianity.
Agreed, no middle way on this one. Divinity of Christ is absolutely essential.

ChessCastle

18th November 2006, 04:25 AM

Agreed, no middle way on this one. Divinity of Christ is absolutely essential.

:clap::clap::clap:

I am glad most of us seem to agree on this!

ChessCastle

18th November 2006, 04:28 AM

Chess (love your user name cause Chess is my favorite board game). :thumbsup:

I was mainly interested in replying to the original question regarding the Divinity of Christ...but may I suggest you check out the BCP (Book of Common Prayer) and the information starting with page 845 (An Outline of the Faith)

and (Historical Documents of the Church) which follows. on page 864.

As others have probably shared here...I think unity of worship is an essential. And Anglicans surely have that!!!

When I first began to look into the Anglican faith a few years ago I found the following book informative:

Welcome to the Episcopal Church: An Introduction to Its History, Faith, and Worship by Christopher L. Webber

This book stresses that the worship of God is the most important thing that can be said about Anglicans and that worship is the source of all Anglican community, committment to justice, and evangelistic outreach.

In Christ,

pilgrimgal :)

I am going to look for the Webber book pilgrimgal, thanks for the reference.

Always nice to meet another chess lover! :thumbsup:

Torah613

22nd November 2006, 12:24 PM

The Real question here is "Is Christ a Man." Everyone would agree that yes, He was at least a man. But the only answer that fits with the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils is that He was, is, and always be both fully man and fully divine.

Joe Zollars

karen freeinchristman

22nd November 2006, 04:42 PM

gtsecc

22nd November 2006, 05:19 PM

I don't know if this is off-topic, but I've never been able to understand the concept of the resurrected/ascended Christ still being fully human as well as divine. The divine part I understand, but how can he still be fully human? After the resurrection, he was not the same kind of human as we are - his wounds were still visible and yet his body wasn't behaving as ours would.

I find it very difficult to think of him as still being physical. :scratch:
Our redemption is because Christ took our full humanity and redeemed every part of life from conception onward. He then took it and defeated death. Then assended into heaven, with our humanity. Maybe if you got an icon of Christ it would help you understand his humanity and physical nature. I think the more "protestant" one gets, the more difficult it is to comprehend Christ as human. Ask any Catholic what Divinity looks like, and they will tell you a man crucified on wood. The images are so normal and commonly seen, it is easier for that tradition to understand them both. Liekwise in the Orthodox Church, almost all have Christ on the dome, and many other places.

pilgrimgal

22nd November 2006, 07:49 PM

I don't know if this is off-topic, but I've never been able to understand the concept of the resurrected/ascended Christ still being fully human as well as divine. The divine part I understand, but how can he still be fully human? After the resurrection, he was not the same kind of human as we are - his wounds were still visible and yet his body wasn't behaving as ours would.

I find it very difficult to think of him as still being physical. :scratch:

We just discussed this very thing at my bible study group. It really is a mystery, but Jesus (after the resurrection) had a glorified body...and perhaps this foreshadows that we will have one too after the resurrection of our body. I said to my friends..."Does this mean I get to be 35 again?.:D

http://www1.christianforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=90549&d=1164235624

karen freeinchristman

22nd November 2006, 07:51 PM

Our redemption is because Christ took our full humanity and redeemed every part of life from conception onward. He then took it and defeated death. Then assended into heaven, with our humanity. Maybe if you got an icon of Christ it would help you understand his humanity and physical nature. I think the more "protestant" one gets, the more difficult it is to comprehend Christ as human. Ask any Catholic what Divinity looks like, and they will tell you a man crucified on wood. The images are so normal and commonly seen, it is easier for that tradition to understand them both. Liekwise in the Orthodox Church, almost all have Christ on the dome, and many other places.
Thanks for replying to my question, Glen; I have no problem at all understanding his humanity prior to the resurrection. Then, between the resurrection and the ascension, I can just about still understand it. :) However, my main problem is what Jesus is like now - I have always imagined him to be spiritual after the ascension. I guess I can get my head around it if I consider that when we die, we will still be human... ??? Will we? I guess so. I think I have a problem with what defines us as human. (The body and the physical aspect of being human.) I don't think that part of being human carries on after death, although we are told we will get 'new' bodies, so... :scratch: :help:

I just really have a problem with thinking of Jesus as being fully human and fully divine now, not prior to his ascension. :sigh: Is it actually explainable?

Torah613

22nd November 2006, 11:46 PM

The way I see it, notice the traditional Eastern response to any perplexing theological question, it is a Mystery. We know that prior to the Ascension that He had a physical, corporeal body. Otherwise how could Thomas have touched his wounds.

Now, how it is after the Ascension--that is a Mystery, not to be accepted on blind faith but on the tradition of the Church. Even the Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Christians who rehjected the fourth oecumenical council accept this tradition.

Joe Zollars

gtsecc

23rd November 2006, 12:44 AM

Thanks for replying to my question, Glen; I have no problem at all understanding his humanity prior to the resurrection. Then, between the resurrection and the ascension, I can just about still understand it. :) However, my main problem is what Jesus is like now - I have always imagined him to be spiritual after the ascension. I guess I can get my head around it if I consider that when we die, we will still be human... ??? Will we? I guess so. I think I have a problem with what defines us as human. (The body and the physical aspect of being human.) I don't think that part of being human carries on after death, although we are told we will get 'new' bodies, so... :scratch: :help:

I just really have a problem with thinking of Jesus as being fully human and fully divine now, not prior to his ascension. :sigh: Is it actually explainable?
Did you grow up in a traditon that had images of a resurected Christ? Maybe a Stained glass window of Christ enthroned? Icons of Christ with the wounds in his human flesh in transfigured state? I really think iconoclast traditions have a problem with this. Get an icon of a resurected CHrist - liek Christ Enthroned. I wonder if you would find it helpful in your prayer life, not that you need it, just is somethign which might be new to you. I'd love to knwo what you thought about it.