Timeline for What is the basis of the view that Jesus was separated from the Father and Holy Spirit upon death?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:56 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://christianity.stackexchange.com/ with https://christianity.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jul 7, 2016 at 11:32 | comment | added | Joshua | This answer severely misunderstands or misrepresented the hypostatic union. The conclusion commits the opposite of the heresies it speaks against by acting like Jesus was only the spiritual divine nature, lowering the body to a suit. That is Eutychianism/Monophysitism. Orthodoxy upholds Miaphysitism, the two nature's of Christ. The human Jesus was Jesus. Him dying was no less real than any one of us dying. The divine nature of Jesus did not cease to exist, but it was certainly separated in communion. But not in union of substance. Also, you misunderstand impassIbility... | |
| Apr 23, 2013 at 4:07 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| Apr 17, 2013 at 19:55 | comment | added | Jon Ericson | @svidgen: I should point out that Nestorius rejected the title "Mother of God" because he believed that Jesus' divinity could (and at times, must) be separated from His humanity. The heresy is a slippery little bugger, so it's not surprising that we lapse into it when we aren't on guard for it. | |
| Apr 17, 2013 at 16:26 | comment | added | svidgen | @JonEricson Thinking "aloud," I'm not sure we'd could accurately claim that Mary brought the spiritual Jesus into the world though, if that's what you're implying. Jesus, being God, is omnipresent. I think it's more accurate to say she's vehicle by which the Divinity of Jesus unites with the Humanity of Jesus. | |
| Apr 16, 2013 at 20:52 | comment | added | Jon Ericson | Nestorianism also has the unfortunate consequence (for many Christians) of denying Mary the title "Mother of God". If only the humanity of Jesus died on the cross, it logically means that Mary was only responsible for bringing that human portion of Jesus into the world. | |
| Apr 16, 2013 at 16:12 | comment | added | Alypius | @svidgen Right, spiritual death is not a destruction of the soul. Christ suffering a destruction of His Spirit would be Christ suffering the destruction of the Holy Spirit, which is clearly impossible. I've made a chat room for discussing this question here. | |
| Apr 16, 2013 at 15:29 | comment | added | svidgen | @Alypius Well, I half take that back. We do assert spiritual death. But, we also claim the spirit lives forever. Paradox upon paradox, confounded by language. | |
| Apr 16, 2013 at 15:27 | comment | added | svidgen | @Alypius Yeah. I'm hesitant to settle on an understanding of the Hilary above -- for Jesus Christ is God's Word. (He withdraws from Himself?) It's confusing. But, at the heart of it all, I still fail to see why we would assume Christ's death differs in nature from our own death, which, according to every Christian denomination I know, makes no claim that the soul/spirit dies ... ever. So, why should Christ's? | |
| Apr 16, 2013 at 15:24 | comment | added | Alypius | @svidgen Just looking at the Father, He cannot die. But Christ can die: He was made flesh, and died for our salvation. We need not worry about a human-only death, because when Christ dies, death is attributed to the Person (Divine), not one of the two natures. Hilary (quote above) says that before Jesus died, the Father had withdrawn "the protection of God’s word". This does not sound like separation, and it happens a short time before Christ's actual death. So the implication above is that the living Christ was literally separated. Weird! (Probably heretical in Catholicism/Orthodox.) | |
| Apr 16, 2013 at 14:19 | comment | added | svidgen | I guess I should clarify. Why must we insist that that Christ's bodily death necessarily entails a spiritual death? Isn't this mixed-state precisely what we say of all the other deceased? Why not for Christ then? (And loosely related, angels and demons, who are spiritually alive, though some in heaven, some in hell, but neither with living human or corporeal components.) | |
| Apr 16, 2013 at 13:53 | comment | added | svidgen | I'm not sure a human-only death is as problematic as you suggest. | |
| Apr 16, 2013 at 4:14 | history | edited | Affable Geek | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4528 characters in body
|
| Apr 16, 2013 at 3:18 | comment | added | Affable Geek | Interestingly, I believe it is Catholic dogma that is more concerned with the impassability of the Father. Personally, it is not a doctrine that I am as comfortable defending. I'll leave that to my Roman brothers. As to condemning Patripassiansim, I believe I've made the logical link explicit as possible, and then pointed to Leo to say its heretical. | |
| Apr 15, 2013 at 22:49 | comment | added | Alypius | @svidgen Jesus cried during His life, but we would not need to posit that He separated for this to happen. I think that whole issue is something apart, because "separation" is being invoked specifically at death, not in general (which is simply #2 in the question). My main worry here is not the content, but the fact that it needs a source or several that actually says "Patripassianism is the reason for this doctrine of separation", and a comment on why this does or does not contradict the Divine Institutes/Athanasian Creed etc. | |
| Apr 15, 2013 at 22:39 | comment | added | svidgen | I guess in a related objection to the relevance, we're also told that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever." (Hebrews 13:8) So, the non-modality is not a distinct characteristic of the Father. It also, somewhat confusingly, applies to Christ -- the same Christ who apparently changed state. | |
| Apr 15, 2013 at 22:38 | history | edited | El'endia Starman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Inserted a clarifying sentence and removed a doubled pair of words.
|
| Apr 15, 2013 at 22:31 | comment | added | svidgen | I'll refrain from voting here, because there's more information here than I was aware of. But, I don't see the discussion on shared or not-shared suffering between the Father and Son as have meaningful relevance to their unity and whether God could have at any point been divided in matter -- or if divided in some "non-material" way by the death of the Son, in what way. | |
| Apr 15, 2013 at 22:08 | comment | added | Alypius | Indicating worries over uncertainty. I don't think this can be right -- at least, not in any denomination I am familiar with. We can avoid the heresy of Patripassianism here by confessing the Hypostatic Union. Are these sources really suggesting that we need to separate Jesus from the Father so that Jesus could die, without affecting the Father? Jesus is True God, God unchanging. All that is required for the death of Jesus is that, in the human nature of the hypostasis (not the Divine nature), the body and soul come apart. The "No one Like Him" seems to be asserting #2 in the question, no? | |
| Apr 15, 2013 at 21:56 | history | edited | Affable Geek | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 184 characters in body
|
| Apr 15, 2013 at 21:50 | history | edited | Affable Geek | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 105 characters in body
|
| Apr 15, 2013 at 21:45 | history | edited | Affable Geek | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 105 characters in body
|
| Apr 15, 2013 at 21:35 | history | edited | Affable Geek | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 357 characters in body
|
| Apr 15, 2013 at 21:30 | history | edited | Affable Geek | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 357 characters in body
|
| Apr 15, 2013 at 21:26 | history | edited | Narnian | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Apr 15, 2013 at 21:21 | history | answered | Affable Geek | CC BY-SA 3.0 |