10

I generally write from a reformed perspective, but I don't think there's anything in this post that other Christians (Oriental Orthodox and Church of the East aside) would disagree with. The doctrine was first formulated clearly by the Council of Chalcedon: One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God ...


8

I suspect it should read a 'duad of sons', not a 'daud of sons'. A duad is something made two parts. Compare it with triad or monad. The Nestorian position is sometimes described as teaching that Christ is a duad, composed of a divine person and a human person. According to this, Jesus was not a single person who was fully man and fully God. Instead, the ...


6

A better summarization of your statement would be "Monophysitism and Nestorianism are heresy; the Chalcedonian position is orthodox. The heresies over-emphasize one of the natures, but the orthodox position stresses that both are fully present and effective." Obviously, "heresy" is a word that carries a strong connotation, but it does have an actual ...


5

The short answer is that, correctly understood, Miaphysitism can be compatible with the Catholic Faith. In order to see how this is so, it is important to understand carefully what Catholics understand by “Miaphysistism.” This position refers to a formula attributed to St. Cyril of Alexandria, intended to defend the so-called “communion of properties” in ...


5

These are deep questions that are difficult to answer, but I'll give it a shot. Most of what I'm going to say is derived from Oliver D. Crisp's book Divinity and Humanity. How far is this model to be extended? I have heard it said that not only does Christ have two wills, but also two minds. Is this an accurate interpretation of Chalcedonian theology? ...


5

As a Coptic Orthodox Christian, many of the differences between the two Churches results in the language and definitions of some key orthodox concepts. In fact, much of the Christology of both Churches is the same. Hesychasm may be experienced by ascetic individuals, usually highly spiritual monks and nuns. Little is known about such matters as these ...


4

Origen of Alexandria (184/185 – 253/254) He was a passionate believer in free will. Origen broaches the subject of the hierarchical arrangement of the world early in De Principiis in relation to the question of the celestial hierarchy of angels and demons. Are these rational beings essentially good or bad, or do they become so through free will? ...


4

There is a complex Christological history behind this question. The common ground is that Jesus Christ is of two natures, divine and human. Christ's divine nature is uncreated and pre-existent, while his human nature is given through the Blessed Virgin Mary. This was then taken in two ways: The theologians of Antioch in Syria emphasized the completeness of ...


3

St. Paul is saying that Jesus is not "man" in the sense he here refers to: "a mere man." Rather, Jesus, "who, being in the form of God, deemed not equality with God robbery, but humbled himself, taking the form of a servant: being made in the likeness of men, and in habit also found as man." (Phil. 2:6-7) From (apo) means "apostle sent from" and by (dia) ...


3

The Definition produced by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 is an interesting text because it wasn't intended to stand alone; it was produced by people who knew well that they were part of a series of church councils stretching back over a century. So the Chalcedonian Definition endorses the 325 Nicene Creed, and it's 381 Constantinopolitan revision, as well ...


3

My understanding is that Divine nature and human nature cannot 'merge' but are united in the Person of Christ. The union is in his Person, not in an attribute : 'nature'. I assume that I would be referred to as a 'Chalcedonian'. From my own point of view, therefore, as a Chalcedonian, the situation is not reconcilible. The concept of Divine nature and human ...


2

To understand what Chalcedon did, and did not establish with regard to whether Jesus had one will or two wills, it might be a good idea to state the crux of the Creed agreed upon by the emperor and bishops on October 25, 451. “In agreement, therefore, with the holy fathers we all unanimously teach that we should confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is one and ...


2

In my research, Dyothelitism (union of the two wills from the two minds of the one Christ) is actually explained by Myaphisitism (union of the two natures, the natures did not become one. The nature were one i.e united/in unity). These two were succinctly the Hypostatic Union. Myaphisitism agrees with Chalcedon that the Lord Jesus Christ is consubstantial ...


2

Questions like this one concerning the incarnation of God really stretch the limits of what we can comprehend. Over the centuries Christians came to settle on terms like "person" or "hypostasis" as the best ways they could think of to explain and reconcile the many truths taught by the scriptures, even though they can't do justice to the full reality of God. ...


2

Yes, Jesus was resurrected like a new human being. What Paul is trying to say is that his teaching is not of human origin like religious tachings are. He is trying to say he didn't got his doctrine from human sources, but from Jesus, who is the Son of God.


2

Since I answered one of the original questions, I'll try answering here in a similar vein. First: Take the claim "Jesus can't be fully human without a human will;" why can't Jesus be fully human because He has a will as a person? As in, a will that is attributed to the person of Christ rather than to his individual human nature. I don't get how ...


2

I don't believe that the nature of Christ's resurrected body needs to be a part of the answer. Paul is creating a distinction here in Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle - not from men nor through man, BUT through Jesus Christ and God the Father... in order to establish the source of his authority. A great deal of this entire epistle is a defense of his ...


2

The Greek text does not say "a man". It is not talking in the singular about any one man. It states, "...not from men..." Rather, this is a collective form, speaking of humanity. Paul was not authorised for his task through men, that is, through any one body of mankind (e.g. the Sanhedrin or any other body). His authority came from Heaven, through a ...


2

The question, which I am answering (as it stands at 19:09 GMT on 03 February 2020) is : How can Paul say his apostleship is not from men, neither through man ? Paul makes clear in Galatians 1:1 that his apostleship was not through man, or by man. It was through Jesus Christ and through God Father (literal). If not through man or by man and if through (that ...


2

Nestorians don't believe in two wills and two subjects. Church of the East who has been mislabelled as Nestorians predominantly live in Syria, Iran, and India is a church from the Apostolic time who still exists today. They rejected all councils from Roman Empire region except Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381). The confusion was caused because Nestorius ...


2

According to Shoemaker's Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption pp. 68-69, it's from the Euthymiac History: Perhaps the most famous of these traditions is a brief work known as the Euthymiac History. This legend was interpolated into the second of John of Damascus’ homilies on the Dormition* at an early point in their ...


1

John of Damascus records the source of the quote as from St. Juvenal bishop of Jerusalem CE 450. "St. John Damascene (d. 749) also recorded an interesting story concerning the Assumption: "St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of ...


1

The short answer is that, yes, Jesus, the Divine Son, is 100% God (and also 100% man), provided we understand that God does not have “parts” and so could percentages could never be properly attributed to Him. As the O.P. correctly intuits, the root of the answer lies in the distinction between person and nature. First of all, it is important to state from ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible