Quote:
Originally posted by paul manata
Yes, I agree with those. And, if I'm nestorian then you're bying into docetic diminution of the reality of the incarnation. But, I'd rather nor have this thread degenerate into name calling.
I'm confused, though, you said this in another thread: "I would think this merely refers to the true humanity of Christ - namely that he could get sick, hurt, etc. That is what I think "accidents" means."
Did you just seperate persons?
Or, take the proposition: "Jesus wept." Now, theologically, we would say that, "In respects to his human nature, Jesus wept." When we do that do we seperate person?
Or, "Who touched me?" Did the omnsicient not know something? No. Again, that we properly be classified as attributed to his human nature and not a seperation of person.
Lastly, I just want to make sure you're not comminting the error of materialism. I agree with this statement you posted: "... and so was and continues to be God and man, in two entire distinct natures, and one person, forever." You don't think that the human "person" *was* the physical body, do you? That is, hypothetically, if Christ lost a limb while playing as a child, would he not have been the same *person* anymore? When Jesus lay in the tomb was the *person* dead? No. The body is properly attributed to his *human* nature.
So, the distinction between person and nature is important in that there are attributes of the divine nature that the human doesn't have and there are attributes of the human nature that the divine doesn't have. For example, with respects to Jesus' humanity he was not omnipotent. And, with respects to his divine nature, he couldn't get sick.
|
Paul,
I am sorry if I gave the impression that I was calling you a Nestorian. I rather meant to say that since separation of the Natures is Nestorian, that would not be an option for you.
It appears to me (at least) that all that you have cited cuts against the position of depicting only Christ's humanity. His person is certainly more than His body. And so when we depict Him, we cannot depict
just a nature. We have to depict the hypostatic union, which is in effect - His Person.
So my point here, and then we can move on, is that the Catechism makes clear you cannot depict His Person. Since there is no way to depict a Nature separate from a Person (unless a Nestorian two Person construct is given), then to depict Christ is to depict His person. So if you say we can depict Christ, that is a Biblical discussion, but not a Confessional one, for you would necessarily have to disagree with WLC 109.