Quote:
Originally posted by paul manata
Quote: |
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.
| I can read it in that light. I though it was a backhanded slap. That is, a criticism phrased as a question.
|
Seriously, forgive me. You are right it could be read that way, and that was bad writing on my part.
Quote:
Originally posted by paul manata
1. The catechism makes it clear that you cannot dipict his person.
2. There is no way to depict a nature apart from a person.
3. To depict Christ depicts his person.
4. Therefore, you are at odds with the confession.
|
This is my point. Do you disagree?
Quote:
Originally posted by paul manata
We can analyze this later, but an attribute is *not* the nature. The body is an attribute of the human nature. Christ was still the same person even away from the body. On your above argument, then, you must say that the person was dead for three days since everything attributed to the nature must be attributed to the whole person.
|
Isn't that exactly the point? Doesn't a person die? Not a body? But isn't the definition of death one that involves the separation of soul from body? Because a man (other than Christ) does not die in the sense that he ceases to exist either. We define death as the destruction (so to sepak) of the body, not the person:
Quote:
|
The bodies of men after death return to dust, and see corruption; but their souls, (which neither die nor sleep,) having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them (WCF 32.1)
|