Replies

Surely you don't believe that God suffered and died on the cross?!? If you do, then you are mixing and confusing the divine and human natures Christian believe Jesus Christ possesses. Basic Christian theology holds that divinity is not subject suffering and death.

Hilary of Poitiers (315-367) was best known for his stands vs. the Arian sect. He was apppointed as a bishop.

He wrote: "We have declared REPEATEDLY AND WITHOUT CEASE that it was the only-begotten Son of God who was crucified, and that He was condemned to death...it must be understood that He underwent the passion not from any natural necessity, but for the sake of the mystery of man's salvation; and that His submitting to the passion was not from His being compelled thereto, but of Hiw own will. God suffered, therefore, because He voluntarily submitted Himself to the passion." (Hilary's commentary on the Psalms, commenting on Psalm 53-54)

Another bishop, Cyril of Jerusalem (310-386), likewise emphasized how Jesus "did not give up His life by compulsion...except it were voluntary. Hear what He says: 'I have the power to lay down My life, and I have the power to take it up again. Willingly do I yield it to My enemies...'"(Cyril's Catechetical Lectures)

This was clearly 4th-century expositional pronouncements of the historic Christian church.

For you to then waltz in via the 21st century and suppose what "basic Christian theology" -- clearing all that disagrees with you via some wave of a keyboard hand -- is the height of superimposed arrogance and ignorance combined into one poster.

Congrats!

If you do, then you are mixing and confusing the divine and human natures...

Do I need to quote you DOZENS and DOZENS and DOZENS of entries where the early church fathers supposedly "mixed" these natures?

They wrote about how the MAN Jesus Christ is to be adored (worshiped) -- something only we are to do for God. (And JEWISH writers like Matthew highlighted that as well)

They wrote about how Christ was free from both original and personal sin...repeatedly in the New Testament AND the early church writers. Tell us, Kosta, are you saying Jesus was sinful? Yes? Do you think mere man alone since Adam's fall can be free from sin as Jesus was?

They wrote on ALL kinds of occasions about how Christ, the Son of God, had a body capable of suffering...a body subject to human infirmities...a body subject to human passions.

Hilary of Poitiers (315-367)...God suffered, therefore, because He voluntarily submitted Himself to the passion.

The Church follows Council pronouncements and not individual opinions of its bishops. Individual bishops' opinions are just that: theologoumena, not doctrines of the Church. The Church allows such pinions, even if they depart form the official doctrine, as long as they are presented as hypotheses and as long as they do not violate the Triniatrian and Chrisotlogcial dogmas of the Church. In this, Poiters' opinion does violate the dogma of the Church, but it was formulated before the Church declared itself on the issue of divine suffering. (the first Ecumenical Council that did took place some 20 years after Poiters' death)

The official position of the Church on this issue was made clear in its quest to combat Nestorian heresy at the 3rd and 4th Ecumenical Councils:

not that the Word of God suffered blows or piercing with nails or any other wounds in his own nature (for the divine, being without a body, is incapable of suffering)

For he was without suffering (apathes), while his body suffered. Something similar is true of his dying. For by nature the Word of God is of itself immortal and incorruptible and life and life-giving

the Word is said to have suffered death for us, not as if he himself had experienced death as far as his own nature was concerned (it would be sheer lunacy to say or to think that), but because as I have just said, his flesh tasted death

not as though he had fallen into corruption--God forbid--but because his body had been raised again

I don't know what the Latin Church teaches (I suspect the same thing), so I will defer to Cronos on that, but the Eastern (Orthodox) Church finitely stands by the Ecumneical Council statements to this day as its official doctrine.

Your ignorance is obvious. Copy-and-paste and Google search does not make you an expert on Church doctrine.

Do I need to quote you DOZENS and DOZENS and DOZENS of entries where the early church fathers supposedly "mixed" these natures?

I don't know what kind of a Christian you are, but if you are Catholic, I suggest you go back to your Catechism classes. Or, better yet, find an Orthodox priest and ask him.

The Council of Chalceodn declare Christ “to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ…”

The orthodox doctrine of the Church teaches that the divine and human nature never mix, or fuse.

Tell us, Kosta, are you saying Jesus was sinful? Yes? Do you think mere man alone since Adam's fall can be free from sin as Jesus was?

I can only tell you what the Church teaches. Christ was without sin in his human nature. That means that his human will was never in conflict with the divine will.

They wrote on ALL kinds of occasions about how Christ, the Son of God, had a body capable of suffering...a body subject to human infirmities...a body subject to human passions

Who said he didn't? His body was not divine. His human nature was not divine. His human will and his human spirit were not divine. He was subject to temptation, and death like any other human. What suffered and died on the cross was his human nature, Jesus in his humanity, not the Logos in divinity, even though it's the same person. God never suffered and died; divine nature is not subject to pain and death. That's the official doctrine of the Church since the end of the 4th century.