Interesting. Would you happen to have a good source that I could link to? What I said that I don't understand the divine versus human. Perhaps I have not been properly catechized in that area.
His natures are not mixed or intermingled, or confused, nor competing against each other, but in perfect harmony.. Hence his human will never opposes his divine will in perfect obedience because the divinity does not conform itself to humanity.
I've read from a number of sources and still don't quite get it. Not saying that it is not so, definitely not, but I don't quite get it.
Mark, the subject was Christ's perfect obeidnece in his human nature to his divine nature. I am not sure what is there not to understand. The only way for a man not to sin is to be in perfrect obedience to God's law. Therefore, he did't do what his human nature tempted him to do but what his divine nature demaneded. This way his human character becomes transparent, invisible, and all we see is him acting out his divine will. When does he act out his human will contrary to his divine will?
I've read from a number of sources and still don't quite get it. Not saying that it is not so, definitely not, but I don't quite get it
The Church defined orthodox Chrisitlogy at the Council of Chalcedon (5th century). One Person, tewo natures, two wills, one divine and another one human. Chirst is in perfect harmony with his natures, which are unconfused but inseparable (hypostatic union).
No one can say they "understand" it.