glorified human nature?

Originally Posted by mizpeh

When you say Jesus if fully human and fully God, what exactly do you mean by that? Are you talking about "the person of the Son" or are you talking about the man, Jesus Christ, who the disciples walked and talked with?

I mean that Jesus, with regard to His divinity, is fully God and that Jesus, with regard to His humanity, is fully human. Unlike the Cappadocian fathers, however, I don't try to commingle or intermix the two natures (though they are united in hypostatic union). I agree with the following Christological statement except for the use of the phrase "copies of their natures," preferring simply "their natures":

But our faith in the dispensation of Christ should also be in a confession of two natures of Godhead* and manhood, none of us venturing to introduce mixture, commingling, or confusion into the distinctions of those two natures. Instead, while Godhead remains and is preserved in that which belongs to it, and manhood in that which belongs to it, we combine the copies of their natures in one Lordship and one worship because of the perfect and inseparable conjunction which the Godhead had with the manhood. If anyone thinks or teaches others that suffering and change adhere to the Godhead of our Lord, not preserving - in regard to the union of the parsopa^ of our Savior - the confession of perfect God and perfect man, the same shall be anathema. (Synod of Mar Aqaq, AD 486)


*Godhead is an archaic term for "godhood" or the state of being God.

^This is the Aramaic equivalent of the Greek word prosopon.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Arphaxad

Does Jesus still retain His humanity, I dont mean flesh, but his human nature, in His glorified state?

Yes, of course. Otherwise we would not read he is ANTHROPOS (man), which means human being. He is just glorified humanity, which is what God intended for Adam to begin with.

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

Absolutely correct!

Dave you were replying to Chan, but remember that when he claimed that Jesus was fully God and fully man, when he meant was that the father was Jesus's god part and the Son was Jesus' human part - that isn't quite what you and I believe is it!!!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Dave you were replying to Chan, but remember that when he claimed that Jesus was fully God and fully man, when he meant was that the father was Jesus's god part and the Son was Jesus' human part - that isn't quite what you and I believe is it!!!

Iron_Bladder you said "what he meant was"....this is your LAST warning. If you persist in defining what others believe for them then you will be banned yet again. I have given you more than enough warnings. You will NOT be allowed to define what others believe for them. If you can't deal with what people say about their beliefs AS they state it, without redefining what they said into something different than what they said (classical strawman argument) then you need to find another board that will put up with that kind of garbage.

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Dave you were replying to Chan, but remember that when he claimed that Jesus was fully God and fully man, when he meant was that the father was Jesus's god part and the Son was Jesus' human part - that isn't quite what you and I believe is it!!!

You need to STOP LYING about what people are saying. You know full well I never once said anything like "the Father is Jesus' God part and the Son is Jesus' human part." The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed to which I adhere (the version used in Orthodox churches and not the version used in Roman Catholic and liturgical Protestant churches) says that Jesus, with regard to His divinity, is homoousion (the same substance) - of one essence with the Father. In other words, there is ONE GOD and Jesus derives His divinity from that one God. It has nothing to do with God's fatherhood. Answer this: What is it about GOD that makes HIM "the Father"?

You're making too much of Jesus' status as the Son - to the point of denying that Jesus is anything else! That's where you keep getting hung up. Answer this: What is it about GOD that makes HIM "the Son"?

Originally Posted by mfblume

Yes, of course. Otherwise we would not read he is ANTHROPOS (man), which means human being. He is just glorified humanity, which is what God intended for Adam to begin with.

Which means that Jesus also retains His fleshly form (albeit in a glorified state) just as we will retain ours when we go home to be with Him.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Chan

Which means that Jesus also retains His fleshly form (albeit in a glorified state) just as we will retain ours when we go home to be with Him.

I agree perfectly!

[Arphaxad]

Originally Posted by Chan

Which means that Jesus also retains His fleshly form (albeit in a glorified state) just as we will retain ours when we go home to be with Him.

will our bodies be like when we die in appearance? Jesus still had His death wounds, and there were other dead people walking around that people reconized. I know we will be changed from mortal to immortal, but what about appearance?
After I was filled with Holy Ghost the people I used to hang out with said " It looks like Mike and sounds like Mike, but he's changed" lol




ARPH

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Arphaxad

will our bodies be like when we die in appearance? Jesus still had His death wounds, and there were other dead people walking around that people reconized. I know we will be changed from mortal to immortal, but what about appearance?
After I was filled with Holy Ghost the people I used to hang out with said " It looks like Mike and sounds like Mike, but he's changed" lol

Jesus' wounds he retained after the resurrection were obviously and purposely retained, since He was also sliced to veritable ribbons by the scourging, and none of those scars remained. The nail prints and spear wound alone remained. Our appearance will be the same, but without old age, I would suspect, for those who died at an old age.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Jesus' wounds he retained after the resurrection were obviously and purposely retained, since He was also sliced to veritable ribbons by the scourging, and none of those scars remained. The nail prints and spear wound alone remained. Our appearance will be the same, but without old age, I would suspect, for those who died at an old age.

Excellent post, Brother Blume!