RC Sproul is Nestorian

So you're telling me you (((Cathodoxes)) believe that Mary gave birth to the Father and the Holy Spirit when clearly the NT only said the Son entered the world as flesh?
The early Christians would not recognize you people.

Attached: 334801c9b42bd98c566820235f6a67c87aa934c95ba00665f34960e096d4b089.jpg (350x543, 40.01K)

Wrong. Had you even spend one second reading Cyril's writings or even reading about what the Christological controversy is, you know that Nestorius never taught a "two sons" view but he comes close to it because of his Prosophic theory.

And what does Nestorius Prosophic theory says? It says that it is inapproriate to say God died and suffered. It's only Christ the human prosopha that died, suffered and was resurrected.

Are you mad that you are blatantly opposing Chalcedon and Ephesus?

If you want a retarded statement, this is it. He even explicitly denies the Second Person of the Trinity died, contra the authotity of Chalcedon and Ephesus, Cyril. In fact had you actually bothered to read what he says against Nestorius, you would had known this basic fact!

And dont go "muh two sons". Nestorius clearly didnt believe that. If any, he simply taught two prosopha that operate within its own distinctive spheres and when Jesus Christ suffered, it is not God who suffered but the human prosopha!

You know what is funny, this reasoning is precisely what Cyril records Nestorius as using

See, this right here is proof it's retarded for the (((mods))) to ban anyone who denies the phrase mother of God for being Nestorian. This user doesn't object because he's a Nestorian, he objects because he's a non-Trinitarian

what is wrong with you?

how is that different from saying that Christ's human and divine are distinct?

You're screaming "wrong you don't understand you didn't read etc"

but you're not presenting a counterargument you're just reiterating what I just said in different words

This is what he(Nestorius) said then, when he pronounced the term ‘Theotokos’ unsound as applied to the holy Virgin:

1 (((I(Nestorius) often asked them (that is, those who contradict him), ‘Do you say that the Godhead has been born of the holy Virgin?’))) At once they pounce on the phrase, ‘And who,’ they say, ‘is so sick with such a blasphemy as to say that in her who gave birth to the temple, in her was God conceived by the Spirit?’ (((Then when I reply to this, ‘What is wrong, then, about our advising the avoidance of this expression and the acceptance of the common meaning of the two natures?)))’ then it seems to them that what we have said is blasphemy. (((Either admit clearly that the Godhead has been born from the blessed Mary))), or if you avoid this expression as blasphemous, why do you say the same things as I do, yet pretend that you are not saying them?18

From:Against Nestorius, quoted from Norman Russell's "Cyril of Alexandria"(pg.132)

That was never Nestorius' belief. In fact given you cant even understand what the basic Prosopha theory he held to shows you hardly have any understanding of the Christological controversy at all.

Come back when you actually read some Cyril

That was never Nestorius' belief. In fact given you cant even understand what the basic Prosopha theory he held to shows you hardly have any understanding of the Christological controversy at all.

Come back when you actually read some Cyril

And come back when you actually see how different Prosopha theory is from Cyril's own views and description. Cyril would reject Sproul's abhorrence for the Second Person dying or suffering. Nestorius would easily appaud it!

no I don't have to read Cyril because there are secondary sources out there that outline what what the Nestorian heresy is

we don't know what Nestorius beleived, you think you do because you don't know what you're talking about, but his actual beliefs aren't clear because his writings haven't survived

What we do know, and what's actually relevant in this discussion is what the Nestorian heresy actually is because that's what was condemned by the early church, and that's the belief that there are 2 separate persons in Christ ( a divine and human and Mary was only a parent of the divine)

and we don't have to believe your authority or read Cyril we can just check the wikipedia page on Nestorius

This is outright false when we literally have Nestorius' Book of Heraclides where the Christology presented matches what we now know to be his Christology. All you shown is you dont even know what you are talking about

Second, the reason Chalcedon and Ephesus considered the Nestorian view as heresy and as "two sons" is because that is the implication of such a belief, eventhough as it is clear in Cyril's own personal writings, he denies this. You are simply butthurt one of your Reformed guys ended up describing Christology in a manner the real Nestorius would had done and one contrary to what Ephesus and Chalcedon would had done.

Which surprise, aligns with what I had stated this whole time

And now let us move away from wiki to the actual scholarship done on the topic itself.

Notice something? Nestorius rejects the Alexandrian view which was upheld by Ephesus and Chalcedon. He thinks Cyril and the Alexandrians are simply going Apollinarian with their emphasis on Christ's flesh being transformed and deified

Attached: Screenshot_20181015-112346_Adobe Acrobat.jpg (1080x1920 984.32 KB, 909.12K)

so you take a quote from the wiki, say that it's outright false and then say that the wiki aligns with what you believed

does that align with what you said the whole time, because it sounds like the opposite of what you've been saying in this thread

(you)

you are either insincere or confused and either way it seems like there's little worth in continuing this conversation

so your problem is that you read a piece of apologetics that's outside of your reading level, didn't understand it and now think you understand anything

read the first thing you highlighted

(which implies Nestorius believed they could not be mixed and were separate)

Second highlight

Cyril wanted to preserve the singleness of Christ (ie. the singleness of Christs human and divine natures) Nestorius opposed that - this implying two natures

The last paragraph of 133 also talks about how Nestorius thought it was ludicrous to talk of Christ's human and divine natures being one being the human nature is tiny and the divine nature is big and because it would result in Christ praying to himself

Look at what I explicitly said, I said the wiki agrees with my point. And this is obvious, it states that Nestorius' opponents accused him of espousing a "two sons view". It defining Nestorian Christology as "two distinct hypothasis" matches my point because as I said, Nestorius believed the two natures of Christ must remain separate in their distinct sphere of operations. Here's a fun fact, "hypostasis", "ousia", "physis" all have a wide semantic range of meaning. In fact the way you defined it here is as "person", which is misleading as not even Cyril uses "hypostasis" as "individual person". As Mcguckin notes in "Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy". Hypostasis can actually mean the same thing as "physis" too(pg.141) and it's definition is broad enough that Athanasius before him have to clarify what he meant by "Hypostasis", using it to refer to "Ousia"

Both Cyril and Nestorius also uses hypostasis differently too, a basic fact you ignored all the while trying to misrepresent scholarship. Rather than acting so confused and silly, actually read Mcguckin as he says. What he says shows Nestorius agrees with RC Sproul and you are just butthurt over this basic fact

so now you're argreeing with my view that Nestorius believed in distinct human and divine natures of Christ and pretending that's what you've been saying all along?

So will you let go of the Nestorianism is about not accepting the Catholic definition of Mary as the mother of God and using it to bully and get protestants banned or are you going to try and obscure and confuse that as well somehow?

This is not Nestorianism, and if you knew what the term meant you would not have made this thread.

It is. If you deny God made atonement and died on the Cross, you are following Nestorius

Are you unable to read?
Mcguckin shows that both Cyril and Nestorius have widely differing Christologies. RC Sproul clearly follows the latter, which makes him either a Nestorian heretic, or a follower of Nestorius himself.

How can a set of attributes make atonement. How can a "nature" suffer? You cant simply say that God didnt atone and die only to say later on the Godman died. That is disingenuous!

so are you a different poster or the same poster with a new IP, cause you sound like that first guy who embarrassingly deleted his first two posts saying exactly the opposite of what he was saying later

I don't know what RC Sproul follows and as a Catholic I don't care, my comments in this thread didn't address him and were solely about the misinterpretation and misapplication of what the Nestorian heresy refers to

You only show yourself here to either have no idea what Nestorius' Prosophic view is, or you are being deliberately confusing.

OP simply states that Sproul follows a Nestorian Christology. Shown by how Cyril uses contradictory langauge than him when describing Christ's union and refuting the attempted Sproul internet defense force that he isnt, with the explanation of "two sons", which Nestorius never believed. So even without the two sons view, Sproul is still Nestorian, as the prosophic view is what Chalcedon and Ephesus both argue against by using Cyril as their main

okay so definately the same guy with a different IP because your writing style and diction are the same,

I don't care about Sproul, never read him, and don't know what he said. I'm just talking about what the Nestorian heresy was, and was debating it with a poster who deleted his first two posts after being shown they were wrong

It is stated by me so many times that Nestorius didnt believe "two sons". So why do you get so mad?

My point simply is RC Sproul who is a Protestant Calvinist held to a Nestorian Christology. Look, I accept that Nestorius never taught a two sons view. I know he rejected it and I apologize for mistaking you as trying to clear Sproul of that charge and confusing what you said.

But, please tell me if someone said God didnt die on that Cross or that God didnt atone for our sins but a human "nature", what do you think that means?

No, he would have to explicitly affirm two separate persons in Christ to be a Nestorian, and Sproul nowhere does this in any of the quotes you gave.
If you want to disagree with him and call him a heretic thats fine, but its dishonest to call him a Nestorian.

As many explained ITT, he doesnt need to say "Two sons". Denying that God suffered and died on the Cross is essentially what Prosophic theory accepts. Nestorius denies the two sons view himself

that's not what I'm debating about, I'm not clear on what Nestorius believed, no one is because what we know about his teachings come from his worst enemies

but the heresy refers to those who confess the "two sons" view - ie believed in distinct divine and human parts to Christ

I was arguing with a person who said that this is not what nestorianism is and made some weird arguments to that effect

As for Sproul I'm not going to comment on some proddy theologian I've never heard of based on a few quotes from some people on Zig Forums

His Book of Heraclides is of his hand which is essentially Nestorius' own reflections of Ephesus.

Then why was he condemned as teaching two sons theology?

And as others have already said we are using the term Nestorianism as a technical term to refer to two sons theology. This is the common usage and would hold independent of what Nestorius thought.

Because that is seen as the logical outcome of Nestorius' prosophon theory. And here's the thing, you cannot isolate that from the condemnation of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Because they are presupposing the Christology of Cyril and well, the prosophon view is precisely what Cyril is going against and he himself is aware, otherwise he would not had mentioned that Nestorius claimed to deny the two sons view.

This sort of argumentation isnt new, early ante nicene fathers used it against Gnostics and use the illustration of moral laxity or fatalism to show the logical implications of their Stoic compatabilist view of agency

Now that is the real heresy in this thread!

Nestorius never claimed Christ was two persons, he claimed Christ was in two natures, which was what Chalcedon later affirmed.

RC Sproul=Nestorius

animefag what do you get out of this aren't you a atheist? ///

...

Fact

Your instinct is probably good, that you (presumably thinking Nestorianism is bad) jump to defend someone from accusations of Nestorianism, and read his words as charitably as possible. However, RC Sproul says what he says, and what he says is textbook Nestorianism. To say that Christ's sufferings applied only to the human nature or that it was not the second person of the Trinity that died, but rather the human nature, is Nestorianism. These sorts of statments are exactly the sort of thing that Nestorius was condemned for by the Council of Ephesus. I'll quote a couple exceprts from the Anathemas against Nestorius. The parts attributed to Nestorius are red-texted.

On the suffering of Christ:

Attached: Ephesus.jpg (600x615, 119.39K)

I don't think Sproul was a Nestorian, I think you are a Monophysite. Suffering and death did not enter into the divine being, and we absolutely should shrink back in horror at the notion they did. That's all Sproul is saying, and if you think otherwise, you are not a Christian. It was indeed the second person of the trinity who died, but He did so only as a man, the God lived on. The Council of Ephesus spoke and condemned in the context of the Nestorian controversy, and that was NOT the context Sproul spoke in. When the Council said that the Word of God died, they did not mean He suffered death in His Godhead, but that as Sproul says it was the God-man who died, which God-man was denied by Nestorius, and apparently by you.

No, Sproul is Nestorian. There is no need for any context there too. You cant say "we should shrick away from any idea that God died on the Cross" or that a "human nature atoned" and then say later it's the Godman who did it. That's a contradiction and is against what Ephesus and even Chalcedon taught.

A "nature" cannot atone for anything, it's just a set of attributes that something possesses, not an entity. A divine person have to suffer and died as the people at Ephesus and Chalcedon agree on. The only person that literally says it is inappropriate to say God suffered or died is Nestorius.

Saying the context is different doesnt excuse Sproul too, as there is NO clarification from Sproul at all on the matter, there is NOTHING in there that says or indicates that a "divine person suffered or died" but only a "nature" which makes his last statement that the godman died and suffered a contradiction.

You know you could have stopped there and this thinly veiled shitpost wouldn't have lost anything

Attached: christ b8.png (625x626, 55.31K)

Really? This is exactly the proposition that Sproul rejects. Specifically the following wording:

That's irrelevant. If someone today were to say, Jesus Christ is not of the same essence with the Father, or that the Father existed before the Son, then they wouls not be speaking in the context of the Arian controversy, but they would be expressing exactly the same opinions that Arius was condemned for. The best argument you can make to defend Sproul against Nestorianism is that what he says is total nonsense and that his words are poorly thought-out, but he is absolutely expressing an Nestorian belief here if we take what he says at face value. Even if Sproul's intentions are good and he would be open to correction on his sloppy wording, words matter.

Christ was a divine being who suffered and died, so this is either an ignorant opinion or a denial of the creed.

This is perfectly fine except the last part, "the God lived on." To live or die doesn't belong to the divine nature. It belongs to the human nature. We only say that God is living in an analogical sense. Christ died as a man (or expressed better, maybe according to his humanity), but it was Christ both God and man who died. To say that man-Christ died while Christ-God lived necessarily implies two Christ persons, which is wrong. Death for humanity is fundamentally the separation of the soul from the body, which is experienced according to human nature, but was something experiences by the one person of Chris, fully God and fully man.

I thought I was a monophysite? Now I'm a Nestorian too?

Sproul does say that the God-man died, but he also says that the Second Person of the Trinity did not die. But this is a contradiction because the God-man is the Second Person of the Trinity. There are a couple possibilities. First that Sproul is incoherent. Second, that Sproul believes the God-man is a distinct person from the Second Person of the Trinity.

More on what Sproul says.

This is a Christian board. Let's keep the language a little more pg-13, okay?

strictly speaking God can't "die" in any sense, a body he uses as a puppet might die, but that isn't his being/essence/substance dying. He can't degrade himself, because he can't change and has no need or purpose for such mutilation.

You people simultaneously parade the phrase, "God is a mystery, God is a mystery"

yet SOMEHOW have such enormous difficulty when prots declare "the God-man is a mystery, the death of Christ is a mystery"

It is just as much hubris to believe you know absolutely everything about how God can "die" as it is to declare you understand implicitly how God can be a man. We know next-to-NOTHING about such matters. And all subsequent theories and declarations ought to be mere theologoumenon.

Attached: autism-meter.jpg (728x426, 28.96K)

get ready to be declared a Nestorian

All it takes is three little single quotes to bold some text, and a mere two to italicise
What you're vomited onto the page is all-but-illegible

Attached: have-you-been-helped-sir.jpg (1200x1200, 136.24K)

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_11111994_assyrian-church_en.html

That document was signed by Pope John Paul II and the Catholicos of the Assyrian Church of the East, which is not in communion with the Catholic Church. The Nestorians in communion with Rome are those of the Chaldean Catholic Church, which is not just a copy of the ACOE in communion with Rome. The Chaldean Church goes back at least to the 17th century, and has had a lot of Roman Catholic influence. They are Nestorian in the sense of denomination, but not meaning that they uphold the beliefs that Nestorius was condemned for. For example, in Michigan, there is even a Mother of God Chaldean Catholic Church.

As for the ACOE, as stated in that document, they do not deny the term Theotokos.

This is a different belief from Nestorius. Nestorius did not say that he personally thought the term "Mother of God" was open to misunderstanding while affirming it's orthodoxy. Instead he preached that the term should be abolished, using stupid arguments like "Mary can't be the mother of someone who existed before her" or implying that there were two seprate Christs. The ACOE here affirms the orthodoxy of "Mother of God" and says that it uses an alternative term, "Mother of Christ our God," which has exactly the same meaning as "Mother of God" in more words.

No it isn't, not if you treat him with respect by respecting the context. He is clearly talking about the divine nature, which can also be referred to by divine names, and how the divine nature did not suffer death (which, again, you are not a Christian if you disagree). That's why he says "That would be a mutation within the very being of God, because when we look at the Trinity we say that the three are one in essence, and that though there are personal distinctions among the persons of the Godhead, those distinctions are not essential in the sense that they are differences in being", which would not apply if he was talking about the person of Christ. The Word of God the Father dying in His flesh alone would not have Trinitarian ramifications.
No it isn't. Do you think someone saying something like "the God and man are different" would be interpreted the same way if he said this at Ephesus or Chalcedon? If someone was saying that Mary gave birth to 'divine flesh', would it not be orthodox in this context to deny that she gave birth to God? Words only have value in that they convey meaning, and the meaning of words is modified by context.
Apples and oranges.
No, what he says is fact, and disagreement with it is disagreement with the Christian religion. Did the divine nature of Jesus die, yes or no?
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt until this point. It is you who denies the creed, because it says "Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man". There was no suffering or death in the divine being, to even suggest it is a gross blasphemy. Only the man Jesus Christ suffered death on the cross, and when His soul went to hell, His undying Godhood went with.
I'm well aware. I gave no implication of proper life in God. The "life" of God is not truly life, but is so far beyond what we as creatures are capable of comprehending, that when we contemplate it we rationalize it to the closest thing we know, namely life, which itself has similarity to God by virtue of it being a poor copy of His nature.
The deity of Jesus Christ exists independently of His humanity. His body was broken and killed, but this had no impact on God the Word. It is completely wicked and profane to say this God died with the man, as if the two are one chimeric nature.
No. Nestorius denied the unity of the God-man, but you deny the existence of the man.
He is using the meaning which is synonymous with "undergo".
The word being means existence, and the divine and human nature are unequivocally different modes of Christ's existence.
The human nature of Christ is not abstract. It possesses tangible being. It is completely correct to say it died.
Death is a fundamental alteration of being. If the divine nature had died, it would create a real difference of essence within the Godhead, because death is essential. We could not feasibly say a dead thing is identically the same as a living thing.
Well no it was not Mr. Eutyches, because the human nature was assumed into His person, not His being. The man was added to His person and one united hypostasis out of two natures was left.

You are still misuing the term "nature." Natures exist in (subsistent) beings, not by themselves. A human being is not a human nature. A human being has a human nature. Jesus Christ is a divine being who has both a human nature and a divine nature. Jesus Christ is one being having two natures. Natures do not do things. Natures cause us to act in accordance with our nature.

The divine nature did not die. Again natures do not die. Jesus Christ, who has both a human nature and a divine nature, died in his human nature.

The word "being" can mean a lot of things. I obviously was using it here in the sense of subsistent being. A particular human is a human being.

This is poorly worded, especially given that you are trying to prove that you are not Nestorian. In the first sentence, it would be clearer to say that there was no suffering in Christ in his divine nature, because "being" is easily understood hear as meaning a subsistent being. When you say "only the man…" you sound as if you are stating that there is a Christ being (or person or hypostasis or whatever term you want) that is only man, which is distinct from the Christ that is a divine being. Rather, there is a single being, possessing the two natures, that performed human actions in his human nature and divine acts in his divine nature. If you say that the human nature did something, this has to be understood only in the sense that the single being, fully human and fully divine, did that thing in his human nature. If dieing were a change in the divine nature, then any human act on the part of Christ, even to be human, would be a change in the divine nature. We could not say that the Son of God became man suffered, was crucified or was buried.

Actually read through the texts of the Council of Ephesus and what St. Cyril says.

It is not enough to affirm some abstract human nature that has no tangible existence. Jesus Christ didn't just have a human essence, He existed as a man just as much as you or I. And men act. Men live, and men die. It was this man, Jesus of Nazareth, who died upon the cross, and not one bit of divinity died with Him in any way.
Not in theology
Actually, I am setting forth the correct doctrine so you may repent and accept it. I am not interested in proving I am not Nestorian as if I'm on trial.
It is not possible for a man proficient in English and reading my words in good faith to mistake my meaning for 'subsistence', especially given the context and use of the article.
That was a calculated risk, as the alternative was to drop the article and refer not so much to Christ as to some vague general man.
Of course, the God-man died, but He did so in His humanity alone. No deity died, it would only be correct to say God died if it was meant in relation to His human nature.
I have. The Twelve Anathemas were negative condemnations of Nestorian doctrine. You need to look at Cyril's positive doctrine in his Second Letter to Nestorius, which is quoted in that very Council

There is no context because Sproul doesnt give us any. He is Nestorian or heavily inconsistent

Get over it stupid Fatalist scum

In vain you try to clear Sproul's name. What is clear from what you been presenting is that you are ignorant on the controversy or even Nestorius' own Christology and language. McGuckin's book and Cyril's own writings are already linked and shown ITT so you should actually read them because had you done so, you would realize what you said is actually the same thing as what Nestorius said. It is not a man or a "human nature" that died or make Atonement on the Cross. It's a Divine Person. Cyril himself emphasizes this a lot throughout his writings too. Nestorius like you and Sproul denies this and utilize a Prosophic theory to explain the natures of Christ. He like you will agree only a "man" died on the Cross, not God or the second person of the Trinity.

Saying that since Divinity cannot be extinguished or saying Divinity cannot suffer doesnt work, because everyone knows this but Cyril contra you , Sproul and Nestorius knows that there is only one subject in Christ, the Logos himself. So in his humanity, a Divine person died and suffered, not some distinct "nature" or something detached from the Second Person of the Trinity. In fact your own quotation from Cyril shows this too.

This is why you and Sproul are essentially Nestorians in denial. And no, saying "oh but I believe the godman died, or in God's humanity God died", is simply inconsistency on your part because you denied no deity died. If no deity died, then who was hung on that cross? It's not some detached human nature but a person whose acting subject is deity. So deity actually died on the Cross and does so because of His human nature which is assumed from Mary.

The only reason this stupid thread keeps getting bumped is because of a ridiculous argument about Nesotarianism.

I've have yet to see an ounce of proof posted by OP or anyone else showing what this Sproul character said or how that makes him a Nesotarian.

the proof text that OP is claiming is simply saying that while Jesus died God the father did not die and was still in heaven. This is true because if God the father had died everything would have stopped existing.

Because Jesus still had a portion of his divine nature from being a part of the trinity it is a mystery whether he was all dead too or as a part of the trinity he was still alive. Asking this question does not make one a Nesotarian.

Yes heresy is bad and heretics should be condemned. But to heck with people who scream heresy at everything to the point of stifling theological inquiry

Attached: 026.jpg (500x354, 31.01K)

There is just one problem, Sproul never clarifies or even give us any context at all to his statements. That user is right to observe this too. You cant just say there's some context we missed if nothing is linguistically indicated or that no clarifications and explanations is given. He just flat out states the Second Person of the Trinity didnt die or didnt make Atonement. If he wanted to say as you said, then Sproul should had said that "it is not in His Divinity Jesus Christ died, but in His humanity, He, the Second Person of the Trinity died". Boom! this easily clarifies what he means and wouldnt raise any eyebrows. Unfortunately Sproul never did that nor even make any disclaimer or further clarifications.

Asking the question of whether Mary gave birth to divine flesh doesnt help clear Sproul's name, as for one eventhough Jesus' human nature is like us in every respect except sin, guess what does Cyril says about the flesh of Christ. It's life giving and is given in the Eucharist in the bread and wine. He even says that Christ's humanity is also deified and who denies this? Nestorius!

Of course had you meant flesh which is by definition immutable, immaterial, omnipotent…etc, then yes that is of course not the case at all, but it doesnt add anything as Nestorius surely didnt have worries over Theotokos over this, it was that the term implies Mary birthed the Godhead as Cyril explains in his "Against Nestorius" at the beginning. That does not answer anything because no one believes that.

Next, you shown yourself to employ Nestorian Prosophic reasoning to Christ. The humanity is united to the Divinity in the person of Christ. They arent two independent natures. They are distinct and retain their intergrities which is how the natures arent confused with one another. Years before the Christological Controversy, Irenaeus shown how there can be a 'mixture' of humanity and divinity in Christ through Stoic mixture theory which explicitly states two substances retain their intergrities, composition and doesnt mesh into some hybrid. In that state however, the two arent "independent". To say they are goes against Cyril's Christology and the importance of deification of the human nature.

Of course it isnt in His Divinity a Divine person experiences pain but it is in the assumed humanity. However a Divine person is still the subject that perceives the pain! Hence you cannot say "a man Jesus Christ died". That's following the Prosophic theory of Nestorius as Mcguckin shows and implies that it isnt the Logos who is the subject that is hunged on the Cross.

Also what "natures" is are a set of attributes an agent or thing has, it isnt the thing itself but properties belonging to an agent or a thing. A set of attributes didnt die or atone for sins, but an agent or subject who has these set of attributes do. To appeal to their tangibility wont work either, as when someone dies, nobody says the human nature of the someone dies or gets extinguished but that the person dies!

When a pig dies, we dont say "four hooves, a snout, two ears, oinks, tail, pink, hairy, fatty" died, we say a pig which is the subject, dies.

Answer this question without committing a heresy

1. Jesus Christ died
2. God the father did not die
3. Jesus is a part of the trinity

Did the trinity die when Jesus died? If not, how since Jesus is a part of the trinity and they make up one god?

Hypostatic union is the answer. Christ's human body died, but both His human and divine nature went into hell and conquered death.

Next question!

woah hold on a second there, you just said Christ's human body died but his divine nature didn't thus, under your very uncharitable interpretation, committed the very Nesotarian heresy that you just accused Sproul of committing.

Wrong. When my body dies, does this mean my soul dies? No. So, when Christ's body dies, what does this have to do with the Trinity? God the Father and God the Holy Spirit do not have human natures in their person-hoods, and Christ has always existed before His own human nature was birthed.

oh, and now that I think about it, the Scriptures affirm that we ourselves are also known well before we are birthed!

They are distinct persons, so clearly just because Jesus Christ the Second Person dies does it mean that the Father or Spirit dies, they dont because they didnt incarnate or have human nature. After all, we can actually turn this back at you and ask,

"Did the Father and Spirit Incarnate when the Logos who is also co-eternal and co-equal with them Incarnate?"

Because clearly you dont believe for a moment that the Jesus Christ in the Gospels is also the Father and Spirit, then you would know that when that Jesus died, it wasnt also the Father and Spirit that died with Him.

you're changing your statement to backtrack

suggests that the human died but divine nature lived

because while you affirm that Christ the man died, the trinity didn't die seeping further into nesotarianism

yes, this whole idea of disembodied souls running around is also heresy. The nicene creed clearly states that there will be a resurrection of the body not this ghost thing you're going to

They are distinct persons but they are also one person. So if they are one person then when Jesus dies the trinity should also have died. Unless. . . you accept the non-nesotarian position that the divine nature continued to exist in the trinity

I've back-tracked on nothing, you clearly do not understand the Christian conception of what a human is. Man is both animal body and immortal soul. My own body can die, yet my immortal soul lives on.

The animal body died, but the immortal human/divine soul lived on. Did He not say that He could raise His own body?

OK, what is a human then? When my body dies, am I truly dead? Are we not taught to not fear man, because he can only kill the body?

Uhh, no they aren't "one person". They are three persons, one God. The number 1 for instance is..well "one" but within 1, there's 0.25, 0.5.0.75…etc. It is clear that 0.25 is not 0.5 and etc. So analogically speaking, in the One Godhead, there's Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father is not the Son and etc.

After all had we thought of them as one person, the interpretation of "Let us make man in our image" that posits the presence of the Spirit and Son would make no sense.

You keep telling everyone who responds to you that they don't understand Christianity but you couldn't even get the nicene creed right

says who where? Where in scripture or Catholic tradition does it say that the soul can live without the body. Tradition and scripture say that man is a unity of coporeal body and immortal soul as in one cannot exist without the other)

once again you miss the context,

let's read that again

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy == both soul and body in hell.==

does that sound like a disembodied soul to you.

Maybe you should learn basic Christianity before running around calling people nesotarians and telling them they don't understand the faith

so now you're commiting a heresy by denying that the trinity is both one person and three persons at once

you're arguing for Hypostatsis but you don't even seem to know what it means

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostasis_(philosophy_and_religion)

"And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell."

"And I say to you, my friends: Be not afraid of them who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 5But I will shew you whom you shall fear: fear ye him, who after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell. Yea, I say to you, fear him. 6Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God"

???

OK, then do you believe in Purgatory? That's mandatory Catholic dogma, by the way.

"And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell."

let's read that last part again

"And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy ==both soul and body in hell."==

are the words "both body and soul" in that sentence referring to just a disembodied soul in your mind?

And I'm sorry I don't even have the faintest clue why you think the second quote proves your point

and I'm sorry don't tell me about Catholic dogma, you don't even accept the nicene creed's definition of the resurrection of the body - it's up for debate whether you're even Christian at this point

Listen, you're either extraordinarily confused, or you are only pretending to be Catholic.

If there are no disembodied souls, then there can be no Purgatory. Quit LARPing.

Why? Show me the part in the church doctrine that says that?

Also

Still doesn't sound like a disembodied soul - where is this notion that souls in pergatory are disembodied coming from other than your own nesotarian heretical imagination?

What do mean "Why"? There can be NO PURGATORY without disembodied souls. Period.

This isn't your only problem.

-Explain the PARTICULAR JUDGEMENT; wherein the Soul is immediately judged by Jesus Christ and is either set aside to Hell or Heaven (or Purgatory, then Heaven)

-Explain Indulgences and Masses in honor of the departed.

-Explain how the General Resurrection, where ALL SOULS, both reprobate and the saved are re-united with their bodies for the FINAL JUDGEMENT

Once again, you're either seriously confused or you should not pretend to be Catholic to mislead others.

I said show me the part of Catholic doctrine that says souls in pergatory are disembodied. You couldn't so like a child you throw a tantrum, "say that's just the way it is period" because you said so and you seem to have a pope complex

There's no discussion with unreasonable people and you are unreasonable

You already tried to go to scripture and were shown why that didn't back up the point you thought it did because of your poor understanding of scripture. So now all you have is "that's just the way it is"

Souls in purgatory have a body - they must because if they weren't physical they wouldn't feel any pain and purgatory would be kinda pointless.

You just seem to think it's not possible for God to create bodies for souls in purgatory because you're a larper

???

???

Why would God create two bodies?

???

I skipped it because it was so poor, honestly.
Man is only able to kill body, but not soul. God is able to kill both body and soul. Ergo, when the body dies, either through man or natural causes, the soul still lives.

It's ok, you can call me a papist.

Why would God create two bodies?

that's exactly what he does in the resurrection - you get a second body - that's what the Catholic church and Jesus teaches. Like I said, learn basic doctrine before you go on your larp.

see now you're willfully misrepresenting scirpture to try and win an argument

"And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can '''destroy both soul and body in hell."'

does that sentence say the body is being destoryed on earth and then the soul in hell? Or does it say "destroy both the soul and body in hell"

…no, it's the RESURRECTION. do you know what RESURRECTION means? do you think Jesus Christ invisible'd his old body and made a new one at His own resurrection?

Why do you insist on moving the goal-posts?
Do you think that God could not destroy both animal body and immortal soul (which both compromise a human) any time, anywhere He wills?

To be frank, I think you're just trying to get yourself banned so people can rail on the mods with screencaps and other accusations.

where did I say that? All I'm saying here is that you misrepresented scirpture and did so willfully to try and make it seem like God destorys disembodied souls in hell

It wasn't the same old body was it - it was different which you would know if you had read scripture or Catholic teachings.

that's from 1 Corinthians 15

I don't know if you have some sort of friendship with the mods where you can get people banned, but I don't care. You're wrong on this, you've been proven wrong on many things many times in this thread and you keep going treating everyone who challenges you like crap and claiming they don't understand and calling them ignorant or worse accusing them of being non-christian

The way you act is an embarrassment to the Catholic church

you're better off spamming fake pro/anti baptist threads

Are you literally incapable of speaking without sperging out about Calvinism?

So you are overtly a monophysite, whereas the other guy was a moderate monophysite, you are so radically monophysite that you explicitly denied the humanity of Jesus Christ , since you said "It is not a man or a "human nature" that died or make Atonement on the Cross".
If they do not exist independent of one another, they do not exist apart from each other at all, as independence conveys self-existence. But independence does not convey isolation, as they might be united in one hypostasis without mixture. Hence, the correct doctrine is that the natures are strictly independent, but just as strictly inseparable.
You might not confuse the natures insofar as you deny what belongs to one belongs to the other, but that is a plain inconsistency with your affirmation of a mixture, such scandalizing monophysite language demonstrating your belief that there is one nature which behaves like two, against the explicit teaching of Cyril that "we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh", and "the difference of the natures is not taken away by the union", which cannot be construed to mean only that the properties remain distinct, since if there is a mixture it is undeniable that the nature of the Word would be mixed with a nature that entails flesh, and the difference between the natures is not simply that they have different properties, but that one is of the unchanging God and the other of the creature man. Nor does your appeal to the doctrine of theosis do you any good, since the Orthodox doctrine is not analogous to the Mormon belief that men become true gods, which is what you argue for Christ's humanity, but is much more like the Protestant doctrine of progressive sanctification that throughout the Christian life the Christian's union with Christ is perfected and he is made more like God. You repeat the error of Eutyches.
Which is all I intended to express, so why do you still find fault? Because you do not agree, you agree with Eutyches that before the union there were two natures, but after there is but one. Hence you do not believe the God-man suffered only in His assumed humanity, since you believe the assumption was into His nature, otherwise there is no mixture.
But not in His divine nature, since though there is but one divine subject, He nonetheless partakes of both humanity and divinity even in His one mind. Hence the divine person may experience the pains of torture, and at the same time God does not. How marvelous this blessed mystery truly is! I find the beauty of the hypostatic union to be nothing short of incredible.

If it was not a man, namely Jesus Christ, who died, we have no hope and we are still in our sins. This is because as scripture says "Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted". Furthermore it is the explicit statement of scripture that Jesus Christ is a man, as Paul says "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus". And it was the teaching of the Christian Church since the ancients, for Leo the Great wrote against the heretic Eutyches "Without detriment therefore to the properties of either nature and substance which then came together in one person, majesty took on humility, strength weakness, eternity mortality: and for the paying off of the debt belonging to our condition inviolable nature was united with possible nature, so that, as suited the needs of our case , one and the same Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, could both die with the one and not die with the other".
That is one sense of the term, but as I pointed out Christ is true man, possessing concrete existence as a man, just as much as us. But let us go with your definition, if a nature is only a set of properties possessed by a thing, not the thing itself, and Jesus Christ's only relation to humanity is insofar as He possessed a human nature, then from your perspective would it not be impious and Nestorian to under any circumstances and in any sense to say Jesus Christ is a man?

Why do you misrepresent Basil and even the wiki article you linked which is clear of "three hypostasis"?

Even in the Basil quote the wiki article is very clear that he is stating that ousia and hypostasis arent the same thing and so is arguing for the formulae "one ousia, three hypostasis". It's so clear in the link and even in Basil's quote where he distinguishes between the Trinity generally and their particular persons.

So no, God isnt simply one person

God is both three persons and one person and the same time, if you deny that you're not a Christian

Isnt it funny how by claiming me as a monophysite and following Eutyches just because I state that God died and suffered that you are in fact following Nestorius? This is pointed out by Mcguckin in "Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy", Nestorius repudiates any language of "mixture". This is also why like you, he denies the deification of Christ's human nature.

Saying the natures self exists, are independent but are not "isolated" is still practically in sync with Nestorius' own reasonings of two separate Prosopha which as Mcguckin says "operate in their own spheres of existence" throughout Jesus' life. So in trying to refute me, you literally shown yourself to be the thing you deny. Also what you said here opposes Cyril who says in Against Nestorius:

Huh funmy, I thought the authority of Ephesus and Chalcedon taught two independent, separate natures!

On your attempt to show the inconsistency of my use of "mixture" language, you fail to even address the basic fact that Stoic philosophy which Irenaeus used accepts a mixture of two different things that are unconfused, remain distinct and retain their unique propertied without fusing into a hybrid, as Briggman who is a well known Irenaean scholar shows in this article:

google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.academia.edu/35023148/Irenaeus_Christology_of_Mixture&ved=2ahUKEwje0_K0naveAhXl4IMKHcPDDLUQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1jc8WtX_ttTQ3CKi45W2zk

By the logic of your own argument too, Cyril is in fact fooling himself as he states in Against Nestorius that:

Huh, I guess I didnt know Cyril is monophysite and following Eutyches!

Now next you claim to follow what I say on the suffering of Christ. Except your own comments which I replied to indicate otherwise. In fact your own Nestorian Christology indicates that my objection is valid which is why you must reject Cyril and what I actually said.

Attached: Screenshot_20181015-114254_Adobe Acrobat.jpg (1080x1920, 798K)

And on your last point let me simply quote from Cyril:

You are indeed correct here. There should not be any division in Christ

Here you repeat the error of Nestorius. It cannot be a man who died but a Divine Godman, Second person of the Trinity. Only that person can atone for sins and deify humanity contra your Christology that destroys any possibility of partaking in the divine!

And on your final point, it doesnt add anything here as my point still stands, a human nature cannot die because nature is not a person but a set of attributes. And why dont I say a man died? That is because that is Nestorian as Sproul also follows. Because now it isnt God who died and atoned but some abstract set of attributes called "human nature".

No. God is not "one person". As Basil says, Hypostasis refers to particular as in the particular persons of the Trinity. Ousia to the whole

Also would you agree the natures as they relate to the single subject of Christ are akin to how God said to the most holy Moses in his discourses concerning the ancient tabernacle: ‘You should make fifty golden rings and you shall join (synapseis) the curtains to each other with the rings’. For since there were five curtains and each was a separate item in relation to the others, they were joined together by the rings.?

Is he the guy in that pdf you posted? Because he claims Chalcedon was Nestorian. Interesting how your sole source for the fathers being Monophysites are unbelieving scholars, because you can't get that from the fathers themselves.
If they do not exist independently, they exist as one, and there is no difference. But I'm basically wasting my time by continuing to point out the fact you're a Monophysite because that's pretty well established by now and given your replies you have no defense. As a result I'm going to try and ignore everything that's completely irrelevant, already refuted, or laughably absurd, which is nearly everything.

You are not a Christian, that much is certain. Repent and believe, for the kingdom of God is at hand.
I consider this capitulation because here you fully and readily admit to being a Monophysite heretic and opposing the scriptures I cited which themselves say God became exactly like us and is a true man.

All I have to do is show hiw by your logic Cyril is in fact an absurdist and that you have been following the thought of Nestorius. Also had you actually read Mcguckin's work you would know only Nestorius' statement on Christ in two natures is followed by Chalcedon, that's it. In fact had you actually read Mcguckin at pg233 onwards where he detail the reception of Cyril at Chalcedon during the council, Pope Leo literally had to show he followed the Christology of Cyril to the Palestinian bishops that express concern over it. He even said that the majority of bishops there are Cyrilline meaning they follow Cyril and as I shown, Cyril's Christology nowhere matches yours or Nestorius. When I point out how your reasoning oppose Cyril and by its logic demand this and Cyril to be heretics by your logic, you cant provide any response or coherent exposition of what Cyril could had meant. You only just flat out misrepresented Mcguckin's work which I mentioned and as his own words in the following screenshots I taken of him will show.

On your view of nature, well go and actually read Briggman's article on the subject of the possibility of a "mixture" without confusion, turning into some hybrid and the retention of the properties and natures of the two things that 'mix'. Had you read that you would had understood where years ago, where Irenaeus was coming from and how Cyril could use mixture language. But you didnt and acted as if nothing had been given. I shown that you and Sproul follow Nestorius and so the burden is on you to show how your view is incompatible with Nestorius' Prosophic theory and is compatible with Cyril. Well we know you think the natures are independent but Cyril says the unity is like how a soul and body are united. Dont tell me a person's soul is separate and independent of his body!

Attached: Screenshot_20181029-184749_Adobe Acrobat.jpg (1080x1920 823.2 KB, 880.28K)