You're not going off "biblical definitions", you're going off non-existent ones. Understand that separating God's identity from who He is isn't an alternative perspective, it's just a complete non sequitur. You're saying God could stop being any of the things that make Him God, even stop existing, and yet still be ontologically God. Why do I need to point out that's just self-contradictory nonsense?
Why are you standing in judgement over the ancient christology as if you can and finding it wanting because it doesn't tickle your philosophical fancy? It's like when William Lane Craig rejects dyothelitism.
Yes, He was, but in two different ontologies. He was both a man and God, neither nature confounding the other, but both coming together in hypostatic union. One and the same person, equally man and God, existing equally in both natures, but with no mixture between them, so that though each is equally Him, what affects one does not affect the other, except inasmuch as it affects Him.
This does not follow, because His created nature was perfect because it was everything God wanted it to be, which is a meaningful use of perfect and the only way the word could ever be properly applied to a creature.
Perhaps you should spend more time with early fathers than modernist philosophers
Any who concludes thus should not consider himself a Christian, but under the anathema of God.
If you ever had any interest in orthodox doctrine, you should already know the orthodox interpretation, so I am inclined to consider you a case of Galatians 2:4. Christ emptied Himself, not as you would blasphemous have it by ceasing to be God, a notion opposed to every syllable of the bible, but as other versions have it, He "made himself of no reputation", and made Himself a little lower than the angels, not in ontology, but in status, as God condescended and became like us, and did not shun our state, but embraced it that He might redeem us, even without surrendering any of what was already His.
The divine nature is not an impersonal abstract thing. God's essence is existence, and He exists in three persons. Jesus Christ is a divine person. He is God. He, not some abstract concept of ousia, but He, is the Lord of Glory. And when He became flesh, He did not simply create some man other than Himself and control him, but He was Himself made flesh, and He was truly a man. It was in His flesh alone that He was crucified, and therefore, the man they crucified was the Lord of Glory.
Oh, you did more than just deny it, you've just made a whole post assailing it.
"We" don't know that, but if Christ lost any of His attributes, He most certainly stopped being the God He was. The term homoousias conveys total identicality, so even if the Son were only to lose His omniscience, He would be of a different substance than the Father, because there would be essential difference between them.
So you are completely devoid of faith in the true God and Christ of the bible, and apparently proud of that fact.
Actually I was operating on the clearly wrong assumption that you had any interest in being even remotely orthodox.
Spoken like a true heathen. Are you aware that analogies of comparing the return of Jesus Christ to a marriage ceremony are found consistently throughout the New Testament, from the Gospels to Paul to Revelation?
That is not an orthodox interpretation and would contradict everything I've been saying about Christ's nature.
Your assumption is wrong.
Well given the extreme heresy you've uttered which would scandalize even a simple believer I'd say the Holy Bible, read it cover to cover, and do not pretend it wages war on its own teachings like you are right now.
