Jesus, the tent?

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> One way to explain the human and divine in Christ is to say He was God
> living in a human house.  In other words, He had two distinct natures
> unified not in substance but only in purpose, action and appearance
> (Nestorianism).  This view implies that Christ is divided into two
persons,
> and the human person could have existed in the absence of the divine.
>
> (Bernard, David K.  _The Oneness of God_.  Word Aflame Press. 91).
>  >>
> Mike:
> I think I believe in this statement up until the last sentence (that part
>seems to sound more like what you believe unless I am mistaken).  Also
where
>it says, "Two distinct natures," I think that is a little too strong for
me. I
>*do* feel that is close to right.

[Matthew]:
Bro. Mike, this is Nestorianism.  No, I don't believe that there is any
implication in the Godhead that Christ  could have existed without the
Spirit.  Of course, that is all speculation, and we cannot make any strong
conclusions.  I  don't argue that Christ didn't have distinguishable
natures, but I believe there was a unity of substance (as Bro. Bernard
believes) in the person of Jesus.

>  Mike:
> "Official Oneness position"?  Please clarify this part.

[Matthew]:
Well, I only meant the position that is so often published by the Word
Aflame Press.  Bro. David K. Bernard has attempted, through various
apologetic works, to establish a body of orthodox literature, and I believe
he has done immeasurable good to our movement through his literature.

Blessings.

All Honour to Christ Jesus.

Matthew