COMBINATION OF [1]  THE SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY AND [2]   HYPOSTATIC UNION – PART 1 OF 4 PARTS


[1]       SCRIPTURE OF THE DAY [VOL. 861A]

O that thou wouldest hide me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest appoint me a set time, and remember me! 14  If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. 15  Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of thine hands.  Job 14:13 – 15, [authorized King James Bible; AV]

Jesus (Yeshua) has been given authority to judge all that have died by his Father, Almighty God (YHWH), and this is testified to at John 5:27 – 30, [AV] “And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. 28  Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29  And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. 30  I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.” 

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT RELIGION AND THE BIBLE, GO TO, 

1) http://iris89.conforums.com/ 

2) http://www.network54.com/Forum/403209/ 

3) http://religioustruths.lefora.com/ 

4) http://religioustruths.boardhost.com/ 

5) http://religioustruths.forumsland.com/ 

6) http://religioustruthsbyiris.createmybb3.com/ 

7) http://religioustruths.forumotion.com/ 

To enjoy an online Bible study called “Follow the Christ” go to,http://www.network54.com/Forum/403209/thread/1417398076/last-1417398076/Digital+Book+On+18+Part+Follow+Christ+Bible+Study 

Your Friend in Christ Iris89 

Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth. "Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today, and go to WWW.JW.ORG!

[2]   HYPOSTATIC UNION – PART 1 OF 4 PARTS

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

NOTE: THIS DISCUSSION OF THE FALSE TEACHING OF THE HYPOSTATIC UNION IN FOUR PARTS IS ONLY FOR ADVANCED BIBLICAL STUDENTS THAT CAN APPRECIATE THE SHOWING OF HOW SOME SO CALLED RELIGIOUS LEADERS DUE TO THEIR FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE THE REAL TEACHINGS OF THE BIBLE TWIST REALITY SO BADLY THAT IT NO LONGER REALLY PRESENTS BIBLICAL TRUTHS, BUT ONLY COMPLICATED AND TWISTED WRONG REASONING'S OF MEN.  TO GO EVEN DEEPER IN THIS SUBJECT, GO TO,

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/sinandcompositescriptures/learn-the-truth-on-the-trinity-doctorine-t1006.html   

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A theological term used with reference to the Incarnation to express the revealed truth that in Christ one person subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human. Hypostasis means, literally, that which lies beneath as basis or foundation. Hence it came to be used by the Greek philosophers to denote reality as distinguished from appearances (Aristotle, "Mund.", IV, 21). It occurs also in St. Paul's Epistles (II Cor., ix, 4; xi, 17; Heb., i, 3:iii, 14), but not in the sense of person. Previous to the Council of Nicæa (325) hypostasis was synonymous with ousia, and even St. Augustine (De Trin., V, 8) avers that he sees no difference between them. The distinction in fact was brought about gradually in the course of the controversies to which the Christological heresies gave rise, and was definitively established by the Council of Chalcedon (451), which declared that in Christ the two natures, each retaining its own properties, are united in one subsistence and one person (eis en prosopon kai mian hpostasin) (Denzinger, ed. Bannwart, 148). They are not joined in a moral or accidental union (Nestorius), nor commingled (Eutyches), and nevertheless they are substantially united. For further explanation and bibliography see: INCARNATION; JESUS CHRIST; MONOPHYSITISM; NATURE; PERSON.  [The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII ]

“In giving a justification for our faith in Christ, the basic and decisive point of departure, of course, lies in an encounter with the historical Jesus of Nazareth, and hence in an “ascending Christology.” To this extent the terms “incarnation of God” and “incarnation of the eternal Logos” are the end and not the starting point of all Christological reflection.”[1]
Incarnation is certainly not the word of the apostles, but of later theology. Similarly, the word “hypostatic union” exists only and officially in the Council of Ephesus. These two words express Jesus’ identity and have the relation with each other. The notion ‘incarnation’ assumes the notion of Trinity with ‘second person’ of God.
In process of identifying Jesus Christ, the apostles had recognized that Jesus is from God and of God; he belongs absolutely to God, so much so that he is God. Once given, theologians or the first Christian community searched for the word to express it; for example, the second person of God, the Word of God, incarnation, hypostatic union.
Following this way again to recognize Jesus as the absolute saviour who belongs to God so much so that he united with God as hypostatic union, and then he is the second person of God incarnate. This paper will present the understanding of Jesus Christ through the experiences of the apostles, then the Christological affirmations of the councils, and finally the comprehension of Jesus Christ through the hypostatic union and incarnation. The third section of this paper uses the idea of Karl Rahner to express it.

On this ground Saint Cyril I, the pillar of faith established his famous formula: XXX "one incarnate nature of God the Logos" and not XXX which means "only incarnate nature of God the Logos". By "one", he means one nature of two natures, the distinction between them is "in thought alone" (as he frequently explained. Moreover, he explained the phrase "Hypostatic Union", to mean the union of two natures naturally in one simple person or Hypostasis. To Saint Cyril, the word hypostasis means the person together with the nature that he carries.
[http://www.uk-christian.net/boc/106e.shtml]

In part, the question can be answered by looking at the rise of the Monophysite movement among the Empire's Christians in the centuries preceding the Muslim invasion. In the middle of the fifth century, the church was deeply locked in Christological debates that arose out of the ecumenical councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and at a time when church and state were integrally mixed, strains within the church necessarily meant strains within the Empire. The debates focused on the hypostatic union -- the fusion of the divine and the human natures within the person of Jesus Christ. On the one side were the 'orthodox' who insisted that Christ had two sperate natures -- human and divine. On the other side were the Monophysites who argued that Christ had but a single nature -- composed of the human and the divine, but tending to emphasize the former. The theological issues were somewhat blurred, however, by social and political issues that tended to reflect regional interests and traditions.

Some modern day scholars have tended to take the bitter and labyrinthine debates over two natures within Christ -- which were perhaps overly dominated and confused by vocabulary -- and reduce the entire Monophysite controversy to a simple "quarrel about words." At the same time, some scholars have suggested that these same theological debates were in actuality a vehicle by which the deep seeded anti-imperial sentiment of the dominated peoples of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt could be expressed. Although these socio-political factors have their place -- and indeed a very central place -- in the Christological controversies that emerged after the council of Chalcedon in 451 C.E., it is the purpose of this paper to re-examine the theological differences between Monophysite and orthodox Christianity in order to find a more balanced view of the role of theological and socio-political issues within this, the first lasting schism in Christendom. Therefore, this paper will first make an analysis of the Monophysite theological positions by taking into account the theologies of Euteches of Constantinople, Severus of Antioch and Philoxenus of Mabbug, three Monophysite theologians. The Chalcedonian position will then be examined in its relation to the Monophysite position. Finally, relevant social and political factors will be taken into consideration as they relate to the Monophysite controversy itself. Before beginning with an examination of Monophysite Christianity, however, a brief history of the events leading up to the council of Chalcedon is needed in order to understand the rise and development of Monophysitism.
The council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. stated that Jesus Christ was God; co-equal , co-eternal and homousious (i.e., "of one nature") with the Father.[1] Although the pronouncements of the council satisfactorily dealt with the fourth century Arian controversy (at least in the eyes of the Church, if not in reality), at the same time, it also raised new questions about the person of Jesus Christ.[2] After Nicaea, all orthodox Christians could agree that the Son was fully divine, but Jesus of Nazareth was nevertheless an historical person; a man who lived and breathed and even died within the context of history. How could this finite man also be the all-powerful God of the Judeo-Christian tradition? The Christian scriptures had no definitive answer, and therefore the relationship between this historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth and the divine Son of God was open to debate.
[http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/2961/mono1.htm]

If Jesus Was the Father, Why Would He
Pray to the Father?
by

Jason Dulle

JasonDulle@aol.com

Q: I have another question for you. I am having a difficult time understanding the nature of the distinction between the Father and the Son. I understand that the Son is different from the Father inasmuch as he possesses a human nature, while the Father does not. Starting from the Oneness assertion that Jesus is the Father's hypostasis (Greek word for person) incarnate, and If we follow the method of Chalcedonian Christology, then in Jesus there is also union of the divine and human hypostasis in a way that makes Christ a fully integrated and fully functioning person. Therefore, the distinction between Jesus and the Father is the union, which the Father lacks. At the same time, the hypostasis of Christ is also the hypostasis of the Father, for the hypostatic union does not destroy the distinctness of each, as Eutyches and the Monophysites said about the dual nature. It is here, however, that I run into problems when I see the way Jesus prays to the Father and refers to him. If Jesus shares the hypostasis of the Father, It is difficult to see him praying to the Father, for a person only prays to another person. If you were to say that he prays because of the presence of humanity in his hypostasis, then I would protest that this sounds like the Monophysite solution: the two hypostasis would have to blend in order to make one distinct from the first, for if there is a union in the Chalcedonian sense, then one person (hypostasis) could not pray to (orient itself externally from) itself, union or no union.
To put it differently, Jesus is the indivisible sum of the divine and human hypostases; however, he still contains the original divine hypostasis distinctly. Since there is only one divine hypostasis according to Oneness theology, and a hypostasis cannot pray to itself, then it would seem to follow that Jesus cannot pray to the Father, since He still contains, whether he is equivalent to or not, the Father's hypostasis.

Also, traditional Oneness theology says that God indwelled Jesus; however, you have said in one of your essays that this is not merely the case: God also became flesh. How could Jesus be God, yet say, "The Father is IN me?" I guess this simply ties back with the question of the hypostatic union, so it may be answered when you answer the other questions.
Well, I appreciate all of your help, especially since you have spent so much time and energy talking to me. You have been an angel of God for me, and without your help I would have floundered theologically a while ago.
[http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/howjesusprayiffather.htm]

His criticism of Chalcedon was never based on the acceptance in any form of the heresy of Eutyches. Indeed in his work, Philalethes, or the Lover of Truth, he explained that,
Had it confessed hypostatic union, the Council would have confessed also ‘one incarnate nature of God the Word’, and would not have defined that the one Christ is ‘in two natures’ thereby dissolving the union.[1]
Severus was sent to Constantinople and wrote his first major work there in 508 AD. While in the capital he became known by Emperor Anastasius who had greater sympathy with the anti-Chalcedonians than with the pro-Chalcedonians led by Patriarch Macedonius. In 511 Patriarch Macedonius was replaced by Timothy, and then in 512, after a synod assembled by the Emperor in Sidon, the Patriarch Flavian was ejected because he would not anathematise Chalcedon and Severus was consecrated Patriarch in his place.
In his enthronement address Severus affirmed Nicaea, Constantinople and Ephesus. He also affirmed the Henoticon of Zeno as an Orthodox document, but he also explicity anathematised Chalcedon, the Tome of Leo, Nestorius and Eutyches, Diodore and Theodore of Tarsus. In 514 his Synod anathematised Chalcedon and the Tome while explaining the Henoticon as annulling Chalcedon.

SEE PART 2 OF EXPLANATION OF TERM HYPOSTATIC UNION AT VOL 862A 

LEARN MORE ABOUT THE BIBLE AND RELIGION – BOTH TRUE AND FALSE – AT WWW.JW.ORG