Asymmetrical Information

The nestorian view was, basically, that Jesus had multiple personalities, so to speak. Although he was divine in nature, he could sin because he was a man. The natures were distinct and manifested themselves separately, at separate times. That was where the heresy part came in. Supposedly, he was sometimes man and sometimes God.

Catholics are supposed to believe that he was God incarnated as a man, suffering all a man's weaknesses of the flesh, but able to overcome them due to his divinity. He had both a divine and human nature that worked in harmony at all times.

Chris has it right. To state it a little more succinctly: the orthodox Catholic (and orthodox Orthodox) position is that Christ is one person with two natures, one human and one divine. The Nestorian heresy is that Christ comprises two persons, one of which has a human nature, and the other or which has a divine nature.

I'm not a Catholic, but I am a Christian.

This is certainly one of the great mysteries of Christianity to me, and one I'm not remotely qualified to comment on.

However, you might want to consider John Stott's commentary on Romans. (St.) Paul's letter to the Romans is probably the most complete summation of core Christian theology you're likely to find. Stott's commentary, which I am reading right now, seems to be very thoughtful, well-researched, and inclusive.

Stott (and Paul) address the "dual nature" question of the Christ; you'd still have to make up your own mind on the topic, though.

As far as I can tell, the main idea of the Christ's nature is something along the lines of "human enough to be a valid sin sacrifice, and God enough not to deserve it".

Regarding the actual "technology" involved in pulling off this sort of mixed-mode configuration? I don't think even Stott or Paul really know for sure.

I'm not a theologian, just a regular Catholic, but here's my understanding, which is cribbed directly from questions 63-71 of the Baltimore Catechism #4 -- you asked for small words...this Catechism was designed for children -- take no offense. Also, sorry if this is long, but I'm going to try to build this from the bottom:

63. Christ is true God because He is the true and only Son of God the Father.

64. Christ is true man because He is the Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and has a body and soul like ours.

65. There are two natures in Christ: the nature of God and the nature of man.

67. Christ was always God, as He is the Second Person of the Trinity.

68. Christ was not always man, but became man at the time of His Incarnation.

70. The Son of God was conceived and made man by the power of the Holy Spirit, in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

So that's the background. Here's the important one, with regard to the Nestorian heresy:
71. The Blessed Virgin Mary is truly the Mother of God, because the same Divine Person who is the Son of God is also the Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Now to explain:
Nestorius' contention was that BVM was not the "Mother of God" because she bore Him as a man, even though he was conceived as God by the Father through the Holy Spirit. The implication being, that at the Incarnation Christ became man (true) but did so at the expense of his Divine nature (Nestorius' contention that Mary "bore Him as a man" -- meaning she could not be the Mother of God, but merely the mother of a man who was at some point (up to the Incarnation), God). Basically, there is more subtlety to the Nestorian heresy than you might initially realize and the Church does, in fact, sweat the details.

Bottom line:
Catholic doctrine is #65: Two natures: God and man, both at the same time. Not: God before the Incarnation, and then man after it, and then God again after the Ascention. But rather: always God, but the man as well after the Incarnation. (see #s 67 and 68)

Whew. I hope that was clear.

I'm not Catholic either, but I believe "hypostatic union" is the doctrine that Jesus was fully man and fully God.

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/2natures.htm

For what it's worth, LizardBreath's shorthand, one person, two natures, is also good Calvinist (and therefore Baptist, Pentecostal, Methodist, etc.) belief.

But, if you really want to get dizzy, consider the Holy Trinity of three natures (or personalities) entwined in One being -- God, God's Son Jesus Christ, God's Holy Spirit. Sometimes referred to by post-Vatican II people and liberal Protestants as Creator, Redeemer, Comforter.

An old, and wise Jesuit priest once told me during a retreat that one may study the Trinity for a lifetime and go insane doing so...and not even know you've gone over the edge.

Wow, a learned and spiritual crowd. But I think you are all missing the larger point, which is that we now know that JANE GALT IS GOING TO HELL!

So the question that arises is, "What would hell look like for Jane Galt?" While the Randian texts may offer some clue, my own guess is that hell for Jane would be life in a society in which all major policy decisions were made by reference to interpretive dance contests.

My readers are so cool. I love you all. Except for the one who thinks I'm going to hell.

Who the hell is the Holy Ghost / Spirit? What does He do, what is His job description? Do I need to capitalize H/his, H/him, H/he, when referencing H/him? Or is it It?....

Jane:

You're not dead yet - there's still time to be saved. The helpful people at the following web site can help: http://www.ndol.org/index.cfm. Or you can click your heels three times while repeating, "Large structural deficits DO matter, large structural deficits DO matter, large structural deficits...."

Otherwise...well, I think there are interpretive dance classes forming at the New School as we speak.

Reaching out to the fallen one lapsed-Democrat, neo-Republican/Liberterian at a time,

Tim

John - I always thought the Holy Spirit was an example of featherbedding at its worst.

These Christological issues developed over time. Once the church affirmed the full divinity of Christ (against Arianism, which held that the divine nature of Christ was a lesser, created divinity), then the question arose of how two natures could co-exist. One solution was that the divine nature swallowed up the human, as a drop of fresh water would be swallowd up in the ocean (monophysite heresy). Another solution was that the two natures were in conjunction, not full union (Nestorianism). In affirming that the two natures were "without confusion,without change,without division,without separation . . . the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence" (The Council of Chalcedon, 451 CE), the church settled the question more by defining what Christ is not, rather than what Christ is. The word tranlated as person is "hypostasis", which does not really mean person. It meant substance or essence, but was given a new meaning for the specific purpose of this definition of Christ. So errors are swatted down, but the definition of Christ in this definition preserves the mystery of the whole thing. The union of two natures in Christ is finally something that cannot be expressed in human language.

So the question that arises is, "What would hell look like for Jane Galt?" While the Randian texts may offer some clue, my own guess is that hell for Jane would be life in a society in which all major policy decisions were made by reference to interpretive dance contests.

Systematic decision making, even if the implementation is irrational, would not be the Randian Hell. Nobody willing to make a decision, nobody willing to take responsibility, and thereby stagnation and collapse.

My favorite scene in Atlas Shrugged was when they shot the looter peon, not because he was blocking their way, but because he was incabable of deciding for himself if he should continue to do so.

Also note that back in the early 60s, amongst the iconoclastic intellectual set, the labels were Daddy-o, Laddy-o, and The Spook.

The KJV uses "he" when referring to the Holy Ghost, so I figure it's okay not to capitalize. YMMV. Here's his job description:

John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

John 15:26
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.

If you're looking for more detailed doctrine than that, try this search, or check with your preferred Christian denomination. Mine has a convenient primer available, and here's what looks to this non-Catholic like a relevant section of the catechism. I'm not totally sure what the different branches of Protestantism believe, but then again this is more information than you wanted anyway.

FWIW, one of my theology teachers once explained the Trinity with a mathematical analogy. You start by equating God with Infinity. When God "begets" the Son, he splits his Infinitude in half; as we all know, half of infinity is still infinity. But the split also creates another infinity, which is the number of relations between all the elements of the Father's Infinitude and the elements of the Son's Infinitude. This third Infinitude is the Holy Spirit.

I'm probably remembering this poorly, and for all I know the theory belongs to St. Augustine or some other famous thinker. As an analogy, tho, it always seemed quite graspable.

Some of your readers love you too. For what it's worth, you aren't going to hell. If you are going anywhere, it is somewhere where we can buy you a round or two. What'r'you having?

This isn't directly responsive to your original question, but I like what Dorothy Sayers (yes, the Lord Peter Wimsey one!) used as a metaphor for the Trinity:

1. The Trinity is analogous to a book: there are three distinct aspects, but ultimately they all combine to make the "finished work" (heh heh).

2. "God the Father" is the vision part of the book. It is the part where the writer is creating the book in their head. Sayers writes that it is common to hear writers say of their work, "It is completely written, but not written down." The vision of the book is a necessary prerequisite to the other parts.

3. "God the Son" is the writing part of the book. As Sayers says, it is the hard part: lots of blood, sweat, tears and other essentially physical attributes. At the end, the writer can triumphantly say--alongside Jesus on the Cross--"It is finished!"

4. "God the Holy Ghost" (or "Holy Spirit" as one hears frequently today) is the book as seen, read, and understood by the readers. It is both the physical product (the book itself) and the impression the book makes in the minds of the readers. It is a residue of the original creative vision and creative process. Note that--just like with the Spirit--it's easily possible to have differing and idiosyncratic interpretations of the author's finished work!

5. So: to summarize. Three distinct aspects, each integral to the completed work (and thus indivisible). A single product, but with three separate aspects. The Three-In-One, and One-In-Three!

I am paraphrasing all this from memory, but I am reasonably confident I am not doing violence to Sayers' meaning.

Everyone needs to shut the hell up, 'cuz Lizard Breath got it exactly right in the second post, and there's not much more to say. Bam.

Comments are Closed.