In Biblical Unitarianism, Jesus Christ is a mere man, maximally inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, a mere man died on the Cross, was resurrected, and now sits at God's right hand. How does this differ soteriologically from the orthodox Trinity doctrine? As I understand it, in this doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single immortal (cannot die) and immutable (cannot suffer) Being with a single mind, will, and consciousness. Therefore, the Son did not die because he cannot die. Chalcedon explained this as that Jesus Christ has or had two natures and only the human nature died. So, in both Biblical Unitarianism and the orthodox Trinity doctrine, it was a mere man who suffered and died on the Cross. Is there a difference between the two systems in terms of why Jesus had to die? Some of the comments below deny that the Trinitarian God is a single Being with a single mind, will, and consciousness. Therefore, I add the following: The orthodox Trinity doctrine is often explained to people by saying that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one God existing as three Persons. The phrase “three Persons” implies three distinct minds. However, in the Trinity doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit share a single mind and, therefore, a single will, consciousness, and self-awareness. They do not each have a distinct mind. For example: > “When today we speak of person in the plural, we think almost > necessarily, because of the modern meaning of the word, of several > spiritual centers of activity [minds], of several subjectivities > [biases, views] and liberties [freedoms].” (Karl Rahner, a leading > Catholic scholar, in ‘The Trinity) > > “There are not three of these in God. … There are not three > consciousnesses; rather the one consciousness subsists in a threefold > way. There is only one real consciousness in God, which is shared by > the Father, Son, and Spirit.” (Rahner) > > “The element of consciousness … does not belong to it [the Person] in > our context [the official doctrine of the {Catholic} Church].” > (Rahner) > > “There exists in God only one power, one will, only one self-presence. > … Hence self-awareness is not a moment which distinguishes the divine > "persons" one from the other.” (Rahner) > > “Each Person shares the Divine will … that come from a mind. … Each > Person's self-awareness and consciousness is not inherent to that > Person (by nature of that Person being that Person) but comes from the > shared essence.” (Rahner) > > “We must, of course, say that Father, Son, and Spirit possess > self-consciousness and that each one is aware of the other two > ‘persons’. But precisely this self-consciousness … comes from the > divine essence, is common as one to the divine persons.” (Rahner). Lewis Ayres stated similarly that the Persons do not “possess different natures, wills, or activities.” > “We can now try to summarize how pro-Nicenes conceive of a divine > person in the abstract. … We cannot … assume that they possess > different natures, wills, or activities within the one Godhead.” > (Ayres, p. 295) [Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its legacy, An Approach to > Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004] Consequently, leading Trinitarian scholars confirm that it is misleading to describe the Father, Son, and Spirit as “Persons.” > “The champions of the Nicene faith … developed a doctrine of God as a > Trinity, as one substance or ousia who existed as three hypostases, > three distinct realities or entities (I refrain from using the > **misleading** word' Person'), three ways of being or modes of existing as > God.” (Hanson Lecture ) > > “By the conventions of the late fourth century, first formulated in > Greek by the ‘Cappadocian Fathers’, these three constituent members of > what God is came to be referred to as hypostases (‘concrete > individuals’) or, more **misleadingly** for us moderns, as prosōpa > (‘persons’).” (Anatolios, xiii) [Khaled Anatolios, Retrieving Nicaea, > 2011] The orthodox Trinity doctrine is sometimes explained, using Greek terms from the fourth century, as one ousia (substance) and three hypostases. But the term hypostasis is also not appropriate because, while the Father, Son, and Spirit in the Trinity doctrine are a single Being with one mind, the Greek term hypostasis means something that exists distinctly from other things: > An "individual existence” (Hanson, p. 193); "Distinct individuality" > (Hanson, p. 53) "Distinct reality" (Hanson, p. 190); “Something that > really exists, and exists in itself, as distinguished from an accident > or a quality;” (Lienhard) "Distinct personalities," "distinct > existences," and "to be existent." (Litfin) “Concrete individuals” > (Anatolios, xiii) In the Trinity doctrine, the distinction between the Father, Son, and Spirit is invisible to the created universe. The creation only sees one Being: > “By the last quarter of the fourth century, halting Christian attempts > … had led … to what later generations generally think of as ‘the > doctrine of the Holy Trinity’: the formulated idea that the God … is > Father and Son and Holy Spirit, as one reality or substance, > **operating outward in creation always as a unit**y, yet always internally differentiated by the relationships of origin that Father > and Son and Holy Spirit have with one another.” (Anatolios, xiii) > > “The distinctions between them are real: but we do not know what it is > to exist distinctly in this state.” (Ayres, p. 295) So, if the terms 'Persons' and 'hypostases' are misleading and the distinction between them is invisible, how should the 'Persons' in the Trinity doctrine be described? Hanson refers to the Father, Son, and Spirit as “three ways of being or modes of existing as God:” > “The champions of the Nicene faith … developed a doctrine of God as a > Trinity, as one substance or ousia who existed as three hypostases, > three distinct realities or entities (I refrain from using the > misleading word' Person'), **three ways of being or modes of existing as > God**.” (Hanson Lecture ) One might respond and say, yes, that may be the orthodox Trinity doctrine, but I believe in a Trinity of three Persons with three distinct minds. That would be consistent with the Bible, but if the three Persons are equal, there would be three Gods (Tritheism). As soon as one speaks of three Minds, two of the Minds must be subordinate to the other; otherwise, one has three Gods. But to admit that the Son and Spirit are subordinate to the Father would be 'Arianism.' To avoid both Tritheism and Arianism, the orthodox Trinity doctrine has to say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single Being with a single mind. 

Trinitarian Christianity and other major denominations contend that Jesus was fully man and fully God at the same time. ***Did Jesus in his human nature, know that he had another nature (as "God the son") inside of him or that he had two "natures"?*** If so, why was it that when the fully man Jesus prayed, he didn't pray to his divine nature but prayed to "the father"? ***Did Jesus (the man) take advantage of his "God side/nature" in order to have power to perform the miracles that he performed?*** This being my first question, forgive if I make mistakes.

The Bible tells us that Jesus emptied himself and set aside his heavenly glory and submitted himself to the will of his Father (God). In order to do the will of his Father (God) who sent him, and to obey Him, Jesus was in a lower position to that of God the Father. What are the theological implications of this change in position, and was it permanent? I am looking for a biblical explanation from a Reformed Protestant position.

The idea that Christ is of one divino-human nature.

The law of noncontradictions states that two contradictory positions cannot be true at the same time in the same sense (e. g. the two propositions "p is the case" and "p is not the case" are mutually exclusive.) But the propositions "Christ is God" and "Christ is human" are both true according to Christian theology, meaning "p is the case (Christ is God)" and "p is not the case (Christ is human)" would not be mutually exclusive. Is it thus contradictory to claim that Christ was both fully man and fully God at the same time? If not, why? Sources for further reading would be greatly appreciated!

In connection with the term "God", mainstream Christology often uses the term “nature of God” or “divine nature”, especially when it comes to describing the triune God’s essence or substance, as it is found in Christ who is said to be the "God-man" in the hypostatic union , having both a fully human and a fully divine nature. Considering myself a human, I think to understand what is meant by "human" nature, as being part of the human species/lifeform. The term “divine nature” however seems quite abstract, and is found **only once** in the Bible, in **2 Peter 1:4** > by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious > promises, that through these you may be partakers of the **divine > nature**, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through > lust. Re-born Christians have the “great and precious promise” of being “partakers of the divine nature”. The same Christians „shall be like Him (God)“ according to the Bible (1. John 3:2). One could conclude from this that Christians who become "partakers of the divine nature", fully inherit the "divine nature" when they go to heaven, and thus become fully God, if the term "God" is to be understood as a lifeform. On this point, I think most mainstream Christians would agree, that this is not the case - heavenly resurrected Christians don't become the "God" lifeform, but the "spirit" lifeform, as they receive a **spiritual body**. > It is sown a natural body, it is raised a **spiritual body**. There is a > natural body, and there is a **spiritual body**. > As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as > is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we > have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image > of the heavenly Man. (1. Corinthians 15:44,48-49) Some Trinitarian Bible commentators agree: > **the Divine nature** may be understood of **the glory and immortality of > the other life**, wherein we shall be conformed to God, and whereof by > the promises we are made partakers. - Matthew Poole's commentary > **that by these you might be partakers of the divine nature;** not > essentially, or of the essence of God, so as to be deified, this is > impossible, for the nature, perfections, and glory of God, are > incommunicable to creatures; nor, hypostatically and personally, so as > the human nature of Christ, in union with the Son of God, is a > partaker of the divine nature in him; but by way of resemblance and > likeness, the new man or principle of grace, being formed in the heart > in regeneration, after the image of God, and bearing a likeness to the > image of his Son, and this is styled, Christ formed in the heart, into > which image and likeness the saints are more and more changed, from > glory to glory, through the application of the Gospel, and the > promises of it, by which they have such sights of Christ as do > transform them, and assimilate them to him; and which resemblance will > **be perfected hereafter, when they shall be entirely like him, and see > him as he is** - Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible **“God is a spirit” (John 4:24)** A spirit is a (for humans) invisible supernatural lifeform. Thayer's Greek Lexicon describes the lifeform as: > 3. "a spirit, i. e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, > deciding, and acting"; Hence the question: the only time the Bible speaks of the "divine nature" it appears that from a biblical standpoint it means the lifeform of "incorruptible spiritual bodies". What other meaning can be drawn of the unique term "divine nature" from a biblical perspective? What is the biblical exegesis behind this term often used to describe God's essence? That the Almighty God is a unique person/being is out of the question, but is God a unique type of **lifeform** as appears to be the understanding and intermittent use of the term by people believing in the homoousion ? If so, what is the biblical basis for this claim? If not, what does the biblical term "God" really mean?

I’m looking at this from a purely biblical perspective. “God is a spirit” (John 4:24) A spirit is a (for humans) invisible supernatural lifeform. Thayer's Greek Lexicon describes the lifeform as: > 3. "a spirit, i. e. a simple essence, devoid of all or at least all grosser matter, and possessed of the power of knowing, desiring, > deciding, and acting"; In connection with God, however, mainstream Christology often uses the term “nature of God” or “divine nature”, especially when it comes to describing the triune God’s essence or substance, as it is found in Christ who is said to be the "God-man" in the hypostatic union , having both a fully human and a fully divine nature. Considering myself a human, I think to understand what is meant by "human" nature, as being part of the human species/lifeform. The term “divine nature” however seems quite abstract, and is found only once in the Bible, in 2 Peter 1:4 > by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious > promises, that through these you may be partakers of the **divine > nature**, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through > lust. Re-born Christians have the “great and precious promise” of being “partakers of the divine nature”. They „shall be like Him (God)“ (1. John 3:2). One could conclude from this that Christians who become "partakers of the divine nature", inherit the divine nature when they go to heaven, and thus become fully God, if the term "God" is to be understood as a lifeform. On this point, I think most mainstream Christians would agree, that this is not the case - heavenly resurrected Christians don't become the "God" lifeform, but the "spirit" lifeform. > It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a > natural body, and there is a spiritual body. > As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as > is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. And as we > have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image > of the heavenly Man. (1. Corinthians 15:44,48-49) Hence the question: the only time the Bible speaks of the "divine nature" it is clear that from a biblical standpoint it means the lifeform of "incorruptible spiritual bodies". So is "God" a type of lifeform as appears to be the understanding and intermittent use of the term by people believing in the homoousion , or is it a general title that the one Almighty God carries in the highest possible sense?

According to Trinitarian theology as held by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, God is 3 persons/hypostasis in 1 essence/nature/substance and one attribute of God is his immutability ([*c.f.* *Summa Theologica* Ia Q9 A1](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1009.htm)) yet it is also the case that Christ is both true God and true man. This latter doctrine is called the hypostatic union referring to the two natures (divine and human) present in one person (hypostasis). How are these doctrines both held as true?

Jesus is "fully God" & "fully man". Jesus (the man) is made up of body+spirit(+soul). Jesus (God) is a spirit. Which of these "natures" died for us, considering that: 1. Jesus (divine/God) does not die. So (divine) Jesus did not die. 2. The Soul+spirit of Jesus ("fully man") did not die. Our spirits do not "die" with our bodies & Jesus (man) was sinless (his soul was fine) 3. The body of Jesus ("fully man") is just a vessel/container without life of its own (when the "immortal" spirit is taken out). NOTES/EDITS: My question goes beyond just the issue of whether Jesus as a human can die and still be God. I "consider" the "two persons/natures" ("fully God" and "fully man") to understand not whether God can die, but even in what sense Jesus (fully man") died; given that his spirit and soul never died, and his physical (human) body never had a life of its own separate from the human spirit.

Can a divine being claim to have made a very heavy sacrifice when he uses his creative power and makes another vessel / being / substitute creature that he gives away or gives up to be tortured on his behalf? **Is it Him who is suffering or the being he created?** When humans sacrifice a cow / sheep / goat, place the knife on its throat and cut it, is it the animal or the owner that feels the pain?

I understand from [this article](https://www.gotquestions.org/anthropomorphism.html) that anthropomorphism is the process of assigning human characteristics to God: >Anthropic means “relating to human beings or their existence.” The word anthropomorphism comes from two Greek words, anthropos, meaning “man,” and morphe, meaning “form.” In theological terms, anthropomorphism is the process of assigning human characteristics to God. Human traits and actions are ascribed to the Creator. We read of God’s actions, emotions, and appearance in human terms, or at least in words we normally accept and associate with humans. Then I came across the word theanthropism. My 1979 Collins English Dictionary said: >Theanthropism – ascription of human traits or characteristics to God. ‘Theol’ – doctrine of hypostatic union of divine and human natures in the person of Christ. How is theanthropism theologically different from anthropomorphism? Does it relate to the union of the divine and human natures in Christ?

I think this is one of the reasons the we can call Mary the Mother of God. But I'm confused about the exact meaning of Human Nature and Human Soul. So my question is mainly this. What was created at the Incarnation?

First things first: I am not a Trinitarian. However, I know many good people that are Trinitarians and some of them are very close to me so we'll say that I'm sympathetic to the cause. I'm sincerely interested in knowing the answer to this (and others) query to better my understanding. What led me to the question is the belief that many Trinitarians hold regarding the name Jesus: it only belongs to the Son. I understand this to be a way of avoiding modalism, i.e. Jesus is not the Father. However, the name Yahweh can apply to the Father, Son, or Spirit (correct me if I'm wrong). So is Jesus the name of the person of God in Him, or only the man, or of both God and man? In my mind it makes sense if it's only the man but I could be way off!

> [**Matthew 24:36**](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:36&version=NLT) (NLT) > [**Mark 13:32**](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2013:32&version=NLT) (NLT) > > 36 “However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows.” Now hold on a minute here... in according to the doctrine of the Trinity, God the Father and God the Son are the same God, yet the Father knows something the Son doesn't? What's going on here?

The common belief is that Jesus was fully God and fully man; that is, 100% God and 100% man. In John 17:5, Jesus asks the Father to return his glory as he had before he became flesh. So, his glory was not limited, but taken away or relinquished. Therefore, Jesus lost an attribute of God. If you don't possess all attributes of what God is (e.g. possess 99% attributes), then you cannot claim to be fully God. So my question to those who believe in the hypostatic union of Christ: how is Jesus considered fully God during his earthly ministry when he declared that he doesn't have the glory of God? Glory as an attribute of God - Exodus 16:10, 24:16-17, 33:18-19

I (a Christian) have been in several groups and see this argument poised here and there. I believe they get it from the Mormon apologist Blake Olster, but I could be mistaken. However, the problem below is the supposed “issues” with Christology. Any sort of information to help rebut these arguments would be much appreciated. Edit: I did not come up with this question, a Mormon did. I am simply asking for clarification, a new perspective or if there’s something I’m missing. I fully disagree with the below “argument.” It’s fallacious and completely wrong. **The Problem of Christology:** **A. If God is the essentially uncreated and the only one of its kind, then Christ cannot be fully divine.** 1. It is possible for a single person to be at once both fully human and fully divine. 2. Human nature is such that it is essentially created at some time. 3. Divine nature is such that it is essentially uncreated and timeless. 4. A nature defines what is essential to the kind that an individual is. 5. It is impossible for a single person to be both human (created) and also divine (uncreated) natures. (From 1, 2, and 3). (65) Premise #4 entails the denial of #5 and therefore one of them is false. **B. If God possesses essentially attributes that humans cannot possess essentially, then Christ cannot be both human and divine.** 1. God is essentially omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent (essentially good, immutable, impassible, timeless, a se, etc.) 2. Jesus Christ was and is fully God/divine. 3. Jesus Christ was and is fully human. 4. Necessarily, no human is omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent (essentially good, immutable, impassible, timeless, a se, etc.) Whatever God’s nature is, human nature essentially cannot be / Whatever God’s nature is, human nature must be essentially different.

The Bible describes God as: God is the All-Powerful Creator of the universe. If the God is All-Powerful - how would a human (who is the less powerful) be able to crucify the All-Powerful God (Jesus) - how would I worship a God who can't protect himself and one day when he was baby, he needed the human to protect him and feed him to stay alive! - what was he before he becomes an embryo? and where was he? was he nothing? - if yes, how was he created? - if yes, who then created the human before he gets created?

Christians belief that God exists in three persons, although being just one entity. One of them is the Father who created the visible and the invisible world. I understand, that the Father was just active in the beginning. He does not interact with the world as of now. (Maybe he's doing something people can not explain. But maybe this is done by the Holy Spirit - the third in the club...) The Holy Spirit is another person. This is all the good thoughts. This is still active in the world in many people. This is how God interacts with people. And there is/was Jesus. Jesus was both fully human and fully god. He was crucified but was resurrected after three days and some time later ascended to heavens. As God is also in heaven, the question is if there is any need for the son as separate person anymore. Or has this person rather united with the father, as the need to also be fully human is not there anymore, as Jesus is not on earth? To be more precise: What evidence is there that Jesus is still a separate person, even after his ascension? What are the reasons Christians believe that?

In Luke 22:44 we read how Jesus sweat blood during his prayer at Gethsemane. This happens when one goes through extreme stress and mental agony. Da Vinci is said to have recorded the phenomenon that happened with soldiers prior to fierce battles. Now, we find the human nature of Jesus in dominance in all other stages of the Passion -- right from his trial, through the flogging and crowning, on his path to Calvary where he falls under the weight of the cross and to his loud cry of agony at the moment of death. But in the garden we see him having a frame by frame fore-view of all the suffering that was on the way. Ordinary persons awaiting execution, even through the most cruel methods, are not known to have sweat blood. Thus, it was the human nature in Jesus that sweat blood, while his divine nature had set the stage for it. **My question therefore is**: Was the divine nature of Jesus in dominance at the Garden of Gethsemane? Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

Where did St. Thomas Aquinas say Mary approached the borders/fringes of the divinity or Hypostatic Union?