So lets agree for the sake of argument that Jesus Christ was a manifestation of God, and that the spirit, or soul of Jesus was identical to God’s.
When Christ ascended to heaven, doesn’t that mean that there were two identical God-souls in heaven? If not, and Christ merged with the Father, or ceased to exist, whats the point of addressing in prayer a soul that doesn’t exist?
Presumably Jesus is, was and always shall be a part of the trinty, only breifly seperating from God the father to be incarnated on earth.
The nature of Jesus in relation to the trinity is perhaps one of the hottest inter-christian debates in history, with a lot of different postions, though almost all of them were proclaimed Heresies by the RCC.
Outstanding point.
Then question of course is why we have to “agree for the sake of argument that Jesus was a manifestation of God, and the spirit, or soul of Jesus was identical to God’s.”
This may be overly simplistic, but why not let Jesus say who he was?
Because otherwise people like me would argue that Jesus was insane and God is a fantasy of wishful thinking.
Carry on.
Ok…
I’m sure there’s more to that story but it’s probably a different discussion I would imagine.
My point…which if pursued may go off point as well (although tangentially at best…) is that there is little inferred biblical evidence to accept what the OP asked us to accept ‘for the sake of argument’, and certainly no direct evidence to support the OP’s premise.
Actually, according to classic theology, Christ has two natures: human and divine. His divine nature is simple, but His human nature is composite, as all of ours are: body and soul. Thus, Christ’s soul (psyche, nous) is human. Christ’s divinity never departed from the heavens, even while He was on earth. When He ascended, His body and soul were taken up to the heavens. Thus there are not two God-souls in heaven, but only one, because only one hypostasis of the Trinity became incarnate and received a soul.
From the Litya stichera of the vespers of Ascension:
Cool!
Can you show me that from the bible?
For the majority of the world’s Christians (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox), the Bible is considered a part of Church tradition, and as such, not every theological statement needs to be proof-texted from it. The Bible derives its authority from the Church, not the other way around. The faith of the Church is not only expressed in the Bible, but in its councils, writings of the fathers, hymnography, iconography, and even architecture. Relying on the Bible as the sole basis for one’s religion is a product of the Reformation. I can only say that what I wrote does not come from myself, but is a basic paraphrase of the doctrinal statements of the council of Chalcedon, which is regarded as infallible by both Catholics and Orthodox.
I don’t believe you can support this any more than you can support the earlier statement. (with all due respect)
Certainly nowhere in the bible can it be supported that the bible was considered part of “Church tradition”, (and therefore subordinate to the faithful) and certainly Christ and the early Christians didn’t take that view. In fact, the bible clearly identifies those who elevated “church tradition” above clear biblical instruction as having perverted the faith.
And, I didn’t ask for every theological statement from the bible; I’d be pleased to have any biblical cite to supprt your original statement.
Along those lines, no one is suggesting that the bible should be the sole basis for one’s religion, but that if one is espousing doctrinal views on the Judeo-Christian God it would only be prudent to reference the bible. Isn’t that right? The notion that adherence to biblical teaching is a product of the reformation is simply not true.
As to the excercising of faith, the councils etc would generally use the bible as the foundation for their dogma (or they should!). Hymns, architecture etc are the products or manifestations of faith, not where doctrine is derived from. The Sistene Chapel is source of wonder and beauty and an inspiration perhaps, but that is a far cry from a source of doctrine.
Please cite why the bible should be subordinate to the council of Chalcedon, and why this should rightly be considered infallible.
Because He bothered with us. 
Theologically, I suppose there are a lot of things one could say, but on a personal level, it just makes it personal. Christ is, in one way of perceiving it, how God bothered with Us. He became one of us. It’s a pretty big deal, really, a bit beyond walking a mile in our shoes.
Tris
I am curious if you would object to any aspect of my original statement. That Christ is both divine and human? Of course He is divine, for “the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” And the Word became human, for “the Word was made flesh.” And this was a full humanity, for as the apostle Paul says, “In all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren.” And thus if Christ was like us in all things, He would have had a human body and soul, as we do. And as human nature is self-evidently composite, being made of body and soul, so Christ’s human nature is composite, but His divinity is simple, for if the divinity were divided then there would be a multitude of gods. Christ’s divinity never left the heavens, because if it did, not only would the divinity be divided, with one part in the heavens and one part on earth; but if you say the whole of the divinity left the heavens, then you would be saying that there was an area where God was not, and thus limiting Him. As regards Christ’s ascension, as the evangelist Luke says, “He was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.” His humanity still remains there, and will return at the end of time, because as the angels said at the occasion of His ascension, “this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven.” And for my statement that only one hypostasis of the Trinity became incarnate, I again appeal to the evangelist John: “the Word was made flesh,” but not the Father nor the Spirit.
Indeed, and from the Orthodox point of view (I am not Catholic, and so only have passing familiarity with their beliefs on this subject), the Bible is also a manifestation of faith, being part of Holy Tradition. As it was once explained to me, the Bible is not revelation, but points to revelation, which is direct experience of Christ. Christ is the foundation of our faith, and scripture, the councils, iconography, hymnography, etc. are manifestations of that faith.
Obviously, the Bible came before Chalcedon, and so the latter must conform to the former in all respects (which it does, as both are part of the same Tradition). Chalcedon was a gathering of the Church, and where the Church is gathered in the Holy Spirit, there can be no error. An early instance of this is described in the 15th chapter of Acts, where the apostles wrote, “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us” to set forth matters of doctrine, and to speak for the Church. In like manner are the ecumenical councils.
Easy: You can’t have one without the other, like love and marriage, or a horse and carriage. You deny Christ and the Holy Spirit, from a Christian point of view, that’s like ignoring 2/3 of God. It just won’t do. Plus, all that stuff Christ and his followers taught and handed down to us in scripture is essential for salvation. You cut things off before Matt, Mark, Luke, and John, and you’re not getting the whole story. In fact, you’re missing the most essential part. Not that the rest isn’t important, but the story of Jesus is as important as it gets. The logic in your equation doesn’t work, simply because it’s not a valid equation. Christ is an aspect of God, joint and several with other parts of the Trinity. Christ does not, in a purely literal sense, equate with God. It’s not that easy to compute.
yBeayf:
Hmmm, I always thought that the soul was meant to be divine… No worries then!
So Christ’s soul in heaven (according to Christian doctrine), which is prayed to by Christians, is not the same as God?
Makes perfect sense to me :).
However we are still faced with a slight problem concerning Christ’s divinity. yBeayf says it “never departed from the heavens”. This does not answer the question of whether it is separate from, or identical with, the divinity of God.
If it is not separate from the Father’s, then the question remains: why bother with Christ? Ok so maybe he did represent God for a while, but why bother with worshipping him when he was only a temporary conduit for God’s divinity? Does anyone worship the other prophets of the OT? Sure Moses & Abraham get lip service, but they don’t deserve their own religion? Whats going on here?
This gets into Trinitarian theology, which is probably the hairiest aspect of Christian belief. As the 4th-century fathers put it, God is one ousia, but three hypostases. “Ousia” can be translated as “substance” or “being”; it answers the “what” of what God is. A hypostasis is a particular instance of an ousia. It is often translated as “person”, and answers the “who” of what God is. There is one God, but within God there are three persons, all sharing a common being.
God the Father is the origin of the Trinity: God the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and God the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. We don’t say They are lesser beings than the Father, though, because They share in the Father’s “God-ness”, and there was never a time when They did not exist. There is a difference between being begotten and proceeding, but we do not know what it is, only that it exists. All of the members of the Trinity are united in will, and each of Them dwells within the other two in unceasing love.
When God the Son became incarnate as Christ, in addition to His divine nature, He took on human nature; His humanity, however, did not have a hypostasis of itself, but took on the divine hypostasis, so there is only one hypostasis and one person of Christ, Who is both divine and human. Thus, there is only one Christ, and one cannot worship His divinity apart from His humanity, or vice versa. The same still holds true with Christ’s humanity now residing in the heavens. It cannot be separated from His divinity, but both exist in the same person and hypostasis of Christ, the Son of God. We worship Christ as we worship all of the hypostases of the Trinity as God.
I’m sure the_raindog will be along soon to say that all of this contradicts the Bible. I believe, however, as my church (the Eastern Orthodox) does, that a. the seeds of all the above can be found within the Bible, and b. the Bible does not stand as a thing separate from Tradition, but is a part of it, and is scripture because the Church declared it so, and the Church derives its authority from Christ.
You have to hand it to the early church - they knew how to argue creatively :).
So, is it possible that while Jesus walked on earth, he occasionally suffered from ingrown toenails, hemhorroids, dental cavities and acne? (Unless he chose to use his healing power on himself . . .) Seriously, just how human was Jesus, in the view of classic theology? Did he masturbate as a teenager? If not, did he get a lot of nocturnal emissions? Etc., etc.
In the view of the classic Nicene/Chalcedonian theology? 100% fully human, though a perfectly holy-living human, AND 100% fully divine, and here’s the kicker, if you see any contradiction or conflict it’s because our understanding is flawed. As Meta-Gumble said, those Early Church Fathers could come up with really creative explanations. As to what that implies insofar as behavioral aspects, that tends to depend on what each church considers a perfectly holy-living human.
as to raindog’s question: that’s the point, there are major parts of Christian doctrine and theology in the catholic/orthodox school that do not come at all from the Bible, because catholic/orthodox doctrine NEED NOT come from the Bible. The (Roman, Greek, Russian, Coptic, Armenian, Syrian, Chaldaean, Ethiopian, MarThoma, etc.) Churches recognize the Bible as inerrantly authoritative in those matters of faith that are in there. But on those matters that aren’t in there, they got their own sources.
I am happy to be in a position to inform you that my cousin, “josh the horndog” as we call him affectionaltely, used to perform a Deep Purple knock off at those wild gnostic weddings, ending with the refrain, or perhaps howl,
Boorn TO FUCK SHIIICKSAAAAS
He did not, however, suffer from piles.
but on topic, if christ=yahweh, why bother with yahweh?
(I have been contemplating a bumper sticker for a new dispensation
FUCK YAHWEH; I believe I am not the first to express on this board some dissatisfaction with the received version of the abrahamic deity…)
I certainly would not condone such a reaction to your hypothetical bumper sticker but, my, if you would apply such a sticker, you really don’t care if your car is keyed, do ya?