January 27, 2021

The Council

Proclaiming the truth to the world.

Here’s your problem Vincent: You’re not able to distinguish between the nature of a person, let’s say Jesus, the [hu]man, and the identity of a person, like, again, Jesus ‘the Word’ of God, the ‘son of God’, the “name” (notice a name is an identifier telling us who, not what) “that is above all names.”

Once you do, all of your citations fall right into place. No need to posit non-Christian philosophical solutions like, of a sudden, we’re to suppose man now has two natures?

Once again, the presupposition you hold to is showing (Classic Theism/Scholasticism),
which you bring to the text, forcing you, yes, forcing you (since the text certainly doesn’t lead you there) to impose two natures onto Jesus. Overcome this simple observation (you know, about who Jesus is identified as ~ he’s God, and what Jesus is in his physical nature ~ he’s a man) and you might reach something sensible. Until then…

John Johnson is objecting to my article on Kenotic Christology:

http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2019/07/21/kenotic-christology/

This is in defense of Chris Remmie that hasn’t made any response to the points of my article. John states that I’m not distinguishing between the referent and the thing referred to. The proper noun Yahweh is different from Yahweh himself. Yahweh is a being and not a sequence of letters or pronunciations. This is a very misguided response because my point was never that the term and the thing it refers to are the same. But to identify something as a particular thing it must actually be that thing. You can handwave simple and commonsensical thinking like that as philosophical speculations, but why should we reject this thinking? If I pointed at a board of wood and called it John Johnson, you might say that it isn’t John Johnson. You might even start explaining to me what John Johnson is: White, Male, etc. But in John Johnson’s world, these proper nouns can be attributed to anything. So, John Johnson can’t tell us what it means to be “God” or “Yahweh”. So, from his perspective, these phrases have no meaning and can refer to anything. In John’s world when we say any name or title it is a game of “The Real Slim Shady”. When we say “Yahweh” we are simply left to wonder who will stand up. 

His second question is ambiguous, why think I’m stating every man has two natures? Only Christ is incarnate.

The last paragraph is irrelevant to my arguments.