Christology thread Does Christ only have a human nature? Does

>>>/x/

>>1462896
>This board is dedicated to the discussion of history and the other humanities such as philosophy, religion,

Is this thread bumplocked?

File: image.jpg (52KB, 480x357px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 480x357px

>>1462894
Jesus was a dude and only a dude. Any attempt to ascribed divinity to Jesus takes away from His accomplishments as a human being.

>>1462947
Which were getting nailed to a tree and what else exactly?

>>1462920
It refers to the academic discussion of religious beliefs of historical periods.

>>1462956
Uhh, no. This is the humanities board too retard

>>1462956
formal theology is academic. I don't like it but it is allowed here

Christ has two natures, human and divine, but these natures are only distinct conceptually, not concretely, and he may be said to have one nature where nature is used to mean an extension of hypostasis. Christ has a human mind, a human soul, a human brain, a human spirit, and human flesh; all these were made God's by Christ's hypostasis, and Christ was conceived, born and suffered and died as God.

t. Fifth Ecumenical Council

>>1462994
Could you back that up with scripture?

You people worship a being which claimed to be both God and Man

Why are you over complicating it?

>>1462999
Well, sure, Scripture says the Word *became* flesh, what part of this isn't clearly indicated by that?

>seperate
>ziggerates (from another thread)
/his/ is falling to ever new depths.

File: really.gif (302KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 200x200px

>>1462999
It's part of the Extended Universe fanfiction series.

>>1463009
Exactly, this is about the consequences of Christ's incarnation, that's where the argument begins, it doesn't imply any position.

>>1463009
Oh, and as for Christ having a human mind and soul, that's very manifest when says stuff like, "I don't know, only the Father does," etc.

>>1463019
It firmly rules out Doceticism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism and Apolloniarism, for starters.

>>1463026
>Nestorianism, Eutychianism
It rules out neither, both assumes this

>>1462894
The natures are not separate, but they are distinct and united in the person of Christ.

The Communication of Attributes also occurs though it is the human nature getting deified, following the context of deification where the deification of the human nature of Christ enables the deification of humanity

>>1463036
No, Nestorianism is incompatible with Theopaschism (since it states that while Christ's humanity and divinity shared one hypostasis, what happened to his humanity didn't happen to his divinity)..

Eutychianism isn't compatible with Christ being ignorant of things God knows, since it precludes Christ's human mind.

File: Life+and+im+losing+_5d0bc34c3abea2fedca567388ff73d16.png (37KB, 235x200px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 235x200px

>>1462894
>millions of people died in pointless wars over trivial nitpicks like this

Why is Christianity a literal inversion of basic human dignity?

>>1463046
Eutychianism has Christ having a new nature, a combination of human and divine

>>1463047
the religion's just there to help people sleep at night. it doesn't actually make them less shitty to one another. god's true followers have waged war against god's true followers so mny fucking times now that it's staggering to me that anyone still buys all this nonsense

>>1463047
>trivial
It could be the difference between heaven and hell

>>1463064
It says Christ is cosubstantial with God, but not cosubstantial with man. The new nature has only a divine substance, in other words, meaning it "swallows up" the humanity, though the divinity remains.

>>1463071
No divine and universal would possibly give a shit about something so tedious.
This is clearly something that autistic monks waste their lives "figuring out" to feel superior.

>>1463084
It's not important in itself, but because it has Soteriological implications, like Theopaschism and Communicatio idiomatum

>>1463075
Wrong
It does not involve the destruction of his human nature, but it's fusion with his divine, resulting in a new nature neither human nor divine

>>1463111
It involves the destruction of the human ousia, though

"Nature" (physis) just means the properties of a hypostasis.

>>1463133
I am aware

>>1463144
Well Eutyches wasn't anathematized for the semantics of his Christology, he was anathematized because of how he said it worked, which was the dissolving of the human ousia.

>>1463161
Dissolving the same way a pill does in water

>>1463170
Right, but according to him, that made it so Christ was not cosubstantial with humanity, just God.

>>1463186
Correct. Now please debunk it, using scripture alone.

>>1463190
Scripture shows that Christ had a human essence because he displays lack of omniscience at times.

>>1463201
Again, the view has both human and divine traits
You actually seem pretty Nestorian

>>1463201
Cyril doesn't agree. Although that said, Christ does however due to human nature feels pain, hunger and so on

>>1463215
Felt pain, hunger and so on*
Christ's divine form does not

>>1463239
Natures don't feel things...it is the Logos that felt that.

Of course such isn't of the Divine Nature but the Human, which are experienced by the Divine person

>>1463210
Nestorianism rejects Mary being the Theotokos, as well as Theopaschism,

>>1463215
You haven't read Saint Cyril, he was an ardent Theopaschist. See his Twelve Anathemas

>>1463247
Yes the Logos felt that because of his human nature, which he no longer feels because of his divine nature.

>>1463267
Whenever a passage implying ignorance pops out that he discusses about, he doesn't seem to say Jesus doesn't know

>>1463283
Do you have any Scripture to back that up?

File: image.jpg (125KB, 548x437px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 548x437px

>>1463283
What do you mean?

>>1463286
God cannot feel pain or hunger because these are the consequences of original sin
>>1463288
Christ is no longer in human form, ergo he no longer suffers the consequences of humanity

>>1463285
Jesus's hypostasis knew, his human mind didn't. So Jesus as a person knew, but he also knew the limitations of his human mind simultaneously. You can see something similar when he says to God, be it not his will (or desire), but the Father's.

Hence, Christ as subject (hypostasis) had the sole will and knowledge as the Father, but he also experienced human desire and knowledge, though it shared with his divinity a oneness of purpose.

>>1463310
>God cannot feel pain or hunger because these are the consequences of original sin
So are you saying that the Word is not God, or rather that the Word did not suffer?

>>1463310
>Christ is no longer in human form
His Resurrection was bodily, and in bodily form he was assumed into heaven, so....

File: image.jpg (202KB, 561x865px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 561x865px

>>1463310
So he discarded the humanity he made as his own?

>>1463311
Ok...I guess this is where the two wills come in, am I correct to say this?

>TFW no theologian gf ;___;

>>1463315
The Word is God and the Word did suffer, but the Word did this in it's human form.

>>1463324
Difference form, same God.

>>1463324
Are you a Calvinist?

>>1463320
Yes, his resurrection was bodily, but the flesh was changed by death.
>>1463336
Why?

>>1463323
>Ok...I guess this is where the two wills come in, am I correct to say this?
Yes, but the will shared a oneness (the differences between "sole" and "one" is immensely important in Christian theology).

>TFW no theologian gf ;___;
Are you that K-Pop fan who kept pestering me?

>>1463336
Wtf do Calvinists even believe in that?

I know some like Sproul do flirt around with Nestorianism

>>1463339
>Yes, his resurrection was bodily, but the flesh was changed by death.
So? It didn't destroy his humanity. If it did, then the Resurrection promised to Christians would destroy their humanity, and since they don't have a divine nature as Christ does, well then they're done

>>1463339
>Why?
Because Reformed theology is the only Christian theology that rejects Theopaschism

File: image.jpg (44KB, 375x332px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 375x332px

>>1463350
Wait...you are that smart Reformed anon?

I only brought that out since it sound quite similar to Maximus' Dyothelitism

>>1463354
That was a major difference Calvin and Luther had, yeah

>>1463362
No, I'm Constantine

Christ is the syzygy of Sophia, the divine plasmate established to overthrow her aborted son Yaldabaoth Samael's control over the material world.

>>1462894
OP you have to really understand that to have decent discussions on this matter you need to set out your criteria for validity.

Do you want these questions answered by logic?
Oral tradition?
Biblical reference?
Revelation?

File: image.jpg (128KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 640x1136px

>>1463366
I know the truth :3

>>1463364
I do know that the Reformed would charge the Lutherans as being nestorian due to differences over Eucharistic theology.

>>1463361
>So? It didn't destroy his humanity. If it did, then the Resurrection promised to Christians would destroy their humanity, and since they don't have a divine nature as Christ does, well then they're done
Ours is not a bodily resurrection

>Because Reformed theology is the only Christian theology that rejects Theopaschism
Yes, i am Calvinist.

Regular human body (except for wherever his Y chromosome came from), happened to have the Son/Word/Logos instead of a regular human soul.

>>1463376
>I do know that the Reformed would charge the Lutherans as being nestorian due to differences over Eucharistic theology.
Uhh, i think you have that backwards.

>>1463385
Wtf I thought the Resurrection of the body is believed even by the Calvinists

>>1463376
>I do know that the Reformed would charge the Lutherans as being nestorian due to differences over Eucharistic theology.
Since Calvin denied Theopaschism, I'd say he was the more Nestorian, even though both denied Mary as Theotokos

>>1463385
>Ours is not a bodily resurrection
So you reject 1 Corinthians 15:43?

>>1463398
It was the opposite?

>>1463402
I thought Calvin and Luther both accepted that Mary is Theotokos.

The Early Reformers had quite a high Mariology. Luther's arguably more higher than Calvin's

>>1462994
> natures are only distinct conceptually, not concretely, and he may be said to have one nature where nature is used to mean an extension of hypostasis

Can someone expand on this/ provide examples?

>>1463406
>I thought Calvin and Luther both accepted that Mary is Theotokos.
Not in the Patristic sense of the term. The term for their view in ancient times would have been that Mary is the Christokos.

>>1463412
"Nature", in Christian theologies, means the properties of a hypostasis. Christ had one hypostasis, so it makes sense to say he had one nature, but that nature included both human and divine properties, and it makes sense to say two natures in that sense.

>>1462947
>>1462949

This tbqh.

I'm not even trying to piss off any Christians but if he wasn't God, the son of God, or at least a prophet, then his only accomplishments were being insane and dying.

>>1463423
And being the most influential thinker in Western history.

File: image.jpg (156KB, 1012x811px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 1012x811px

>>1463415
Explain more :3

>>1463402
>So you reject 1 Corinthians 15:43?
Nice cherrypick, read the next verse
>both denied Mary as Theotokos
Luther called her Mother of God
>>1463399
I don't see many corpses floating to heaven, do you?
>>1463404
Yes
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_calvinisticum

>>1462949
>>1463423
Betting nailed to a tree and starting something of a philosophical and religious revolution.

Besides, "insane" is relative to culture. Plenty of people thought they were prophets in those days, Jesus was just the most famous.

>>1463417
Monophysitism

>>1463429
Dichotomizing "bearing" from "mothering" in ancient times would have made about as much as sense in ancient times as dichotomizing "begetting" and "fathering". "Theotokos" was very much synonymous with "Mother of God", and still is in Orthodox theology. "Christokos" was title used by those who denied Mary was the Mother of God, though acknowledging she was the Mother of Christ's humanity.

>>1463431
That's because the Resurrection of the body is more of a future thing that will happen.

Also, the whole extra calvinisticum kinda contradicts Cyril

Augustine's Eucharistic theology is also still akin to the Lutherans though much more spiritualized

>>1463417
But can you break down the whole somehting having to distinct properties but only conceptial not concrete?

>. Christ had one hypostasis, so it makes sense to say he had one nature, but that nature included both human and divine properties, and it makes sense to say two natures in that sense.

Is that something that is derived by faith? Because that doesnt seem to make much sense without coming to heritical conclusions.

>>1463431
>Nice cherrypick, read the next verse
What about it? "Natural" here is not a translation of φυσιkόν, it's a translation of ψυχιkόν. It's literally "soulful" in Greek, that just sounds weird in English so they don't translate it that way; it doesn't mean "corporeal" or "material", the most materialist way it can be used is to mean breath (but "spirit" can also be used to mean that, as well as to mean wind).

>>1463426
Hes not Plato

But seriously Jesus importance was more in his inspiration of others, there isnt really anything profound or well argued in his teachings and they literally rely on authority alone for their validity.

>>1463439
Theotokos is (while technically true) extraordinarily misleading, it leads to heresy like Eutychianism
Christokos is much more accurate.
>>1463442
>That's because the Resurrection of the body is more of a future thing that will happen.
For what purpose, when the saved dead are already alive in and with Christ?

>>1463453
>It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
Clearly a distinction is being made between natural and spiritual.

>>1463437
"Mono" is a prefix that means "sole" or "alone" (like, "Man shall not live on bread alone").It's often used to mean Christ had either humanity or divinity alone, which is why Copts prefer miaphysite ("mia" is a prefix for "one").

>>1463457
Wow...we really have a Nestorian here and a person who denied the Nicene Creed

File: image.jpg (125KB, 736x736px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 736x736px

>>1463463
I heard that "Mia" can also mean "unity"

>>1463463
Mono in this context means "one"
>>1463464
In what way have i denied the creed?

>>1463471
The Creed explicitly states that the Christian professes the belief in the Resurrection of the Body

>>1463473
...of christ

>>1463475
Read it again http://anglicansonline.org/basics/nicene.html

>>1463481
Is this what you're talking about?
>We look for the resurrection of the dead
This says nothing of bodily resurrection.

>>1463491
That is the resurrection of the body

>>1463497
No it's the resurrection of the soul through Jesus Christ

File: image.jpg (272KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 640x1136px

>>1463503
Tell that to 2nd century apologist Justin Martyr

>>1463451
His hypostasis had both divine and human properties, but since "nature" is used to mean "the properties of a particular hypostasis", the division is just conception; two natures concretely would imply two hypostases. So we can particularize, say, a human body or soul (but these are also God's body and soul, being that they are the body and soul of the hypostasis), but when we say "two natures", that's purely conceptional, or at least can't be anything but insofar as nature is used to mean "the properties of a particular hypostasis".

>>1463460
Right, but you're assuming "natural" (which is, again, not a translation of the Greek word for natural, but a translation of the Greek word for soulful) means "material". The term being translated doesn't mean that at all, it just means the lower-level lifeforce (like that which animates animals) as opposed to the higher-level lifeforce. It's a question of what animates the body.

>>1463471
>Mono in this context means "one"
Doesn't actually mean that in Christology or just plain Greek, it means "solitary". It's a very different term from that Christ uses, for instance, when he says, "I and my Father are one," or "all of them may be one." It is the term used when Christ says, for instance, "Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him ONLY shalt thou serve."

>>1463509
No one considers him a Church Father. He's held as a saint and a martyr, but not as a reliable authority on theology, especially since he was overly-concerned with reconciling pagan philosophy and Christianity.

>>1463509
Damnit not you again
Begone, you shitposting retard

>>1463525
He is a Church Father.

And he ain't the only one who says this...basically most if not all of them made it very clear the resurrection of the body

>>1463529
>denying the very tenet that Calvin and the Reformed confessions profess

>>1463467
English makes a distinction between "oneness" and "unity" only due to German-Latin differences. Latin and Greek didn't make any such distinction. They're two translations of the same word

>>1463533
Interesting :3

What do you think of the Assyrian Christology though?

>>1463518
So is that something that is based on revelation because that just begs the whole christology question.

What role does logic and reason play in realtion to revelation?

>>1463549
logic and reason help us to understand revelation

>>1463542
They deny Theopaschism, so heretical

>>1463549
No role. Reason is truth as object to be confronted, stripped, examined and controlled, revelation is truth as a conscious subject transcending humanity and revealing himself.

>>1463564
How do you cut through all the other groups who claim revelation without being inconsistent?

>No role. Reason is truth as object to be confronted, stripped, examined and controlled, revelation is truth as a conscious subject transcending humanity and revealing himself.

Can you reword this or explain it differently?

>>1463602
>Can you reword this or explain it differently?
I mean reason engages truth like a Rubik's cube, revelation is truth as an entity infinitely beyond you revealing himself. Reason exposes, revelation reveals.

>>1463609
>I mean reason engages truth like a Rubik's cube, revelation is truth as an entity infinitely beyond you revealing himself. Reason exposes, revelation reveals.

But in this instance isnt revelation a product of reason as without reason revlation cannot be distinguished from something else?

>>1463624
Well, yeah, you need to reason to even take it in. It's still different from truth arrived at directly by reason, as opposed to truth presented and only digested by reason.

>>1463628
But doesnt that kind of lead you in circles and knots and run into the other issue of that post?

Given how many conflicting claims there are regarding previous and current experiences of presented truth it seems that to pick one is something that is purely a product of reason alone.

To use youre example to do otherwise would be acting as if just one square we are presented with is the rubix cube itself.

>>1463636
Reason might lead to you accept a particular faith and thus its revelation, but most of the particular points of it aren't arrived at by reason. The methodology is very different because truth is conceived of as a being that is beyond you and which you can only know through truth's conscious will. Let's supposed reason leads to believe Christ is God and was Resurrected; if you accept the rest of the deposition of faith, the closest you can come to reason as leading you there is argumentum a fortiori based on the Resurrection, and really that is expanded to the point that it is really more just descriptive than methodical.

>>1463652
What do you mean by
>truth's conscious will
>argumentum a fortiori


>Reason might lead to you accept a particular faith and thus its revelation, but most of the particular points of it aren't arrived at by reason.

Isnt the point that *only* reason can lead you to accept a particular faith?

I will marry Constantine!

File: image.jpg (37KB, 459x320px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 459x320px

HAHAHAHA

NICE SPOOKS YA FUCKING NERDS

>>1462894
The first and the last are heresy to every extant sect of Christianity, the rest are the same thing said four different ways.

>>1463432
Jesus was well aware of the prophetic messages from TORAH - and used them to fulfill the messianic king - and destroy religion once for all - since the one religion world leader - idea was based on Messiah king and now Jesus took the title and fulfilled it, the religion itself got pretty fucked up until Muslims came and found a new interesting way to control people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dEh25pduQ8&list=PLH0Szn1yYNec-HZjVHooeb4BSDSeHhEoh&index=2

Severe role playing going on ITT
>Jesus was a lv. 100 half-celestial cleric
>No, Jesus was 100% human and 100% celestial multi class wizard cleric you fucking heretic

File: image.jpg (18KB, 220x264px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 220x264px

>>1464575
People were brutally killed and tortured over this.

>>1462894
I pick number 4

>>1462894
>not being an Arian or Pelagian

>>1463047
>frogposters actually think theological disputes are what caused the wars of religion and weren't simply pretenses to mask the genuine political motivations

>>1465456
Enjoy hell, heretic

File: chalcedon.jpg (38KB, 444x500px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 444x500px

The Definition of Chalcedon:

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

>>1467259
That's all well and good, but what does the Bible say?

File: musculus.png (1MB, 748x1196px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 748x1196px

>>1463402
Patripassianism is a heresy and the notion of Theopaschism threatens the impassibility of God. Neither Luther nor Calvin denied Mary as Theotokos, although Calvin did question the term for reasons totally unrelated to the objections of the Nestorians. He confessed what the Nestorians denied: that the One Mary bore in her womb was not merely a human nature, but God the Son, the Theanthropos.

And for similar reasons, in consideration of a correct, Chalcedonian understanding of christology, it is acceptable to say that God suffered on the cross. Who was nailed to the cross? Not a human nature, but Christ, the God-man. It is quite true that the Reformed understand the communicatio idiomatum in concreto -- in such a way that what may be said of the nature may be said of the Person, so it is not at all troubling to say that God suffered on the cross. Jesus is God. But you cannot say that the Godhead suffered. What is denied is that what may be said of the Person may be said of the nature. It makes no sense to speak of the divine nature suffering on the cross. Impassibility is an attribute of divinity. Moreover, a nature is not a subsistence or an agent. Natures cannot suffer, divine or human. Persons suffer. To say that the divine nature suffered does exactly the sort of dissecting of natures that got Nestorius into trouble. There is no need to imagine it in anyway. The natures are indivisibly united in the Person, and the Person suffered.

It's also why the Incarnation is not sufficient argument for images of Christ. Images of God are forbidden, and you cannot divide the divine from the human nature. No, what you are pretending to depict is God.

The so-called "extra calvinisticum" is far older than Calvin, and can be found in the writings of Athanasius, Augustine, Basil the Great, and others. It was the Lutheran insistence on their highly idiosyncratic Eucharistic theology that made the so-called "extra calvinisticum" problematic for them.

>>1462894
Read the Definition of Chalcedon for Christ's sake.

>We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [coessential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

>>1467266
>worshipping a book instead of the resurrected and living God

>>1467579
If paying attention is equivalent to worship, doesn't that mean the Catholic and Orthodox worship traditions and "church fathers"?

File: knox2.jpg (62KB, 304x429px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 304x429px

>>1467266
I'm not doing your homework for you. The Church has been reflecting on the biblical revelation of the Triune God for centuries.

Start here, if you need a primer:
Isa. 42:1; I Pet. 19, 20; John 3:16; I Tim. 2:5; Acts 3:22; Heb. 5:5, 6; Ps. 2:6; Luke 1:33; Eph. 5:23; Heb. 1:2; Acts 17:31; John 17:6; Ps. 22:30, Isa. 53:10; I Tim. 2:6; Isa. 55:4, 5; I Cor. 1:30; John 1:1, 14; I John 5:20; Phil. 2:6; Gal. 4:4; Heb. 2:14, 16, 17; Heb. 4:15; Luke 1:27, 31, 35; Gal. 4:4; Luke 1:35; Col. 2:9; Rom. 9:5; I Pet. 3:18; I Tim. 3:16; Rom. 1:3, 4; I Tim. 2:5; Ps. 45:7; John 3:34; Col. 2:3; Col. 1:19; Heb. 7:26; John 1:14; Acts 10:38; Heb. 12:24; Heb. 7:22; Heb. 5:4, 5; John 5:22, 27; Matt. 28:18; Acts 2:36; Ps. 40:7, 8 with Heb. 10:5 to 10; John 10:18; Phil. 2:8; Gal. 4:4; Matt. 3:15; Matt. 5:17; Matt. 26:37, 38; Luke 22:44; Matt. 27:46; Matt. 26, 27 chapters; Phil. 2:8; Acts. 2:23, 24, 27; Acts 13:37; Rom. 6:9; I Cor. 15:3, 4; John 20:25, 27; Mark 16:19; Rom. 8:34; Heb. 9:24; Heb. 7:25; Rom. 14:9, 10; Acts 1:11; Acts 10:42; Matt. 13:40, 41, 42; Jude ver. 6; II Pet. 2:4; Rom. 5:19; Heb. 9:14, 16; Heb. 10:14; Eph. 5:2; Rom. 3:25, 26; Dan. 9:24, 26; Col. 1:19, 20; Eph. 1:11, 14; John 17:2; Heb. 9:12, 15; Gal. 4:4, 5; Gen. 3:15; Rev. 13:8; Heb. 13:8; Heb. 9:14; I Pet. 3:18; Acts 20:28; John 3:13; I John 3:16; John 6:37, 39; John 10:15, 16; I John 2:1, 2; Rom. 8:34; John 15:13, 15; Eph. 1:7, 8, 9; John 17:6; John 14:26; Heb. 12:2; II Cor. 4:13; Rom. 8:9, 14; Rom. 15:18, 19; John 17:17; Ps. 110:1; I Cor. 15:25, 26; Mal. 4:2, 3; Col. 2:15.

what about /his/ think of Marcionism and Valentinianism?

>>1467642
I was questioning Chalcedon, not Nicaea

File: calvino.jpg (115KB, 664x500px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 664x500px

>>1467652
Buncha Gnostics. Most of what we know about them (especially the Valentinians) come from the writings of their orthodox detractors. I don't know much but have always been interested in finding out more. But my next big project is reading up on the Cathars, so it'll have to wait.

>>1467712
You have your data, get to work.