Re: Physical Resurrection

Many a great
mind has wrestled with this, but there is yet no answer to the best of my
knowledge.

If by "answer" you mean something completely emotionally or intellectually
satisfying, I guess you're right. But as a matter of dogma the issue was
answered at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. The Chalcedonian creed is
basic to most Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox formulations of the nature
of Christ. Certainly monphysitism is a heresy that's appeared in various
places and forms through the ages, but as a matter of historical theology it
isn't accurate to suggest the doctrine of Christ's two natures remains
unsettled within the broad stream of orthodoxy. Here's the Chalcedonian
Creed:

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 [co-essential] 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.

On 4/10/06, Dawsonzhu@aol.com <Dawsonzhu@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Deborah Mann wrote:
>
>
>
> If you don't believe in the physical resurrection, does that mean you
> believe in ghosts? A ghost of Jesus lifted the disciples from their
> depression? Thomas was to feel the wounds of a ghost? A ghost cooked fish
> and ate it?
>
> What about the resurrection of the little boy by Elijah? What about the
man
> who fell out of the window and was healed through Paul's prayers? What
> about
> Lazarus? They were raised from the dead, but not our Lord? Or do you
follow
> the Jesus school who reject anything supernatural from God?
>
> God is supernatural. And God isn't sitting in some heavenly resort
watching
> us on big screen. He's active and real.
>
>
> I'm not the theologian here, but what is prudent to understand here is
> that there are a number of conflicting issues that have _always_ troubled

> the church. Out of the many, one is the question of how Christ can be
both
> divine and human (the divinity/humanity issue). If you put any thought
to
> it,
> you will soon recognize that the divinity/humanity issue is not trivial
to
> explain. When you push the divinity too far, you end up denying Jesus
> died, and when you push the humanity too far, you wind up with an unrisen
> Christ. Either extreme calls our salvation into question, as the former
> implies
> that there was no sacrifice and the latter means we should be
pitied. Many
> a great
> mind has wrestled with this, but there is yet no answer to the best of my
> knowledge.
>
> by Grace we proceed,
> Wayne
>
> What exactly Michael means by that short statement, but knowing
> something of how well read he is, it certainly requires more inquiry.
>
>
>
>
Received on Mon Apr 10 12:15:46 2006