Two Natures of Jesus

Two Natures of Jesus

Thomas Allen

An essential component of the Trinity doctrine is the doctrine of the two natures of Jesus, also called the doctrine of the hypostatic union. According to this doctrine, two natures, divine and human, are indissolubly united in Jesus Christ, yet they remain distinct. One nature is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and incapable of suffering. The other nature is weak, has imperfect knowledge, and is liable to sorrow, pain, and death. Thus, the former is infinite eternal God, and the latter is finite mortal man.

In 451 A.D., the Council of Chalcedon formulated the doctrine of the two natures of Jesus:

One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He was parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ.

Accordingly, the divine nature and human nature are united without confusion or commixture. Consequently, Jesus never ceases to be both fully God and fully man.

A true believer in the Trinity doctrine of the two natures of Jesus has to believe simultaneously in the following contradictions about Jesus:

– He is 100 percent God and 100 percent man.

– He is omnipotent and can do all things yet feeble and limited in what he can do.

– He is omnipresent and, therefore, cannot move yet moves from one place to another.

– He is omniscient (knows all things and is completely void of all ignorance ) yet has imperfect knowledge and is ignorant of many things.

– His mind is uncreated and infinite yet his mind is created and finite.

– He is independent yet dependent.

– He is immutable yet mutable.

– He is exempt from pain, sorrow, and death yet suffers pain, sorrow, and death.

– He is immortal yet mortal.

– He is eternal with no beginning yet has a beginning.

– He is self-existent yet derived.

– He is equal to God the Father yet is inferior to God the Father.

– He does not need to pray because in the fulness of the Godhead he needs nothing yet prays because he has needs.

– He did not die on the cross yet died on the cross.

– He cannot be contained by the heavens yet was enclosed in a woman’s womb.

– He is light yet enclosed in the darkness of a womb.

– He is Almighty God yet an infant’s body housed him.

– He is Almighty God yet a suckling babe dressed in diapers.

– He is without limitation yet had to learn to eat, walk, and speak.

– He was incarnated yet conceived.

All these and more conflicting attributes are contained in the person of Jesus.

Orthodoxy demands that a person believe in all these contradictions. Some contend that if a person does not believe these contradictions about Jesus, he cannot be saved.

Besides a lack of Scriptural support, a major flaw in the doctrine of the two natures of Jesus is that it presents Jesus as a deceiver. When Jesus said, “I can of mine own self do nothing. . . .” (John 5:30), Trinitarians claim that Jesus said this in his human nature. However, in his divine nature, he can do everything that God can do. When Jesus said, “. . . my Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28) Trinitarians maintain that he said this in his human nature. In his divine nature, he is as great as the Father. However, if Jesus is God, then he has deceived his audience with these two statements because he told them things that are not true. (According to the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon [where Jesus was declared to have two independent natures and wills] whenever Jesus spoke, he always spoke as God the Son and never as a mere human. Most Christians accept the decrees of these two councils. Thus, anyone who claims that Jesus ever spoke in his human nature is a heretic.)

These explanations are like a man claiming that he cannot write because he cannot write with his left hand, but he can write with his right hand. Another example is a man with a good eye and a glass eye who witnesses a crime. On the witness stand, he asserts that he did not see the crime although earlier in his police statement he had admitted seeing it. On the witness stand, he is referring to his glass eye (human nature), which did not see the crime, although his good eye (divine nature) did see the crime. 

Appendix. Atonement 

Trinitarians argue that sin is an infinite evil and, therefore, deserves an infinite punishment. Consequently, the atonement must be infinite, and no finite being can make an infinite atonement. Since Jesus is both God and man, his sacrifice on the cross qualifies as an infinite atonement. However, like the Valentinians, Trinitarians maintain that Jesus died as a man and not as God (God cannot die). Only his human nature bled and died. Thus, only the human nature of Jesus, the mere man, was offered and sacrificed. The divine nature of Jesus, God, was not offered and sacrificed. Consequently, the infinite atonement completely vanishes. The atoning sacrifice to the infinite God is a mere man, for only Jesus as a man endured and died on the cross. Therefore, concerning the atonement, the Trinitarian doctrine of the two natures of Jesus offers no advantage over the Unitarian doctrine that Jesus is solely human. (When dying on the cross, “. . . Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” – Mark 15:34. Thus, the God part of him had departed leaving only the human part to die.)

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Losing Control

Losing Control

Thomas Allen

White liberals, progressives, and conservatives are losing control of the Black mobs that they have created. Blacks are now destroying icons of White liberals, progressives, neoconservatives, and establishment conservatives: Lincoln, Grant, and abolitionists. They are attacking anything that memorializes Whites — and self-loathing Whites join them in destroying White heritage.

To most of these White albusphobes, Blacks are identical to Whites except for some external physical features. Thus, Blacks are Whites with more melanin, platyrrhine noses, and woolly hair. They are not. Blacks differ significantly from Whites and other races in many nonphysical attributes (see “Nonphysical Racial Differences” by Thomas Allen).

Unlike most Whites, most Blacks lack the ability to think abstractly. Consequently, Blacks have difficulty thinking about the future, thinking counterfactually (how would I feel if  . . . ?), and working with numbers and mathematics. Lacking the ability to think abstractly leads to moral problems. For most Whites, morality is internalized, i.e., most Whites resist stealing even if no one is around to stop them. Lacking the ability to think abstractly, most Blacks are deficient in internal morality. Their morality is enforced by external forces, such as the police or a strong authoritarian leader. (This lack of internal morality is seen in the explosion of crime by Blacks in places where the police have been significantly reduced.) (For more information about the nonphysical differences between Blacks and Whites, see Racism, Guilt, Self-hatred and Self-deceit by Gedaliah Braun [2008], who taught philosophy in Africa for many years and derived his conclusions from observation and frank discussions with Blacks. Not only is he not a Negrophobe, but he also approaches being a Negrophile. Unlike most Whites, who are racial nihilists, he is a racial realist.)

In “Curse of the Ghetto Golems” (July 26, 2022), David Cole gives two examples of left-wingers trying to use Blacks to implement their communist and progressive agendas. They are Herbert Aptheker, an atheistic Jew who was a prominent American communist, and George Soros, an atheistic Jew who considers the White race and Western traditions akin to Nazism and, therefore, have to be destroyed.

Herbert Aptheker. Aptheker was a prominent communist during the middle of the twentieth century. He and his comrades organized the civil rights movement. Urging Blacks to destroy America, he encouraged Black militancy and radicalism. Although Aptheker idealized Blacks, they were still just instruments to achieve his goal of communism. Not only were Blacks to destroy America, but they were also to build a Marxist utopia on the rubble. 

Unfortunately, for Aptheker, he lost control of his Blacks. They excelled in the violent part of the communist revolution. However, they replaced the ideological violence of communism with common thuggery.

George Soros. Soros is an unusual atheistic Jew in that he is neither a Zionist nor a communist. Yet, like a good communist, he seeks to destroy Western Civilization and the White race that founded it. To him, Western Civilization is Nazism, and Whites are Nazis.

To destroy his imaginary Nazis, Soros has spent billions of dollars to prevent the prosecution and incarceration of Black criminals. Consequently, crimes by Blacks have soared. To Soros, Blacks are merely tools used to achieve his dastard objectives.

Unlike Aptheker, Soros expected only common thuggery from Blacks. He does not seek to convert them to communism. He just wants to unleash their innate urge for violence and thuggery and to protect them from the consequence of their criminal actions.

Unfortunately, for Soros, his Black leaders have embarrassed him by using the money that Soros gave them for rioting for their own pleasures. Soros discovered that his Black leaders were using his money for their benefits and not for riots.

Moreover, Soros heavily financed Black Lives Matter (BLM). In return, he did get some riots, but BLM used much of the money to buy mansions.

Both Aptheker and Soros started off using Blacks to advance their agendas. However, Blacks ended up using Aptheker and Soros to advance their causes, which is usually enriching themselves.

The global elites are trying to create a civil war in the United States. When the war comes, what will White and antigun liberals, progressives, wokespersons, and social justice people do? Their albusphobia and Negrophilia prevent them from allying with Whites albusphiles, who have little use for these traitors, whose continuous unconditional surrendering to Blacks is a leading cause of the war. Moreover, except as a source of wealth, Blacks have no use for these wimps. Most likely, Blacks will go after the lightly-armed White albusphobes long before they will go after the heavily armed White albusphiles.

Unfortunately for Blacks, most Asians, Latinos, and other nonwhites may ally with the White albusphiles because most of them have a lower opinion of Blacks than do most White supremacists. If a real shooting war comes between Blacks and the rest of the country, Blacks will lose.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.

Is Ann Coulter Credible?

Is Ann Coulter Credible?
Thomas Allen

    In her column “A Nation Rejoices! A Humiliating Defeat for Trump,” Ann Coulter explains why the Republican Doug Mastriano lost the gubernatorial election in Pennsylvania. With her explanation, she implies that she has no credibility.
    In “A Credibility Test,” a four-part test is given to determine if a person has credibility on political issues. The four questions are:
    (1)    Does the person believe or act as though he believes the official story of the Kennedy assassination?
    (2)    Does the person believe or act as though he believes the official governmental conspiracy theory of 9-11?
    (3)    Does the person believe or act as though he believes that the Democrats did not steal the 2020 presidential election but won it fairly?
    (4)    Does the person believe or act as though he believes that White replacement is a hoax?
If a person answers “yes” to any of these questions, his credibility is questionable. If he answers “yes” to two or three, he has no credibility. If he answers “yes” to all four, he is ignorant beyond repair and is irredeemably stupid.
    Among the reasons that Coulter gives for Mastriano’s defeat were that he spoke at a QAnon rally where the official stories of 9-11 and the Kennedy assassination were questioned. Thus, she implies that she accepts the official stories — at least, she does not reject them.
    Also, she condemns Mastriano for claiming that the Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election. By that, she implies that the Democrats did not steal the 2020 presidential election.
    Coulter does not discuss White replacement in this article. However, in “They’re Replacing You, Black America” (June 2, 2022), she implies that White replacement is a hoax.
    As shown above, Coulter answers all four questions with “yes.” Therefore, not only does she have no credibility, she is ignorant beyond repair and is irredeemably stupid.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.