In early Christendom there have been many Christological positions on the nature of Christ.

This poll is open for everyone, but I want to ask you to act like you believe the Bible is the Word of God if you're an atheist (or other non-Christian). What would be your position on Christology then based on the NT?

Christians can state their own personal beliefs ofcourse.


I'll give the options, please check Wikipedia for the meanings of these (major) Christological position. (it's too much work for me too explain every position :P)

Dyophysitism
Miaphysitism
Eutychian Monophysitism
Nestorianism
Arianism
I don't know enough of the Bible
Other Christology

I voted for Dyophysitism as long as that is understood to be what was expressed by Chalcedon.

Chalcedon articulated what is considered to be the orthodox Christology - 1 person, 2 natures, without confusion, change, division or separation. The main concern wasn't to explain what the Incarnation is, but what it isn't. Most Christology since then is speculation, which is considered ok as long as it fits within the Chalcedonian parameters.

I think this doctrine is as difficult to explain as any other Bible doctrine - similar to the Trinity or as shown in the thread now going on about the Atonement. As I stated there, we do not have a full explanation of all Bible doctrine, and I doubt we will ever understand them completely even in eternity.

Hmmmm.... a very difficult question. I doubt anyone can claim accuracy on it. I prefer to take a less ambitious and back door approach to this question and read Tozer and any other author I can lay my hands on that are interested in tracing out the works of the Holy Spirit.

How philosophy can construct a model of such mystery with accuracy is difficult for me to conceive of.

If I was a Christian I would probably subscribe to either some form of adoptionism or view of Jesus as a non-divine prophet/scholar.

I wouldn't take the bible very seriously but view it more as a political document asssembled by men, and I would assume reason and knowledge would be the proper ways to understand and/or find God - understanding fully well that such things change as time passes.

OP which would you pick?

I'm a Miaphysite, from the Oriental Orthodox Church. But it's almost practically the same as the Chalcedonian Dyophysitism. I believe Christ is both man and God, thus 2 natures in 1 Hypostasis. This is the Christology of St. Cyril.

I believe it is evident He is a man, he ate, drank etc. etc. His human nature was the same as our, except for the fact he couldn't/didn't sin.
And I also believe He is God, as appears in the Gospel of John, where He is the Only Begotten Son, uncreated, but begotten from the Father before all ages. That which is begotten from the Father can't be less than the Father, thus the Son is consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

But like you said, it is impossible to perfectly know and describe the natures of Christ.

Is Oriental Orthodox related to the Coptic church?

Yes the Coptic Church is Oriental Orthodox, just like the Syrian Orthodox, Ethiopian, Armenian Apostolic, Eritrean and Indian. All have the same Christology. We're in communion with each other.

Very interesting. Do you reject the notion of an eternal hell?

No I do not. From what I've read in the Bible I concluded that our only chance to get to heaven is on earth, not in hell.

Do you?

I've been reading Dr. Stephen E. Jones and becomingone.org and I tend to agree that God will save everyone but its better to be saved in this world. Dr. Jones explains there is a Jubilee after a time period in the book of Leviticus re: the Law of Redemption. God sets everyone free. Of course those who have a kinsman redeemer and accept his offer get free earlier. Both Jones and becomingone.org talk about certain mistranslations of the bible meaning age and not eternal. An age is not eternal...Possibly a long time period but not eternal.

I've also been recently listening to the demythologizing of hell by the Christian Universalist Association.

People are saved by Christ not the dogma. You don't have to believe in an eternal hell to be saved. Though I admit more people might be saved through a fear of hell than without a fear of hell. Because you have both an incentive: love, and a disincentive: fear, factoring into the belief pool and people all process things differently.

All Saved: http://becomingone.org/nm/nm13.htm

1st video (Demythologizing Hell): http://www.christianuniversalist.org/multimedia/

HMM ok interesting discussion, I have to study it more.

But I really want more non-Christian opinions about Christology.

Non-Christians, if you take the 4 gospels as true, what would you believe?
Is Christ man? Is he God? Is he both? Is he 2 persons in one? Is he divine yet not God? Is the Adoptionist view the truth? Is he equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit?

But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth.
Job 23:13....something to think about....the King James Version

I dont really know enough about the biblical support for all those views. But just based on all the times he would of been referring to himself in the third person i think Jesus thought he was just a man and prophet of God.