Hello there, please format your answer so it is more internet user friendly. It is currently an unformatted wall of text which is annoying to read. A few paragraphs make all the difference even if you don't change a word.

Did you give me a minus grade for being annoyed that it wasnt spaced?

Yep, and now it is still there because you are factually incorrect about Monophysitism, it is the heresy that Jesus had only one nature, either human or divine. So I don't see how that is related to the heresy of "saying Christ was alive before his birth" from your perspective. I respect your belief/position, my downvotes are never due to theological differences, they are quality/fact based. Bonus points if people who answer state the perspective they are answering from. Peace be with you.

"Did you give me a minus grade for being annoyed that it wasnt spaced?" — That isn't inappropriate. The purpose of comments is to improve the question. ¶ Myself, I would have done it in the opposite order: suggested an obvious and major improvement, and downvote only after it is obvious that the suggestion is being ignored.

Oh ok i see what it is here. Its another one of those social medias with those types of people. I thought this was like a scholarly journal or something more likenan academic forum, my mistake.

Theopedia Search Monophysitism There are two major doctrines that can undisputedly be called monophysite: Eutychianism holds that the human nature of Christ was essentially obliterated by the Divine, "dissolved like a drop of honey in the sea". Apollinarianism holds that Christ had a human body and human "living principle" but that the Divine Logos had taken the place of the nous, or "thinking principle", analogous but not identical to what might be called a mind in the present day.'

So its obvious, before the created nature of jesus the man, only the logos part of his nature was in existance. You need both the nature of the man jesus and the nature of the logos to say anything is the person of Jesus Christ. The definition of his person is 100 percent logos, and 100 percent the created man Jesus. If you call God Jesus, before the person of Jesus was created, then like the heresy of monophysites, you deny the human nature that is needed to say it was the person jesus, cause he has two natures not one. Thats why i said its a form of monophysitism, which is a heretical error

@BrandanoDaPetroio And I based my objection on the results of a google search where multiple sites including secular, catholic, orthodox, and protestant defined it as being about the Nature of Christ. You can object on physical temporal factuality if you want to, and say "yes of course Jesus was not born yet" but there is also no time when Jesus did not exist. This is a paradox, but not a contradiction. Most of the christian faith is full of paradoxes (things that seem contradictory, but actually are not). This is one of those things.

Wyra you are off on your definition of monophysitism. I think the adoptionism heresy refers to christ only having a human nature. Monophysitism heresy is when the logos is focused on and the man jesus is neglected. Its why they said hes 100 percent man and 100 percent Logos or God in one person

@BrandanoDaPetroio study.com/academy/lesson/…. and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitism and britannica.com/topic/monophysite and orthodox.net/journal/… and episcopalchurch.org/glossary/monophysitism and orthodoxwiki.org/Monophysitism and... need more?

Ray, you need to pay closer attention to what was said and the question asked. I answered it directly when i said that the son is not part of the trinity. The rest of what i wrote explains that, jesus is the son and the logos is God, not the son of God, which is another heresy called subordination.

@BrandanoDaPetroio I understand you are not Trinitarian. Enjoy your time here. If you want to debate get some reputation and join us in the Trinity chat room. :)

Wyra you are still wrong when you said monophytism is a heresy describing the person of christ one nature, either human or divine. Monophysitsm is not a heresy that is defined as jesus with only a human nature. You are wrong. Thats more like the adoptionism heresy. You dont understand that im not a trinitarian either. Obvioisly i am if im articulating the trinity dogma. Please stop what you are doing.

Wyra, Beyond that, there is a time jesus did not exist, it was before he was born. There was never a time the logos or God didnt exist. Thats the nature of the heresy, a form of monophysitsm. A common one, reread what i wrote again. Especially the last sentences. Theres no paradox about it, its a common heretical contradiction.

@BrandanoDaPetroio pulls up sleeves You are an Arianist. You declare so in your first sentence, when you deny the Son from the Trinity. I'm not really concerned about your definition of heresy, I just gave you 6+ sources of a definition. The fact that you are using a different definition is a problem for you, not for me. Because no one will understand you, because they will look up the word and see you are wrong. You can try to change the definition if you want... but considering this definition has been firm for 1000+ years, you should probably accept it instead of fighting it.

You need to stop accusing me in order to justify yourself and take responsibility for your previous errors. Im not an arianist, because i affirm the divinity of the son. The person of Jesus Christ, is both a created man that was born of Mary and incarnated by the Holy Spirit with the logos that existed from the beginning. Arianism says that the logos or word was created, because there is no nature of man before creation. Very important - there is no pre existance of souls before they are born. What makes Jesus divine, is his divine nature and his sinless human nature born after creation.

Wrya pay attention to the context of the definition of arianism. Arian believed that the son was the first and highest creation. Hes talking about the logos calling it the son before he took on human flesh. Hes saying jesus christ existed as the word without his human nature. Thats not what im saying or affirming. Quite the opposite. Arius was guilty of subordination. The error in the definition is that Jesus Christ existed before creation as the logos

monergism.com/arianism my first comment says jesus was created, meaning at the time of his birth not before creation like arius said. In order to say jesus or define him, we have to include his created human nature, otherwise its not jesus. If we neglect his human nature, thats the heresy of monophysitsm, because we disregard the human nature of his person. There is no pre existance of souls like origen believed. Berrylus was right. Theology is very logical for the most part. Theres no paradox in the nature of christ or the trinity dogma. It was corrupted and hidden along the way.

He was created with both eternal and created natures. The person Jesus did not exist before his created nature. To say he existed before creation is heretical and illogical. The nature he has that is divine was never created but is the omnipotent logos of God that is eternally begotten from the omnipresent bosom or spirit of God. One omniscent mind eternally begetting his omnipotent word from.his omnipresent spirit or body the trinity- one being. Reread my answer. Jesus has the word as one of his natures that makes his person. Thats how jesus is the same substance, or Homoousios with God.

Beryllus of Bostra was right about the person of Jesus not existing before he was born. Origen hererically believed in the pre existance of all souls. He might have been wrong on other items, but beryllus was right when he disputed with origen about the pre existance of the person jesus, before he was born, in eusebuis' history of the church book.

@BrandanoDaPetroio you can self identify however you like. I am still pointing out that you are using a definition of Monophysitism not used by the rest of the world. And I apologize for misidentifying your particular flavor of faith. You specifically contradict the ecumencial councils, "δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο·" "begotten not made" so... you can rationalize all you like about theology... you should still use the the dictionary definition. Monophysite: "A person who holds that there is only one inseparable nature (partly divine, partly and subordinately human) in the person of Christ."

@BrandanoDaPetroio never mind the -, the biblical record defines Jesus as a man only. Welcome, the truth will be told, but you are answering against the question. Here's 10 for encouragement!

Wyrsa you sound like you didnt understand anything i wrote. Blatantly disregarded everything i said using strawman arguments, and other secular tactics to accuse me to cover for your mistakes in the comments. I expected more from this site besides secular equivocation. Nobody should have to endure it. Its lazy, dishonest, and bad behavior that is abusive and not in line with the spirit of christianity.

@Whoever moved us to chat, thank you

I feel like we should start over. Can we do that?

Or do you want to continue the debate?

I'm totally down to do both

It is kinda odd you left out "was with God" in your answer. Anyways... moving on

It is not the defining feature of this heresy, an Arianist could also claim this.

or any of the other heresies that claim Jesus was not fully human or fully divine could claim this

This is partially correct, and I am frustrated when I see people "halfway" get to the right place. I strongly agree with tossing out the latin nonsense.

However you misuse the term "person" by making the old greek word have the modern understanding of person

1900 years ago, persons did not include "independence" that is a modern association with the term "Person"

(I just researched this like 2 days ago, it's in an answer somewhere I think, regardless. I'm certain)

This only works, if you assert (like you are) that the Logos is not the Son, or that the Logos somehow entered into Jesus or something

As far as I know, all of those variations of belief are considered heresy by the ecumenical councils. (Adoptionism, etc)

L

You are passionate about this matter, and that is good. Faith should be strong.

They wont let me send the message

What... why?

Just leave me alone

Then stop replying. But please. Use dictionary definitions.

Leave me alone

Peace be with you

Yeah right

Having to speak with you is an awful experience. I truly wish it had never happened. Youre a very dishonest person and im not willing to debate with anybody. Im here to teach what i know and learn in a didactic conversation, not endure equivocation like im speaking to a a corrupt secular lawyer representing myself. Its not an intellectual conversation, its a cheap imitation and i avoid try to avoid all debates like the bible and religion says to do.

Wow dude. Go for it. If that is how you view this

All I did was point out you used 1 term wrong, you exploded on me. Not the other way around.

You do not wish debate, I understand. But try to keep all your answers of high quality.

@RayButterworth I agree with you. The user seems intent on proving his faith is correct, not about answering the question. They seem uninterested in anything else, as seen by the necro answering of another post, where he can point out his position again.

For all they commented debating, they don't want to debate or anything. I appreciate Ken cleaning up the comments.