And who do you say Christ is?

[Hellisreal]

Sorry, this got blown WAY out of context. I didn’t mean it the way it was interpretted.

Its not misinterpreted if you state you dont think its logical that Jesus is human in heaven and dont care (since its not an “essential” if Jesus is Human in heaven.

 

[mrs_abbott]

Its not misinterpreted if you state you dont think its logical that Jesus is human in heaven and dont care (since its not an “essential” if Jesus is Human in heaven.

I never said I didn’t care.
This is why it’s misinterpretted because you take what I say up a notch and it changes the entire picture.
Just forget about it.
If you want, I’ll say that you’re right and I’m wrong.

 

[cathgal]

He is a human being. In fact so much the archetype of what it means to be human that he is called the second Adam. Jesus is a human being, this is what 1 John and John 1 both emphasize. That is what the incarnation was about. Jesus wasn’t just wearing a human body as a costume. He really was and is human, along with being God.

Again, you keep saying that He is a human *being. *Explain what *being *means.

He is both God and man, but man doesn’t mean He is a human be-ing.

Here’s some reading:
newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm#I1

 

[Hellisreal]

I never said I didn’t care.
This is why it’s misinterpretted because you take what I say up a notch and it changes the entire picture.
Just forget about it.
If you want, I’ll say that you’re right and I’m wrong.

No, I want you to take responsibility for what you said on this thread.

You cant have it both ways.

You cant say I misunderstand you when you state what you believe. Try to take back your very own words and then you have a case against me.

Untill then, you have made a case against Christ.

 

[jmcrae]

Again, you keep saying that He is a human *being. *Explain what *being *means.

He is both God and man, but man doesn’t mean He is a human being.

Here’s some reading:
newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm#I1

I think you are needlessly splitting hairs. When we say that Christ was a “human being” we are not denying Christ’s divinity. We are simply pointing out the fact that He has a human body, and that He was born of woman (Mary) in a particular place, at a particular time.

 

[Hellisreal]

I think you are needlessly splitting hairs. When we say that Christ was a “human being” we are not denying Christ’s divinity. We are simply pointing out the fact that He has a human body, and that He was born of woman (Mary) in a particular place, at a particular time.

Being a human being is not the argument here!

Look up Hypostatic Union! Oh Dear! No Catholic thinks Jesus is a buddy friend human!
Unfortunately, that is how most evangelicals think of him as. Buddy Jesus. WWJD?

He is MY PERSONAL savior!
Nervermind anyone else its all about me me me me!!!

 

[cathgal]

I think you are needlessly splitting hairs. When we say that Christ was a “human being” we are not denying Christ’s divinity. We are simply pointing out the fact that He has a human body, and that He was born of woman (Mary) in a particular place, at a particular time.

I’m not implying that Christ’s divinity is denied, but using the term incorrectly makes a big difference in whom Christ is.
Christians proclaim that He is God, and it comes to mind that He has all the attributes of a human. We don’t think of Him as a human being when asked who He is. We said He is God, but some of us don’t realize that He is God as a person.

 

[jmcrae]

I’m not implying that Christ’s divinity is denied, but using the term incorrectly makes a big difference in whom Christ is.
Christians proclaim that He is God, and it comes to mind that He has all the attributes of a human. We don’t think of Him as a human being when asked who He is. We said He is God, but some of us don’t realize that He is God as a person.

I’'m still not sure what you’re driving at. (Who is this “we?”) The person of Christ is equally as human as divine. There is no “dividing line” between Christ’s humanity and His divinity.

He was not a divine person who took on human form, no. He was a divine person who became fully 100% human without losing any of His divinity.

 

[Hellisreal]

I’'m still not sure what you’re driving at. (Who is this “we?”) The person of Christ is equally as human as divine. There is no “dividing line” between Christ’s humanity and His divinity.

He was not a divine person who took on human form, no. He was a divine person who became fully 100% human without losing any of His divinity.

Yes, you are correct. 2 different natures, no seperation or division. Or confusion between the 2 natures. To remove one radically changes the definition of Jesus of Nazereth.

I could go on. And on. But, as Mrs Abbott admits, she does not remember it from so long ago. So maybe another link is in order. I know of one that is funny, and geared to begginers. Its a blog, so I dont know if I can post it.

Anyone know? Can I post a link to a blog? I swear its worth it!

 

[Hesychios]

No, just logic.

One of our problems is that we rely on human logic, when actually our logic can be folly to God. We actually think we can figure it all out!..on our own we never will.

God is too much for us to do that with and our minds cannot contain it all. Our Faith is full of paradox to us, but God reveals Himself in this way and we need to accept it.

The church has the understanding that Jesus Christ was never less than fully divine at any time and is fully human and fully divine from the Incarnation, through life and His death on the cross to…even now.

Gnostics typically thought that matter (and our bodies) was evil. They taught that the body was a prison for the soul to escape and would have agreed that once the mission of Christ was fulfilled he would have left the body behind and become a free spirit once again. Christian orthodoxy does not accept this.

God made the world and saw that it is very good. The Son of God took on flesh as a reaffirmation in the goodness of the world. Likewise He has ascended bodily. We cannot know how this can be (not sensible logically) but we are destined to be reunited with our bodies in the afterlife. This is the promise, it is our great hope.

Christ is “firstborn of the dead”. He is no less human even now.

Michael

 

[Hellisreal]

One of our problems is that we rely on human logic, when actually our logic can be folly to God. We actually think we can figure it all out!..on our own we never will.

God is too much for us to do that with and our minds cannot contain it all. Our Faith is full of paradox to us, but God reveals Himself in this way and we need to accept it.

The church has the understanding that Jesus Christ was never less than fully divine at any time and is fully human and fully divine from the Incarnation, through life and His death on the cross to…even now.

Gnostics typically thought that matter (and our bodies) was evil. They taught that the body was a prison for the soul to escape and would have agreed that once the mission of Christ was fulfilled he would have left the body behind and become a free spirit once again. Christian orthodoxy does not accept this.

God made the world and saw that it is very good. The Son of God took on flesh as a reaffirmation in the goodness of the world. Likewise He has ascended bodily. We cannot know how this can be (not sensible logically) but we are destined to be reunited with our bodies in the afterlife. This is the promise, it is our great hope.

Christ is “firstborn of the dead”. He is no less human even now.

Michael

 

[Hesychios]

Is that really crucial to believe for our salvation, though?

I think simple childlike Faith is sufficient for salvation. I think many of the first lay Christians knew very little of what we are expected to know and profess, yet that would not make them more likely to lose salvation.

The problem is, we are a curious bunch and have all of these other ideas our imagination will use to fill up all the voids. We all do it, so we have to be careful.

If we don’t know, we just don’t know, but if we start to speculate about these things it is necessary to study the church authorities.

The church is like a big school then. We cannot challenge our college instructors in science, math, literature etc. They teach and we take the tests. Religion is much the same, it’s not something we can be expected to know by osmosis and we cannot imagine our way to truth.

So simple Faith is OK, but beyond that it’s a puzzle. Confusion is not the same as doubt, it just requires more study. When we are ready to know more we have to be careful of our sources.

 

[rr1213]

But I believe he was. Is it necessary for salvation to believe that he is still human in Heaven right now?

Think of the creeds…fully God and fully Man. The creeds speak of Jesus in the present tense; he is fully God and fully Man today, as he sits at the right hand of the God the father, just as he was every minute since his incarnation 2,000 some years ago (before then he was fully God, but had not yet taken on his human nature). Remember also that the Scriptures show us how after the resurrection Jesus very purposely ate fish on the beach with his disciples. I say purposely because He wanted to demonstrate that he was real and was not simply spirit. He then ascended into heaven bodily. Sure, his human body is a transfigured body now…most folks can’t simply appear in a locked room without going through the door…but it’s still human. In some sense, Jesus is mankind’s representative, and certainly its advocate, in heaven. One of US…A HUMAN BEING…is in heaven and sitting at the right hand of the Father! Amazing. Thanks be to God.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

One of US…A HUMAN BEING…is in heaven and sitting at the right hand of the Father! Amazing. Thanks be to God.

Of course, he is not literally sitting at the right hand of the Father, as the Father is also God and Jesus tells us that God is spirit, and a spirit does not have a body on which to have a right hand. The passage is metaphorical.

 

[Yerusalyim]

It might have already been pointed out…you didn’t provide enough options. Jesus is 100% Divine…the second person of the trinity, and is also 100% fully human…the son of the Virgin Mary.

 

[MariaG]

Of course, he is not literally sitting at the right hand of the Father, as the Father is also God and Jesus tells us that God is spirit, and a spirit does not have a body on which to have a right hand. The passage is metaphorical.

I believe that you are mistaken. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

**659 **“So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.” Christ’s body was glorified at the moment of his Resurrection, as proved by the new and supernatural properties it subsequently and permanently enjoys. But during the forty days when he eats and drinks familiarly with his disciples and teaches them about the kingdom, his glory remains veiled under the appearance of ordinary humanity. Jesus’ final apparition ends with the irreversible entry of his humanity into divine glory, symbolized by the cloud and by heaven, where he is seated from that time forward at God’s right hand. Only in a wholly exceptional and unique way would Jesus show himself to Paul “as to one untimely born”, in a last apparition that established him as an apostle.

660 The veiled character of the glory of the Risen One during this time is intimated in his mysterious words to Mary Magdalene: "I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."537 This indicates a difference in manifestation between the glory of the risen Christ and that of the Christ exalted to the Father’s right hand, a transition marked by the historical and transcendent event of the Ascension.

663 Henceforth Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father: "By ‘the Father’s right hand’ we understand the glory and honor of divinity, where he who exists as Son of God before all ages, indeed as God, of one being with the Father, is seated bodily after he became incarnate and his flesh was glorified."​

While we may not have a full understanding of how this will look or is possible since there is a difference between the risen Christ and Christ who is exalted to the Father’s right hand, we can know that He is seated bodily in heaven through the hystatic union of God incarnate. Christ, the fully human part, did not just cease to exist.

Christ is acting forevermore as our high priest in the presence of God the Father.

Note, while I acknowledge that I do not see how this is possible, I think to say it is completely metaphorical, contradicts the catechism of the Catholic Church. God may not have a “right hand” as we understand it, but Christ’s humanity did not just disappear and cease to exist along with His divinity, which is what your statement implies to me. (If not, please accept my apologies, I blame the method of communication. But please, also explain more fully )

God Bless,
Maria

 

[jmcrae]

Of course, he is not literally sitting at the right hand of the Father, as the Father is also God and Jesus tells us that God is spirit, and a spirit does not have a body on which to have a right hand. The passage is metaphorical.

The passage may be metaphorical, but Jesus does indeed still have His human body. The tomb was empty, remember? He arose physically from the dead. Not only spiritually.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

It might have already been pointed out…you didn’t provide enough options. Jesus is 100% Divine…the second person of the trinity, and is also 100% fully human…the son of the Virgin Mary.

The poll is multiple choice. You can click on as many choices as you want.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

But I believe he was. Is it necessary for salvation to believe that he is still human in Heaven right now?

Think about it this way. If Jesus isn’t still human anymore, then that means He didn’t have an eternal soul (unless you believe in some form of annihilationism). If He didn’t have an eternal soul, then He couldn’t have been fully human - since an eternal soul is part of the human nature. At best, He would have been only partially human, in that case. If He wasn’t fully human then He couldn’t have atoned for our sins nor effected Redemption on the Cross. And if that is the case, why be Christian at all - since you would not have salvation in the first place (no redeeming sacrifice = no salvation).

Do you now see why you must believe this?

 

[BMZ]

This doesn’t fit with the Council of Chalcedon. He is not just a divine person. He is that, but he is also a human being. And he has a divine nature. If you are going to make a distinction, you have to include the whole and not just describe one aspect of his personage or nature or you have been indistinct in saying who Christ is.

Well, I would say that Jesus was the son of the dearest mother of all of us, Mary. That is more factual.