Calling Jesus a human being

  • Thread starter Thread starter st_julie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

st_julie

Guest
Whenever I hear Jesus identified as a human being my thought is that this is not correct. He can not be two beings. I have seen it in the missal and our priest said it in last Sundays sermon.
Am I correct and if so how do I approach the issue?
st julie
 
st_julie said:
Whenever I hear Jesus identified as a human being my thought is that this is not correct. He can not be two beings. I have seen it in the missal and our priest said it in last Sundays sermon.
Am I correct and if so how do I approach the issue?
st julie
Click to expand...
Jesus was fully God and fully human.
 
Jesus is true God and true Man. He is the union of the divine nature (divinity) and the human nature (humanity) in His Divine Person.
 
He is part of the Trinity. If you can accept that, accepting that He was both human and God should be easy.

Peace

Tim
 
st_julie said:
Whenever I hear Jesus identified as a human being my thought is that this is not correct. He can not be two beings. I have seen it in the missal and our priest said it in last Sundays sermon.
Am I correct and if so how do I approach the issue?
st julie
Click to expand...
You are correct as far as your statement goes.

Christ is not JUST a human being and He is not two beings.

He is however both truly God and truly man.

It is not an easy concept to come to grips with.

I don’t think anyone can ever fully understand HOW this is can be true but from what the Church and the Bible tells us we can accept that it IS true.

Chuck
 
Orogeny said:
He is part of the Trinity. If you can accept that, accepting that He was both human and God should be easy.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Yes I know that. My question was… is it correct to use the word BEING with human?
 
st_julie said:
Whenever I hear Jesus identified as a human being my thought is that this is not correct. He can not be two beings. I have seen it in the missal and our priest said it in last Sundays sermon.
Am I correct and if so how do I approach the issue?
st julie
Click to expand...
You are not incorrect – Jesus is a divine being who took on human nature. At least that is my understanding.

(What part of the missal stated otherwise?)

tee
 
Hypostatic Union, a theological term used with reference to the Incarnation to express the revealed truth that in Christ one person subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human.
 
I’m not a theologian (and so I could be wrong about this) but a theologian might says that, though the Son of God (Jesus Christ), has a human nature and so can properly be called a man, his human nature is only incidental to who he is, unlike his divine nature which is essential to who he is. Therefore, the Son of God (Jesus Christ) is not a human being in the technical sense of the words because “being” refers to the essential nature.

Also, a theologian might say that, though the Son of God (Jesus Christ) is a divine person and properly called God, he is not a divine being. He shares the divine nature with the other two divine persons (the Father and the Holy Spirit); the divine being is the whole Trinity.

By identifying Jesus as a human being, your priest probably wasn’t using the theological definition of the words, but the common definition, and only meant by them that the Son of God (Jesus Christ) has a human nature and is a man, without distinguishing whether his human nature is essential or incidental to who he is.
 
It really depends on what you mean by “human being”. If by that you mean a human “person”, then no - Jesus is a divine Person who assumed a human nature. He is one Person - a divine Person - with two natures, one divine and the other human.
 
Years ago when I was on retreat, the human nature of Jesus was stated simply as “Even Jesus needed to be potty trained.”

Yes, Jesus is fully human. He is true man.
Jesus has a body and a rational soul. He has a human will (as well as a dine will). In his human nature, he was like us in all things but sin.

At the same time Jesus is true God. Jesus revealed his divinity through miracles. He also taught with the authority of God and revealed God’s teachings through parables.

The union of Jesus’ human and divine natures is called the hypostatic union.

Heresies:
Docetism: Jesus seemed ti be man, but was not truly man.
Arianism: Jesus was not God, but only a great teacher.

Reference: 7th grade Teachers Manual for Faith and Life Series.
 
st_julie said:
Whenever I hear Jesus identified as a human being my thought is that this is not correct. He can not be two beings. I have seen it in the missal and our priest said it in last Sundays sermon.
Am I correct and if so how do I approach the issue?
st julie
Click to expand...
He is not two beings, he is one.
He is both fully human and fully divine as one being.
Beyond this, the words get in the way…
Unless you believe someone is challenging Christs divinity there is nothing to “approach” really. If you prefer, use the term “the historical Jesus” to reflect Jesus’ earthly life.
 
It is best to stick with standardized nomenclature is such matters. Jesus is true God and true man. He is a Divine Person. He possesses a true, complete human nature, and fully possesses the Divine Nature, just as do the Father and the Holy Spirit. However, it is best to refrain from saying that he is a Divine Being, as was mentioned in a previous post. In standard formulary, God is One in Being, Three in Person, and to speak of any one Person as a Divine Being is questionable. It is also inadvisable to speak of him as a human being - this can be misunderstood to mean more than that he, God the Son, possesses a true, complete human nature. It can imply that he is merely human, or that he is a human being with an extraordinary gift of Grace (the Divine Life shared by all baptized), or is a demigod. I have heard many bishops and theologians use the term “human being” re Jesus, even members of the Curia. It is not necessarily heresy, depending on the intended meaning, but as I’ve said, risky and misleading terminology.
 
As JMJ coder noted in post #12, it depends upon your definition of “being” - If by “being” you understand “person”, then, no, there is only one “being” in Jesus.

But I’m not so sure that’s what “being” necessarily means in philosophical/theological terms. I think the definition is more like: “Being” in something that “be’s”. 🙂
Therefore, in Jesus there is a Divine nature (Divine Spiritual Being) that “be’s” and a human nature (human body and soul being) that “be’s” - two “beings”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top