Can Jesus Trip Accidentally?

[Kevin12]

No, Aristotle’s substance theory does not come into the discussion of the trinity. That’s a different use of the term.

It absolutely does. Go read the Nicean creed in Greek: in says “homoousion to Patri” - “consubstantial with the Father”.

To break it down: homo (same) + ousi[on] (substance, being)

Aristotle’s substance is “ousia”

If you think substance is discredited, I don’t think you can, in good conscience, claim to believe in the Trinity.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

So, you’re denying Chalcedon,then.

Quite the contrary, I am upholding it. Perhaps you could clarify your misinterpretation of Chalcedon?

No, Aristotle’s substance theory does not come into the discussion of the trinity. That’s a different use of the term.

Yes it does:
NewAdvent:

Here it must be borne in mind that the relations are not mere accidental determinations as these abstract terms might suggest. Whatever is in God must needs be subsistent. He is the Supreme Substance, transcending the divisions of the Aristotelean categories. Hence, at one and the same time He is both substance and relation

Source

 

[ellzeena]

This is heresy and blasphemy.

Darn right it is, and it should be rebuked by an elder or Forum Leader.

As for Jesus’ tripping: He must have grown “into” his mission or He could not possibly have lived a normal childhood. That scene is a movie, it’s imaginary. But I’ll wager he had many a skinned knee or hammered finger before He went into his Ministry and the purpose for His incarnation.

 

[Timawa]

If the hypostatic union worked in the way you seem to think it does, Christ could not have been crucified at all, because he basically would have been Superman. Recall the woman who was healed by touching the hem of his garment from Mark:

24 He went off with him, and a large crowd followed him and pressed upon him. There was a woman afflicted with hemorrhages for twelve years. 26 She had suffered greatly at the hands of many doctors and had spent all that she had. Yet she was not helped but only grew worse. 27 She had heard about Jesus and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak. 28 She said, “If I but touch his clothes, I shall be cured.” 29 Immediately her flow of blood dried up. She felt in her body that she was healed of her affliction. 30* Jesus, aware at once that power had gone out from him, turned around in the crowd and asked, “Who has touched my clothes?” 31 But his disciples said to him, “You see how the crowd is pressing upon you, and yet you ask, ‘Who touched me?’” 32 And he looked around to see who had done it. 33 The woman, realizing what had happened to her, approached in fear and trembling***. She fell down before Jesus and told him the whole truth. 34 He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has saved you. Go in peace and be cured of your affliction.”

I think this makes it pretty clear that, in submission to the flesh, he cast off omniscience to a certain extent, willingly. If you deny this and say he was only acting to teach the disciples a lesson, I think you are in danger of embracing a form of Docetism. Though, this does not surprise me - many people on this forum place so much emphasis on the more Puritanical elements of Christianity that they don’t even realize how dangerously close they tread to various Gnostic heresies.

The most important message I can give you is thins: some elements of the Incarnation are a Mystery that cannot be fully explained using reason alone. I think the conscientiousness of Jesus is one of them. If is says in the Bible, Jesus tripped, assume he tripped. If it says, he asked who touched him, assume he meant it. Because, otherwise, I think that the way you are framing Jesus runs a very strong risk of denying his full humanity.

Thank you very much for this, brother! Of all the posts in this thread, this is the most convincing.

But I do have to defend myself about your inference that I’m at risk of subscribing to docetism, though it is kind of probable. You see, I believe that Christ is God, and at a certain point in human history, God became Man, a real Man, with a true Body and a true Soul, along with Man’s limitations (e.g. hunger, thirst, stress, etc.). I mean, if Christ isn’t truly Man, then how can He represent Humanity when He was offered as sacrifice? What I was just wondering about, and I should admit that I might be wondering too far, is the relationship between these human limitations and the omniscience of God, and how it would apply to the possibility of the situation that Christ trips.

What your post made me realize is that if God can limit Himself from being Omnipotent and Omnipresent, then what is stopping Him from limiting Himself of His Omniscience? From that, I’ve come to be more comfortable of the idea that God may have tripped on a rock when He was searching for a hammer in Joseph’s workshop.

But, and there’s the big but, shouldn’t we consider the cause of that particular accidental tripping, and from there we determine if it is possible for Christ to have committed or caused to Himself? If we consider it as a normal, even a natural human and therefore corporeal limitation due to many physical factors such as thirst, hunger, exhaustion, etc., then I have no doubt that Christ may have at one time swayed, tripped and fallen down the ground, especially during His passion. But if we consider that accidental tripping as that which is caused by a lapse of judgement, then shouldn’t we rule it out as a possible thing for Christ to have caused to Himself?

I can accept the idea that His omniscience was reserved, in a sense that He might not have known about all the things around His surroundings. But I won’t accept the idea that when he has come to know of the things around, He would still accidentally inflict Himself with injuries out of carelessness or misjudgment.

Others might point out that what is being referred to by Omniscience is God’ Knowledge and not His Wisdom. But according to St. Thomas Aquinas, in God, Knowledge and Wisdom is just one. And I think it would be contrary to His immutability and simplicity if we would say that when He became Man, His Knowledge and His Wisdom became distinct from one another.

Again, Kevin12, thank you very much.

 

[Kevin12]

But, and there’s the big but, shouldn’t we consider the cause of that particular accidental tripping, and from there we determine if it is possible for Christ to have committed or caused to Himself?*** If we consider it as a normal, even a natural human and therefore corporeal limitation*** due to many physical factors such as thirst, hunger, exhaustion, etc., then I have no doubt that Christ may have at one time swayed, tripped and fallen down the ground, especially during His passion.*** But if we consider that accidental tripping as that which is caused by a lapse of judgement, ***then shouldn’t we rule it out as a possible thing for Christ to have caused to Himself?

I can accept the idea that His omniscience was reserved, in a sense that He might not have known about all the things around His surroundings. But I won’t accept the idea that when he has come to know of the things around, He would still accidentally inflict Himself with injuries out of carelessness or misjudgment.

Others might point out that what is being referred to by Omniscience is God’ Knowledge and not His Wisdom. But according to St. Thomas Aquinas, in God, Knowledge and Wisdom is just one. And I think it would be contrary to His immutability and simplicity if we would say that when He became Man, His Knowledge and His Wisdom became distinct from one another.

Again, Kevin12, thank you very much.

The brain, being corporeal, is also bound by certain limitation. So as far as “carelessness” or “misjudgment” go, Christ may well have been careless and tripped because he was being careful about something else, like what he needed to do. So when you say “But I won’t accept the idea that when he has come to know of the things around, He would still accidentally inflict Himself with injuries out of carelessness or misjudgment” you have to recognize that Christ would only “know” as much as the average person. If he wasn’t Superman, neither was he Spiderman (whose Spider-sense would always warn him if he was about to run into a building or some other danger), because he didn’t need to be to achieve his mission. A lapse of judgment, in that sense, is a lapse of practical judgment, rather than a lapse of real judgment, since it does not spring from moral defect.

Indeed, I think that, as I have said before, part of his submission to the flesh (though, because He willed it from eternity, being as I think you have said Pure Act, would not be properly called an accident) was a willingness to trip and fall and feel the pain of falling. The Incarnation, I have always though, was in many ways an act of empathy - through taking on the flesh and falling as men fall (and I mean in the non-moral sense - that is to say, the “fall” of experiencing misfortune) Christ came to understand our pain directly. You might say, he willed himself to stumble so that all with skinned knees would know God himself knew their pain.

 

[Timawa]

The brain, being corporeal, is also bound by certain limitation. So as far as “carelessness” or “misjudgment” go, Christ may well have been careless and tripped because he was being careful about something else, like what he needed to do. So when you say “But I won’t accept the idea that when he has come to know of the things around, He would still accidentally inflict Himself with injuries out of carelessness or misjudgment” you have to recognize that Christ would only “know” as much as the average person. If he wasn’t Superman, neither was he Spiderman (whose Spider-sense would always warn him if he was about to run into a building or some other danger), because he didn’t need to be to achieve his mission. A lapse of judgment, in that sense, is a lapse of practical judgment, rather than a lapse of real judgment, since it does not spring from moral defect.

Indeed, I think that, as I have said before, part of his submission to the flesh (though, because He willed it from eternity, being as I think you have said Pure Act, would not be properly called an accident) was a willingness to trip and fall and feel the pain of falling. The Incarnation, I have always though, was in many ways an act of empathy - through taking on the flesh and falling as men fall (and I mean in the non-moral sense - that is to say, the “fall” of experiencing misfortune) Christ came to understand our pain directly. You might say, he willed himself to stumble so that all with skinned knees would know God himself knew their pain.

Is there an option to like a post? Hahaha

Thank you, brother!

 

[Muze]

Substance theory has its modern defenders, though you are correct that it has seen better days after Hume and Heidegger.

I also hope you realize, since you claim to be a Protestant, that substance theory is a concept necessary for belief in the Trinity - the Nicene creed, which most Protestants as well as Catholics and Orthodox hold to, clearly states in the original that Christ is *consubstantial *with the Father, i.e. of one substance.

No, the use of “ousia” in Nicea is different from its use in Aristotelian substance theory. It’s pretty clear that the substance is the attributes, there.

 

[Aloysium]

i imagine Jesus to be like any other man except that He fully loved and understood all of us and the Father.

I’m not sure He would have known where every stone or twig was placed in the yard.

I Love this quote:
“The knowledge and love of our Divine Redeemer, of which we were the object from the first moment of His Incarnation, exceed all the human intellect can hope to grasp. For hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God, when He began to enjoy the beatific vision, and in that vision all the members of His Mystical Body were continually and unceasingly present to Him, and He embraced them with His redeeming love.” (Pius XII, )

 

[Kevin12]

No, the use of “ousia” in Nicea is different from its use in Aristotelian substance theory. It’s pretty clear that the substance is the attributes, there.

I have no idea what you mean. Ousia is the word being used in both cases. Aristotle simple gave further definition to a preexisting concept.

I’m going to repeat myself that, unless you consider it possible to simultaneously a disciple or Christ and Hume or Heidegger, you cannot reject the basic idea of substance, since it is essential to our understanding of the Trinity. Without it, we are tritheists like Muslims accuse us.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

No, the use of “ousia” in Nicea is different from its use in Aristotelian substance theory. It’s pretty clear that the substance is the attributes, there.

Aristotle’s accidents are called “sumbebekos.” Aristotle’s substances are called “ousia.” Two very different words that were known by all parties at the Council of Nicea. Had they mean “accidents,” they would have used “sumbebekos” and not “ousia.”