Did Jesus Have To Die?

[tonyrey]

Jesus knowledge is off topic so I will limit my comment to the quoting of the Catechism.

471 Apollinarius of Laodicaea asserted that in Christ the divine Word had replaced the soul or spirit. Against this error the Church confessed that the eternal Son also assumed a rational, human soul.100

472 This human soul that the Son of God assumed is endowed with a true human knowledge. As such, this knowledge could not in itself be unlimited: it was exercised in the historical conditions of his existence in space and time. This is why the Son of God could, when he became man, “increase in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man”,101 and would even have to inquire for himself about what one in the human condition can learn only from experience.102 This corresponded to the reality of his voluntary emptying of himself, taking “the form of a slave”.103

473 But at the same time, this truly human knowledge of God’s Son expressed the divine life of his person.104 "The human nature of God’s Son, not by itself but by its union with the Word, knew and showed forth in itself everything that pertains to God."105 Such is first of all the case with the intimate and immediate knowledge that the Son of God made man has of his Father.106 The Son in his human knowledge also showed the divine penetration he had into the secret thoughts of human hearts.107

474 By its union to the divine wisdom in the person of the Word incarnate, Christ enjoyed in his human knowledge the fullness of understanding of the eternal plans he had come to reveal.108 What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal.109

Superb! As always the Catechism puts it in a nutshell demonstrating once again the wisdom of the Church.

 

[fisherman_carl]

No, he was fully human, of course, but we can’t forget the hypostatic union. Jesus was a unique human being.

I think you would agree that a more philosophically correct way to say this would be to say that Jesus is truly human and truly divine. To use the word fully implies he can not be anything else. For instance, if a bucket is full of water, it can not be full of oil. It would be a contradiction to state that in the bucket is fully water and fully oil. Because it can not be full of both substances at the same time.

Yet, Jesus is not partially human and partially divine or some strange mixture. Rather the hypostatic union is a union of two complete natures, one truly human and one truly divine, into one divine person. Perhaps, you could teach us more about this union given your background.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I think you would agree that a more philosophically correct way to say this would be to say that Jesus is truly human and truly divine. To use the word fully implies he can not be anything else. For instance, if a bucket is full of water, it can not be full of oil. It would be a contradiction to state that in the bucket is fully water and fully oil. Because it can not be full of both substances at the same time.

Yet, Jesus is not partially human and partially divine or some strange mixture. Rather the hypostatic union is a union of two complete natures, one truly human and one truly divine, into one divine person. Perhaps, you could teach us more about this union given your background.

Thank you for your post, Carl. I use “fully” human because it is what I was taught in my first Christology class way back when. The topic was: How could Jesus have been human and also sinless? The answer was because he was “fully” human, as Adam and Eve were before the fall, before humanity was wounded.

You are right, Christ’s natures were not mixed in any way, nor was either one reduced. He was fully human as in humans as they were originally created by God, and he was fully divine.