Did Jesus truly experience humanity?

[PetraG]

No - the point is Jesus DID experience those things, and invoked his god-like power to fix it. I don’t think such a being qualifies as human. Why would you think it does?

Again, this is a theological discussion. “God became man”, as stated in Christian dogma, is at best misleading and at worst false. I personally think it’s somewhere in the middle.

I don’t see it as a theological discussion when a premise that isn’t even true is taken as a given.
Jesus himself told people that their faith had healed them. Was he lying? Was he just being mean in this instance:
He came to his native place and taught the people in their synagogue. They were astonished and said, “Where did this man get such wisdom and mighty deeds? Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not his sisters all with us? Where did this man get all this?” And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his native place and in his own house.” And he did not work many mighty deeds there because of their lack of faith.
Matt. 13:54-58

That still doesn’t change the point that he had super-human powers, even if that power was being able to communicate with God.

Was he being unjust for faulting his disciples on their lack of faith, when in fact he had superhuman powers and they didn’t?
When they came to the crowd a man approached, knelt down before him, and said, “Lord, have pity on my son, for he is a lunatic and suffers severely; often he falls into fire, and often into water. I brought him to your disciples, but they could not cure him.”
Jesus said in reply, “O faithless and perverse generation, how long will I be with you? How long will I endure you? Bring him here to me.”
Jesus rebuked him and the demon came out of him, and from that hour the boy was cured. Then the disciples approached Jesus in private and said, “Why could we not drive it out?”
He said to them, “Because of your little faith. Amen, I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”
Matt. 17:14-20

If he accused them of a lack of faith when in fact they only lacked superpowers, that was a bit beyond the pale, wouldn’t you say?

 

[Quis_UtDeus]

If you narrow your definition of “humanity” enough you could make this argument. But then you would come across the question of wether or not children that die early that never deal with these hardships “ever truly experience humanity.”

If that makes sense

 

[VeryBlessed]

Jesus didn’t have superpowers. He had the Holy Spirit. And he told us it would be BETTER for us if he went away - so that we too could have the same Holy Spirit in us as was in him (“the firstborn among many brothers”). And Jesus said he did NOTHING on his own, but only what his Father wanted. Through his passionate and selfless dedication to the will of the Father, he was a perfect unhindering conduit of the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the only perfect example of what God is calling each of us to be - fully ourselves but also filled with Gods living presence, and thus perhaps, a conduit of the power of God into our broken world.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Well, they may have been full of grace, but they did not have a perfect nature in my book since they were not only tempted by Satan by actually behaved by disobeying G-d. If they were capable of this, it seems to me they were not humanly perfect in the same way as Jesus.

 

[Wesrock]

So we know according to Catholic theology Jesus is divine, but became man to experience humanity. But did he truly experience humanity? So assume the stories of the Bible are true. He was able to perform miracles. And many of his miracles were in order to ease his personal pain. Examples include but are not limited to:

1. Raising Lazarus from the dead. Specifically, Jesus was so upset his friend died, he just raised him from the dead.
2. Water into wine at mother’s friend’s party. When things go wrong, Jesus fixed them.

The point being, did Jesus truly experience the human condition if he could, at any time, change the situation through a miracle? Clearly, he DID change the situation when things were going wrong. So can we honestly say he was truly human?
Please address from a theological and philosophical point of view.

Let’s consider the temptation in the desert. Jesus refrained from using the power of his divinity to meet his basic needs. We also know Paul considers Jesus to have humbled himself by assuming our nature and its afflictions.

Both the wine and the raising of Lazarus was not done out of simply his human will or for convenience or for making things easier. The miracles that Jesus worked are signs of his mission for our sake, not his. The wedding at Cana is in John’s gospel, which puts great emphasis on Jesus as the bridegroom. It’s setting at a wedding signifies God’s nuptial covenant with man. The making of wine is of great significance in terms of him being the Messiah, the heavenly banquet, and certainly also has Eucharistic overtones.

 

[Wesrock]

Well, they may have been full of grace, but they did not have a perfect nature in my book since they were not only tempted by Satan by actually behaved by disobeying G-d. If they were capable of this, it seems to me they were not humanly perfect in the same way as Jesus.

Catholic teaching on Adam and Eve is that their sensitive appetites were fully subject to their rational appetites, due to preternatural gifts from God. They would not have been persuaded to eat from the tree due to simple hunger or other animal urges, those types of things that can mess with consent and mitigate culpability. Their choice, then, was entirely intellectual and made with deliberate consent.

We have to be careful with the word “perfect,” as it’s rather vague and means different things to different people.

 

[Wesrock]

Now, something I’d like to look into further, and I’m not sure every reply here would be helpful, but did Jesus have concupiscence in his human nature? Concupiscence is not sinful. Certainly Jesus was always justified and holy before God, as he was without sin. On account of that, people seem to immediately assume he therefore did not take on some of the consequences of sin. But if we can be cleansed of original sin through Baptism but God delays our full transformation and glorification until later such that we may perfectly conform ourselves to Christ, it does not seem immediately apparent (from that alone) that Jesus could not have humbled himself such that he had some of these consequences, like concupiscence and certainly mortality, even if he was without sin. I would like to stress again it would be a matter of intentionally humbling himself to our level.

 

[Wesrock]

In response to my own question, I’ve taken a look at Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica. Aquinas holds that Christ did experience the temptations of the sensitive/animal appetite.

the Son of God assumed human nature together with everything pertaining to the perfection of human nature. Now in human nature is included animal nature, as the genus in its species. Hence the Son of God must have assumed together with the human nature whatever belongs to animal nature; one of which things is the sensitive appetite, which is called the sensuality. Consequently it must be allowed that in Christ there was a sensual appetite, or sensuality.

It is written (Hebrews 2:18): "For in that, wherein He Himself hath suffered and been tempted, He is able to succor them also that are tempted." Now He came to succor us. hence David said of Him (Psalm 120:1): "I have lifted up my eyes to the mountains, from whence help shall come to me." Therefore it was fitting for the Son of God to assume flesh subject to human infirmities, in order to suffer and be tempted in it and so bring succor to us.

I answer that, It was fitting for the body assumed by the Son of God to be subject to human infirmities and defects; and especially for three reasons. First, because it was in order to satisfy for the sin of the human race that the Son of God, having taken flesh, came into the world. Now one satisfies for another’s sin by taking on himself the punishment due to the sin of the other. But these bodily defects, to wit, death, hunger, thirst, and the like, are the punishment of sin, which was brought into the world by Adam, according to Romans 5:12: “By one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death.” Hence it was useful for the end of Incarnation that He should assume these penalties in our flesh and in our stead, according to Isaiah 53:4, “Surely He hath borne our infirmities.” Secondly, in order to cause belief in Incarnation. For since human nature is known to men only as it is subject to these defects, if the Son of God had assumed human nature without these defects, He would not have seemed to be true man, nor to have true, but imaginary, flesh, as the Manicheans held. And so, as is said, Philippians 2:7: “He . . . emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man.”

And…

 

[Wesrock]

Continued…

Reply to Objection 2. The flesh naturally seeks what is pleasing to it by the concupiscence of the sensitive appetite; but the flesh of man, who is a rational animal, seeks this after the manner and order of reason. And thus with the concupiscence of the sensitive appetite Christ’s flesh naturally sought food, drink, and sleep, and all else that is sought in right reason, as is plain from Damascene (De Fide Orth. iii, 14). Yet it does not therefore follow that in Christ there was the “fomes” of sin, for this implies the lust after pleasurable things against the order of reason.

Reply to Objection 3. The spirit gives evidence of fortitude to some extent by resisting that concupiscence of the flesh which is opposed to it; yet a greater fortitude of spirit is shown, if by its strength the flesh is thoroughly overcome, so as to be incapable of lusting against the spirit. And hence this belonged to Christ, whose spirit reached the highest degree of fortitude. And although He suffered no internal assault on the part of the “fomes” of sin, He sustained an external assault on the part of the world and the devil, and won the crown of victory by overcoming them.

I could go on, and there’s more nuance, but I think that suffices for myself (I read more than I posted).

 

[Dorothy]

Wesrock has responded to your post better than I have.

 

[chessnerd321]

He could have called 10 thousand angels, as they say, but he suffered and died for you and for me.

Amen. Nails don’t hold the infinite Lord of the Universe in place. His love for us, in awareness of out great need, kept Him there.

 

[Shakuhachi]

That still doesn’t change the point that he had super-human powers, even if that power was being able to communicate with God.

No thing superhuman about that. We all can communicate with God. We just let our ego interfere.

 

[Hodos]

The point being, did Jesus truly experience the human condition if he could, at any time, change the situation through a miracle? Clearly, he DID change the situation when things were going wrong. So can we honestly say he was truly human?

So first of all, I think this is a complete misrepresentation of the miraculous signs performed by Christ. When you read through the Gospels, what becomes clear is that Jesus wasn’t just performing signs for the sake of righting wrongs or as a whim to be performed when he felt like it. Jesus miraculous signs were just that, signs. They were visible confirmations of the gospel that Christ was proclaiming, namely that the kingdom of heaven was at hand and that Christ was indeed the Messiah. They supported his ministry and provided testimony via the Holy Spirit that Christ was who he said he was. That being said, Christ lived and experienced humanity. He became tired and slept, he was hungry and had to go without at times, he ate when needed, he grieved the loss of loved ones, he experienced betrayal and suffering, he died and was mourned by family and friends, etc. I would suggest you read Hebrews 1 and 2 which does a nice job demonstrating that yes, Jesus was made to be just like us, so that he could be the perfect author of our salvation.

 

[QwertyGirl]

This is one I get stuck on. I don’t see that he was human, in the same sense we are human. He didn’t experience being “sinful” like we do. It is a huge part of our humanity, isn’t it?

I have asked this question over the years many times to religion teachers, clergy, and theologians and I have never received an explanation I am able to accept. I have to admit that I don’t believe in the concept of Adam and Eve and original sin, so it sort of precludes me from accepting the usual explanaton I receive. Most say He was human in the perfect sense (i.e. as humans were prior to “the fall”). Since I don’t believe regarding “the fall”, I can’t accept the explanation.

Good quetion. Wondering if anyone can explain it without discussing “the fall”. (?)

 

[PennyinCanada]

This is one I get stuck on. I don’t see that he was human, in the same sense we are human. He didn’t experience being “sinful” like we do. It is a huge part of our humanity, isn’t it?

What do you think of the stories of Padre Pio in the confessional? He helped people have a good confession by reminding them of things they had forgotten, and hadn’t confessed. It was said that he could read souls.

I believe Christ was like this a thousand fold. He experienced the weight of the sins of the world. He experienced the human condition intensely. Beyond what would be bearable to a human person. I don’t understand why you think he fell short in some way. He experienced all the worst of the worst and still went to the cross to redeem us. What an amazing love that is.

 

[QwertyGirl]

I don’t understand why you think he fell short in some way. He experienced all the worst of the worst and still went to the cross to redeem us. What an amazing love that is.

I don’t think he “fell short”. I just don’t think he was the same as the rest of us in the human sense. If He felt the things you believe He felt, then he definitely was different from us, in the human sense.

 

[Pattylt]

If I can add a question, I’d appreciate the Catholic answer? I’m not Christian and, for the most part, I understand the Catholic reasoning that Jesus became human to be the example of what a human should strive to. My problem isn’t the miracles or whether he was capable of sin but resisted it or incapable of sin completely. My question is did Jesus realize/know he was the second person of the trinity while he was in human form?
It seems to me that if he was aware of his God nature, even though he was in human form, how is humanity supposed to relate to that? It seems that if you are aware that you are God then you really aren’t human like us. If he was unaware of his God properties then you have some biblical verses that need some explanations as He seems to state that He was aware of his God nature. I’m sure Catholic theology addresses this somewhere and I’d love to have an explanation! Thanks in advance.

 

[LateCatholic]

So there have been some reasonable answers and some unreasonable ones. I think what surprises me about the thread so much is how offended some people seem to be for the question simply to be asked. This is why it is hard for me to stay Catholic - I am a seeker of truth. I am willing to ask the hard questions and search for answers. If there is no answer - I’m willing to change, or admit Catholicism is wrong. If the final answer is “it’s a mystery we cannot comprehend”, which happens ALL THE TIME with Christianity - then I’m sorry, but our religion is wrong in that aspect.

That being said, why is it so hard to say the following? Jesus, as God made man, was not truly a man. Yes, he experienced humanity, but as a “superman” (use another term is it offends you), he had powers beyond what a normal man would have. Whether that be using miracles to ease his personal grief or that of his loved ones, or simply to make it easier for followers to trust him, he DID use miracles. And because of those miracles, his life as a human was easier than it would have been had he NOT used those powers.

There is nothing wrong with the above paragraph. The best responses are those that admit Jesus was a unique and special being - a human that had special powers no one else ever had, but experienced humanity as best as such a being could, for theological reasons (outside the scope of this discussion). Sure, he could have used those powers more, and didn’t. And there’s a lot of theology in that statement, and a lot of good ideas raised.

But what often bothers me is the unwillingness to admit the obvious. Jesus was not TRULY a man. Let’s be honest about it, and that’s how we can grow spiritually rather than just blindly accepting theological statements that are obviously not true.

 

[Wesrock]

So there have been some reasonable answers and some unreasonable ones. I think what surprises me about the thread so much is how offended some people seem to be for the question simply to be asked. This is why it is hard for me to stay Catholic - I am a seeker of truth. I am willing to ask the hard questions and search for answers. If there is no answer - I’m willing to change, or admit Catholicism is wrong. If the final answer is “it’s a mystery we cannot comprehend”, which happens ALL THE TIME with Christianity - then I’m sorry, but our religion is wrong in that aspect.

That being said, why is it so hard to say the following? Jesus, as God made man, was not truly a man. Yes, he experienced humanity, but as a “superman” (use another term is it offends you), he had powers beyond what a normal man would have. Whether that be using miracles to ease his personal grief or that of his loved ones, or simply to make it easier for followers to trust him, he DID use miracles. And because of those miracles, his life as a human was easier than it would have been had he NOT used those powers.

There is nothing wrong with the above paragraph. The best responses are those that admit Jesus was a unique and special being - a human that had special powers no one else ever had, but experienced humanity as best as such a being could, for theological reasons (outside the scope of this discussion). Sure, he could have used those powers more, and didn’t. And there’s a lot of theology in that statement, and a lot of good ideas raised.

But what often bothers me is the unwillingness to admit the obvious. Jesus was not TRULY a man. Let’s be honest about it, and that’s how we can grow spiritually rather than just blindly accepting theological statements that are obviously not true.

Jesus did have other abilities and knowledge in addition to his human knowledge and abilities.

You go wrong in insisting he was “not TRULY a man.” God assumed our nature in the Incarnation. A human body with human ailments, a human soul, and a human will. He felt the temptations that having a human body and the world brings, the emotional turmoil we feel, the physical pain and suffering we experience. There was a real human body, a real human soul, a real human will, real human emotions, real human temptation, and real human suffering. And in the early discussions of the Church, there were those who denied he had these things, that the body was only a puppet or illusion, etc…

 

[Wesrock]

This is why it is hard for me to stay Catholic - I am a seeker of truth. I am willing to ask the hard questions and search for answers.

There’s nothing wrong with that. Just don’t assume others aren’t asking. It’s why I left Catholicism, and why I eventually returned. G.K. Chesterton writes about a similar journey in a metaphor in his introduction to The Everlasting Man, and he uses a different metaphor for the same thing elsewhere, though I can’t find the source of it now. It was the primary motivation for Augustine of Hippo throughout his teens and twenties and into his thirties that he writes about in Confessions.