Did Jesus truly experience humanity?

[LateCatholic]

There was a real human body, a real human soul, a real human will, real human emotions, real human temptation, and real human suffering.

But the point I am making is that during his time on earth, he DID use his powers to change what a normal man would experience. I gave two examples - Lazarus and the water into wine. He could have told his mother, I am sorry, but I can’t help you at the party. He could have accepted Lazarus’ death and grieved like the rest of us would. Even his teaching, where he used miracles to prove his points, made his ministry easier. I mean, Christianity sure would be easier to believe in if priests really could turn wine into blood, and so forth.

I am really dumbfounded by the insistence he was “truly a man” when all witness is to the controversy. It strikes me as disingenuous and makes it very hard to take such theological statements seriously.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

There was a real human body, a real human soul, a real human will, real human emotions, real human temptation, and real human suffering.

But the point I am making is that during his time on earth, he DID use his powers to change what a normal man would experience. I gave two examples - Lazarus and the water into wine. He could have told his mother, I am sorry, but I can’t help you at the party. He could have accepted Lazarus’ death and grieved like the rest of us would. Even his teaching, where he used miracles to prove his points, made his ministry easier. I mean, Christianity sure would be easier to believe in if priests really could turn wine into blood, and so forth.

His powers were not used for any worldly mission or human goals. They were used for his divine mission and to serve as signs and proof of the one who sent him. I feel like you’re missing the theological import of why the wedding at Cana was included in John’s gospel. That Jesus’ lived experience in some ways goes beyond the regular lived experience does not make him less of a man.

I am really dumbfounded by the insistence he was “truly a man” when all witness is to the controversy. It strikes me as disingenuous and makes it very hard to take such theological statements seriously.

Or perhaps you’re taking the phrase “true man” the wrong way and its meaning in the context of defining our beliefs against various heresies that the early Church encountered. Instead of taking your understanding of what qualities are required to be a “true man” and applying that retroactively to the Church’s claims, perhaps you should take the time to understand what the Church means when they say Christ was true man. Because otherwise it just seems like you’re arguing over semantics and definitions over the vagueness of a term instead of actually looking at the specifics being indicated by it.

In spite of redudancy, to rephrase it, I’m not asking you to blindly accept that Christ meets your definition-used-here of a true man. But rather than playing semantics, simply understand what the Church is actually claiming. The Church doesn’t deny that Jesus could do things beyond what a normal man can do. The Church insists that Jesus had a true human body, a true human soul, and a true human will. Furthermore that Jesus had passible emotions, experienced worldly temptations in his body, and had a corruptible body (prior to his resurrection) that could experience pain. Do you have an issue with any of these specifics?

Thomas Aquinas, while of course not the Church itself, actually spends a great deal of time and many chapters of his works on what “defects” Jesus had, which ones he didn’t, whether it was fitting that he assume some but not others, whether it can be said that he assumed our nature in light of that, and so on, in quite systematic fashion. I mention only to point out it’s not like the Church is hiding anything, but it seems like you’re hung up on a semantics issue.

 

[Sedona]

I don’t see how it would be possible for him to have a truly human experience. The human experience is attended by existential uncertainties that would not apply to a god incarnate, which greatly heightens our sense of fear of things like death, or the losses that we feel, or the anxiety of not being able to change the outcome for a loved one who is dying. The fact that you are an omniscient being in human form greatly changes the day to day experience. The boss’s son working in the factory for a summer job doesn’t have the keen sense of what it means to be an employee of the business who is at the mercy of the business, nor does a trapeze artist with a net have much of an idea of how it feels to perform the act without a net. It feels different you know. And you and I don’t know that we will ever rise again - not for a fact we don’t. We hope that we will. But ostensibly he did know, and therefore it is arguable that rising on the third day didn’t happen to him by surprise. If I were to be really pragmatic and honest about it, the terminal event we all face with no real assurances of what is on the other side (no matter how much we profess otherwise) pretty much cost him a weekend. Of course I am only saying what is plainly obvious if we are honest. As for sacrifice and reconciliation, well, God answers to no one, therefore he would have set his own terms as to what it took to set it right, and that is not a choice that you or I have. I would have simply signed a treaty. And if he were to have truly experienced being human, I should imagine that he would show up from time to time because he would have learned how much we need that sort of thing from being one of us, rather than just leaving his children with a copy of his biography. It defies any logic I can summon to imagine that he had a truly human experience.

All the best!

 

[LateCatholic]

They were used for his divine mission and to serve as signs and proof of the one who sent him. I feel like you’re missing the theological import of why the wedding at Cana was included in John’s gospel. That Jesus’ lived experience in some ways goes beyond the regular lived experience does not make him less of a man.

I do not buy this response because in other areas in the Gospel GOD acted on Jesus behalf (this is my son, etc). The fact that Jesus did use his divinity in RESPONSE TO earthly events contradicts your point. If all that was needed was a “sign”, God could have performed those miracles (not Jesus). Further, they didn’t have to be related to a specific instance that caused Jesus himself trouble.

perhaps you should take the time to understand what the Church means when they say Christ was true man. Because otherwise it just seems like you’re arguing over semantics and definitions over the vagueness of a term instead of actually looking at the specifics being indicated by it.

This is fine - and I can buy this. But then cannot you not at least see my point that the Church is misleading? Why say “God became man” when it is not exactly true? Is your response simply that I am ignorant of the Church’s statement’s true meaning? Well, I cry foul. I went to Catholic school for ten yeas, have read dozens of books, studied the theology. I KNOW what the Church teaches, at least to the common follower. Why not just say, “By your definition, you are correct, Jesus was not a ‘true human’. And this is what the Church means when it says ‘God became man’”. In my opinion, everyone knows this, but refuses to even slightly admit that this is misleading. Saying “Jesus became ‘God-man’” certainly doesn;t have the same ringt o it as “God became man”. But if that’s really what we mean, let’s be honest about it.

Why is that so darn hard? It’s like the smallest criticism in an attempt to seek the truth drives Christians into a panic.

 

[Fauken]

he DID use his powers to change what a normal man would experience. I gave two examples - Lazarus and the water into wine. He could have told his mother, I am sorry, but I can’t help you at the party. He could have accepted Lazarus’ death and grieved like the rest of us would.

Do you honestly think Lazarus was the only person Jesus ever knew who died and felt sad about? And Mary did not say “Go make more wine.” She told Him that they were running out and to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” The choice was entirely His to make. The idea that Mary left Him no option is, quite frankly, absurd.

There’s a line from Handel’s Messiah that describes Jesus as “A man of sorrow and acquainted with grief.” Jesus didn’t run away from sadness, pain, or grief, or use His divinity to wave them away as an escape. He experienced them all in their totality, more than we ever do or will. By your logic, Jesus would have also hung there on the cross and shut down His nerves so He wouldn’t feel the agony from His multiple wounds.

 

[Wesrock]

The fact that Jesus did use his divinity in RESPONSE TO earthly events contradicts your point.

There’s not a contradiction here. There’s no incompatibility with Jesus performing signs for his divine mission and responding to those around him.

I’ll try to respond to your second point later. I still have to say, on an unrelated point, I don’t really find these forums to be conducive to finding a post when a discussion’s moved on. Especially when browsing with a phone.

 

[Wesrock]

By your logic, Jesus would have also hung there on the cross and shut down His nerves so He wouldn’t feel the agony from His multiple wounds.

Yes. And this is a big part of what the Church means. Jesus didn’t ignore the devil’s temptations in the desert by shutting off his hunger like a switch. He didn’t bear the cross by shutting off his pain. He didn’t deal with grief by shutting off the negative emotions. And, while he may have responded to Lazarus’ death with a miracle, he wasn’t moved to that response by simple human ends such as ending his grief.

 

[Usagi]

You have started from your conclusion and will accept no response other than complete acquiescence as legitimate. If people are frustrated, it is because of that, not because you are “asking questions.” The exact relationship between Jesus and the Father on the one hand, and Jesus and humanity on the other hand, took our spiritual ancestors some time to work out, operating from the same data as you. You will note that they did not reach your conclusion, so perhaps it is not an obvious fact we just have to admit. (For one thing, I and others dispute that Jesus acted for his own human benefit on the occasions you mention.)

Jesus was special, yes. He was truly human and truly God, and operated through both those natures at different times. We can come up with theological language to describe how those natures interacted, but we cannot know what the internal experience of being Jesus was like except via the external evidence. It was likely different than that of beings who are human-and-nothing-else, yes, but it still falls within the umbrella of human.

Other individuals mentioned in Scripture were granted miracles by God, even ongoing “powers” like Samson’s strength. Were they no longer truly human?

 

[Usagi]

The Church does actually use the exact term “God-Man” to describe Jesus, so we have that covered.

But notice that that designation includes “Man” just as it includes “God.” Jesus was both. Truly God, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, and truly man, with a human body and soul and everything included with them. He did not have an illusion of humanity. He was not God in a fake human costume. He had all the parts that necessarily constitute a human being.

Now, his life and experience were extraordinary, and included many events outside the human norm. When you say “He was not truly man,” you are referring to that. But that is never what the Church has meant by “truly man.” (The theologians who worked that out did have access to the miracle stories you cite, you know. This is not amazing new information.)

So, despite your objections, Catholics will go on using the phrase to mean what the Church has always meant, while also acknowledging that Jesus lived an extraordinary life and at times performed miracles by his own divine power.

 

[Start]

It is a huge part of our humanity, isn’t it?

Mary, Eve, and Adam were all humans that possessed a state that was free from sin. The latter two lost this perfect state, but sinfulness isn’t necessary to be human.
It seems this won’t be satisfactory for some reason.

Many babies that died as infants didn’t commit sin so it is not intrinsic part of being a human.

 

[Start]

He was despised

 

[Start]

You have started from your conclusion and will accept no response other than complete acquiescence as legitimate. If people are frustrated, it is because of that, not because you are “asking questions.”

Exactly.
.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Now, his life and experience were extraordinary, and included many events outside the human norm. When you say “He was not truly man,” you are referring to that. But that is never what the Church has meant by “truly man.” (The theologians who worked that out did have access to the miracle stories you cite, you know. This is not amazing new information.)

This is a good point, and lost on people. The issue with the incarnation doesn’t have anything to do with miracle-working ability.

At the end of the day, the fundamental problem is that humans are by definition created beings, while God is by definition not. Because a being cannot both be created and not be created at the same time, it is impossible for any God-Man to be both true God and true Man at the same time.

 

[kgmlg]

I would say yes He did….but with a twist.

More like what would happen if royalty wanted to be one of the plebs (Eddie Murphy? Coming to America? Gosh I am old!).

Meaning He was fully human but with heaps heaps heaps more knowledge than any of us. Throw in that He had God the Father on speed dial and could actually hear Him answer!

Yes…definitely human, but also definitely God.

 

[Usagi]

Actually, Jesus managed even that. As God the Son, He is uncreated and eternal. But his human body and soul were created at the moment of the Incarnation. Uncreated God and created human in one.

 

[OneSheep]

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.

I’m not so sure many have been offended. You asked a great question, maybe “shook some trees”.

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.

Maybe the “answer” you seek can be found within yourself? Seems everyone so far has their own answers, that they worked through stuff. To me, it starts with faith, with relationship. Perhaps all the head stuff can go one way or another, with no real impact one way or another.

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.

So it sounds like you’re not sure what the answer is, but you do know what it isn’t.
You’re having a particularly difficult time with the “mystery” answer?

And because of those miracles, his life as a human was easier than it would have been had he NOT used those powers.

The raising of the dead, the water into wine, the casting out of demons, these all have very significant symbolic meanings, right? I personally don’t get caught up too much in the “superpower” aspect; I look into the symbolism. Jesus’ life was definitely not “easy”, but He certainly was free from human trappings. This has something to do with His “growing in wisdom”, right?

What is the supernatural we can share today? We can ,through grace, forgive those who are unrepentant, as He did from the cross. We can forgive our enemies. We can understand, cognitively and emotionally empathize with, other people. We can reconcile our shadow and transcend the conscience. These are some of what we can do through relationship with Him.

But to me, it starts with faith, not an analysis of His abilities or nature. The rest sort of “falls where it may” I guess. I know that sounds pretty spacey, but I have come to be very accepting of a whole hodgepodge of beliefs. I do tend to challenge those beliefs that see God as loving us less than the people who love us most.

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.

You posed a great question, and you are thinking that the answer might lead to spiritual growth. Can you expand on that?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

But they can’t actually be “one.” If Jesus is “part x and part y” then he cannot be God, because God does not have parts. But if he does not have parts, then his one thing is both created and not created, an explicit logical contradiction.

 

[Usagi]

Jesus is entirely God (the Second Person of the Trinity, without internal parts or change to his nature) and entirely human (a complete human body and soul), united inextricably together so that there is only one person present (you can’t have separate relationships with Jesus-the-God and Jesus-the-man, hence why Mary is properly styled God-bearer even though the Son as God preceded her in existence and owes nothing of His existence to her), but still distinct without mixing (so there is no change to God proper).

People spent a long time working this out. Shortened sound-bite forms may seem questionable or contradictory (hence the OP’s concern about “truly human” as well as your own issues), but orthodox Christology as a whole does its best to cover all the bases. As with the Trinity, it would undoubtedly have been easier to choose just one part of the seemingly contradictory information (one or three, God or human), but it was the Church’s responsibility to consider and include it all, even though that makes the teaching weird and unwieldy. They weren’t doing science in the modern sense, obviously, but they did look at all the data (of Scripture and tradition) that they had and devise theories that best fit it all.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

People spent a long time working this out. Shortened sound-bite forms may seem questionable or contradictory (hence the OP’s concern about “truly human” as well as your own issues), but orthodox Christology as a whole does its best to cover all the bases.

You’re just asserting that what looks, walks, and quacks like a duck isn’t (i.e. that an incoherent teaching isn’t.) Your description of the union has not explained how it avoids the literal and explicit logical contradiction I pointed out, and neither does the assertion that “Christ-ologists worked really hard.”

 

[Usagi]

I do not understand your objection.

Jesus, as God the Son, is uncreated, a status that does not and cannot change,

Jesus’ human body and soul were created from nothing at the moment of His conception, just as ours are.

Uncreated God and created human. The uncreated does not become the created, nor vice versa, as that would be ridiculous — but neither has the doctrine ever claimed that, just as it has never claimed that “truly human” means what the OP insists it must mean.