Hypostatic Union and sin

[JimG]

Jesus is a human being but not a human Person. He is only One Person, and that Person is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. He has a human nature through the hypostatic union, but he is a Divine Person, the Divine Logos. To say that Jesus could sin would be saying that the Second Person of the Holy Trinity could reject the Father and the Holy Spirit. It is wholly impossible.

 

[STT]

If you do not know God you are not in his presence because you have to know him for him to dwell within you. We’re not talking about God sustaining things externally without being known by the things he sustains. That is a philosophical construct of God’s omniscience and omnipresence; it is not being face-to-face with God, it is not being in his presence.
Again in the presence of God a human person cannot sin;

So you are saying that a person who is in presence of God cannot sin even if he firmly decides?

 

[John_Martin]

So you are saying that a person who is in presence of God cannot sin even if he firmly decides?

A person face to face with the LORD he loves will not firmly decide (nor in any other way decide) to do anything offending his beloved.
Thus Jesus could not sin, nor his mother.

 

[STT]

A person face to face with the LORD he loves will not firmly decide (nor in any other way decide) to do anything offending his beloved.
Thus Jesus could not sin, nor his mother.

So Jesus can sin but He won’t because that offend God.

 

[John_Martin]

So Jesus can sin but He won’t because that offend God.

No, he cannot sin because he is the personification, full-time, of the human speaking in the Psalms: “If I ascend to the heavens, You are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, You are there.”
He is the fullness of human nature, having no defect as we have (but which defect he cures in us by giving us his Holy Spirit), so, being fully human he has no restlessness to go looking for some other lover, and never will and never could.

We sin due to a defect in our nature, we do not sin because of a non-defective nature simply deciding to do a defective nature’s activities.
Why are you trying to argue that being defective is natural to nature?

 

[lelinator]

Jesus never aimed at anything besides his Father’s will and Union with his Father and so he never missed the mark. We, however, aim at something else and we miss the mark of where we should be which is with the Father.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t know what God’s will is. So how can I possibly aim for a goal that I don’t know?

I’m sure that you’ll be more than happy to tell me what God’s goal is, but frankly, I don’t trust your knowledge on the subject. In fact, I find it to be highly biased, and self-serving.

That’s just my opinion you understand, but after all, lacking any direct evidence, my opinion is the only thing that I have to go by.

He suffers no concupiscence as we do.

Since Christ was fully human, and Christ lacked concupiscence according to you, then the implication is, that concupiscence isn’t a natural part of being human. But I doubt that humanity would’ve lasted very long without it. So humanity was designed not to reproduce. That seems like a bit of a stretch.

 

[John_Martin]

I’m sure that you’ll be more than happy to tell me what God’s goal is, but frankly, I don’t trust your knowledge on the subject. In fact, I find it to be highly biased, and self-serving

In a few words it is what our superiors teach us (“teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you”); the sermon on the mount might be a good brief summary of what we are taught to do, and it could be yours also if you were to desire to join us. Otherwise you will have to be content seeing us from the outside the church and not understanding how we can say what we say.
But it is official Apostolically authorized teachers who can grant you the Holy Spirit and citizenship in the Kingdom established by Heaven and full understanding of what is God’s will.
And being his servant, like Mary your Mother in Faith, his will will be your will also.
To know his will, you need the messenger he sends; Mary had Gabriel; to find your messenger, go talk with the priest of the local Catholic Parish (or Bishop of the local diocese if possible, but usually another Catholic has to present you to a Bishop)

 

[Sursumcorda1]

Read chapter 2 of St. Athanasius’ On the Incarnation (chapter 2) Work info: On the Incarnation of the Word - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Here is an excerpt:
The Word perceived that corruption could not be got rid of otherwise than through death; yet He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father’s Son, was such as could not die. For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection. It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human brethren by the offering of the equivalent. For naturally, since the Word of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled in death all that was required. Naturally also, through this union of the immortal Son of God with our human nature, all men were clothed with incorruption in the promise of the resurrection. For the solidarity of mankind is such that, by virtue of the Word’s indwelling in a single human body, the corruption which goes with death has lost its power over all.

 

[John_Martin]

Since Christ was fully human, and Christ lacked concupiscence according to you, then the implication is, that concupiscence isn’t a natural part of being human

Concupiscence has two uses who are the philosopher and for the theologian.

1. Concupiscence means desire where for the intellect what is desired is called or termed the will.
2. Concupiscence also means movement toward Union width what is desired. which is sin, seizing satisfactions, rather than making our hungers known to God and to his servants, and then suffering whatever might be given to us, just as Jesus suffered Angels ministering to him when he was hungry.

The “natural human doing” is to “let your requests be made known to God…”
Desire, hunger, is natural, to turn us to our Lord, but that mark is missed (sin) if we think we live by feeling the pleasures of hunger satisfactions.

 

[lelinator]

In a few words it is what our superiors teach us (“teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you”); the sermon on the mount might be a good brief summary of what we are taught to do, and it could be yours also if you were to desire to join us. Otherwise you will have to be content seeing us from the outside the church and not understanding how we can say what we say.

So to put it simply, you’ll tell me what God’s will is. (And by you, I mean the Catholic Church)

But that raises a couple of questions…why should I trust the Catholic Church? And beyond some set of superficial guidelines, how does the Church know what God’s will is in any particular circumstance? When deciding what God’s will is concerning my actions, how am I to know what is, and isn’t God’s will. Christ may have been privy to such intimate details of God’s will, but lacking omniscience I often have no idea what God’s will is…how is the Church going to help me with that? And lacking such knowledge of God’s will, how can I be expected to attain to it?

 

[lelinator]

Desire, hunger, is natural, to turn us to our Lord, but that mark is missed (sin) if we think we live by feeling the pleasures of hunger satisfactions.

But in what manner did Christ lack concupiscence? Or in what greater sense can it be said that I possess it?

 

[John_Martin]

why should I trust the Catholic Church?

You don’t have to - many people left off listening to the Person who made us a Church; he asked, “will you leave me too?” and our spokesman said, “Lord, to whom shall we go; you have the words of eternal life.”
We remain; it is up to you whether you come and receive the Holy Spirit from the Church so that you will have the Virtues infused into your soul and are then able to recognize and do what is good in all situations, since you have the Spirit of God dwelling within you when the Church gave Him to you.
The Church does not just instruct, but gives Gifts that infuse you with Light.

 

[John_Martin]

But in what manner did Christ lack concupiscence? Or in what greater sense can it be said that I possess it?

He had desire, hunger - this is the appetite (aka, concupiscence).
He did not, and would never, think he had to fix his hunger, since his life was a gift, nor did he reason that life was only worth living if he felt the pleasure of an appetite attaining satisfaction; he did not do the self-satisfaction of concupiscent desire (the “act of concupiscence”).
He was satisfied upon eating, but never ate without being offered, “Take and eat.”
Even when we feed ourselves, we can be seizing satisfaction or we can be obedient to “Take and eat.”

Defects are not “possessed”; you do not possess concupiscence (seizing life as your own god), rather that is a defect because of the lack of the Holy Spirit enlightening you to see the presence of God, who feeds the birds and clothes the flowers of the field, and will say to you, “Take and eat.”

A defect is a Lack, not a Possession.

 

[lelinator]

We remain; it is up to you whether you come and receive the Holy Spirit from the Church

I choose to believe that the Church has no authority in such matters. If it’s God will that I should choose otherwise, then He’ll have to do a better job of conveying that desire. As it is, I seem to be left to do as I see fit, and I see fit not to trust those who have given me no reason to do so.

If God wants me to do His will, and I have done otherwise, it’s not out of any ill-intent on my part.

 

[John_Martin]

He’ll have to do a better job of conveying that desire.

He does that job by letting you look at us from outside, and you see that you do not have what we have, and it awakens within you a desire, a desire that you can never take for yourself, like one could take food and drink, but a desire you would need to turn to another to request, and once you do, you may hear, “Take and eat.”

 

[lelinator]

He was satisfied upon eating, but never ate without being offered, “Take and eat.”
Even when we feed ourselves, we can be seizing satisfaction or we can be obedient to “Take and eat.”

Yes, I eat, but certainly God wills me to do so, although He has never specifically told me to. So in what manner are my actions “sinful” where Christ’s were not?

 

[lelinator]

He does that job by letting you look at us from outside,

Indeed I do look at you from outside…and I do not like what I see.

 

[John_Martin]

Yes, I eat, but certainly God wills me to do so, although He has never specifically told me to. So in what manner are my actions “ sinful ” where Christ’s were not?

You have told me you do not believe what I have said so far and that you would not believe anything the church says, so why are you asking me questions if you will not believe what I answer? It is already sufficient.

 

[John_Martin]

Indeed I do look at you from outside…and I do not like what I see.

As long as you keep looking - like and dislike are subject to change. 3000 were Baptized after Pentecost, where fifty days earlier they liked the idea to “crucify Him”.

 

[lelinator]

You have told me you do not believe what I have said so far and that you would not believe anything the church says, so why are you asking me questions if you will not believe what I answer?

Would you prefer that I ask you no questions at all? Or is it better that at least I ask?