Hypostatic Union in Sacred Scripture

[derekohachey]

Hello,

In my discussion with Jehovah Witnesses, I will inevitably reach the topic of the Hypostatic Union of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

My thought on this is to ask the question: What are the 2 most commonly used and contrasting titles assigned to Jesus Christ?

1. Son of Man
2. Son of God; The only Begotten Son of God

And of course expanding on the meaning of begetting.

Is this a good line of reasoning on the Hypostatic Union?

Is there other arguments drawn from Sacred Scripture?

God Bless,
Derek

 

[jlhargus]

Hello,

In my discussion with Jehovah Witnesses, I will inevitably reach the topic of the Hypostatic Union of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

My thought on this is to ask the question: What are the 2 most commonly used and contrasting titles assigned to Jesus Christ?

1. Son of Man
2. Son of God; The only Begotten Son of God

And of course expanding on the meaning of begetting.

Is this a good line of reasoning on the Hypostatic Union?

Is there other arguments drawn from Sacred Scripture?

God Bless,
Derek

JL: I have never debated Hypostatic Union, one I would use also would be Jn1 the word was GOD, the word became FLESH. Where do you debate with JW’s on line? I would like some experience debating with them.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

JL: I have never debated Hypostatic Union, one I would use also would be Jn1 the word was GOD, the word became FLESH. Where do you debate with JW’s on line? I would like some experience debating with them.

They have their own Bibletranslation with some changes to accommodate their beliefs. I think they translate that the word was a God.

 

[derekohachey]

I don’t chat with JWs online, I am not aware of a JW forum although there are a few of them that consistently post on Yahoo Answers. Fortunately, some of our Orthodox Sisters and Brothers are also proclaiming the truth at Yahoo Answers with good solid reasoning.

I live across the way from a house with many JWs, so we discuss almost once per month. The topic of Hypostatic Union logically flows when I show them in Scripture that Jesus Christ is God Almighty (both Old and New Testaments), their response is that Jesus prays to God, calls God the Father His God. So how can Jesus be God Almighty? So I reply that Jesus is 100% God and 100% Man, and the logical question from there is where is this taught in Sacred Scripture? Hence where do we find the Hypostatic Union in Sacred Scripture?

I find this to be the real missing link in explaining the Trinity.

God Bless,
Derek

 

[SkinnyJay]

DR Jn 14:9-10:

9 Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou: Show us the Father? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works.

 

[Bastoune]

DR Jn 14:9-10:

9 Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou: Show us the Father? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works.

This is a good quote, but sadly, they will dismiss it as simply the Father dwells in Jesus in the same way He does in anyone. Of course that is kind of odd since Paul will talk about JESUS (Gal. 2:20) living in him, which should signal some problem. They also think the Holy Spirit is an energy sent by the Father (but you can easily shut them up when you point out in Eph. 4:30; Isaiah 63:10 that the Holy Spirit can be “grieved” – so “it” is not some electrical energy.)

I would ask them why in Hebrews 1, the author refers to passages directed to YHWH but supposedly in Hebrews 1, they are for Jesus. (Psalm 45:6,7 & 102:25-27 , etc.)

 

[Cachonga]

I recommend “The Forgotten Trinity”, which you can purchase here. Here’s one of the many comments on the book -
“My church is entering the new millennium with a three focus on the Blessed Trinity. Dr. White hightlights a vital truth: the Mystery of the Trinity is truly related to how we love God. Our faith in the Trinity is the same: One God, three coequal persons.” - Fr. Mitchell Pacwa, S.J. Assistant Professor, University of Dallas

I have a copy and it’s very good (unfortunately, right now it’s about 350 miles from where I am).

 

[breneriu]

27and said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and look at my hands! Put your hand into my side. Stop doubting and have faith!”
28Thomas replied, “You are my Lord and my God!” 29Jesus said, “Thomas, do you have faith because you have seen me? The people who have faith in me without seeing me are the ones who are really blessed!”

 

[dmar198]

Hello,

In my discussion with Jehovah Witnesses, I will inevitably reach the topic of the Hypostatic Union of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

My thought on this is to ask the question: What are the 2 most commonly used and contrasting titles assigned to Jesus Christ?

1. Son of Man
2. Son of God; The only Begotten Son of God

And of course expanding on the meaning of begetting.

Is this a good line of reasoning on the Hypostatic Union?

Is there other arguments drawn from Sacred Scripture?

God Bless,
Derek

It looks good to me. A very strong passage that points this out is Philippians 2:5-6: “[Christ Jesus,] though he is by nature God, did not consider his equality with God a condition to be clung to, but emptied himself by taking the nature of a slave, fashioned as he was to the likeness of men and recognized by outward appearance as man.”

 

[PJM]

derekohachey

In my discussion with Jehovah Witnesses, I will inevitably reach the topic of the Hypostatic Union of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

My thought on this is to ask the question: What are the 2 most commonly used and contrasting titles assigned to Jesus Christ?

1. Son of Man
2. Son of God; The only Begotten Son of God

Is this a good line of reasoning on the Hypostatic Union?

Is there other arguments drawn from Sacred Scripture?

God Bless,
Derek

Lets began by defining a term some may not fully understand: From the Catholic Dictionary

***HYPOSTATIC UNION

The union of the human and divine natures in the one divine person of Christ. At the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) the Church declared that the two natures of Christ are joined “in one person and one hypostasis” (Denzinger 302), where hypostasis means one substance. It was used to answer the Nestorian error of a merely accidental union of the two natures in Christ. The phrase “hypostatic union” was adopted a century later, at the fifth general council at Constantinople (A.D. 533). It is an adequate expression of Catholic doctrine about Jesus Christ that in him are two perfect natures, divine and human; that the divine person takes to himself, includes in his person a human nature; that the incarnate Son of God is an individual, complete substance; and that the union of the two natures is real (against Arius), no mere indwelling of God in a man (against Nestorius), with a rational soul (against Apollinaris), and the divinity remains unchanged (against Eutyches). ***

What we wish to be able to prove is that Jesus Christ is both “True God” while at the same time being “True man.” Your idea for “common names” is a good one. But here is something easier to demonistrate.

Luke Chapter 1: 26- "In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end." 34 And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” 35 And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. "*

There ya go

 

[Detales]

PJM, your efforts ar appreciated. I remember in High school that there actually were even priests who had no clue as to the Hypostatic Union. I was priveleged to have a class on the subject with a priest who was a profound scholar overall, but also had an extensive knowledge of the ideas surrounding the Hypostatic Union

It is of great interest to me intheis thread, therefore, that one of the reasons I left the Church, though I did not name it a such at the time, finally had to do exactly with that doctrin.

In front of the next sentence I have to qualify that I am convinced that if Jesus did indeed have a historical existance, (and I’m one who leans towards “yes”) He was without serious question the Son of God, and even in the proper sense of the phrase, “the One and Only Son of God.” I would grant that on no more that a proper interpretation of His Identity statements. But I have come to understand, despite all that was catechetically imparted to me as to this most remarkable Union, that scriptuaral proof is nevertheless the last and least useful mode of “proof”

Your statement~ “What we wish to be able to prove is that Jesus Christ is both “True God” while at the same time being "True man.”~ is negated as possible by the Law of Non-Contradiction. If the Union is a mater of faith, than “proof” can be onlly had on the grounds of validity within the accepted structure of belief. Byt defineiton, neither faith nor belie f constistute proper knowledge, though knowledge of the faith might, as it is knowledge of an istitutionalized belief. The only “proof” is one of validity as to its consistency with Church doctrin. No matter how that is sliced, it is Church doctine, not knowledge.

 

[PJM]

=Detales;5389539]PJM, your efforts ar appreciated. I remember in High school that there actually were even priests who had no clue as to the Hypostatic Union. I was priveleged to have a class on the subject with a priest who was a profound scholar overall, but also had an extensive knowledge of the ideas surrounding the Hypostatic Union

It is of great interest to me intheis thread, therefore, that one of the reasons I left the Church, though I did not name it a such at the time, finally had to do exactly with that doctrin.

In front of the next sentence I have to qualify that I am convinced that if Jesus did indeed have a historical existance, (and I’m one who leans towards “yes”) He was without serious question the Son of God, and even in the proper sense of the phrase, “the One and Only Son of God.” I would grant that on no more that a proper interpretation of His Identity statements. But I have come to understand, despite all that was catechetically imparted to me as to this most remarkable Union, that scriptuaral proof is nevertheless the last and least useful mode of “proof”

Your statement~ “What we wish to be able to prove is that Jesus Christ is both “True God” while at the same time being "True man.”~ is negated as possible by the Law of Non-Contradiction. If the Union is a mater of faith, than “proof” can be onlly had on the grounds of validity within the accepted structure of belief. Byt defineiton, neither faith nor belie f constistute proper knowledge, though knowledge of the faith might, as it is knowledge of an istitutionalized belief. The only “proof” is one of validity as to its consistency with Church doctrin. No matter how that is sliced, it is Church doctine, not knowledge.

***So friend we are back to the “cat in the box question again?”

John 10: 4 "Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, 'I am the Son of God? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; 38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”*

One might ask is this even possible?

Consider how you [we] are Created [a work which means to make out of nothing / i.e the First Cause].

All of humanity posess a mind, a intellect and a freewill, as well as the source of life’s animation, a soul. If I were ask you to describe for me the physical charaistics of say “your mind” you would NOT be able to do so, because each of these four atributes are SPIRITUAL, not PHYSICAL MATTER like the rest of our body.

So we see then in the human species a combination of both the Physical and the Spiritual.

Luke 1: 30 "And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.” 34 And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” 35 And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born * will be called holy, the Son of God.

God too is Spirit! John 6: 46 “Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father. 47 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.”

John 6: 61 "But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”

When thee proof is presented, it then becomes a matter of Faith. One can choose [perhaps with difficulty] to believe, or take the easier to accept position of unbelief. “as for me I shall choose God.” Quoting Macabees and Peter. I too choose to believe

As an FYI, I’ll be gone for aweek or so starting later tommorow.**

 

[Detales]

Yes, I completely agree with all those quotes, especially

"John 10: 4 "Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, 'I am the Son of God? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; 38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand (not believe) that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” (there was one more step after belief, eh? Belief is a door/adore to it.)

John is perhaps the single Apostle who actually understood the Master. Paul perhaps had a misunderstood hint of that, being somewhere between John and the other three Gospels. It is why John’s Gospel is qualitatively different than the others. I love his words, as they continually turn back to the actual Identity question of Jesus’ statements. This is the part of the teaching that has been lost in the exoteric Church. It is why Mark 4:33,34 is in my signature. It is finally why after all these years I see the Church in a new and Catholic way, in the original sense of that word.

“When the proof is presented, it then becomes a matter of Faith. One can choose [perhaps with difficulty] to believe, or take the easier to accept position of unbelief. “as for me I shall choose God.” Quoting Macabees and Peter. I too choose to believe.”~ PJM

Same as on the other thread: this is my last statement on the matter. Belief and disbelief are on the same field of play. There is another Way that is inherent in the quotes you have posted. It is a Way from belief. The axis of Understanding is at right angles to scriptural faith. Faith is a great virtue, and has led many to higher ground. But there is more for those who have ears to hear. “What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you:”

 

[PJM]

John is perhaps the single Apostle who actually understood the Master. Paul perhaps had a misunderstood hint of that, being somewhere between John and the other three Gospels. It is why John’s Gospel is qualitatively different than the others. I love his words, as they continually turn back to the actual Identity question of Jesus’ statements. This is the part of the teaching that has been lost in the exoteric Church. It is why Mark 4:33,34* is in my signature. It is finally why after all these years I see the Church in a new and Catholic way, in the original sense of that word.

Same as on the other thread: this is my last statement on the matter. Belief and disbelief are on the same field of play. There is another Way that is inherent in the quotes you have posted. It is a Way from belief. The axis of Understanding is at right angles to scriptural faith. Faith is a great virtue, and has led many to higher ground. But there is more for those who have ears to hear. “What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you:”

***No, there is only belief and unbelief. Mk. 9: 24 ““I believe; help my unbelief!”; Heb. 3: 19"So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.” ***

***Nearly every statement uttered by humanity is in a sense a “way to unbelief.” Belief, true belief comes from the head to the heart. The search for THEE [one per issue; “their cannot be my truth and your truth or their would be NO truth.” Pope benedict XVI]

The search for THEE truth is a natural, responce of the Creators Gifts if mind, intellect, freewill and soul. On planet earth, only humanity is so blessed. One need ask why? Surely it is neither accident or coincedience?

When one is confronted with thee truth [and everyone is!] the right responce is to covet it, make it your own, love it, live and share it; BUT one can very easily deny, ignore, alter, overlook and change it to suit ones own seemingly more pressing needs. That is the precise reason for heaven and hell; it’s the completation of Divine Justice.

• Indeed Christ spoke in a manner that only some could understand, but with His Apostles"he explained everything." I hasten to point out it is these same Apostles who with Godly inspiration actually authored the Bible.*

Please read 2 Tim. 1:14; 2 Cor. 13: 8; and this John 16: 12 "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. That seems pretty unambigious to me

Based on Gen.1 26-27 this is the proper understanding for Mk. 4: 33-34

Mk. Ver. 34.“This is addressed to princes established to govern the people of God. They are the image of God on earth by the authority they exercise, and which they have received from Him. — Is it not written in your law, (under which were also comprehended the Psalms) I have said: you are Gods? &c. Christ here stops the mouths of the Jews, by an argument which they could not answer, that sometimes they were called Gods, who acted by God’s authority. I have said: you are Gods. (Psalm lxxxi. 6.) But then he immediately declares, that it is not in this sense only that he is God. 1st, Because he has been sanctified by the Father, which St. Augustine and others understand of that infinite sanctification, which he has necessarily by always proceeding from the Father. Others expound it of a greater sanctity and fulness of grace above all other saints, given to him, even as he was man. But 2ndly, he adds at the same time, and confirms what he had often told them, that he was the Son of God, sent into the world: that his works shew that he was in the Father, and the Father in him. by this they saw that he was far from recalling or contradicting what he had said before. And therefore they sought to apprehend him, and put him to death for blasphemy.” Haydock Catholic Commentary.]**

 

[Detales]

Well, PJM, we are clearly not in a place where we can communicate about this on any ground outside Catholic piety. I can only encourage you to practice to your utmost with all your energy.

Bon chance,

Bindar.

 

[PJM]

Well, PJM, we are clearly not in a place where we can communicate about this on any ground outside Catholic piety. I can only encourage you to practice to your utmost with all Bon chance,

Bindar.

I love you man! yo:sad_bye::heart:ur energy.

 

[grannymh]

Your statement~ “What we wish to be able to prove is that Jesus Christ is both “True God” while at the same time being "True man.”~ is negated as possible by the Law of Non-Contradiction.

I’m only looking for the Scripture quotes to add to my collection. But the above caught my eye. As far as I know, “law of non-contradiction” would not apply to divinity and humanity in the person of Jesus Christ. Divinity trumps natural laws. Thus Jesus, as one person, would have two natures.

 

[EricWallter]

Hello all!

This is my first message here.

I do visit a number of discussion boards and groups a couple of times a week, nothing heavy. Mostly groups dealing with apologetics and “difficult” subjects…

One thing I’ve noticed on almost all groups is the hissing and spitting and flaming…!

Things usually start out bright and cheerful and friendly and brotherly… but temperatures soon begin to soar and tempers begin to go missing en masse! That’s when you see the true nature of the other side. And let me tell you that it is far from pretty!

I read all the posts but hardly ever respond or write in. This is one of those rare occasions. I hope it turns out well.

I really go for “Christian Love and charity in all things” especially the present discussion!

In the exchange between PJM and Detales, I think Detales has shown true Christian grace in his post:
“I can only encourage you to practice to your utmost with all Bon chance”.

In Message #14, PJM says:
“No, there is only belief and unbelief!”

My question to PJM is:
Do you mean that “knowing” is a no-no for Roman Catholics? By “knowing” I mean “understanding, comprehending” much like what Detales mentions as “the axis of Understanding”.

Sincerely hoping not to get flamed out,

Eric

July 02, 2009.

—

 

[Detales]

Welcome Eric,

Thank you, and the actual quote is:

"*Well, PJM, we are clearly not in a place where we can communicate about this on any ground outside Catholic piety. I can only encourage you to practice to your utmost with all your energy.

Bon chance*"

As to your sage comments regarding flaming, etc. my own sense of that is that much of it stems from the very unaccomodating stance of either/or, which seems to be the primary mode of engagement on here. That stance doesn’t conform to my experience of dealing with even engineering or practical problems, save in a limitend number of cases.

I would wonder, Eric, if you are familiar with the work of David R. Hawking in this matter. Many folks don’t like it, becasue it lays out that people distribute over a scale of perceptual abitlity, the either/or stance being not very flatteringly dealt with. But the point of the discussion of such a scale is to indicate a direction of growth in awareness. I found myself by such lights as having a good ways to go, lol!

In any case, I wish you happily engaging and useful visits on these fora.

Bindar Doondat, FZPC

 

[EricWallter]

Thanks, Detales!

No, I’m not up on Hawking. But I think I get the drift of what you’re saying. Very true! Most people begin by being very agreeable and that state remains as long as the “either/or” is in their favor. Cross the line and out comes the sword and off comes the ear (or whatever appendage is conveniently at hand).

This attitude is not limited to any particular theme, topic or subject. Computer operating systems generate the same amount of heat as does politics or religion!

Ken Mills quotation is also very apt.

I see things both ways and see the merit in both directions - belief on the one hand and understanding on the other hand. I do “know” that Christ Himself told Thomas “blessed are they who believe” (paraphrased). And Thomas himself surrendered immediately. In a similar situation I would too! I would rather have childlike innocence than learned expertise. God does prefer innocent belief to learned logic. But I can’t help being what I am, because what I am is most decidedly what HE has made me! And if He has deigned to make me a “Thomas” then I must be one.

Now I am not a Thomas in the sense that I do not doubt any of the matters relating to Christ Jesus, the Roman Catholic Church, or Roman Catholicism. I’d die before even thinking against the Faith!

For me belief is belief, that’s it, you either buy it or you don’t. If you “believe” then that’s all there is to it, no arguments, not refutations, not rationale, no proof, no nothing! That is what belief means. “I BELIEVE”.

I was brought up as a RC by Carmelite nuns and then by Jesuits. I was and am extremely Jesus-oriented. Unfortunately for me, I have a failing for “logic and reasoning”. My main bread-and-butter work is systems analysis, computer science, computer programming, et al! So I tried to logicalise many matters. When many of said matters ended up in the air I began to turn away from the church. It was only my good fortune, my upbringing, and HIS grace that belief won out in the end. So now I never argue about these matters no matter who is across the table - Jehovah’s Witnesses or X or Y or Z! I just say, “I’m sorry, that’s what I believe and I can’t go beyond my belief!”

I came here to find out about the hypostatic union discussion. My thought exactly was: “What could there be to discuss?” For me “hypostatic union” is a given, 100% nothing to discuss! But that applies to ME, not to someone else! Maybe he doesn’t “believe” but he sure does have some valid “reasoning”, and I’d like to know his reasoning. At least let’s hear him out; maybe I’ll learn a thing or two MORE than what I knew.

The one thing I really like about our religion is its catholicity and its outward-looking ethos. I really would appreciate it if that catholicity of vision and open-mindedness applied in all walks of Catholic endeavour and especially on discussion boards like this! Yet one gets the feeling that things ain’t really all that different. Just a feeling, that’s all. Hope I’m wrong.

BTW - “Bin thar, done dat!” Very good! I had to look twice! Great!

Best regards,

Eric
July 03, 2009.