Hypostatic Union violates law of non-contradiction

[maurin]

Does that by chance make the contradiction I’m seeing more clear? Belief in the two natures means that it would possible to say: “Jesus is wholly limited” and “Jesus is wholly not limited” at the same time, and be correct. That’s what a contradiction is: “A and Not A” in the same set of premises.

pro_universal,

no, this does not make the contradiction you are seeing more clear, because it seems to me, at least, that you are not taking the totality of the Word of God (of course for a Catholic the Word of God has never been limited to the Written Word because the Apostolic Tradition precedes the Written Word) in the Scriptures we are discussing.

If Jesus were not as fully God as He was fully man, John’s Gospel is certainly the overstatement of all overstatements! The one verse of Thomas declaring Him “my Lord and my God” alone is enough to make one either think about the Hypostatic Union, or become a modalist.

Are you a modalist or do you have Arian leanings, or are you a Trinitarian with doubts?

Again, I beg pardon if my vocabulary is too limited, or if I come off as aggressive. Please let me know, because I would be very ashamed of myself. (This is important to me, because I wish to have a conversation that is comfortable for all involved, and I am a worm left to my own devices.)

 

[maurin]

I promised not to muddy the waters but is the limitation of (perfect) humanity such that it cannot co-exist with God, since our human nature (according to the usual Christian ontology) is destined to be united with God. The limitation of humanity is more to its beginning than to its end, isn’t it? – since we are destined for eternal life. This is where that “respect” issue comes back into play.

Again: ignore this if it’s off your line of thinking because I’m not up to playing on this court.

Why ignore it? It’s wonderful. Thank you!

I think also it is important to add to the conversation that The Son, from the time of His Resurrection, has a body Glorified. This Glorified Body is in Heaven at the Right Hand of the Father. We await our own Glorified bodies at the Final Resurrection.

So, it seems to me, that not even ‘matter’ (Glorified, Perfect) is a contradiction of Spirit.

 

[mercygate]

So, it seems to me, that not even ‘matter’ (Glorified, Perfect) is a contradiction of Spirit.

Keep that thought. It goes to the nature of sub-sistence.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

VC,
it is logically inconsistent to elaborate a series of premises which contain:

Jesus is limited and:

Jesus is not limited.

The language itself is the source of the contradiction. If you think I have misconstrued the language of trinitarian dogma, please feel free to call me on it and I will correct myself here.

Pro,

Thank you for elaborating and helping me understand your objection.

Again, I feel that I must disagree with you that there is a violation of The principle of Non-Contradiction. Whether or not there is some other objection is open for discussion, but strictly limiting ourselves to the Principle as it is universally accepted, I can find no violation.

Perhaps you are not limiting yourself only to the Principle?
The principle states:

A thing cannot both be and not be, at the same time, in the same respect. That last clause is crucial: “in the same respect.”

Your formulation of Hypostatic Union is incomplete, and so you may run into a problem. I would suggest it would more accurately be rendered:

Jesus is limited in His human nature, and:

Jesus is not limited in His Divine Nature.

Rendered this way you can see that there is no violation of the principle since that last crucial clause “in the same respect” comes into play. Although one could say that Jesus is limited and unlimited at the same time, He is limited in one respect and unlimited in another respect. There is no violation of the principle.

Like I said before, it is possible to discuss whether or not a Person could have two natures, or whether or not a Divine Person could assume a human nature, or whether or not it is fitting for God to do so, or whether or not it is supported by scripture. . .etc, BUT solely on the basis of the Principal of Non-Contradiction there is nothing objectionable or contrary to reason.

As I said before in response to Maurin’s orginal post, it is only by misapplication of the Principle of Non-Contradiction (by omiting the final clause) or by a misstatement of the Dogma of the hypostatic Union (by not including the two aspects under which Christ can be viewed) that one could argue that there is an apparent violation of the Principle.

What do you think about this? I’m not sure if I am being clear in my contention, or if I am misunderstanding your objection on the basis of the Principle.

Thank you again for continuing this important discussion, and God bless,
VC

 

[pro_universal]

Your formulation of Hypostatic Union is incomplete, and so you may run into a problem. I would suggest it would more accurately be rendered:

The problem with this rendering is that it is not entirely true to the teaching. Jesus is one person, and any thing we say about him, applies to the whole of him.

So it is just as true to say “Jesus, without qualification, is unlimited. [Since he is wholly God]. And Jesus, without qualification, is limited. [Since he is wholly man].”

To divide the teaching as you do in order to avoid a contradiction implies a division in the personhood of Jesus that the teaching does not support. You cannot say something about Jesus and have it be true for the man, but not true for the God (at least, according to principle that Jesus is wholly God.)

To make myself more clear: I am relying strictly on an analysis of the language. The claim I am making is that you cannot elaborate the trinity without affirming and negating a range of different terms at the same time.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Pro,

Just a quick clarification before we continue: I am unclear why you mention the Trinity in your last post? I am limiting myself only to the Two Natures of Christ (yes, the Second Person of the Trinity to be sure, but my focus is on Him only).

VC

 

[pro_universal]

Pro,

Just a quick clarification before we continue: I am unclear why you mention the Trinity in your last post? I am limiting myself only to the Two Natures of Christ (yes, the Second Person of the Trinity to be sure, but my focus is on Him only).

VC

I mention it because on the trinitarian account, God is triune, so any discussion of the divine has to note it. Speaking of Christ’s divine nature is speaking of the Triune. Any thing that can be said about the trinity, can also be said about the whole of Jesus (since he is wholly God)

Christ as God is one step in elaborating the teaching behind the trinity, that’s how I see it.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The problem with this rendering is that it is not entirely true to the teaching. Jesus is one person, and any thing we say about him, applies to the whole of him.

Pro,

I must disagree. While it is true that anything Christ does is DONE by the One Person (The Word, the Second Person of the Trinity) and anything that affects Christ AFFECTS the one Person, because it is persons who act and are affected. However, persons act through and according to their natures, and we can also say things about their natures which we are not saying about the person who posesses the nature. Remember “person” answers the question “Who is this?” and “nature” answers the question “What is this?”

So it is not true to say that anything we say ABOUT Christ applies to BOTH His natures, nor did Christ always act in both His natures, but could act in (or with) one or the other. I think it is entirely consistent with the perennial teaching of the Magesterium to hold that certain things are to be predicated upon Christ’s human nature and certain things are to be predicated upon Christ’s divine nature.

For instance, this is obvious if look at the Chruch’s teaching on Mary as Mother of God. Mary certainly was not (nor has the Church ever held) the mother of Christ’s Divine Nature. The Divine Nature knew no beginning. But Mary was certainly the Mother of Christ in His human nature.

But, again because Persons act and are acted upon, Mary can truly be said to be the Mother of God (The second Person of the Trinity). Persons have mothers and natures do not, although persons do have natures that their mothers gave to them. Mary gave Christ His human nature.

In any event, again I say that it is the teaching of the Church to speak of one or the other of Christ’s natures.

For instance (and just one of many instances) we have the Tome of Pope Leo I:

Accordingly, while the distinctness of both natures and substances is preserved, and both meet in one Person, lowliness is assumed by majesty, weakness by power, mortality by eternity; and in order to pay the debt of our condition, the inviolable nature has been united to the passible, so that, as the appropriate remedy for our ills, one and the same “Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus:” might from one element be capable of dying, and from the other be incapable. Therefore in the entire and perfect nature of very Man was born very God, whole in what was his, whole in what was ours,

and again in the same document:

For each “form” does the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other; the Word, that is, performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh. The one of these shines out in miracles the other succumbs to injuries.

and again:

As the Word does not withdraw from equality with the Father in glory, so the flesh does not abandon the nature of our kind (. . .)
The nativity of the flesh is a manifestation of human nature: the Virgin’s child-bearing is an indication of divine power. The infancy of the babe is exhibited by the humiliation of swaddling clothes the greatness of the highest is declared by the voices of angels. He whom Herod impiously designs to slay is like humanity in its beginnings, but he whom the Magi rejoice to adore on their knees is Lord of all. (. . . ) He who, as man, is tempted by the devil’s subtlety is the same to whom, as God, angels pay duteous service.

and again:

To hunger, to thirst, to be weary, and to sleep is evidently human. But to feed five-thousand men with five loaves. . .is unquestionably divine.

. . .it does not belong to the same nature to weep with feelings of pity over a dead friend and, after the mass of stone had been removed from the grave where he had lain four days, by a voice of command to raise him up to life again; or to hang on the wood and to make all the elements tremble after daylight had been turned into night; or to be transfixed with nails and to open the gates of paradise to the faith of the robber, so it does not belong to the same nature to say, “I and the Father are one,” and to say, “The Father is greater than I.” For although in the Lord Jesus Christ there is one Person of God and man, yet that whereby contumely attaches to both is one thing, and that whereby glory attaches to both is another: for from what belongs to us he has that manhood which is inferior to the Father; while from the Father he has equal Godhead with the Father.

(emphasis added).

What do you think?
VC

 

[pro_universal]

Remember “person” answers the question “Who is this?” and “nature” answers the question “What is this?”

This distinction doesn’t really address the challenge, because, being united, the two “whats” in this example always act as one “who”. Jesus is one person; what happens to him happens to the whole of him. And the whole of him includes God.

Persons have mothers and natures do not, although persons do have natures that their mothers gave to them. Mary gave Christ His human nature.

The shift to persons is confusing here. The Father is a person of the trinity; does he have a mother? I’m not sure what the point is you’re trying to make about persons with this, but certainly, you are not claiming that the person of Jesus is divisible such that something may be said of God that cannot be said of Jesus.

To say such a thing would mean that there is a part of Jesus which is not God.

Let me quote the Pope’s language here as a textbook example of a contradiction:

from one element be capable of dying, and from the other be incapable. Therefore in the entire and perfect nature of very Man was born very God, whole in what was his, whole in what was ours,

We are talking about a single, unitary being: Jesus. Even though he has these two elements, the death referred to here is the death of Jesus the one person.

So to say “from one element he can die” and “from another element he cannot die” is to acknowledge that the composition of these elements into one is contradictory. That is about as picture perfect an example of contradiction as one can have.

I think the Pope’s comments clearly explain the teaching, but the teaching is clearly contradictory. Unless there are two Jesus’s or a divided Jesus, there’s no way to maintain this claim.

 

[maurin]

The problem with this rendering is that it is not entirely true to the teaching. Jesus is one person, and any thing we say about him, applies to the whole of him.

So it is just as true to say “Jesus, without qualification, is unlimited. [Since he is wholly God]. And Jesus, without qualification, is limited. [Since he is wholly man].”

To divide the teaching as you do in order to avoid a contradiction implies a division in the personhood of Jesus that the teaching does not support. You cannot say something about Jesus and have it be true for the man, but not true for the God (at least, according to principle that Jesus is wholly God.)

To make myself more clear: I am relying strictly on an analysis of the language. The claim I am making is that you cannot elaborate the trinity without affirming and negating a range of different terms at the same time.

Hello pro_universal,

I realize it is virtually impossible to have 2 conversations at the same time, we all only having human natures and all ( ), but I was wondering if you were going to address any of the questions I had above (8 and 9 posts above)?

thank you,

m

 

[mercygate]

Coffee break!
pro_universal, maurin Verbum Caro mercygate

Ths is one of the best threads I have ever followed. I especially appreciated the citations from Leo the Great, since he literally wrote the book on this dogma and was responsible for calling the Council of Chalcedon that confirmed it.

OK. You can go back to work now.

 

[maurin]

Mercygate,
Catholic philosophy was a big part of my life…that’s mostly what I studied in college. I used to leave the trinity to mystery for myself, but I’m not comfortable with that anymore.

pro_universal,

forgive me for the diversion, but I wanted to ask you if you realize that with your statement you are implying to an extent, as did the Gnostics, that ‘knowledge’ is the way to God? That through philosophy alone you will know God, His Mind, His Intentions?

 

[maurin]

So to say “from one element he can die” and “from another element he cannot die” is to acknowledge that the composition of these elements into one is contradictory. That is about as picture perfect an example of contradiction as one can have.

I think the Pope’s comments clearly explain the teaching, but the teaching is clearly contradictory. Unless there are two Jesus’s or a divided Jesus, there’s no way to maintain this claim.

pro_universal,

I conclude from these statements that you do not believe that we have eternal life, because from one element we die (or bodies), and from another element we live on (our souls).

 

[Verbum_Caro]

This distinction doesn’t really address the challenge, because, being united, the two “whats” in this example always act as one “who”. Jesus is one person; what happens to him happens to the whole of him. And the whole of him includes God.

Yes, that is right, and that is what I meant when I said that what is done to Christ is done to His Person, and When Christ acts it is His Person that acts. However, Christ acts WITH or IN a nature.

Pro, this is the distinction between person and nature that is the basis of the dogma of the Hypostatic Union. The distinction describe us as well: I am a person who acts, but when I act I act in accordance with my human nature, which has certain powers. Christ had two natures with which to act. The Church is clear on this point.

The shift to persons is confusing here.

But necessary for accuracy.

The Father is a person of the trinity; does he have a mother?

No.

I’m not sure what the point is you’re trying to make about persons with this

I said that mothers are mothers of persons, not that ALL persons have mothers. (The Frist and Third Divine Persons do not have mothers.) Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity does have a mother. Why? Because He has a human nature, given to Him by His mother, but since mothers are mothers of persons, not natures, it is proper to say that Mary is the Mother of Christ in His Human Nature. Mary is the mother of The Second Person, the Eternal Word, in respect to His Human Nature. Mary is the Mother of God, with respect to His Human nature.

, but certainly, you are not claiming that the person of Jesus is divisible such that something may be said of God that cannot be said of Jesus.

No, again something can be said of Christ’s human nature that can not be said of Christ’s Divine nature. But it is One Person who posesses both natures. This is not “dividing” Christ, (it is the hypostatic union after all) it is simply recgnizing the distinction which is the whole meat of the Dogma.

To say such a thing would mean that there is a part of Jesus which is not God.

There is part of Jesus (His human nature) which is not His Divine Nature. But His Human nature is posessed by God (the Second Person of the Trinity).

I think the Pope’s comments clearly explain the teaching, but the teaching is clearly contradictory. Unless there are two Jesus’s or a divided Jesus, there’s no way to maintain this claim.

Or unless there is One Divine Person with two distinct natures. This is the Dogma of the Incarnation.

Pro, do you accept that there is a distinction between person and nature? If not, perhaps we should discuss that.

Again, my sole purpose in this discussion is NOT to defend the Hypostatic Union. I only wish to counter your contention that the Hpostatic Union can be legitimately rejected on the basis of a violation of the principle of Non-Contradiction. Do you understand? If there are two aspects of Christ a human and Divine nature, as the Dogma asserts, then there is no violation of the Principle. The “internal” logic is valid. Perhaps you can reject the premises (that there was no incarnation, no hypostatic union) but then you reject the Dogma on other grounds, not because it violates the Principle of Non-Contradiction.

Christ is both God and Man, at the same time, but in different respects. There is no violation of the Principle of Non-Contradiction at least.

God Bless,
VC

 

[pro_universal]

Because I am short on time, I cannot respond in full right now, but I’d like to get an answer from you so that I can better respond later:

What does it mean for the two natures to be united? I recognize the distinction between person and nature, but the problem is that the two natures are united in the one person. In what sense can we honestly say that Jesus the person is wholly God, if something happens to him that doesn’t happen to God?

Likewise, in what sense can we say Jesus is wholly human, if his humanity is merely “possessed” by a distinct God nature, who acts independent of the human nature?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Pro, I’m glad we can continue our discussion, and I await your response. I will attempt to address your latest post.
"pro_universal:

What does it mean for the two natures to be united?

That is a question about how the Dogma of the Hypostatic Union plays out. But I think that this is a discussion for a later time (or a different thread), because we are only discussing how the formulation of the dogma of the Hypostatic Union does not violate the princple of Non-contradiction as it is universally known.

pro_universal:

I recognize the distinction between person and nature, but the problem is that the two natures are united in the one person.

That could be a problem for sure – for instance it might make no sense. Or it might not have ever happened. Or it might not be possible. Or any other number of reasons (which can be discussed). But the problem ISN’T that it violates the principle of non-contradiction. Look at your language – “two natures are united in one person” – which is the correct formulation of the dogma of Hypostatic Union. . . there is nothing in that that violates the principle (“Something cannot be both X and not-X at the same time in the same respect.”). What is it that is both X and not-X?

If, for instance the dogma stated that Christ is both a Divine person and not a Divine person at the same time (and in the same resepct, here we speak ontologically). . . that would be a violation of the Principle. But the dogma states that Christ is one Divine Person, who possesses two natures, a Divine Nature (eternally begotten) and a human nature (assumed at the Incarnation).

Or if the dogma stated that Christ’s one nature is both Divine and Not-Divine at the same time (again, in the same respect, here we speak of the ontological quality of one nature) that would clearly be a violation of the Principle.

But since the dogma states that Christ, the one Divine Person, has two distinct natures, there is no violation at least of the Principle of Non-Contradiction.

pro_universal:

In what sense can we honestly say that Jesus the person is wholly God, if something happens to him that doesn’t happen to God?

Again, that question goes to the implications of the dogma of the Hypostatic Union. My project in the present discussion is only to address how the formulation of the dogma does not violate the Principle of Non-Contradiction. This is a very limited project on my part. So I tend to not want to delve into this question. . .

but, with that said:

pro_universal:

In what sense can we honestly say that Jesus the person is wholly God, if something happens to him that doesn’t happen to God?

Nothing happens to Him that doesn’t happen to Him. Or by “God” do you mean the Divine Nature? You said that you distinguish between persons and natures, and you must do so in that sentence. Nothing happens to Him (Person) that doesn’t happen to God (Person),since He IS God. But things can happen to Him (Person) that doesn’t happen to his nature (or at least one of His natures).

pro_universal:

Likewise, in what sense can we say Jesus is wholly human, if his humanity is merely “possessed” by a distinct God nature, who acts independent of the human nature?

Again, strictly speaking I don’t think this addresses the limited issue of the Principle of Non-Contradiction. But, with that said. . . .

Likewise, in what sense can we say Jesus is wholly human, if his humanity is merely “possessed” by a distinct God nature, who acts independent of the human nature?

That is a mistatement of the Dogma. Christ, a divine Person possesses two natures: Divine and human. A “God nature” cannot possess a nature. Natures don’t have other natures, a nature IS a nature. Christ, the person, possesses a human nature, just as I, the person, possess a human nature. What’s wrong with that?

Thank you for such an interesting discussion!
God bless you,
VC

 

[pro_universal]

because we are only discussing how the formulation of the dogma of the Hypostatic Union does not violate the princple of Non-contradiction as it is universally known.

If you cannot define the term “unite” in a way that makes the formulation coherent, it’s inconsistent. Leaving it off of the table simply gives us a vague formulation where “unite” either means:

“Separate so that separate incidents can affect one nature or the other independently”

or

“bound together so that there is no division between the two.”

Since God has no divisions, I go with number 2. And that gives you contradiction again.

But the problem ISN’T that it violates the principle of non-contradiction. Look at your language – “two natures are united in one person” – which is the correct formulation of the dogma of Hypostatic Union. .

It is a contradiction still, because the properties of each nature apply wholly to the person.

Jesus is one person. Each of his natures wholly defines his person. So Jesus the person will always, in any formulation of this union, be a contradiction, since this one person is at the same time unlimited and limited.

Jesus the person is not distinct from his two natures.

If, for instance the dogma stated that Christ is both a Divine person and not a Divine person at the same time (and in the same resepct, here we speak ontologically). . .

It does state that. It’s necessasry to the premises, regardless of whether we are willing to list all of the premises of the teaching.

But since the dogma states that Christ, the one Divine Person, has two distinct natures, there is no violation at least of the Principle of Non-Contradiction.

The fact that dogma states something with two different terms does not automatically remove any possibility of contradiction. If you can define the terms, you can search for contradictions. My contention is that defining these two natures in any way that is true to the teaching will give you a contradiction. If we aren’t allowed to define the terms, then they have no meaning as expressions of language.

You said that you distinguish between persons and natures, and you must do so in that sentence.

We do. The teaching isn’t that Jesus has two natures that apply differently in his person; each nature is wholly the person of Jesus. That gets us back to square one.

Nothing happens to Him (Person) that doesn’t happen to God (Person),since He IS God. But things can happen to Him (Person) that doesn’t happen to his nature (or at least one of His natures).

Again, if something can happen to the Person without happening to one of the natures, there is no logically possible way to claim that the nature is wholly Jesus. There must be some part of Jesus which is not of that nature, and if that’s true, then Jesus is either not wholly divine, or not wholly human.

That is a mistatement of the Dogma. Christ, a divine Person possesses two natures: Divine and human. A “God nature” cannot possess a nature. Natures don’t have other natures, a nature IS a nature. Christ, the person, possesses a human nature, just as I, the person, possess a human nature. What’s wrong with that?

A God nature is identical to God. You cannot separate God’s nature from God himself; otherwise, God would be limited by the division of his parts. The term “unlimited God” is all you need to draw that conclusion, and it’s well settled in Catholic theology that this is in fact the case. God is God’s mercy, God is God’s justice, and God is God’s nature.

There’s nothing wrong with Christ possessing a nature. But the label “person” refers to a being which is wholly both natures. There is not a “person” of Christ that is not his natures. So drawing out “person” as if you may separate it from the natures really does not serve the function you’d like for it to serve.

Again, this all goes back linguistically to the principle of noncontradiction. At the end of the day, any construal of the “two natures” in “one person, undivided” will lead to the conclusion that:

Jesus the person is unlimited and

Jesus the person is limited.

Neither of those statements must be qualified based on the terms of the dogma; if they were to be qualified, Jesus would not be wholly either limited or unlimited, and hence would be a divided God.

 

[Pani_Rose]

On the Anathamas

64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:nIhUeX0mUJ0J:www.cired.org/east/0306_lifting_anathema.pdf+chrysostom+on+hypostatic+union&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=10

This reminds me of your question about this person.

In the Eastern Churches, still today, the anathamas are sung on the Sunday of Orthodoxy.

 

[maurin]

If you cannot define the term “unite” in a way that makes the formulation coherent, it’s inconsistent. Leaving it off of the table simply gives us a vague formulation where “unite” either means:

“Separate so that separate incidents can affect one nature or the other independently”

or

“bound together so that there is no division between the two.”

Since God has no divisions, I go with number 2. And that gives you contradiction again.

It is a contradiction still, because the properties of each nature apply wholly to the person.

Jesus is one person. Each of his natures wholly defines his person. So Jesus the person will always, in any formulation of this union, be a contradiction, since this one person is at the same time unlimited and limited.

Jesus the person is not distinct from his two natures.

It does state that. It’s necessasry to the premises, regardless of whether we are willing to list all of the premises of the teaching.

The fact that dogma states something with two different terms does not automatically remove any possibility of contradiction. If you can define the terms, you can search for contradictions. My contention is that defining these two natures in any way that is true to the teaching will give you a contradiction. If we aren’t allowed to define the terms, then they have no meaning as expressions of language.

We do. The teaching isn’t that Jesus has two natures that apply differently in his person; each nature is wholly the person of Jesus. That gets us back to square one.

Again, if something can happen to the Person without happening to one of the natures, there is no logically possible way to claim that the nature is wholly Jesus. There must be some part of Jesus which is not of that nature, and if that’s true, then Jesus is either not wholly divine, or not wholly human.

A God nature is identical to God. You cannot separate God’s nature from God himself; otherwise, God would be limited by the division of his parts. The term “unlimited God” is all you need to draw that conclusion, and it’s well settled in Catholic theology that this is in fact the case. God is God’s mercy, God is God’s justice, and God is God’s nature.

There’s nothing wrong with Christ possessing a nature. But the label “person” refers to a being which is wholly both natures. There is not a “person” of Christ that is not his natures. So drawing out “person” as if you may separate it from the natures really does not serve the function you’d like for it to serve.

Again, this all goes back linguistically to the principle of noncontradiction. At the end of the day, any construal of the “two natures” in “one person, undivided” will lead to the conclusion that:

Jesus the person is unlimited and

Jesus the person is limited.

Neither of those statements must be qualified based on the terms of the dogma; if they were to be qualified, Jesus would not be wholly either limited or unlimited, and hence would be a divided God.

pro_universal,

You are not taking into account my arguments. I can only conclude that either:

you think my arguments have no merit
or
you can’t answer them.

So, feeling ignored, sad, lonely and very cranky ( ), I leave you with the words of yesterday’s Gospel: “You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”

 

[john_doran]

Jesus is one person. Each of his natures wholly defines his person.

this is not right, and is the source of your problem…

jesus’ human nature is limited; jesus’ divine nature is unlimited. jesus the person is unlimited.

jesus is not defined by each of his natures, but by ***both ***of them; his personality is conjunctive, not disjunctive.

a person is simply not his nature: a person has a(t least) one nature. but unless you can demonstrate (rather than assume) that a person cannot have two natures, then simply to identify personality with nature is to beg the question.

i’m not sure how you propose to do it, though, since it seems rather self-evidently true that, for example, the person of john doran is not identical with “humanness”, just as this particular square i draw is not the same thing as “squareness”.