Hypostatic Union

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montie_Claunch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Montie_Claunch

Guest
I am sorry if I misspelled it. But I was wondering if ya’ll could help me with something. My aunt holds that two contradictions can both be true as seen here and she uses the example of Jesus being Complete God and Complete Man, as sort of like being two diffrent speicies (i.e. Curious George is a Monkey. Curious George is a Elephant. Well he can’t be both he has to be one or the other). How would I properly discuss the Hypostatic Union of Christs natures here to show they are not contradiciton? Thanks and God bless.
 
I am sorry if I misspelled it. But I was wondering if ya’ll could help me with something. My aunt holds that two contradictions can both be true as seen here and she uses the example of Jesus being Complete God and Complete Man, as sort of like being two diffrent speicies (i.e. Curious George is a Monkey. Curious George is a Elephant. Well he can’t be both he has to be one or the other). How would I properly discuss the Hypostatic Union of Christs natures here to show they are not contradiciton? Thanks and God bless.
There was a show on EWTN the other day where the brother gave the children a candy. It was like a candy cane with red and white stripes, yet it was “a candy cane”. The red stripes is the Divine Nature and the white stripes are the human nature- intertwined to make this one “person”.

Jesus Christ is a person. He has two natures, a human nature and a divine nature that are combined. That is why we can see in Scripture Jesus showing both human and divine attributes.

Hope this analogy helps!

Ken
 
Would it be to much to ask if someone could give a clear definition of Nature as pretanded to a “Human Nature” and a “Divine Nature” (for my own benifiet) which should help with the discusion? Thanks and God bless.
 
NATURE-

In an individual being, especially if its constitutive elements and its activities are manifold and complex, the term nature is sometimes applied to the collection of distinctive features, original or acquired, by which such an individual is characterized and distinguished from others. Thus it may be said it is the nature of one man to be taller, stronger, more intelligent, or more sociable than another. This meaning, however, is superficial; in philosophical terminology and even in ordinary language, nature refers to something deeper and more fundamental. These features are manifestations of a man’s nature; they are not his nature. Nature properly signifies that which is primitive and original, or, according to etymology, that which a thing is at birth, as opposed to that which is acquired or added from external sources. But the line that divides the natural from the artificial cannot be drawn with precision. Inorganic beings never change except under the influence of external agencies, and in the same circumstances, their mode of activity is uniform and constant. Organisms present a greater complexity of structure, power of adaptation, and variety of function. For their development out of a primitive germ they require the co-operation of many external factors, yet they have within themselves the principle of activity by which external substances are elaborated and assimilated. In any being the changes due to necessary causes are called natural, whereas those produced by intentional human activity are called artificial. But it is clear that art supposes nature and is but a special adaptation of natural aptitudes, capacities, or activities for certain esthetic or useful purposes. Stars, rivers, forests, are works of nature; parks, canals, gardens, and machines are works of art. If necessary conditions are realized, where the seed falls a plant will grow naturally. But the seed may be placed purposely amid certain surroundings, the growth of the plant may be hastened, its shape altered, and, in general, the result to be expected from natural activities may be modified. By training the aptitudes of an animal are utilized and its instincts adapted for specific ends. In such cases the final result is more or less natural or artificial according to the mode and amount of human intervention.

(More at the link below)
newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm
 
Ias sort of like being two diffrent speicies (i.e. Curious George is a Monkey. Curious George is a Elephant. Well he can’t be both he has to be one or the other).
There is no contradiction because human nature and divine nature have nothing in common (unlike monkeys and elephants).

It’s like me saying I’m both male and Catholic. There is no reason why I cannot be 100% male and 100% Catholic, because those two things have no traits in common (so there are no traits which can be in conflict).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top