Is Christ being fully God and fully man a contradiction?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Sinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Ben_Sinner

Guest
Isn’t that like saying he is fully God and not fully God at the same time? It’s kind of like saying he is true and false at the same time?

If he is “fully” one, then that would mean that’s the only thing he can be right?
 
And an infinite being can squeeze Himself into the fullness of another being.

ICXC NIKA
 
Putting it the way you do is a bit misleading. Jesus is a divine Person of the Trinity. In that way he is divine. This Person was incarnate in the flesh and soul of a man.
The way you put it is a bit ambiguous. God is immaterial, and so to say he is fully God may seem to imply an entirely immaterial being. But rather he is an immaterial and eternal Person who took on flesh by an act of God.
 
Ditto. I’m fully a brother, fully an uncle, and fully a human being. No contradiction there.
 
The is something called the Hypostatic Union, in which Jesus’s God nature and his human nature are united as one person. Therefore, he is fully God and full man. His God nature is distinct from his human nature and his human nature distinct from his God nature, but they are both united in one single person.
 
While remaining what he was, he assumed what he wasn’t, thus being true God and true man
 
Ben_Sinner said:
Isn’t that like saying he is fully God and not fully God at the same time? It’s kind of like saying he is true and false at the same time?

If he is “fully” one, then that would mean that’s the only thing he can be right?
Click to expand...
Yes, that is why the more correct term to use is that he is truly God and truly man. However, you have to cut people some slack. Think of it as them saying that he is really God and really man.
 
It’s one of the greatest mysteries of our faith. Ever wonder why, exactly, we bow during the Nicene Creed when we profess, “By the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the virgin Mary and became man.”?
The example given of being a husband, father and deacon isn’t really valid at all. None of them has limitations that would seem to obviate being any of the other. For example, most husbands are fathers. A few fathers who are husbands also end up becoming Deacons. There is nothing contradictory about that. Being fully man and fully God, however is very different. Being fully man has INHERENT LIMITATIONS THAT DO NOT APPLY TO GOD. For example, being fully human means that you do not and cannot be omniscient. God, however, is - and must be - omniscient. How can we reconcile being omniscient (Divine) with not being omniscient (human)? Being human, we can’t! Ultimately we cannot fully understand how it remains true that Christ was both fully man and fully God, but we only know this because it is a revealed truth of the Church.
 
Yes, that is why the more correct term to use is that he is truly god and truly man. However, you have to cut people some slack. Think of it as them saying that he is really god and really man.
iii. True god and true man
Click to expand...
464 the unique and altogether singular event of the incarnation of the son of god does not mean that jesus christ is part god and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly god. Jesus christ is true god and true man.
Click to expand...
During the first centuries, the church had to defend and clarify this truth of faith against the heresies that falsified it. (ccc 464)
Click to expand...
 
Philthy said:
It’s one of the greatest mysteries of our faith. Ever wonder why, exactly, we bow during the Nicene Creed when we profess, “By the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the virgin Mary and became man.”?
The example given of being a husband, father and deacon isn’t really valid at all. None of them has limitations that would seem to obviate being any of the other. For example, most husbands are fathers. A few fathers who are husbands also end up becoming Deacons. There is nothing contradictory about that. Being fully man and fully God, however is very different. Being fully man has INHERENT LIMITATIONS THAT DO NOT APPLY TO GOD. For example, being fully human means that you do not and cannot be omniscient. God, however, is - and must be - omniscient. How can we reconcile being omniscient (Divine) with not being omniscient (human)? Being human, we can’t! Ultimately we cannot fully understand how it remains true that Christ was both fully man and fully God, but we only know this because it is a revealed truth of the Church.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. This is what I was taught in Catholic grade schools. It is a mystery that as humans we cannot understand.

The example of husband, father and deacon is a good analogy of the Trinity. God is three persons, but one god. I don’t think it works for Jesus being human and God at the same time.
 
I don’t think the OP is asking about whether Jesus can be both man and God at the same time. He is questioning the logic of the syntax of saying something is fully one thing but fully something else at the same time. It is a question of syntax. Saying something is fully God and fully man is a logical contradiction, not a mystery. But, saying something is truly God and truly man is a mystery, but not a logical contradiction. I do not see the Church ever using the terms fully God and fully man in its official documents. It is always written as truly God and truly man. If someone is saying fully God and fully man any critic of the faith can point out that it is a logical contradiction. You can not have a glass that is full of water and full of oil at the same time. When this was pointed out to me I understood to make sure I always used truly God and truly man so as not to give the impression that Christianity is illogical.
 
That is not the same. Can you be fully a human and fully a dog at the same time? If you are fully human, or if you are 100% human, then you have no room to be anything else, because they are mutually exclusive possibilities. You could be half dog and half man, if that were possible, but you could not be all dog and any part man. And vice versa.

The Church teaches that Jesus is not part God and part man or some strange mixture of the two. Instead it teaches he is truly God and truly man. And so while it might seem good to say that he is then fully God and fully man, like the man dog example those are technically two mutually exclusive possibilities. Normally, I just overlook it when someone uses that syntax, but since the OP is specifically addressing this issue directly I thought I would point it out. I know people are still going to use it anyway.

The Church is just saying Jesus has 2 complete natures, a human and a divine nature. It is not saying that Jesus’ nature is 100% divine and 100% human at the same time. He has 2 separate natures to be sure. The divine nature does not become any less divine, nor does the human nature stop being human. They are joined together by the hypostatic union in one person.
 
Ben_Sinner said:
Isn’t that like saying he is fully God and not fully God at the same time? It’s kind of like saying he is true and false at the same time?

If he is “fully” one, then that would mean that’s the only thing he can be right?
Click to expand...
Tis a mystery. One being with two natures or essences. A 200% being. A stumbling block for the Greeks.
 
I believe he was more ‘God’ than man while here in human form…can a normal human bring someone back from the dead, can a human man cure people by touch alone, can a human part the waters of a sea…No human can do these things, but in order to fulfill the covenant, he had to be born into our world, as ‘one of us’, so to speak.

I suppose if he wanted to, instead of having the Holy spirit ‘impregnate’ Mary, he could have just made himself materialize as a person suddenly, but the manner in which he came was important in regards to faith.

This topic was being discussed recently in another thread where the OP was asking whether Jesus knew he was part of God as a child or if this is something he had to grow into and learn about…I believe as soon as Jesus was born (as a newborn baby), he had full knowledge of what he was and could have had complex discussions, ( I do not believe he was like a normal helpless baby), I believe he could speak, and probably walk/move, like any other person right away.
 
A mistake that is often made is people will try to isolate Jesus by confusing nature and person. You cannot say that Jesus is man if you intend human person. He is not “a man” and “a god” He is God the second person of the Trinity who in the incarnation assumed a human nature (truly man).
 
mikekle said:
This topic was being discussed recently in another thread where the OP was asking whether Jesus knew he was part of God as a child or if this is something he had to grow into and learn about…I believe as soon as Jesus was born (as a newborn baby), he had full knowledge of what he was and could have had complex discussions, ( I do not believe he was like a normal helpless baby), I believe he could speak, and probably walk/move, like any other person right away.
Click to expand...
Well said, I wish I would have seen that discussion. I find it funny how many people believe in Jesus presence in the Eucharist, and if Jesus desired it would have no difficulty manifesting His glory, yet they do not give the same credence to the incarnation.

I wonder if the same question was asked to Moses, but instead of phrasing it as if God knew He was God when He was a baby and child; it was turned around and asked if God knew He was God when He appeared as a burning bush? And yet that bush is nothing compared incarnation.
 
The Fathers surely knew what they were saying! Let’s look at the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451 which formulated the Chalcedonian Creed, from where we get the hypostatic union that you’re talking about. I may have skipped over some repetitive parts:
Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood…
Click to expand...
The Fathers have taught that Christ is a single Being. There are not two Christs, and the single Christ is exactly the same in being man and God at once. That’s a summary of the hypostatic union.
the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart…
Click to expand...
Christ has both a rational soul and body, just like we do. He is of the same essence as the Father, being God (see Council of Nicaea), and he is the same as us in all things (cf. Hebrews 4:5) save for the fact that He never did sin.
before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood…
Click to expand...
He is eternally begotten of God the Father, being God the Son, but eventually undertook a human nature for the sake of our salvation, being born of Mary. The next quotes are probably the most important parts, what the Fathers are trying to tell us overall.
acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably…
Click to expand...
These two natures are not “mixed up” and they remain distinct. One does not take over the other in any way. They are not some combination thereof (e.g., Apollinarianism, Monophysitism/Eutychianism, Monothelitism, Miaphysitism).
the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved…
Click to expand...
Both natures are distinct. We can tell that Christ is both human and divine, we don’t need to say that there is some “new nature” as some of the heresies I’ve listed above do.
and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but [the] One… Jesus Christ…
Click to expand...
The Lord Christ is one, singular. His two natures, divine and human, do not make Him a new Being. To say otherwise would be Nestorianism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top