Jesus could never die if he is eternal?

[ejp123]

Just wondering if anyone could clarify this for me, thx: “Christian scholars regard Jesus and God as inseparable, or Jesus is God; so God being eternal means Jesus could never die.”

 

[snarflemike]

You have to understand what it means to die. To die is not to cease to exist (even we human persons don’t cease to exist when we die). To die is to have the human soul separated from the human body. When God, in the divine person of Jesus Christ, took on a human soul and a human body, it then became possible for God, in the divine person of Jesus Christ, to die.

 

[dshix]

You have to understand what it means to die. To die is not to cease to exist (even we human persons don’t cease to exist when we die). To die is to have the human soul separated from the human body. When God, in the divine person of Jesus Christ, took on a human soul and a human body, it then became possible for God, in the divine person of Jesus Christ, to die.

^
Short, sweet, and accurate.

 

[cornbread_r2]

You have to understand what it means to die. To die is not to cease to exist (even we human persons don’t cease to exist when we die). To die is to have the human soul separated from the human body. When God, in the divine person of Jesus Christ, took on a human soul and a human body, it then became possible for God, in the divine person of Jesus Christ, to die.

Can you direct me to some source that claims that Jesus took on a human soul as well as a human body? To me, that would seem to be superfluous. In other words, if Jesus was already omnipotent, omniscient and the other omnis, by virtue of him being God, what would it benefit him to have a human soul too? That would seem to be gilding the lily, so to speak.

 

[dshix]

Can you direct me to some source that claims that Jesus took on a human soul as well as a human body? To me, that would seem to be superfluous. In other words, if Jesus was already omnipotent, omniscient and the other omnis, by virtue of him being God, what would it benefit him to have a human soul too? That would seem to be gilding the lily, so to speak.

If he did not take on a human soul he would not be a human. If he did not become a human, he would not have been able to redeem the human race.

Besides, why WOULDN’T he take on any soul he wished?

 

[Della]

Can you direct me to some source that claims that Jesus took on a human soul as well as a human body? To me, that would seem to be superfluous. In other words, if Jesus was already omnipotent, omniscient and the other omnis, by virtue of him being God, what would it benefit him to have a human soul too? That would seem to be gilding the lily, so to speak.

A living human being is one whose soul is still in his body. The word soul merely means that which animates. One cannot be alive without having a soul. If Jesus was truly human, he would need a human soul or he would not be human, but merely a facsimile–a dead body. This was all hammered out by the Council of Ephesus.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Can you direct me to some source that claims that Jesus took on a human soul as well as a human body? To me, that would seem to be superfluous. In other words, if Jesus was already omnipotent, omniscient and the other omnis, by virtue of him being God, what would it benefit him to have a human soul too? That would seem to be gilding the lily, so to speak.

It doesn’t so much benefit him (nothing can be added to God!), but it definitely benefits us. Because Jesus shared our humanity completely, we, through him, are able to participate in his divinity. This is part of the unfathomable love of God–that he would empty himself on our behalf (as Paul writes, taking the form of a slave) so that we could be filled with grace and life–so that we, through him, could share the life of God.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[jesuspsr]

You have to understand what it means to die. To die is not to cease to exist (even we human persons don’t cease to exist when we die). To die is to have the human soul separated from the human body. When God, in the divine person of Jesus Christ, took on a human soul and a human body, it then became possible for God, in the divine person of Jesus Christ, to die.

 

[snarflemike]

If he did not take on a human soul he would not be a human. If he did not become a human, he would not have been able to redeem the human race.

That’s it. Jesus was like us in all things but sin. Thus he had a human soul. If he had only a human body but not a human soul he would not have a human nature, would not have become man, but would only be God walking around in a man-suit. And thus he would have been a fraud.

 

[cornbread_r2]

A living human being is one whose soul is still in his body. The word soul merely means that which animates. One cannot be alive without having a soul. If Jesus was truly human, he would need a human soul or he would not be human, but merely a facsimile–a dead body. This was all hammered out by the Council of Ephesus.

Thanks for the Council of Ephesus reference.

That’s it. Jesus was like us in all things but sin. Thus he had a human soul. If he had only a human body but not a human soul he would not have a human nature, would not have become man, but would only be God walking around in a man-suit. And thus he would have been a fraud.

I really don’t want to be argumentative, but if Jesus didn’t have concupiscence, as I understand he didn’t, then I cannot see how he had a human nature. If it was impossible for him to sin, then he wasn’t 100% human, IMO.

 

[fredystairs]

I really don’t want to be argumentative, but if Jesus didn’t have concupiscence, as I understand he didn’t, then I cannot see how he had a human nature. If it was impossible for him to sin, then he wasn’t 100% human, IMO.

Before Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden, neither he nor Eve had concupiscence if I correctly understand how you are using the term. It is only after the Fall that they lost the orginal state of “integrity” where there was “the perfect subjection of the body to the soul and of the sense appetites to reason.” (The Christian Life, Francis L. B. Cunnigham, OP, page 191) Since Adam was the representative of the entire human race we all receive the fallen human nature where we do nto have the integrity mentioned above; this is through human generation. However, in the beginning, Adam and Eve had this integrity. If Adam and Eve had had children BEFORE the Fall, then those children would have this integrity. ALL of us, in our human nature would have had integrity; we would have had perfect balance and would not have concupiscence in the negative sense. Jesus, since he was not generated in the normal human way, was free from concupiscence. Thus he can have a human nature and not have concupiscence.

Not sure I fully answered your thought above and hope I havenm’t muddied the waters. I’d suggest that you get a copy of “The Christian Life” that I quoted above. I got the quote from the section on Orignal SIn. The section is quite extensive and detailed; It would not be possible to quote it fully here.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Before Adam sinned in the Garden of Eden, neither he nor Eve had concupiscence if I correctly understand how you are using the term. It is only after the Fall that they lost the orginal state of “integrity” where there was “the perfect subjection of the body to the soul and of the sense appetites to reason.” (The Christian Life, Francis L. B. Cunnigham, OP, page 191) Since Adam was the representative of the entire human race we all receive the fallen human nature where we do nto have the integrity mentioned above; this is through human generation. However, in the beginning, Adam and Eve had this integrity. If Adam and Eve had had children BEFORE the Fall, then those children would have this integrity. ALL of us, in our human nature would have had integrity; we would have had perfect balance and would not have concupiscence in the negative sense. Jesus, since he was not generated in the normal human way, was free from concupiscence. Thus he can have a human nature and not have concupiscence.

Not sure I fully answered your thought above and hope I havenm’t muddied the waters. I’d suggest that you get a copy of “The Christian Life” that I quoted above. I got the quote from the section on Orignal SIn. The section is quite extensive and detailed; It would not be possible to quote it fully here.

You seem to be describing two different human natures, one pre-fall and one post-fall. As I understand it, we have a post-fall human nature. If Jesus didn’t have the propensity to sin (concupiscence), then while one could still say he had a human nature of sorts, he didn’t have our human nature, IMO.

 

[fredystairs]

You seem to be describing two different human natures, one pre-fall and one post-fall. As I understand it, we have a post-fall human nature. If Jesus didn’t have the propensity to sin (concupiscence), then while one could still say he had a human nature of sorts, he didn’t have our human nature, IMO.

The integrity that I mention above, along with original justice and immortality is described by Cunningham as being supernatural and preternatural gifts added to our human nature. If I understand him correctly, the human nature is the same in both cases.

 

[snarflemike]

I really don’t want to be argumentative, but if Jesus didn’t have concupiscence, as I understand he didn’t, then I cannot see how he had a human nature. If it was impossible for him to sin, then he wasn’t 100% human, IMO.

Concupiscence is not a part of human nature. Adam and Eve did not suffer from it. It is a corruption, a distortion of human nature.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Concupiscence is not a part of human nature. Adam and Eve did not suffer from it. It is a corruption, a distortion of human nature.

OK then, forget concupiscence. If it was impossible for Jesus to sin – for whatever reason – then he wasn’t like us. And if Jesus never sinned, then he never despaired of sinning – with all of the attendant problems that that sometimes entails – which is another way he could never be like us.

 

[snarflemike]

OK then, forget concupiscence. If it was impossible for Jesus to sin – for whatever reason – then he wasn’t like us. And if Jesus never sinned, then he never despaired of sinning – with all of the attendant problems that that sometimes entails – which is another way he could never be like us.

Which brings us back to the scripture that he was like us in all things but sin. If he sinned he wouldn’t be God, so it wouldn’t have mattered then if he became incarnate or not.

 

[dshix]

cornbread_r2,

You are speaking as if concupiscence is part of what it is to be human. That is incorrect. Humanity was without sin before the fall, and then by Adam’s sin it was ADDED to the equation.

Therefore, it is not a contradiction for Jesus to have been fully human but without concupiscence, because concupiscence is not a vital part of being human.

__

To ask whether Jesus was “capable” of sin is actually the wrong question. That it like asking me if I am capable of disagreeing with myself. It doesn’t make sense, because for me to contradict my own opinion would require me to not be myself.

So it is with God. God is all things good, and for Him to sin would be to contradict Himself. It is irrelevant to ask if he COULD sin, because if He did so he would cease to be Himself!

 

[cornbread_r2]

cornbread_r2,

You are speaking as if concupiscence is part of what it is to be human. That is incorrect. Humanity was without sin before the fall, and then by Adam’s sin it was ADDED to the equation.

Therefore, it is not a contradiction for Jesus to have been fully human but without concupiscence, because concupiscence is not a vital part of being human.

As I understand it, except for Jesus, no human has ever been born without concupiscence. So even if you claim that concupiscence is a defect and wasn’t supposed to be part of human nature, you can’t claim that it isn’t – and hasn’t been – part of absolutely every human nature since the Fall.

It would seem then that the most that can be claimed is that Jesus had the same nature as pre-Fall Adam (though I even have some issues with that notion as well.)

To ask whether Jesus was “capable” of sin is actually the wrong question. That it like asking me if I am capable of disagreeing with myself. It doesn’t make sense, because for me to contradict my own opinion would require me to not be myself.

So it is with God. God is all things good, and for Him to sin would be to contradict Himself. It is irrelevant to ask if he COULD sin, because if He did so he would cease to be Himself!

If being incapable of sin is the nature of God and being prone to sin is the nature of post-Fall humans, then it seems an inescapable conclusion that Jesus and post-Fall humans don’t share the same natures.

I understand that, as a Catholic, you are required to believe that Jesus was 100% human or, in other words, just like us in every way except for sin. I certainly can’t speak for you, but when I consider how much time I’ve spent sinning or spent planning on sinning or spent repenting for sinning or spent wondering if I’ve sinned or not, that is a distinction with a huge difference. In view of all of that, IMO, Jesus couldn’t be any more different than me if he had 42 heads, 17 arms and Jello pouring out of his ears.

 

[snarflemike]

As I understand it, except for Jesus, no human has ever been born without concupiscence.

Mary was so born.

If being incapable of sin is the nature of God and being prone to sin is the nature of post-Fall humans, then it seems an inescapable conclusion that Jesus and post-Fall humans don’t share the same natures.

Yes, they do. A nature that has been corrupted is not a different nature, it is simply a nature that has been corrupted.

I understand that, as a Catholic, you are required to believe that Jesus was 100% human or, in other words, just like us in every way except for sin. I certainly can’t speak for you, but when I consider how much time I’ve spent sinning or spent planning on sinning or spent repenting for sinning or spent wondering if I’ve sinned or not, that is a distinction with a huge difference. In view of all of that, IMO, Jesus couldn’t be any more different than me if he had 42 heads, 17 arms and Jello pouring out of his ears.

It is really a problem to think that Jesus is just like us, for he is not. Perhaps it is better to think of Jesus as the perfect union of God and man.

 

[dshix]

As I understand it, except for Jesus, no human has ever been born without concupiscence. So even if you claim that concupiscence is a defect and wasn’t supposed to be part of human nature, you can’t claim that it isn’t – and hasn’t been – part of absolutely every human nature since the Fall.

It would seem then that the most that can be claimed is that Jesus had the same nature as pre-Fall Adam (though I even have some issues with that notion as well.)

Adam, Eve, Mary, and Jesus are the four people who were not born (or created, as the case may be) with concupiscence.

If being incapable of sin is the nature of God and being prone to sin is the nature of post-Fall humans, then it seems an inescapable conclusion that Jesus and post-Fall humans don’t share the same natures.

I just explained why that isn’t true. If you don’t understand, read it again.