Jesus really didn't suffer

[Bahman]

I meant that Jesus could suffer in His Humanity because He has two natures. The Divine Nature can suffer no diminution, whereas the Humanity of Jesus, like ours, is passible.

Your answer didn’t really help because you didn’t provide a solid answer to whether he as a person could suffer or not.

 

[John_Martin]

Your answer didn’t really help because you didn’t provide a solid answer to whether he as a person could suffer or not.

Anything material is necessarily suffering, “changing in time”, which is “suffering”.
If a body grows from a child’s to a man’s body, it is suffering change, growth, to its perfection of adult form, in time.

Suffering is the fact of material being. If you are saying Jesus did not suffer, then he would have had no material being, but would have been only an apparition, appearing in a single state at a single appearing age, not eating, not needing sleep, etc.

But we have historical accounts of his conception, being in his mother’s womb, birth, circumcision, growth, baptism, - all material changes to him, all material actions done to him, all change in his material being, and changes within his soul through this material apprehension called “learning”. That is “suffering”. He suffered material being and suffered in his material being as “human”.

This is the common understanding of “to suffer”: to undergo change.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I can accept a premise for sake of argument to find our whether there is a contradiction or not. Couldn’t I?

Absolutely. . :yup:

But it also appears that you can reject selective premises for the sake of argument too - doesn’t it ? . . . and this, it would appear,* solely* for the sake of argument- - recklessly disregarding whom you might offend along the way. My remark concerns exactly the same premise - one premise: which you are simultaneously rejecting and accepting. That isn’t as much ironic as it is odd.

It would be quite easy to dismantle your arguments because they lack what St. Thomas Aquinas referred to as common sense. Judging from what I’ve seen , the proposition is always an attack on God - someone you clearly have no knowledge of.

• In your mind, you have this tiny notion of God who appears to be some sort of un-unfeeling desensitized robot.
• You can’t even define suffering.
• You cannot tell where the threshold of a parent’s concern for a child might turn to grief for the child - which then might be termed “suffering.”
• You would claim, despite the nails, the crown of thorns, and His death, that Christ *did not suffer *on the Cross , yet you are not even able to discern with any certainty even whether the person closest to you is suffering , because suffering is 100% subjective.

Where is the common sense in any of that ?

It has been a big waste of time reading your threads - they offend the faith of too many members here and in my opinion, they barely scrape in under the wire as far as decorum is concerned.There is nothing clever in that. I’m much better off spending my time praying for you and for everybody else.

Unsubscribe

 

[Bahman]

Anything material is necessarily suffering, “changing in time”, which is “suffering”.
If a body grows from a child’s to a man’s body, it is suffering change, growth, to its perfection of adult form, in time.

Suffering is the fact of material being. If you are saying Jesus did not suffer, then he would have had no material being, but would have been only an apparition, appearing in a single state at a single appearing age, not eating, not needing sleep, etc.

But we have historical accounts of his conception, being in his mother’s womb, birth, circumcision, growth, baptism, - all material changes to him, all material actions done to him, all change in his material being, and changes within his soul through this material apprehension called “learning”. That is “suffering”. He suffered material being and suffered in his material being as “human”.

This is the common understanding of “to suffer”: to undergo change.

I think it is matter what nature you have rather than if you are made of matter. God could incarnate as a being with superman nature, who does not suffer. Instead he choose to incarnate as a being with human nature who could suffer. The problem however is that Jesus has divine nature which is beyond superman nature. So a simple question come to mind whether he could suffer or not.

 

[Bahman]

Absolutely. . :yup:

Thank you.

But it also appears that you can reject selective premises for the sake of argument too - doesn’t it ? . . . and this, it would appear,* solely* for the sake of argument- - recklessly disregarding whom you might offend along the way. My remark concerns exactly the same premise - one premise: which you are simultaneously rejecting and accepting. That isn’t as much ironic as it is odd.

That is allowed when you have different matter in two different threads. Moreover I don’t think questioning a faith is equal to offending it. Here is a place for asking question since Catholic members can answer that.

It would be quite easy to dismantle your arguments because they lack what St. Thomas Aquinas referred to as common sense. Judging from what I’ve seen , the proposition is always an attack on God - someone you clearly have no knowledge of.

Well, you don’t have an answer for the question which I raised in this thread. It is a dilemma that you cannot resolve it. The question is very simple, how Jesus could have two natures which are mutually exclusive, namely human and divine nature. What was your answer? None. Let me tell you what, I would easily drop my faith if I find a single hole within because a faith given by God must be 100% correct.

In your mind, you have this tiny notion of God who appears to be some sort of un-unfeeling desensitized robot.

That is not true.

You can’t even define suffering.

That is not true either.

You cannot tell where the threshold of a parent’s concern for a child might turn to grief for the child - which then might be termed “suffering.”

That doesn’t apply to me.

You would claim, despite the nails, the crown of thorns, and His death, that Christ *did not suffer *on the Cross , yet you are not even able to discern with any certainty even whether the person closest to you is suffering , because suffering is 100% subjective.

My question still stands and you have no answer for that. How a person with divine nature could possibly suffer? Your answer mostly was that Jesus has human nature too which didn’t really help since one cannot possibly have two conflicting natures.

Where is the common sense in any of that ?

My question was very simple. You don’t question your faith hence you cannot find the problem within. That is not my fault.

It has been a big waste of time reading your threads - they offend the faith of too many members here and in my opinion, they barely scrape in under the wire as far as decorum is concerned.

You really don’t like to find an answer for the question I raised. This should be very important for you because your whole life is affected by your faith.

There is nothing clever in that. I’m much better off spending my time praying for you and for everybody else.

Unsubscribe

Thank you for your time to pray for me.

 

[owr39]

What evidence of his birth? Please cite the evidence.

You can ask that same question for several historical figures.

 

[GEddie]

Death is death, How it could possibly grant anything?

Death is a total loss to those who undergo it and to those immediately tied to them. But it can be a “grant” of a kind to others, for example, when someone faces execution in another’s place.

ICXC NIKA

 

[John_Martin]

I think it is matter what nature you have rather than if you are made of matter. God could incarnate as a being with superman nature, who does not suffer. Instead he choose to incarnate as a being with human nature who could suffer. The problem however is that Jesus has divine nature which is beyond superman nature. So a simple question come to mind whether he could suffer or not.

The question comes to your mind because you ignore the whole sentence that was revealed to you.
Jesus has BOTH a Human Nature, and a Divine Nature; one Person with two natures. Why do you ignore the human nature part You are simply trying to re-assert the error of Monophysitism, yet not really using any arguments that would support this. Or, even more probably your intent is to repeat the errors of Docetism and the Gnostic-Docets.

A human nature suffers and is capable of suffering; a divine nature is in Act so it cannot suffer, but rather operates as a mover of all things (a “cause” of the suffering, first and final cause of the “movement”, of all things not divine).

So, Jesus suffered all in his human nature (in his Body and Soul), and suffered nothing in his divine nature.

 

[Micosil]

What did GOD do? He, as God, in the form of His Son, truly God became truly God incarnate as a Man, to pay our debt for us.

Be careful with the language here. That kind of sounds like modalism (Sabellianism/Patripassianism).

 

[dshix]

Well, you don’t have an answer for the question which I raised in this thread. It is a dilemma that you cannot resolve it. The question is very simple, how Jesus could have two natures which are mutually exclusive, namely human and divine nature. What was your answer? None. Let me tell you what, I would easily drop my faith if I find a single hole within because a faith given by God must be 100% correct.

Actually there is an answer to that question.

First, divine and human natures are not “mutually exclusive”, as you say. You’ll have to prove that.

Second: God, since He is omnipotent, can accomplish things which we would ordinarily consider impossible, such as raising up human nature unto Himself. Jesus was divine before His incarnation, and he “took on” a human nature. That is the Catholic teaching, and if one has a proper understanding of Catholic theology, it makes sense.

However, there is one caveat: the Incarnation is also a mystery of the Church. It is not fully explainable or refutable by human reason. Therefore, you, Bahman, will never be able to understand the Catholic perspective on the Incarnation unless you have some faith in the Church’s teaching.

To have that, you need to start way lower than by tussling with the Church’s greatest mysteries.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Then why he didn’t mentioned that he is a man instead he said that he is God?

Why would he state the obvious?

 

[MaryHelp777]

Then why he didn’t mentioned that he is a man instead he said that he is God?

Jesus referred to Himself throughout the Bible, as"The Son of Man," (human)

He revealed in a parable of the bad tenants, the He was the Son of God,
The Father revealed to St Peter that Jesus was the Son of God, Jesus told Peter, “Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah, for God The Father has revealed this to you.”

 

[Bahman]

The question comes to your mind because you ignore the whole sentence that was revealed to you.
Jesus has BOTH a Human Nature, and a Divine Nature; one Person with two natures. Why do you ignore the human nature part You are simply trying to re-assert the error of Monophysitism, yet not really using any arguments that would support this. Or, even more probably your intent is to repeat the errors of Docetism and the Gnostic-Docets.

A human nature suffers and is capable of suffering; a divine nature is in Act so it cannot suffer, but rather operates as a mover of all things (a “cause” of the suffering, first and final cause of the “movement”, of all things not divine).

So, Jesus suffered all in his human nature (in his Body and Soul), and suffered nothing in his divine nature.

This is like saying that Jesus does suffer and does suffer not at the same time. You cannot have a person with two mutually exclusive natures.

 

[Bahman]

Actually there is an answer to that question.

First, divine and human natures are not “mutually exclusive”, as you say. You’ll have to prove that.

Jesus cannot be in a state which does suffer and does suffer not at the same time. He cannot be in a state which is changeless and changeless at the same time.

Second: God, since He is omnipotent, can accomplish things which we would ordinarily consider impossible, such as raising up human nature unto Himself. Jesus was divine before His incarnation, and he “took on” a human nature. That is the Catholic teaching, and if one has a proper understanding of Catholic theology, it makes sense.

However, there is one caveat: the Incarnation is also a mystery of the Church. It is not fully explainable or refutable by human reason. Therefore, you, Bahman, will never be able to understand the Catholic perspective on the Incarnation unless you have some faith in the Church’s teaching.

To have that, you need to start way lower than by tussling with the Church’s greatest mysteries.

Why I should have a Catholic faith in order to understand you while we can use logic to comprehend each other?

 

[Bahman]

Why would he state the obvious?

Because otherwise that is then duty of theologian, who could have error in their understanding, to understand him.

 

[John_Martin]

This is like saying that Jesus does suffer and does suffer not at the same time. You cannot have a person with two mutually exclusive natures.

True; he suffered and did not suffer at the same time - now you have said it correctly! Well said!.
My knowledge of two natures in one person is Jesus, our King, who lived, suffered, died, rose again, and is ascended into heaven. I believe the eyewitnesses, therefore your denial does not hold any sway in the matter for me.

 

[dshix]

Jesus cannot be in a state which does suffer and does suffer not at the same time. He cannot be in a state which is changeless and changeless at the same time.

That’s the missing link for you. You misunderstand that is IS possible for the second person of the Trinity to take on two natures at the same time. That is part of our Catholic Doctrine, and if you want a full explanation of the Catholic understanding, I suggest you read Aquinas.

Why I should have a Catholic faith in order to understand you while we can use logic to comprehend each other?

We can use logic to understand each other in many things. We cannot use logic (human reason), however, to attain something which is unattainable by human logic, such as spiritual mysteries. Therefore, I suggest you tackle Catholic Doctrines which are, in fact, within the realm of human reason alone, otherwise you’ll just be frustrated by being unable to comprehend spiritual mysteries.

 

[MaryHelp777]

Bahman,
You have a soul do you not?

When your body suffers your soul is unharmed,

Why? Because your body is flesh and your soul is spirit.

Same with Jesus, his body is flesh, his soul is spirit along with His divinity which is also Spirit.

You feel pain in the body, not in the soul.

Jesus felt pain in the body, while His divinity/ soul were unharmed.

 

[MaryHelp777]

Bahman,
Question for you:

Can our infinite God do anything?

He rose from the dead,

Raised the dead,
Healed the sick,
Opened the closed gates of Heaven,
Cast out demons,
Walked on water,
Created the Universe at just His words,

“The Word, was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us.” (as the Bible says)

 

[Bahman]

True; he suffered and did not suffer at the same time - now you have said it correctly! Well said!.
My knowledge of two natures in one person is Jesus, our King, who lived, suffered, died, rose again, and is ascended into heaven. I believe the eyewitnesses, therefore your denial does not hold any sway in the matter for me.

So you believe on something which is logically impossible.