Jesus really didn't suffer

[dshix]

My wording is not deceiving. We are talking about a union between two natures hence we have to use “and” instead of “or”.

We are talking about a person with two conflicting natures. So he suffer and suffer not.

No, it doesn’t make sense. We are talking about union of two conflicting natures.

You are incorrect.

This of this analogy: A nature is somewhat like an engine. It is the feature of a person which makes that person have the abilities and properties that he does, but is not that person himself.

Jesus’ natures could be likened to a car which was fitted with two different engines that could both engage with the car’s wheels and make it travel. These two engines can both run at the same time, giving the abilities/properties of both at the same time, or one at a time, or with varying degrees. (Jesus’ divine nature (engine) was never entirely turned off, but the saints speak of Him allowing his divine nature, and the power he had from it, to take a “backseat” during His times of suffering, so that he would suffer more.)

This analogy, like any other, is imperfect, but it does illustrate the fact that a nature is not something that is mutually exclusive of any other nature. Just because you have never see an example of it does not mean it is impossible, especially to a divine person.

 

[Wesrock]

You cannot possibly suffer and don’t suffer at the same time. You either suffer or do not suffer.

Jesus, as a person, did suffer. It was because he was human that he could do so. His divine nature was neither added to or subtracted to, though.

There is no suffering and not suffering at the same time. He suffered. It’s as simple as that. He was one person, with two natures. That one person suffered.

 

[Bahman]

Yes, Divine Nature is not Human Nature - they are infinitely “other” than each other.
But, A person is not a nature.

I didn’t say that a person is a nature.

A Person HAS a Nature - and in the case of Jesus, a Person HAS two Natures, NOT mixed together with each other (that would be impossible), but two natures in which He KNOWS who he is. Not mixed into a special hybrid single “human-divine nature”, not in any way mixed together like a solution of two liquids mixed together.
Really, Bahman, Jesus really does have two natures.

I didn’t say that nature are mixed.

But, I am curious, Bahman: if you were to consider for a moment that Jesus does have two natures, human and divine, what to you would that imply? What would it mean to the understanding of reality and the understanding of who you are if a person really had two natures?

Well, to me each nature is like a window which open a way to look at and act in a reality.

 

[Bahman]

You are incorrect.

This of this analogy: A nature is somewhat like an engine. It is the feature of a person which makes that person have the abilities and properties that he does, but is not that person himself.

I didn’t say that a nature is a person.

Jesus’ natures could be likened to a car which was fitted with two different engines that could both engage with the car’s wheels and make it travel. These two engines can both run at the same time, giving the abilities/properties of both at the same time, or one at a time, or with varying degrees. (Jesus’ divine nature (engine) was never entirely turned off, but the saints speak of Him allowing his divine nature, and the power he had from it, to take a “backseat” during His times of suffering, so that he would suffer more.)

Lets accept your analogy for a moment. Having two nature is like having two engines. In the case of suffering, each engine move the car in different direction which make the car non-functional.

This analogy, like any other, is imperfect, but it does illustrate the fact that a nature is not something that is mutually exclusive of any other nature. Just because you have never see an example of it does not mean it is impossible, especially to a divine person.

A person with two natures, divine and human, when it comes to suffering, do not suffer and suffer at the same time. This is problematic.

 

[Bahman]

Jesus, as a person, did suffer. It was because he was human that he could do so. His divine nature was neither added to or subtracted to, though.

There is no suffering and not suffering at the same time. He suffered. It’s as simple as that. He was one person, with two natures. That one person suffered.

A divine person cannot suffer whereas a human person can. We have a problem in the case of a person with two natures.

 

[John_Martin]

…

Well, to me each nature is like a window which open a way to look at and act in a reality.

What if Jesus, in his divine nature, could look out the window of his divine nature into his human nature, his human soul, and then “inspire his human soul” to understand things that no one else could see.

Then in his human nature, now understanding what no one else understands, he looks out into the world through the window of his human nature eyes and sees that he can tell people these things only he understands.

What you said is quite interesting.

 

[dshix]

I didn’t say that a nature is a person.

Lets accept your analogy for a moment. Having two nature is like having two engines. In the case of suffering, each engine move the car in different direction which make the car non-functional.

A person with two natures, divine and human, when it comes to suffering, do not suffer and suffer at the same time. This is problematic.

I think you’ve failed to object to my analogy. Neither of your objections are logical.

If they are, they require further evidence.

 

[tp3192000]

I wondering why my arguments are confusing for you. The problem is very simple:

1. Jesus has two natures, divine and human
2. Divine nature doesn’t allow suffering
3. Human nature does allow suffering
4. (2) and (3) contradict each other

Jesus was able to turn his humanity or divinity on or off like a light switch. If you switch it up, the light comes on; when you switch it down, darkness. Jesus shows his divinity when he is changed to light at the transfiguration. He shows his humanity throughout the gospel accounts. So Jesus (1) who had two natures, when he switched divinity off, (2 = N/A), suffered as a human (3) without contradiction (4).

 

[dshix]

Jesus was able to turn his humanity or divinity on or off like a light switch. If you switch it up, the light comes on; when you switch it down, darkness. Jesus shows his divinity when he is changed to light at the transfiguration. He shows his humanity throughout the gospel accounts. So Jesus (1) who had two natures, when he switched divinity off, (2 = N/A), suffered as a human (3) without contradiction (4).

I wouldn’t state it quite like that. Jesus couldn’t “turn off” his divinity; it was always a present part of his person. but he could certainly be acting at a given moment with his human nature instead of his divine nature, or choosing to suffer at a given moment with his human nature.

 

[grannymh]

Jesus is God. God is infinite. We are finite. So we cannot possibly make Jesus to suffer.

Human nature has a material decomposing anatomy. So what is the problem?

 

[Micosil]

Jesus was able to turn his humanity or divinity on or off like a light switch. If you switch it up, the light comes on; when you switch it down, darkness. Jesus shows his divinity when he is changed to light at the transfiguration. He shows his humanity throughout the gospel accounts. So Jesus (1) who had two natures, when he switched divinity off, (2 = N/A), suffered as a human (3) without contradiction (4).

Jesus couldn’t ever “switch off” his divine nature. Remember, He’s a divine Person, so that isn’t possible. He manifested things pertinent to his divine nature (miracles, etc.) as well as things pertinent to his human nature (being hungry, thirsting, etc.), but both natures were always present even if not actively manifesting in an obvious, tangible manner at a specific point in time.

 

[grannymh]

Jesus couldn’t ever “switch off” his divine nature. Remember, He’s a divine Person, so that isn’t possible. He manifested things pertinent to his divine nature (miracles, etc.) as well as things pertinent to his human nature (being hungry, thirsting, etc.), but both natures were always present even if not actively manifesting in an obvious, tangible manner at a specific point in time.

Thank you for the word *manifested *in reference to the Divine Person Jesus Christ.

 

[tp3192000]

I wouldn’t state it quite like that. Jesus couldn’t “turn off” his divinity; it was always a present part of his person. but he could certainly be acting at a given moment with his human nature instead of his divine nature, or choosing to suffer at a given moment with his human nature.

Jesus is fully divine and fully human. How it works is a mystery.

 

[tp3192000]

Jesus couldn’t ever “switch off” his divine nature. Remember, He’s a divine Person, so that isn’t possible. He manifested things pertinent to his divine nature (miracles, etc.) as well as things pertinent to his human nature (being hungry, thirsting, etc.), but both natures were always present even if not actively manifesting in an obvious, tangible manner at a specific point in time.

How can the OP assume that divine nature cannot suffer and how can any human know what divine nature is and how it operates?

 

[Micosil]

Thank you for the word *manifested *in reference to the Divine Person Jesus Christ.

 

[NM505StKate]

Jesus is fully divine and fully human. How it works is a mystery.

In other words you have no clue and are not wanting to research it.

 

[davidv]

In other words you have no clue and are not wanting to research it.

No, it is not that in other words. How does one research the divine, particularly for a topic which would be unknown to humans except for divine revelation?

 

[NM505StKate]

No, it is not that in other words. How does one research the divine, particularly for a topic which would be unknown to humans except for divine revelation?

Well first there, so far, has been no proof of anything supernatural. Divine falls into that realm of supernatural. As for researching the divine start with the definition of divine. From there work out the properties. After that see if being divine and mortal are compatible or if it is a paradox.

 

[grannymh]

No, it is not that in other words. How does one research the divine, particularly for a topic which would be unknown to humans except for divine revelation?

Personally, I start at the beginning of recorded history where there are plenty of myths, legends, along with the shaman and medicine man, which evince the human inherent sense of the super-natural also known as the Divine. From there, I work through the Greek gods, Roman gods, Hindu gods, Egyptian gods, Pagan gods, Baal and so on until I find the almighty God. Genesis 1: 1 and the evidence found in the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26-27. The fact that the Genesis author of the first three chapters is not married to science gives proof that he “observed without prejudice.”

What stands out in the history parts of the first three chapters of Genesis is the interaction between God and the first human person. Without going into the nitty-gritty, we land on Genesis 3:15. which, in its oddness, can be considered a beginning Divine Revelation which becomes clear after the long wait to the New Testament and the establishment of the Catholic Church.

The short road to researching the Divine is to use the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

Links
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

 

[davidv]

Well first there, so far, has been no proof of anything supernatural.

So what. How does this mean the supernatural does not exist?

Divine falls into that realm of supernatural. As for researching the divine start with the definition of divine. From there work out the properties. After that see if being divine and mortal are compatible or if it is a paradox.

What make you think this hasn’t been done?