Jesus really didn't suffer

[Bahman]

Bahman,
Do you believe the Bible is God’s Word,

No, because I found many errors in the Bible.

Or are you making up your own religion?

I am trying to figure out.

 

[Bahman]

Here I post a portion of The letter of Pope Leo to Flavian, bishop of Constantinople, about Eutyches, from circa 449 AD, (Adopted by the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD):

So, if I may pass over many instances, it does not belong to the same nature to weep out of deep-felt pity for a dead friend, and to call him back to life again at the word of command, once the mound had been removed from the four-dayold grave; or to hang on the cross and, with day changed into night, to make the elements tremble; or to be pierced by nails and to open the gates of paradise for the believing thief. Likewise, it does not belong to the same nature to say I and the Father are one, and to say The Father is greater than I. For although there is in the Lord Jesus Christ a single person who is of God and of man, the insults shared by both have their source in one thing, and the glory that is shared in another. For it is from us that he gets a humanity which is less than the Father; it is from the Father that he gets a divinity which is equal to the Father.

So it is on account of this oneness of the person, which must be understood in both natures, that we both read that the son of man came down from heaven, when the Son of God took flesh from the virgin from whom he was born, and again that the Son of God is said to have been crucified and buried, since he suffered these things not in the divinity itself whereby the Only-begotten is co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father, but in the weakness of the human nature. That is why in the creed, too, we all confess that the only-begotten Son of God was crucified and was buried, following what the apostle said, If they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of majesty. And when our Lord and Saviour himself was questioning his disciples and instructing their faith, he says, Who do people say 1, the son of man, am? And when they had displayed a variety of other people’s opinions, he says, Who do you say I am ? --in other words, I who am the son of man and whom you behold in the form of a servant and in real flesh: Who do you say I am? Whereupon the blessed Peter, inspired by God and making a confession that would benefit all future peoples, says, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. He thoroughly deserved to be declared “blessed” by the Lord. He derived the stability of both his goodness and his name from the original Rock, for when the Father revealed it to him, he confessed that the same one is both the Son of God and also the Christ. Accepting one of these truths without the other was no help to salvation; and to have believed that the Lord Jesus Christ was either only God and not man, or solely man and not God, was equally dangerous.

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/incac1.htm

These are a set of claims without any logical support. I can argue that he did not suffer because he was a divine person with human nature and not opposite.

 

[grannymh]

There is a paradox here since Jesus is a person with both human and divine nature. Moreover how could not know what Father knows? He is a divine being.

The Divine Person **assumed **human nature. Please do not race your motor.

CCC 471-474 needs to be read at least three times.

Assuming human nature means assuming the limits of what human nature can know. Thus, Jesus the Divine Person exercised His human nature in the historical conditions of His personal existence in space and time. Like other humans in the same space and time, He could say what they would say, that is, assuming human nature per se, Jesus the Divine Person could also refer humanly to not knowing what the Father knows.

Because Jesus is one Person, He could also exercise His Divinity as seen in His miracles. Thus, the one Person could speak in a human context and still claim His Divinity.

Links to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

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

 

[Vico]

These are a set of claims without any logical support. I can argue that he did not suffer because he was a divine person with human nature and not opposite.

It is the faith and the mystery. With Christianity logical proof is not the test of Truth for all has not been revealed. Jesus stated that all was not revealed. The Catholic Church is protected from error in faith an morals as given by Jesus Christ.

 

[John_Martin]

These are a set of claims without any logical support. I can argue that he did not suffer because he was a divine person with human nature and not opposite.

Actually, Bahman, you cannot argue that. Not at all can you argue that.

You deny Revelation of truth (post 122), but you require that truth be physically perceivable, by your senses, and you require that reason logically understands what you experience.

But it is only his Human Nature that is perceivable in Jesus (we have historical records of Jesus’ existence as a Human).

So, your argument should actually be that Jesus had to suffer just as we suffer, because he was historically verified as a living Human Being.

Your argument should also, then, if you deny Revelation, be that Jesus did not rise from the dead and Jesus is not God and Jesus does not have the Divine Nature.

Only Revelation declares that Jesus “was a divine person”, and you reject revelation, therefore your statement above is not what you believe and not what you truly assert.

 

[Bahman]

It is the faith and the mystery.

There is no mystery here. Everything is clear. We have two conflicting natures, divine and human, when we regard suffering.

With Christianity logical proof is not the test of Truth for all has not been revealed.

We can strive on logic on some cases as it is illustrated in this thread.

Jesus stated that all was not revealed. The Catholic Church is protected from error in faith an morals as given by Jesus Christ.

The Catholic church is not protected from error. They are human being like me and you. By the way why Jesus didn’t reveal everything which is needed.

 

[Bahman]

Actually, Bahman, you cannot argue that. Not at all can you argue that.

Actually I can. I can argue that Jesus was a divine person with human nature added to him after incarnation. Divine nature is higher than human nature so he could not possibly suffer if he really was a divine being.

You deny Revelation of truth (post 122), but you require that truth be physically perceivable, by your senses, and you require that reason logically understands what you experience.

What is called revelation should be tested by logic so we can understand its validity.

But it is only his Human Nature that is perceivable in Jesus (we have historical records of Jesus’ existence as a Human).

So, your argument should actually be that Jesus had to suffer just as we suffer, because he was historically verified as a living Human Being.

He couldn’t be a divine person if he really suffer. So either he didn’t really suffer or he was not a divine person.

Your argument should also, then, if you deny Revelation, be that Jesus did not rise from the dead and Jesus is not God and Jesus does not have the Divine Nature.

I don’t need to prove all of that since one error in revelation is enough to question its validity.

 

[Bahman]

The Divine Person **assumed **human nature. Please do not race your motor.

CCC 471-474 needs to be read at least three times.

Assuming human nature means assuming the limits of what human nature can know. Thus, Jesus the Divine Person exercised His human nature in the historical conditions of His personal existence in space and time. Like other humans in the same space and time, He could say what they would say, that is, assuming human nature per se, Jesus the Divine Person could also refer humanly to not knowing what the Father knows.

Because Jesus is one Person, He could also exercise His Divinity as seen in His miracles. Thus, the one Person could speak in a human context and still claim His Divinity.

Links to the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

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

This is a set of conflicting claims. So Jesus was divine when he performed miracles at the same time his divinity was limited with human nature so he couldn’t know what Father knows.

 

[Vico]

There is no mystery here. Everything is clear. We have two conflicting natures, divine and human, when we regard suffering.

We can strive on logic on some cases as it is illustrated in this thread.

The Catholic church is not protected from error. They are human being like me and you. By the way why Jesus didn’t reveal everything which is needed.

All that was necessary for salvation was revealed. People made errors after that revelation. The Holy Trinity works through the Church to protect against these errors.

I understand that many non Christians, deny the infallibility of the Catholic Church regarding faith and morals. I have to represent what my faith teaches, however. There are two natures that are united in one Person of the Son of God without confusion

Christianity has certain dogmas of faith which were revealed including the mystery of salvation through Jesus Christ. The early councils determined what was true and what was heresy regarding the Incarnation. “We teach . . . one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, known in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.”

Council of Nicaea I, 325 AD
Affirmed: Full divinity of Christ
vs. Arius of Alexandria
Error: The Word is neither fully divine nor fully human.

Council of Constantinople I, 381 AD
Affirmed: Integral humanity of Jesus Christ
vs. Appollinarius of Laodicea
Error: No human soul and not fully human.

Council of Ephesus, 431 AD
Affirmed: Personal union of two natures in Christ
vs. Nestorius of Constantinople
Error: Jesus is not the Word

Council of Chalcedon, 451 AD
Affirmed: Indivise-Inconfuse
vs. Eutyches of Constantinople
Error: only one incarnate nature (denied distinction of natures)

Council of Constantinople II, 553 AD
Error: human nature subsists in the hypostatsis of the Word.
vs. Monophysitism and Nestorianism - Theodore of Mopsuestia and his writings certain writings of Theodoret of Cyrus
Error: only one nature in Christ (denied union of natures)

Council of Constantinople III, 681 AD
Affirmed: two wills in Christ
vs. Monothletism - Macarius of Antioch and Sergius of Constantinople
Error: only one will in Christ, divine

 

[John_Martin]

…
He couldn’t be a divine person if he really suffer. So either he didn’t really suffer or he was not a divine person.
I don’t need to prove all of that since one error in revelation is enough to question its validity.

He was really human and really suffered. That is the man you would have met if you lived in Jerusalem about 2000 years ago.
And you would affirm that he was really human and he really suffered and died.

For the moment, forget about the “divine person” part. For the moment, look only at the real person you could have talked with - really human. The real human is the one you want to get to know. When you get to know the real human, then this real human will let you know all about himself.

 

[Bahman]

All that was necessary for salvation was revealed. People made errors after that revelation. The Holy Trinity works through the Church to protect against these errors.

If what is necessary was revealed then why we are here discussing such a issue like this which is in fact very important.

I understand that many non Christians, deny the infallibility of the Catholic Church regarding faith and morals. I have to represent what my faith teaches, however. There are two natures that are united in one Person of the Son of God without confusion…

What is the church answer to this question: Did Jesus really suffer as a divine person?

 

[Bahman]

He was really human and really suffered. That is the man you would have met if you lived in Jerusalem about 2000 years ago.
And you would affirm that he was really human and he really suffered and died.

For the moment, forget about the “divine person” part. For the moment, look only at the real person you could have talked with - really human. The real human is the one you want to get to know. When you get to know the real human, then this real human will let you know all about himself.

So apparently I have to repeat my argument: Either he didn’t really suffer as a divine person or he was not a divine person.

 

[John_Martin]

So apparently I have to repeat my argument: Either he didn’t really suffer as a divine person or he was not a divine person.

Bahman, outside of revelation, which you are outside of, Jesus was purely human.
You are in a correct perspective for your position of not believing revelation by saying “Jesus is purely human, suffering as we do, since we are purely human”.

There is a man in the Bible in a position similar to yours, named Nicodemus. Jesus tells people they must be “born again in order to participate in the Kingdom that God established”. Nicodemus asks, “How can a man be born again? Can he enter again into his mother’s womb and again be born?” Nicodemus also does not believe revelation - he is in a position “outside of revelation” as are you.

Jesus’ answer to him was, “How is it possible for you to believe me when I tell you about heavenly things if you do not believe me when I tell you earthly things?”

Nicodemus, and you, must first come to understand fully the human earthly Jesus; come to know him as human only, to a point where you might really like him and believe his every word without question, and desire to be with him. Know the human only. Then, if and when you fully trust the human and walk with him, he will tell you other things, and you will trust him in those things also.

 

[Vico]

If what is necessary was revealed then why we are here discussing such a issue like this which is in fact very important.

What is the church answer to this question: Did Jesus really suffer as a divine person?

Natures must not be confused in statements. One person with two unconfused natures. Christ did not die according to His Divine nature. Rather His human nature was impaired.

 

[Bahman]

Natures must not be confused in statements. One person with two unconfused natures. Christ did not die according to His Divine nature. Rather His human nature was impaired.

We are talking about suffering. Can Jesus really suffer as a divine person?

 

[Bahman]

Bahman, outside of revelation, which you are outside of, Jesus was purely human.
You are in a correct perspective for your position of not believing revelation by saying “Jesus is purely human, suffering as we do, since we are purely human”.

There is a man in the Bible in a position similar to yours, named Nicodemus. Jesus tells people they must be “born again in order to participate in the Kingdom that God established”. Nicodemus asks, “How can a man be born again? Can he enter again into his mother’s womb and again be born?” Nicodemus also does not believe revelation - he is in a position “outside of revelation” as are you.

Jesus’ answer to him was, “How is it possible for you to believe me when I tell you about heavenly things if you do not believe me when I tell you earthly things?”

Nicodemus, and you, must first come to understand fully the human earthly Jesus; come to know him as human only, to a point where you might really like him and believe his every word without question, and desire to be with him. Know the human only. Then, if and when you fully trust the human and walk with him, he will tell you other things, and you will trust him in those things also.

I have to confess that Jesus has attracting personality. But this approach does work for me since I have logical issues to his divinity.

 

[John_Martin]

I have to confess that Jesus has attracting personality. But this approach does work for me since I have logical issues to his divinity.

In all seriousness, Bahman, forget about any thought of divinity - until you know and then trust him as a human person, there will be no resolution.

That is why Jesus came “in person”, humanly - to be known humanly. So, know him that way only, until you know him that way completely. That is what he wanted his followers to do, to come with him and know him, listen to him, talk with him, humanly.

 

[Bahman]

In all seriousness, Bahman, forget about any thought of divinity - until you know and then trust him as a human person, there will be no resolution.

That is why Jesus came “in person”, humanly - to be known humanly. So, know him that way only, until you know him that way completely. That is what he wanted his followers to do, to come with him and know him, listen to him, talk with him, humanly.

To be honest I won’t like to be a follower unless I learn something new. I follow, learn and think about what I learn critically to see where my understanding goes.

 

[Vico]

We are talking about suffering. Can Jesus really suffer as a divine person?

Christ did not suffer according to His Divine nature, rather His human nature suffered. He suffered in the flesh.

 

[Bahman]

Christ did not suffer according to His Divine nature, rather His human nature suffered. He suffered in the flesh.

How he could suffer as a divine being? Needless to say that I do understand what you are talking about.