Nomenclature and Personhood

[worldwideweary]

Avete, digital communicators.

If you’ve the time, please read:

1. It would seem that the pronoun he signifies personhood. For example, the phrase he spoke is to suppose the antecedent of he is of a person referred to by a name using a noun. This also applies to names directly. For example, the phrase John spoke expresses John as significant of a person whom is being called or named John.
2. Luke 2:52 reads – And Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature and favor with God and men.
3. It is taught that the person Jesus is one and the same with the eternal Son of God, the eternal ‘word of God’. This is to say the person Jesus is the eternal word of God, or according to church doctrine is the second person of the holy trinity and not a created person, though Jesus has a created intellect and will in his humanity joined with an infinite intellect and will. According to Catholic teaching, Christ has not two persons, and therefore Christ is not a human person.

Question: If it can be said that the person of Jesus is divine and of an eternal nature, how can it be said Jesus, as was expressed a moment ago that a name is significant of a person, grew in wisdom? Growth is found only in a potential’s motion toward actuality, and this is absolutely non-applicable to the necessity of God’s pure actuality.

Conjecture: It would seem an attempt to square this above stated question will include a recourse to speaking of the human intellect and will rather than the divine person of Jesus as a means to explain any growth, as a human intellect and will is of potential nature and therefore allows for growing.

Observation: Given this conjecture and these observations, if one is still to hold that Jesus the person grew in wisdom, then it must be said that the link between a person and wisdom is variable, and therefore created. Put another way, it seems that one’s wisdom is not of person but is of created intellect / will, yet the name Jesus is used here to describe the subject of growing, and this means when one utilizes a name, one isn’t referring to a person necessarily! This seems to go against conventional wisdom.

Since this goes against ‘conventional wisdom’, this post is in the hope that an other may see an error and clearly correct it, or that a further lucid concurrence may be expressed. Again, the situation restated is that a divine eternal person cannot grow, only a created potential person, but we know by appealing to the teachings of Roman Catholicism that Jesus is a divine person and not a human person. Any growth expressed can not be attributed to Jesus’ divine person, and as such to express the name Jesus in reference to potential moving into actual is not equivalent to the referencing of the divine person. Therefore, to express a name is not necessarily a reference to a person as its standard usage implies. If this is correct, It would seem then that much lingual reformation is in order since it is becoming of us to be pure and simple in our references.

Pax

 

[Vico]

person Jesus is the eternal word of God

A human nature includes the body and soul (incomplete substances), however the body is not incorruptible like the eternal soul. For a human being, the person consists of body and soul. But for Jesus Christ, the person of the Son of God with divine nature assumed a human nature with body and soul. In a manner of speaking the person (the human nature of) Jesus Christ grew.

 

[Gorgias]

this post is in the hope that an other may see an error and clearly correct it

we know by appealing to the teachings of Roman Catholicism that Jesus is a divine person and not a human person.

Jesus is a person with a divine nature and a human nature; he is “fully human and fully divine”. Your claims appeal to his divinity while ignoring his humanity, and therefore, they cannot account for expressions regarding his humanity.

It’s interesting that you cherry-picked “wisdom” but not “stature”; it would be clear enough to see that Jesus, as he aged on earth, would grow. Yet, it seems less clear to you that, just as he grew physically in his human body, so would he grow in wisdom…

 

[worldwideweary]

Thank you both thus far for your participation. Allow me to make some observations:

(also apparently due to technical limitations this reply will require two posts.)

1. “the body is not incorruptible like the eternal soul”.

Question: What of the doctrine of Original Sin and fallen nature, or what of mortal sin and the loss of sanctifying grace, or a demonic soul?
This is merely making mention for clarification, to answer this question would put the subject off our topic.

1. “In a manner of speaking, the person Jesus Christ grew”.
   Observation: Yes, this is partly the point of the post. In this manner, the word person is used to mean flesh conjoined with the human will and intellect rather than referencing Jesus’ one and only source of Personhood, i.e. the Divine Logos. This is the conundrum of our language. If one says The Person Jesus Christ grew, linguistically this is to say that The Person Jesus Christ is not equivalent to The Eternal Person: The Son of God: The 2nd Triune Person, even though the Church teaches there be only one person of Christ and not two. Saying Jesus grew without reference to the word person seems still to mean that a name refers not to person but to nature.

(. . . and this point seems to be illustrated by Jesus’ own reference to self at times as the Son of Man!).

Observation (some quotes):

Catechism $466 reads - “Christ’s humanity has no other subject than the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it and made it his own, from his conception.” Here humanity is referred to as ‘it’, divinity is referenced as “person”.

In references to early forms of the catechumen creeds, the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia reads (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Incarnation): "This creed of the catechumens gives even the Divinity of the totality, i.e. the fact that the individual Person of Jesus is a Divine and not a human Person."

. . . to be continued . . .

 

[worldwideweary]

. . . continuing . . .

1. “Your claims … ignoring his humanity”.

Was not referencing the human intellect and will of Jesus a non-ignoring of his humanity? Mention of the body is scarce because it is obvious that he had flesh, as being born of a woman and being crucified necessitates the case. It therefore isn’t being focused upon, as the meditation is on the word ‘person’ related to ‘naming’ and not flesh. It seems the replies here are focusing on defending the human nature rather than speaking of the word ‘person’, as if to insinuate ‘person’ is related to flesh or “intellect and will of man”. To say that the Divine ‘Second’ person assumed flesh doesn’t mean to say the person is flesh but has or possesses it, yet the creed states “became man”, and it is clear this “man” using the language so far is flesh/human will/human intellect submitting to the Divine Person as the Divine Person assumed flesh/human nature. There’s no expression of “became a human person” so far found in church documents.

1. “cherry-picked” wisdom but not stature.

Stature is usually attributed to how one is looked upon, one’s reputation. This is growth from others in the sense that it is contingent upon the reception of others, and so it is easy to see why it would be “cherry-picked” (Thank God for cherries) since the subject deals with “person” and naming and not the judgment of other persons. Moreover, wisdom is described as a “person” in the scriptures, so it seems the most important of the two for the topic of meditation regarding using ‘name’ associated with ‘person’.

1. A Summing

The situation or conundrum is not the growth of wisdom. The situation is that Christ is only one person, and this person is divine as related in the catechism. There is no reference anywhere found of a “Human Person”. Yet we know that a “Divine Person” can not grow, as it is contradictory to divinity. So we must attribute growth to the created order, the humanity, yet there is no “human person” spoken of anywhere in church documents (so far found). Therefore we speak of growth related to the “intellect, will, body” et cetera, but NOT the person. Yet we use the word Jesus as a name, and a name is usually used in reference to a person. But here you would be going against Catholic teaching by saying explicitly “Jesus’ Human Person Grew”.This is found to be an interesting topic regarding the meaning behind words in English.

I thank you both again for responding. Please do again if any thoughts come, or if it appears anything of importance has been omitted so far or in my response.

Pax