Person vs Nature (contd.)

[afthomercy]

He could not sin, he could not even want to sin, because from the moment of conception he enjoyed the Beatific Vision. And that makes even the desire to sin impossible, even for mere humans in heaven, who also enjoy the Beatific Vision. Besides, he was God, and God cannot sin. Remember his human nature was divinized by reason of its attachment to the Divine nature. Keep in mind that it is not the nature that acts but the Person.

He could be tempted to eat and drink and to sleep to abhoar pain, as examples of the frailties of human imperfection. These are not sins in themselves. But by reason of who he was he could not sin. God cannot sin. But satan might not have known he was Divine, and that these events were viewed as temptations only on the side of satan.

The sin satan was trying to get him to commit was to acknowledge satan as the means of obtaing these human needs and desires. To eat and drink and to rest and to " take charge " are not sinful in themselves. But the means to obtain these things might well be, for mere humans. So Christ reminded him, " thou shalt not tempt the Lord your God. " He was telling satan who he was and that he was wasting his time. Of course satan did not believe him - yet.

So it was not even hypothetically possible for Christ to sin.

Pax
Linus2nd

Linus, I think you just shredded the humanity of Jesus. You put such strong emphasis on His divinity that His humanity appears to be of no consequence, a mere footnote.
To say that Satan might not have known that He was divine is a bit much! We were taught way back in our childhood that the reason for Satan’s rebellion is that it was revealed to him that He would have to bow to a mere man and that hurt his pride (this may or may not be in the Catechism). I’d say that Satan knew very well about Jesus’ divinity, but at the same time recognised that in His human nature, he had a chance, and that’s why he had a go. Otherwise, would he have wasted his time?
If Jesus absolutely could not sin, why is the Temptation held up as a model for us to emulate for resisting the devil? The same scripture passage also tells us that Satan withdrew to await a more opportune time. It could mean that there were other temptations that are not recorded. Was Satan so dense that he couldn’t appreciate that he had no chance? Remember that Lucifer was an archangel before his fall. Come on, give him some more credit!
If His humanity was so suffused by His divinity, how much of His passion was ‘cushioned’ by it?

 

[Aner]

There is only a Person. And that person is an individual with a divine rational nature and that person is an individual with a human rational nature, and that person is a single individual.

Didn’t that person exist prior to the incarnation - same person that took upon some piece of manness? Is that right?

I was balking at your use of the term "consciousness’. In his “consciousness” he was not aware of “divinity”, but only moved by a human will and intellect to the thoughts that appeared in his consciousness.

So are you saying that Jesus DID have a human consciousness - awareness - including self awareness? Who was it exactly that had this consicousness? Or is the consciousness the “who”? What then is the meaningful difference between “consciousness” and “person”?

And, naturally, I assume, the deity had consciousness - awarenees? Thus when we see Jesus, there are two consciousnesses - being aware of the outside world?

It is in his soul, his intellect, that this human knew both the divinity and humanity of himself. And only his soul moved / animated his human body, thoughts and movements.

So the human “knew”… There must have been a human consciousness in order “to know”. Right?

What is the relationship between person, consciousness and soul?

Consciousness is a movement of the soul, of the will, to actualize what is known in the intellect, or to simulate possibilities of understanding and see if they are tenable. Everything about the body, including the activities of the brain, are simply instrumental for interface to what is “other” in the understanding of the intellect in the soul, whether to make the object of our understanding a reality outside our understanding, or to let some “other” know us, etc… Our understanding is not a material phenomenon, but a spiritual actuality.

 

[Aner]

Suggested approach -

I don’t know how many of you have spent time with someone who has just died - a very profound experience (especially when that “person” is your father…).

What if anything of the human departed from Jesus’ body when Jesus died?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus, I think you just shredded the humanity of Jesus. You put such strong emphasis on His divinity that His humanity appears to be of no consequence, a mere footnote.
To say that Satan might not have known that He was divine is a bit much! We were taught way back in our childhood that the reason for Satan’s rebellion is that it was revealed to him that He would have to bow to a mere man and that hurt his pride (this may or may not be in the Catechism). I’d say that Satan knew very well about Jesus’ divinity, but at the same time recognised that in His human nature, he had a chance, and that’s why he had a go. Otherwise, would he have wasted his time?
If Jesus absolutely could not sin, why is the Temptation held up as a model for us to emulate for resisting the devil? The same scripture passage also tells us that Satan withdrew to await a more opportune time. It could mean that there were other temptations that are not recorded. Was Satan so dense that he couldn’t appreciate that he had no chance? Remember that Lucifer was an archangel before his fall. Come on, give him some more credit!
If His humanity was so suffused by His divinity, how much of His passion was ‘cushioned’ by it?

You are certainly welcome to your opinion. I think mine is certainly reasonable. And remember these are only opinions. They have nothing to do with what the Church teaches us about the Person of Christ. If you can show me a Church document that shows that I am wrong I would be happy to see it.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Aner]

Linus, I think you just shredded the humanity of Jesus. You put such strong emphasis on His divinity that His humanity appears to be of no consequence, a mere footnote.

I would say that this is the natural result of the hypostatic union and the denial of the human person - the genuine man - Christ Jesus.

If Jesus absolutely could not sin, why is the Temptation held up as a model for us to emulate for resisting the devil? The same scripture passage also tells us that Satan withdrew to await a more opportune time. It could mean that there were other temptations that are not recorded. Was Satan so dense that he couldn’t appreciate that he had no chance? Remember that Lucifer was an archangel before his fall. Come on, give him some more credit!
If His humanity was so suffused by His divinity, how much of His passion was ‘cushioned’ by it?

AFT - These are great points - and are some of the fundamental points that we who assert that Jesus was a genuine man are making all the time. If Jesus was only a divine person - then the whole notion of Him genuinely representing in any sense falls to pieces - much less so degrades what the man Christ Jesus actually accomplished. I don’t need a God who is perfect - He already is - I need a man who was perfect as my example to work towards…

Sincerely,
Aner

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Suggested approach -

I don’t know how many of you have spent time with someone who has just died - a very profound experience (especially when that “person” is your father…).

What if anything of the human departed from Jesus’ body when Jesus died?

Not only did his human soul leave his body, but his Person did as well, for we learn that he, the Second Person, descended into the abode of the dead to preach to those who had passed before his death. And at death, his human soul remained united to his Divine Person.But at the beginning of the third day following, the Divine Person, still united with his human soul was reunited to his body and he arose from the dead in his glorified body, or more properly his glorified Person.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Aner]

Not only did his human soul leave his body, but his Person did as well, for we learn that he, the Second Person, descended into the abode of the dead to preach to those who had passed before his death. And at death, his human soul remained united to his Divine Person.But at the beginning of the third day following, the Divine Person, still united with his human soul was reunited to his body and he arose from the dead in his glorified body, or more properly his glorified Person.

Pax
Linus2nd

Linus ]

Thanks for providing some meat. Can you explain to me the difference between Jesus human soul - and what a human person would be? Also, I assume that at some level you are seeing the human soul as substantial as opposed to simply ideational or a potential set of functions. But as something that is real.

Here is a good example - when we say “Linus decides” - is “Linus” the soul or the person making the decision?

Thanks,

Aner

 

[afthomercy]

I would say that this is the natural result of the hypostatic union and the denial of the human person - the genuine man - Christ Jesus.

Aner,
Here’s where you and I aren’t on the same page. My endeavour is to understand the hypostatic union in a way that upholds the genuine humanity of Jesus Christ. That quest underpins the OP.

 

[John_Martin]

Linus ]

Thanks for providing some meat. Can you explain to me the difference between Jesus human soul - and what a human person would be? Also, I assume that at some level you are seeing the human soul as substantial as opposed to simply ideational or a potential set of functions. But as something that is real.

Here is a good example - when we say “Linus decides” - is “Linus” the soul or the person making the decision?

Thanks,

Aner

Linus, I trust you to decide to speak / answer for yourself, even though I think we are in agreement, so I will answer what happens when we say, “John Decides”

1. The individual rational being, a composite of body and rational soul, receives a sensation through his eyes in seeing your post.
2. This, being “intelligent symbols”, when processed in the brain, fits with remembered symbols.
3. The soul, being the seat of intellect, understands what is being said, and moves or animates conscious thought to sound out the post, along with animating the conscious thought with some of its own understanding in parallel with the received understanding.
4. The “reason” of this animation of the post’s thought and the soul’s own animated thought is because the soul is manipulating the conscious thoughts to compare and contrast and “sense” from the external material reality, a reasonable object of understanding.
5. Suddenly, in conscious thought, the comparing and contrasting are interrupted by the words, “I will reply to the post”, in conscious thought. The words appeared without conscious thought awareness that a conclusion was reached. But now conscious thought is forming around the conclusion, again with words appearing in support of the conclusion.
6. It is in the soul, the intellect that knows when something in conscious thought is “true”, that it also looks at what is “good to make real”, Then the will, upon being presented with a good to be made real, desires. Since it is the will, with its habits of animation of the body, that functions toward satisfaction or actualizing what is presented to it as “good to make real”, the will moves the body. The “decision to reply” is animated into conscious reality.
7. Within the person, it is the intellect that understood what is good, and the will simply made it actual, by animating the body to consciously have the intelligent sequence of symbols and to write this reply. And even as I edit, the intellect is also knowing and correcting what does not “sound correct”, thus informing the will of good and not good in the will’s animation of actualization.
8. It is an individual substance of an intellectual nature that accomplished this post. a specific human who goes by the name John Martin, and above you see the mechanics of how this “person” decided. His soul is not a material reality, but is the spiritual “component” of his composite being. It is “potential” in what it does not yet know, yet actual in both its ability to know and in what it already has actualized in understanding, so far as intellect goes. As far as will, it is potential in that it will desire whatever the reason calls “good to be united with”, and actual as it animates the body to that union in material reality, such that the “good object understood in the intellect” is an actual material object for the body to “touch”, such as my eyes “touching these words on the screen”.
   In the Mass we know that Jesus’ Body is on the altar in sacrifice for us to consume materially, but we know it is not simply “flesh”, but we understand that where his body is, there is also his blood, his soul, his divinity, in other words, the “person of Christ”. One person, A “person” cannot be divided, such that you would address yourself to a certain part of a person to get a decision, and to another part of a person to avoid a decision. Addressing a part addresses the whole.
9. The soul is real, intelligent, aware of itself, but our conscious thought is not aware of the soul, as if it could be sensed; it cannot be sensed, but is only known consciously in seeing animations it performs and speculating about its reality.

 

[John_Martin]

Originally Posted by John Martin View Post
There is only a Person. And that person is an individual with a divine rational nature and that person is an individual with a human rational nature, and that person is a single individual.
Didn’t that person exist prior to the incarnation - same person that took upon some piece of manness? Is that right?
I was balking at your use of the term "consciousness’. In his “consciousness” he was not aware of “divinity”, but only moved by a human will and intellect to the thoughts that appeared in his consciousness.
So are you saying that Jesus DID have a human consciousness - awareness - including self awareness? Who was it exactly that had this consicousness? Or is the consciousness the “who”? What then is the meaningful difference between “consciousness” and “person”?
And, naturally, I assume, the deity had consciousness - awarenees? Thus when we see Jesus, there are two consciousnesses - being aware of the outside world?
It is in his soul, his intellect, that this human knew both the divinity and humanity of himself. And only his soul moved / animated his human body, thoughts and movements.
So the human “knew”… There must have been a human consciousness in order “to know”. Right?
What is the relationship between person, consciousness and soul?
Consciousness is a movement of the soul, of the will, to actualize what is known in the intellect, or to simulate possibilities of understanding and see if they are tenable. Everything about the body, including the activities of the brain, are simply instrumental for interface to what is “other” in the understanding of the intellect in the soul, whether to make the object of our understanding a reality outside our understanding, or to let some “other” know us, etc… Our understanding is not a material phenomenon, but a spiritual actuality.

1. Not “some piece of manness”, but “became man”. The person always was / is.
2. You are thinking that conscious thought is primary to a person, but if conscious thought is simply a movement or animation by the soul so that what is “known in the intellect” also becomes symbolically present in material reality, then the person knows in his intellect and only his will animates this into symbolic intelligence in his brain when it is useful for the person to have that conscious thought in the material world. The person is the whole : the soul (intellect, will, appetites) and the body with “conscious thought” are members of the whole.
3. Deity (a nature) does not have “thoughts”. Only an individual of a rational divine nature would have “thoughts” - a Person.
   And, not really that, either, because the divine person is fully actualized, and does not “think thoughts”, but instead, fully knows all as a whole, and so far as will goes, it is not moving toward actualization, but fully actualized in satisfaction of union with what it loves. Jesus’ human soul, began with potential “knowing” and could only “learn” through his body’s interface. What happened in his soul, though, is that as he experienced via his body, his intellect recognized truth as truth when it was sensed, thus he was able to argue with the teachers in the temple when he was about 12 years old in “his Father’s House”. He knew in his soul because his divine nature, via the divine will (the Holy Spirit) animated his human soul the way our human soul animates our bodies. We experience this same animation by the Holy Spirit as is defined in the infusion of Grace, of the Virtues, which we received in Baptism. And we also “know something is from God and is true and is good to unite with” when we hear it through our physical senses.

I think that answers all of your comments - ooh, that phrase I just typed was suddenly “present” in my conscious thought; where did that phrase come from? The mystery of the soul.

 

[Aner]

Aner,
Here’s where you and I aren’t on the same page. My endeavour is to understand the hypostatic union in a way that upholds the genuine humanity of Jesus Christ. That quest underpins the OP.

AFT- Interesting point. I guess it comes down to a matter of word meaning (which returns us to our use of terms that must be defined).

If you define HP that at least includes a genuine man - fully independently functional - just like you and I as genuine men - without regard to a incarnated deity - I would be interested. I simply have never seen anything remotely implied in such a construction by those who genuinely understand this issue.

Aner

 

[Aner]

Linus, I trust you to decide to speak / answer for yourself, even though I think we are in agreement, so I will answer what happens when we say, “John Decides”

1. The individual rational being, a composite of body and rational soul, receives a sensation through his eyes in seeing your post.

Body + Rational Soul = Rational Being

? What is non-rational soul or being (besides my sister…)?

1. This, being “intelligent symbols”, when processed in the brain, fits with remembered symbols.

Who does the remembering?

1. The soul, being the seat of intellect, understands what is being said, and moves or animates conscious thought to sound out the post, along with animating the conscious thought with some of its own understanding in parallel with the received understanding.

The “seat” of the intellect?? What does this mean? Does this mean that the intellectual function is included within what is defined as the soul?

What is the relation of soul to nature and to person?

1. The “reason” of this animation of the post’s thought and the soul’s own animated thought is because the soul is manipulating the conscious thoughts to compare and contrast and “sense” from the external material reality, a reasonable object of understanding.
2. Suddenly, in conscious thought, the comparing and contrasting are interrupted by the words, “I will reply to the post”, in conscious thought. The words appeared without conscious thought awareness that a conclusion was reached. But now conscious thought is forming around the conclusion, again with words appearing in support of the conclusion.

Who or what is the “I” in “I will reply…” - Soul? Nature? Intellect? Will? Being?

1. It is in the soul, the intellect that knows when something in conscious thought is “true”, that it also looks at what is “good to make real”, Then the will, upon being presented with a good to be made real, desires. Since it is the will, with its habits of animation of the body, that functions toward satisfaction or actualizing what is presented to it as “good to make real”, the will moves the body. The “decision to reply” is animated into conscious reality.
2. Within the person, it is the intellect that understood what is good, and the will simply made it actual, by animating the body to consciously have the intelligent sequence of symbols and to write this reply. And even as I edit, the intellect is also knowing and correcting what does not “sound correct”, thus informing the will of good and not good in the will’s animation of actualization.
3. It is an individual substance of an intellectual nature that accomplished this post. a specific human who goes by the name John Martin, and above you see the mechanics of how this “person” decided. His soul is not a material reality, but is the spiritual “component” of his composite being. It is “potential” in what it does not yet know, yet actual in both its ability to know and in what it already has actualized in understanding, so far as intellect goes. As far as will, it is potential in that it will desire whatever the reason calls “good to be united with”, and actual as it animates the body to that union in material reality, such that the “good object understood in the intellect” is an actual material object for the body to “touch”, such as my eyes “touching these words on the screen”.
   In the Mass we know that Jesus’ Body is on the altar in sacrifice for us to consume materially, but we know it is not simply “flesh”, but we understand that where his body is, there is also his blood, his soul, his divinity, in other words, the “person of Christ”. One person, A “person” cannot be divided, such that you would address yourself to a certain part of a person to get a decision, and to another part of a person to avoid a decision. Addressing a part addresses the whole.
4. The soul is real, intelligent, aware of itself, but our conscious thought is not aware of the soul, as if it could be sensed; it cannot be sensed, but is only known consciously in seeing animations it performs and speculating about its reality.

John

Wow - that is quite the admirable effort at a description. I took a few initial stabs but needed some clarification in order to chew on further.

However, I am curious about source - where did you get this construct of the human psyche?

Aner

 

[Aner]

1. Not “some piece of manness”, but “became man”.

OK - I believe that is the issue. According to my colleagues Linus and AFT, the “manness” of Jesus could NOT independently function just like you and I and every other man. The manness of Jesus required an incarnated deity to function in any sense of the word. Therefore, there was something fundamental of “manness” that was missing. What was/is it? And, does not then render Jesus something other than a genuine man?

The person always was / is.

Just what is that personness? What essential reality (since somewhere we agreed that personness is not simply an ideational construct).

What is the fundamental difference between a divine person and a human person?

1. You are thinking that conscious thought is primary to a person, but if conscious thought is simply a movement or animation by the soul so that what is “known in the intellect” also becomes symbolically present in material reality, then the person knows in his intellect and only his will animates this into symbolic intelligence in his brain when it is useful for the person to have that conscious thought in the material world. **The person is the whole : the soul (intellect, will, appetites) and the body with “conscious thought” are members of the whole. ** [bold added]

Are you thus saying that the math goes like this

Soul + Body = Person

such that Person is the sum of parts rather than a unique part?

If Soul + Body = Person - where does “Nature” fit into the equation?

1. Deity (a nature) does not have “thoughts”. Only an individual of a rational divine nature would have “thoughts” - a Person.
   And, not really that, either, because the divine person is fully actualized, and does not “think thoughts”, but instead, fully knows all as a whole, and so far as will goes, it is not moving toward actualization, but fully actualized in satisfaction of union with what it loves. Jesus’ human soul, began with potential “knowing” and could only “learn” through his body’s interface. What happened in his soul, though, is that as he experienced via his body, his intellect recognized truth as truth when it was sensed, thus he was able to argue with the teachers in the temple when he was about 12 years old in “his Father’s House”. He knew in his soul because his divine nature, via the divine will (the Holy Spirit) animated his human soul the way our human soul animates our bodies. We experience this same animation by the Holy Spirit as is defined in the infusion of Grace, of the Virtues, which we received in Baptism. And we also “know something is from God and is true and is good to unite with” when we hear it through our physical senses.

I think that answers all of your comments - ooh, that phrase I just typed was suddenly “present” in my conscious thought; where did that phrase come from? The mystery of the soul.

 

[John_Martin]

John

Wow - that is quite the admirable effort at a description. I took a few initial stabs but needed some clarification in order to chew on further.

However, I am curious about source - where did you get this construct of the human psyche?

Aner

Same place as Linus - our teacher, St. Thomas Aquinas (and it can also be found by being a student of Aristotle, though without the parts that can only be known by revelation - which revelation is the Person Jesus)

 

[John_Martin]

Aner:
OK - I believe that is the issue. According to my colleagues Linus and AFT, the “manness” of Jesus could NOT independently function just like you and I and every other man. The manness of Jesus required an incarnated deity to function in any sense of the word. Therefore, there was something fundamental of “manness” that was missing. What was/is it? And, does not then render Jesus something other than a genuine man?

No, Jesus was a 100% human person, just like you and I. At the moment the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, such that she conceived, the divine Son (a person) was now to be found (experienced in material and spiritual reality) with a human soul and body, or the correct term is “assumed these”.

In a way, a “person” is an “idea” or a recognition of a specific individual by one (by you) as a specific individual.
It is an idea with the goal of knowing that individual as a whole. Thus, if you were so fortunate as to live in Galilee in 30ad, you might have seen an individual walking down the road. You learn his name is Jesus. He looks like you (to your reason), talks your language (you understand the symbols coming from his mouth), and if you desire to have him know about you, your mouth’s symbols seem to enter his ears, and his eyes appear to notice you. Does he “really” notice you, hear you, understand you? The reply seems to indicate the affirmative. So, you have encountered an individual, human in that he appears to be an intelligent animal, but individual in that he turns to you at the sound of his name, while others in the crowd do not turn at the sound of the name.

So he says to you, “Yes, I am Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary.” you are hearing an individual human say this to you, a person. But the mouth is not the person - it is an instrument of the person’s human being. If, however, you want to be with this human person, you locate your body next to this person’s body. Then he says to you, “I am the Messiah, the Son of God, promised by the prophets”. The individual human you see in front of you is saying this. You reply, “How can you, Jesus, be son of Mary and Son of God? You are human.” He looks back, smiling, and says, “Yes, I am”. So, do you believe this human person? or not? There is no analysis of soul, mind, intellect, will, etc. There is only this experience of something, someone, other than you saying some strange things. It is a “revelation” of something inconceivable, yet real which you can wrap your thoughts around intellectually. If you take him at his word, then you are with him. If not, then you see only a human with faulty circuits. Either way he is a person.

Now, I need to get ready for Mass.

 

[afthomercy]

Aner:
OK - I believe that is the issue. According to my colleagues Linus and AFT, the “manness” of Jesus could NOT independently function just like you and I and every other man. The manness of Jesus required an incarnated deity to function in any sense of the word.
…
…
No, Jesus was a 100% human person, just like you and I.

First, I need to clarify, John, that I am not on the same page as you and Linus on the dependence of Jesus on Deity for full functionality. In the Hypostatic Union, the man Jesus and God the Son, by virtue of having independent, distinct and full-functional natures, ought to be having independent mind-will-intellect, since the mind-will-intellect reside in the nature. If that independence was absent, then Jesus would be a mere puppet/extension of the Deity.

Second, personhood resides inside the nature rather than outside it, as the human being is a dichotomy consisting of soul+body and not a trichotomy of person+soul+body. When a human being and a divine Being claim the same personhood, it becomes necessary to explain personhood independent of natures, and therefore the OP.

Third, I do not recognise terms like “human person” or “Divine Person”. I think “person” should left unqualified, since the concept ought to be exactly the same across all genus viz. human, angelic and Divine. As we are putting the lens on personhood per-se, let’s use the terms human being, angelic being and divine Being to indicate the full functioning entities, otherwise it greatly confuses the issue.

Best,
AFT

 

[afthomercy]

Aner:
OK - I believe that is the issue. According to my colleagues Linus and AFT, the “manness” of Jesus could NOT independently function just like you and I and every other man. The manness of Jesus required an incarnated deity to function in any sense of the word.
…
…
No, Jesus was a 100% human person, just like you and I.

First, I need to clarify, John, that I am not on the same page as you and Linus on the dependence of Jesus on Deity for full functionality. In the Hypostatic Union, the man Jesus and God the Son, by virtue of having independent, distinct and full-functional natures, ought to be having independent mind-will-intellect, since the mind-will-intellect reside in the nature. If it were not so, then Jesus would be a mere puppet/extension of the Deity.

Second, personhood resides inside the nature rather than outside it, as the human being is a dichotomy consisting of soul+body and not a trichotomy of person+soul+body. When a human being and a divine Being claim the same personhood, it becomes necessary to explain personhood independent of natures, and therefore the OP.

Third, I prefer not to use terms like “human person” or “Divine Person”. I think “person” should left unqualified, since the concept ought to be exactly the same across all genus viz. human, angelic and Divine. As we are putting the lens on personhood per-se, let’s use the terms human being, angelic being and divine Being to indicate the full functioning entities.

Best,
AFT

 

[afthomercy]

The crux of my disconnect with Linus on the Hypostatic union is that I say that it consists of two beings - one human and one divine- claiming a single personhood, whereas he says that there is only one being there, viz. the Deity. The problem I see with such a construction is that it will lead to a doubt as to the true independence of the finite human intellect from the infinite divine intellect. He further reinforces my doubt when he says that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the earthy Jesus to sin, because that would require the finite intellect to overrule the infinite intellect, which is an impossibility.

Once you permit domination of nature in one power (viz. will), then its open season for domination in other powers of the soul also, viz. love, forgiveness, fortitude, etc. etc. Very soon the human nature is rendered null and void (except for the physical body) and the divine nature becomes the operative nature. In such a scenario, would you still be able to say that Jesus was 100% man like the rest of us?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Not only did his human soul leave his body, but his Person did as well, for we learn that he, the Second Person, descended into the abode of the dead to preach to those who had passed before his death. And at death, his human soul remained united to his Divine Person.But at the beginning of the third day following, the Divine Person, still united with his human soul was reunited to his body and he arose from the dead in his glorified body, or more properly his glorified Person.

Pax
Linus2nd

I missled you. When Jesus died, his human soul left his body. But the Divine Person remained united to the dead body, and thus it did not decompose, and the Divine Person remaind united to the human soul while it was in the underworld. The Catechism covers this in paragraphs 626-627.

Christ’s Humanity, paragraphs 470-477.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The crux of my disconnect with Linus on the Hypostatic union is that I say that it consists of two beings - one human and one divine- claiming a single personhood,

This has been condemned by the Church.

[QUO’TE] whereas he says that there is only one being there, viz. the Deity. The problem I see with such a construction is that it will lead to a doubt as to the true independence of the finite human intellect from the infinite divine intellect. He further reinforces my doubt when he says that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the earthy Jesus to sin, because that would require the finite intellect to overrule the infinite intellect, which is an impossibility.[/QUOET]

Perhaps you should read what the Church teaches in the Chruch’s own words. Read paragraphs 470-477. Christ’s human nature was not " independent " in any absolute sense. It was always united to his Divine nature through the Second Person of the Trinity.
Perhaps my ability to explain this difficult point is at fault. Please read the above paragraphs.

Pax
Linus2nd
Once you permit domination of nature in one power (viz. will), then its open season for domination in other powers of the soul also, viz. love, forgiveness, fortitude, etc. etc. Very soon the human nature is rendered null and void (except for the physical body) and the divine nature becomes the operative nature. In such a scenario, would you still be able to say that Jesus was 100% man like the rest of us?