Person Vs Nature

[afthomercy]

AFT

Your statement “the Second Person is two beings: one a Divine being and the other a human being (where “being” indicates a full functioning independent entity)” asserts in two fully functional independent entities. Please clarify if I am misunderstanding.

If I correctly understand you, you have two Jesus’… Are you sure you want to go there?

Your best supporter in the truth in Christ,

Aner

No my friend, I neither have 2-Jesus’ nor 2-God the Son. The equation is like this: For all human beings other than Jesus - One being: One person. For the Godhead - One Being: three Persons. In case of Jesus and God the Son - Two Beings: One Person.

Now you are going to jump and say: This makes Jesus’ humanity/humanhood somewhat different from ours! To this I’ll say: Jesus, as a true man, held a personhood placard just as the next man. What’s written on the placard differs from individual to individual and so also is the case with Jesus. By Divine design, the writing on His placard exactly coincided with that on God the Son’s placard. This didn’t alter/elevate his human nature in any way (other than being spared original sin and concupiscence).

As an aside:
I think that when we say that every person is unique, the underlying meaning is that the writing on the placard is never the same. God recognises and differentiates us by what He has written on our placards. We do not have a concept of reincarnation, but if it were to happen (hypothetically), then the writing on the placard of the reincarnated man would tally with the writing on his predecessor’s placard.

 

[Aner]

No my friend, I neither have 2-Jesus’ nor 2-God the Son. The equation is like this: For all human beings other than Jesus - One being: One person. For the Godhead - One Being: three Persons. In case of Jesus and God the Son - Two Beings: One Person.

Now you are going to jump and say: This makes Jesus’ humanity/humanhood somewhat different from ours! To this I’ll say: Jesus, as a true man, held a personhood placard just as the next man. What’s written on the placard differs from individual to individual and so also is the case with Jesus. By Divine design, the writing on His placard exactly coincided with that on God the Son’s placard. This didn’t alter/elevate his human nature in any way (other than being spared original sin and concupiscence).

As an aside:
I think that when we say that every person is unique, the underlying meaning is that the writing on the placard is never the same. God recognises and differentiates us by what He has written on our placards. We do not have a concept of reincarnation, but if it were to happen (hypothetically), then the writing on the placard of the reincarnated man would tally with the writing on his predecessor’s placard.

Thanks ATF

Here is my point of confusion - you have a human nature that can function independently - I assume with consciousness/will, etc. - and a divine nature that can is function independently. Two independent functioning entities.

Isn’t this the model we agreed that you were asserting in our understanding of nature v person?

Best,
Aner

 

[Linusthe2nd]

afthomercy:
Originally Posted by Linusthe2nd
All I will say is that in Jesus Christ there is one person only, the Second Person of the Trinity and two natures.

I would put it as: The man Jesus Christ and God the Son represent one and the same Person. Your formulation puts the Second Person inside Jesus Christ. At least on this thread, one must be very careful of the terms we use.

That is incorrect. It is De Fide that Jesus Christ is the Second Person. His Person is not a mere representation. Nothing has changed in the Divine Person, he has assumed a human nature, he has united it to his Divine nature in his Divine Personhood.. It is one person that exists, Jesus Christ the Second Person of the Trinity. That is the Doctrine. Perhaps I explained it badly or said it badly…

That both natures exist in one Being, the Being of the Second Person.

I would say that the Second Person is two beings: one a Divine being and the other a human being (where “being” indicates a full functioning independent entity).

No, no, that is wrong. One being only, it is Jesus Christ, the One Divine Person that exists, having assumed a human nature unto himself so that there is one supposit which exists. That is Defide. The Council of Constantinople II ( 553 ) expresses it thusly through the words of St. Cyril : " …a union according to subsistence results…" ( Summa Theologiae, Part III, Ques 2, an 1-3 - You need to read Part III, Ques 2-6 very, very carefully, it is very tough, but if you are going to talk about things you need to know how Thomas has explained them. I’m reading them now for the first time! )
newadvent.org/summa/4.htm

That the Second Person assumed the human nature for our salvation.

Another way of putting it would be that at the Incarnation, God the Son who was exclusively a Divine Being, now also became a human being.

No, there is one being or substance only, one suppositum or one hypostasis
or one Person, one subsisting thing - Jesus Christ, the Second Person, one single thing, one and the same Person. He is one being, one thing, one supposit, one hypostasis, one Person, with both a human and a divine nature.

That the human will and intellect are totally united to and obedient to the divine intellect and will.

This unity and obedience of the human entity to the Divine entity is out of choice and not out of structure. If it were out of structure, then the lower entity would not be independent, and friend Aner will come out with all guns blazing!

Aner can blaze away all he wants! You and I are taking as our source the Doctrine of the Church and what it says and we are elaborating with the aid of St. Thomas. Christ’s human nature functions exactly like our own, but with a difference. It can operate on its own or in conjunction with or under the guidance of the Divine nature but always in total obedience to the Divine Will, and of course his human nature has no human person because the human nature has been assumed by the Divine Person. And it is by choice that his human intellect and will are conformed to the Divine Will. You cannot think of separate structures when speaking of Jesus Christ. There is only one Person present, one thing and that is Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, True God and True man in one entity or hypostasis, one supposit, one substance, one being. Mary gave birh to a man but a man who was actually God - enfleshed ( St. Damascene, Ibid, an 3 )

I will have more to say bye and bye, I have a lot to digest. One more thing, forget you post # 139. I’m not saying every thing there is wrong but you can’t make the comparisons you made there. And by the way, forget what I said about conscience being an indicator of person, that is incorrect. According to Thomas a human person is a particular existing, living human being, composed of body and soul. Person is not identified with nature as such, rather it is the particular instantiation of a human nature in this or that real human being. As such, person would include all accompanying accidents proper to a living human being ( i.e. whether potential or actual like conscience ) as well as a the accidents incidental to different individuals, races, etc. Thus we are persons from the moment we are conceived, because at that moment we are a particular, living thing.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thanks ATF

Here is my point of confusion - you have a human nature that can function independently - I assume with consciousness/will, etc. - and a divine nature that can is function independently. Two independent functioning entities.

Isn’t this the model we agreed that you were asserting in our understanding of nature v person?

Best,
Aner

You have to read something besides the Bible to know what we are saying. See my last post. The human nature and the divine nature of Jesus Christ can function independently because they each are genuine natures, but they often function in conjunction and probably most of the time. And the divine nature is always operating through the human. That is the essence of the human nature being assumed by the divine nature of the Second Person. But only one person is present, that of the Second Person, working in and through the human nature of Jesus.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Aner]

Please use the quote function so replies can be read more easily connected to the response.

No, I said the divine person of the MY was Jesus, not the Father, not the Holy Spirit.
I asserted nothing contrary. That was you doing by misinterpreting what I wrote.

I don’t understand the point here - can you clarify? I never implied you considered the “MY” to be the F or HS.

Since the Church is the Body of Christ, Jesus is our guide through her.
I am no where close to blasphemy.

I am the Church - along with all those holding fast the Head of the Church - Jesus Christ. I am happy to provide you any guidance you wish…

David

I am happy to use the quotes - though they are sometimes a little cumbersome. I am in blue above.

Best,

Aner

 

[Aner]

You have to read something besides the Bible to know what we are saying. See my last post. The human nature and the divine nature of Jesus Christ can function independently because they each are genuine natures, but they often function in conjunction and probably most of the time. And the divine nature is always operating through the human. That is the essence of the human nature being assumed by the divine nature of the Second Person. But only one person is present, that of the Second Person, working in and through the human nature of Jesus.

Pax
Linus2nd

Linus

OK - let me get this straight. The human nature can (and does?) fully and independently function - with consciousness and will - without regard to the divine nature/person. Thus the human nature would completely appear to any other man as a normal man without an incarnation having taken place. Am I correctly reflecting your Christology?

Thanks,

Aner

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus

OK - let me get this straight. The human nature can (and does?) fully and independently function - with consciousness and will - without regard to the divine nature/person. Thus the human nature would completely appear to any other man as a normal man without an incarnation having taken place. Am I correctly reflecting your Christology?

Thanks,

Aner

If you are restricting this to his physical appearance the answer would be yes with a few notible incidents. When he was glorified in the company of Peter, James, and John when he " showed his glory " when talking to Moses and Elijah. And after his Resurrection he appeared to the Apostles and showed his wounds and perhaps at his Ascesion. But if one is talking about his activity one would have to say that he performed miracles, etc which no man could do. And as opposed to the Prophets who did wonderous things he did his works in his own name.

And as far as his human nature operating independently one would have to say that what he did was always done according to the will of the Divine nature. This point is only in my opinion you understand. But many times it was obvious that the Divine nature was working through the human nature. I don’t recall any Church teaching on this, but lots of theological discussion.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[davidv]

David

I am happy to use the quotes - though they are sometimes a little cumbersome. I am in blue above.

Best,

Aner

don’t understand the point here - can you clarify?

Apparently not.

I never implied you considered the “MY” to be the F or HS.

It sure seemed so to me in the original post I responded to.

I am the Church - along with all those holding fast the Head of the Church - Jesus Christ.

A very bold claim. Care to demonstrate its truthfulness?

I am happy to provide you any guidance you wish…

No thank you. I try not to follow blind guides.

 

[Aner]

Apparently not.

It sure seemed so to me in the original post I responded to.

A very bold claim. Care to demonstrate its truthfulness?

No thank you. I try not to follow blind guides.

Hmmm… are you sure you correctly know the state of my vision? Admittedly it is not as good as it used to be but I am still writing this without glasses!

 

[Aner]

If you are restricting this to his physical appearance the answer would be yes with a few notible incidents. When he was glorified in the company of Peter, James, and John when he " showed his glory " when talking to Moses and Elijah. And after his Resurrection he appeared to the Apostles and showed his wounds and perhaps at his Ascesion. But if one is talking about his activity one would have to say that he performed miracles, etc which no man could do. And as opposed to the Prophets who did wonderous things he did his works in his own name.

And as far as his human nature operating independently one would have to say that what he did was always done according to the will of the Divine nature. This point is only in my opinion you understand. But many times it was obvious that the Divine nature was working through the human nature. I don’t recall any Church teaching on this, but lots of theological discussion.

Pax
Linus2nd

Linus - The main point is that you have a human nature that is fully functional independent of an divine incarnation. What is the difference between this phenomenon/entity and you and me as genuine men?

Best,
Aner

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus - The main point is that you have a human nature that is fully functional independent of an divine incarnation. What is the difference between this phenomenon/entity and you and me as genuine men?

Best,
Aner

You and I cannot save mankind by our suffering and obedience. Christ as God can make full satisfaction to the Father for the sins of men and to offer them a way to salvation. That is the difference. Only a God could make such a satisfaction to the insults of men to the Father.

Pax
Linus2nd.

 

[Aner]

You and I cannot save mankind by our suffering and obedience. Christ as God can make full satisfaction to the Father for the sins of men and to offer them a way to salvation. That is the difference. Only a God could make such a satisfaction to the insults of men to the Father.

Pax
Linus2nd.

Linus

I appreciate your thought and it deserves further reflection; however, Soteriology is a separate issue. Our issue is Christological - the nature and person of Christ. Can you please confirm that I am correctly understanding your conception of the human nature of Christ -

Linus - The main point is that you have a human nature that is fully functional independent of an divine incarnation. What is the difference between this phenomenon/entity and you and I as genuine men?

 

[davidv]

Hmmm… are you sure you correctly know the state of my vision? Admittedly it is not as good as it used to be but I am still writing this without glasses!

This is what the Church is: DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus

I appreciate your thought and it deserves further reflection; however, Soteriology is a separate issue. Our issue is Christological - the nature and person of Christ. Can you please confirm that I am correctly understanding your conception of the human nature of Christ -

The difference is as I said, neither you nor I can make satisfaction for the offence of men against. It requires a man who has a Divine nature to do that. The Person of Jesus Christ since he has both a human and a Divine nature can make a Divine satisfaction to the Father.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Aner]

The difference is as I said, neither you nor I can make satisfaction for the offence of men against. It requires a man who has a Divine nature to do that. The Person of Jesus Christ since he has both a human and a Divine nature can make a Divine satisfaction to the Father.

Pax
Linus2nd

Thanks Linus - I understand your proposed soteriological conception - I appreciate the lofty thought behind it as well.

What I would like is a simple Yes or No confirm as to whether in your Christology, the human nature can fully function with consciousness and will - just like you and I - completely independent of an incarnated deity - just like you and I do. Can you please confirm?

Best,
Aner

 

[Aner]

This is what the Church is: DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM

David

I greatly appreciate the importance of Ecclesiology. When we have worked out our Christology, I would greatly enjoy - and I am sure benefit - from a serious review of Biblical Ecclesiology!

Best,
Aner

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thanks Linus - I understand your proposed soteriological conception - I appreciate the lofty thought behind it as well.

What I would like is a simple Yes or No confirm as to whether in your Christology, the human nature can fully function with consciousness and will - just like you and I - completely independent of an incarnated deity - just like you and I do. Can you please confirm?

Best,
Aner

Yes it can. But you must keep in mind that it never could function outside the Divine Person to which it was united through the Divine nature. It is never the case, even in a mere mortal that the nature acts without the person. It is always the person who acts. So also in Christ. It is always the Divine Person who acts, neither nature acts without the Divine Person. So, in a way the human nature can act without the direct influence of the Divine nature and, in fact, I think it did most of the time, but still it was the Divine Person that always acted. I know it sounds like hedging but that is the way a person works, even a Divine Person. But really it doesn’t make much difference. Whenever Jesus Christ acted it was always God who acted, no matter which nature seemed to be expressing itself at any particular moment. So Christ’s humanity ( his human intellect and will ) always acted through the Divine Person and thus was always under the direction of the Divine nature ( God’s intellect and will ). Theologians discuss these things so I don’t want to go further. You should read pargraphs 461-478 in the Catechism linked below.

A Catholic can never be wrong if he just says that when Jesus Christ acted it was God who acted, in and through the Second Person of the Trinity…

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Aner]

Yes it can. But you must keep in mind that it never could function outside the Divine Person to which it was united through the Divine nature. It is never the case, even in a mere mortal that the nature acts without the person. It is always the person who acts. So also in Christ. It is always the Divine Person who acts, neither nature acts without the Divine Person. So, in a way the human nature can act without the direct influence of the Divine nature and, in fact, I think it did most of the time, but still it was the Divine Person that always acted. I know it sounds like hedging but that is the way a person works, even a Divine Person. But really it doesn’t make much difference. Whenever Jesus Christ acted it was always God who acted, no matter which nature seemed to be expressing itself at any particular moment. So Christ’s humanity ( his human intellect and will ) always acted through the Divine Person and thus was always under the direction of the Divine nature ( God’s intellect and will ). Theologians discuss these things so I don’t want to go further. You should read pargraphs 461-478 in the Catechism linked below.

A Catholic can never be wrong if he just says that when Jesus Christ acted it was God who acted, in and through the Second Person of the Trinity…

Pax
Linus2nd

Ok - now you have me really confused. Hedging, perhaps, but it really seems like outright contradictions.

So my question is simply whether the human nature - with human consciousness and human will - could and can fully function - just like you and I, as genuine man, do - without ANY regard to an incarnated deity in any respect. Originally you seemed to indicate that YES, the human nature could and did and does so independently act.

Now you seem to be stating that NO - the human nature can NOT act independent of the incarnated deity - specifically the incarnated divine person. This creates an entity then in fundamentally distinct from who and what you and I as genuine men are and what we can do.

Please help your poor servant out of this maze…

Blessings

Aner

 

[afthomercy]

Ok - now you have me really confused. Hedging, perhaps, but it really seems like outright contradictions.

So my question is simply whether the human nature - with human consciousness and human will - could and can fully function - just like you and I, as genuine man, do - without ANY regard to an incarnated deity in any respect. Originally you seemed to indicate that YES, the human nature could and did and does so independently act.

Now you seem to be stating that NO - the human nature can NOT act independent of the incarnated deity - specifically the incarnated divine person. This creates an entity then in fundamentally distinct from who and what you and I as genuine men are and what we can do.

Please help your poor servant out of this maze…

Blessings

Aner

Aner, you have no way out of the maze till the OP is satisfactorily answered. Till then, best luck!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Ok - now you have me really confused. Hedging, perhaps, but it really seems like outright contradictions.

So my question is simply whether the human nature - with human consciousness and human will - could and can fully function - just like you and I, as genuine man, do - without ANY regard to an incarnated deity in any respect. Originally you seemed to indicate that YES, the human nature could and did and does so independently act.

Now you seem to be stating that NO - the human nature can NOT act independent of the incarnated deity - specifically the incarnated divine person. This creates an entity then in fundamentally distinct from who and what you and I as genuine men are and what we can do.

Please help your poor servant out of this maze… Though I still maintain that Christs human acts were truely human. Also, Christ’s Divine nature always acted through man’s human nature, at least physically. Also, there were times when we can say that the Divine nature seemed to be at the fore. You seem not to understand the meaning of Person. It is always the Person who acts. That is the overriding factor . There is no living entity that is simply a nature, not even when speaking of God whose very essence is his nature. In God, outside the Incarnation, God and Essence and Nature and Existence are identical. Doesn’t that just blow your mind .

Blessings

Aner

I tried to give you an honest answer. The Church teaches Dogmatically that all acts of Jesus Christ are thos ot the Second Person of the Trinity. That means Christ’s human nature cannot act solo, only through the Second Person. So I guess the answer has to be no, even though I tried to nuance it a bit …

Pax
Linus2nd