Person Vs Nature

[afthomercy]

A person is a living nature or essence that is self aware, it is not separate from our nature’s.

This is a gem! So would you say that personhood and self awareness are two sides of the same coin? A dog looking at his own reflection in the water is not aware that it is his own reflection - he may think it is another dog or he may not think anything, but he definitely does not identify it as his own reflection and hence a dog is not a person. Is that a correct statement to make?
The man Jesus was self aware of being the Second Person of the Trinity. Would this therefore be the simple and correct explanation of the Hypostatic union, viz. Two separate living beings (i.e. God and the man Jesus) having the same self awareness?

But here the Second Person assumes a human nature. Thus the human nature adds nothing to the Second Person. Whereas, the Second Person adds the Divinity of God to the human nature and the Personhood of the Second Person to the human nature. The result is Jesus Christ the Second Person of the Trinity, in the flesh. The Second Person is not changed, it merely takes on humanity. How can you divide the person of Jesus Christ, having two natures from the Second Person? You can’t.

If my above concept is correct, then the flow of words here is flawed, because the “person” is a passive concept - its only a living being’s self-identity. The Second Person is only one of the three self identities of the Godhead, so when you say that the Second Person added a human nature unto himself, you are giving the self awareness powers that are not proper to it. Self awareness doesn’t possess any powers, only the nature does.
Hence, would it be more correct to say that the Godhead in possession of three self identities now assigned one of those self identities (that of the Second Person) to a man (Jesus), such that where earlier only the divine nature possessed an identity/self awareness called Son/Second Person, now additionally a human nature came to possess the same self awareness?

 

[Aner]

Deleted

 

[Aner]

But this is a philosophy forum. And “person” is a philosophical notion (albeit with roots in theological debates about the Trinity).

But you raise an interesting question. What does culture have to do with salvation?

Fair point. I was simply hoping for something clear cut and solid - at least clearly accessible existential reality rather than such airy artificial man-made mirages. Some solid Biblically sourced material would have been great. The point of my hope is that some people base their fundamental teaching of God and Christ on this dichotomy - and then demand rigorous blind obedience to it - up to causing death in those they choose a Biblical approach.

I drop my previous question then in light of your point and will simple back out until I find something substantive.

 

[Aner]

This is a gem! So would you say that personhood and self awareness are two sides of the same coin? A dog looking at his own reflection in the water is not aware that it is his own reflection - he may think it is another dog or he may not think anything, but he definitely does not identify it as his own reflection and hence a dog is not a person. Is that a correct statement to make?
The man Jesus was self aware of being the Second Person of the Trinity. Would this therefore be the simple and correct explanation of the Hypostatic union, viz. Two separate living beings (i.e. God and the man Jesus) having the same self awareness?

If my above concept is correct, then the flow of words here is flawed, because the “person” is a passive concept - its only a living being’s self-identity. The Second Person is only one of the three self identities of the Godhead, so when you say that the Second Person added a human nature unto himself, you are giving the self awareness powers that are not proper to it. Self awareness doesn’t possess any powers, only the nature does.
Hence, would it be more correct to say that the Godhead in possession of three self identities now assigned one of those self identities (that of the Second Person) to a man (Jesus), such that where earlier only the divine nature possessed an identity/self awareness called Son/Second Person, now additionally a human nature came to possess the same self awareness?

Take this is as a starting point -

If Jesus human nature was only missing self-awareness (a non-essential phenomenon simply a faculty - based on my guess as to Linus perspective (until he clarifies)) but otherwise he was no different than you or I, the real question is whether this “nature” can independently function - that is, independently function without being integrated with ta divine entity?

Admittedly, if so, a non-self aware independently functioning entity seems like a very meaningless construct. If this “nature” could not independently function, then I submit “self-awareness” is the least of the omissions that AFT originally reflected on - and we would want to know what other pieces of “that make up personness” that Jesus was missing.

Perhaps this was my discouragement with Linus direction - it left the real functional question of the OP (which was superb!) - and moved into a seemingly completely different direction that was not resulting in an answer. Or, perhaps I simply did not carefully bring Linus statements back to this key point and mis-directed the conversation immediately above. Regardless, I hope that I am doing so here.

Best,

Aner

 

[afthomercy]

Take this is as a starting point -

a) If Jesus human nature was only missing self-awareness (a non-essential phenomenon simply a faculty - based on my guess as to Linus perspective (until he clarifies)) but otherwise he was no different than you or I, the real question is whether this “nature” can independently function - that is, independently function without being integrated with ta divine entity?

b) Admittedly, if so, a non-self aware independently functioning entity seems like a very meaningless construct. If this “nature” could not independently function, then I submit “self-awareness” is the least of the omissions that AFT originally reflected on - and we would want to know what other pieces of “that make up personness” that Jesus was missing.

Perhaps this was my discouragement with Linus direction - it left the real functional question of the OP (which was superb!) - and moved into a seemingly completely different direction that was not resulting in an answer. Or, perhaps I simply did not carefully bring Linus statements back to this key point and mis-directed the conversation immediately above. Regardless, I hope that I am doing so here.

Best,

Aner

I disagree with you on certain counts:
a) Self awareness is not a non-essential phenomenon. According to me it is integral to the person per-se.
b) A non self aware independently functioning entity is not a meaningless construct. Its just a non person, like for example, a dog.
c) Jesus’ human nature was never missing self awareness, because self awareness is intrinsic to human nature. Perhaps you meant in (b) above that a non self aware independently functioning human being is a meaningless construct.

Yes, I agree with you that the man Jesus’ nature was fundamentally no different from yours or mine. He differed from us only and only in His self awareness (apart from being sinless, of course!). Unlike us, He was conscious of being the 2nd Person of the Trinity and all that it entailed, and that’s why He spoke of being one with the Father, etc. When I say “being the 2nd Person”, I mean “having the same self awareness that the Godhead has as 2nd Person”. The Godhead simultaneously has two other self awarenessess as 1st Person and 3rd Person, but that’s not relevant here.

Hence, actually there is no concept of Divine Person (DP), Angelic Person (AP) and Human Person (HP) when we are talking of the person in isolation from its nature. There is only the concept of person. DP, AP and HP terminology becomes valid only when we talk of the respective independently functioning self aware entities.

The big fight between us (on this point) is that you say that Jesus was a human person and we Catholics say that He was a Divine Person. Will we have peace if we say that Jesus was a person/Person whose self awareness coincided with the self awareness of God as Son/Second Person?

 

[Aner]

AFT

Great points! Specifics on person vs nature (your original OP) and re: independent functioning - my focus for resolution or at least clear differentiation.

My parts in blue within your quote. Maybe we can focus and resolve a few items?

I disagree with you on certain counts:
a) Self awareness is not a non-essential phenomenon. According to me it is integral to the person per-se.

So you are are saying that “self-awareness” is some tangible (physical/energy) phenomenon (that is what I mean by “essential”) as opposed to simply a faculty (capability) resulting from a physical/energy? I just want to make sure that you and I are on the same page.

If tangible, then since you are making self-awareness intrinsic to person, that would make “person” a tangible phenomenon as well. You and I would have a tangible human person without which we would somehow not be human (a man).

b) A non self aware independently functioning entity is not a meaningless construct. Its just a non person, like for example, a dog.

A dog is not self aware? Not a “person”… Have you ever had a relationship with a dog?

Regardless, if you define a dog as not having a person - simply being an independently functioning nature, that would be good to clarify. This DOES mean that the human nature of Jesus is fully independent functioning entity without the integration of a divine entity. Yes?

Then what part of our humanness - without the divine entity - is Jesus missing?? What do you have as a man that Jesus did not have as a man. Simply self-awareness? And would He then be something less than a man?

c) Jesus’ human nature was never missing self awareness, because self awareness is intrinsic to human nature.

OK - I am OK with this - however, this seems to contradict your earlier statement (unless I am missing something).

Plus we are back to the original OP - what is Jesus missing then by not being a human person as you and I are.

Perhaps you meant in (b) above that a non self aware independently functioning human being is a meaningless construct.

I think your responses will help clarify this.

Yes, I agree with you that the man Jesus’ nature was fundamentally no different from yours or mine. He differed from us only and only in His self awareness (apart from being sinless, of course!).

His “human self awareness” ??

Unlike us, He was conscious of being the 2nd Person of the Trinity and all that it entailed,

Who is the “He”?

and that’s why He spoke of being one with the Father, etc.

I went through this with others. Please review Jn17:22 for the correct exegesis of Jn10:30. Jn10:30 is not an ontological statement as Jesus clarified (though we should probably handle this separately from person vs. nature.

When I say “being the 2nd Person”, I mean “having the same self awareness that the Godhead has as 2nd Person”. The Godhead simultaneously has two other self awarenessess as 1st Person and 3rd Person, but that’s not relevant here.

Hence, actually there is no concept of Divine Person (DP), Angelic Person (AP) and Human Person (HP) when we are talking of the person in isolation from its nature. There is only the concept of person. DP, AP and HP terminology becomes valid only when we talk of the respective independently functioning self aware entities.

I think we can unwrap this with clarification of the above.

The big fight between us (on this point) is that you say that Jesus was a human person and we Catholics say that He was a Divine Person. Will we have peace if we say that Jesus was a person/Person whose self awareness coincided with the self awareness of God as Son/Second Person?

If you and I acknowledge that Jesus could/can completely function independent of a divine entity - just like you and I and EVERY other MAN that has ever existed - I would tend to think you are fully acknowledging the Lord and Master who bought us. My goal is to identify and preserve the genuine MAN Christ Jesus as the scriptures repeatedly and clearly teach.

I sense you are open to such a consideration. Are you able to do this?

Obviously this will lead to some discussion re: what is the point of the divine entity inhabiting Jesus… but one step at a time.

 

[Aner]

When we say that the Second Person holds two natures, viz. one divine and one human, we are making a distinction between the person and his nature. Again, when we say that the 3-divine persons hold one undivided nature, we are making the same distinction. So the question is, what distinguishes the person from his nature, or, what is there in the “person” that is not there in the “nature” and vice versa?

To bring the OP back to light - this is so perfect! Thanks again for your excellent and clear statement of the issue here.

 

[levinas12]

The Trinity poses some interesting questions.

According to Catholic theology, there is only one substance, God. But this substance is what Aristotle called a primary substance, a this something, a concrete entity (of course, all this must be formulated in terms of Thomistic analogy - God is really not one concrete entity among other concrete entities).

It’s important to get a handle on the meaning of primary substance. This specific red apple on this specific table is a primary substance; the tree outside my window is a primary substance; Barbara Streisand is a primary substance.

Sometimes, talk about nature and substance gets entangled. Nature in a material entity is a pattern, a form that can be shared by many particulars. So nature and primary substance are distinct. The primary substance can be seen as a composite (form and matter, with matter performing an individuating function).

But when it comes to human beings, it is not just the matter which individuates the entity; a deeper individuation takes place through the “person”.

And this is especially true of an angel. There is no matter in an angel. So what individuates an angel? First, every angel has a unique form or nature; angels do not share a common form (at least according to Thomas). A choir is not a form or nature in which many angels participate.

But what individuates an angel is not just the unique form; on a deeper level, it is the angelic person.

The same is true of God (albeit with crucial differences); there is not a Divine Nature which can be shared among many divine particulars (i.e., concrete entities).

So what about the 3 Divine Persons. Aren’t they divine particulars? No, according to Thomas. And this is where the mystery begins. There is one Primary Substance but 3 Persons. How is this possible? Well, first, person must be really distinct from substance and nature. And it must be possible for Divine Nature and human nature to be present in one Person (Jesus) without mixing (without producing a hybrid like a centaur, part horse, part man), Jesus is truly Divine and truly human with both natures being separate and unmixed. Only Divine Nature can do this. No other non-human nature can be “united” with human nature without “interfering” or “altering” it. But this is another interesting topic.

The distinction between “person” and “substance” is an important one. For example, at the moment of conception, the human “person” is present (but without rational self-consciousness). The human “nature” or “form” is also present at the moment of conception (contrary to Aristotle) but the human operations haven’t been actualized (because the organs for these powers are not yet in place) - one could say that the human nature is especially present as a final cause at the moment of conception (but the formal cause is not absent).

I admit that these are subtle points.

 

[Aner]

According to Catholic theology, there is only one substance, God. But this substance is what Aristotle called a primary substance, a this something, a concrete entity (of course, all this must be formulated in terms of Thomistic analogy - God is really not one concrete entity among other concrete entities).

Is substance without person an entity??? Doesn’t entity necessarily have person?

 

[levinas12]

Is substance without person an entity??? Doesn’t entity necessarily have person?

For Aristotle, with respect to a human being, there is only substance (no person). Aristotle would agree there is individuation but that belongs to the matter. Aristotle would not admit that there is “person” as an ontological principle distinct from the matter, or the composition of form and matter. Aristotle had only form and matter as ontological principles, neither of which can account for the “person” qua “person”.

But for Thomas and us, there is both substance and person (this may be ungrammatical but you get my point).

This is the big difference between ancient Greek philosophy and medieval/modern/contemporary philosophy.

I grant there may be room for further discussion on this point .

 

[Aner]

For Aristotle, with respect to a human being, there is only substance (no person).

But for Thomas and us, there is both substance and person (this may be ungrammatical but you get my point).

This is the big difference between ancient Greek philosophy and medieval/modern/contemporary philosophy.

I grant there may be room for further discussion on this point - I may have oversimplified.

Thanks - I will take it that an entity is both substance and person. The issue is - what is missing from substance if there is no person. This goes back to the OP.

 

[afthomercy]

AFT

Great points! Specifics on person vs nature (your original OP) and re: independent functioning - my focus for resolution or at least clear differentiation.

My parts in blue within your quote. Maybe we can focus and resolve a few items?

A dog is not self aware? Not a “person”… Have you ever had a relationship with a dog?

You got me there! Traditionally there are only 3-recognised classes of persons, viz. Divine, Angelic and Human, in order of precedence. Since this thread is first and foremost about person vs nature, we have to ask what is missing in a dog’s nature that disqualifies it from the person club? Sometimes by shifting focus to what’s missing, we discover that which we are seeking.

 

[Aner]

You got me there! Traditionally there are only 3-recognised classes of persons, viz. Divine, Angelic and Human, in order of precedence. Since this thread is first and foremost about person vs nature, we have to ask what is missing in a dog’s nature that disqualifies it from the person club? Sometimes by shifting focus to what’s missing, we discover that which we are seeking.

An interesting way of putting it (highlighted phrase specifically).

If we ask the same question about Jesus in reverse - what is missing from Jesus’ human nature that prohibits Him from being a human person - we must then pre-suppose there is some fundamental distinction between his human nature and the human nature of genuine men… I think you can see where I am going (??).

Best,

Aner

 

[afthomercy]

Aner:

I have reconsidered my earlier construct of self-awareness being other side of the personhood coin. The dog example has opened my eyes to the pitfalls and so I think its better not to try and pin personhood down so specifically. (BTW I would like to know your views on what the litmus test for “person” is - on what criterion would you say that such and such living entity is/is not a person?).

Moving away from the OP and turning towards our area of disagreement on the man Jesus Christ:
So now I would like to propose that the [man Jesus] held the same personhood ball that [God the Second Person] does. Here brackets indicate the independent living entity. By “personhood ball” I mean whatever it is that constitutes personhood in an individual. As I stated above, I don’t want to get inside that ball, because its beyond my competence.
So what the term “Hypostatic Union” must mean is that [God the Second Person], infused His own personhood ball into the man Jesus right at the earliest stage at which a human being develops a sense of personhood.
Now coming to your post #144:
If you and I acknowledge that Jesus could/can completely function independent of a divine entity - just like you and I and EVERY other MAN that has ever existed - I would tend to think you are fully acknowledging the Lord and Master who bought us. My goal is to identify and preserve the genuine MAN Christ Jesus as the scriptures repeatedly and clearly teach. I sense you are open to such a consideration. Are you able to do this?
As I have tried to explain above, the personhood of the Second Person is a ball that the man Jesus held in his mind, just as you and I hold a personhood ball in our respective minds. Why should the fact that Jesus’ personhood ball tallied with God the Second Person’s affect his functionality as an independent human being? I don’t believe that the personhood of an individual can affect/distort his intrinsic nature.

It open for you and me to experiment with the notion that the Hypostatic Union is true in us also. We would have to drop that ball in short order, because we would not feel that true union with the other two Persons that only the true Hypostatic Union can generate.

Obviously this will lead to some discussion re: what is the point of the divine entity inhabiting Jesus… but one step at a time.
Where does the question of Divine entity “inhabiting” Jesus and interfering with his functions arise? Merely because the personhood ball was the same, it doesn’t mean that the lower nature got a boost. The natures remained separate at all points of time.

 

[afthomercy]

An interesting way of putting it (highlighted phrase specifically).

If we ask the same question about Jesus in reverse - what is missing from Jesus’ human nature that prohibits Him from being a human person - we must then pre-suppose there is some fundamental distinction between his human nature and the human nature of genuine men… I think you can see where I am going (??).

Best,

Aner

It seems our posts crossed. I don’t think I need to answer this, because as you would have understood from my post, I don’t see anything missing in/added to Jesus’ human nature that prohibits Him from being a normal human being. I deliberately used the term human being instead of human person, because I don’t want to get bogged down in this human person vs divine person debate. I think the debate is meaningless because the personhood ball that an individual holds does not affect/determine his nature anyway.

 

[Aner]

It seems our posts crossed. I don’t think I need to answer this, because as you would have understood from my post, I don’t see anything missing in/added to Jesus’ human nature that prohibits Him from being a human person.

Aft

First and foremost, thanks for the patience to continue to chew on this matter. Both you and I recognize that there is something intrinsically critical here - and I appreciate that in you.

My question regarding your bolded statement - if nothing was missing in Jesus’ human nature that prohibits Him from being a human person - why wasn’t/isn’t He?

Aner

 

[afthomercy]

Aft
My question regarding your bolded statement - if nothing was missing in Jesus’ human nature that prohibits Him from being a human person - why wasn’t/isn’t He?

Aner

But those weren’t my words. I had used the term human being instead of human person and also drawn attention to the same. I will presume that you changed it back to human person unintentionally.

Why wasn’t/isn’t He… what? The sentence seems to be hanging. Kindly complete it/clarify

 

[Aner]

Aner:

I have reconsidered my earlier construct of self-awareness being other side of the personhood coin. The dog example has opened my eyes to the pitfalls and so I think its better not to try and pin personhood down so specifically. (BTW I would like to know your views on what the litmus test for “person” is - on what criterion would you say that such and such living entity is/is not a person?).

If I understand right - you are deciding that we are unable to attribute any particular characteristic to person-hood - we are simply deciding that such a “phenomenon” (you have not told me whether tangible or intangible yet…) exists… Am I understanding you correctly?

The logical question - why? Why does such a distinctive phenomenon exist - why not just “entity” as a singularity (with no person/nature dichotomy)?

Moving away from the OP and turning towards our area of disagreement on the man Jesus Christ:
So now I would like to propose that the [man Jesus] held the same personhood ball that [God the Second Person] does.

The issue is that there is NO “man Christ Jesus” (ITim2:5) without a human personhood - even as you and I don’t exist without a human personhood.

5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Of course, based on the above, we don’t know what personhood even is at this point - which seems to render both sides of the discussion (2nd Personhood or human personhood) issue somewhat moot.

Here brackets indicate the independent living entity. By “personhood ball” I mean whatever it is that constitutes personhood in an individual. As I stated above, I don’t want to get inside that ball, because its beyond my competence.

So what the term “Hypostatic Union” must mean is that [God the Second Person], infused His own personhood ball into the man Jesus right at the earliest stage at which a human being develops a sense of personhood.

Why not dispense with “Hypostatic Union” - this is obviously a totally man-made, artificial term?? Why not just use Biblical language? Paul was happy with his language… Likewise Peter and John were happy with their language - and they never used such phrasing “Hypostatic Union” - nor a person/nature dichotomy.

Now coming to your post #144:
If you and I acknowledge that Jesus could/can completely function independent of a divine entity - just like you and I and EVERY other MAN that has ever existed - I would tend to think you are fully acknowledging the Lord and Master who bought us. My goal is to identify and preserve the genuine MAN Christ Jesus as the scriptures repeatedly and clearly teach. I sense you are open to such a consideration. Are you able to do this?

As I have tried to explain above, the personhood of the Second Person is a ball that the man Jesus held in his mind, just as you and I hold a personhood ball in our respective minds. Why should the fact that Jesus’ personhood ball tallied with God the Second Person’s affect his functionality as an independent human being? I don’t believe that the personhood of an individual can affect/distort his intrinsic nature.

OK, let me get this straight - you are saying that the human nature of Jesus could entirely function independent of any sort of contact with the divine entity in identical of a manner as you or I function independent of any sort of contact with a divine entity (including full consciousness/will, etc.). Do I correctly understand the meaning of your statement?

If this is the case, why introduce the concept of “person-hood” at all?? There is no necessity to do so - we have a complete, fully functioning entity without it.

I will await our completion of this part before tackling the last part.

Best,
Aner

 

[afthomercy]

If I understand right - you are deciding that we are unable to attribute any particular characteristic to person-hood - we are simply deciding that such a “phenomenon” (you have not told me whether tangible or intangible yet…) exists… Am I understanding you correctly?

Yes. However I would venture to say that personhood has some thing to do with self-concept or “who am I” or ego. Regarding tangible/intangible, I would say tangible.

The logical question - why? Why does such a distinctive phenomenon exist - why not just “entity” as a singularity (with no person/nature dichotomy)?
I think it is intrinsic to the nature of personal beings to possess the phenomenon of personhood. Think of it as a placard on which something is written. The fact of having a placard is common to all such beings, but what is written on it is different for every individual. Who does the writing? God does the writing. When it came to Jesus, God the Son looked at what was written on His own placard and copied the same onto Jesus’ placard.

Entity as a singularity would be a non-personal being.
I do not know whether “dichotomy” is the right word.

The issue is that there is NO “man Christ Jesus” (ITim2:5) without a human personhood - even as you and I don’t exist without a human personhood.
I don’t recognise a term called “human personhood”. I think “personhood” is sufficient, without need for the qualifier, because the phenomenon is the same across all personal beings.

Of course, based on the above, we don’t know what personhood even is at this point - which seems to render both sides of the discussion issue somewhat moot.
We could go on discussing the concept of personhood and not come to a definitive conclusion in our life time. Having said that, I am yet to see even a tentative definition of personhood from your side.

Why not dispense with “Hypostatic Union” - this is obviously a totally man-made, artificial term?? Why not just use Biblical language? Paul was happy with his language… Likewise Peter and John were happy with their language - and they never used such phrasing “Hypostatic Union” - nor a person/nature dichotomy. No comment at this stage.

OK, let me get this straight - you are saying that the human nature of Jesus could entirely function independent of any sort of contact with the divine entity in identical of a manner as you or I function independent of any sort of contact with a divine entity (including full consciousness/will, etc.). Do I correctly understand the meaning of your statement?
I’m slightly uncomfortable with your sentence construction. I’d say that the human being named Jesus functioned entirely independently of the Divine Being named Son/Second Person in his normal functionality. The only form of contact He had with God was through prayer, just as we have.

If this is the case, why introduce the concept of “person-hood” at all?? There is no necessity to do so - we have a complete, fully functioning entity without it.
Such an entity might be fully functioning, but it wouldn’t be a personal being of the kind you or I or Jesus or the Father, the Son and the Spirit are.

 

[afthomercy]

Aner,
Regarding the tangible/intangible question above, although I answered tangible, I’m not really sure I understand all the ramifications. Is it really critical in view of my other clarifications? If so, I could have another go at it.