Person Vs Nature

[levinas12]

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.

You can have a substance without “person”. All creatures beneath humans are non-personal substances (I’m afraid that this applies even to dogs and cats).

“Person” adds an indefinable singularity. What is meant by “singularity” here is that “person” falls outside all Aristotelian categories. “Person” belongs to the “thisness” or “haecceitas” of a rational being (to use Scotus’ terminology).

It’s important to stress that the individuality of “person” does not belong simply to the “matter” - “person” is an ontological excellence in a way that “matter” can never be. Otherwise, how would we be able the “individuality” of angels or even God, i.e., personal beings with no matter?

On the “formal” side, a “person” is not just a sum of attributes (material, mental or otherwise). A “person” is not a congeries of universals.

It is being a “person” that especially makes a human being an image of God (not just rational nature).

But “person” requires a rational nature. This is true even of God.

It’s just that “rational nature” is not the same ontological principle as “person” - although there is no being with a rational nature who is not also a “person”.

Human beings, in other words, are not just instantiations of a rational nature (or form or eidos).

There is another excellence that “person” adds to “substance”.

This excellence can only be expressed as a “who” instead of a “what” (see Robert Spaemann for more detail).

 

[levinas12]

Otherwise, how would we be able the “individuality” of angels or even God, i.e., personal beings with no matter?

Typo time

“How would we be able to explain the individuality of angels or even God …”

 

[Aner]

Based on the below (unfortunately the system did not perfectly pick up the above quote), I get the following -

1. Personhood/Personness exists - as a phenomenon in reality - but without known characteristics that can distinguish from any other phenomenon.

Question - If we don’t even know what it is, how do we know it even exists? Don’t we know something exists by virtue of some identifiable characteristics?

I’d say that the human being named Jesus functioned entirely independently of the Divine Being named Son/Second Person in his normal functionality.

1. Based on this above quote, Jesus - simply as a human nature - and NOT as a human person - can fully function - just like you and I - without regard to the 2nd Person of God.

Do I have 2. right? Because, with all due respect, this is quite a doozey (define as you will… ). If so, I wonder why the fully functioning human nature Christ Jesus would even need the 2nd person?? What would be the point?

I assume your fully functioning human nature Jesus has all the same faculties as you or I. Correct? What, then, makes Him NOT a human person?

1. Person as Tangible (vs Intangible) Phenomenon - The implication is that there is something of “substance”, e.g. measurable, that constitutes one’s person. As opposed to simply an abstraction or idea. Tangible can simply be energy.

Perhaps an approach -

If I was to remove my human personness from myself - and thus render myself simply a human nature - what exactly would be the change that I would experience? Oh, and who is the “I” that would doing this?

We can start with the above - but we are definitely going in the right direction - getting clarification.

re: Aner’s Thought on Person (vs Nature)
Reasonable question. In general, I don’t recognize the artificial dichotomy between person and nature. I recognize entity. When the “life force” (whatever it is that makes living) is in the body, there is an entity. When the life force leaves the body, there is death - and just the body.

I would tend to consider that primary consciousness in a body - perhaps as an extension of the body (brain) - would constitute an entity. Some assert that our consciousness is greater than an extension of the body - that is, an independent soul or spirit (Paul has discussion on this in ICor2). My focus would tend to be on the faculties of our consciousness.

Best

Aner

 

[Aner]

You can have a substance without “person”. All creatures beneath humans are non-personal substances (I’m afraid that this applies even to dogs and cats).

A. How do You know? And who or what is the “You” that knows?

B. Have you ever had a dog or cat? My lady friend has three cats. They are remarkably singular - very distinct from one another. They have definite “person-alities”

“Person” adds an indefinable singularity.

How can a singularity be indefinable? Isn’t the very essence of the concept presupposing a definability - a distinctive? How can you have a distinctive without it being at some level definable.

MOST IMPORTANT - Can Jesus fully function just like you or I without regard to a divine entity?

What is meant by “singularity” here is that “person” falls outside all Aristotelian categories. “Person” belongs to the “thisness” or “haecceitas” of a rational being (to use Scotus’ terminology).

It’s important to stress that the individuality of “person” does not belong simply to the “matter” - “person” is an ontological excellence in a way that “matter” can never be. Otherwise, how would we be able the “individuality” of angels or even God, i.e., personal beings with no matter?

On the “formal” side, a “person” is not just a sum of attributes (material, mental or otherwise). A “person” is not a congeries of universals.

It is being a “person” that especially makes a human being an image of God (not just rational nature).

But “person” requires a rational nature. This is true even of God.

It’s just that “rational nature” is not the same ontological principle as “person” - although there is no being with a rational nature who is not also a “person”.

Human beings, in other words, are not just instantiations of a rational nature (or form or eidos).

There is another excellence that “person” adds to “substance”.

This excellence can only be expressed as a “who” instead of a “what” (see Robert Spaemann for more detail).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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?

You know you are geeting much too much into things about which we can only speculate.What do we know for certain? Only what the Church teaches. For that you must go to the Catechism. The rest is specultion. And that should be left to trained Theologians. That leaves out you and me - and Aner.

All I will say is that in Jesus Christ there is one person only, the Second Person of the Trinity and two natures. That both natures exist in one Being, the Being of the Second Person. That the Second Person assumed the human nature for our salvation. That the human will and intellect are totally united to and obedient to the divine intellect and will.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Aner]

Linus

Welcome back!

When Jesus said, “Not MY will be done but THY Will be done”

Who was the MY that was speaking?

Why was the “MY’s” will opposite that of the Divine Will of the Father?

BTW - what is wrong with referring to simple clear cut scriptural statements as our basis of authority??? Isn’t this what Jesus kept calling the Jews to do?? He did not call them to look to an ecclesiastical authority per se - but the clear Word of God.

As an example ITim2:5 -

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

There sure is a lot packed in here - and so simply and straightforward. We only have to choose to align ourselves with the clear, authoritative teaching of the Word of God and the confusion and ignorance regarding the issue of God and Christ will naturally just fall away.

Best,

Aner

 

[davidv]

Linus

Welcome back!

When Jesus said, “Not MY will be done but THY Will be done”

Who was the MY that was speaking?

Jesus, the divine person with human and divine natures.

Why was the “MY’s” will opposite that of the Divine Will of the Father?

It wasn’t. The human desire of pain and suffering, experienced by Jesus was a temptation to go against the will of the Father.

BTW - what is wrong with referring to simple clear cut scriptural statements as our basis of authority???

Because most are subject to contradictory interpretations.

Isn’t this what Jesus kept calling the Jews to do?? He did not call them to look to an ecclesiastical authority per se - but the clear Word of God.

As an example ITim2:5 -

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

There sure is a lot packed in here - and so simply and straightforward. We only have to choose to align ourselves with the clear, authoritative teaching of the Word of God and the confusion and ignorance regarding the issue of God and Christ will naturally just fall away.

Best,

Aner

 

[Aner]

Jesus, the divine person with human and divine natures.

It wasn’t. The human desire of pain and suffering, experienced by Jesus was a temptation to go against the will of the Father.

Because most are subject to contradictory interpretations.

Hi David

Thanks for joining us!

If I understand it right, you are saying that God (the 2nd divine person) was speaking to God (the 1st divine person) - though actually Himselfat least according to essence - and telling another part of Himself that His will was contrary to the will of another part of Himself.

In addition you are telling me that the God (the 2nd divine person) was in a very meaningful way affected by something as silly/transitory - and totally irrelevant to that person - somethingthat, is paid/suffering - which God the 2nd certainly knew would be shortly over - therefore did NOT want to do so.

Do I understand your points correctly?

BTW - can a nature have a desire - or only a person? If a nature can have a desire - why is the notion of a person even needed?

BTW2 - if the 2nd person did not inhabit the human nature - could the human nature fully independently function - just like you and I and all other men do?

Thanks

Aner

PS Do you really think that God would have provided the guidebook to humanity in such a sloppy way that it could not be easily and well understood? The Jews were doing so long before Jesus even came… Perhaps just the OT was well-written but the NT was so poorly contrived that it simply did not make sense to the average reader. Perhaps we should take issue with God for his lousy writing… :

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus

Welcome back!

When Jesus said, “Not MY will be done but THY Will be done”

Who was the MY that was speaking?

Why was the “MY’s” will opposite that of the Divine Will of the Father?

Jesus was telling his Father that he willingly bowed his will to that of the Father. Why do you ask.

BTW - what is wrong with referring to simple clear cut scriptural statements as our basis of authority??? Isn’t this what Jesus kept calling the Jews to do?? He did not call them to look to an ecclesiastical authority per se - but the clear Word of God.

Nothing wrong as long as we are willing to submit our convictions to the teaching of the Church when there is strong disagreement. There always has to be a final authority. The psychology of human nature should tell you the private authority could never and, indeed, has never worked.

Obviously people my not and do not always follow the authority of the established Church either, but the point is that the truth is there and they have no excuse for not following it - if they are absolutely honest.

The Jewish Prophets and their own Priests were supposed to be their authority. But since they did not believe Jesus he established a new covenant and a new Church in which he invested all authority down to the end of time.

As an example ITim2:5 -

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

There sure is a lot packed in here - and so simply and straightforward. We only have to choose to align ourselves with the clear, authoritative teaching of the Word of God and the confusion and ignorance regarding the issue of God and Christ will naturally just fall away.

Yes the words are clear. He mediates through the preaching, prayers, sacrifices, teaching, and sacraments of his Church, as is clear from his own words.

But why debate the point, it should be obvious to you.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Jesus, the divine person with human and divine natures.

It wasn’t. The human desire of pain and suffering, experienced by Jesus was a temptation to go against the will of the Father.

Because most are subject to contradictory interpretations.

Stick to your guns. These tactics are as old as the hills. The Church is our authority, we do not need to be embarrassed because non-believers raise objections. That is the tactic of the sophist. The truth isn’t really important to them. They want ot score points and embarrass. Another is to just ware you out and then pretend they have won an argument.

Oh yes, many of them are quite clever too. But being clever is not the same as being right.

If they come to the door shut it, if at the corner of the street or at work you can just walk away. Here there comes a time when you just have say good bye. I’ve done that many times.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[davidv]

Hi David

Thanks for joining us!

If I understand it right, you are saying that God (the 2nd divine person) was speaking to God (the 1st divine person) - though actually Himselfat least according to essence - and telling another part of Himself that His will was contrary to the will of another part of Himself.

In addition you are telling me that the God (the 2nd divine person) was in a very meaningful way affected by something as silly/transitory - and totally irrelevant to that person - somethingthat, is paid/suffering - which God the 2nd certainly knew would be shortly over - therefore did NOT want to do so.

Do I understand your points correctly?

No.

BTW - can a nature have a desire - or only a person? If a nature can have a desire - why is the notion of a person even needed?

Why do you think they are the same? Why are different words used?

BTW2 - if the 2nd person did not inhabit the human nature - could the human nature fully independently function - just like you and I and all other men do?

A nature is what is. A person is who is.

Thanks

Aner

PS Do you really think that God would have provided the guidebook to humanity in such a sloppy way that it could not be easily and well understood?

We are provided a guide the is much better than any book. The Church is our guide. The Bible is the story of our salvation history.

The Jews were doing so long before Jesus even came… Perhaps just the OT was well-written but the NT was so poorly contrived that it simply did not make sense to the average reader. Perhaps we should take issue with God for his lousy writing… :

Perhaps you could by more respectful of the Church he left in charge.

 

[levinas12]

How do you define a specific person? I argue it can’t be done.

When is a definition appropriate? When someone asks “what is that”.

But a “who” cannot be reduced to a “what”. You can’t ask “what is a Bill Clinton”.

Because Bill Clinton is not an instantiation.

 

[afthomercy]

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 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).

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.
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]

Linus

When Jesus said, “Not MY will be done but THY Will be done”

Who was the MY that was speaking?
I don’t believe you answered this. Can you please tell me whether it was the divine person, the divine nature or the human nature (you have already denied the human person I believe so I excluding this critical reality).

Why was the “MY’s” will opposite that of the Divine Will of the Father?

Jesus was telling his Father that he willingly bowed his will to that of the Father. Why do you ask.

What Jesus actually said is that His will was DIFFERENT than His Father since He specifically said “NOT my will” thus deferring His true will. Do you acknowledge that one divine being had a very contrary and different will than the other divine being - despite the fact that they were the same being??

Aner

 

[Aner]

How do you define a specific person? I argue it can’t be done.

When is a definition appropriate? When someone asks “what is that”.

But a “who” cannot be reduced to a “what”. You can’t ask “what is a Bill Clinton”.

Because Bill Clinton is not an instantiation.

Lev

The real issue is why did we need to create this artifical, man-made, non-scriptural construct in the first place?? Why even play with the wisdom of men’s words when we can have the power of God??

Best,
Aner

 

[Aner]

AFT

Your statement

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).

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

 

[Aner]

No.

David - You specifically said that the divine person was the “MY” in “Not MY will”. You are necessarily asserting that one divine person had a contrary will to another divine person - but really the same God. Why are you choosing to contradict your own statement by negating it here?

Why do you think they are the same? Why are different words used?

I asked to get clarification of what you are really saying since it was not clear.

A nature is what is. A person is who is.

Who then is the MY in “Not MY will be done”?

We are provided a guide the is much better than any book. The Church is our guide. The Bible is the story of our salvation history.

There is a better guide - Jesus was VERY specific about that guide (Jn 14 - 16) - that guide is clearly stated to be the Holy Spirit of God. Perhaps you could be more respectful of the Holy Spirit of God - otherwise you border on blasphemy.

Perhaps you could by more respectful of the Church he left in charge.

I am very respectful of the church of Jesus Christ - which was not left in charge - only Jesus - the Head of the church comprised of those who are holding fast the Head is in charge via the Holy Spirit of God.

 

[vz71]

Why was the “MY’s” will opposite that of the Divine Will of the Father?

Was it?

 

[Aner]

Was it?

Vz - Read Lk22:42 for yourself.
saying, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.”

Jesus will was NOT that of the Father’s

You will also need to wrestle with the strong crying and tears passage in Heb5:7…

 

[davidv]

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

David - You specifically said that the divine person was the “MY” in “Not MY will”. You are necessarily asserting that one divine person had a contrary will to another divine person - but really the same God. Why are you choosing to contradict your own statement by negating it here?

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.

There is a better guide - Jesus was VERY specific about that guide (Jn 14 - 16) - that guide is clearly stated to be the Holy Spirit of God. Perhaps you could be more respectful of the Holy Spirit of God - otherwise you border on blasphemy.

Since the Church is the Body of Christ, Jesus is our guide through her.

16]
“He who hears you** hears me**, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

I am no where close to blasphemy.