The Quadrinity

[mrS4ntA]

Cosmo:

If he’s fully (100%) God and fully (100%) man, doesn’t that make him a 200% person? How’s that possible?

Wouldn’t 50% man and 50% God make more sense?

No one says it need to be 100% sensible (how ironic). Christ is fully (100%) human and fully (100%) divine. That’s a dogma of the Catholic Church. The Church calls it a “Hypostatic Union.”

Just like Three is One and One is Three is not 100% sensible. the Hypostatic is not 100% sensible. in human’s terms, that is.

 

[porthos11]

f he’s fully (100%) God and fully (100%) man, doesn’t that make him a 200% person? How’s that possible?

Don’t forget too, that Jesus is only 100% person, not 200%. That 100% of his personhood is divine. Jesus is NOT a human person.

 

[mrS4ntA]

porthos11:

Don’t forget too, that Jesus is only 100% person, not 200%. That 100% of his personhood is divine. Jesus is NOT a human person.

Same old, same old… hhh
Ancient heresy re-surfacing again. where’s the Holy Inquisition when you need them?

 

[mrS4ntA]

porthos11:

Don’t forget too, that Jesus is only 100% person, not 200%. That 100% of his personhood is divine. Jesus is NOT a human person.

Anyway…
to follow your school of thought,

don’t forget too, that One is 100%, not 300%. That 100% of God’s unity is One Godhead. Therefore God the Father is 33.3% recurring, God the Son is 33.3% recurring, and God the Holy Ghost is 33.3% recurring. That would make a total of 100%. Hmm… Now *that * makes a *perfect * sense to me.

 

[Cosmo]

porthos11:

Don’t forget too, that Jesus is only 100% person, not 200%. That 100% of his personhood is divine. Jesus is NOT a human person.

So, he’s a divine person? That seems more than a little conflicting.

The word ‘person’, by definition, implies a mortal human being. If he’s not a human person, what variety is he? It almost seems like you need a new word here to describe him - God perhaps? If so, why bother calling him a person at all, since he seems to conflict with so many of the assumptions inherent in using that word?

 

[mrS4ntA]

Cosmo:

So, he’s a divine person? That seems more than a little conflicting.

The word ‘person’, by definition, implies a mortal human being. If he’s not a human person, what variety is he? It almost seems like you need a new word here to describe him - God perhaps? If so, why bother calling him a person at all, since he seems to conflict with so many of the assumptions inherent in using that word?

hmm… the word “person” needs not only be applied to human. The Trinity is explained in terms of “Persons” too

 

[Cosmo]

mrS4ntA:

hmm… the word “person” needs not only be applied to human. The Trinity is explained in terms of “Persons” too

Granted, that they may be. However, I bet you’d be hard-pressed to think of a single other person (other than those three) who fall into that category. If I understand things correctly, they’re all supposed to be God anyway, so why even bother attempting to label them as people?

It still seems to be a contradictory assessment.

 

[porthos11]

mrS4ntA:

Same old, same old… hhh
Ancient heresy re-surfacing again. where’s the Holy Inquisition when you need them?

Santa,

Be careful of what you call heresy. That Jesus is a divine, not human person is orthodox Catholic teaching, defined at the Council of Ephesus in AD 430. Jesus is the second Person of the trinity. As such, he is not a human person. He did have two natures, human and divine in that one person.

 

[mrS4ntA]

porthos11:

Santa,

Be careful of what you call heresy. That Jesus is a divine, not human person is orthodox Catholic teaching, defined at the Council of Ephesus in AD 430. Jesus is the second Person of the trinity. As such, he is not a human person. He did have two natures, human and divine in that one person.

Oh, I do believe He is fully divine. But my perception from your earlier post is that you denied He was fully human.

 

[Cosmo]

porthos11:

Santa,

Be careful of what you call heresy. That Jesus is a divine, not human person is orthodox Catholic teaching, defined at the Council of Ephesus in AD 430. Jesus is the second Person of the trinity. As such, he is not a human person. He did have two natures, human and divine in that one person.

I don’t think we can continue much further in this direction without providing a definition for the more important concepts here, namely that of the word ‘person’. I maintain that 99.999999…% of humans have been mortal, with the possible exception of (If I understand christianity correctly) the trinity.

It seems that those three are the exceptions to the rule, and by calling them ‘people’ it confuses them with the uncounted billions of other humans who exhibit the more commonly accepted traits of being a ‘person’ - namely that of mortality.

If this is indeed the case, it seems that those three should have a different name applied to them, as the word person appears to no longer apply.

 

[RobedWithLight]

Cosmo:

So, he’s a divine person? That seems more than a little conflicting.

The word ‘person’, by definition, implies a mortal human being. If he’s not a human person, what variety is he? It almost seems like you need a new word here to describe him - God perhaps? If so, why bother calling him a person at all, since he seems to conflict with so many of the assumptions inherent in using that word?

How can you say it conflicts with our assumptions, when Christians do not assume that ‘person’ necessarily imply a mortal human being, but rather it applies to angels and God as well.

When someone asks you what “orange” is, are you going to limit it to the fruit itself, and not apply the same term to the color that lies between yellow and red?

In the same token are you going to limit the definition of the term “person” to a mortal human being?

Christians consider person to be applicable to God as well because God is a who, and not merely a what. Thus if we ask Christ who He is, He will have one answer, He is Jesus Christ, the Word, the only begotten Son. The answer to the question ‘who’ refers to the person, not the nature. On the other hand, when we ask Him** what** He is, we are referring to His Nature, and Jesus would then answer that He is God, and He is man.

Gerry

 

[porthos11]

Cosmo:

So, he’s a divine person? That seems more than a little conflicting.

The word ‘person’, by definition, implies a mortal human being. If he’s not a human person, what variety is he? It almost seems like you need a new word here to describe him - God perhaps? If so, why bother calling him a person at all, since he seems to conflict with so many of the assumptions inherent in using that word?

These are ancient issues going all the way back to the first centuries. Why not look up some good references on the Councils of Nicea I, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon? They tackled these issues a good 1700 yeas ago.

 

[mrS4ntA]

Cosmo:

I don’t think we can continue much further in this direction without providing a definition for the more important concepts here, namely that of the word ‘person’. I maintain that 99.999999…% of humans have been mortal, with the possible exception of (If I understand christianity correctly) the trinity.

It seems that those three are the exceptions to the rule, and by calling them ‘people’ it confuses them with the uncounted billions of other humans who exhibit the more commonly accepted traits of being a ‘person’ - namely that of mortality.

If this is indeed the case, it seems that those three should have a different name applied to them, as the word person appears to no longer apply.

A correct understanding of the word we term “Person” (capital P) does not exclusively point to a human person. And we do not hold that the Persons of the Blessed Trinity are humans (that’s Mormonism).

A Person is simply an “essence” – what something “is”. We are both human persons, but we have different Persons. Think what the word “persona” means and you realise that it comes from “person”

 

[Cosmo]

RobedWithLight:

Christians consider person to be applicable to God as well because God is a who, and not merely a what. Thus if we ask Christ who He is, He will have one answer, He is Jesus Christ, the Word, the only begotten Son. The answer to the question ‘who’ refers to the person, not the nature. On the other hand, when we ask Him** what** He is, we are referring to His Nature, and Jesus would then answer that He is God, and He is man.

Now, I’m not christian, so please forgive me if I’m not quite sure about how to go about this. How might I ask Christ this question, so as to receive an answer for myself? Where can he be contacted? While we’re at it, I can think of a number of other questions that I’d also like to ask…

 

[porthos11]

Cosmo:

I don’t think we can continue much further in this direction without providing a definition for the more important concepts here, namely that of the word ‘person’. I maintain that 99.999999…% of humans have been mortal, with the possible exception of (If I understand christianity correctly) the trinity.

It seems that those three are the exceptions to the rule, and by calling them ‘people’ it confuses them with the uncounted billions of other humans who exhibit the more commonly accepted traits of being a ‘person’ - namely that of mortality.

If this is indeed the case, it seems that those three should have a different name applied to them, as the word person appears to no longer apply.

Cosmo,

The problem here is the definition of person. For purposes of theology, a “person” is a being with both REASON and WILL. That’s why God is a Person (three actually), angels are persons, and we humans are also persons, because REASON and WILL are part of our natures. Even deranged people are persons, because although their reason and wills may be diminished, they are still inherent to their being human. Dogs are not persons, they neither will nor reason.

Now since Jesus was always God, eternally begotten of the Father, he has always been a divine Person. When he became man, he did not lose the divinness of this Personhood, otherwise, he would have ceased to be God, which is impossible. Personhood defines his “whoness”. No, the Catholic Church has always held that the second divne Person of the Trinity took on himself a human NATURE. So his human NATURE was hypostatically united in his divine NATURE in a single divine PERSON.

 

[porthos11]

Cosmo:

Now, I’m not christian, so please forgive me if I’m not quite sure about how to go about this. How might I ask Christ this question, so as to receive an answer for myself? Where can he be contacted? While we’re at it, I can think of a number of other questions that I’d also like to ask…

Ah, you should have mentioned that at the beginning. Do you hold a religious belief, or are you agnostic or atheist?

 

[porthos11]

mrS4ntA:

Oh, I do believe He is fully divine. But my perception from your earlier post is that you denied He was fully human.

Oh no not at all. Fully divine, fully human, that’s true. These describe his natures. But his Personhood is divine, and he is only One Person. That’s why we cherish the title of our Lady’s being Mother of God; it combatted the Nestorian heresy that split Jesus into two Persons. The Council condemned this and defined the orthodox position of Jesus being one divine Person having two natures.

 

[Cosmo]

porthos11:

The problem here is the definition of person. For purposes of theology, a “person” is a being with both REASON and WILL. That’s why God is a Person (three actually), angels are persons, and we humans are also persons, because REASON and WILL are part of our natures. Even deranged people are persons, because although their reason and wills may be diminished, they are still inherent to their being human. Dogs are not persons, they neither will nor reason.

I’m not sure I agree with you on these points, mainly because the concepts of reason and will must be clarified further.

If by reason, do you mean basic logic processes, like decision-making? If so, I think it is quite readily provable that dogs have at least basic decision-making facilities. As a simple example, consider basic preferences. It’s likely that the dog may prefer chicken over beef, and when presented with a choice between the two, he may indeed choose the one which he prefers.

As for will - do you mean that basic facilities with which to act according to one’s own wishes? If this is the case, I think it can also be shown that dogs also possess this quality. Using the chicken and beef example again, I think it’s not unfair to state that, when deciding between the two, the dog is free to make his own decision about which meat to consume.

 

[mrS4ntA]

porthos11:

Oh no not at all. Fully divine, fully human, that’s true. These describe his natures. But his Personhood is divine, and he is only One Person. That’s why we cherish the title of our Lady’s being Mother of God; it combatted the Nestorian heresy that split Jesus into two Persons. The Council condemned this and defined the orthodox position of Jesus being one divine Person having two natures.

actually, it combatted the heresy that Mary was the mother of the human *nature * of Christ, not the Person of Christ. I don’t think they split the Person.

 

[Cosmo]

porthos11:

Ah, you should have mentioned that at the beginning. Do you hold a religious belief, or are you agnostic or atheist?

I fail to see the connection between my theistic opinions and the current discussion, but I have no qualms in answering that I’m an atheist.