True God and true man...

[glendab]

Hello Geddie.

I doubt the ice-cream headaches, as only Pontius Pilate (if he) would have had access to ice-cream in Roman Judaea

ICXC NIKA.

If Pontius Pilate could have tasted Ben and Jerry’s Cherries Garcia, he could’ve been bribed easily to give up Jesus instead of Barabas.

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Hello Tonyrey.

Which suggests that Jesus Himself was not immune to “the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”. He must have had minor accidents and mishaps during His journeys through the deserts and mountains of Galilee and Judea. His trials on earth began when He was put in the manger rather than a comfortable cot…

You are assuming too much. It is wonderful to want to get to know Jesus up close and personal, but the way to do that is in prayer and reception of the Sacraments and study of what the Church has said about Him. Speculations are that, only speculations and are not beliefs, but simply flights of fancy and not to be relied upon as true.

Glenda

 

[tonyrey]

Imho it depends whether we think he is superman or a man. Standard Baptist theology is there would be no point in him taking human form except to experience our joys and sorrows, and without this his sacrifice and intercession would lose their meaning. Isaiah also sees him as a frail human, bearing our infirmities, carrying our diseases, suffering, wounded, crushed…

Some of the Jews regarded Jesus as an impostor and others thought He was possessed by a devil - which suggests He didn’t seem to be a superman. The fact that they questioned His authority and asked Him to perform miracles indicates that there was nothing extraordinary about His appearance. The crowd wouldn’t have shouted “Crucify Him!” if they had thought Jesus was in any way divine or sent by God. St Paul wouldn’t have written that He “emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death-- even death on a cross!” Philippians 2:8

The people in the synagogue in Nazareth were even going to throw Him off the cliff because He had told them no prophet is accepted in his hometown. For them He certainly was like us in all things, except for His outrageous claim to be inspired by God. Nor was He accepted everywhere He went in spite of His reputation as a healer and preacher. His appearance cannot have been unusual. He wanted to share our life to the full and He succeeded perfectly - as one might expect where God is concerned.

 

[tonyrey]

Hello Tonyrey.
You are assuming too much. It is wonderful to want to get to know Jesus up close and personal, but the way to do that is in prayer and reception of the Sacraments and study of what the Church has said about Him. Speculations are that, only speculations and are not beliefs, but simply flights of fancy and not to be relied upon as true.

Glenda

Hi Glenda, I don’t think what I have written is speculation and flights of fancy because it is based on facts in the Gospels.

 

[tonyrey]

Hello Tonyrey.

Correct me if I’m off here, but I sense a twinge of judgment upon the actions of Jesus, who is God. I mean if you are only evaluating His divine actions in the Gospel accounts to learn and grow from them or to feel closer to Him in His humanity by looking at His actions in a certain way, but please remember these are all divine actions recorded for us to teach and exhort and give examples of how we should follow Him. We aren’t supposed to judge His actions or words to see if there might be mistakes or if they are infallible or somehow not up to the standards of our societal norms for behavior. If you don’t understand what He did or said in light of your own experience and knowledge, the shortfall isn’t with Jesus. Simply think “I don’t understand,” a particular passage or saying or whatever rather than risk falling into a certain sinful attitude that gives you the ability to judge God’s words and actions. I mean think about it - looking for mistakes in Jesus’ words and actions is judging God and that is not so good for your poor soul.

Oh well. Just my opinion and I’m no expert on anything but chicken enchiladas with black beans and salad for dinner soon, so yummy! I’m hungry.

Glenda

Hi Glenda, I specified mistakes in non-spiritual matters. I am simply discussing the implications of being a man like us in all things **but sin **which should make us more appreciative of the fact that Jesus “although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.” Phil. 2:6-7

For us it should be a wonderful lesson in humility and unselfish love to understand the full extent to which Our Lord sacrificed Himself throughout His everyday life on earth - but that is only one side of the story. I’m sure He was happy on many occasions as when He healed the sick, raised the dead and even transformed water into wine at the wedding feast - and tasted it…

I hope you enjoyed your enchiladas!

 

[tonyrey]

You are making a distinction that probably doesn’t exist.

Our LORD was a human being, having a human mind and body. Human being implies all of our limitations/weaknesses.

To be sure, free from the physical entropy of genes due to corruption, or the moral flaws passed on by generations, He was a wondrous example of male human life. But the operative word is “human.”

ICXC NIKA.

There is no ambiguity about “true man”. God doesn’t do things by halves.
Jesus Himself emphasized that He was the Son of Man.

There was no need for Jesus to become a man to understand how we feel but we needed to understand how much God loves us.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Jesus assumed human nature. Jesus did not absorb human nature. Therefore, He did not absorb our weaknesses.

“was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.”

I wonder how this “becoming” is squared with the philosophical conception of God as pure actuality.

 

[GEddie]

“was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.”

I wonder how this “becoming” is squared with the philosophical conception of God as pure actuality.

Because human life, unlike Divinity, is not ab aeterno. One cannot be a human being without, first, becoming a human being, precisely via biological generation.

But while the ICXC we know and long for was “potential” in our world until 6BC; the Divine will to form HIM was indeed from ab aeterno.

ICXC. NIKA.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Because human life, unlike Divinity, is not ab aeterno. One cannot be a human being without, first, becoming a human being, precisely via biological generation.

But while the ICXC we know and long for was “potential” in our world until 6BC; the Divine will to form HIM was indeed from ab aeterno.

ICXC. NIKA.

Being formed is still a change, no matter how long ago it was planned.

 

[GEddie]

Being formed is still a change, no matter how long ago it was planned.

Indeed, and the human ICXC was not exempt from change. No-one has said HE was.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[inocente]

Some of the Jews regarded Jesus as an impostor and others thought He was possessed by a devil - which suggests He didn’t seem to be a superman. The fact that they questioned His authority and asked Him to perform miracles indicates that there was nothing extraordinary about His appearance. The crowd wouldn’t have shouted “Crucify Him!” if they had thought Jesus was in any way divine or sent by God. St Paul wouldn’t have written that He “emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death-- even death on a cross!” Philippians 2:8

The people in the synagogue in Nazareth were even going to throw Him off the cliff because He had told them no prophet is accepted in his hometown. For them He certainly was like us in all things, except for His outrageous claim to be inspired by God. Nor was He accepted everywhere He went in spite of His reputation as a healer and preacher. His appearance cannot have been unusual. He wanted to share our life to the full and He succeeded perfectly - as one might expect where God is concerned.

Agreed. “Like one from whom people hide their faces / he was despised, and we held him in low esteem”.

Another factor is how he intends us to relate to Him. There’s a difference between how we relate to the Father and to Christ. Christ is our friend, he dies as our friend (John 15:13), he defends us from the Father ("He is the defender: he comes before the Father to defend us against the charges” - Pope Francis). We are his friend, and his brother/sister (Matt 12:50).

We could not aspire to be the like the Father, it wouldn’t make sense. But while we know we’ll fall short, we can aspire to be like Christ, he is one of us, we are to see him in everyone (“Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me”). That obviously doesn’t mean we are to see others as flawless supermen. Christ knows them because he became like them, he understands us and can intercede for us because he is one of us, the last Adam.

 

[glendab]

Hello Tonyrey.

… For them He certainly was like us in all things, except for His outrageous claim to be inspired by God…He wanted to share our life to the full and He succeeded perfectly - as one might expect where God is concerned.

I find those two sentences troublesome. Can you explain further what you mean? I mean Jesus IS God, so no being “inspired” as you state. The other one is bothersome in that I don’t think God sent His Son to share in our life. He could and does do so perfectly from Heaven. God sent His Son for another reason not to share our lives “perfectly.” But this is simply my opinion and opinions are like belly buttons; everyone has one.

Glenda

 

[tonyrey]

Hello Tonyrey.

I find those two sentences troublesome. Can you explain further what you mean? I mean Jesus IS God, so no being “inspired” as you state.

Not guilty, Glenda. The people in the synagogue were the ones who thought Jesus claimed to be inspired - and persecuted by them like the prophets.

The other one is bothersome in that I don’t think God sent His Son to share in our life. He could and does do so perfectly from Heaven. God sent His Son for another reason not to share our lives “perfectly.” But this is simply my opinion and opinions are like belly buttons; everyone has one.

The Son obviously shares our life in Heaven but it is not the same as being born on earth, living with us and, in particular, dying for us. That is the “scandal” of Christianity many people cannot accept - even though, as Jesus told us, there is no greater love than to give your life for your friends. He could have included our enemies but the apostles already had enough on their plate and He knew they needed time to grasp the full significance of His mission!

More enchiladas?

Tony

 

[glendab]

Hello Tony.

Thanks for elaborating on your outlook. Interesting points.

No enchiladas today - it is Friday and I go meatless. No leftovers till tomorrow and everytime I open the fridge not only to I have to look at the casserole with its lovely contents, but my whole kitchen smells marvelous. Oh well. Penance is sometimes a delicious smelling kitchen on a Friday. I’m offering it up.

Glenda

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Indeed, and the human ICXC was not exempt from change. No-one has said HE was.

ICXC NIKA.

So he was not true god and true man. If he were true god, he would not and could not by definition be subject to any “becoming.” However, if he were true man, he would have to and indeed would be required by definition to be subject to “becoming.” Therefore, there is no way to reconcile the two without logical contradiction.

Your posts have made this fact quite clear: you have separated Jesus into two parts, “Human ICXC” and “HE/HIM” presumably because you recognize the inherent contradiction in their being a single entity. So let us consider the entity you have called “Human ICXC.”

Is this entity God? No, it cannot be since, as you said, it “was not exempt from change.”

Is this entity human? Maybe, does it have a free will that is not determined by things outside itself (i.e. HE/HIM?) If “Human ICXC” has its own free will, then it is human. If not (i.e. if it’s actions are dictated by someone/something else), then it must not be human.

What is this entity’s relationship with HE/HIM? *
Is one contained within the other? * Is one a part of the other?

A. Are they one and the same? No, they cannot be since one changes and the other does not.

B. *Does HE/HIM contain the entity “Human ICXC” or is the entity a part of HE/HIM? * No, it cannot be a part of HE/HIM, because this would be equivalent to saying there is a part of God which is subject to change, which is impossible by definition.

C.* Is HE contained by the entity “Human ICXC” or is HE a part of “Human ICXC?”* No, this is likewise impossible since humans do not contain Gods, and do not have God-parts.

Regardless of the answers to those questions, let us also consider the ensemble known as Jesus, consisting of your two entities: “human ICXC” and HIM bound together in some manner so that it is possible to claim that Jesus is both HIM and human.

Is the ensemble known as Jesus equal to God? It cannot be. After all, there is a component of the ensemble which is subject to change. If this ensemble were identically equal to God, then God would also have to have a component which is subject to change. However, God cannot have components subject to change by definition.

Is the ensemble known as Jesus greater than God? Impossible.

Is the ensemble known as Jesus lesser than God? Then the ensemble known as Jesus is not actually HIM.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Being formed is still a change, no matter how long ago it was planned.

It’s not a change in God, but a raising up of man. Man and God are united. Manhood isn’t absorbed.

Chalcedon:

Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us

One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;** the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis**; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

It’s not a change in God, but a raising up of man. Man and God are united. Manhood isn’t absorbed.

Chalcedon:

Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us

One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;** the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis**; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.

Asserting a contradiction doesn’t somehow make it go away.

If you define humanity as GEddie did:

One cannot be a human being without, first, becoming a human being, precisely via biological generation.

Then if God and man are in some way one and the same, it is necessary that God must have become at some point. If God did not become, then there is no possible arrangement of God’s “Hypostasis” that would make it satisfy GEddie’s criteria for being a human.

If, on the other hand, we take your approach and assert the “God is unchanging” part, we can easily conclude that at no point did God “become” anything. God is, was, and has always been united with humanity. God was united with humanity when Adam sinned. God was united with humanity when God implemented the “original sin” system. God had already sacrificed himself to himself, there was no need for him to withhold salvation from people who happened to live when the date started with B.C.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Maybe it would be easier to think about an analogy:

Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us

One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in -]Godhead/-] Greenness, the Self-same Perfect in -]Manhood/-] Orangeness; truly -]God/-] Green and truly -]Man/-] Orange; the Self-same of a rational -]soul and body/-]mixture of yellow and red; co-essential with -]the Father according to the Godhead/-] Greenness, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the -]Manhood/-] Orangeness; like us in all things, … acknowledged in Two -]Natures/-] Colors unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;** the difference of the -]Natures/-] Colors **being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each -]Nature/-] Color being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.

As an aside, it annoys me when writers like this mix in all sorts of gushing praise with their philosophizing. For example, is it really necessary to refer to Jesus as “One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ?” To me it just sounds like the author is trying to both disguise a weak argument and distract religious people from the fact that he has just made a weak argument by impressing them with flowery worshipful verbiage. Either that or he had some sort of piety inspection coming up and he needed to sound extra zealous so he wouldn’t be made to go peel potatoes for the monastery.

 

[GEddie]

United does not imply one and the same.

Your mind and your body are not the same, though inextricably united.

Likewise, the human being ICXC and the Trinitarian Divinity are fully united (HE is fully God, and fully man); they are not the same.

One has been** ab a eterno**; the other was born in 6BC.

One is eternal spirit, the other, a human body and mind.

But fully united.

ICXC NIKA

 

[CrossofChrist]

Asserting a contradiction doesn’t somehow make it go away.

If you define humanity as GEddie did:

Then if God and man are in some way one and the same, it is necessary that God must have become at some point. If God did not become, then there is no possible arrangement of God’s “Hypostasis” that would make it satisfy GEddie’s criteria for being a human.

First, to be a human means to have a union of body and soul so that the soul is the form of the body. In our present condition man is created for a supernatural end.

The act of God’s becoming man isn’t a change in God, but a uniting of man to God. Jesus is a Divine Person. What distinguishes us from him is that we can continue existing not being in full communion with God; Jesus’ very existence depends on being fully united with God because he is a divine Person.

If, on the other hand, we take your approach and assert the “God is unchanging” part, we can easily conclude that at no point did God “become” anything. God is, was, and has always been united with humanity. God was united with humanity when Adam sinned. God was united with humanity when God implemented the “original sin” system. God had already sacrificed himself to himself, there was no need for him to withhold salvation from people who happened to live when the date started with B.C.

Why would God have to be united with humanity? That’s not what the Incarnation is. The Hypostatic Union began when Christ was created.

The problem with your view is you are looking at it as though God had to change to become man. Rather, he created a human nature–in time–that he united to himself. The personhood of the Son always was, but the union wasn’t always.

Garrigou-Lagrange: Hence union in the passive sense or created is nothing else but a real relation of the human nature that is dependent on the Word as a person, just as creation in the passive sense is nothing else but a real relation of dependence of the creature on the Creator.

Or again:

God in the Incarnation neither loses nor acquires anything, but merely makes creatures partakers in His perfection. Therefore, as St. Thomas says: “When it is said, 'God was made man,’ we understand no change on the part of God, but only on the part of the human nature.”[186] Similarly, if we see the sun, it undergoes no change, but is only the object of our vision.