Was Jesus fully human?

[david_patrick]

hi, a resolution of that dilemma…a soul-lution
so in your daily faith, perhaps this has bothered your life of prayer…or just now curiosity?

as a live breathing soul , you know? not doubting in the truths of the church, a soul approaches the simple repetition of the Rosary-with ample time to discover something new in the depths of a man who experiences!

well, see for yourself, when praying the rosary…again, pray with the heart’s desire; out loud, if you wish; so is it fair to say, one is seen to pray, not just say?
so, consider–“Blessed be the fruit of Thy womb Jesus…”
My report remains on a ‘good’ day-the shadow side of me-must write tears in the fabric of time-“sorry” respond- i might feel-then, expressed ‘to’ Mary. Consider-on topic:’ The womb"…AND! .“Jesus-therein.”
And who is Jesus’ Father?
Well find out for yourself…Jesus-the humble man…as a man/God of dynamic power-that man/God, of whom is a King, and felt pain on the cross…Odd-feeling-isn’t it?
God Bless

 

[ynotzap]

In the context of this thread the term “superhuman” seems more appropriate than “supernatural” because it emphasizes the human rather than divine nature of Jesus and avoids any trace of Docetism.

You rascal!!

 

[mattdantuono]

Lacking the freedom to sin, how can we say Jesus was fully human as Adam was fully human?

Hello friend,

I would say that the ability to sin is not what makes us human. Full humanity consists in free will. In its most true sense, Jesus was more free than we are because he was innocent, as you said. His decisions were not tainted by concupiscence.

The biblical passage that seems applicable here is the one where Jesus prays, “If you are willing, take this cup from me. But not my will but your be done.” Here, we see Jesus’s human and divine wills, and we see Jesus freely uniting his human will the the divine will. This, by the way, is true free will, since it is what our free wills were created for.

How does this help? Well, Jesus, as a human, has the ability to choose good or evil. However, as God, He chooses only good. United in one, then, Jesus as man elevates his human will to the divine will. So, could Jesus have sinned? No, because he was both human and divine. Was he fully human? Yes. Does his inability to sin keep him from being fully human? No. There is no contradiction here unless you assume that full humanity includes the ability to sin.

The other way to approach this question is from the perspective that it makes no sense to ask what COULD have happened. There is only what is (or, from our point of view, what was). Jesus was obviously fully human and obviously did not sin (I say obvious because both are clear teachings of the Church). Again, no clear contradictions unless you make some assumptions which are not obvious.

 

[mattdantuono]

It was not in his nature to sin. Therefore he could not sin. And he never did.

It was in Adam’s nature to be able to sin, and he proved it by sinning.

It was in Jesus’ human nature to be able to sin, but not in his divine nature. It is tough to keep this principle in mind. One person, two natures. So, when the human nature is assumed by and united to the divine nature, we get a human who is not able to sin.

Mysterious and beautiful!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Mysterious and beautiful!

Well put!

Thanks for your thoughtful remarks and welcome to Catholic Answers!

 

[ynotzap]

It was in Jesus’ human nature to be able to sin, but not in his divine nature. It is tough to keep this principle in mind. One person, two natures. So, when the human nature is assumed by and united to the divine nature, we get a human who is not able to sin.

Mysterious and beautiful!

If we say Jesus can sin in His human nature, then we become accidental heretics Church doctrine calls the union of the Divine nature with Human nature in Christ, as the union of two natures in One Person, this is called “the hypostatic union” It is a mystery of Faith Jesus can not sin in His human nature. The illustration is shown by saying that the human nature of Christ, substantially and determined, did not have its personality because it did not have its own proper existence, but was elevated to participate in the divine existence of Jesus(the Word) and thus, in His divine Personality

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Seems to me that you are saying that the “Incarnation” was almost an Incarnation but not quite, I totally disagree.

By the way, satan knew exactly who Jesus was/is.

The distinction is that Christ was a Divine Person, in Christ there was no strictly human person. So, since a Divine Person cannot sin, Christ could not sin. Or you can look at it this way, his human will was so perfectly united to the Divine Will that it was impossible for him to sin. It would be similar to the situation of a human nature enjoying the Beatific Vision in Heaven. In Heaven, sin will be impossible for a human nature. And Christ as man, was in possession of the Beatific Vision. So sin was impossible to Christ.

Most theologians think that Satan did not, at that time, know for certain that Christ was Divine.

And whether or not my explanation is correct or not, it is Catholic Doctrine that Christ could not sin.

Linus2nd

 

[Tom_Baum]

Take a deep breath and back off, buster!

Jesus called Himself “Son of Man” many times and if Jesus was NOT just as human as the rest of us than He was not human at all.

As far as “Take a deep breath and back off, buster!”, isn’t this pretty much what the “religious” of Jesus’s day said to Him?

 

[Tom_Baum]

Linusthe2nd

You wrote, “Most theologians think that Satan did not, at that time, know for certain that Christ was Divine.”

I don’t “know” that satan knew but I believe that satan knew just Who Jesus was at the time of Jesus’s Temptations.

Studying about God and meeting God are not necessarily shared by the same person.

I would say that many, if not most, of the theologians of Jesus’s day rejected Jesus for Who He was/is.

You also wrote, “The distinction is that Christ was a Divine Person, in Christ there was no strictly human person.”

So, I guess the “Truly God and truly Man” is just a few fancy, dancy, yet meaningless, words, is that what you are saying?

By the way, His Name Is Jesus, Christ is a “title” meaning “Anointed One” and Jesus was not the only “Christ”.

“Christ” does not mean God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

As far as “Take a deep breath and back off, buster!”, isn’t this pretty much what the “religious” of Jesus’s day said to Him?

Not really. They accused him of being a liar and a blasphemer. Big difference.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Not really. They accused him of being a liar and a blasphemer. Big difference.

Yes and they wanted Him to “stop saying things” and they attempted to get Him to “stop saying things”, did they not?

And also there were others, whether “religious or not I do not know” that thought Jesus was crazy and/or irrational.

I suppose crazy and irrational could be interchangeable words.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Linusthe2nd

You wrote, “And whether or not my explanation is correct or not, it is Catholic Doctrine that Christ could not sin.”

So, you are saying that the Roman Catholic Church’s Doctrine is that Jesus was “Truly God and pretty much but not quite, can hardly tell the difference almost truly Man” as opposed to “Truly God and truly Man”?

In other words, you are saying that it is Catholic Doctrine that Jesus did NOT have free will?

That is the simple difference between “could not” and “did not”.

If one “could not”, they do NOT have a choice to make, if one “did not”, then they made a choice not to do something, it is that simple.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . If one “could not”, they do NOT have a choice to make, if one “did not”, then they made a choice not to do something, it is that simple.

It’s not that simple.

Part of the problem may be that “could not” has different meanings.
I could not annihilate humanityfor example because:

• I have no inclination to do so; i.e. to sin in this manner
• I do not have the means to do so
• It would be outside my moral standards to do so, even if I had the means and the inclination.

Jesus remains fully human; it is His goodness and holiness that would make it impossible for Him to sin. I see no lack of free will in this.

 

[Tom_Baum]

It’s not that simple.

Part of the problem may be that “could not” has different meanings.
I could not annihilate humanityfor example because:

• I have no inclination to do so; i.e. to sin in this manner
• I do not have the means to do so
• It would be outside my moral standards to do so, even if I had the means and the inclination.

Jesus remains fully human; it is His goodness and holiness that would make it impossible for Him to sin. I see no lack of free will in this.

Maybe I misunderstood what others have said concerning this but some it appears, by what and how they have written, have very clearly stated that Jesus did not choose to not sin but did not have that choice to make.

I said that Jesus had the choice, actually choices, to make during His life.

Are you saying that Jesus chose to not sin or that Jesus had no choice to make?

I tried to be very clear in what I considered the difference between “could not” and “did not” irregardless of what “could not” might mean.

I believe that Jesus was just as human as any other human being that ever was, is or will be and that this is what is meant by the Incarnation and the statement, “Truly God and truly Man”.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The original question of this thread, as I recall, was not whether Jesus was human, but whether he was human as Adam was human. We know that Adam’s will was corruptible. He proved it. We know that Jesus could not be corrupted. He proved it. If anyone can say that Jesus could have been corrupted, let him be anathema!

Yes, he could be tempted, but no, he could not sin. It was not in his nature.

 

[Tom_Baum]

The original question of this thread, as I recall, was not whether Jesus was human, but whether he was human as Adam was human. We know that Adam’s will was corruptible. He proved it. We know that Jesus could not be corrupted. He proved it. If anyone can say that Jesus could have been corrupted, let him be anathema!

Yes, he could be tempted, but no, he could not sin. It was not in his nature.

Are you saying that Jesus did not have free will or are you saying that Jesus had free will and did not sin?

A simple direct question, a simple direct answer will suffice.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Are you saying that Jesus did not have free will or are you saying that Jesus had free will and did not sin?

A simple direct question, a simple direct answer will suffice.

I’m saying that Jesus had free will but that it was not in his nature to be able to sin, whereas it was in the nature of Adam to be able to sin.

 

[shoe]

The original question of this thread, as I recall, was not whether Jesus was human, but whether he was human as Adam was human. We know that Adam’s will was corruptible. He proved it. We know that Jesus could not be corrupted. He proved it. If anyone can say that Jesus could have been corrupted, let him be anathema!

Yes, he could be tempted, but no, he could not sin. It was not in his nature.

I agree that Jesus’ human nature could not move Him to sin. But whether or not human nature is able to make a person sin is something to ponder, since a nature in and of itself cannot sin; only a person can sin. And since Jesus is a Divine Person (God) with a Divine nature and a human nature, He is therefore logically incapable of committing sin.

However, if Jesus could have committed sin when He walked upon the earth, then He theoretically could still commit sin where He is now, since He has the same essence now as He had then. And also if Jesus were capable of committing sin, He would not be committing sin as a human being; rather He would be committing sin as God using His Humanness to do it, which is an impossibility.

 

[JimG]

Hello friend,

I would say that the ability to sin is not what makes us human. Full humanity consists in free will. In its most true sense, Jesus was more free than we are because he was innocent, as you said. His decisions were not tainted by concupiscence.

I agree with you here. It is not the ability to sin which makes us human. Not at all. Sin erodes our humanity; it doesn’t prove it!

Also, free will, given by God to human beings, does not consist in the ability to sin. It consists in the ability to choose freely, to choose freely to love. To choose to sin is not a demonstration of freedom; it is a demonstration of the corruption of human nature brought about by the Fall.

Neither sin, nor the ability to sin, proves our humanity. It is evidence of the lack of human integrity brought about by the Fall.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Neither sin, nor the ability to sin, proves our humanity. It is evidence of the lack of human integrity brought about by the Fall.

Before the Fall Adam did not lack integrity. That came after. Yet he was created to be able to sin. That must have been so or he would not have sinned.

Jesus the man was not borne by Mary to be able to sin, but to undo the damage done to us all by Adam … that is, opening the gates of heaven by his sacrifice to the Father.