Was Jesus fully human?

[JimG]

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.

Yes, exactly so. Integrity is the ability to be completely human in that our passions are ordered to the control of our intellect and will. It was the Fall that severely weakened that ability in us, and made us subject to concupiscience.

But it was still not human nature that made us able to sin. God created human nature as good. It was the Fall that weakened human nature.

God could have placed Adam and Eve directly into Heaven. But that would have in effect forced their will. The will seeks the good. God is perfect good. In the presence of perfect good, our will cannot turn against it. The only way for human beings to be able to freely choose God was to not place them directly in the Beatific Vision at once.

When we speak of “Jesus the man,” we mean “Jesus in his human nature,” of “Jesus as man,” for Jesus the Person was a divine Person not a human person. By reason of assuming a human nature he became a human being, but not a human person.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . God could have placed Adam and Eve directly into Heaven. But that would have in effect forced their will. The will seeks the good. God is perfect good. In the presence of perfect good, our will cannot turn against it. The only way for human beings to be able to freely choose God was to not place them directly in the Beatific Vision at once. . .

Maybe it’s a small point but I disagree that “God could have placed Adam and Eve directly into Heaven”. The Beatific Vision involves a choice, a surrender to love. We must give ourselves to God.

 

[JimG]

Maybe it’s a small point but I disagree that “God could have placed Adam and Eve directly into Heaven”. The Beatific Vision involves a choice, a surrender to love. We must give ourselves to God.

Ah yes, I meant to say God could NOT have placed Adam and Eve directly into heaven. Maybe I can go back and edit it.

 

[JimG]

Maybe it’s a small point but I disagree that “God could have placed Adam and Eve directly into Heaven”. The Beatific Vision involves a choice, a surrender to love. We must give ourselves to God.

Well, yes, that’s what I was getting at. God could in theory have put them there, but in doing so, he would have turned them into robots by forcing their will! The only way to allow them a choice, was not to put them in the direct presence of God at once. God wants us to choose him freely.

 

[Aloysium]

Well, yes, that’s what I was getting at. God could in theory have put them there, but in doing so, he would have turned them into robots by forcing their will! The only way to allow them a choice, was not to put them in the direct presence of God at once. God wants us to choose him freely.

Maybe I am nit-picking here, (not disagreeing):
The Beatific vision involves a loving relationship.
They would have to be loving people.
Loving requires a choice to give of oneself.
Mary and Eve, full of grace chose differently.
If we had no choice, we could not be put there.
I do not see it as a passive state but one of total, complete, absolute surrender to our Creator, Who is infinite in His love.

 

[JimG]

Maybe I am nit-picking here, (not disagreeing):
The Beatific vision involves a loving relationship.
They would have to be loving people.
Loving requires a choice to give of oneself.
Mary and Eve, full of grace chose differently.
If we had no choice, we could not be put there.
I do not see it as a passive state but one of total, complete, absolute surrender to our Creator, Who is infinite in His love.

Yes, I agree. I was looking at the obverse of your statement above: ‘If we had no choice, we could not be put there.’
If we could be put there, we would have no choice–thereby obviating the exercise of our free will! If it were not freely chosen, it would not be heaven. That’s why both angels and humans were not created and immediately put in the presence of God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Well, yes, that’s what I was getting at. God could in theory have put them there, but in doing so, he would have turned them into robots by forcing their will! The only way to allow them a choice, was not to put them in the direct presence of God at once. God wants us to choose him freely.

I believe it is traditional theology that Lucifer and his cohorts were in the direct presence of God when they were created. They were not robots. They had free will. They were free enough to rebel and throw it all away.

 

[JimG]

I believe it is traditional theology that Lucifer and his cohorts were in the direct presence of God when they were created. They were not robots. They had free will. They were free enough to rebel and throw it all away.

Yes, they had free will, and they were in the presence of God, but without the Beatific Vision–exactly similar to the state in which Adam and Eve were created.

My observation simply has to do with the nature of free will. It is created to choose good, and its nature is to choose the good. Even when we sin, we choose an apparent good. Any creature with free will placed in the direct presence of God (i.e. the Beatific Vision) who is infinite good, will of necessity choose God like iron filings attracted inevitably to a strong magnet. No one could choose against God in such a situation.

Thus, both angels and man were given a test, involving a chance to choose God freely without the overpowering presence of God in the Beatific Vision.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Thus, both angels and man were given a test, involving a chance to choose God freely without the overpowering presence of God in the Beatific Vision.

Since Jesus was in the overpowering presence of God (being both God and man) how could he freely choose God as Adam could freely choose sin?

 

[JimG]

Since Jesus was in the overpowering presence of God (being both God and man) how could he freely choose God as Adam could freely choose sin?

Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity. His divine will is the will of God. His human will was always in accord with his divine will. Personally, I don’t see that he could choose sin, since, even as man, he is a divine Person, and in the presence of the Beatific Vision constantly.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The Church has been notably quiet about what happened to Jesus after the Resurrection. We know that he appeared bodily to the disciples. Thomas put his hand on the wound in his side to verify that he was Jesus. Where is the human body of Jesus now? Is this a question no one is willing to ask, and it is futile to try to answer? Do Augustine or Aquinas or others take up this question?

 

[tonyrey]

The Church has been notably quiet about what happened to Jesus after the Resurrection. We know that he appeared bodily to the disciples. Thomas put his hand on the wound in his side to verify that he was Jesus. Where is the human body of Jesus now? Is this a question no one is willing to ask, and it is futile to try to answer? Do Augustine or Aquinas or others take up this question?

Our Lord’s (glorified) body is in heaven.

 

[tonyrey]

Since Jesus was in the overpowering presence of God (being both God and man) how could he freely choose God as Adam could freely choose sin?

Jesus cannot choose God because He is God!

 

[tonyrey]

Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity. His divine will is the will of God. His human will was always in accord with his divine will. Personally, I don’t see that he could choose sin, since, even as man, he is a divine Person, and in the presence of the Beatific Vision constantly.

Jesus couldn’t choose sin but He could be tempted to choose sin!

 

[tonyrey]

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.

The ability to sin is a defect but it is not culpable because it is due to ignorance. To reject God is to reject love. It was impossible for Jesus, i.e. the Son of God, to sin when He was on earth because He was morally perfect but He was tempted because He was human in every other respect.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

Incontestable!

 

[tonyrey]

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.

The body of Jesus is also incorruptible.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

Of course I’m a rascal! That should be obvious by now. :blushing:

 

[tonyrey]

The ability to sin is a defect but it is not culpable because it is due to ignorance. To reject God is to reject love. It was impossible for Jesus, i.e. the Son of God, to sin because He is morally perfect but He was tempted because He is human.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Of course I’m a rascal! That should be obvious by now. :blushing:

Just as I thought! You furwy wascal, you!