Was Jesus fully human?

[Linusthe2nd]

In discussing the qualities of Christ’s Person it would be better to stick with the teaching of the Church rather than trying to parse words. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that Christ had a human nature and a Divine Nature, that the Divine Person, Who had a Divine Nature, assumed a human nature.

To say that Christ had a human nature united to a Divine Nature is known as the heresy of Nestorianism which was condemned by the Council of Ephesus ( 431 ). The Council declared Dogmatically that Christ’s humanity has no other subject than the Divine Person of the Son of God, Who assumed it and made it his own, from His conception. For this reason Mary truly became the Mother of God, not that nature of the Word or His Divinity received the beginning of its existence from the holy Virgin, but that, since the holy body, animated by a rational soul, which the Word of God united to himself according to the hypostasis, was born from her, the word is said to be born according to the flesh. ( CCC # 466 ) So while Christ had a human nature, his human will operated only in complete submission to the Divine Will. And while his human knowledge knew all that God knew, he revealed only what God wanted him to reveal.

On the other hand, the heresy of Monophysitism held that the human nature ceased to exist as such in Christ when the Divine Person of God’s Son assumed it. This heresy was condemned by the fourth ecumenical council at Chalcedon in 451 ( CCC # 457 )

Then the Council of Chalcedon declared in 553 that " there is but one hypostasis ( Person ), which is our Lord jesus Christ, one of the Trinity. Thus everything in Christ’s human nature is to be attributed to his Divine Person as its proper subject, not only the miracles but also His sufferings and even his death. ( CCC, # 468 ).

Thus the Son of God ( the Divine Second Person ), having assumed a human nature, worked with human hands; he thought with a human mind, He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin. ( CCC, # 470 )

Thus Christ’s human nature, in his human intellect, knew the entirety of whatever God knew, through which he knew all there was to know about God’s plan for man’s salvation. What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal. So as man he knew things which, by Divine Will, he was not free to reveal.( CCC, # 474 )

Thus the Council of Constantinople ( 681 ) declared that Christ’s human will, being fully united to the Divine Will in all things, submits to the Divine Will in all things, including all those things intended for our salvation. So some things he declared to us and some he declared himself not free to declare or make known to us. ( CCC, # 475 ).

Since Christ was God ( the Second Person of the Trinity ), he could not sin ( " God does not lie. " He is absolutely perfect in every way, having no defect. ). So he could feel the sting of temptations, but he could not sin. It is uncertain that Satan knew the nature of Christ, since this is known only by Divine Revelation through the Holy Spirit Who has revealed this to us through His Church. So Satan would only know for certain, what God chose to reveal, just as we know only what God choses to reveal to us. He may have suspected, but he did not know for certain - that is why he tempted Christ, he was trying to determaine just who Christ was.

Linus2nd

 

[Tom_Baum]

In discussing the qualities of Christ’s Person it would be better to stick with the teaching of the Church rather than trying to parse words. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that Christ had a human nature and a Divine Nature, that the Divine Person, Who had a Divine Nature, assumed a human nature.

To say that Christ had a human nature united to a Divine Nature is known as the heresy of Nestorianism which was condemned by the Council of Ephesus ( 431 ). The Council declared Dogmatically that Christ’s humanity has no other subject than the Divine Person of the Son of God, Who assumed it and made it his own, from His conception. For this reason Mary truly became the Mother of God, not that nature of the Word or His Divinity received the beginning of its existence from the holy Virgin, but that, since the holy body, animated by a rational soul, which the Word of God united to himself according to the hypostasis, was born from her, the word is said to be born according to the flesh. ( CCC # 466 ) So while Christ had a human nature, his human will operated only in complete submission to the Divine Will. And while his human knowledge knew all that God knew, he revealed only what God wanted him to reveal.

On the other hand, the heresy of Monophysitism held that the human nature ceased to exist as such in Christ when the Divine Person of God’s Son assumed it. This heresy was condemned by the fourth ecumenical council at Chalcedon in 451 ( CCC # 457 )

Then the Council of Chalcedon declared in 553 that " there is but one hypostasis ( Person ), which is our Lord jesus Christ, one of the Trinity. Thus everything in Christ’s human nature is to be attributed to his Divine Person as its proper subject, not only the miracles but also His sufferings and even his death. ( CCC, # 468 ).

Thus the Son of God ( the Divine Second Person ), having assumed a human nature, worked with human hands; he thought with a human mind, He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin. ( CCC, # 470 )

Thus Christ’s human nature, in his human intellect, knew the entirety of whatever God knew, through which he knew all there was to know about God’s plan for man’s salvation. What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal. So as man he knew things which, by Divine Will, he was not free to reveal.( CCC, # 474 )

Thus the Council of Constantinople ( 681 ) declared that Christ’s human will, being fully united to the Divine Will in all things, submits to the Divine Will in all things, including all those things intended for our salvation. So some things he declared to us and some he declared himself not free to declare or make known to us. ( CCC, # 475 ).

Since Christ was God ( the Second Person of the Trinity ), he could not sin ( " God does not lie. " He is absolutely perfect in every way, having no defect. ). So he could feel the sting of temptations, but he could not sin. It is uncertain that Satan knew the nature of Christ, since this is known only by Divine Revelation through the Holy Spirit Who has revealed this to us through His Church. So Satan would only know for certain, what God chose to reveal, just as we know only what God choses to reveal to us. He may have suspected, but he did not know for certain - that is why he tempted Christ, he was trying to determaine just who Christ was.

Linus2nd

Since you wrote, “Thus Christ’s human nature, in his human intellect, knew the entirety of whatever God knew, through which he knew all there was to know about God’s plan for man’s salvation. What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal. So as man he knew things which, by Divine Will, he was not free to reveal.( CCC, # 474 )”.

Would you say that when Jesus said, “I do NOT know when, the Angels in Heaven do not know, only the Father knows”, that this is a misrepresentation of what Jesus said, a mistranslation of what Jesus said or something else since you are saying that Jesus was Omniscient?

What is your take on “Jesus was like us in ALL ways except sin”, I am NOT Omniscient and none of the rest of us are either and I would, personally, say that this “little item” (Omniscience) would most definitely make Jesus “NOT like us in All ways except sin”?

 

[tonyrey]

Just as I thought! You furwy wascal, you!

How about you, Charlie? :ehh:

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Since you wrote, “Thus Christ’s human nature, in his human intellect, knew the entirety of whatever God knew, through which he knew all there was to know about God’s plan for man’s salvation. What he admitted to not knowing in this area, he elsewhere declared himself not sent to reveal. So as man he knew things which, by Divine Will, he was not free to reveal.( CCC, # 474 )”.

Would you say that when Jesus said, “I do NOT know when, the Angels in Heaven do not know, only the Father knows”, that this is a misrepresentation of what Jesus said, a mistranslation of what Jesus said or something else since you are saying that Jesus was Omniscient?

It is quite clear that Jesus was saying that he was not free to tell us what the Fathers did not want us to know. That is neither a mistranslation nor a misrepresentation. Thus it is not a question of Omniscience.t

What is your take on “Jesus was like us in ALL ways except sin”, I am NOT Omniscient and none of the rest of us are either and I would, personally, say that this “little item” (Omniscience) would most definitely make Jesus “NOT like us in All ways except sin”?

It means he was incapable of sin. He was God, and God cannot sin.

Linus2nd

 

[Tom_Baum]

It is quite clear that Jesus was saying that he was not free to tell us what the Fathers did not want us to know. That is neither a mistranslation nor a misrepresentation. Thus it is not a question of Omniscience.t

It means he was incapable of sin. He was God, and God cannot sin.

Linus2nd

Jesus simply said, according to what is written, “I do NOT know…”, He did NOT even give a hint that He was not free to tell us but that He simply did NOT know.

By saying that Jesus did NOT and could NOT use His human free will to not sin is not building God up but is saying that God was/is incapable of becoming truly human in the Incarnation.

Just because we do not believe what is simply written does not mean that it is not simply true.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Question: Was Jesus fully human?

My answer: Yes.

Just because many people giving a reply to this question seem to think that Jesus was not fully human does not mean that He wasn’t.

As far as what some have said that the ability to sin does not make us more human but less human is a non answer, human or not, the ability to make a decision freely is what free will is about and I believe that God-Incarnate freely made His decision to NOT sin, not that He was incapable of making a decision.

I do not believe that it was impossible for God to become truly human in the Incarnation and I also believe that God put it all on the line, so to speak, in the Incarnation even tho many seem to think God either incapable of this or not willing to do this.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Jesus simply said, according to what is written, “I do NOT know…”, He did NOT even give a hint that He was not free to tell us but that He simply did NOT know.

By saying that Jesus did NOT and could NOT use His human free will to not sin is not building God up but is saying that God was/is incapable of becoming truly human in the Incarnation.

Just because we do not believe what is simply written does not mean that it is not simply true.

You are making distinctions which are contrary to De Fide teachings of the Catholic Church. The Church teaches that Christ was fully human and fully God. So the ability to sin is not necessary to the definition of human nature, rather it should be viewed as an accident to human nature, not something essential to it. For one can easily conceive of a human nature without the ability to commit sin. Indeed Christ is that example.

I urge you to give up speculation about this point and to submit to the teaching of the Church. Remember that the whole question if the Incarnation is a mystery which cannot be understood but is to be believed.

Linus2nd

 

[Tom_Baum]

You are making distinctions which are contrary to De Fide teachings of the Catholic Church. The Church teaches that Christ was fully human and fully God. So the ability to sin is not necessary to the definition of human nature, rather it should be viewed as an accident to human nature, not something essential to it. For one can easily conceive of a human nature without the ability to commit sin. Indeed Christ is that example.

I urge you to give up speculation about this point and to submit to the teaching of the Church. Remember that the whole question if the Incarnation is a mystery which cannot be understood but is to be believed.

Linus2nd

I believe in the Incarnation and I also believe that I won’t hide behind the ole it “is a mystery and cannot be understood but is to be believed”.

If it can’t be understood than how can anyone tell anyone else just how to understand it, not just to believe it but just “how to” understand it?

I believe that Jesus truly did become One of us and not just almost One of us.

I don’t know how God did it nor do I know how God made absolutely everything out of absolutely nothing which means I believe that God truly did enter God’s creation as One of us and that He was truly God (Love) and that God’s creation was created out of nothing.

“God Is Love” is not just a nice sentiment but is truly a literal statement.

God chose me to speak and I am trying to do what God chose me to do and I do try to differentiate between “believe and know” since they do not mean the same thing even tho many seem to think that they do.

Just as all of us will answer to God, so will I.

Jesus’s invitation, by the way, was to “Come follow Me”, pretty simple, and I would rather be the worst follower of Jesus than the best follower of the best follower of Jesus.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I believe in the Incarnation and I also believe that I won’t hide behind the ole it “is a mystery and cannot be understood but is to be believed”.

If it can’t be understood than how can anyone tell anyone else just how to understand it, not just to believe it but just “how to” understand it?

I believe that Jesus truly did become One of us and not just almost One of us.

I don’t know how God did it nor do I know how God made absolutely everything out of absolutely nothing which means I believe that God truly did enter God’s creation as One of us and that He was truly God (Love) and that God’s creation was created out of nothing.

“God Is Love” is not just a nice sentiment but is truly a literal statement.

God chose me to speak and I am trying to do what God chose me to do and I do try to differentiate between “believe and know” since they do not mean the same thing even tho many seem to think that they do.

Just as all of us will answer to God, so will I.

Jesus’s invitation, by the way, was to “Come follow Me”, pretty simple, and I would rather be the worst follower of Jesus than the best follower of the best follower of Jesus.

Well then, you must realize that your positions are heretical. Your fundamental fallacy is your failure to understand that it was never intended by God that we completerly understand these mysteries. The Church was given the guidance of the Holy Spirit for a reason. That we might have a guarantor for our Faith, God Himself. What is the Virtue of Faith if you demand perfect knowledge of how these mysteries take place?

I have given you very good explanations, the only ones consistent with the Faith.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I believe in the Incarnation and I also believe that I won’t hide behind the ole it “is a mystery and cannot be understood but is to be believed”.

If it can’t be understood than how can anyone tell anyone else just how to understand it, not just to believe it but just “how to” understand it?

I believe that Jesus truly did become One of us and not just almost One of us.

I don’t know how God did it nor do I know how God made absolutely everything out of absolutely nothing which means I believe that God truly did enter God’s creation as One of us and that He was truly God (Love) and that God’s creation was created out of nothing.

“God Is Love” is not just a nice sentiment but is truly a literal statement.

God chose me to speak and I am trying to do what God chose me to do and I do try to differentiate between “believe and know” since they do not mean the same thing even tho many seem to think that they do.

Just as all of us will answer to God, so will I.

Jesus’s invitation, by the way, was to “Come follow Me”, pretty simple, and I would rather be the worst follower of Jesus than the best follower of the best follower of Jesus.

Another reason why Christ could not sin is that he enjoyed the Beatific Vision from the moment of his birth. Now those who enjoy the Beatific Vision cannot sin, yet they are fully human. So the capicity or ability to sin is not essential to human nature. Therefore it must be regarded as an accident to human nature during man’s trial on earth and is removed or disappears once we enjoys the Beatific Vision. And perhaps this is the best explanation.

Linus2nd

 

[Tom_Baum]

Another reason why Christ could not sin is that he enjoyed the Beatific Vision from the moment of his birth. Now those who enjoy the Beatific Vision cannot sin, yet they are fully human. So the capicity or ability to sin is not essential to human nature. Therefore it must be regarded as an accident to human nature during man’s trial on earth and is removed or disappears once we enjoys the Beatific Vision. And perhaps this is the best explanation.

Linus2nd

Could be that “this is the best explanation” according to your “conception” of God-Incarnate and one thing that I will say about it, is that I have never heard of this before.

Did you make this up yourself or did someone else?

Do you think that Jesus had a human life at all and that at least something in His life came close to what us other humans have?

Have you ever heard the statement “like us in all ways except for sin”?

Do you think that the “like us” meant “like us” or do you think that it meant “looked like us”?

 

[Aloysium]

MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI:
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
ON THE MISTICAL BODY OF CHRIST

1. Now the only-begotten Son of God embraced us in His infinite knowledge and undying love even before the world began. And that He might give a visible and exceedingly beautiful expression to this love, He assumed our nature in hypostatic union: hence - as Maximus of Turin with a certain unaffected simplicity remarks - “in Christ our own flesh loves us.”[156] But the knowledge and love of our Divine Redeemer, of which we were the object from the first moment of His Incarnation, exceed all that the human intellect can hope to grasp. For hardly was He conceived in the womb of the Mother of God, when He began to enjoy the Beatific Vision, and in that vision all the members of His Mystical Body were continually and unceasingly present to Him, and He embraced them with His redeeming love. O marvelous condescension of divine love for us! O inestimable dispensation of boundless charity! In the crib, on the Cross, in the unending glory of the Father, Christ has all the members of the Church present before Him and united to Him in a much clearer and more loving manner than that of a mother who clasps her child to her breast, or than that with which a man knows and loves himself.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Could be that “this is the best explanation” according to your “conception” of God-Incarnate and one thing that I will say about it, is that I have never heard of this before.

Did you make this up yourself or did someone else?

Do you think that Jesus had a human life at all and that at least something in His life came close to what us other humans have?

Have you ever heard the statement “like us in all ways except for sin”?

Do you think that the “like us” meant “like us” or do you think that it meant “looked like us”?

I’m not interested in debating you. Accept what I have said or not. If you are determined in going down the path you are on, no argument will convince you other wise. I would suggest you read the Catechism.

Linus2nd

 

[DeaconPaulY]

Jesus had a fully, completely, totally, human nature and a fully, completely, totally, divine nature consubstantial with the Father - two natures in one person. His human nature was just that – a nature just like yours and mine, fully capable of committing sin had he yielded to any temptations. He simply, or perhaps not so simply, chose not to as did the Blessed Mother. He was totally consumed by the will of the Father and would let nothing distract him from that path.
Peace and Blessings, Deacon Paul

 

[DeaconPaulY]

Another reason why Christ could not sin is that he enjoyed the Beatific Vision from the moment of his birth. Now those who enjoy the Beatific Vision cannot sin, yet they are fully human. So the capicity or ability to sin is not essential to human nature. Therefore it must be regarded as an accident to human nature during man’s trial on earth and is removed or disappears once we enjoys the Beatific Vision. And perhaps this is the best explanation.

Linus2nd

I can’t enter into a debate with you about being people enjoying the Beatific Vision because I have not experienced that as yet. hopefully, one day soon I will. However I would disagree with you about your statement that the “capacity or ability to sin is not essential to human nature”. free will would not be totally free will without the ability to choose to sin. As we saw in both Adam and Eve, it was there from the beginning, though concupiscence only entered the world through Original Sin. Peace and Blessings, Deacon Paul

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I can’t enter into a debate with you about being people enjoying the Beatific Vision because I have not experienced that as yet. hopefully, one day soon I will. However I would disagree with you about your statement that the “capacity or ability to sin is not essential to human nature”. free will would not be totally free will without the ability to choose to sin. As we saw in both Adam and Eve, it was there from the beginning, though concupiscence only entered the world through Original Sin. Peace and Blessings, Deacon Paul

The Catechism teaches that Christ was like us in all things except sin. Jesus could not sin since his will was totally united to the Will of the Father. That Christ could not sin does not mean that he had no free will. No, he was free to do the Will of the Father and to do it perfectly. Then it would seem that the " capicity to sin " is not essential to a free will. I view the " capicity to sin " as an accident to human nature, not as essential to it. We live in a time of testing, as did Adam and Eve, that means they and we have the " capacity to sin,. " but as an accident demanded by our condition. But that it is not essential to human nature per se is evidenced by the fact that Christ could not sin and that the Blessed in Heaven cannot sin. They will no longer have the " capacity to sin " for two reasons. First, the time of testing will be over for them. Secondly, their wills will be totally united to the Will of the Father.

Regards
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I can’t enter into a debate with you about being people enjoying the Beatific Vision because I have not experienced that as yet. hopefully, one day soon I will. However I would disagree with you about your statement that the “capacity or ability to sin is not essential to human nature”. free will would not be totally free will without the ability to choose to sin. As we saw in both Adam and Eve, it was there from the beginning, though concupiscence only entered the world through Original Sin. Peace and Blessings, Deacon Paul

A final note. Fr. John A. Hardon, in his The Catholic Catechism, states ( pgs 140-141 ) " He ( Christ ) not only did not sin, but he could not sin because he was God. Only in the spurious supposition that Christ has two persons is sin conceivable, since the human person might then commit sin, while the divine person would be perfectly holy. Since Christ was utterly sinless, he was also free from concupiscence or unruly passions, and also free from such effects of concupiscence as positive ignorance or error. " He justifies this view based on the Doctrine of Chalcedon. This seems to be a corollary of the Decree, not specifically stated in the Dogma as such. However, it does mirror more or less exactly what I have claimed above, that Christ had no capacity to sin because there was in him only one Person and that was the Divine Person of the Son. And God cannot sin.

Regards
Linus2nd

 

[JimG]

That’s a quite instructive quote from Fr. Hardon.

Let’s consider WHO Jeus is. He is the Second Person of the Trinity, the Divine Word uttered by the Father from all eternity.

What would it mean for Jesus to Sin?

Sin is the rejection of the will of God. But Jesus IS God. If Jesus sins, God rejects himself. It would be God attempting to destroy himself, and all of creation along with it. That is an impossibility.

I think that when we pose the question of Jesus “ability” to sin, we must be thinking of him as two persons—a human person who could sin, and a divine person who could not sin. But he is not two persons. He is one person, and that person is the Second Person of the Trinity.

God cannot sin. And God has free will!

Considering free will as given to human beings, I think of it this way. God did not say, “In order to be fully human, this man I have created must be able to do evil. So I will give him the capacity to do evil.” No. Rather, he said, “To be fully human, this man must be able to choose the good freely. So I give him free will to be able to freely love.”

That’s just my own thoughts—I can’t put words into the mouth of God. Free will is the capacity to love. It’s essence is not the capacity to do evil. Free will always tends toward a perceived good, even if it is only an apparent good and an actual evil.

 

[Tom_Baum]

A final note. Fr. John A. Hardon, in his The Catholic Catechism, states ( pgs 140-141 ) " He ( Christ ) not only did not sin, but he could not sin because he was God. Only in the spurious supposition that Christ has two persons is sin conceivable, since the human person might then commit sin, while the divine person would be perfectly holy. Since Christ was utterly sinless, he was also free from concupiscence or unruly passions, and also free from such effects of concupiscence as positive ignorance or error. " He justifies this view based on the Doctrine of Chalcedon. This seems to be a corollary of the Decree, not specifically stated in the Dogma as such. However, it does mirror more or less exactly what I have claimed above, that Christ had no capacity to sin because there was in him only one Person and that was the Divine Person of the Son. And God cannot sin.

Regards
Linus2nd

Do you have any idea why God would give us mere humans the freedom to choose but would withhold this “freedom to choose” from God-Incarnate?

Are you saying that instead of God “putting everything on the line”, so to speak, in becoming One of us that God put “nothing on the line”?

If one can not choose than one is merely a “puppet on a string”, are you saying that God-Incarnate was merely a “puppet on a string” or in this case, “God on God’s String”?

I just plain do not believe in the almost Incarnation, I believe very simply that Jesus was like us in all ways, including making decisions on what to do and that He did not personally sin by making choices to not sin, not by being an automaton, even a Godly automaton, as some seem to think Jesus to be.

Just because we can’t conceive of, comprehend or figure out how God did this, does not mean that God was/is incapable of a True Incarnation, not just an almost Incarnation.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Free will is the capacity to love. It’s essence is not the capacity to do evil. Free will always tends toward a perceived good, even if it is only an apparent good and an actual evil.

There’s the rub. Our perceptions are subjective; therefore we can lie to ourselves, as Eve did when she freely accepted the lie of the serpent as her true good.