Was Jesus fully human?

[hu324b]

I can’t agree with the two person statements - you can’t saparate Jesus into two persons he is one person both Devine and human.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

Yes, that is what I said and Fr. Hardon said. You have fleshed out the logic of it. Thank you.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

Read posts # 79, 85, 94, 95, 96 again. Instead of having a fixation on your private interpretations, strive to accept what the Church teaches.

Linus2nd

 

[nmgauss]

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.

To be fully human means to have all the qualities of being human. To act on anger, to feel sad, to feel romantic love, to act on the urges brought on by romantic love. to be hungry and eat animal products, to deposit waste matter. If Jesus was fully human, he would exhibit all these qualities. We already have him acting violently with the money changers. Was that a sin? How many other potentially sinful acts would he have done given that he was fully human?

 

[Aloysium]

To be fully human means to have all the qualities of being human. To act on anger, to feel sad, to feel romantic love, to act on the urges brought on by romantic love. to be hungry and eat animal products, to deposit waste matter. If Jesus was fully human, he would exhibit all these qualities. We already have him acting violently with the money changers. Was that a sin? How many other potentially sinful acts would he have done given that he was fully human?

I believe we have different ideas regarding the nature of sin. You may wish to review what the Catechism teaches.
His behaviour towards the money changers is an expression of God’s will. So, no, not a sin, nor any other acts.

 

[nmgauss]

I believe we have different ideas regarding the nature of sin. You may wish to review what the Catechism teaches.
His behaviour towards the money changers is an expression of God’s will. So, no, not a sin, nor any other acts.

So if Jesus is God, he can be angry and violent with impunity. Where is the LOVE? Why did He not persuade the money changers to move out instead of venting his rage with violence?

Then again, while on the cross, by asking God the Father why He has been forsaken, maybe Jesus really wasn’t God. Or maybe God the Son is not fully God.

 

[Aloysium]

So if Jesus is God, he can be angry and violent with impunity. Where is the LOVE? Why did He not persuade the money changers to move out instead of venting his rage with violence?

Then again, while on the cross, by asking God the Father why He has been forsaken, maybe Jesus really wasn’t God. Or maybe God the Son is not fully God.

This comes across as suggesting that God is like the Force in Star Wars and Jesus was some Jedi.
You didn’t review the catechism, did you?
You do not appear to have an appreciation of how we are to treat sin that enters God’s temple.
I would hope this were not the case but continuing this discussion might be as futile as trying to persuade money changers.
You do know Jesus is quoting a psalm? It would help you to read commentaries on his final words. I just got an email ad about a new DVD by Fr Barron, concerning Jesus’ last three hours. I haven’t checked it out; you might find it interesting.

 

[DeaconPaulY]

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

we may be arguing semantics. When you say “Jesus could not sin since his will was totally united to the will of the Father”, the phrase “could not” seems to be the sticking point. I would agree with you that his desire to do the will of the Father would prevent him from sinning, but that would still be his choice. In other words, if I made the same statement you did, I would change it to say, “Jesus WOULD not sin since his will was totally united to the will of the Father.” The catechism states a fact when it says that Jesus was like us in all ways except sin meaning that he was just like us in all ways except that he never committed a sin – not that he couldn’t commit a sin. Peace and Blessings, Deacon Paul

 

[DeaconPaulY]

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

the page numbering in my Catechism is different than yours. What is the paragraph number?

 

[DeaconPaulY]

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.

I still think were talking about the result rather than the process. I agree that the result is that Jesus would never sin for all of the reasons that both you and Linus have stated. However, to consider that Jesus had less than 100% completely free will would make him less than 100% completely human. We know that isn’t true. He was and is a completely human being comprised of a body, blood, soul, and a completely human nature which means that he had the ability to choose to do anything that he wanted, including sin. However, for all of the reasons stated, he would never make that choice. Hence, the result is that he could not sin. But his free will definitely did allow him the choice to sin if he wanted to. By the way, I still haven’t found that quote from Father Hardin. if someone has the paragraph number rather than the page number, please send it to me. thanks, Deacon Paul

 

[Linusthe2nd]

the page numbering in my Catechism is different than yours. What is the paragraph number?

My copy doesn’t have paragraph numbers. It is chapter 4, Jesus Christ, under the subtitle , True God and True Man. It is the last paragraph which begins, " What are these essentials? "

Linus2nd, checking out until late in the afternoon.

 

[JimG]

I still think were talking about the result rather than the process. I agree that the result is that Jesus would never sin for all of the reasons that both you and Linus have stated. However, to consider that Jesus had less than 100% completely free will would make him less than 100% completely human. We know that isn’t true. He was and is a completely human being comprised of a body, blood, soul, and a completely human nature which means that he had the ability to choose to do anything that he wanted, including sin. However, for all of the reasons stated, he would never make that choice. Hence, the result is that he could not sin. But his free will definitely did allow him the choice to sin if he wanted to. By the way, I still haven’t found that quote from Father Hardin. if someone has the paragraph number rather than the page number, please send it to me. thanks, Deacon Paul

Yes, of course the result is that Jesus did not sin. When we say that his (human) will was always in accord with the will of the Father, it is good to remember that God has only one will. The Father, Son, and Spirit, act with one will, not three. So Jesus, who is one Person only, and is the Second Person of the Trinity, is the subject who acts with his divine will and with his human will.

I haven’t researched the matter in detail, but I think that the nature of the human will must also be considered. Were Adam and Eve somehow “more human” after the Fall? I don’t think so. The nature of the human will is to seek the good. When it is turned against God it makes us less human. [A related question would be “can we sin in Heaven?” I would say, obviously not, and yet we are not less human in the presence of the Beatific Vision.] God has free will. Can God sin? Obviously not, since His entire Being is directed toward the Good.

I think that the quote being referred to from Fr. John Hardon comes from his book “The Catholic Catechism.”

 

[nmgauss]

Yes, of course the result is that Jesus did not sin.When we say that his (human) will was always in accord with the will of the Father, it is good to remember that God has only one will. The Father, Son, and Spirit, act with one will, not three. So Jesus, who is one Person only, and is the Second Person of the Trinity, is the subject who acts with his divine will and with his human will.

I haven’t researched the matter in detail, but I think that the nature of the human will must also be considered. Were Adam and Eve somehow “more human” after the Fall? I don’t think so. The nature of the human will is to seek the good. When it is turned against God it makes us less human. [A related question would be “can we sin in Heaven?” I would say, obviously not, and yet we are not less human in the presence of the Beatific Vision.] God has free will. Can God sin? Obviously not, since His entire Being is directed toward the Good.

When getting violent with the money changers in the Temple, if an ordinary human did that, would it be a sin? Or maybe because Jesus could not sin, it was OK to do anything he had a mind to do with impunity.

The nature of human will is survival. If anything threatens a persons survival, they will go to extreme ends to survive, even if it means theft and violence. In other words, committing sin is second to that persons priorities when it comes to survival. Consider Jean Valjean in Les Miserables.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Were Adam and Eve somehow “more human” after the Fall? I don’t think so. The nature of the human will is to seek the good. When it is turned against God it makes us less human. [A related question would be “can we sin in Heaven?” I would say, obviously not, and yet we are not less human in the presence of the Beatific Vision.] God has free will. Can God sin? Obviously not, since His entire Being is directed toward the Good.

Adam and Eve were probably just as human after the fall as before. They still were free to choose between good and evil. Cain was also free to choose between killing his brother and being his brother’s keeper. When the will is turned against God it does not make us less human. It just makes us less worthy of being human. We can repent of being less worthy and be restored to our rightful worth in God’s merciful judgment.

 

[JimG]

When getting violent with the money changers in the Temple, if an ordinary human did that, would it be a sin? Or maybe because Jesus could not sin, it was OK to do anything he had a mind to do with impunity.

The nature of human will is survival. If anything threatens a persons survival, they will go to extreme ends to survive, even if it means theft and violence. In other words, committing sin is second to that persons priorities when it comes to survival. Consider Jean Valjean in Les Miserables.

When you speak of the nature of human will as survival, it is not the same thing that we are discussing here. Survival is a psychological instinct, not necessarily flowing directly from the will, but from the psychological makeup of human beings.

The will is a faculty of the soul, and the soul is a non-material aspect of a human being which is its animating principle. The soul, and it’s faculties of intellect and will, survive death in any case.

Even at that, survival is seen as a good, and the will seeks the good, as it is perceived by the intellect. It is, however, capable of seeking a higher good over a lesser good, [or vice-versa, as a result of original sin.] For example, Thomas More chose death over what he viewed as a greater evil–betraying the Church. He made a willful choice of the higher good over the lesser good.

 

[Aloysium]

Regarding whether Jesus could sin. The way I see it, He could no more sin than light can shed darkness. That’s my :twocents:

 

[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 when He was on earth because He was morally perfect but He was tempted because He was human in every other respect.

No! He was justifiably angry because they were exploiting the poor and desecrating the Temple. Only a coward and a weakling would have pretended everything was hunky-dory.

How many other potentially sinful acts would he have done given that he was fully human?

“other” begs the question! Being human is not necessarily being sinful - unless one is a Calvinist! It is being temptable with the power to resist in normal circumstances. If we are overcome by temptation against our will we are not committing a sin.

 

[DeaconPaulY]

Yes, of course the result is that Jesus did not sin. When we say that his (human) will was always in accord with the will of the Father, it is good to remember that God has only one will. The Father, Son, and Spirit, act with one will, not three. So Jesus, who is one Person only, and is the Second Person of the Trinity, is the subject who acts with his divine will and with his human will.

I haven’t researched the matter in detail, but I think that the nature of the human will must also be considered. Were Adam and Eve somehow “more human” after the Fall? I don’t think so. The nature of the human will is to seek the good. When it is turned against God it makes us less human. [A related question would be “can we sin in Heaven?” I would say, obviously not, and yet we are not less human in the presence of the Beatific Vision.] God has free will. Can God sin? Obviously not, since His entire Being is directed toward the Good.

I think that the quote being referred to from Fr. John Hardon comes from his book “The Catholic Catechism.”

thanks, I thought it was the CCC. it’s an interesting discussion but I think we have said all that we can say on it. My final thought is this, "in my 20+ years of theology, I have never had one priest, brother, or bishop suggest that Jesus wasn’t fully human with a completely free will which would allow him to sin if he so chose. Of course, he wouldn’t make that choice because of all of the reasons stated in this discussion. If it is truly of interest to you, you might want this check and see what your Bishop has to say about it. Peace and Blessings, Deacon Paul

 

[DeaconPaulY]

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

“And whether or not my explanation is correct or not, it is Catholic Doctrine that Christ could not sin.” please state your source for this authoritative statement.

it’s an interesting discussion but I think we have said all that we can say on it. My final thought is this, "in my 20+ years of theology, I have never had one priest, brother, or bishop suggest that Jesus wasn’t fully human with a completely free will which would allow him to sin if he so chose. Of course, he wouldn’t make that choice because of all of the reasons stated in this discussion. If it is truly of interest to you, you might want this check and see what your Bishop has to say about it. Peace and Blessings, Deacon Paul

 

[nmgauss]

“And whether or not my explanation is correct or not, it is Catholic Doctrine that Christ could not sin.” please state your source for this authoritative statement.

it’s an interesting discussion but I think we have said all that we can say on it. My final thought is this, "in my 20+ years of theology, I have never had one priest, brother, or bishop suggest that Jesus wasn’t fully human with a completely free will which would allow him to sin if he so chose. Of course, he wouldn’t make that choice because of all of the reasons stated in this discussion. If it is truly of interest to you, you might want this check and see what your Bishop has to say about it. Peace and Blessings, Deacon Paul

When Jesus resorted to violence to the moneychangers in the Temple, is it possible that this was not act of premeditated free will but a result of sudden anger triggered by emotional disgust with what He saw? If an ordinary human did that, would it be a sin?