Was Jesus fully human?

[Tom_Baum]

No, Fr. Hardon wrote this book himself. It is not the official Catechism of the Catholic Church. He wrote his own Catechism at the request of Pope Paul VI. He was a well known Theologian and writer though he was osrasized by the Jesuits and liberal Catholics in general.

Linus2nd

Thanks for the answer.

 

[Tom_Baum]

This is the highest question of Christianity. Christ was devine. As such he knew everything, even at conception. It is very hard to understand, but he could be tempted, and as a human, would have felt the temtation, but he was devine, so his divinity made it very easy to avoid sin. Does that make him human, yes.

I think/believe that God did much more in the Incarnation than slap on a human body and just appear to be a human being just like us.

I believe that Jesus did NOT give up the ESSENCE of His Divinity, which Is Love, but did give up His Omnis.

A human being that is ALL POWERFUL (Omnipotent), ALL KNOWING (Omniscient) and capable of being everywhere at once including outside of time and space (Omnipresent) is, to put it mildly, not like me in all ways except sin and I would say not like any other human being.

In other words, I believe the simple statement, “He was like us in all ways except sin”, means quite simply what it so simply says.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In other words, I believe the simple statement, “He was like us in all ways except sin”, means quite simply what it so simply says.

Would you also go so far as to say he was like us in all ways except wisdom?

After all, he knew he was the Son of God, which Adam was not.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

More proof that Christ was incapable of sin ( impeccable ) and that therefore the ability to sin was not an essential part of human nature.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, under " Incarnation, " we find the following:

" a) IN THE WILL

Sinlessness
The effect of the Incarnation on the human will of Christ was to leave it free in all things save only sin. It was absolutely impossible that any stain of sin should soil the soul of Christ. Neither sinful act of the will nor sinful habit of the soul were in keeping with the Hypostatic Union. The fact that Christ never sinned is an article of faith (see Council, Ephes., can. x, in Denzinger, 122, wherein the sinlessness of Christ is implicit in the definition that he did not offer Himself for Himself, but for us). This fact of Christ’s sinlessness is evident from the Scripture. “There is no sin in Him” (1 John 3:5). Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for us" i.e. a victim for sin (2 Corinthians 5:21). The impossibility of a sinful act by Christ is taught by all theologians, but variously explained. Günther defended an impossibility consequent solely upon the Divine provision that He would not sin (Vorschule, II, 441). This is no impossibility at all. Christ is God. It is absolutely impossible, antecedent to the Divine prevision, that God should allow His flesh to sin. If God allowed His flesh to sin, He might sin, that is, He might turn away from Himself; and it is absolutely impossible that God should turn from Himself, be untrue to His Divine attributes. The Scotists teach that this impossibility to sin, antecedent to God’s revision, is not due to the Hypostatic Union, but is like to the impossibility of the beatified to sin, and is due to a special Divine Providence (see Scotus, in III, d. xiii, Q. i). St. Thomas (III:15:1) and all Thomists, Francisco Suárez (d. xxxiii, 2), Vasquez (d. xi, c. iii), de Lugo (d. xxvi, 1, n. 4), and all theologians of the Society of Jesus teach the now almost universally admitted explanation that the absolute impossibility of a sinful act on the part of Christ was due to the hypostatic union of His human nature with the Divine. "

Does all that I have said here and earlier amount to the Ordinary Teaching of the Magisterium. Perhaps, perhaps not. Certainly these are logical Theological conclusions which flow both from Dogma and Tradition and I have seen no and have heard of no contradiction of these conclusions from any Magisterial Source.

Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_III]

More proof that Christ was incapable of sin ( impeccable ) and that therefore the ability to sin was not an essential part of human nature.

Yet the ability to sin seems to have been an essential part of Adam’s nature, or he would not have sinned.

 

[nmgauss]

So far, I have seen the a priori statement that any act committed by Jesus Christ could never be labeled sin. If an ordinary human committed these acts, it would be a sin, but since Jesus committed the same act, it could not be sin.

Purposely depriving people of their property (theft) is a sin. But since Jesus did it, it was not sin.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yet the ability to sin seems to have been an essential part of Adam’s nature, or he would not have sinned.

And Christ, who had a complete human nature, could not sin. Therefore the ability to sin is not essential to the definition of human nature but rather should be viewed as an accident to his nature necessitated by Adam’s condition of probation. Christ was not under a condition of probation, therefore his human nature did not suffer from this accident. Therefore, the ability to sin is accidental to human nature not essential. I have argued this from the beginning.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So far, I have seen the a priori statement that any act committed by Jesus Christ could never be labeled sin. If an ordinary human committed these acts, it would be a sin, but since Jesus committed the same act, it could not be sin.

Purposely depriving people of their property (theft) is a sin. But since Jesus did it, it was not sin.

And so far I have seen that you are incapable of engaging in a serious, honest discussion. When you begin to be reasonable I will answer.

Linus2nd

 

[Aloysium]

So far, I have seen the a priori statement that any act committed by Jesus Christ could never be labeled sin. If an ordinary human committed these acts, it would be a sin, but since Jesus committed the same act, it could not be sin.

Purposely depriving people of their property (theft) is a sin. But since Jesus did it, it was not sin.

You don’t quite uderstand the concept of sin.
You may wish to check out, for example:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm
for a discussion on the Catholic view.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Would you also go so far as to say he was like us in all ways except wisdom?

After all, he knew he was the Son of God, which Adam was not.

As far as “Would you also go so far as to say he was like us in all ways except wisdom?”, does it say that in the bible?

I was referring to something written in the bible and that I believe it simply stated a simple truth.

Jesus also referred to Himself as the Son of Man.

I believe that Jesus came to know that he was “the Son of God” not just a son of God in that He did not always know it, but I have not a clue when He came to know this.

 

[JimG]

As far as “Would you also go so far as to say he was like us in all ways except wisdom?”, does it say that in the bible?

I was referring to something written in the bible and that I believe it simply stated a simple truth.

Jesus also referred to Himself as the Son of Man.

I believe that Jesus came to know that he was “the Son of God” not just a son of God in that He did not always know it, but I have not a clue when He came to know this.

One has to make a distinction between what Jesus knew by reason of his divine nature, and what he knew by reason of his human nature. Having a human nature, he had to learn things as we all do, by sensory (name removed by moderator)ut, experience, and reasoning. That’s how he came to know things as a human being. As man, he grew in knowledge and wisdom.

But he was also God. In fact, he is the second person of the Trinity, who by his divine nature knows all things.

 

[Jeanne1184]

Strangely enough, I was watching the program “Singles Pleasing the Lord” a few minutes ago and, for me, she provided the Biblical answer:

1 John 3:9 - Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for His Seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

1 John 5:18 - We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

So, then if Jesus wasn’t sinning, then He was using those instances to tell us something? Perhaps it was an intentional ‘natural exclamation point’ because they weren’t getting the message by subtle means. Clean up the temple of the body/mind?

Or, it was necessary to incite the folks by pricking their egos so that it would lead to the Crucifixion? If Jesus had just kept being a Healer and an interesting debate opponent, it might have taken years for them to decide to ‘remove the thorn’, eh? I don’t know how soon after the Temple table toss the Crucifixion occurred; will have to look to see if it’s a viable theory.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And Christ, who had a complete human nature, could not sin. Therefore the ability to sin is not essential to the definition of human nature but rather should be viewed as an accident to his nature necessitated by Adam’s condition of probation.
Linus2nd

I’m finding this difficult to understand. If Adam’s “condition of probation” was necessary, then how is that “not essential to the definition of human nature”? Of his human nature, in which we all partake except for Jesus, who was surely not in a “condition of probation”?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’m finding this difficult to understand. If Adam’s “condition of probation” was necessary, then how is that “not essential to the definition of human nature”? Of his human nature, in which we all partake except for Jesus, who was surely not in a “condition of probation”?

We have to get things straight. The only definition for human nature that the Church recognizes is that man is composed of a body and a soul and the soul is the form of that union. The soul itself posesses an intellect and free will. Then you stated the following: " What perplexes me about this view is that to be fully human, Adam had to be created with the capacity to choose between good and evil. We know that at some point he (and Eve) chose evil. But we also know that while Jesus was created innocent, it was not possible for him to sin. Lacking the freedom to sin, how can we say Jesus was fully human as Adam was fully human? "

When you said that to be fully human Adam had to have the capacity to sin, that is an unwarranted conclusion, there is no reason to suggest that Adam’s human nature should be the standard we go by. We know that Christ is fully human ( Dogma ). And, as I have shown in detail, it is the general opinion of most reliable Theologians that Christ could not sin, even in principle, which you yourself agreed to above.

Obviously then, since Christ could not sin, the fact that Adam could sin is an accident to his human nature, demanded by his condition of probation. This conclusion is supported by the fact that Christ, in his human nature, could not sin. Futher, we must assume that Christ’s human nature was the most perfect form possible for any human nature. He set the standard ( in my view ), since he possessed human nature perfectly and as it was intended to be, incapable of sinning. Since Christ needed no probationary period, and since he could not sin, and he was fully human, we must assume that the possibility of sinning was an accident to the human natures of Adam and Eve ( and ourselves as well by extension).

So we come down to this. The ability or capicity to sin is an accident to those human natures destined to a probationary period, but not to Christ’s human nature which required no probationary period. The Theologians I cited explained it differently and I accept their explanations as well. I just went a bit further in order to get right at your question. Hey, but who am I, nobody really. What I said just seem reasonable. Sort of like Thomas Aquinas, he has spoken of accidents to natures and forms, so why not an accident to human nature to explain the possibility of sinning?

Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Futher, we must assume that Christ’s human nature was the most perfect form possible for any human nature. He set the standard ( in my view ), since he possessed human nature perfectly and as it was intended to be, incapable of sinning. Linus2nd

This is the part I don’t get. I don’t think “God created Adam to be incapable of sinning,” any more than he created Satan to be incapable of rebelling. Free will requires the capacity to choose between virtue and vice.

So I maintain that while Jesus was fully human, he was more than fully human. He was superhuman because he was created without the capacity to sin, whereas Adam was created with the capacity to sin.

Do you think this is heresy?

 

[nmgauss]

This is the part I don’t get. I don’t think “God created Adam to be incapable of sinning,” any more than he created Satan to be incapable of rebelling. Free will requires the capacity to choose between virtue and vice.

So I maintain that while Jesus was fully human, he was more than fully human. He was superhuman because he was created without the capacity to sin, whereas Adam was created with the capacity to sin.

Do you think this is heresy?

Couldn’t Jesus sin accidentally?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Couldn’t Jesus sin accidentally?

Can you give me an example of sinning accidentally?

I’ve never heard of that. In Catholic theology a sin must be recognized as a sin and then performed.

 

[nmgauss]

Can you give me an example of sinning accidentally?

I’ve never heard of that. In Catholic theology a sin must be recognized as a sin and then performed.

Are you saying that a sin must be pre-meditated before it is committed?

How about negligence? Say a mother does not watch her baby and the baby drowns? Or how about drunk driving that results in killing a child? Is that a sin? Did the driver premeditate driving while drunk knowing that it was dangerous to others?

How about Jesus’ failing to guide his donkey and the donkey steps on somebody’s foot?

How about keeping a lethal weapon near a child, and the child is injured because of it?

 

[JimG]

This is the part I don’t get. I don’t think “God created Adam to be incapable of sinning,” any more than he created Satan to be incapable of rebelling. Free will requires the capacity to choose between virtue and vice.

So I maintain that while Jesus was fully human, he was more than fully human. He was superhuman because he was created without the capacity to sin, whereas Adam was created with the capacity to sin.

Do you think this is heresy?

Remember that the first human beings, Adam and Eve, were created with perfect integrity, their passions always under control of their intellect and will, and without concupiscience.

The only reason they were able to sin was that they were not placed in the presence of the Beatific Vision. Being in the direct presence of God In the Beatific Vision would have precluded sin. In theory, had they not sinned, they could have chosen God and been granted the Beatific Vision at once.

But Jesus is a divine Person; he always had the Beatific Vision, since he is in fact the second person of the Trinity. The only way for him to be able to sin would have been to separate himself from the Godhead, which is an impossibility by the very nature of the Trinity.

In heaven we will be directly in the presence of the Beatific Vision. We will not be able to sin because our wills are drawn to the good, and God is infinite Good. Yet we will still have our free will. The nature of free will is to go toward the good, to choose to love. Because of concupiscence, which is after all a defect—a fallen human nature—we tend to think that the ability to sin is what makes us human, but that is not the case.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This is the part I don’t get. I don’t think “God created Adam to be incapable of sinning,” any more than he created Satan to be incapable of rebelling. Free will requires the capacity to choose between virtue and vice.

So I maintain that while Jesus was fully human, he was more than fully human. He was superhuman because he was created without the capacity to sin, whereas Adam was created with the capacity to sin.

Do you think this is heresy?

Not heresy, just incorrect. Remember Christ was truly human but as perfectly human as one could be and still remain human. Yet incapable of sin. The only way I can see of reconciling the difference between him as a man and Adam as a man is to say that Adam’s human nature required an accidental modification, demanded by his period of probation. Whereas Christ neededing no probation, retained an unmodified human nature. Since Christ represented the perfect man, I prefer to think of Christ’s human nature as truly normal ( as normal as perfect can be ), whereas Adam’s retained an accidental flaw making sin a possibility. A difference of viewpoint I suppose.

Linus2nd