What are the reasons for believing that Jesus incarnated had a Divine Nature?

[Angainor]

itsjustdave1988:

Lutherans also believe Jesus took on a human nature united with his retained divine nature, don’t they?

Quite right. I am not speaking for Lutherans. This is my own personal unorthodoxy.

 

[Angainor]

DeFide:

There can be personless natures, like an apple, or a chair, but there cannot be a person without a corresponding nature, since a nature describes what the person can do.

The way I imaginine it, it is theoretically possible for my person to swap natures with someone else’s person. “I” would inhabit his nature and “he” would inhabit my nature. Not only would I be existing in a new physical body, I would also aquire other things that go along with the other person’s nature, like talents and abilities. My old nature might be good at math, and my new nature might be good at music, but it is still “me” inside.

I imagine what Jesus calls “me” as coming to inhabit a human nature at the incarnation.

DeFide:
(BTW, miracles done “by men” are not due to man’s nature, but are done by means of God’s divine nature as man cooperates)I agree.

 

[Angainor]

JimG:

But, one divine person possessing only one human nature? That does go against reason. If he possesses only a human nature, in what sense can he be said to be a divine person?

The person of Jesus is the essence of what Jesus is, his personality. It is what Jesus would call “me”. It is the Word.

In what sense is this person devine if he only possesses a human nature? In the sense that he is Jesus, is the Word.

 

[DeFide]

Angainor:

The way I imaginine it, it is theoretically possible for my person to swap natures with someone else’s person. “I” would inhabit his nature and “he” would inhabit my nature. Not only would I be existing in a new physical body, I would also aquire other things that go along with the other person’s nature, like talents and abilities. My old nature might be good at math, and my new nature might be good at music, but it is still “me” inside.

I imagine what Jesus calls “me” as coming to inhabit a human nature at the incarnation.

There are a few problems with this, the most obvious being that a divine person cannot be limited by a created human (or any other created) nature. Remember, a nature describes what you can and cannot do.

If someone asked your hypothetical Jesus “what” he was, he would say, “I’m human, but not divine”.

 

[Angainor]

DeFide:

There are a few problems with this, the most obvious being that a divine person cannot be limited by a created human (or any other created) nature. Remember, a nature describes what you can and cannot do.

If someone asked your hypothetical Jesus “what” he was, he would say, “I’m human, but not divine”.

If you put it that way. I agree that if someone asked Jesus “what” he was, he would say he was human.
If they asked “who” he was, he would say I am Jesus, God’s son, divine.

 

[DeFide]

Angainor:

If you put it that way. I agree that if someone asked Jesus “what” he was, he would say he was human.
If they asked “who” he was, he would say I am Jesus, God’s son, divine.

If they asked your hypothetical Jesus “who” he was, he would say “I am a divine person without divine powers”.

It’s self-contradictory. Such a Jesus would be a mere human lunatic.

 

[JPrejean]

The way I imaginine it, it is theoretically possible for my person to swap natures with someone else’s person. “I” would inhabit his nature and “he” would inhabit my nature. Not only would I be existing in a new physical body, I would also aquire other things that go along with the other person’s nature, like talents and abilities. My old nature might be good at math, and my new nature might be good at music, but it is still “me” inside.

I imagine what Jesus calls “me” as coming to inhabit a human nature at the incarnation

Person (or more to the point hypostasis) simply denotes the real individuality of a nature. If you switched personae with a person, then you would actually be that person, because a person is nothing other than a concrete individual existence of a nature. You’re appealing to some vague sense of what “you” are without actually defining it metaphysically, and you’re also making a bad analogy between human existence (which is composite) and divine existence (which is simple). If person were in fact defined as you seem to be defining it, then God would not be tri-personal; there would be no such thing as the Trinity. God, after all, only has one divine will, knowledge, wisdom, and power, so if one defined “person” as “personality,” then there is only one person in God, and what you call “Jesus” wouldn’t have existed at all before the Incarnation. Your choices, then, are either to deny the Trinity or to deny your concept of personhood; you can’t have it both ways.

The person of Jesus is the essence of what Jesus is, his personality. It is what Jesus would call “me”. It is the Word.

In what sense is this person devine if he only possesses a human nature? In the sense that he is Jesus, is the Word.

This is simply metaphysical confusion. What do you mean by “personality?” Will? Knowledge? Wisdom? Power? All of those are ONE in God, not plural (that is unless you’re arguing that there are multiple gods, which is equally absurd). The sense that Jesus is the Word of the Father is that He is an instance of the divine nature, i.e., He is a divine person. If He somehow lost His divine nature, He would cease to have what made Him a person. It’s just meaningless gobbledygook to say that Jesus would be “the essence of what Jesus is” without instantiating the divine nature; instantiating the divine nature is the very definition of the Word of God. To put it in your own terms, you are arguing that someone can be a “who” or a “which” without being a “what,” which is nonsense.

To the extent that you are going to actually apply some scrutiny to your beliefs (and most people don’t, adopting some or another form of denial of the Trinity as a matter of course), I would recommend that you be a bit more careful in doing it. I wish you well in the search.

 

[Angainor]

JPrejean:

If He somehow lost His divine nature, He would cease to have what made Him a person.

I don’t understand what you are saying. The two are distinct concepts are they not? Divine nature and Divine Person? Why have two words for them if they are the same? Or does Divine nature include the Divine Person?

 

[thistle]

Angainor:

Let me start by saying that I believe Jesus incarnate was a divine person with a human nature, but no divine nature.

So, what are the reasons for believing that Jesus incarnated had a Divine Nature? I don’t think miracles are a reason because Jesus told us how he performed miracles:

Then he got into the boat and his disciples followed him. Without warning, a furious storm came up on the lake, so that the waves swept over the boat. But Jesus was sleeping. The disciples went and woke him, saying, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!” He replied, “You of little faith, why are you so afraid?” Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm. The men were amazed and asked, “What kind of man is this? Even the winds and the waves obey him!” Matthew 8:23-27

---

When they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and knelt before him. “Lord, have mercy on my son,” he said. “He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him.”

“O unbelieving and perverse generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me.” Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment.

Then the disciples came to Jesus in private and asked, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?” He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” Matthew 17:14-20

It is by the perfect faith of a divine person that Jesus could perform miracles. Peter proves it is possible for a human nature to perform a miracle when he walked on water by having faith (for a short while) that he could do it:

“Come,” he said.

Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!” Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?” Matthew 14:29-31

Read F.J. Sheed’s book Theology For Beginners.

 

[Angainor]

Read F.J. Sheed’s book Theology For Beginners.

Yessir!

 

[thistle]

Yessir!

It wasn’t meant as an order. I probably should have phrased what I said differently. I meant I really recommend reading that book because it fully answers everything you have asked in your thread.

 

[JPrejean]

The two are distinct concepts are they not?

Yes, but one depends on the other. A hypostasis of no nature is nothing; to say that Jesus lost His divine nature would be exactly equivalent to saying that He ceased to exist as a divine person. Jesus of Nazareth then couldn’t be the same person as the Word of God, because the Word of God would no longer exist. The only way that there can be some kind of existential continuity between the two is for the Word of God to continue to exist as an individual reality. And if we are to avoid Adoptionism or Nestorianism, it must be that same individual reality in which the human nature of Jesus subsists.

Or does Divine nature include the Divine Person?

Other way around. Divine person includes the divine nature, because it is a real existence of the divine nature. Conversely, if you take away the divine nature, and you take away the person.

If you take the ordinary case, for a “this” to be a “this,” it must be some kind of thing. “This apple” or “this rock” is a real thing, but there’s no such thing as a pure “this.” Person is nothing more than “thisness,” individual existence; you can’t have a free floating “thisness,” which is exactly what would have to happen in the case you’re describing.

 

[tdandh26]

Jesus gave His Church the promise that it would always be guided by the Holy Spirit. Thus since the Church offically declaired that Christ had both a human and divine nature then that is the end of the answer. Since those who question it cannot be fully informed of the truth through scripture because of their flawed interpretation, We submit to the teachings of The Church which Christ founded and trust that Her teachings are guided by God as per His promise.

 

[Angainor]

thistle:

It wasn’t meant as an order. I probably should have phrased what I said differently. I meant I really recommend reading that book because it fully answers everything you have asked in your thread.

Alright, thanks. Sorry I took that wrong.

 

[JimG]

Angainor:

The person of Jesus is the essence of what Jesus is, his personality. It is what Jesus would call “me”. It is the Word.

In what sense is this person devine if he only possesses a human nature? In the sense that he is Jesus, is the Word.

So would you agree that before the incarnation, the Word was a divine Person? Are you saying that in the incarnation, this divine Person somehow lost his divinity?

Every being has a nature; but not every being is a person. I am a person, but I cannot be a free floating person with no nature. I am a human person.

Now, if the Word is God’s Son from the beginning, he has the divine nature from the beginning. It is what He is. (The Word is who he is.) Because he is God, he can assume a human nature, but in doing so, he cannot relinquish the divine nature. That would leave us with a divine Duality, not a Trinity, the Trinity having thereby lost one Person to humanity by reason of the incarnation!

 

[Angainor]

JPrejean:

If you take the ordinary case, for a “this” to be a “this,” it must be some kind of thing. “This apple” or “this rock” is a real thing, but there’s no such thing as a pure “this.” Person is nothing more than “thisness,” individual existence; you can’t have a free floating “thisness,” which is exactly what would have to happen in the case you’re describing.

Apple or rock? They don’t have a person. What are you trying to say? I want to understand.

“Person” is what separates us from the apples, rocks, and beasts. If you removed my person from my human nature, that nature would continue, animated on its own as a beast, by instinct. (The fact that human nature probably would not have enough instinct to do much more than drool and flop around on the floor is not significant.)

 

[Angainor]

JimG:

So would you agree that before the incarnation, the Word was a divine Person? Are you saying that in the incarnation, this divine Person somehow lost his divinity?

Every being has a nature; but not every being is a person. I am a person, but I cannot be a free floating person with no nature. I am a human person.

Now, if the Word is God’s Son from the beginning, he has the divine nature from the beginning. It is what He is. (The Word is who he is.) Because he is God, he can assume a human nature, but in doing so, he cannot relinquish the divine nature. That would leave us with a divine Duality, not a Trinity, the Trinity having thereby lost one Person to humanity by reason of the incarnation!

Well now. I admit I hadn’t fully considered the nature and personhood of the trinity. Jesus “was one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made”.

The “who” of Jesus was one “what” with the Father, is that right?

Jesus was also “begotten of the Father”. The “who” of Jesus was begotten, right? The “what” was not begotten, as the “what” is one substance with the Father.

Now if the “who” of Jesus were to leave the substance of the Father behind, and take on a fully human substance, you are saying that would leave a divine Duality. If Jesus kept the one substance of the Father at the incarnation, the trinity would remain.

Interesting stuff. I’ll have to keep it in mind.

 

[JimG]

Angainor:

The “who” of Jesus was one “what” with the Father, is that right?.

Exactly right. God is only one ‘what’.

Jesus was also “begotten of the Father”. The “who” of Jesus was begotten, right? The “what” was not begotten, as the “what” is one substance with the Father.

Exactly right again. The ‘what’ remains one. The Word is begotten by the operation of the divine intellect. (understanding that the divine intellect is not something apart from God’s nature. It is just God knowing himself.)

Now if the “who” of Jesus were to leave the substance of the Father behind, and take on a fully human substance, you are saying that would leave a divine Duality. If Jesus kept the one substance of the Father at the incarnation, the trinity would remain.

Yes. A Persons is not a separate ‘thing’ from its nature, but rather an integral expression of that nature.

A rock by it’s nature can not express that nature in personhood. A human being can. Angels can. The divine nature is expressed in three persons.

But I’d better stop there. It is exceedingly difficult to speak of the Trinity without falling into heresy. Some precision is required, since we are speaking of the very internal life of God himself. We cannot know it perfectly, but we can say some things about God’s nature which are true, non-contradictory, and supported by scripture.

 

[Angainor]

JimG,

Thanks for leading me through that. It may take me some time to absorb the information. The idea of Jesus as a divine person/human nature was a major part of why I returned to Christianity after falling into a sort of Deist or general undefined Monotheist belief in God.

 

[JimG]

Angainor:

JimG,

Thanks for leading me through that. It may take me some time to absorb the information. The idea of Jesus as a divine person/human nature was a major part of why I returned to Christianity after falling into a sort of Deist or general undefined Monotheist belief in God.

Glad to be of help. I think that everything I have learned about theology came from the Baltimore catechism and Frank Sheed (in that order.)