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

[JPrejean]

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

Sorry for being unclear. Hypostasis means any kind of individual existence (this apple or this rock or this human being), and person is just a special case of the individual existence of a thinking being (this individual human, this individual angel). If you take away person/hypostasis, then that is the same thing as taking away a thing’s individual existence. You wouldn’t have a nature left; you’d have nothing left at all!

One thing that you seem to be confused about is that thinking is part of human nature. Your ability to think comes from your nature, not from your person. Human nature includes both body and soul, and you seem to be confusing “person” with “soul” or “mind.” Your mind is part of your nature, given concrete existence as a person.

I think Jim got the point across well, but the bottom line is that person isn’t something added to nature. Person simply means that the nature exists individually.

 

[Angainor]

JPrejean:

Sorry for being unclear. Hypostasis means any kind of individual existence (this apple or this rock or this human being), and person is just a special case of the individual existence of a thinking being (this individual human, this individual angel). If you take away person/hypostasis, then that is the same thing as taking away a thing’s individual existence. You wouldn’t have a nature left; you’d have nothing left at all!

I disagree.

JPrejean:

One thing that you seem to be confused about is that thinking is part of human nature. Your ability to think comes from your nature, not from your person. Human nature includes both body and soul, and you seem to be confusing “person” with “soul” or “mind.” Your mind is part of your nature, given concrete existence as a person.

No, I never confused this. I agree with you here.

 

[DeFide]

Angainor, or anyone else; do you know of anyone in history who’s held this theory? Of course, it’d be referred to as the [insert name] heresy, but I can’t think of one off the top of my head.

Now, if you cannot find one group or person in 2000 years, heretical or otherwise, who proposed a similar idea, then what can you infer from this?

Person
newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm

Nature
newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm

 

[Angainor]

DeFide:

Angainor, or anyone else; do you know of anyone in history who’s held this theory? Of course, it’d be referred to as the [insert name] heresy, but I can’t think of one off the top of my head.

Now, if you cannot find one group or person in 2000 years, heretical or otherwise, who proposed a similar idea, then what can you infer from this?

I have looked. The closest I came up with is Apollinarianism, which was addressed way back in A.D. 381. It doesn’t quite match.

I would like to know if I am forging new ground here. Can we call it Angainorianism?

More seriously, I would be wary about infering anything about the idea if no one had the idea berfore. The only thing I could conclude is that it has never been tested, so we don’t know if it is true.

 

[Angainor]

Angainor:

I have looked. The closest I came up with is Apollinarianism, which was addressed way back in A.D. 381. It doesn’t quite match.

I would like to know if I am forging new ground here. Can we call it Angainorianism?

More seriously, I would be wary about infering anything about the idea if no one had the idea berfore. The only thing I could conclude is that it has never been tested, so we don’t know if it is true.

I might add, DeFide, that testing the idea is the reason I started this thread. You all have been wonderful participants.

And to think… none of us are Popes.

 

[JPrejean]

Angianor:
Then I’m sorry to say that you are simply incoherent. Metaphysically, what you are saying is that you can take away your sgdhsgdsui and still retain your xdmxjxshg. It’s just nonsense. Apollinarius actually made more sense than that (and I agree that he had the closest version of this heresy, confusing the nous with the divine nature).

If the goal is to show that Catholics differ in their interpretations of dogma, then you haven’t even done that. We all agreed that what you are saying, to the extent it can be understood at all, is heretical for the same reason.

 

[Angainor]

JPrejean:

We all agreed that what you are saying, to the extent it can be understood at all, is heretical for the same reason.

You do realize, that if [post=1350785]Angainorianism[/post] is not an official heresy, you statement is very profound. You and the others have tested the idea and found it false. Without the help of a Pope no less.

JPrejean:

If the goal is to show that Catholics differ in their interpretations of dogma, then you haven’t even done that.

I had no such intentions. It is just an idea that I have. I’m not sure about it. My reason for posting was to test the idea. My question “What are the reasons for believing that Jesus incarnated had a Divine Nature?” was sincere. I knew this would be a good place to test the idea. I can count on the posters here to pick apart my ideas, which is just what I needed. You all got me to consider issues regarding the persons of the trinity. I still have not rejected the idea completely however.

 

[RobNY]

Angainor:

More seriously, I would be wary about infering anything about the idea if no one had the idea berfore. The only thing I could conclude is that it has never been tested, so we don’t know if it is true.

Which may be true if it did not conflict with already established truths. I’ll explain in a moment.

You do realize, that if Angainorianism is not an official heresy, you statement is very profound. You and the others have tested the idea and found it false. Without the help of a Pope no less.

The same problem is here. Let’s take a hypothetically situation.

We have person X who advocates that Jesus was not a human person, but a Martian person. For our purposes, he is the first person to have done this. (Note that there are no papal encyclicals stating that Jesus is not a Martian.)

Now, why is it that we can declare this heretical without the help of a Pope?

In the first, because it is amply established through the Bible and Church documents that Jesus was human. Take the creed for instance, “was born of the Virgin Mary and became man.” We can tell because something incompatible with the Martian theory has been set firmly in stone.

Likewise with Angainorianism. While there may be no magisterial or Papal documents dealing directly with your brand of, er, heresy, that doesn’t mean we can’t proclaim it to be heresy. That is in no small part because we have Church documents saying that Jesus had a divine and human nature, so any formulation which omits a nature must be false.

See, it already relies on the Church as an authority for proper interpretation.

In any case, your topics are always somewhat interesting, and it’s good to see you alive and kicking, Angainor.

 

[Angainor]

JPrejean:

One thing that you seem to be confused about is that thinking is part of human nature. Your ability to think comes from your nature, not from your person.

I have been thinking about this some more and I agree with you. The ability or capacity to think comes from the human nature. Without a human person, though a human nature would not do any thinking.

It is kind of like a car has the capacity to move about town, but without a driver, doesn’t.

I still think it is possible for the person to be separated from the nature. I believe Jesus was a divine person in a human nature.

 

[ReformedCatholic]

Angainor:

It’s hard to argue with that, but I will try.

The Greek word for nature in this verse seems to mean “in the form of”. Is this greek word what is generally meant by “nature” as used in the hypostatic union doctrines? Anyone know?

Also, Paul isn’t setting out to define the precise nature of Jesus in this passage, but teaching the Philippians to be humble. Could he have used the word “nature” casually?

Aren’t each of us in our very nature God? We are “created in the image of God,” yes? God is omnipresent so would therefore reside within, without, and through us. Could this have been the meaning?

 

[Angainor]

JPrejean:

Now it’s just getting silly

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).

Alright everybody. How do you understand demon possession? I would say the demon person displaces the human person when inhabiting the human nature. The human person would still exist in the human nature, but the human will would be overwhelmed by the demon will.

Also if demons possessed a herd of pigs, the demon persons would come to inhabit the pig natures. There would be no pig persons to displace.

 

[JimG]

My understanding of demonic possession is that the demon takes over the operations of a persons body. The demon cannot displace either the soul or the personhood of its victim.

 

[DeFide]

Angainor:

Alright everybody. How do you understand demon possession? I would say the demon person displaces the human person when inhabiting the human nature. The human person would still exist in the human nature, but the human will would be overwhelmed by the demon will.

Also if demons possessed a herd of pigs, the demon persons would come to inhabit the pig natures. There would be no pig persons to displace.

It may be a good topic for a new thread, but here is an article on the matter:

newadvent.org/cathen/12315a.htm

 

[FCEGM]

Angainor:

Alright everybody. How do you understand demon possession? I would say the demon person displaces the human person when inhabiting the human nature. The human person would still exist in the human nature, but the human will would be overwhelmed by the demon will.

Also if demons possessed a herd of pigs, the demon persons would come to inhabit the pig natures. There would be no pig persons to displace.

In their superb book, The Theology of Christian Perfection, Frs. Jordan Aumann, O.P., and Antonio Arroyo, O.P., recount the true story of a French priest, Fr. Surin, who, after exorcizing some Ursuline nuns, himself became possessed. Fr. Surin wrote of his terrible experience; here is an excerpt:

I cannot say what happens to me during this time nor how that spirit is united to my soul without depriving me of consciousness or of liberty. He is there as another I, and it then seems that I have two souls, one of which, deprived of the use of the bodily organs and remaining as it were at a distance, watches what the other one does. The two spirits struggle on the same field of battle, which is the body. The soul is, as it were, divided; open on the one hand to diabolical impressions, and abandoned on the other hand to its own movements and to those of God. In one and the same instant I experience a great peace under the approbation of God, and I do not in any way consent to the feeling of repulsion which moves me, on the other hand, to separate myself from God, to the great surprise of those who watch me. I am at the same time filled with happiness and overwhelmed with a sorrow which is expressed in complaints and groans, according to the caprice of the devils. I feel in myself the state of condemnation and I fear it.

Frs. Aumann and Royo go on to say:

Ordinarily, possession occurs only in sinners and precisely as a punishment for sin. There are exceptions, however, as in the case of Father Surin and Sister Mary of Jesus Crucified (an Arabian Carmelite who died in the odor of sanctity at Bethlehem in 1878 and whose cause for beatification has been inaugurated [she is now a “Blessed”}). In these cases the diabolical possession was used by God as a means of purification.

[/quote]

 

[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.

Cannot? Why not?

Why could the Father not send the divine person of the Son to inhabit and be limited by, a human nature?

 

[JimG]

Angainor:

Cannot? Why not?
Why could the Father not send the divine person of the Son to inhabit and be limited by, a human nature?

In a sense, that’s exactly what happened. By taking on a human nature, the Son took on the limits of the human nature. He–as a Person–was limited by the constraints of the human body, the human soul, human intelligence, human learning, human limitations. He grew from infancy to adulthood using the limited human faculties available to human beings. Like human beings, he was able to suffer and die.

What he could not do, however, was to leave his divine nature behind when he took on the human nature. He was still, after all, eternally generated by the Father, and one in being with the Father. So, by reason of his divine nature, he also had divine knowledge and divine will, remaining perfectly united with the Father.

Thus the theological distinction often made, when speaking of Jesus’ actions: “Christ as man,” and “Christ as God,” since he was able to act in accordance with both natures.

 

[Angainor]

Thanks Frances! Something like this is what I was looking for.

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

FCEGM (Frances):

I cannot say what happens to me during this time nor how that spirit is united to my soul without depriving me of consciousness or of liberty. He is there as another I, and it then seems that I have two souls, one of which, deprived of the use of the bodily organs and remaining as it were at a distance, watches what the other one does. The two spirits struggle on the same field of battle, which is the body.

JPrejean,

“He is there as another ‘I’”
What do you make of this information on demon possession? There seem to be two persons inhabiting the same nature. The invading demon person does not become the human person. The human person is still himself. I am also assuming the demon person left behind his demon nature when he invaded the human person.

 

[Angainor]

JimG:

In a sense, that’s exactly what happened. By taking on a human nature, the Son took on the limits of the human nature. He–as a Person–was limited by the constraints of the human body, the human soul, human intelligence, human learning, human limitations. He grew from infancy to adulthood using the limited human faculties available to human beings. Like human beings, he was able to suffer and die.

What he could not do, however, was to leave his divine nature behind when he took on the human nature. He was still, after all, eternally generated by the Father, and one in being with the Father. So, by reason of his divine nature, he also had divine knowledge and divine will, remaining perfectly united with the Father.

Thus the theological distinction often made, when speaking of Jesus’ actions: “Christ as man,” and “Christ as God,” since he was able to act in accordance with both natures.

My question was “What are the reasons for believing that Jesus incarnate had a Divine Nature?”

The best answer I seem to be getting is that Jesus was simply unable to leave his Divine Nature behind. He simply cannot do it. I don’t fully understand why not, but I have a vague notion it has something to do with the trinity. Somehow if Jesus kept his divine nature he still had one foot in the door of the trinity, and therefore the trinity was not “broken up”.

 

[JimG]

Angainor:

My question was “What are the reasons for believing that Jesus incarnate had a Divine Nature?”

The best answer I seem to be getting is that Jesus was simply unable to leave his Divine Nature behind. He simply cannot do it. I don’t fully understand why not, but I have a vague notion it has something to do with the trinity. Somehow if Jesus kept his divine nature he still had one foot in the door of the trinity, and therefore the trinity was not “broken up”.

What are the reasons for believing that Jesus incarnate had a Divine Nature? Well, what does the Incarnation mean? It means that the Divine Word, the Second Person of the Trinity, assumed a human nature.

Now the Divine Word is eternally generated by the Father by the operation of His Divine Intellect. The Father speaks the Word. A Person, any person, is not a distinct entity from what it is.

Now, if it were possible to break the ‘connection’ between the Father and the Word, the Word would cease to be, since He is eternally generated (not created) by the Father. Consequently, he would no longer be either a divine person or a human person. Divine suicide is not possible.

Angainor:

I am also assuming the demon person left behind his demon nature when he invaded the human person.

No, the demon did not leave behind his demon nature when invading the body of the possessed person. He can’t leave behind his nature, because that’s what makes him what he is–a demon. If he left it behind, it wouldn’t be demonic possession. In fact, there would be no possession at all, because a person without a nature is nothing–no thing.

 

[Angainor]

JimG:

No, the demon did not leave behind his demon nature when invading the body of the possessed person. He can’t leave behind his nature, because that’s what makes him what he is–a demon. If he left it behind, it wouldn’t be demonic possession. In fact, there would be no possession at all, because a person without a nature is nothing–no thing.

The idea of the demon person and nature possessing a human is beyond my comprehension at the moment. I think I can imagine a demon person invading a human nature host with the human person still existing as another “I”.

Isn’t that what “[post=1367801]another ‘I’[/post]” means? Two persons (human and demon) are sharing one nature?