P
Paul_the_seaker
Guest
I have often wondered what was the difference between soul and person. I understand that Jesus did not have a human person, but a human soul. Thus the cannot be the same thing. Then what are they.?
- Status
J
JimG
Guest
I’ll give it a try.
Soul is that aspect of a human being which is not material, and which is the vivifying principle of the human being. The (human) soul survives death because it is not material and thus does not decompose. It’s principle faculties are intellect and will.
“Person” is not a distinct entity or “part” of a being, but is an expression of the “who-ness” of the being. It is “person” which allows me to use the pronoun “I” in reference to myself, whereas a rock or a desk cannot use the same pronoun because it is not an “I” but only a “what.”
Because the “I” in Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, his person is divine, not human. Yet, that person, besides having a divine nature, also assumed a human nature, meaning that he can act both according to the nature of God and the nature of man.
Soul is that aspect of a human being which is not material, and which is the vivifying principle of the human being. The (human) soul survives death because it is not material and thus does not decompose. It’s principle faculties are intellect and will.
“Person” is not a distinct entity or “part” of a being, but is an expression of the “who-ness” of the being. It is “person” which allows me to use the pronoun “I” in reference to myself, whereas a rock or a desk cannot use the same pronoun because it is not an “I” but only a “what.”
Because the “I” in Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, his person is divine, not human. Yet, that person, besides having a divine nature, also assumed a human nature, meaning that he can act both according to the nature of God and the nature of man.
V
vrlobo88
Guest
I’d say a soul is the life force that animates our bodies. It is the gift of life, a spirit given to us by God. I’m not an expert on this, but I’d say Jesus had a human person (human body/flesh), but not a human soul (He is God- the soul giver- and was in a way, the life force itself).
N
Nita
Guest
Actually, it’s just the other way around according to Catholic doctrine. Jesus had a human soul but He was not a human person. There was only one Person in Jesus and it was/is the Divine Second Person of the Trinity.
For references see CCC #467 & #468
Nita
M
MH84
Guest
I did not know that!
I have a question about this though: Could it be that Jesus was a human person, while still not possessing the human nature of course?
Another: How can one have a human soul, but not be a human being? Isnt the soul what makes a human, a human?
Correct me if I misread please
M
Mansizedtarget
Guest
We don’t think Christ was not a human being, nor an imposter, nor an intermediate being. He was one person, two natures, two wills, “True God and True Man,” but possessing singularity of identity and personhood.
N
Nita
Guest
Jesus did possess a human nature. (A human nature consists of a human soul united to a human body.)
“Person” is not the same thing as “soul” or “human being”. Personhood is one of those things that does not have an agreed upon definition in philosophy - at least not one I’ve been able to find. But to give you a sense of the difference:
“Human being” answer the question “WHAT are you?”
“Person” answers the question “WHO are you?”
(Soul answers the question "What do you call the spiritual part of human nature - or of a human being, or of a person.)
It would never be correct to say Jesus was a human “person”.
Maybe it would help if you tried to imagine there were two separate “persons” inside of your body. WHO would you be???!!
There were not two persons in the human body of Jesus - only one, the Second Person of the Trinity.Personhood incorporates the sense of individuality; one’s uniqueness; one’s "person"ality. Both body and soul are involved. One’s personal name is an identification of the unique “WHO” of each person. We will exist for a time (after death and until the resurrection) without our bodies, but there will be a sense of incompleteness. One thinks of the souls “under the altar” (Rev 6:9) that John saw in his vision.
Yes, it is a “human” soul that makes us a human.
Jesus was a human being - He had a human body and a human soul. But He was also a Divine Being and His Personhood derived from His Divine nature. We have only a human nature and our personhood arises from that.
I hope this helps.
Nita
P
Paul_the_seaker
Guest
Nita you have been most helpful. I think I understand- the soul is a mysterious individuality that enables us to be individually responsible. It is not part of the soul for then it would be a composite and as such could fall “apart.” Soul must be some so unique that generalize definition of it must be something about what it does rather than what it is. I hope this makes sense.
But thanks, I really appreciate it.
Paul the Seaker
But thanks, I really appreciate it.
Paul the Seaker
J
johnco
Guest
hi,
this is why mary can be called mother of God , a mother is not mother of a nature, but of a person. Jesus is a divine person, hence, mary is the mother of God.
God bless,
johnco
this is why mary can be called mother of God , a mother is not mother of a nature, but of a person. Jesus is a divine person, hence, mary is the mother of God.
God bless,
johnco
F
ficino
Guest
I have a question about the Catholic doctrine of the human/divine nature of Jesus Christ. This is based, among other things, on trying to understand the Nestorian and Monophysite hereies of the 4th and 5th centuries.
First, I was always taught that the human and divine natures of Jesus Christ are joined and inseparable.
However, while perhaps metaphysically they are inseparable, it doesn’t seem like they are logically inseparable. We can, for example, consider many of Jesus’ qualities, and assign them to the categories of human or divine, respectively. Jesus wept when John the Baptist died; that is a human quality; He saw things, ate, tasted food, etc.
But he is also the Logos of God.
Now here comes the main question. The Logos of God is/was co-eternal with the Father. But Jesus Christ, as a human being, born in Bethlehem, is/was not co-eternal with the Father; the body and human nature of Jesus Christ incarnated in history. Before that, Jesus Christ had no body, nor a human soul (feelings, sensations, etc.).
Therefore, is it correct to say that Jesus of Nazareth, in his totality, is the Logos of God? The Logos of God is eternal, but Jesus of Nazareth, the human body, and human soul, his earthly memories, etc., did not exist as a physical being before 2008 years ago.
But if Jesus’ human nature is not co-eternal with the Father, then is it correct to say that Jesus Christ, as a totality, human and divine, body, mind, soul, and spirit, is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity? Rather, it would seem that only Jesus’ divine nature is the Logos, and the Second Person.
If I understand the Catechism correctly, the suggestion is that Jesus’ ‘person’ is the same as the Second Person. But what about Jesus’ body? Can that in any way be considered part of the Trinity? If not, then the totality of Jesus Christ – even if only his material body – would not be the Second Person of the Trinity? Only what is co-eternal with the Father would be.
This would suggest that we do not worship his human nature, or at least not his body, and human sensations, memories, thoughts, feelings. That’s what I’m getting at.
This also raises certain questions about confusing Jesus’ human appearance with his divinity. We would not, for example, worship the ‘Jesus’ we see in paintings; but rather an intangible Person of Jesus.
I don’t want to carry this too far here. Does anybody see what I’m saying? This would seem like a question that has been asked before, especially considering all the controversys in the early centuries.
First, I was always taught that the human and divine natures of Jesus Christ are joined and inseparable.
However, while perhaps metaphysically they are inseparable, it doesn’t seem like they are logically inseparable. We can, for example, consider many of Jesus’ qualities, and assign them to the categories of human or divine, respectively. Jesus wept when John the Baptist died; that is a human quality; He saw things, ate, tasted food, etc.
But he is also the Logos of God.
Now here comes the main question. The Logos of God is/was co-eternal with the Father. But Jesus Christ, as a human being, born in Bethlehem, is/was not co-eternal with the Father; the body and human nature of Jesus Christ incarnated in history. Before that, Jesus Christ had no body, nor a human soul (feelings, sensations, etc.).
Therefore, is it correct to say that Jesus of Nazareth, in his totality, is the Logos of God? The Logos of God is eternal, but Jesus of Nazareth, the human body, and human soul, his earthly memories, etc., did not exist as a physical being before 2008 years ago.
But if Jesus’ human nature is not co-eternal with the Father, then is it correct to say that Jesus Christ, as a totality, human and divine, body, mind, soul, and spirit, is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity? Rather, it would seem that only Jesus’ divine nature is the Logos, and the Second Person.
If I understand the Catechism correctly, the suggestion is that Jesus’ ‘person’ is the same as the Second Person. But what about Jesus’ body? Can that in any way be considered part of the Trinity? If not, then the totality of Jesus Christ – even if only his material body – would not be the Second Person of the Trinity? Only what is co-eternal with the Father would be.
This would suggest that we do not worship his human nature, or at least not his body, and human sensations, memories, thoughts, feelings. That’s what I’m getting at.
This also raises certain questions about confusing Jesus’ human appearance with his divinity. We would not, for example, worship the ‘Jesus’ we see in paintings; but rather an intangible Person of Jesus.
I don’t want to carry this too far here. Does anybody see what I’m saying? This would seem like a question that has been asked before, especially considering all the controversys in the early centuries.
J
johnco
Guest
hi,
perhaps you are worried about our worship of the body of Christ in the Eucharist. the church teaches that the Eucharist contains the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the second Person of the Blessed Trinity.check out st. thomas aq. summa at newadvent.org
God bless,
johnco
perhaps you are worried about our worship of the body of Christ in the Eucharist. the church teaches that the Eucharist contains the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of the second Person of the Blessed Trinity.check out st. thomas aq. summa at newadvent.org
God bless,
johnco
F
ficino
Guest
Hi johnco,
Thanks for your reply.
Here is another aspect of the same question – maybe this will help to clarify it.
Jesus Christ ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father. Therefore there is a logical distinction between the ascended Jesus Christ, who is still God and man(?), and the Logos of God. Was the Logos of God with God the Father in heaven in the beginning? (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God…”). And, if so, it seems likely that the Logos did not leave heaven while Jesus Christ was on earth. Then, when Jesus Christ ascended into heaven, did he, Logos and man, join God the Father, and the Logos of God in heaven?
In any case, after praying about this, an idea occurred to me which, if nothing else, you might find amusing.
First: Pope John Paul II, in the encyclical Fides et ratio (72), says something interesting:
“A great spiritual impulse leads Indian thought to seek an experience which would liberate the spirit from the shackles of time and space.”
It then alludes to the possibility that Indian philosophy contains elements upon which Christian thought may draw. Here is one such idea.
Indian philosophy is radically idealist – in the sense that all material reality is seen as ‘maya’ – a dream or illusion. Our true selves exist on a higher plain, individually and collectively dreaming our experience of the material world. Among other things, this nicely explains the phenomenon of miracles, since material reality would be alterable; it also explains how prayer can affect events in the material world.
If this were true, then the human nature of Jesus Christ would be something his true self dreamed; just as our material bodies are things our true selves dream. Then there would be no obvious difficulty in seeing Jesus Christ’s true self to be the Logos of God (i.e., his person would be the Second Person). His human body would not have to be co-eternal with the Father, because, in a sense, it is a ‘transient’ thought of the Logos (even if that transient thought continues indefinitely into the future).
This is not docetism, which also uses the word “illusion” to describe Jesus Christ’s physical body. According to docetism, the human body of Jesus Christ is illusion in the sense that it is less real than our human bodies; it has no material reality. In Indian idealism, materiality itself has a different meaning. Jesus Christ’s body would be just as material as ours, – but material reality would be understood as ultimately dreamlike.
Even if just conjecture, this view answers the original question for me, at least for the time being. If nothing else, it succeeds in revealing how little we know about reality itself – such that perhaps we should be more content to regard the incarnation as a mystery. ‘Mystery’ here might mean, among other things, that it cannot be explained within the framework of our currently limited understanding of reality, cause and effect, existence, categories of time and space, etc.
Thanks for your reply.
Here is another aspect of the same question – maybe this will help to clarify it.
Jesus Christ ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father. Therefore there is a logical distinction between the ascended Jesus Christ, who is still God and man(?), and the Logos of God. Was the Logos of God with God the Father in heaven in the beginning? (“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God…”). And, if so, it seems likely that the Logos did not leave heaven while Jesus Christ was on earth. Then, when Jesus Christ ascended into heaven, did he, Logos and man, join God the Father, and the Logos of God in heaven?
In any case, after praying about this, an idea occurred to me which, if nothing else, you might find amusing.
First: Pope John Paul II, in the encyclical Fides et ratio (72), says something interesting:
“A great spiritual impulse leads Indian thought to seek an experience which would liberate the spirit from the shackles of time and space.”
It then alludes to the possibility that Indian philosophy contains elements upon which Christian thought may draw. Here is one such idea.
Indian philosophy is radically idealist – in the sense that all material reality is seen as ‘maya’ – a dream or illusion. Our true selves exist on a higher plain, individually and collectively dreaming our experience of the material world. Among other things, this nicely explains the phenomenon of miracles, since material reality would be alterable; it also explains how prayer can affect events in the material world.
If this were true, then the human nature of Jesus Christ would be something his true self dreamed; just as our material bodies are things our true selves dream. Then there would be no obvious difficulty in seeing Jesus Christ’s true self to be the Logos of God (i.e., his person would be the Second Person). His human body would not have to be co-eternal with the Father, because, in a sense, it is a ‘transient’ thought of the Logos (even if that transient thought continues indefinitely into the future).
This is not docetism, which also uses the word “illusion” to describe Jesus Christ’s physical body. According to docetism, the human body of Jesus Christ is illusion in the sense that it is less real than our human bodies; it has no material reality. In Indian idealism, materiality itself has a different meaning. Jesus Christ’s body would be just as material as ours, – but material reality would be understood as ultimately dreamlike.
Even if just conjecture, this view answers the original question for me, at least for the time being. If nothing else, it succeeds in revealing how little we know about reality itself – such that perhaps we should be more content to regard the incarnation as a mystery. ‘Mystery’ here might mean, among other things, that it cannot be explained within the framework of our currently limited understanding of reality, cause and effect, existence, categories of time and space, etc.
J
johnco
Guest
hi,
i,ve heard that some think that our reality is God,s Idea. that eternity is the "real’ , and ours is like smoke that can blow away. however, our reality is certainly "real’, Jesus suffered dreadfully,yet when we reach the other side,maybe part of the wonder will be how tangable and "real’ Love is.remember eternity exists outside time, so, Jesus and all He accomplished,is present to the Trinity in an eternal now.that is why mary can be redeemed at her conception, and the fruits of the redemptionare available to all human times.
God bless,
johnco
i,ve heard that some think that our reality is God,s Idea. that eternity is the "real’ , and ours is like smoke that can blow away. however, our reality is certainly "real’, Jesus suffered dreadfully,yet when we reach the other side,maybe part of the wonder will be how tangable and "real’ Love is.remember eternity exists outside time, so, Jesus and all He accomplished,is present to the Trinity in an eternal now.that is why mary can be redeemed at her conception, and the fruits of the redemptionare available to all human times.
God bless,
johnco
- Status