Who is/was Jesus?

[Ghosty]

But why despair, if it was the plan all along?

Why say Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done? If Son and Father are one, why do they have different wills?

There are two ways of speaking of will: personal and natural. The personal will of Christ and the Father was indeed one, but Christ also possessed two natures and therefore two natural wills. The natural will of humanity tends to recoil at suffering and death. We see this even in ourselves when we want to do something that would bring pain or damage to ourselves, such as amputating a gangrenous limb. In such circumstances we must subsume our natural tendency to our personal will.

Christ’s human nature recoiled at what He had chosen to do, and it is from that perspective that He asked for the cup to pass. It was not as if He ever personally willed for it to pass, as He had several opportunities to avoid such a fate if that were the case.

There is a much bigger problem with the notion put forth by the Episcopal priest earlier, and that is that his view requires that we simultaneously consider the Apostles reliable and unreliable conveyors of what actually transpired. They also state that Christ Himself said He was truly God, that He said He was “I Am”. If He was merely a guru, then the Apostles lied in their accounts, but then all of their accounts are in question since we have only theirs to go on.

Peace and God bless!

 

[awatkins69]

Human: two human legs.
Centaur: four horse legs.

How many legs and of what type does your human/centaur hybrid have?

If it has two legs, then it cannot be a centaur. Centaurs have four legs.
If it has four legs, then it cannot be a human. Humans have two legs.

To be both, your creature would have to have both two and four legs at the same time.

Likewise, Jesus would have to be both omniscient (to be God) and non-omniscient (to be human).

To abstract it, imagine that God has some trait X.

Let A be a set of all beings (including God).
Let B be a subset of A, representing beings which have X.
Let C be a subset of A, representing beings which do not have X.

All humans belong to set C.
All Gods belong to set B.

Obviously, C = A-B. But if so, the sets are disjointed, i.e. intersection B*C is a null set. (You cannot have X, and not have X at the same time.)

If Jesus is both human and God, then he belongs to both B and C, which means he belongs to set BC. But BC is a null set, i.e. the number of its members is zero. So nobody belongs to BC. Ergo, Jesus cannot belong to BC.

I don’t think using set theory here is going to be particularly illuminating. The construction you’ve given doesn’t really allow us to be unambiguous in terms of essential properties or how a property is predicated of a thing. Regarding the latter, we say that ‘having’ is going to be relative to a nature (at least in the case of an incarnate God). To say ‘God has some property X’ we need to know whether he has it qua man or has it qua God. If we modify your stipulations and further specify which nature we are predicating the property of the problem dissolves. For instance:

Suppose that God has-qua-God some trait X.

Let A be a set of all beings (including God).
Let B be a subset of A, representing beings which have-qua-God X.
Let C be a subset of A, representing beings which do not have-qua-man X.

Well, now that we have specified further which nature the predication is relative to, C is not obviously the difference between A and B, and it is thus not at all clear that B and C will always be disjoint for any X.

Not only that, you’ll need to be more precise to get your argument going, since it is quite implausible to suppose that for *all *X humans are always going to be in subset C. For example: we think God is good and some humans are good too. Nor is it plausible to assume that for all X God is going to be in set B. There are some properties both of us lack, for instance, being triangular.

Hope that is somewhat clear and helpful!

 

[awatkins69]

I should say I agree with what Ghosty said, I’ll just try to add a couple of things.

Perfect in every aspect of your divinity, sure, but what does that mean?
A fully divine being is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent maong other things.
So, Christ is omnipotent and omniscient and omnipresent while He is also not onmiscient, not omnipotent and not omnipresent.

Yes, those are all true. The problem is you are not being fully unambiguous and stating to which nature the predication is relative to.

A similar *apparent *contradiction arises in the metaphysics of persistence. Suppose I am first not green. Later on I fall into a pool of green paint, and thus become green. It seems to follow that I am both not green and green. But I can’t be both not green and green; we seem to thus arrive at a contradiction.

Obviously the problem is that I have properties relative to a time. I am-at-t1 not green, and I am-at-t2 green. Disambiguating what time I have my property relative to shows there is clearly no contradiction. Likewise, you only appear to have a contradiction because you are not specifying which nature of Christ the property is being predicated relative to.

By nature I mean essence.

That’s fine, it doesn’t change anything I said, since the nature of a thing is just what it is to be that sort of thing, i.e. the type of thing it is.

A being can only be one type of being. We can describe various aspects of this type of being, but it is still the same type of being. A god is a god and a man is a man and a horse is a horse. Whetehr the horse is black or white, the man has a beard or not does not change the type of being they are.

Why do you suppose a being can be only one type of being? What you freely assert I freely deny. Not sure what the rest of what you say has to do with this or how it supports this, although it is all correct. Yes a man is a man, a horse is a horse; this is analytically true. It doesn’t support your first statement which is what is important.

There is nothing wrong with the idea of some being having both human and divine properties. I have human proparties (I am mortal) and divine properties (I am a personal being). What is contradictory is not that a being has different kinds of properties, but that said being has all the properties of one and all the properties of the other.

Good point, that is much more precise. Still, you haven’t shown what I have bolded, viz. that it is contradictory for a being to have all the properties of one nature and all the properties of the other; you have merely asserted it. It is fine for one to do so, so long as the having is in respect to the correct nature.

The idea of Christ being fully divine and fully human is not the same idea as a centaur being half man and half horse, if we use this analogy we would have to say that Christ has all the properties of a horse and all the properties of a man. He has four legs and he has two legs, He has a tail and he has no tail, he has a human head and also the head of a horse, he has hooves and finger nails, can run 60 km/hour and is also limited to 40 km/hour.

I never used the analogy, but you’re quite right, it is not a proper analogy. You can have things in respect to some proper subpart of your physical body, but I wasn’t saying that is the case with Christ. I say Christ has certain divine properties with respect to one of his natures, and he lacks them with respect to the other nature.

The problem is that at least some divine properties are the same respect as human properties.

I am not entirely sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that Christ has-qua-man some divine properties? Sure, he has goodness, wisdom, knowledge, etc. How does this create a problem? It would only create a problem if we said Christ has-qua-man *all *the divine properties.

 

[belorg]

Yes, those are all true. The problem is you are not being fully unambiguous and stating to which nature the predication is relative to.

A similar *apparent *contradiction arises in the metaphysics of persistence. Suppose I am first not green. Later on I fall into a pool of green paint, and thus become green. It seems to follow that I am both not green and green. But I can’t be both not green and green; we seem to thus arrive at a contradiction.
Obviously the problem is that I have properties relative to a time. I am-at-t1 not green, and I am-at-t2 green. Disambiguating what time I have my property relative to shows there is clearly no contradiction. Likewise, you only appear to have a contradiction because you are not specifying which nature of Christ the property is being predicated relative to.

But Christ is not at one time fully man and at another time fully divine. Chirst is fully divine when he is fully man. While his human nature could in principle cease to exist, his dinie nature cannot.

Why do you suppose a being can be only one type of being? What you freely assert I freely deny. Not sure what the rest of what you say has to do with this or how it supports this, although it is all correct. Yes a man is a man, a horse is a horse; this is analytically true. It doesn’t support your first statement which is what is important.

A being is decribed using different properties, and all these properties combined describe the type of being it is. These propeties do not describe two types of being. Suppose a human being has non-material properties, then those properties are an essential part of a complete description of what type of being he is. To say that he is fully human means that all of his essential properties combined mean that he is human.

Good point, that is much more precise. Still, you haven’t shown what I have bolded, viz. that it is contradictory for a being to have all the properties of one nature and all the properties of the other; you have merely asserted it. It is fine for one to do so, so long as the having is in respect to the correct nature.

A being that has all properties of X is X, if said being also has all properties of Y then this being is not X and also not Y, he is something completely different.

I never used the analogy, but you’re quite right, it is not a proper analogy. You can have things in respect to some proper subpart of your physical body, but I wasn’t saying that is the case with Christ. I say Christ has certain divine properties with respect to one of his natures, and he lacks them with respect to the other nature.

You cannot lack something that you have.

I am not entirely sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that Christ has-qua-man some divine properties? Sure, he has goodness, wisdom, knowledge, etc. How does this create a problem? It would only create a problem if we said Christ has-qua-man *all *the divine properties.

The problem is that if Christ-qua-man has the property of finite wisdom, and qua God has the property of infinite wisdom, then Christ as a divine+ human being has infinite wisdom, which mean, in that respect, Christ is not human. So he is not fully human in that respect, hence Christ cannot be fully human and fully God because full divinity precludes full humanity and vice-versa

 

[Tampa_Dave]

I’ve taken the position of fellow lawyer Lee Strobel and committed myself to researching the theological and historical Christ in a quest to affirm my faith. God bless her, my devout wife has no compulsion to research what she believes to be unequivocally true. Perhaps it’s the lawyer in me, but I have an overwhelming desire to buttress my faith with everything I can gather from Scripture and Catholic tradition, plus the academic disciplines of philosophy, history, and theology. To further explore the Divine Mysteries of our Catholic faith, I recently purchased the following titles by Catholic authors:

“The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus” (Raymond Brown)

“Who is Jesus?: An Introduction to Christology” (Thomas Rausch)

“Believing in the Resurrection: The Meaning and Promise of the Risen Jesus” (Gerald O’Collins)

There are heavier tomes available from authors like Mike Lincona, N.T. Wright, and Raymond Brown, but I am no expert theologian, philosopher or historian and must start from an amateur’s perspective. If any CA posters have further book recommendations I am certainly open to suggestion. I ask for your prayers in seeking our Lord’s guidance in my studies.

 

[awatkins69]

But Christ is not at one time fully man and at another time fully divine. Chirst is fully divine when he is fully man. While his human nature could in principle cease to exist, his dinie nature cannot.

Correct, but you are not understanding the point of what I was saying. I wasn’t saying this solves the problem, only that it is an analogous case where there are apparent contradictions because we fail to specify what the predication is relative to; in the case of material persistence, we fail to specify the predication is relative to a time, and in the incarnation case you are failing to specify that the predication is relative to a nature.

A being is decribed using different properties, and all these properties combined describe the type of being it is. These propeties do not describe two types of being. Suppose a human being has non-material properties, then those properties are an essential part of a complete description of what type of being he is. To say that he is fully human means that all of his essential properties combined mean that he is human.

Each of these statements is incorrect. First, not all my properties describe my essence/the type of thing I am. For instance, I have the property of being brown, and it is in no wise a part of my essence (I can fail to be brown after all). Second, it doesn’t follow automatically from my having non-material properties that they’re part of my essence. If I have an immaterial mind and I think a thought T, then that thought itself is immaterial. But the property of having T is in no wise a part of my essence. Also I’m not sure what any of this has to do with the topic at hand or how it shows one can only be one type of being.

A being that has all properties of X is X, if said being also has all properties of Y then this being is not X and also not Y, he is something completely different.

I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at here, but the part I have bolded appears to be an instance of what in philosophy is called the identity of indiscernibles and it is a false thesis.

You cannot lack something that you have.

This is a mere assertion. Why not? You can lack it with respect to one of your natures, in an analogous way to how you can lack it with respect to a time or you can lack it with respect to a part of your body.

The problem is that if Christ-qua-man has the property of finite wisdom, and qua God has the property of infinite wisdom, then Christ as a divine+ human being has infinite wisdom, which mean, in that respect, Christ is not human. So he is not fully human in that respect, hence Christ cannot be fully human and fully God because full divinity precludes full humanity and vice-versa

Again, what is the ‘having’ relative to here? His God+manness? Our position (the Catholic one) is that there is no such thing as a third nature, ‘God+man-ness’ which Christ has his features relative to. This is a heresy called monophysitism and it was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon. If you are going to criticize the internal coherence of our theory you have to criticize it on its own terms.

 

[empantarhei]

Tampa Dave ***I’ve taken the position of fellow lawyer Lee Strobel and committed myself to researching the theological and historical Christ in a quest to affirm my faith. God bless her, my devout wife has no compulsion to research what she believes to be unequivocally true. Perhaps it’s the lawyer in me, but I have an overwhelming desire to buttress my faith with everything I can gather from Scripture and Catholic tradition, plus the academic disciplines of philosophy, history, and theology. ***

Reading Strobel’s “The Case for Christ” was an eye opener for me. I too, like researching the theological and historical Christ to reaffrim my faith. I don’t question what I believe, but I do enjoy seeing in print what I have lived but couldn’t express before. Of late that same research is being applied to discover how I can better live and express my faith. That puts everything I read into yet another perspective; finding a reason for my Faith. Though I’d rather enjoy the mystery of it - (and I do!! ) not everything needs to be answered to be lived, if that makes sense. As for that research, He did bless me with a very curious brain and the free will to pursue the research.
Another book is "Myths The World Taught Me, " author’s last name is Richards. I owned it for 15 years before reading it. When I did read it, was not the subject matter I had thought. Turns out, it is similar in nature to “The Case for Christ.” Good read.
BTW, I want all of Strobel’s books ASAP!!

 

[belorg]

Each of these statements is incorrect. First, not all my properties describe my essence/the type of thing I am. For instance, I have the property of being brown, and it is in no wise a part of my essence (I can fail to be brown after all). Second, it doesn’t follow automatically from my having non-material properties that they’re part of my essence. If I have an immaterial mind and I think a thought T, then that thought itself is immaterial. But the property of having T is in no wise a part of my essence. Also I’m not sure what any of this has to do with the topic at hand or how it shows one can only be one type of being.

I should have said essential properties. There can only be one type of being with all the same essential properties. If X has property A, B and C and Y also has property A, B and C (and no other properties) then X and Y are the same type of being. A being woth properties A, B , C and also D, E and F is another type of bieng, but it is not two types of being.

This is a mere assertion. Why not? You can lack it with respect to one of your natures, in an analogous way to how you can lack it with respect to a time or you can lack it with respect to a part of your body.

If **I **have a beard now, then I cannot not have a beard now.
Now, my foot does no have a beard, but still it is incoherent to say that because my foor does not have a beard, I have a beard and I lack a beard.

Again, what is the ‘having’ relative to here? His God+manness? Our position (the Catholic one) is that there is no such thing as a third nature, ‘God+man-ness’ which Christ has his features relative to.

I am not talking about a third nature, I am talking about a being. The Catholic position is not that Christ as God and Christ as man are two beings, is it?

The being of Christ is described by saying is has essentail properties A, B, C and that’s the nature of this being. Now you could object that Christ’s human properties D, E and F are not essential, so that the type of being Christ is, can be described by A,B and C, but then Christ does not have two natures. Besides, property A, let’s say wisdom, is an essential property of both Christ’s divine and his human nature.
But the wisdom the being Christ has is infinite, so it should be possible to describe both the type of being “Divine Christ” and the type of being "human Christ " by the property A. But a type of being that has infinite wisdom (property A) cannot be fully human, since humans cannot have infinite wisdom.
Hence, Christ cannot have both a fuly divine and a fully human nature.

 

[awatkins69]

I should have said essential properties. There can only be one type of being with all the same essential properties. If X has property A, B and C and Y also has property A, B and C (and no other properties) then X and Y are the same type of being. A being woth properties A, B , C and also D, E and F is another type of bieng, but it is not two types of being.

I guess maybe what you are saying is that the divine + human properties ‘add up’ to a completely different, third type of being? But that’s not true. The essence of a thing is just that in virtue of which the real definition of the thing applies [in contemporary philosophical terms, it’s the ‘truthmaker’ of the real definition of the thing]. Suppose the real definition of humanity is ‘rational animal’. Then it’s going to be in virtue of his human properties A, B, and C (i.e. his human essence) that this applies to Christ, not the conjunction of these with other divine properties. So that is one essence. Similarly, suppose the real definition of divinity is ‘maximal greatness’ or something like that (this is contentious among theists, but just suppose for argument’s sake); then it’s in virtue of D, E, and F (i.e. his divine essence) that maximal greatness applies, not the conjunction of these with other properties.

But suppose this is wrong and he is just one type of thing on your understanding. It doesn’t really matter; we can just take Christ’s ‘humanity’ to be that subset of properties in virtue of which he’s human and similarly for divinity, and we can equally well relativize the predications to these subsets.

If **I **have a beard now, then I cannot not have a beard now.
Now, my foot does no have a beard, but still it is incoherent to say that because my foor does not have a beard, I have a beard and I lack a beard.

Sure, with some properties it doesn’t work. With others it does; for instance, my arm can be burnt and in virtue of that I’m burnt with respect to one part, but I’m also unburnt with respect to another part because my other arm is fine. And either way I’m not claiming that the case of Christ is *perfectly *analogous to that of proper parts. Once again, I’m simply giving you examples where merely apparent contradictions arise because of failure to make distinctions and relativize your predications properly.

I am not talking about a third nature, I am talking about a being. The Catholic position is not that Christ as God and Christ as man are two beings, is it?

Well, predications are only relativized to beings in a trivial sense, since every predication of an object is obviously relative to that object. Yes, Christ is-qua-Christ divine and he is-qua-Christ human. This just means Christ is divine and Christ is human. We can still specify it further that he is-qua-Christ and qua-divine perfect and he is-qua-Christ and qua-human imperfect, so there’s still no contradiction.

The being of Christ is described by saying is has essentail properties A, B, C and that’s the nature of this being. Now you could object that Christ’s human properties D, E and F are not essential, so that the type of being Christ is, can be described by A,B and C, but then Christ does not have two natures. Besides, property A, let’s say wisdom, is an essential property of both Christ’s divine and his human nature.
But the wisdom the being Christ has is infinite, so it should be possible to describe both the type of being “Divine Christ” and the type of being "human Christ " by the property A. But a type of being that has infinite wisdom (property A) cannot be fully human, ** since humans cannot have infinite wisdom**.
Hence, Christ cannot have both a fuly divine and a fully human nature.

Regarding the bolded part: Again, why not? You are again begging the question. They can have infinite wisdom so long as they are (a) not *merely *human but divine as well and (b) their having it is relative to that divine nature. There is no formal contradiction or inconsistency in this whatsoever.

Anyway, I don’t think we are making much progress. You still have not shown how there is any formal contradiction when we relativize the predication of the properties to one of the natures. You continue to assert there is one but have not shown why. I will let you have the last word on this one. All the best and thank you for the convo!

 

[awatkins69]

I’ve taken the position of fellow lawyer Lee Strobel and committed myself to researching the theological and historical Christ in a quest to affirm my faith. God bless her, my devout wife has no compulsion to research what she believes to be unequivocally true. Perhaps it’s the lawyer in me, but I have an overwhelming desire to buttress my faith with everything I can gather from Scripture and Catholic tradition, plus the academic disciplines of philosophy, history, and theology. To further explore the Divine Mysteries of our Catholic faith, I recently purchased the following titles by Catholic authors:

“The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus” (Raymond Brown)

“Who is Jesus?: An Introduction to Christology” (Thomas Rausch)

“Believing in the Resurrection: The Meaning and Promise of the Risen Jesus” (Gerald O’Collins)

There are heavier tomes available from authors like Mike Lincona, N.T. Wright, and Raymond Brown, but I am no expert theologian, philosopher or historian and must start from an amateur’s perspective. If any CA posters have further book recommendations I am certainly open to suggestion. I ask for your prayers in seeking our Lord’s guidance in my studies.

Hi TampaDave,

Regarding historical studies, you may find Crag Blomberg’s ‘Jesus and the Gospels’ interesting, as well as F.F. Bruce’s book ‘The New Testament Documents’.

Regarding general Christian philosophy I would also recommend William Lane Craig. His debates can be found on Youtube and he has a good site answering many questions about God, atheism, Islam, historical Jesus, etc. For a more decidedly Catholic and Thomistic perspective you may also like to read Edward Feser’s book ‘The Last Superstition’. His blog can be found here.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Tampa Dave ***I’ve taken the position of fellow lawyer Lee Strobel and committed myself to researching the theological and historical Christ in a quest to affirm my faith. God bless her, my devout wife has no compulsion to research what she believes to be unequivocally true. Perhaps it’s the lawyer in me, but I have an overwhelming desire to buttress my faith with everything I can gather from Scripture and Catholic tradition, plus the academic disciplines of philosophy, history, and theology. ***

Reading Strobel’s “The Case for Christ” was an eye opener for me. I too, like researching the theological and historical Christ to reaffrim my faith. I don’t question what I believe, but I do enjoy seeing in print what I have lived but couldn’t express before. Of late that same research is being applied to discover how I can better live and express my faith. That puts everything I read into yet another perspective; finding a reason for my Faith. Though I’d rather enjoy the mystery of it - (and I do!! ) not everything needs to be answered to be lived, if that makes sense. As for that research, He did bless me with a very curious brain and the free will to pursue the research.
Another book is "Myths The World Taught Me, " author’s last name is Richards. I owned it for 15 years before reading it. When I did read it, was not the subject matter I had thought. Turns out, it is similar in nature to “The Case for Christ.” Good read.
BTW, I want all of Strobel’s books ASAP!!

I actually ordered Strobel’s “Case for Christ” and “The Real Jesus” along with the other referenced books. I understand that historical, theological and philosophical proofs can only go so far, at which point faith must bridge the inevitable gap. I will look into “Myths the World Taught Me”. Thanks, my friend!

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Hi TampaDave,

Regarding historical studies, you may find Crag Blomberg’s ‘Jesus and the Gospels’ interesting, as well as F.F. Bruce’s book ‘The New Testament Documents’.

Regarding general Christian philosophy I would also recommend William Lane Craig. His debates can be found on Youtube and he has a good site answering many questions about God, atheism, Islam, historical Jesus, etc. For a more decidedly Catholic and Thomistic perspective you may also like to read Edward Feser’s book ‘The Last Superstition’. His blog can be found here.

I appreciate your suggested readings, so I will check the titles out online at Barnes & Noble. Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension are the signature events I wish to research thoroughly. Following the Arrest and Crucifixion of our Lord, the frightened and greatly disillusioned Apostles scattered to the four winds. Yet, once Christ re-appeared in their midst, they re-emerged and faithfully executed His Mission to the point of martyrdom. Only great events such as Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension could explain this vast post-Crucifixion change in attitude and actions. Why not investigate these Great Mysteries of Faith?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Belorg: Several things have come up since my last post. First of all, I must disagree with Linusthe2nd, it is not a miracle or mystery for God to assume a human nature, nor is it illogical.

By " Miracle " I mean some event or occurrance in nature that cannot by explained naturally. That in the human species a female should conceive a child without the implantation of the sperm in the egg would be an event that could not be explained by the laws governing human nature, it would be a miracle.

Mary conceived a human child without the implantation of the male sperm.

Therefore, the Conception of Jesus was a Miracle.

Also, there is another Miracle.

For a human female to conceive a being more perfect in being than herself would be contrary to the laws of nature and a Miracle.

But Mary conceived her own God, a Being more perfect than her own being.

Therefore, Mary’s conception of Jesus is a Miracle twice over.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia : The nature of the incarnation ( under this heading)

We have treated the fact of the Incarnation, that is, the fact of the Divine nature of Jesus, the fact of the human nature of Jesus, the fact of the union of these two natures in Jesus. We now take up the crucial question of the nature of this fact, the manner of this tremendous miracle, the way of uniting the Divine with the human nature in one and the same Person.

From the Catechism, para. 463 : 463 Belief in the true Incarnation of the Son of God is the distinctive sign of Christian faith: "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God."85 Such is the joyous conviction of the Church from her beginning whenever she sings “the mystery of our religion”: "He was manifested in the flesh."86 ( 86 is from 1 Tim 3:16)

So I have ample justification for calling the Incarnation a Miracle. And as the Catechism points out ( from St. Paul et al ), it is a Mystery of our religion.

And since it is a Miracle and a Mystery which cannot be reasoned to from the things of nature and can be known only by Revelation from God, it can be rightly called illogical in human terms. However it is in perfect accord with the Logic of the Logos, Divine Logic. But those who lack faith do not have access to Divine Logic. So for them the Incarnation is indeed illogical. And I think it a mistake, in speaking to them, to say otherwise. For that makes people of faith seem utterly unreasonable in their eyes.

Yes, a nature is what a being is, but there is nothing illogical about something being two things, just as a human is both spiritual and material. I am spiritual, and I am material; two natures, two “whats” held by one person.

You have to be careful here. You are trying to say you are a " human being " a human " person." And as we know, and as the Catechism teaches, the human person, a human being is composed of body and soul. This unified " being " constitutes only one nature or essence ( Thomistic terminology ). It is not composed of two natures, one bodily and one spiritual. Man’s soul is the " form " of the body. ( St. Thomas would call it the " substantial form "). ( para. 365 in CCC). It is true that the soul survives the body at death. However, it survives as an incomplete nature in Thomistic terminology, not as a complete nature. To properly exist as intended, it requires the body.

Typically we fold these two distinct natures into one “human” nature, but we do so without mingling them and therefore they do not contradict. The same can be done for Christ, in fact, and one orthodox formulation is to say that He has one Incarnate nature, both human and Divine without mingling.

I see what you are trying to do but it cannot be legitimately done because, as I pointed out, the human person is one nature or essence not two. It is composed of a body and an animating and vivifying soul, the substantial form of a human being. One nature, two essential Principles of one being, one substance, one essence.

However, it is true that the Divine Nature of the Second Person, assumes the human nature of Christ and that each nature exists without comingling or confusion. We have two natures in one person.

Yes, and I’m material and touchable while also being immaterial and untouchable. As a person Christ was omniscient, and we do not claim that He wasn’t. His human nature, however, was limited in its ability to know. It is not a contradiction nor illogical to say that a person surpasses the limits of one of their natures by virtue of another nature. The human nature, in the case of Christ, does not impose absolute limits on His person, and there’s no reason to suppose that it should.

Yes, Christ’s human knowledge was limited in nature. However, he enjoied INFUSED KNOWLEDGE of the Infinity of the Divine Knowledge of God. So, essentially, the human intellect of Christ knew everything God knows. So we can say the human intellect of Christ was " Divinized " as long as we keep in mind what we mean. So in him we had two sources of knowledge, the human and the Divine. But the human really lacked nothing because it was " Divinized, " it possessed INFUSED DIVINE KNOWLEDGE.

There is no reason to suppose that a particular being can’t have two unmingled essences.

In the natural order of the created universe this cannot be. It is missleading to say otherwise just to account for the Incarnation.

That we have an instance of a being with two unmingled essences or natures is by direct Divine intervention in the processes of nature only. We do not have and have never have had any reason to suppose otherwise in the order of nature. It does not happen in the order of nature.

 

[jkiernan56]

One Person in 2 natures (possessing fully 2 natures): Divine and Human

“The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.” (Cathecism #464)

All things are NOT possible for God - only that which is Possible is Possible for God. Therefore it is possible God after creating human nature joined fully to it.

 

[katholikos12]

CS Lewis put it perfectly in Mere Christianity: Jesus is either liar, lunatic or Lord.

Seriously, all this debating, philosophical swashbuckling comes down to this.

He was either a liar and not only deceived thousands of people, but convinced at least 12 others to go and tell the same lie to the world and die for it.

He was a lunatic, and really believed He was God and hence a convincing lunatic from what I said above.

Or He is exactly who He said He is. Lord, Christ almighty, and our Savior.

 

[jkiernan56]

“What you do to the least of these, you do to me”. Matthew 25:40
“Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” Acts 9:4

Jesus identifies himself with every human being - in and outside His Body

 

[jkiernan56]

Are you still Catholic? Do you still practice your Christianity via the Catholic tradition (ie - attend Mass faithfully)? Or have you followed the cult leader and left the Church like many others did?

 

[htyabclub]

Peter answered this correctly and he got the Keys to the Kingdom. It’s a simple truth that blows the mind. God/Man, Christ the Lord.

Happy New Year Everyone!

 

[Novart]

from the same titled thread in another section:

Your practical operative word is “opinion.” Why? Because even if one was face to face with Jesus, as many allegedly were, they came away from their experience of Him with their own opinion. No flight feathers: o-pinion.

Why? because then, as now, we interpret our experience according to the astonishingly hidden assumptions formed in our minds pre-cognatively and pre-verbally. That is why most therapies that rely on logic, reason, and grammar don’t work slowly and poorly and the ones based on imagery and sensation tend to be far quicker and more effective.

Also, anyone honest with themselves enough to do a self inventory and assessment by Universals of how they think, about what, and why, soon realize that not only their mind, but their own sense of self is not what they were educated to think it is.

What that comes down to, referent to the OP’s question, is that no one know Jesus directly, only their thoughts they were taught to think about Jesus. And usually we don’t know those very well, as we take so much for granted as being true, despite their being only our impressions, habituated ans assumed to be accurate.

The thought patterns we grow up with, good, bad, or indifferent, might as well be addictive drugs. It takes experience, shock, deep work, or Grace to change them, but most assume that what they unknowingly learned as infants and small children constitutes reality. How can that be? That learning is only thoughts necessary for survival in the family habituated into patterns assumed to be all there is, because there are very few other patterns spontaneously available. Why do you think that we so often go to the childhood experiences of someone to see why they turned out the way they did? Why do you think that people who have experienced radical change have some doubts about cradle (insert name of religion or political belief here)?

 

[Novart]

CS Lewis put it perfectly in Mere Christianity: Jesus is either liar, lunatic or Lord.

Seriously, all this debating, philosophical swashbuckling comes down to this.

He was either a liar and not only deceived thousands of people, but convinced at least 12 others to go and tell the same lie to the world and die for it.

He was a lunatic, and really believed He was God and hence a convincing lunatic from what I said above.

Or He is exactly who He said He is. Lord, Christ almighty, and our Savior.

All that, great respect due to one of my favorite authors, puts it on Him. What puts it on you? And according to what? And what are the other alternatives not included by Lewis hidden assumptions?