Who is/was Jesus?

[Ghosty]

But “divinity” cannot be just an aspect, like circleness is. Being divine denotes perfection while being human denotes imerfection.

No, being Divine denotes having a Divine nature, and being human denotes having a human nature. While the Divine nature indeed has all perfections, having the Divine nature is not contrary to having a human nature just as having an immaterial nature is not contrary to having a material nature.

It is impossible for something to have the fulneszs of perfection while at the same time not having it.

Divine nature and human nature are not on the same plane nor scale; human nature is not simply a “lesser” version of Divine nature. They are two completely different things, like color and shape.

A circle may have perfect “circleness” but it is not perfect in every sense. That’s where your anoalogy goes wrong. “Fully divine” necssarily has to do with every aspect of a being.

Yes, and while in the Divine Nature there is a fullness of perfection, and in the human nature there is not, the two don’t contradict, rather they exist side by side in one person.

This isn’t a mystery, and it’s not illogical. Since the two are not contraries they can exist within the same person, with the human aspect bearing human limitations, and the Divine aspect bearing infinite perfection. It would only be illogical if we said that the person of Christ did not bear all perfections, but we do not say that. We say that the person of Christ bears infinite perfection in His Divine Nature, but limited traits in His human nature, just as we say that Belorg can bears the perfection of immateriality in his spiritual nature, but the imperfection of material limits in his physical nature. The Divine Nature only “swallows up” the human nature if the two natures are fused into one nature, but that is not what we claim.

  	 		 	 	 The fulness of divine nature precludes the fulness of human nature, because human nature is NOT "full".

This is not what is meant by the “fullness of human nature” and the “fullness of Divine Nature”. We are not claiming that the two natures are fused into one nature, we are claiming they co-exist. If we were claiming that there was one nature in Christ your argument would stand, but obviously we are not making such a claim.

Furthermore, perfection is not a trait, but rather denotes the quality of a trait. Perfection is not a single measure on which all things fall, it describes the particular trait under consideration, such as being, or goodness, or taste, ect. You can have a “perfect human” and a “perfect grain of sand” without contradiction, despite the nature of sand being lesser than the nature of humanity.

Peace and God bless!

 

[belorg]

No, being Divine denotes having a Divine nature, and being human denotes having a human nature. While the Divine nature indeed has all perfections, having the Divine nature is not contrary to having a human nature just as having an immaterial nature is not contrary to having a material nature. Divine nature and human nature are not on the same plane nor scale; human nature is not simply a “lesser” version of Divine nature. They are two completely different things, like color and shape.
Yes, and while in the Divine Nature there is a fullness of perfection, and in the human nature there is not, the two don’t contradict, rather they exist side by side in one person.

This isn’t a mystery, and it’s not illogical. Since the two are not contraries they can exist within the same person, with the human aspect bearing human limitations, and the Divine aspect bearing infinite perfection. It would only be illogical if we said that the person of Christ did not bear all perfections, but we do not say that.

A person with a divine nature is limitless, while a person with a human nature has limits. A person with both natures cannot be limited and unlimited. These two aspects cannot exist side by side because they are contraries…

We say that the person of Christ bears infinite perfection in His Divine Nature, but limited traits in His human nature, just as we say that Belorg can bears the perfection of immateriality in his spiritual nature, but the imperfection of material limits in his physical nature. The Divine Nature only “swallows up” the human nature if the two natures are fused into one nature, but that is not what we claim.

My spiritual nature is not perfect and therefore there is no contradiction.

Furthermore, perfection is not a trait, but rather denotes the quality of a trait. Perfection is not a single measure on which all things fall, it describes the particular trait under consideration, such as being, or goodness, or taste, ect. You can have a “perfect human” and a “perfect grain of sand” without contradiction, despite the nature of sand being lesser than the nature of humanity.

If something is perfect in every aspect than it cannot be less than prefect in some aspect.
To have a divine nature means that you are prefect in every aspect
Besides, it is impossible for one being to have two natures. the nature of a being is what that being is.

 

[awatkins69]

A person with a divine nature is limitless, while a person with a human nature has limits. A person with both natures cannot be limited and unlimited. These two aspects cannot exist side by side because they are contraries…

Yes, a person can be both limited and unlimited; they just can’t be both limited and unlimited simpliciter. The problem is that these features are relativized to one of Christ’s two modes of being (viz. his divine nature and his human nature). If we said Christ is-qua-man limited and Christ is-qua-man unlimited you would indeed have two inconsistent properties attributed of Christ at the same time since they are both predicated of Christ with regard to only one of his natures. But we do not say this. We say Christ is-qua-man limited and Christ is-qua-divine unlimited. No contradiction; the predication is indexed to one of the natures.

You give an interesting argument. If we look closely we can see that it is unsound upon further investigation.

Your first premise:

If something is perfect in every aspect than it cannot be less than prefect in some aspect.

This seems unobjectionable to me so long as we make some qualifications, as I explain below.

To have a divine nature means that you are prefect in every aspect.

We deny this. To have a divine nature means that you are perfect only in every aspect of your divinity. A divine person need not be perfect in every aspect of both his natures if he has more than one.

Besides, it is impossible for one being to have two natures. the nature of a being is what that being is.

Obviously in that last sentence you do not mean that the nature of a being is *identical *to that being, since you and I both share the same nature but are not identical to each other. The charitable reading of what you’re saying here is “the nature of a being is the type of thing that being is.” However, while this is true, you’re begging the question by assuming that a being cannot be more than one type of thing. Why can’t it be?

So far you haven’t shown any contradiction in the idea of something having two natures, nor in the idea of an incarnate God’s having both human and divine properties. The law of non-contradiction states that something cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. But we have never predicated both human and divine properties of Christ in the same respect.

 

[awatkins69]

Fully Divine, Fully Human, Fully Infinite and my savior and part of the the Trinity. My Savior, graceful and merciful Father.

@ the OP, this is quite right^

 

[awatkins69]

But “divinity” cannot be just an aspect, like circleness is. Being divine denotes perfection while being human denotes imerfection. It is impossible for something to have the fulneszs of perfection while at the same time not having it.
A circle may have perfect “circleness” but it is not perfect in every sense. That’s where your anoalogy goes wrong. “Fully divine” necssarily has to do with every aspect of a being.

Maybe what you have said here is what is causing some of the problems. Either (a) you are confused about what we mean or (b) you are committing a fallacy of equivocation. I won’t judge which it is, but whatever’s the case, your argument goes through only if by “fully divine” we mean “only divine” or maybe “in his entirety divine.” This is not what we mean. We mean Christ is fully divine not in the sense that he is *only *divine but in the sense that he lacks no aspect of divinity, i.e. he possesses a complete divine nature. If metaphors are helpful, that doesn’t mean his divinity “overwhelms” his whole being, or that he is “fully divine” in the sense that he is a glass filled to the brim with divinity (and nothing else).

 

[kelner]

Alan Watts (Episcopal priest, Buddhist, philosopher) had an interesting view of Jesus:

So let’s suppose then that Jesus had such an experience [one which suggested to him that he was the Son of God] … but you see Jesus has a limitation that he doesn’t know of any religion other than those of the immediate near east. He might know something about Egyptian religion, a little bit maybe about Greek religion … but mostly about Hebrew. There is no evidence whatsoever that he knew anything about India or China. And we … people who think … you know … that Jesus was God assume that he must have known becuase he would have been omniscient. No … St. Paul makes it perfectly clear in the Epistle to the Phillipians that Jesus renounced his divine powers so as to be man

So the Jews found out and they put him to death or had him put to death for blasphemy. This is no cause for special antagonism to the Jews. We would do exactly the same thing. It’s always done. It happened to one of the great Sufi mystics in Persia who had the same experience. Now what happened? The apostles didn’t quite get the point. They were awed by the miracles of Jesus. They worshipped him as people do worship gurus … and it’s … you know to what lengths that can go if you’ve been around guru-land. And so the Christians said: Okay, okay, Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God but let it stop right there … nobody else. So what happened was is that Jesus was pedestalized … he was put in a position that was safely upstairs so that his troublesome experience of cosmic consciousness would not come and cause other people to be a nuisance. And those who have had this experience and expressed it during those times when the Church had political power were almost invariably persecuted. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake, John Scotus was excommunicated, [sic] Meister Eckhardt’s theses were condemned and so on and so on. A few mystics got away with it because they used cautious language.

Transcript from: atheistmissionary.com/2009/03/alan-watts-describes-jesus-as-freak.html

Complete lecture the above is from (audio, 50min): youtube.com/watch?v=s42V8BGBvTk

 

[katholikos12]

Philippians does not say that Jesus gave up His divine nature to become Man. Jesus, because He is God, is able to limit Himself to being a Man, but He is still God and therefore omniscient. Jesus is fully God and fully man. He’s the God-man, man.

 

[katholikos12]

Philippians 2:7 "but made himself nothing being made in the very nature of a servant being made in human likeness

You have to read the whole context of that to grasp the understanding. the whole chapter is talking about how God humbled Himself for our sake. He made Himself in the form of that which He created, which comparatively is nothing, to the infinite God that He is.

 

[empantarhei]

Philippians does not say that Jesus gave up His divine nature to become Man. Jesus, because He is God, is able to limit Himself to being a Man, but He is still God and therefore omniscient. Jesus is fully God and fully man. He’s the God-man, man.

Yes, He IS!!!

 

[belorg]

We deny this. To have a divine nature means that you are perfect only in every aspect of your divinity. A divine person need not be perfect in every aspect of both his natures if he has more than one.

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.

Obviously in that last sentence you do not mean that the nature of a being is *identical *to that being, since you and I both share the same nature but are not identical to each other.

By nature I mean essence.

The charitable reading of what you’re saying here is “the nature of a being is the type of thing that being is.” However, while this is true, you’re begging the question by assuming that a being cannot be more than one type of thing. Why can’t it be?

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.

So far you haven’t shown any contradiction in the idea of something having two natures, nor in the idea of an incarnate God’s having both human and divine properties.

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.

The law of non-contradiction states that something cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. But we have never predicated both human and divine properties of Christ in the same respect.

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

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

The mistake you are making is that you are attempting to reduce the reality of God to human categories of being,thought, and logic. We are dealing with facts of Divine Revelation and thus Divine " reasoning, " not merely human. He who created the universe from no prior existing substance can indeed condenscend to take human flesh having a complete human nature and a complete Divine Nature in the ONE PERSON of the Second Person of the Trinity.

I know you know enough Catholic Doctrine to understand that. But I understand that you do not accept it. And it is illogical that Christ could be fully human and fully Divine at the same time. It is a matter of faith entirely. God, in the Second Person of the Trinity assumed a human nature, taking his flesh from Mary. It is illogical. But our Faith is justified by Divine Revelation. We make no apologies for that. But, if true, don’t you think that is a stupendous reality?

By nature I mean essence.
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.

As I explained above, the human nature of Christ was ASSUMED by the Divine but not so as to destroy its legitimate human operations. His human nature experienced real human emotions, passions ( except conqupiscent), thought and will. But his human will, while free was absolutely and irrevocabily committed to the Divine. And also, his human intellect and reason were fully informed by the Divine.

So in fact we have one Being, the Being of God in the Person of Jesus Christ. By a miracle the human nature of Christ ( his human being) has been totally assumed by God. And while this violates the logic of philosophy, it does not violate the Divine Logic. The human nature of Christ exists without its own independent being. By a miracle it exists in the Divine Being. Now if I am misstating the facts, I will stand corrected by my Catholic brothers and sisters. But that is how I would explain it.

here 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.

Precisely what I was saying. It is illogical because it is a miracle and a matter of faith.

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

You objection here is explained by my prior comments here. It is miracle and we make no apologies for that. You just have to keep in mind that Christ’s human properties are fully human and fully operational and so are his Divine properties. Except the human nature has been assumed by the Divine but not in such a way as to be absorbed by the Divine. Again, this too is part of the miracle.

 

[belorg]

.

I know you know enough Catholic Doctrine to understand that. But I understand that you do not accept it. And **it is illogical **that Christ could be fully human and fully Divine at the same time. It is a matter of faith entirely. God, in the Second Person of the Trinity assumed a human nature, taking his flesh from Mary. It is illogical. But our Faith is justified by Divine Revelation. We make no apologies for that. But, if true, don’t you think that is a stupendous reality?

Illogical things canot be reality, stupendous or not.

So in fact we have one Being, the Being of God in the Person of Jesus Christ. By a miracle the human nature of Christ ( his human being) has been totally assumed by God. And while this violates the logic of philosophy, it does not violate the Divine Logic. The human nature of Christ exists without its own independent being. By a miracle it exists in the Divine Being. Now if I am misstating the facts, I will stand corrected by my Catholic brothers and sisters. But that is how I would explain it.

A miracle may violate the laws of nature, but it cannot possibly violate the laws of logic.
God cannot make a square circle. Not even by doing miracles.

 

[Ghosty]

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.

A person with a divine nature is limitless, while a person with a human nature has limits. A person with both natures cannot be limited and unlimited. These two aspects cannot exist side by side because they are contraries…

They certainly can, because we are not saying that they are limited and unlimited in the same respect. We are saying they are limited in human nature, and unlimited in Divine nature. No contradiction whatsoever.

My spiritual nature is not perfect and therefore there is no contradiction.

The perfection of a nature doesn’t enter into the equation. What matters is that two natures can co-exist without mingling. Since they can, and there is no reason to suppose otherwise, there is no contradiction to say that one has limits and the other doesn’t.

Besides, it is impossible for one being to have two natures. the nature of a being is what that being is.

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. 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.

So, Christ is omnipotent and omniscient and omnipresent while He is also not onmiscient, not omnipotent and not omnipresent.

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.

By nature I mean essence.

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

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.

Christ is only one type of being, the Incarnate God.

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

But we are not claiming that Christ is both omniscient and limited in knowledge. It is incorrect to say that the definition of humanity is being limited in knowledge; rather we must say that the definition of humanity is to learn through sense experience and abstraction. Christ did learn through sense experience and abstraction. A nature is not defined by limits, but rather defined by capability, since the limits are not “things” but rather the extent of the natural capability.

So it is not the definition of human nature that one is limited to running 40/mph, rather it would be the definition that human nature has two legs. Supposing a centaur could possibly have a set of human legs and a set of horse legs, it would not be a contradiction to say that the human legs could not run as fast as the horse legs.

So even if we suppose that some Divine properties are the same in aspect to human properties (which is not something most knowledgeable theists would accept), we are not saying that the Divine property is limited by the human property; we are not claiming that Christ is both limited and unlimited without qualifiers, as we would specify according to which nature, just as we would say that human legs can’t run as fast as horse legs, but a being that had both would obviously be able to run as fast as a horse using horse legs.

Peace and God bless!

 

[shoe]

Since an earthly son must logically be of the same kind and have the same nature as his earthly father, God the Son must logically be of the same kind and have the same nature as God the Father. Jesus acknowledged that He and God were of the same nature when He called God His Father and when He said to Philip, “he that seeth me seeth the Father also”(John 14:9). And since Jesus is God, and since God is everlastingly unchanging, God’s nature did not change when He took human form. And so whether God is creating a universe, lying in the manger as a new born babe, astonishing the learned leaders of the temple at the age of 12, or hanging upon the cross for our sins, God’s perfect nature does not change: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit remain eternally and unmistakably perfect God.

 

[hazcompat]

Jesus Christ Is Our Father’s Simple Plan For Salvation Since Before Time Began.

Peace

 

[kelner]

And so whether God is creating a universe, lying in the manger as a new born babe, astonishing the learned leaders of the temple at the age of 12, or hanging upon the cross for our sins, God’s perfect nature does not change

If God himself is hanging on the cross, why is He shouting Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani? and to whom?

That line only makes sense if the person on the cross is NOT God, and more, feels abandoned by God.

 

[Ghosty]

If God himself is hanging on the cross, why is He shouting Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani? and to whom?

That line only makes sense if the person on the cross is NOT God, and more, feels abandoned by God.

He was quoting a Psalm that depicts the execution of an innocent man, not speaking extemporaneously.

Peace and God bless!

 

[kelner]

Supposing a centaur could possibly have a set of human legs and a set of horse legs, it would not be a contradiction to say that the human legs could not run as fast as the horse legs.

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.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Illogical things canot be reality, stupendous or not.

A miracle may violate the laws of nature, but it cannot possibly violate the laws of logic.
God cannot make a square circle. Not even by doing miracles.

Well, I certainly disagree. Again you are trying to fit God into human categories of reality and thought. It can’t be done. You disagree of course which you are welcome to do. But that will not change the fact of what God has done. We just agree to differ I guess.

 

[kelner]

He was quoting a Psalm that depicts the execution of an innocent man, not speaking extemporaneously.

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?