About the two natures of Jesus Christ!

[Asvin]

How can some being, man or God, be fully something and full another thing at the same time/instance? The nature of a being CAN be something and some other thing at the same time, I suppose, if it is not fully something or fully some other thing at the same time/instance. Isn't it reasonable for me to argue that the statement "Jesus Christ is/was FULLY man and FULLY God" is as contradictory as the term "Jesus Christ existed and did not exist?" How can the nature of existence be measured? That is to say, how can one be fully something or partially something? I am not talking about biological features here, but rather the soul of the being, which, I assume is the identity of a being. To be God, according to Christianity, is to be omniscient and omnipotent. To be man, is to be limited in knowledge and power. How can a specific entity have different levels of the same property, for example, 50% omniscience, like a human would, or 100% omniscience, like God would at the same time/instance?

Hope I am clear with my arguments.

 

[Tigger45]

How can some being, man or God, be fully something and full another thing at the same time/instance? The nature of a being CAN be something and some other thing at the same time, I suppose, if it is not fully something or fully some other thing at the same time/instance. Isn't it reasonable for me to argue that the statement "Jesus Christ is/was FULLY man and FULLY God" is as contradictory as the term "Jesus Christ existed and did not exist?" How can the nature of existence be measured? That is to say, how can one be fully something or partially something? I am not talking about biological features here, but rather the soul of the being, which, I assume is the identity of a being. To be God, according to Christianity, is to be omniscient and omnipotent. To be man, is to be limited in knowledge and power. How can a specific entity have different levels of the same property, for example, 50% omniscience, like a human would, or 100% omniscience, like God would at the same time/instance?

Hope I am clear with my arguments.

To say that a human is 50% omniscience is an oxymoron. You either are omniscience or your not. So humans are 0% omniscience and God is 100% omniscience.

 

[Asvin]

To say that a human is 50% omniscience is an oxymoron. You either are omniscience or your not. So humans are 0% omniscience and God is 100% omniscience.

Sorry, I shouldn't have used the word "omniscient." However, if all humans can only be, at most, 60% knowledgeable and God 100%, then how can a being be of two natures containing contradicting properties?

 

[Tigger45]

Sorry, I shouldn't have used the word "omniscient." However, if all humans can only be, at most, 60% knowledgeable and God 100%, then how can a being be of two natures containing contradicting properties?

At best in the vastness of the universe humans would be 1%. That beening said God's omniscience (by definition) would include the 1% off humans.

 

[Asvin]

At best in the vastness of the universe humans would be 1%. That beening said God's omniscience (by definition) would include the 1% off humans.

You should know that I was using an example. It doesn't matter if we know 1% or 60%. The point is, a being cannot know "X" percent and "Y" percent at the same time. That is the problem I am talking about. If Jesus was FULLY God and FULLY man, then this problem is a very serious one.

 

[drich0150]

How can some being, man or God, be fully something and full another thing at the same time/instance? The nature of a being CAN be something and some other thing at the same time, I suppose, if it is not fully something or fully some other thing at the same time/instance. Isn't it reasonable for me to argue that the statement "Jesus Christ is/was FULLY man and FULLY God" is as contradictory as the term "Jesus Christ existed and did not exist?" How can the nature of existence be measured? That is to say, how can one be fully something or partially something? I am not talking about biological features here, but rather the soul of the being, which, I assume is the identity of a being. To be God, according to Christianity, is to be omniscient and omnipotent. To be man, is to be limited in knowledge and power. How can a specific entity have different levels of the same property, for example, 50% omniscience, like a human would, or 100% omniscience, like God would at the same time/instance?

Hope I am clear with my arguments.

Being fully Man points to the fact that He was a biological being. Being fully God means that in place of a soul, the Son of God resided. So the Son of God resided in a mortal body.

 

[Asvin]

Being fully Man points to the fact that He was a biological being. Being fully God means that in place of a soul, the Son of God resided. So the Son of God resided in a mortal body.

So, what about the soul? Did he have a human soul, a divine soul, or both?

 

[singpeace]

How can some being, man or God, be fully something and full another thing at the same time/instance? The nature of a being CAN be something and some other thing at the same time, I suppose, if it is not fully something or fully some other thing at the same time/instance. Isn't it reasonable for me to argue that the statement "Jesus Christ is/was FULLY man and FULLY God" is as contradictory as the term "Jesus Christ existed and did not exist?" How can the nature of existence be measured? That is to say, how can one be fully something or partially something? I am not talking about biological features here, but rather the soul of the being, which, I assume is the identity of a being. To be God, according to Christianity, is to be omniscient and omnipotent. To be man, is to be limited in knowledge and power. How can a specific entity have different levels of the same property, for example, 50% omniscience, like a human would, or 100% omniscience, like God would at the same time/instance?

Hope I am clear with my arguments.

Jesus was never half God and half man, but completely divine and completely man. Jesus has two distinct natures: divine and human.

Jesus is the Word who was God and was with God and was made flesh, (John 1:1,14). This means that in the single person of Jesus is both a human and divine nature, God and man.

The divine nature was not changed when the Word became flesh (John 1:1,14). Instead, the Word was joined with humanity (Col. 2:9). Jesus' divine nature was not altered.

Also, Jesus is not merely a man who "had God within Him" nor is he a man who "manifested the God principle." He is God in flesh, second person of the Trinity. "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word," (Heb. 1:3).

Jesus' two natures are not "mixed together," (Eutychianism) nor are they combined into a new God-man nature (Monophysitism). They are separate yet act as a unit in the one person of Jesus. This is called the Hypostatic Union.

 

[drich0150]

So, what about the soul? Did he have a human soul, a divine soul, or both?

In place of a soul was the Son of God.

 

[PureDose]

How can some being, man or God, be fully something and full another thing at the same time/instance?

Stopping this there. You dream at night, every night. Do you ever remember your dreams?

Stop me if I am wrong, but in my dreams, I very often am the central person in them. I am me. I do not see that I am dreaming, normally. Yet, when I awake I can consider that I created the whole dream. I was not just the person in the dream, dreaming, but I created from my own "unconscious" the entire dreamworld. All the people. All the places. All the events.

How can that be? How could I have both managed my entire dream world and - at the same time - been entirely in it?

That is what Jesus is.

That is who Jesus is.

The Dreamer of all existence.

 

[Asvin]

Being fully Man points to the fact that He was a biological being. Being fully God means that in place of a soul, the Son of God resided. So the Son of God resided in a mortal body.

The problem with that argument is that the Bible teaches us that Jesus was ignorant about certain facts, like when he was coming for the second time. If his soul was divine, he wouldn't be ignorant, i.e. God wouldn't be ignorant!

 

[ChristianT]

I'll be popping in here

The problem with that argument is that the Bible teaches us that Jesus was ignorant about certain facts, like when he was coming for the second time. If his soul was divine, he wouldn't be ignorant, i.e. God wouldn't be ignorant!

I don't believe that Jesus was literally ignorant of anything. In the same way that God asked questions to the saints of the OT, knowing full well the destinies of the parties involved, Jesus asked and answered to events based on whether or not He wanted them to know the answer. In the verse you're thinking of (probably Matthew or Mark, or even Luke), Jesus said "about the time or hour, only the Father knows." But if you read on in either Matthew or Mark, Jesus gave them words of warning to always be ready and never slack off, so that their mentality wouldn't be, "what!?!? thousands of years and you won't return? Why should we do anything now then?" Jesus never came to tell us when He was coming back, He came so we could eventually become hearers and doers of His message.

Just because Jesus wasn't fully ignorant, doesn't mean He wasn't fully man. Being ignorant isn't the defining factor for being a human (though all of us fit that bill at one time). And yes, there is that passage in Luke where it says the child grew... etc. At this point, I'd like to reference the fact that when you have two measures (in Math), one being greater than the other, when you account for which measures contain which number...

say:
measure 1 = 45%
measure 2 = 100%

which measure contained at least 35%? A: both!
which measure contained at least 45%? A: both!
which measure contained at least 46%? A: the second one!

Notice how (mathematically and thus logically) measure 2 contains not only the literal amount it's worth, but also every worth less than it.

The reason I did all that is to explain why it makes sense to know (in God's case) 100%, and at the same time, Jesus can display 1%. It's the same way we can display (if we have 3% of knowledge, the full 3% or 1%).

I know this sounds very math-y and this post is very large, but I hope I made sense

 

[Asvin]

I'll be popping in here



I don't believe that Jesus was literally ignorant of anything. In the same way that God asked questions to the saints of the OT, knowing full well the destinies of the parties involved, Jesus asked and answered to events based on whether or not He wanted them to know the answer. In the verse you're thinking of (probably Matthew or Mark, or even Luke), Jesus said "about the time or hour, only the Father knows." But if you read on in either Matthew or Mark, Jesus gave them words of warning to always be ready and never slack off, so that their mentality wouldn't be, "what!?!? thousands of years and you won't return? Why should we do anything now then?" Jesus never came to tell us when He was coming back, He came so we could eventually become hearers and doers of His message.

Just because Jesus wasn't fully ignorant, doesn't mean He wasn't fully man. Being ignorant isn't the defining factor for being a human (though all of us fit that bill at one time). And yes, there is that passage in Luke where it says the child grew... etc. At this point, I'd like to reference the fact that when you have two measures (in Math), one being greater than the other, when you account for which measures contain which number...

say:
measure 1 = 45%
measure 2 = 100%

which measure contained at least 35%? A: both!
which measure contained at least 45%? A: both!
which measure contained at least 46%? A: the second one!

Notice how (mathematically and thus logically) measure 2 contains not only the literal amount it's worth, but also every worth less than it.

The reason I did all that is to explain why it makes sense to know (in God's case) 100%, and at the same time, Jesus can display 1%. It's the same way we can display (if we have 3% of knowledge, the full 3% or 1%).

I know this sounds very math-y and this post is very large, but I hope I made sense

Thanks for your reply!

I would have to say that if Jesus was fully man, then he HAS to be ignorant. For the sake of argument, let's say that ignorance is measured from 0-100. To be fully man, or even .1% man, he would HAVE to be at least level 1 ignorant (Level 0 being an omniscient God). To be fully God (I don't think there is a .1% God), is to have the property of level 0 ignorance. However, how can an entity/being/reality be level 0 ignorant AND level 1 ignorant at the SAME TIME? This is what seems to me is strikingly contradicting. That entity/being/reality may be level 1 ignorant and then gain knowledge to achieve level 0 ignorance. However, that would mean that the nature of this entity/being/reality is changeable, which directly contradicts Christian doctrine.

Either Jesus was fully man, in which case he deserves no worship or he was fully divine, which contradicts what historical data we have about the man named Jesus Christ.

 

[Asvin]

Jesus was never half God and half man, but completely divine and completely man. Jesus has two distinct natures: divine and human.

Jesus is the Word who was God and was with God and was made flesh, (John 1:1,14). This means that in the single person of Jesus is both a human and divine nature, God and man.

The divine nature was not changed when the Word became flesh (John 1:1,14). Instead, the Word was joined with humanity (Col. 2:9). Jesus' divine nature was not altered.

Also, Jesus is not merely a man who "had God within Him" nor is he a man who "manifested the God principle." He is God in flesh, second person of the Trinity. "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word," (Heb. 1:3).

Jesus' two natures are not "mixed together," (Eutychianism) nor are they combined into a new God-man nature (Monophysitism). They are separate yet act as a unit in the one person of Jesus. This is called the Hypostatic Union.

Can you give me an example of a Hypostatic Union?

 

[Asvin]

Stopping this there. You dream at night, every night. Do you ever remember your dreams?

Stop me if I am wrong, but in my dreams, I very often am the central person in them. I am me. I do not see that I am dreaming, normally. Yet, when I awake I can consider that I created the whole dream. I was not just the person in the dream, dreaming, but I created from my own "unconscious" the entire dreamworld. All the people. All the places. All the events.

How can that be? How could I have both managed my entire dream world and - at the same time - been entirely in it?

That is what Jesus is.

That is who Jesus is.

The Dreamer of all existence.

What?

 

[ChristianT]

Thanks for your reply!

I would have to say that if Jesus was fully man, then he HAS to be ignorant. For the sake of argument, let's say that ignorance is measured from 0-100. To be fully man, or even .1% man, he would HAVE to be at least level 1 ignorant (Level 0 being an omniscient God). To be fully God (I don't think there is a .1% God), is to have the property of level 0 ignorance. However, how can an entity/being/reality be level 0 ignorant AND level 1 ignorant at the SAME TIME? This is what seems to me is strikingly contradicting. That entity/being/reality may be level 1 ignorant and then gain knowledge to achieve level 0 ignorance. However, that would mean that the nature of this entity/being/reality is changeable, which directly contradicts Christian doctrine.

Either Jesus was fully man, in which case he deserves no worship or he was fully divine, which contradicts what historical data we have about the man named Jesus Christ.

Well I'm sorry to seem like I'm glazing over your point (which I understand), and from it, I realize that we both are actually running over something we have to clear up first (which is a really philosophical, highly unsettled, I'd think) is an answer to the question, "What does it mean to be human?"

Going by sheer definitions, we get:

"humanity |(h)yo͞oˈmanitē|
noun ( pl. humanities )
1 the human race; human beings collectively: appalling crimes against humanity.
• the fact or condition of being human; human nature: music is the universal language with which we can express our common humanity."

and

"human being |hjuːmənˈbiːɪŋ|
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance."

and under these definitions, drich's explanation, "in place of the soul, was the Son of God," takes care of the spiritual side of being a human (having a soul / spirit).

I really don't find stating being human as "involving ignorance" as satisfactory. If being ignorant of the way the world works, then you and I are more "human" than our super-genius scientists. And we are slowly becoming less-than or more-than "human" every generation due to our breakthroughs in discovery and invention. I don't mean to misguide the conversation, because it seems to answer your question completely (how was Jesus fully human and fully God), we need to know what it means to be fully man.

So what do you think it means to be fully human?

 

[KimberlyAA]

Jesus is the most important person who has ever lived since he is the savior, God in human flesh. He is not half God and half man. He is fully divine and fully man. In other words, Jesus has two distinct natures: divine and human. Jesus is the Word who was God and was with God and was made flesh, (John 1:1,14). This means that in the single person of Jesus is both a human and divine nature, God and man. The divine nature was not changed when the Word became flesh (John 1:1,14). Instead, the Word was joined with humanity (Col. 2:9). Jesus' divine nature was not altered. Also, Jesus is not merely a man who "had God within Him" nor is he a man who "manifested the God principle." He is God in flesh, second person of the Trinity. "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word," (Heb. 1:3). Jesus' two natures are not "mixed together," (Eutychianism) nor are they combined into a new God-man nature (Monophysitism). They are separate yet act as a unit in the one person of Jesus. This is called the Hypostatic Union.

The following should help you see the two natures of Jesus "in action":

GOD ​

He is worshiped
He was called God
He was called Son of God
He is prayed to
He is sinless
He knows all things
He gives eternal life
All the fullness of deity dwells in Him

MAN

He worshiped the Father
He was called man
He was called Son of Man
He prayed to the Father
He was tempted
He grew in wisdom
He died
He has a body of flesh and bones

A doctrine that is related to the Hypostatic Union is the communicatio idiomatum (Latin for "communication of properties"). It is the teaching that the attributes of both the divine and human natures are ascribed to the one person of Jesus. This means that the man Jesus could lay claim to the glory He had with the Father before the world was made (John 17:5), claim that He descended from heaven, (John 3:13), and also claim omnipresence, (Matt. 28:20). All of these are divine qualities that are laid claim to by Jesus; therefore, the attributes of the divine properties were claimed by the person of Jesus.

One of the most common errors that non-Christian cults make is not understanding the two natures of Christ. For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses focus on Jesus' humanity and ignore His divinity. They repeatedly quote verses dealing with Jesus as a man and try and set them against scripture showing that Jesus is also divine. On the other hand, the Christian Scientists do the reverse. They focus on the scriptures showing Jesus' divinity to the extent of denying His true humanity.

For a proper understanding of Jesus and, therefore, all other doctrines that relate to Him, His two natures must be properly understood and defined. Jesus is one person with two natures. This is why He would grow in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52) yet know all things (John 21:17). He is the Divine Word that became flesh (John 1:1,14).

The Bible is about Jesus (John 5:39). The prophets prophesied about Him (Acts 10:43). The Father bore witness of Him (John 5:37; 8:18). The Holy Spirit bore witness of Him (John 15:26). The works Jesus did bore witness of Him (John 5:36; 10:25). The multitudes bore witness of Him (John 12:17). And, Jesus bore witness of Himself (John 14:6; 18:6).

Other verses to consider when examining His deity are John 10:30-33; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 1:6-8; and 2 Pet. 1:1.

1 Tim. 2:5 says, "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Right now, there is a man in heaven on the throne of God. He is our advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1). He is our Savior (Titus 2:13). He is our Lord (Rom. 10:9-10). He is Jesus.

 

[hedrick]

In place of a soul was the Son of God.

Please don't take this as condemnation, but this view is generally considered heretical. It was proposed by a guy called Apollinarius, and rejected fairly early in Christian history. The major Protestant confessions reject it as well.

Now I believe in sola scriptura, so councils don't necessarily settle questions, but it's worth knowing.

Why was it considered heretical? Because the soul is an essential part of a person, and if there's no human soul, it doesn't seem that Jesus is human.

Debates about Christology went on in the early church for centuries. When the dust settled we had Chalcedon. And after all the interpretations were weighed, it was understood as saying the Jesus was completely human, with a human life, and taking human actions. HOWEVER that human was in some difficult to explain sense the same "thing" (hypostasis) as the divine Logos. In effect Jesus is the human form of the Logos, the Word made flesh. But he is truly human, with no extra or missing parts and nothing replaced by a divine replacement.

The term "nature" in the philosophy of the time had a more concrete meaning than it does in English. The human nature is a "substance" in the Aristotelean sense. It would be an actual human person except for the fact that Jesus isn't a separate thing. Aquinas says the only reason Jesus' human nature isn't an actual human person is that it is lacking "completeness." I would say it's not self-contained in the sense that we are. It was created from the beginning to be the human form of the Logos.

 

[Tigger45]

You should know that I was using an example. It doesn't matter if we know 1% or 60%. The point is, a being cannot know "X" percent and "Y" percent at the same time. That is the problem I am talking about. If Jesus was FULLY God and FULLY man, then this problem is a very serious one.

Maybe you don't understand. The 1% of man's knowledge is overlaped by God's 100% knowledge (omniscience). The 1% is shared by both God and man. Therefore there is not contradiction.

 

[Asvin]

Maybe you don't understand. The 1% of man's knowledge is overlaped by God's 100% knowledge (omniscience). The 1% is shared by both God and man. Therefore there is not contradiction.

Being 1% knowledgeable means 99% ignorant (which in this case would be humans). Being 100% knowledgeable means being 0% ignorant. You can harmonize the knowledgeable side of it, but one can't be 1% ignorant and 99% ignorant at the same time!