Jesus's humanity

[VeroObscura]

What are people's opinions on Jesus's nature as a human being?

Was he one? Or "only" godhead in human form?

It appears to me that if he carried the spirit of God in him, it was AS a human: having had a childhood, an education and capable of negative human emotions (eg losing his temper)

1) I would like to explore his humanity and ask whether he could ever be mistaken in his opinions or actions, or was he perfect?

2) If he was human and son of God, are we not all the same, albeit perhaps each rather less inspired or filled with The Holy Spirit than he?

 

[theophilus40]

1) I would like to explore his humanity and ask whether he could ever be mistaken in his opinions or actions, or was he perfect?

He was what all humans would have been like if Adam hadn't sinned.

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
(Hebrews 4:15 ESV)
​

He was perfect but finite. He had to learn just as any other child does so while growing up he could have been mistaken in his opinions but he never committed any sinful actions. When he was baptized the Holy Spirit came on him so from that time on the Spirit guided him so that he never did or believed anything that was wrong.

2) If he was human and son of God, are we not all the same, albeit perhaps each rather less inspired or filled with The Holy Spirit than he?

He was always the Son of God because of his preincarnate relationship with the father. We are not by nature children of God but must be born into God's family by repentance and faith in Jesus.

To all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
(John 1:12-13 ESV)
​

 

[ViaCrucis]

The traditional Christian understanding of the two natures of Jesus is spelled out in the Definition of Chalcedon:

"Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us

One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us."

This definition came about as a result of two 5th century theological controversies. The first being the Nestorian Controversy, named after Nestorius of Constantinople. Nestorius argued that Mary should not be called Theotokos (God-bearer) but only Christotokos (Christ-bearer).

Additionally, from Wikipedia:

"Theodore of Mopsuestia maintained a vision of Christ that saw a prosopic union of the divine and human. This was a union where Jesus was only a man indissolubly united to God through the permanent indwelling of the Logos. (Grillmeir, 428-39) He believed the incarnation of Jesus represents an indwelling of the spirit of God that is separate from the indwelling that was experienced by the Old Testament prophets or New Testament apostles. Jesus was viewed as a human being who shared the divine sonship of the Logos; the Logos united himself to Jesus from the moment of Jesus' conception. After the resurrection, the human Jesus and the Logos reveal that they have always been one prosopon. This oneness of Jesus and the Logos is thus the prosopic union."

Critics of Nestorius (a student of Theodore of Mopsuestia) argued that the Nestorian position separated radically and sharply the divinity and humanity of Jesus. By saying that Mary is not Theotokos, but only Christotokos, Jesus' divinity and humanity are sharply divided. The Divine Logos and the Human Jesus cohabiting the same "space" in a union; rather than a full and real union.

It was sharply condemned by theologians such as Cyril of Alexandria.

But conversely the second controversy surrounded a devote proponent of Cyril of Alexandria, Eutychus. According to Eutychus the divinity and humanity of Jesus were so wholly and completely united as to produce in Jesus a single (mono) nature (physis) of the Incarnate Word. As such this "monophysitism" was, at the Council of Chalcedon, declared heretical.

Chalcedon and its Definition both rejects the harsh division of the two natures of which Nestorius was accused of maintaining, as well as rejecting the confusion or mixing of the two natures into one as Eutychus maintained.

But rather insists that the human and divine natures are neither separate nor confused, but are united entirely without confusion in the single Hypostasis--the one "Personal Reality"--of Jesus Christ. Mary is rightly called Theotokos because her Child is true God just as much as He is true human.

So Jesus is not the in-habitation of the Divine within the human Person; but Jesus is both the Eternal Son or Logos and the true biological offspring of Mary. God and Man, fully both, the natures in-separate and unconfused. Jesus, therefore, is Theanthropos, the God-Man.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

It's worth adding that there have been many discussions and open dialogues between the Chalcedonian churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant) and the non-Chalcedonian Miaphysite churches (the Oriental Orthodox: Coptic, Ethiopian, and Syrian Orthodox churches).

The growing sense is that the Oriental Orthodox never subscribed to the Monophysitism of Eutychus, but that their Miaphysite position is only semantically different than the Chalcedonian position.

A growing desire to heal that old wound on both sides may, one day, mean a reunion between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox churches. Though that day is still going to be far away.

The Assyrian Church of the East (often called the "Nestorian" Church, but they reject that label) is still a bit of a different problem. A harder schism to mend than the one between the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian churches.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bling]

What are people's opinions on Jesus's nature as a human being?

Was he one? Or "only" godhead in human form?

It appears to me that if he carried the spirit of God in him, it was AS a human: having had a childhood, an education and capable of negative human emotions (eg losing his temper)

1) I would like to explore his humanity and ask whether he could ever be mistaken in his opinions or actions, or was he perfect?

2) If he was human and son of God, are we not all the same, albeit perhaps each rather less inspired or filled with The Holy Spirit than he?

Just because Christ was made like us does not mean we can return the favor and make ourselves to be like He is.

Christ was completely human and completely Deity which is difficult to imagine. The biggest difference I would like to point out is: since Christ was not made but always existed, Christ always had Godly type Love and did not have to obtain this Love. All other humans do not start out with Godly type Love (instinctive love is a robotic type of love) and God could not force this Love on a humans (that would be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun). This Love for everyone else has to be the result of a free will choice and that choice has to have likely alternatives to be a true choice.

 

[Islam_mulia]

Jesus is ONLY human. Jesus never claimed to be God or son of god. Some humans made him divine.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The exact nature of Jesus, and the relationship between his humanity and his supposed divinity, has been THE major point of contention between diverse Christian sects. The position held by the faction that became the most powerful was (and is): "fully god and fully man".

An indication that this was a HUGE discussion even at the turn of the second century can be found in the gospel of John, where a Roman soldier pierces Jesus's side and both blood (i.e. human) and water (i.e. divine fluid) came out of the wound, instantly convincing the soldier that he was in the presence of a divine being.

 

[theophilus40]

Jesus is ONLY human. Jesus never claimed to be God or son of god. Some humans made him divine.

So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
(John 8:57-58 ESV)
​

Jesus said, "I am", not "I was." This was a name of God and all who heard Jesus would recognize it.

Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
(Exodus 3:13-14 ESV)
​

 

[Arthra]

What are people's opinions on Jesus's nature as a human being?

Was he one? Or "only" godhead in human form?

It appears to me that if he carried the spirit of God in him, it was AS a human: having had a childhood, an education and capable of negative human emotions (eg losing his temper)

1) I would like to explore his humanity and ask whether he could ever be mistaken in his opinions or actions, or was he perfect?

2) If he was human and son of God, are we not all the same, albeit perhaps each rather less inspired or filled with The Holy Spirit than he?

Here's the Baha'i view:

God doesn't descend into human form or incarnate in my view...

Jesus was a Manifestation of God... which is a special station not shared by everyone. A Manifestation reflects the attributes of God to humanity in a pure form..so the Mirror that is flawless reflects the attributes of God. but the Mirror is not God...just as a mirror is not the sun but it does reflect the light of the sun.

As a Manifestation Jesus had innate knowledge of God and the creation and conveyed this to those around Him in His day...however there was only so much they could absorb at that time.

The Holy Spirit is the ray from God that is directed to us through the Mirror.

Jesus had a human vehicle physically which was subject to crucifixion and insults and martyrdom.

 

[Supreme]

Jesus' humanity has been overlooked in the past; indeed, certain apocryphal Gospels chose to overlook it altogether, portraying Him as a fully divine being incapable of human thought and emotion, with Jesus even showing no pain at His crucifixion. In reality, Jesus' humanity is crucial, because that is the heart of Christianity. That God became like us, and that as a human He gave Himself for us, and that as a human He has shown us how to please God.

 

[VeroObscura]

Jesus' humanity has been overlooked in the past; indeed, certain apocryphal Gospels chose to overlook it altogether, portraying Him as a fully divine being incapable of human thought and emotion, with Jesus even showing no pain at His crucifixion. In reality, Jesus' humanity is crucial, because that is the heart of Christianity. That God became like us, and that as a human He gave Himself for us, and that as a human He has shown us how to please God.

Really good post, and by no means the only one. I promise to work out how this reps system works.

 

[bling]

Here's the Baha'i view:

God doesn't descend into human form or incarnate in my view...

Jesus was a Manifestation of God... which is a special station not shared by everyone. A Manifestation reflects the attributes of God to humanity in a pure form..so the Mirror that is flawless reflects the attributes of God. but the Mirror is not God...just as a mirror is not the sun but it does reflect the light of the sun.

As a Manifestation Jesus had innate knowledge of God and the creation and conveyed this to those around Him in His day...however there was only so much they could absorb at that time.

The Holy Spirit is the ray from God that is directed to us through the Mirror.

Jesus had a human vehicle physically which was subject to crucifixion and insults and martyrdom.

Give me the logical reason for why God could not take on human form:



1. Is God not powerful enough to make Himself into a human form?

2. Is it impossible for God to be in two places at the same time?

3. What other reason would you have for a virgin birth?

4. If it would really be a gigantic help to man way above just sending prophets for God to come in the flesh; would God’s Love for man be great enough for God to come in the flesh?

 

[paul becke]

Jesus' humanity coupled, as it was with his divinity, two natures in one person, led to some quite humorous situations and exchanges with his disciples. The most striking of these was perhaps his exasperation at the failure of Philip and Thomas to understand that he and the Father were one - such was the gulf between his knowledge and understanding , even as a 'simple' human being(!) and theirs. And this was, of course, before they had received the Holy Spirit, after Jesus' Ascension.

It wasn't until the Council of Nicea, some 300 years later, that the Holy Trinity was actually defined. And then probably by egg-head bishops and theologians.

Another funny scene was when Jesus asked who had touched him, and, I think , Peter wearily asked how he could ask such a question when they were being hemmed in on all sides and jostled by the crowd. If it had been anybody else, it might well have been a situation where the disciples out of eye-shot, would have rolled their eyes at each other!

But it turned out he had felt virtue/strength being drawn out of him, as he doubtless understood, to cure someone. And so it turned out. I think it was the woman with an issue of blood she had suffered from for many years, and it was immediately staunched.

Having a ready answer tailor-made to shoot down the scribes and Pharisees, when they sought to trap him, might have owed more to his divine nature, but still tickles me as I wait for the punch-line, knowing they're about to be shot down in flames!
Although Jesus almost always saved displays of his more extraordiary divine gifts for his closest friends, notably Peter, James and John.

More recently it suddenly struck me how creepy it must have been, at first, for the disciples, when, in the growing darkness, they saw this shadowy figure, they immediately took for a ghost, walking on the water towards them, as they were crossing the Sea of Galilee in their boat. I'm sure you couldn't help laughing if you saw their initial reaction.

 

[FireDragon76]

Traditionally... Christians acknowledge that Jesus was fully human, though this hasn't necessarily been emphasized. In the late 19th century, there was a shift towards this emphasis, however.

This begs the question of just what being fully human means, however. Someone who is autistic or blind can be fully human, and yet their experience of being human can be radically different from what is typical. So I went tend to say the "problem" with Chalcedonian, orthodox definitions are that the ideas of what makes God and humanity distinct are unclear. I believe the common mistake is on the divine side, to assume that God is somehow above or transcendent in an absolute sense. There is also the lesser tendency to universalize the typical human experience to all humans- a common flaw in all human religions.

 

[Islam_mulia]

So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am. (Ego Emi)”
(John 8:57-58 ESV)
​

Jesus said, "I am", not "I was." This was a name of God and all who heard Jesus would recognize it.

Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” God said to Moses, “I AM WHO (Ego Emi) I AM. (Ho On)” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM (Ho On) has sent me to you.’”
(Exodus 3:13-14 ESV)
​

Consider this:

i) You would like me to believe that Jesus said "I am" in John which corresponds to "I am" or the title of 'God' or 'YHWH' of the Jews in Exodus. However, the difficulty here is

- In the Greek Septuagint, the title of God of the Israelites is rendered as "Ho On", not "Ego Emi". Exodus has "Ego Emi Ho On". Jesus instead said "Ego Emi" and not "Ho On" in John. Hence, Jesus is NOT repeating the same words that the God of the Israelites declared to Moses.

- Even if Jesus were to say Ho On, which he did not, does that mean he was claiming to be YHWH? The trinitarian doctrine is quite clear that The Father is a totally separate entity from the Son. The Son is not the Father. Jesus is NOT YHWH.
​

 

[dlamberth]

What are people's opinions on Jesus's nature as a human being?

I'm unable to see Jesus any other way than as Human Being. But, a very awakened Human Being. One who knows His true Self.

.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

Give me the logical reason for why God could not take on human form:



1. Is God not powerful enough to make Himself into a human form?

2. Is it impossible for God to be in two places at the same time?

3. What other reason would you have for a virgin birth?

4. If it would really be a gigantic help to man way above just sending prophets for God to come in the flesh; would God’s Love for man be great enough for God to come in the flesh?

The logical reason why God would not take human form is because neither you nor I know what God is. If you are prepared to describe an essence or attribute that God may be, and say that Jesus embodied these, then fair enough, but that doesn't make him God.

You could show forgiveness and so could I, that does not make me you, nor you I, but we are both applying an attribute that enables 'us' to relate better or more effectively. This would be an example of what God is, because it brings in a broader connective aspect to life, but to apply forgiveness makes neither of us God, or this broader connective aspect, but we are part of it, or connection to it when we apply the element that connects.

You can make up an infinite amount of bullet points but none are based on logic because in a general sense logic is to make a reasoned observation of all things at hand, and to come to a 'valid conclusion'. If its not a reasoned observation how can logic be applied? You can't observe God and therefore logic and a valid conclusion can't be applied. We can say forgiveness is logical because I can observe how it makes me relate to others, and how a lack of forgiveness relates as well, and what it feels like to be forgiven. I can draw a 'valid conclusion' that forgiveness makes me relate better to myself and others and enables a more effective exsistance, which is logical, based upon a reasoned observation of human interaction.

So from my example, if we can draw logic from reasoned observation, it's then logical to 'assume' (because we don't know) that in a wider context of existence, that God applies forgiveness, or that God is forgiveness, because it enables things to relate and be more effective, this is based on a logical observation of life. So if I'm to be condemned to a life of eternal hell by another's word or belief, I will, and do conclude that it is an illogical statement, based on my reasoned observation of how we relate, and thus a window of observation can be had into the greater relationship, or how everything relates.

 

[Islam_mulia]

If we can all agree that Jesus, the son of Mary, was NOT a God, then Jesus was more human than any of us.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Allow me to veer off on a tangent:

It is interesting to note that most people on this thread seem to conceive of humanity or "human nature" as an essence rather than an emergent process, an ephemereal constant rather than the result of being-becoming.

I would indeed argue that what makes us human is a process, simultaneously a result and the very core of the experience of being who we are - and it is not a static category, either. The germs colonizing our intestinal tract are as much a part of that process as our most abstracts reflections on the nature of reality, and our sensory experiences contribute just as much to it as the technology we use in order to enhance our senses.
The glasses I wear in order to compensate for my myopia are as much a part of that as the book-reading that contributed to my near-sightedness.

I would argue that any consciousness that was perceiving the universe directly through the lens of the human experience would be "fully human" by default - even if it could also be *more*/*other* than that if it had access to/resulted from another emergent process of being.

 

[dlamberth]

Allow me to veer off on a tangent:

It is interesting to note that most people on this thread seem to conceive of humanity or "human nature" as an essence rather than an emergent process, an ephemereal constant rather than the result of being-becoming.

And I'd argue that our Human Nature is both our essence AND an emergent process. And that there's nothing constant in life, including the process of our becoming more of a human, Human Being.

.