How human does Christ have to be considered?

God, Christ, & The Holy Spirit
User avatar
jaydam
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:29 pm
Location: Portland, OR

How human does Christ have to be considered?

Post by jaydam » Tue Mar 15, 2016 6:34 pm

As I've studied the evolution of theology, I've found it shocking just how much battling there has been over the consideration of Christ's humanity. Orthodox theology insists that in order to not be a heretic one must acknowledge that Christ was 100% man (flesh, will, and even soul) while also 100% God - even though you can't have 200%.

To argue Christ had to have more than just the biology of a man seems to come from more philosophical ideas than scripture.

The problem in my mind, is that to argue the man Christ was fully a man and fully God could be argued to border on the old heretical understanding that Jesus was an independent man possessed by God. Because it makes Jesus two complete entities which could be divorced and be still entirely whole. Thus, it makes what is otherwise an entirely independent human being in all ways, overridden (possessed) by fully God. In other words, to be 100% both, means that the Jesus-man could still be Jesus apart from the God part. It creates a coexistence within a body rather than a hybrid which cannot be divorced.

Paul says that the fullness of God (who we know from John is spirit), dwelt in bodily form - Col 2:9.

How do you all understand the unity of God and mankind in Christ?

User avatar
backwoodsman
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Not quite at the ends of the earth, but you can see it from here.

Re: How human does Christ have to be considered?

Post by backwoodsman » Tue Mar 15, 2016 7:20 pm

The way I understand it is that His body was an ordinary human body, and His spirit is God. As far as I can see, that's consistent with everything Scripture says, without requiring any complicated theological gymnastics. Simple and straightforward, and avoids all the irrelevant minutae.

dizerner

Re: How human does Christ have to be considered?

Post by dizerner » Tue Mar 15, 2016 8:19 pm

For me Christ has to be a legitimate human being from stem to stern as they say, for legal reasons. But he can't just be human. That's where I'd start. One or the other error will always attack the first or second idea.

If he's not just only human, what else is he? Evidence for him not being human: pre-existence and creative powers and upholding powers. All the attributes that fit God could be described to him apart from this fact that he is, in fact, a human.

I've considered Eutychianism and Kenotic theology. The idea of this is that the incarnation substantially changed his nature, instead of adding one on. I think you feel God "tacking on" an extra human nature just seems pretty cheesy, and not really giving up anything. Philosophically I just have to agree with that.

Jesus had to literally give something up, or the incarnation is nothing more than outward show. If God literally becomes a man, how can he stay, in every sense, God? He can't if it's going to have any meaning. So these views see a true hybrid instead of two distinct natures. It's considered heresy by orthodoxy.

That's kind of my thoughts so far.

User avatar
morbo3000
Posts: 537
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 9:05 pm
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: How human does Christ have to be considered?

Post by morbo3000 » Tue Mar 15, 2016 9:01 pm

The complexities of Christology can best be mediated by allowing each author to have his unique voice. The divinity of Jesus is nearly missing in the gospel of Mark. And even if some see it there where I don't, it is minuscule compared to the full-blown Christology of Gospel of John. So Mark and the other synoptics have much greater emphasis on the humanity of Jesus. And not simply as an atonement issue. The humanity of Jesus gets bogged down over the importance of him being human so his death could atone for ours. But that is more Pauline theology than the synoptic authors. The synoptics focus on Jesus as a man about the people. He is the truly human Son of Man demonstrating on earth how the poor, and outcast should be treated. And how to center our lives around this new Kingdom of God he was inaugurating. All of these, incredibly human acts. He didn't need to be God to do any of that. He was a revolutionary.

So, I would suggest, rather than trying to wrestle Jesus into external philosophies about his dual nature, to look at Jesus as a diamond, whose details can only be seen by studying facets from different vantage points. Humanity here... in this gospel story.. divinity there... in this Pauline letter...

You'll go mad trying to reconcile them. And if you could, then he wouldn't be God.
When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
JeffreyLong.net
Jesusna.me
@30thirteen

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: How human does Christ have to be considered?

Post by darinhouston » Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:33 am

I suppose you could as easily also ask why He must be fully God.

I still think we're trying to resolve a mystery that we don't have sufficient information to resolve. There is a sense in which he can be said to have pre-existed his humanity (though we're not told in what sense or what existence or for how long), and yet his humanity didn't pre-exist at all. There is also a sense in which he is of "divine stuff." We have no basis on which to derive the various Trinitarian and other views to reconcile all of that (and more) that we know since he is the perfect case of the sui generis. In any case, he is a perfect reflection and manifestation of God, and we know God fully by His life and His death. That's the end of what's been clearly revealed, and our attempts to refine or reduce to something we can understand is, to my mind, trying to make an idol or a graven image of sorts.

The Eastern church may not have everything right, but they seem to get the need for and value of mystery.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: How human does Christ have to be considered?

Post by Paidion » Wed Mar 16, 2016 12:38 pm

It seems rather simple when considered in the following way:

1. Prior to his incarnation, the Son of God was 100% divine, having been begotten by God as the first of His acts.

2. In becoming human, the Son of God divested Himself of his divine attributes —"emptied Himself" (Philippians 2:7) and was found as a human being (vs 7 or 8 depending on the Greek text you examine). Thus as a human being He was 100% human. He didn't perform miracles through his own power. The Father performed the THROUGH Him. The special knowledge He sometimes possessed was also given to Him by his Father.

3. After He was raised from the dead, He became a life-giving Spirit, and thus was again 100% divine. He no longer had a human body, but a spiritual body (even though he still had the wounds of his crucifixion, and could eat food). So He was again 100% divine.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
jaydam
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:29 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: How human does Christ have to be considered?

Post by jaydam » Wed Mar 16, 2016 5:47 pm

Its interesting, I would take your verses Paidion and say they support backwoodsman because they suggest Christ came "looking like" man. It leaves room open to consider that while God came looking like man in flesh, meaning he had the biology of man, he was not like man in the aspects that can not be perceived. Only in appearances did he take on humanity.

As for emptying himself Paidion. Does dispossessing the attributes of divinity make one undivine - not a deity? In other words, you seem to contrast divinity and humanity, and suggest that Christ in humanity was no longer deity. Is deity something that can be cast off?

I always understood that the emptying himself is contrasted with the next statement of appearing as a slave. So he was emptied of status/position, not deity. And this goes on to correspond with humbling or bringing himself low by appearing like man.

Notice, it says Christ appeared as a man, not that he WAS a man. It doesn't seem the passage you point to says that Christ DID become fully human, but that by all outward appearances he was one. Thus, I don't see how this verse supports the notion Christ was human in soul as orthodoxy suggests.

User avatar
jaydam
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:29 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: How human does Christ have to be considered?

Post by jaydam » Wed Mar 16, 2016 8:35 pm

dizerner wrote:For me Christ has to be a legitimate human being from stem to stern as they say, for legal reasons.
Many see it this way. But it seems based upon philosophical reason founded in other understandings related to interpreting the atonement in a certain fashion.

Going back through church history, I've been surprised just how much the understanding of Christ being human beyond just his biology came out of philosophical necessity based upon interpreting the atonement rather than scriptural support.

dizerner

Re: How human does Christ have to be considered?

Post by dizerner » Wed Mar 16, 2016 8:47 pm

jaydam wrote:
dizerner wrote:For me Christ has to be a legitimate human being from stem to stern as they say, for legal reasons.
Many see it this way. But it seems based upon philosophical reason founded in other understandings related to interpreting the atonement in a certain fashion.

Going back through church history, I've been surprised just how much the understanding of Christ being human beyond just his biology came out of philosophical necessity based upon interpreting the atonement rather than scriptural support.
I'm not a fan of this trend to redefine a lot of standard doctrines as having been introduced through "philosophy." There is Scriptural support for ideas, or in general, people with a high regard for the Bible simply won't believe them.

The kind of objections I've been hearing about the atonement and various things on the claim that "we're going to the Bible instead of philosophy" don't end up back in the Bible, but instead start getting philosophical (oddly enough). Man I can show so many examples of this. We reject penal atonement because it's "cosmic child abuse" (purely philosophical argument), we reject eternal torment because "our Father isn't a big meanie" (purely philosophical argument) , we reject the Trinity because it's "too complicated" (purely philosophical argument), then we go back and say all those things were from human philosophy! It's sheer madness.

Just remember—everyone claims to be more "Biblical" so in the end that's not even an argument. For every idea I have I can show you a verse, and that's the way it should be.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: How human does Christ have to be considered?

Post by Paidion » Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:46 pm

Hi Jaydam, you wrote:Notice, it says Christ appeared as a man, not that he WAS a man. It doesn't seem the passage you point to says that Christ DID become fully human, but that by all outward appearances he was one.
You seem to be thinking of the word "appeared" as being a synonym for "resembled"—that the passage is only saying that Christ resembled an man, but was not actually a true man.

However, there is another sense in which the word "appeared" can be used. You might be a factory worker during the week, but then on Saturday, you might appear on a baseball diamond as a baseball player. You wouldn't merely resemble a baseball player (perhaps by the way you were dressed); you would actually BE a baseball player.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Post Reply

Return to “Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology”