Did Christ suffer in just His human nature or in His Divine Person as well?

PatricaMcKay

Obviously the Divine Nature is beyond the feeling of pain, but what about the Divine Persons?

I presume that everyone agrees that when we undergo serious suffering we suffer not just in our human nature but to the very core of what makes us persons. Does this mean that Eternal Word also suffered?

Onesimus

Yes and Christ still suffers as he watchs Christianity in its division and we he sees us commit sin. Each time we sin we wound his Sacred Heart.

Zombrex

Really? How does one wound a divine omnipotent being, physically or emotionally? Do you mean metaphorically?

PatricaMcKay

Onesimus wrote: »

Each time we sin we wound his Sacred Heart.

Different topic but I dont get the whole "Sacred Heart" at all. Worship should surely be focused on Christ, not seperating or confusing His Human and Divine natures; scripture generally uses "heart" to refer to the personal core of a human being, but Christ's personal core is Divine yet the whole cult around the "Sacred Heart" seems focused on the emotional part of Christ's human nature. The whole thing is very confusing.

Also hasnt Christ in His human nature having gone through suffering passed into glory?

Will the continual sin of the devil wound Christ's human emotional for eternity?

PatricaMcKay

Wicknight wrote: »

Really? How does one wound a divine omnipotent being, physically or emotionally? Do you mean metaphorically?

Well as I said obviously the Divine nature cannot suffer, but we know that God is not just Nature but also Three Persons. I know that the early Church declared to believe that the Personhood of the Father suffered during the Passion is heresy, however the question is what about the Personhood of the Eternal Word?

gimmebroadband

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Jesus complained to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]

"Behold this Heart Which so much loved men, that it spared nothing, even to exhausting Itself, in order to give them testimony of Its love, and in return I mostly receive ingratitude, through their irreverence and sacrilege, and through the coldness and scorn that they have for Me in this Sacrament of Love. What causes Me most sorrow is that there are hearts consecrated to Me who treat Me thus.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]

http://www.discover-catholic-miracles.com/margaret-mary.html[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][/FONT]

PatricaMcKay

gimmebroadband wrote: »

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Jesus complained to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]

"Behold this Heart Which so much loved men, that it spared nothing, even to exhausting Itself, in order to give them testimony of Its love, and in return I mostly receive ingratitude, through their irreverence and sacrilege, and through the coldness and scorn that they have for Me in this Sacrament of Love. What causes Me most sorrow is that there are hearts consecrated to Me who treat Me thus.
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]

http://www.discover-catholic-miracles.com/margaret-mary.html[/FONT]

This doesnt answer the question if the Sacred Heart refers to Christ's Divine Person or His emotional Human nature, does it though?

Also I read those diaries a while ago and much of it was not only pretty unbelievable but made uncomfortable reading, as if a demon posing as Christ was seducing this disturbed young woman with thoughts that she was the holiest person in France. The whole Sacred Heart was rightly very controversial within Roman Catholicism and I know that Eastern Roman Catholics dislike it.

But this thread isnt really about the Sacred Heart.

lmaopml

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

Obviously the Divine Nature is beyond the feeling of pain, but what about the Divine Persons?

I presume that everyone agrees that when we undergo serious suffering we suffer not just in our human nature but to the very core of what makes us persons. Does this mean that Eternal Word also suffered?

Yes. I would imagine so Patrick - When the 'word' became flesh and bore humanities sins, he knew every single one of them, the 'cup' he must drink, and his human person suffered while even glancing into it, but he willed our redemption -

Sin, and evil is not 'of' God, he was never the 'author' of it....but he loved so much that he became human and died for ours - to 'prove' that 'love' is 'real' -

If Jesus was entirely 'man' and entirely 'God' then yes, God himself and his divine nature suffered the 'rejection' and humilition on behalf of us, the divine took our natural nature and made it whole again - he died and proved that 'Love' is 'real' no matter what anybody says...that's our inspiration, love and hope.

PatricaMcKay

lmaopml wrote: »

If Jesus was entirely 'man' and entirely 'God' then yes, God himself and his divine nature suffered the 'rejection' and humilition on behalf of us, the divine took our natural nature and made it whole again - he died and proved that 'Love' is 'real' no matter what anybody says...that's our inspiration, love and hope.

The Divine nature is beyond anything created. When we use words that describe human things such as joy or anger or love in reference to the Divine nature we mean them analogically, because the actions that come from the Divine relate to those human states. Mainline Protestants, Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox all agree to this.

Jesus was not entirely human, because though He took on human nature we NOT a human person, He was and Is the Eternal Word in His Personhood with both a human and divine nature.

lmaopml

Of course Patrick - they are 'human' emotions - but God is 'ALL' - all knowledge, and all understanding ( of everything ) everything we call 'good' that was created. The 'divine' nature didn't take a vacation on the cross - he was fully present. 100% human and divine

Of course he had the 'knowledge' of exactly how 'love' would conquer sin and hatred which is 'contrary' to him, not 'created' by him, he is not the 'author' of it - but nothing happens unless he wills it, including Calvary, and what he 'wills' is good - on Calvary it would be ridiculous to suggest as a 'Christian' that he decided to split himself and not be 'divine', be God and human - ? He is omnipotent - the only thing God cannot do is not 'be' omnipotent.

PatricaMcKay

lmaopml wrote: »

Of course Patrick - they are 'human' emotions - but God is 'ALL' - all knowledge, and all understanding ( of everything ) everything we call 'good' that was created. The 'divine' nature didn't take a vacation on the cross - he was fully present. 100% human and divine

What denomination do you belong too?

Patripassionism, the belief that God the Father suffered during the Passion is a heresy and has been recognized as such by the vast majority of Christians since at least the 3 rd century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patripassianism

The Passion was the work of God the Eternal Word, the Father and the Holy Spirit were NOT on the Cross.

lmaopml

Relax Patrick. What denom are you..lol..? - 'Knowledge' is different to 'experience'. God doesn't 'experience' except in the form of the Son, who was fully God and fully human.

What's your point anyway? You asked the question does 'the Eternal Word' also 'suffer' for the sake of humanity, no?

The Eternal word became 'flesh'. Or do you understand the 'triune' nature of God as a Christian should?

Onesimus

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

This doesnt answer the question if the Sacred Heart refers to Christ's Divine Person or His emotional Human nature, does it though?

Also I read those diaries a while ago and much of it was not only pretty unbelievable but made uncomfortable reading, as if a demon posing as Christ was seducing this disturbed young woman with thoughts that she was the holiest person in France. The whole Sacred Heart was rightly very controversial within Roman Catholicism and I know that Eastern Roman Catholics dislike it.

But this thread isnt really about the Sacred Heart.

There is no such thing as a Eastern ''roman'' Catholic. I know because I am a practicing Eastern Byzantine Catholic. And Devotion to the Sacred heart is Eastern Catholic. We have Icons in our church of it.

The Sacred heart goes right back to scripture. To give you its power and effect, the roman soldier pierced Jesus Sacred Heart in scripture and water and blood flowed out and converted the roman soldier.

This is why you see the Divine Mercy picture with the blue and red rays.

Every part of God is Divine both flesh and soul.

Yes wicknight God suffers mystically. and Our Lady sheds tears for us as does God but its not a sorrow that we have here on earth.

PatricaMcKay

Onesimus wrote: »

The Sacred heart goes right back to scripture. To give you its power and effect, the roman soldier pierced Jesus Sacred Heart in scripture and water and blood flowed out and converted the roman soldier.

This is why you see the Divine Mercy picture with the blue and red rays.

Every part of God is Divine both flesh and soul.

Yes wicknight God suffers mystically. and Our Lady sheds tears for us as does God but its not a sorrow that we have here on earth.

Christ's human nature is NOT the same as His Divine nature. His human nature can be said to be Divine by Grace, but it is not Divine by nature, which is a HUGE difference, so Christ's human nature is NOT God by nature but by Grace...Is Christ's Sacred Heart Divine by Nature or Grace?

PatricaMcKay

lmaopml wrote: »

Relax Patrick.

Uh my screen is Patrica Mc Kay which I took after the famous Official IRA Vol who though shot down inches away from where my granny grew up at only 20 who brought absolute terror to the British Army.

PatricaMcKay

lmaopml wrote: »

Relax Patrick. What denom are you..lol..? - 'Knowledge' is different to 'experience'. God doesn't 'experience' except in the form of the Son, who was fully God and fully human.

What's your point anyway? You asked the question does 'the Eternal Word' also 'suffer' for the sake of humanity, no?

The Eternal word became 'flesh'. Or do you understand the 'triune' nature of God as a Christian should?

Yes.

God is Three PERSONS in ONE Nature.

If the Divine NATURE suffered, than all Three of the Persons would have suffered.

If God the Son in Personhood suffered its something different from the DIVINE NATURE suffering...Because than the Father and the Son must also have suffered.

PatricaMcKay

Onesimus wrote: »

There is no such thing as a Eastern ''roman'' Catholic. I know because I am a practicing Eastern Byzantine Catholic. And Devotion to the Sacred heart is Eastern Catholic. We have Icons in our church of it.

Icongraphy is done to strict rules pre-dating the Sacred Devotion by centuries. There can be pictures of the Sacred Heart in Iconic style but no actual Icons of it as such.

Should I have used to the term "Uniate"?

lmaopml

What interesting people we meet online..lol..I'm sorry Patrica if made a mistake when quoting your screen name

As I said, 'knowledge' for one 'person' is different to 'experience' for another person of the triune nature of God, ( like the Shamrock ) but 'knowledge' and experience are understood by the God head inexplicably as 'knowledge' - but they are inseperably 'one' too - 'Jesus' was wholly man and God - the word made flesh.

It would help if you got to the point though? What's your bugbear?

PatricaMcKay

lmaopml wrote: »

It would help if you got to the point though?

I think the OP is pretty simple.

Did Christ suffer during the Passion in His human nature alone or in both His human nature and Personhood?

Personhood been distinct from nature.

Onesimus

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

Icongraphy is done to strict rules pre-dating the Sacred Devotion by centuries. There can be pictures of the Sacred Heart in Iconic style but no actual Icons of it as such.

Should I have used to the term "Uniate"?

No but my term for this whole thread is simply ''Troll''

Onesimus

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

I think the OP is pretty simple.

Did Christ suffer during the Passion in His human nature alone or in both His human nature and Personhood?

Personhood been distinct from nature.

what do you think Pat?

PatricaMcKay

Onesimus wrote: »

what do you think Pat?

I feel "Person".

But I dont believe in going along with feelings when it comes to Theology.

I was hoping that people would give serious authorities such as Church Fathers or early councils, or even the scholastics or Reformers that would provide if not a clear cut answer in the case of the latter at least a pointing in the right direction.

PatricaMcKay

Onesimus wrote: »

No but my term for this whole thread is simply ''Troll''

Oh rrlly...A serious question on Christology and the Trinity is a TROLL???

:rolleyes:

Onesimus

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

I feel "Person".

But I dont believe in going along with feelings when it comes to Theology.

I was hoping that people would give serious authorities such as Church Fathers or early councils, or even the scholastics or Reformers that would provide if not a clear cut answer in the case of the latter at least a pointing in the right direction.

Why dont you go to a Catholic encyclopedia, a protestant one and an Orthodox one to get all perspectives? Just google the catechism and see what you get for the Catholic perspective.

PatricaMcKay

Onesimus wrote: »

Why dont you go to a Catholic encyclopedia, a protestant one and an Orthodox one to get all perspectives? Just google the catechism and see what you get for the Catholic perspective.

I know what Luther and Calvin personally believed but its not addressed in any Reformed confessions.

I have seen Orthodox sources contradict other each on this.

I have looked but havent found it addressed in Roman Catholic sources.

So any thread asking for information or opinions is a troll?

You are trolling...No answer as to whether the Sacred Heart is Divine by Nature or by Grace I notice.

lmaopml

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

I think the OP is pretty simple.

Did Christ suffer during the Passion in His human nature alone or in both His human nature and Personhood?

Personhood been distinct from nature.

Okay...

I would probably ask the same question as Onesimus and ask you what 'you' believe, because it seems kinda obvious that you had 'something' in mind to either teach us or query on - a thought process was going on there and the trump card was revealed after the 'query' in the form of Sir Wicki's answer..? No?

Maybe not though, so as a 'Catholic' seeing as you asked - Christ suffered both in his personhood and even more so because of his divinity and all that knowledge entails....only 'one' Person of the trinity died bodily on Calvary, but his divine nature was always present - 100%.

Are you asking if the 'God head' came down? I'm still not getting it..?

Onesimus

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

I know what Luther and Calvin personally believed but its not addressed in any Reformed confessions.

I have seen Orthodox sources contradict other each on this.

I have looked but havent found it addressed in Roman Catholic sources.

So any thread asking for information or opinions is a troll?

You are trolling...No answer as to whether the Sacred Heart is Divine by Nature or by Grace I notice.

then open up a Catholic catechism and find out.

I'm interested out of the ones you do know. Which of them do you assent to?

PatricaMcKay

Onesimus wrote: »

then open up a Catholic catechism and find out.

I'm interested out of the ones you do know. Which of them do you assent to?

Its not addressed in the Cathecism of the council of Trent or the new one.

Look if you arent interested in the subject and cant even be bothered to answer questions asked why continue to post here?

Fanny Cradock

Enough with the accusations and counter accusations of trolling. Bitchy posts get deleted.

I see this as a genuine question, and an interesting one at that. If you don't like it then don't post.

PatricaMcKay

lmaopml wrote: »

Okay...

I would probably ask the same question as Onesimus and ask you what 'you' believe, because it seems kinda obvious that you had 'something' in mind to either teach us or query on - a thought process was going on there and the trump card was revealed after the 'query' in the form of Sir Wicki's answer..? No?

Maybe not though, so as a 'Catholic' seeing as you asked - Christ suffered both in his personhood and even more so because of his divinity and all that knowledge entails....only 'one' Person of the trinity died bodily on Calvary, but his divine nature was always present - 100%.

Are you asking if the 'God head' came down? I'm still not getting it..?

I was hoping for serious opinions on the subject from people who had looked into it, Im sorry for being harsh on you, please forgive, but Onesimus is trolling this thread was badly.

Obviously God is everywhere however the mode in which He is in different places differs. God was Personally present in Jesus Christ while He is present in real believers who have been baptized through Grace. He is present in the devil, keeping the devil in existence but He is not present in the devil through Grace.

Fanny Cradock

My own opinion - and I'm not saying that it is informed - is that Christ suffered both physically and spiritually. I would think that the latter is the point of the cross.

lmaopml

Patrica, the only thing I can say I have any formal education on in the matter and in 'my' very humble understanding is that God's 'knowledge' is intrinsic to his three persons in the trinity - but 'experience' in a 'human' way was suffered by God/Jesus on the cross at Calvary. This doesn't diminish his 'nature' which is 100% God and man and the 'knowledge' of the brevity and depth of love he showed, and of what he did on the cross for mankind in that 'knowledge' was most likely understood more profoundly than either you or I or any other Christian could begin to fathom - Do I think he 'suffered' - Absolutely! To prove love is real.

Were you asking if the God head came down? Sorry, I just don't really get the jist of your query, but I'd like to?

PatricaMcKay

Okay God the Father is not God the Son, and God the Son is not the God the Holy Ghost nor indeed is God the God the Holy Ghost God the Father or God the Son...And yet they share in one Divine nature.

God the Son as well as sharing in the One Uncreated Divine Nature Also took on and shares in human nature.

The human nature taken on by God the Son suffered, and suffered especially during the Passion, the question is did God the Son's Divine Personhood also suffer during the Passion?

PDN

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

Uh my screen is Patrica Mc Kay which I took after the famous Official IRA Vol who though shot down inches away from where my granny grew up at only 20 who brought absolute terror to the British Army.

Uh, shouldn't that be Patricia McKay?

PatricaMcKay

PDN wrote: »

Uh, shouldn't that be Patricia McKay?

It was the way she wrote it and thats good enough for me.

lmaopml

Well, my understanding would be that his knowledge and divinity would have made his suffering all the more 'suffering' in a sense unknown to humans ( human 'words' and language of 'sense' etc. - get in the way of explaining it properly because they only relate to our understanding of those descriptive terms ) - but never seperate him from his 'divine' nature on the cross - so I presume ( really just presume ) that the whole of Jesus that IS God, and died bodily, but not in soul, and always was, is, and will be - would have suffered an 'injury' of some kind, in knowledge and bodily - I think the 'knowledge' end was worse to be honest and is greater reason to see the 'love' behind it?..

I understand the three persons in one nature ( in a 'simple' way )! I'd like to understand them more fully though, if you would like to expand a little more on your understanding of the nature of God/Jesus one person of three in one nature - on Calvary?

PatricaMcKay

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

My own opinion - and I'm not saying that it is informed - is that Christ suffered both physically and spiritually. I would think that the latter is the point of the cross.

But define what you mean by spiritually, need Christ's suffering each to the very core of His Divine Person?

The problem is that Christ has a human nature, and we use the term spiritually it the human sense. Yes of course Christ suffered more than physically but did that suffering reach into His Divine Personhood?

Fanny Cradock

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

we use the term spiritually it the human sense...

Do we? I would have thought there is one type of spirituality referred to in what one could broadly term orthodox Chrsitianity.

PatricaMcKay

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Do we? I would have thought there is one type of spirituality referred to in what one could broadly term orthodox Chrsitianity.

Spiritually can refer to the human spirit as well as the Divine Spirit, it can also refer to Angelic spirts whether glorified or fallen.

PDN

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

What denomination do you belong too?

Patripassionism, the belief that God the Father suffered during the Passion is a heresy and has been recognized as such by the vast majority of Christians since at least the 3 rd century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patripassianism

The Passion was the work of God the Eternal Word, the Father and the Holy Spirit were NOT on the Cross.

I find it sad that the accusation of 'troll' has been thrown about in this thread. The question Patrica raises is a serious theological point.

The condemnation of Patripassianism in the early Church was designed to strengthen belief in the Trinity. The point was, as Patrica, has pointed out, that it was God the Son who was nailed to the Cross, not God the Father.

At that time there were false teachings such as Modalism or Sabellianism that confused the Three Persons of the Trinity. These heresies suggested that Father, Son and Spirit simply described the way (or mode) that God revealed Himself at different times - similar to how water can also exist as ice or steam depending on the circumstances. One way of combatting Modalism was to stress that it was God the Son, not God the Father who suffered the agonies of crucifixion.

The condemnation of patripassianism as heresy did not address related issues. Did God the Father suffer spiritually as His Son was tortured on the Cross? Or, indeed, did Christ suffer in His divine nature as well as His human nature.

Some early theologians came up with the doctrine of 'Divine Apathy' - that God cannot suffer and is unmoved when He watches our sufferings. Such a doctrine, IMHO, has very little to do with God as revealed in the Bible and is really an unwarranted intrusion of Aristotle's philosophy into Christian thought.

One of the problems with the Church in the 4th to 6th Centuries is that they went on a bit of a heresy-hunting spree. They had, quite rightly in my opinion, outlined core Christian beliefs that can be logically drawn from the Bible (such as the Trinity, or the fact that Jesus was 100% human and 100% divine). But then they went on to parse those beliefs to a degree, and with a precision, that cannot be supported from Scripture. Again, these definitions often owed more to Aristotle than to the Bible. So groups like the Nestorians and the Monophysites (who believed in the Trinity, and in both the divinity and humanity of Christ) were condemned as heretics and often violently suppressed because of details which seem minor and incomprehensible to most Christians today. The Councils and Synods that lead to these theological definitions were intensely political, with different cities supporting their hometown theologians over and against their rivals, and sometimes even rounding up gangs of monks to beat up their theological opponents! (For a very entertaining and readable account of these events I would recommend Philip Jenkins' book "Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 years".

In recent times, theologians have been much less prone to dismiss out of hand the concept of Jesus suffering in His divine nature, or of the Father grieving in spiritual agony at His Son's suffering on the Cross. This is partly due to a renewed appreciation of the 'earthy' Hebrew influence on the New Testament writers, rather than the pagan philosophy of Aristotle (with its despising of the material world) that influenced theologians in the next few centuries. One prime example of this more recent approach would be Jürgen Moltmann's book "The Crucified God".

Asry

This thread is great! I only liked the various accusation and then moderator reprimands in earlier posts because I do appreciate a bit of excitement on a Wednesday morning.

It's great in that finally there's some serious discussion. I want to run to my books right now. I'd never considered the Personhood itself as having suffered. But that raises some probably very naive questions on my part, one of which I'll do in tiny writing so that you'll know how embarrassed I am at having to ask it when there's such heavyweight talk going on: I didn't know that the Holy Spirit existed before Pentecost ... ? Again, I'd never really thought about it.

This is my tiny peabrain reasoning though, for what it's worth (which is really not very much and will probably have people rolling their eyes): In Gethsemane, right, Jesus, the Word in Flesh, asked God the Father, not flesh but still part of the Personhood, obviously, to 'take the cup away from [Him].' And then there's some more praying and then an acquiesence to the will of God the Father.

So, just basing my reasoning on Gethemane alone - was the Word in Flesh aware of the extent and nature of what was to come? And if not, why not? I mean, it's possible? In order for Jesus to be fully human, surely that should be taken into account? So if He wasn't fully aware...does that mean that God the Father, still One with Christ in the Trinity, knew things and planned things that Jesus was not aware of? And if that's the case then wouldn't it also be possible for God the Father in his Personhood with the Trinity to not have suffered? Or for the Personhood to have suffered?

I keep referring to Trinity and I suppose the Holy Ghost and Pentecost thing will be cleared up for me at some stage.

I'm probably not understanding the question in referring to the suffering of God the Father himself, but as part of the Personhood, and the nature of the Divine, there would have been ... something? No?

I'm sorry. I'm really probably confusing the issue but I don't have a formal education in Theology, but I just read a lot (and clearly have an over-active imagination).

gimmebroadband

According to St. Paul, "though he was in the form of God, [Jesus] did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather he emptied himself taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even on a cross" (Phil 2:6-8)

more....

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19880217en.html

santing

Asry wrote: »

I'd never considered the Personhood itself as having suffered.

What do you mean with "Personhood" My understanding of the Trinity is that they are three persons - but all three are God. (Now the term "person" is not really concept explained (or introduced) in the Bible). So if God the Son sufffered in His human body, it doesn't mean that all three persons of the Trinity suffered in that same body.
On another note - although Christ was forsaken by God at the cross during the three hours of darkness (when He was made sin for us) In John's gospel (where the three hours of darkness aren't mentioned) He states:

Behold, the hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home, and will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me. (Joh 16:32 ESV)

What "exactly" happened at calvary was hidden for eyes - and probably for our minds as well.

Asry wrote: »

In Gethsemane, right, Jesus, the Word in Flesh, asked God the Father, not flesh but still part of the Personhood, obviously, to 'take the cup away from [Him].' And then there's some more praying and then an acquiesence to the will of God the Father.

So, just basing my reasoning on Gethemane alone - was the Word in Flesh aware of the extent and nature of what was to come? And if not, why not? I mean, it's possible? In order for Jesus to be fully human, surely that should be taken into account? So if He wasn't fully aware...does that mean that God the Father, still One with Christ in the Trinity, knew things and planned things that Jesus was not aware of? And if that's the case then wouldn't it also be possible for God the Father in his Personhood with the Trinity to not have suffered? Or for the Personhood to have suffered?

Christ suffering on the cross was a plan God had before the creation of the world, and in his coming into the world Christ came to do God's will;

Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, 'Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.'" (Heb 10:5-7 ESV)

We therefore can conclude that Christ knew the suffering that lay ahead of him.

looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. (Heb 12:2 ESV)

lmaopml

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

Okay God the Father is not God the Son, and God the Son is not the God the Holy Ghost nor indeed is God the God the Holy Ghost God the Father or God the Son...And yet they share in one Divine nature.

God the Son as well as sharing in the One Uncreated Divine Nature Also took on and shares in human nature.

The human nature taken on by God the Son suffered, and suffered especially during the Passion, the question is did God the Son's Divine Personhood also suffer during the Passion?

I wonder does anybody actually know for sure? Our words for 'suffering' are limited to our understanding and our senses etc. - This is interesting though...

My immediate assumption is that God the Son became 'man' and suffered bodily - of course - during the passion. However, he was also 100% divine in nature too, and all that goes along with that? No?

So, I would have thought that rather than saying 'God' the Father suffered in the same way, i.e. the way 'we' understand human suffering, humiliation, physical pain etc, as God the son but both had the 'divine knowledge' of loss and humiliation, persecution by those whom they loved, because they are intriniscally intertwined?

I know God the Father did not 'suffer' in the sense that we would understand it - and also in the sense of Jesus who is one of the three persons that actually became wholly man for our sake...and IS God too..

I'd like more clarification on this though, if possible? What do others think, it's interesting to know?

Could I be called a Patripassianist and not know it - I don't quite think so, but I think terminology could be mixed up.

FISMA

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

...human nature ...

PatriciaMcKay,

I think the word human gets thrown around a lot and is subject to abuse and misuse.

It's also used as a source of weakness in modern day language. e.g "i'm only human."

I disagree that being human is a weakness. Instead, I see being perfectly human, as Jesus was, as the upper limit that our lives can become.

As an example, I think there's a lot of [let's use the word] homo-sapiens on this planet, but not too many true humans.

I'll say that Jesus was 100% human and that most everyone falls short of that mark.

To the original question, I believe that when Jesus said I am the light of the world, he meant this quite literally.

Light is considered to have a duality: it is both a particle and a wave.

Jesus too, had a duality: perfectly human and God.

I would say yes, he did suffer as a human. However, I would say no to suffering as God.

Asry

FISMA wrote: »

To the original question, I believe that when Jesus said I am the light of the world, he meant this quite literally.

Light is considered to have a duality: it is both a particle and a wave.

Jesus too, had a duality: perfectly human and God.

That's a brilliant analogy, actually, particle and wave. Something I can relate to, that brings up a new perspective in my mind. Thanks for that!

Slav

I cannot find the exact quote right now but St Basil the Great once gave a good practical advise for us if we are puzzled by all this divine/human nature/person stuff: what you have learned about the differences between nature (ουσια) and person (υποστασις) in yourself,3 apply it to God and you won't err.

For example, I had a bad tooth pain last week. Who was suffering? Me, personally. No other human being felt that exact pain even though we share the same nature. Absolutely nothing has happened to the human nature itself as a result of my tooth acting. Conclusion: it's person who can suffer, not nature.

So getting back to the OP question, I don't think it has an answer because of the way it's worded. First, it mixes nature and person together, i.e. "human nature vs divine person"; it would be OK if it were "human nature vs divine nature" or even "human person vs divine person" to a certain extent, but you cannot compare nature and person as these are different things. Second, I think the use of "in" is inappropriate as well. When I had that toothpain I did not suffer "in" my human person; it was just the human person who was suffering without any ins. Similarly, I did not suffer "in" my human nature, same as I did not suffer, for instance, "in" my IT nerd nature (but it can be said that a human was suffering or an IT nerd was suffering).

Christ is a person. He has divine nature. He assumed human nature.

He was crucified, suffered and died. Man was crucified, suffered and died. God was crucified, suffered and died. All of these statements are equally true.