Who raised Jesus from the dead?

[Mountain Man]

Wikipedia has a reasonably clear and accurate explanation:

Source: Wikipedia

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Hypostatic_union

© Copyright Original Source

Stop thinking of Jesus' two natures in a quantitative sense, as if he were a 24oz bottle in which 24oz of humanity and 24oz of divinity are both poured in. That's what's getting you confused.

[JimL]

Wikipedia has a reasonably clear and accurate explanation:

Source: Wikipedia

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Hypostatic_union

© Copyright Original Source

Stop thinking of Jesus' two natures in a quantitative sense, as if he were a 24oz bottle in which 24oz of humanity and 24oz of divinity are both poured in. That's what's getting you confused.

So Jesus is like a certs, two, two, two mints in one!

[Sparko]

So Jesus is like a certs, two, two, two mints in one!

or maybe like you are a human being AND a jackass.

[JimL]

or maybe like you are a human being AND a jackass.

[Tassman]

Stop thinking of Jesus' two natures in a quantitative sense, as if he were a 24oz bottle in which 24oz of humanity and 24oz of divinity are both poured in. That's what's getting you confused.

[JimL]

Sort of like their faith in the co-existence of an omniscient creator and a free wiled creationl. Reason and logic go out the window.

[Mountain Man]

None of that contradicts anything I've said. I think it's safe to say that you misunderstand why Kierkegaard considered this a paradox, and it's not because he thought Jesus is a 200% being. It's because we humans lack the capacity to understand the exact mechanism that allows a human and divine nature to coexist in a single person.

However, I disagree with this presentation of Christian faith. God never asks us to abandon our reason when we approach him. Biblical faith is never irrational.

[JimL]

None of that contradicts anything I've said. I think it's safe to say that you misunderstand why Kierkegaard considered this a paradox, and it's not because he thought Jesus is a 200% being. It's because we humans lack the capacity to understand the exact mechanism that allows a human and divine nature to coexist in a single person.

However, I disagree with this presentation of Christian faith. God never asks us to abandon our reason when we approach him. Biblical faith is never irrational.

God never asks you anything, you abandon reason all by yourself. As a matter of fact, if there was a god he would probably be ashamed for you, not using the brain he provided you with.

[Mountain Man]

God never asks you anything, you abandon reason all by yourself. As a matter of fact, if there was a god he would probably be ashamed for you, not using the brain he provided you with.

You will be judged by your own words.

[Tassman]

None of that contradicts anything I've said. I think it's safe to say that you misunderstand why Kierkegaard considered this a paradox, and it's not because he thought Jesus is a 200% being. It's because we humans lack the capacity to understand the exact mechanism that allows a human and divine nature to coexist in a single person.

We "lack the capacity to understand the exact mechanism that allows a human and divine nature to coexist in a single person", because it is an incoherent notion. It can only be understood as a divine mystery and believed as an article of faith.

However, I disagree with this presentation of Christian faith. God never asks us to abandon our reason when we approach him. Biblical faith is never irrationa

Belief in an invisible all-powerful deity is in itself "irrational", not to mention all the spiritual baggage that goes with it.

[JonathanL]

burdened by sin, limited in goodness, knowledge, and understanding. This paradox can only be resolved, Kierkegaard believed, by a leap of faith away from one's understanding and reason towards belief in God; thus the paradox of the hypostatic union was crucial to an abiding faith in the Christian God. As the precise nature of this union is held to defy finite human comprehension, the hypostatic union is also referred to by the alternative term "mystical union".

In short, the double nature of Christ is an article of faith.

Depending on what Kierkegaard meant by the bolded I'm not sure I'd agree with his assessment of what the Christian understanding of what it means to be a human. Humans are marred by sin, but it's not part of our nature proper, so for Jesus to be fully human he doesn't need to be "burdened by sin". And being limited in goodness is only applicable to someone limited in power, which Jesus obviously wasn't, seeing as He was God incarnate.

There are some qualities, or attributes that we humans have simply by virtue of being human. But there are other qualities, or, more accurately, limitations that that we have, not because we are humans, but because we are created, finite beings. In order for Jesus to be fully human He only needs to share in the qualities of the former category, not the limitations of the latter. The trick is to figure out which qualities or limitations belong in which category.

[Mountain Man]

We "lack the capacity to understand the exact mechanism that allows a human and divine nature to coexist in a single person", because it is an incoherent notion.

Asserted but not proven. It is not incoherent to state that Jesus is "fully human" in the sense that he has every essential human quality, and "fully divine" in the sense that he has every essential divine quality.

Belief in an invisible all-powerful deity is in itself "irrational"...

Asserted but not proven. Belief in God is no more itrational than believing that my senses allow me to accurately perceive the universe around me.

[Mountain Man]

Depending on what Kierkegaard meant by the bolded I'm not sure I'd agree with his assessment of what the Christian understanding of what it means to be a human. Humans are marred by sin, but it's not part of our nature proper, so for Jesus to be fully human he doesn't need to be "burdened by sin".

Jesus was tempted by sin, so perhaps that's what Kierkegaard means?

[JonathanL]

Jesus was tempted by sin, so perhaps that's what Kierkegaard means?

Sure, I could assent to that, as long as "tempted by sin" is understood as "tempted to sin by outside influences", and not "tempted by His own inclinations". Obviously Jesus never felt the slightest desire to sin even though He was put in situations that would have made any other person succumb to temptation.

[Mountain Man]

Sure, I could assent to that, as long as "tempted by sin" is understood as "tempted to sin by outside influences", and not "tempted by His own inclinations". Obviously Jesus never felt the slightest desire to sin even though He was put in situations that would have made any other person succumb to temptation.

Yes. "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."