Is the orthodox Christian doctrine of the incarnation, that Jesus of Nazareth has two natures, the one nature fully human, and the other nature fully divine, logically coherent?
Put another way, is the proposition that states that the individual Jesus of Nazareth is the unique bearer of two sets of properties-the one set of properties fully human, and the other set of properties fully divine, free from logical contradiction?
I believe the incarnation is logically coherent, and here's briefly how I would explain the harmony between the two natures.
The Second Person of the Trinity, by definition, has a divine nature and is an infinite immaterial Self. Imagine what would happen if we conjoined this infinite Self to a finite human brain. In this case, only a finite amount of each of the infinite Self’s cognitive rational faculties—namely, precisely the same amount as each of our cognitive rational faculties operating at full capacity—could be accommodated by this brain. To simplify, logic dictates that, from his virginal conception to his death, Jesus’ finite brain continually limited the amount of his infinite immateriality that he could access to precisely the same finite amount of immateriality that any other human being would possess at each respective stage of life.
Like the tip of an iceberg, the human soul of Jesus constituted the finite amount of his infinite immaterial Self that his finite human brain could handle, thus rendering Jesus’ soul exactly identical to all other human souls. So Jesus’ distinctly earthly immaterial consciousness came into existence, grew, and developed as the boy Jesus grew and developed. This consciousness drew its visual imagery from what the eyes of Jesus saw and its concepts from the languages he learned. In this way, Jesus’ earthly immaterial consciousness was thoroughly human, Jewish, and first–century Palestinian in nature. During Jesus’ earthly life, therefore, the vast majority of cognitive perfections belonging to his infinite Self, such as all the “omni” attributes (e.g. omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.), could not be in his waking consciousness. Rather, they were resident in Jesus’ subconscious, or what J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig style the “divine subliminal,” and temporarily reemerged at selected moments, such as when he performed miracles or displayed knowledge of past, counterfactual, and future truths.
Thank you Kirk MacGregor for your answer. On this view, when Jesus performed a miracle by utilising for example a "temporarily reemerged" attribute, did he remain epistemically incognizant with regard to his divine ontology?
Reincarnation means a chance, another chance, another chance, until people learn all the lessons. From this perspective, reincarnation is logically consistent with the generosity of God, which is love.
Regarding the understanding of the two natures of Jesus, I think logic is not the right tool.
Hi Daniela,
Thanks for your reply, however my question obtains to the orthodox Christian doctrine of incarnation, i.e., the doctrine that the eternal Word (Greek logos John 1:1), God the Son - the second person of the divine Trinity, took on human flesh, without ceasing to be divine. This is the orthodox two natures view of Christ, found in the New Testament, and enshrined in the ecumenical church councils of Nicaea, and Chalcedon.
Hi, David,
I'm trying to say that tackling a dogma with logic tools is inappropriate.
Hi Daniela,
It's wholly appropriate since historically the orthodox doctrine of the incarnation has been challenged on logical grounds. For example, some would allege that the doctrine is logically contradictory based for example on the indiscernibility of identicals criteria.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Esthetics
- Interpretation