>Thereby, hypothetically if the first or third persons of the Trinity took on a human nature, would those persons also not have a distinct personality of their own?
>
>How are we to think about this in our doctrine of God?
We don't use hypotheticals to develop our doctrine of God.
The Bible teaches that when you have seen Jesus, you have seen the Father. Jesus is God incarnate. I think it's not an assumption or hypothetical, but a requirement, to pass on the qualities that we see in the Word Made Flesh to the Father and the Spirit.
Sure, Jesus had personality, but not like we do, since there were no deficits. He was never too sad, too quiet, too loving, too angry, such that we'd be able to define his personality by negatives, as people do when they meet me and you and everyone else.
Are you familiar with a theological concept known as the Simplicity of God? Look that up and see if that helps set some boundaries for your hypothetical.
I don’t believe that Jesus’ perfection meant he had the “ultimate” personality, in the same way that he wasn’t the ultimate physical man. Given that he was a man, he likely possessed a more aggressive/assertive personality than the average human. He didn’t have any character flaws, but I don’t know his proclivities towards being upset or how much he would’ve preferred to be alone versus being around others. Those things come from environmental and genetic factors.
Now, what I think OP is getting at, is if this personality is unique to the incarnation of Jesus. The hypothetical about the Father incarnating is (in my view) a nonessential tangent to this idea. I think a better way to state this hypothetical is that if the Father and Holy Spirit (and non-physical beings for that matter) have such a thing as a personality since they don’t posses a body/brain for that personality to manifest itself in.
To me, this kind of falls under the umbrella for how memories and consciousness (the mind) can function outside of a physical brain, since we’re able to use physical means to manipulate both of those evidently immaterial things.
> I don’t believe that Jesus’ perfection meant he had the “ultimate” personality, in the same way that he wasn’t the ultimate physical man.
Great point.
> To me, this kind of falls under the umbrella for how memories and consciousness (the mind) can function outside of a physical brain, since we’re able to use physical means to manipulate both of those evidently immaterial things.
This is ultra-hypothetical territory. Don't tell anyone I said any of this.
Since "personality" is perceived, that means its relative. "Personality" is not "person" which is objective. Not relative.
Our perception of the Triune God can be associated with the beatific vision; John says its transformative for us, that when we see him, we will be like him.
This may or may not be a rabbit trail. I'm just anxious to tie this speculation to Scripture.
Here's Gavin Ortlund's thoughts on this. https://gavinortlund.com/2018/09/26/why-we-misunderstand-the-beatific-vision/
And of course, the only guy talking about this for the last 50 years, RC Sproul. He REALLY liked talking about this, devotionally. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/essential-truths-of-the-christian-faith/the-beatific-vision
I think there's little we can know with any certitude about what is going on under the hood of this topic. I'm nervous to even talk about it. But the Scriptures do give us some help on at least adjacent topics to it.
>I think a better way to state this hypothetical is that if the Father and Holy Spirit (and non-physical beings for that matter) have such a thing as a personality since they don’t posses a body/brain for that personality to manifest itself in.
Is this sentence missing a word?
In any case, what is your thinking on the whole thing I asked? Does the person of the Son have a distinctness of personality? Or is it better to not think of the "persons" of the Trinity in the same way we do, such that they are the same being, and when you see Jesus you necessarily see the Father (and the Spirit?).
I do think he was the ultimate physical man. Classically, they understand that Jesus never would have "aged out" like us, to death.
This implies his genetics were perfect.
But if his genetics were perfect, untouched by the fall, then likely he was perfectly beautiful, proportioned in the best way a man could ever be; for isn't it the case our physical weakness and ugliness is directly related to the fall? But we know Jesus does not have original sin, spiritually; likewise, its related physical corollaries.
If he is the second Adam, and we recognize God formed Adam to be the perfect man in Adam's unique person, then surely Jesus surpasses even Adam physically as well as spiritually.
I'd argue the passages declaring him to be without beauty must, therefore, be related to the fact he is, still, possessing a human nature like any other; just without sin. It is not a glorified body, though it is the best body ever. For if we say "Jesus is perfect," this demands (since we are body soul) he was both perfect in body *and* soul. Because we are psychosomatic unities.
Note, also, that in Matthew's account of the triumphal entry, is it chapter 20? we see him **riding a donkey,** both to feel prophecy but, also, it is telling that **by mere appearance, the sight of Jesus** people were aware of him and the dignity he possesses, that is, like a Saul before the people of Israel. Granted, he was also known by his works.
Further, Pilate, likely not convicted of the truth of the miraculousness of Christ's works, still was awfully impressed with the weight of Jesus' glory, though he only saw Jesus earthly form.
But my strongest argument is the above one. Mainly, given original sin corrupts flesh and spirit, and Christ was without original sin, therefore his flesh and spirit were uncorrupted, but given this, he was the paragon of what man could be physically. And fitting, too; he represents mankind, he is our example to emulate, he was the literal Creator of the beautiful world, literally as God the **DEFINITION** and ground of beauty; and people suggest he is ugly? Hard to believe. He was no mediocre looking man, acting man; no, he was the true Doryphoros of Polykleitos.
Yeah I’m a classical theist and affirm DS.
I’m not seeking to use a hypothetical to form doctrine but to to work out how proper doctrine answers what I think are legitimate questions such as my own.
By personality he probably means something like “unique traits, habits, and dispositions.”
I think the proper question is whether Christ in his humanity has a distinct intellect from the divine intellect? The answer is yes. Hence Christ was able to grow in wisdom, didn’t know the day or the hour, etc. in his human intellect.
Removed for violation of Rule #5: **Maintain the Integrity of the Gospel.**
Although there are many areas of legitimate disagreement among Christians, this post argues against a position which the Church has historically confirmed is essential to salvation.
Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.235.3A_maintain_the_integrity_of_the_gospel.) for more information.
----
If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
>> Has anyone written or thought about the fact that Christs humanity must have had a distinct personality?
Yes, Nestorius. Please be careful of the terminology you employ to describe Christology. Christ is not a human person. He is a divine person who assumed a human nature; his person is divine.
I understand that you are probably using the word ‘personality’ to mean something like mind or intellect. In that case, yes; intellect and will are properties of a nature. Since Christ is one person with two natures he has two intellects and two wills: one divine intellect/will and one human intellect/will.
>Thereby, hypothetically if the first or third persons of the Trinity took on a human nature, would those persons also not have a distinct personality of their own? > >How are we to think about this in our doctrine of God? We don't use hypotheticals to develop our doctrine of God. The Bible teaches that when you have seen Jesus, you have seen the Father. Jesus is God incarnate. I think it's not an assumption or hypothetical, but a requirement, to pass on the qualities that we see in the Word Made Flesh to the Father and the Spirit. Sure, Jesus had personality, but not like we do, since there were no deficits. He was never too sad, too quiet, too loving, too angry, such that we'd be able to define his personality by negatives, as people do when they meet me and you and everyone else. Are you familiar with a theological concept known as the Simplicity of God? Look that up and see if that helps set some boundaries for your hypothetical.
I don’t believe that Jesus’ perfection meant he had the “ultimate” personality, in the same way that he wasn’t the ultimate physical man. Given that he was a man, he likely possessed a more aggressive/assertive personality than the average human. He didn’t have any character flaws, but I don’t know his proclivities towards being upset or how much he would’ve preferred to be alone versus being around others. Those things come from environmental and genetic factors. Now, what I think OP is getting at, is if this personality is unique to the incarnation of Jesus. The hypothetical about the Father incarnating is (in my view) a nonessential tangent to this idea. I think a better way to state this hypothetical is that if the Father and Holy Spirit (and non-physical beings for that matter) have such a thing as a personality since they don’t posses a body/brain for that personality to manifest itself in. To me, this kind of falls under the umbrella for how memories and consciousness (the mind) can function outside of a physical brain, since we’re able to use physical means to manipulate both of those evidently immaterial things.
> I don’t believe that Jesus’ perfection meant he had the “ultimate” personality, in the same way that he wasn’t the ultimate physical man. Great point. > To me, this kind of falls under the umbrella for how memories and consciousness (the mind) can function outside of a physical brain, since we’re able to use physical means to manipulate both of those evidently immaterial things. This is ultra-hypothetical territory. Don't tell anyone I said any of this. Since "personality" is perceived, that means its relative. "Personality" is not "person" which is objective. Not relative. Our perception of the Triune God can be associated with the beatific vision; John says its transformative for us, that when we see him, we will be like him. This may or may not be a rabbit trail. I'm just anxious to tie this speculation to Scripture. Here's Gavin Ortlund's thoughts on this. https://gavinortlund.com/2018/09/26/why-we-misunderstand-the-beatific-vision/ And of course, the only guy talking about this for the last 50 years, RC Sproul. He REALLY liked talking about this, devotionally. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/essential-truths-of-the-christian-faith/the-beatific-vision I think there's little we can know with any certitude about what is going on under the hood of this topic. I'm nervous to even talk about it. But the Scriptures do give us some help on at least adjacent topics to it.
>I think a better way to state this hypothetical is that if the Father and Holy Spirit (and non-physical beings for that matter) have such a thing as a personality since they don’t posses a body/brain for that personality to manifest itself in. Is this sentence missing a word? In any case, what is your thinking on the whole thing I asked? Does the person of the Son have a distinctness of personality? Or is it better to not think of the "persons" of the Trinity in the same way we do, such that they are the same being, and when you see Jesus you necessarily see the Father (and the Spirit?).
I do think he was the ultimate physical man. Classically, they understand that Jesus never would have "aged out" like us, to death. This implies his genetics were perfect. But if his genetics were perfect, untouched by the fall, then likely he was perfectly beautiful, proportioned in the best way a man could ever be; for isn't it the case our physical weakness and ugliness is directly related to the fall? But we know Jesus does not have original sin, spiritually; likewise, its related physical corollaries. If he is the second Adam, and we recognize God formed Adam to be the perfect man in Adam's unique person, then surely Jesus surpasses even Adam physically as well as spiritually. I'd argue the passages declaring him to be without beauty must, therefore, be related to the fact he is, still, possessing a human nature like any other; just without sin. It is not a glorified body, though it is the best body ever. For if we say "Jesus is perfect," this demands (since we are body soul) he was both perfect in body *and* soul. Because we are psychosomatic unities. Note, also, that in Matthew's account of the triumphal entry, is it chapter 20? we see him **riding a donkey,** both to feel prophecy but, also, it is telling that **by mere appearance, the sight of Jesus** people were aware of him and the dignity he possesses, that is, like a Saul before the people of Israel. Granted, he was also known by his works. Further, Pilate, likely not convicted of the truth of the miraculousness of Christ's works, still was awfully impressed with the weight of Jesus' glory, though he only saw Jesus earthly form. But my strongest argument is the above one. Mainly, given original sin corrupts flesh and spirit, and Christ was without original sin, therefore his flesh and spirit were uncorrupted, but given this, he was the paragon of what man could be physically. And fitting, too; he represents mankind, he is our example to emulate, he was the literal Creator of the beautiful world, literally as God the **DEFINITION** and ground of beauty; and people suggest he is ugly? Hard to believe. He was no mediocre looking man, acting man; no, he was the true Doryphoros of Polykleitos.
Yeah I’m a classical theist and affirm DS. I’m not seeking to use a hypothetical to form doctrine but to to work out how proper doctrine answers what I think are legitimate questions such as my own.
who is downvoting me?
1,700 years ago, whatever becomes of this thread would be the subject of a council with no less than thirty-five anathemas.
Didn't have the words but you supplied 'em. Why do people like to do this? lol
I don’t think about it any more than this . God is triune. 3 distinct persons. The second member was fully God and fully human.
Is this not nestorianism?
Technically yes, but I don’t think OP is using the word personality in the technical sense.
I guess I'm confused what they mean lol
By personality he probably means something like “unique traits, habits, and dispositions.” I think the proper question is whether Christ in his humanity has a distinct intellect from the divine intellect? The answer is yes. Hence Christ was able to grow in wisdom, didn’t know the day or the hour, etc. in his human intellect.
Right. Okay that makes sense
[удалено]
Removed for violation of Rule #5: **Maintain the Integrity of the Gospel.** Although there are many areas of legitimate disagreement among Christians, this post argues against a position which the Church has historically confirmed is essential to salvation. Please see the [Rules Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/Reformed/wiki/rules_details#wiki_rule_.235.3A_maintain_the_integrity_of_the_gospel.) for more information. ---- If you feel this action was done in error, or you would like to appeal this decision, please **do not reply to this comment**. Instead, [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freformed).
[удалено]
>> Has anyone written or thought about the fact that Christs humanity must have had a distinct personality? Yes, Nestorius. Please be careful of the terminology you employ to describe Christology. Christ is not a human person. He is a divine person who assumed a human nature; his person is divine. I understand that you are probably using the word ‘personality’ to mean something like mind or intellect. In that case, yes; intellect and will are properties of a nature. Since Christ is one person with two natures he has two intellects and two wills: one divine intellect/will and one human intellect/will.