Christ’s contribution to the ontology of the person

The importance of ontology.

Just Thomism

A familiar contemporary dilemma for Christology is:

1.) Christ has an individual human nature

2.) Every individual human nature is a human person

3.) Christ is not a human person.

The three claims cannot all be true, but (2) seems evident from the terms while (1) and (3) are essential to all accounts of the Incarnation. First, if Christ’s human nature were not individual and concrete, then it could not die, be born, suffer, or even be sensed since human nature in general, or as universal, or an essence can do none of these things. Second, if Christ is a human person then, given that all Trinitarian accounts make the Logos of God a person, Christ is two persons. But if this is the case, then the Incarnation is nothing more remarkable than my being a human person and God being one too.

This leaves orthodox Christology as having to…

View original post 219 more words

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Christ’s contribution to the ontology of the person

  1. An instance where Aristotle is infinitely more helpful than Plato! This seems like worthy fodder for discussion again given contemporary distaste for metaphysics (I implicate myself in that, I’ve been there).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s