Jesus, Simultaneously God and Man: How Is It Possible?

Jesus: God and Man

Christians believe that Jesus was a human. This is because of the records of Jesus life, death, and resurrection, along with theological teachings and Bible verses.

However, because of several reasons, Christians believe Jesus is also somehow, mysteriously, God Himself. This is because of things Jesus has said that state He is God, and also Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah, implying that he would be "the Lord." 

This is why the writings of the New Testament and early Church writings refer to Jesus as being God.

"Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." - Jesus (John 14:9b)

The Problem

However, it seems we have a problem here. God is omnipresent (everywhere), omniscient (all-knowing), omnibenevolent (all-good), and omnipotent (all powerful.) As we know, no human possesses any of these qualities. Nor is it even possible for a mere human being to have some of these attributes (i.e. your brain cannot hold all knowledge). 

The Historical Solution: One Person, Two Natures

Seems like a tough problem. But Christians have historically addressed it in this way. The eternal God the Son is one Person with two natures. For our purposes a "person" is a center of consciousness with a mind, volition, and emotions. A nature is a "substance" or the set of characteristics that comprise a certain thing. 

YOU Are A Person with Two Natures

For example, I have both a "male" nature and a "human" nature. Maleness is not limited to humans. Furthermore, humanity is not limited to males. In addition, in order to be a person, I don't need to a male, nor do I need to be a human. Angels and aliens, whether or not one believes in them, are examples of persons which do not have a human nature. Indeed, to properly exist, angels and aliens might not even need a gender. A person (for our purposes) need only have three characteristics: a mind, will, and emotions. They don't even have to be human. They don't even have to have a body.

Which is good, because God had been a non-human Person for a long time. God had only a divine nature. A person with a divine nature has the characteristics of being 1) omnibenevolent, 2) omnipresent, 3) omniscient 4) omnipotent. The eternally existing person of the Logos has always had a divine nature. However, 2000 years ago, this person added a second nature: a human nature. Now, God has two natures, divine and human. 

...Which Brings Clarity To Some Tough Questions

So when Jesus died on the cross....did God die? 

On the cross, God's human nature died. But his divine nature did not "die," because it did not stop existing. Nor did it cease to have the attributes of God. 

Jesus is God. So if someone, (heaven forbid!) cut off Jesus' finger, is that finger a piece of God? 

No. The Person inside the body has a divine nature. The finger is part of the human nature, and is thus not itself divine. 

...But Wait A Second..

Even with this distinction between person and nature, this is still hard to wrap our minds around. We know a divine nature knows all things and has all power. However, a human nature does not have those things. Jesus was on person. How could he simultaneously have two natures that seem to contradict?

An Illustration: Video Game Avatars

Like all analogies, I am sure this one is imperfect. But bear with me. 

Many of you know that there is a popular video game out there called "Halo." It is played using an Xbox.  I do not enjoy this game at all. But I think it might be a good illustration. 

When people play this game, they are often connected to the internet. They speak through headphones to the other players. They then choose an environment in which two or more teams seeks to kill the members of the other team as many times as possible. Your character is basically a very tall sci-fi soldier.

Strangely enough, I believe this gives us a way forward in comprehending how Jesus can be God and man at the same time. 

The "God" (Creator) of the Halo Universe

Now imagine that the inventor and creator of the Halo game wants to play the game he has created. He can easily do this. He gets a copy of the game and begins playing the game as its primary character. Now, as creator of the game, he can reprogram any part of the game he likes. He can make it so that gravity stops working. He can make it so that he has unlimited ammunition. He can make it so that he can always fly. He can make it so that he has an unlimited number of tanks he can drive. He can make it so that he is aware of each and every movement of the computerized opponents. In fact, he could theoretically hack into the game and program it so that he instantaneously kills all his opponents without attacking them. He wouldn't even need to play as a character in the game to accomplish these objectives! In a sense, he is like "God" over the Halo world, because he created it. 

The Creator of the Halo Universe Plays The Game He Created

The creator of the Halo world has unlimited knowledge and power over the environment and game play experience. However, even though he is like the "God" of the Halo world, he can play as one of the characters he created. When he does this, he is very much subject to the same limitations as the other characters. He cannot jump an infinite distance. He runs out of ammunition. He does not know where everything is in the game at every given moment. He does not have an unlimited weapons selection. Indeed, he can be shot and killed within the game. 

Now imagine the creator of the Halo game is having a "LAN party" and is speaking on the headphones to other players over the internet, who are battling each other in teams in a particular environment. The creator of the Halo game does not use his real name. Like all other players, he has a username, say halowarrior164.  If someone shoots him in the game, he can yell into the headphones "who shot me!?"Indeed, his opponent didn't just shoot a character called "halowarrior164." The creator can say "who shot me." 

After he is shot, his video game character dies, falls over, and disappears. He can now truthfully yell into the headphones "I have just died!" But we know that his video game avatar died. The creator of the Halo game did not die. So he simultaneously died and did not die at the same time, in two different senses of the word. 

Also, if he is running by a fortress in the video game , someone might say through the headphones "who is that running by the fortress??" They can say his username, or his real name. In a sense it really IS the creator of the Halo video game that is running by the fortress. But in a sense, it is also just a set of pixels that is moving across the screen by the set of pixels that is the "fortress." 

God Becomes Man: Jesus As God's Video Game Avatar

I think the dual nature of Jesus is very similar to this. In a sense, Jesus is "God's video game character." As creator of the entire universe, God created the "game." He created all the laws of nature and the entire environment, and has perfect knowledge of it all. However, as creator of the game, he can also play the game. However, by playing the game, God subjects himself to all of the limitations of one of the human players.

God's name is "Yahweh." However, when he plays as a human actor, he has a "username," just like in the video game example. His username is Jesus.

 The physical body of Jesus is not "God," in the same way that people who play Halo aren't really just a set of moving pixels on a screen. When you play as a soldier in "Halo," we can say that it is really you that is engaging in battle with the other characters. Indeed, other players recognize this by yelling each others real names into the headphones, when they are killed by each other. However, when people say that Bill is "halowarrior164," they are not at all saying that his nature is confined to the set of pixels on the screen!

Same with God. When we say that "Jesus is God" we are not saying that the totality of God's nature is confined to a human brain and human skin. However, when we say "Jesus is God," it is a perfectly accurate statement, because the Person in the skin and bones and brain is actually God as a human actor with human limitations.

In a way, as a character in the Halo game, the set of pixels on the screen is a perfect unveiling of you in the Halo universe. The character with the username "halowarrior164" is the perfect revelation and unveiling of a human person in the Halo universe. 

Hold On...

I am sure my analogy has some theological imperfections. But hopefully it at least provides an easier way to understand it. 

Three Pieces to the Resurrection Puzzle

I am trying to mentally assemble the most persuasive/coherent argument for the resurrection I can come up with. Granted, by "most persuasive" it may only appear as such to me. 

This post will be a rehash of the last one, but will have some new material too.

I am going to speak straightforwardly for sake of clarity. 

The Bedrock Evidence

The resurrection of Jesus has more documentary support than many other ancient historical events we take for granted. 

This may sound controversial, but its very true. We certainly have more evidence for resurrection than other historical events in antiquity. The real controversial question is if that is enough evidence for a miracle. 

Nevertheless, the documentary evidence does, indeed, exceed the evidence for many other ancient events. 

There are about 4 primary sources for the assassination of Julius Caesar. All of them are written over 100 years after the event. 

However, there are about 4 primary sources for the resurrection, all of which are written within 70 years of the event. (70 years being an estimate made by most non-Christian scholars). 

Some attempt to rebut this by saying that the documents used for the resurrection are inherently less reliable than other Roman histories, because of the following reasons:

1) They contain contradictions between the sources
2) They contain miracle claims
3) They are written by a biased party

The problem with these rebuttals is that many Roman histories have exactly the same "problems." Different accounts of Roman events have contradictions between them. Some Roman histories contain miracle claims associated with Caesar. Furthermore, they are written by someone interested enough in the person (or Rome) to actually spend the money to write the history (it was very expensive back then).


It's pretty easy to show that the evidence is "better" than other events. This is demonstrated quite simply with a thought experiment. Just ask yourself:

"If we had the same amount of evidence for Jesus doing something not miraculous, would we believe it?" 

For most people, the answer is very much a "yes." The thing about the resurrection is that we have (more or less) the same amount of evidence for Jesus' death as we have for his resurrection. This is the case because you obviously have to die in order to resurrect. The following parties accept the death of Jesus:

1. Almost every single New Testament historian (based on a comprehensive survey of historical Jesus publications)
2. Encyclopedias accept the death of Jesus without controversy
3. Non-Christian ancient sources accept the death of Jesus 

The real question is not so much "is there evidence for the resurrection?" The real question is "is the evidence we have enough for a miracle?" 

I will address the miracle question in a moment. But we must first to alternative theories for resurrection. 

Alternative Theories: A Cure Worse Than The "Disease"

Sometimes, people propose alternative theories in place of the resurrection. Here are some of those theories:

1. Twin theory: Jesus twin brother came to Jerusalem to fake his brothers resurrection right after Jesus died
2. Hallucination theory: the disciples had grief hallucinations which made them think they saw Jesus alive after he was dead, when in reality he was still dead
3. Metaphor theory: The stories of Jesus' resurrection are not intended to be literal stories, but metaphors about the spiritual significance of Jesus to the hearts of the first Christians
4. Deception theory: the disciples lied about the resurrection 
5. Wrong Tomb Theory: The disciples went to the wrong tomb and mistakenly believed it to be empty
6. Stolen Body Theory: The disciples stole the body from the tomb to perpetuate rumors of his resurrection
7. Apparent Death Theory: Jesus didn't really die, but survived the cross and returned, claiming to be resurrected. 

These theories were created by very smart people and are very clever on the surface. Nevertheless, they are absolutely and thoroughly unbelievable when applied to almost anything in history. They are especially unbelievable when applied to events in our daily lives. 

....Now, you may say: "Yes, but isn't the resurrection just as absurdly crazy?" More on this question in the next section, but bear with me for a moment.....

It's easy to show that these theories, taken independently, make very bad explanations. Here's a few of them:

1) Hallucinations: Visual grief hallucinations happen among 7% of grieving adults. This amounts to literally millions of people. How many of them have claimed their loved one had a "resurrection" because of it?Furthermore, hallucinations do not serve as a good alternative theory for most things. Can I tell witnesses in a court of law that they merely hallucinated me shooting the victim?

2) Twin theory: using the twin theory, you could say that Julius Caesar wasn't really assassinated, but had a long lost brother who jumped in last minute to die in his brother's place. Furthermore, you could excuse yourself from almost all crimes if this was an acceptable theory. All you would have to do is postulate a twin brother/sister who committed the crime for you.

3) Metaphor theory: you could say that the accounts of other Roman biographies are mythological metaphors as well. In fact, you can turn almost any literal story into a mythology or metaphor about something.

4) Stolen body and wrong tomb theory: these only account for the empty tomb and none of the appearances, so they are bad theories to begin with

...and on and on it goes... Just sort of fill in that same type of reasoning with the other alternative theories...

What I'm basically saying, is this:

I understand the apprehension with choosing the resurrection instead of these theories. I am just saying that, by themselves, these make for very bad theories.

But back to the problem....

You may say: "Yes, but isn't the resurrection just as absurdly crazy?" Now we will actually get to this question:

How Crazy Is A Miracle?

The above ideas are rather straightforward. The resurrection has more evidence than many other events in ancient history. Furthermore, the alternative theories to the resurrection are extremely unlikely from a practical standpoint, especially when taken by themselves. These are two of the three pieces to the "resurrection puzzle."

Now to the third piece: 

The next idea is not as straightforward to understand, but I will do my best to make it clear. 

Some argue that the resurrection theory itself an unbelievable explanation. It would be, but only if Christians claimed Jesus rose from the dead all by himself without any help. Christians claim God raised Jesus, not that he just naturally rose on his own. On the contrary, skeptics of the resurrection postulate near impossible events (i.e. multiple group hallucination) as happening all by themselves.

Naturalistic theories suggest that extremely unlikely events took place without the intervention of a capable third party. I don't know of any non-believer who wants to claim that God caused the disciples to have mass group hallucinations. Or that God caused the disciples to go to the wrong tomb... 

This metaphor should help illustrate why the resurrection does not violate the laws of nature, and is thus not as "impossible" as it seems. 

The Deserted Island Metaphor 

1. Imagine I live in a house on a deserted island. A pile of books is laying on the floor next to a bookshelf inside my house. I leave my house at 9 AM. I return home at 2 PM, only to discover that all of the books that were on the floor are now in the bookshelf. 
2. It is impossible for books to pick themselves up and arrange themselves in a bookshelf. That would violate the laws of nature. Nevertheless, when this situation occurs, I do not simply refuse to believe that the books are really on the shelf. It's easy enough to know if books are on a shelf.
3. This situation is called an "agent gap." It requires that an agent with the 1) power and 2) knowledge of how to assemble books on a bookshelf, entered my house and did that when I was gone.
4. I do not need to first prove that someone came to the deserted island in order for me to prove that the books are really on the shelf. The very fact that the books are on the shelf in the first place, proves that I am not alone on the island. 
5. We don't know if God exists. However, if we find our friend who is dead, then we talk to them the next day, a very serious "agent gap" is created. This is impossible through natural means. It requires that an agent 1) powerful enough and 2) smart enough to reassemble and reactivate the cells in a persons body, has actually done so in this case. 
6. Like the bookshelf example, we do not need to prove the existence of God to prove the existence of a resurrected man. It's easy enough to tell if your friend is dead or alive. The very fact there is a resurrected man in the first place proves we are not alone in the universe. 

An Extension of the Deserted Island Metaphor

On this method, the initial probability of God's existence doesn't matter, as long as its not too close to zero. 

Here's why:

Imagine if I had a visitor on the island only 1 day out of 365 days. This means that the chances that someone is on the island with me is as low as 0.27% on any given day. However, if I come back to my house and discover books that had been on the floor are now assembled in a bookshelf, it simply proves that TODAY is the day that I have a visitor! 

I don't have to prove that the visitor is both on the island AND wants to assemble books in my bookshelf before proving that the books are "really" on the shelf. 

 Just seeing the books on the bookshelf makes the chances of a visitor who wants to put books on my shelf at 100%. 

This metaphor applies to God. We don't know if God exists, but as long as the probability of his existence isn't too extremely low, a well supported miracle brings the probability of his existence up to 100% (or close to it).

The Three Pieces to the Puzzle

So now we have the three pieces to the resurrection puzzle.

First, the resurrection has more evidence than many other events in ancient history. Second, the alternative theories to the resurrection are basically impossible from a practical standpoint, especially when taken by themselves. Third, the resurrection theory is much better than the alternative theories, because even the possible existence of a capable external agent massively raises the probability of it happening the way it seemed to (i.e. he really rose from the dead).