A new Attribute?

[javid]

Hi

When God incarnated in Lord Jesus, Does made a new attribute fo himself?

 

[javid]

I mean before born of Lord Jesus that He was not incarnated and after that He became incarnated. So “being incarnated” can be a new Attribute For God.

 

[Sam_777]

(Genesis 3:8):
*“Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as **he was walking ***in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden.”

How GOD was walking before the incarnation

 

[javid]

(Genesis 3:8):
*“Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as **he was walking ***in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden.”

How GOD was walking before the incarnation

As Lord jesus said God is spirit(John4:24), so that does not mean that God bodily walked in heaven and does not mean incarnation.

And that’s not answer my question, because Lord Jesus borned bodily 2012 years ago and after that we can say God became flesh(John1:14).

I’m talking about God’s incarnation in Jesus.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hi

When God incarnated in Lord Jesus, Does made a new attribute fo himself?

Good question. It is one that has come up before. As far as we can give a speculative answer, the answer is no. The following is from " Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott, pg 153, Ques 16. 16. Objections against the Dogma of the Hypostatic Union
As a mysterium striete dictum the Hypostatic Union is indeed elevated beyond human reason (supra rationem) but on accoWlt of the harmony of faith and knowledge, it is not contrary to reason (contra rationem). Accordingly, human reason can deal with the objections raised against the…dogma

1. From the side of the assuming In regard to the unique quality ofthe assuming Divine Person (ex parte assumentis)
   it is objected that the Hypostatic Union contradicts the immutability of God (Celsus: cf. Origen, C. Celsum IV 14). The rejoinder to this is that the act of becoming man, as an operation of God ad extra, has no more induced a change in the Divine Essence than did the creation of the world, as it is only the execution in time of an eternal unchangeable resolve of will. Neither did the event of the Incarnation result in a change of the Divine Essence; for, after the assumption of a body the Logos was no more perfect and no less perfect than before. No change for the worse took place, because the Logos remains what It was; and no change for the better, because It already possessed in sublime manner all perfections of the human nature frotn all eternity. The Word becoming man means no more an intensification of the Divine perfection than does God’s Creation of the world. The change lay on the side of the human nature only, which was elevated to participation in the Personal Subsistence of the Logos. Cf. St. Thomas Sent. III. d. 6. q. 2. a 3 ad I : in persona composita
   quamvis sint plura bona quam in persona simplici • • . tamen persona composita non est maius bonum quam simplex.

But it is also a part of the Doctrine of the Faith that in God, there is no change. And this is a part of God’s Revelation as it says in the Scriptures in many places that in God there is no change. So on faith we see that the assumption by the Second Person of the Trinity of Christ’s human nature does not cause a change in God.

So God has revealed this to us and he does not lie or decieve. And from the side of reason we have the answer that I gave you from Ott.

 

[javid]

``

…

Hi , Thanks for the answer. But some questions:

1.Why do you claim that creation of the world induced a change in the Divine Essence? How do you prove that?

2.Why do you claim that the change lay on the side of the human nature only? Incarnation does not mean became God, But it means became human. So it must lay on Divine nature!

3.My question was not about change in God. I asked: When God incarnated in Lord Jesus, Does made a new attribute for himself?

Thanks

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hi , Thanks for the answer. But some questions:

1.Why do you claim that creation of the world induced a change in the Divine Essence? How do you prove that?

Well then, I just don’t understand what you are trying to say. Sorry.

Thanks

[/QUOTE]

 

[javid]

I didn’t make the claim, it was St. Thomas Aquinas and Theologians have used that as a speculative explanation for the fact. The fact is that it caused no change in the Divinity of God ( I.E. the Divine Essence ). That is what the Church teaches. We don’t have to " prove," it. It is a Revealed Mystery and cannot be proven by reason or by science, it is accepted on faith because God who revealed it cannot lie or deceive.

We need some reason for what we say, if else every one can claim every thing and say It is a mystery. For example a atheist can say world can exist without a God and it is a mystery!

On the other hand incarnation can’t mean the change in the human nature of Lord Jesus, because incarnation means became human. human is human! The Word was God(John1:1) & The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.(John1:14)

I trust in the word of God, But as I showed God’s word says the word was God and it became flesh! So I accept what God revealed.

In addition, My Question is not Biblical, I asked a logical question and need a logical answer.

Well then, I just don’t understand what you are trying to say. Sorry.

I mean God was not incarnated before the born of Lord Jesus and After that was incanated. Is being incarnated A new Attribute for him?

 

[javid]

???

 

[Linusthe2nd]

We need some reason for what we say, if else every one can claim every thing and say It is a mystery. For example a atheist can say world can exist without a God and it is a mystery!

On the other hand incarnation can’t mean the change in the human nature of Lord Jesus, because incarnation means became human. human is human! The Word was God(John1:1) & The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.(John1:14)

I trust in the word of God, But as I showed God’s word says the word was God and it became flesh! So I accept what God revealed.

In addition, My Question is not Biblical, I asked a logical question and need a logical answer.

I mean God was not incarnated before the born of Lord Jesus and After that was incanated. Is being incarnated A new Attribute for him?

You asked for an answer. I gave you an answer. I am not interested in a debate. A Revealed Mystery cannot be explained logically. I gave you a speculative reason. Accept it or not, it is indifferent to me. I gave you the Doctrine as taught by the Church. If you don’t want to accept that there is nothing I can do. Pax

 

[javid]

You asked for an answer. I gave you an answer. I am not interested in a debate. A Revealed Mystery cannot be explained logically. I gave you a speculative reason. Accept it or not, it is indifferent to me. I gave you the Doctrine as taught by the Church. If you don’t want to accept that there is nothing I can do. Pax

Yes, I’m looking for an answer, But what you said is not what Holy Bible says to us and is an answer fo another question. I didn’t asked about change, I asked about a new Attribute.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Hi , Thanks for the answer. But some questions:

2.Why do you claim that the change lay on the side of the human nature only? Incarnation does not mean became God, But it means became human. So it must lay on Divine nature!

3.My question was not about change in God. I asked: When God incarnated in Lord Jesus, Does made a new attribute for himself?

Thanks

1. I do not think it adds any attribute to God. I think incarnation implies relation. Omnipresence is an attribute, but being incarnate is not an attribute, as being a Creator is not an attribute. For when the Universe began, God became Creator of the Universe… this does not mean God changed or acquired a new attribute. Creator is His relation to the Universe.

Furthermore, when we say God became flesh, we mean that, in a mystical way, the divine nature and the human nature occupied the same space without mixing or intermingling with the human nature. This is the hypo-static union. The divine nature did not become human nature, it was joined in hypo-stasis, joined being a relation, not an attribute.

1. Just to be clear, to say God acquired a new attribute is to say that there is a change in God. An attribute is something inherent to God’s character and/or being. The hypo-static incarnation does nothing to change the nature of God.

This is my response, it’s the best I’ve got. Hope it helps.

 

[javid]

1. I do not think it adds any attribute to God. I think incarnation implies relation. Omnipresence is an attribute, but being incarnate is not an attribute, as being a Creator is not an attribute. For when the Universe began, God became Creator of the Universe… this does not mean God changed or acquired a new attribute. Creator is His relation to the Universe.

Furthermore, when we say God became flesh, we mean that, in a mystical way, the divine nature and the human nature occupied the same space without mixing or intermingling with the human nature. This is the hypo-static union. The divine nature did not become human nature, it was joined in hypo-stasis, joined being a relation, not an attribute.

1. Just to be clear, to say God acquired a new attribute is to say that there is a change in God. An attribute is something inherent to God’s character and/or being. The hypo-static incarnation does nothing to change the nature of God.

This is my response, it’s the best I’ve got. Hope it helps.

Hi, it helped me.

1.At first please explain what do you exacltly mean “relation” & “hypo-static union”. Thanks.

2.Attribute or relation! Any way God made a new property for himself after the born of Lord Jesus. My question is not about change, I mean “Is this property good?”

If yes, So God didn’t have that good property before that, and that means a defect in Him.

If no, So God had that bad property after that, and that means a defect in Him.

My problem is this.

God bless you in Lord Jesus.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Hi, it helped me.

1.At first please explain what do you exacltly mean “relation” & “hypo-static union”. Thanks.

2.Attribute or relation! Any way God made a new property for himself after the born of Lord Jesus. My question is not about change, I mean “Is this property good?”

If yes, So God didn’t have that good property before that, and that means a defect in Him.

If no, So God had that bad property after that, and that means a defect in Him.

My problem is this.

God bless you in Lord Jesus.

1. Relation is relative to something else. I walk on the floor, Mike is my friend if I have children, I become a parent which is not necessarily an attribute as it is a relation to my child.

Hypo-stasis is the belief that Christ has two natures (one divine, he other human) but is one person, and that these two natures do not mix together or become a hybrid nature, but remain distinct nature conjoined in one person-Jesus. But the divine nature did not become the human nature, God took on a relation, not an attribute

1. I would say property is basically another word for attribute. God did not add anything to Himself or take away anything from Himself when the Word become incarnate. Is it bad? No. Is it good? Yes, insofar as it led to the forgiveness of our sins and the reconciliation of our souls to God. It was God for God only in that it pleased Him to do so, but it was not God for God as if it were somehow beneficial in any type of advantageous way.

Does this help?

God’s peace.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Yes, I’m looking for an answer, But what you said is not what Holy Bible says to us and is an answer fo another question. I didn’t asked about change, I asked about a new Attribute.

You mean an new " attribute " like Goodness, Infinite, Eternal ? The answer is no. Read my comments again. Catholics do not decide what is true or not. Even what they read in the Bible is subject to authority of the Magisterium. The important thing is not what we think the Bible says, it is what the Church says it is.

 

[javid]

1. Relation is relative to something else. I walk on the floor, Mike is my friend if I have children, I become a parent which is not necessarily an attribute as it is a relation to my child.

Hypo-stasis is the belief that Christ has two natures (one divine, he other human) but is one person, and that these two natures do not mix together or become a hybrid nature, but remain distinct nature conjoined in one person-Jesus. But the divine nature did not become the human nature, God took on a relation, not an attribute

1. I would say property is basically another word for attribute. God did not add anything to Himself or take away anything from Himself when the Word become incarnate. Is it bad? No. Is it good? Yes, insofar as it led to the forgiveness of our sins and the reconciliation of our souls to God. It was God for God only in that it pleased Him to do so, but it was not God for God as if it were somehow beneficial in any type of advantageous way.

Does this help?

God’s peace.

O.K.

Did God take on a relation with himself or with another one?

 

[ApologiaSophia]

O.K.

Did God take on a relation with himself or with another one?

I would say God came into relation with flesh, thus the incarnation. But this does not add anything to God inherently, only relationally, which is not inherent.

 

[javid]

I would say God came into relation with flesh, thus the incarnation. But this does not add anything to God inherently, only relationally, which is not inherent.

O.K Thanks. But it is like what Nestorianism says: Jesus is not one person, but two: human person & Divine person.God’s second person(The Son) has a relation with the flesh who(whitch) is the human person of Jesus. They are separate and just have a relation with eachother.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

O.K Thanks. But it is like what Nestorianism says: Jesus is not one person, but two: human person & Divine person.God’s second person(The Son) has a relation with the flesh who(whitch) is the human person of Jesus. They are separate and just have a relation with eachother.

Woah good brother. Relation is not to be confused with personal relationship. Jesus is one person. There is no reason to believe Jesus is more than one person. Jesus has two natures, but two natures does mean two persons. One person, two natures. The divine nature of Christ has a relation with the human nature, which is that it is inseparably joined hypo-staticly, but i do not see where you are inferring this two persons business from.

Flesh is an attribute of Christ, who is a person, but this flesh is not commingled with the divine nature. Homousion. Jesus is one person, wholly human and divine, the two natures being distinct but inseparable, from his person. God is three persons of one substance. Therefore, since there was nothing added to or intermingled with the divine nature, God has not been changed or altered.

 

[javid]

Woah good brother. Relation is not to be confused with personal relationship. Jesus is one person. There is no reason to believe Jesus is more than one person. Jesus has two natures, but two natures does mean two persons. One person, two natures. The divine nature of Christ has a relation with the human nature, which is that it is inseparably joined hypo-staticly, but i do not see where you are inferring this two persons business from.

Flesh is an attribute of Christ, who is a person, but this flesh is not commingled with the divine nature. Homousion. Jesus is one person, wholly human and divine, the two natures being distinct but inseparable, from his person. God is three persons of one substance. Therefore, since there was nothing added to or intermingled with the divine nature, God has not been changed or altered.

God is a Self-existent and flesh is a Creature. Self-existent is not equal Creature. In such relation, we have two substances, or two beings or two persons: A God and a Creature. How can we imagine that God and his Creature are one person or one being?