Acts 1:11 (Please Read)

[TimGreeley]

C.S. Lewis was not a Catholic theologian - he was Anglican - and he rejected many of the Catholic Church’s teachings as seen in the following quote:

“The Roman Church where it differs from this universal tradition and specifically from apostolic Christianity I reject. Thus their theology about the B. V. M. [Blessed Virgin Mary] I reject because it seems utterly foreign to the New Testament: where indeed the words ‘Blessed is the womb that bore thee’ receive a rejoinder pointing in exactly the opposite direction. Their papalism seems equally foreign to the attitude of St. Paul towards St. Peter in the epistles. The doctrine of Transubstantiation insists in defining in a way which the New Testament seems to me not to countenance. In a word, the whole set-up of modern Romanism seems to me to be as much a provincial or local variation from the central, ancient tradition as any particular Protestant sect is. I must therefore reject their claims: though this does not mean rejecting particular things they way.”
Sourced at:intotheexpectation.blogspot.com/2011/10/c-s-lewis-on-roman-catholicism.html

C.S. Lewis’s quote is relevant to the topic at hand–which is Docetism. We’re not discussing Lewis’s religious affiliations. Docetism is condemned as heretical by the Church. Jesus’s brain could not hold all memories, nor could it think of all moments at the same time. The Church’s Diaphysite position supports this by saying Christ had two natures at the same time–one completely Human, and one completely Spiritual–as God. How they interacted so that they didn’t contravene one another is sheer mystery to us. But judging by Jesus’ life, the conclusion that he may have not always known who he was is scriptural. He was 30 when his ministry began. And it only began after his own soul-searching and fasting in the wilderness…

 

[jonathan_hili]

The story of the Fish and Loaves is a logical impossibility. You can’t make 1+1=3. But that’s what Jesus did. As for dry water and seeing something as discrete colors at the same time, this is not impossible for God. God is God. If it required your eyes and the object itself to have physical properties not found on Earth–to look at something as two colors at the same time–I’m sure God can do it.

Multiplying fish and loaves isn’t a logical or metaphysical impossibility - God can create out of nothing. But this is very different from saying that the same person can have contradictory properties and be the same person.

I’m sorry - huh? God can make dry water? That doesn’t even make sense! I mean, water cannot be water if it is dry. You can’t just say nonsense is possible because God is God.

Are you a Docetist? You do know Jesus had a human body? With a human brain–correct? How could Jesus have all memories, let alone–all moments–present to him in a human body? Are you aware of what you’re saying? Look at this relevant quote from C.S. Lewis:

“And I certainly think that Christ, in the flesh, was not omniscient–if only because a human brain could not, presumably, be the vehicle of omniscient consciousness, and to say that Our Lord’s thinking was not really conditioned by the size and shape of His brain might be to deny the real incarnation and become a Docetist.” (The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis)

Of course, I’m not a docestist.

I’m not saying that Jesus has all memories present to him. What I said was, if - and it is just a speculation, I’ve no opinion on it either way - Jesus had memories that belonged to his personhood (i.e. the Second Person of the Trinity) before the incarnation, they wouldn’t technically be memories (at least, not in the way we understand them) because the Second Person would have had all reality present to him. That could be one explanation as to why Jesus could know the future, even in his human nature, because he had “memories” of the future in his divine personhood.

I would agree that Christ in his human nature is not omniscient, but it doesn’t follow that God (i.e. the Father) couldn’t infuse in Jesus’ brain or mind certain knowledge or memories that would have been his by his divine nature.

 

[jonathan_hili]

But judging by Jesus’ life, the conclusion that he may have not always known who he was is scriptural. He was 30 when his ministry began. And it only began after his own soul-searching and fasting in the wilderness…

I’d be careful about concluding this. We really don’t know. The young Jesus in the Temple obviously had some kind of knowledge or awareness of who he was. Moreover, in John’s Gospel, there is an awareness by Jesus of his personhood concomitant with his baptism, that is, before his temptation in the wilderness.

 

[runningdude]

How did they watch Jesus go into heaven? That’s the way he will return. That is what the two men in white said–correct?

The two men in white did not tell the men of Galilee not to look into the sky–they asked a question as to why they were. You are drawing a conclusion from this that I am not sure the text indicates and really does not seem in keeping with other passages or tradition. We all know Jesus will return from the sky–should we all be standing around looking up at the sky watching for his return or should we be busy doing the work of Christ?

Peace of Christ,
Mark

Upon further reflection, I had come to that same conclusion; that the angels were questioning why the Apostles were just standing there when there was work to be done and Good News to be spread.

As Tim Greeley pointed out himself, immediately following this mild chastisement, Saint Peter took command and appointed a successor to Judas. Saint Peter had begun the work left for the Apostles.

 

[TimGreeley]

Multiplying fish and loaves isn’t a logical or metaphysical impossibility - God can create out of nothing. But this is very different from saying that the same person can have contradictory properties and be the same person.

I’m sorry - huh? God can make dry water? That doesn’t even make sense! I mean, water cannot be water if it is dry. You can’t just say nonsense is possible because God is God.

Of course, I’m not a docestist.

I’m not saying that Jesus has all memories present to him. What I said was, if - and it is just a speculation, I’ve no opinion on it either way - Jesus had memories that belonged to his personhood (i.e. the Second Person of the Trinity) before the incarnation, they wouldn’t technically be memories (at least, not in the way we understand them) because the Second Person would have had all reality present to him. That could be one explanation as to why Jesus could know the future, even in his human nature, because he had “memories” of the future in his divine personhood.

I would agree that Christ in his human nature is not omniscient, but it doesn’t follow that God (i.e. the Father) couldn’t infuse in Jesus’ brain or mind certain knowledge or memories that would have been his by his divine nature.

Jonathan, you do you agree that the Word from time memorial necessarily has and “had” properties inherently different than the physical, human Jesus? Right? This is the thread of argument you’re using to say that the Word can’t incarnate itself physically–on this Earth–as infinitely as it may want.

While I don’t think your theoretical absurdities are in any way analagous to the Word incarnating itself at any point in time at will, they still are just human absurdities. I can easily imagine God making me a cup of water, that if I thew it on my face or swallowed it whole, it wouldn’t wet one square centimeter of my skin’s epidermis or the epithelium of my mouth and throat. That would be dry water.

 

[TimGreeley]

“Jesus” didn’t descend from heaven (the sky) in the first place because there was no Jesus, there was only the Second Person of the Trinity. He had to take on human form to be human, which entailed being born of a human, and living and dying as a human. I wouldn’t say Jesus is “humility incarnate” (since I’m not sure what exactly that means - unless you’re saying that his actions show the complete humility of God) but rather he is “human incarnate”.

Jonathan, if God really wanted you to know that Jesus is the Lord, why didn’t he make Jesus *“come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven” *in the first place? Do you doubt that God couldn’t make a Human without a Mother from the air under your nostrils? Why didn’t he arrive like the Lord from the Cloud to Moses did? There is only one real answer to this. It was part of his message of humility. If you don’t think Jesus is humility incarnate, I’m not sure if you’re a real Christian. The Devil tempted him with all the kingdoms on Earth. That is called humility incarnate. And it’s the only way you reach salvation through emulation of it.

 

[Michael57]

Mark, why didn’t Jesus arrive from the sky in the first place?

Because He is/was/always will be God’s Only Begotten Son, his birth being prophesied in the OT. The birth in Bethlehem to the virgin Mary, spouse of Joseph.

There is no discussion, or prophecy about a “rebirth” or “reincarnation” as you propose that I am aware of, yet there is plenty about His return in great glory in both the OT & NT.

The prophecy about the Messiah, the Christ, caused confusion in the Jewish scholars looking for an earthly King, to bring about God’s Kingdom. None of those Prophets ever discussed two births.

I know from what you’ve already posted that you have no great respect for the Early Church Fathers, but they were a part of the Magisterium and passed along Sacred Tradition. Correct me if I am wrong in my reading of what you posted here.

One of them, Justin Martyr, in his Dialog With Trypho, explained to Trypho (a Jewish Philosopher) and his philosopher companions that the OT spoke at length about the Incarnation. While you may not care about his instruction and argument, he did use an abundance of scripture from the OT to prove his point. Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah that Jews from ancient times were looking for and were expecting, and still are expecting in many sects in Judaism.

You are arguing for a re-Birth of the Son. Would this idea not have been reflected in other passages?

If what you are proposing is reasonable, then somewhere, some-when, it would have been discussed.

The only discussion of multiple incarnations that I am aware of are in the writings of the Essenes, and Valentian (the Aeon, Secret Teachings, and others which the New Age has brought back), but they were addressed by Ireneaus in “Against Heresies” in his first book on the subject.

So - Do you think that there are other scriptures in the OT or NT, or tradition in the Church to back up this particular interpretation of this scripture?

Also, as an aside, I was not aware that the NASB had a Catholic Edition. I rely on my NRSV (CE), but I am looking to buy a new D-R for study. Is the NASB published in a Catholic Edition?

 

[TimGreeley]

Because He is/was/always will be God’s Only Begotten Son, his birth being prophesied in the OT.

There is no discussion, or prophecy about a “rebirth” or “reincarnation” as you propose that I am aware of, yet there is plenty about His return in great glory in both the OT & NT.

The prophecy about the Messiah, the Christ, caused confusion in the Jewish scholars looking for an earthly King, to bring about God’s Kingdom. None of those Prophets ever discussed two births.

I know from what you’ve already posted that you have no great respect for the Early Church Fathers, but they were a part of the Magisterium and passed along Sacred Tradition. Correct me if I am wrong in my reading of what you posted here.

One of them, Justin Martyr, in his Dialog With Trypho, explained to Trypho (a Jewish Philosopher) and his philosopher companions that the OT spoke at length about the Incarnation. While you may not care about his instruction and argument, he did use an abundance of scripture from the OT to prove his point. Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah that Jews from ancient times were looking for and were expecting, and still are expecting in many sects in Judaism.

You are arguing for a re-Birth of the Son. Would this idea not have been reflected in other passages?

If what you are proposing is reasonable, then somewhere, some-when, it would have been discussed.

The only discussion of multiple incarnations that I am aware of are in the writings of the Essenes, and Valentian (the Aeon, Secret Teachings, and others which the New Age has brought back), but they were addressed by Ireneaus in “Against Heresies” in his first book on the subject.

So - Do you think that there are other scriptures in the OT or NT, or tradition in the Church to back up this particular interpretation of this scripture?

Also, as an aside, I was not aware that the NASB had a Catholic Edition. I rely on my NRSV (CE), but I am looking to buy a new D-R for study. Is the NASB published in a Catholic Edition?

First off, I’m sorry about quoting the NASB–my mistake. I thought it was Catholic approved. But it is generally very similar to other Catholic-approved bibles I’ve read. I’ll be quoting from the **NRSV (CE) **or the **Douay-Rhiems **from now on.

First off, I have complete respect for the Early Church Fathers. But I don’t think you’re understanding the nature of scripture and revelation as it was revealed ***in the time of ***Jesus. The Pharisees knew scripture, and they had utmost respect for its fidelity. Their interpretation wasn’t technically incorrect per se–but as Jesus says–they didn’t have ***his truth in them *** to recognize who he was even without scripture.

Do you realize–as you should as someone who’s familiar with the OT, that many aspects of Christ’s advent are not revealed even in the most oblique fashion through the OT’s scriptural prophecy? That God was going to incarnate himself as a human? Or that he would begin a healing ministry of miracle-working and go willingly to his death? And, most importantly, that there would be two separate advents? One where he dies, and then another for his kingdom and judgement? Let alone the destruction of the First Church, and the creation of an entirely different Second Church where Gentiles are part of the picture?

I’m not saying there is anything much substantial in scripture that leans to the rebirth perspective–except for this topic’s passage–and that shouldn’t surprise us! There wasn’t anything very substantial or discretely clear in the OT about Christ when he arrived!!

 

[Michael57]

I’m not saying there is anything much substantial in scripture that leans to the rebirth perspective–except for this topic’s passage–and that shouldn’t surprise us!

Well, I do appreciate that Christ’s Advent was not understood at the time that He was born. Some of the prophecies were hundreds (Daniel, Isaiah, to name but a few) if not thousands (Genesis) of years prior. And it is truly amazing, and a great privilege to be here now, understanding that which was hidden for ages, and is now known in near fullness.

Justin was quite illuminating to me on that point of being hidden to God’s Chosen People, so yes having read the thoughts of some of our Early Church Fathers, I do think that I understand it better than some. Or I should say, better than I used to understand it.

I also understand that Christ taught the Apostles after His resurrection about the scriptures that proclaimed Him and His Kingdom, prior to His Ascension. He brought them into the fullness of understanding, and that is what they passed down to us through the Church.

I was told a long time ago, that scripture never goes against scripture, and those places that seem at odds are mysteries that only God or the Magisterium can illuminate.

And also that one piece of scripture pulled out does not a doctrine make!

Looking at Justin, I have seen many scriptures regarding the Advent and regarding Christ from the Old Testament, and looking also at Peter, Paul, John, and the gospels when reference is made back to fulfilled prophecy in Christ. And that’s just about the Advent, not the Second Coming. Marana tha!

Sadly, I haven’t seen anything that supports your proposed interpretation, which you yourself admit there may be little, or even none. And I did look. Yet I rejoice that we have found some common understanding on this though.

Thank you for the opportunity to reaffirm my understanding of this, as I had not previously considered it…

If no one else has offered, I welcome you to the forum. And if they have, then welcome again.

May God richly bless you.

 

[TimGreeley]

Well, I do appreciate that Christ’s Advent was not understood at the time that He was born. Some of the prophecies were hundreds (Daniel, Isaiah, to name but a few) if not thousands (Genesis) of years prior. And it is truly amazing, and a great privilege to be here now, understanding that which was hidden for ages, and is now known in near fullness.

Justin was quite illuminating to me on that point of being hidden to God’s Chosen People, so yes having read the thoughts of some of our Early Church Fathers, I do think that I understand it better than some. Or I should say, better than I used to understand it.

I also understand that Christ taught the Apostles after His resurrection about the scriptures that proclaimed Him and His Kingdom, prior to His Ascension. He brought them into the fullness of understanding, and that is what they passed down to us through the Church.

I was told a long time ago, that scripture never goes against scripture, and those places that seem at odds are mysteries that only God or the Magisterium can illuminate.

And also that one piece of scripture pulled out does not a doctrine make!

Looking at Justin, I have seen many scriptures regarding the Advent and regarding Christ from the Old Testament, and looking also at Peter, Paul, John, and the gospels when reference is made back to fulfilled prophecy in Christ. And that’s just about the Advent, not the Second Coming. Marana tha!

Sadly, I haven’t seen anything that supports your proposed interpretation, which you yourself admit there may be little, or even none. And I did look. Yet I rejoice that we have found some common understanding on this though.

Thank you for the opportunity to reaffirm my understanding of this, as I had not previously considered it…

If no one else has offered, I welcome you to the forum. And if they have, then welcome again.

May God richly bless you.

As I was explaining to Jonathan Hill above, what supports my new perspective on this matter is that the life of Jesus isn’t in character with what the literal interpretation of the second coming is cursorily taken as. As Jesus said "I am the door", I look at his description of his second coming "on the clouds" with the same broad spectacles any man I think should. If God loves us so dearly and wanted us to know that Jesus is lord, why didn’t he make him come "on the clouds" to begin with? Just as God came to Moses in the desert, he could of done the same, exact thing with Jesus. And that’s where I believe the entire existence of Jesus is God’s demonstration that humility and selflessness are our salvation. God showed us the path to take through Jesus, and we have to try to emulate it. As I’ll say it again, many aspects of the advent of Jesus were explicitly absent from scripture. His Apostles even doubted him. Please read the Gospels again and remember Jesus’s consternation at how much his ministry relied on his miracle-working (Matthew 10:15).

His few, scattered and oblique scriptural references in the OT were all on purpose in my perspective. Why? Because the entire mystery of the truth of Jesus is his Love, Selflessness, and Humility. If any Pharisee was to rely completely on the criteria of the Messiah in prophecy to judge Jesus, he would be relying on something other than his own reciprocal Love, Seflessness, and Humility. And Jesus and salvation is and only those three things.

 

[Michael57]

As I was explaining to Jonathan Hill above, what supports my new perspective on this matter is that the life of Jesus isn’t in character with what the literal interpretation of the second coming is cursorily taken as. As Jesus said "I am the door", I look at his description of his second coming "on the clouds" with the same broad spectacles any man I think should. If God loves us so dearly and wanted us to know that Jesus is lord, why didn’t he make him come "on the clouds" to begin with? Just as God came to Moses in the desert, he could of done the same, exact thing with Jesus. And that’s where I believe the entire existence of Jesus is God’s demonstration that humility and selflessness are our salvation. God showed us the path to take through Jesus, and we have to try to emulate it. As I’ll say it again, many aspects of the advent of Jesus were explicitly absent from scripture. His Apostles even doubted him. Please read the Gospels again and remember Jesus’s consternation at how much his ministry relied on his miracle-working (Matthew 10:15).

His few, scattered and oblique scriptural references in the OT were all on purpose in my perspective. Why? Because the entire mystery of the truth of Jesus is his Love, Selflessness, and Humility. If any Pharisee was to rely completely on the criteria of the Messiah in prophecy to judge Jesus, he would be relying on something other than his own reciprocal Love, Seflessness, and Humility. And Jesus and salvation is and only those three things.

Well, as long as you don’t strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Jonathan, you do you agree that the Word from time memorial necessarily has and “had” properties inherently different than the physical, human Jesus? Right? This is the thread of argument you’re using to say that the Word can’t incarnate itself physically–on this Earth–as infinitely as it may want.

Not really, Tim. I agree with you that the Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity, can incarnate himself as many times as he so desires - there’s nothing problematic about that. However, now that the Logos has incarnated himself as Jesus, that is, a particular human being, were he to reincarnate, Jesus would no longer exist, that is, the person of Jesus. That’s my argument. The Logos would still exist certainly, but not Jesus. I guess that’s why people who believe in reincarnation talk about: “Oh, I was Genghis Khan in a past life” or “I must have been very wicked in a past life” because that person they were (if reincarnation was true) no longer exists. So, I suppose, were the Second Person of the Trinity to reincarnate himself, that new human being, say, Tom Smith, could say, “Oh, in a past life, I was Jesus of Nazareth”. However, Jesus of Nazareth would no longer exist.

While I don’t think your theoretical absurdities are in any way analagous to the Word incarnating itself at any point in time at will, they still are just human absurdities. I can easily imagine God making me a cup of water, that if I thew it on my face or swallowed it whole, it wouldn’t wet one square centimeter of my skin’s epidermis or the epithelium of my mouth and throat. That would be dry water.

My examples were analogous to the Logos reincarnating and yet remaining Jesus, not reincarnating as such.

Umm I’m sure you can imagine God doing that, but it still doesn’t make sense, since one of the necessary properties of water (that is, the combination of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms) is that it is wet. Perhaps if thrown on your body it wouldn’t wet you, but that would be by some kind of divine intervention, not by nature.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Jonathan, if God really wanted you to know that Jesus is the Lord, why didn’t he make Jesus *“come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven” *in the first place? Do you doubt that God couldn’t make a Human without a Mother from the air under your nostrils? Why didn’t he arrive like the Lord from the Cloud to Moses did? There is only one real answer to this. It was part of his message of humility. If you don’t think Jesus is humility incarnate, I’m not sure if you’re a real Christian. The Devil tempted him with all the kingdoms on Earth. That is called humility incarnate. And it’s the only way you reach salvation through emulation of it.

I’m not doubting that God humbled himself - as Paul makes quite clear - to take on the condition of a human being in the full sense. I wouldn’t say he’s “humility incarnate” (not because I’m not a real Christian - in fact, I’m not sure where professing Jesus as “humility incarnate” is in Creed - you’ll have to show me) because humility, being a mental concept, cannot be incarnated any more than the number 1 or freedom. I guess you could say, God’s incarnation is the epitome of humility, sure.

The only way to reach salvation, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, is through faith and obedience through the grace of Jesus Christ, as a result of his meritorious death and resurrection. Obviously, we are called to emulate Jesus in doing this. However, I’d caution a little, as some people might emulate Jesus as a great teacher but still reject God.

 

[jonathan_hili]

If any Pharisee was to rely completely on the criteria of the Messiah in prophecy to judge Jesus, he would be relying on something other than his own reciprocal Love, Seflessness, and Humility. And Jesus and salvation is and only those three things.

Sorry again, Tim, I’m just not getting it. Yes, Jesus is the paragon of love, selflessness and humility, and we should live in this manner as his disciples. But there’s more to it than that. What about faith or hope? I wouldn’t want to restrict Jesus or his salvific grace to “only those three things”, especially since it is not the teacher of the Church.

I think you’re right to highlight these virtues, as they are extremely difficult to live out in our Christian vocation and form our characters by, but, as always with God, there is always more.

 

[TimGreeley]

Well, as long as you don’t strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

Remember what Jesus says to that, ***“With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19) *** ; )

 

[TimGreeley]

Not really, Tim. I agree with you that the Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity, can incarnate himself as many times as he so desires - there’s nothing problematic about that. However, now that the Logos has incarnated himself as Jesus, that is, a particular human being, were he to reincarnate, Jesus would no longer exist, that is, the person of Jesus. That’s my argument. The Logos would still exist certainly, but not Jesus. I guess that’s why people who believe in reincarnation talk about: “Oh, I was Genghis Khan in a past life” or “I must have been very wicked in a past life” because that person they were (if reincarnation was true) no longer exists. So, I suppose, were the Second Person of the Trinity to reincarnate himself, that new human being, say, Tom Smith, could say, “Oh, in a past life, I was Jesus of Nazareth”. However, Jesus of Nazareth would no longer exist.

Jesus is the Logos, do you not understand this? Whether this new human body of the Logos is discretely different by any measure of hair color, genetic code, or fingerprints–it would still be the old Jesus. By your reasoning, you’re implying that God himself was essentially different every separate time he incarnated himself to Moses in the Pentateuch. Do you not see your error here?

My examples were analogous to the Logos reincarnating and yet remaining Jesus, not reincarnating as such.

Umm I’m sure you can imagine God doing that, but it still doesn’t make sense, since one of the necessary properties of water (that is, the combination of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms) is that it is wet. Perhaps if thrown on your body it wouldn’t wet you, but that would be by some kind of divine intervention, not by nature.

“Necessary” property? No, it is a controlled property of the Universe and its physical laws. There is absolutely no necessity of it being wet if God can do something about it. God is God. And as exactly as you said, only by divine intervention. How else do you think Jesus is going to arrive next?

 

[TimGreeley]

I’m not doubting that God humbled himself - as Paul makes quite clear - to take on the condition of a human being in the full sense. I wouldn’t say he’s “humility incarnate” (not because I’m not a real Christian - in fact, I’m not sure where professing Jesus as “humility incarnate” is in Creed - you’ll have to show me) because humility, being a mental concept, cannot be incarnated any more than the number 1 or freedom. I guess you could say, God’s incarnation is the epitome of humility, sure.

The only way to reach salvation, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, is through faith and obedience through the grace of Jesus Christ, as a result of his meritorious death and resurrection. Obviously, we are called to emulate Jesus in doing this. However, I’d caution a little, as some people might emulate Jesus as a great teacher but still reject God.

What do you think I mean by emulate Jesus? Are you kidding around? He says it himself every sentence, to follow him–if you’ve so familiar with the Gospels. And explicitly not as an example of pedagogy–but as an example of Love, Selflessness, and Humility.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Jesus is the Logos, do you not understand this? Whether this new human body of the Logos is discretely different by any measure of hair color, genetic code, or fingerprints–it would still be the old Jesus. By your reasoning, you’re implying that God himself was essentially different every separate time he incarnated himself to Moses in the Pentateuch. Do you not see your error here?

Sure, Jesus and the Logos are the same person now, but not before the incarnation. Before the incarnation, there was no Jesus. Therefore, if the Logos were to reincarnate, there would no longer be any Jesus as the Logos would become a different human being. I don’t see how it would still be “old Jesus” if no physical or familial properties applicable to Jesus (in human terms) applied to this new person. A human being is a body-soul composite. If all that is important in terms of human identity and being is the soul, and not the body, what you’re saying would be fine, but that’s not the case. That is why Jesus physically rose from the dead, why he still had the marks of the crucifixion, why people could still recognise him as Jesus. Jesus, the Second Person of the Trinity, the Divine Word, now has a resurrected human body and this body is integral to his identity.

No, I’m not saying God is essentially different in his past manifestations (I wouldn’t call them incarnations), but once God took on human nature then He threw in His lot with humanity, and what it means to be human.

Would you say, then, that a new incarnation of “Jesus” could be female?

“Necessary” property? No, it is a controlled property of the Universe and its physical laws. There is absolutely no necessity of it being wet if God can do something about it. God is God. And as exactly as you said, only by divine intervention. How else do you think Jesus is going to arrive next?

Water does have the necessary property of wetness - if God changes that, which I guess He can, it wouldn’t be water any more. Just like, a circle has the necessary property of roundness, or a human being of free will. I suppose God could call a square a circle or make a human without free will but then these things would change what they are. Similarly, “dry” water would no longer be water, but some other substance.

I don’t know how Jesus is going to return. All I know, is that he can’t be reincarnated and remain Jesus.

 

[TimGreeley]

Sorry again, Tim, I’m just not getting it. Yes, Jesus is the paragon of love, selflessness and humility, and we should live in this manner as his disciples. But there’s more to it than that. What about faith or hope? I wouldn’t want to restrict Jesus or his salvific grace to “only those three things”, especially since it is not the teacher of the Church.

I think you’re right to highlight these virtues, as they are extremely difficult to live out in our Christian vocation and form our characters by, but, as always with God, there is always more.

What do you think your Love, Selflessness, and Humility in emulation of Christ is based upon? Faith and hope!! This is where the nasty rubric and wedge of Justification created Protestantism. All your emulation is based upon your faith–and his grace. But, that emulation is absolutely necessary.

 

[jonathan_hili]

What do you think I mean by emulate Jesus? Are you kidding around? He says it himself every sentence, to follow him–if you’ve so familiar with the Gospels. And explicitly not as an example of pedagogy–but as an example of Love, Selflessness, and Humility.

If by “emulate” you mean discipleship, and a life of faith, hope and all, it’s all good - in fact, it’s perfect!