Alien Worlds? More Q's than meets the eye

[spauline]

Hi, Scott -

I was thinking last night, after I went to bed, about having read all your articles on this. I think you have superbly presented a deep and faithful analysis of that part of the OT. I wanted you to know that.

Like Areopagite, I was overwhelmed at the prospect of reading all of them. But, I did. About 3/4 of the way through, I could begin to see what you have done. And, what you did is quite respectable, yes indeed.

It’s, just that it looks to me, like you’re projecting Earth’s condition onto other planets. And, I’m not sure that that applies. So, that’s where I’m at.

Thank you, don, for the compliment. I am humbly grateful. Don’t worry, I accept you where you are at. We are all brothers and trying to contemplate these questions.

For the shorter response and summary of my hellishly long diatribe, look at the post above to Areopigate. It should be a little easier to grasp.

I pray blessings for you!

scott

 

[donsnow]

Thank you, don, for the compliment. I am humbly grateful. Don’t worry, I accept you where you are at. We are all brothers and trying to contemplate these questions.

For the shorter response and summary of my hellishly long diatribe, look at the post above to Areopigate. It should be a little easier to grasp.

I pray blessings for you!

scott

You’re welcome, Scott -

That was quite an accomplishment and I can appreciate the effort of both thought and writing that went into it. I’ve written a few private and long essays myself.

OK, I read your post to Areopagite, and see more clearly where you’re at. On that, I wonder if we on Earth are the really thick headed, or stiff necked, people of the Universe.

What I’m leading into, if there were a or any fallen planets, couldn’t they be one up on us, fall for the first lie and resist the second lie? Because they’re more spiritual than us, and not as easily misled?

P.S.
Scott, a sincere thank you, for your blessing and being in your prayers. Know that all of us here are in my prayers, too.

 

[Areopagite]

In one of his epistles, Paul wrote that Christ’s crucifixtion cleansed all creation. Which, makes sense. Since Christ is the God of gods, King of kings in all creation… then, although not obvious, he saved all creation by his sacrifice. So, my answer is ‘yes’.

This is a compelling point.

Before I respond to it, do you know (or does anyone know) the exact passage Paul says this. I’m having an annoyingly unsuccessful time trying to find what exactly he says.

This format didn’t show your quote of St. Aquinas, but I read it. Well… deep breath … I guess a disagree with this church father about multiple incarnations of the second person of the Holy Trinity.

To comfort you, Aquinas isn’t a Church Father (that’s because he doesn’t meet one of the requirements, namely of being part of the Early Church). Nonetheless, he is a Doctor of the Church. But he’s certainly not infallible.

Now, are you saying that it’s intrinsically impossible for God to incarnate Himself more than once or are you saying that He simply will not, judging by the fact that it would contradict something He previously said or did?

Let me ask this first: was Jesus always the God of gods, King of Kings, Savior, and the Good Shepard, etc.?

Now, does He have these titles simply because of His divine nature, or because of the hypostatic union of the divine and human nature, or because He (as Jesus) did something particular that earned him these titles. Or does the answer depend on which title you’re talking about? Or am I not making sense at all?

 

[Areopagite]

if the world that falls has limited understanding of God, i am saying that the nature of the fall in ANY world would be the same, TWO principles:

1. Don’t care about God’s truth and to do His Will (no faith, no repentance, which is opposed to the Baptismal disposition)
2. Live for the material creation rather than for God (“spiritually fornicate” with the world and its superficial goods rather than live for the marriage with God that will never end, that is, against the ultimate spiritual meaning of Marraige)

So I am saying, the devil would use these same two primary lies in ANY created world. THEN, i am saying lie number 1 comes first, THEN lie number 2, because if the creatures don’t buy into lie number 1, then they ARE living for God, and therefore don’t believe lie number 2.

I think this makes sense. I have no coherent objections to it. I think I don’t have any incoherent ones either.

THEN, i am saying that because the creatures will be slow, they will first digest lie number 1), which would prompt God to destroy that world and spare a righteous remnant (like the Flood), and THEN the world will digest lie number 2 (seek a materialistic, selfishly and arrogantly ambitious glory), prompting God to divide the communication of the world and spiritually marry a remnant Nation, so as to begin the derivatively Prefiguring Covenant (the Jewish One)

I argue that in any world, the Derivatively Jewish Covenant is necessary to prepare the world to accept the Fullness of the New, if only because children can only use pictures in the beginning before they can contemplate the abstractions that the pictures represent.

This is assuming that all possible alien psychology and epistemology for that matter is basically the same a human’s. A prevalent theological theory regarding aliens is that their natures are ontologically somewhere between those of humans and angels. Perhaps some aliens would have the ability to immediately grasp/intuit truths, unlike the slow reasoning process that humans are given.

Also, I argue that any world in the fall, would tend to flip Genesis: rather than accepting that man is created in the Image and Likeness of God, they will tend to see God in the image of man, and so, because fallen man is antagonistic, suffering, and selfish, they will project they will project these conditions onto the Divine, that is, be pagan, especially polytheistic.

I think I agree here.

Given this, imagine God trying to get across to such a world, that not only is God pure spirit and all powerful and benevolent, but that He is three Divine Persons in One Nature and that one of them has become a man? How will that go down, when pagans tend to see their rulers as gods themselves (as in pagan Roman Emperors, and the Greek King Antiochus of the Maccabees)?

But perhaps an alien race might be naturally gifted enough to know better, not requiring a very long salvation history. And perhaps not very much one at all. No?

So I am saying, actually, that the greater ages of Flood, Babel and Prefiguring Covenant would be needed in ANY world that fell, based on the common characteristics that would exist, seeing as the essence of the fallen nature in ANY material creature would be similar to what is like in humans, regardless of what the alien creature might look like physically.

Maybe. I don’t know though. If an alien intrinsically thought about things differently enough, perhaps not. But I can’t argue coherently on this point. I have no idea. You brought up some very interesting points though. I’m definitely going to roll this over in my head for a few years.

 

[spauline]

You’re welcome, Scott -

That was quite an accomplishment and I can appreciate the effort of both thought and writing that went into it. I’ve written a few private and long essays myself.

OK, I read your post to Areopagite, and see more clearly where you’re at. On that, I wonder if we on Earth are the really thick headed, or stiff necked, people of the Universe.

What I’m leading into, if there were a or any fallen planets, couldn’t they be one up on us, fall for the first lie and resist the second lie? Because they’re more spiritual than us, and not as easily misled?

P.S.
Scott, a sincere thank you, for your blessing and being in your prayers. Know that all of us here are in my prayers, too.

Dear Don, you are welcome, and thank you for your prayers. As a side note, i would say, the acceptance of lie 1 implies lie 2. Why? Cuz if you don’t care about knowing God and loving Him [lie 1], then you are clearly not living for Him and therefore live for what? What else is there except this world? Hence, lie 2. THerefore, I argue, any world would go like this.

IMHO.

Blessings again to you, Don.

Scott

 

[spauline]

I think this makes sense. I have no coherent objections to it. I think I don’t have any incoherent ones either.

This is assuming that all possible alien psychology and epistemology for that matter is basically the same a human’s. A prevalent theological theory regarding aliens is that their natures are ontologically somewhere between those of humans and angels. Perhaps some aliens would have the ability to immediately grasp/intuit truths, unlike the slow reasoning process that humans are given.

I think I agree here.

But perhaps an alien race might be naturally gifted enough to know better, not requiring a very long salvation history. And perhaps not very much one at all. No?

Maybe. I don’t know though. If an alien intrinsically thought about things differently enough, perhaps not. But I can’t argue coherently on this point. I have no idea. You brought up some very interesting points though. I’m definitely going to roll this over in my head for a few years.

Well, thnx, for your responses, Aeropigate.

For now, i would only argue that there is no intermediate condition between angel and material rational creatures. An angel is pure spirit. A material creature has a rational soul and a material body. I don’t think the persons of ancient Egypt were any less intelligent than we are, just ignorant. It is more a question of HISTORICAL maturation. But more on that later. After all, modern Jews live side by side with Christians, but they still don’t accept the Gospel. Protestants live along side Catholics, but they still don’t convert.

I think it is more a historical question. Only through time and stages are the problems worked out.

 

[donsnow]

Hi, Areopagite -

This is a compelling point.

Before I respond to it, do you know (or does anyone know) the exact passage Paul says this. I’m having an annoyingly unsuccessful time trying to find what exactly he says.

Gee, , I’ve searched my Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Need to get a Catholic one) under ‘cleansed’, ‘creation’, ‘crucifixion’ and then under ‘sacrifice’, in case that word was used instead of ‘crucifixion’. I’m going to have to look further, in that tome. Give me some time.

To comfort you, Aquinas isn’t a Church Father (that’s because he doesn’t meet one of the requirements, namely of being part of the Early Church). Nonetheless, he is a Doctor of the Church. But he’s certainly not infallible.

Thanks; it just discomforts me, to disagree with whom I value as an authority.

Now, are you saying that it’s intrinsically impossible for God to incarnate Himself more than once or are you saying that He simply will not, judging by the fact that it would contradict something He previously said or did?

Good distinction, I’m saying the latter. At the very beginning, our Christ was with the Heavenly Father. That same Christ incarnated into Mary’s womb and was named Jesus after he was born. He lived, ministered, and died.
He says, “It is appointed unto man to die but once, and after that the judgment” or words pretty close to that, with the same meaning. Jesus Christ will not die again. He is started from the beginning; he is personified (made incarnate) in Jesus, there won’t ever be another Word/Light who gives eternal life to his followers in the universe. He’s the only one. So, it’s something He previously did.

Now, does He have these titles simply because of His divine nature, or because of the hypostatic union of the divine and human nature, or because He (as Jesus) did something particular that earned him these titles. Or does the answer depend on which title you’re talking about? Or am I not making sense at all?

Your making sense. He has those titles, to my understanding, because of all three: because he’s divine and because of his hypostatic nature and because of what he did. He earned those titles by incarnating and then being faithful unto death and by doing what his Heavenly Father sent him to do, while he was here. He fulfilled the OT prophecies about himself.

 

[donsnow]

Dear Don, you are welcome, and thank you for your prayers. As a side note, i would say, the acceptance of lie 1 implies lie 2. Why? Cuz if you don’t care about knowing God and loving Him [lie 1], then you are clearly not living for Him and therefore live for what? What else is there except this world? Hence, lie 2. THerefore, I argue, any world would go like this.

IMHO.

Blessings again to you, Don.

Scott

Dear Scott,

And, I’m asking, if they were weak only, couldn’t they repent having being deceived by Lie 1 and reject Lie 2?

Also, imho

And, may you be blessed in all your doings, Scott.

Don

 

[Areopagite]

Gee, , I’ve searched my Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Need to get a Catholic one) under ‘cleansed’, ‘creation’, ‘crucifixion’ and then under ‘sacrifice’, in case that word was used instead of ‘crucifixion’. I’m going to have to look further, in that tome. Give me some time.

No problem.

Good distinction, I’m saying the latter. At the very beginning, our Christ was with the Heavenly Father. That same Christ incarnated into Mary’s womb and was named Jesus after he was born. He lived, ministered, and died.

But don’t you agree that in the beginning, the hypostatic union wasn’t in place yet? Didn’t the Incarnation happen at the annunciation, not at the beginning of time? It may have been planned, but it chronologically hadn’t happened yet. And doesn’t “Christ” refer to the Incarnate Word and not the Unincarnate Word? Hence, I think I may disagree with you that Christ was with the Heavenly Father at the beginning. I think it’s an important distinction. John carefully talks about the “Word” in the protoevangelium and not “Christ.” Christ is the Word + particular nature provided by Mary. See what I mean?

He says, “It is appointed unto man to die but once, and after that the judgment” or words pretty close to that, with the same meaning. Jesus Christ will not die again. He is started from the beginning; he is personified (made incarnate) in Jesus, there won’t ever be another Word/Light who gives eternal life to his followers in the universe. He’s the only one. So, it’s something He previously did.

I agree Jesus won’t die again, but if God the Son is incarnate as an alien and dies, it wouldn’t be Jesus dying, for the two, even though they are the same divine person, are distinguished by the different cases of created natures that undergo different deaths. A subtle distinction but I think it’s valid.

Your making sense. He has those titles, to my understanding, because of all three: because he’s divine and because of his hypostatic nature and because of what he did. He earned those titles by incarnating and then being faithful unto death and by doing what his Heavenly Father sent him to do, while he was here. He fulfilled the OT prophecies about himself.

I agree that Jesus can be called God of gods because of His divine nature at the very least (but yes, also the others).

I agree that Jesus can also be called the Good Shepherd because of HIs divine nature (because even God unincarnate is referred to as the Good Shepherd in the Psalms)

But with regard to “King of Kings,” I’ve heard it said that Jesus was made king at His crucifixion when they crowned Him with thorns. So I don’t know about this one. Some would apparently suggest that Jesus only gains this title by something He did, and not simply because He was divine.

Also, with regard to the title of “Savior,” Jesus could only gain this by something He does, not simply because He is divine. Right?

I’ll let you respond to those before I continue.

 

[donsnow]

No problem.

Still searching. Have one phone line, and come off line to let a friend receive or make phone calls, whose here, today. During the off-line time, among other things, I do more searches (some double and triple checks of same words) through my concordance. It’s there. I gotta find it, somewhere.

But don’t you agree that in the beginning, the hypostatic union wasn’t in place yet?

Yes.

Didn’t the Incarnation happen at the annunciation, not at the beginning of time? It may have been planned, but it chronologically hadn’t happened yet. And doesn’t “Christ” refer to the Incarnate Word and not the Unincarnate Word? Hence, I think I may disagree with you that Christ was with the Heavenly Father at the beginning. I think it’s an important distinction. John carefully talks about the “Word” in the protoevangelium and not “Christ.” Christ is the Word + particular nature provided by Mary. See what I mean?

I remember thinking as I posted that, “This isn’t right.” So, we are agreed, here. Please read ‘Word/Light’, when I mention him before his conception. Thank you.

I agree Jesus won’t die again, but if God the Son is incarnate as an alien and dies,…

That’s what I’m saying won’t happen, because I believe God won’t allow another incarnation of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, because of the special nature of Jesus Christ. And, because of the immutable and unchanging nature of God, one’s the limit, imho.

…it wouldn’t be Jesus dying, for the two, even though they are the same divine person,…

Two cannot be the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, because there’s only one Word/Light…one’s the limit, happening at the beginning. There can be no second Word/Light, unless there’s a second creation. That happens only once per creation, to make all that is created. One’s the limit.

…are distinguished by the different cases of created natures that undergo different deaths. A subtle distinction but I think it’s valid.

It won’t get that far. The cases of their respective beginnings…how is the second Person of the Holy Trinity supposed to begin as another person than Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word/Light? He can’t begin, there’s only one. The ‘different deaths’ never come about, because there’s only one, from the beginning until the end of time. That’s what I believe, from the information we have.

I agree that Jesus can be called God of gods because of His divine nature at the very least (but yes, also the others).

I agree that Jesus can also be called the Good Shepherd because of HIs divine nature (because even God unincarnate is referred to as the Good Shepherd in the Psalms)

But with regard to “King of Kings,” I’ve heard it said that Jesus was made king at His crucifixion when they crowned Him with thorns. So I don’t know about this one. Some would apparently suggest that Jesus only gains this title by something He did, and not simply because He was divine.

Umm, Jesus Christ was also King of kings before his incarnation, imho. Because he lifted and abased and lifted again King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. Because Xerxes and Darius were aware of him in their interactions with the Jews. And, although the Roman soldiers were mocking Christ’s claim to be a king of an unworldly, at that time, kingdom, he was actually a real King of kings that they were mocking. Think about that.

Also, with regard to the title of “Savior,” Jesus could only gain this by something He does, not simply because He is divine. Right?

I’ll let you respond to those before I continue.

Absolutely right. And, he saved the Hebrews and then Israel several times, before his incarnation. He’s earned every title bestowed upon him, Areopagite:thumbsup:.

Don

 

[Areopagite]

Still searching. Have one phone line, and come off line to let a friend receive or make phone calls, whose here, today. During the off-line time, among other things, I do more searches (some double and triple checks of same words) through my concordance. It’s there. I gotta find it, somewhere.

No rush.

I remember thinking as I posted that, “This isn’t right.” So, we are agreed, here. Please read ‘Word/Light’, when I mention him before his conception. Thank you.

Understood.

That’s what I’m saying won’t happen, because I believe God won’t allow another incarnation of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, because of the special nature of Jesus Christ.

I’m asking you: what exactly is the special nature of Jesus Christ, such that another incarnation is not allowed? I’m still unclear about this.

And, because of the immutable and unchanging nature of God, one’s the limit, imho.

This is a very important point, and this is the thing that Aquinas stressed: a created thing (including the created human nature of Jesus) cannot limit God. No created thing affects the immutable nature of God. Even the incarnation that resulted in Jesus Christ doesn’t affect God. So if one incarnation doesn’t affect God, then multiple incarnations don’t affect God. Hence multiple incarnations do not affect the immutable nature of God and do not limit God. Therefore, multiple incarnations are possible.

Two cannot be the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, because there’s only one Word/Light…one’s the limit, happening at the beginning. There can be no second Word/Light, unless there’s a second creation. That happens only once per creation, to make all that is created. One’s the limit.

You agreed that the Word can become incarnate multiple times but that He chooses not to … for some reason. Hence, you agree that even though there is only one Word (i.e. God the Son), He can take on multiple created natures. But you say that He won’t, because … why? I don’t know. I’m not clear why you don’t think He necessarily wouldn’t, based on what we know by divine revelation (i.e. what God has said).

It won’t get that far. The cases of their respective beginnings…how is the second Person of the Holy Trinity supposed to begin as another person than Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word/Light?

The case I’m making (and that Aquinas made) was that Jesus Christ and any other hypothetical case of the Incarnate Word would actually be the same person. Namely, they would both be God the Son. The only different would be their particular created natures.

He can’t begin, there’s only one. The ‘different deaths’ never come about, because there’s only one, from the beginning until the end of time. That’s what I believe, from the information we have.

I agree there can only be one death of Jesus, but I think there could be more than one death of the Word via being incarnate in other natures.

Umm, Jesus Christ was also King of kings before his incarnation, imho. Because he lifted and abased and lifted again King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. Because Xerxes and Darius were aware of him in their interactions with the Jews. And, although the Roman soldiers were mocking Christ’s claim to be a king of an unworldly, at that time, kingdom, he was actually a real King of kings that they were mocking. Think about that.

You might be right. I am even inclined to agree with you on this point. However, I have heard from multiple Christians that Christ was coronnated at His crucifixion, perhaps implying that He wasn’t made King beforehand. Isn’t there the whole recapitulation of the human race from Adam to Jesus at that point? I’m actually not well-read on the matter. You might know more than I do.

Absolutely right. And, he saved the Hebrews and then Israel several times, before his incarnation. He’s earned every title bestowed upon him, Areopagite:thumbsup:.

This is definitely a popular statement. Once again, though, is this supported by Scripture and Tradition? It might be. I’m not sure.

Hypothetically, if Jesus didn’t go through with the crucifixion, would He have still been the Savior? Would He have already saved all of creation by the very act of His incarnation? Or was the crucifixion necessary? Was He really technically only the Savior when He got crucified? I don’t know. I haven’t read up about it enough.

 

[donsnow]

Hi, Areopagite -

Gee, were you up late or did you get up real early?

QUOTE=Areopagite;6070738]No rush.

Still working on it.

QUOTE=Areopagite;6070738]Understood.

Thank you.

QUOTE=Areopagite;6070738]I’m asking you: what exactly is the special nature of Jesus Christ, such that another incarnation is not allowed? I’m still unclear about this.

His special nature is his incarnation. He’s God, the Son. The only man who attained to becoming “the glory and wisdom” of the Heavenly Father.

QUOTE=Areopagite;6070738]This is a very important point, and this is the thing that Aquinas stressed: a created thing (including the created human nature of Jesus) cannot limit God. No created thing affects the immutable nature of God. Even the incarnation that resulted in Jesus Christ doesn’t affect God.

How can you or St. Thomas Aquinas (that is he, right?) claim that? Until his incarnation, there was no flesh in God the Holy Trinity. When Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven, God the Holy Trinity now included/includes/will forever include his flesh. That is a rephrase of Jesus Christ’s special nature. So, the incarnation does affect God the Holy Trinity, in my view.

QUOTE=Areopagite;6070738]So if one incarnation doesn’t affect God, then multiple incarnations don’t affect God.

But, I have just demonstrated where God the Holy Trinity became a different thing, with the incarnation of Jesus Christ. (Nevertheless, the divine attributes of both the Word/Light and the other members of the Holy Trinity remain unchanged.)

QUOTE=Areopagite;6070738]Hence multiple incarnations do not affect the immutable nature of God and do not limit God. Therefore, multiple incarnations are possible.

You have not swayed me, with your persuasions. I say that multiple incarnations of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity would introduce an aspect of polytheism that the immutable nature of God won’t allow. Can’t you see this?

QUOTE=Areopagite;6070738]You agreed that the Word can become incarnate multiple times but that He chooses not to … for some reason.

What I wrote just above is one good reason. I’m sure they’re more, which we may discover, as long as you explore this.

QUOTE=Areopagite;6070738]Hence, you agree that even though there is only one Word (i.e. God the Son), He can take on multiple created natures.

I have notagreed to that.

QUOTE=Areopagite;6070738]But you say that He won’t, because … why? I don’t know. I’m not clear why you don’t think He necessarily wouldn’t, based on what we know by divine revelation (i.e. what God has said).

Because of the appearance of polytheism, which the immutable nature of God the Holy Trinity, now incorporating the flesh of Jesus Christ in His Second Person, won’t allow. As I previously wrote, in this post.

QUOTE=Areopagite;6070738]The case I’m making (and that Aquinas made) was that Jesus Christ and any other hypothetical case of the Incarnate Word would actually be the same person.

I disagree. They could not be the same person, because of their different bodies. Because of God’s immutable nature, there can be only one incarnate Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

QUOTE=Areopagite;6070738] Namely, they would both be God the Son. The only different would be their particular created natures.

And the difference would also present the appearance of polytheism, which the present God the Holy Trinity will not allow.

QUOTE=Areopagite;6070738] agree there can only be one death of Jesus, but I think there could be more than one death of the Word via being incarnate in other natures.

From the beginning, there is only one Word/Light which incarnated into the one Jesus Christ, who is the one Second Person of the one Holy Trinity. Now, what you write may well apply to the members of the mystical body of Christ, which could encompass many planets. But the Christ is Jesus, the only Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

QUOTE=Areopagite;6070738]You might be right. I am even inclined to agree with you on this point. However, I have heard from multiple Christians that Christ was coronnated at His crucifixion, perhaps implying that He wasn’t made King beforehand. Isn’t there the whole recapitulation of the human race from Adam to Jesus at that point? I’m actually not well-read on the matter. You might know more than I do.

I can’t remember hearing or reading before, that Christ was coronated at his crucifixion. He certainly exercised power and authority over the kings of this world, before his incarnation. So, he was defacto King of kings, imho.
I can’t claim to know more than you.

This is definitely a popular statement. Once again, though, is this supported by Scripture and Tradition? It might be. I’m not sure.

I believe scripture supports this. I’m not sure what the Traditions of our church teach.

QUOTE=Areopagite;6070738]Hypothetically, if Jesus didn’t go through with the crucifixion, would He have still been the Savior? Would He have already saved all of creation by the very act of His incarnation? Or was the crucifixion necessary? Was He really technically only the Savior when He got crucified? I don’t know. I haven’t read up about it enough.

I think that Jesus would have stopped being the Savior if he had dodged the crucifixion. I think the crucifixion was necessary to save all of creation. No, he had saved David and others, before his incarnation, and saved lepers during his ministry after his birth and before his death.

 

[Areopagite]

Hi, Areopagite -

Gee, were you up late or did you get up real early?

I’m a chronic night-owl. It’s not my fault. I think it’s genetic.

How can you or St. Thomas Aquinas (that is he, right?) claim that? Until his incarnation, there was no flesh in God the Holy Trinity. When Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven, God the Holy Trinity now included/includes/will forever include his flesh. That is a rephrase of Jesus Christ’s special nature. So, the incarnation does affect God the Holy Trinity, in my view.

This is a dangerous path to tread.

If the incarnation affected God, then God would logically not be immutable. Right? If you affect something, you cause a change in it. If something can undergo change, then that thing is mutable. If God was affected by the incarnation, then God is not immutable. But you have said that God IS immutable, hence you will have to conclude that the incarnation did NOT affect God.

Right?

But, I have just demonstrated where God the Holy Trinity became a different thing, with the incarnation of Jesus Christ. (Nevertheless, the divine attributes of both the Word/Light and the other members of the Holy Trinity remain unchanged.)

I am very unclear what the distinction you are making. How can the Holy Trinity “become a different thing” and yet not have its “attributes” changed. I am unfamiliar with this concept.

You have not swayed me, with your persuasions. I say that multiple incarnations of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity would introduce an aspect of polytheism that the immutable nature of God won’t allow. Can’t you see this?

Once again, I would say that the incarnation of Jesus Christ did not change the number of Gods, and hence another incarnation wouldn’t either. There would always be one God, no matter how many created natures are united to the divine nature in a hypostatic union. I need to see your reasoning why there would all of a sudden be two Gods if there were two incarnations. Why can’t we say there are two (or more) incarnations, but one God to which those created natures are hypostatically united?

I disagree. They could not be the same person, because of their different bodies. Because of God’s immutable nature, there can be only one incarnate Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

With that reasoning, why can there be even one incarnation, because you have said that one incarnation is enough to contradict the immutability of God. I would say that one incarnation does not affect the immutability of God and thus multiple incarnations wouldn’t either.

From the beginning, there is only one Word/Light which incarnated into the one Jesus Christ, who is the one Second Person of the one Holy Trinity.

I agree there is one Word/Light, but (I argue) that there is nothing to suggest that there would necessarily be only one incarnation of that Word/Light. I agree there is one Jesus Christ, but He is one incarnation, and why must we conclude that He must be the only one? Does Scripture say this? If it does, then I withdraw my argument. But if it doesn’t (and Tradition doesn’t either), then we can’t conclude that Jesus might not be the only Incarnation? I would say that, as human Catholics, that Jesus is the only relevant incarnation for us, and the only one we can only know for sure (based on the revelation we have been given), but it would be technically incorrect to say that no incarnation of the Son (or any Person of the Trinity) could have taken place (or may take place in the future) for another race not descended from Adam.

I can’t remember hearing or reading before, that Christ was coronated at his crucifixion. He certainly exercised power and authority over the kings of this world, before his incarnation. So, he was defacto King of kings, imho.
I can’t claim to know more than you.

Yeah, I think you have a point. I’m going to agree with you for now on this point.

I think that Jesus would have stopped being the Savior if he had dodged the crucifixion. I think the crucifixion was necessary to save all of creation. No, he had saved David and others, before his incarnation, and saved lepers during his ministry after his birth and before his death.

And, correct me if I’m wrong, didn’t He save those people via the retroactive grace of His crucifixion? Didn’t the grace won by His death work backward in time to apply to people and events in the past (even with Mary’s Immaculate Conception)? I think that’s the case.

So my point is, He was only the savior because of His crucifixion and not simply because He was the Incarnate Word. Hypothetically, God can become Incarnate and not be a savior. Being a savior requires salvific action and not simply by virtue of being the Incarnate God … right? You see what I’m saying? I’ve heard differently from some theologians, but I think that just because God became incarnate once doesn’t mean that He already saved humanity (or anything for that matter). I would like to be corrected on this if I’m mistaken.

 

[donsnow]

Hi, Areopagite -

I go to bed early, so I slept through your post, last night . I was once a night owl.

I’m responding this way, so I don’t go over 6,000 words.

Ahhhhh…you have caught me fair and square in a red handed contradiction of myself. The Divine nature of God the Holy Trinity was not changed when Jesus Christ was conceived, nor any other time, all the way up to when Jesus Christ ascended into Heaven. Mea Culpa
Now, you’re going to want me to see where any other incarnation would not change God the Holy Trinity, too. Here, is the crux, where our viewpoints go their separate directions, yes?

OK, we’ve passed my contradiction and you’ve asked, “I need to see your reasoning why there would…be two Gods if there were two incarnations.”
Let me start my answer with a question, and see if I can share my view with you.
What was incarnated?
The Word/Light, right?
When did the Word/Light occur?
In the beginning Jesus Christ was with the Heavenly Father, to make all creation, right?

That’s what was incarnated, in Galilee at the Annunciation, right?

OK, the Word/Light was with God in the beginning, the one and only Second Person of God the Holy Trinity, from the get-go. It follows, that the Word/Light is once and always the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Which is immutable. Therefore, only a Word/Light can be incarnated to the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

Where is that ‘new’ Word/Light going to come from, since its intrinsic nature includes, ‘from the beginning’?

Can you see where I’m at, with that?

I’m saying, that there won’t be a second incarnation of a second Word/Light. Do you see that?

Now, in the context of beggar, cripple, old man and orphan, there can be other appearances of God; and in the context of the mystical body of Christ, there can be ‘little Christs’. But, the Word/Light has no second incarnation; nor is there a second ‘Word/Light’ (whose immutable nature includes ‘from the beginning’ to incarnate.

Did I say that right?

With that in mind, that is why I say there will be no second incarnation of Jesus Christ as another Messiah on another planet. There can be only the one, and it’s been that way, “from the beginning”, part of his immutable nature as God the Son. There is only one beginning for each creation and only one Word/Light per beginning.
Scripture says he’s the One true God the Son (the second person of God the Holy Trinity)
Jesus Christ, when he says “When you have seen me, you have seen the Father”, says that. Can you see that?

OK, we’re agreed that Jesus Christ was de facto King of Kings, before his incarnation.

Yes, I agree that the salvation gained by his crucifixion covered all time, past, present and future. Incidentally, let me point out, since time and space are intertwined, then, the crucifixion’s salvation applied to all space. That salvation cleanses us, and what it touched, touches and will touch. FYI. Still looking for the scripture, on that.

Also, I agree with your ending paragraph…in that the crucifixion was the saving action and without it, there would have been no salvation.

Don

 

[Areopagite]

Hi, Areopagite -

I go to bed early, so I slept through your post, last night . I was once a night owl.

Did you just grow out of it? Or did it take strenuous discipline?

Ahhhhh…you have caught me fair and square in a red handed contradiction of myself. The Divine nature of God the Holy Trinity was not changed when Jesus Christ was conceived, nor any other time, all the way up to when Jesus Christ ascended into Heaven. Mea Culpa

You’re a very reasonable person. Thank you for seeing this.

Now, you’re going to want me to see where any other incarnation would not change God the Holy Trinity, too. Here, is the crux, where our viewpoints go their separate directions, yes?

I believe so.

OK, we’ve passed my contradiction and you’ve asked, “I need to see your reasoning why there would…be two Gods if there were two incarnations.”
Let me start my answer with a question, and see if I can share my view with you.
What was incarnated?
The Word/Light, right?
When did the Word/Light occur?
In the beginning Jesus Christ was with the Heavenly Father, to make all creation, right?

It’s a good question. Many people, in my view, have a subtle misunderstanding with regard to this very thing …

Was “Jesus Christ” with the Heavenly Father from the beginning? Is this technically correct?

In the fullest sense of who Jesus Christ is, I would have to answer no. Why? You would agree that Jesus Christ has two natures, right? He has divine AND human nature. If someone were to deny one and keep the other, then he/she would fall into one of the classical Christological heresies. Thus, Jesus is both God and man.

Now, at the beginning, when the Father created everything through the Son, there was no human nature attached to the divine yet … right? Hence, the Son was not incarnate. Hence, we conclude that Jesus did not exist yet … not in the fullest sense of who Jesus is. The 2nd Divine Person, of course, existed, but technically was not Jesus, otherwise we would have to say that Jesus only has a divine nature.

You see what I’m saying? That is why I would disagree that Jesus (as in, the Incarnate Word) existed from all time.

That’s what was incarnated, in Galilee at the Annunciation, right?

Definitely the Word became flesh at that point, but technically it is only then when “Jesus” came into being.

Once again, you could say that Jesus pre-existed this moment, but only an inexact sense … His personhood and divinity pre-existed this … but not His humanity … and if Jesus is both God and man, then I think we must say that Jesus was not around before the Annunciation.

Hence there can’t be equivocation of Jesus and the Word. In truth, Jesus = the Word + particular human nature provided by Mary. It is not the case that Jesus = the Word alone. I think your subtle error lies in not distinguishing the two. Many people don’t. But they definitely should. See what I’m saying? I am open to correction, but I am fairly certain that this is the case.

That’s all I’ll say for now. I think everything we’ve said comes down to this.

 

[donsnow]

Did you just grow out of it? Or did it take strenuous discipline?

It took getting tired of working nights for many, many years. I retired from night cab driver in '82. Worked days and some nights. In Nov 2000 I started with recent job, which let me go April of this year, working mostly nights. It was easy transitioning to days

You’re a very reasonable person. Thank you for seeing this.

Thank you. I try.

I believe so.

It’s a good question. Many people, in my view, have a subtle misunderstanding with regard to this very thing …

Was “Jesus Christ” with the Heavenly Father from the beginning? Is this technically correct?

Yes.

. Why? You would agree that Jesus Christ has two natures, right? He has divine AND human nature. If someone were to deny one and keep the other, then he/she would fall into one of the classical Christological heresies. Thus, Jesus is both God and man.

Now, at the beginning, when the Father created everything through the Son, there was no human nature attached to the divine yet … right? Hence, the Son was not incarnate. Hence, we conclude that Jesus did not exist yet … not in the fullest sense of who Jesus is. The 2nd Divine Person, of course, existed, but technically was not Jesus, otherwise we would have to say that Jesus only has a divine nature.

You see what I’m saying? That is why I would disagree that Jesus (as in, the Incarnate Word) existed from all time.

What you have written is true. I accept correction, thank you.

Definitely the Word became flesh at that point, but technically it is only then when “Jesus” came into being.

Once again, you could say that Jesus pre-existed this moment, but only an inexact sense … His personhood and divinity pre-existed this … but not His humanity … and if Jesus is both God and man, then I think we must say that Jesus was not around before the Annunciation.

Hence there can’t be equivocation of Jesus and the Word. In truth, Jesus = the Word + particular human nature provided by Mary. It is not the case that Jesus = the Word alone. I think your subtle error lies in not distinguishing the two. Many people don’t. But they definitely should. See what I’m saying? I am open to correction, but I am fairly certain that this is the case.

If I understand you, then we are agreed.

That’s all I’ll say for now. I think everything we’ve said comes down to this.

On this facet of your topic, we are agreed.

Don

 

[steve711]

Hi everyone,

Just suppose that Gods will sent Aliens to earth to bring two human beings to begin populating a planet already teaming with life. This would certainly throw the evolutionist theory out of whack, but then suppose that these aliens have interacted with us over time observing our development.

Then when Jesus Christ came to save us they would know that we all are truly were part of Gods plan.

Go with Gods Grace!

 

[Areopagite]

Hi everyone,

Just suppose that Gods will sent Aliens to earth to bring two human beings to begin populating a planet already teaming with life. This would certainly throw the evolutionist theory out of whack, but then suppose that these aliens have interacted with us over time observing our development.

Then when Jesus Christ came to save us they would know that we all are truly were part of Gods plan.

Go with Gods Grace!

An interesting idea, steve. I’ve thought about stuff like this. I don’t think there is anything here that conflicts with the faith. I think such a thing could be possible. Pretty crazy stuff though.

On this facet of your topic, we are agreed.

Don

Sweet.

So, it seems that one of the objections you had (correct me if I’m wrong) is that if there were two incarnations, there would be two Gods … so hence, there could not be two incarnations. The reason you seemed to say this is that you were equating Jesus (i.e. the incarnation) with God. However, we agree now that the two are not the same in every respect because Jesus is God + a particular human nature provided by Mary.

I argue, thus, that there could be another Incarnation, in which a different case of created nature (perhaps even alien … as long as it’s not the particular created nature that Jesus has) that can be joined the divine nature as well … resulting in another Incarnation, but still just one God. This is because God hasn’t changed through any of these incarnations (not even with Jesus’ incarnation) but merely the created natures have by being hypo-statically united with divine nature. God does change, therefore, and hence does not multiply. There is still one God despite more than one Incarnation of God.

Does that make sense? If you still have objections, don’t hesitate to voice them.

 

[donsnow]

An interesting idea, steve. I’ve thought about stuff like this. I don’t think there is anything here that conflicts with the faith. I think such a thing could be possible. Pretty crazy stuff though.

Sweet.

So, it seems that one of the objections you had (correct me if I’m wrong) is that if there were two incarnations, there would be two Gods … so hence, there could not be two incarnations. The reason you seemed to say this is that you were equating Jesus (i.e. the incarnation) with God. However, we agree now that the two are not the same in every respect because Jesus is God + a particular human nature provided by Mary.

I argue, thus, that there could be another Incarnation, in which a different case of created nature (perhaps even alien … as long as it’s not the particular created nature that Jesus has) that can be joined the divine nature as well … resulting in another Incarnation, but still just one God. This is because God hasn’t changed through any of these incarnations (not even with Jesus’ incarnation) but merely the created natures have by being hypo-statically united with divine nature. God does change, therefore, and hence does not multiply. There is still one God despite more than one Incarnation of God.

Does that make sense? If you still have objections, don’t hesitate to voice them.

Hi, Areopagite -

I’m usually not up this late, so I am going slowly.

Your first paragraph seems to cover my position. But, Jesus is the Second Person, the Son, of the Holy Trinity. God the Holy Trinity can have only three persons. It seems to me, that an additional incarnation would make four persons to the Holy Trinity, which cannot be. This leads into your second paragraph.

I’m saying, that were an alien to incarnate, we would then have God the Father, God the Son (come in the flesh), God the alien and God the Holy Spirit. Do you see what I mean?
His nature as a Trinity is also the immutable nature of God. Now, if I don’t see what you’re saying, just what do you mean, when you speak of an alien incarnation?

May you and all of yours enjoy a wonderful Christmas Season, from now until Epiphany.

Don

 

[Areopagite]

Your first paragraph seems to cover my position. But, Jesus is the Second Person, the Son, of the Holy Trinity.

Jesus is not just the Second Person of the Trinity because otherwise Jesus would not be human (because God the Son just has divine nature). You agreed to this in your last post: Jesus = the Son + a particular human nature provided by Mary. The Son can exist without an incarnation. If a particular human nature is joined with the Son (which it did with Jesus), the Son is technically not affected by it (but of course the particular human nature is … as well as all human nature because of it), and so if one incarnation of the Son does not affect the Son, then why would multiple incarnations be impossible … for why would the Son be limited to one incarnation, since one incarnation doesn’t change anything for the Son?

And once again, paradoxically, if the Son was incarnated twice, not only in Jesus but in some alien form, the two are still the same divine person … there would not be an extra person in the Trinity or an extra person in the Son. The Son would be one, and yet look like he’s two different people in His incarnate forms, but really the two would be one person. See what I mean?

I’m saying, that were an alien to incarnate, we would then have God the Father, God the Son (come in the flesh), God the alien and God the Holy Spirit. Do you see what I mean?
His nature as a Trinity is also the immutable nature of God. Now, if I don’t see what you’re saying, just what do you mean, when you speak of an alien incarnation?

You seem to imply here that the Son only came about by the Incarnation of Jesus, but that’s not true. The Son always existed. Why would an alien incarnation add God the alien? I could ask: why didn’t the incarnation of Jesus add God the human? Clearly, though, the Trinity always existed, the Son became incarnate, the Trinity stayed the same. Why can’t the Son become incarnate as an alien, and the Trinity still stay the same, since it didn’t change with one incarnation. Why would it all of sudden change with two? See what I mean?

May you and all of yours enjoy a wonderful Christmas Season, from now until Epiphany.

Thank you very much. Merry Christmas to you and everybody with you as well.