Became flesh?

[Gorgias]

I think he’s referring to the idea of a creature (the human flesh of Christ) being made of the same “stuff” of the God-substance. The idea that God’s substance is what the creature is molded and made out of. Of course, it would just be one, limited example, and not all creatures.

Hopefully, thinkandmull will come back and either confirm your take on his statements or provide his train of thought. But, if you’re correct, Wesrock, then you’re thinking that thinkandmull supposes that the Incarnation was some sort of transubstantiation? That the ‘substance of God’ became the substance (and/or form) of flesh and blood? That’s definitely something that isn’t implied in the text – nor is it what the Church teaches!

Hopefully, he’ll come back so that we can learn whether that’s the misunderstanding under which he’s laboring…

 

[PNEUMA]

John wrote, John 1:14, because the gnostics claimed there was no physical Jesus, just a spirit Jesus. The same goes for 1 John 4:2 and 2 John 1:7

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.

1 John 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God

2 John 1:7 "Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist!

1 John 1:1 We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life

 

[ericc]

I wonder if we use the word “embody” instead of words like “made flesh” , “assumed flesh” , it would have make better reading without raising suspicions of some sort of manufacturing or assimilation of material flesh.

 

[jcrichton]

I wonder if we use the word “embody” instead of words like “made flesh” , “assumed flesh” , it would have make better reading without raising suspicions of some sort of manufacturing or assimilation of material flesh.

Hi, Eric!

…I think that “embody” would be extremely problematic… just look at the non-Catholic understanding of the Sacraments (particularly the Holy Eucharist); Jesus actually states that the Sacrament of Matrimony (though He obviously did not use that term) was Created by God between one man and one woman and that it cannot be dissolved–yet, “Christians” allover the world not only reject Christ’s demands on the indissolubility of Marriage but they divorce and remarry or live outside of the Sacrament in huge numbers (I suspect that it mirrors secular/non-Believers or even surpasses them); and the Holy Eucharist is mostly “symbolic” to almost all non-Catholics–even when Jesus Commands that we (Believers) must chew/masticate His Body (true food) and drink His Blood (true drink) in order to have Life.

…“embody” would go right to the top of “symbolism” (especially with Jehovah Witnesses–who would lap up any excuse to reject Christ’s Divinity); …ever hear non-Catholics talk about Jesus Command that we (His Disciples) be one? They reject an actual Command to Unity of the Body of Christ and they embrace almost any symbolic “embodiment” of one (same thoughts, mind, thinking, goals, understanding, convergence in what is held by majority; concerns only that which is found in common while ignoring the points of differences…).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[thinkandmull]

Back

Well to become flesh would mean to change into, maybe even ceasing to be what you were before. So at the least the literal interpretation of “became flesh” would be that Jesus was God in human form but not in the sense of being fully human. But he was human because he didn’t know when the final coming was. So it seems that there is hyperbole in the first chapter of John’s Gospel. The problem for me is, expressed in the first post, how do we know when the Bible is being literal or not. Nay sayers can always cry out “that’s hyperbole”. We have a Church to teach on this, but apologetics looks at the Bible as a historical document first.

 

[Gorgias]

Well to become flesh would mean to change into, maybe even ceasing to be what you were before.

Except that the Church explicitly teaches that this isn’t the case in the Incarnation of Jesus.

So at the least the literal interpretation of “became flesh” would be that Jesus was God in human form but not in the sense of being fully human.

Except that the Church explicitly teaches that this, too, isn’t the case in the Incarnation of Jesus.

But he was human because he didn’t know when the final coming was.

No, he “didn’t know when the final coming is” because that is reserved to the Father.

So it seems that there is hyperbole in the first chapter of John’s Gospel.

Except that the Church explicitly teaches that this, too, isn’t the case in the Incarnation of Jesus.

The problem for me is, expressed in the first post, how do we know when the Bible is being literal or not.

We have a Church to teach on this, but apologetics looks at the Bible as a historical document first.

No. Apologetics looks at the teaching of the Church first, and doesn’t play the teaching of the Church against the text of the Bible.

 

[thinkandmull]

It isn’t the case that “made flesh” is hyperbole? How so? And God the Son doesn’t know the day of coming? How so?

 

[thinkandmull]

Apologetics tries to prove that authority of the church before it accepts that authority. If we don’t know when those old texts are being hyperbolic, how can we be sure what they teach? That’s basically what I’ve been getting at in this thread

 

[Gorgias]

It isn’t the case that “made flesh” is hyperbole?

No. It’s a Latin translation for the Greek phrase “became”.

And God the Son doesn’t know the day of coming? How so?

You might as well ask “God the Son isn’t the creator? How so?”

God, as Trinity, is One Substance. Although we wouldn’t say that the Son and Spirit weren’t involved with creation, we would nevertheless appropriate Creation to the Father (i.e., the ‘Creator’). That being the case, if we associate ‘creation’ with the Father, it makes sense that we would associate the eschaton – that is, the end of creation – with the Father.

To say that the Son and Spirit defer to the Father in the act of creation just plain makes sense.

 

[grannymh]

Apologetics tries to prove that authority of the church before it accepts that authority. If we don’t know when those old texts are being hyperbolic, how can we be sure what they teach? That’s basically what I’ve been getting at in this thread

In the Catholic Church, Jesus promised the Holy Spirit (Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity) as an advocate Who is the Spirit of Truth. The Father will send the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus. The Holy Spirit will be the Teacher to the Catholic Church and He will remind us of all that Jesus taught. (Chapter 14, Gospel of John) What all this basically describes is the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on planet earth.

From the very beginning, the Council of Jerusalem (Chapter 15, Acts), the leaders of the Church met together in prayerful discussion of what was known at that time. Especially prayerful, because they knew that the wisdom of the promised Holy Spirit would guide them.

Over time, many questions and answers were studied in depth in preparation for the Major Ecumenical Councils such as Nicaea I. (CCC Index of Citations begins on page 689, universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition) These Councils ultimately determined the true Catholic teachings. There is another valid method of determining Catholic doctrines known as
*Ex Cathedra. *This is rarely used.

One of the first things a reader of the CCC should do is a quick study of CCC 20-21. This explains the use of small print.

When it comes to Catholic doctrines, no stone is left unread. The CCC Index of Citations includes the Liturgy, page 738.

 

[jcrichton]

Back

Well to become flesh would mean to change into, maybe even ceasing to be what you were before. So at the least the literal interpretation of “became flesh” would be that Jesus was God in human form but not in the sense of being fully human. But he was human because he didn’t know when the final coming was. So it seems that there is hyperbole in the first chapter of John’s Gospel. The problem for me is, expressed in the first post, how do we know when the Bible is being literal or not. Nay sayers can always cry out “that’s hyperbole”. We have a Church to teach on this, but apologetics looks at the Bible as a historical document first.

Hi!

…hyperbole?

‘…in the Beginning was the Word…’ can you show me how this is hyperbole?

‘…the Word was with God…’ ditto?

‘…the Word was God…’ ditto?

…and how does: ‘nothing exists that was not Created by the Word’ becomes hyperbole?

…your presumption that Jesus was human because He did not *Know *when the final coming was due is flawed due to your (man’s) limited understanding of Revelation (what God has made Known to man).

…St. Matthew 24:26 is expressing what the Son came to Reveal not that Jesus was not Divine…

Conversely, using your gauge of interpretation, we must conclude that the Son Knows things that the Father does not… and that even certain men Know things that God does not:

19:12 His eyes were flames of fire, and his head was crowned with many coronets; the name written on him was known only to himself,

(Apocalypse [Revelation] 19:12)

2:17 If anyone has ears to hear, let him listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches: to those who prove victorious I will give the hidden manna and a white stone – a stone with a new name written on it, known only to the man who receives it.” (Apocalypse 2:17)
Please rethink your exegesis!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Apologetics tries to prove that authority of the church before it accepts that authority. If we don’t know when those old texts are being hyperbolic, how can we be sure what they teach? That’s basically what I’ve been getting at in this thread

Hi!

…I think that you are not fully following through with your screen name… you want to take the Bible apart as the Jehovah Witnesses and certain others do… they go in with a preconception and then read into Scriptures what they have predetermined as the meaning and validity of the Word. They, as you, are involved in eisegesis and contortion.

Here’s how flawed your angst is:

1 It is not every spirit, my dear people, that you can trust; test them, to see if they come from God, there are many false prophets, now, in the world. 2 You can tell the spirits that come from God by this: every spirit which acknowledges that Jesus the Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 but any spirit which will not say this of Jesus is not from God, but is the spirit of Antichrist, whose coming you were warned about. Well, now he is here, in the world.

(1 St. John 4:1-3)
Clearly, what the Apostles Believed and the Holy Spirit has Revealed is that Jesus, the Word, Became flesh (conceived in the Virgin Mary); that the anti-Christ, Satan (and his minions and followers) do not accept Jesus’ Incarnation [they reject God’s Incarnation]; that Jesus Comes from God (Jesus is of Divine Essence): the Word, Christ, is Fully God and fully human.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

In the Catholic Church, Jesus promised the Holy Spirit (Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity) as an advocate Who is the Spirit of Truth. The Father will send the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus. The Holy Spirit will be the Teacher to the Catholic Church and He will remind us of all that Jesus taught. (Chapter 14, Gospel of John) What all this basically describes is the protocol of the visible Catholic Church on planet earth.

From the very beginning, the Council of Jerusalem (Chapter 15, Acts), the leaders of the Church met together in prayerful discussion of what was known at that time. Especially prayerful, because they knew that the wisdom of the promised Holy Spirit would guide them.

Over time, many questions and answers were studied in depth in preparation for the Major Ecumenical Councils such as Nicaea I. (CCC Index of Citations begins on page 689, universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition) These Councils ultimately determined the true Catholic teachings. There is another valid method of determining Catholic doctrines known as
*Ex Cathedra. *This is rarely used.

One of the first things a reader of the CCC should do is a quick study of CCC 20-21. This explains the use of small print.

When it comes to Catholic doctrines, no stone is left unread. The CCC Index of Citations includes the Liturgy, page 738.

Hi!

…actually, here’s one of those things… it is not only the Father that will send the other Paraclete but also the Son:

7 Still, I must tell you the truth: it is for your own good that I am going because unless I go, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I do go, I will send him to you.

(St. John 16:7)
…it is one of the reasons why ‘the Holy Spirit, the Lord, Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son…’ is the correct statement.

Coincidentally, for those like the Jehovah Witnesses that want to relegate Jesus to some sort of gofer or lieutenant under the Father, this passage is quite heavy… it implies that Jesus has more Power than the Father (‘unless I go, the Advocate will not come to you… I will send him to you’).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[thinkandmull]

Gee, why the tempest? The Son assumed flesh, he did not become flesh, otherwise He would know the last day. So that ONE phrase from john was hyperbole. The Son as God knows EVERYTHING the Father knows. As for apologetics, all ancient texts are taken to see what historical evidence there is for the faith. I am of the school that believes that our faith cannot be demonstrated to be true, but that it is reasonable. There are thousands of stories and legends. When Jesus promised Peter the keys, He could have meant as an apostle, to write the epistles, and as an intercessory. The Bible is open to all types of interpretations. Protestants themselves are a pillar and foundation of truth because they believe in Christ and preach him. We believe those stories are the Word of God because of how far Christianity has convinced the world. The Christian life is hard, yet it has won over the world. That religion needs a magisterium. This example of the Gospel of John is a perfect example. The Catholic faith makes more sense than Protestant faiths