H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Do you think Jesus was Man, before the incarnation?
- Status
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
In his book Jesus of Nazareth the theologian Benedict XVI addresses this.
However one does not have to read a whole book, there’s thevaudiwnces if BXVI to read as well. Here’s one that talks if Jesus and “man”
w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2013/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20130109.html
It’s worth noting that the First Chaper of John refers to Jesus as Logos, not as “man” and on the Creed we state he BECAME man. Referencing a certain point in history.
For billions of years the universe did not have man at all. It’s only a very short time he has been here. Before that, God was God, and he was complete.
However one does not have to read a whole book, there’s thevaudiwnces if BXVI to read as well. Here’s one that talks if Jesus and “man”
w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2013/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20130109.html
It’s worth noting that the First Chaper of John refers to Jesus as Logos, not as “man” and on the Creed we state he BECAME man. Referencing a certain point in history.
For billions of years the universe did not have man at all. It’s only a very short time he has been here. Before that, God was God, and he was complete.
M
M-Dent
Guest
He Was. As God revealed to us when he stated, I AM.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Right. And after man, He will still be God.
We don’t know if we are the prologue to God’s story, the main protagonist, the villain, or the afterword.
and before I’m flamed, villains can be redeemed
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
Great theological question.
Let me respond with another question: Is God changeable?
My inclination is that God is now who He always was.
My position is that God is outside of time and we are stuck within its constructs. From a “time” standpoint, Jesus wasn’t man until he was conceived in Mary’s womb.
Not sure if that is an answer that is truly satisfying to the intellect though.
J
JPUSC
Guest
Some questions are too esoteric to answer. It is beyond our limited understanding to reach a solution to all the mysteries of the universe, and these may always remain mysteries. So I will have to skip your first question and only deal with the second.
You are absolutely correct: G‑d, being perfect, was missing nothing before creation. There is no possible need that this world can fulfill for Him. He doesn’t need anything.
So creating us could not have been in order to fulfill a need. It was something G‑d chose to do. He doesn’t need us, He wants us.
What does G‑d want from us? The one thing He didn’t have before creation was a relationship. He was alone. What He wanted from this world was a relationship with free beings. So He created us and gave us ways of connecting to Him – the mitzvot.
But we can’t say that He needed this relationship with us. He may have been alone before creation, but he was still G‑d – perfect and missing nothing. He didn’t need a relationship – He wanted it.
Does this make our life unnecessary? Does the fact that G‑d doesn’t “need” us make us less significant?
No, on the contrary. When we have a relationship with someone just because we need them (such as a cleaning lady, or a family doctor) then when that need has been fulfilled the relationship ends. Your connection is dependant on them providing a service, and will only last as long as that service is needed.
But when we have a relationship with someone simply because we want to, because we have chosen to connect to them, then that bond is intrinsic. We don’t love them because of what they do for us, we love them for who they are – and that is forever.
G‑d doesn’t need us; He wants us. He didn’t give us commandments because He needs them to be fulfilled, but because He wants us to relate to Him. If we were created because G‑d needed us to do something, then we would be secondary to that mission – once the mission was fulfilled we could be disposed of. But G‑d needs nothing. He chose to bring us into being as a pure act of love.
That is the test of true love: if my beloved could no longer provide me with my needs, would I still love him or her just for being my beloved?
By creating us, G‑d answered yes.
chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/248150/jewish/What-Does-G-d-Need-Us-For.htm
F
fin
Guest
Except that He wasn’t. God is Trinity. Community and relationship exist. We just celebrated Trinity Sunday.
“Let US make man in OUR own image and likeness.”
“Let US make man in OUR own image and likeness.”
W
Wandile
Guest
Obviously Jesus wasn’t always man. He assumed our nature at the incarnation. God is infinite yet man is finite. And man being finite prevents the idea of God having a human nature before humanity had been formed by God. We know God assumed our nature after the creation of Adam as it was in Adam that humanity was made hence Adam was the first man, not Jesus.
God can be God without man because before man he was God. Pope Francis likes to play a dangerous game flirting with heresy at a lot of his homilies. Honestly his ambiguity is a modernists dream. That’s why blatant heretics like Kasper and Coch, and various heterodox as well as balatamt apostataes and enemies of the faith are flourishing under this pontificate.
Pope Francis is at the very least, irresponsible and at worst complicit of all the error in the church these days. It’s honestly a joke how many times people have to “clarify” or “explain in context” the popes words… of it walks like a duck, talks like a duck… or in this case, if it sounds like heresy, reads like heresy… it probably is…
Just last year pope Francis was passively talking about how he will go down as the pope who split the church. Under his pontificate the infallible dogma of the council of Trent concerning marriage has been undermined, he praises The archheretic Martin Luther as someone to look up to, he abhors any semblance of traditional or catholic orthodoxy and says he worries about orders bursting at the seams with vocations (in the middle of a vocations crisis!) and now this???
Guys the Pope can err… don’t confuse ultramontanism with Pope idolatry. The pope is a man and no pope has invoked infallibility since Pope Pius the XII.
I can’t wait for the future pope Pius XIII who will clean up this mess .
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
It’s isn’t a great theological question. It was borderline rhetorical. One need only read the creed. He BECAME man…
Too many people try to over think this.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
You can’t fathom God before man? Don’t tell that to a historian. Or a geologist.
Here is the controversy. Some think It’s takes the truth, “man cannot exist without God” and inverts it. And while the point might have been to indicate a RELATIONSHIP between Creator and created. It’s theologically confusing.
J
JPUSC
Guest
The modern form of humans only evolved about 200,000 years ago.
Civilization as we know it is only about 6,000 years old.
The earth is 4.543 billion years old.
According to research, the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old.
Civilization as we know it is only about 6,000 years old.
The earth is 4.543 billion years old.
According to research, the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
God is not free because he can chose between good and evil, but because he can only choose good.
Jim
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
There is nothing wrong with contemplating the awesomeness of God, and that includes God’s relationship with man.
Overthinking it would be me expressing that I’ve got some kind of insight into the mysteries on how God operates and being presumptuous that I know more than anyone else, of which I make no such claim.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
what do you think the incarnation was?
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
Perhaps. Yet as a Catholic, and understanding I am a creature created by God, there is no contradiction because I am looking at his comments through a Catholic lens, not a secular one.
S
Stylteralmaldo
Guest
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Do you think someone using a Catholic lens could be confused?
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
So before that?I think you want me to over think this.
Jesus BECAME man.
- Status