How God could have human nature if he is changeless?

[davidv]

{snip}
Because what I hear is “we couldn’t explain our theological beliefs without drawing subtle distinctions between terms with heavy colloquial baggage.”{snip}

Please name any other complex subject that does not need to do same thing. Precision in language is essential to communication and the discovery of truth. The world we live in demands that the complex, the simple, the important and the mundane, all must be described in using the same words in the language. Therefore distinctions in definition are mandatory.

 

[grannymh]

First off, I strongly suspect that the use of terms like “person” and “nature” as both common and proper nouns is an intentional apologetic tactic to make subtle equivocations easier. Indeed, when I read things like this from the Catholic Encyclopedia, I become even more suspicious:

“From the theological point of view the distinctions between nature and person… are of primary importance. The former arose from the dogma of the Trinity, i.e., of one Divine Nature in three persons, and chiefly from that of the Incarnation, i.e., of the two Natures, Divine and human, in the one Divine Person in Christ.”

Because what I hear is “we couldn’t explain our theological beliefs without drawing subtle distinctions between terms with heavy colloquial baggage.”

You are somewhat right to say natures don’t exist by themselves, but according to the Catholic Encyclopedia: “Nature properly signifies that which is primitive and original, or, according to etymology, that which a thing is at birth, as opposed to that which is acquired or added from external sources.”

So it looks like the situation is this:

1. There exists a general human nature that is a collection of properties you get by virtue of being human. It is some subset of the necessary and sufficient conditions for being human.
2. There exists a particular and unique nature that we each get according to our genetics/God/accidents of birth. These are things like temperament or personality quirks or vocations.
3. A “person” is a poorly-defined entity that has one or more natures (both types 1. and 2.) and possibly something else, but theologians disagree about what that something else is, or if it exists at all.
4. The “divine humanity” in Christ has a type 1 human nature and a type 2 nature but is not a person by itself.
5. Christ has the “divine humanity” as well as a type 1 “God nature” (at least, he could have others)

As far as I can tell, everything from 3 onwards is irrelevant to bahman’s objection. It doesn’t matter when or where personhood happens, or even if it happens at all. The problem is that you can’t have a single entity with mutually exclusive sets of properties (i.e. natures.)

Yikes! All those fancy words.

Take a look in the mirror. Do you see a Person? Now take a look at a puppy. We call the puppy an animal. The animal has an animal nature. For now, forget the personhood bit and most of the heavy colloquial baggage. While you are looking in the mirror, pinch yourself. Are you real? Then you are a Person. Try flapping your arms like a bird. How far up did you fly? Eight inches off the ground by jumping? Then you have a human nature.

I am on my way to a Fish Fry. I really like the edible nature of fish.

Thus, I need to cut this short. My human nature and brown bear’s nature enjoy fish. However, a brown bear and the human species are different in kind. In Alaska, I had the honor of watching large brown bears fishing in a stream. Believe it or not, further down the same stream, humans were fishing.

My point is that the Incarnation may be a great mystery. But when we use a bit of common sense, usually learned from Mother Nature and fishing in Alaska, we can actually understand the basics of the Incarnation.

Please tell me what you think about the above approach. Note. There is more to come like multiple natures and real natures like ours, birds, puppies, and bears. When it comes to God’s nature, the short cut definition is that God’s nature is super-natural.

 

[Nixbits]

Lily Bernans:

Jesus was both fully human and fully divine

This seems to be putting a greater epistemologicial strain on the word ‘fully’ than it can reasonably be expected to bear.

I don’t often agree with bahman, but on this occasion I think he has a very good point.

Anything that is fully human cannot by definition also be a tree, a squirrel or a supernatural entity. The definitions are mutually exclusive. This is precisely bahman’s objection to God being both changeless and subject to change at the same time. Saying it is a ‘mystery’ is a cop-out. Without a reasonable justification it is just nonsense.

 

[grannymh]

This seems to be putting a greater epistemologicial strain on the word ‘fully’ than it can reasonably be expected to bear.

I don’t often agree with bahman, but on this occasion I think he has a very good point.

Anything that is fully human cannot by definition also be a tree, a squirrel or a supernatural entity. The definitions are mutually exclusive. This is precisely bahman’s objection to God being both changeless and subject to change at the same time. Saying it is a ‘mystery’ is a cop-out. Without a reasonable justification it is just nonsense.

In some geographical areas, fully human or fully-complete human means that the person is a true person including both the decomposing anatomy and the spiritual rational soul. I often use this term when talking about Paleoanthropology. In Catholicism, when we say that Jesus Christ is True God and True Man, we are describing the Person of Jesus as having both a Divine nature and a human nature as assumed. There is not a war between Divine and human natures.

Yes. A fully human cannot by definition also be a tree, a squirrel or a supernatural entity. However the reverse is possible because the Divine nature is a higher level, that is, Jesus has more power than a human. The Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity has a Divine nature; therefore, He has the power to assume human nature without trading in His Divinity.

When one talks about God being both changeless and subject to change at the same time, one omits the obvious observation that there is no need for the super-natural Divine God to change. In the same manner, being super-natural in the first place, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, does not need to lose His Divinity in order to assume human nature.

 

[Bahman]

Why did Mary make a sin offering in Luke 2:24, even though she was (according to Catholic understanding, anyway) sinless?

Perhaps she sinned. That could be our problems to rise them to a place where they are not.

 

[Nixbits]

garnnymh:

Yes. A fully human cannot by definition also be a tree, a squirrel or a supernatural entity. However the reverse is possible because the Divine nature is a higher level, that is, Jesus has more power than a human.

You seem to be agreeing that a fully human person cannot also be a God, but then you seem to say that someone fully divine can also by human. But not fully human, if your first sentence is true. So are we debating the meaning of the word ‘fully’ in this context? Or are you saying that it’s possible because God alone can have more than one ‘nature’?

 

[grannymh]

You seem to be agreeing that a fully human person cannot also be a God, but then you seem to say that someone fully divine can also by human. But not fully human, if your first sentence is true. So are we debating the meaning of the word ‘fully’ in this context? Or are you saying that it’s possible because God alone can have more than one ‘nature’?

Yes. A human person cannot change his nature into God’s nature. However, I did not infer that a divine God can also be a human person. What I did say was Jesus has “the power to assume human nature without trading in His Divinity.” (post 44)

This is what I said about the term “fully-human.” In some geographic areas it means “that the person is a true person including both the decomposing anatomy and the spiritual rational soul.” Now, if one is implying that the word assume means not fully human, then I would have to wait for a good definition or an example. At this moment, I cannot imagine a half fully human, missing a soul or missing a body.

Yes. God alone can have more than one nature. That is the basic foundation for the Incarnation which means that the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity as a Divine Person assumed human nature. By assuming human nature, the God Person does not have to abandon His divine nature. Losing the divine powers would be a real bummer.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Please name any other complex subject that does not need to do same thing. Precision in language is essential to communication and the discovery of truth. The world we live in demands that the complex, the simple, the important and the mundane, all must be described in using the same words in the language. Therefore distinctions in definition are mandatory.

Mathematics. Does “homomorphism” have heavy colloquial baggage? Hypotenuse? Countably infinite? Topology?

I’m not arguing against defining terms. I’m arguing against using deliberately misleading terms, or concepts that are colloquially held to be synonymous but asserted to be different without a justification.

For example, I’ve never heard an instance of this happening in mathematics:

Mathematician A: Hey, we’ve got a theorem that doesn’t make mathematical sense but we’re required to believe it anyway!

Mathematician B: What are we going to do?

Mathematician A: I don’t know!

Mathematician B: Well, the new theorem is related to countability, right?

Mathematician A: Yes, sort of. But it contradicts things we have already proven about countability.

Mathematician B: Well then, lets make a new thing called numberability.

Mathematician A: But that sounds like the same thing as countability, how will it help us?

Mathematician B: Oho! Numberability is not the same thing as countability, its very similar, but it has features that resolve the conflicts with this theorem we need to save for some reason!

Mathematician A: Great! What features are those?

Mathematician B: How should I know? Look, when you’re talking about this theorem, just pretend that numberability and countability are the same thing, right up until someone points out that there is a conflict with some other proof. When that happens, just say that our theorem was about numberability while the other proof is about countability and so there is no conflict.

Mathematician A: But what do we do if they see through this and point out that we’re just using our numerability concept as a get-out-of-jail-free card?

Mathematician B: Accuse them of being bad at math!

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Yikes! All those fancy words.

Take a look in the mirror. Do you see a Person? Now take a look at a puppy. We call the puppy an animal. The animal has an animal nature. For now, forget the personhood bit and most of the heavy colloquial baggage. While you are looking in the mirror, pinch yourself. Are you real? Then you are a Person. Try flapping your arms like a bird. How far up did you fly? Eight inches off the ground by jumping? Then you have a human nature.

I am on my way to a Fish Fry. I really like the edible nature of fish.

Thus, I need to cut this short. My human nature and brown bear’s nature enjoy fish. However, a brown bear and the human species are different in kind. In Alaska, I had the honor of watching large brown bears fishing in a stream. Believe it or not, further down the same stream, humans were fishing.

My point is that the Incarnation may be a great mystery. But when we use a bit of common sense, usually learned from Mother Nature and fishing in Alaska, we can actually understand the basics of the Incarnation.

Please tell me what you think about the above approach. Note. There is more to come like multiple natures and real natures like ours, birds, puppies, and bears. When it comes to God’s nature, the short cut definition is that God’s nature is super-natural.

So in your world, “natures” are synonymous with “properties” or “attributes”?

 

[grannymh]

So in your world, “natures” are synonymous with “properties” or “attributes”?

I apologize. I have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[grannymh]

Yikes! All those fancy words.

Take a look in the mirror. Do you see a Person? Now take a look at a puppy. We call the puppy an animal. The animal has an animal nature. For now, forget the personhood bit and most of the heavy colloquial baggage. While you are looking in the mirror, pinch yourself. Are you real? Then you are a Person. Try flapping your arms like a bird. How far up did you fly? Eight inches off the ground by jumping? Then you have a human nature.

I am on my way to a Fish Fry. I really like the edible nature of fish.

Thus, I need to cut this short. My human nature and brown bear’s nature enjoy fish. However, a brown bear and the human species are different in kind. In Alaska, I had the honor of watching large brown bears fishing in a stream. Believe it or not, further down the same stream, humans were fishing.

My point is that the Incarnation may be a great mystery. But when we use a bit of common sense, usually learned from Mother Nature and fishing in Alaska, we can actually understand the basics of the Incarnation.

Please tell me what you think about the above approach. Note. There is more to come like multiple natures and real natures like ours, birds, puppies, and bears. When it comes to God’s nature, the short cut definition is that God’s nature is super-natural.

Apparently, there is a problem with God having a super-natural nature. With this attack on God, there is no reason why I should continue with the above post 42.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I apologize. I have no clue what you are talking about.

I have created a diagram to illustrate the problem:

i.imgur.com/TZRy9hS.png

 

[grannymh]

I have created a diagram to illustrate the problem:

i.imgur.com/TZRy9hS.png

Thank you.

I took a look at your diagram and am sure it is right about the problem.

However, I will stick with my simple “ladder” approach to natural natures. There is plant nature, animal nature, human nature, and if one wishes to go further up the ladder, there is God nature which can be described as super—natural.