Incarnation is a false concept

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bahman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
o_mlly said:
The argument at (3) fails because human reason, existing in the sequence of time, can only imagine existence in eternity. God exists in eternity and in eternity it is reasonable to posit that all moments in time are eternally present. Therefore, the Son in eternity has two natures and God does not change.
Click to expand...
So we are dealing with this paradox: Incarnation is an event in temporal framework. Isn’t it? If we accept that the Son has two natures in eternal framework then incarnation is a false concept in temporal framework.
 
grannymh said:
Apparently, you do not accept the usual definition for a Divine Person. That is sad because a true Divine Person, like Jesus Christ, can easily assume a human nature without changing His own Divine Nature. Divine trumps human.

In fact, a Divine Person loves you in your human nature. 👍
Click to expand...
We are talking about the person whether it undergoes a change or not. Divine nature of course is not a being which can change.
 
Bahman said:
So we are dealing with this -]paradox/-] reality: Incarnation is a-]n/-] sequenced event in the temporal framework-]. Isn’t it?/-] and an ever present event in the eternal framework. If we accept that the Son has two natures in eternal framework then incarnation is a-] false/-] reality in both frameworks experienced sequentially, as all things are, in the temporal framework.
Click to expand...
Reality is singular and independent of the human mind.
The temporal framework is a subset of the eternal framework.
Therefore, all concepts true in the eternal framework are true in the temporal framework.
 
Bahman said:
So we are dealing with one person and two natures after incarnation and one person and one nature before incarnation. Do you agree that incarnation is an event?
Click to expand...
There is an event when the rational soul and the body of Jesus Christ are created with hypostatic union to the eternally existing and unchanged divine nature. Do you remember the post on that from St. Thomas Aquinas? Summa Theologica, Part III, Q2, A7:

Objection 1. It would seem that the union of the Divine and human natures is not anything created. For there can be nothing created in God, because whatever is in God is God. But the union is in God, for God Himself is united to human nature. Therefore it seems that the union is not anything created.

I answer that, The union of which we are speaking is a relation which we consider between the Divine and the human nature, inasmuch as they come together in one Person of the Son of God. Now, as was said above (I, 13, 7), every relation which we consider between God and the creature is really in the creature, by whose change the relation is brought into being; whereas it is not really in God, but only in our way of thinking, since it does not arise from any change in God. And hence we must say that the union of which we are speaking is not really in God, except only in our way of thinking; but in the human nature, which is a creature, it is really. Therefore we must say it is something created.

Reply to Objection 1. This union is not really in God, but only in our way of thinking, for God is said to be united to a creature inasmuch as the creature is really united to God without any change in Him.

newadvent.org/summa/4002.htm#article7
 
Bahman said:
We are talking about the person whether it undergoes a change or not. Divine nature of course is not a being which can change.
Click to expand...
The divine person is eternally unchanging. His human nature is assumed and enters the human condition “in the fullnes of time”.

Also God is omnipotent. His ways are not our ways. Lack of understanding does not equal “impossible”. Lack of understanding is a good indication that a powerful mystery lies beneath.
 
Vico said:
There is an event when the rational soul and the body of Jesus Christ are created with hypostatic union to the eternally existing and unchanged divine nature. Do you remember the post on that from St. Thomas Aquinas? Summa Theologica, Part III, Q2, A7:

Objection 1. It would seem that the union of the Divine and human natures is not anything created. For there can be nothing created in God, because whatever is in God is God. But the union is in God, for God Himself is united to human nature. Therefore it seems that the union is not anything created.

I answer that, The union of which we are speaking is a relation which we consider between the Divine and the human nature, inasmuch as they come together in one Person of the Son of God. Now, as was said above (I, 13, 7), every relation which we consider between God and the creature is really in the creature, by whose change the relation is brought into being; whereas it is not really in God, but only in our way of thinking, since it does not arise from any change in God. And hence we must say that the union of which we are speaking is not really in God, except only in our way of thinking; but in the human nature, which is a creature, it is really. Therefore we must say it is something created.

Reply to Objection 1. This union is not really in God, but only in our way of thinking, for God is said to be united to a creature inasmuch as the creature is really united to God without any change in Him.

newadvent.org/summa/4002.htm#article7
Click to expand...
Yes, I remember that post. It seems that we run after each other in a circle. He is clearly talking about a creature, Jesus human being. We are dealing with two persons instead of one unified person. Is that correct?
 
clem456 said:
The divine person is eternally unchanging.
Click to expand...
That is correct.
clem456 said:
His human nature is assumed and enters the human condition “in the fullnes of time”.
Click to expand...
That is incorrect since he didn’t own any human nature. The human being should be created first and then assumed. The problem is that God has one nature before incarnation, namely divine, and two after incarnation, namely human and divine. This requires a change which is impossible.
clem456 said:
Also God is omnipotent. His ways are not our ways. Lack of understanding does not equal “impossible”. Lack of understanding is a good indication that a powerful mystery lies beneath.
Click to expand...
With the exception that God cannot do something which is logically impossible.
 
Bahman said:
That is correct.

That is incorrect since he didn’t own any human nature. The human being should be created first and then assumed. The problem is that God has one nature before incarnation, namely divine, and two after incarnation, namely human and divine. This requires a change which is impossible.

With the exception that God cannot do something which is logically impossible.
Click to expand...
Because God is not God and is only subject to your understanding?
The conversation really does not have a point if we do not agree there is an omnipotent God.
We are speaking two different languages.
So I am sorry to say I have nothing more worthwhile to contribute
 
Bahman said:
What do you mean with “reality is singular”?
Click to expand...
… and independent of the human mind. If you hold otherwise – that reality is multiple and is whatever you want to think it is – then there is no reason to debate.
Bahman said:
That is not correct. Temporal and eternal framework are independent frameworks.
Click to expand...
If you hold that there is no relation between the temporal and eternal – between God and man – then your argument attempting to relate the infinite with the finite is non-sense.
 
o_mlly said:
… and independent of the human mind. If you hold otherwise – that reality is multiple and is whatever you want to think it is – then there is no reason to debate.
Click to expand...
I see what do you mean with singular.
o_mlly said:
If you hold that there is no relation between the temporal and eternal – between God and man – then your argument attempting to relate the infinite with the finite is non-sense.
Click to expand...
There is a one to one relation between any state in temporal and eternal.
 
Bahman said:
Yes, I remember that post. It seems that we run after each other in a circle. He is clearly talking about a creature, Jesus human being. We are dealing with two persons instead of one unified person. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
No there is only one person with two natures. The eternal rational soul and mortal body of Jesus Christ was created, but not the divine nature.
 
Vico said:
No there is only one person with two natures. The eternal rational soul and mortal body of Jesus Christ was created, but not the divine nature.
Click to expand...
Either we have accept two persons, human and divine, or one person with two natures, divine nature with added human nature. In second case we have a change.
 
Bahman said:
Either we have accept two persons, human and divine, or one person with two natures, divine nature with added human nature. In second case we have a change.
Click to expand...
Nature and person are not identical, so is it possible for one person and two natures.
 
o_mlly said:
How do you define “eternal”?
Click to expand...
I have to correct myself. There is a one to one relation between any state creation in temporal and eternal knowledge of God about creation. By eternal I mean something without beginning or end, something without a change.
 
Bahman said:
I have to correct myself. There is a one to one relation between any state creation in temporal and eternal knowledge of God about creation. By eternal I mean something without beginning or end, something without a change.
Click to expand...
A bit confusing. Is a state of creation only in God’s mind? Or is a state of creation a reality in every rational mind that is in agreement and, therefore, possesses truth, i.e. a mind in conformance with reality?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top