Incarnation is a false concept

[Lucretius]

Yes, (4) does follow from (3).

Three assumes that God changes by the Incarnation, but “the Union of God and human nature” could have a beginning in time, or it could have always been, in a sense.

It’s hard, but you have to be able to conceive what it means to exist outside time, and thus outside change. When God creates the world, He creates and experiences the past, present, and future at once. Thus, He is always Incarnated.

Incarnation should be consistent from our view too.

No it doesn’t, for the same reason God seems to change throughout history: God’s actions are all one action, one Logos, and they all “happen at once” for God who is outside time. But for us in time, it looks like multiple actions.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[o_mlly]

That is the problem. A timeless and changeless being cannot be related to a temporal and changeable being. Hence incarnation is impossible.

Begs the question.

In eternity all the moments of time are present.
In eternity, the Son of God Incarnates eternally.
When One in eternity enters time, from the perspective the temporal one, the One changes being subject to a past, present and future.
When One in eternity enters time, from the perspective of the eternal One, nothing changes as the One remains in the eternal present.

 

[grannymh]

Do you have three or four persons after incarnation?

The Catholic Church teaches that there are three Persons in the Most Holy Trinity. Their names are Father, Son, Holy Spirit. We say those three names when we make the Sign of the Cross.

This question is proposed – “Do you have three or four persons after incarnation?”

Today, when we make the Sign of the Cross, we do not say in the name of the Father, in the name of the two Persons, Son of God and Jesus Christ …

Today, when we pray, we do not first look at the calendar and say – today is an even number; therefore, we will pray to God the Son Person and since tomorrow, being an odd number, we will pray to the Jesus Person. The Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity is not two persons. Neither is the Second Person an “either - or” deal. It does not matter which name we call the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity is still one Person. That is why today, there are still only three Persons in the Most Holy Trinity. Trinity meaning three.

In other words, we do not normally describe a dog as two kittens. Except on a free
speech public message board. For example: On CAF, Everyone can present their personal description of two kittens being a dog. However, that is not the way the Catholic Church describes the Most Holy Trinity, meaning three Persons.

 

[NeedImprovement]

That is the problem. A timeless and changeless being cannot be related to a temporal and changeable being. Hence incarnation is impossible.

. . . Which necessarily implies that :

• The Resurrection is “impossible.”
• The Ascension is “impossible.”
• So you (your proposition) deny Christ altogether - Incarnation , Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven - all of which is contingent on the Hypostatic Union - which you also subsequently deny.
• Furthermore , because bread is temporal and subject to change, you (your proposition) cumulatively deny the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist.
• Your , um,(ahem) premise, would also deny the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Many more examples are possible, but 5 should be enough to make the point.

What it appears several fellow Catholic members have been endeavoring to point out to you is that you are* inventing* (maybe we could say adapting or* modifying*) definitions to fit your own argument - rather than learning the proper Catholic definitions of what we believe. When that happens - you are only actually debating with yourself, or, with the air.

For the debate to be genuine, and to benefit the greatest amount of readers and participants : If one wishes to debate articles of the Catholic faith - then one is obliged to debate those concepts as they are proposed according to Catholic definition - one cannot simply invent one’s own deficient definition and then call it Catholic just because it suits one’s argument.

Several Catholic definitions which are mandatory for this topic:

HYPOSTATIC UNION.
The union of the human and divine natures in the one divine person of Christ. At the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) the Church declared that the two natures of Christ are joined “in one person and one hypostasis” (Denzinger 302), where hypostasis means one substance. It was used to answer the Nestorian error of a merely accidental union of the two natures in Christ. The phrase “hypostatic union” was adopted a century later, at the fifth general council at Constantinople (A.D. 533). It is an adequate expression of Catholic doctrine about Jesus Christ that in him are two perfect natures, divine and human; that the divine person takes to himself, includes in his person a human nature; that the incarnate Son of God is an individual, complete substance; and that the union of the two natures is real (against Arius), no mere indwelling of God in a man (against Nestorius), with a rational soul (against Apollinaris), and the divinity remains unchanged (against Eutyches).

INCARNATION****Green Bolds mine]. The union of the divine nature of the Son of God with human nature in the person of Jesus Christ. The Son of God assumed our flesh, body, and soul, and dwelled among us like one of us in order to redeem us. His divine nature was substantially united to our human nature. Formerly the Feast of the Annunciation was called the Feast of the Incarnation. In the Eastern Churches the** mystery** is commemorated by a special feast on December 26. (Etym. Latin incarnatio; from in-, in + caro, flesh: incarnare, to make flesh.)

It is important to understand that the mystery being discussed cannot be rationally conceived by the finite mind. Catholics are asked to give their assent of faith to the dogma of the Incarnation - not to be able to explain all the minute details of how God does it. If we were able to do that, there wouldn’t really be any miracles. Miracles however, are at the very heart of our Catholic faith.

MYSTERY.
A divinely revealed truth whose very possibility cannot be rationally conceived before it is revealed and, after revelation, whose inner essence cannot be fully understood by the finite mind. The incomprehensibility of revealed mysteries derives from the fact that they are manifestations of God, who is infinite and therefore beyond the complete grasp of a created intellect. Nevertheless, though incomprehensible, mysteries are intelligible. One of the primary duties of a believer is, through prayer, study, and experience, to grow in faith, i.e., to develop an understanding of what God has revealed. (Etym. Greek mystērion, something closed, a secret.)

**DOGMA **
Doctrine taught by the Church to be believed by all the faithful as part of divine revelation. All dogmas, therefore, are formally revealed truths and promulgated as such by the Church. They are revealed either in Scripture or tradition, either explicitly (as the Incarnation) or implicitly (as the Assumption). Moreover, their acceptance by the faithful must be proposed as necessary for salvation. They may be taught by the Church in a solemn manner, as with the definition of the Immaculate Conception, or in an ordinary way, as with the constant teaching on the malice of taking innocent human life. (Etym. Latin dogma; from Greek dogma, declaration, decree.)

All Definitions from :Modern Catholic Dictinary; Fr. John Hardon, S.J.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Do you have three or four persons after incarnation?

As an afterthought , you do appear to have a partial grasp on this mystery (of the Holy Trinity - as grannymh described) as it relates to the Incarnation. There are three persons in one God- regardless of whether it is pre or post Incarnation.

However, it is also true that Jesus Christ had two wills - a Divine will and a human will.

Not that easy a concept to grasp - even for Catholics, but just thought you might like to know you do seem to have a hold on part of it.

 

[grannymh]

As an afterthought , you do appear to have a partial grasp on this mystery (of the Holy Trinity - as grannymh described) as it relates to the Incarnation. There are three persons in one God- regardless of whether it is pre or post Incarnation.

However, it is also true that Jesus Christ had two wills - a Divine will and a human will.

Not that easy a concept to grasp - even for Catholics, but just thought you might like to know you do have a hold on part of it.

Yup! Two wills are not an easy concept to grasp.

Christ’s human will

**CCC ****475 **Similarly, at the sixth ecumenical council, Constantinople III in 681, the Church confessed that Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but cooperate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation. Christ’s human will “does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will.”

**CCC ****482 **Christ, being true God and true man, has a human intellect and will, perfectly attuned and subject to his divine intellect and divine will, which he has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

**CCC ****483 **The Incarnation is therefore the mystery of the wonderful union of the divine and human natures in the one person of the Word.

Thy Will Be Done on Earth as It Is in Heaven. CCC 2822- 2827

**CCC ****2824 **In Christ, and through his human will, the will of the Father has been perfectly fulfilled once for all. Jesus said on entering into this world: “Lo, I have come to do your will, O God.” Only Jesus can say: “I always do what is pleasing to him.” In the prayer of his agony, he consents totally to this will: “not my will, but yours be done.” For this reason Jesus “gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father.” “And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

 

[NeedImprovement]

For some reason , the link posted 2 posts previously to Father John Hardon’s MODERN CATHOLIC DICTIONARY doesn’t seem to work.

I apologize for that.

Here’s a working link : MODERN CATHOLIC DICTIONARY ; Fr. John Hardon, S.J.

 

[Bahman]

May I gently point out that you may be talking about union of God and human; however, that is not exactly what the Catholic Church is talking about.

What is the position of the Church?

 

[Bahman]

Three assumes that God changes by the Incarnation, but “the Union of God and human nature” could have a beginning in time, or it could have always been, in a sense.

It’s hard, but you have to be able to conceive what it means to exist outside time, and thus outside change. When God creates the world, He creates and experiences the past, present, and future at once. Thus, He is always Incarnated.

God cannot exist outside of the time because there is no objective time. I have a thread on this topic. It is very simple: our senses allow us to observe form and motion but not objective time.

No it doesn’t, for the same reason God seems to change throughout history: God’s actions are all one action, one Logos, and they all “happen at once” for God who is outside time. But for us in time, it looks like multiple actions.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Any phenomena has to be consistent whether you look at it from temporal or timeless view. That is correct that God see everything at one eternal now but God knows the events in a time order way otherwise we end up with a mess.

 

[Bahman]

Begs the question.

In eternity all the moments of time are present.

True, but events must be known in a time ordered way otherwise we end up with a mess.

In eternity, the Son of God Incarnates eternally.

I would like to see whether incarnation in temporal perspective implements any change in God?

When One in eternity enters time, from the perspective the temporal one, the One changes being subject to a past, present and future.
When One in eternity enters time, from the perspective of the eternal One, nothing changes as the One remains in the eternal present.

That is wrong because any event has to be consistent in the temporal and eternal perspectives. I mean if incarnation implement a change in God within temporal perspective then this requires a change in eternal perspective too. This is clear that you end up with a dilemma which you cannot resolve because you cannot possibly have any change in eternal perspective whereas change is possible in temporal picture.

 

[Vico]

Here there is the argument:

1. God is changeless
2. Incarnation is simply the union of God and human
3. From (2) we can deduce that we have only God before incarnation and unified God and human after incarnation
4. From (3) we can deduce that God undergo a change upon incarnation
5. From (1) and (4) we can deduce that incarnation is a false concept

God the Son is:

• timeless and unchangeable with respect to his divine nature
• temporal and changeable with respect to his human nature.

This is timelessly true, and God could have freely chosen not to take on a human nature.
Incarnation did not change what the Incarnation is.

 

[Bahman]

. . . Which necessarily implies that :

• The Resurrection is “impossible.”
• The Ascension is “impossible.”
• So you (your proposition) deny Christ altogether - Incarnation , Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven - all of which is contingent on the Hypostatic Union - which you also subsequently deny.
• Furthermore , because bread is temporal and subject to change, you (your proposition) cumulatively deny the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist.
• Your , um,(ahem) premise, would also deny the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Many more examples are possible, but 5 should be enough to make the point.

What it appears several fellow Catholic members have been endeavoring to point out to you is that you are* inventing* (maybe we could say adapting or* modifying*) definitions to fit your own argument - rather than learning the proper Catholic definitions of what we believe. When that happens - you are only actually debating with yourself, or, with the air.

For the debate to be genuine, and to benefit the greatest amount of readers and participants : If one wishes to debate articles of the Catholic faith - then one is obliged to debate those concepts as they are proposed according to Catholic definition - one cannot simply invent one’s own deficient definition and then call it Catholic just because it suits one’s argument.

Several Catholic definitions which are mandatory for this topic:

It is important to understand that the mystery being discussed cannot be rationally conceived by the finite mind. Catholics are asked to give their assent of faith to the dogma of the Incarnation - not to be able to explain all the minute details of how God does it. If we were able to do that, there wouldn’t really be any miracles. Miracles however, are at the very heart of our Catholic faith.

All Definitions from :Modern Catholic Dictinary; Fr. John Hardon, S.J.

Definition is useful when you make an argument with it. What is the point of giving a definition when you claim later that the subject matter is a mystery/miracle and we cannot understand it? In contrary I am trying to convince you that incarnation is something which is logically impossible. It is simple, God cannot defy logic. My argument is very simple: Incarnation requires a change in God in temporal perspective because we have a union of God and human. God however is changeless so we end up with contradiction which obviously has no solution.

 

[Bahman]

The Catholic Church teaches that there are three Persons in the Most Holy Trinity. Their names are Father, Son, Holy Spirit. We say those three names when we make the Sign of the Cross.

This question is proposed – “Do you have three or four persons after incarnation?”

Today, when we make the Sign of the Cross, we do not say in the name of the Father, in the name of the two Persons, Son of God and Jesus Christ …

Today, when we pray, we do not first look at the calendar and say – today is an even number; therefore, we will pray to God the Son Person and since tomorrow, being an odd number, we will pray to the Jesus Person. The Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity is not two persons. Neither is the Second Person an “either - or” deal. It does not matter which name we call the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity is still one Person. That is why today, there are still only three Persons in the Most Holy Trinity. Trinity meaning three.

In other words, we do not normally describe a dog as two kittens. Except on a free
speech public message board. For example: On CAF, Everyone can present their personal description of two kittens being a dog. However, that is not the way the Catholic Church describes the Most Holy Trinity, meaning three Persons.

So there are three persons after incarnation hence there is a change in God, the union, which is impossible because God cannot change.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
May I gently point out that you may be talking about union of God and human; however, that is not exactly what the Catholic Church is talking about.

What is the position of the Church?

My words “not exactly” refers to the Catholic position that the union of God and human is based on divine and human natures (plural intended) which remain as individual natures belonging to the one Person known as Jesus Christ. We have to careful not to imply that there is a union of God Person and human person becoming one person which would indicate a nature changing into another nature.

 

[Bahman]

As an afterthought , you do appear to have a partial grasp on this mystery (of the Holy Trinity - as grannymh described) as it relates to the Incarnation. There are three persons in one God- regardless of whether it is pre or post Incarnation…

That is what I want to hear. You can distinguish between pre or post incarnation because of a change. Who changed? God, who is changeless!

 

[Bahman]

Yup! Two wills are not an easy concept to grasp.

Christ’s human will

**CCC ****475 **Similarly, at the sixth ecumenical council, Constantinople III in 681, the Church confessed that Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but cooperate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation. Christ’s human will “does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will.”

**CCC ****482 **Christ, being true God and true man, has a human intellect and will, perfectly attuned and subject to his divine intellect and divine will, which he has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

**CCC ****483 **The Incarnation is therefore the mystery of the wonderful union of the divine and human natures in the one person of the Word.

Thy Will Be Done on Earth as It Is in Heaven. CCC 2822- 2827

**CCC ****2824 **In Christ, and through his human will, the will of the Father has been perfectly fulfilled once for all. Jesus said on entering into this world: “Lo, I have come to do your will, O God.” Only Jesus can say: “I always do what is pleasing to him.” In the prayer of his agony, he consents totally to this will: “not my will, but yours be done.” For this reason Jesus “gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father.” “And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Two wills after incarnation and one will before incarnation. That is a change.

 

[Bahman]

God the Son is:

• timeless and unchangeable with respect to his divine nature
• temporal and changeable with respect to his human nature.

This is timelessly true, and God could have freely chosen not to take on a human nature.
Incarnation did not change what the Incarnation is.

That requires a change in God which is impossible.

 

[Bahman]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
May I gently point out that you may be talking about union of God and human; however, that is not exactly what the Catholic Church is talking about.

My words “not exactly” refers to the Catholic position that the union of God and human is based on divine and human natures (plural intended) which remain as individual natures belonging to the one Person known as Jesus Christ. We have to careful not to imply that there is a union of God Person and human person becoming one person which would indicate a nature changing into another nature.

I can agree with the bold part. But you cannot deny that God has two wills after incarnation versus one will before incarnation. This is a change which is not allowed.

 

[grannymh]

That is what I want to hear. You can distinguish between pre or post incarnation because of a change. Who changed? God, who is changeless!

That is missing the point that there is a difference in time between pre or post anything.

How do you tell the difference between pre-civil war and post-civil war?

How do you tell the difference between pre-breakfast and post-breakfast?

Now, you are correct that there is usually a noticeable change between your pre-haircut and your post-haircut.

Maybe the problem is not necessarily your eyesight.

 

[grannymh]

I can agree with the bold part. But you cannot deny that God has two wills after incarnation versus one will before incarnation. This is a change which is not allowed.

Pardon me. Who is the “God” you are referring to?

Your use of “God” sounds like a thousand miles from the Most Holy Trinity as taught in the Catholic Church. Maybe I should ask which religion you are referring to.