It always bears repeating, since it is the greatest event, that the Person of the Son appropriates to Itself human nature, and takes the place of the human person, so the human nature of Christ supplies the place of the human person, and without change in the Person of the Son because all the change was in the Flesh. From conception, in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the human soul of Christ was created and assumed the man that was conceived.How is Jesus Christ created? (see words in bold) He is the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. He has a Divine Nature. As a Divine Person, Jesus Christ assumes human nature. He takes on a pure human nature without sin. Luke 1: 26-38
There is a change in God from a temporal perspective since incarnation is an historical event.There isn’t a change in God at all, including a temporal perspective. God didn’t change with the Incarnation.
Christi pax,
Lucretius
Incarnation is a historical event in temporal perspective hence there must be a change in God since the event is related to God.I can go with “simultaneous” if stripped of its relation to time. And I can go with Omniscience. But neither changes the validity of the conclusion: God does not change.
No, time is not a subset of eternity. It is a different perspective.No. Time is a subset of eternity (to which you have already agreed.) Events that happen, have happened or will happen in time are in eternity happening. There is no inconsistency in events only in the ephemeral duration of the event in time.
So how do you define incarnation?…God always has divine nature. The human nature is not part of the nature of God. God is simple without composition.
The Incarnation was of the Second Person of the Trinity. The First Person of God is still omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and immutable, and doesn’t loose those Divine qualities (especially the latter two, omnipresent and immutable) when the Second Person is Incarnate.Here there is the argument:
- God is changeless
- Incarnation is simply the union of God and human
- From (2) we can deduce that we have only God before incarnation and unified God and human after incarnation
- From (3) we can deduce that God undergo a change upon incarnation
- From (1) and (4) we can deduce that incarnation is a false concept
You have completely different idea about what incarnation is. Are you a Catholic?The Incarnation was of the Second Person of the Trinity. The First Person of God is still omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and immutable, and doesn’t loose those Divine qualities (especially the latter two, omnipresent and immutable) when the Second Person is Incarnate.
I think it worth noting that God offers us who exist in time an experience of His eternity whenever we assist at Mass. The Eucharist miraculously brings to the present, as it is in eternity, an historic event – Christ’s sacrifice.I attempt to only refute the OP’s claim that the Incarnation is (rationally) a false concept using logic.
The temporal world is all the moments in the created universe. In the temporal world, there was a moment when the Word was not flesh and at another moment when the Word becomes flesh. In the logical scheme I put forward, in eternity the Word is eternally flesh. Therefore, God the Son does not change.
The ideas expressed in the post you responded to, are consistent with Catholic teaching. Please understand Catholic teaching before making such judgements.You have completely different idea about what incarnation is. Are you a Catholic?
CCC said:262 The Incarnation of God’s Son reveals that God is the eternal Father and that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, which means that, in the Father and with the Father the Son is one and the same God.
464 The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.
463 Belief in the true Incarnation of the Son of God is the distinctive sign of Christian faith: "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God."85 Such is the joyous conviction of the Church from her beginning whenever she sings “the mystery of our religion”: "He was manifested in the flesh."86
The way that his/her post sounds to me is that the Son lost his divinity upon incarnation. The definition that you provided didn’t give any insight.The ideas expressed in the post you responded to, are consistent with Catholic teaching. Please understand Catholic teaching before making such judgements.
I am sorry that I didn’t reply to you post earlier.Bahman,
As a participant on this thread, it is your responsibility to, at least, read the posts. As a participant on this thread, it is your responsibility to, at least, determine if the post has merit.
As a free speech participant on this thread, you can ignore the above.
However, as a participant on this thread, it is my free choice to give you the benefit of the doubt. Which I do. Perhaps on this fast moving thread, you missed a post or maybe misread a post.
Please consider this question and suggested answer from post 41, page 3.
“If you add a coat when you go out in a northern winter, what did you change into? Perhaps a fury (warm) polar bear.”
The reason I used you and a possible answer is because you are one person, not two different persons. You experience yourself as one important person. There is no problem with that public observation.
Please notice that as one person, you can make choices. The example takes place in the winter season which means cold weather. Normally, a person, when making choices, would not choose to sit all day outside in one’s swimming suit during a northern winter. Therefore, it is reasonable that you as one person, with one human nature, would wear a coat when you go out in a northern winter. So far so good?
Now, if you will, go back to my suggested question/answer regarding you adding a coat to your person – What did you change into? Perhaps a fury (warm) polar bear. Consider that adding a coat did not change your human nature. You are still one human nature person. Adding a coat would change how you would feel, that is, cold in your swimming suit and warm in your coat. Nonetheless, being warm in your added coat did not change your human nature into a warm polar bear nature.
The Divine Jesus Christ is one Divine Person. The Incarnation gives the one Divine Person the means (assumed human nature) to walk with true humans in any kind of weather. You did not have to change your nature, human to animal, when you added a warm coat. The Divine one Person of Jesus Christ did not have to remove His Divinity in order to add or assume a human nature…in order to put on a coat when the weather turned chilly or to give His coat to someone without one. (Note. being divine has more power than a cold human.)
Adding one plus one is addition, not subtraction.
Subset Definition: a set of which all the elements are contained in another set.… No, time is not a subset of eternity. It is a different perspective.
Here is the major problem with your position. We dealing with one being only, not two. That being is the second person of the Trinity, Jesus. He is a divine person (being) with two natures, one divine, one human. Having two natures does not make Him two beings.I am sorry that I didn’t reply to you post earlier.
To me your example does not sound reasonable since we are dealing with two beings, one human and one God. If you believe that the act incarnation is similar to wearing a coat then there nothing more that I can offer but I don’t think that your example doesn’t sound reasonable.
For example you can read the second quote in post #68.
From the Modern Catholic Dictionary, Incarnation:So how do you define incarnation?
What!?o_mlly: In eternity all the moments of time are present.
Bahman: True, but events must be known in a time ordered way otherwise we end up with a mess.
It seems “Wherever it may go” is now going backwards. …
Thanks. But that is a wrong definition of subset.Subset Definition: a set of which all the elements are contained in another set.
You either have three person or four person. In the first case you have a change, even if it is like wearing a coat, and in the second case you have a problem with unification.Here is the major problem with your position. We dealing with one being only, not two. That being is the second person of the Trinity, Jesus. He is a divine person (being) with two natures, one divine, one human. Having two natures does not make Him two beings.
This is why the analogy of the coat does not work for you. You are starting from a false premise.
So, in fact, the Incarnation is much like putting on a coat. The person remains the same, even if they look differently.
Not a useful response.What!?
Merriam-Webster agrees with that definition of subset.Thanks. But that is a wrong definition of subset.
Correction for the last sentence:From the Modern Catholic Dictionary, Incarnation:
The union of the divine nature of the Son of God with human nature in the person of Jesus Christ. … His divine nature was substantially united to our human nature. …
So this requires understanding three terms:
The human nature is an immortal soul which combine with a corruptible body we call this a human person.
- person
- divine nature
- human nature
The divine nature is The Trinity which is absolutely simple and has no composition. The persons of the Trinity are the essential relations of opposition.
God appropriates to Itself human nature, and takes the place of the human person, so the human nature of Jesus Christ supplies the place of the human person, and without change in God because all the change was in the flesh. From conception, in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the human rational soul of Jesus Christ was created and assumed the man that was conceived.
This is really a problem. Here you first define incarnation as a result of union of human and divine nature. You later claim that the change is only in the flesh hence there is no change in the divine person.From the Modern Catholic Dictionary, Incarnation:
The union of the divine nature of the Son of God with human nature in the person of Jesus Christ. … His divine nature was substantially united to our human nature. …
Does assuming a human nature cause a change in the divine person?So this requires understanding three terms:
The human nature is an immortal soul which combine with a corruptible body we call this a human person.
- person
- divine nature
- human nature
The divine nature is The Trinity which is absolutely simple and has no composition. The persons of the Trinity are the essential relations of opposition.
God appropriates to Itself human nature, and takes the place of the human person, so the human nature of Jesus Christ supplies the place of the human person, and without change in God because all the change was in the flesh. From conception, in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the human rational soul of Jesus Christ was created and assumed the man that was conceived.