Incarnation is a false concept

[grannymh]

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.

Does assuming a human nature cause a change in the divine person?

NO

 

[Vico]

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.

Does assuming a human nature cause a change in the divine person?

No change in the divine person the Son.

The Collins English dictionary has three meanings for incarnation:

**noun **

1. 
   *]the act of manifesting or state of being manifested in bodily form, esp human form
   *]a bodily form assumed by a god, etc
   *]a person or thing that typifies or represents some quality, idea, etc ⇒ the weasel is the incarnation of ferocity
   
   The Incarnation, from the Catholic Dictionary is the Christian theological use of the second meaning.
   
   I don’t know if you read my correction:
   

   From conception, in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the human rational soul of Jesus Christ was created and God assumed the man that was conceived.

   What occurs is that God creates a human rational soul and body for Jesus Christ and that involves change, but the divine nature of God is united with that human rational soul and body so that the person of The Son replaces what would be the human person. Both the divine nature and human nature are there in the person of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

 

[Bahman]

No change in the divine person the Son.

The Collins English dictionary has three meanings for incarnation:

**noun **

1. 
   *]the act of manifesting or state of being manifested in bodily form, esp human form
   *]a bodily form assumed by a god, etc
   *]a person or thing that typifies or represents some quality, idea, etc ⇒ the weasel is the incarnation of ferocity
   
   The Incarnation, from the Catholic Dictionary is the Christian theological use of the second meaning.
   
   I don’t know if you read my correction:
   
   What occurs is that God creates a human rational soul and body for Jesus Christ and that involves change, but the divine nature of God is united with that human rational soul and body so that the person of The Son replaces what would be the human person. Both the divine nature and human nature are there in the person of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

1. 
   But the Son didn’t have any human nature before incarnation. He has human nature after incarnation. Does this implement a change?

 

[grannymh]

But the Son didn’t have any human nature before incarnation. He has human nature after incarnation. Does this implement a change?

NO

 

[Bahman]

NO

Yes, it does mean a change.

 

[Bahman]

NO

We are talking about a human soul which is not zero.

 

[davidv]

We are talking about a human soul which is not zero.

No, we (Catholics) are not talking a human soul. We are talking about a divine person who has two natures.

CCC:

IV. HOW IS THE SON OF GOD MAN?

470 Because “human nature was assumed, not absorbed”,97 in the mysterious union of the Incarnation, the Church was led over the course of centuries to confess the full reality of Christ’s human soul, with its operations of intellect and will, and of his human body. In parallel fashion, she had to recall on each occasion that Christ’s human nature belongs, as his own, to the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it. Everything that Christ is and does in this nature derives from “one of the Trinity”. The Son of God therefore communicates to his humanity his own personal mode of existence in the Trinity. In his soul as in his body, Christ thus expresses humanly the divine ways of the Trinity:98

The Son of God. . . worked with human hands; he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin.99

You may be talking about a human soul. It is not clear why, except possibly to divert from the information that discounts your claims.

 

[NeedImprovement]

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? . .

So, you continue to reject the correct, proper definition of the Incarnation ? Why ? That in itself is not very logical. Even miracles are logical, though they are not what we commonly observe in nature, because as St. Thomas Aquinas says, “It is in the nature of all created things to be responsive to God’s will.”

. . . In contrary I am trying to convince you that incarnation is something which is logically impossible. It is simple, God cannot defy logic . . .

Logic is the science of human reasoning. Are you saying that God cannot defy human reasoning – especially where a premise or proposition might be flawed ? God is omniscient ; man is not.

. . . My argument is very simple: Incarnation requires a change in God in temporal perspective because we have a union of God and human.

It doesn’t appear as if you understand God’s omnipotent attribute . You don’t seem to understand that God is infinite. Your argument is flawed .

. . . God however is changeless so we end up with contradiction which obviously has no solution.

There is a contradiction which seems to be – only in your mind. If you really understood Who God is and that He can do all things and everything , you would understand that you cnnot define God. And to be clear***,we*** cannot define God because God has no* genus*. - But you obviously believe He does : You are attributing to God a created nature because you are equating God’s nature to man’s nature. You don’t want to learn Catholic definitions, but you can You’re grounded in the natural and attempting to argue the supernatural.

If you would bother to learn Catholic terms and definitions , it might expand your thinking. The entire explanation is laid out - with logical precision.

It is as if you’ve gotten yourself snagged on some form of anthromorphism and you can’t think beyond it. You’re using that as one of your premises.

(iii) Finally it should be observed that, while predicating pure perfections literally both of God and of creatures, it is always understood that these predicates are true in an infinitely higher sense of God than of creatures, and that there is no thought of coordinating or classifying God with creatures. This is technically expressed by saying that all ourknowledge of God is analogical, and that all predicates applied to God and to creatures are used analogically, not univocally.

But as creation itself did not affect the immutability of God, so neither did the incarnation of a Divine Person; whatever change was involved in either case took place solely in the created nature.

We say of a contingent being that it has a certain nature or essence, but of the self-existent we say that it is its own nature or essence. There is no composition therefore of essence and existence — or of potentiality and actuality — in God, nor can the composition of genus and specific difference, implied for example in the definition of man as a rational animal, be attributed to Him. God cannot be classified or defined, as contingent beings are classified and defined; for there is no aspect of being in which He is perfectly similar to the finite, and consequently no genus in which He can be included.

You not only think that God can be defined, you think God can be measured too. He can’t be. .:dts:

 

[Vico]

But the Son didn’t have any human nature before incarnation. He has human nature after incarnation. Does this implement a change?

The union is not in the nature but in the person. There is no change in the nature.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in Summa Theologica, Part 3, Question 2. The mode of union of the Word incarnate, Article 2. Whether the union of Incarnate Word took place in the Person?
Reply to Objection 1. Although in God Nature and Person are not really distinct, yet they have distinct meanings, as was said above, inasmuch as person signifies after the manner of something subsisting. And because human nature is united to the Word, so that the Word subsists in it, and not so that His Nature receives therefrom any addition or change, it follows that the union of human nature to the Word of God took place in the person, and not in the nature.

Article 7. Whether the union of the Divine nature and the human is 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.
newadvent.org/summa/4002.htm#article1

 

[NeedImprovement]

Further to Vico’s post , continuing :

Summa Theologica ;Third Part , Question 2 ; The Mode of Union of the Word Incarnate

Article 8. Whether union is the same as assumption?

. . .** On the contrary**, The Divine Nature is said to be united, not assumed.

I answer that, As was stated above (Article 7), union implies a certain relation of the Divine Nature and the human, according as they come together in one Person. Now all relations which begin in time are brought about by some change; and change consists in action and passion. Hence the “first” and principal difference between assumption and union must be said to be that union implies the relation: whereas assumption implies the action, whereby someone is said to assume, or the passion, whereby something is said to be assumed. Now from this difference another “second” difference arises, for assumption implies “becoming,” whereas union implies “having become,” and therefore the thing uniting is said to be united, but the thing assuming is not said to be assumed. For the human nature is taken to be in the terminus of assumption unto the Divine hypostasis when man is spoken of; and hence we can truly say that the Son of God, Who assumes human nature unto Himself, is man. But human nature, considered in itself, i.e. in the abstract, is viewed as assumed; and we do not say the Son of God is human nature. From this same follows a “third” difference, which is that a relation, especially one of equiparance, is no more to one extreme than to the other, whereas action and passion bear themselves differently to the agent and the patient, and to different termini. And hence assumption determines the term whence and the term whither; for assumption means a taking to oneself from another. But union determines none of these things. hence it may be said indifferently that the human nature is united with the Divine, or conversely. But the Divine Nature is not said to be assumed by the human, but conversely, because the human nature is joined to the Divine personality, so that the Divine Person subsists in human nature.

Reply to Objection 1. Union and assumption have not the same relation to the term, but a different relation, as was said above.

Reply to Objection 2. What unites and what assumes are not the same. For whatsoever Person assumes unites, and not conversely. For the Person of the Father united the human nature to the Son, but not to Himself; and hence He is said to unite and not to assume. So likewise the united and the assumed are not identical, for the Divine Nature is said to be united, but not assumed.

Reply to Objection 3. Assumption determines with whom the union is made on the part of the one assuming, inasmuch as assumption means taking unto oneself [ad se sumere, whereas incarnation and humanation (determine with whom the union is made) on the part of the thing assumed, which is flesh or human nature. And thus assumption differs logically both from union and from incarnation or humanation.

[/quote]

 

[adamhovey1988]

(4) doesn’t follow from (1). The Son did incarnate, but His Divinity didn’t change by the Incarnation.

Furthermore, I think a Christian can go farther and claim that (3) is false; because God doesn’t change, He was always Incarnated. The reason it seems like His Incarnation had a beginning is because, from our view in time, it did. But because God is outside time, or above corruption/change, He was, is, and will be always Incarnating.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Yep, And I learned this from the Melkites.

Only-begotten Son and Word of God,
immortal as You are. You condescended for
our salvation to take flesh of the holy
Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, and
without undergoing change, You became
Man. You were crucified, O Christ God, and
crushed Death by Your death. You are One
of the Holy Trinity, equal in glory with the
Father and the Holy Spirit: save us.

 

[NeedImprovement]

@ Bahman : Although I don’t agree with you, I know it’s still a lot of work when you have to try and answer everyone’s questions/responses within a reasonable delay . Sorry to give you a little more work. I’ve already mentioned your premises, but I also believe, that if we follow the logic you presented, the *conclusion * comes out a little bit different than what you claim it to be.

Here is the original argument you posted

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

The way you have presented your argument, even if I weren’t to question your premises at all, I believe the more accurate conclusion (Number 5 ) , would look like this:

1. From (1) and (4) we can deduce that God is not God.

Look at numbers 1) and 4) again and I think you’ll be inclined to agree. This is the more logical conclusion.

 

[grannymh]

@ Bahman : Although I don’t agree with you, I know it’s still a lot of work when you have to try and answer everyone’s questions/responses within a reasonable delay . Sorry to give you a little more work. I’ve already mentioned your premises, but I also believe, that if we follow the logic you presented, the *conclusion *comes out a little bit different than what you claim it to be.

Here is the original argument you posted

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

The way you have presented your argument, even if I weren’t to question your premises at all, I believe the more accurate conclusion (Number 5 ) , would look like this:

1. From (1) and (4) we can deduce that God is not God.

Look at numbers 1) and 4) again and I think you’ll be inclined to agree. This is the more logical conclusion.

I have been thinking about going back to square one …

1. “God is changeless” sounds o.k. as a beginning axiom. Actually, if the point is that God has changed and you are trying to prove it, perhaps point 1 should be – God can change. However, someone would be sure to ask – Change what?
2. “Incarnation is simply the union of God and human” is not substantiated. What is the union specifically. An union of God and human could mean anything. For example they are unified when it comes to doing good. Or they belong to the same group or class. The only thing we know about God is that He is changeless. Since the union is described as simple, that infers that God and human could have the same nature. What is the nature that both God and human share so that their union is uncomplicated? Or what is the nature of each participant?
3. “From (2) we can deduce that we have only God before incarnation and unified God and human after incarnation” If you are going to say that one of the two participants is before the incarnation, why are you not saying that the human is before the Incarnation? Since the union is described as simple, that infers that God and human could easily have the same nature. Since the natures of God and human have not been clarified, the human can be divine. Perhaps, a clarification is needed. Are you talking about a human person? Are you talking about human nature?
4. “From (3) we can deduce that God undergo a change upon incarnation” By now people will be asking – Change how?
5. “From (1) and (4) we can deduce that incarnation is a false concept” What is the concept? My apology. There are three Persons in the Most Holy Trinity. I should have asked how are you using the word God.

The problem of forming an argument on this type of thread is the assumption that everyone knows all the nitty-gritty details. Thus, when important details are left out and/or clarifications are missing, the argument has too many holes to really be effective.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

Yes the Jews thought so too - God is pure spirit and beyond all materiality.
So why on earth would the Apostles invent such a stupid concept - unless it actually happened.

And that’s the thing.
The Incarnation was never a concept or a philosophy.
It was for them an undeniable reality - philosophy would follow and if it didn’t fit then it would have to be re-worked because it was true.

 

[Bahman]

So, you continue to reject the correct, proper definition of the Incarnation ? Why ? That in itself is not very logical. Even miracles are logical, though they are not what we commonly observe in nature, because as St. Thomas Aquinas says, “It is in the nature of all created things to be responsive to God’s will.”

That is how you explained it is your post. You first give the definition and later claim that we cannot understand miracles.

Logic is the science of human reasoning. Are you saying that God cannot defy human reasoning – especially where a premise or proposition might be flawed ? God is omniscient ; man is not.

All I said was that God cannot defy logic.

It doesn’t appear as if you understand God’s omnipotent attribute . You don’t seem to understand that God is infinite. Your argument is flawed .

It is not flawed. Now you are saying that we cannot understand God. In your first comment you mentioned that we can understand miracles, which beings incarnation.

There is a contradiction which seems to be – only in your mind. If you really understood Who God is and that He can do all things and everything , you would understand that you cnnot define God. And to be clear***,we*** cannot define God because God has no* genus*. - But you obviously believe He does : You are attributing to God a created nature because you are equating God’s nature to man’s nature. You don’t want to learn Catholic definitions, but you can You’re grounded in the natural and attempting to argue the supernatural.

God apparently assume human nature, so God has two natures after incarnation whereas he has one before incarnation. This is a change.

If you would bother to learn Catholic terms and definitions , it might expand your thinking. The entire explanation is laid out - with logical precision.

That is what I am trying to do. I get your definition and try to understand your faith.

You not only think that God can be defined, you think God can be measured too. He can’t be. .:dts:

So why you bother to define incarnation if you believe that God could not be comprehended?

 

[Bahman]

The union is not in the nature but in the person. There is no change in the nature.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in Summa Theologica, Part 3, Question 2. The mode of union of the Word incarnate, Article 2. Whether the union of Incarnate Word took place in the Person?
Reply to Objection 1. Although in God Nature and Person are not really distinct, yet they have distinct meanings, as was said above, inasmuch as person signifies after the manner of something subsisting. And because human nature is united to the Word, so that the Word subsists in it, and not so that His Nature receives therefrom any addition or change, it follows that the union of human nature to the Word of God took place in the person, and not in the nature.

Article 7. Whether the union of the Divine nature and the human is 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.
newadvent.org/summa/4002.htm#article1

I didn’t say that the change in his nature. Does God have two natures after incarnation whereas one before incarnation?

 

[Bahman]

@ Bahman : Although I don’t agree with you, I know it’s still a lot of work when you have to try and answer everyone’s questions/responses within a reasonable delay . Sorry to give you a little more work. I’ve already mentioned your premises, but I also believe, that if we follow the logic you presented, the *conclusion * comes out a little bit different than what you claim it to be.

Here is the original argument you posted

The way you have presented your argument, even if I weren’t to question your premises at all, I believe the more accurate conclusion (Number 5 ) , would look like this:

1. From (1) and (4) we can deduce that God is not God.

Look at numbers 1) and 4) again and I think you’ll be inclined to agree. This is the more logical conclusion.

No, that only means that incarnation is false concept since we accept a definition for God in (1).

 

[Bahman]

I have been thinking about going back to square one …

Thanks for your comments.

1. “God is changeless” sounds o.k. as a beginning axiom. Actually, if the point is that God has changed and you are trying to prove it, perhaps point 1 should be – God can change. However, someone would be sure to ask – Change what?

God is changeless in any attribute that he has.

1. “Incarnation is simply the union of God and human” is not substantiated. What is the union specifically. An union of God and human could mean anything. For example they are unified when it comes to doing good. Or they belong to the same group or class. The only thing we know about God is that He is changeless. Since the union is described as simple, that infers that God and human could have the same nature. What is the nature that both God and human share so that their union is uncomplicated? Or what is the nature of each participant?

You are right, I should be more prcise. We have a created human. We have God with divine nature. Then later God assume human adding one nature, human nature, to his divine nature.

1. “From (2) we can deduce that we have only God before incarnation and unified God and human after incarnation” If you are going to say that one of the two participants is before the incarnation, why are you not saying that the human is before the Incarnation?

I am not talking about human since human is changeable.

Since the union is described as simple, that infers that God and human could easily have the same nature. Since the natures of God and human have not been clarified, the human can be divine. Perhaps, a clarification is needed. Are you talking about a human person? Are you talking about human nature?

We have a created man before incarnation. We also have God before incarnation. Upon incarnation, God assume human being and add one nature, human nature, to his divine nature.

1. “From (3) we can deduce that God undergo a change upon incarnation” By now people will be asking – Change how?

Change in person who had one divine nature before incarnation and two nature, divine and human, after incarnation.

1. “From (1) and (4) we can deduce that incarnation is a false concept” What is the concept? My apology. There are three Persons in the Most Holy Trinity. I should have asked how are you using the word God.

By God I meant the Holy Trinity in which the second person undergo a change.

The problem of forming an argument on this type of thread is the assumption that everyone knows all the nitty-gritty details. Thus, when important details are left out and/or clarifications are missing, the argument has too many holes to really be effective.

I hope that the argument is more clearer now.

 

[Bahman]

Yes the Jews thought so too - God is pure spirit and beyond all materiality.
So why on earth would the Apostles invent such a stupid concept - unless it actually happened.

And that’s the thing.
The Incarnation was never a concept or a philosophy.
It was for them an undeniable reality - philosophy would follow and if it didn’t fit then it would have to be re-worked because it was true.

So, do you accept the fact that my argument is right?

 

[Vico]

I didn’t say that the change in his nature. Does God have two natures after incarnation whereas one before incarnation?

No.

In Christ there are two natures, so statements interchanging the Divine and human properties of Christ are generally incorrect if either one or both of their subject and predicate are abstract terms, because abstract terms stand for their respective nature.

Concrete human names of Christ describe His person according to His human nature. Jesus has two distinct natures, divine and human, but inseparably united in the one person.

“we do not say the Son of God is human nature” we do say that “the human nature is joined to the Divine personality.”