Incarnation is a false concept

[grannymh]

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

All I said was that God cannot defy logic.

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.

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

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

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

Human persons are rational thinkers. Please stop treating them as blind creatures without a brain.

 

[grannymh]

Thanks for your comments.

God is changeless in any attribute that he has.

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.

I am not talking about human since human is changeable.

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.

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

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

I hope that the argument is more clearer now.

It is becoming clear that God is being described as some made up creature slightly less than a human person.

 

[grannymh]

I am not talking about human since human is changeable.

Changeable as in getting a haircut.

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.

Yes, you are right that the real God, Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, is divinely capable of adding the lower level human nature to His Divine Person. That makes Incarnation a true concept. Hold that thought.

 

[grannymh]

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

So what? God has that power. Or is there an implication that God is some ordinary creature?

Is there an implication that God is not a Divine Transcendent Super-Natural Powerful Pure Spirit? Is there the logical attempt to deny a fully-complete God?

Obviously, lots of people want to logically deny that Jesus is fully God.(modern Arianism) Since Jesus “changed” by adding a lesser nature to His Divine Nature, He will change His mind about some of the Ten commandments because the human nature will tell Him that a reduced moral code makes life easier. That is a great happy reason to lessen the power of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Since the “changeless” changed His whatever, chapter 6, Gospel of John, does not have to be taken seriously. Why? There is no solid foundation that Jesus is God.

 

[NeedImprovement]

So what? God has that power. Or is there an implication that God is some ordinary creature?

Is there an implication that God is not a Divine Transcendent Super-Natural Powerful Pure Spirit? Is there the logical attempt to deny a fully-complete God?
. . .

You may have hit the nail on the head grannymh. I suspect the implication is that God is not a Divine Transcendent Super-Natural Powerful Pure Spirit , though I’m not quite convinced that the OP is fully aware of this. A certain leeway might be granted which would concede a potential difficulty for the OP to think outside the box on this one. Without faith , one can be at a disadvantage when it comes to an historical fact such as the Incarnation.

I question whether the OP is aware that God’s immutability is inferred from His being eternal.

The more complete way to express the principle is:

**God has no beginning , no succession and no end. **

God has no succession because He transcends time. But the finite human mind contemplates “a change” (or perceived change) the only way it knows how - within the confines of time and space , because without time and space change cannot be measured, noticed. I believe this is where a snag might exist for the OP - still trying to ascribe temporal parameters to an eternal God. The proposition insists on a before and an after for a God who is from everlasting to everlasting (- yet remains totally devoid of details concerning the “during” - which is tantamount to confirming God cannot be defined - which in turn admits the Incarnation is a mystery ).

As much as this thread is becoming an exercise in repetition, I’ve appreciated reading your posts grannymh - they are edifying.

. . . can’t help but feel a little bit sorry for those who lack faith. For those of us with faith, the historical fact of the Incarnation of our Blessed Lord is not at all a burdensome thing. We can freely rest in the words of the holy Archangel Gabriel, who, when announcing the Incarnation to the Blessed Virgin Mary , confirmed:

NAB Luke 1:37

“. . . for nothing will be impossible for God.”

Or, just as applicable , the words of God Incarnate Himself:

NAB Matt 19:26

Jesus looked at them and said, "For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible."

God is God . . . unlike the OP’s proposition which erroneously implies/lconcludes with faulty logic that God is not God.

 

[Bahman]

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.”

That is a change.

 

[Bahman]

Changeable as in getting a haircut.

Yes that is even a change.

Yes, you are right that the real God, Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, is divinely capable of adding the lower level human nature to His Divine Person. That makes Incarnation a true concept. Hold that thought.

That clearly define incarnation which is a change.

 

[Bahman]

So what? God has that power. Or is there an implication that God is some ordinary creature?

Yes, God cannot perform an act which is logically impossible.

Is there an implication that God is not a Divine Transcendent Super-Natural Powerful Pure Spirit? Is there the logical attempt to deny a fully-complete God?

You can define God that way accepting the previous comment.

Obviously, lots of people want to logically deny that Jesus is fully God.(modern Arianism) Since Jesus “changed” by adding a lesser nature to His Divine Nature, He will change His mind about some of the Ten commandments because the human nature will tell Him that a reduced moral code makes life easier. That is a great happy reason to lessen the power of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.

Yes, adding a human nature is not allowed since that is a change, no matter how small is the change.

 

[grannymh]

That is a change.

May we talk about change…

Vegetables change when we eat them. Is that correct? The change of vegetables into nourishment for our system is a good example of change. Is that correct?
Cancer can change our digestive system from working to non-working. Is that a good example of change? What does a haircut really change? When we get out of bed, is that a change of our bodily position? Does going from sleep to eating breakfast change our physical body? Of course it does. We can get fat.

My point is that it is about time I find out how you apply the word change. Can the above examples apply to God?

When we describe God as changeless, what is it about God that cannot change?

Looking at the simple examples above – if you consider them as changes, we humans are constantly changing.

Be careful. If you “change” your mind and say that God is always changing, then what is the difference between God and us? There are many people who will say that there is no difference between God and us. Therefore, there is no God. Is that your point?

 

[Vico]

That is a change.

It is not a change in God, however; God is abstract, not a concrete Person but nature. Did you read the other posts (Aquinas and my comments), so you could understand?

For example:

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.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

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

For a Christian the 3D reality of the incarnation precedes any 2D concept thereof.
If the concept cannot cope with the experienced reality then there must be something
not quite fulsome in the conceptual framework.

They say that according to science bumble bees should not fly.
Yet they do.

You see a triangle, I see a circle as well because you are looking at the circular pyramid from beneath. That doesn’t mean you are wrong … just limited because your raw data is limited.

 

[Vico]

For a Christian the 3D reality of the incarnation precedes any 2D concept thereof.
If the concept cannot cope with the experienced reality then there must be something
not quite fulsome in the conceptual framework.

They say that according to science bumble bees should not fly.
Yet they do.

You see a triangle, I see a circle as well because you are looking at the circular pyramid from beneath. That doesn’t mean you are wrong … just limited because your raw data is limited.

BTW, scientists know how they fly now, it not an enigma anymore: they move their wings back and forth, not up and down.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

BTW, scientists know how they fly now, it not an enigma anymore: they move their wings back and forth, not up and down.

One day Bahman will work it out too!

 

[Bahman]

May we talk about change…

Vegetables change when we eat them. Is that correct? The change of vegetables into nourishment for our system is a good example of change. Is that correct?
Cancer can change our digestive system from working to non-working. Is that a good example of change? What does a haircut really change? When we get out of bed, is that a change of our bodily position? Does going from sleep to eating breakfast change our physical body? Of course it does. We can get fat.

Yes, they are all changes.

My point is that it is about time I find out how you apply the word change. Can the above examples apply to God?

No.

When we describe God as changeless, what is it about God that cannot change?

Here we are talking about nature.

Looking at the simple examples above – if you consider them as changes, we humans are constantly changing.

Yes.

Be careful. If you “change” your mind and say that God is always changing, then what is the difference between God and us? There are many people who will say that there is no difference between God and us. Therefore, there is no God. Is that your point?

There is difference between God and us.

 

[Bahman]

I
t is not a change in God, however; God is abstract, not a concrete Person but nature. Did you read the other posts (Aquinas and my comments), so you could understand?

For example:

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.

I don’t really understand why this relation is one way.

 

[Bahman]

For a Christian the 3D reality of the incarnation precedes any 2D concept thereof.
If the concept cannot cope with the experienced reality then there must be something
not quite fulsome in the conceptual framework.

They say that according to science bumble bees should not fly.
Yet they do.

You see a triangle, I see a circle as well because you are looking at the circular pyramid from beneath. That doesn’t mean you are wrong … just limited because your raw data is limited.

I am sorry but I don’t understand what you are talking about.

 

[grannymh]

There is difference between God and us.

What exactly is the difference between God and us?

 

[grannymh]

Quote:
Originally Posted by grannymh http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*When we describe God as changeless, what is it about God that cannot change? *

Here we are talking about nature.

If I am correctly understanding that God’s nature cannot change, that would mean that the Incarnation is a true concept – simply because the nature of the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity cannot change. Therefore, the nature of Jesus Christ on earth remains the same as His nature in the Most Holy Trinity. Therefore, there is no change in the nature of God. Thus, the Incarnation is a true concept.

Because God’s nature cannot change, Jesus Christ retains His divine nature. Therefore, there is no change in God’s nature in the Incarnation. Thus, the Incarnation is a true concept.

 

[Vico]

I don’t really understand why this relation is one way.

Summa Theologica, Part i, Q13, A7.
… Since therefore God is outside the whole order of creation, and all creatures are ordered to Him, and not conversely, it is manifest that creatures are really related to God Himself; whereas in God there is no real relation to creatures, but a relation only in idea, inasmuch as creatures are referred to Him. Thus there is nothing to prevent these names which import relation to the creature from being predicated of God temporally, not by reason of any change in Him, but by reason of the change of the creature; as a column is on the right of an animal, without change in itself, but by change in the animal. …

newadvent.org/summa/1013.htm#article7

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I am sorry but I don’t understand what you are talking about.

Of course you don’t.
Unlike Granny and others I am critiquing your limited philosophic frame of reference and refusing to operate within it because to do so would be to accept your limited framework.

But instead of lifting your head up and seeing a bigger framework you more doggedly look to the ground and effectively keep saying “what do you think of my proof that bumble bees cannot fly” .

If I were to assist Granny I would suggest change is appropriately predicated of Jesus’s divine “hypostasis” but not of His Divine nature.

But “hypostasis” is so difficult a philosophic concept that I don’t think anyone here is capable of maintaining a coherent discussion on this myself included.

Bahman, I recommend Balthasar’s Cosmic Liturgy vol one (preceded by at least a Bachelors in Scholastic Philosophy) if you really want to pursue this angle that works even within your very narrow frame of reference.