Incarnation is a false concept

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bahman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vico said:
Yes, not a new person however there is a new human nature: “The union of which we are speaking is a relation which we consider between the Divine and the human nature” … “but in the human nature, which is a creature”.
Click to expand...
And who is holding the human nature? The human person, Jesus, hence we need a new person.
 
Bahman said:
And who is holding the human nature? The human person, Jesus, hence we need a new person.
Click to expand...
There is just one Person of Christ, not a new person, which subsists in two natures.

St. Thomas Aquinas writes in Summa Theologica, Part II, Q2

Article 3. Whether the union of the Word Incarnate took place in the suppositum or hypostasis?
On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 3,4,5): “In our Lord Jesus Christ we acknowledge two natures and one hypostasis.”

I answer that, Some who did not know the relation of hypostasis to person, although granting that there is but one person in Christ, held, nevertheless, that there is one hypostasis of God and another of man, and hence that the union took place in the person and not in the hypostasis. Now this, for three reasons, is clearly erroneous. …

Article 4. Whether after Incarnation the Person or Hypostasis of Christ is composite?
I answer that, The Person or hypostasis of Christ may be viewed in two ways. First as it is in itself, and thus it is altogether simple, even as the Nature of the Word. Secondly, in the aspect of person or hypostasis to which it belongs to subsist in a nature; and thus the Person of Christ subsists in two natures. Hence though there is one subsisting being in Him, yet there are different aspects of subsistence, and hence He is said to be a composite person, insomuch as one being subsists in two.

newadvent.org/summa/4002.htm#article3
 
Bahman said:
We are talking about incarnation, union of God and human, hence both God and human undergo a change.
Click to expand...
It is a hypostatic union and thus is NOT a mixture of human and divine but rather both fully human and fully divine. That much I can grasp, at least theoretically; however, how in the world this idea was all pieced together and believed with certainty by the Church, albeit not without dispute, is beyond my understanding.
 
God the Father is mysterious and he is also radically and completely “other”. In that respect he is “distant”.

He is also love. God is love by his own self-identification.
What is love? Relationship.
To be in relationship God must be knowable, or reason-able, or “logos”. God reveals himself in his “Logos”, so that we might know each other.

Out of love, God pours his Logos out to those he wishes to have relationship with. Who does he desire relationship with?
Humans.

God does not love halfway. He loves in completeness.
He loves in complete union with those he loves.
Hence the Logos of God is to take on the very nature and full condition of those he loves.
In his Logos, God’s love is personified in union with those he loves. In that revelation, he becomes reason-able, and completely intimate and unitive.
We can know him, because he loves us, as one of us.

No other religious formulation proposes this complete relationship with God.
 
meltzerboy said:
It is a hypostatic union and thus is NOT a mixture of human and divine but rather both fully human and fully divine. That much I can grasp, at least theoretically; however, how in the world this idea was all pieced together and believed with certainty by the Church, albeit not without dispute, is beyond my understanding.
Click to expand...
At the risk of being off-topic… If Jesus was not fully man (for example, if he was a hybrid of any sort) then he could not be the new Adam before God. He’d be something different, something that would not redeem our fallen human nature. Whatever he did, it would not be representative of us, but of something else. That would also be contradictory towards Paul’s teaching on how we fell and were redeemed. Scripture and Apostolic teaching at the same time affirm Christ’s divinity. The best/only way to reconcile this is by understanding the natures as being unmixed. There’s more to be said, and this is just a poor summary, but I’ll leave it at that.
 
hasantas said:
Yes incarnation is false for God. God is changeless means God is eternal and human is mortal and God never become mortal which is very clear.
Click to expand...
Christ was not mortal. That is the wonderful message of Christianity --that we humans because of Christ can share in life everlasting. Do you see how your argument doesn’t come close to Christianity but is quite backwards?
 
meltzerboy said:
It is a hypostatic union and thus is NOT a mixture of human and divine but rather both fully human and fully divine. That much I can grasp, at least theoretically; however, how in the world this idea was all pieced together and believed with certainty by the Church, albeit not without dispute, is beyond my understanding.
Click to expand...
The Incarnation is pieced together because obviously, Adam is not on the same level as his Creator.

Adam being human does not have the power of forming an original intimate union with a transcendent, super-natural Pure Spirit. If he did have the same level of power as his Creator, he would be a duplicate God. Two equal gods is a no-no. Interestingly, in Genesis 1: 26-27, Adam is given the human power of being, not forming, in a relationship with his Creator. Adam does not become his own creator. It is the Creator and not Adam Who sets the rules for the relationship in Genesis 2: 15-17. It is obedience, not organic fruit, which is key.

The Incarnation is pieced together because God loves His human creatures.

The love of God for Adam and consequently Adam’s descendants is so powerful that a way a human could repair the damage of Original Sin is foretold in Genesis 3:15. Yet, there is a huge difficulty because Adam being human is not God and therefore he does not have the power to restore his relationship with the Person who created it. Recall that two equal gods is a no-no.

Also recall John 3-16-17. Here we see two Persons, the Father and the Son. The promised Third Person, the Holy Spirit, is described in chapter 14, Gospel of John.

God so loved us, that the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, the “one Lord Jesus Christ … came down from heaven and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.” (Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed professed at Sunday Holy Sacrifice of the Mass) Please note that God has the power to assume Adam’s human nature. Please consider that if the Second Person changed His nature to a human nature, He would then be a human the same as Adam and therefore He could not restore the original relationship with Divinity. Recall that it is Divinity, not humanity, Who established Genesis 1: 26-27.

Go slowly with the following observations. Adam is not a Divine God so he cannot create a “new” relationship with the Divine Creator God. The Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity is God, but He is not the one who destroyed humanity’s relationship with Divinity. The human Adam broke the relationship and thus is responsible for repairing it, but he cannot do so because he is not on the same level as the Creator. God so loves humankind, that the Divine Second Person steps into the sandals of Adam and therefore the relationship can be repaired. Does wearing Adam’s sandals change God? It is God Who creates and not the creature. Therefore, Adam’s created humanity cannot change into the level of God when Adam seeks reconciliation with God.

Wearing the sandals of Adam is a simple description of the Divine Second Person Who enters our world as a human. Red flag. Very red flag! How does the Divine Second Person become human to take the place of Adam?

“How” is a huge word which is totally ignored by the title of this thread.

In order to restore a relationship with God, the Divine Second Person, known as Jesus Christ, has to be on the same level with God. His Divinity is evinced in the four Gospels. If He changes His Divinity into humanity, then He cannot “open the gates of heaven.” If changes His person into Adam, then He cannot “open the gates of heaven.” Therefore, the Person Jesus Christ has to remain Divine and not change into something else. Therefore the Divinity of Jesus Christ has to remain Divine and not change into something else.

Looking at the dramatic shift from Genesis 1: 25 to Genesis 1: 26, we see that the key difference is between the nature of animals and the nature of humans.

It is Adam’s nature, not his personal blood and guts, which will be transmitted to his descendants. It is the nature of humans which unites all humans. It is because of human nature, body and soul, that God calls each human person to share in His divine life. In reality, it is not necessary for the Savior to become Adam. It is necessary to assume human nature per se. Assuming the same human nature of Adam is why we can say that Jesus Christ is true man. Please notice that the Catholic Church does not say that Jesus Christ became the person of Adam.

Because Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, He continues to be God. He does not have to turn into Adam to take his place. In the Gospels, Jesus does not declare he is Adam person; He says in many ways that He is God Person. It is we humans who see the nature connection between Jesus and Adam. And this is a good connection because Jesus is victorious over the human death Adam brought into the world. “Where, O death, is your sting?” 1 Corinthians: 15: 54-55.

Putting together God’s love and God’s power, the Catholic Church recognizes that the God Person, maintaining His powerful Divinity, did come into our world and did take on our (Adam’s) human nature solely out of love for all of us. Maintaining His powerful Divine Nature, Jesus took on our human nature so that His human obedience repaired the original human disobedience. Jesus, without change, is still One Divine Person with two natures, Divine and human. Thank you God.
 
Vico said:
There is just one Person of Christ, not a new person, which subsists in two natures.

St. Thomas Aquinas writes in Summa Theologica, Part II, Q2

Article 3. Whether the union of the Word Incarnate took place in the suppositum or hypostasis?
On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 3,4,5): “In our Lord Jesus Christ we acknowledge two natures and one hypostasis.”

I answer that, Some who did not know the relation of hypostasis to person, although granting that there is but one person in Christ, held, nevertheless, that there is one hypostasis of God and another of man, and hence that the union took place in the person and not in the hypostasis. Now this, for three reasons, is clearly erroneous. …

Article 4. Whether after Incarnation the Person or Hypostasis of Christ is composite?
I answer that, The Person or hypostasis of Christ may be viewed in two ways. First as it is in itself, and thus it is altogether simple, even as the Nature of the Word. Secondly, in the aspect of person or hypostasis to which it belongs to subsist in a nature; and thus the Person of Christ subsists in two natures. Hence though there is one subsisting being in Him, yet there are different aspects of subsistence, and hence He is said to be a composite person, insomuch as one being subsists in two.

newadvent.org/summa/4002.htm#article3
Click to expand...
We have two beings Jesus, creature, and son of God. Are they one?
 
Bahman said:
We have two beings Jesus, creature, and son of God. Are they one?
Click to expand...
Please read post 145 and you will find the real two beings.

No wonder you are stuck like a broken record. (Yes. I am that old. 😉 ) You need to start at the beginning of the story. When you jump willy-nilly into the middle, I am reminded of modern Arianism.
 
grannymh said:
Please read post 145 and you will find the real two beings.

No wonder you are stuck like a broken record. (Yes. I am that old. 😉 ) You need to start at the beginning of the story. When you jump willy-nilly into the middle, I am reminded of modern Arianism.
Click to expand...
I read your post but it didn’t really add anything new.
 
Bahman said:
I read your post but it didn’t really add anything new.
Click to expand...
What has been omitted and ignored from the thread’s position is the basic reason for the Incarnation. Without that basic reason, the argument becomes useless. The false concept argument, an interesting argument, becomes similar to “fiction” because there is no reality foundation for it. Maybe that “fiction” is based on a denial of God’s existence.

Information for readers is in post 145, page 10

Note that there are plenty of Catholic teachings in post 145 which can be denied as false concepts, starting with God as Creator. Genesis 1: 1. However, the response to the thread title comes from knowledge of those Catholic teachings.
 
Bahman said:
What do you mean with subsisting?
Click to expand...
Summa Theologica, Part I, Q29, of St. Thomas Aquinas:

Article 2. Whether “person” is the same as hypostasis, subsistence, and essence?

I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Metaph. v), substance is twofold.
  • In one sense it means the quiddity of a thing, signified by its definition, and thus we say that the definition means the substance of a thing; in which sense substance is called by the Greeks ousia, what we may call “essence.”
  • In another sense substance means a subject or “suppositum,” which subsists in the genus of substance. To this, taken in a general sense, can be applied a name expressive of an intention; and thus it is called “suppositum.”
  • It is also called by three names signifying a reality–that is, “a thing of nature,” “subsistence,” and “hypostasis,” according to a threefold consideration of the substance thus named.
    • For, as it exists in itself and not in another, it is called “subsistence”; as we say that those things subsist which exist in themselves, and not in another. * As it underlies some common nature, it is called “a thing of nature”; as, for instance, this particular man is a human natural thing. * As it underlies the accidents, it is called “hypostasis,” or “substance.”
What these three names signify in common to the whole genus of substances, this name “person” signifies in the genus of rational substances.

newadvent.org/summa/1029.htm#article2
 
Bahman said:
I read your post but it didn’t really add anything new.
Click to expand...
Are you able to restate the ideas that are presented to you, in your own words?
If not, how can you be listening and understanding?
 
grannymh said:
What has been omitted and ignored from the thread’s position is the basic reason for the Incarnation. Without that basic reason, the argument becomes useless. The false concept argument, an interesting argument, becomes similar to “fiction” because there is no reality foundation for it. Maybe that “fiction” is based on a denial of God’s existence.

Information for readers is in post 145, page 10

Note that there are plenty of Catholic teachings in post 145 which can be denied as false concepts, starting with God as Creator. Genesis 1: 1. However, the response to the thread title comes from knowledge of those Catholic teachings.
Click to expand...
You don’t really need the basic reason for incarnation to discuss its validity.
 
clem456 said:
Are you able to restate the ideas that are presented to you, in your own words?
If not, how can you be listening and understanding?
Click to expand...
Yes, I can. Everything start with fall of man which harmed the relation between God and man. Jesus came to intervene and to cure this harmed relationship with his death.
 
Vico said:
Summa Theologica, Part I, Q29, of St. Thomas Aquinas:

Article 2. Whether “person” is the same as hypostasis, subsistence, and essence?

I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Metaph. v), substance is twofold.
  • In one sense it means the quiddity of a thing, signified by its definition, and thus we say that the definition means the substance of a thing; in which sense substance is called by the Greeks ousia, what we may call “essence.”
  • In another sense substance means a subject or “suppositum,” which subsists in the genus of substance. To this, taken in a general sense, can be applied a name expressive of an intention; and thus it is called “suppositum.”
  • It is also called by three names signifying a reality–that is, “a thing of nature,” “subsistence,” and “hypostasis,” according to a threefold consideration of the substance thus named.
    • For, as it exists in itself and not in another, it is called “subsistence”; as we say that those things subsist which exist in themselves, and not in another. * As it underlies some common nature, it is called “a thing of nature”; as, for instance, this particular man is a human natural thing. * As it underlies the accidents, it is called “hypostasis,” or “substance.”
What these three names signify in common to the whole genus of substances, this name “person” signifies in the genus of rational substances.

newadvent.org/summa/1029.htm#artidcle2
Click to expand...
That definition really didn’t help me. Could you please elaborate?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top