Is God Partially Created?

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NoelFitz

New member
It may seem strange to ask is God partially created, but it is recently a concern of mine.

We know that Jesus Christ is true God and true man and that he became man at the incarnation.

So until a certain time in history, before the incarnation, Jesus Christ was not man. Then at the moment of the incarnation he became man and from that time onward Jesus Christ, who is God was also man. Hence part of God, the human Jesus, was created.

This sounds strange. How is it resolved?
 
Son of God, Son of Man. Modes of Presence? ( 1 2 3 4 5 … Last Page
 
NoelFitz said:
It may seem strange to ask is God partially created, but it is recently a concern of mine.

We know that Jesus Christ is true God and true man and that he became man at the incarnation.

So until a certain time in history, before the incarnation, Jesus Christ was not man. Then at the moment of the incarnation he became man and from that time onward Jesus Christ, who is God was also man. Hence part of God, the human Jesus, was created.

This sounds strange. How is it resolved?
Click to expand...
Remember that God was and is Three Persons in one. And one of these Persons is the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity. And Jesus Christ is one Person, the Person of the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity. But he has two natures, one human and one Divine. It is only his human nature that is created, his Divine nature is uncreated. So Jesus Christ, who is God by reason of his Divine nature, is fully Divine. So God, in Christ, is uncreated, it is only his human nature which has been created. The Second Person of the Trinity is fully God, whether as united to a human nature or not. and the Second Person of the Trinity is eternally begotten, he is not created.

See the thread " Son of God, Son of Man. Modes of Presence? " on the Traditional Catholic forum on this cite.

Linus2nd
 
NoelFitz said:
It may seem strange to ask is God partially created, but it is recently a concern of mine.

We know that Jesus Christ is true God and true man and that he became man at the incarnation.

So until a certain time in history, before the incarnation, Jesus Christ was not man. Then at the moment of the incarnation he became man and from that time onward Jesus Christ, who is God was also man. Hence part of God, the human Jesus, was created.

This sounds strange. How is it resolved?
Click to expand...
One way to look at it is that Jesus is True God and True Man.

Jesus did come into existence at the Incarnation but the Second Person of the Trinity, Who became Jesus at the Incarnation, always was, is and will be.

Jesus was not “blender man” in that His Divinity and His Humanity were somehow mixed together so that He became 50% God and 50% Man but that Jesus was 100% God and 100% Man.

I would say that one could say that God-Incarnate was " partially created" but not that God was partially created.

Jesus did not exist before Mary said YES but the One Who became God-Incarnate did exist as the Second Person of the Trinity.

Saying as you said, “Hence part of God, the human Jesus, was created.” would be incorrect since Jesus, Who is both created and not create, Is God-Incarnate not “just” God.
 
I am grateful to Tom Baum and Linusthe2nd for replies, but they do not resolve my problem.

Tom seems to advocate a type of dualism, similar to Marcionism, one of the first heresies of the Church. He seems to posit two God; a ‘just’ God and God-Incarnate. He claims “Jesus did not exist before Mary said YES”. I would emphatically disagree; Jesus is the second person of the Blessed Trinity and always existed.

I also disagree with Linusthe2nd. We agree “It is only his human nature that is created”. So part of God is created. Jesus’ human nature belongs to him. So if before the incarnation he did not have a human nature and after it he had one, it was created, so part of God was created. One cannot say that the human nature of Jesus is not a part of him who is God.

Th principle of non-contradiction is fundamental. One cannot say the man Jesus is and is not God. One could try to say we consider different aspects. This is not convincing. One could claim it is only semantics, playing with words, but I do see a fundamental problem.

Finally one could say it is a mystery, but it is more than this. It seems a fundamental contradiction.
 
NoelFitz said:
I am grateful to Tom Baum and Linusthe2nd for replies, but they do not resolve my problem.

Tom seems to advocate a type of dualism, similar to Marcionism, one of the first heresies of the Church. He seems to posit two God; a ‘just’ God and God-Incarnate. He claims “Jesus did not exist before Mary said YES”. I would emphatically disagree; Jesus is the second person of the Blessed Trinity and always existed.

I also disagree with Linusthe2nd. We agree “It is only his human nature that is created”. So part of God is created. Jesus’ human nature belongs to him. So if before the incarnation he did not have a human nature and after it he had one, it was created, so part of God was created. One cannot say that the human nature of Jesus is not a part of him who is God.

Th principle of non-contradiction is fundamental. One cannot say the man Jesus is and is not God. One could try to say we consider different aspects. This is not convincing. One could claim it is only semantics, playing with words, but I do see a fundamental problem.

Finally one could say it is a mystery, but it is more than this. It seems a fundamental contradiction.
Click to expand...
It is only an apparant contradiction. First we must accept the teaching of the Church. The Church teaches that God is One, Simple, and Unchangeable ( among other things ). So the Incarnation did not involve a change in God; that is, he is not partially created. At the Incarnation the Second Person of the Trinity assumed a human nature in his Person. The key word here is ’ assumed. ’ That means that his Divine nature remained unchanged. This is a mystery that must be accepted.

Linus2nd
 
NoelFitz said:
I am grateful to Tom Baum and Linusthe2nd for replies, but they do not resolve my problem.

Tom seems to advocate a type of dualism, similar to Marcionism, one of the first heresies of the Church. He seems to posit two God; a ‘just’ God and God-Incarnate. He claims “Jesus did not exist before Mary said YES”. I would emphatically disagree; Jesus is the second person of the Blessed Trinity and always existed.

I also disagree with Linusthe2nd. We agree “It is only his human nature that is created”. So part of God is created. Jesus’ human nature belongs to him. So if before the incarnation he did not have a human nature and after it he had one, it was created, so part of God was created. One cannot say that the human nature of Jesus is not a part of him who is God.

Th principle of non-contradiction is fundamental. One cannot say the man Jesus is and is not God. One could try to say we consider different aspects. This is not convincing. One could claim it is only semantics, playing with words, but I do see a fundamental problem.

Finally one could say it is a mystery, but it is more than this. It seems a fundamental contradiction.
Click to expand...
You wrote, “Tom seems to advocate a type of dualism, similar to Marcionism, one of the first heresies of the Church. He seems to posit two God; a ‘just’ God and God-Incarnate. He claims “Jesus did not exist before Mary said YES”. I would emphatically disagree; Jesus is the second person of the Blessed Trinity and always existed.”

Maybe you should read what I wrote instead of what you think I wrote.

As far as “Jesus is the second person of the Blessed Trinity and always existed.”

I wrote, “Jesus did not exist before Mary said YES but the One Who became God-Incarnate did exist as the Second Person of the Trinity.”, what does this say?

Concerning, “He seems to posit two God; a ‘just’ God and God-Incarnate.”, by 'just’ God, I mean only God, not True God and True Man as the Second Person of the Trinity became when Mary said YES, before Mary’s YES, the Second Person of the Trinity was “just” God, as in only God, as opposed to being God and Man which the Second Person of the Trinity became when Mary said YES.

He Who became known as “Jesus”, was not always God-Incarnate but He was always God, in other words, the “humanity” of God-Incarnate became humanity when Mary said YES.

You wrote, "I also disagree with Linusthe2nd. We agree “It is only his human nature that is created”. So part of God is created. Jesus’ human nature belongs to him. So if before the incarnation he did not have a human nature and after it he had one, it was created, so part of God was created. One cannot say that the human nature of Jesus is not a part of him who is God.

God-Incarnate’s human nature is NOT Divine and God-Incarnate’s Divine nature is not human, it may not be “theologically kosher” but I repeat, Jesus is NOT “blender man”, He is NOT part man and part God but is 100l% Man and 100% God.

Could be that the simple reason that you can NOT understand it is that you are human.

I am NOT saying that I understand it, as a matter of fact I AM saying that I do NOT understand it, I just accept it on “faith”.

Mystery or not, God becoming One of us, I would say, is out of the ordinary.
 
Tom,
Thank you so much for your reply to me.
I regret most sincerely if I misunderstood you.
First of all you wrote: " “Jesus did not exist before Mary said YES but the One Who became God-Incarnate did exist as the Second Person of the Trinity”, what does this say?"
To me this said “Jesus did not exist before Mary said YES”. I disagree. Jesus, Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Son became man, but he was always God. Are you implying Jesus and “the one who became God incarnate” are not the same? No one ever became ‘God incarnate’, God always existed.

To me the rest of your post does not make sense.

So I regret that your post does not help me.

Linusthe 2nd your concise answer seems the best we can get. God is one, always was and always will be without change. You imply God did not become man, but assumed a human nature. This seems to weaken the incarnation, implying docetism. So I think there is a problem, but your explanation is the best on offer.

I am trying to study the web sites you recommend deeply. So thank you. After my study of the web sites I hope to have a better insight and understanding.
 
NoelFitz said:
Tom,
Thank you so much for your reply to me.
I regret most sincerely if I misunderstood you.
First of all you wrote: " “Jesus did not exist before Mary said YES but the One Who became God-Incarnate did exist as the Second Person of the Trinity”, what does this say?"
To me this said “Jesus did not exist before Mary said YES”. I disagree. Jesus, Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Son became man, but he was always God. Are you implying Jesus and “the one who became God incarnate” are not the same? No one ever became ‘God incarnate’, God always existed.

To me the rest of your post does not make sense.

So I regret that your post does not help me.

Linusthe 2nd your concise answer seems the best we can get. God is one, always was and always will be without change. You imply God did not become man, but assumed a human nature. This seems to weaken the incarnation, implying docetism. So I think there is a problem, but your explanation is the best on offer.

I am trying to study the web sites you recommend deeply. So thank you. After my study of the web sites I hope to have a better insight and understanding.
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ is True God and True Man. He became a man, but did not sacrifice his Divinity. He became man by assuming a human nature and his human nature became Divine by being assumed by the Divinity of the Second Person. Paragraphs 464- 470 of the CCC ( below ) must be carefully read and meditated upon.

Linus2nd
 
NoelFitz said:
Tom,
Thank you so much for your reply to me.
I regret most sincerely if I misunderstood you.
First of all you wrote: " “Jesus did not exist before Mary said YES but the One Who became God-Incarnate did exist as the Second Person of the Trinity”, what does this say?"
To me this said “Jesus did not exist before Mary said YES”. I disagree. Jesus, Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Son became man, but he was always God. Are you implying Jesus and “the one who became God incarnate” are not the same? No one ever became ‘God incarnate’, God always existed.

To me the rest of your post does not make sense.

So I regret that your post does not help me.

Linusthe 2nd your concise answer seems the best we can get. God is one, always was and always will be without change. You imply God did not become man, but assumed a human nature. This seems to weaken the incarnation, implying docetism. So I think there is a problem, but your explanation is the best on offer.

I am trying to study the web sites you recommend deeply. So thank you. After my study of the web sites I hope to have a better insight and understanding.
Click to expand...
I think Tom is saying that, though the Second Person and Jesus are the same, the name “Jesus” did not necessarily always refer to the Second Person until that name was given to him when he became also human. We mean Jesus to refer to Second Person Incarnate. But the Second Person was not always Incarnate.
 
Tom,
you wrote " …the Second Person of the Trinity, Who became Jesus at the Incarnation," I am in complete disagreement with this statement.
 
Linusthe2nd
thanks for your posts. I will study the CCC carefully. I am still confused but feeling I am inching towards a partial understanding.
 
NoelFitz said:
It may seem strange to ask is God partially created, but it is recently a concern of mine.

We know that Jesus Christ is true God and true man and that he became man at the incarnation.

So until a certain time in history, before the incarnation, Jesus Christ was not man. Then at the moment of the incarnation he became man and from that time onward Jesus Christ, who is God was also man. Hence part of God, the human Jesus, was created.

This sounds strange. How is it resolved?
Click to expand...
The solution is simple.

The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity assumed human nature. He did not absorb human nature (Information source. CCC 470)
 
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

Jesus is the word of God and has always been there

The word of God became man in Jesus Christ
 
NoelFitz said:
Tom,
Thank you so much for your reply to me.
I regret most sincerely if I misunderstood you.
First of all you wrote: " “Jesus did not exist before Mary said YES but the One Who became God-Incarnate did exist as the Second Person of the Trinity”, what does this say?"
To me this said “Jesus did not exist before Mary said YES”. I disagree. Jesus, Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Son became man, but he was always God. Are you implying Jesus and “the one who became God incarnate” are not the same? No one ever became ‘God incarnate’, God always existed.

To me the rest of your post does not make sense.

So I regret that your post does not help me.

Linusthe 2nd your concise answer seems the best we can get. God is one, always was and always will be without change. You imply God did not become man, but assumed a human nature. This seems to weaken the incarnation, implying docetism. So I think there is a problem, but your explanation is the best on offer.

I am trying to study the web sites you recommend deeply. So thank you. After my study of the web sites I hope to have a better insight and understanding.
Click to expand...
What do you think “God-Incarnate” means?

Do you think that God was ALWAYS Incarnate?

I believe that God was NOT Incarnate until Mary said YES.

I also believe that Mary had to “freely” say YES and that since this was such “an important assignment” that Gabriel came in “full Angelic attire”, whatever that might be, so that Mary had quite a clear idea of what was going on, since this was, I would say, quite out of the ordinary.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
Jesus Christ is True God and True Man. He became a man, but did not sacrifice his Divinity. He became man by assuming a human nature and his human nature became Divine by being assumed by the Divinity of the Second Person. Paragraphs 464- 470 of the CCC ( below ) must be carefully read and meditated upon.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
So, are you saying that since Jesus’s human nature was created and that Jesus’s human nature “assumed Divinity”, that “some” of Divinity, so to speak, was created as NoelFitz proposed by his question, "Is God Partially Created? "?

I happen to believe that when it is spoken of Jesus that He Is True God and True Man, that is what it means, not that it means that Jesus Is True God and pert near True Man.

Do you consider your human nature DIVINE?

I believe that Jesus was just as human as the rest of us and was also Divine, if He WASN’T, as you seem to be saying, how could Jesus be “just like us in ALL ways except sin”?
 
Tom_Baum said:
So, are you saying that since Jesus’s human nature was created and that Jesus’s human nature “assumed Divinity”, that “some” of Divinity, so to speak, was created as NoelFitz proposed by his question, "Is God Partially Created? "?

I happen to believe that when it is spoken of Jesus that He Is True God and True Man, that is what it means, not that it means that Jesus Is True God and pert near True Man.

Do you consider your human nature DIVINE?

I believe that Jesus was just as human as the rest of us and was also Divine, if He WASN’T, as you seem to be saying, how could Jesus be “just like us in ALL ways except sin”?
Click to expand...
You misread my post, try it again.

Linus2nd
 
I am very grateful to all who contributed to this discussion, but unfortunately the contributions, with the exception of those of Linusthe2nd, did not help resolve my problems to a great extent. I am sorry for this.

I do not expect to understand the trinity, but to discern that my idea does not involve an inherent contradiction. I still have problems with ‘assume’, but the posts of Linusthe2nd, who has a deep and sincere knowledge of and loyalty to the faith, have enabled me to make progress. So thanks to all.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Further Reflections.
‘Assume’ has many meanings, including ‘to take to be the case without proof’ and ‘to take a manner of identity sometimes falsely’, e.g. ‘he lived under an assumed name’. It was first used in 1447 ‘That he hem oure nature assumpt shul be to ye seconde persone of ye trinite’. Shakespeare in Hamlet used it in 1604 ‘Assume a Vertue if you have it not’.

Like with most doctrinal problems one turns to Thomas Aquinas. On the web I note:
In the question “Whether the human nature was united to the Word of God accidentally?” In St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica, he states:
the Catholic faith, holding the mean between the aforesaid positions, does not affirm that the union of God and man took place in the essence or nature, nor yet in something accidental [like clothing is to a man], but midway, in a subsistence or hypostasis.

An understanding of the hypostatic union is beyond me, but one gets a glimpse that in this union the two natures of Jesus are combined in such a way that God remains God. A grasp of this was defined in 325 in Nicaea, but it took hundreds of years for the best minds to get a satisfactory insight into the Trinity.

It is not a simple problem, it is a challenge but we can get some appreciation of the nuances involved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top