C
ClemtheCatholic
Guest
If God is immutable, how come he was able to become man? And didn’t Jesus change all the time as a man - and yet He was still God?
Thanks in advance!
Thanks in advance!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
Jesus had both a divine and human nature. God’s divine nature did not change when He was incarnate. Jesus’ human nature changed throughout his life, not His divine nature.If God is immutable, how come he was able to become man? And didn’t Jesus change all the time as a man - and yet He was still God?
Thanks in advance!
This is getting into the concepts of timelessness and the eternal NOW that God experiences.
U
USMC_Convert
Guest
A change indicates moving from one thing towards another. Meaning that God would have been in a lesser position to begin with and is moving towards a more perfect position or being in an absolute perfect position He is moving towards a lesser position (both of which are impossible, God knows everything and has the perfect plan which never changes).
Either way the change in question does not have anything to do with Jesus walking around, the Son of God coming from heaven to earth or anything physically changing. It has to do with God’s unchanging plans, His unchanging Mercy, unchanging love, and so on…
Look into St Thomas Aquinas and his writings about this…
Aquinas’s Shorter Summa
"The immobility of God.
We clearly infer from this that God, who moves all things, must Himself be immovable. If He, being the first mover, were Himself moved, he would have to be moved either by Himself or by another. He cannot be moved by another, for then there would have to be some mover prior to Him, which is against the very idea of a first mover. If He is moved by Himself, this can be conceived in two ways; either that He is mover and moved according to the same respect, or that He is a mover according to one aspect of Him and is moved according to another aspect.
The first of these alternatives is ruled out. For everything that is moved is, to that extent, in potency, and whatever moves is in act. Therefore if God is both mover and moved according to the same respect, He has to be in potency and in act according to the same respect, which is impossible.
The second alternative is also impossible. If one part were moving and another were moved, there would be no first mover Himself as such, but only by reason of that part of Him which moves. But what is per se is prior to that which is not per se. Hence there cannot be a first mover at all, if this perfection is attributed to a being by reason of a part of that being. Accordingly, the first mover must be altogether immovable.
Among things that are moved and that also move, the following may also be considered. All motion is observed to proceed from something immobile, that is, from something that is not moved according to the particular species of motion in question. Thus we see that alterations, generations, and corruptions occurring in lower bodies are reduced, as to their first mover, to a heavenly body that is not itself moved according to this species of motion, since it is incapable of being generated, but rather is incorruptible and unalterable. Therefore the first principle of all motion must be absolutely immobile."
…and I have sufficiently confused myself, however that is my understanding of it, and St Aquinas’s explanation of it…LOL!!!
Either way the change in question does not have anything to do with Jesus walking around, the Son of God coming from heaven to earth or anything physically changing. It has to do with God’s unchanging plans, His unchanging Mercy, unchanging love, and so on…
Look into St Thomas Aquinas and his writings about this…
Aquinas’s Shorter Summa
"The immobility of God.
We clearly infer from this that God, who moves all things, must Himself be immovable. If He, being the first mover, were Himself moved, he would have to be moved either by Himself or by another. He cannot be moved by another, for then there would have to be some mover prior to Him, which is against the very idea of a first mover. If He is moved by Himself, this can be conceived in two ways; either that He is mover and moved according to the same respect, or that He is a mover according to one aspect of Him and is moved according to another aspect.
The first of these alternatives is ruled out. For everything that is moved is, to that extent, in potency, and whatever moves is in act. Therefore if God is both mover and moved according to the same respect, He has to be in potency and in act according to the same respect, which is impossible.
The second alternative is also impossible. If one part were moving and another were moved, there would be no first mover Himself as such, but only by reason of that part of Him which moves. But what is per se is prior to that which is not per se. Hence there cannot be a first mover at all, if this perfection is attributed to a being by reason of a part of that being. Accordingly, the first mover must be altogether immovable.
Among things that are moved and that also move, the following may also be considered. All motion is observed to proceed from something immobile, that is, from something that is not moved according to the particular species of motion in question. Thus we see that alterations, generations, and corruptions occurring in lower bodies are reduced, as to their first mover, to a heavenly body that is not itself moved according to this species of motion, since it is incapable of being generated, but rather is incorruptible and unalterable. Therefore the first principle of all motion must be absolutely immobile."
…and I have sufficiently confused myself, however that is my understanding of it, and St Aquinas’s explanation of it…LOL!!!
J
John_Martin
Guest
A car “moves”, but its being does not change.
Instead of being a movement of “becoming”, a car has a movement of “operation”
The human body and soul of Jesus did “become”, did change.
But the person, the “I Am” of the Son did not “become”.
Instead, the Son did his eternal operations, eternal movements, of loving his Father and loving and saving his Father’s creatures.
When a car operates, sometimes it is parked or stopped at a light, sometimes it is doing 70 on the interstate.
The Son, also, in operating is working at many things, but only because he is the unchanging Son, just as a car can only be stopped at a light or doing 70 because it is a perfect (unchanging) car.
Movement without change, but instead the “perfect movement” of a “perfect unchanging being of Love”.
Instead of being a movement of “becoming”, a car has a movement of “operation”
The human body and soul of Jesus did “become”, did change.
But the person, the “I Am” of the Son did not “become”.
Instead, the Son did his eternal operations, eternal movements, of loving his Father and loving and saving his Father’s creatures.
When a car operates, sometimes it is parked or stopped at a light, sometimes it is doing 70 on the interstate.
The Son, also, in operating is working at many things, but only because he is the unchanging Son, just as a car can only be stopped at a light or doing 70 because it is a perfect (unchanging) car.
Movement without change, but instead the “perfect movement” of a “perfect unchanging being of Love”.
P
PluniaZ
Guest
- Status
- Not open for further replies.