Is it correct to say

[vincentleo]

There is only one God. That is, we say: one divine nature. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons in the one divine nature.

So, in actuality, did Jesus create the world? I would say yes because God made the world and there is only one God (one divine nature), and Jesus is one of the Persons in that one divine nature.

However, we usually speak of the 3 Persons of the divine nature in relationship to each other. And, so, we traditionally say that power belongs to the Father, and that the Father is the Creator of all.

But this should not be understood to mean that the Father is greater than the Son, or that the Father existed before the Son. The Father and the Son both have the same divine nature, and so they are one, and therefore equal to each other and equally eternal. And likewise for the Holy Spirit.

 

[RedFan]

As an aside, regarding Mary, Jesus created His own mother. She was first conceived of in the divine intellect, then brought to flesh so as to give that flesh to her Lord - her own Son. No one has ever done that - before or since.

I disagree. The pre-incarnate Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, became the man “Jesus” (the name we give to the incarnate God-Man) at a given time in history, let’s call it t-1. Jesus was not born yet when Mary conceived, at time t-0. So “Jesus,” properly so called, didn’t yet exist – at least not in the only form that merits the name “Jesus.”

I suppose this moots the need for any debate over attributing Mary’s conception to any particular Person of the Trinity (i.e., Father, Son or Holy Spirit) – and thus over whether the Nicene Creed is correct in stating that she conceived “of the Holy Spirit” (as opposed to, say, “the Son” – which I understand to be your contention, albeit through a usage of the name “Jesus” that, strictly speaking, would have been incorrect by about nine months)

 

[Benadam]

The pre-incarnate Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, became the man “Jesus” (the name we give to the incarnate God-Man) at a given time in history, let’s call it t-1. Jesus was not born yet when Mary conceived, at time t-0. So “Jesus,” properly so called, didn’t yet exist – at least not in the only form that merits the name “Jesus.”

The pre and post incarnate Son of God is the same person.
Jesus said ’ before Abraham ever was I Am" This and many other Scriptures refute that Jesus is divided by human nature. Or that the Incarnation imposed a form that was not God

Phil 2-6

who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,

 

[RedFan]

I agree that the Son of God always existed; that much is not in dispute. But it is still true that the God-Man who is called Jesus did not exist prior to Mary’s conception. Just as a caterpillar cannot pollinate a flower before it becomes a butterfly, yet remains the exact same entity throughout both forms, the God-Man could not “pollinate” Mary pre-incarnation. Why call a caterpillar a butterfly?

Not sure what you mean by “Jesus is [not] divided by human nature.” If you mean His divinity is indivisible, well, that is true. If you mean that there is no distinction between His human nature and His divine nature, well, the very next verse from Philippians proves otherwise –

“but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.”

There could be no such emptying if that kind of divisibility were impossible. Why call a glass of water indivisible?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I disagree. The pre-incarnate Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, became the man “Jesus” (the name we give to the incarnate God-Man) at a given time in history, let’s call it t-1. Jesus was not born yet when Mary conceived, at time t-0. So “Jesus,” properly so called, didn’t yet exist – at least not in the only form that merits the name “Jesus.”

I suppose this moots the need for any debate over attributing Mary’s conception to any particular Person of the Trinity (i.e., Father, Son or Holy Spirit) – and thus over whether the Nicene Creed is correct in stating that she conceived “of the Holy Spirit” (as opposed to, say, “the Son” – which I understand to be your contention, albeit through a usage of the name “Jesus” that, strictly speaking, would have been incorrect by about nine months)

Huh? The question of whether Jesus (pre-incarnate) created Mary is quite independent from the question of how Jesus (incarnate) was conceived.

 

[KevinK]

This is such imprecise language that adds little to the debate. Is Logos a trait, a quality, a Being, what? You’ll have to better define what “the creative Word of God” and the “reason of God” mean. Otherwise people could take these phrases to mean almost anything. I find it common in these forums to just paste hackneyed phrases as answers.

 

[RedFan]

The question of whether Jesus (pre-incarnate) created Mary is quite independent from the question of how Jesus (incarnate) was conceived.

You’re missing my point. There was no “Jesus” – which is to say, there is no God-man – before God became man.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You’re missing my point. There was no “Jesus” – which is to say, there is no God-man – before God became man.

That is a question for metaphysics. The PERSON of Jesus clearly has existed for all time: see John 1:1. Whether every possible name applied to Him at all times is an abstruse question, I think. But that same person is the person who cooperated with God the Father and the Holy Spirit to create Mary’s essence.

 

[RedFan]

Is Logos a trait, a quality, a Being, what? You’ll have to better define what “the creative Word of God” and the “reason of God” mean. Otherwise people could take these phrases to mean almost anything.

Not a trait or quality of God, but a manifestation of God. (The nature of the Trinity is something we cannot limn in a short post!)

 

[RedFan]

I guess we’re just arguing over a semantic difference here. You equate “the PERSON of Jesus” with “the PERSON of the Second Person of the Trinity, who existed before taking on flesh.” I reserve the name “Jesus” for the Second person of the Trinity AFTER taking on flesh.

 

[KevinK]

Are you saying the Logos is the same as Jesus? Or is the Logos a 4th manifestation of the Trinity?

 

[RedFan]

There is no fourth manifestation of the Trinity.

Each of the three “persons” in one God is not a person in the ordinary sense of denoting a distinct individual, but a persona in the sense of a portrayal or a posture, an outward-looking manifestation of an inward unity. The Greek word prosōpon expresses this rather well―an actor’s mask, a character, a face. I encounter Father, or Son, or Holy Spirit, depending on which face is facing me. The three “persons” are relational; they are distinct realities of the One God in relation to me, in relation to humanity, in relation to the created universe.

The distinction turns on the relation of Facer to faced, on which face of the Godhead is turned toward us. Yet distinct realities each of them must be, for if they were identical their effects on us would be identical as well. The One God’s triune nature persists in each of these three faces, as inseparable from each other as are the sides of a pyramid. In that very unity lies their shared essence. It is not a material essence, not shared as the faces of a pyramid share the same core of stone, eliminating any real distinction of substance comprising the sides. (That is where Sabellius went wrong, analogizing to the material world and supposing the common “stuff” of the divine to be the defining substance of a single entity.) Rather, the shared essence of these three persons lies in what they form in their unity, as the joining together of triangles edge to edge with a common apex forms the shape we know as a pyramid. It is “pyramidness” itself, not what the pyramid as a solid might be made of, that constitutes this essence.

And so it is with the Godhead. We can never fully comprehend the divine “stuff” of the Godhead; that is beyond our power to describe through analogies to the physical world. But the concept of God, like the abstract concept of a three-sided pyramid, is revealed by the particular relation, the particular union, of its distinct faces. Without the three, there is not the One.

 

[KevinK]

Do yourself a favor: when thinking about the Logos and its role, think about the pre-incarnate Son, not the post-incarnate Son.

If the Logos has a “role” it must be a “thing”. Is the Logos identical to the pre-incarnate Jesus and is so where did “it” go after the incarnation; or did it turn into the incarnation?

 

[Joe_5859]

For anyone confused about the use of the word “Logos”, Logos is just the Greek word for “Word”. In John’s Gospel, when he says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the word was God,” he is using the Greek word Logos for “Word”.

Thus, it is commonplace in theological discussions to use Logos to refer to Jesus—particularly in reference to His being co-eternal with the Father and the time in history where He still existed, but before Jesus was incarnated. It’s simply taking the lead from John who did the same thing. And, really, it hearkens back to the original creation where God spoke with a Word in order to create everything. Jesus is the Word that was spoke at Creation.

 

[Kei]

“When you gave flesh to your own flesh’s Creator”

Yes it should be perfectly fine.

 

[Francis]

Psalm 33:4-9 For the word of the Lord is upright, and all his work is done in faithfulness.
5 He loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of the steadfast love of the Lord 6 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made and all their host by the breath of his mouth.7 He gathered the waters of the sea as in a bottle; he put the deeps in storehouses.8 Let all the earth fear the Lord;let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.9 For he spoke, and it came to be;he commanded, and it stood firm.

 

[Francis]

Yea God the Father Creator,God the Son is the Redeemer or Savior ,God the Holy Spirit is the Sanctifier. they are united in Love

 

[Francis]

Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

Revelation 4:8 And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and inside. Day and night without ceasing they sing, “Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God the Almighty, who was and is and is to come.

John 1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being 4 in him was life, and the life was the light of all people.

Isaiah 55:10-11 For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,and do not return there until they have watered the earth,making it bring forth and sprout,giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,and succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

 

[Francis]

Well said ,we need to really, brush up our basic Catechism.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p1.htm

213 The revelation of the ineffable name “I AM WHO AM” contains then the truth that God alone IS. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, and following it the Church’s Tradition, understood the divine name in this sense: God is the fullness of Being and of every perfection, without origin and without end. All creatures receive all that they are and have from him; but he alone is his very being, and he is of himself everything that he is.

 

[phil19034]

fredystairs:

They are coeternal.

Ok. So they are all equally eternal?

correct, they are all equally eternal.