Is Jesus God if

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mickey3456987
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mickey3456987

Guest
if jesus is God (nessecary being) how can he re-arrange himself into human being? isn’t he contingent then since necessary being can’t arrange in another form?
 
Mickey3456987 said:
if jesus is God (nessecary being) how can he re-arrange himself into human being? isn’t he contingent then since necessary being can’t arrange in another form?
Click to expand...
He didn’t “re-arrange” himself as human.
 
Jesus Christ is in the unusual position of having two natures; an infinite divine nature, and a finite human nature.
 
The two natures in Christ, namely, the divine and human, do not form or are mixed into a third nature. They remain unmixed and complete in themselves. Christ’s divinity did not change when he assumed and became incarnated as a man in a human nature. Jesus remains the eternal Son of God as He has always been eternally. Christ’s humanity is a creation of God. Jesus is one divine person in two distinct natures, i.e., his eternal divinity as the second person of the Holy Trinity and his humanity which he assumed about 2000 years ago.
 
Mickey3456987 said:
if jesus is God (nessecary being) how can he re-arrange himself into human being? isn’t he contingent then since necessary being can’t arrange in another form?
Click to expand...
He didn’t arrange himself into a human being. Rather, he united his nature to a created human nature under one person. In addition to being divine, Jesus had a human body and soul, a human mind and will.
 
one thing us humans try to do quite often is to try to understand God.
well, i think He wouldn’t be God if we understood. He is, was and always will be a Divine Mystery to us…like the Holy Trinity. our human
minds cannot comprehend and this is where our ‘faith’ grows. accepting what we can’t explain in human words. many times Jesus
proclaimed…“oh ye, of little faith”…and/or “or how great is your faith”.
 
This is a good discussion and helps me to understand Catholic theology.

How does the Church explain the change from God to God on earth (while still being in heaven as well) if God is not able to change? It seems to me that placing Jesus on earth required some type of change?
Thanks.
 
Pattylt said:
How does the Church explain the change from God to God on earth (while still being in heaven as well) if God is not able to change? It seems to me that placing Jesus on earth required some type of change?
Thanks.
Click to expand...
The infinite nature of God did not change. The person of God the Son took another nature, that of humanity. So, the Son has two natures, one is finite and human, and the other is infinite and divine.
 
Sure, if God the Father or Holy Spirit chose to take a human nature and chose your mother to bear them. I am pretty sure that the Church is against that idea though. It is logically possible.
 
From the Catholic encyclopedia:
Hypostatic Union

A theological term used with reference to the Incarnation to express the revealed truth that in Christ one person subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human. Hypostasis means, literally, that which lies beneath as basis or foundation. Hence it came to be used by the Greek philosophers to denote reality as distinguished from appearances (Aristotle, “Mund.”, IV, 21). It occurs also in St. Paul’s Epistles (II Cor., ix, 4; xi, 17; Heb., i, 3:iii, 14), but not in the sense of person. Previous to the Council of Nicæa (325) hypostasis was synonymous with ousia , and even St. Augustine (De Trin., V, 8) avers that he sees no difference between them. The distinction in fact was brought about gradually in the course of the controversies to which the Christological heresies gave rise, and was definitively established by the Council of Chalcedon (451), which declared that in Christ the two natures, each retaining its own properties, are united in one subsistence and one person ( eis en prosopon kai mian hpostasin ) (Denzinger, ed. Bannwart, 148). They are not joined in a moral or accidental union (Nestorius), nor commingled (Eutyches), and nevertheless they are substantially united.
Click to expand...
Regarding the Incarnation, or the taking/assuming of flesh, this link provides some helpful info. Catholic Encyclopedia -The Incarnation
 
Last edited:
Christ took on his human nature at a point in time. His humanity like the rest of ours is contingent. And that’s exactly our reason for celebration. There was absolutely no reason for God to send His Son, but he did.
 
Last edited:
But you (meaning your person with 2 natures) would still know. Also, presuming you’re not perfect (correct me if I’m wrong) that would in itself prove that you are not God.
 
“Have this mind among yourselves, which is your in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made…And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth…No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.”

We don’t understand how in Christ, the second person of the Trinity is incarnated. We just know he humbled himself, and did so. That is enough for us.
 
looskanal said:
Would still know what?
Click to expand...
That you are God.
“looskanal said:
First, define perfect, and second, demonstrate that I’m not perfect.
Click to expand...

In order for one to be perfect, they must do everything that they ought to do, when they ought to, and how they ought to. As for proving that you are not, I would say that there are only two people who ever existed who could look at those conditions and say they meet them.
I don’t know why the quote didn’t work properly there.
 
Last edited:
looskanal said:
I think that it’s wrong to assume what Christ knew, and when He knew it. But perhaps you possess some wisdom that I don’t on this matter.
Click to expand...
Christ did know that he was God. If he didn’t, he was either insane or an egotistical maniac.
 
I can’t prove that you are not God, but the burden of proof is on you, not me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top