Jesus: 100% God and 100% Man

[Robert_in_SD]

The Incarnation does fly in the face of the laws of creation. that does not mean that God could not become man. God is not bound by nature.

I’m sorry. How does the Incarnation fly in the face of the laws of creation? I’m not sure I understand the point that is being made?

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

You’re talking about an intrinsic impossibility. Impossible with in itself like God making a rock bigger than he can lift. However, what is his evidence that God becoming incarnate is an intrinsic impossibility? That must first be proved. As it stands we take the words of Jesus himself from the gospels and say it must be so. Whether or not we understand it. Lack of understanding is not the same as an intrinsic impossibility. First there must be a demonstration or proof that God becoming incarnate is impossible within itself.

I agree sambos671. What is it about God taking on a human nature that is an impossibility. Where is it against the rules of logic for a divine Person to have two natures?

Peace,
-Robert

 

[zerinus]

You’re talking about an intrinsic impossibility. Impossible with in itself like God making a rock bigger than he can lift. However, what is his evidence that God becoming incarnate is an intrinsic impossibility? That must first be proved. As it stands we take the words of Jesus himself from the gospels and say it must be so. Whether or not we understand it. Lack of understanding is not the same as an intrinsic impossibility. First there must be a demonstration or proof that God becoming incarnate is impossible within itself.

In that case you will have to explain to him why his understanding of the Incarnation is not an intrinsic impossibility. He sees God being mortal and immortal at the same time; or being omniscient and not omniscient at the same time; or being independent of anything, and dependent at the same time; an intrinsic impossibility. If you think it isn’t, you should be able to explain to him why.

zerinus

 

[sambos671]

In that case you will have to explain to him why his understanding of the Incarnation is not an intrinsic impossibility. He sees God being mortal and immortal at the same time; or being omniscient and not omniscient at the same time; or being independent of anything, and dependent at the same time; an intrinsic impossibility. If you think it isn’t, you should be able to explain to him why.

zerinus

If mortality is the issue be assured man was created immortal. Man is immortal in the sense that man will live forever. Our bodies die but our spirits are eternal. God is a spirit so we have that incommon. Christians believe in a resurrection of our bodies in the last day. Even after judgement man lives forever in reward or punishment. Mortality is not an issue with regard to intrinsic (name removed by moderator)ossibility. Remember God breathed life into man from himself. We are made in his image. Still he will have to show how it is intrinsically impossible.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

In that case you will have to explain to him why his understanding of the Incarnation is not an intrinsic impossibility.

There does not seem to be any intrinsic impossibility in a Divine Person having two natures. It is just different from a human being without a divine nature.
zerinius:

He sees God being mortal and immortal at the same time; or being omniscient and not omniscient at the same time; or being independent of anything, and dependent at the same time; an intrinsic impossibility.

Jesus is not both mortal and immortal. God has, and always will be immortal, although He experienced death on a cross because of his human nature. Similarly, the Second Person of the trinity was never less than omnipotent and complete, although because of His human nature He was able to experience the full reality of humanity. Any theological construct that imagines the Second Person of the Trinity, who took on a human nature in addition to His divine nature, as inconsistent misunderstands the distinction between Person and nature. As a divine Person, the Second Person of the Trinity was and will always be immortal, omniscient, and omnipotent. Because He took on a human nature, He experienced humanity to its fullest. Indeed such an experience by Jesus was entirely consistent with the laws of nature.
zerenius:

If you think it isn’t, you should be able to explain to him why.

I think that whoever made the positive assertion of inconsistency bears the burden of proving how and why the incarnation is inconsistent.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[zerinus]

If mortality is the issue be assured man was created immortal. Man is immortal in the sense that man will live forever. Our bodies die but our spirits are eternal. God is a spirit so we have that incommon. Christians believe in a resurrection of our bodies in the last day. Even after judgement man lives forever in reward or punishment. Mortality is not an issue with regard to intrinsic (name removed by moderator)ossibility. Remember God breathed life into man from himself. We are made in his image. Still he will have to show how it is intrinsically impossible.

When we say Jesus was God and man, we mean mortal man. If Jesus was not mortal, He could not have been put to death.

And by the way, the questions he is asking are not new. They have been asked by the Christians since the earliest times. In fact, it was this very issue that led to the Council of Chalcedon of 451 AD. There is lots of info about it on the Internet, which you can find here.

zerinus

 

[sambos671]

When we say Jesus was God and man, we mean mortal man. If Jesus was not mortal, He could not have been put to death.

And by the way, the questions he is asking are not new. They have been asked by the Christians since the earliest times. In fact, it was this very issue that led to the Council of Chalcedon of 451 AD. There is lots of info about it on the Internet, which you can find here.

zerinus

Adam was created immortal in that he would live forever. Because when sin was introduced so was death. Now what does this mean Adam could not have been bodily killed? I don’t think that is the case. I’ve Studied Chalcedon and the issue was the dual nature of Christ not really about mortality. There was how much of Christ was what? Was Jesus a man possessed by God? Or was his incarnate humanity swallowed up like a drop of water in the ocean? These were more the questions of that council. I don’t buy into this statement “If Jesus was not mortal, He could not have been put to death.” I think we buy into the ancient view of immortality which was placed on their anamorphic Gods where they could not physically be killed. But is this an operation of immortality? After all Socrates believed the Material word was one of forms that were a vague resemblence to the spiritual world. The spiritual world being more substantial and the substance of Matter. Man is at least two fold spirit and body. The spirit never dies. The body does but there is the resurection. And remember your basic laws of physics matter is converted to energy it doesn’t just disapear. Do we really understand what we are talking about when we say immortality? After all the second death is in the hereafter.

 

[zerinus]

Adam was created immortal in that he would live forever. Because when sin was introduced so was death. Now what does this mean Adam could not have been bodily killed? I don’t think that is the case. I’ve Studied Chalcedon and the issue was the dual nature of Christ not really about mortality.

I did not say that it was.

There was how much of Christ was what? Was Jesus a man possessed by God? Or was his incarnate humanity swallowed up like a drop of water in the ocean? These were more the questions of that council.

Those were some of the outward forms which the questions took. But the underlying question was: How could Jesus be God and man at the same time—which is the same as the question that he is asking.

I don’t buy into this statement “If Jesus was not mortal, He could not have been put to death.” I think we buy into the ancient view of immortality which was placed on their anamorphic Gods where they could not physically be killed. But is this an operation of immortality? After all Socrates believed the Material word was one of forms that were a vague resemblence to the spiritual world. The spiritual world being more substantial and the substance of Matter. Man is at least two fold spirit and body. The spirit never dies. The body does but there is the resurection. And remember your basic laws of physics matter is converted to energy it doesn’t just disapear. Do we really understand what we are talking about when we say immortality? After all the second death is in the hereafter.

You are making too much of the mortality/immortality issue. That is not the main issue. The point he was raising was that Incarnation contains an inherent contradiction—that contradiction being manifested in many ways, mortality/immortality being one of them. The others are just as important.

zerinus

 

[sambos671]

I’m trying to show how they are not contradictory. First you have (or he) to show how they are contradictory. It must be proved that the incarnation is an intrinsic impossibility. Then it was replied that the contradiction relied on the fact that Man is mortal and God is immortal. But first I tried to flush out how this is not necissarily a contradiction because the premise is reliant on several assumptions about what immortality means and how it relates to man.

 

[zerinus]

I’m trying to show how they are not contradictory. First you have (or he) to show how they are contradictory. It must be proved that the incarnation is an intrinsic impossibility. Then it was replied that the contradiction relied on the fact that Man is mortal and God is immortal. But first I tried to flush out how this is not necissarily a contradiction because the premise is reliant on several assumptions about what immortality means and how it relates to man.

Jesus died. God, according to his logic, cannot die. That is the contradiction.

zerinus

 

[sambos671]

Jesus died. God, according to his logic, cannot die. That is the contradiction.

zerinus

First define what you mean by die. People die but we live forever. How can that be? Is that not contradictory? That would exclude the Islamic faith as well and only then the athiest could be correct. I think we are dealing with a faulted definition.

 

[zerinus]

First define what you mean by die. People die but we live forever. How can that be? Is that not contradictory? That would exclude the Islamic faith as well and only then the athiest could be correct. I think we are dealing with a faulted definition.

To die means to die, when your life comes to an end. Whether that death is temporary or permanent is not the issue. For him, God by definition cannot die. If you think that He can, then you have to correct his definition—and be able to justify it. The same goes for God’s omnipotence, omniscience, and so forth.

zerinus

 

[sambos671]

To die means to die, when your life comes to an end. Whether that death is temporary or permanent is not the issue. For him, God by definition cannot die. If you think that He can, then you have to correct his definition—and be able to justify it. The same goes for God’s omnipotence, omniscience, and so forth.

zerinus

So are you saying our spirit dies as well? Does our life really end with our bodies? If so throw out religion. There is no after life. When you say die you mean physical death. Can God die physically? Well, christians say he did. But does that mean God is dead? No. God is still in operation. He is a spirit. You and I will die. Yet our spirits live on. If there is no contradiciton between men dieing and our spirits eternal immortal then there is not contradiction for Jesus.

 

[ralphinal]

I’m sorry. How does the Incarnation fly in the face of the laws of creation? I’m not sure I understand the point that is being made?

Peace,
-Robert

Virgin birth, hypostatic union, lack of original sin.

Other than that, Jesus is a run of the mill baby

None of these exceptions is beyond the power of God to allow.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Virgin birth, hypostatic union, lack of original sin.

Adam and Eve were created without sexual union. Are they less natural? Jesus was born of a woman, this is not in dispute. The hypostatic union is not contrary to nature. It is the taking on by God of a human nature. Why is this contradictory to the laws of nature rather than a fulfillment of them? The same holds true for the lack of original sin. Man was created without Original Sin. Jesus being born without Original Sin means his birth was more natural than any person born with the corruption of Original Sin. It is sin that is unnatural, not the sinless nature of Jesus.

ralphinal:

Other than that, Jesus is a run of the mill baby

I never meant to imply that Jesus was “run-of-the-mill.” I only meant to argue that the Incarnation was a fulfillment of natural law, as opposed to running contrary to law.

ralphinal:

None of these exceptions is beyond the power of God to allow.

I do not think these things are exceptions to natural law. They are the divine fulfillment of natural law.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Jesus died. God, according to his logic, cannot die. That is the contradiction.

zerinus

The Second Person of the trinity experienced human death on the cross through His human nature. His divine nature did not. It is not a contradiction. It is the result of divinity united to two natures.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[ralphinal]

Adam and Eve were created without sexual union. Are they less natural? Jesus was born of a woman, this is not in dispute. The hypostatic union is not contrary to nature. It is the taking on by God of a human nature. Why is this contradictory to the laws of nature rather than a fulfillment of them? The same holds true for the lack of original sin. Man was created without Original Sin. Jesus being born without Original Sin means his birth was more natural than any person born with the corruption of Original Sin. It is sin that is unnatural, not the sinless nature of Jesus.

Creation is different than birth. Adam and Eve were unique in history. As was the Blessed Mother, for different reasons. Likewise, so was Jesus. The hypostatic union IS inherently un-natural, as it was a unique case where the Creator became subject partially to the rules of Creation. At no other time did GOd become man. The crux of this thread is that Muslims say that God cannot become man. The inverse is true: man cannot become God. However, there is no rule that says that God cannot become man should he see fit to do so. That is what I am trying to get the Muslims to see. God has the authority to become man, and he did it ONCE.

I never meant to imply that Jesus was “run-of-the-mill.” I only meant to argue that the Incarnation was a fulfillment of natural law, as opposed to running contrary to law.

I don’t disagree. However, the fulfillment of that law could only occure in a one time, totally unique event that will never happen again.

I do not think these things are exceptions to natural law. They are the divine fulfillment of natural law.

Peace,
-Robert

Are they not inherently miracles?

 

[inJESUS]

The whole argument is flawed. It is not either/or scenario. muslims always have a problem differentiating the Trinity from the Incarnation and Jesus’ two natures.

 

[swariffin]

When we say Jesus was God and man, we mean mortal man. If Jesus was not mortal, He could not have been put to death.

And by the way, the questions he is asking are not new. They have been asked by the Christians since the earliest times. In fact, it was this very issue that led to the Council of Chalcedon of 451 AD. There is lots of info about it on the Internet, which you can find here.

zerinus

Jesus in His capacity as 100% fully man did die in the crucifiction. Jesus deity does not lie in his humanity, nor the miracle He made. Jesus deity lies in in His origin which is the word of God. When God’s word became human, the human incarnation did exist as 100% human with all of the property of human being, except sinning. If you said Jesus commit sin as Paar mentioned, then we have a contradictory issue. Word of God cannot sin, therefore word of God incarnate cannot sin. Jesus as human being cannot sin since Jesus is the word of God. Even the Quran stated that Jesus is word of God.

 

[swariffin]

So are you saying our spirit dies as well? Does our life really end with our bodies? If so throw out religion. There is no after life. When you say die you mean physical death. Can God die physically? Well, christians say he did. But does that mean God is dead? No. God is still in operation. He is a spirit. You and I will die. Yet our spirits live on. If there is no contradiciton between men dieing and our spirits eternal immortal then there is not contradiction for Jesus.

Jesus as the man incarnated of the word of God did die. But, Jesus hypostasis as the word of God did not die and cannot die. Christian said that the human nature of Jesus died. Christian never said God died. God the Father, God’s word and God’s spirit had no beginning and had no end.