"Let there be light " He is first born of creation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Benadam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How did the pre-light water show up on the scene? The water is, after all, mentioned as existing before the light.
 
Last edited:
Vico said:
according to his humanity (“reasonable soul and flesh”).
Click to expand...
His soul isn’t human nature. This is addressing what happened. The Divine Nature assumed the human nature when Jesus was Incarnated. That didn’t happen until the Incarnation. That the Word didn’t change but the flesh did. A glorified soul would change the flesh when infused. I’m not seeing how my suggestion contradicts the teachings you posted.
 
RedFan said:
How did the pre-light water show up on the scene? The water is, after all, mentioned as existing before the light.
Click to expand...
It is how the author conceptualized the substance of created matter before it was formed. I see it as the stuff the Holy Spirit is breathing on. The formless substance, preparing it for the light which God will judge as good. That judgement will separate the light from darkness…Like John the Baptist did for the coming of Jesus.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely. God spoke. What did that mean? God spoke words… Let there be light, and there was light… Jesus said I am the light of the world. John says In the beginning was the WORD and the Word was with God and the WORD was GOD! I’m not a math genius, but I can put one and one together.
 
Jesus is eternally begotten by the Father, not created.

“Begotten, not made”
 
“Vico said:
human nature is both a rational human soul and human body which are incomplete substances.

You don’t see an incomplete human nature assumed by Divine Nature. I don’t either.

The Son of God assumed a rational human soul and human body. The human soul requires material extension to fulfil it’s end. This is a glorified soul. As a human soul it is fulfilled. Its purpose as human is fulfilled, its material extension would have no reason to be human unless to be God. That means as a soul it is free to be without immediate extension. Imo. At the appropriate time to infuse a body and immediately divinize the body and human nature. Divinized human nature to be assumed by Divine Nature at conception.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Kei said:
Jesus is eternally begotten by the Father, not created.

“Begotten, not made”
Click to expand...
And what is signified by “eternally begotten” from thre Nicene Creed?
“Begotten” implies a process, a happening, a coming into being.
 
I’m glad you asked!
Well, deep in the recess of Eternity, a contemplation of Himself shows forth the Son, eternally this has been so.
The reasons are a tad complicated and involve a perfect conception.
 
Benadam said:
…
You don’t see an incomplete human nature assumed by Divine Nature. I don’t either.

The Son of God assumed a rational human soul and human body. The human soul requires material extension to fulfil it’s end. This is a glorified soul. As a human soul it is fulfilled. Its purpose as human is fulfilled, its material extension would have no reason to be human unless to be God. That means as a soul it is free to be without immediate extension. Imo. At the appropriate time to infuse a body and immediately divinize the body and human nature. Divinized human nature to be assumed by Divine Nature at conception.
Click to expand...
There are two natures simultaneously without confusion, from the conception at the Annunciation.

Canons against Origin, Pope Vigilius (537) 540-555:
Can. 3. If anyone says or holds that the body of our Lord Jesus Christ was first formed in the womb of the holy Virgin, and that after this God, the Word, and the soul, since it had pre-existed, were united to it, let him be anathema.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hello Benadam,
Jesus was not created. Jesus is God and God has no beginning.

John 1:1
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 to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.

This, of course, included “light” that was created on the First Day.
 
Thanks Vico.

I found this as well,St Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologiciae

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4006.htm#article1
if we suppose that it was first of all created, but not at once joined to the Word, since it would follow that this soul once had its proper subsistence without the Word; and thus, since it was assumed by the Word, either the union did not take place in the subsistence, or the pre-existing subsistence of the soul was corrupted. So likewise it is not fitting to suppose that this soul was united to the Word from the beginning, and that it afterwards became incarnate in the womb of the Virgin; for thus His soul would not seem to be of the same nature as ours, which are created at the same time that they are infused into bodies. Hence Pope Leo says (Ep. ad Julian. xxxv) that “Christ’s flesh was not of a different nature to ours, nor was a different soul infused into it in the beginning than into other men.”
Click to expand...
It looks like to me, this idea is in the trash bin.
 
Last edited:
bsy said:
This, of course, included “light” that was created on the First Day.
Click to expand...
Hi bsy, that Christ’s soul is created wasn’t in question. The immediate infusion of His soul was in question. Thank you, I appreciate your thoughtful response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top