Mary- 'The Mother of God'

[Betterave]

I know that it sounds a little bit strange:

Isn’t this what it means though? You say ‘Jesus is God’ and that he ‘died’ on the cross but then when it is asked ‘Did God die’ you say[if you agree with tonyrey’s words] ‘no, it was His humanity that died’ so I asked, then since His ‘humanity died’, didn’t a part of Him die as well?

That still could very easily lead to confusion I think. I think it would be better to say that He died in his humanity. Humanity is an abstract term referring to human nature. Humanity, as such, does not die; human beings die. He chose to unite His divine nature to a human nature and to undergo what humans undergo, including death. This union of the divine nature with human nature is not a mixing of the human and divine natures, however; the divine nature does not take on human nature as a part of itself as a result of the Incarnation. That is impossible.

 

[Ignatius]

So a part of God died then?

The body died, yes.

 

[SonofAdam]

That still could very easily lead to confusion I think. I think it would be better to say that He died in his humanity. Humanity is an abstract term referring to human nature. Humanity, as such, does not die; human beings die. He chose to unite His divine nature to a human nature and to undergo what humans undergo, including death. This union of the divine nature with human nature is not a mixing of the human and divine natures, however; the divine nature does not take on human nature as a part of itself as a result of the Incarnation. That is impossible.

You are right when you say that 'Humanity is an abstract term referring to human nature’. So since it is refering to ‘human nature’ and His ‘human nature’ died, wasn’t His ‘human nature’ part of Him? One cannot be described as having ‘humanity’ if it doesn’t possess ‘human nature’ in the first place. Also, do you believe God was a human being before He created the Heavens and the Earth because He ‘incarnated’ into one.

Ignatius said:

The body died, yes

So you are saying ‘the human body of God died’. This is my point. You are saying that a part of God died is this not so?

 

[Betterave]

You are right when you say that 'Humanity is an abstract term referring to human nature’. So since it is refering to ‘human nature’ and His ‘human nature’ died, wasn’t His ‘human nature’ part of Him? One cannot be described as having ‘humanity’ if it doesn’t possess ‘human nature’ in the first place. Also, do you believe God was a human being before He created the Heavens and the Earth because He ‘incarnated’ into one.

So you are saying ‘the human body of God died’. This is my point. You are saying that a part of God died is this not so?

No, you missed what I said. His human nature didn’t die. Human nature is an abstract universal. Such entities do not die. Saying that ‘human nature dies’ is what is called a category error. You are applying a predicate term to a category of entity to which such a predicate cannot legitimately be applied. It’s like saying ‘I ate a bowl of concepts for breakfast.’ You should say: He died. Jesus died. And this was possible because Jesus had a human nature, he was fully human (as well as fully God). But his human nature did not die - that claim does not even make sense.

Likewise, it is human beings that die, not just human bodies. Death is an event that pertains to the whole human person, not just to a person’s body. Death is a change of state in both the bodily and spiritual condition of the human person. So to say, for example, “the body of my grandfather died” or “the body of Jesus died” is awkward and misleading.

Finally, as I already mentioned, it is misleading to talk of Jesus’s human nature as a ‘part’ of God. Jesus’s created human nature is joined to his eternal divine nature. It is not mixed with it and does not become an integral ‘part’ of it.

 

[SonofAdam]

Betterave said

No, you missed what I said. His human nature didn’t die. Human nature is an abstract universal. Such entities do not die. Saying that ‘human nature dies’ is what is called a category error. You are applying a predicate term to a category of entity to which such a predicate cannot legitimately be applied. It’s like saying ‘I ate a bowl of concepts for breakfast.’ You should say: He died. Jesus died. And this was possible because Jesus had a human nature, he was fully human (as well as fully God). But his human nature did not die - that claim does not even make sense

Finally, as I already mentioned, it is misleading to talk of Jesus’s human nature as a ‘part’ of God. Jesus’s created human nature is joined to his eternal divine nature. It is not mixed with it and does not become an integral ‘part’ of it.

I was wrong to phrase the statement like that. I should have said His human self ‘died’. So Jesus has an eternal nature and at the same time a ‘created human nature’

 

[tonyrey]

Betterave said
I was wrong to phrase the statement like that. I should have said His human self ‘died’. So Jesus has an eternal nature and at the same time a ‘created human nature’

Surely Moslems do not equate the self with the body. What about the soul? Does that die?

 

[SonofAdam]

Surely Moslems do not equate the self with the body. What about the soul? Does that die?

We believe that the body dies through the taking away of the soul. The soul does not die.

How can something eternal have a ‘created human nature’ at the same time; this is self contradictory.

 

[Betterave]

Betterave said

I was wrong to phrase the statement like that. I should have said His human self ‘died’. So Jesus has an eternal nature and at the same time a ‘created human nature’

Yes, but don’t forget that His human ‘self’ is identical to his divine ‘self,’ assuming that by ‘self’ we mean ‘person’ - Jesus is just one person, with a created human nature truly joined to the eternal divine nature. So that person, Jesus, died. And thus you can say that God died provided you understand that this is something He chose to do, and that He was only able to do it by first uniting Himself to a human nature that was capable of dying. Otherwise it would not have been possible for God to die.

Notice that it is also not possible for an angel to die. Purely spiritual beings do not die, although (excepting God) they can be annihilated. But death is not the same as annihilation.

 

[SonofAdam]

Yes, but don’t forget that His human ‘self’ is identical to his divine ‘self,’ assuming that by ‘self’ we mean ‘person’ - Jesus is just one person, with a created human nature truly joined to the eternal divine nature. So that person, Jesus, died. And thus you can say that God died provided you understand that this is something He chose to do, and that He was only able to do it by first uniting Himself to a human nature that was capable of dying. Otherwise it would not have been possible for God to die.

Notice that it is also not possible for an angel to die. Purely spiritual beings do not die, although (excepting God) they can be annihilated. But death is not the same as annihilation.

This still doesn’t answer how can an Eternal being have created attributes. Once you join Him or describe Him with created attributes He is not Eternal anymore. You said Jesus is one person with a created human nature and at the same time you believe he is God; so to say that Jesus had a created attribute automatically defines him as something made, meaning, created.

 

[Betterave]

This still doesn’t answer how can an Eternal being have created attributes. Once you join Him or describe Him with created attributes He is not Eternal anymore. You said Jesus is one person with a created human nature and at the same time you believe he is God; so to say that Jesus had a created attribute automatically defines him as something made, meaning, created.

You might as well say that God cannot create then, since the act of creating is not eternal. We must be careful not to place limitations on the Almighty because of our weak understanding. In fact, an eternal being could be a mere creature, eternally created by God. On the other hand, if God chose to join a human nature to His divine essence so that He could live among men and demonstrate to them His mercy and love, there is no contradiction in this, it does not imply that what is eternal has ceased to be eternal.

Do you still see a contradiction? If so, please explain what it is.

 

[SonofAdam]

You might as well say that God cannot create then, since the act of creating is not eternal. We must be careful not to place limitations on the Almighty because of our weak understanding. In fact, an eternal being could be a mere creature, eternally created by God. On the other hand, if God chose to join a human nature to His divine essence so that He could live among men and demonstrate to them His mercy and love, there is no contradiction in this, it does not imply that what is eternal has ceased to be eternal.

Do you still see a contradiction? If so, please explain what it is.

You said:

You might as well say that God cannot create then, since the act of creating is not eternal.

I don’t understand this can you explain what you mean and why you said that?

You said: We must be careful not to place limitations on the Almighty because of our weak understanding.

I agree that we should not place limitations on God Almighty. We also must agree that it is not allowed to attribute unbefitting attributes to Him as well. For example: It would be absurd to say that the Ever Living One be attributed with ‘loss of life’.

Eternal is ‘lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning’. Something that was brought into existence(i.e. was non existent before) cannot be said to ‘not have had a beginning’.

You said:

In fact, an eternal being could be a mere creature, eternally created by God.

Creator and creation are opposites and to say they are the same or even could be the same is self contradictory(i.e. impossible). If you describe the Creator with created attributes, then this means that some part of Him had a beginning, something that has a beginning was brought into existence, if something was brought into existence, it was non existent before therefore Someone created it. Something created cannot be eternal because it had a beginning.

This is not putting a ‘limit’ on The Creator, it is saying what is unbefitting Him, this is actually emphasising His Perfect Being. For example someone could ask*,“Does God have the ability to throw you somewhere where He won’t know where you are?”* God created space/place and He is All-Knowing, so the question wouldn’t even apply to Him. Therefore it can not be said that this is ‘limiting’ God because the question is absurd to begin with; it is unbefitting Him.

The point of anything having a created attribute must be creation answers the rest of what you posted.

 

[tonyrey]

We believe that the body dies through the taking away of the soul. The soul does not die.

Precisely! The divine aspect of Jesus did not die but the physical aspect of Jesus did - and was resurrected by His divine power.

How can something eternal have a ‘created human nature’ at the same time; this is self contradictory.

You might as well say that “a created universe” is self-contradictory because God sustains the universe and is present in every atom! His eternal existence is compatible with His presence in temporal objects. So why do you restrict His power to manifest Himself? It suggests you have privileged insight into the nature of God - which is beyond the comprehension of a finite intelligence…

 

[Leela]

We believe Jesus is the Son of God because that is what He claimed to be. Otherwise the noblest moral teaching the world has known would have come from the lips of a liar or a lunatic!

Or maybe he never said what people later said that he said.

Lewis’s “liar, lunatic, Lord” so-called tri-lemma? What about legend? Couldn’t there be still other explanations? Are we all not sons and daughters of God? Even if Jesus claimed to be the son of God, perhaps he did not claim this only for himself. Perhaps there is a state of consciousness that any spiritual master can attain and others have attained from which perspective it makes sense to claim “I and the Father are One.”

Lewis loved to set up such false choices: either it’s A or B. Then he would make A look ridiculous and declare, well then it must be A! Reading him I kept wonderring, what about C, or D, or E, …?

 

[Betterave]

I don’t understand this can you explain what you mean and why you said that?

You said:
“Once you join Him or describe Him with created attributes He is not Eternal anymore.”

I replied:
“You might as well say that God cannot create then, since the act of creating is not eternal.”

The point is that God’s act of creating something ‘joins’ to Him the act of creating, it makes him to actually ‘become’ the Creator, whereas before he only had the power to create. But this act of the Eternal God does not mean that his Eternal Essence in itself changes, but that it enters into a new relationship to newly created beings. Does that make sense to you?

I agree that we should not place limitations on God Almighty. We also must agree that it is not allowed to attribute unbefitting attributes to Him as well. For example: It would be absurd to say that the Ever Living One be attributed with ‘loss of life’.

The principle you state is correct. Your ‘example’ is not; it is based on your failure to make the necessary distinctions. The Ever Living One does not and cannot lose His ever-living life - that is absurd. But Jesus never did lose His ever-living divine life - that is not part of what we believe happened when he underwent a human death.

Eternal is ‘lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning’. Something that was brought into existence (i.e. was non existent before) cannot be said to ‘not have had a beginning’.

That is true.

Creator and creation are opposites and to say they are the same or even could be the same is self contradictory(i.e. impossible).

That is true and I have repeatedly stated that myself. There has been a joining without mixing of creator and creature. The two do not become the same, they remain two natures.

If you describe the Creator with created attributes, then this means that some part of Him had a beginning, something that has a beginning was brought into existence, if something was brought into existence, it was non existent before therefore Someone created it. Something created cannot be eternal because it had a beginning.

Agreed.

This is not putting a ‘limit’ on The Creator, it is saying what is unbefitting Him, this is actually emphasising His Perfect Being. For example someone could ask*,“Does God have the ability to throw you somewhere where He won’t know where you are?”* God created space/place and He is All-Knowing, so the question wouldn’t even apply to Him. Therefore it can not be said that this is ‘limiting’ God because the question is absurd to begin with; it is unbefitting Him.

Agreed.

 

[Betterave]

Or maybe he never said what people later said that he said.

Lewis’s “liar, lunatic, Lord” so-called tri-lemma? What about legend? Couldn’t there be still other explanations? Are we all not sons and daughters of God? Even if Jesus claimed to be the son of God, perhaps he did not claim this only for himself. Perhaps there is a state of consciousness that any spiritual master can attain and others have attained from which perspective it makes sense to claim “I and the Father are One.”

Lewis loved to set up such false choices: either it’s A or B. Then he would make A look ridiculous and declare, well then it must be A! Reading him I kept wonderring, what about C, or D, or E, …?

I’ve had that experience too. Lewis is smart, but his arguments aren’t always convincing (that’s just the nature of arguments, mind you). I think his greatest strengths were in other areas.

Anyway, if you and Tony want to have that argument, maybe a new thread would be better?

 

[Betterave]

Quote:
If you describe the Creator with created attributes, then this means that some part of Him had a beginning, something that has a beginning was brought into existence, if something was brought into existence, it was non existent before therefore Someone created it. Something created cannot be eternal because it had a beginning.

Agreed.

Oops, I take that back. I do not agree with this statement: “Something created cannot be eternal because it had a beginning.” If God is an eternal creator, then perhaps he can create something eternally. (Why not?) In this case, something created can be eternal, because it had no beginning and was created eternally.

In other words, “if something was eternally brought into existence, -]it was non existent/-] there never was a time before -]therefore/-] Someone created it”

 

[SonofAdam]

Betterave said: You said:
“Once you join Him or describe Him with created attributes He is not Eternal anymore.”

I replied:
“You might as well say that God cannot create then, since the act of creating is not eternal.”

The point is that God’s act of creating something ‘joins’ to Him the act of creating, it makes him to actually ‘become’ the Creator, whereas before he only had the power to create.

You misunderstood. Remember this was in response to you when you said that Jesus(who is God) had ‘created nature’ so I said ‘If you describe Him with created attributes…’(i.e. being created) Jesus must have been made.

Since God is Eternal, He is not bound by time and events. He was The Creator even before creating the heavens and the earth. Anything ‘created’ cannot be described as being Eternal because it means that the thing that was created had a beginning(which you agreed to below). So I don’t see how this means He can’t create. I’m saying nothing about Him can be created.

But this act of the Eternal God does not mean that his Eternal Essence in itself changes, but that it enters into a new relationship to newly created beings. Does that make sense to you?

Do you believe that God was a human being before He created the heavens and the earth?

The principle you state is correct. Your ‘example’ is not; it is based on your failure to make the necessary distinctions. The Ever Living One does not and cannot lose His ever-living life - that is absurd.

Right

…But Jesus never did lose His ever-living divine life - that is not part of what we believe happened when he underwent a human death.

I wasn’t saying that Jesus died. I was saying that it would be impossible to attribute ‘death’ to God Almighty. I was giving a basic and clear example of something that could never be attributed with God.

Anyhow, what was the point of him be described as being divine if he was just a human being that died?

 

[SonofAdam]

Oops, I take that back. I do not agree with this statement: “Something created cannot be eternal because it had a beginning.” If God is an eternal creator, then perhaps he can create something eternally. (Why not?) In this case, something created can be eternal, because it had no beginning and was created eternally.

In other words, “if something was eternally brought into existence, -]it was non existent/-] there never was a time before -]therefore/-] Someone created it”

I put the definition of Eternal in my earlier post as:

Eternal is 'lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning’.

and I added saying:

Something that was brought into existence (i.e. was non existent before) cannot be said to ‘not have had a beginning’

And you said:

That’s true

Now you are contradicting yourself when you say:

In other words, “if something was eternally brought into existence, -]it was non existent/-] there never was a time before -]therefore/-] Someone created it”(Why not?) In this case, something created can be eternal, because it had no beginning and was created eternally.

How can something be ‘eternally brought into existence’ when ‘brought into existence’ means a having a beginning.

You are giving a word a different meaning than what it is. This a logical fallacy called ‘conflicting conditions’.

You are saying God can create and uncreated.

Thats similar to when you said how can you eat a bowl of concepts.

 

[jsiyumbu]

So since you believe Jesus ‘is God’ then aren’t you saying that ‘God died’ ?

I appreciate you line of thought SonofAdam and your user name too. As a Christian I believe Jesus was fully divine and fully human though WITHOUT sin. I believe Jesus died on the cross.However here is the straight point: His humanity is what died and descended to hell. His divinity did NOT die. This is because Jesus is God and God cannot die. So when we think and talk about Jesus.

 

[tonyrey]

Or maybe he never said what people later said that he said.

Then you are faced with the problem of their motive for distorting His teaching, why every other Christian accepted the distortion of His teaching and why they were prepared to die for the sake of a distortion of His teaching. In the absence of any detailed explanation it remains an implausible hypothesis especially given that the highest moral teaching known to the world would hardly be a distortion of a set of banal platitudes.

Lewis’s “liar, lunatic, Lord” so-called tri-lemma? What about legend? Couldn’t there be still other explanations? Are we all not sons and daughters of God? Even if Jesus claimed to be the son of God, perhaps he did not claim this only for himself.

It is one thing to take a statement out of context and another to consider it in conjunction with His life, death and teaching.
What are the other explanations? Again you have the problem of moral wisdom originating in the minds of hypothetical individuals…

Perhaps there is a state of consciousness that any spiritual master can attain and others have attained from which perspective it makes sense to claim “I and the Father are One.”

It is one thing to take a statement out of context…

Lewis loved to set up such false choices: either it’s A or B. Then he would make A look ridiculous and declare, well then it must be A! Reading him I kept wondering, what about C, or D, or E, …?

Rather than make a blanket assertion that cannot be refuted it would be more to the point to provide a specific example that can be analysed…
I’m afraid, Leela, that **on this occasion **your objections are too vague… But then we are drifting away from the topic so you should not really be criticised!