Nature of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter WmJackP
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have met God the Father and I have met the Holy Spirit Who revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist Is Jesus, so in essence, here is the Trinity.

I would not even attempt to explain the Trinity but I can say that in meeting Who is referred to as God the Father, I can say that the simple statement “God Is Love” is quite literal in that Love is not an attribute of God but Is God’s Very Being, something that I would say that is beyond our ability to conceive of.

The “Nature of God” is LOVE and all of the “attributes” that we ascribe to God flow from this “Nature”.

Even the words “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” can be misleading since the Son did not come from the Father and the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son, All were from before the beginning, the beginning being creation.

The Son coming from the Father speaks of the Incarnation, before the Incarnation He Who became Jesus was simply, so to speak, the Second Person of the Trinity.

Jesus became the Son of God and the Son of Man when Mary said YES.

God is neither a Male, a Female nor an It even tho God-Incarnate was a Male.

Words can be inadequate and inaccurate but to speak about God we need words, even saying three Persons in One God, I would say, is “inadequate and inaccurate” but until we fully meet God we have to bumble and stumble along with our human language the best we can, Love being a Being Is God.
 
Have to disagree with your comment about Jesus.being the Son of Man only when Mary said yes.

It is in our Creed that we say Jesus was “born of the Father before all ages.” Jesus has always existed, well before Marys existence, He was the first creation.

Jesus says He also saw Satan fall from Heaven like light ing.

We are also created in His image, not He created in ours.

Jesus was always the Son of Man and has always existed.
 
WmJackP said:
Therefore, I am curious how you justify your belief to such a statement as “there is one God–but three Persons in God” when, to me, it doesn’t seem to have any meaning. If you can help me understand that, I’d appreciate the wisdom. But I would expect you to honestly meet my question.
Click to expand...
I see that you did the classic “1+1+1=1” bit earlier. I wish to add one tiny detail that you left out, in order to provide at least some of the meaning that you seek. Let’s add the units of measurement, shall we?

1 person (Father) + 1 person (Son) + 1 person (Holy Spirit) = 1 God

And in an analogous sense, here’s the same thing done with humans:

1 person (father) + 1 person (mother) + 1 person (child) = 1 family

So yes, 1+1+1 does in fact equal 1. Just another way we’re made in the image and likeness of God. And what it means to be a family is a reflection of what it means for God to be three persons.
 
WmJackP said:
But yet you also say, within the very same theology, that God is simple–without parts or characteristics. As you say God is simple. For example: He is Existence or He is Love—this of course means that God does not have parts or characteristics. His identification is co-equal with “being” or “love”-----not altogether different than what Spinoza said of God. This paradigm is more consistent with pantheism than it is with the description you also give of God being in some form a triune god. But you renounce pantheism as a false doctrine, and, of course, teach that God is one with three Persons.

So, I have to ask again–what do you really mean when you say God is one in three persons.

I have difficulty accepting that one can honestly meet this apparent anomaly by calling it a mystery. It seems to me that do so requires a tacit admission that one does not know what it that one purports to believe. This is different than saying that it is a mystery how one God can exist as three distinct Persons. Just as I can believe in electricity even though I cannot comprehend how the phenomenon of electromagnetism performs the functions it does.

Yet in the case of electricity, I can explain what I mean by electric power and relate it definitionally to lights going on and the operation of appliances–even though I could never explain how it works. In the case of electricity, I know, at least, what it is I believe, although, it is a mystery how it can be so.

Therefore, I am curious how you justify your belief to such a statement as “there is one God–but three Persons in God” when, to me, it doesn’t seem to have any meaning. If you can help me understand that, I’d appreciate the wisdom. But I would expect you to honestly meet my question.
Click to expand...
In Trinitarian doctrine, God exists as three persons or hypostases, but is one being, having a single divine nature.

The members of the Trinity are co-equal and co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action, and will. As stated in the Athanasian Creed, the Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated, and all three are eternal with no beginning.

The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, The Son is not the Holy Spirit or the Father, The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son BUT The Father is God, The Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

“God has always loved, and there has always existed perfectly harmonious communion among the three persons of the Trinity. One consequence of this teaching is that God could not have created man to have someone to talk to or to love: God “already” enjoyed personal communion; being perfect, he did not create man because of a lack or inadequacy he had. Another consequence, according to Rev. Fr. Thomas Hopko, an Eastern Orthodox theologian, is that if God were not a Trinity, he could not have loved prior to creating other beings on whom to bestow his love. Thus God says, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”[Gen 1:26–7] For Trinitarians, emphasis in Genesis 1:26 is on the plurality in the Deity, and in 1:27 on the unity of the divine Essence. A possible interpretation of Genesis 1:26 is that God’s relationships in the Trinity are mirrored in man by the ideal relationship between husband and wife, two persons becoming one flesh, as described in Eve’s creation later in the next chapter.” From Wiki
 
TheHolyGhost said:
Have to disagree with your comment about Jesus.being the Son of Man only when Mary said yes.

It is in our Creed that we say Jesus was “born of the Father before all ages.” Jesus has always existed, well before Marys existence, He was the first creation.

Jesus says He also saw Satan fall from Heaven like light ing.

We are also created in His image, not He created in ours.

Jesus was always the Son of Man and has always existed.
Click to expand...
Jesus as the Second Person of the Trinity always was, even before creation, but God became Incarnate when Mary said YES, so it was then that He became Son of God and Son of Man.

That is why I believe, not know, but believe that Gabriel was in full Angelic Attire, whatever that may be, because Mary had to accept this Incarnation of her own free will, it could not be forced on her or she would not have had free will.

Jesus, True God and True Man, is both uncreated and created.

Jesus came into Mary’s womb at a very specific time and space and this is when Mary said YES.

God knew that Mary would say YES since God Is Omniscient and in God’s Mind, so to speak, the Second Person of the Trinity was “born of the Father before all ages”, but the Incarnation became historical at Mary’s YES.
 
The “Nature of God” Is Love, it is that simple, in that Love is not an attribute of God but is God’s Very Being.

I have met Who is referred to as God the Father and I have met Who is referred to as the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist Is Jesus, here is the Trinity.

To say that the Trinity is a mystery is not a cop out, to me it is admitting that it is beyond our comprehension and all of the attempted “explanations” is an exercise in futility.
 
WmJackP said:
I understand the Catholic faith to teach that God is a person (or more accurately, three persons in one God). What puzzles me is what does that statement actually mean? I fully realize that the stock response to my question generally is that “it is a mystery”. But I am not asking “how” this can be. I will leave the “how” alone, and, accept that the process of “how” this can be to remain a mystery. My question instead is what does the statement even mean?

Why, I think “meaning” must be assigned to the statement is because, unless a statement makes sense, it is usually seen as nonsense. For example, when one discusses the existence of several personalities in one body, this statement has no “meaning” or correspondence to reality unless one is attempting to describe a pathological condition. But, I realize Christians certainly do not mean this when describing their triune God. So, what do they mean?

Unless the statement has a “meaning” beyond its composite of words, it seems to me that it has no more informational content than the statement that “a square is a triangle”.
Click to expand...
I don’t see a difference between the meaning and the how of the question, since the former answers the latter. What does it mean to say that something is contingent and necessary at the same time? well, if something is contingent then it is necessarily true that is contingent. Or that a person is necessarily identical to himself while his existece is contingent.

As for the trinity there are different ways of explaining it: We could say that the persons are formally distinct, meaning that they are distinct but inseparable from each other. An example of this would be that matter is distinct but inseparable from gravity. How about the differences in the persons? This could be explained in terms of their relations to each other: the son proceeds* from* the father and the holy spirit* proceeds from *the father and the son.
 
WmJackP said:
I understand the Catholic faith to teach that God is a person (or more accurately, three persons in one God). What puzzles me is what does that statement actually mean? I fully realize that the stock response to my question generally is that “it is a mystery”. But I am not asking “how” this can be. I will leave the “how” alone, and, accept that the process of “how” this can be to remain a mystery. My question instead is what does the statement even mean?

Why, I think “meaning” must be assigned to the statement is because, unless a statement makes sense, it is usually seen as nonsense. For example, when one discusses the existence of several personalities in one body, this statement has no “meaning” or correspondence to reality unless one is attempting to describe a pathological condition. But, I realize Christians certainly do not mean this when describing their triune God. So, what do they mean?

Unless the statement has a “meaning” beyond its composite of words, it seems to me that it has no more informational content than the statement that “a square is a triangle”.
Click to expand...
Not three persons, three beings which I can best define as “The state or fact of existence, consciousness, or life, or something in such a state.” It is, and will always be. It’s God’s little secret as to how he’s always one step of HaSatan (the adversary). Serveral sprits or essences in one body is exactly correct, Christ eventually becomes 5 spirits in 1 vessel.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetramorph

Each “being” represents an element: Fire, Water, Earth, and Air. In the middle, is the anointed one, the krist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_in_Majesty

Also known as the Anu, which in the microcosm is the point at which matter manifests, in mythology its the name of Christs grandfather.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anu

Christ, is the heir to the Anunnaki throne. His lineage started at Noah, who was half Anunnaki.

SO, Christ is “the fifth element”, the point at which the etheric realm is made manifest.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
one in Being with the Father.
**Through him all things were made. **

So, the holy spirit last go round was John the Baptist

Luke 1:13-17
New King James Version (NKJV)

13 But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. 14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. 15 **For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. 16 And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. **17 He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, ‘to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,’[a] and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

Blessings Beloved.
 
Qoeleth said:
Yes, God is wholly beyond knowledge and attributes, existence and non-existence. There words from St. Dionysius are illuminating:

“Again, ascending yet higher, we maintain that it is neither soul nor intellect; nor has it imagination, opinion reason or understanding; nor can it be expressed or conceived, since it is neither number nor order; nor greatness nor smallness; nor equality nor inequality; nor similarity nor dissimilarity; neither is it standing, nor moving, nor at rest; neither has it power nor is power, nor is light; neither does it live nor is it life; neither is it essence, nor eternity nor time; nor is it subject to intelligible contact; nor is it science nor truth, nor kingship nor wisdom; neither one nor oneness, nor godhead nor goodness; nor is it spirit according to our understanding, nor filiation, nor paternity; nor anything else known to us or to any other beings of the things that are or the things that are not; neither does anything that is know it as it is; nor does it know existing things according to existing knowledge; neither can the reason attain to it, nor name it, nor know it; neither is it darkness nor light, nor the false nor the true; nor can any affirmation or negation be applied to it, for although we may affirm or deny the things below it, we can neither affirm nor deny it, inasmuch as the all-perfect and unique Cause of all things transcends all affirmation, and the simple pre-eminence of Its absolute nature is outside of every negation- free from every limitation and beyond them all.”

And, God is even beyond this…
Click to expand...
Sounds a good bit like the Deist God.
 
Lots of good answers already. For the best answers, I go directly to the sources, not random people on the Internet.

If you are interested in my answer:
You are a person and I am a person. Whatever (actually, Whoever) created us cannot be less than us. God transcends “personhood”. He is three Persons.
You see how you and I are relating. We all exist in a world of relationships. In God, there exists an eternal loving relationship between the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from both.
God does not need us; He is one, infinite goodness, beauty and truth in Himself as the Triune Godhead. How could God love if He were merely one, alone.
BTW: It’s a mystery, beyond all our pay grade.
 
WmJackP said:
I am afraid your cited material appears to me to be simply a repetition of the same statement using different language.

The conflict with logic is self evident, isn’t it? 1 plus 1 plus 1 equals not one but three. However, the conflict in logic is more extreme than simply to comprehend how a unity of three personalities can compress into a single godhead. Even, even if we allow that the statement to be true on the basis that the statement is, after all, a mystery of faith, we are still left with the problem of what is the informational content of such a statement.

To give an example: What does it mean to say that a triangle is really a circle? One can say that “a triangle is really a circle” and how this can be so is a mystery–but, the statement means absolutely nothing. It has no informational content. There is nothing informative about such a description because it has no “meaning”.

I am suggesting that what is inherently so in conflict with logic that it conveys no informative data does not then become worthy of belief by alibiing it as a mystery. I suspect that you would agree that it is unreasonable to expect a statement like “a square is really a triangle” to be believed. Although the statement certainly can be uttered consistently with the rules of grammar (it has a verb, a noun and a syntax), yet it is devoid of informational content, and, is, thus, meaningless

See my point?. If so, can you respond?
Click to expand...
WmJack
I do see your point. Your example makes sense when based on the premise: “a triangle is really a circle”. However the same argument made with the first premise (the one that most pertinent to this discussion) namely that 1+1+1 is 3 not 1 may be valid but not necessarily true. What you are signifying as a replacement for the Trinity is three equal and finite numbers. God is not finite. God is infinite. The same argument cannot be made with transfinite numbers because an infinite number (aleph) cannot be changed by addition. And, addition of infinities is what we are dealing with when we are speaking of the Trinity. So when dealing with the infinite “1+1+1” very well could be =“1”
Yppop
 
I have had many difficulties understanding the Trinity.

One thing I was never able to understand is how Jesus can be of the same essence as the Father if He proceeds from the Father. I cannot see how a contingent being can be co-equal and of the same essence as that on which he is contingent. I understand that He is not created by the Father, as we are, but eternally begotten, as the relationship with between the sun and the light it emits (not a perfect analogy, but I have heard it used before). However, no one would say that the sun and its light are the same being.

I also have difficulties understanding how God could take on human nature. Surely if all members of the Trinity share the same nature and essence, if one member takes on human nature so must all of them; and so must we take on the Trinity’s nature. Also, if God must out of necessity posses all perfections and not be incomplete, how is it conceivable that he may incorporate anything (from his of creation, outside of His internal life) into his nature without denying His completeness and perfection?

I have been falling away from the faith ever since I came across these questions. I Tried asking a priest, but when I asked him what became of Jesus’ human soul he told me that “it was parked in a garage in heaven somewhere”.
 
paziego said:
I have had many difficulties understanding the Trinity.

One thing I was never able to understand is how Jesus can be of the same essence as the Father if He proceeds from the Father. I cannot see how a contingent being can be co-equal and of the same essence as that on which he is contingent. I understand that He is not created by the Father, as we are, but eternally begotten, as the relationship with between the sun and the light it emits (not a perfect analogy, but I have heard it used before). However, no one would say that the sun and its light are the same being.

I also have difficulties understanding how God could take on human nature. Surely if all members of the Trinity share the same nature and essence, if one member takes on human nature so must all of them; and so must we take on the Trinity’s nature. Also, if God must out of necessity posses all perfections and not be incomplete, how is it conceivable that he may incorporate anything (from his of creation, outside of His internal life) into his nature without denying His completeness and perfection?

I have been falling away from the faith ever since I came across these questions. I Tried asking a priest, but when I asked him what became of Jesus’ human soul he told me that “it was parked in a garage in heaven somewhere”.
Click to expand...
Jesus was perfect and sinless, yet he suffered and died a human death. Jesus was God in a human form, sent so that we imperfect humans can in some small way comprehend the nature of God and feel compassion to our fellow men. Jesus was truly human and truly God. He was a perfect example of what mankind can be. In some ways, God the Father is incomprehensible to humans -so vast and almighty. In the form of Jesus, God becomes knowable, and we can truly love and serve him.
 
First off, I was taught Trinitarian Theology by a brilliant Jesuit–but that doesn’t mean I understand it. I’m trying to remember what he taught us, but I don’t have all my notes. Sorry. Please forgive my inability to explain.

St. Thomas really wrote the best summary we have. What it comes down to is ultimately what Thomas was doing was dancing in circles, like all the other doctors of the Church have always done, because (its sounds like a cop-out), human language can’t express the infinite and transcendent. For example, when we say “God is simple,” what we are saying is “God is not divided.” If we say he is eternal, it means “without beginning or end, outside of time.” Et cetera.

Simply put, there is no analogy. Period. What we can say absolutely of God is only by negation. What we can say positively of God is only by analogy. Even “person” has to be said analogously. It is said truly, but by analogy. When trying to talk about God, we have keep stopping to define all of our terms. For example, what is a person? “A person is an individual substance of a rational nature.” The problem is that across Greek and Latin (the languages the definitions were debated in) the words for person, substance, and nature all overlap! What’s the difference? Well, it depends on how you’re using them. Every time you define one of these, you have to make boundaries in which it works, and you press any of them too hard and it doesn’t work.

It’s not so illogical as it might seem. Here’s a couple examples:
Are you free? Yes. Does that mean that nothing influences your freedom? No.
Are you rational? Yes. Does that mean sometimes you act in an irrational way? No.
Can you know reality? Yes. Does that mean you do know reality now? Well, yes and no.
Continue with examples ad nauseam.

So, a summary of the Trinity is: God is one in unity, three in diversity. All is one in God which is not opposed in relation. One nature, three persons.

God has one nature/essence, which is rational. The persons in God are known only through revelation–you can know God exists from reason, but not that God is Trinity.
The Father is related to the Son by paternity, the Son related to the Father by filiation (sonship); the Father is related to the Spirit by spiration (a made up word to indicate spiritual procession), and the Spirit is related to the Father by procession. Hence, they are of the same nature (divine), but distinguished by their relationship to each other.

I hope that this has helped to give some meaning to the statement that seems to have puzzled you. Consider yourself in good company: some of the brightest minds in history have been scratching their heads over the same question!
TheHolyGhost said:
It is in our Creed that we say Jesus was “born of the Father before all ages.” Jesus has always existed, well before Marys existence, He was the first creation.
Click to expand...
That is not correct. The *historical *person of Jesus Christ came into being when the eternal 2nd person of the Word united himself hypostatically with human nature, becoming fully human and losing none of his divinity, two natures (human and divine) united in one Incarnate, enfleshed Person. Jesus did not exist from eternity. If we say that Jesus really existed from eternity, then what did he assume in time, when it says “The Word became flesh”? Jesus’ human nature is created. His divine nature is eternal and un-created, and yes, is born of the Father before all ages. I hope that helps.

Paziego: the first part of your question is addressed just above.
I’m sorry that the priest told you such a frankly naive and un-helpful comment. Jesus, in his humanity, was created. From the moment of his conception, the eternal Word, 2nd person of the Trinity, united himself with human nature. From that instant, that person who was named Jesus, was fully human and fully divine, one person. There were not two persons. The eternal divine nature was not “parked” in heaven, but was really present in a new mode (way/manner) of being as an Incarnate man, never ceasing to be also in heaven. The following quote is from the Council of Chalcedon, which gave a really solid definition of the person of Christ we profess, and shows the nuances where they had to say yes X, no Y.
The Council of Chalcedon:
Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us
One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.
Click to expand...
The_Serpent said:
:shamrock2:
😃
Click to expand...
This might amuse you, and everyone else in this topic: youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw
 
AndrewRaZ said:
First off, I was taught Trinitarian Theology by a brilliant Jesuit–but that doesn’t mean I understand it. I’m trying to remember what he taught us, but I don’t have all my notes. Sorry. Please forgive my inability to explain.

St. Thomas really wrote the best summary we have. What it comes down to is ultimately what Thomas was doing was dancing in circles, like all the other doctors of the Church have always done, because (its sounds like a cop-out), human language can’t express the infinite and transcendent. For example, when we say “God is simple,” what we are saying is “God is not divided.” If we say he is eternal, it means “without beginning or end, outside of time.” Et cetera.

Simply put, there is no analogy. Period. What we can say absolutely of God is only by negation. What we can say positively of God is only by analogy. Even “person” has to be said analogously. It is said truly, but by analogy. When trying to talk about God, we have keep stopping to define all of our terms. For example, what is a person? “A person is an individual substance of a rational nature.” The problem is that across Greek and Latin (the languages the definitions were debated in) the words for person, substance, and nature all overlap! What’s the difference? Well, it depends on how you’re using them. Every time you define one of these, you have to make boundaries in which it works, and you press any of them too hard and it doesn’t work.

It’s not so illogical as it might seem. Here’s a couple examples:
Are you free? Yes. Does that mean that nothing influences your freedom? No.
Are you rational? Yes. Does that mean sometimes you act in an irrational way? No.
Can you know reality? Yes. Does that mean you do know reality now? Well, yes and no.
Continue with examples ad nauseam.

So, a summary of the Trinity is: God is one in unity, three in diversity. All is one in God which is not opposed in relation. One nature, three persons.

God has one nature/essence, which is rational. The persons in God are known only through revelation–you can know God exists from reason, but not that God is Trinity.
The Father is related to the Son by paternity, the Son related to the Father by filiation (sonship); the Father is related to the Spirit by spiration (a made up word to indicate spiritual procession), and the Spirit is related to the Father by procession. Hence, they are of the same nature (divine), but distinguished by their relationship to each other.

I hope that this has helped to give some meaning to the statement that seems to have puzzled you. Consider yourself in good company: some of the brightest minds in history have been scratching their heads over the same question!

That is not correct. The *historical *person of Jesus Christ came into being when the eternal 2nd person of the Word united himself hypostatically with human nature, becoming fully human and losing none of his divinity, two natures (human and divine) united in one Incarnate, enfleshed Person. Jesus did not exist from eternity. If we say that Jesus really existed from eternity, then what did he assume in time, when it says “The Word became flesh”? Jesus’ human nature is created. His divine nature is eternal and un-created, and yes, is born of the Father before all ages. I hope that helps.

Paziego: the first part of your question is addressed just above.
I’m sorry that the priest told you such a frankly naive and un-helpful comment. Jesus, in his humanity, was created. From the moment of his conception, the eternal Word, 2nd person of the Trinity, united himself with human nature. From that instant, that person who was named Jesus, was fully human and fully divine, one person. There were not two persons. The eternal divine nature was not “parked” in heaven, but was really present in a new mode (way/manner) of being as an Incarnate man, never ceasing to be also in heaven. The following quote is from the Council of Chalcedon, which gave a really solid definition of the person of Christ we profess, and shows the nuances where they had to say yes X, no Y.

This might amuse you, and everyone else in this topic: youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw
Click to expand...
Thank you AndrewRaz.

I have just remembered that what I asked the priest was not what happened with Jesus’s human soul, but what happened with his body (after ascension). I was confused about what relation Jesus’ physical body has with the Trinity. I appreciate your answer; for two years I have been wanting to ask another priest the same question but feeling awkward about it.

To my understanding, Jesus did (and does) have a human soul, as he his fully human and fully divine. But human souls aren’t pre-existing. So in uniting His divine nature with His human soul during the incarnation, did God absorb something of created nature into His own uncreated and unchangeable nature? If so, is this not paradoxical?

It is the fact that Jesus wasn’t two persons that presents the difficulty for me. It just seems to me that uniting natures is a two way street, meaning that on one hand the entire Trinity has become fully human as well as divine (by its shared nature with the 2nd person which adopted humanity) and that we must have equally become fully God. Of course I don’t actually believe that, but I cant get past it.
 
I really understand the source of your frustration (doubt?) as relates to the Trinity. So many fine expositions here and in Church history - and yet unsatisfying to me too! So it must be, I think. Human reason, in my view, is digestive. In a way, we take a concept in and break it down into its smallest digestible parts. Once digested conceptually, it is ours to manipulate, control, compose into new concepts, meanings, and create from those meanings useful objects. From a living tree we conceptualize wood and then the properties of wood and from that concept we create objects of wood and from those objects a domicile.

But there’s a power relationship in that process - what we can conceptualize, we can use, control. This power is correctly exercised in our dominion over the material world. And why, I think, we so prefer materialism - because we expect to be able to rationalize it. The same cannot be said of the supernatural world much less of God himself. Why, IMHO, we have gravitated to the scientific method and denied philosophic proof, for example.

Were we able to fully conceptualize the personal nature of God himself independent of revelation, the implication would be that our reason were superior to his, that he were subject to our reason so that his nature should be laid bare before us like a stick of wood for our own use and entertainment. He could not be God.

But if we are on this ledge over creation with a view of all below us, and above us on the mountain top we see the signs of a higher being - smoke from a fire, glimpses of a silhouette when he choses to expose himself - then we would know something of him. And though we may wish, we could not know the intimate details of his interior life.

So I see me on this ledge.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
It is a matter of Divine Revelation just like the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception, or a virgin giving birth, or the creation of the universe out of nothing. Can you explain any of these things logically? But you accept them, right, on the Teaching Authority of the Magisterium. Is the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist reasonable? Is the Incarnation reasonable, is raising the dead to life reasonable, or driving out devils, reading minds, walking on water, calming storms?

At the Baptism of Christ, the Father spoke, " This is my beloved son. " At the same time the Holy Spirit rested on him in the form of a tongue of fire. All three Persons were present at one time. Have faith.

Linus2nd
Click to expand...
This kind of response always frustrates me. I have studied this extensively, and I can tell you that there is a HUGE difference between not being able to demonstratively prove something, and that thing being illogical. While some things are indeed mysteries, and faith is absolutely essential, God is never illogical. We might not understand Him or His reasons, but then we are not working from the same knowledge or ability to understand that He is. Do we not experience this as children? Our parents can be extremely confusing and frustrating, but then examining their actions years later, we have the added knowledge and experience to see that they were right. So yes, God is a mystery, and yes, we must depend on faith, but don’t ever say that He is unreasonable.
 
I understand that we are limited beings, and that it is not for us to know everything. But, while things like the immaculate conception or the parting of the red sea make sense as miracles, it still seems completely different to me to accept the contradictory notion that God has taken on the nature of his creation, and that something “lower” than Him has been added to Him. It is a wholly different situation from miracles.

It seems internally contradictory, and also seems to contradict previous revelation. The first commandment (being the first for good reason) means that we have to be extremely strict is we are to accept anything that adds to the old testament conception of the oneness of God. The incarnation presents such a challenge, and demands an explanation that is not contrary to or beyond reason. If we accept it simply on the grounds that is a mystery, then we are committed to accepting anything else which Is presented to us as a mystery.
 
WmJackP;
I understand the Catholic faith to teach that God is a person (or more accurately, three persons in one God). What puzzles me is what does that statement actually mean?
Click to expand...
I think the oneness of God; is similar to how the Bible describes marriage.

Genesis 1:
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top