The incarnation - a question

[Laurie_Gibson]

When Jesus was a newly born infant, was he in control of the Universe?

If you say ‘Yes’ then he could not have been human because a newly born human baby can hardly control the movements of his body. On the other hand if you say ‘No’ it seems he could not be God because God is omnipotent by definition.

What is the way out of this dilemma?

Laurie Gibson

 

[mangy_dog]

When Jesus was a newly born infant, was he in control of the Universe?

If you say ‘Yes’ then he could not have been human because a newly born human baby can hardly control the movements of his body. On the other hand if you say ‘No’ it seems he could not be God because God is omnipotent by definition.

What is the way out of this dilemma?

Laurie Gibson

Hello Laurie,

There is no dilemma, just perception.

Jesus, the third person of the Most Holy Trinity - is in essence and existence one in being with the Father and the Holy Spirit - is also true man! This is called the hypostatic union. Meaning that one nature does not interfere or otherwise overcome the other.

This in itself would suffice to conclude that there is no conflict or dilemma as to “who is in control” because He never ceased being God while being man.

Hope this helps.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

When Jesus was a newly born infant, was he in control of the Universe?

If you say ‘Yes’ then he could not have been human because a newly born human baby can hardly control the movements of his body. On the other hand if you say ‘No’ it seems he could not be God because God is omnipotent by definition.

What is the way out of this dilemma?

Laurie Gibson

The knowledge Christ had through his Divine nature was infinitely perfect.

The knowledge Christ had through his human nature was not infinite.

Three kinds of knowledge:

Celestial- His soul from the moment of it’s existence enjoyed, the immediate vision of God, and in that vision beheld all things past, present, and to come.

Infused- His soul was endowed with all that knowledge which God gave the angels at their creation.

Experimental- His soul had the ordinary knowledge which humans obtain in everyday life from the use of their senses and reason. However we must understand that all the knowledge so acquired was already in his possession through other channels.

At the moment of His Conception He was capable of using His Divine will to do anything He wished.

 

[Cristian_B]

When Jesus was a newly born infant, was he in control of the Universe?

If you say ‘Yes’ then he could not have been human because a newly born human baby can hardly control the movements of his body. On the other hand if you say ‘No’ it seems he could not be God because God is omnipotent by definition.

What is the way out of this dilemma?

Laurie Gibson

Jesus hid and gave away His glory when He came as a man.

His Father took care of the universe. Don’t worry.

 

[Scoobyshme]

When Jesus was a newly born infant, was he in control of the Universe?

If you say ‘Yes’ then he could not have been human because a newly born human baby can hardly control the movements of his body. On the other hand if you say ‘No’ it seems he could not be God because God is omnipotent by definition.

What is the way out of this dilemma?

Laurie Gibson

Hey, Laurie!

There’s no delimna. Jesus had two natures. One was human, and one was Divine. His human nature was limited. His Divine nature was not, i.e., He was still God. Both natures belonged to the one Person, Jesus.

Also, because He had two natures, He had two wills, one Divine, and one human.  His human nature was like ours, except that He wasn't afflicted with the affects of Original sin, namely, weakness of will and darkness of intellect.  However, His Divine will was one with the rest of the Trinity.

 Does this help?  Or confuse (hopefully not!)?  :)

 

[requieroveritas]

When Jesus was a newly born infant, was he in control of the Universe?

If you say ‘Yes’ then he could not have been human because a newly born human baby can hardly control the movements of his body. On the other hand if you say ‘No’ it seems he could not be God because God is omnipotent by definition.

What is the way out of this dilemma?

Laurie Gibson

Hi Laurie.

The answer, as several people have alluded to, is simple. You incorrectly separated the humanity of God from his Divinity. Your assumption was that if he He was in control of the universe he could not be human, for a baby has little control of his movements.

The answer to this is that he could have controlled his bodily movements at any time, if He so chose. He simply chose not to.

 

[mangy_dog]

Hey, Laurie!

There’s no delimna. Jesus had two natures. One was human, and one was Divine. His human nature was limited. His Divine nature was not, i.e., He was still God. Both natures belonged to the one Person, Jesus.

Also, because He had two natures, He had two wills, one Divine, and one human.  His human nature was like ours, except that He wasn't afflicted with the affects of Original sin, namely, weakness of will and darkness of intellect.  However, His Divine will was one with the rest of the Trinity.

 Does this help?  Or confuse (hopefully not!)?  :)

Single will.

Two natures but a single will.

 

[Scoobyshme]

Single will.

Two natures but a single will.

Two natures implies two intellects implies two wills. St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica says Jesus has two wills, I believe.

See Article 1 at the following link, please:

newadvent.org/summa/4018.htm#article1

“…And hence in the sixth Council held at Constantinople [Act. 18] it was decreed that it must be said that there are two wills in Christ,…”

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

I really do not understand these various answers - let me tell you why.

A silly example but it illustrates what I mean. Suppose told you that I had grown a remarkable fruit. It had the nature of a plum so when ripe it was purple but it also had the nature of an orange so it was, at the same time, orange all over! You would say that I was talking nonsense - something cannot be purple all over and orange all over at the same time. Talk of having two natures would not help. Nor would it help if I said it was a particularly holy fruit!

I just do not know what it means to have two natures. One respondent says that Jesus was not in control of the Universe but God the Father was. But Jesus and God are one.

Trouble is that the replies have not explained their answers but have used terminology.which is not clear - at least to me.

Thanks though.

Laurie Gibson

 

[mangy_dog]

I really do not understand these various answers - let me tell you why.

A silly example but it illustrates what I mean. Suppose told you that I had grown a remarkable fruit. It had the nature of a plum so when ripe it was purple but it also had the nature of an orange so it was, at the same time, orange all over! You would say that I was talking nonsense - something cannot be purple all over and orange all over at the same time. Talk of having two natures would not help. Nor would it help if I said it was a particularly holy fruit!

I just do not know what it means to have two natures. One respondent says that Jesus was not in control of the Universe but God the Father was. But Jesus and God are one.

Trouble is that the replies have not explained their answers but have used terminology.which is not clear - at least to me.

Thanks though.

Laurie Gibson

Jesus is God.

Jesus has alway been God

The fulness of the divinity is in the man Jesus from the moment of His taking flesh from the Blessed Virgin Mary.

God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit…always in control.

It doesn’t get much simpler than that.

 

[Scoobyshme]

I really do not understand these various answers - let me tell you why.

A silly example but it illustrates what I mean. Suppose told you that I had grown a remarkable fruit. It had the nature of a plum so when ripe it was purple but it also had the nature of an orange so it was, at the same time, orange all over! You would say that I was talking nonsense - something cannot be purple all over and orange all over at the same time. Talk of having two natures would not help. Nor would it help if I said it was a particularly holy fruit!

I just do not know what it means to have two natures. One respondent says that Jesus was not in control of the Universe but God the Father was. But Jesus and God are one.

Trouble is that the replies have not explained their answers but have used terminology.which is not clear - at least to me.

Thanks though.

Laurie Gibson

Hi, Laurie!

 Maybe we should talk about the Trinity - three Divine Persons in One God.  It is a Mystery, i.e., we frail humans will never fully understand it this side of heaven.  St. Augustine was on the shore of the Mediterranean one day, trying to ponder the Trinity.  He came upon a small child who was using a seashell to scoop up water from the Mediterranean and fill in a hole in the sand.  He asked the child, "Child, what are you doing?"  The child answered, "I'm going to use this shell and put all the water from the sea into that hole."  St. Augustine said, "Child, you'll never finish.  The sea is too big!"  Then, in an adult's voice, the "child" (an angel) said, "I'll finish long before you figure out the Trinity."  And the angel vanished.

 As part of the Trinity, Jesus Christ always existed, for all eternity.   About 2000 years ago, He became enfleshed as a human being through the power of the Holy Spirit.  When He did this, He had a human nature in addition to His Divine nature.  Both were infused into the one Person, Jesus.

 Does this help or confuse you more?  :)

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

Sorry Scooby but your reply confuses me!

Jesus had a human nature when he was born so he did not control the universe.
But he also, you say, had a Godly nature so he did!

But he could not both control the universe and not control it at the same time because that is self-contradictory.

This may be a problem re the Trinity but whatever it is it seems to be a big one!

Regards

Laurie

 

[DCNBILL]

Sorry Scooby but your reply confuses me!

Jesus had a human nature when he was born so he did not control the universe.
But he also, you say, had a Godly nature so he did!

But he could not both control the universe and not control it at the same time because that is self-contradictory.

This may be a problem re the Trinity but whatever it is it seems to be a big one!

Regards

Laurie

Greetings Laurie,

I believe that there is a misconception here about God and time. If you can imagine creation and all of time, from the begining to the end, in a sort of a diorama resting before God to view for eternity, you may gain a perspective of how God is outside of time and thereby not limited by it. God has all of eternity to view all of creation at all times in an “eternal instant.” If you can gain this sort of perspective then it becomes clear that the Incarnation causes no problem with the reign of God as the omnipotent creator of the universe.

 

[Cristian_B]

Sorry Scooby but your reply confuses me!

Jesus had a human nature when he was born so he did not control the universe.
But he also, you say, had a Godly nature so he did!

But he could not both control the universe and not control it at the same time because that is self-contradictory.

This may be a problem re the Trinity but whatever it is it seems to be a big one!

Regards

Laurie

You know, there is a Son and a Father. The Father could have kept order while His Son was away for three days, couldn’t He?

 

[Laurie_Gibson]

I am afraid that the notion of God outside of time yet viewing all of eternity is rather hard to take or understand. If all of time exists now before God that means that I am simultaneously a child, a man and existing in Heaven or Hell! At the moment I am conscious of it being Saturday the 20th March. Is this wrong? If it is, then what date is it really? Can it really be all the dates at the same time? This seems bizarre.

But back to Jesus in the stable. That baby existing in his cradle - even if this is part of an eternal diorama - does not have the property of being aware of the rest of the Universe. However God does, so it is hard to see how the baby can be God. God is supposed to be unchanging so how can there be a situation where he exists unaware of the Universe whether he is in a diorama or not.

As to God the Father looking after the Universe while God the Son is in the manger - the problem is that God the Father and God the Son are the same person!

Cheers

Laurie

 

[JimG]

I am afraid that the notion of God outside of time yet viewing all of eternity is rather hard to take or understand. If all of time exists now before God that means that I am simultaneously a child, a man and existing in Heaven or Hell! At the moment I am conscious of it being Saturday the 20th March. Is this wrong? If it is, then what date is it really? Can it really be all the dates at the same time? This seems bizarre.

But back to Jesus in the stable. That baby existing in his cradle - even if this is part of an eternal diorama - does not have the property of being aware of the rest of the Universe. However God does, so it is hard to see how the baby can be God. God is supposed to be unchanging so how can there be a situation where he exists unaware of the Universe whether he is in a diorama or not.

As to God the Father looking after the Universe while God the Son is in the manger - the problem is that God the Father and God the Son are the same person!

Cheers

Laurie

Let me address several points, beginning with the last. God the Father and God the Son are not the same person. They are distinct persons, but not distinct beings. That is, God has only one nature. He is only one entity, not more. But that one singular entity is possessed by three distinct persons.

It was the Son, not the Father, who assumed a human nature.

The Son assumed a human nature but did not, could not, divest himself of his divine nature. Yet, as man, (in his human nature) he was fully human. As man, he had to learn and grow and mature just as we do. His human knowledge, and his human intellect, were limited. The same Person, acting in his divine nature, retained all the power and knowledge of his divine nature.

It would be as if you could assume a canine nature in order to be close to your pet. But that’s not really a good example, because animals and humans both have material bodies. God has no material body. He is pure spirit. In assuming a human nature, there is no conflict of a human and a divine body.

As to the nature of time. As humans we experience our existence not all at once (as does God) but instant by instant, like one frame of a movie film being illuminated at a time. The entirety of who we are can be described as a four dimensional worldline stretching in both space and time from birth to death. All those instants are as one to God, who sees them not sequentially but concurrently.

I might add that reflections on the divine nature and the hypostatic union cannot be adequately discussed on an internet forum. For a more detailed discussion I would recommend books such as Frank Sheeds Theology for Beginners, and Theology and Sanity.

 

[Cristian_B]

But back to Jesus in the stable. That baby existing in his cradle - even if this is part of an eternal diorama - does not have the property of being aware of the rest of the Universe. However God does, so it is hard to see how the baby can be God. God is supposed to be unchanging so how can there be a situation where he exists unaware of the Universe whether he is in a diorama or not.

Jesus renounced and gave away His glory when He came here as a man. It means that He didn’t have the same glory as at the beginning of the world. He became humble.

As to God the Father looking after the Universe while God the Son is in the manger - the problem is that God the Father and God the Son are the same person!

Cheers

Laurie

No, they aren’t. Is the word the same thing as the one who pronounces the word?