True God and true man...

[CrossofChrist]

As an aside, it annoys me when writers like this mix in all sorts of gushing praise with their philosophizing. For example, is it really necessary to refer to Jesus as “One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ?”

If necessary to clarify against those who deny one of the above, or to emphasize the totality of the doctrine, yes.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

If necessary to clarify against those who deny one of the above, or to emphasize the totality of the doctrine, yes.

But none of those other doctrines are germane to the point being made, so all it does is to obscure the actual point.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

United does not imply one and the same.

Your mind and your body are not the same, though inextricably united.

Likewise, the human being ICXC and the Trinitarian Divinity are fully united (HE is fully God, and fully man); they are not the same.

One has been** ab a eterno**; the other was born in 6BC.

One is eternal spirit, the other, a human body and mind.

But fully united.

ICXC NIKA

You claim: Your mind and your body are not the same, though inextricably united.

I claim that you are wrong because the body can in fact exist without the mind: e.g. in death. Therefore, they are not inextricably united, because death extricates them.

What you really want to say, I suppose, is that humans are an ensemble comprised of a soul and body which are “united” in some mystical manner. But since that sort of union is also poorly defined (and Catholic theology says the union is sometimes cleaved) it hardly elucidates how God’s union works.

So we now have three entities, and I will ask the same questions about each of them

human being ICXC: Is this entity fully God? Is this entity fully man?
Trinitarian Divinity: Is this entity fully God? Is this entity fully man?
HE: Is this entity fully God? Is this entity fully man?

 

[GEddie]

You claim: Your mind and your body are not the same, though inextricably united.

I claim that you are wrong because the body can in fact exist without the mind: e.g. in death. Therefore, they are not inextricably united, because death extricates them.

What you really want to say, I suppose, is that humans are an ensemble comprised of a soul and body which are “united” in some mystical manner. But since that sort of union is also poorly defined (and Catholic theology says the union is sometimes cleaved) it hardly elucidates how God’s union works.

So we now have three entities, and I will ask the same questions about each of them

human being ICXC: Is this entity fully God? Is this entity fully man?
Trinitarian Divinity: Is this entity fully God? Is this entity fully man?
HE: Is this entity fully God? Is this entity fully man?

The human body cannot exist indefinitely without the mind, as it becomes dead and subsequently ceases to be a body (a skeleton, rotting flesh etc are not a human body).

Perhaps I was sloppy in using the term “inextricably.” But body and mind cannot be separated without losing both.

ICXC NIKA

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The act of God’s becoming man isn’t a change in God, but a uniting of man to God. Jesus is a Divine Person. What distinguishes us from him is that we can continue existing not being in full communion with God; Jesus’ very existence depends on being fully united with God because he is a divine Person.

Why would God have to be united with humanity? That’s not what the Incarnation is. The Hypostatic Union began when Christ was created.

The problem with your view is you are looking at it as though God had to change to become man. Rather, he created a human nature–in time–that he united to himself. The personhood of the Son always was, but the union wasn’t always.

Question: Did there at any time or in any respect exist “God who is not part of a Hypostatic Union?”

Question: Did there at any time or in any respect exist “God who is a part of a Hypostatic Union?”

If both exist, then God underwent a change.

 

[CrossofChrist]

But none of those other doctrines are germane to the point being made, so all it does is to obscure the actual point.

They all are related either to the divinity or humanity of Christ, so they can all emphasize what is being declared at Chalcedon.

 

[CrossofChrist]

If both exist, then God underwent a change.

Not true. Perhaps an analogy will show why.

If you previously were in the shade, but then decided to go into the sun and got burned, would that result in the sun undergoing a change? Of course not. Previously at some point in time the sun didn’t burn you, but at a later point the sun did burn you, but that still didn’t change the sun in any way, only you.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Not true. Perhaps an analogy will show why.

If you previously were in the shade, but then decided to go into the sun and got burned, would that result in the sun undergoing a change? Of course not. Previously at some point in time the sun didn’t burn you, but at a later point the sun did burn you, but that still didn’t change the sun in any way, only you.

No, it means that the sun must have done something to you. The sun will change from “the sun that has not burned you” to “the sun which has burned you.”

If we imagine that the sun literally did not change in your scenario, then it would be impossible for you to have been burned by the sun. The sun would be unable to give off the rays which burned you because the giving off of the rays would be a change. In the same way God would be unable to perform any unification, because performing an action (such as unification) implies a change.

Sure, we could go a Ship of Theseus route and argue that it is still the same sun, but that is not what people mean when they say that God is unchanging.

 

[CrossofChrist]

No, it means that the sun must have done something to you. The sun will change from “the sun that has not burned you” to “the sun which has burned you.”

If we imagine that the sun literally did not change in your scenario, then it would be impossible for you to have been burned by the sun. The sun would be unable to give off the rays which burned you because the giving off of the rays would be a change. In the same way God would be unable to perform any unification, because performing an action (such as unification) implies a change.

But the sun was still giving off rays, which later burned you. Previously, you just happened to be in the shade.

 

[elijah]

“Jesus was like us in all things but sin” implies that He was subject to the same weaknesses as we are. Did He act impulsively? Did He make mistakes in non-spiritual matters? Did He regret some of the things He said?

These are not idle questions but important ones because our answers help us to come closer to Him if we don’t have an idealised image which makes Him seem more remote from us than He really is…

Very interesting thread and an important one too. Here’s my shot:

Jesus being fully human -and- fully god, is akin to [a fallen human who is in full communion with god] ; weak + strong, agony + hope/faith, limited knowledge + unlimited knowledge, etc except for sin/evil.

 

[elijah]

just to clarify; limited knowledge by choice not by nature -and- unlimited knowledge are not mutually exclusive attributes.

so is the case with the other mentioned (in my post) and non-mentioned attributes.

 

[elijah]

Question: Did there at any time or in any respect exist “God who is not part of a Hypostatic Union?”

Question: Did there at any time or in any respect exist “God who is a part of a Hypostatic Union?”

If both exist, then God underwent a change.

If Incarnation is among God’s (eternal) attributes, then performing it wouldn’t change Him as much as (and in the same way) creating the world which includes time (or performing any of his eternal attributes) wouldn’t change Him; Hence Incarnation and being non-changeable are not mutually exclusive.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

If Incarnation is among God’s (eternal) attributes, then performing it wouldn’t change Him as much as (and in the same way) creating the world which includes time (or performing any of his eternal attributes) wouldn’t change Him; Hence Incarnation and being non-changeable are not mutually exclusive.

Correct. However, that means he would not have undergone a “becoming.”

 

[CrossofChrist]

Correct. However, that means he would not have undergone a “becoming.”

thesumma.info/saviour/saviour4.php

But by the Incarnation God would be intrinsically otherwise than He is. Therefore the Incarnation is impossible.

Reply. I distinguish the minor. That God would undergo a change, if by reason of passive potency He were to receive some distinct perfection, this I concede; that God only terminates the human nature, and undergoes a change, this I deny.

God in the Incarnation neither loses nor acquires anything, but merely makes creatures partakers in His perfection. Therefore, as St. Thomas says: “When it is said, 'God was made man,’ we understand no change on the part of God, but only on the part of the human nature.”[186] Similarly, if we see the sun, it undergoes no change, but is only the object of our vision.

As St. Thomas says: “To be man belongs to God by reason of the union, which is a relation… But whatever is predicated relatively can be newly predicated of anything without its change, as a man may be made to be on the right side without being changed, and merely by the change of him who was on his left side.”[187] Likewise, anything at first not seen is seen afterward without any change in itself, but inasmuch as it is actually the termination of our vision. It is the visual faculty that is changed, inasmuch as it passes from potentiality to act.

Similarly, as we shall see in the case of the Incarnation, the change is entirely on the part of the nature that is assumed, which is deprived of its own subsistence and acquires the divine. The Word by no means acquires a new and real relation, but the relation is logical; for the real relation is only on the part of the human nature toward the Word, just as the visual faculty is in real relation to the object seen, and not the reverse of this. Hence St. Thomas says: “God is said to be united not by any change in Himself, but in that which is united to Him; similarly, when it is said that He is unitable, this statement does not mean that the union is effected by reason of any passive potency existing in God, but because there is such a potency existing in the creature so as to make this union possible.”[188] So also God is said to be visible and in the next life He is seen by the blessed, not because of any change in Himself, but the change is in the blessed, since He terminates their vision as object seen. Thus a point that already terminates one line, can terminate a second and third line as in the case of the point of a pyramid, and yet the point undergoes no change in itself.

 

[elijah]

Correct. However, that means he would not have undergone a “becoming.”

An author being/becoming a character in his own story does not change or alter the nature of the author himself.

furthermore, if the said character reflects truly the author (or the author reflects himself truly in this character, in contrast with other characters), it would follow that the said character and the author are one.

Character says/does/etc X = Author says/does/etc X, all while the author not changing or ceasing to be himself.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

An author being/becoming a character in his own story does not change or alter the nature of the author himself.

furthermore, if the said character reflects truly the author (or the author reflects himself truly in this character, in contrast with other characters), it would follow that the said character and the author are one.

Character says/does/etc X = Author says/does/etc X, all while the author not changing or ceasing to be himself.

In order to become a character in the story, the author has to write himself in. Either the author was always written in to the story, or there was a point where he had not yet written himself into the story.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

thesumma.info/saviour/saviour4.php

But by the Incarnation God would be intrinsically otherwise than He is. Therefore the Incarnation is impossible…

In order to become a character in the story, the author has to write himself in. Either the author was always written in to the story, or there was a point where he had not yet written himself into the story.

Either human nature is always united with God, or God would have had to “write” human nature un-united with him then change it later. But God is not subject to time and cannot change, and so it is impossible for him to do something then change it later. Therefore, human nature must have always been united with God.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Either human nature is always united with God, or God would have had to “write” human nature un-united with him then change it later. But God is not subject to time and cannot change, and so it is impossible for him to do something then change it later. Therefore, human nature must have always been united with God.

LBH, you are ultimately operating from an idea that God can’t create, correct?

 

[elijah]

In order to become a character in the story, the author has to write himself in. Either the author was always written in to the story, or there was a point where he had not yet written himself into the story.

if [the author (God) being/becoming a character in his own story] is an attribute of his, it follows logically that operating this attribute wouldn’t be different from operating any other attribute of his like, for instance, creating the world (creator).

if creating the world doesn’t entail a change in his nature/self, then so it is with incarnating.

 

[elijah]

Either human nature is always united with God, or God would have had to “write” human nature un-united with him then change it later. But God is not subject to time and cannot change, and so it is impossible for him to do something then change it later. Therefore, human nature must have always been united with God.

---

God is eternal and so are his attributes;

---

[creating is an attribute]; eternal by definition

[creating the world] is operating this attribute

the world may or may not be eternal

---

[incarnating is an attribute]; eternal by definition

[incarnating through/into human nature] is operating this attribute

human nature may or may not be eternal

---