I am not a Catholic, but if I remember the Nicene Creed correctly, Jesus was begotten, not made. So I think that the the Catholic Church, or most branches of Christianity, would say no, as this is somewhat akin to Arianism.
I am not a Catholic, but if I remember the Nicene Creed correctly, Jesus was begotton, not made.
Thanks, VociMike. Can you send me any links to show some document that backs this up?
Beyond the Nicene Creed itself, hammered out in the Council of Nicea? No, offhand I can’t. But the Creed confirms your idea and my own that The Word did not suddenly change one day by taking on a human nature. It makes more sense that He has been true God and true man always. It is also much more astonishing, IMHO. But then we are right to be astonished by God.
Well, the Creed also says He “became man.” He didn’t get a human body until the Incarnation. If he was not human until He “became man,” would He have had a human soul before the Incarnation?Beyond the Nicene Creed itself, hammered out in the Council of Nicea? No, offhand I can’t. But the Creed confirms your idea and my own that The Word did not suddenly change one day by taking on a human nature. It makes more sense that He has been true God and true man always. It is also much more astonishing, IMHO. But then we are right to be astonished by God.
The Problem here is that you are making Christ’s Human Nature his divine nature. What is finite can never be infinite. It is orthodox to say that Christ’s Human nature is created however Christ the Person has not changed becuase he is true God in adittion to being True Man. The nature of the Hypostatic Union is it’self does not change the divine nature of Christ.Beyond the Nicene Creed itself, hammered out in the Council of Nicea? No, offhand I can’t. But the Creed confirms your idea and my own that The Word did not suddenly change one day by taking on a human nature. It makes more sense that He has been true God and true man always. It is also much more astonishing, IMHO. But then we are right to be astonished by God.
I do think that the Creed has two essential things to say in this matter. First, that it was Jesus Christ who was begotten of the Father. That is, the Divine Person uniting two natures (for that is who Jesus Christ is) has coexisted eternally with the Father. Secondly, the Father cannot have begotten the human nature of Jesus Christ, because the Father does not posess a human nature. Thus Christ’s human nature must be a created thing, even though it has existed eternally in Christ.
The Son is not created. He is eaternally begotten. However, Since Christ is one person with two natures, that second nature is created. It doesn’t actually change the divine nature of Christ. To say that Christ has always had a human nature enters into a different form of Monophysitism
Okay, then, Turtullian, do you think He received a created human soul?
Yes.
I am open to further understanding. However, I do not claim that Christ’s human nature is His divine nature. Nor do I claim that His human nature, even if it has existed eternally, is therefore infinite. You would have to say what you meant by “infinite” first. OTOH, can any fundamental aspect of infinite God be finite?
I agree that His human nature is created. I also agree that it does not change His divine nature. I am not convinced that Jesus Christ (note again that here they do not say “The Word”, but the name of God Incarnate), eternally begotten of the Father, ever existed without a human nature. How could He be Jesus Christ if He did?
Good questions, and I can only ponder them, not answer them. What does it mean to have a human nature? Does that require a human soul? A human body? I think Christ’s created human soul has eternally existed. His physical body was obviously created in space and time. It seems to make the most sense, however, that His heavenly, human, body has existed eternally as has his human soul.
If You are saying things like that below, you stray peringly close to the age old heresy of Monophysitism. As you are saying that if Christ’s human nature is created but you state that he always had that created nature. By simple logic we deduce that the human nature has always been here. If it has always been here what does that human nature make itself? It’s makes it a divine nature. And That is almost certainly close to what I shall consider neo-monophysitism.
If Jesus’ Human nature has always been here what does that make it? A Divine nature. You are trying to argue that a name somehow disqualifies the Son from being the Son. God had taken this name foreknowing the actions that he would take in saving his people.
I sure wish we ignorant but faithful Catholics could try to discuss and understand the infinite truths of the Incarnation here without the word “heresy” always popping up. If I were teaching a religion class and the kids were trying to fathom the unfathomable mysteries of God, I wouldn’t keep reminding them that they were dangerously close to being heretics.
Just to tweak it a little further…given that Jesus’ divine nature is eternal, and is one of three Persons in the Trinity, then He, by definition, participated in causing the miracle of His own human creation.
Well as a Catholic, one must look to what Scripture and Tradition teaches. If Christ himself had an eternal human nature that is created, it creates a bunch of logical absurdities and contradictions. Jesus himself is true God, He was one person before the incarnation, and one person after the incarnation, the only thing different is the inclusion of the Hypostatic Union and the human nature, neither which affect his divine nature.
Under the umbrella of human nature falls ‘reasonable soul’ and ‘physical body.’
Since the human nature was created, I would tend to think that both aspects which make the human nature-- soul and body-- were both created.