U
Usagi
Guest
God does not “require” a perfect image of Himself, but being God and omniscient, he just naturally has perfect understanding of Himself as well as everything else. The Son is not an optional creation, but part of what it means to be God. Ditto the Spirit, which being omnipresent can be God’s Love for Himself and also dwell “inside” us.
Basically, in the (orthodox) Christian conception, a purely Unitarian God is not even a thing that can exist. By virtue of knowing and loving Himself, God is just inherently a Trinity of persons.
But remember, that still makes one total God. The Persons are distinct in their relationships to each other, but they don’t have separate minds and wills. They’re not a God Committee that has to discuss and debate things. The Son doesn’t literally hang out “next to” the Father; they are a single omnipresent being.
A more recent illustration of the difference between being and person is to say that God is one “what” but three “whos.” They have different relationships with each other, and creatures can have different relationships with each Person (e.g., Mary is mother of the Son, not the whole Trinity), but at base they are one single “thing.” Of course, in the earthly scheme of things, we encounter only “whats” that are zero “whos” (like a rock) or “whats” that are one “who” (like a pet or a person), but a “what” that is multiple “whos” is not logically excluded.
The Incarnation and the hypostatic union work the other way around. Jesus is one “who,” one Person with whom it is possible to have a relationship. That Person is the same one identified as God the Son. On the other hand, at the Incarnation that Person assumed a complete human nature. Imagine a human body and soul sort of stapled onto the “outside” of God the Son, not altering His divine nature but adding a human one, for a total of two “whats.” The Son did not “leave” the Trinity (as if that were possible), but remained fully God while also having all the experiences of a human life, death, and resurrection. Hence, fully God and fully human. And since only one Person is present, all the events and relationships that apply to the man can be said to apply to God, even though such things might be impossible for God as God. Thus we can say that God (the Son) has a human biological mother, even though He pre-existed and created Mary. We can say that He died on the Cross (in the human meaning of dying, which for believers in an afterlife doesn’t mean “ceasing to be” but “having soul and body separated”), even though God existed unchanged the entire time.
Is that helpful at all?
Basically, in the (orthodox) Christian conception, a purely Unitarian God is not even a thing that can exist. By virtue of knowing and loving Himself, God is just inherently a Trinity of persons.
But remember, that still makes one total God. The Persons are distinct in their relationships to each other, but they don’t have separate minds and wills. They’re not a God Committee that has to discuss and debate things. The Son doesn’t literally hang out “next to” the Father; they are a single omnipresent being.
A more recent illustration of the difference between being and person is to say that God is one “what” but three “whos.” They have different relationships with each other, and creatures can have different relationships with each Person (e.g., Mary is mother of the Son, not the whole Trinity), but at base they are one single “thing.” Of course, in the earthly scheme of things, we encounter only “whats” that are zero “whos” (like a rock) or “whats” that are one “who” (like a pet or a person), but a “what” that is multiple “whos” is not logically excluded.
The Incarnation and the hypostatic union work the other way around. Jesus is one “who,” one Person with whom it is possible to have a relationship. That Person is the same one identified as God the Son. On the other hand, at the Incarnation that Person assumed a complete human nature. Imagine a human body and soul sort of stapled onto the “outside” of God the Son, not altering His divine nature but adding a human one, for a total of two “whats.” The Son did not “leave” the Trinity (as if that were possible), but remained fully God while also having all the experiences of a human life, death, and resurrection. Hence, fully God and fully human. And since only one Person is present, all the events and relationships that apply to the man can be said to apply to God, even though such things might be impossible for God as God. Thus we can say that God (the Son) has a human biological mother, even though He pre-existed and created Mary. We can say that He died on the Cross (in the human meaning of dying, which for believers in an afterlife doesn’t mean “ceasing to be” but “having soul and body separated”), even though God existed unchanged the entire time.
Is that helpful at all?
Last edited: