Answering Objections to the Incarnation

[37818]

"Ousia"

Ousia ; Οὐσία) is the Ancient Greek noun formed on the feminine present participle of εἶναι (to be); it is analogous to the English participle being, . . .

That was not how you were using the term. Use plain English and please forget the high Church rhetoric.

[37818]

apostoli,

I really do not have time to answer multiple arguments and multiple accusations. Much as I would like to.

It is very simple. I believe the written word of God we call our Bible. (66 books).

There are only two reasons I remain a Christian. One, I know God personally. (Do you? John 17;3?) And secondly, I believe in the gospel of grace by which I know God. (John 3:16, John 14:6, 1 Timoty 2:5, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Ephesians 2:8-10, etc.)

Now the only true God is self evident, but not recognized as such by all. God is as I had stated, without origin. Any being which has an origin IS NO real god.

Either we believe in the same God or we do not.;

[apostoli]

Ousia ; Οὐσία) is the Ancient Greek noun formed on the feminine present participle of εἶναι (to be); it is analogous to the English participle being, . . .

Do some real study. Ousia is used in the NT in reference to a persons wealth. In philosophical usage it refers to "the true wealth" of something, what it is about something that makes it what it is - its concrete reality - in English the closest word we have is essence.

That was not how you were using the term.

I use the word in the way the Church has always used it.

Use plain English and please forget the high Church rhetoric.

English is inapproprite to express the meaning of the Church, as it just doesn't have the words to convey the full meaning - hence the rise of all the sects in the last two centuries. The majority of Church doctrines/Creeds were originally formulated in Greek, and what can be expressed in a sentence or two using the Greek terms takes pages in English.

As for "high Church rhetoric", it is the most basic terminology in theology. If we went to Greece we might find the terms still used in everyday language and, within limits, readily understood when put in the Church's context. I use the language of theology because, imo, it is precise and avoids the ambiguities of English, Latin etc

apostoli,

I really do not have time to answer multiple arguments and multiple accusations. Much as I would like to.

If you haven't got time to comprehend the teaching of the Church, then don't run around making blind ascertains that such and such is unblblical, simply because you have no idea what the discussion is about...

It is very simple. I believe the written word of God we call our Bible. (66 books).

The written word of God was in Greek & Hebrew. Translations, of such rarely bring out the subtleties of the original lanaguages, especially as a languages word meanings shift - the reason there are so many versions. So we should take care in accepting a translation as God's word when formulating our understanding and thus doctrine. Comparative study is always required...

There are only two reasons I remain a Christian. One, I know God personally. (Do you? John 17;3?) And secondly, I believe in the gospel of grace by which I know God. (John 3:16, John 14:6, 1 Timoty 2:5, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Ephesians 2:8-10, etc.)

I remain a Christian because i believe in the simplicity of the Gospel of Christ.

Now the only true God is self evident, but not recognized as such by all. God is as I had stated, without origin. Any being which has an origin IS NO real god.

Not according to scripture! I guess you object to the idea that Jesus is theotēs (state of being God) bodily (Col 2:9).[/QUOTE]

Either we believe in the same God or we do not.;

Obviously not! Ultimately, following the teaching of the Church on the salvific economy I trust in Jesus' God, the one who A.Paul regularly identifies as God, and identifies as the Father, and is declared as the one who raised Jesus from the dead.

Following the teaching of the Church regarding the ontology of the three, I acknowledge that given the commonality of nature (physis) and thus proof of essence (ousia), I understand that the three distinct and real individuals (hypostases) are consubstantial (homoouios) and in their unity (Trinity) are the one God.

[apostoli]

Ousia ; Οὐσία) is the Ancient Greek noun formed on the feminine present participle of εἶναι (to be); it is analogous to the English participle being, . . .

Do some real study. Ousia is used in the NT in reference to a persons wealth. In philosophical usage it refers to "the true wealth" of something, what it is about something that makes it what it is - its concrete reality - in English the closest word we have is essence.

That was not how you were using the term.

I use the word in the way the Church has always used it.

Use plain English and please forget the high Church rhetoric.

English is inapproprite to express the meaning of the Church, as it just doesn't have the words to convey the full meaning - hence the rise of all the sects in the last two centuries. The majority of Church doctrines/Creeds were originally formulated in Greek, and what can be expressed in a sentence or two using the Greek terms takes pages in English.

As for "high Church rhetoric", it is the most basic terminology in theology. If we went to Greece we might find the terms still used in everyday language and, within limits, readily understood when put in the Church's context. I use the language of theology because, imo, it is precise and avoids the ambiguities of English, Latin etc

apostoli,

I really do not have time to answer multiple arguments and multiple accusations. Much as I would like to.

If you haven't got time to comprehend the teaching of the Church, then don't run around making blind ascertains that such and such is unblblical, simply because you have no idea what the discussion is about...

It is very simple. I believe the written word of God we call our Bible. (66 books).

The written word of God was in Greek & Hebrew. Translations, of such rarely bring out the subtleties of the original lanaguages, especially as a languages word meanings shift - the reason there are so many versions. So we should take care in accepting a translation as God's word when formulating our understanding and thus doctrine. Comparative study is always required...

There are only two reasons I remain a Christian. One, I know God personally. (Do you? John 17;3?) And secondly, I believe in the gospel of grace by which I know God. (John 3:16, John 14:6, 1 Timoty 2:5, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Ephesians 2:8-10, etc.)

I remain a Christian because i believe in the simplicity of the Gospel of Christ.

Now the only true God is self evident, but not recognized as such by all. God is as I had stated, without origin. Any being which has an origin IS NO real god.

Not according to scripture! I guess you object to the idea that Jesus is theotēs (state of being God) bodily (Col 2:9).[/QUOTE]

Either we believe in the same God or we do not.;

Obviously not! Ultimately, following the teaching of the Church on the salvific economy I trust in Jesus' God, the one who A.Paul regularly identifies as God, and identifies as the Father, and is declared as the one who raised Jesus from the dead.

Following the teaching of the Church regarding the ontology of the three, I acknowledge that given the commonality of nature (physis) and thus proof of essence (ousia), I understand that the three distinct and real individuals (hypostases) are consubstantial (homoouios) and in their unity (Trinity) are the one God.

[hedrick]

I have heard non-Christians object to the doctrine of Christ's incarnation by saying the following:

God is infinite. Man is finite. A person cannot both be infinite and finite at the same time. God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, but man does not have these attributes. A person cannot be both omnipotent and not omnipotent, omnipresent and not omnipresent, and omniscient and not omniscient at the same time.

How would you respond to this?

Unfortunately the terms used at Chalcedon have somewhat specialized meaning. Normally of course what you say is true, but normally people only have one nature. I've seen attempts to deal with "nature" as if it was just a collection of properties. So if one nature includes "red" and the other includes "big", we have no problem, because the person is both big and red. But if one is small and the other big, then we have a contradiction, so one person can't have those two natures.

However if you go through all the Councils to see how the terms ended up being used, we find that Jesus' human "nature" starts acting like it can have properties of its own. The human nature has a separate will, and takes distinct human actions. It includes a body. The divine nature includes invisibility, but the human nature includes a body, which of course is visible.

Thus I think in the sense they were using the term "human nature" it is not a problem to say that it has properties that are not compatible with the divine nature.

However they are compatible with God. Now this may sound odd, but I maintain that God is an identity, not a nature, although there is also a divine nature. And God can come in a finite, mortal form, which is in fact Jesus. This makes perfect sense in the context of the Incarnation, although of course it gets kind of messy in the context of the Trinity, since I would maintain that the entire Trinity is one God. But then, I've never been convinced that nature and person are the right categories to discuss these issues.

[RBerman]

Unfortunately the terms used at Chalcedon have somewhat specialized meaning. Normally of course what you say is true, but normally people only have one nature. I've seen attempts to deal with "nature" as if it was just a collection of properties. So if one nature includes "red" and the other includes "big", we have no problem, because the person is both big and red. But if one is small and the other big, then we have a contradiction, so one person can't have those two natures.

However if you go through all the Councils to see how the terms ended up being used, we find that Jesus' human "nature" starts acting like it can have properties of its own. The human nature has a separate will, and takes distinct human actions. It includes a body. The divine nature includes invisibility, but the human nature includes a body, which of course is visible.

Thus I think in the sense they were using the term "human nature" it is not a problem to say that it has properties that are not compatible with the divine nature.

Well, that depends on whether you say"The divine nature has the property of invisibility" or "The divine nature lacks the property of visibility." The latter is not incompatible with Jesus having the divine nature while also having a human nature which possesses the property of visibility, (similarly tangibility, and so on).. When men saw Jesus, they saw him according to his human nature; seeing him according to his divine nature would have had a different effect, as Moses discovered. (Assuming you believe Exodus to be historical, which I do.)

However they are compatible with God. Now this may sound odd, but I maintain that God is an identity, not a nature, although there is also a divine nature. And God can come in a finite, mortal form, which is in fact Jesus. This makes perfect sense in the context of the Incarnation, although of course it gets kind of messy in the context of the Trinity, since I would maintain that the entire Trinity is one God. But then, I've never been convinced that nature and person are the right categories to discuss these issues.

Those categories are not perfect, as no human analogy to God can be perfect. But they are better than all the alternatives I've heard proposed.