Enduring Incarnation?

[Cow Poke]

How would He only being the man hear those now millions of prayers all at once? Remember as the man He was always in heaven even when He walked this earth (John 3:13. ". . . [even] the Son of man who is in heaven.").

Where did I EVER say he was "only being the man"? Did you miss the part where I said he was the GODMAN?

[37818]

Where did I EVER say he was "only being the man"? Did you miss the part where I said he was the GODMAN?

My comments were because you balked at calling Christ human.

I dislike the term "human" in regards to Christ, only because it, by itself, discounts His deity....

He was not just a GODMAN. He was not part God part man. He was fully God being the Son, and fully man in becoming human. One person both fully God and became fully man without ceasing being God. The importance of His deity was that He be a sinless man (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Psalm 14:3; Romans 3:10; Luke 18:19; Hebrews 4:15; Hebrews 5:8. 9; Luke 22:42; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 7:25; Isaiah 53:6, 12).

We understand this. Those on the outside of the faith do not.

[Cow Poke]

My comments were because you balked at calling Christ human.

No, I didn't. Read the comment IN CONTEXT.

He was not just a GODMAN.

Nor did I say he was.

I'm really not understanding why you're being so cotton pickin pedantic. I don't remember you normally being like this. Are you just wanting to sound more spiritual?

[Cow Poke]

He was not just a GODMAN. He was not part God part man.

Might I kindly suggest, instead of arguing a point you don't seem to understand, you ask about it instead?

Source: Anselm of Canterbury, Cur Deus Homo, Chapter VII

"Therefore the God-man, whom we require to be of a nature both human and Divine, cannot be produced by a change from one into the other, nor by an imperfect commingling of both in a third; since these things cannot be, or, if they could be, would avail nothing to our purpose. Moreover, if these two complete natures are said to be joined somehow, in such a way that one may be Divine while the other is human, and yet that which is God not be the same with that which is man, it is impossible for both to do the work necessary to be accomplished. For God will not do it, because he has no debt to pay; and man will not do it, because he cannot. Therefore, in order that the God-man may perform this, it is necessary that the same being should perfect God and perfect man, in order to make this atonement. For he cannot and ought not to do it, unless he be very God and very man. Since, then, it is necessary that the God-man preserve the completeness of each nature, it is no less necessary that these two natures be united entire in one person, just as a body and a reasonable soul exist together in every human being; for otherwise it is impossible that the same being should be very God and very man.

© Copyright Original Source

He was fully God being the Son, and fully man in becoming human.

Which is exactly what the "God-man" is.

[37818]

Clarity. On the matter.

[37818]

No, I didn't. Read the comment IN CONTEXT.



Nor did I say he was.

I'm really not understanding why you're being so cotton pickin pedantic. I don't remember you normally being like this. Are you just wanting to sound more spiritual?

Please accept my apology. It must be my misunderstanding not yours.

[Cow Poke]

Please accept my apology. It must be my misunderstanding not yours.

No problem -- I know you're not stupid, and I know you're not normally argumentative for the sake of argument.

The whole point of using the term "God-man" is that Christ was NOT "part God and part man", he was 100% both at the same time. Perhaps you weren't familiar with that term, or had seen it used in a different context?



Laughing --- I accidentally left out "not" in "I know you're not stupid" --- glad I went back and caught that!

[Rushing Jaws]

Heard of it, a handful of times; appreciate the attraction of the passage from 1 Cor.15; but believe that the Incarnation is forever.

IOW, that the Incarnate Word rose again in the Sacred Humanity He had taken in being born of the Virgin Mother of God; that He ascended into Heaven Body & Soul in this same glorified Humanity; and that the union of the Divine & human natures in the unity of the Person of the Word Incarnate is not undone by His Glorification at the right hand of the Father, but is a permanent work of God.

I think it would be anti-climactic for the Incarnation to be undone by the Ascension. Apart from any other considerations, the Incarnation made a permanent change in the relation of creatures to God, so it seems strange to think of the Incarnation being "undone" by Christ, as though the Hypostatic Union were no more than permanent than a change of clothing is with us. The idea seems to suggest a Christology that does not take the Incarnation of "God-with-us" as man quite as thoroughly as it ought. A line like "Robed in flesh the Godhead see" doesn't help.

It ought perhaps to be emphasised that the Incarnation, though profoundly mysterious, does not imply any change at all in any of the Divine Persons. The Holy Trinity is not changed - there is change; not in God, but in the human nature that has been taken & elevated & Divinised by being made the instrument of God the Word. Maybe it is also worth recalling that the Incarnation does not involve a change of place, nor does it involve locomotion: the Word Who became "God-with-us" on earth, is also eternally God with the Father & the Holy Spirit "in Heaven". The Ascension was not a journey into space - it seems, instead, to be a conquering of the limitations of space, which our condition as human creatures damaged by sin has no way of reducing to concepts. Heaven is not a place in the sense that Chicago or Oceania or Aldebaran or Rigel are places. God is not spatially located.

Just my 2d.

[Pentecost]

Thank you for sharing.