The Confusing Incarnation

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
DrStakhanovite
Elder
Posts: 350
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:55 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: The Confusing Incarnation

Post by DrStakhanovite »

huckelberry wrote:
Fri Jul 09, 2021 3:36 pm
DrStakhanovite, I think it is possible that introducing percentages may confuse the matter.
It very well could, I picked it up from popular Christian exposition:
Desiring God wrote:Having seen the biblical basis that Jesus is both God and man, the second truth that we must recognize is that each of Christ’s natures is full and complete. In other words, Jesus is fully God and fully man. Another helpful way to say it is that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man.
Image
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5481
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: The Confusing Incarnation

Post by Philo Sofee »

DrStakhanovite wrote:
Sat Jul 10, 2021 12:37 am
huckelberry wrote:
Fri Jul 09, 2021 3:36 pm
DrStakhanovite, I think it is possible that introducing percentages may confuse the matter.
It very well could, I picked it up from popular Christian exposition:
Desiring God wrote:Having seen the biblical basis that Jesus is both God and man, the second truth that we must recognize is that each of Christ’s natures is full and complete. In other words, Jesus is fully God and fully man. Another helpful way to say it is that Jesus is 100% God and 100% man.
I have actually seen something very similar to this as well. To me, it truly just doesn't make sense. There is certainly nothing in any scripture that indicates this. It is obviously an interpretation and to me gives off the odor of being an interpretation of a Christian who wants his cake and wants to eat it too.
huckelberry
God
Posts: 3466
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: The Confusing Incarnation

Post by huckelberry »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Sat Jul 10, 2021 1:13 am
DrStakhanovite wrote:
Sat Jul 10, 2021 12:37 am


It very well could, I picked it up from popular Christian exposition:

I have actually seen something very similar to this as well. To me, it truly just doesn't make sense. There is certainly nothing in any scripture that indicates this. It is obviously an interpretation and to me gives off the odor of being an interpretation of a Christian who wants his cake and wants to eat it too.
I think the numbers could be used in the sense of saying Jesus was 100percent of what makes a human human and he was all of what makes God God. He was human with two human legs not just one or with a human mind not just a spinal cord.

Kerry I think you are correct that it is interpretation not just scripture. But scripture is just interpretation that people have written down. I think that it is interpretation that people worked hard to make is part of what makes it valuable. People felt that the atonement implied incarnation and incarnation implies truly human and truly divine. Pieces of that interpretive process were written into the New Testament documents. I absolutely believe there is no reason to think interpretation should stop there.

I am a bit unsure what you mean by have cake and eating it too. I do think that Christianity does not work without the idea of incarnation. Without it you have the monstrosities some critics delight in portraying such as saying the god cannot forgive without punishing some poor sap and Jesus was just chosen to be that poor sap.(abusive parent image)
msnobody
God
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 11:35 pm

Re: The Confusing Incarnation

Post by msnobody »

Kishkumen wrote:
Thu Jul 08, 2021 11:51 pm
Heh, I honestly have not put a lot of thought into this, but you have intrigued me greatly! It's typical of you ya know..... that magnificent mind of yours always seems to find a way to help us begin thinking through things again....
You are very kind, Philo. I am probably just too unfamiliar with this material. All I can say is that stopping with Jesus as the one human manifestation of the divine does not make sense to me. Either all humans are divine or none of them are. That just one should be because reasons makes no sense to me. I come back to Jesus being a historical figure who was mythologized and then theologized, with the Nicene Creed being very much a product of the early fourth century in every way.

Jesus as an angel is more acceptable to me than Jesus as God. At least as a mythological and theological position.
Philo is right, you do prompt us to think through things. It leads me down the path of what the implications are if Jesus wasn’t/isn’t God, and even down the path of what if the Holy Spirit isn’t God. I’d have no hope, no future, no assurance, and ultimately, no identity.
Hmmm, I’m going off to think.
"Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy” Jude 1:24
“the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.” 1 John 1:7 ESV
User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 8376
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:51 am
Location: In my head

Re: The Confusing Incarnation

Post by Jersey Girl »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Sat Jul 10, 2021 1:13 am

There is certainly nothing in any scripture that indicates this.
Sure there is. You have to read and study the Book. ;-)
LIGHT HAS A NAME

We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF

Slava Ukraini!
User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:40 am
Location: on the battlefield of life

Re: The Confusing Incarnation

Post by Physics Guy »

I don't feel any expectation that all humans should be equally divine or non-divine. It seems to me that an author could write a book with many characters, one and only one of which was the author's own personal mouthpiece. Authors do sometimes write themselves into books in that way. I think Stephen King did once, for example.

I think of human consciousness and personality as an app that runs on our brains as hardware. It's plausible to me that some subset or aspect of God might be similar enough to a human consciousness—if we are "in the image of God"—that it could be ported to the human hardware. Not every app has to be that one, though. This is what I mean by saying that to me "Are you God?" is a "Who are you?" rather than a "What are you?" question.

It seems credible to me that Jesus might actually have been such a case, because the message I discern from him is one that, on reflection, seems like something that a Word of God might indeed incarnate in order to convey. If other people aren't impressed by his message in that way, then I'm not going to try to argue about how you're interpreting it wrong. That would be self-defeating, I think, like trying to convince you that a stand-up comic is great by explaining their jokes. If the jokes need that much explaining then the comic can't be that good, so all I can do is say, well, I thought they were funny. Perhaps you had to be there.

Even though I don't expect everyone on the street to be the Incarnate Word, it is unclear to me why Jesus would have to be the only Incarnation. I mean, how often is the Word going to do this kind of thing? Once per universe seems pretty stingy. So what's our ration? Once per galaxy? Once per intelligent species? Once every thousand years on every inhabited planet, and we've failed to notice a few times already?

These are somewhat boggling questions, I have to admit. It seems a weak point in Christian theology.
I was a teenager before it was cool.
User avatar
DrStakhanovite
Elder
Posts: 350
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:55 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: The Confusing Incarnation

Post by DrStakhanovite »

I find traditional Christian doctrines like the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union hard to get a grip on, but I think that is because they are the results of a long dialectical process that happened within the Christian world. Nobody who just reads the New Testament is going to put it down and say “Oh yeah The Father and The Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons who share the same ontology.” and I don’t think sufficiently informed orthodox Christians expect non-orthodox readers to easily see the truth of the doctrines without some study on how those doctrines came into prominence.

Reading ecumenical Creeds is like reading a list of Aristotle’s philosophical conclusions without any knowledge of how he came to hold those ideas.
Image
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 9348
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: The Confusing Incarnation

Post by Kishkumen »

Philo is right, you do prompt us to think through things. It leads me down the path of what the implications are if Jesus wasn’t/isn’t God, and even down the path of what if the Holy Spirit isn’t God. I’d have no hope, no future, no assurance, and ultimately, no identity.
Hmmm, I’m going off to think.
I would be interested to know why life would become so desolate without a specifically Triune Deity.
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 9348
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: The Confusing Incarnation

Post by Kishkumen »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Sat Jul 10, 2021 3:08 am
Sure there is. You have to read and study the Book. ;-)
I have read and studied the Book, and I don’t see these specific doctrines in there. The reason for that is because they are not there. They are later developments for which interpretations of existing scripture were brought in to support. You may accept those arguments, but simply studying the New Testament more does not lead to belief in those doctrines without a lot of other interpretation and argument brought in.
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 9348
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University
Contact:

Re: The Confusing Incarnation

Post by Kishkumen »

DrStakhanovite wrote:
Sat Jul 10, 2021 10:51 am
I find traditional Christian doctrines like the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union hard to get a grip on, but I think that is because they are the results of a long dialectical process that happened within the Christian world. Nobody who just reads the New Testament is going to put it down and say “Oh yeah The Father and The Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons who share the same ontology.” and I don’t think sufficiently informed orthodox Christians expect non-orthodox readers to easily see the truth of the doctrines without some study on how those doctrines came into prominence.

Reading ecumenical Creeds is like reading a list of Aristotle’s philosophical conclusions without any knowledge of how he came to hold those ideas.
I agree, Stak. It is interesting that many Christians hold these later doctrines to be almost self-evidently foundational when from a historical standpoint they are later developments and not found in scripture.
"He disturbs the laws of his country, he forces himself upon women, and he puts men to death without trial.” ~Otanes on the monarch, Herodotus Histories 3.80.
Post Reply