/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>646337

I don't understand what you just said but isn't the whole point of the logos is that it's God's will, creation was created by God for his glory and when we as humans direct our will towards God we live in accordance with the logos, Jesus is the incarnation of the logos and lived without sin

Very interesting question, bump

>I have been trying to work out how God necessarily creates

Thing is, he doesnt. He is necessarily good, necessarily one, necessarily just etc. But he do not necessarily creates stuff as long as you hold that he is Triune and that there was "time" when there was not time and world

>However did the Logos have a human nature before the incarnation of Christ?

No. Incarnation signifies the very thing - assumption human nature to the eternal person of Logos.

>Of course the physical actualisation of Christ came into being, but was the human nature created along with it?

Yes. For what is human nature? It is union of flesh with intellectual soul. You cannot be said to have human nature without flesh.

>Or was the human nature begotten and realised its full actualisation with the incarnation of Christ?

Yes.

>Without a human nature in the Logos I can't quite figure out how anything could be created, for it seems logical that everything was spoken into existence by the human nature of the Logos in order that God not share his divinity with the created thus creating a logical paradox.

Christ is not a Creature but Christ as a man is a creature (for his human nature has beginning). And if you are creature you cannot be creator. Thus human nature of Christ did not take part in act of creation (how could it if it not exited yet?) but creation was made for the sake of incarnation. Not to mention that creation is common work of Godhead.

As for your objection: there is no paradox. Notion that God interacting with creation means that creation sheers it's divinity is islamic - thus you have God unloving and not possibly incarnate. Creation by it's very nature i.e. to thing to start exist out of nothing implies certain separation from God, uncreated. But that does not neglect fact that Trinity have it's trace in all of creation and that God interacting with it does not mean that creation sheer in it's divinity, save by participation in grace.

>>646337

>However did the Logos have a human nature before the incarnation of Christ

No because God is a Spirit john 4:24 and not flesh until Christ was born.

>Of course the physical actualisation of Christ came into being, but was the human nature created along with it?

Yes, because romans 8:7 applies

>Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

ephesians 2:15-16

>Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

>And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

<Without a human nature in the Logos I can't quite figure out how anything could be created, for it seems logical that everything was spoken into existence by the human nature of the Logos in order that God not share his divinity with the created thus creating a logical paradox.

Two different minds is the answer, read 1 corinthians 2:16

>For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Read all of phillipians 2 KJV if you want to understand the mind of Christ more. Also then read the entire Bible and believe it.

>>646460

I think so too. God's essence transcends time itself, thankfully. Since if that were not true, then the God would've been changeable, therefore destroying objective morality.

Thankfully that is not the case.

>>646420

God does necessarily create though otherwise how could he be necessarily good and loving if he did not want to share existence with us? The fact that he did create us shows that it was necessary by his necessary nature, for God is pure logic and non of his being or actions can be contingent.

You are saying Christ cannot be creator? That he has lost his ability to create because he assumed a human nature forever? This sounds like Nestorianism to me for you are breaking the hypostatic union of the divine and human nature.

Also the issue of God sharing his divinity is actually anti Islamic, for Islam believes God can create without sharing his divinity whereas catholics recognise the necessity of the Logos to avoid that problem of creating from the divine nature.

>>646799

>If the incarnate Logos return to the Father who is outside of time, dwelling in eternity, then there is no past or future where the Logos didn't have his human nature right? Even as he dwelled on earth, his incarnate self already was with the Father outside of time

There are three "times". Time, that has beginning and end. There we are now. There Christ become man. Eternal time that has beginning but has no end. Heaven is there and there is body of Christ now. It's outside of time. And there is outside of even that time, eternity that had no beging and no end and only God in his divinity dwell there.

> Also, doesn't it say that the Lamb was slain since the foundation of the world? Does that mean that at creation, when time entered the world, that the Logos already in some sense finished his incarnation and ministry (in the future but dwelling outside it was already done).

Lamb is said to be slain from foundation of the world in two senses - first is that world was created so that incrantion and sacrifice may take place. Second is that effects of sacrifice extends not only in future but in past too. For salvation is only through Christ and from times of Adam to be saved one had to have faith in "seed of women who will crush the serpents head and will have his heel crashed"

>Am I retarded?

4D is just confusing.

>>646704

>God does necessarily create though otherwise how could he be necessarily good and loving if he did not want to share existence with us?

He is Trinity.

>The fact that he did create us shows that it was necessary by his necessary nature, for God is pure logic and non of his being or actions can be contingent.

God have free will. Therefore his acts are voluntary. But if thing is voluntary it is contingent namely if there is will to do so. God willed the world to be out of pure love (which is by defintion free). Thefore word does not exist necessarily.

Two points: only one exist necessarily that is God. If world would to be necessarily created then it would exist eternally but that's not the case.

>You are saying Christ cannot be creator? That he has lost his ability to create because he assumed a human nature forever? This sounds like Nestorianism to me for you are breaking the hypostatic union of the divine and human nature.

I am not saying that Christ is not creator. I am saying that Christ in his humanity cannot be created for to human nature it belongs to be creature. And one nature cannot be creature, created, and creator, uncreated. Hypostatic union does not mean that natures are mingled or confused. That's monophistysm

>Also the issue of God sharing his divinity is actually anti Islamic, for Islam believes God can create without sharing his divinity whereas catholics recognise the necessity of the Logos to avoid that problem of creating from the divine nature.

Catholics also recognise that "To create is to make something from nothing".

>>646831

>Does the moment we become a new creation in Christ and join His body, who is residing outside of this time in heaven, we get a sort of pre existence?

No. We participate in the Pre-existing but we ourselves are not. Grace and nature is not the same. To deny it is to fall into countless heresies like Calvin and Luther.

> In this sense, does God/Christ know since the foundation of the world who is to be with him in heaven at the end of times since they already share in his body from their new spiritual birth in Him outside of time?

He knows who will be in heaven and who will not because he is outside of time and have foreknowledge of such things not because they will happen.

> Isn't that somehow pre-election or just 4D mindwinnie the poohery?

Sadly, it's just you not reading well.

< And there is outside of even that time, eternity that had no beging and no end and only God in his divinity dwell there.

To be pre-existing belongs to God alone for he exited before he assumed nature that he created for himself. Human nature is union of body and soul and those both are created at the moment of conception. Only God by nature exist before he came in flesh. Gods by grace do not.

That's heresy and ridiculous

>>646799

>If the incarnate Logos return to the Father who is outside of time, dwelling in eternity, then there is no past or future where the Logos didn't have his human nature right?

Right. See Colossians 1:15-17

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

For more details, you can consider for instance the following scripture.

John 1:15

John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

Ephesians 3:9

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

1 John 1:1-2

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

John 17:24

Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

>>646886

Ya, it's Arianism to deny the hypostatic union like that. I hope nobody does it.

>>647327

I am Thomistic in this regard i.e. predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; while reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin.

By it I mean that God, who will all to be saved. So he gives to all sufficent grace to be saved. Some ask to this call of grace by grace of God while being still free to do so. But some by thier own will reject this gift.

Of course it may be that it's Molinists who are right, I wouldn't mind that much. Or maybe Augustinians. Or maybe it's something difrent al toghether. It's matter that will be setted on other side. Or this last great council under Angelic Pope that saints claimed to be the one which will bind all things that were possible to bind. Who knows. But for now I will go with Tommy.

https://youtu.be/87YIEfFotZY

This guy cleared a lot for me, he explain very clearly these concept. Check the video on election also. It is incredible how I could be led astray so easily. This makes so much sense!

I'd say no, as he fully became man, and the natural will coincides with the natural body. The preincarnate Christ did not yet have human nature, because he did not have a human body. I'm stretching it pretty far, but I think 1 Cor 15 can be used to back this up. I think Rome agrees, see CCC 471-477.

The Creed says, "and became man." The Son of God was not always a man, but became man.

>>647412

Your link sends us to an ad of the bank of Canada?

>>647600

Oh what the winnie the pooh, here's the right one https://youtu.be/7jTf58y5ZKg

>>647371

That's an unusual take on the definition of time, but I don't really think it is warranted. Keep in mind what John the Baptist said in John 1:15—

<John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.

So before on the timeline was the fact that the life of Jesus Christ was. John 1:4 and 1 John 1:1-2 places that life at the beginning with the Father, as does Ephesians 3:9 and John 17:24. In fact, Colossians 1:17 plainly states that he is before all things. Colossians 1:16 says that by him all things were created. And Colossians 1:15 tells us that the Son himself is in fact the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.

>>647416

>>647451

So nothing can come before him in existence, although things can still come before he was manifested, that is the difference that John 1:15 distinguishes. 1 Timothy 3:16 also treats the manifestation as an event in time, but this is not to be misplaced with his existence, which is eternal. As God is immutable, his divine nature and his human nature in the person of Jesus Christ has always existed, to be precise there is no time where he did not exist. And not only that, but all things consist by him, like it says in Colossians 1:17. It all depends on him existing. And that's how the fulfillment of it prophecy had to be, for God to come bodily in the flesh. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. One of his names given in Revelation 22:16 is the root and the offspring of David. You can't deny the fact he is both. And that he is the only begotten Son of God. The act of denying that would be fabricating "another Jesus," as it's described in 2 Corinthians 11:4. In other words, not Christianity.

>>646337

>Pax Fratres

Why do papists insist on their moonspeak? Neither the OT nor the NT has a single book or even verse written in Latin, but Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek respectively.

>>647896

>Neither the OT nor the NT has a single book or even verse written in Latin,

luke 23:38

>And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

You were saying?

>>647916

To be fair, it just mentions the language, it doesn't actually switch to Latin script or anything.

>>646337

did God always have free-will, reason, morality and every innate quality that makes man dignified and above the animals? Yes. Yes he did. And lots more too.

>>647896

There are Latin words in Mark's Gospel (he worte in Rome for Romans after all) such as census, modius or sextarius.

Also >>647916

If it's good enough for Cross it's good enough for you.

>>647896

The correct langue for them. Just like people insisting on KJV only

>>647971

A some words = entire book written in a langue.

>>648007

It's closer than tfu english will ever be.