quote:

---

I guess what I am striving to bring across is that I have a problem with the view that Jesus was incarnated and somehow that is "separate," in the sense that it happened and it doesn't effect his divinity. Because of his love for us, God is affected by us. Christ's incarnation affected the whole Trinity. But in saying this I don't mean the two mingled, or that they are not distinct in some way (although how you would separate a being who has two natures, one physical, one not of substance is another question). But I reject that his humanity didn't affect his divinity and visa versa.

---

writerdad: I have a problem with the view that Jesus was incarnated and somehow that is "separate," in the sense that it happened and it doesn't effect his divinity.

This would be a true problem if all that God does were defined and destined by his essence/nature, as in the god of Aristotle, and the god of the "classical view." But since that is not true, the problem just goes away of its own accord. By "divinity" the classical sense means the unchangableness--meaning unmovableness. But the God of scripture is also personal and has dominion. Will you simply let me say that both before and during/after the incarnation no change was necessary in the unchangable nature of God because as TriUne Persons it was God's dominion to "so LOVE the world..." (Which to Aristotle's god would be a dis-allowed change right there.)


writerdad: Christ's incarnation affected the whole Trinity

I know what you were trying to say. I think the above gives my opinion. But as a way of affirming the urge behind your post, let me point out that the "affect" can be charted on the other end of the story, the beginning. By backtracking we find that the incarnation was the plan and the love and the risk of the WHOLE Trinity. The invasiveness, the affectedness of the whole Trinity was true right from the start; and not something new caused at the Annunciation. So your statement is truly true in that respect.


writerdad: But I reject that his humanity didn't affect his divinity and visa versa.

Posts above with the Meph-man tax me to the end of my thoughts. I've had to consider how the Kenosis might have felt (Boy am I limited, both in my lack of deity and Christian spirituality.) to be not limited in deity but voluntarily capped-off by the dominion of One's will to be limited to human senses, experience, emotions, etc. Boy!!!

But where I think that the majority of my pondering belongs is in how the Kenosis of the Word affected the en-hypostasized humanity of God ON MY BEHALF. The essence of God did not become any less unknowable. The THE WAY that God can be known personally and directly was made for us. The change in the deified humanity of Christ, "for us men and our salvation" (Nicean Creed) is where my thoughts go.


Let me say that these two posts are good. And that, unless you think that I butchered them, I affirm the impetus I see behind them.


Shalom.



Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 08/14/2002 10:23:59 PM