0

I already searched in case my question has been questioned. But I cannot find it.

From this link I read :

Question:
What does incarnate mean? How was Jesus God incarnate?

Answer:
The Latin verb incarnare meant “to make flesh.” When we say that Jesus Christ is God “Incarnate,” we mean that the Son of God took on a fleshly, bodily form (John 1:14).

However, when this happened in the womb of Mary, Jesus’ earthly mother, He did not stop being deity. Although Jesus became fully human (Hebrews 2:17), He retained His status as God (John 1:1, 14).

How Jesus is able to be both man and God simultaneously is one of the great mysteries of Christianity

To me, I don't find that "The Logos is able to be both man and God simultaneously" is a mystery at all. Here is why :

  1. The Logos is God, eternal, infinite.
  2. The Logos took on a fleshly, bodily form
  3. However, when this happened in the womb of Mary, The incarnated-Logos earthly mother, The Logos did not stop being God.
  4. So there are two existencies of one Person (The Logos), The Logos who still as fully God (without a form) and The incarnated-Logos as a fully human being inside the womb of Mary.

To me, it's not a mystery because the Logos as God (without a form) is omnipotent. So, even if (for example) I add another Logos existency in a form of Theophany who appear somewhere in Timbuktu while at the same time the same Person as a human being (incarnated) inside the womb of Mary ... to me it's not impossible.

Because the article said that "How The Logos is able to be both man and God simultaneously is one of the great mysteries of Christianity", then it seems my four-points-opinion above is not correct.

So my question is:
In what way is the "great mystery" of it in the point of view of Christianity ?

PS:
whenever I read "Jesus" name in the article above, my mind "shift" to the eternal Logos, not to the incarnated-Logos inside Mary's womb.

  • "Logos Person" is wholly redundant (like 'the Father Person'). You should just edit out all instances of "person." – Sola Gratia Jan 21 at 18:57
  • @SolaGratia, Thank you for the correction. I've deleted some "person" word (not all) because I still need to point out that what I mean here is the person. Please tell me if it's OK now. – karma Jan 21 at 19:04
  • Yep. It's fine now. – Sola Gratia Jan 21 at 19:08
  • Please consider reading my answer to this question in connection to your question in relations to the Logos hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/38260/… – Autodidact Jan 21 at 21:45
  • Which denomination is claiming that this is a mystery? To many, it isn't even a fact, much less a mystery. E.g. Philippians 2:7 says "he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being" (NLT). I.e. it's hardly an established fact that Jesus wasn't fully human. Some believe that surrendering his divinity and then living and dying as a human was essential for our salvation -- he actually risked his life and would have permanently died had he ever sinned. It's not much of a sacrifice if you know you'll come back to life. – Ray Butterworth Jan 21 at 21:46
1

I think what you're wrestling with is how the definition of "person" is applied to deity. What does it mean that God is a "person"? Once this is nailed down, Trinity emerges as the only consistent solution, if one takes the New Testament as accurate. Thus, Logos is Christ, begotten from eternity, and yet also begotten in the flesh 2000 years ago. And he is a separate person from God the father. And so on.

This is distinct from things like pantheism or panentheism, one of which is that God can be everywhere at the same time, or modalism, where God shows up in different forms (modes) based on how He wants to do something. In the former, for example, God no longer needs to be a jealous God. Jealous of what? Every divine appearance is Him. That's not the God of the Bible. In the latter, God by definition can't have a genuine conversation with himself. That's not the God of the New Testament.

  • You wrote : "Logos is Christ, begotten from eternity". So, in my mind like this : Before the Incarnation (and eternally), Christ is fully God (one person with one nature) , after the Incarnation, now Christ is fully God and fully man (one person with two natures). I cannot find where is the "doesn't make sense" of that which cause a mystery. On the other hand (continued) – karma Jan 22 at 16:27
  • 1
    On the other hand from your writing "God by definition can't have a genuine conversation with himself", to me is odd. One can play chess against himself as if there are two persons (two players). So, Why can't God have a genuine conversation with himself when there is He as God and the same He as man ? Can't He limit himself before He became a man ? If He can't then to me this is a mystery :). – karma Jan 22 at 16:30
  • Yeah, I think you're going to have to do a dive into theology proper. I'm not a good resource for this! – rje Jan 22 at 20:01
  • There are lots of things to think about here. For example, when God becomes man, what does that mean if it doesn't include losing his ability to be everywhere except one place? – rje Jan 22 at 20:50
  • 1
    "when God becomes man, what does that mean if it doesn't include losing his ability to be everywhere except one place?". I wonder about that also :). And if it doesn't include losing his ability to be everywhere except one place, then I think it's not God becomes man, but God becomes Theophany :). – karma Jan 25 at 19:16

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.