Did the pre-incarnate Logos have a human nature?

Pax Fratres.

I have been trying to work out how God necessarily creates, and creation through the human nature of the Logos to connect the material, to the immaterial, to the divine makes sense. However did the Logos have a human nature before the incarnation of Christ? Of course the physical actualisation of Christ came into being, but was the human nature created along with it? Or was the human nature begotten and realised its full actualisation with the incarnation of Christ? 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.

Give me your thoughts brethren

Attached: e8c66d1d08ad9ffede41e68b62f43a68--hagia-sophia.jpg (597x600, 70.71K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/87YIEfFotZY
youtu.be/7jTf58y5ZKg
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

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

Bump, im still new to this, so im probably not the best person to answer it, But someone with more knowledge, on, the scriptures can help.

Attached: Christ_the_Great_High_Priest.jpg (312x397, 76.44K)

Very interesting question, bump

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
No. Incarnation signifies the very thing - assumption human nature to the eternal person of Logos.
Yes. For what is human nature? It is union of flesh with intellectual soul. You cannot be said to have human nature without flesh.
Yes.
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.

No because God is a Spirit john 4:24 and not flesh until Christ was born.
Yes, because romans 8:7 applies
ephesians 2:15-16

yeah just read genesis
3:8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.
3:9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
18:1 And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
18:2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
18:3 And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
18:4 Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1526x1900, 6.37M)

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.

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.

Speculation here:
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. 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).
Am I retarded?

Attached: 1495690801836.png (800x769, 126.27K)

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.
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"
4D is just confusing.

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

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

Attached: 1489142658636.jpg (641x530, 25.07K)

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.
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.
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

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.


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

Thinking about it, you're right. It is foreknowledge but not pre-election or whatever heresy calvinist teach. I wonder what it is like for God though. Trying to imagine it all is mind boggling. Also, what do you think of the parts in the new testament saying they were appointed since before time for such duty? Are we predetermined? What does that imply about salvation? Sorry I'm dumb but you seem to get it way more than me

Attached: 1494920844909.png (300x250, 19.3K)

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.

Short PDF related.

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.

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

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

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—

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.

luke 23:38
You were saying?

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

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.

There are Latin words in Mark's Gospel (he worte in Rome for Romans after all) such as census, modius or sextarius.
Also
If it's good enough for Cross it's good enough for you.

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


A some words = entire book written in a langue.

It's closer than tfu english will ever be.