ViaCrucis
Confessional Lutheran
- Oct 2, 2011
- 37,425
- 26,866
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Others
By "incarnate into" I meant infleshment of the Spirit Son of God.
He became flesh. . .the Spirit Son of God was enfleshed (incarnated), took on flesh, a human body, in the womb of Mary.
That is redundant. He received upon himself flesh by the enfleshment.
Incarnation is enfleshment.
But there is a world of difference between the Son inhabiting a human and the Son becoming human.
Nestorianism says God dwelt in a man, rather than that God became a man.
That's why Christological concepts like anhypostasia and enhypostasia are important.
I was thrown off because you seem to have been making a distinction between Jesus, the man; and the Divine Logos; when there is no distinction to be made since it is the same Person. There is one Divine Person, Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God. This one Person became human, without any change or lessening of what He was already, namely God.
That's why I'm belaboring the point about "into" here. The Son did not inhabit a human; the Son became human. The Son did not occupy Himself in a man named Jesus, the Son is the man named Jesus. Since there is no hypostasis for the humanity apart from the Divine Logos (anhypostasia), and it is the Divine Logos that "personalizes" the humanity (enhypostasia). Thus we are speaking of the humanity, the human flesh, of God.
As long as this is what's being communicates, that's what matters.
-CryptoLutheran
Upvote
0