The Incarnation

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Okay... some background...

my theology class had its first test last week. one question was in regards to the Incarnation (and the whole test was true/false! it was nuts...) and read as follows:

[quote]"The Incarnation is an act of frienship." By the Incarnation, Thomas means the birth of Jesus."[/quote]
I marked true. Thinking birth="enterance of Jesus into the world"

I got it wrong.

I stayed after class to "argue" with a few other students over this and some other questions, but mostly this one. She said it was false because the Incarnation is the conception of Christ.

Very true, that makes a lot of sense and so most everyone else in the class gave up and conceded to her. But I asked how "birth" leaves out "conception"... even though perhaps I should let the question slide because I defined "birth" less technically than she did? Anyhow, she said it didn't and said something about being truly pro-life and recognizing conception. I said nothing about me denying conception as regards the answer... This prof has a bad habit of interupting quite frequently, so I could never fully explain myself.

I e-mailed her in hopes of clarifying, but seemed to have only made things worse. I would reproduce the e-mail, but am not sure it would be appropriate as she was a little insulting (even though I was also sarcastic.. but it's a well known fact that I sin all the time, so no biggie there... )

Anyhow, she said in her reply to me, that the distinction wasn't in the notes she gave us, wasn't in the book for class, but that she had gone over so it should've been in my notes (it wasn't... but who knows, maybe this time I took bad notes...). Part I of my beef with that (as I don't normally take bad notes, this would be the first time something was on a test that wasn't in my notes-- I'm not saying it couldn't happen... I'm just VERY surprised. I'm such a conscientius student!). She then went on to say that the "incarnation took place at the conception, not the birth of Christ" (BUT.. Jesus was still incarnate at his birth, no?) and then made an analogy (since I had said that "conception" and "birth" were inseparable) that Jesus' humanity and divinity are inseparable. To that, I want to argue that it's not a good analogy (at all!). The inseparability of Jesus' humanity and divinity is COMPLETELY different from the relationship of inseparability that exists between "birth" and "conception" (though, yes, I know that one can be conceived and not necessarily born.. BUT one can NOT be born without having first been conceived--and this is true for ALL, whereas, the inseparability of humanity and divinity applies ONLY to Christ... so it seems a faultly analogy since "conception" and "birth" have a chronological causal relationship, and the humanity and divinity of Jesus do not).

SORRY THIS IS SO LONG...

Anyhow, I want to argue that "conception" cannot be the "be all, end all" definition of the Incarnation, but rather, "conception" is the beginning of the Incarnation. For without having been born (and thus able to suffer, die, and rise from the dead) the Incarnation of Christ would have been pointless and ineffective-- "imperfect" in a sense (can I say that?).

I'm not trying to sound heretical (trust me!) I just don't understand how "conception" can be the complete and only definition of the Incarnation as it relates to Jesus Christ. "Conception" doesn't seem to be exactly Scriptural nor Traditional language either, which is partly why I think I am struggling with this. Galatians 4:4 says "BORN of a woman" without making the distinction (yes, the distinction is important, but it doesn't seem to be the complete answer)


DISCLAIMER: I hope I do not sound anti-pro-life in any way, shape or form. Yes, life begins at conception. The Incarnation BEGAN at conception, but I do not understand how "conception" can be the simple definition of the Incarnation theologically. Any help is GREATLY appreciated.

Sorry if there are grammar/spelling errors... it's late!

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Anyone?

[phatcatholic]

yea, i think you're making it more complicated then it actually is. the key is to look exactly at the statement you are responding to:

"By the Incarnation, Thomas means the birth of Jesus."

now, i realize with you that any child who is born is obviously also conceived. but, the emphasis is on exactly what point in this process we can say that the Incarnation has occurred. it simply did not occur when he was born. since life begins at conception, it is at this point that the incarnation took place.

let me put this another way.....

the case you are making is essentially that, since conception can't be separated from birth, he who was birthed into the world is the same person as he who was conceived. this of course, is correct. but, it is what we believe about the incarnation and about life that allows us to make this conclusion. the logic in and of itself does not necessitate this.

look at a much simpler example:

"On Sept. 29th, the car was blue"

now, we could say that the car was blue on every day up to the 29th as well. but, this statement does not necessitate that conclusion, since we could also say that, on every preceeding day it was some other color, and then on the 29th it became blue."

see? since the logic does not necessitate the conclusion u are drawing, we MUST say that the incarnation occurred upon the conception of our Lord, even tho the conclusion u are drawing is actually correct..

i hope that helps

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Fides_et_Ratio]

thanks, phat.

BUT,

I still don't see how the answer would be false? It wasn't asking for the beginning of the Incarnation.

Perhaps the whole problem lies in my definition of "birth". As I said before, when I read "by the Incarnation, Thoms means the birth of Jesus" I read "birth of Jesus" as "Jesus' enterance into the world" and not confining it to the strict technical definition.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

even my CCD book (which, granted, isn't the "best" book) talks only of the birth of Christ in the chapter on the Incarnation

[phatcatholic]

right, but what IS the Incarnation? it is simply NOT his birth. even if you define birth broadly as "when he was conceived and then brought into the world thru the process of labor" that is not the incarnation. he did not progressively become the God-man. our Lord entered into the history of mankind in an instant. i think that implicit in the defintion of the Incarnation is this instant.

the problem is that you are wrong even tho you are correct (if that makes sense). the child that came out was just as much the God-man as the child that was conceived. however, like i said before, the logic does not necessitate this conclusion. so, we must affirm that "by Incarnation, Thomas means the [b][i]conception[/b][/i] of Jesus."

[Fides_et_Ratio]

But the incarnation is much more than the conception of Christ. I wasn't limiting it to birth either, I just don't see how conception can be the total encompassment of the Incarnation? For it seems to me like conception is only the beginning

(this is really beyond the scope of the test. i really don't think it was a specific enough "question".. and this is really why I don't like true/false questions)

[Seven77]

like phat is saying..

the Incarnation is the historical event of God becoming man. He took on human flesh!! He is the Incarnate Word Who dwelt among us. that would be the distinction

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Sep 28 2005, 11:44 PM']I marked true. Thinking birth="enterance of Jesus into the world"
[right][snapback]740705[/snapback][/right][/quote]
something else i thought of that may help. technically, it is not your birth that marks one's "entrance into the world." it is one's conception. the incarnation makes the instant when our Lord entered the world and became man. he did this when he was [i][b]conceived[/b][/i].

[phatcatholic]

this paragraph from the Catechism on the Incarnation emphasizes conception, not birth:[list][b]466[/b] The Nestorian heresy regarded Christ as a human person joined to the divine person of God's Son. Opposing this heresy, St. Cyril of Alexandria and the third ecumenical council, at Ephesus in 431, confessed "that the Word, uniting to himself in his person the flesh animated by a rational soul, became man."89 Christ's humanity has no other subject than the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it and made it his own, from his conception. For this reason the Council of Ephesus proclaimed in 431 that Mary truly became the Mother of God by the human conception of the Son of God in her womb: "Mother of God, not that the nature of the Word or his divinity received the beginning of its existence from the holy Virgin, but that, since the holy body, animated by a rational soul, which the Word of God united to himself according to the hypostasis, was born from her, the Word is said to be born according to the flesh."90


[i]Footnotes:[/i]
89 Council of Ephesus (431): DS 250.
90 Council of Ephesus: DS 251.
[/list]i hope that helps.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Benedict]

Which Thomas does the test reference?

St. Aquinas?

If so, look through the Summa to see what he means.

[phatcatholic]

haha, yea, good call

[Benedict]

I ask because, if I recall correctly, St. Thomas does not argue for ensoulment at conception.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Benedict' date='Oct 9 2005, 10:16 PM']I ask because, if I recall correctly, St. Thomas does not argue for ensoulment at conception.
[right][snapback]752097[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
ya know, i was thinkin about this and your probably right, b/c aquinas was also slightly off on mary's immaculate conception.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

lol, thanks for the further responses.. I gave up on my arguing. It's hard to argue with a prof as stubborn as me (and she controls my grade). My point, I think, was that the Incarnation cannot refer [i]merely[/i] to the conception of Christ. Are we saved by the conception or crucifixion? What if Christ had been conceived, but never born?

I will have to look into St. Thomas' views on the conception of Christ, I'd forgotten his views on the Immaculate Conception, so perhaps I may have been able to build a case from there.