FAQ about God

1. God is infinite, Matter is finite, and how could God become man?

This is a common question that every one will ask whenever I talk about Jesus Christ. People ask how God, who is dependent on nothing, can then become dependent as a man. Another will ask if God became a man, he could not then become a god again because a man cannot become a god. I can answer this question with bible scriptures but there are possibilities that many readers might not be aware of bible or some of them may not believe bible, so me explaining through bible will not impact either of them, so I would prefer to explain you logically. It is sad to see people trust on their intellectual human logic and reasoning rather than God’s word. I have answered these questions in three premises in detail.

Premise 1

All the religion who believes in existence of God accepts that God can do anything.

If this so, then it necessarily follows that if God can do anything, then he can become a man since that possibility falls under the scope of "God can do anything."

1. This would mean that God stopped being God

a) Not if a "part" of God entered into a human form. The totality of God could still exist, yet a localized "part" could take the form of a man.

b) Is not the Qur’an the word of Allah? Is not the Bhagavad-Gita a word of Krishna? is not his word a reflection of his character since it proceeds from Him? Is not the infinite word of Allah become knowable, readable in a physical form for us to understand? Is not the infinite word of Krishna become knowable, readable in a physical form for us to understand? Since this is so, why cannot the Word of God become flesh-as the Bible says? Why cannot a representation of God (His word) take a physical form (Qur’an, Bhagavad-Gita) or even a human form (Jesus) – since God can do anything?

2. This would mean that the infinite God became finite.

a) Not if a "part" of God entered into a human form. The totality of God could still exist, yet a localized "part" could take the form of a man.

b) Is not the Qur’an the word of Allah? Is not the Bhagavad-Gita a word of Krishna? is not his word a reflection of his character since it proceeds from Him? Is not the infinite word of Allah become knowable, readable in a physical form for us to understand? Is not the infinite word of Krishna become knowable, readable in a physical form for us to understand? Since this is so, why cannot the Word of God become flesh-as the Bible says? Why cannot a representation of God (His word) take a physical form (Qur’an, Bhagavad-Gita) or even a human form (Jesus) – since God can do anything?

3. This would mean that the independent became dependent.

a) It would not necessitate that the totality of God became dependent, per point “b” above: a part of God could become man.
b) God can choose to become dependent, in part, as a man. He can make that choice, can he not?

4. This would mean that the eternal became temporal.

a) Again, by premise one; God could do it since He can do all things.
b) If God, in some way, became a man by adding human nature to Him, it would not necessitate that God stop being eternal since His divine nature would be, by nature, eternal as it is retained within the human form.

5. If God became man, then he could not become God again.

a) If only “part” of God became man, then God would never have ceased being God and the objection is moot.
b) If God can do all things, then a part of Him can become a man and retain His divine nature and never have stopped being God at all.

6. Why would God need to become a man? Showing He has a need means he is dependent.

a) It is not a need. It is a choice. God is not compelled to do anything – except be Himself. If He chose to become a man, It would be by His desire, not by His need. This answers the second question.
b) If God can do anything, then He can choose to share in the dependency of a human and not deny his own nature of being God

Premise 2

God cannot do anything, because He cannot do anything that conflict with His nature. Becoming a man conflicts with His nature.

God’s nature has to do with essential character and essence of His being like holiness, love, compassion, goodness, patience, etc.

There is nothing In holiness, love, compassion, goodness, patience, etc., that would mean God could not become a man.
The essential nature of God is not changed if a part of it adds humanity.

Premise 3

God’s nature can be partially seen in His creation.

As a painter reveals part of himself, his style, what he is, etc, in his painting, so too, God has revealed part of Himself, His style, and what He is in His creation.
a) The universe is ordered; therefore, God is God of order
b) The universe operates on laws; therefore, God is a God of law
c) The universe has a beginning; therefore, God is the creator
d) The universe is immense (functionally infinite); therefore, God is infinite.

If this is possible, then why cannot part of God become man and add human nature to it. There is no logical reason to declare the impossibility of God that He, in some way, could become a man.

2. Jesus' Two Natures

Jesus is God in human flesh. He is not half God and half man. He is fully divine and fully man. That is, Jesus has two distinct natures: divine and human. Jesus is the Word who was God and was with God and was made flesh, (John 1:1,14) this means that in the single person of Jesus is both a human and divine nature. The divine nature was not changed. It was not altered. He is not merely a man who "had God within Him" nor is he a man who "manifested the God principle." He is God, second person of the Trinity. "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word," (Heb, 1:3). Jesus' two natures are not "mixed together," nor are they combined into a new God-man nature. They are separate yet act as a unit in the one person of Jesus. This is called the Hypostatic Union.
The following points should help you see the two natures of Jesus "in action":

God
He is worshiped (Matt2: 2,11; 14:33)
He was called God (John 20:28; Heb 1:8)
He was called Son of God (Mark 1:1)
He is prayed to (Acts 7:59)
He is sinless (1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 4:15)
He knows all things (John 21:17)
He gives eternal life (John 10:28).
All the fullness of deity dwells in Him (Col. 2:9).


Man
He worshiped the Father (John 17)
He was called man (Mark 15:39; John 19:5)
He was called Son of Man (John 9:35 –37)
He prayed to the Father (John 17)
He was tempted (Matt. 4:1)
He grew in wisdom (Luke 2:52).
He died (Rom. 5:8).
He has a body of flesh and bones (Luke 24:39)

The Communication Idiomatum

A doctrine that is related to the Hypostatic Union is the communication idiomatum (Latin for "communication of properties"). It is the teaching that the attributes of both the divine and human natures are ascribed to the one person of Jesus. This means that the man Jesus could lay claim to the glory He had with the Father before the world was made (John 17:5)., claim that He descended from heaven, (John 3:13). and also claim omnipresence, (Matt. 28:20). All of these are divine qualities that are laid claim to by Jesus; therefore, the attributes of the divine properties were claimed by the person of Jesus.

Mistakes non – christians make

One of the most common errors that non-Christian make is not understanding the two natures of Christ. For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses focus on Jesus' humanity and ignore His divinity. The repeatedly quote verses dealing with Jesus as a man and try and set them against scripture showing that Jesus is also divine. On the other hand, the Christian Scientists do the reverse. They focus on the scriptures showing Jesus' divinity to the extent of denying His true humanity.
For a proper understanding of Jesus and, therefore, all other doctrines that relate to Him, His two natures must be properly understood and defined. Jesus is one person with two natures. This is why He would grow in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52) yet knows all things (John 21:17) He is the Devine Word that became flesh (john 1:1,14).

The Bible is about Jesus (John 5:39). The prophets prophesied about Him (Acts 10:43). The Father bore witness of Him (John 5:37; 8:18) The Holy Spirit bore witness of Him (John 15:26).The works Jesus did bore witness of Him (John 5:36; 10:25) The multitudes bore witness of Him (John 12:17). And, Jesus bore witness of Himself (John 14:6; 18:6)Other verses to consider when examining His deity are (John 10:30-33; 20:28; Col. 2:9Phil 2:5-8; Heb 1:6-8; and 2 Pet 1:1).

1 Tim. 2:5 says, "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." Right now, there is a man in heaven on the throne of God. He is our advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1) He is our Savior (Titus 2:13). He is our Lord (Rom. 10:9-10). He is Jesus.

3. Is God's nature changed by Jesus being divine and human?

The Christian doctrine concerning Jesus' two natures is called the hypostatic union. It is the teaching that the Divine Word of God (John 1:1) "became flesh and dwelt among us," (John 1:14). Therefore, Jesus is both divine and human in one person (Col. 2:9); He has two natures: human and divine. But some who oppose the Trinity and Jesus' incarnation (the Divine Word becoming a man), say that if Jesus is God in flesh this must mean that God's nature changed because God added a human nature to His divine nature. This would violate Malachi 3:6 which says that God does not change. But, the union of the two natures of Jesus in one person does not constitute a change in the nature of God.

Since the hypostatic union teaches that in the one person of Jesus there are two natures, the divine nature of Jesus is not affected by union with the human nature because there is no fusion of the two natures. That is, the divine nature is not combined with the human nature to make a third thing. This would be the error known, as monophysitism Jesus is not a new third thing with a fused-together new nature. Instead, it is a union. An example of a union is marriage between a man and a woman. Each is separate, but in marriage "...they shall become one flesh," (Gen. 2:24), yet they remain two distinct individuals. They are not blended into a new third thing. Fusion, on the other hand, can be illustrated by the combining copper and Zinc that can be fused together to form a new third thing called brass. In this case, the two elements loose their identity and are merged together into something new. But in a union, the elements do not loose their identity or nature. The hypostatic union is not a hypostatic fusion and the two natures of Jesus do
not lose their distinction and they are not altered.

Furthermore, within the union of the two natures in the one person of Christ, the divine nature is still divine and the human nature is still human. One is not altered by the presence of the other anymore than my spirit in me is altered in nature by its indwelling a physical body. Likewise, the divine Word is not altered by indwelling human flesh.

Finally, the doctrine of the Trinity is that God is three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This does not mean three gods. There is only one God. The Trinitarian nature of God is not altered by the union of the Word with humanity since it was the divine Word that humbled Himself to become a man (John 1:1,14; Phil. 2:5-8) not the Father or the Holy Spirit. Therefore, by definition the Trinity is unaffected by the union of the Word with humanity in the incarnation of Jesus.

4. God cannot have a son.

Are there really people who think that Jesus is the Son of God because God had intercourse with Mary and fathered a child? The mere thought of it should make anyone sick! Unfortunately many people implies that this is what Christians believe, so many people think this is what we believe. This is a most unfortunate misrepresentation of Christian faith by non-Christians.

Let me clear what Christians believe with the term son of God. God created the body of Jesus in the womb of Mary. Jesus born from a Virgin Mary. Jesus was not born by any sexual intercourse between God and Mary or any Man and Mary. Jesus birth was a great miracle;

The word "son" has more than one meaning:

· Biological: I have already pointed out that we do not imply anything biological with the term!

· Relational/Social: The term "son" implies a certain relationship between two people, the son and the father. This social relationship is not dependent on the biological relationship: Many people who are not biologically related are in father-son relationships. The term "Son of God" implies this relationship between Jesus and the Father.

· Legal: A son can act in many cultures as the legal representative of his father, and when the father dies he inherits the fathers title and estate. Usually the prince sat on the right hand of his father, the king. This implied that he was not a subject, but shared in the authority of the throne. Jesus told a parable in which he portrayed himself as the Son, and therefore the legal representative of the Father: (He also prophesied his own death in this parable)