Thanks for dropping by again.

I agree that the Incarnation is a bit of a mind-bender. With respect to man being created but Jesus not created, I think we can make things clearer by saying that Jesus’ humanity was created at a point in time (around 4 BC), though His deity is eternal.

Here’s another way to go about it. “The Son” refers to the 2nd Person of the Trinity, whereas “Jesus” refers to the incarnate 2nd Person of the Trinity. One can say that the entity referred to by “Jesus” came to exist, as such, at a particular point in time, when the Son (who exists eternally) took on humanity. By virtue of the Incarnation, the terms “Jesus” and “the Son” are (now, and forever) identical.

Hi Vox,

The 100% God-man is the 2nd Person of the Holy Trinity. The “man” part always throws me for a loop. Cause I always think of “man” as a created being, and I know that Jesus was not created.

Good post.

Thanks for dropping by. One way to deal with any kind of insult is to raise the problem of significance on atheism. The very act of giving an insult presupposes that there is some significance to its truth. That is, the insult-er sits in judgment upon the insult-ee, and expects there to be some significance to this judgment that he has rendered, even if it is demeaning to the one being judged. Yet, if God does not exist, then such significance is merely an illusion. If God does not exist, then our words and thoughts are simply the results of electrochemical reactions. We are no different (essentially) than two fizzing cans of soda. So what? Why should anyone listen or care in the first place? Or, from another angle – if God does not exist, then the heat death of the universe will eventually occur, and whether or not said insult is given or appreciated will do nothing to change the final state of things. In a short time (with respect to the lifetime of the cosmos), man will be no more, and there will be no one left to even think about the insult that was given and how it was received. So, unbelieving insults presuppose significance which unbelieving worldviews cannot provide.

In addition, one could question the standard by which the insult-er renders demeaning judgments upon the insult-ee. The braggadocio of the unbeliever presupposes a solid standard of judgment that can support the weight of his arrogant tone and behavior. Yet, such standards are ultimately self-defeating if not grounded in God. Unbelieving insults presuppose a standard of judgment which unbelieving worldviews cannot provide.

In this way, the insult provides yet another point of contact to press the antithesis between belief and unbelief. This is not to say that every insult ought to be utilized in such a way – only that they can be if the Christian decides that it is appropriate and profitable to utilize them in a given context.

Happy New Year Vox!

Can you provide a personal example of receiving an insult from an unbeliever and then using it in conversation with the insulting unbeliever so that s/he can see an immediate demonstration of the self-defeating nature of unbelief in God?