Talk:Incarnation (Christianity)

Christianity: Jesus / Theology High‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.
	This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as High-importance).

Merge?

I agree that this article is unfinished. However there is an excellent article on Christology, which really covers the same material. Perhaps Incarnation could comment on the usage of the term and then refer to Christology for the substance. We're having enough trouble with the doctrinal pages, without trying to maintain two different pages that cover essentially the same topic. Hedrick 17:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logical Coherency

I propose that a section be added which puts forth the controversies involved in the logical coherency (or lack thereof) of the incarnation. Some points worth mentioning:

1. If as conventional Christianity asserts that Jesus (Yah'shua) has a dual nature, then God the Father is sharing his earthly wife Mary with Joseph-- in essence polyandry which is never allowed in the rest of scripture.

2. If as conventional Christianity asserts that the Holy Spirit is masculine, then as above, there is polyandry once again for Mary.

3. Even if the the alleged dual nature issue of Jesus (Yahshua) is set aside and Joseph allegedly never has conjugal relations with Mary (as the Roman Catholic Church claims), then in Luke, it is clear that both God the Father and the Holy Spirit were involved in the incarnation of Jesus, and according to convenitonal Christianity, there are 2 male members of the Trinity sharing Mary-- polyandry seems to rear its ugly head again.

4. If the Holy Spirit is viewed to be masculine as is the Father, then you have a Jesus with two daddies-- the same sex marriage advocates are already exploiting this notion-- they already have a T-shirt with the slogan.

5. If the Holy Spirit is viewed to be feminine, as do some Messianic groups and Branch Davadians, then there is no polyandry between the Holy Spirit and God the Father

6. Conventional Christianity will object and say if however there is still an assumption of quasi-sexual union of the Godhead with the mortal Mary and that is combined with position #5, then there is polyamory which is never allowed in the whole of scripture (a possible exception could be the Millenial Kingdom???).

7. Conventional Christianity will also object and say that a feminine Holy Spirit implicates bisexuality for Mary, and implicates lesbianism for one of the members of the trinity.

8.There is apparently an assumption within some areas of Christianity that the incarnation was quasi-sexual (a combining of a human egg with a divine seed/sperm). Yet Mary never viewed herself as a "wife" of God, but rather as a "maid-servant."

9. As seen in Luke chapter 1, if the Holy Spirit (Ruach HaQodesh) is understood as feminine, conceiving Jesus (Yah'shua) in a human or human-like form by Her (the Ruach's) cosmic echad union with the Father (Yahweh), while Mary (Miriam) is viewed as only as a surrogate mother (or literally "conduit" as in at least one [1]Aramaic translation of Luke 1:46) then there are no conflicts. Lil'dummy 13:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above 9 objections are not a reasonable contestation of the logic of the article. No Christian theologian would agree with labelling any of the persons of the Trinity with a sex, which hence makes all the above points irrelevant. Generally, there are very few things that you could definitely proclaim as characteristics of God, let alone the sex typification. I see the article as definitely neutral. 194.213.204.84 22:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not objecting to the logic of the article. Just as there is a section discussing logical coherency [2] in the article on the Trinity, so I was proposing a section here. You may want to check again on Christian Theologians' views of gender in the article God and gender. Lil'dummy 12:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the name "father" and the part with the Holy Spirit being male come from the tendency of other languages to label words as either male or female, and that male was the one chosen to reinforce the whole male-dominance thing. as far as I know the Holy Spirit is gender neutral, and God is described as male, but is understood to be gender-neutral, since as an omnipotent being applying traditional gender labels to him just doesn't make sense except when using pronouns (I'm sure many would detest the idea of labeling him as 'it' since that implies he's an object of some sort). Of course, I know nothing about Latin and other languages back then, so I could be wrong. ENSSB 19:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole argument is moot. The most logical conclusion is that a full zygote was inserted into the womb. You are implying that the Holy Spirit had sexual relations with Mary, which is never the case. Got2liv4him (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many false doctrines creep in over the centuries through misconstrued ideas, mythology, and pagan deity worship. It is known that through all the years of mankind men have created deities that were both man and god. They all have a similar story. In all aspects every story appears to share the same story line. First the god was in the heavens and then he came down among men so the deity can share in their human nature to find compassion for them. I believe this comes from the need for man to connect with the higher power, as some call the true God, so they can identify with their creator. In reality nothing ever suggests such things in the entire Bible. The Bible does say the Word became Flesh. Men automatically think when it says this that the “Word was God” and therefore means that Jesus (Yahshua) was God. When a man truly reasons with this grotesque error of interpretation they find themselves lost in a whole slew of questions that are never answered. But, when you take the Word for just as it says it clearly shows what exactly happened. Where does Word come from? It comes from a person’s mouth right? First someone has to speak before it becomes Word. Whose mouth did this Word come from? The Father in heaven is clearly the answer. If the Christ (Messiah) was this God then why did he pray to himself? Why is it written that not even the Son of God knows the day and hour of his coming? It is also written that after Christ (Messiah) has finished all things then he will hand the kingdom back over to the Father in Heaven. Christ (Messiah) can’t hand everything back over to himself nor can he pray to himself. Again this is just man’s way of explaining the things they know nothing about. There attempt to create another God-man or false god is then in vein just as many others who have attempted to do the same thing. According to the Bible and all of its writings this is a great abomination in the eyes of God (whose name is Yahweh). To create a false deity is condemned in all of the scriptures. It is easy to create God in our own image because then there is little to be said about obedience unto truth. Remember we were created in his image not he was created in our image. Usually when anything points to a God-man it is either misinterpreted or simply misconstrued. All God has to do is speak and it happens. (DST)18 January 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.20.145 (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus=Yahweh

Jesus created the universe (...dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:^{to forgive sins - something only Yahweh can do}...For by him were all things created Colossians 1:13–16).

There are many sites that explain this. Here is one link. Considering that the "God" article is promoting pantheism and equating Vishnu with Yahweh, etc., then it is reasonable for Yahweh to be mentioned at least once in the article.--71.108.27.36 (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the conception of God in Christianity is at God in Christianity, not at Yahweh. --dab (𒁳) 16:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake

"carnis=flesh" is mistake. Latin word for flesh is caro.

Well, it's the genitive, but yes. Fixed In ictu oculi (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secularism and Incarnation

One of the philosophical reasons I think Christians and their Churches have historically been opposed to Secularism is because of the religious dogma of the Incarnation. Christianity is the only religion with this particular dogma and it is often called the religion of the Incarnation. On the contrary, Jews, Muslims and Hindu/Buddhists do not have such a dogma, and therefore it is much easier to them to adhere to religious Monism, the belief in an Unknowable One, which is epistemologically very close to Secularism. For Christians to believe that Jesus is the One is, for many religions and philosophies, tantamount to denying the entire system of pluralism and secularism. There has been an ongoing dialogue on this issue since the 1970s, it needs to be featured more prominently and with relevant sources. ADM (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nontrinitarianism

The part about nontrinitarianism should probably be trimmed down because it is only the view of an insignificant sect, as opposed to the doctrine of the whole Church. ADM (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus is God in flesh

Jesus is God in the flesh according to mainstream Christianity.--70.220.42.58 (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a misunderstanding of Christiology, Jesus is fully man and fully God but he is not the father, thus we have the trinity. Your edit is unreferenced and based on a non traditional understanding of Jesus, and is thus a minority view and does not belong in the intro but it maybe belongs under the Pentecostal oneness section (with references and valid text making the distinction between that view and the traditional one). 22:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The prophecy about John the Baptist was spoken and written in words, and that word became flesh when John was conceived in due time and season for John to be the forerunner of Yahshua that they call Jesus today. The prophecy about Yahshua was spoken and written in words, and that word became flesh when Spirit Yahweh conceived Yahshua in a virgin. Like you and I, neither John or Yahshua preexisted before conception, except for in the form of prophecy spoken by Spirit Yahweh, who had his prophecy written in words as all Israel drank of that rock as the foretold of word that would become the uniquely begotten of Yahweh and who became the head of all things. Is Yahshua a God? He is a God just like you and I, Yahweh said unto them to whom the word came; אני־אמרתי אלהים אתם ובני עליון כלכם׃ "I said, you are Elohim, sons of the highest of all!" Psalm 82:6

If they will not believe Moses and the Prophets, they will not believe though one was raised from among the dead before them, and was seated at the right hand of Yahweh. According as it is written of what Spirit Yahweh spoke to David and he spoke looking forward unto that rock; נאם יהוה לאדני שׁב לימיני עד־אשׁית איביך הדם לרגליך׃ “said Yahweh unto my Lord, 'sit here out my right hand, till I set your enemies to stool the feet yours!'” Psalm 110:1

JosephLoegering (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

article scope

It is unclear how this article's scope is different from that of Christology. --dab (𒁳) 16:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The incipit could be pruned to state that it is only that part of Christology relating to the Word becoming flesh and denomination-specific content reallocated further down .In ictu oculi (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the incarnation is just one piece of Christology, and the lede should probably reflect that. There are many other elements in Christology. Do you want to change the lede? Is so please do, else I will try to get to it in a few days. History2007 (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki-link

Could someone please add this article to "Languages". Don't know how to do it with Wikidata. Danish Wikipedia: https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inkarnation#Kristendom Bornsommer (talk) 13:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances not Avatars

There is no Incarnation word in the holy Bible but appearnances or birth of Christ so the title of article is wrong --Fastez (talk) 11:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, oppose acknowledged (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incarnation (Christianity) → Incarnation of Christ – the main reason for this move is that Incarnation (Christianity) is not natural—Wikipedia guidelines WP:NATURAL state to use a natural page title when one is available and is WP:COMMONNAME. Hence, the suggested page title Incarnation of Christ, which is natural and recognizable. The current title could be confusing, as readers may think the article talks about the doctrine of the incarnation of a body in Christian eschatology, rather than the incarnation of the divine Jewish messiah called Christ (title), regarded by Christians to be Jesus of Nazareth. It could also be named Incarnation of Jesus, however, per WP:CONSISTENCY, I choose to suggest Incarnation of Christ to match similar articles such as Pre-existence of Christ. Christ is the title for the divine messiah in Christianity, while Jesus is the name of the incarnation of God the Son on earth. Hence, it would be more encyclopedic to name it Incarnation of Christ rather than Incarnation of Jesus. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 20:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - At least for now. Please note that the article "Christ" redirects to the page "Jesus", yet there is a separate page "Christ (title)". (though this may be in the process of being sorted out. Your move request was approved two months ago but does not appear to have yet taken place.) ...I do not think "Pre-existence of Christ" is necessarily an optimum example for the simple reason that it would appear that most theologians tend to support the idea that Jesus did not pre-exist prior to the Incarnation, and therefore that name would not, in that particular instance, actually apply. As you succinctly stated, "Jesus is the name of the incarnation of God the Son..." ... The current title many not seem "natural", but it does appear to be sufficiently precise as it has apparently served well for over ten years. Mannanan51 (talk) 03:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a good point, Mannanan51. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 18:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hymns and prayers

I propose "Hymns and prayers" section to be removed. They are wikisource material. -- İskenderBalas^💬 12:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Incarnation (Christianity). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]