I could say that the sun moves from east to west. I could say that the sun rotates around the galaxy. But it's wrong (meaningless, even) to say that the sun therefore rotates around the galaxy from east to west. [1/10] https://twitter.com/RNCarmona43/status/1356132149179674626

Both premises are true in their respective contexts, and both are communicating things about the same sun. But they are not speaking of the sun in the same sense; they're dealing with different planes of perception. [2/10]

What is true of the sun from one plane of perception may not translate immediately into another.

Here we have two statements: Jesus is God, and Jesus has parts. It does not necessarily follow that if both are true, God has parts. [3/10]

God's simplicity does not prevent Him from presenting Himself to finite beings in what we perceive as complex forms, nor does the language we might use to describe God's "appearing in a form" suggest that the form is an illusion. [4/10]

Jesus of Nazareth had human parts exactly as each of us does, but we must keep in mind that a "part" is a phenomenological category. Parts are perceived and interpreted as such. [5/10]

The atoms that bonded to form the molecules that Mary's body gathered into the substances of Jesus' physical form in utero, the bread and the fish meat that were broken down into their nutrients and assumed into the biological matter of his human flesh,... [6/10]

...these are all part of the continuous cycle of energy transfer following paths that we interpret as laws of thermodynamics, matter born in stars that God created. At no point was there a discrete shift in their properties that suddenly made them "human stuff." [7/10]

Yet these particles and their interactions were understood by humans—because of their proximity to each other and perceived function in relation to the sustenance of life—as belonging to parts of a body. Human perception is the language,... [8/10]

...the set of stimuli we interpret as a human presence are the words, and the message is God. But that message is particularized by the limitations of our perception in time and space, not by any inherent complexity in the Person communicated. [9/10]

The incarnation is a matter not merely of addition or subtraction but of translation. When the Word "took on flesh," it was no more or less the Word that was with God and was God and had been with God from the beginning. [10/10]