S
Servant19
Guest
That is an imaginary assumption IgnatianBecause the apostles I imagine did not want to be accused of believing in multiple Gods.
.
That is an imaginary assumption IgnatianBecause the apostles I imagine did not want to be accused of believing in multiple Gods.
So it was correct to understand Jesus being equal to God in substance in the third century. But now we can say that idea is false and say “Jesus is not equal to God in substance?”It means Truth given to us according to our capacity to understand. Social consciousness, intellect and the mind evolves over time, over the centuries, and God tailors Truth according to our ability to understand it.
Remember this:
youtube.com/watch?v=S1i5coU-0_Q
What he says at the end is an example of this.
“I guess you guys aren’t quite ready for that yet”
.
I think it is quite plausible. I grant that the apostles did not have the trinitarian language we have. Theres a reason why we had to develop it however, because we could not reconcile the attributes of Christ with that of mere humanity or mere created entity. Christ to the apostles was not God the father, but he was not merely created entity. Again, Christ possesses things which no human can have, sinlessness, authority and power. IN fact Christ has all power in heaven as well as on earth.That is an imaginary assumption Ignatian
.
What is substance?So it was correct to understand Jesus being equal to God in substance in the third century. But now we can say that idea is false and say “Jesus is not equal to God in substance?”
That’s a contradiction. Both statements cannot be true. Unless you believe God changes, which you have hinted at and did affirm. So lets ask again. Was Jesus in the third century of hte same substance as God the father? Or was he as you say not of the same substance as God the father?
Firstly the Holy Spirit did protect the Catholic Church. It is still alive and well even today.Furthermore, if the Council of Nicea deviated from the teachings of Jesus, it taught error, and as such the Holy Spirit would not be protecting the Catholic Church from error and Jesus lied when He promised that it would. Naturally, as a Catholic, I believe that the Council did not deviate from the Truth, seeing as this is a matter of doctrine, being a part of the Creed.
Why is it assumed that all created entities are those that we see on earth around us.I think it is quite plausible. I grant that the apostles did not have the trinitarian language we have. Theres a reason why we had to develop it however, because we could not reconcile the attributes of Christ with that of mere humanity or mere created entity. Christ to the apostles was not God the father, but he was not merely created entity. Again, Christ possesses things which no human can have, sinlessness, authority and power. IN fact Christ has all power in heaven as well as on earth.
He humbled himself, and clothed himself in our Humanity .I don’t think that it is even Catholic teaching to believe that the essence of God can be Incarnate in a limited human Temple.
.
Reality is gradually unfolded to the eyes of men, both physical reality and spiritual reality.The question is, is the doctrine in of itself true at the time of hte council, that is, does it describe reality? You seem to deny it, thus it cannot be in any real sense true.
And how did you conclude that it was the “Essence of God” that humbled Himself?He humbled himself, and clothed himself in our Humanity .
Really though, what is the Essence of God aside from God Himself? Jesus is the Word, and the Word is God and is with God. Thus to say that Jesus, the Word of God, humbled Himself to become human in order to save us, it is the same as saying God humbled Himself to human form to save us. For someone who believes that Jesus is God, this isn’t really a challenging subject aside from why He would do so, but to say that God is unable to become one of us to save us is more defiant of reason from my perspective. God is inseparable from His Essence, just as we are inseparable from our souls. Unless essence has a different meaning as used here than how I’m interpreting it.And how did you conclude that it was the “Essence of God” that humbled Himself?
I have no problems with you saying that the Word humbled Himself in human form, but the Essence of God…that defies reason…
.
I can’t answer because… “Essence of God” is too vague and abstract.We knowAnd how did you conclude that it was the “Essence of God” that humbled Himself?
I have no problems with you saying that the Word humbled Himself in human form, but the Essence of God…that defies reason…
.
That which the entity is composed of. Material or immaterial.What is substance?
God is a Spirit…what is the substance of a Spirit?
.
Since when did we say the material is all that is created? Unlike you and the saducees we believe in angelic hosts and spirits, but none of them, though being immaterial do not possess the ability and nature of Christ God. We believe they are created but cannot compare to the glory of Jesus.Why is it assumed that all created entities are those that we see on earth around us.
Can God not make a created entity that lives in the Kingdom and manifests itself from age to age on earth as a “Mouthpiece of God’s Word”?
Why is that so impossible to accept? God can do what He wills can’t He?
Isn’t that Christian teaching?
.
Avoiding the question. Is what the nicene council said about God true ontologically? It’s not a hard question for those unafraid of offending people.Reality is gradually unfolded to the eyes of men, both physical reality and spiritual reality.
.
Why is it assumed that all created entities are those that we see on earth around us.
Can God not make a created entity that lives in the Kingdom and manifests itself from age to age on earth as a “Mouthpiece of God’s Word”?
But you fail to accept the Incarnation of God. Why is that so difficult to accept?Why is that so impossible to accept?
How can immaterial things have a composition??That which the entity is composed of. Material or immaterial.
Because He who is the Object of Adoration for all of the visible and invisible Realms has said so…Servant19 your back to talking about what God can and can’t do.
But you fail to accept the Incarnation of God. Why is that so difficult to accept?
This post is rather vague and abstract…I can’t answer because… “Essence of God” is too vague and abstract.We know
how Jesus did it… by the power of the Holy Spirit was born of the Virgin Mary.
Its written, by the power of the Holy Spirit-Luke- "The Holy Spirit will come to you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore, the holy child developing inside you will be called the Son of God.This post is rather vague and abstract…
Please clarify how the “Essence of God” incarnates in a human Temple. That’s what you believe isn’t it?
.
It’s when you say:Since when did we say the material is all that is created?
Now you are doing the misunderstanding Ignatian.Unlike you and the saducees we believe in angelic hosts and spirits, but none of them, though being immaterial do not possess the ability and nature of Christ God. We believe they are created but cannot compare to the glory of Jesus.
YesNow can a created entity create everything which begins to exist?
YesCan a created entity be given all authority in heaven and earth?
Not according to Baha’i cosmology, not God “alone”…God is the driving force, but all things come into existence through the Word, which is distinct from the “Essence of God”Such prerogatives belong to God alone.