M
mfbukowski
Guest
I guess if you make it big enough, it must be true.
Just like if it’s old it’s true.
- Status
Just like if it’s old it’s true.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
"Summa, Prima Pars Q 4, art 1:
For since matter as such is merely potential, the first material principle must be simply potential, and thus most imperfect. Now God is the first principle, not material, but in the order of efficient cause, which must be most perfect. For just as matter, as such, is merely potential, an agent, as such, is in the state of actuality. Hence, the first active principle must needs be most actual, and therefore most perfect; for a thing is perfect in proportion to its state of actuality, because we call that perfect which lacks nothing of the mode of its perfection. "
Contrabass,
Would you be so kind as to explain this to me?
I really don’t get it.
I am not very bright, so please make it simple.
It doesn’t seem to say anything about God having a body
For since matter as such is merely potential, the first material principle must be simply potential, and thus most imperfect. Now God is the first principle, not material, but in the order of efficient cause, which must be most perfect. For just as matter, as such, is merely potential, an agent, as such, is in the state of actuality. Hence, the first active principle must needs be most actual, and therefore most perfect; for a thing is perfect in proportion to its state of actuality, because we call that perfect which lacks nothing of the mode of its perfection. "
Contrabass,
Would you be so kind as to explain this to me?
I really don’t get it.
I am not very bright, so please make it simple.
It doesn’t seem to say anything about God having a body
M
mfbukowski
Guest
One other question for CB
“Jesus is unmovable in his divine nature, not in his human nature. He is impassible in his divine nature, not in his human nature. He is eternal in his divine nature, not in his human nature. And so on…”
So does The Father have a human nature?
So can Jesus do things the Father cannot?
Just asking
“Jesus is unmovable in his divine nature, not in his human nature. He is impassible in his divine nature, not in his human nature. He is eternal in his divine nature, not in his human nature. And so on…”
So does The Father have a human nature?
So can Jesus do things the Father cannot?
Just asking
M
mfbukowski
Guest
"Hypostatic Union
tt=76
A theological term used with reference to the Incarnation to express the revealed truth that in Christ one person subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human. Hypostasis means, literally, that which lies beneath as basis or foundation. Hence it came to be used by the Greek philosophers to denote reality as distinguished from appearances (Aristotle, “Mund.”, IV, 21). It occurs also in St. Paul’s Epistles (2 Corinthians 9:4; 11:17; Hebrews 1:3-3:14), but not in the sense of person. Previous to the Council of Nicæa (325) hypostasis was synonymous with ousia, and even St. Augustine (On the Holy Trinity V.8) avers that he sees no difference between them. The distinction in fact was brought about gradually in the course of the controversies to which the Christological heresies gave rise, and was definitively established by the Council of Chalcedon (451), which declared that in Christ the two natures, each retaining its own properties, are united in one subsistence and one person (eis en prosopon kai mian hpostasin) (Denzinger, ed. Bannwart, 148). They are not joined in a moral or accidental union (Nestorius), nor commingled (Eutyches), and nevertheless they are substantially united. For further explanation and bibliography see: INCARNATION; JESUS CHRIST; MONOPHYSITISM; NATURE; PERSON. "
newadvent.org/cathen/07610b.htm
OK so let me get this straight.
This whole idea came from some pagan greeks who lived 2300 years ago, then a bunch of guys argued about whether or not it applied to Jesus, and then in 451 the Catholic Church bought it hook line and sinker because it is Tradition.
Does that about cover it?
I think that’s about what I said earlier.
tt=76
A theological term used with reference to the Incarnation to express the revealed truth that in Christ one person subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human. Hypostasis means, literally, that which lies beneath as basis or foundation. Hence it came to be used by the Greek philosophers to denote reality as distinguished from appearances (Aristotle, “Mund.”, IV, 21). It occurs also in St. Paul’s Epistles (2 Corinthians 9:4; 11:17; Hebrews 1:3-3:14), but not in the sense of person. Previous to the Council of Nicæa (325) hypostasis was synonymous with ousia, and even St. Augustine (On the Holy Trinity V.8) avers that he sees no difference between them. The distinction in fact was brought about gradually in the course of the controversies to which the Christological heresies gave rise, and was definitively established by the Council of Chalcedon (451), which declared that in Christ the two natures, each retaining its own properties, are united in one subsistence and one person (eis en prosopon kai mian hpostasin) (Denzinger, ed. Bannwart, 148). They are not joined in a moral or accidental union (Nestorius), nor commingled (Eutyches), and nevertheless they are substantially united. For further explanation and bibliography see: INCARNATION; JESUS CHRIST; MONOPHYSITISM; NATURE; PERSON. "
newadvent.org/cathen/07610b.htm
OK so let me get this straight.
This whole idea came from some pagan greeks who lived 2300 years ago, then a bunch of guys argued about whether or not it applied to Jesus, and then in 451 the Catholic Church bought it hook line and sinker because it is Tradition.
Does that about cover it?
I think that’s about what I said earlier.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
To me, all this is like the emperor’s new clothes.
It’s all so cloaked in jargon and history and tradition that no one is willing to stand up and say “Wait a minute!” “There’s nothing there!”
“After all, I don’t understand it, but surely the Magesterium which is much brighter than me – surely they understand it”
Then if they are so bright, why can they not explain it so that a dummie like me can understand it?
There’s nothing there!
It’s all so cloaked in jargon and history and tradition that no one is willing to stand up and say “Wait a minute!” “There’s nothing there!”
“After all, I don’t understand it, but surely the Magesterium which is much brighter than me – surely they understand it”
Then if they are so bright, why can they not explain it so that a dummie like me can understand it?
There’s nothing there!
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Fideism is a heresy. What’s next, Docetism?
Eternal regress is not possible. Would you care to restate that?
1
1holycatholic
Guest
No kidding.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
aliveandyoung.blogspot.com/2006/10/hypostatic-union-of-christ-black-and.html
J
jean8
Guest
I;m happy to hear your leaving the ‘largest cult’ in the world, the Mormon Church.
Joseph Smith is the founder of this nonsense. He was killed in a gun brawl in a tavern.
.Marriage is a Sacrament in the RCC. we get married because God ordainded this union between one woman and one man.
The Bible teaches there will not be marriages in heaven. Look it up in the Holy Bible.
See 1Cor.7;10,33-39
Do you really believe women will be having spirit babies for all eternity in heaven?
That doesn’t sound like the heaven I believe in.It’s been awhile since I’ve discussed the Mormon church, but spirit babies and several tiers of heaven just sound comical.
Is Jesus the Son of God? See Lu.1:35, Mt.1:23,
He is Immanual , God with us. Praise His Holy Name.
jean8
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Not really. Why is it not possible? And who said it was? Why do you persist in limiting what is possible or not? Must be those fossils between your ears.
Uh oh. He’s putting up the pole and putting the sticks around the bottom… Why do you have that torch in your hand?
Oh I’m safe. They don’t burn heretics. They let the government do it for them
J
JRKH
Guest
You’ve already gotten some good answers on this but I’d like to add mine.
Anyway, how would you define “deathbed” repentance? How close to death would you have to be for repentance to be invalid? How about repentance immediately after receiving a terminal diagnosis with only 12 to 18 months to live?
I would say that, if you investigate both Branches of the Church and feel more comfortable with the EO the go for it. In God’s good time I believe that East and West will be reunited.
Peace
James
Marriage is a sacremental union of two people for the purpose of raising Children in the loving fear of God. To be married in the Church is a sign of the commitment to each other before God as well as the promise to live by and under God’s ordinances.
I think this is a fine description from a Catholic perspective as well. Of course there can be some varying definitions of what it means to “require” and also what the term “work” involves. As we recall, Jesus took issue with the Jewish leaders over being too legalistic and strict on this point.
This is strictly between the individual and God. I know of nothing in the Gospels or epistles that say a deathbed repentance, if genuine, is improper.
Anyway, how would you define “deathbed” repentance? How close to death would you have to be for repentance to be invalid? How about repentance immediately after receiving a terminal diagnosis with only 12 to 18 months to live?
My simple answer to this is, if you are uncomfortable praying to anyone but God then don’t. There is no Dogmatic teaching that requires intersessory prayer. You are free to pray as you are comfortable.
I don’t know enough of the EO to really comment on this.
I would say that, if you investigate both Branches of the Church and feel more comfortable with the EO the go for it. In God’s good time I believe that East and West will be reunited.
Sorry, I’m not too good at this part.
May God be with you both.
Peace
James
1
1holycatholic
Guest
You mentioned eternal regress. I assume you mean by eternal that you are going regressing through an infinite past time. The problem is this:
Past time has been “achieved.”
Infinity is by definition “unachievable.”
Infinite past time would be an achieved unachievable - a.k.a. a contradiction. :doh2:
1
1holycatholic
Guest
I
Irish_Kathy
Guest
As someone who’s mostly Irish, I’d say yes, it is a very interesting analogy for sure. But, I’m not so sure that someone who’s Mormon would quite understand it.
http://bestsmileys.com/drinks/3.gif
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Oh I get it: the usual nonsense. You define the terms to make them mean what you want, so you can get any result you want.You mentioned eternal regress. I assume you mean by eternal that you are going regressing through an infinite past time. The problem is this:
Past time has been “achieved.”
Infinity is by definition “unachievable.”
Infinite past time would be an achieved unachievable - a.k.a. a contradiction. :doh2:
Why is past time achieved and why is infinity unachievable
I don’t even know what that means that past time is “achieved”
And while you are at it tell me what color virtue is.
Talk about confusion caused by words…
M
mfbukowski
Guest
You got that one right. Jesus nature is like a glass of beer.As someone who’s mostly Irish, I’d say yes, it is a very interesting analogy for sure. But, I’m not so sure that someone who’s Mormon would quite understand it.
http://bestsmileys.com/drinks/3.gif
Heavy.
C
Contrabass101
Guest
It seems to me, you focus more on the darkness, and that that is exactly where you put your Mormon beliefs…
So you believe in a realm where causation doesn’t apply… where un-necessary beings just pop into existence for no reason at all.
Might as well become a Hegelian.
God caused himself?
Yeah, and the Greeks were right.
That some people never learned common sense doesn’t make it invalid.
Don’t get me wrong… I believe that Revelation is central to the faith. I do not believe that I can know the depths of God. But I do believe that faith is rational. I don’t believe in random popping into existence, neither in this realm nor any other.
Rock God can’t lift is not a paradox, it’s an oxymoron.
Colour has to do with reflection of light. Courage is not a physical thing, but a virtue, and does not reflect light. So it doesn’t apply.
Unmoved Mover is not a paradox, but a logical necessity. We can say little else with logical certainty about it, than that it is itself unmoved and that it moves things. But we can say that much. Now, please explain to me, why an Unmoved Mover would belong to the same category as the two above.
- CB
C
Contrabass101
Guest
Do I understand? Probably not. The Incarnation is a mystery, but the mystery presupposes that God and man are of distinct natures. That is why the Church has always been so afraid of heresy… because heresy kills mystery. The Hypostatic Union is a protection of the mystery of Incarnation from both the attacks of Docetism, and Adoptionism.
Divine nature is uncaused, unchanging, transcendent. It is in fact easier to speak of what it is not, than of what it is. It is the Ultimate, Supreme Reality, it is He whose name is most truly: “I AM” - He whose very nature it is to exist.
Human nature is… well… us.
Created, contingent beings, a body and a soul, a mind, a will, two legs, two arms, one head, opposable thumbs, bound to spatio-temporal reality.Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, fully God, born, not made, by the Father in eternity, of the same substance as the Father. In Him and through Him all things are made.
But at some point in history, he put on human flesh, fully uniting human nature with divine nature. He did this for the sake of our salvation.
- CB
C
Contrabass101
Guest
No.
Yes. He can die and suffer, be born, eat fish and whatever else belongs to physical reality.
C
Contrabass101
Guest
To you, that could be said about anything put into language…
You want to have your cake and eat it…
Yes, faith is rational. Yes, faith is mysterious.
But you wont understand anything of the rational until you recant your Nominalism
Just as you won’t understand the mystery until you accept the rational.
- CB
- Status