Does "in the beginning" mean Eternity?

[Vico]

…

Are you a Catholic in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church?

1. You wrote: “If it is a good attribute, then the Son and the Holy Spirit are not God, because there is a goodness that they do not have.”

This is false statement, for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons, consubstantial. It is not a lack of goodness to be a divine person.

2. You wrote: “The Son and the Spirit can’t be God, because God is self-exist, and no one gives him anything (Romans 11:35)”

This is a false statement for St. Paul refers to creatures not the Holy Trinity.

3. You wrote: “My problem is not about being peculiar, but about possibility.”

What about possibility?

 

[pohandes]

I wrongly quoted “John 1:5 shows that the life is eternal, not in time” but that is John 1:4

Yes. And I replied it.

No, the word got implies time.

Not when we are discussing about Immaterial beings.

There was no change in the divine nature or person of the Son of God in the assumption of human nature in the Incarnation.

I said it, about the signification of John 1:14. This verse says: “The word became flesh” I said God never changes and if the word was God, then it was impossible for him, to become flesh. Because: 1.God never changes 2. Becoming a “Possible existence” is impossible to “Self-exist”

John 5:26 does concern the Incarnation, for Jesus Christ is true God and true Man.

This verse says something about Father and Son. Yes it may concern the incarnation, but it may be about Trinity,

John 5:28 “That He is the Son of Man, marvel not at this.”

I don’t think so! “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice” (John5:28)

Previous verse says: “And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.”

It seems you are quoting a part of verse 27 and a part of verse 28.

Anyway, This two verses are not point to incarnation, clearly.

But let’s think that John 5:27-28 is about incarnation. It is impossible that in the eternity God the father gave word the life and authority to judge; and then in incarnation these gifts appear in Son of Man.

Are you a Catholic in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church?

About my faith: My heart says “yessss” but my mind says “I have some questions, yet”

1. You wrote: “If it is a good attribute, then the Son and the Holy Spirit are not God, because there is a goodness that they do not have.”

This is false statement, for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons, consubstantial. It is not a lack of goodness to be a divine person.

There are “attribute” that Father has it and two are persons not. My Question is clear: Is this attribute, Good or Bad or Not good and bad?

1. You wrote: “The Son and the Spirit can’t be God, because God is self-exist, and no one gives him anything (Romans 11:35)”

This is a false statement for St. Paul refers to creatures not the Holy Trinity.

Why you think Saint Paul refers to creatures?

1. You wrote: “My problem is not about being peculiar, but about possibility.”

What about possibility?

Possibility of Divinity of 2nd and 3rd persons of Trinity.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “It is impossible that in the eternity God the father gave word the life and authority to judge; and then in incarnation these gifts appear in Son of Man.”

This is an incorrect conclusion, for Jesus Christ is true God and true Man.

You wrote: “1.God never changes 2. Becoming a “Possible existence” is impossible to “Self-exist””

1. There was no change in the person for the teaching is that the word “became”, here means assumed a human nature without change. See Catechism of the Catholic Church

470 Because “human nature was assumed, not absorbed”,97 in the mysterious union of the Incarnation, the Church was led over the course of centuries to confess the full reality of Christ’s human soul, with its operations of intellect and will, and of his human body. In parallel fashion, she had to recall on each occasion that Christ’s human nature belongs, as his own, to the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it. Everything that Christ is and does in this nature derives from “one of the Trinity”. The Son of God therefore communicates to his humanity his own personal mode of existence in the Trinity. In his soul as in his body, Christ thus expresses humanly the divine ways of the Trinity:98

The Son of God. . . worked with human hands; he thought with a human mind. He acted with a human will, and with a human heart he loved. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like to us in all things except sin.99

2. The Holy Trinity is pure actuality – no potentiality.

You wrote: “Not when we are discussing about Immaterial beings.”

Yes, even when we are discussing immaterial beings. Got is past tense.

You asked: “Is this attribute, Good or Bad or Not good and bad?”

The attributes are good and different yet “It is not a lack of goodness to be a divine person.” means there is nothing bad or lacking in that the persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are not identical.

You asked: Why you think Saint Paul refers to creatures?

Divinity does not own anything to divinity.

You wrote: “Possibility of Divinity of 2nd and 3rd persons of Trinity.”

The Holy Trinity is the Christian faith and was declared in the Symbol of Faith from the Church councils.

 

[pohandes]

You wrote: “It is impossible that in the eternity God the father gave word the life and authority to judge; and then in incarnation these gifts appear in Son of Man.”

This is an incorrect conclusion, for Jesus Christ is true God and true Man.

Let’s talk about “true God and true Man” in another thread. I,m sorry for mistakes in what I wrote.

You wrote: “1.God never changes 2. Becoming a “Possible existence” is impossible to “Self-exist””

1. There was no change in the person for the teaching is that the word “became”, here means assumed a human nature without change . See Catechism of the Catholic Church

What does assumed a human nature without change exactly mean?

1. The Holy Trinity is pure actuality – no potentiality.

Yes, if you can prove it, but it does not have any relation to What I said.

You wrote: “Not when we are discussing about Immaterial beings.”

Yes, even when we are discussing immaterial beings. Got is past tense.

OK. Sorry. I had to use another word.

You asked: “Is this attribute, Good or Bad or Not good and bad?”

The attributes are good and different yet “It is not a lack of goodness to be a divine person.” means there is nothing bad or lacking in that the persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are not identical.

Well, if ther are Good, and two other persons do not have them, so there are some good beings that they do not have and it means “limitation in Goodness” and there is no limitation in God.

It is not about being identical, My promlem is about limitless.

You asked: Why you think Saint Paul refers to creatures?

Divinity does not own anything to divinity.

It is what you say. How can you prove that Saint Paul meant it?

You wrote: “Possibility of Divinity of 2nd and 3rd persons of Trinity.”

The Holy Trinity is the Christian faith and was declared in the Symbol of Faith from the Church councils.

Faith is in my heart and Questions are in my head.

 

[Vico]

…

You asked: “What does assumed a human nature without change exactly mean?”

You wrote: “Yes, if you can prove it, but it does not have any relation to What I said.”

Yes it does you said “Possible existence”.

You wrote: “… so there are some good beings that they do not have and it means “limitation in Goodness” and there is no limitation in God.”

The Holy Trinity is only one being.

You asked regarding “Divinity does not own anything to divinity.”: “I[f] t is what you say. How can you prove that Saint Paul meant it?”

The Holy Trinity has all things already.

Romans 11

34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor? 35 Or who hath first given to him, and recompense shall be made him? 36 For of him, and by him, and in him, are all things: to him be glory for ever. Amen.

 

[pohandes]

You asked: “What does assumed a human nature without change exactly mean?”

You wrote: “Yes, if you can prove it, but it does not have any relation to What I said.”

Yes it does you said “Possible existence”.

You wrote: “… so there are some good beings that they do not have and it means “limitation in Goodness” and there is no limitation in God.”

The Holy Trinity is only one being.

You asked regarding “Divinity does not own anything to divinity.”: “I[f] t is what you say. How can you prove that Saint Paul meant it?”

The Holy Trinity has all things already.

Romans 11

34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor? 35 Or who hath first given to him, and recompense shall be made him? 36 For of him, and by him, and in him, are all things: to

Dear Vico. Thanks for your help in this discussion. If you agree, let’s continue our discuss in the new thread about “True God and True human”