A
Aloysium
Guest
Using these terms, what is the difference between myself and Christ?
If it is a matter of essences, I am not sure why there is a need at all to speak of esse.
Is the term meaningless?
- Status
If it is a matter of essences, I am not sure why there is a need at all to speak of esse.
Is the term meaningless?
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
If one considers the case of the Incarnation, God does assume a human nature and so pervasively that the composition is a Person, the Divine Person of Jesus Christ. And instead of supporting Linux’s argument, it supports my own.
First of all this is a miracle. But in the instance of the rest of creation God is not working a miracle. For in the instance of the rest of creation this is not the case, because in them their esse is their own. In the instance of the rest of creation God is not working a miracle. This demonstrates that the " conjoining " the Esse of God to that of a creature is Miracle and is not the case for the rest of creation. For them, their esse is their own.
Secondly, the instance of the Incarnation it proves that if the Esse of God is " conjoined " with the essence of a creature, the resulting being is God. And this is a result that Linux has steadfastly denied. For it is his contention that to " conjoin " the esse of God to the essence of a creature does not make the resultant being identical to God. That is, it does not turn it into God. Conversely, it has been my contention that to " conjoin the Esse of God to the essence of a creature transforms the creature into God.
So, the instance of the Incarnation proves my argument correct and demonstrates that Linux’s argument is wrong on these points.
Linus2nd
Now everyone can take their sunglasses off.
Linus2nd
First of all this is a miracle. But in the instance of the rest of creation God is not working a miracle. For in the instance of the rest of creation this is not the case, because in them their esse is their own. In the instance of the rest of creation God is not working a miracle. This demonstrates that the " conjoining " the Esse of God to that of a creature is Miracle and is not the case for the rest of creation. For them, their esse is their own.
Secondly, the instance of the Incarnation it proves that if the Esse of God is " conjoined " with the essence of a creature, the resulting being is God. And this is a result that Linux has steadfastly denied. For it is his contention that to " conjoin " the esse of God to the essence of a creature does not make the resultant being identical to God. That is, it does not turn it into God. Conversely, it has been my contention that to " conjoin the Esse of God to the essence of a creature transforms the creature into God.
So, the instance of the Incarnation proves my argument correct and demonstrates that Linux’s argument is wrong on these points.
Linus2nd
Now everyone can take their sunglasses off.
Linus2nd
J
JDaniel
Guest
Linux:
I agree with you. The problem that I see is that the pantheism notion brings about a conceptual scheme that need is not relevant.
Take a balloon, for example, fill it with air. Exterior to it is air. Interior to it is air. Does this panballoonism mean that the balloon is also air (or, that the air is balloon)? No. It clearly depicts that although it is immersed in and contains air, it is separate from air - as any child knows. Thus, Yppop’s conceptualism is that non-dimensional point particles have expanded out in all directions (just as the universe is doing) and that they must expand out into something that cannot be displaced and is separate from them.
In general, I think, people tend to think of space as just a vacuum. But it’s not: it is a particle(and field)-filled environment that contains such stuff as electrons, neutrons and protons. But, when we start consider that those “things” (electrons, protons and neutrons) are point particles, that is, have no dimensionality yet are distinct from Space, they are clearly shown to be very different from that Space that we call infinite, or continuous, Space.
Two very different things: one being particles separate from what they are immersed in (like the rubber of a balloon), and the other being that which may be within them (such as that within all atoms). If, then, God is that distinct and separated from the likes of fermions and quarks, and protons, neutrons and nucleii (matter’s stuff) then there can be no valid conflation producing any valid concept of panballoonism, or pantheism, when properly defined as: a necessary being that is not really distinct from contingent beings.
L
Linux
Guest
The assumption here of course is that the conjoining of God’s esse with essence is all that which is essentially involved in the concept of the eternally begotten son Jesus Christ. But it is allot more than simply that. It is the word, the law, expressing itself uniquely through the essence of man. Where that uniquie expression is not taking place, you do not have Jesus Christ; you only have a conjoining of esse (God) and essence (Creation). Yet still, metaphysically speaking, even in the case of Jesus the human biological organism in and of itself is not God (only by adoption/not in essence), and Gods eternal nature is not **altered **by being conjoined to an essence; which defeats your argument that essences necessarily alter the esse that they are conjoined to. **You are refuting yourself.
**
In any case, saying that the concept of Jesus involves the conjoining of God’s esse with essence, doesn’t refute my argument even if by accepting my argument it refutes my faith. In fact you have not rationally justified your position. You have only said that you will reject what you believe to be against the faith which is not a rational argument at all, but rather it is an act of blind faith posing as rational. In either case, my argument is impeccable. You cannot refute it.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Below is an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia re. the Hypostatic Union.
“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.”
I bolded two lines. These precisely depict the way Yppop and I mean our propositions. If we continue to view man and spirit as two distinct things, combined somehow, that will never be satisfactory to many (perhaps, “most”) people, although that is perhaps the way it’s supposed to be.
God bless,
jd
“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.”
I bolded two lines. These precisely depict the way Yppop and I mean our propositions. If we continue to view man and spirit as two distinct things, combined somehow, that will never be satisfactory to many (perhaps, “most”) people, although that is perhaps the way it’s supposed to be.
God bless,
jd
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Despite what others have said, I think your view finds support in the following explanation:
The point being that created things exist only to the extent that they participate, but not necessarily or essentially so, in the Esse or Beingness of God. Existence is a free gift from God who lovingly shares his existence (esse) with creation. Only God is ipsum esse subsistens because only God necessarily exists as an aspect of what God is. Created things participate in God and only exist (ens) because they do so as a result of God “sharing” with us his being-ness (esse.) Our existence is contingent on God sharing himself with us. God’s existence is a necessary aspect of what he is. That is the meaning of ipsum esse subsistens.
I haven’t seen anything in your posts that contradicts this. Correct me if I am mistaken.
J
JDaniel
Guest
God bless,
jd
A
Aloysium
Guest
In an earlier post you appear to have lamented my being bereft of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. You will excuse my lack of Counsel.
I wrote:
You had asserted:
I was basically in my awkward way, agreeing with you.
This argument is going on and on. If it is made clear to him that his view goes against the teachings of the Church and he persists, how is that any different than a Jehovah’s Witness coming to the forums to promote their religion. The imperative would be on Linux to prove that his view is in keeping with the teachings of the Church.
L
Linux
Guest
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Didn’t mean to. I can’t sing on key and have a very irritating voice and look like a dried up old prune. So I lack a lot of gifts as well.
That is a good question. I think the fine line is that he hasn’t disclosed any affiliation and has mentioned any magic words. On the other hand I would think his " line " would appeal strongly to Mormons.
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
I would have thought that you would have sought out the Catechism on this point?
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
It is the Defined Dogma of the Church that the soul is the form of the human person. We are human beings which have a body and a soul which function and are a single unified substance or being. That is also what Thomas Aquinas taught. The Incarnation is a different subject dealing with different realities. The two subjects should not be dealt with to gether because it can cause confusion.
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Well, sometimes God has to use a hammer. Most of us are as balky as Mules.How I see your posts now you’ve taken up shouting all the time.
Linus2nd
Y
yppop
Guest
Linus my friend,
1.Suppose you are wrong; what are those hundreds of warned Catholics going to do with such disinformation. Why do Catholics need to be warned? Do they not have a mind of their own or do you believe they have not the depth of understanding that you have?
The issue in this thread is creatio ex nihilo. What I am doing is providing a plausible way in which creatio ex nihilo can be explained in terms that are familiar, or if not familiar, at least, understandable.
2.If you can’t understand the mathematics how do you know I am wrong? When you say you “don’t need to” are you implying that mathematics has no explicative worth?
3.When you say ex nihilo means exactly that, what do you mean by “that” ? What does the Church mean by that?
4.Could you please expand on what you mean by “some scarcely definable mathematical something”? If you can’t understand the mathematics how would you know that using transfinite numbers is not a plausible way to explain “creatio ex nihilo”? You certainly don’t want to argue from ignorance of the subject at hand.
5.If we aren’t created from the substance of God who is omnipresent, infinite and eternal, how does and where does the supposed nihilo (non-existence) occur? The substance of God surely is not only infinite in extent but also infinitely divisible.
6.Are you implying that there is some other way to exist in God than by thoughts or ideas? Has anyone else claimed such an idea? I sure haven’t. We are created by the power of God - power that is purely spiritual and non-physical - from God’s thoughts and ideas that can only originate in what we humans can only imagine as the Mind of God. Yes, of course, we don’t know with certainty, but one of the great gifts of God that comes to us through Sanctifying (or Habitual) Grace is the gift of wonder. And I wonder with a deep personal feeling of awe in the spirit of the encyclical Fides et Ratio which states:
para.22: “In the first chapter of his Letter to the Romans, Saint Paul helps us to appreciate better the depth of insight of the Wisdom literature’s reflection. Developing a philosophical argument in popular language, the Apostle declares a profound truth: through all that is created the “eyes of the mind” can come to know God. Through the medium of creatures, God stirs in reason an intuition of his “power” and his “divinity” (cf. Rom 1:20). This is to concede to human reason a capacity which seems almost to surpass its natural limitations. Not only is it not restricted to sensory knowledge, from the moment that it can reflect critically upon the data of the senses, but, by discoursing on the data provided by the senses, reason can reach the cause which lies at the origin of all perceptible reality. In philosophical terms, we could say that this important Pauline text affirms the human capacity for metaphysical enquiry.”
7.How is “God is transcendent” and simultaneously (or conterminously if you wish) “immediately present to it and works intimately in it”. Is this not a contradiction?
- I understand your thinking here and thank you for not playing the “Pantheism” card.
However in response 5 what ever nihilo/non-existence is and I assume you mean absolute non-existence, if God creates from this nihilo/non-existence, which because God is infinite this nihilo/ non-existence is “part of God” when He is creating, then by your reasoning that if we are part of God we are God, then if non/existence is part of God does that mean God is nihilo/non-existent?,
Yppop
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Behold, him who has who has no guile. Well, I hate to tell you, but the above is so full of logical errors and misstatements that there really is no where to begin. And a few things are way off topic ( these I would be happy to discuss via P.M. or on another thread.),
Linus2bd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
L
Linux
Guest
I am not going to start a new thread with somebody who continuously resorts to evasion tactics, and does drive-by accusations of logical errors and misstatements and disappears with the deceptive air of authority behind him.
Its a waste of my time. You can address my argument properly and rationally without the circular assumption that you’re right no-matter what, or you can go and make your own thread. But I am not coming along for the wild goose chase because I don’t believe that you fully understand what you are talking about. You are just doing a commentary on Aquinas without really grasping the logical implications of what he is saying. And the fact that you accuse me of dissenting from Aquinas as if he is the be all and end all of metaphysics really is a warning sign that you are not really interested in a full on logical debate. Its not enough to simply Quote someone. You have to rationally demonstrate that what your point of authority has said truly reflects the logical validity of your point of view. And not only that, you must demonstrate that your point of view is in fact logically valid.
Aquinas didn’t go around saying that his argument is correct and yours is wrong because Augustine said this or Aristotle said that. If this were the case he would be hardly worth reading.
S
shoe
Guest
Thoughts that human beings conjure up in their mind do not necessarily have to come to be, as they will stay thoughts until human beings choose to bring them into actual existence independently of the mind and into the observable reality; thus, turning thoughts into actual substances. If God were not omnipotent and could create things only in thought, then He would be unable either to give His thoughts substance or to create anything that was not God, since nothing would exist except God’s thoughts.
God is a Spirit and therefore He cannot possibly be the same as the material universe. However, if God were a physical Being then the various physical parts of His Being would restrict Him within their boundaries. But since God is a Spirit and the creator of the universe, and the author of its laws, and since God exists outside the space-time continuum, He cannot be part of the universe, just as the universe cannot be part of Him. God is transcendent, which is to say that God is above, beyond, and outside all that He has made.
God is a Spirit and therefore He cannot possibly be the same as the material universe. However, if God were a physical Being then the various physical parts of His Being would restrict Him within their boundaries. But since God is a Spirit and the creator of the universe, and the author of its laws, and since God exists outside the space-time continuum, He cannot be part of the universe, just as the universe cannot be part of Him. God is transcendent, which is to say that God is above, beyond, and outside all that He has made.
U
utunumsint
Guest
Interesting article on this subject that gives an explanation of Thomas’ thinking.
willgwitt.org/thomas-aquinas-on-creation1/
I will continue to read Etienne Gilson, of course.
God bless,
Ut
willgwitt.org/thomas-aquinas-on-creation1/
I will continue to read Etienne Gilson, of course.
God bless,
Ut
- Status