If Jesus would got married?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hasantas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
God is three eternal coexistent persons! That seems very conflictive. When you say"He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son." but that means you talk about three persons and three gods. The fact is that: God is one person and one.

The problem with Aquinas(Trinity) is that: St Thomas Aquinas said God has three persons and those persons emerge from relations. If Thomas said God has three persons then there maybe not problem. But Thomas assume those three persons to have apart fact or presence from one same eternal essence. It could be supposed that God has generally three relations and those are called Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But if you say those persons are different in anyway that means God is not one anymore.

Thomas tried too much to support that God is one and I know that Christians believe in one God. Problem is to think that Jesus was God and struggles to explain that with philosophical doctrines . Did Thomas can explain incarnation? When did Christians start to believe that?
Incarnation has been Christian belief since the time of Jesus Christ, such as baptism in the Jordan, raising the dead and healing the sick, transfiguration, resurrection, and ascension.

No, the persons do not emerge from relations, the persons are the relations founded in the essence, so do not bring any composition. St. Thomas and the Church teach that God is absolutely simple without any composition. There is never talk of three gods, only one. As stated in the Summa Theologica, Q39, A1: Whether in God the essence is the same as the person?
Objection 2: Further, simultaneous affirmation and negation of the same things in the same respect cannot be true. But affirmation and negation are true of essence and of person. For person is distinct, whereas essence is not. Therefore person and essence are not the same.

Reply to Objection 2: As essence and person in God differ in our way of thinking, it follows that something can be denied of the one and affirmed of the other; and therefore, when we suppose the one, we need not suppose the other.
 
First, we believe Jesus lives glorified. He is the bridegroom and we are the bride. Furthermore, there are specific brides who encounter the marital relationship more profoundly than others, and we call these women nuns. Here is an enlightening insite from a nun on marriage which if you would examine how this relates to your questions, may bring you closer to Jesus and his marriage.
Love and Life in the Divine Plan Family (2011)
Sister Jane Dominic O.P.
"Openness to the mystery of God to lead us away from selfishness. To allow love to be definitive. What good is our marriage vows if they do not cost us anything? In marriage we give what we don’t even have to give- our future. Marriage is the mystery of the limit. God ( who is love ) teaches us the limit. He embraced the limit of our human nature in His incarnation. limit which had a limit of suffering on the cross to brings with Him into the limitless into the horizon of eternity across the threshold of divine love.
We imitate the way He loves by follow in His footsteps with our wedding vows, “'this one for all my life”. There by in embracing the limit we find entry into the limitless.
Marriage draws us out of ourselves. Those in heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage. This does not mean that your spouse is no longer important to you because it is your spouse who helped you to grow out of that selfish love. Your love was transformed & so in fact you’ll have an even more tender, purified, & deeper love for your spouse. That love will be transformed & taken in most perfectly & completely into Divine Love."
When love seeks to be definitive to the end it embraces the limit. And God himself who is love, he comes to teach us this mystery of loving in the limit. He embraced the limit of our human nature in the incarnation. The limit of suffering on the cross. He was nailed to it died on it. All to bring us with him Into the limitless. Into the horizon of eternity across the threshold of divine love. So we imitate his way of loving we imitate the one who is love … How … By following in his footsteps to embrace the limit into the limitless.
The measure of love is this, the amount of responsibility one takes for the beloved is the measure of love. A husband takes responsibility for his wife, for children; protects & provides. A wife takes responsibility for her husband, her children; nurtures & supports. God takes responsibility for us. He created us. Fell in love with us. Called us to love as he loves. When he turned away he came to suffer & die for us & to redeem us. He continues this work of redemption; this work of love everyday in the Eucharist and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Celebrated from the rise of the sun to it’s setting. He is here right now for us in the Eucharist in all the tabernacles of the world. He will be here for us until the end of time.
Glory be to the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit. As it was in the begging is now & ever shall be world without end. Amen
 
Because it’s quite clear in the text that he called Jesus “My Lord!”

Absolutely it is.

What would it mean for you to accept this, hasantas?

Would it rock your world to understand that God was truly Incarnate?

But if it’s true…then it doesn’t matter how earth-shattering the truth is…you, as a follower of truth, would need to accept it.

Can you show where Jesus corrected Thomas and said, “You should not call me God. I am NOT God”?
You are right but in that way: Thomas did not imply that Jesus was god. If Thomas had done such thing so Jesus would be angry for that and would correct this. Jesus did not do in that way so that means Thomas did not mean that Jesus was God but Thomas was shocked.

Did Jesus tell anything about deity of Himself? There is no such statements from Jesus but somebody try to ascribe this to Jesus. Jesus will be very angry about those people.
 
Incarnation has been Christian belief since the time of Jesus Christ, such as baptism in the Jordan, raising the dead and healing the sick, transfiguration, resurrection, and ascension.

No, the persons do not emerge from relations, the persons are the relations founded in the essence, so do not bring any composition. St. Thomas and the Church teach that God is absolutely simple without any composition. There is never talk of three gods, only one. As stated in the Summa Theologica, Q39, A1: Whether in God the essence is the same as the person?
Objection 2: Further, simultaneous affirmation and negation of the same things in the same respect cannot be true. But affirmation and negation are true of essence and of person. For person is distinct, whereas essence is not. Therefore person and essence are not the same.

Reply to Objection 2: As essence and person in God differ in our way of thinking, it follows that something can be denied of the one and affirmed of the other; and therefore, when we suppose the one, we need not suppose the other.
Religion is for all people but not just for some philosophers!

What that means “As essence and person in God differ in our way of thinking,”?

Jesus was very material and I cannot understand how can that be the our way of thinking If Jesus is God. It is our way of seeing.

If Jesus is God so essence of Jesus must be eternal and also that person of Jesus must be eternal relation founded in essence. Now there are many conflicts. Jesus was on the world and was in the time and space. That conflicts with eternity. If person of Son is eternal in essence so that means there is another etrnal person in essence. The essence should be same and one but persons are to be plural. And if it is the our way of thinking for God to be three so God is three! We can know things in the our way of thinking.

Is it so diffiult to say just God is one but not three?

If you say Jesus was God so Father was God too and also Holy Spirit. Do those seem one to you? Is that not clear enough? Did God send religion for philosphers yet they cannot understand and explain? We should listen to Jesus not philosophers. Jesus said that He was sent by God but not God himself! Jesus did not lie. If we assume that Jesus was God so whay did not Jesus say “I sent me by myself!”? Did Jesus lie? Even if Jesus was God but He said He was sent by another God so that make at least two gods!

Do not say three! It is better for you to say one.

I do not understand the reply 2. sorry I am not philosopher.(The reply is not enough. It is just something philosophical which is not interested in religion.)
 
You are right but in that way: Thomas did not imply that Jesus was god. If Thomas had done such thing so Jesus would be angry for that and would correct this. Jesus did not do in that way so that means Thomas did not mean that Jesus was God but Thomas was shocked.

Did Jesus tell anything about deity of Himself? There is no such statements from Jesus but somebody try to ascribe this to Jesus. Jesus will be very angry about those people.
I got this off the internet - I think it sums up Jesus’s claim to being God pretty well:
equip.org/article/did-jesus-claim-to-be-god/

First, Jesus claimed to be the unique Son of God. As a result, the Jewish leaders tried to kill Him because in “calling God his own Father, [Jesus was] making himself equal with God” (John5:18). In John8:58 Jesus went so far as to use the very words by which God revealed Himself to Moses from the burning bush (Exod.3:14).** To the Jews this was the epitome of blasphemy, for they knew that in doing so Jesus was clearly claiming to be God. On yet another occasion, Jesus explicitly told the Jews: “‘I and the Father are one.’ **Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, ‘I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?’ ‘We are not stoning you for any of these,’ replied the Jews, ‘but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God’” (John10:30–33).

Furthermore, Jesus made an unmistakable claim to deity before the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin. Caiaphas the high priest asked Him: “‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?’ ‘I am,’ said Jesus. ‘And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven’” (Mark14:61–62). A biblically illiterate person might well have missed the import of Jesus’ words. Caiaphas and the council, however, did not. They knew that in saying he was “the Son of Man” who would come “on the clouds of heaven” he was making an overt reference to the Son of Man in Daniel’s prophecy (Dan. 7:13–14). In doing so, He was not only claiming to be the preexistent Sovereign of the universe but prophesying that He would vindicate His claim by judging the very court that was now condemning Him. Moreover, by combining Daniel’s prophecy with David’s proclamation in Psalm 110, Jesus was claiming that He would sit upon the throne of Israel’s God and share God’s very glory. To students of the Old Testament this was the height of “blasphemy,” thus “they all condemned him as worthy of death” (Mark14:64–65).

Finally, Jesus claimed to possess the very attributes of God. For example, He claimed omniscience by telling Peter, “This very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times” (Matt.26:34); declared omnipotence by not only resurrecting Lazarus (John11:43) but by raising Himself from the dead (John2:19); and professed omnipresence by promising that He would be with His disciples “to the very end of the age” (Matt.28:20). Not only so, but Jesus said to the paralytic in Luke5:20, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.” In doing so, He claimed a prerogative reserved for God alone. In addition, when Thomas worshiped Jesus saying “My Lord and my God!” (John20:28), Jesus responded with commendation rather than condemnation.
 
Religion is for all people but not just for some philosophers!

What that means “As essence and person in God differ in our way of thinking,”?

Jesus was very material and I cannot understand how can that be the our way of thinking If Jesus is God. It is our way of seeing.

If Jesus is God so essence of Jesus must be eternal and also that person of Jesus must be eternal relation founded in essence. Now there are many conflicts. Jesus was on the world and was in the time and space. That conflicts with eternity. If person of Son is eternal in essence so that means there is another etrnal person in essence. The essence should be same and one but persons are to be plural. And if it is the our way of thinking for God to be three so God is three! We can know things in the our way of thinking.

Is it so diffiult to say just God is one but not three?

If you say Jesus was God so Father was God too and also Holy Spirit. Do those seem one to you? Is that not clear enough? Did God send religion for philosphers yet they cannot understand and explain? We should listen to Jesus not philosophers. Jesus said that He was sent by God but not God himself! Jesus did not lie. If we assume that Jesus was God so whay did not Jesus say “I sent me by myself!”? Did Jesus lie? Even if Jesus was God but He said He was sent by another God so that make at least two gods!

Do not say three! It is better for you to say one.

I do not understand the reply 2. sorry I am not philosopher.(The reply is not enough. It is just something philosophical which is not interested in religion.)
Christians do say One God, yet three persons.

Read the other part from St. Thomas Aquinas and maybe you will understand it, but then it is a mystery and is not to be understood by mortals. We make attempts, but then when we cannot seem to understand, deny what was revealed to us by God Himself. That is why it is called faith not reason.

I answer that, The truth of this question is quite clear if we consider the divine simplicity. For it was shown above (Question 3, Article 3) that the divine simplicity requires that in God essence is the same as “suppositum,” which in intellectual substances is nothing else than person. But a difficulty seems to arise from the fact that while the divine persons are multiplied, the essence nevertheless retains its unity. And because, as Boethius says (De Trin. i), “relation multiplies the Trinity of persons,” some have thought that in God essence and person differ, forasmuch as they held the relations to be “adjacent”; considering only in the relations the idea of “reference to another,” and not the relations as realities. But as it was shown above (Question 28, Article 2) in creatures relations are accidental, whereas in God they are the divine essence itself. Thence it follows that in God essence is not really distinct from person; and yet that the persons are really distinguished from each other. For person, as above stated (29, 4), signifies relation as subsisting in the divine nature. But relation as referred to the essence does not differ therefrom really, but only in our way of thinking; while as referred to an opposite relation, it has a real distinction by virtue of that opposition. Thus there are one essence and three persons.
 
You are right but in that way: Thomas did not imply that Jesus was god.
Really?

Think about what you are proposing.

Jesus, who said he was going to die and rise on the 3rd day…dies…and then rises…and then appears before Thomas, and Thomas says, “My Lord and my God!”…

and you are saying that Thomas was NOT implying that Jesus was God?

Then what was Thomas doing, after seeing this man crucified, buried and then alive again?
What was he responding to?
 
Christians do say One God, yet three persons.

Read the other part from St. Thomas Aquinas and maybe you will understand it, but then it is a mystery and is not to be understood by mortals. We make attempts, but then when we cannot seem to understand, deny what was revealed to us by God Himself. That is why it is called faith not reason.

I answer that, The truth of this question is quite clear if we consider the divine simplicity. For it was shown above (Question 3, Article 3) that the divine simplicity requires that in God essence is the same as “suppositum,” which in intellectual substances is nothing else than person. But a difficulty seems to arise from the fact that while the divine persons are multiplied, the essence nevertheless retains its unity. And because, as Boethius says (De Trin. i), “relation multiplies the Trinity of persons,” some have thought that in God essence and person differ, forasmuch as they held the relations to be “adjacent”; considering only in the relations the idea of “reference to another,” and not the relations as realities. But as it was shown above (Question 28, Article 2) in creatures relations are accidental, whereas in God they are the divine essence itself. Thence it follows that in God essence is not really distinct from person; and yet that the persons are really distinguished from each other. For person, as above stated (29, 4), signifies relation as subsisting in the divine nature. But relation as referred to the essence does not differ therefrom really, but only in our way of thinking; while as referred to an opposite relation, it has a real distinction by virtue of that opposition. Thus there are one essence and three persons.
What I understand from that: God is one but is three persons. All persons have same essence and divine essence is eternal and has simplicty so do not split. Persons subsist in essence as relations. Divine essence is one but it can have different relations and those are called persons. It seems there is no problem but it is.

Aquinas consider persons to have distinct truth. For instance Son incarnated but Father or Holy Spirit did not. That require persons to distinguish from reality. And that means there should be apart three gods yet the union in essence could not reconcile it.

Persons in Trinity must be process of relations. One of these relations had incarnated! That relation must be taken away from essence. In that situation it cannot stay just a relation!

A question: Do these three persons have divine attributes as apart from each other? If they have then how they can be one? Or if they do not thence how they can be gods?
 
What I understand from that: God is one but is three persons. All persons have same essence and divine essence is eternal and has simplicty so do not split. Persons subsist in essence as relations. Divine essence is one but it can have different relations and those are called persons.
YES!! A very articulate and concise explication of the Trinity.

Kudos to you, hasantas, for articulating this better than some Christians could!
Persons in Trinity must be process of relations. One of these relations had incarnated! That relation must be taken away from essence. In that situation it cannot stay just a relation!
No, hasantas.

Where the Son is, there also is the Father and the Holy Spirit.

In the Incarnation, the Son was STILL part of the Triune Godhead.
 
What I understand from that: God is one but is three persons. All persons have same essence and divine essence is eternal and has simplicty so do not split. Persons subsist in essence as relations. Divine essence is one but it can have different relations and those are called persons. It seems there is no problem but it is.

Aquinas consider persons to have distinct truth. For instance Son incarnated but Father or Holy Spirit did not. That require persons to distinguish from reality. And that means there should be apart three gods yet the union in essence could not reconcile it.

Persons in Trinity must be process of relations. One of these relations had incarnated! That relation must be taken away from essence. In that situation it cannot stay just a relation!

A question: Do these three persons have divine attributes as apart from each other? If they have then how they can be one? Or if they do not thence how they can be gods?
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternal and uncreated. The order is not in time, it is not process. St. Thomas Aquinas elaboraed on the topic, and some notes I made are below.

There are only three personal notions, constituting a person: paternity, filiation, and procession (or passive spiration). (The are two innascibility and common spiration, that are not personal notions.)

He uses the terms common spiration and spiration the same.

R = relation,
P = property,
PN = personal notion (personal property) constituting person

innascibility - P
paternity - R, P, PN
filiation - R, P, PN
common spiration (active) - R
procession (passive spiration) - R, P, PN

Paternity is the Father Himself, and filiation is the Son, and procession is the Holy Ghost. The common spiration is the same as the persons of the Father and of the Son because there is one property in the two persons.

See Summa Theologica I, I, Q40, 1, 1:
Reply to Objection 1. Person and property are really the same, but differ in concept. Consequently, it does not follow that if one is multiplied, the other must also be multiplied. We must, however, consider that in God, by reason of the divine simplicity, a twofold real identity exists as regards what in creatures are distinct. For, since the divine simplicity excludes the composition of matter and form, it follows that in God the abstract is the same as the concrete, as “Godhead” and “God.” And as the divine simplicity excludes the composition of subject and accident, it follows that whatever is attributed to God, is His essence Itself; and so, wisdom and power are the same in God, because they are both in the divine essence. According to this twofold identity, property in God is the same person. For personal properties are the same as the persons because the abstract and the concrete are the same in God; since they are the subsisting persons themselves, as paternity is the Father Himself, and filiation is the Son, and procession is the Holy Ghost. But the non-personal properties are the same as the persons according to the other reason of identity, whereby whatever is attributed to God is His own essence. Thus, common spiration is the same as the person of the Father, and the person of the Son; not that it is one self-subsisting person; but that as there is one essence in the two persons, so also there is one property in the two persons, as above explained (30, 2).
 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternal and uncreated. The order is not in time, it is not process. St. Thomas Aquinas elaboraed on the topic, and some notes I made are below.

There are only three personal notions, constituting a person: paternity, filiation, and procession (or passive spiration). (The are two innascibility and common spiration, that are not personal notions.)

He uses the terms common spiration and spiration the same.

R = relation,
P = property,
PN = personal notion (personal property) constituting person

innascibility - P
paternity - R, P, PN
filiation - R, P, PN
common spiration (active) - R
procession (passive spiration) - R, P, PN

Paternity is the Father Himself, and filiation is the Son, and procession is the Holy Ghost. The common spiration is the same as the persons of the Father and of the Son because there is one property in the two persons.

See Summa Theologica I, I, Q40, 1, 1:
Reply to Objection 1. Person and property are really the same, but differ in concept. Consequently, it does not follow that if one is multiplied, the other must also be multiplied. We must, however, consider that in God, by reason of the divine simplicity, a twofold real identity exists as regards what in creatures are distinct. For, since the divine simplicity excludes the composition of matter and form, it follows that in God the abstract is the same as the concrete, as “Godhead” and “God.” And as the divine simplicity excludes the composition of subject and accident, it follows that whatever is attributed to God, is His essence Itself; and so, wisdom and power are the same in God, because they are both in the divine essence. According to this twofold identity, property in God is the same person. For personal properties are the same as the persons because the abstract and the concrete are the same in God; since they are the subsisting persons themselves, as paternity is the Father Himself, and filiation is the Son, and procession is the Holy Ghost. But the non-personal properties are the same as the persons according to the other reason of identity, whereby whatever is attributed to God is His own essence. Thus, common spiration is the same as the person of the Father, and the person of the Son; not that it is one self-subsisting person; but that as there is one essence in the two persons, so also there is one property in the two persons, as above explained (30, 2).
I understand what St. Thomas Aquinas says. It is good that Aquinas is very certain about God is one. But the conflicts…

Aquinas says God is one in essence but God is three persons in relations. As Aquinas said Father is not Son or Holy Spirit is not Father. Both three persons have divine attributes and eternal. So three persons are not same but apart hypostasis. Considering that three persons are not same and both three are divine and eternal so do not make that three gods? Focus on that!

And how much is it reliable to explain religion by phylosophical doctrines?

And Aquinas profess that the doctrine could not be comprehend actually(mystery!) but just by faith to accept it.

An question: If someone see the conflicts in doctrine so will that lose faith? Is that not because many Christians have a weak faith and doubts which make them to stay away from Church?

There is a very easy way! God is one but not three persons.
 
I understand what St. Thomas Aquinas says. It is good that Aquinas is very certain about God is one. But the conflicts…

Aquinas says God is one in essence but God is three persons in relations. As Aquinas said Father is not Son or Holy Spirit is not Father. Both three persons have divine attributes and eternal. So three persons are not same but apart hypostasis. Considering that three persons are not same and both three are divine and eternal so do not make that three gods? Focus on that!

And how much is it reliable to explain religion by phylosophical doctrines?

And Aquinas profess that the doctrine could not be comprehend actually(mystery!) but just by faith to accept it.

An question: If someone see the conflicts in doctrine so will that lose faith? Is that not because many Christians have a weak faith and doubts which make them to stay away from Church?

There is a very easy way! God is one but not three persons.
Only one god, as stated, and the persons are not independent, there is one divine will and one divine mind. It is very important because this is the Christian faith. There can be and are three persons because the relations of opposition are the essence. Person is essence. There is no composition, which is completely consistent with the Categories of Aristotle, Part 4.

Aristotle, Categories:
Part 4 - Expressions which are in no way composite signify substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action, or affection. To sketch my meaning roughly, examples of substance are ‘man’ or ‘the horse’, of quantity, such terms as ‘two cubits long’ or ‘three cubits long’, of quality, such attributes as ‘white’, ‘grammatical’. ‘Double’, ‘half’, ‘greater’, fall under the category of relation; ‘in a the market place’, ‘in the Lyceum’, under that of place; ‘yesterday’, ‘last year’, under that of time. ‘Lying’, ‘sitting’, are terms indicating position, ‘shod’, ‘armed’, state; ‘to lance’, ‘to cauterize’, action; ‘to be lanced’, ‘to be cauterized’, affection.

No one of these terms, in and by itself, involves an affirmation; it is by the combination of such terms that positive or negative statements arise. For every assertion must, as is admitted, be either true or false, whereas expressions which are not in any way composite such as ‘man’, ‘white’, ‘runs’, ‘wins’, cannot be either true or false.
classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/categories.2.2.html

Summa Theologica Part I, Q40, Art 2:

Reply to Objection 2. The divine persons are not distinguished as regards being, in which they subsist, nor in anything absolute, but only as regards something relative. Hence relation suffices for their distinction.

newadvent.org/summa/1040.htm#article8

There are several dogmas of faith to be believed with regard to this mystery:
The Divine Attributes are really identical among themselves and with the Divine Essence.
All the ad extra Activities of God are common to that Three Persons.
God is absolutely simple.
There is only One God.
In God there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Each of the Three Persons possesses the one (numerical) Divine Essence.
The Relations in God are really identical with the Divine Nature.
The Three Divine Persons are in One Another. - perichoresis That term is from perichoreo of St. Gregory Nazianzen (A.D. 4th c.) and later by Maximus the Confessor (A.D. 7th c).

There is a real distinction without parts. As given before from Aristotle Categories. Persons are not parts. Relation can refer to distinctions that are internal to a substance. Distinction does not have to differ from what is common. It arises from relation which is a real difference:
When something proceeds from a principle of the same nature then both the one proceeding and the source of procession agree in the same order; and then they have real relations to each other…these relations, according to the divine processions, are necessarily real relations.
– Summa Theologica, I, q.28, a.1
  • Relation does not really differ from essence. The persons are founded in essence.
  • Relation does not really differ from essence.
  • Relation has a real distinction by virtue of opposition.
  • Thus there are one essence and three persons.
 
Only one god, as stated, and the persons are not independent, there is one divine will and one divine mind. It is very important because this is the Christian faith. There can be and are three persons because the relations of opposition are the essence. Person is essence. There is no composition, which is completely consistent with the Categories of Aristotle, Part 4.

Aristotle, Categories:
Part 4 - Expressions which are in no way composite signify substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action, or affection. To sketch my meaning roughly, examples of substance are ‘man’ or ‘the horse’, of quantity, such terms as ‘two cubits long’ or ‘three cubits long’, of quality, such attributes as ‘white’, ‘grammatical’. ‘Double’, ‘half’, ‘greater’, fall under the category of relation; ‘in a the market place’, ‘in the Lyceum’, under that of place; ‘yesterday’, ‘last year’, under that of time. ‘Lying’, ‘sitting’, are terms indicating position, ‘shod’, ‘armed’, state; ‘to lance’, ‘to cauterize’, action; ‘to be lanced’, ‘to be cauterized’, affection.

No one of these terms, in and by itself, involves an affirmation; it is by the combination of such terms that positive or negative statements arise. For every assertion must, as is admitted, be either true or false, whereas expressions which are not in any way composite such as ‘man’, ‘white’, ‘runs’, ‘wins’, cannot be either true or false.
classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/categories.2.2.html

Summa Theologica Part I, Q40, Art 2:

Reply to Objection 2. The divine persons are not distinguished as regards being, in which they subsist, nor in anything absolute, but only as regards something relative. Hence relation suffices for their distinction.

newadvent.org/summa/1040.htm#article8

There are several dogmas of faith to be believed with regard to this mystery:
The Divine Attributes are really identical among themselves and with the Divine Essence.
All the ad extra Activities of God are common to that Three Persons.
God is absolutely simple.
There is only One God.
In God there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Each of the Three Persons possesses the one (numerical) Divine Essence.
The Relations in God are really identical with the Divine Nature.
The Three Divine Persons are in One Another. - perichoresis That term is from perichoreo of St. Gregory Nazianzen (A.D. 4th c.) and later by Maximus the Confessor (A.D. 7th c).

There is a real distinction without parts. As given before from Aristotle Categories. Persons are not parts. Relation can refer to distinctions that are internal to a substance. Distinction does not have to differ from what is common. It arises from relation which is a real difference:
When something proceeds from a principle of the same nature then both the one proceeding and the source of procession agree in the same order; and then they have real relations to each other…these relations, according to the divine processions, are necessarily real relations.
– Summa Theologica, I, q.28, a.1
  • Relation does not really differ from essence. The persons are founded in essence.
  • Relation does not really differ from essence.
  • Relation has a real distinction by virtue of opposition.
  • Thus there are one essence and three persons.
Three persons is(are) in one simplicity essence so they do not differ. Also they do not have external subsistence but co-exist in eternal essence. They are not independent but one divine will and one divine mind. Relations of opposition are in/from one simplicity essence so there is no distinct three subsistences but relations may differ so persons are not same. etc., etc…

Out of those phylosophical terms do you relaize that we always talk about “three” persons? It is not importand how they consistend with each other but there are three persons!

Could you elaborate that issue?
 
Three persons is(are) in one simplicity essence so they do not differ. Also they do not have external subsistence but co-exist in eternal essence. They are not independent but one divine will and one divine mind. Relations of opposition are in/from one simplicity essence so there is no distinct three subsistences but relations may differ so persons are not same. etc., etc…

Out of those phylosophical terms do you relaize that we always talk about “three” persons? It is not importand how they consistend with each other but there are three persons!

Could you elaborate that issue?
The first revelation of the Trinity, in the New Testament, is the supernatural appearance to Jesus Christ and John the Baptist, at the baptism of Christ. The appearance was of the Mystic Dove, and hearing the words attesting the Divine sonship of the Messias. The final is culminates in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:20: “go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”.

St. Epiphanius of Salamis (310-403 A.D), said: “The One Godhead is above all declared by Moses, and the twofold personality (of Father and Son) is strenuously asserted by the Prophets. The Trinity is made known by the Gospel” (“Haer.”, lxxiv).
 
The first revelation of the Trinity, in the New Testament, is the supernatural appearance to Jesus Christ and John the Baptist, at the baptism of Christ. The appearance was of the Mystic Dove, and hearing the words attesting the Divine sonship of the Messias. The final is culminates in the baptismal commission of Matthew 28:20: “go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”.

St. Epiphanius of Salamis (310-403 A.D), said: “The One Godhead is above all declared by Moses, and the twofold personality (of Father and Son) is strenuously asserted by the Prophets. The Trinity is made known by the Gospel” (“Haer.”, lxxiv).
Baptism is the demonstration of adhesion for Christianity and Jesus. Baptism is not requirement of faith. Holy Spirit was supporter of Jesus very much. Holy Spirit was part of revelation of Jesus. Holy Spirit can transform and get any form so it might got form of a dove. Once Holy Spirit came to Muhammad in form of a Sahaba. That means Holy Ghost can take form of a human or anything else.

So when Jesus said (" go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". Matthew 28:19 ) He did not mean Son and Holy Spirit is same as Father(God). When a human wanted to accept faith he was used to that through prophet. Because god is not direct seen.

About Baptism! Prophet Muhammad was/is successor of all prophets. So Muhammad carried on Baptism but in different way and that is wudhu(ablution). Muslims take ablution before prayer and Muslims do that to get cleaned moraly.

And for Trinity in scriptures! Let’s assume some one who had never heard about doctrine of Church. Let him to read all scriptures. Will he say God is one or three?

And which prophet talked about trinity?
 
Baptism is the demonstration of adhesion for Christianity and Jesus. Baptism is not requirement of faith. Holy Spirit was supporter of Jesus very much. Holy Spirit was part of revelation of Jesus. Holy Spirit can transform and get any form so it might got form of a dove. Once Holy Spirit came to Muhammad in form of a Sahaba. That means Holy Ghost can take form of a human or anything else.

So when Jesus said (" go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". Matthew 28:19 ) He did not mean Son and Holy Spirit is same as Father(God). When a human wanted to accept faith he was used to that through prophet. Because god is not direct seen.

About Baptism! Prophet Muhammad was/is successor of all prophets. So Muhammad carried on Baptism but in different way and that is wudhu(ablution). Muslims take ablution before prayer and Muslims do that to get cleaned moraly.

And for Trinity in scriptures! Let’s assume some one who had never heard about doctrine of Church. Let him to read all scriptures. Will he say God is one or three?

And which prophet talked about trinity?
Baptism is a requirement for salvation, but God gives everyone actual grace first so that it will lead to salvation.

I understand that Islam rejects the teaching of Christianity. Catholics believe that Islam has some elements of truth, but that the Catholic Church teaches the full and correct faith, the mystery as revealed by Jesus Christ, which was not know until then.
 
Baptism is a requirement for salvation, but God gives everyone actual grace first so that it will lead to salvation.

I understand that Islam rejects the teaching of Christianity. Catholics believe that Islam has some elements of truth, but that the Catholic Church teaches the full and correct faith, the mystery as revealed by Jesus Christ, which was not know until then.
Salam!
 
Baptism is the demonstration of adhesion for Christianity and Jesus. Baptism is not requirement of faith.
That is not what our Scriptures say, hasantas.

Our Scriptures say that “Baptism now saves you” (1 Peter 3:21). That means, baptism is required for one’s salvation.
 
And for Trinity in scriptures! Let’s assume some one who had never heard about doctrine of Church. Let him to read all scriptures. Will he say God is one or three?
Perhaps you have mistakenly believed that you are on a forum for Bible Alone Christians.

You are actually on a forum, in dialogue with mostly Catholics.

As such, Catholicism does not profess that our doctrines come from a book, no matter how holy.

Rather, our doctrines come from the Word of God, Jesus Christ, who proclaimed the Good News to the world, established a Church, and it is the Church, His Body, which professes the Trinity.
And which prophet talked about trinity?
All of Jesus’ apostles professed the Trinity.
 


And which prophet talked about trinity?
1 John 5:7-8
And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.

John 4
25 The woman saith to him: I know that the Messias cometh (who is called Christ); therefore, when he is come, he will tell us all things.
26 Jesus saith to her: I am he, who am speaking with thee.
John 10
30 I and the Father are one.
John 14
8 Philip saith to him: Lord, shew us the Father, and it is enough for us.
9 Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, shew us the Father?
John 15 (Jesus Christ speaks)
26 But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.
John 17 (Jesus Christ speaks)
5 And now glorify thou me, O Father, with thyself, with the glory which I had, before the world was, with thee.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top