A
afthomercy
Guest
You mean “being” applies also to non-living objects like air, water, earth, etc.?
- Status
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Yes, all things, living and non living. But is some things we might want to know if we are dealing with a single being or with a collection of things. I’m ready to discuss the problem of substance some time this morning but I have other things to do first. I found what you asked for but it needs some commentary and I’m not awake enough right now for that.
Pax
Linus2nd
L
levinas12
Guest
The problem is that there is only one Divine substance but three Persons.
This means that “person” is not equal to “substance”. “Person” is an ontological excellence beyond “substance” (but “person” cannot be there without “substance”).
This is true of both human beings, angelic beings and God.
Because “person” does not equal “substance”, “person” is outside the traditional Aristotelian categories.
Jesus is interesting because He is one “Person” (the Second Person of the Trinity) and two “substances” - a human substance (human body + human soul) and a Divine Substance (Godhead).
I’m still looking for the precise quote from Thomas that Jesus is only one substance (i.e., the Divine Substance).
Of course, when we talk about the Divine Substance, we are using “analogy” - the Divine Substance is very different from all other substances (because, in the Divine Substance, the essence = the esse).
This means that “person” is not equal to “substance”. “Person” is an ontological excellence beyond “substance” (but “person” cannot be there without “substance”).
This is true of both human beings, angelic beings and God.
Because “person” does not equal “substance”, “person” is outside the traditional Aristotelian categories.
Jesus is interesting because He is one “Person” (the Second Person of the Trinity) and two “substances” - a human substance (human body + human soul) and a Divine Substance (Godhead).
I’m still looking for the precise quote from Thomas that Jesus is only one substance (i.e., the Divine Substance).
Of course, when we talk about the Divine Substance, we are using “analogy” - the Divine Substance is very different from all other substances (because, in the Divine Substance, the essence = the esse).
A
Aner
Guest
The problem is that there is only one Divine substance but three Persons.
This means that “person” is not equal to “substance”. “Person” is an ontological excellence beyond “substance” (but “person” cannot be there without “substance”).
Nice!
Can you clarify relationshp between “Substance” and “Nature”. I always understood the vatican and her children (evangelicals) to teach that “God” is 3 Persons and 1 Nature.
This is true of both human beings, angelic beings and God.
Because “person” does not equal “substance”, “person” is outside the traditional Aristotelian categories.
Jesus is interesting because He is one “Person” (the Second Person of the Trinity) and two “substances” - a human substance (human body + human soul) and a Divine Substance (Godhead).
It appears that you are able to use Substance interchangeably with Nature IN THIS CONTEXT at least (I understand from Linus that Substance is more than Nature - but contains Nature - and is sometimes synonymous in certain contexts.
I’m still looking for the precise quote from Thomas that Jesus is only one substance (i.e., the Divine Substance).
Monophysitism
Of course, when we talk about the Divine Substance, we are using “analogy” - the Divine Substance is very different from all other substances (because, in the Divine Substance, the essence = the esse).
Can I correctly say that “Substance” = “Essence”?
L
levinas12
Guest
Aner, can you tell me how to quote you - your reply is in blue and when I try to quote you nothing comes up
L
levinas12
Guest
Aner, I’ll try to reply as best I can.
“Nature” is equivalent to “form” - “nature” comes from the Latin word for “to be born” - so “nature” (or “form”) is what we are born with (and I can argue that “nature” or “form” is actually there from conception - but that’s for another OP).
In Aristotle, a substance is the union of a “form” and “matter”. “Matter” is what individuates the “form”.
“Soul” is the form of a living entity. And “human soul” is the “form” of a human being. In Aristotle, the “human form” is what makes possible everything that a human being does, from metabolism to rational thought.
We humans all have the same “form” - remember it’s the “matter” that what individuates us )not the “form”). Given that we have the same “form”, “form” cannot be equivalent to “person” - because the “form” is shareable but 'each person is unique (the technical philosophical word for this is “incommunicable” - i.e.,“unshareable”).
Sometime in the Christian era, “soul” became another term for “person” - as in the “salvation of souls”. This has complicated and confused the philosophical discussion.
It’s best to stay with Aristotle’s notion of “soul”.
“Substance” is what an entity is (“substance” is a what, not a “who”). In Aristotle, the primary substance is what an individual entity is, e.g., this tree, or that human being, etc) .
There has to be a distinction between primary substance and “person” because the Godhead is 1 Primary Substance but 3 Persons.
I’ll have to clarify “essence” a bit later.
“Nature” is equivalent to “form” - “nature” comes from the Latin word for “to be born” - so “nature” (or “form”) is what we are born with (and I can argue that “nature” or “form” is actually there from conception - but that’s for another OP).
In Aristotle, a substance is the union of a “form” and “matter”. “Matter” is what individuates the “form”.
“Soul” is the form of a living entity. And “human soul” is the “form” of a human being. In Aristotle, the “human form” is what makes possible everything that a human being does, from metabolism to rational thought.
We humans all have the same “form” - remember it’s the “matter” that what individuates us )not the “form”). Given that we have the same “form”, “form” cannot be equivalent to “person” - because the “form” is shareable but 'each person is unique (the technical philosophical word for this is “incommunicable” - i.e.,“unshareable”).
Sometime in the Christian era, “soul” became another term for “person” - as in the “salvation of souls”. This has complicated and confused the philosophical discussion.
It’s best to stay with Aristotle’s notion of “soul”.
“Substance” is what an entity is (“substance” is a what, not a “who”). In Aristotle, the primary substance is what an individual entity is, e.g., this tree, or that human being, etc) .
There has to be a distinction between primary substance and “person” because the Godhead is 1 Primary Substance but 3 Persons.
I’ll have to clarify “essence” a bit later.
A
Aner
Guest
Lev
Thanks - lots of interesting pieces here.
Best,
Aner
Thanks - lots of interesting pieces here.
Best,
Aner
Aner, I’ll try to reply as best I can.
“Nature” is equivalent to “form” - “nature” comes from the Latin word for “to be born” - so “nature” (or “form”) is what we are born with (and I can argue that “nature” or “form” is actually there from conception - but that’s for another OP).
Nature = Form.
In Aristotle, a substance is the union of a “form” and “matter”. “Matter” is what individuates the “form”.
Based on this, since Form is differentiated from Matter, I understand that Form is NOT Matter, not Substance. Therefore it must be a functionality or an idea - I suppose the former.
Can you please confirm
BTW - This would make Nature to be NON-Substantial which is distinct from what I have told so far primarily by Linus…
BTW2 - I find it intuitively odd that Matter would individuate rather than Form. Form must be a most general set of potential functions for a species/genus or whatever.
“Soul” is the form of a living entity. And “human soul” is the “form” of a human being. In Aristotle, the “human form” is what makes possible everything that a human being does, from metabolism to rational thought.
Hmmm… looks like I better get your above answer first. This seems to indicate that Soul is also without substance since it is NOT Matter.
To clarify - Human Body = Matter.
What is a Living Entity? Is that equivalent to Linus’ Person?
We humans all have the same “form” - remember it’s the “matter” that what individuates us )not the “form”). Given that we have the same “form”, “form” cannot be equivalent to “person” - because the “form” is shareable but 'each person is unique (the technical philosophical word for this is “incommunicable” - i.e.,“unshareable”).
Sometime in the Christian era, “soul” became another term for “person” - as in the “salvation of souls”. This has complicated and confused the philosophical discussion.
It’s best to stay with Aristotle’s notion of “soul”.
“Substance” is what an entity is (“substance” is a what, not a “who”). In Aristotle, the primary substance is what an individual entity is, e.g., this tree, or that human being, etc) .
There has to be a distinction between primary substance and “person” because the Godhead is 1 Primary Substance but 3 Persons.
I’ll have to clarify “essence” a bit later.
A
Aner
Guest
Just a side thought to all the Gents in this discussion - doesn’t this seem so incredibly complex and obscure - such that not even you can agree on basic definitions?
As a disciple of Jesus Christ - I sort of marvel at where your system has taken you. After 35+ years of walking in Christ, I find Him to be so simple in so many ways.
Jesus is genuine Man - just like you and me. ITim2:5. End of story?
Why, in God’s name, do you go through all this self-torture? Is this really the call of God? Is this really something that the disciples are supposed to torture themselves with just to know who Jesus is???
OK - these are my thoughts at the moment. My point is - something seems very wrong… esp. when I compare to the simplicity of the pure Word of God contained in the Bible.
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Aner
As a disciple of Jesus Christ - I sort of marvel at where your system has taken you. After 35+ years of walking in Christ, I find Him to be so simple in so many ways.
Jesus is genuine Man - just like you and me. ITim2:5. End of story?
Why, in God’s name, do you go through all this self-torture? Is this really the call of God? Is this really something that the disciples are supposed to torture themselves with just to know who Jesus is???
OK - these are my thoughts at the moment. My point is - something seems very wrong… esp. when I compare to the simplicity of the pure Word of God contained in the Bible.
Sincerely,
In Christ,
Aner
A
afthomercy
Guest
Nice thought Aner, but doctrine is necessary, otherwise you will have as many notions of who Jesus is as there are believers!
A
afthomercy
Guest
Take an iron bar, made up of the element iron. Is is a being? Cut it into 5-pieces. Now do you have 5-beings? Cut each of those 5-pieces into 5-each. Now is it 25 beings? I could go on an on, drilling down to atoms, protons, neutrons and whatever comes below those…
Or take me. I meet with a road accident (God forbid) and my fingers get severed from one hand. So are me and my five severed fingers 6-beings? At the hospital, doctors manage to reattach them to my hand. So do we go back to being 1-being?
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
It is precisely because people insist on misinterpreting Divine Revelation. The Church is tasked to guarantee the purity of Divine Revelation gets passed on. Many of the Chruch’s Dogmas and Doctrines came about because people were corrupting the Word of God.
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
I doubt if you could drill down to atoms. Then we would be into the periodic table and each atom is a being as well. Beyond that it is difficult to tell what is an individual, so such cases would always be open to dispute. But yes, everything that exists is a being, this is one of the foundational principles of both Aristotle and Thomas.
Or take me. I meet with a road accident (God forbid) and my fingers get severed from one hand. So are me and my five severed fingers 6-beings? At the hospital, doctors manage to reattach them to my hand. So do we go back to being 1-being?
Well, as long as they are separated from you they are individual beings. When they become reattached they are part of your being.
Linus2nd
L
levinas12
Guest
This got a bit garbled:
… remember it’s the matter that individuates us, not the “form”
L
levinas12
Guest
Good point but there’s a lot of agreement notwithstanding.
“Person” is a hot topic in contemporary philosophy.
Thomas Aquinas is a good pivot for this discussion. But, to do Thomas, we have to go back to Aristotle.
And Aristotle did not have the notion of “person”. This is not true of Thomas.
But where Aristotle ends and Thomas begins is a major issue.
All of this metaphysics is important because theology is expressed in metaphysical concepts.
But, I agree, most believers get along quite well without metaphysics.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
AFT, Levinas, John Martin, Aner, etc. Part 1
It still seems certain to me that Jesus Christ is one substance. Though I admit it is difficult to find the proof in S.T., part 3, ques 2, art 2-3, should be read carefully and thoughtfully.
Ques 2, ans 2, Reply: " I answer that, Person has a different meaning from “nature.” For nature, as has been said (1), designates the specific essence which is signified by the definition. And if nothing was found to be added to what belongs to the notion of the species, there would be no need to distinguish the nature from the suppositum of the nature ( which is the individual subsisting in this nature ), because every individual
( notice that a ’ suppositum ’ is an individual subsisting [existing ] in this nature )
subsisting in a nature would be altogether one with its nature. Now in certain subsisting things we happen to find what does not belong to the notion of the species, viz. accidents and individuating principles, which appears chiefly in such as are composed of matter and form. Hence in such as these the nature and the suppositum really differ; not indeed as if they were wholly separate, but because the suppositum includes the nature, and in addition certain other things outside the notion of the species. Hence the suppositum is taken to be a whole which has the nature as its formal part to perfect it; and consequently in such as are composed of matter and form the nature is not predicated of the suppositum, for we do not say that this man is his manhood.
But if there is a thing in which there is nothing outside the species or its nature (as in God), the suppositum and the nature are not really distinct in it, but only in our way of thinking, inasmuch it is called “nature” as it is an essence, and a “suppositum” as it is subsisting. And what is said of a suppositum is to be applied to a person in rational or intellectual creatures; for a person is nothing else than “an individual substance of rational nature,” according to Boethius.
( thus " person " = an individual substance of a rational nature. Jesus Christ is a person which is an individual substance of a rational nature. And since there is only one person in Jesus Christ, the Divine Second Person, there can only be one individual substance )
( also notice that " substance " is the noun form of the present active participle, " subsisting, " a term used througout this article. And a subsisting thing is an existing thing. How could there be more than one existing or subsisting thing in Jesus Christ, especially since we know that in Jesus Christ there is only one Person, one hypostasis, one suppositum? )
Therefore, whatever adheres to a person is united to it in person, whether it belongs to its nature or not. Hence, if the human nature is not united to God the Word in person, it is nowise united to Him; and thus belief in Incarnation is altogether done away with, and Christian faith wholly overturned. Therefore, inasmuch as the Word has a human nature united to Him, which does not belong to His Divine Nature, it follows that the union took place in the Person of the Word, and not in the nature.
Underlining and parantheses are mine.
to be continued
Linus2nd
It still seems certain to me that Jesus Christ is one substance. Though I admit it is difficult to find the proof in S.T., part 3, ques 2, art 2-3, should be read carefully and thoughtfully.
Ques 2, ans 2, Reply: " I answer that, Person has a different meaning from “nature.” For nature, as has been said (1), designates the specific essence which is signified by the definition. And if nothing was found to be added to what belongs to the notion of the species, there would be no need to distinguish the nature from the suppositum of the nature ( which is the individual subsisting in this nature ), because every individual
( notice that a ’ suppositum ’ is an individual subsisting [existing ] in this nature )
subsisting in a nature would be altogether one with its nature. Now in certain subsisting things we happen to find what does not belong to the notion of the species, viz. accidents and individuating principles, which appears chiefly in such as are composed of matter and form. Hence in such as these the nature and the suppositum really differ; not indeed as if they were wholly separate, but because the suppositum includes the nature, and in addition certain other things outside the notion of the species. Hence the suppositum is taken to be a whole which has the nature as its formal part to perfect it; and consequently in such as are composed of matter and form the nature is not predicated of the suppositum, for we do not say that this man is his manhood.
But if there is a thing in which there is nothing outside the species or its nature (as in God), the suppositum and the nature are not really distinct in it, but only in our way of thinking, inasmuch it is called “nature” as it is an essence, and a “suppositum” as it is subsisting. And what is said of a suppositum is to be applied to a person in rational or intellectual creatures; for a person is nothing else than “an individual substance of rational nature,” according to Boethius.
( thus " person " = an individual substance of a rational nature. Jesus Christ is a person which is an individual substance of a rational nature. And since there is only one person in Jesus Christ, the Divine Second Person, there can only be one individual substance )
( also notice that " substance " is the noun form of the present active participle, " subsisting, " a term used througout this article. And a subsisting thing is an existing thing. How could there be more than one existing or subsisting thing in Jesus Christ, especially since we know that in Jesus Christ there is only one Person, one hypostasis, one suppositum? )
Therefore, whatever adheres to a person is united to it in person, whether it belongs to its nature or not. Hence, if the human nature is not united to God the Word in person, it is nowise united to Him; and thus belief in Incarnation is altogether done away with, and Christian faith wholly overturned. Therefore, inasmuch as the Word has a human nature united to Him, which does not belong to His Divine Nature, it follows that the union took place in the Person of the Word, and not in the nature.
Underlining and parantheses are mine.
to be continued
Linus2nd
L
levinas12
Guest
This entire discussion is Boethius’ fault.
It’s always nice to blame someone other than oneself.
I realize now that I concentrated so much on Aristotle so as to leave out Thomas’ crucial distinction between essence and existence.
I couldn’t find “person” in the “essence” (whether “essence” = form + matter or essence = only form).
Well, maybe “person” is in the “esse”. The problem is that God has only 1 esse, not 3.
But, Linusthe2nd, your remark about “subsistence” is clarifying. Especially if we can distinguish “subsistence” from “esse”.
By the way, Ratzinger in his essay on “person” stresses the notion of “subsisting relations” as a way of viewing the “distinctions” which the Divine Persons introduce into the unity of the God’s primary substance.
A
Aner
Guest
AFT, Linus
Thanks for the thoughts on my angst.
Please note - my real thought was not to avoid doctrine - my real thought was that there are entirely too many added words - simply man-made constructs - as opposed to the simple texts from the Word of God. There is so much confusion being manifested with each of you having different interpretations and continuing to bring forth new terms - and either not understanding or not agreeing to the interpretation.
Perhaps that is my real issue - Why isn’t the Word of God sufficient to describe God - isn’t the Word a manifestation of God Himself?
Best,
Aner
A
afthomercy
Guest
All the iron in the world and indeed in the entire universe is one mass of iron separated by spaces. Similarly, in the above example, the severed fingers are separate from me by virtue of space. So is mere separation by space the criterion for recognising multiplicity of beings?
The point is important, because if separation by space is the criterion, then inside an atom, the proton and neutron and other components are separated by space and hence must qualify as individual beings.
A
afthomercy
Guest
Aner,
You agree that doctrine is necessary, yet expect the Bible to be self-explanatory. If it were meant to be, why would Jesus have said that after Him comes the Holy Spirit who would lead us into the truth? Is that Holy Spirit supposed to be in action only till the Bible was being written and then become silent?
A
Aner
Guest
AFT
Great question!! Spirit will speak as necessary; however, the basic truth about what Jesus is is so basic we do not need to do anything more than simply read the text EXCEPT that we have been so mis-led by ignorant pagans that crept into the church in the early centuries exactly as was prophesied (Jude, IIP2).
Interestingly, it was the Holy Spirit that clarified to me the exegesis of many basic passages including such simple texts as Jn10:30 to break the chains of darkness and establish that Jesus was a genuine man (1Tim2:5) created by God (Heb2:11, 12). We need the Holy Spirit to clarify scripture or other life issues when we need it. Once we have this clarified, we are good.
Admittedly, I am totally lost why a disciple of Jesus would look to a non-Christian, non-Spirit filled pagan like Aristotle. Scripture NEVER calls us to look to the world - in fact this is condemned as the “wisdom of men’s words” - but we are called to look to the Creator in Christ by the Spirit. Yet based on what I have been informed of here, Aristotle seems far more important than the simple, clear Word of God.
I have no need to ask any more questions about Jesus - Paul answered them in ITim2:5, Heb2:11, 12, Peter in Acts 2, Jesus in Jn8:40, etc.
What is the point of going further than what is clearly and unequivocally stated???
Sincerely,
In Jesus Christ,
Greg Logan
PS I am very dependent on the HS leading and directing me into the truth of what I need to be doing with my life. Do you look to the HS of God for the truth of the direction of your life as well??
- Status