Person vs Nature (contd.)

[afthomercy]

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??

Dear Greg,
We rely on these words of Jesus “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Mt 16:18). This gives us the confidence that the Catholic Church is protected from serious doctrinal error.

The Canon of Scripture (which we both hold in the highest esteem) was frozen in the same early centuries when you say that mis-led pagans were infesting the church. So how can you be sure that the scourge hasn’t affected the choice of books that went into it?

Scripture also tell us to discern between spirits, since not all spirits are good. Hope you have this discernment when you rely on direct inspiration for interpreting scripture.

As regards your query whether I look to the HS of God for the truth of the direction of my life, I must confess that I don’t do so directly. I kind of tend to take my daily life decisions in accordance with the values with which I have been brought up, and most of these values have come from the Church, to which my upbringing has always had close connection. That said, I’m trying to deepen my relationship with God on a person to person basis, by spending more time in front of the Blessed Sacrament and simultaneously trying to build a deeper relationship with Mother Mary through recitation of the Rosary.

Best,
AFT
PS: How’s the popped blood vessel on your finger healing? Will pray for you.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

When people start talking about the category of relations my eyes glaze over, it requires all of my attention to follow the discussion.

You will find a good discussion of person in this same section of S.T. we have been dealing with, especially ques. 2.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

I think my explanation was sufficient, I’ll leave it up to the scientists to determine the state of separate existence of subatomic particles.

Remember that the word " being " has several forms. Being = an individually existing thing; Being= the act of existing; Being = to be, and others I suppose. A being is equivalent to this or that actually existing thing.

I don’t think individual beings or things have to be separated by space necessarially, I can pile several different kinds of things on top of each other, I can mix several different kinds of liquids or gasses together and they would retain their identity as individually existing beings. In these examples I think we would say these beings are touching or are contiguous.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Aner]

Dear Greg,
We rely on these words of Jesus “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Mt 16:18). This gives us the confidence that the Catholic Church is protected from serious doctrinal error.

The Canon of Scripture (which we both hold in the highest esteem) was frozen in the same early centuries when you say that mis-led pagans were infesting the church. So how can you be sure that the scourge hasn’t affected the choice of books that went into it?

Scripture also tell us to discern between spirits, since not all spirits are good. Hope you have this discernment when you rely on direct inspiration for interpreting scripture.

As regards your query whether I look to the HS of God for the truth of the direction of my life, I must confess that I don’t do so directly. I kind of tend to take my daily life decisions in accordance with the values with which I have been brought up, and most of these values have come from the Church, to which my upbringing has always had close connection. That said, I’m trying to deepen my relationship with God on a person to person basis, by spending more time in front of the Blessed Sacrament and simultaneously trying to build a deeper relationship with Mother Mary through recitation of the Rosary.

Best,
AFT
PS: How’s the popped blood vessel on your finger healing? Will pray for you.

AFT

Thanks for asking re: finger. Sadly, it is is still pretty ugly. I am probably typing way more than I should. I appreciate the prayer - and the love. I could tell that you had a gentle, kindly spirit some time ago - a good challenge for me.

I understand your perspective re: the church guarding doctrine.

My question then - why invoke Aristotle for Christ’s House?

BTW - the “gates of hell” - many people interpret that as Satan will not break INTO the church (right?) - however, that is not the intent of the passage. The passage does not say the “gates of heaven” - but the “gates of hell”. The meaning is that the church is going to break down and into Satan’s kingdom. So there is no sense of the church being protected from Satan here - there is a sense that Satan will NOT be protected from the church of Jesus Christ (AMEN!!). I trust that this has to do with the rescue of poor wayward souls such as yours truly.

Best,

Aner

 

[Aner]

Gentlemen

We have so many words now entered into the conversation - which originally was focused on just two words - Nature and Person.

While I am intrigued by these different words, I think I would like to return to the focus of the OP. Here it is here -

When we say that the Second Person holds two natures, viz. one divine and one human, we are making a distinction between the person and his nature. Again, when we say that the 3-divine persons hold one undivided nature, we are making the same distinction. So the question is, what distinguishes the person from his nature, or, what is there in the “person” that is not there in the “nature” and vice versa?

I would like to consider answsering the question this way -

By Jesus NOT being or having a human person, in what way is He different than you and I as genuine men?

From what I have understood from our interactioln, we do know that His (the “His” is the divine Person as I understand - the real consciousness Jesus) human nature that was assumed could NOT function independently of the divine Person; in contrast, you and I, as genuine men, CAN function independent of a divine Person. IMHO, this alone is a fatal defect of the HP and renders it fundamentally unsound for church of Jesus Christ since it makes the manness of Jesus not only something other, but something decidelly less than our manness.

Aner

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Gentlemen

We have so many words now entered into the conversation - which originally was focused on just two words - Nature and Person.

While I am intrigued by these different words, I think I would like to return to the focus of the OP. Here it is here -

When we say that the Second Person holds two natures, viz. one divine and one human, we are making a distinction between the person and his nature. Again, when we say that the 3-divine persons hold one undivided nature, we are making the same distinction. So the question is, what distinguishes the person from his nature, or, what is there in the “person” that is not there in the “nature” and vice versa?

I would like to consider answsering the question this way -

By Jesus NOT being or having a human person, in what way is He different than you and I as genuine men?

From what I have understood from our interactioln, we do know that His (the “His” is the divine Person as I understand - the real consciousness Jesus) human nature that was assumed could NOT function independently of the divine Person; in contrast, you and I, as genuine men, CAN function independent of a divine Person. IMHO, this alone is a fatal defect of the HP and renders it fundamentally unsound for church of Jesus Christ since it makes the manness of Jesus not only something other, but something decidelly less than our manness.

Aner

No it makes his humanity more perfect. Thomas covers this in the references I have given above.

Linus2nd

 

[Aner]

No it makes his humanity more perfect. Thomas covers this in the references I have given above.

Linus2nd

Linus

The issue is not the quality - better or worse - the issue is whether Jesus is a genuine man - just like you and I - created by God - as scripture repeatedly and specifically declares. Scripture does not say anything re: “humanity”, Scripture specifically and repeatedly says “MAN”. That is a HUGE difference - perhaps an eternal difference.

Again, the manness of Jesus cannot function independently like you and I - as genuine men - do. Therefore, He is NOT a man - but some tertium quid of some sort all dependent on whose definitions that you are working with (Aristotle, Thomas, Linus, David, Lev, etc.).

Sincerely,

Aner

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus

The issue is not the quality - better or worse - the issue is whether Jesus is a genuine man - just like you and I - created by God - as scripture repeatedly and specifically declares. Scripture does not say anything re: “humanity”, Scripture specifically and repeatedly says “MAN”. That is a HUGE difference - perhaps an eternal difference.

Again, the manness of Jesus cannot function independently like you and I - as genuine men - do. Therefore, He is NOT a man - but some tertium quid of some sort all dependent on whose definitions that you are working with (Aristotle, Thomas, Linus, David, Lev, etc.).

Sincerely,

Aner

Look, what do you see in the scriptures? You see a man doing the things man does and the things only God can do. He is a man who is the Son of God, If you can understand that don’t worry about the rest. That is what the Apostles, disciples, and the early Christians did until recurring heresies forced the Church to hold the first Council and start defining the Articles of Faith in careful, philosophical terms, based on the common, traditional understanding of the Faith.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Aner]

Look, what do you see in the scriptures? You see a man doing the things man does and the things only God can do. He is a man who is the Son of God, If you can understand that don’t worry about the rest. That is what the Apostles, disciples, and the early Christians did until recurring heresies forced the Church to hold the first Council and start defining the Articles of Faith in careful, philosophical terms, based on the common, traditional understanding of the Faith.

Pax
Linus2nd

Linus - The issue is that they stripped Jesus of being a genuine man. He is fundamentally NOT us per the HU theory. You and I both know this.

Aner

 

[Aner]

Look, what do you see in the scriptures? You see a man doing the things man does and the things only God can do. He is a man who is the Son of God, If you can understand that don’t worry about the rest. That is what the Apostles, disciples, and the early Christians did until recurring heresies forced the Church to hold the first Council and start defining the Articles of Faith in careful, philosophical terms, based on the common, traditional understanding of the Faith.

Pax
Linus2nd

Linus - The issue is that they stripped Jesus of being a genuine man. He is fundamentally NOT us per the HU theory. You and I both know this.

Aner

 

[afthomercy]

AFT

Thanks for asking re: finger. Sadly, it is is still pretty ugly. I am probably typing way more than I should. I appreciate the prayer - and the love. I could tell that you had a gentle, kindly spirit some time ago - a good challenge for me.

I understand your perspective re: the church guarding doctrine.

My question then - why invoke Aristotle for Christ’s House?

BTW - the “gates of hell” - many people interpret that as Satan will not break INTO the church (right?) - however, that is not the intent of the passage. The passage does not say the “gates of heaven” - but the “gates of hell”. The meaning is that the church is going to break down and into Satan’s kingdom. So there is no sense of the church being protected from Satan here - there is a sense that Satan will NOT be protected from the church of Jesus Christ (AMEN!!). I trust that this has to do with the rescue of poor wayward souls such as yours truly.

Best,

Aner

Anything wrong with building on an existing body of thought (Aristotle’s)?

Gates of Hell: Let’s go with your interpretation, viz. that it’s all about Satan not being protected from the Church, rather than the Church being protected from Satan. Now, how is the Church going to annihilate Satan’s kingdom if his moles have penetrated it? In the words of the Lord Himself, a house divided against itself cannot stand, so once the Church has been infiltrated, it will collapse and hence the question of it crashing the gates of Hell won’t even arise. So whichever way you look at it, the Church first needs protection from Satan, and that’s how the Lord’s words should be understood.

 

[afthomercy]

I think my explanation was sufficient, I’ll leave it up to the scientists to determine the state of separate existence of subatomic particles.

Remember that the word " being " has several forms. Being = an individually existing thing; Being= the act of existing; Being = to be, and others I suppose. A being is equivalent to this or that actually existing thing.

I don’t think individual beings or things have to be separated by space necessarially, I can pile several different kinds of things on top of each other, I can mix several different kinds of liquids or gasses together and they would retain their identity as individually existing beings. In these examples I think we would say these beings are touching or are contiguous.

Pax
Linus2nd

So much I understood from your replies, that “being-ness” and “person-hood” are unrelated. Beings are acknowledged from the mere fact of existence. Even my fingers severed from my hand are separate beings. I suppose that at death, when the soul and body separate, we have two beings where earlier there was only one. So ignoring the common factor (person-hood) between the earthly Jesus and the heavenly God, in what sense do you say that Christ in both His natures is only one being (singular)?

 

[rinnie]

All said and done, was it theoretically possible for Jesus to sin in His human nature? Had the Man wanted to, could He have gone against the will of the Father? I think you would say that His Divine nature would have prevented such a thing from happening; but what does this do to the notion of His equality with us (at the human level)? If He was ‘wired’ never to sin, doesn’t it make a farce of the Temptation in the Desert?

Yes because if he was human he would have free will to choose to sin or not sin the same as us. He was human in everyway. He could not have been tempted to sin if he could not have had the choice to do so.

By being tempted I mean seeing the (good for you, selfishness of self that sin gets you), not being tempted to sin.

To be perfect in Christ does not mean you cannot be tempted by a person to sin, it means you can’t be tempted (anotherwards to even give it a second thought) because you thoughts are always 100% on the will of the God, not the will (human will of self).

 

[afthomercy]

Yes because if he was human he would have free will to choose to sin or not sin the same as us. He was human in everyway. He could not have been tempted to sin if he could not have had the choice to do so.

By being tempted I mean seeing the (good for you, selfishness of self that sin gets you), not being tempted to sin.

To be perfect in Christ does not mean you cannot be tempted by a person to sin, it means you can’t be tempted (anotherwards to even give it a second thought) because you thoughts are always 100% on the will of the God, not the will (human will of self).

What I understand the above to mean is that it was theoretically/hypothetically possible for Jesus to sin because although it was true that He always willed himself to be 100% aligned to the will of God, it ultimately was by an act of His own human will and not because He was wired/programmed to do so. Now study Linus’s post#7 on pg.1 and see whether you still want to hold the above view.

BTW the second para in your post starting with “By being…” is garbled.

 

[Aner]

Anything wrong with building on an existing body of thought (Aristotle’s)?

There is no benefit - it is idle speculation on areas that have no application in the Kingdom of God. As Disciples, we are not called to such behavior.

Gates of Hell: Let’s go with your interpretation, viz. that it’s all about Satan not being protected from the Church, rather than the Church being protected from Satan. Now, how is the Church going to annihilate Satan’s kingdom if his moles have penetrated it? In the words of the Lord Himself, a house divided against itself cannot stand, so once the Church has been infiltrated, it will collapse and hence the question of it crashing the gates of Hell won’t even arise. So whichever way you look at it, the Church first needs protection from Satan, and that’s how the Lord’s words should be understood.

Sadly my finger is worse and I will be out of town for a couple days - so signing of for now.

Best,

Aner

 

[afthomercy]

Sadly my finger is worse and I will be out of town for a couple days - so signing of for now.

Best,

Aner

Yes, I was going to suggest that you take a break and allow your finger to heal completely. Take care brother!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So much I understood from your replies, that “being-ness” and “person-hood” are unrelated. Beings are acknowledged from the mere fact of existence. Even my fingers severed from my hand are separate beings. I suppose that at death, when the soul and body separate, we have two beings where earlier there was only one. So ignoring the common factor (person-hood) between the earthly Jesus and the heavenly God, in what sense do you say that Christ in both His natures is only one being (singular)?

Jesus Christ is one individual Person, with two natures. Person is a species of the genus " being. " If you saw Churst on earth or in heaven, what do you think you would see? One being, a human being who was also God. Now if Jesus Christ is one being, one person, how could he have separate ununited parts? He has separate parts, but they are united so closely that the make one Person, one substance, one thing. You should read S.T., part 1, ques 29, arts 2-3, very, very interesting on " person, " substance, hypostasis, nature, individual, etc.

When our soul leaves our bodies we have two separate beings, but the separated soul is what Thomas calles an imperfect form or substance because its proper mode of existence is to be united to the body - and it will be at some future date. Then it will be two beings again…

Jesus Christ could not sin, even in theory, he was God for Pete’s sake!!

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

AFT, Levinas, John Martin, Aner, etc. Part 2 ( following post # 93 )

S.T., Part 3, ques 75 contains proof of what I have been saying.

In 75 article 3, in the " Reply, " Thomas says, “… but in the last instant of the consecration there is already present there the substance of the body or blood of Christ, just as the form is already present…”

Notice the term used is " substance, " singular. Meaning or implying that in Jesus Christ there is only one substance and, by default, that is the Divine substance, since if it were merely a human substance, we would not be receiving Our Lord and Savior. Nor would God permit such a farce to occur.

Then in article 4 Thomas says, in the " Reply, " " … Therefore He can work not only formal conversion, so that diverse forms succeed each other in the same subject; but also the change of all being, so that, to wit, the whole substance of one thing be changed into the whole substance of another. And this is done by Divine power in this sacrament; for the whole substance of the bread is changed into the whole substance of Christ’s body, and the whole substance of the wine into the whole substance of Christ’s blood. Hence this is not a formal, but a substantial conversion; nor is it a kind of natural movement: but, with a name of its own, it can be called “transubstantiation.”

The same argument is made here. It is the substance of the bread and the whole substance of the wine have been changed into the whole substance ( singular ) of Christ. And this we call Transubstantiation. The term, transubstantiation, should have told us all we need to know. And Thomas even tells us, " …the whole substance of one thing be changed into the whole substance of another…"

This should be proof enough that in Jesus Christ, there is only one substance and that can only be the Divine substance, since it would be profane to consider that God would by this miracle, make a mere man present.

Notice the phrase I have underlined, " … but also the change of all being, so that, to wit, the whole substance of one thing be changed into the whole substance of another…" Thomas here has equated " being " with " substance, " telling us that, essentially, every being is a substance and evrery substance is a being. They are more or less synonymous terms used to define anything that really exists.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[afthomercy]

Linus,
a) You emphasise the divinity of Christ with such force that it almost obliterates His humanity. Its almost as if His humanness was merely for form’s (outward appearances) sake, but for all practical purposes it was divinity all the way!
b) You reduce ex-archangel Satan to a dumbo for trying to entice someone who was above temptation, to sin. It will come as a shock to the average Catholic to know that the Temptation in the Desert has no salutary value for him as a person called to resist the Devil, because the hero of that story was not vulnerable like he is.
c) You link having the beatific vision to being insulated from sin, forgetting that Adam and Lucifer sinned despite having the beatific vision.
d) You say that my severed fingers and I are independent beings, but when it comes to the earthly Jesus and God the Son, you bring in the concept of ‘one and the same person’ although ‘person-hood’ has nothing to do with ‘being-ness’.

Peace,
AFT

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus,
a) You emphasise the divinity of Christ with such force that it almost obliterates His humanity. Its almost as if His humanness was merely for form’s (outward appearances) sake, but for all practical purposes it was divinity all the way!
b) You reduce ex-archangel Satan to a dumbo for trying to entice someone who was above temptation, to sin. It will come as a shock to the average Catholic to know that the Temptation in the Desert has no salutary value for him as a person called to resist the Devil, because the hero of that story was not vulnerable like he is.
c) You link having the beatific vision to being insulated from sin, forgetting that Adam and Lucifer sinned despite having the beatific vision.
d) You say that my severed fingers and I are independent beings, but when it comes to the earthly Jesus and God the Son, you bring in the concept of ‘one and the same person’ although ‘person-hood’ has nothing to do with ‘being-ness’.

Peace,
AFT

Christ was a true man united to the true Son of God but through the Divinity of the Second Person of the Trinity, he was one Person, therefore one substance. It is a Mystery. You have one thing, one being, one substance - but in a true human nature and a true Divine nature.

Adam and Eve and Satan never enjoied the Beatific Vision.

Linus2nd