Person Vs Nature

[afthomercy]

Please note: The only method of knowing the Complete Existence of God’s Being and God’s World* prior to Creation, can only be known through Divine Revelation.
*God’s World - The Space and Time prior to Creation. Since God is a Being in the image and likeness of us, He must exist in some concept of space and time.

Not necessary. As somebody has already pointed out, God can exist independent of any dimension. “Image” refers to the qualities, such as rationality and capacity to love

Regarding Choice of Words
I am trying to present understandings which clearly demonstrate the Distinctions of God: God IS. God is I AM. God is Everything. God is Love. God is the Creator. God is the Father. God is the Son. God is the Holy Spirit…etc.
In my use of “became,” I am trying to demonstrate alignment with Catholicism. Perhaps it could be stated more clearly as “took on a human nature.”

There is a “who” and there is a “what” in rational beings. The name goes into the “who” and qualities like “love” etc. go into the “what”. You should be specific.

Yes, His Name is God and I AM and the Father. I would also add, I think He is first God, since prior to creating the world, as we know it, He had no children. Then when He Wills the Word, He becomes God, the Father. The Father continues to exist alongside the Word made Flesh. Just as He existed when He made the Word, He Exists as the Word Lives.

Linear (in time) procession is invalid, since God exists outside time.He has no beginning, no past and no future. You could, in a manner of speaking, say that He only has a “present”.

I think…Yes, the Father had a Body, just like you and I. His Body could tell His Mind what it feels, and His Mind could tell His Body what it thinks. Once His Being (Body and Mind) decided to Share the Blessings* with Others, He created Us. To Create and Guide Us, He had to separate His Immaterial Spirit from His Material Being (He created the Heavens and the Earth). I also think…this is why the Spirit has an Image, and how the Son of God is Begotten Fully of the Father’s Being, And God going from a Single Person, Presently Immaterial, to the Holy Trinity-Three Persons in One Person, Presently Material.

God is pure spirit. God is eternally three persons, and not one person gradually becoming three.

Yes, the Holy Spirit is/will be a Man; in particular, the Son of Man, who will proceed from The Father and the Son. No, the Holy Spirit is a Distinct Person from the Father, therefore, the Father still has His Will. And…the Father’s Will is the Power/Will of the Holy Spirit

“Son of Man” does not refer to the Holy Spirit, but was Jesus’ preferred name for himself. The is no “will proceed” situation. The Holy Spirit is not a future entity. He already IS, just like the Father and the Son.

 

[JimG]

**

If I understand your formulations correctly, you mean to say that person is an expression of a nature. Take a dog. He is a pretty good expression of a canine nature. So would you say that a dog is a person? You need to clarify what exactly you mean by “expression of nature”, and it should not be a subjective definition.

The experience of person is always subjective. One knows other beings through observation and inference, but one knows oneself through introspection. I can know through inference that all human beings are persons, but I can only experience my own personhood as a subject, not as object.

I would describe a dog as a conscious being but not a person. The reason is that animals are wholly material. They have a material soul. Humans have a spiritual soul. Human nature is a composite of material and immaterial. Human consciousness reflects back on itself to become self-consciousness. We are not only aware but self-aware. We are capable of self-reflection, of pondering our own consciousness of self. That is possible only because of the spiritual nature of our soul.

I suppose that one might try to describe the consciousness of animals as a sort of ‘material person,” but that would be foreign to Catholic philosophy. It is only human beings who self reflect or for that matter, write about such matters in Internet forums.

I would have to say that nature is more basic than person, since everything that exists has a nature: a rock nature, a plant nature, a human nature, an angelic nature. But only certain types of beings are able to say “I”, to be not only what’s but who’s. And a person can only express their ego, their “I,” in accordance with what is contained in their nature. I could not express a rock or a plant nature in my self awareness because I am not a rock or a plant. I can express my “self” as a human being because that is my nature, and the perfect expression of human nature is in human personhood. Human nature is always expressed as person; every human being is a human person.

 

[vz71]

Though I know there is no way of understanding it without Divine Revelation, please consider the following: If we are created in His Image, then He has an Image. The only Image which would not require a concept of space would be a solid color.

I have always understood the image of God to be was the capacity of man to know, think, and understand.
None of these requires time and space either.

 

[tonyrey]

Sir, this doesn’t quite sit well with your statement in post #17 that ““relationship” is a human category which doesn’t apply to God.”

 

[afthomercy]

I appreciate your redirection to the ST and to not consider Craig’s Works until I have greater understanding. From further reflection, please consider the following:
I think…confusion arises in timeliness of the timelessness - There is God - the unmoved mover, the matterless source of all matter, the potential-less state of all potential, the formless, and there is God - the word, the uncreated form, the two persons in one being, the three persons in one God, where one person proceeds from the other two, the all-powerful and potential, Creator.
I am trying to propose reflections for the latter, for the initial state of God can only be known through Divine Revelation.

Thoughts?

“Two persons in one being”? Come again?
“Initial state of God”? But God never changes!

 

[afthomercy]

255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."89 Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."90 "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."91

The underlined highlighted part (89) implies that in some respect everything in them is NOT one. So it points to a diversity within the unity. What could the be source of that diversity? I’m proposing IDENTITY.

 

[jochoa]

“Two persons in one being”? Come again?
“Initial state of God”? But God never changes!

Nicene Creed
We believe in one God, the Father (Distinct Person), the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ (Distinct Person), the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father.

Please

 

[afthomercy]

I would have to say that nature is more basic than person, since everything that exists has a nature: a rock nature, a plant nature, a human nature, an angelic nature. But only certain types of beings are able to say “I”, to be not only what’s but who’s. And a person can only express their ego, their “I,” in accordance with what is contained in their nature. I could not express a rock or a plant nature in my self awareness because I am not a rock or a plant. I can express my “self” as a human being because that is my nature, and the perfect expression of human nature is in human personhood. Human nature is always expressed as person; every human being is a human person.

If the perfect expression of human nature is in human personhood, then the same applies to God (on the image and likeness argument). If therefore, the perfect expression of divine nature is in divine personhood, I’m asking the question as to what distinguishes the divine persons and proposing the answer: Nothing except different IDENTITIES in the same mind.

 

[tonyrey]

The underlined highlighted part (89) implies that in some respect everything in them is NOT one. So it points to a diversity within the unity. What could the be source of that diversity? I’m proposing IDENTITY.

Diversity is not necessarily opposition. The identity of the three Persons **in one God **precludes opposition. In what way could the Father, Son and Holy Spirit possibly be opposed?

 

[afthomercy]

Diversity is not necessarily opposition. The identity of the three Persons **in one God **precludes opposition. In what way could the Father, Son and Holy Spirit possibly be opposed?

Diversity is a form of opposition, because it means “not the same”. Let’s read it again: Indeed everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship.
The second part of the sentence “where there is no opposition of relationship” qualifies the first part of the sentence “everything in them is one”. Had everything in them been the same without exception, there would have been no need for the qualfication.
I therefore read the sentence to mean “everything (in them) is one except where there is opposition of relationship”. I further understand the opposition (amongst them) to be caused solely by the difference of identity.

 

[jochoa]

“Two persons in one being”? Come again?

Please consider the following:
Nicene Creed
We believe in one God, the Father (Distinct Person), the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ (Distinct Person), the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father.

“Initial state of God”? But God never changes!

There are two methods as to which I personally validate, “God never changes!”

His Nature never Changes
God is True Love.
God stated the definition of True Love in the Greatest Commandments, and He demonstrated True Love in His Crucifixion.
True Love (personal interpretation) - Always be Patient and Kind and Motivated for Absolute Peace and Limitless Happiness with All the Body, All the Soul, All the Mind, and All the Will towards Others and the Self.

God’s Knowledge, Wisdom, Power, Energy, and others that I have yet to come to know, never Change.
God is Omnipotent - Knowledgeable and Wise
God is All-Powerful - Creator of Everything
God is All Energy - The Source of All Energy and Matter

On the other hand, there are several methods to justify that God changes. Here is one reasoning based on the Nicene Creed: He came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary , and became man.

In order for God to come down from heaven and become man, He has to “change” His location from up to down, and He had to “change” into something.

Thoughts?

 

[Marybeloved]

This is briefly how I’ve understood the term ‘person’.

Individual humans are a species unto themselves. Each human is a self determined being. This makes individual humans persons. A bear or a lion is not a self determined being. A bear is a bear is a bear. Bears are not persons.

A bee hive acts as a single mind. This singlemindedness is because bees are not persons.

There a three self determined persons that are divine. Their singlemindedness is determined by a free act of their wills.

Hello, Benadam and Everyone,

Just wanted to say that there is only one Divine will, not wills

The only distinctions in the God-head are the two eternal processions-
-The operation of God’s intellect on his own being or God knowing himself which is the generation (begetting) of God the Son or the Divine Eternal Word,
-The operation of the Divine will (or choice) or love or Absolute freedom as regards his knowledge of himself (God the Word), wherein God knowing himself in the Word, loves himself as the supreme Good, and this love is self-gift of the Father to the Son, the Beloved- So the procession of Love must be God, being God’s perfect self-gift by which he loves the Son. And the Son, the Beloved, also loves the father with the same one Love with which the Father loves him- So The Holy Spirit proceeds from The Father to the Son then from the Son back to the Father.

I’ve been taught that these two processions are t****he only distinctions in God, So that the three Divine persons are distinguished from each other only thus:
The Father is the one who generates, The Son is the one who is begotten and The Holy Spirit is the one who proceeds. No other distinction exists, so there is no more than one Divine will, just as there are not three infinities or omnipresences etc.

I agree with Aftomercy, the persons of God are not easily defined- I’m not sure how far analogy can go, seeing as we ourselves tend to experience person-hood as freedom and autonomy which means free-will- We act in only one nature: One person per nature. It’s not easy to define three distinct persons that possess fully a single perfect nature, each as his own, yet these three have only one will. So person must be other than or at-least more than free will.

I can perhaps begin to understand it a bit by analogy of ourselves, but only slightly. We know that the two faculties (intelligence and free will) have their seat in the Soul, the spiritual component of human nature. Soul is nature, not person- So perhaps the will of God has it’s seat in the Divine nature, not the three persons? Again, person as “who” must mean something other than or deeper than free will.

Peace!

 

[afthomercy]

On the other hand, there are several methods to justify that God changes. Here is one reasoning based on the Nicene Creed: He came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary , and became man.

In order for God to come down from heaven and become man, He has to “change” His location from up to down, and He had to “change” into something.

Thoughts?

“We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.”

The belief is that in “coming down from heaven” and becoming the man Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, did not leave the Godhead. The belief is that He assumed a human nature and held/holds the both divine and human natures separately, distinctly and without overlap. The Godhead remains eternally unchanged

 

[Benadam]

Hello, Benadam and Everyone,

Just wanted to say that there is only one Divine will, not wills

The only distinctions in the God-head are the two eternal processions-
-The operation of God’s intellect on his own being or God knowing himself which is the generation (begetting) of God the Son or the Divine Eternal Word,
-The operation of the Divine will (or choice) or love or Absolute freedom as regards his knowledge of himself (God the Word), wherein God knowing himself in the Word, loves himself as the supreme Good, and this love is self-gift of the Father to the Son, the Beloved- So the procession of Love must be God, being God’s perfect self-gift by which he loves the Son. And the Son, the Beloved, also loves the father with the same one Love with which the Father loves him- So The Holy Spirit proceeds from The Father to the Son then from the Son back to the Father.

I’ve been taught that these two processions are t****he only distinctions in God, So that the three Divine persons are distinguished from each other only thus:
The Father is the one who generates, The Son is the one who is begotten and The Holy Spirit is the one who proceeds. No other distinction exists, so there is no more than one Divine will, just as there are not three infinities or omnipresences etc.

I agree with Aftomercy, the persons of God are not easily defined- I’m not sure how far analogy can go, seeing as we ourselves tend to experience person-hood as freedom and autonomy which means free-will- We act in only one nature: One person per nature. It’s not easy to define three distinct persons that possess fully a single perfect nature, each as his own, yet these three have only one will. So person must be other than or at-least more than free will.

I can perhaps begin to understand it a bit by analogy of ourselves, but only slightly. We know that the two faculties (intelligence and free will) have their seat in the Soul, the spiritual component of human nature. Soul is nature, not person- So perhaps the will of God has it’s seat in the Divine nature, not the three persons? Again, person as “who” must mean something other than or deeper than free will.

Peace!

You bring up a subtle point. The human person in their innermost self is similar to the inner conversation of God. The Son is the word of the Father. No human person is another human persons word. We have an inner dialogue and our voices at times seem to have their own wills. Our inner dialogue suffers conflict. In my mind I imagine the three divine persons are in a similar dialogue but without conflict.

 

[afthomercy]

Consider the man Jesus Christ and the “Son” of the Trinity. On the face of it, there is nothing in common between the two. Their natures (which includes mind and will) are distinct. The man had a birth and a death in the space-time dimension, whereas the Son did not. Yet, we say that they are one and the same Person. Hence, what is it in them that is common? I would say that it is the identity only.

Identity, as I view it, is God’s Jermiah 1:5a thought concerning the individual. In case of both the man and the Son, God’s thought concerning them is one and the same, and that is what makes them one person!

 

[jochoa]

“We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.”

The belief is that in “coming down from heaven” and becoming the man Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, did not leave the Godhead. The belief is that He assumed a human nature and held/holds the both divine and human natures separately, distinctly and without overlap. The Godhead remains eternally unchanged

To better help me understand your writings, please consider the following:
How do you define “assumed”?
How do you define “nature”?
Also, it seems as though you are stating Jesus is two persons himself: He is the “Person” of the Godhead and the person of the world. It also seems as though Jesus on earth is only a man. Please help me understand your statements.

I would like to add an additional method as to which I validate that God is eternally unchanged aside from His Nature, Knowledge, Wisdom, Power, and Energy.
He is Unchanged in His Actions, in that the Same “Thoughts” about what His Actions and What Was to Happen are exactly the Same “Thoughts” and Actions that happen during the period of the Beginning of Time, as we know it, and the Fullness of Time(The point as to which the Bible no longer states a Word).

I would also like to point out that I cannot see how my understandings are outside the Catechisms or your understandings.
Here is further reflection as to how my understandings are inside the Catechisms and your understandings:
The Godhead/Creator, Knew all that was to happen before He made it happen. He knew that He would come down from heaven and take on/ a Human Nature, and He would become a Distinct Person from the Creator. Therefore, He could refer to His Body/Image becoming Man as the Son from the Beginning of Time. Since His Human Nature would have a separate Mind from the Father, He would have Both Human and Divine Will. Throughout His Life, He had to develop His Human Nature to become Atone with God’s Nature. Since The Creator’s Spirit (Image, Mind, and Will) is completely in heaven throughout time, The Image/Son of God could be in heaven, at the same time as the Distinct Person/Son of God could be on earth. This would also align with why and how Jesus’ Body could withstand such pain and punishment, and it would align with How Our Father is Completely Loving in that it was His Body which was tortured.

Thoughts?

 

[afthomercy]

To better help me understand your writings, please consider the following:
How do you define “assumed”?

Assumed: Its a very orthodox term, but let me attempt some explanations:
The Second Person became a full-fledged human being without in any way affecting his position/status/role in the Trinity, or
He became human whilst not ceasing to be divine, or
He added a second nature unto himself without mixing with /interfereing with /affecting/ diminishing/ changing his original nature

How do you define “nature”?

Nature is the “what” or the attributes, as opposed to the “who” or the identity.

Also, it seems as though you are stating Jesus is two persons himself: He is the “Person” of the Godhead and the person of the world. It also seems as though Jesus on earth is only a man. Please help me understand your statements.

He isn’t two persons, rather, in one personhood He combines two natures, the divine and the human. The existance of two natures does not split his personhood, and neither does one nature overlap/overflow into the other.
A man is a human person. So if you consider only his humanity, then yes, He is “only a man”, but we can’t forget his divinity, since his personhood cannot be divorced from either of his two natures.

I would like to add an additional method as to which I validate that God is eternally unchanged aside from His Nature, Knowledge, Wisdom, Power, and Energy.
He is Unchanged in His Actions, in that the Same “Thoughts” about what His Actions and What Was to Happen are exactly the Same “Thoughts” and Actions that happen during the period of the Beginning of Time, as we know it, and the Fullness of Time(The point as to which the Bible no longer states a Word).

The person cannot be separated from his nature, so the statement is invalid.

I would also like to point out that I cannot see how my understandings are outside the Catechisms or your understandings.
Here is further reflection as to how my understandings are inside the Catechisms and your understandings:
The Godhead/Creator, Knew all that was to happen before He made it happen. **THE GODHEAD CONSISTS OF THREE PERSONS, SO YOU CAN’T USE THE SINGULAR PRONOUN “HE”. **He knew that He would come down from heaven and take on/ a Human Nature, and He would become a Distinct Person from the Creator. Therefore, He could refer to His Body/Image becoming Man as the Son from the Beginning of Time. Since His Human Nature would have a separate Mind from the Father, He would have Both Human and Divine Will. Throughout His Life, He had to develop His Human Nature to become Atone (???) with God’s Nature. Since The Creator’s Spirit (Image, Mind, and Will) is completely in heaven throughout time, The Image/Son of God could be in heaven, at the same time as the Distinct Person/Son of God could be on earth. EVEN WHILE THE SECOND PERSON WALKED ON EARTH AS A MAN, THERE CONTINUED TO BE THREE PERSONS IN THE GODHEAD. THE GODHEAD IS UNCHANGING This would also align with why and how Jesus’ Body could withstand such pain and punishment, and it would align with How Our Father is Completely Loving in that it was His Body which was tortured. NOT VALID REASONING. JESUS’ SUFFERING WITHSTANDING CAPACITY WAS TOTALLY HUMAN. HUMAN CAPACITIES, WHEN AUGUMENTED BY GRACE, CAN REACH SUPERHUMAN PROPORTIONS. ALSO, THE FATHER DOES NOT HAVE A BODY.
Thoughts?

My friend, you should slowly and carefully re-read the Catechism and not be in a hurry to make your own formulations.

 

[PHSshamrock]

The nature is the source of our power- what we are. So you and I have a human nature, we can do the things humans can do. One’s personhood is incommunicable- not capable of being shared. So while all humans have a human nature my person pertains to me alone.

 

[jochoa]

Assumed: Its a very orthodox term, but let me attempt some explanations:
The Second Person became a full-fledged human being without in any way affecting his position/status/role in the Trinity, or
He became human whilst not ceasing to be divine, or
He added a second nature unto himself without mixing with /interfereing with /affecting/ diminishing/ changing his original nature

Thank you for your explanation. I apologize for the questioning: As I did an initial definition search, I read “falsely adopted” and assumed poorly.

Nature is the “what” or the attributes, as opposed to the “who” or the identity.

Although your definitions are valid, I think these definitions allow for a larger grey area of overlapping characteristics.
Example: My body is “what” I am and also “who” I am.
Question: Do you consider the Person of the Nature, the Nature of the Person, or both? I personally validate both, however one applies to Humans, whereas the other applies to God. Humans can become atone with the Nature of God. On the Other Hand, it is the Nature of God, the Father from the beginning til the end.

He isn’t two persons, rather, in one personhood He combines two natures, the divine and the human. The existance of two natures does not split his personhood, and neither does one nature overlap/overflow into the other.
A man is a human person. So if you consider only his humanity, then yes, He is “only a man”, but we can’t forget his divinity, since his personhood cannot be divorced from either of his two natures.

Thank you for the clarification.

The person cannot be separated from his nature, so the statement is invalid.

I apologize for using the term “aside.” Perhaps I should have stated, another method to conceptualize How God is Unchanging.

My friend, you should slowly and carefully re-read the Catechism and not be in a hurry to make your own formulations.]

Regarding the Use of He
The Catechism refers to God as He - Read Line 1.

Regarding the Lack of Change in God
I am in agreement with you. Unfortunately, I am not wise enough yet to demonstrate my alignment with these understandings.

Regarding the Use of Body
I think…the following Scriptures (Douay-Rheims) and Catholic Beliefs validate that the Father has a body or an Image of the Body in the least:
John 1:18
John 14:9
Genesis 1:26
Nicene Creed: “…seated at the right hand of the Father.”

Regarding Atone/Atonement
Christ’s Atonement in the CCC

Thoughts?

 

[afthomercy]

Although your definitions are valid, I think these definitions allow for a larger grey area of overlapping characteristics.
Example: My body is “what” I am and also “who” I am. (CONSIDER YOUR BODY WHEN IT SHALL LIE IN THE GRAVE. WOULD YOU STILL SAY THAT?)
Question: Do you consider the Person of the Nature (I DON’T THINK ITS A VALID CONSTRUCT), the Nature of the Person (YES), or both? I personally validate both, however one applies to Humans, whereas the other applies to God. Humans can become atone with the Nature of God (IF YOU MEAN THAT WE HAVE THE CALLING AND POTENTIAL TO BE PERFECT AS THE HEAVENLY FATHER IS PERFECT, THEN YES, I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU). On the Other Hand, it is the Nature of God, the Father from the beginning til the end.

Regarding the Use of He
The Catechism refers to God as He - Read Line 1. (ITS OK TO USE “HE” FOR THE GODHEAD OR THE DIVINE PERSONS COLLECTIVELY, AS WELL AS FOR EACH DIVINE PERSON INDIVIDUALLY, BUT YOU WERE JUMPING BETWEEN THE PERSONS WHEN USING IT, THUS CONFUSING THE ISSUE)

Regarding the Use of Body
I think…the following Scriptures (Douay-Rheims) and Catholic Beliefs validate that the Father has a body or an Image of the Body in the least:
John 1:18
John 14:9 (DIDN’T SEE THE CONNECTION)
Genesis 1:26
Nicene Creed: “…seated at the right hand of the Father.”
(DESPITE YOUR EXAMPLES, NO, THE FATHER IS ETERNALLY PURE SPIRIT)
Regarding Atone/Atonement
Christ’s Atonement in the CCC
(WHAT’S THE RELEVANCE?)
Thoughts?