Person Vs Nature

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus

As to your following post - this seems to move in the direction of “the wisdom of mens’ words rather than the power of God”. Why are the complexity? Scripture never compels us to move into Aristotelian philosophy.

Best,

Aner

Surely God does not forbid us from using the tools he gave us to shed light on the deep things of God. BTW it is true that Thomas bases his thought on fundamental Aristotelian principles but he uses them in his own way. And he was quite the ecclectic, following the truth wherever it led him. He borrowed from the Arabians, the Jews, the Fathers, whever he found the truth.

The interesting thing is that if it were not for Sacred Tradition there would be no Bible, both testaments depended on the accurate and faithful handing on of the Word. And not all was written down. John tells us that all the books in the world might not be able to contain all that Christ said and did. And Christ himself told us he would send the advocate to teach his Church all the truth. Now neither you nor I are the Church. The Church is the visible body established by Christ in the Apostles and handed on from generation to generation to this very moment in an unbroken line. And if this is not so, then no one knows the truth. Certainly not you and not I and no single individual we can name, nor any self appointed or elected body we can name. Christ’s Church is a Divinely established tool and means of salvific truth and grace.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[levinas12]

… Since relations in God can’t be accidents …

You have opened up fundamental questions.

Aristotle’s “primary substance”, the “this something”, the “tode ti” (e.g., the red apple over there on the table) is fraught with particularity.

But the “particularity” of “primary substance” is not the “particularity” of “person”. Robert Spaemann sums this up neatly when he points out that “person” is deeper than “substance”.

I would expand your comment. “Person”, whether human or divine, transcends Aristotelian categories. “Person”, in particular (no pun intended), is not reducible to the Aristotelian “accidental” category of “relation”. Nor can “person” be explained in terms of species/genus - there is no “form”, no “eidos”, for a “person”.

All this has led to a rethinking of metaphysics in the 20th century (e.g., Heidegger , Levinas, Marion ).

 

[afthomercy]

A -

Thanks for the follow-up.

a) In Jn1:1 there is no discussion re: the 2nd person of the trinity.

b) Why would read Ps33:6 in the background of Jn1:3? Logically Jn1:3 should be read in the background of Ps33:6 (unless I am missing your point).

c) BTW - the translation “him” in Jn1:1 - 3 is inaccurate - properly the translation should be “it” since it relates to the impersonal logos (as identified in Ps33:6 and many other instances in the OT).

Best,

Aner

a) Just whom, do you think, is being discussed in Jn1:1?
b) I should have said “in light of” instead of “in the background of”, since the NT throws new light on OT passages.
c) I randomly checked about 10 English versions through Bible Gateway. Not one of them used “it” for “him”.

 

[afthomercy]

In summary: the Divine Persons are actually identical to the Relations themselves. Since relations in God can’t be accidents, but have to be identical to His very Substance, it is therefore possible for the Persons to be related to each other (hence really distinct), but still be identical to the Divine Essence. "

God Bless
Linus2nd

Once again, this pits the person against the essence. When you say that the Divine Persons are identical to the Divine Essence, isn’t it like saying that there is NO Essence in God other than the Persons/Relations? But then wouldn’t it lead to the fallacy that there are 3-Gods?

 

[levinas12]

Once again, this pits the person against the essence. When you say that the Divine Persons are identical to the Divine Essence, isn’t it like saying that there is NO Essence in God other than the Persons/Relations? But then wouldn’t it lead to the fallacy that there are 3-Gods?

It depends on what “identical” means. And on what “essence” means.

Of course, “essence” assumes a “substance”.

It would be helpful to walk these terms back to the original Greek meaning - and then see if they would still be applicable to “God”.

For example, “ousia”, the Greek term for “substance”, may have originally referred to “property” or “real estate” - with the connotation of relative “permanence” or “solidity” (in the sociological sense, like a “solid citizen” or “landed gentry”).

But “gist”, as in “what something really is” or “the point of a joke” or “the substance of someone’s remarks”, might also be a cognate for “ousia”.

Certainly, there is a Divine “ousia” of sorts but not like the “ousia” of worldly entities, whether terrrestrial or celestial.

Thomists like to say that “substance” is attributed to God “analogically” - but this needs further discussion too.

Since God is totally and radically outside the universe, it is tricky to use Aristotelian metaphysics to describe “Him”. I would even dare to say that the Aristotelian categories “break down” or “snap” when applied to God.

So terms like “identical” or “essence” or “substance” become “shaky” or “unstable” in this context.

This is especially the case when God’s “essence” is equated with His “esse”. Aristotle would never have been able to understand such an “equation”.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You have opened up fundamental questions.

Aristotle’s “primary substance”, the “this something”, the “tode ti” (e.g., the red apple over there on the table) is fraught with particularity.

But the “particularity” of “primary substance” is not the “particularity” of “person”. Robert Spaemann sums this up neatly when he points out that “person” is deeper than “substance”.

I agree that " substance " and " person " are different. I don’t know if I would call " person " deeper than " substance. "

Aristotle and Thomas distinguish between First and Second Substance and First and Second Act. First Substance would be what you see, feel, sense, etc. Second Substance would be the composite of matter and form activated by the act of existence. First Act would be the activation of this composit.

But as yet there is nothing to " see. " At this point the substance can take on any set of " accidents " imaginable - in theory. In fact though, the form and the matter and the act of existence are determined to a specific set of accidents. When they appear we have second act and First Substance - Second Substance with all the accidents we experience, by which we identify a person.

And " person " is the result of the formation of both Second and First Substance ( which includes all the " accidents " by which we identify a " person. "). But the " person " cannot be separated from the Second Substance and the First Act from which it flows as from its origin.

So, I would say that " person " is not deeper than " substance. " Rather it is a defined way or a specific way in which we view the " substance " we call a human being. It is a " looking " at the substance we call man in a human way, a " personal " way. A person is someone we know and can relate to, we can hardly relate to a substance or a being. So a person is merely a living, human metaphore for a human being, as opposed to his metaphysical composition.

You will note that your reference is to a post by Imelahn on another thread which I quoted.
I think you need to reread the quote again. Imelahn draws a distinction on how person and relationships are understood in God. In God, Persons are distinct, yet they are the same substance and not accidents. In God’s creatures substance has accidents and relationships are one of these accidents. I haven’t read Spaemann so I can’t comment on his thought.

I would expand your comment. “Person”, whether human or divine, transcends Aristotelian categories. “Person”, in particular (no pun intended), is not reducible to the Aristotelian “accidental” category of “relation”. Nor can “person” be explained in terms of species/genus - there is no “form”, no “eidos”, for a “person”.

I’m not sure I agree because I can’t recall Aristotle’s understanding of " person, " and of course he never considered " person " as Thomas did of the Divine Nature. One cannot criticize Aristotle for that. I would agree that " person " transcends Aristotle’s categories. And Imelahn did not equate " person " with " relation, " he said that the understanding of the Divine Persons was that each Person flowed from its origin, the substance of God the Father and was expressed and understood as a relationship. But this relationship in God is not an accident as it would be in men, for in God there are no accidents.

We have to be careful about one thing. We try to express the Divine Nature and the Divine Persons with limited human knowledge and understanding. We always reach for something which cannot actually be reached. So our attempts to experss these things will always be at fault to some extent. Perhaps it is that we cannot express or explain more that we have. One thing is certain, the Divine Persons are real and distinct but it is a distinction of relationships, yet each is the same substance and nature. This seems contradictory and it would be for man, but not in God. So, it is something our minds can’t actually understand, define, or explain. We know it is true, we just don’t have the intellect to understand and explain it. Only the Divine Intellect can. So we need not be frustrated and we should not criticize any thinker or philosopher for failing to explain adequately what cannot be adequately explained, and which will never be adequately explained.

All this has led to a rethinking of metaphysics in the 20th century (e.g., Heidegger , Levinas, Marion ).

Aristotle and Thomas are more than enough for me.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Once again, this pits the person against the essence. When you say that the Divine Persons are identical to the Divine Essence, isn’t it like saying that there is NO Essence in God other than the Persons/Relations? But then wouldn’t it lead to the fallacy that there are 3-Gods?

Keep in mind that we are discussing things about which we know almost nothing, we are stretching our minds and using human language to describe the Divine Nature. Thus we can never say anything perfectly satisfying. We simply cannot understand it. We reach for comparisons from a human perspective.

We know that each of the Divine Persons possses the essence or nature of the godhead completely. Yet we know that the Son is begotten by the Father eternally. That makes them different persons but the same God.

We also know that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son eternally at equally and at the same time. ( you should read the catechism and follow the footnotes for an exact description.) Yet they are distinct persons in one God. This implies a real relationship. The Catechism describes this in para. 254, explaining that " …They are distinct in their relations of origin: ’ It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds.’ ( i.e. the Holy Spirit proceeds from both at the same time as his origin by way of spiration, para 246 ) " So the distinction in Persons lies in their relations of origin. In opposition to the definition of category of " relation " as an accident in the philosophy of Aristotle, " relation " in God is not an accident. It is not an " accident " that the Son has a " relation " with the Father or that the Holy Spirit has a " relation " with both the Father and the Son or that the three have a relationship with each other. This " relation " is not a substance, but the end of the " relation, " is a Person whose substance and nature is the same as the Father. Or, speaking of the Holy Sirit, this " relation " is a Person which has the same substance and nature as the Father, but through the Son.

So when you say, " isn’t it like saying that there is NO Essence in God other than the Persons/Relations? But then wouldn’t it lead to the fallacy that there are 3-Gods?, " this would not be true. By order of nature, but not in time, the essence, nature, and substance ( using these as univical tems in this instance ) of God come first and this nature has traditionally been held to reside in the Father since he is the origin of the other two Persons. So there is only one God because, by order of nature, it is the nature and essence and substance of the godhead which is prime or the principle of origin. Thus the essence of each Person is God himself.

We really can’t say much more than that. And this we hold by faith, that the three Persons are one and the same God.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Aner]

I disagree, 17-21 is not a nuanced explanation of 10:30. The Church has given the correct meaning. It is also supported by St. John Chrysostom comments on this passage, " if their power is the same substance…the Father is in him and he is in the Father…" Further more in 10:31 we read, " The Jews then took up stones, to stone him. " Now they did that because Jesus was saying that he and the Father were one and the same God.

Pax
Linus2nd

Why would you disagree with Jesus’ plain statement?

Have you carefully read the text? Do you see that Jesus is specifically using the exact same words as He did in Jn 10:30? Why would you accept the Jews understanding as correctly understanding Jesus - did not Jesus say they would NOT understand His words???

Why not trust Jesus to make clear what He meant?

Aner

 

[Aner]

a) Just whom, do you think, is being discussed in Jn1:1?
b) I should have said “in light of” instead of “in the background of”, since the NT throws new light on OT passages.
c) I randomly checked about 10 English versions through Bible Gateway. Not one of them used “it” for “him”.

1. Not a “whom” but a “which” - the Logos of God as clearly described in the example of Ps33:6 - and certainly other instances in the OT.
2. The Logos in Ps33:6 is clearly not to be understood as personal. The OT often throws light into the NT esp. in light of understand the Hebraic patterns of thought/expression.
3. That is because they have eisegeted the text - they are reading their own exegesis of the passage into the translation. My question for you - do you know Greek? This is a simple grammatical situation of a cased language (do you understand what this means?) in which inanimate objects have gender - therefore, the related pronoun will have gender. Logos is masculine - therefore, the pronoun must necessarily be masculine but NOT necessarily personal. In other words you cannot correspond the masculine Greek pronoun to the personal male English pronoun - two different languages. The best translation into English is “it” (just like one would make of Ps33:6).

Aner

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Why would you disagree with Jesus’ plain statement?

Have you carefully read the text? Do you see that Jesus is specifically using the exact same words as He did in Jn 10:30? Why would you accept the Jews understanding as correctly understanding Jesus - did not Jesus say they would NOT understand His words???

Why not trust Jesus to make clear what He meant?

Aner

You are the one missreading the texts. But that is because you are determined to malign the John 10:30 because it opposes the argument you are trying to make.

You prove the point that it was necessary for Christ to establish a Church to guarantee his words would not be perverted. For though there are always trying to pervert his words, at least there will always be on guaranteed source of the Truth. Since the Reformation the world has suffered form millions of individuals who interpret Christ’s words to suit threir own prejudices. But one true source remains for those who thrust for the Truth.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Aner]

You are the one missreading the texts. But that is because you are determined to malign the John 10:30 because it opposes the argument you are trying to make.

You prove the point that it was necessary for Christ to establish a Church to guarantee his words would not be perverted. For though there are always trying to pervert his words, at least there will always be on guaranteed source of the Truth. Since the Reformation the world has suffered form millions of individuals who interpret Christ’s words to suit threir own prejudices. But one true source remains for those who thrust for the Truth.

Pax
Linus2nd

Linus

First let me apologize - the identical text is actually v22 (v21 is satisfactory BUT not identical - v22 IS identical). Sorry for the confusion (yes, it has been a while since I have discussed the human person of Jesus and I am a little rusty around the edges)! For posterity sake - here are the two texts -

22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,

30 I and the Father are one.

Does this make sense now? Jesus is remarkably clear as to the correct exegesis of Jn10:30 by providing us Jn17:22.

Best,
Aner

 

[afthomercy]

We really can’t say much more than that (that they are distinct in their relations of origin:’ It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds’). And this we hold by faith, that the three Persons are one and the same God.

Pax
Linus2nd

So the 3-Persons are distinct ONLY in their relations of origin. If so, it was not ‘necessary’, in a manner of speaking, for God to be 3. He could have functioned just as effectively, had He been only 1, but 3 it is.

However it still leaves me groping with the question of what distinguishes the person from his nature/substance. This applies across the whole gamut of persons: Human, Angelic and Divine.

 

[Aner]

So the 3-Persons are distinct ONLY in their relations of origin. If so, it was not ‘necessary’, in a manner of speaking, for God to be 3. He could have functioned just as effectively, had He been only 1, but 3 it is.

However it still leaves me groping with the question of what distinguishes the person from his nature/substance. This applies across the whole gamut of persons: Human, Angelic and Divine.

1. “distinct ONLY in their relations of origin” What does this genuinely mean? It appears to be nonsensical but I would appreciate a clear statement of meaning before working further on it.
2. A - Thanks for re-stating the OP. So far, it appears that no one has even begun to approach answering it. I look forward to a meaningful effort as much as you do. This is a serious issue since ultimately has been used to deny the human person of Christ - the only Lord and Master who (the person) bought us…

Best,
Aner

 

[afthomercy]

1. “distinct ONLY in their relations of origin” What does this genuinely mean? It appears to be nonsensical but I would appreciate a clear statement of meaning before working further on it.

It cannot be enunciated any clearer than this: It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten (of the Father), and the Holy Spirit who proceeds (from the Father and/through the Son). It is admittedly difficult (impossible?) to wrap one’s head around this and should not be attempted also.

So it appears that in addition to holding unorthodox views on the nature/origin of Jesus, you also have reservations regarding the Trinity. Catholicism has many dogmas (revealed truths) like this, which have to be accepted in totality, in faith. I think that it is a totally good thing, because if everything had a logical explanation, we not be able to say that God is above and beyond human understanding.

Regarding the person v/s nature bit, I think that will also not be fully answered, because the person is a mystery and will remain so, at least on this side of life.

I definitely look forward to getting the answers on the other side, because the main aspect of the resurrection is that we will behold God as HE REALLY IS. That’s the biggest prize - save the best for last!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus

First let me apologize - the identical text is actually v22 (v21 is satisfactory BUT not identical - v22 IS identical). Sorry for the confusion (yes, it has been a while since I have discussed the human person of Jesus and I am a little rusty around the edges)! For posterity sake - here are the two texts -

22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,

30 I and the Father are one.

Does this make sense now? Jesus is remarkably clear as to the correct exegesis of Jn10:30 by providing us Jn17:22.

Best,
Aner

Jn 17:21 " That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent : "

The phrase, " That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee,…" Christ is praying that the Apostles ( and all of us coming after down to the present time ) will be united in one faith and one truth and perfect as compared to the oneness we ( the persons of the Father and the Son) are in substance and nature. " …as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee,…" does repeat Jn 10: 30 but Christ is not saying that those who follow him in truth and faith will be united with the Divinity in substance and nature or Persons.

St. John Chrosostom says Christ is praying that they may be merciful as we are merciful.

Jn 17:22 And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one. St. John Chrosostom says, that they may work miracles as " we " do. St. Augustine says that they may have heavenly glory as we have heavenly glory, which seems to the sense expressed in the 24th verse.

Verse 23 seems to support the sentiments as in verses 21 and 22, that the Apostles and those who follow may be perfect as the Father and the Son are perfect.

All three verses reinforce the truth that the Father and the Son are different Persons, yet one God as Christ makes explicit in Jn 10:30.

An even more complling verse is Mt. 28:19-20, " Going, therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; (20)teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.

Christ makes explicit that there are three Persons in the one God. He also makes it clear that he will guide the Apostles and those who follow them in all truth and discipline. And how can this be done unless all are members of the one Church he established, with whom he will remain until the end of time? For how can the one doctrine Christ taught be maintained as one doctrine unless there is one authority for this doctrine?

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

So the 3-Persons are distinct ONLY in their relations of origin. If so, it was not ‘necessary’, in a manner of speaking, for God to be 3. He could have functioned just as effectively, had He been only 1, but 3 it is.

Yes, it is what it is.

However it still leaves me groping with the question of what distinguishes the person from his nature/substance. This applies across the whole gamut of persons: Human, Angelic and Divine.

You have to keep in mind that the Divine Persons are persons only by analogy to our understanding of human persons. In other words human persons have comparable natures ( the same kind of nature, of the same species ). But our similar natures are instantiated in persons which are absolutely separated in being and substance and essence. But the Divine Persons are united in substance, nature, essence and being.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Aner]

Yes, it is what it is.

You have to keep in mind that the Divine Persons are persons only by analogy to our understanding of human persons. In other words human persons have comparable natures ( the same kind of nature, of the same species ). But our similar natures are instantiated in persons which are absolutely separated in being and substance and essence. But the Divine Persons are united in substance, nature, essence and being.

Pax
Linus2nd

Linus - Why are you so focused on these artificial, man-made constructs? There is no reality at any level that corresponds to a single item above - simple the realm of one’s man imagination (though, I admit, a vivid imagination indeed ()!!

 

[Aner]

Jn 17:22 And the glory which thou hast given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, as we also are one.

All three verses reinforce the truth that the Father and the Son are different Persons, yet one God as Christ makes explicit in Jn 10:30.

Linus - Do you see that Jesus states we - His disciples - are to BE ONE - in the SAME WAY that He and God are ONE (Jn10:30)? This is the straight and obvious meaning of the words. The meaning that any natural reading would result in. Based on standard hermeunutics (sp?) and basic common sense (a faculty that God has created in us), this is the correct reading.

An even more complling verse is Mt. 28:19-20, " Going, therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; (20)teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.

Christ makes explicit that there are three Persons in the one God. He also makes it clear that he will guide the Apostles and those who follow them in all truth and discipline. And how can this be done unless all are members of the one Church he established, with whom he will remain until the end of time? For how can the one doctrine Christ taught be maintained as one doctrine unless there is one authority for this doctrine?

Pax
Linus2nd

Linus - There is no mention of three persons in the one God here. There is simply a mention of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (AMEN!). Please note

1. This verse is uses just the name of Jesus in certain very early texts.
2. ALL baptism in scripture is done in Jesus name - NOT the name of the F,S,HS…

Thus this is a very weak verse upon which to establish anything.

re: Authority
Of course there is an authority - Jesus told us who the Authority was - Jesus PROMISED us the Authority.

As you live by the Holy Spirit, so walk ye also by the Holy Spirit.

This is just basic Discipleship 101 material (the milk…).

Blessings

Aner

 

[Aner]

It cannot be enunciated any clearer than this: It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten (of the Father), and the Holy Spirit who proceeds (from the Father and/through the Son). It is admittedly difficult (impossible?) to wrap one’s head around this and should not be attempted also.

So it appears that in addition to holding unorthodox views on the nature/origin of Jesus, you also have reservations regarding the Trinity. Catholicism has many dogmas (revealed truths) like this, which have to be accepted in totality, in faith. I think that it is a totally good thing, because if everything had a logical explanation, we not be able to say that God is above and beyond human understanding.

Regarding the person v/s nature bit, I think that will also not be fully answered, because the person is a mystery and will remain so, at least on this side of life.

I definitely look forward to getting the answers on the other side, because the main aspect of the resurrection is that we will behold God as HE REALLY IS. That’s the biggest prize - save the best for last!

A -

You seem to be giving up to easy - to be saying “this is too hard” - “I will simply accept what some man tells man despite the fact that it is totally contrary to scripture regardless of either common sense and to reason”. With all due respect, the “accepting by faith” as you represent it above betrays a critical lack of understanding of what genuine Christian “faith” is. For a disciple of Jesus, our faith is based in the power of God - and NOT what some man tells us by his “wisdom” (as you are asserting we should).

The ultimate and real issue here (the person vs nature is just a preliminary to pull us back from the abyss) is the rejection of the human person of Jesus - and thus the rejection that Jesus was a genuine man. This is a gross error - it rejects clear texts of scripture, e.g. -

ITim2:5
5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

and rejects our only Lord and Master who bought us…

This is a terrifying rejection to make in light of all eternity.

BTW - “person” and “nature” can be easily understood - these are man-make, artificial, made up terms. Simply ask the next man who uses these terms to be specific. Obviously you and I already know he won’t be able to do it because he is just mouthing words that some earlier deceiver already brought into the church of Jesus Christ. Press him to stop bringing this evil into the church of Jesus Christ.

Sincerely,
In Christ,

Aner

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus - Why are you so focused on these artificial, man-made constructs? There is no reality at any level that corresponds to a single item above - simple the realm of one’s man imagination (though, I admit, a vivid imagination indeed ()!!

Are you familiar with Thomistic philosophy? The Church has found it of great value in helping to explain some of the truths of faith, Revelation if you will. What I have said is not imagination nor " man-made constructs. " They are based upon a fundamental philosophical of human nature and the human person and how this, by analogy leads us to an understanding of God’s nature and the meaning of the Divine Persons. The use of philosophy has been endorsed and used by the Church in many of its teachings.

Sorry you object. And sorry you choose to belittle it. But you get no apologies from me.

Pax
Linus2nd