Person Vs Nature

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

No, that is not true. And it is not the plain meaning of the words. Hermeunutics, not withstanding. Hermeunutics can and often are wrong. Whereas, the Church teaches the truth, with no error.

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.

1. 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.

And you are trying to explain away the plain meaning. Why you do so is a mystery to me.

Do you reject the Trinity of Persons in One God, it sounds like it?

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

And of course you are wrong on all accounts. Christ has given his Church the authority to explain and teach what exactly Divine Revelation is and what it means. In this way all of us, you and me, are protected from our own private prejudices and ignorance.

Your own view point proves the necessity for an appointed earthly authority, The Catholic Church, which will faithfully pass on the truth of Tradition, Revelation as given to the Apostles. If your view point were correct all Christians would be teaching the same doctrine and discipline. But they don’t. So your conviction that each of us has infallible access to the true meaning of Revelation, guaranteed by the Holy Spirit, is clearly wrong. This was proven in the very beginning of the preaching of the Apostles. They frequently warned against " innovators, " against false prophets. Since that time there have been countless innovators and false prophets. But the Church’s teachings have been consistently faithful to the initial Revelation.

The " milk " is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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!

That is fine, stick to your guns. Aner’s response to this post is false and erroneous. He further makes accusations which must be rejected.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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

I will let Aftomercy answer your questions. But I want to ask you a question. What makes you think that Catholics reject Jesus Christ as a true man, the one mediator between God and man?

Do you think Christ was simply a human being, a mere man? Or, do you think he was both man and God, the second Person of the Trinity?

Do you reject the Trinity of Persons in the One God?

Because it certainly looks as though you reject all these.

So please explain what exactly you do believe?

Do you belong to the United Church of God?

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[afthomercy]

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.

OK, so my nature is instantiated in the person called Afthomercy; your nature is instantiated in the person called Linusthe2nd (assuming these are our real names); the Angel Raphael’s nature is instantiated in the person called Angel Raphael and the 3-Divine Persons’ nature is instantiated in the Entity called the Trinity.
What I want to know is how the personhood of Afthomercy is distinguished from his body and soul; how the personhood of Linusthe2nd is differentiated from his body and soul; how the personhood of Archangel Raphael is differentiated from his soul and how the Divine Persons (taken individually or together) are differentiated from the Godhead.
Is it possible to draw a dividing line between a person and his nature? I say yes, because when I look at the Godhead indivisibly instantiated in the 3-distinct Persons and when I look at the Hypostatic union where the 2nd Person distinctly and simultaneously holds two natures, the existence of such a distinction suggests itself. How do we put a finger on it?

 

[afthomercy]

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.

If “person” and “nature” are only a question of semantics, then why should it agitate you so much? We do not deny that Christ was a genuine man. We only deny that he was a human person. By denying that Christ was a Divine Person joined to a human nature, what are you trying to get at?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

OK, so my nature is instantiated in the person called Afthomercy; your nature is instantiated in the person called Linusthe2nd (assuming these are our real names); the Angel Raphael’s nature is instantiated in the person called Angel Raphael and the 3-Divine Persons’ nature is instantiated in the Entity called the Trinity.

Yes for you and I and Raphael. But each Person of the Trinity is instantiated in the essence, nature, substance of the Godhead (i.e., residing in the Father ). They are distinct by their relationship to their origin and with each other. We would have to say that each Person of the Trinity is aware of themselves as a distinct Person and distinct from the other two, and each is aware of having the same Divine nature. Each is aware of being one in nature but distinct in person…

What I want to know is how the personhood of Afthomercy is distinguished from his body and soul; how the personhood of Linusthe2nd is differentiated from his body and soul; how the personhood of Archangel Raphael is differentiated from his soul

Your personhood, mine, and Raphael’s are instantiated in our individual natures, A person is a living nature or essence that is self aware, it is not separate from our nature’s.

and how the Divine Persons (taken individually or together) are differentiated from the Godhead.

I explained that above and in prior posts on this thread.

Is it possible to draw a dividing line between a person and his nature? I say yes, because when I look at the Godhead indivisibly instantiated in the 3-distinct Persons

I disageee. Each Person is distinct by reason of its origin. The Father is his own Person, the Son is begotten, eternally by the Father, the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from both the Father and the Son. But each has the same nature. But they are distinct by relationship only. They cannot be distinct from the godhead and are not.

and when I look at the Hypostatic union where the 2nd Person distinctly and simultaneously holds two natures, the existence of such a distinction suggests itself.

But here the Second Person assumes a human nature. Thus the human nature adds nothing to the Second Person. Whereas, the Second Person adds the Divinity of God to the human nature and the Personhood of the Second Person to the human nature. The result is Jesus Christ the Second Person of the Trinity, in the flesh. The Second Person is not changed, it merely takes on humanity. How can you divide the person of Jesus Christ, having two natures from the Second Person? You can’t.

How do we put a finger on it?

I don’t think we can do more than we have here.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Aner]

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

Hi Linus

Thanks for the follow up. The only philosophy I ascribe to is Biblical philosophy. I remain perplexed as to why non-Biblical, non-existential artificial ideological constructs would even be considered to understand God or the Son of the Most High, Jesus Christ. The Scripture in these instances provide FAR more abundant information that either you or I could even begun to plumb. Yet you choose to add to scripture… Why?

Aner

 

[Aner]

If “person” and “nature” are only a question of semantics, then why should it agitate you so much? We do not deny that Christ was a genuine man. We only deny that he was a human person. By denying that Christ was a Divine Person joined to a human nature, what are you trying to get at?

A-

Great question!!!

First, “person” vs. “nature” are not semantics in terms of the traditions of men that have had significant impact on the disciples of Jesus Christ - as well as others in the church. This dichotomy buttresses the rejection of the man Christ Jesus.

Second, THANKS SO MUCH for acknowledging that you DENY the human person of Jesus Christ (above). Your denial of the human person of Jesus is the VERY essence of the issue - which often even those who do not follow the vatican are unable to grasp. Yet understanding this is so simple… (maybe you can help me make this more clear to other human beings since you get it). Admittedly some play games when they see the obvious severe defect in their HP construct (I have gone around more than once with fellows who literally will not simply admit their denial despite saying it in so many words - they are so terrified of the obvious implications). You, OTOH, have had the integrity to be honest and forthright. For this I greatly respect you.

Third, the issue is the following. By your denying that Jesus was/is a human person, you are clearly and directly denying and rejecting the MAN Christ Jesus. There is NO “MAN” anywhere at anytime in human history that was not most fundamentally a human person. A divine being inhabiting a functionless human nature is NOT “a man”. Such a combination may be some kind of entity but a MAN such a combination is most definitely not. Scripture plainly and repeatedly teaches that Jesus IS a man by specifically and clearly stating so (inc. Jesus Himself in Jn 8:40) a multitude of times (I urge you to look up the MANY verses that state this). I believe that Jesus IS a genuine MAN just like you and I because scripture specifically and clearly states that He is. My Jesus can get up and walk and function just like you and I, as man can, without having an integrated deity pulling the strings. In contrast, you are describing a functionless human nature as Jesus - which is nothing more than an animated puppet because divine entity crawled inside of a functionless “human nature” (which neither your nor anyone else can meaningfully define other than a human body which has a set of potential functions).

Do you see how vast this distinction is? I want a real human Mediator between myself and God - who really knows me as a man, a real human High Priest who was created by God and calls me Brother (Heb2:11, 12). Now I have One who comes before the God of all grace who genuinely knows and relates to me as a genuine man instead of some deity in a human box who I cannot relate to whatever. There is an eternity of difference between what you and I believe and teach concerning the Lord and Master who bought us, Jesus Christ.

Sincerely,
In the Lord Jesus Christ,

Aner (= “Man” in Greek)

 

[Aner]

Linus

With all due respect, you, a simple man as I, sure seem to know a LOT about the Creator God of the Universe - despite the fact that you have no source for any of this data, you have never even seen God much less spoken to Him face to face. Yet you stand before us, without a single basis, a make the most grandiose statements…

Are you really sure you want to lift yourself up before man and God in this manner?? I would be terrified to do so…

Yes for you and I and Raphael. But each Person of the Trinity is instantiated in the essence, nature, substance of the Godhead (i.e., residing in the Father ). They are distinct by their relationship to their origin and with each other. We would have to say that each Person of the Trinity is aware of themselves as a distinct Person and distinct from the other two, and each is aware of having the same Divine nature. Each is aware of being one in nature but distinct in person…

Sincerely,

Aner

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hi Linus

Thanks for the follow up. The only philosophy I ascribe to is Biblical philosophy. I remain perplexed as to why non-Biblical, non-existential artificial ideological constructs would even be considered to understand God or the Son of the Most High, Jesus Christ. The Scripture in these instances provide FAR more abundant information that either you or I could even begun to plumb. Yet you choose to add to scripture… Why?

Aner

You didn’t answer all my questions. Did I mention scripture? Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and you will see why.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus

With all due respect, you, a simple man as I, sure seem to know a LOT about the Creator God of the Universe - despite the fact that you have no source for any of this data, you have never even seen God much less spoken to Him face to face. Yet you stand before us, without a single basis, a make the most grandiose statements…

Are you really sure you want to lift yourself up before man and God in this manner?? I would be terrified to do so…

Sincerely,

Aner

I say no more that the Catholic Church, who has been appointed by Jesus Christ to hand on his Teaching and moral discipline. And yes, I do employ human reasoning, by which we are images of God. Yes, I do stand up for the truth.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

A-

Great question!!!

First, “person” vs. “nature” are not semantics in terms of the traditions of men that have had significant impact on the disciples of Jesus Christ - as well as others in the church. This dichotomy buttresses the rejection of the man Christ Jesus.

Second, THANKS SO MUCH for acknowledging that you DENY the human person of Jesus Christ (above). Your denial of the human person of Jesus is the VERY essence of the issue - which often even those who do not follow the vatican are unable to grasp. Yet understanding this is so simple… (maybe you can help me make this more clear to other human beings since you get it). Admittedly some play games when they see the obvious severe defect in their HP construct (I have gone around more than once with fellows who literally will not simply admit their denial despite saying it in so many words - they are so terrified of the obvious implications). You, OTOH, have had the integrity to be honest and forthright. For this I greatly respect you.

Third, the issue is the following. By your denying that Jesus was/is a human person, you are clearly and directly denying and rejecting the MAN Christ Jesus. There is NO “MAN” anywhere at anytime in human history that was not most fundamentally a human person. A divine being inhabiting a functionless human nature is NOT “a man”. Such a combination may be some kind of entity but a MAN such a combination is most definitely not. Scripture plainly and repeatedly teaches that Jesus IS a man by specifically and clearly stating so (inc. Jesus Himself in Jn 8:40) a multitude of times (I urge you to look up the MANY verses that state this). I believe that Jesus IS a genuine MAN just like you and I because scripture specifically and clearly states that He is. My Jesus can get up and walk and function just like you and I, as man can, without having an integrated deity pulling the strings. In contrast, you are describing a functionless human nature as Jesus - which is nothing more than an animated puppet because divine entity crawled inside of a functionless “human nature” (which neither your nor anyone else can meaningfully define other than a human body which has a set of potential functions).

Do you see how vast this distinction is? I want a real human Mediator between myself and God - who really knows me as a man, a real human High Priest who was created by God and calls me Brother (Heb2:11, 12). Now I have One who comes before the God of all grace who genuinely knows and relates to me as a genuine man instead of some deity in a human box who I cannot relate to whatever. There is an eternity of difference between what you and I believe and teach concerning the Lord and Master who bought us, Jesus Christ.

Sincerely,
In the Lord Jesus Christ,

Aner (= “Man” in Greek)

O.K. Aner, now the shoe is on the other foot. Who appointed you to speak for God for the rest of us? Where is your authority to interpret what the Scriptures say and do not say? Remember, by your own conviction you are not allowed to say anything not clearly in Scripture. What guarantee do any of us have that your interpretations are correct?

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Aner]

O.K. Aner, now the shoe is on the other foot. . What guarantee do any of us have that your interpretations are correct?

Pax
Linus2nd

Linus - the difference is that I am simply repeating scripture. You created entire universes of terminology, concept and construct that are nowhere to be found in scripture or in direct human experience (I refer to your detailed description of the relations in the tri-personal god).

This is a pretty big difference!!!

Best,
Aner

 

[Aner]

I will let Aftomercy answer your questions. But I want to ask you a question. What makes you think that Catholics reject Jesus Christ as a true man, the one mediator between God and man?

Please see my very recent response to A-. I detail why followers of the vatican reject the man Christ Jesus (likewise so do most evangelicals (I am not an evangelical!)).

Do you think Christ was simply a human being, a mere man?

A mere man??? Mere man?? Is that you how you reference the Creator’s greatest creative act whom He made in His OWN image? Please re-read Heb 2:1ff to get a sense of God’s thinking about man …

Or, do you think he was both man and God, the second Person of the Trinity?

Jesus was a GENUINE man, just like you and I are as the scripture specifically teaches.

Hebrews 2:11 American Standard Version (ASV)
For both he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

Do you reject the Trinity of Persons in the One God?

I don’t reject - I simply don’t acknowledge man-made constructs to understand God. The notion that Jehovah is multiple persons completely betrays any sense of scripture. See about 10,000 singular PERSONal pronouns used by Jehovah to refer to Himself.

Because it certainly looks as though you reject all these.

So please explain what exactly you do believe?

ICor8:6
For unto us their is one God, the Father
and one Lord, Jesus Christ.

PERIOD

Do you belong to the United Church of God?

No. I belong to the church of Jesus Christ. This is the church comprised of all who are holding fast the Head - the disciples of Jesus Christ.

Pax
Linus2nd

Linus

Sorry - right you are - I did not see this. A little hard for me to keep up… I will try my best.

See answers above in blue.

Best,
Aner

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus

Sorry - right you are - I did not see this. A little hard for me to keep up… I will try my best.

See answers above in blue.

Best,
Aner

I find your answers very indefinite. Are you certain what you believe at all?
So you are saying that you are unaffiliated to with any organized Church, a non-Church going believer is God and spiritual realities too indefinite to define. That is what it seems to me from your answers above.

What Creed do you profess?
Do you think Jesus was Devine, man and God?

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Aner]

I find your answers very indefinite. Are you certain what you believe at all?
So you are saying that you are unaffiliated to with any organized Church, a non-Church going believer is God and spiritual realities too indefinite to define. That is what it seems to me from your answers above.

What Creed do you profess?
Do you think Jesus was Devine, man and God?

Pax
Linus2nd

Egads - “indefinite”??? Please provide one specific answer that is indefinite.

“Organized” church - what does that mean? Are you saying that Jesus’ church is not organized??? We have have a Head - the Lord and Master who bought us! He is working through His entire body. Are you saying Jesus is disorganized???

re: Creed
I specifically gave you the creed - ICor8:6 - it is above. This is the only legitimate creed there is - given to us by God via the Apostle Paul in Holy Scripture. A man through whom the power of God was manifested validating that His Word was being preached - in contrast to most other men through whom there is NO power of God - thus showing that they are simply providing us the wisdom (mostly false) of men.

re: Jesus being “Devine”
Do you mean Christine Devine or Alexa Devine… Ok, I realize that you meant “divine”.

The simple answer is the answer Paul the Apostle provides - ITim2:5. Please read this text about ten times - I think the significance will be manifest. Peter also beautifully states the same in Acts 2:22 -

22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God unto you by mighty works and wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you, even as ye yourselves know;

Clearly Peter did NOT believe Jesus was God - but a MAN approved by God. Huge difference!!!

Best,
Aner

 

[levinas12]

Aristotle and Thomas are more than enough for me.

But what if “person” (whether divine or human) cannot fit into Aristotle’s categories?

What if “person” cannot be accounted for in terms of essence or form or substance or matter or accident (e.g., relation)?

What if “person” turns out to be a radical singularity?

I would agree that John Doe as a human being is an instantiation of a form or eidos or species (and a member of a class). But John Doe qua John Doe is not an instantiation. There is no “John Doe” form, species or class.

But it’s not as if Aristotle and Thomas are irrelevant - on the contrary, they provided the springboard for “person” to emerge as a dominant philosophical issue.

Heidegger himself stresses that his thought was the result of a life-long encounter with Aristotle.

 

[Aner]

But what if “person” (whether divine or human) cannot fit into Aristotle’s categories?

What if “person” cannot be accounted for in terms of essence or form or substance or matter or accident (e.g., relation)?

What if “person” turns out to be a radical singularity?

I would agree that John Doe as a human being is an instantiation of a form or eidos or species (and a member of a class). But John Doe qua John Doe is not an instantiation. There is no “John Doe” form, species or class.

But it’s not as if Aristotle and Thomas are irrelevant - on the contrary, they provided the springboard for “person” to emerge as a dominant philosophical issue.

Heidegger himself stresses that his thought was the result of a life-long encounter with Aristotle.

The real issue is what does that have to do with Jesus Christ - the Lord of Glory - who will judge Thomas, Aquinas, Heidegger and every other filthy, reprobate sinner including myself??

 

[levinas12]

The real issue is what does that have to do with Jesus Christ - the Lord of Glory - who will judge Thomas, Aquinas, Heidegger and every other filthy, reprobate sinner including myself??

But this is a philosophy forum. And “person” is a philosophical notion (albeit with roots in theological debates about the Trinity).

But you raise an interesting question. What does culture have to do with salvation?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Bye guys. This thread is dead.

Pax
Linus2nd