pro_universal's reasons for leavin the Catholic Church

[Contarini]

Contarini;1530191:

But by using a simple equivalence, that is what you imply. That’s how you get your “inconsistency.” I’m simply making explicit what is logically implied in your claim of inconsistency.

Okay, wait a second here…Christ’s body is “divinized”? Does that mean divine? If so…fully divine?

It means assumed by the divine nature and united to it, so that (for instance) worship paid to Christ in physical form is not idolatry.

I certainly do have a clue. I ate the host, and in doing so, ate the flesh of God. If that’s not “Jesus’s body is God”, I don’t know what is. I think you’re playing on the term “divinized” without exploring what it really means.

No, I’m paying attention to what it really means instead of giving it a simplistic interpretation.

Islamic premises? Huh?

This simplistic approach to the Incarnation as if everything predicated of Jesus were predicated of the divine essence is characteristic of every conversation I’ve had with Muslims on this subject. Since you admit that you are attracted to Islam, I thought it wasn’t too much of a stretch to suggest that you had already begun looking at Christianity through Islamic eyes. It’s a natural thing to do if you are disgruntled with Christianity and find Islam appealing. I’m just pointing it out.

Maybe so, but the fact is, if you actually read the Athanasian creed, you have pretty basic and obvious contradictions. I’m sure there is a logician somewhere in your faculty. Take the Athanasian creed to her and see what she says about it.

Actually, we have only one philosopher currently (we’re a small college!), and I did have a conversation with him about the Trinity just a couple of weeks ago. He likes to get his students thinking about whether the Trinity is contradictory or not (because unfortunately many of our students are practically fideists–they really don’t think about reason in connection with faith at all), but he does not in fact think that the Trinity is contradictory.

Well, one good reason would be to look at what it means to “incarnate.” If he were to incarnate, he wouldn’t be an invisible, immaterial being anymore. Kind of like a circle becoming a square.

No, it’s more like a plane being present in a line or a line in a point. You are thinking of material/immaterial as two differing states of being, when (speaking of God) they are more like two dimensions. God is immaterial not because He lacks something but because He lacks nothing. Materiality is limitation–God is unlimited. And precisely because He is unlimited, He can assume a limited nature (with everything pertaining to it) without ceasing to be God.

Certainly, maybe it is possible. But that won’t make the trinity less contradictory. Maybe the power to escape the bounds of logic is a power God has, but I like the CS Lewis approach on this…you can’t have a circle with four corners, and not having one isn’t really a limit on God’s power. It’s just a nonsensical thing, ie, no thing, and thus, not some “thing” that God can’t do.

I agree. However, it is possible to believe something to be contradictory that is not. And since you have yet to state the Christian doctrine in a form Christians can accept–since even when you quote the Athanasian Creed you alter the words significantly and don’t even notice it–I don’t think you’re in any position to be confident that what you think is a contradiction really is one.

This may be so, but again, it’s not central to the point, and certainly, there’s at least as much evidence that Jews, in their iconoclastic ways, believed in the immaterial God.

Iconoclasm doesn’t necessarily imply immateriality. Also, according to my old professor from Duke (whom I mentioned earlier), Jewish iconoclasm has been greatly exaggerated. He wrote a whole book on the subject of Jewish religious art.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I really would like to settle this issue, so please quote to me the language concerning the trinity which was untrue. I responded to your claim that Jesus’s body was “divinized” and not “fully divine” or “God” above. I’d like to know which line I got wrong.

The Creed says “The Son is God,” and you render this as “God is Jesus.”

As you surely know, “God” is referring to the divine essence, and “Son” to one of the three hypostases/persons. “The Son is God” means that the Son possesses the fullness of the divine essence, not that the term “the Son” is identical to the phrase “the divine essence.” To reverse this as “Jesus is God” betrays your complete ignorance of what the phrase in the Creed means. Furthermore, your paraphrase does exactly the same kind of hatchet job with regard to Christology. The human being Jesus is indeed the Son–the Second Person of the Trinity–together with the human nature (body and soul) assumed by the Son. But just as the Son is not identical to the divine essence such that the terms can be used interchangeably, so the human person Jesus is not identical to the Second Person of the Trinity such that the terms can be used interchangeably.

Alright, then please explain to me the difference between Jesus and God. “Jesus is God” is a pretty basic Christian term. I can’t count how many times I heard it and learned it. It’s also a statement I can make without qualification.

Well, I’m sorry you weren’t better catechized. “Jesus is God” is certainly true, but it is not true without qualification. The human being Jesus, for instance, in His full humanity (including a body), is not omnipresent (Luther thought otherwise, but Luther was wrong). The human being Jesus has not existed from all eternity. In other words, there are positive statements that can be made about God that cannot be made about Jesus. And conversely there are negative statements about Jesus that cannot be made about God. It is true–in a poetic, paradoxical sort of way–to say that God died on the Cross. That is, Jesus who was a fully divine Person experienced death. But it is not true to say that God ceased to exist between the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. It is true to say that the human being Jesus (as a body-soul compound, which alone can be said to be a true human person) ceased to exist during those three days.

You will not find the classical patristic texts on this subject saying things like “Jesus is God” without qualification. This is more a statement of popular piet, though it is certainly correct if rightly understood (just as in Catholic theology the statement “the host is the Body of Christ” is correct, but needs to be qualified in all sorts of ways and is not as literal as popular piety makes it sound).

For clarity, I’m inserting here a quote from the Athanasian creed. It uses precisely the language I did in 1-3: ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

No, it doesn’t. And the fact that you can’t see the difference between “the Son is God” and “God is Jesus” shows that you don’t have a clue what Trinitarian theology is all about.

That’s OK as long as you are simply going to believe it. None of us understand the Trinity–we believe it is a mystery and a paradox. I’m not even claiming that you need to understand it in order to reject it. You might decide that Occam’s razor is a good way to approach the question and that anything this complicated is unlikely to be true. But if you are going to claim that the language of mystery and paradox is sheer mystification covering up a simple contradiction, you need to show that you understand the traditional language. And the more you try to show that you understand it, the more you demonstrate that you don’t.

Maybe for the purposes of explaining the trinity in a forum debate you’ve decided that this isn’t orthodox, but the fact is, “Jesus is God” is a well established teaching of the Church.

I would actually question whether this phrase appears frequently in technical theologial discussions or doctrinal definitions. Usually we use terms like “fully God and fully Man” to make it clear that we are talking about Jesus’ divine nature, not making a simple equivalence as you are doing.

The Son is God–that is well established.
Jesus is God–that is true but needs qualification and is not usually the language of theological definition.
God is Jesus–that is not orthodox.

 

[Contarini]

If you want to dispute this further, I’d really like for you to outline the specific differences between Jesus and God.

Jesus is a human being. God is not.

Jesus (as a full human person, a body-soul compound) ceased to exist between His death and resurrection. God did not.

God is everywhere. The human being Jesus is not.

(It would be odd for you to do so, since if you did, that would seem to be proof that Jesus was not fully God…or maybe you have some way of explaining how Jesus is “fully God,” even though there are parts of Jesus that are not God?)

Please bear in mind that no orthodox Christian claims to be able to explain the Trinity adequately. We claim that the reality of God goes beyond human understanding (and please consider MariaG's excellent point about the Islamic doctrine of God). I do not claim to be able to explain how it works. I claim that Christians have developed formulas that avoid blatant contradiction or theological error while giving us some (analogical) way of speaking about an ineffable mystery.



Jesus is fully divine because Jesus has a divine nature. Jesus never sinned, which is the only part of being human that is incompatible with being divine. (That is an important difference between Christians and Muslims--you should consider what it says about our respective understandings of human dignity.)



Again, it's a paradox. It can only be a contradiction if you think you understand fully what the terms mean. Otherwise you're in no position to say that they contradict. And who is going to say that they understand fully what we mean by "the divine nature"? Who is to say what it might mean for a human being to possess a divine nature?



Again, if you want to say that this is unnecessary mystification, I can't argue with you. That's a call you have the right to make, though I think it's a tragic mistake and you are turning away from the heart of truth and beauty.

I don't think it's overly sophisticated. I think it's an incomplete statement of the teaching designed to make it appear more sensible than it is.



If you just want to confine yourself to saying "three persons, one substance", that's fine. But when you start saying that the Father is fully God, and the Son is fully God, and the Holy Spirit is Fully God, and that neither is identical to one another, and that each contains the whole three in its "God nature", then you do certainly have some clear cases of contradiction.

No, because these statements are understood in light of the prior definition. You obviously don't understand this or you wouldn't paraphrase the AC as "God is Jesus" without even noticing that you've radically altered the thought. The point of the formula is to say that a "person" denotes something quite different from a "nature." That's sufficient to avoid the charge of simple contradiction. When we say that the Son is God, we are saying that a Person fully possesses a nature. We are not making a statement of simple equivalence between the two terms.



Edwin

 

[M_Oliver]

Your statements negate God entirely. Yes, angels and humans are included in all creation and you know the Church teaches that. You also know that god created man in his own image. Which means that man has intelligence and the ability to know right from wrong. When you state that man does not have free will, you are saying that man does not know right from wrong.

One definition of hell is the situation a person finds himself in when he puts forth that God is capable of inspiring evil actions or that evil exists within God. The position of having no God at all.Which is where you are when you insist that man has no free will and that man’s evil actions are inspired and directed by God.

In no way do I negate God in anything I say. I am guilty of negating mainstream teaching that varies from Scripture. I can’t apologize for that.

I’m sorry but God did not “create” man in His own image. He although is “creating” man in His own image. Look, besides the mistranslation of “created” instead of “creating” have you ever thought of Genesis 3:6…

"So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food {lust of the flesh}, and that it was a delight to the eyes {lust of the eyes}, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise {pride of life}, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate."

and understood that it parallels 1 John 2:15-16…

**"Do not love or cherish the world or the things that are in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in him.

For all that is in the world–the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life–these do not come from the Father but are from the world."**

This is BEFORE they ate of the fruit. This means humanity was created sinners, not in the image of God. When He is DONE with us, then we will be in His image, thus “CREATING”.

Not having a free will that can go against God’s will has nothing to do whatsoever with knowing right from wrong. We now have the knowledge of good and evil, remember?

“For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing the difference between good and evil and blessing and calamity.”
Genesis 3:4

All one has to do is pay attention to the words. Study it for yourself.

 

[pro_universal]

The Son is God" means that the Son possesses the fullness of the divine essence, not that the term;the Son; is identical to the phrase "the divine essence.

Please explain how it is logically possible, given the infinite God, to “possess” the fullness of divine essence without being the divine essence. Are you saying that there is a being that possesses God besides God himself (who is identical to his essence, that’s basic theology)?

To reverse this as;Jesus is God; betrays your complete ignorance of what the phrase in the Creed means.

Well, if I can’t say “Jesus is God” because his flesh is human, what are we doing eating the host? That’s Jesus’s flesh, and it’s supposed to be God too.

You seem to be making the creed into something it’s not, namely, a creed that divides God. Jesus is God means what it says; if you can separate out a non-God part of Jesus, then Jesus the person is not God, but rather, a man whose body is possessed by God.

The problem here is that you’re struggling to explain the trinity, and in doing so, labelling my uncontroversial statements of Christian teaching “complete ignorance.” I trust that you are doing this only for the purposes of a debate, and that the next time you hear a fellow Christian say “Jesus is GOD!”, you’re not going to say “actually, that displays complete ignorance of Christian teaching.”

But just as the Son is not identical to the divine essence such that the terms can be used interchangeably, so the human person Jesus is not identical to the Second Person of the Trinity such that the terms can be used interchangeably.

Wait, Jesus the human isn’t identical to the second person of the trinity!? That’s certainly news to me. It would seem to undo the Athanasian and Nicene creeds.

If Jesus the human isn’t Jesus the God, then I guess Catholics are wrong to say “Holy Mary, Mother of God.” And I guess there is no “union”, since, if Jesus the human isn’t Jesus the God, there would have to be a division between the two.

Or is there some mysterious way that “union” also means “not united”?

Well, I’m sorry you weren’t better catechized.;Jesus is God; is certainly true, but it is not true without qualification.

With respect, the problem here is your own understanding of the doctrine. By dividing Jesus, you deny the hypostatic union. If he’s fully God and fully human, it is just as true to say “Jesus is God” without qualification as it is to say “Jesus is human” without qualification. Now that’s an obvious contradiction, but it’s what the teaching requires. 100 percent man, 100 percent God…your theory here only works assuming something more like 50-50.

In other words, there are positive statements that can be made about God that cannot be made about Jesus.

I agree. In which case, it’s just as true to say “Jesus is not God” as it is to say “Jesus is God.”

If you have to qualify either of those statements, then you’re admitting that Jesus is not a united whole but rather divisible parts.

It is true–in a poetic, paradoxical sort of way–to say that God died on the Cross.

In what way is it paradoxical? You use the term again below…I’d like for you to outline the “paradox” and explain how it’s different from the contradictions I’m identifying.

You will not find the classical patristic texts on this subject saying things like “Jesus is God” without qualification.

The Nicene creed makes it clear. There is to be no dividing Jesus from God. As much as you don’t like “popular piety” on this point, it is correct and you are not.

Usually we use terms like “fully God and fully Man” to make it clear that we are talking about Jesus’ divine nature, not making a simple equivalence as you are doing.

The problem is this: If I can’t make a simple equivalence, then it’s not true that every part of Jesus is God. And if every part of Jesus isn’t God, then Jesus himself is not God. That’s against the teaching. It’s an either/or that forces you either to divide God, or confuse Jesus the person.

The Son is God–that is well established.
Jesus is God–that is true but needs qualification and is not usually the language of theological definition.
God is Jesus–that is not orthodox.

If “Jesus is God” cannot be written as “God is Jesus”, then Jesus isn’t fully God. And if he’s not fully God, the Church is flat out wrong on the divinity of Jesus.

If the Church is right that Jesus is God, in the sense that he is fully divine, there is no possible definition of the word “is” that would prevent me from reversing the terms.

 

[pro_universal]

The point of the formula is to say that a “person” denotes something quite different from a “nature.” That’s sufficient to avoid the charge of simple contradiction.

It is not sufficient because the trinity, if it means anything, has to support the conclusion that Jesus the person is fully God. There is no “person nature” or mysterious quality of “personhood” beyond Jesus that defines his being; he is the combination of two natures. That’s one person of the trinity.

Arguing that the difference between “person” and 'nature" solves this problem is disingenuous, because we have at least one person of the trinity defined by his natures.

Take a stab at defining “person” in a way that doesn’t produce the simple contradiction, and you will see what I mean by this point.

 

[LilyM]

Please explain how it is logically possible, given the infinite God, to “possess” the fullness of divine essence without being the divine essence. Are you saying that there is a being that possesses God besides God himself (who is identical to his essence, that’s basic theology)?

Well, if I can’t say “Jesus is God” because his flesh is human, what are we doing eating the host? That’s Jesus’s flesh, and it’s supposed to be God too.

You seem to be making the creed into something it’s not, namely, a creed that divides God. Jesus is God means what it says; if you can separate out a non-God part of Jesus, then Jesus the person is not God, but rather, a man whose body is possessed by God.

The problem here is that you’re struggling to explain the trinity, and in doing so, labelling my uncontroversial statements of Christian teaching “complete ignorance.” I trust that you are doing this only for the purposes of a debate, and that the next time you hear a fellow Christian say “Jesus is GOD!”, you’re not going to say “actually, that displays complete ignorance of Christian teaching.”

Wait, Jesus the human isn’t identical to the second person of the trinity!? That’s certainly news to me. It would seem to undo the Athanasian and Nicene creeds.

If Jesus the human isn’t Jesus the God, then I guess Catholics are wrong to say “Holy Mary, Mother of God.” And I guess there is no “union”, since, if Jesus the human isn’t Jesus the God, there would have to be a division between the two.

Or is there some mysterious way that “union” also means “not united”?

With respect, the problem here is your own understanding of the doctrine. By dividing Jesus, you deny the hypostatic union. If he’s fully God and fully human, it is just as true to say “Jesus is God” without qualification as it is to say “Jesus is human” without qualification. Now that’s an obvious contradiction, but it’s what the teaching requires. 100 percent man, 100 percent God…your theory here only works assuming something more like 50-50.

I agree. In which case, it’s just as true to say “Jesus is not God” as it is to say “Jesus is God.”

If you have to qualify either of those statements, then you’re admitting that Jesus is not a united whole but rather divisible parts.

In what way is it paradoxical? You use the term again below…I’d like for you to outline the “paradox” and explain how it’s different from the contradictions I’m identifying.

The Nicene creed makes it clear. There is to be no dividing Jesus from God. As much as you don’t like “popular piety” on this point, it is correct and you are not.

The problem is this: If I can’t make a simple equivalence, then it’s not true that every part of Jesus is God. And if every part of Jesus isn’t God, then Jesus himself is not God. That’s against the teaching. It’s an either/or that forces you either to divide God, or confuse Jesus the person.

If “Jesus is God” cannot be written as “God is Jesus”, then Jesus isn’t fully God. And if he’s not fully God, the Church is flat out wrong on the divinity of Jesus.

If the Church is right that Jesus is God, in the sense that he is fully divine, there is no possible definition of the word “is” that would prevent me from reversing the terms.

Doesn’t quite follow to me.

You can say ‘Jesus is (hu)man’ without saying ‘(hu)mankind is Jesus’. Who is to say that Jesus, to be true God, has to contain ALL of God?

 

[pro_universal]

It means assumed by the divine nature and united to it, so that (for instance) worship paid to Christ in physical form is not idolatry.

But you said that Jesus’s human part is just human. If that’s so, worshipping it would be worshipping something other than God. If it is God, and worshipping the flesh of Jesus is worshipping God, then your critique of my understanding has no merit.

Actually, we have only one philosopher currently (we’re a small college!), and I did have a conversation with him about the Trinity just a couple of weeks ago… but he does not in fact think that the Trinity is contradictory.

Great. If he can publish an articulation of the trinity that is:

1. Completely true to the teaching and
2. Not contradictory

He’ll be famous. I’d like to see the logical formulation he comes up with. Absent that, I’m sure you can track down someone who specializes in logic and send the trinity over. The best I’ve ever seen (from a mathematician, a faithful one at that), is “maybe it’s not contradictory because we don’t really understand it.”

God is immaterial not because He lacks something but because He lacks nothing. Materiality is limitation–God is unlimited. And precisely because He is unlimited, He can assume a limited nature (with everything pertaining to it) without ceasing to be God.

Here is another contradiction. If the fleshy part of Jesus isn’t identical to God, then God didn’t assume a human form, did he? Rather, he created a human form and took control of it with his divine nature (or something like that.) But if you want to claim that Jesus is God turned flesh, then the flesh has to be God. If it’s not, then you have no grounds for claiming that God assumed a limited nature.

And since you have yet to state the Christian doctrine in a form Christians can accept–since even when you quote the Athanasian Creed you alter the words significantly and don’t even notice it–I don’t think you’re in any position to be confident that what you think is a contradiction really is one.

Well, certainly, Christians don’t like to accept that the doctrine is contradictory, but juxtaposing terms on each side of the “is” is perfectly justified. If it’s not, then it’s you who is giving a teaching that is incompatible with what Christians accept.

Iconoclasm doesn’t necessarily imply immateriality. Also, according to my old professor from Duke (whom I mentioned earlier), Jewish iconoclasm has been greatly exaggerated. He wrote a whole book on the subject of Jewish religious art.

Edwin

Well, that’s great, but it certainly doesn’t lay the issue to rest, and there is no doubt that many Jews do not agree with him. Iconoclasm certainly matters in the sense that if God forbids images of himself, it would be odd for God to violate his own law by making himself an image.

 

[pro_universal]

Doesn’t quite follow to me.

You can say ‘Jesus is (hu)man’ without saying ‘(hu)mankind is Jesus’. Who is to say that Jesus, to be true God, has to contain ALL of God?

Well, you can’t just contain “a part of God” if you are going to call yourself God, can you?

 

[Image_of_God]

In no way do I negate God in anything I say. I am guilty of negating mainstream teaching that varies from Scripture. I can’t apologize for that.
Yes you do. You said Jesus is God, right? If then you admit he is God he cannot be created. But you say even though he is God, he is created, but such a belief is contradictory. Either Jesus is God-and not created-or he is created and not God. There is no neutrality here. You cannot say Jesus is God and God is created at the same time, for God who you say Jesus is, is not created.

I’m sorry but God did not “create” man in His own image. He although is “creating” man in His own image. Look, besides the mistranslation of “created” instead of “creating” have you ever thought of Genesis 3:6…

It does have to do with knowing right from wrong. Man has the intellect-one of the marks that shows he is made in God’s image-to choose right and wrong. It is freewill because Adam and Eve chose to eat the apple. To say that God somehow forced them to eat the apple implys that God forces people to do evil and therefore unjustly condemns people to hell. And that is false!
Before Adam and Eve ate the apple, they only knew good.
Are you willing to admit that we know the difference between good and evil? Because if you do, you must also admit that their is no neutrality here either and that man must choose between the two. You must also admit that God does not force man to do bad things and this is a totaly heretical doctrine.

You should really get a new bible, because whatever you are looking at, it is NOT the interpretation Ezra wrote.

 

[sven2131]

For some reason Jesus said:
I thank you father cause you had hide this things to the wise people and you had revealed them to the humble people.

If one goes to a poor church in south america or africa. you ll see that people over there have no doubts about the trinity dispite they cant explain it they dotn need an explanation to belive in it .

How can someone try to explain the mystery of the trinity, the endless love of Christ in the cross, or his endless mercy.
we just cant, but we know God love us and thats enough to know that.

If St Augustin one of the greates wise man ever, couldnt explaiend it , who can explain somethin like the trinity?

1 Corinthians
Chapter 1

18
The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the learning of the learned I will set aside.”
Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?
For since in the wisdom of God the world did not come to know God through wisdom, it was the will of God through the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who have faith.
For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
Consider your own calling, brothers. Not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.
Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong,
and God chose the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, to reduce to nothing those who are something,
so that no human being might boast before God.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Mr Ex Nihilo,

Again, the analogy works precisely because you’re choosing a “parts make up the whole” situation.

No. Actually, I’ve thought about this probably a bit more than you think.

Let me explain.

pro_universal:

You can choose non-contradictory analogies all you like, but they won’t ever match the trinity exactly, which is why you are still compelled to point out:

pro_universal:

The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the “mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God”.

Actually, no compulsion is required-- because it’s more likely a motion of the Spirit to clearly reveal God’s will. And the reason why I am prompted by the Spirit to point this quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church out to you is because it accurately matches the Scriptural record regarding God in Romans 1:20.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

In other words, to the extent that God does reveal his eternal power and divine nature through his own creation, we can most certainly apprehend qualities of the creator provided our knowledge of creation is accurate. Indeed, we are considered to be without excuse.

Therefore, to the extant that our knowledge of his creation is increased through authentic scientific inquiry, we can most certainly discover aspects of the divine through it-- just so long as we don’t mistake the creation itself with her creator .

Consequently, since the Scriptures do say that God is light, it seems reasonable to infer that the very qualities and essense of ‘created light’ may in fact reflect a more profound understanding of the ‘divine light’ that is God.

What does this passage in Romans mean to you pro_universal?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

pro_universal:

I do not see how the color example even remotely matches the trinity.

To be honest, I think it’s a remarkably accurate symbol of the Trinity.

pro_universal:

Combinations of light don’t really explain how a person can be fully God, but at the same time, distinct from another person who is also fully God.

I think that’s because you are confusing the appearance of light with the essense of light, a point that needs to likewise be stressed when discussing the very nature of the Triune God.

So, for example, on the surface, we definitely see the differnet primary colors appearing significantly different. Yet, when one looks at the very essence of light we become aware of a profound wave particle duality that science itself is very much aware of and yet still cannot fully explain yet…

In physics, wave-particle duality holds that light and matter exhibit properties of both waves and of particles. A central concept of quantum mechanics, duality represents a way to address the inadequacy of conventional concepts like “particle” and “wave” to meaningfully describe the behaviour of quantum objects. The idea of duality is rooted in a debate over the nature of light and matter dating back to the 1600s, when competing theories of light were proposed by Christiaan Huygens and Isaac Newton. Through the work of Albert Einstein, Louis de Broglie and many others, it is now established that all objects have both wave and particle nature (though this phenomenon is only detectable on small scales, such as with atoms), and that a suitable interpretation of quantum mechanics provides the over-arching theory resolving this paradox.

Furthermore, we are also fairly certain that light in the form of various energies really was the precursor to creation, but exactly how light itself can become matter seems to be an elusive question which even our greatest scientific minds cannot fully comperehend yet.

The universe begins with a cataclysm that generates space and time, as well as all the matter and energy the universe will ever hold. For an incomprehensibly small fraction of a second, the universe is an infinitely dense, hot fireball. The prevailing theory describes a peculiar form of energy that can suddenly push out the fabric of space. On a rare occasion, a runaway process called “Inflation” can cause a vast expansion of space filled with this energy. The inflationary expansion is stopped only when this energy is transformed into matter and energy as we know it.

So, when we view the Incarnation of Christ, we seem to be seeing a replay of a natural process which is most certainly linked with the creation of matter, the transformation of light into matter to be precise.

The difference between the two is that in the case of the creation of the heavens and earth God’s eternal power and divine nature can be clearly understood, yet in the case of the Incarnation God himself came and dwelled among us.

Both resulted from God’s light. But the creation of the universe from light only reflects God’s attributes to the extent that we clearly understand God’s creation whereas the incarnation of Christ from God’s light literally manifested God himself indwelling his own creation in the flesh. Both these processes can happen according to one’s understanding of light-- because both show a transformation of light contrasting it’s own wave-particle duality in order to become matter.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

pro_universal:

The idea of finding examples in nature is certainly a traditional one. You might be interested in seeing St. Augustine’s chapter from The Trinity…on the magical number six, and how conspicuously it figures in to different ratios.

Actually, I’ve read St. Augustine. Although I think he’s a bit harsh on unbaptized babies, many of his thoughts regarding creation have nonetheless intrigued me.

pro_universal:

All interesting, but ultimately do not, in my opinion, really give a non-contradictory account of the trinity.

I’ve got more thoughts on this if you wish to hear more.

pro_universal:

The one logician I have heard comment on this issue said this about the trinity:

pro_universal:

“That’s an easy one, it’s inconsistent.”

And looked at me as if I were crazy for not seeing it.

The best you can do with this doctrine is what you did: point out that God is mysterious. And maybe in some mysterious world, we need not be bound by rules of logic, but I refuse to believe that God revealed truth in a way that, if we think about it, we must conclude is illogical.

But if it is illogical, it’s only that way because we don’t fully understand it’s logic. And I don’t think we should allow our own inability to fully understand something become a reason to reject it in its entirely. There are many indication from nature that things can work in triune and yet still be one.

Have you thought about the nature of the past, present, and future?

pro_universal:

Mystery and metaphor is one thing; blatant contradiction is another. I don’t believe God delivers his mysterious words in the form of teachings that do not make sense.

How does God reveal his will to you?

 

[tequilamac]

It is not sufficient because the trinity, if it means anything, has to support the conclusion that Jesus the person is fully God. There is no “person nature” or mysterious quality of “personhood” beyond Jesus that defines his being; he is the combination of two natures. That’s one person of the trinity.

Arguing that the difference between “person” and 'nature" solves this problem is disingenuous, because we have at least one person of the trinity defined by his natures.

Take a stab at defining “person” in a way that doesn’t produce the simple contradiction, and you will see what I mean by this point.

pro, how sad. What you are basically saying is that you are an atheist. You require a complete explanation as to how there is a God, proof of His nature, and almost a collection of do it yourself assembly instructions to accept that God simply is. Whether it be in Trinitarian form or not, no one ever will be able to explain to your heart’s content the form, matter, construction, style of God. Because it is recognised in ALL religions that it is impossible to stylize God in a fashion or encapsulate him within human limits. So, since you are requiring literal analogies, complete knowledge of Trinity and/or God, you will talk yourself out of every religion on earth whether it be Judaism, or Christianity or Islam or any other. In order you see to be religious, one has to put controls on one’s pride long enough to admit that God is an ineffable mystery to begin with. Without the ability to do that, no one can believe in any God, no matter who you say he is. So what is the point of your search other than to try and prove that God does not exist in any form?

 

[inJESUS]

what about a 3-D dimention analogy? you see 3 distinct things but in fact you are looking at ONE thing

 

[inJESUS]

**Lets say there is an empty room with ONE thing inside. The room has 3 windows. From the first window, you see a brown wooden sphere…but since you are curious, you go to the other window but you see a green rectangle! are you insane? you were told there is but ONE thing inside so how come you saw 2 distinct things? so you go to the third window and Lo! you see a grey rectangle! Your logic clearly tells you that this obviously could not be the same object. But you were told there in ONE object!

Eventually, you will either get so frustrated that you will probably try to forget (or ignore) the whole experience ( like some people here ), or you might eventually come upon the actual truth of the matter.

You might come to realize that there actually IS a single, real three-dimensional object in the room that could give each of the three very different appearances you had witnessed through the different windows. What if it was most of a 55-gallon oil drum, lying on its side, with the top (round, brown) surface facing the first window. The view through the second window was of the green painted outside of the shiny new metal sidewall of the drum .The view through the third window was actually looking at the interior of the bottom half of the drum, which had been lined with gray cloth. The materials, textures and colors of the drum’s side and top and interior lining are different, which explains the other disparate findings of the three views.

Each view made sense in itself and did not appear to be incomplete in any way. Nothing seemed to be missing. But, with just the information from the view through any one window, you could never actually figure out what it really was.**

 

[sven2131]

We all have free will to belive whatever we want.
However if u need proves of the divinity of the church, n that God exist, you can study the endless miracles in Lourdes France that happened since Our Lady appeared over there and the miracles still happen nowadays.

Also You can study all the saitns taht are incorrupts taht have 200, 300 or 400 or more years of desceased and their bodys havent rotted at all after their death.

catholicpilgrims.com/lourdes/ba_bernadette_intro.htm
ichrusa.com/saintsalive/bernad.htm
geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/8437/incorrupt.html
corazones.org/santos/santos_temas/incorruptos4.htm
reinadelcielo.org/estructura.asp?intSec=1&intId=43&intIdP=79

reinadelcielo.org/estructura.asp?intSec=1&intId=43&intIdP=80

Also you cans tudy the miracle of teh sun of Fatima in wich teh sun moved and danced in all directions, this was documentated by the new york time n 70,000 witnesed in Portugal, Fatima.

Also you can study the life of Padre Pio of Pietrelcina the monk that carryed the stigmas, the wouds of christ, for 50 years. the Doctors agree that inside his wounds he had a pure smell of roses.
When he was a kid he had his first divine experience watchign our Lady when he was 5 years old , sicen then he used to see n talk with our Lady the Saints n his angel and he though all people could watch the Virgin Mary as he did.

He also had plenty of gift from God. he had the gift of Bilocation this means he appeared in many places of the world , without leaving his parish.
He suffered a lot all his life , he had extacys 3 times in teh day.

In the confecionary he could read the peopels heart n knew their sins.
He also was attaked by the devil physically,
there is a foundation spreading the devotion of Padre pio in america.

padrepio.com/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padre_Pio

Miracles shouldnt be the basis of our faith anyway but they assure us what we belive.

 

[inJESUS]

thank you for Padre Pio’s links !! i was thinking of studying his life then i saw your post…you are my angel

 

[jAlex]

Hello Pro!

Still arguing, my friend, I see… </Yoda mode off>

You seem to be making the creed into something it’s not, namely, a creed that divides God. Jesus is God means what it says; if you can separate out a non-God part of Jesus, then Jesus the person is not God, but rather, a man whose body is possessed by God.
.

Oh, but it’s not so out of touch to comprehend how God assumes a human nature…

Consider this - by your own logic we humans are a walking, breathing contradiction because we are both spiritual and material beings. Our spiritual part is immanent and does not belong to this world yet we are still physically here :bigyikes:
Also, our souls cannot be measured, because the soul is not something you can measure. Yet it “sticks” to our finite, measurable body in this world

Contradictions, contradictions …

God bless you !
Alex.