proverb 8

[Dan_Parker]

I realize you do not believe in the Trinity.

I don’t always express myself clearly. I’ll give it another shot.
We believe Jesus was God and man. As God, the Second Person of the Trinity, He us uncreated. But the human body and soul He would unite Himself to was created. And it was the first human body and soul that was “created” in the mind of God ---- prior to any actual physical creation.

If you’ve understood what I was trying to say, but just don’t agree – let me know. And I’ll quit trying to say the same thing over and over in different words.

I do understand the teaching of Communicatio idiomatum and the hypostatic union. They are based on the Medieval science of Aristotle who taught that all things were made of earth, wind, fire and water. He did not understand alloys or mixtures and so when a drop of wine was put into a large container of water the water “turns” into wine! This is the background for the created of the hypostatic union, where two natures, human and divine touch but don’t mix.

Of course we now know that Aristotle was wrong. Why do you still believe it?

 

[Dan_Parker]

Again, you have to remember that Proverb 8 is speaking of WISDOM not Jesus. Wisdom was manifested in the incarnation of Jesus, not Jesus in Wisdom.

You might want to read my post on this just a few posts back at this link.

 

[Nita]

I do understand the teaching of Communicatio idiomatum and the hypostatic union. They are based on the Medieval science of Aristotle who taught that all things were made of earth, wind, fire and water. He did not understand alloys or mixtures and so when a drop of wine was put into a large container of water the water “turns” into wine! This is the background for the created of the hypostatic union, where two natures, human and divine touch but don’t mix.

Of course we now know that Aristotle was wrong. Why do you still believe it?

???
What has the composition of the physical universe got to do with the hypostatic union? The fact that we now have a table of elements doesn’t have any effect on the Church’s teaching re the hypostatic union - or my attempted explanations of Proverbs 8. Identifying the constituent physical elements of which the human body (or universe) is composed has never been a part of the doctrine.

Secondarily, even if Aristotle (and Aquinas) were wrong in their understanding of what constituted the basic physical elements of the universe (had an incomplete knowledge), it still didn’t affect the truth that the physical universe exists. My understanding of the hypostatic union is most definitely incomplete – but that doesn’t affect the truth of it.

I am not trying to convince you to change your mind; I was just attempting to explain how Catholics understand the Proverbs passage when taking “Wisdom” to mean Jesus, God incarnate. As is obvious from puppycontrol’s posts, it is not required for Catholics to believe this passage is a reference to Jesus. Personally tho, I do. - as well as accepting puppycontrol’s understanding also. Scripture can have more than one application. A good example follows in Proverbs 9:1 where the “seven pillars” can be understood as referring to the seven sacraments AND the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.

God bless you,
Nita

 

[Dan_Parker]

???
What has the composition of the physical universe got to do with the hypostatic union? The fact that we now have a table of elements doesn’t have any effect on the Church’s teaching re the hypostatic union - or my attempted explanations of Proverbs 8. Identifying the constituent physical elements of which the human body (or universe) is composed has never been a part of the doctrine.

Secondarily, even if Aristotle (and Aquinas) were wrong in their understanding of what constituted the basic physical elements of the universe, it still didn’t affect the truth that the physical universe exists. My understanding of the hypostatic union is most definitely incomplete – but that doesn’t affect the truth of it.

I am not trying to convince you to change your mind; I was just attempting to explain how Catholics understand the Proverbs passage when taking “Wisdom” to mean Jesus, God incarnate. As is obvious from puppycontrol’s posts, it is not required for Catholics to believe this passage is a reference to Jesus. Personally tho, I do. - as well as accepting puppycontrol’s understanding also. Scripture can have more than one application. A good example follows in Proverbs 9:1 where the “seven pillars” can be understood as referring to the seven sacraments AND the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.

God bless you,
Nita

If you don’t think that the hypostatic union was derived from Medieval science, then what bible writer teaches that the Son was divine and human at the same time?

 

[Nita]

If you don’t think that the hypostatic union was derived from Medieval science, then what bible writer teaches that the Son was divine and human at the same time?

St. John for one – and you’ve no doubt already been thru all the quotes from there with others here on CAF.

 

[LionHeart777]

If you don’t think that the hypostatic union was derived from Medieval science, then what bible writer teaches that the Son was divine and human at the same time?

wouldn’t quotes from the ECF’s disprove your theory if they were from the ante-Nicaeane (even later ones) Fathers who were pre-Medieval?

 

[Dan_Parker]

St. John for one – and you’ve no doubt already been thru all the quotes from there with others here on CAF.

No, sorry, I have read John myself and don’t see anything that proves that the Son had two natures at the same time. What did you have in mind?

 

[Dan_Parker]

wouldn’t quotes from the ECF’s disprove your theory if they were from the ante-Nicaeane (even later ones) Fathers who were pre-Medieval?

Not sure what you mean. Does this wiki article speak to your question?

Aristotle’s views on the physical sciences profoundly shaped medieval scholarship, and their influence extended well into the Renaissance, although they were ultimately replaced by Newtonian Physics. In the biological sciences, some of his observations were confirmed to be accurate only in the nineteenth century. His works contain the earliest known formal study of logic, which was incorporated in the late nineteenth century into modern formal logic. In metaphysics, Aristotelianism had a profound influence on philosophical and theological thinking in the Islamic and Jewish traditions in the Middle Ages, and it continues to influence Christian theology, especially Eastern Orthodox theology, and the scholastic tradition of the Catholic Church. His ethics, though always influential, gained renewed interest with the modern advent of virtue ethics. All aspects of Aristotle’s philosophy continue to be the object of active academic study today. Though Aristotle wrote many elegant treatises and dialogues (Cicero described his literary style as “a river of gold”),[1] it is thought that the majority of his writings are now lost and only about one-third of the original works have survived.[2]

 

[Nita]

No, sorry, I have read John myself and don’t see anything that proves that the Son had two natures at the same time. What did you have in mind?

Since you do not believe Jesus was God, I recognize that there are no passages that you interpret as saying He was God as well as man. I thought you were asking me what biblical author I (not you) considered as having taught it.

Going into those passages would only derail this thread about Proverbs. And, as you well know, you already have another thread currently going on John 1:1 and that topic. No need to duplicate.

 

[Nita]

You seem unable to distinguish between physics and metaphysics. They’re separate sciences. When you speak of “earth, wind, fire and water” (eg your posts #21 & 24), you’re speaking of physics - a physical science, not metaphysics (philosophy). I’m well aware of Aquinas’ use of Aristotle’s metaphysics – adapting it’s language and concepts to express certain Catholic beliefs. But the beliefs were already there long before Aquinas wrote his Summas.

 

[Dan_Parker]

You seem unable to distinguish between physics and metaphysics. They’re separate sciences. When you speak of “earth, wind, fire and water” (eg your posts #21 & 24), you’re speaking of physics - a physical science, not metaphysics (philosophy). I’m well aware of Aquinas’ use of Aristotle’s metaphysics – adapting it’s language and concepts to express certain Catholic beliefs. But the beliefs were already there long before Aquinas wrote his Summas.

I would like to understand this better from your perspective. Can you provide quotes which detail the support for the hypostatic union?