Re-wording

[NotWorthy]

Somehow, I doubt that the term needs to be so accutely defined! “Mere minutes” is of no importance here.

AMOF, the BVM retained her own title even after she bore children fathered in the normal manner. Her title applied only to her status as mother of the Christ+.

I’m sorry, but you are wrong again. The tile “Blessed Virgin” has nothing to do with her being the Mother of Christ. “Blessed Virgin” refers to her being a “Blessed Virgin”. Perpetual Virginity would also indicate that a man had nothing to do with the conception of Christ.

 

[NotWorthy]

The Second Person is incarnate, the First and Third Persons are not,
even though God has one Nature and that one Nature is united to the human nature of Christ.

This is correct. And this is why we receive the Body of Blood of Christ. Although spiritually, we are united with the Trinity, sacramentally, we are receiving only Him.

 

[whomper]

I’m sorry, but you are wrong again.

*I don’t **think *so! Your judgemental statement represents why the early church didn’t want its followers to be able to read, and specifically to read the Bible, and to be able to question ecclesiastical authority.

The tile “Blessed Virgin” has nothing to do with her being the Mother of Christ. “Blessed Virgin” refers to her being a “Blessed Virgin”.

Whoops! If she hadn’t been the human mother of Christ+, she wouldn’t have received ***any ***notoriety whatsoever. And her status was significant because of her virginal state at the time of conception. She wasn’t “Blessed” until she conceived under **those **circumstances. If you were to be correct, all virgins would be blessed. Virginity does not impart blessedness!

Perpetual Virginity would also indicate that a man had nothing to do with the conception of Christ.

The BVM could not enjoy the condition, or title of Perpetual Virginity because she went on to have more children in the normal, human fashion. Her *title *of BV may be perpetual, in order to continue her (and Christ’s+) story, but her *status *was never meant to be perpetual.

AMOF, her character in the biblical story didn’t assume any greater importance during her lifetime. It was only *after *she became elevated by *Mankind *that she attained more than what God had intended for her in the beginning.

Perpetual Virginity would also indicate that a man had nothing to do with the conception of Christ.

And, continuing with your misstatement above – a human man had nothing to do with Jesus’s conception - that’s the whole point! Or are you reading from a different bible?

 

[whomper]

The Second Person is incarnate, the First and Third Persons are not…

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of the term “incarnate” here. I asked before, but no one has offered the definition.

Go back to the Creed and see that God was incarnated by the Holy Ghost into the form which became Jesus the human (“became man”, “was made man”). Thus, God is the incarnated One, not Jesus. Jesus Christ+ was *the incarnation *of God through the Holy Spirit. He was the Incarnate God, was God Incarnate.

In your quote above, if you try to separate the three parts, you support the separation of the Trinity in essentially separate parts.

This is a good example of the reasons for not continuing to re-translate the early writings into modern English - it just continues to erode, through lack of literal understanding, the true and accurate meaning.

Compare the two translations side-by-side and maybe you can see the differences.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding of the term “incarnate” here. I asked before, but no one has offered the definition.

Go back to the Creed and see that God was incarnated by the Holy Ghost into the form which became Jesus the human (“became man”, “was made man”). Thus, God is the incarnated One, not Jesus. Jesus Christ+ was *the incarnation *of God through the Holy Spirit. He was the Incarnate God, was God Incarnate.

In your quote above, if you try to separate the three parts, you support the separation of the Trinity in essentially separate parts.

This is a good example of the reasons for not continuing to re-translate the early writings into modern English - it just continues to erode, through lack of literal understanding, the true and accurate meaning.

Compare the two translations side-by-side and maybe you can see the differences.

724

Ron Conte and NotWorthy are correct
The Trinity IS three separate persons, united as one. As in One in purpose, One in will, One in power.
Perhaps reading the Athanasian Creed will help to clear up some of your misunderstandings.

It states quite definitively in #5

1. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

1. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

1. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

1. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

This quote from the CCC which I posted before might help a little too

In Mary, the Holy Spirit manifests the Son of the Father, now become the Son of the Virgin. She is the burning bush of the definitive theophany. Filled with the Holy Spirit she makes the Word visible in the humility of his flesh. It is to the poor and the first representatives of the gentiles that she makes him known.

466 The Nestorian heresy regarded Christ as a human person joined to the divine person of God’s Son. Opposing this heresy, St. Cyril of Alexandria and the third ecumenical council, at Ephesus in 431, confessed “that the Word, uniting to himself in his person the flesh animated by a rational soul, became man.” Christ’s humanity has no other subject than the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it and made it his own, from his conception. For this reason the Council of Ephesus proclaimed in 431 that Mary truly became the Mother of God by the human conception of the Son of God in her womb: “Mother of God, not that the nature of the Word or his divinity received the beginning of its existence from the holy Virgin, but that, since the holy body, animated by a rational soul, which the Word of God united to himself according to the hypostasis, was born from her, the Word is said to be born according to the flesh.”

As to the wording of the Creed previously in question, perhaps this is where your confusion is?

I apologize for assuming your wording in previous posts was not intentional. Perhaps this could have been cleared up earlier.

Peace

John

 

[whomper]

Thank you, John, for your participation. But I don’t think your offerings have clarified any of the subject. My original peeve was that the modernizing of the creed words has loosened the nature of the dogma (I just re-phrased all that) to the point that the creed no longer explains in no uncertain terms the nature of the Incarnation. Of course, I’m refering to those who are not familiar with any of the subject and wish to know more (e.g., a Muslim).

And I also recognize that my own offerings are not accomplishing anything of a positive nature here.

So I must do as others do when they encounter their insurmountable obstacles - say “Good day” and vanish into the sunset. I’m reminded here of St. Luke 16:27-31 (slightly out of context).

:tiphat:
1 Corinthians 1:10

 

[NotWorthy]

*I don’t **think ***so! Your judgemental statement represents why the early church didn’t want its followers to be able to read, and specifically to read the Bible, and to be able to question ecclesiastical authority.

Watch out, Whomper. You’re beginning to show your stripes. I seem to detect a little bit of anti-catholic rhetoric going on.

Whoops! If she hadn’t been the human mother of Christ+, she wouldn’t have received ***any ***notoriety whatsoever. And her status was significant because of her virginal state at the time of conception. She wasn’t “Blessed” until she conceived under **those **circumstances. If you were to be correct, all virgins would be blessed. Virginity does not impart blessedness!

Look up Kecharitomone. Gabriel called her *Graced *before the Conception. She was Blessed since her Conception. Yes, it’s all about Christ (the reason for making her a Blessed Person), but she was considered Blessed before the Incarnation.

The BVM could not enjoy the condition, or title of Perpetual Virginity because she went on to have more children in the normal, human fashion. Her *title *of BV may be perpetual, in order to continue her (and Christ’s+) story, but her *status *was never meant to be perpetual.

Wrong again, Whomper. That’s at least 5 times in this thread you’ve made mistakes or errors - some in what Catholic teach, others in what is Scriptural.

AMOF, her character in the biblical story didn’t assume any greater importance during her lifetime. It was only *after *she became elevated by *Mankind *that she attained more than what God had intended for her in the beginning.

Look up Kecharitomone one more time.

And, continuing with your misstatement above – a human man had nothing to do with Jesus’s conception - that’s the whole point! Or are you reading from a different bible?

Be more specific, please. I mean a man, which I believe was what your original point was, before you went sliding into error.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

Thank you, John, for your participation. But I don’t think your offerings have clarified any of the subject. My original peeve was that the modernizing of the creed words has loosened the nature of the dogma (I just re-phrased all that) to the point that the creed no longer explains in no uncertain terms the nature of the Incarnation. Of course, I’m refering to those who are not familiar with any of the subject and wish to know more (e.g., a Muslim).

And I also recognize that my own offerings are not accomplishing anything of a positive nature here.

So I must do as others do when they encounter their insurmountable obstacles - say “Good day” and vanish into the sunset. I’m reminded here of St. Luke 16:27-31 (slightly out of context).

:tiphat:
1 Corinthians 1:10

Then, by all means, go with God.

Peace

John

 

[ALLGIRLS]

Well, the way I’ve always seen the Creed translated (granted, in modern American English, which I’m sure some won’t accept as authentic), is “…and by the power of the Holy Spirit He was BORN of the Virgin Mary and became man.” This, in my feeble little mind, at least, leaves no confusion: you can argue that a virgin can conceive, but a virgin can’t GIVE BIRTH (well, back in those days, anyway. I’m glad no one’s thrown in the argument of artificial insemination and/or IVF. Nowadays, virgins actually can give birth, but that’s a discussion for another thread).

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Well, duh! You’ve separated the Trinity into such as most Protestants won’t have any problem understanding you. But as all 3 parts of the Trinity

A heresy, verbally at least.

existed before the world began, one cannot create the other. It’s a matter of manifestation, not creation.

Very ill-sounding, & sounding like the expression of a heresy​

Going back to a couple of previous posts, which do not accept my contention that the change in wording changed the belief:
You are basing your understanding on current wording and not looking at the wording of the earlier translations.
The priest performs weddings in the name of the Trinity and by the power of the state to do such marriages. Just because a man does something by the power of the spirit, does not mean the spirit did it. It means it has authority to do it but has no physical presence to do it; but the action is by the man.

You’re not thinking Biblically though - “by the power of the Holy Spirit” could almost have come from the Bible; the phrase is unambiguous, unless we import our modern & irrelevant ideas into it.​

The early wording stated without equivocation that the Holy Ghost incarnated itself into Jesus.

It did not, since that would be heresy which had been condemned by that date: for Jesus is not the Holy Spirit Incarnate ​

And since the Holy Ghost is the same as God,

Another heresy, verbally at least.​

and since Jesus existed with God and the Holy Ghost from all time,

Another heresy, verbally at least.

it’s only the FORM of MAN which was what we call the incarnation.

Another heresy, verbally at least.

And to keep people from believing that more than one incarnation could come along, there was no physical activity in the exchange of genetic material or physical presense involved. That’s the difference between God doing it and God having some man do it and then invading the subsequent body and taking it over.

Partly heretical, partly mistaken​

The entire point of this argument is that today’s modern man has trouble understanding how God could come to earth in human form

Another heresy, verbally at least.

and violate all the scientific evidence to date. By changing old wording to conform to that which modern man wants, the theology has been weakened. A weakened Jesus invites satellite religions who think they know what’s what, but in reality they don’t.

True, it’s their soles at jeopardy. Who’s to say what will happen to them?

But since I’ve not convinced you, I guess we don’t need to go any further?

This is full of heresies - indeed​

 

[whomper]

Another heresy, verbally at least.​

whomper:

and since Jesus existed with God and the Holy Ghost from all time,

This is full of heresies - indeed​

I wasn’t going to participate in this thread anymore, with the diversion into the discussion about the Virgin Mary. However, with Gottle of Geer’s statements, I have to break silence.

Gottle of Geer, I think you have been invaded by Satan! Since you call heretical my statement above, I can only assume that you temporarily are insane in either not having read, or having forgotten Jesus Christ’s+ own words:

(John 8:57-58)

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

You see so much heresies in other people’s opinions that your own are heresies are now evident!

Euripides said,

But the devil when he purports any evil against man, first perverts his mind.

 

[NotWorthy]

I wasn’t going to participate in this thread anymore, with the diversion into the discussion about the Virgin Mary. However, with Gottle of Geer’s statements, I have to break silence.

Gottle of Geer, I think you have been invaded by Satan! Since you call heretical my statement above, I can only assume that you temporarily are insane in either not having read, or having forgotten Jesus Christ’s+ own words:

There’s one other assumption that could be made. Maybe Gottle of Geer is right.

Jesus was before Abraham, but that doesn’t make Him the Holy Spirit incarnate. Jesus was Divine, and then at the Incarnation, the Divine nature of Jesus fused with what became the human nature of Jesus and became the God-Man.

You see so much heresies in other people’s opinions that your own are heresies are now evident!

Euripides said,

Quoting Euripides does not make one Euripides…

 

[whomper]

There’s one other assumption that could be made. Maybe Gottle of Geer is right.

But in these instances, he’s not right. Unless, of course, he subscribes to the theory that anything opposing his beliefs, or disagreeing with him, is heretical.

Quoting Euripides does not make one Euripides…

Doesn’t make one wrong, either… And just because one isn’t Euripides doesn’t make his observations any less relevant. After all, we quote Christ+ here but no one has assumed that they ARE Christ+…

 

[NotWorthy]

But in these instances, he’s not right. Unless, of course, he subscribes to the theory that anything opposing his beliefs, or disagreeing with him, is heretical.

Ahhh, but he explained each point you made was heretical. You simply called him a heretic (and a product of Satan!!! :tsktsk simply because he disagreed with you.

Doesn’t make one wrong, either… And just because one isn’t Euripides doesn’t make his observations any less relevant. After all, we quote Christ+ here but no one has assumed that they ARE Christ+…

Right. But quoting doesn’t explain your position. It simply postulates.

Whomper, you’ve been wrong on so many points in this thread, that its laughable for you to call someone a heretic.

 

[whomper]

You simply called him a heretic (and a product of Satan!!! :tsktsk simply because he disagreed with you.

You apparently didn’t read all of my response to his accusations.
My remark,

Originally Posted by whomper
“and since Jesus existed with God and the Holy Ghost from all time”

drew a response of “heresy” from him! I reminded him of Christ’s+ own words,

(John 8:57-58)

57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?

58 **Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. **

For him to label my words heretical puts his entire argument into light. He denies Christ’s+ own words!

I’m beginning to realize that I’m arguing with a group of dedicated individuals who have less tolerance for dissenting opinions than they should have, in a public forum.

Each is entitled to their opinion, hoping that they base their opinions on truely Catholic (universal) theory and not on biased catholic theory (i.e., one which is subscribed to by only a portion [regardless of size] of the universal, Catholic community. Should compartmentalized catholicity be the case, then those shouting “heresy!” should make it clear that they are referring to their own brand of heresy. I expect cohesion, but not at the expense of truth and accuracy.

It’s a good thing we no longer allow the burning of heretics, lest we all burn somewhere and sometime! And I guess it’s a good thing that we can eat meat on Friday now without fearing Damnation! I’m hungry… even tho it’s Monday.

 

[whomper]

I seem to detect a little bit of anti-catholic rhetoric going on…

I should have addressed this earlier but didn’t…
There is NO “anti-catholic” rhetoric in any of my words. If at times I refer to facts in history which cast a pale light on actions of elements of the Catholic Church (i.e., Universal), and if those facts are recognized by any one group or another, and if any one group or another is quickened by subconscious guilt, then I can see why someone would make such a remark.

But history cannot be refuted. Early church fathers (maybe even some of the Ancient Fathers) persecuted people for believing contrary to church wishes. Early translators of the Bible were tormented, murdered, desecrated because they dare translate the New Testament into words which were not authorized by the church. Henry VIII would’ve burned Luther for Luther’s own translation! You recall Henry VIII, don’t you?

The greatest sin of education which was perpetrated upon mankind in general was to keep them ignorant and insist that they not be able to read or write or have access to their personal copy of the Bible, or even to practice their professed religion in their native tongue! Even in more modern times, the sin of ignorance was perpetuated on classes of people to keep them subjugated. Even today, attempts are made to keep facts from people (not just religious facts; but even those, in religious communities) from the people lest the people become upset and rise up!

The early translations were done singly, until the invention of the printing press. Then, copies of the Bible were so plentiful that it was hard to keep the people from reading, at least after they had learned to read.

So don’t speak to me of “anti-catholicity” as if one group owned the word Catholic. The Creeds give the word to a large group of people who have the same similar beliefs, at least in certain of the facts. Not all of the facts, or theologies, are shared by all the Catholics of the world. That does not make any of them heretical, just different.

So mote it be.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

whomper,

What is your conception of the hypostatic union?

VC

 

[NotWorthy]

I should have addressed this earlier but didn’t…
There is NO “anti-catholic” rhetoric in any of my words. If at times I refer to facts in history which cast a pale light on actions of elements of the Catholic Church (i.e., Universal), and if those facts are recognized by any one group or another, and if any one group or another is quickened by subconscious guilt, then I can see why someone would make such a remark.

That’s a good blanket vague accusation. Its not even worth debating…

But history cannot be refuted. Early church fathers (maybe even some of the Ancient Fathers) persecuted people for believing contrary to church wishes.

Examples may be better at proving your point. Are you actually accusing the early Church Fathers of defending the Truth?!? Oh, the Horror! Isn’t one of the Church’s main objectives to defend the truth?

Early translators of the Bible were tormented, murdered, desecrated because they dare translate the New Testament into words which were not authorized by the church.

“…mis-translated the Bible into words that warped the teachings of Christ and His Church…” might be more accurate. I’m not sure about the murdered and desecrated though. How do you desecrate something that’s not holy. And the mistranslations can not be qualified as holy. The murder part might be better explained on your part as well.

Henry VIII would’ve burned Luther for Luther’s own translation! You recall Henry VIII, don’t you?

I don’t recall Henry VIII being “The Church”. Henry was a member of the Church, but he certainly couldn’t speak authoritatively for the Church.

The greatest sin of education which was perpetrated upon mankind in general was to keep them ignorant and insist that they not be able to read or write or have access to their personal copy of the Bible, or even to practice their professed religion in their native tongue!

You are grossly mis-representing the history of both literacy and how the Church handled literacy. If one could read, they read Latin back then. Its hard to write a book in English, for example, when English changed as often as the wind does in Texas. What was written in Latin in 400 had the same meaning as it did in 1400. This helped prevent mis-translations, which was the main point of your Opening Post if I recall.

Even in more modern times, the sin of ignorance was perpetuated on classes of people to keep them subjugated. Even today, attempts are made to keep facts from people (not just religious facts; but even those, in religious communities) from the people lest the people become upset and rise up!

Examples would be wonderful, here.

The early translations were done singly, until the invention of the printing press. Then, copies of the Bible were so plentiful that it was hard to keep the people from reading, at least after they had learned to read.

And who taught them to read? If not for the Church, there would have been no universities for people to learn to read in the first place!

So don’t speak to me of “anti-catholicity” as if one group owned the word Catholic. The Creeds give the word to a large group of people who have the same similar beliefs, at least in certain of the facts. Not all of the facts, or theologies, are shared by all the Catholics of the world. That does not make any of them heretical, just different.

So mote it be.

Who gave us the Creeds? The Catholic Church. If other faiths still cling to the Creeds, that’s there business. But if you accuse the Catholic Church of fostering illiteracy, then you are speaking anti-Catholic rhetoric.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I wasn’t going to participate in this thread anymore, with the diversion into the discussion about the Virgin Mary. However, with Gottle of Geer’s statements, I have to break silence.

Gottle of Geer, I think you have been invaded by Satan! Since you call heretical my statement above, I can only assume that you temporarily are insane in either not having read, or having forgotten Jesus Christ’s+ own words:

You see so much heresies in other people’s opinions that your own are heresies are now evident!

Euripides said,

It’s good to see someone refer to Euripides - as to this:​

• and since Jesus existed with God and the Holy Ghost from all time

• it’s inaccurate because the Word was not Incarnate eternally, & is therefore not Incarnate as the man Jesus eternally. The Incarnation is in time - it is not eternal, like the Divine Persons & their relations. Oh, and eternity is not a form of time - it’s a convenient term for indicating timelessness.

If one is not careful, one ends up having a Christology which is incoherent at best & heretical at worst. One solution: total immersion in the Third Part of the Summa Theologiae

Sorry to bring you back into the fray

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

But in these instances, he’s not right. Unless, of course, he subscribes to the theory that anything opposing his beliefs, or disagreeing with him, is heretical.

No, I don’t ​

Doesn’t make one wrong, either… And just because one isn’t Euripides doesn’t make his observations any less relevant. After all, we quote Christ+ here but no one has assumed that they ARE Christ+…