Re-wording

[whomper]

Are you actually accusing the early Church Fathers of defending the Truth?!?

Maybe as they interpreted the truth. That mess in France comes to mind, with all the non-Roman Catholics. But I’m more reminded of the various translations of the early bible.

“…mis-translated the Bible into words that warped the teachings of Christ and His Church…” might be more accurate.

This might be a good thing, if everyone agreed on what the “mistranslations” were and how they warped the teachings of Christ+. But when the various Councils put scripture in and took scripture out, and even argued against some scripture when they weren’t aware of all the documentation available (e.g., Comma Johanneum), it’s bound to present a confused picture of what’s right and what’s not. This, of course, can be epitomized in the several bibles which have separate imprimatures. What ever happened to the Douay version, anyway?
While we’re talking about different Bibles, why did the Roman Catholic Bible separate the 10 Commandments differently, breaking the Covet Commandment in two and consolidating that one about worshiping idols?

The murder part might be better explained on your part as well.

• Wyclif’s (d. 1385) bones were dug up and burned (1428) because of the views against his work.
• Tyndale was strangled and his remains burned in 1536.
  Pretty drastic and nasty for having a difference in opinion. But natural when you differed with the Authority of the early days.

You are grossly mis-representing the history of both literacy and how the Church handled literacy.

Baloney!

If one could read, they read Latin back then.

Actually, they read and wrote Greek before that. The Greek NT was translated into Latin (Vulgate). And, of course, the OT wasn’t Greek or Latin at first. Latin was a preferred language for quite some time, but not all people of the church were educated in Latin, if educated at all.
Do you think there could be any negative response to the translation from the Vulgate to English without some degree of jealousy or maybe fear of loss of power? Wasn’t it the first (and maybe the second) Textus Receptus which was to be translated from the Greek instead of the Vulgate? Some had to be translated first from the Vulgate back into Greek, then into the next language because whatsisname forgot to do the final work before he ended! (Sorry I can’t remember whatsisname, but you can find it easily enough.)

“…the sin of ignorance was perpetuated on classes of people to keep them subjugated.”
Examples would be wonderful, here.

• The African slaves in America often were prevented from learning to read and write, because it was feared that they would become empowered in some way and do harm, or just run away.
• The Muslim community punishes those Muslims who have a Bible, even to the point of prohibiting the importation of Bibles into the Muslim countries.
• The Republic of China today prevents its people from having full access to the Internet and international newspapers AND Bibles! They can’t even be taught religion there!
• And the worst modern method of promoting ignorance is to call things “heresies” and tell people not to read it or belief it lest you die and go to hell. Let them read it and investigate and come to their own conclusions!

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!

I would have thought it necessary to be able to read and write *before *you were accepted at University. AMOF, that’s two of the prerequisites today, isn’t it?

Who gave us the Creeds? The Catholic Church.

Well… It sure seems like you’re saying that only one of the 3 major components of modern catholicity was responsible for all the learning of the ancient days. However, didn’t the Creeds make their appearance before the major split between East and West, and certainly before the split between the Western elements?
The Catholic Church wasn’t only Roman in those ancient days.
AMOF, wasn’t the difference of opinions about much of the practice and belief of the Catholic (Universal) Church the cause of the splits? It certainly wasn’t ONLY the selling of dispensations…

Having said all that, may the Peace of God be with you.

 

[whomper]

(quoting whomper) “and since Jesus existed with God and the Holy Ghost from all time” (end quote)

• 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.

That’s a pretty concrete statement. I’d be pretty worried myself at deciding what God will and will not do. A popular saying today is “What would Jesus Do?” I prefer to ask, “What DID Jesus Do?” I don’t think I can predict what God would do in any circumstance, since He felt it necessary to let so many things happen that we don’t understand.

When we refer to Jesus, we’re not talking about some Mexican servant. We’re talking about Jesus the Messiah+ who came as the Incarnate God. Since His body ascended into Heaven, He sure could come back in the same man-form (although we’d probably not trust Him unless He got a haircut and changed His robe into at least bluejeans and a T-shirt).
So why are you saying that the Incarnation can’t be eternal?
Jesus said He “is before Abraham was”. That implies eternity up to that point. And since God told Moses that His name is “I AM” (or “I AM THAT I AM”), that’s another sign of the eternity of God (and Christ+ and the Holy Spirit/Ghost). Are you saying that Jesus Christ+ was Incarnate only for the time He was on earth?

Are you dabbling with modality here? That would be a good discussion in another thread, because I have trouble understanding modality (mainly since the author had all his works burned, and we have only his detractors to read to try to figure out what he was saying. Terrible thing, burning people and stuff. The Nazis were good at that; look what happened to them.)

I really don’t think you have done a good job of making your point, especially since you still seem to be contradicting Christ’s+ words. Are you ready to stake your soul on being right? It’s probably a sure thing that if you’re wrong, you won’t spend your eternity in flames. At least I won’t condemn you for having that viewpoint, since you have until just before you die to change your mind. But you can rest assured that someone will venture an opinion that you did a swell job…

 

[whomper]

What is your conception of the hypostatic union?

I have no problem with the term, but I favor the Theodoran concept over that of Apollinaris. Certain portions of the NT reveal the differences and support the decision of The First Council of Nicea. I would suggest that the more appropriate understanding of this proverbial “mystical union” makes the understanding of Christ+ as the Incarnate God, a bit easier. Maybe not any more acceptible to some people who resist the Incarnation, but as a term, it’s more easily understood.

Why do you ask?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

whomper,

Thank you for your response.

I ask because I am attempting to understand what you are saying exactly.

As to your favor of Theodore’s concept, do you mean you favor the idea that there are two hypostases in Christ?

Thanks,
VC

 

[whomper]

do you mean you favor the idea that there are two hypostases in Christ?

Well the differences are really quite slim - about as slim as that little thread which tells the difference between day and night.

It would seem from Christ’s+ conversations that his humanness spoke to God, and his other essense spoke AS God. To me, that would support Theodore.

But it’s easy to accept the Apollinarian theory, if you think of it as only one human form.

The confusion comes, from my viewpoint, in each nature having its own hypostasis, implying to some that He was more of a “split personality”. However, I don’t feel that the personality was so split that it would qualify as a “disorder” in today’s parlance.

I’m not real sure that either theory is dogmatic. The only dogmatic part is that Christ+ is God Incarnate.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Thanks.

Which Divine hypostasis is Jesus Christ, as you see it? (this question avoids you committing to a one or two hypostases view).

I am using *hypostasis *as recognized by the Council of Constantinople.

Thanks again,
VC

 

[NotWorthy]

Maybe as they interpreted the truth. That mess in France comes to mind, with all the non-Roman Catholics. But I’m more reminded of the various translations of the early bible.

The “Mess in France” was a 1000 years later (give or take a century). You specifically said the Early Church Fathers. The “Mess” you so glibly described came from Albigensians (or are they Cathiars) changing the words of the Bible to claim that all flesh is evil. They used this teaching to justify numerous heresies - suicide not the least of which.

Let me ask you, whomper, what would you do if you saw someone changing the very words of the Bible to justify a false teaching. From my experience of reading your posts, you’d be very quick to call them heretics.

This might be a good thing, if everyone agreed on what the “mistranslations” were and how they warped the teachings of Christ+. But when the various Councils put scripture in and took scripture out, and even argued against some scripture when they weren’t aware of all the documentation available (e.g., Comma Johanneum), it’s bound to present a confused picture of what’s right and what’s not. This, of course, can be epitomized in the several bibles which have separate imprimatures. What ever happened to the Douay version, anyway?

The Douay Rheimes (sic?) version is still a fantastic translation. But doesn’t it have too may “thee’s and thou’s” in it for the common man’s taste? The problem with conflicting (notice the NAB, and the D-H, and the various other Catholics versions don’t conflict) Scriptures is that they can mislead the reader. That was the root of the Albigensian and other translations (do I need to bring up that English chap who butchered the Bible… Wycliffe?)

While we’re talking about different Bibles, why did the Roman Catholic Bible separate the 10 Commandments differently, breaking the Covet Commandment in two and consolidating that one about worshiping idols?

They didn’t do it differently. They did it correctly. The Protestant commandmants 1 and 2 cover the very same thing - worshipping other gods before the Lord. And they smack coveting a neighbor’s goods (greed or envy) with a neighbor’s wife (lust) together as if they are the same thing.

Catholics separate the 10 commandments to cover the 10 major transgressions against God.

• Wyclif’s (d. 1385) bones were dug up and burned (1428) because of the views against his work.
• Tyndale was strangled and his remains burned in 1536.
  Pretty drastic and nasty for having a difference in opinion. But natural when you differed with the Authority of the early days.

Who strangled Tyndale?

Baloney!

Tripe!

Actually, they read and wrote Greek before that. The Greek NT was translated into Latin (Vulgate). And, of course, the OT wasn’t Greek or Latin at first. Latin was a preferred language for quite some time, but not all people of the church were educated in Latin, if educated at all.

It’s quite simple. If you read, you learned Latin first. Then maybe, and only maybe, you learned your own language. This was for the very same reason that everyone spoke Greek at some point in time - so that everyone could speak the same language. Well, with the world conquest by Rome, Latin became the written language “du jour”.

Do you think there could be any negative response to the translation from the Vulgate to English without some degree of jealousy or maybe fear of loss of power? Wasn’t it the first (and maybe the second) Textus Receptus which was to be translated from the Greek instead of the Vulgate? Some had to be translated first from the Vulgate back into Greek, then into the next language because whatsisname forgot to do the final work before he ended! (Sorry I can’t remember whatsisname, but you can find it easily enough.)

I have no clue what you are talking about. I’ll let you fill in the blanks before I attempt to refute them.

• The African slaves in America often were prevented from learning to read and write, because it was feared that they would become empowered in some way and do harm, or just run away.

Totally irrelevant.

• The Muslim community punishes those Muslims who have a Bible, even to the point of prohibiting the importation of Bibles into the Muslim countries.

Even more irrelevant.

• The Republic of China today prevents its people from having full access to the Internet and international newspapers AND Bibles! They can’t even be taught religion there!

I’m getting bored. What is your point?

• And the worst modern method of promoting ignorance is to call things “heresies” and tell people not to read it or belief it lest you die and go to hell. Let them read it and investigate and come to their own conclusions!

The only thing that is heresy is teaching with authority something that is false. Jesus chastised people that taught in error (knowingly in error). I think the Church is simply doing Her best to follow His commandment for Her to guard the Truth. That is what She does.

I would have thought it necessary to be able to read and write *before *you were accepted at University. AMOF, that’s two of the prerequisites today, isn’t it?

Irrelevant. You are simply trying to put today’s world in yesterdays culture. The fact is that the Church was the chief teaching instrument for many centuries.

Well… It sure seems like you’re saying that only one of the 3 major components of modern catholicity was responsible for all the learning of the ancient days. However, didn’t the Creeds make their appearance before the major split between East and West, and certainly before the split between the Western elements?
The Catholic Church wasn’t only Roman in those ancient days.
AMOF, wasn’t the difference of opinions about much of the practice and belief of the Catholic (Universal) Church the cause of the splits? It certainly wasn’t ONLY the selling of dispensations…

Yes, the Catholic Church made the creeds before the split. And I recognize the Eastern Orthodox and praise my brothers and know that soon we will be fully united (in my lifetime, I believe). But I’m speaking of post-reformation split-offs that still use the creed. Whether they do or not, I really don’t care.

Having said all that, may the Peace of God be with you.

And you, too.

 

[whomper]

The “Mess in France” was a 1000 years later (give or take a century). You specifically said the Early Church Fathers.

There’s a different between “early fathers” and “ancient fathers”. For the difference to sink in, you’ll have to check that out yourself!

As for all those “irrelevancies”, that’s a good way to avoid having to think real hard about something which just might prove you wrong.

I’m reminded of the time in my youth when I tried to teach a pig to sing. I exhausted myself over a number of weeks, 'cause I just couldn’t get that critter to utter any note other than a grunt, maybe two. I got so tired that I just had to stop.

The pig, of course, was just irritated.

I still enjoy bacon with my eggs.

:tiphat:

 

[whomper]

Which Divine hypostasis is Jesus Christ…

Doesn’t divining the difference really contradict the definition of “mystical union?” I’m not prepared to deliver a definitive answer to your question, because I’m not sure there IS a valid answer. And if we COULD identify the difference, we’d have a much better chance of eventually seeing God.

Not much of an answer to your question, I’m afraid… Sorry.

 

[NotWorthy]

Ah, now that’s just great. You go from,
"whomper:

Having said all that, may the Peace of God be with you.

to this

I’m reminded of the time in my youth when I tried to teach a pig to sing. I exhausted myself over a number of weeks, 'cause I just couldn’t get that critter to utter any note other than a grunt, maybe two. I got so tired that I just had to stop.

The pig, of course, was just irritated.

I still enjoy bacon with my eggs.

It seems that you’ve added complete lack of charity to anti-catholic. I’m impressed.

Now, continuing with your post…

There’s a different between “early fathers” and “ancient fathers”. For the difference to sink in, you’ll have to check that out yourself!

As for all those “irrelevancies”, that’s a good way to avoid having to think real hard about something which just might prove you wrong.

But let’s see. Pigs are known for their memory. It seems that this pig remembers you saying just that about the ancient fathers. What was it? Oh yeah, you said:

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

 

[whomper]

Something…

Did you say something important? I must’ve missed it…

Ohwell…

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Doesn’t divining the difference really contradict the definition of “mystical union?” I’m not prepared to deliver a definitive answer to your question, because I’m not sure there IS a valid answer. And if we COULD identify the difference, we’d have a much better chance of eventually seeing God.

Not much of an answer to your question, I’m afraid… Sorry.

Thanks. It is more than a sufficient answer.

As far as contradicting the definition of “mystical union”, I would only say that in order for one to respect the union as mystical, one must first have a union in mind.

I would daresay that which Divine Person became flesh is a fairly clear belief of Christianity.

VC

 

[NotWorthy]

Did you say something important? I must’ve missed it…

Ohwell…

Ah, great come back! I’m impressed.

I remind you that, yes, you did accuse the early Church Fathers of squelching peoples translations with violence.

And you come back with this? You are so awesome!

Have a good day, whomper. And may His Peace Truly be with You!

 

[whomper]

I remind you that, yes, you did accuse the early Church Fathers of squelching peoples translations with violence.

Yes, I did. And I still do. I have many facts to support my contentions but I’m not going to do your research for you anymore. you have indicated to me that you don’t want to learn to sing, in a manner of speaking. (And I recognize that you’re not porcine…)

Now, realize that the idea of “misinterpretation” of biblical works can be in the eye of the beholder. One takes much on Faith, but one also is influenced by other men’s impressions and faiths. So when we decide that So-and-So has misinterpreted the Word, we must consider two things: (a) Did he really do it, and (a) Who’s to Judge? It’s not our place to kill him or bash him with stones or ring his head with a gasoline necklace. We just tell him something nice and then leave him alone. Our Lord taught Love, not crucifiction or burning or stoning or any other physical punishment. He *DID *indicate that it was better at times to just leave.

Just because you *believe *you are right, doesn’t *make *you right. But you can be right in your own mind and be safe – until you force your beliefs onto others, either physically or psychologically.

Your recent quotation of mine indicated, to me, that you were having difficulty in distinguishing between the “early” fathers and the “ancient” fathers. I opined that the “ancients” *might’ve *targeted “alternate believers” (to be gentle) but that’s only my estimation, considering how many instances are documented where someone who doesn’t believe as one groups does, gets burned at the stake or stoned or just called a heretic in public. The odds favor the estimation that the “ancients” did it, too. AMOF, more recent instances can be found, but I’m not going there!

Remember, it’s not what Jesus *would *do or *might *do, it’s what He *DID *do.
Taking my cue from our Lord – John 8:59.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes, I did. And I still do. I have many facts to support my contentions but I’m not going to do your research for you anymore. you have indicated to me that you don’t want to learn to sing, in a manner of speaking. (And I recognize that you’re not porcine…)

Now, realize that the idea of “misinterpretation” of biblical works can be in the eye of the beholder. One takes much on Faith, but one also is influenced by other men’s impressions and faiths. So when we decide that So-and-So has misinterpreted the Word, we must consider two things: (a) Did he really do it, and (a) Who’s to Judge? It’s not our place to kill him or bash him with stones or ring his head with a gasoline necklace. We just tell him something nice and then leave him alone. Our Lord taught Love, not crucifiction or burning or stoning or any other physical punishment. He *DID *indicate that it was better at times to just leave.

You are mixing two very different things, whomper. There is

a) mis-interpretation leading to a false belief. That’s understandable and human. The Church can only teach the Truth, gently correct, and hope one comes to the understanding of the Truth - for the Church is commanded to teach the Truth to all the nations.

b) mis-interpretation, causing a false belief, and teaching others that your interpretation is right no matter what the Church says. Every major heretical teaching of the early Church came from Her very own clergy. They came from within the Church. And when the Church corrected - as She is commanded to do - they (the heretics) rebelled and continued to teach in error.

Each of thse two situations should, and have, been handled differently.

Just because you *believe *you are right, doesn’t *make *you right. But you can be right in your own mind and be safe – until you force your beliefs onto others, either physically or psychologically.

Your recent quotation of mine indicated, to me, that you were having difficulty in distinguishing between the “early” fathers and the “ancient” fathers. I opined that the “ancients” *might’ve *targeted “alternate believers” (to be gentle) but that’s only my estimation, considering how many instances are documented where someone who doesn’t believe as one groups does, gets burned at the stake or stoned or just called a heretic in public. The odds favor the estimation that the “ancients” did it, too. AMOF, more recent instances can be found, but I’m not going there!

you’re simply speculating on the early Church Fathers. You have that right. I have that right to disagree. Without any proof on your point, you continue to be simply speculating.

Remember, it’s not what Jesus *would *do or *might *do, it’s what He *DID *do.
Taking my cue from our Lord – John 8:59.

And yes, Jesus did teach the Church to teach all that He taught. This includes correction of false teachings.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

That’s a pretty concrete statement. I’d be pretty worried myself at deciding what God will and will not do. A popular saying today is “What would Jesus Do?” I prefer to ask, “What DID Jesus Do?” I don’t think I can predict what God would do in any circumstance, since He felt it necessary to let so many things happen that we don’t understand.

The Church goes by what He has done; which is what we who who disagree with you are doing​

When we refer to Jesus, we’re not talking about some Mexican servant. We’re talking about Jesus the Messiah+ who came as the Incarnate God. Since His body ascended into Heaven, He sure could come back in the same man-form (although we’d probably not trust Him unless He got a haircut and changed His robe into at least bluejeans and a T-shirt).
So why are you saying that the Incarnation can’t be eternal?

Because Jesus Christ is man as well as God. Unless you want to say the BVM is eternal - she is the created source of the created Sacred Humanity of the Word, Whose Sacred Humanity & flesh is from her; it is not from the Father in the same way as from her - unless the Father is like the Word Incarnate in being corporeal.​

But if the Father is corporeal, He is not metaphysically simple, & is subject to corruption. In which case He is not eternal, but a mere god like the gods of the nations.

Jesus said He “is before Abraham was”. That implies eternity up to that point.

Not necessarily - it can be taken as referring to pre-existence: so it can be taken in an Arian sense too. It is not unambiguously Nicene.​

And since God told Moses that His name is “I AM” (or “I AM THAT I AM”), that’s another sign of the eternity of God (and Christ+ and the Holy Spirit/Ghost). Are you saying that Jesus Christ+ was Incarnate only for the time He was on earth?

I know that is a popular argument, but I don’t find it persuasive. As only Jesus is speaking, it cannot be applied to anyone else: unless one takes the Modalist position - that Jesus is one manifestation of God on one occasion, while the Father & the Holy Spirit each manifest God on others.​

And no, I am not saying that (though some Evangelicals do). I believe in the permanence of the Hypostatic Union.

Are you dabbling with modality here?

No.​

That would be a good discussion in another thread,

Agreed​

because I have trouble understanding modality (mainly since the author had all his works burned, and we have only his detractors to read to try to figure out what he was saying. Terrible thing, burning people and stuff. The Nazis were good at that; look what happened to them.)

Are you referring to Origen’s works ? He wasn’t a modalist.​

I really don’t think you have done a good job of making your point,

You’re welcome ​

especially since you still seem to be contradicting Christ’s+ words.

Would you like to elaborate ? ​

Are you ready to stake your soul on being right?

It depends on what you think I said, & on what you think the Church teaches. I agree with the Christology of the Church as expressed from Nicea I to the “Credo of the People of God” - which IMHO is the best short summary of Catholic teaching there is: it fills a side or so of A4. ​

It’s probably a sure thing that if you’re wrong, you won’t spend your eternity in flames. At least I won’t condemn you for having that viewpoint, since you have until just before you die to change your mind. But you can rest assured that someone will venture an opinion that you did a swell job…