Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
LIVING WORD = JESUS,
JESUS = LIVING WORD,
for me.
***merely illustrative of man-made theologies.
= = =
I certainly recognize the RC reps and magicsterical trumping the rest of us on being masters of that phenomena.***
You do? You may wish to go to a stronger prescription on your glasses, or at least clean them.
LOL.
Would you rephrase, or explain what are your two posts in reference to, or permit me to ignore them?
You’re quite welcome to ignore them.
I seem to be fresh out of decoder rings.
I’d give you a rain check for one but there’s no guarantee at all that I’ll ever get any more.
. . . having sympathy on the perceptually challenged . . .
Poster said in 4251:
I am sure Kosta is referring to the modern goofy connotation of “daddy” nonstop promoted by the secular media, and not the sense of familial intimacy with God that Christ gave us in His Church.
. . .
I realize that folks who refuse to obey God about calling leaders Father . . . might have some definite confusions about fitting meanings and uses of “Daddy.”
However, I merely wanted to forcefully assert that . . . for those of us with UNRUBBERIZED BIBLES and UNRUBBERIZED DICTIONARIES . . .
and especially for those of us with ATTACHMENT DISORDERED backgrounds . . .
DADDY . . . particularly in it’s loftier meanings . . .
is
NOT
REMOTELY
goofy.
LOL.
And what about poor King David? 300 wifes and 600 concubines means 900 mothers-in-law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I appreciate David’s heroism even more.<p.This, by the way, is one of the major reasons to reach out to our Islamic neighbor. Poor son of a gun thinks it desirable to have four mothers-in-law. Talk about your deluded ... I MEAN!
If you are not familiar with “the modern goofy connotation of “daddy” nonstop promoted by the secular media”, consider yourself luckier than me.
I have
LONNNNNNNG
AVOIDED
ALLOWING
the MSM to determine ANY of my values and definitions . . .
and rarely allow them to convince me of what “the facts” are about anything.
Thank you for that clarification, STF.
I'm very sorry you feel that way. I love my country, and the Christian values it was founded upon. The United States of America has freed more people from tyranny and oppression in its short existence than any other country in history. If it was not SOLELY for some of those demonic Jihad Protestants you attack, I'm sure that many of those Eastern Christian communities would still be living behind the iron curtain. By God's providence it was Protestants who gave you this country, Kolo, and the freedom to love it or hate it.
I fully support your campaign. Perhaps your committees work as fast as ours do. :)
Then He wasn't fully human.
Of course He was fully human. But not only was He NOT stained by original sin, He was also fully God. Jesus said:
Matt 6:24 : "No one can serve two masters . Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.
Neither could fully human Jesus serve both God and satan, AS God. It just couldn't happen.
FK: "I was trying to show that Jesus told the truth when He said He came to do the will of the Father, and that He never deviated once."
Then the Son is subordinate to the Father. That's Arian heresy.
Jesus said:
John 6:38-39 : 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
Your argument is with Jesus Himself, not me. :)
People say, for instance, God "cannot" lie, suggesting that that is a lack of ability or power. What happens if I rephrase it thus: God cannot want to lie.
My point, if any, is that God's utter reliability (not limited to making it rains right after I wash the car) maybe ought not to be thought of or expressed as a limitation on His power. Maybe.
Saying, "It just couldn't happen," is one thing. I want to suggest the substitution of "It just wouldn't happen," to see if the conversation develops helpfully.
In the "agony" in the Garden (in quotes because the root sense of "agony" is struggle, not pain) we are presented with the real, live, Son of God, seeming to suggest to the Father that it would be okay with the Son if the Father could come up with another way to get the job done. That is a mysterious indication of the union and distinctness of persons, I guess. Jesus can entertain the possibility that there might be a way out of this, although he explicitly rejects doing something other than the Father's will.
But again, there's the problem of speaking about His obedience as though it were a limitation rather than an accomplishment. If it were me in the garden, I'd probably say, "Get yourself another boy, I'm outta here," but that would be my failure.
So is freedom a failure?
IN related news: Does it matter, kosta, the the so-called Athanasian Creed says "inferior to the Father as touching His manhood?"
"Begotten" is such interesting language. ON the one hand, like begets like, so that Son is the same "kind of thing" as the Father. But still certainly we resonate to some extent with the idea that that which begets is in some sense "prior" to that which is begotten, don't we?
If I were having the discussion you two are having, I'd pick me way very carefully through it and have frequent recourse to that very Catholic language, "in a special way ...."
I have no problem with that. We do the best we can in the English to describe what can be a difficult concept. I'm not sure of what you mean about "persona" as a projection, as opposed to Christ the person. Christ really really truly was and IS God. I do not think of Christ as being 1/3 of God out on a mission trip. He's all of God.
In Greek "that which stand beneath" (hypostasis) is neither a "person" nor "substance." It is something akin to a perceived individual reality.
That just sounds like trying to make something that is real, unreal. Christ's divinity is very real.
By treating them as "persons" of the same (divine) essence, or nature, we are introducing tritheism, a multi-God trinity which is taught by the LDS cult.
I don't see it that way. They are three persons in revelation, but one God. Distinct "personhood" is what allows us to attempt to explain how Jesus prayed to the Father, etc.
This is no different than saying Kolo you and Mark are three persons of the same human nature or essence.
No, it's not like that at all. Our human created existence is not like God's uncreated existence. We can't compare them.
Well, that is certainly right on target, Alex, but I also want to emphasize that paternity at the time of our Lord's ministry was somehting a oot stricter and reverential than it is today. As I mentioned earlier, a father had the power of life and death over his family. For dishonoring the father and the mother, the Old Testament prescibes death.
Hardly an American 21st century "daddy" and "mommy" and son relationship. Protestants cerate this feel-good, cozy "relationship" with God who that does not reflect the paternal reality with sons of the 1st century Middle East. Jesus did not call the Father His "Daddy." Abba and the Chaldean word for Father.
Much changed since the bombing of Serbia, creation of Islamic Kosovo, the war in Iraq and the unconditional support for the Israeli war in Lebanon though, — these acts showed gross insensitivity to both Eastern Catholic and especially Orthodox Christianity.
Right — modernity sentimentalizes and cheapens everything. Of course.
IMHO, Blessed Thomas Aquinas makes the explanation easy to understand.
Excerpts from Summa...
Article 5. Whether the Son is in the Father, and conversely?
Objection 1. It would seem that the Son and the Father are not in each other. For the Philosopher (Phys. iv, text. 23) gives eight modes of one thing existing in another, according to none of which is the Son in the Father, or conversely; as is patent to anyone who examines each mode. Therefore the Son and the Father are not in each other.
Objection 2. Further, nothing that has come out from another is within it. But the Son from eternity came out from the Father, according to Micheas v. 2: “His going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity.” Therefore the Son is not in the Father.
Objection 3. Further, one of two opposites cannot be in the other. But the Son and the Father are relatively opposed. Therefore one cannot be in the other.
On the contrary, It is said (John 14:10): “I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me.”
I answer that, There are three points of consideration as regards the Father and the Son; the essence, the relation, and the origin; and according to each the Son and the Father are in each other. The Father is in the Son by His essence, forasmuch as the Father is His own essence, and communicates His essence to the Son not by any change on His part. Hence it follows that as the Father's essence is in the Son, the Father Himself is in the Son; likewise, since the Son is His own essence, it follows that He Himself is in the Father in Whom is His essence. This is expressed by Hilary (De Trin. v), “The unchangeable God, so to speak, follows His own nature in begetting an unchangeable subsisting God. So we understand the nature of God to subsist in Him, for He is God in God.” It is also manifest that as regards the relations, each of two relative opposites is in the concept of the other. Regarding origin also, it is clear that the procession of the intelligible word is not outside the intellect, inasmuch as it remains in the utterer of the word. What also is uttered by the word is therein contained. And the same applies to the Holy Ghost.
Reply to Objection 1. What is contained in creatures does not sufficiently represent what exists in God; so according to none of the modes enumerated by the Philosopher, are the Son and the Father in each other. The mode the most nearly approaching to the reality is to be found in that whereby something exists in its originating principle, except that the unity of essence between the principle and that which proceeds therefrom is wanting in things created.
Reply to Objection 2. The Son's going forth from the Father is by mode of the intereior procession whereby the word emerges from the heart and remains therein. Hence this going forth in God is only by the distinction of the relations, not by any kind of essential separation.
Reply to Objection 3. The Father and the Son are relatively opposed, but not essentially; while, as above explained, one relative opposite is in the other.
Article 6. Whether the Son is equal to the Father in power?
Objection 1. It would seem that the Son is not equal to the Father in power. For it is said (John 5:19): “The Son cannot do anything of Himself but what He seeth the Father doing.” But the Father can act of Himself. Therefore the Father's power is greater than the Son's.
Objection 2. Further, greater is the power of him who commands and teaches than of him who obeys and hears. But the Father commands the Son according to John 14:31: “As the Father gave Me commandment so do I.” The Father also teaches the Son: “The Father loveth the Son, and showeth Him all things that Himself doth” (John 5:20). Also, the Son hears: “As I hear, so I judge” (John 5:30). Therefore the Father has greater power than the Son.
Objection 3. Further, it belongs to the Father's omnipotence to be able to beget a Son equal to Himself. For Augustine says (Contra Maxim. iii, 7), “Were He unable to beget one equal to Himself, where would be the omnipotence of God the Father?” But the Son cannot beget a Son, as proved above (41, 6). Therefore the Son cannot do all that belongs to the Father's omnipotence; and hence He is not equal to Him power.
On the contrary, It is said (John 5:19): “Whatsoever things the Father doth, these the Son also doth in like manner.”
I answer that, The Son is necessarily equal to the Father in power. Power of action is a consequence of perfection in nature. In creatures, for instance, we see that the more perfect the nature, the greater power is there for action. Now it was shown above (4) that the very notion of the divine paternity and filiation requires that the Son should be the Father's equal in greatness—that is, in perfection of nature. Hence it follows that the Son is equal to the Father in power; and the same applies to the Holy Ghost in relation to both.
Reply to Objection 1. The words, “the Son cannot of Himself do anything,” do not withdraw from the Son any power possessed by the Father, since it is immediately added, “Whatsoever things the Father doth, the Son doth in like manner”; but their meaning is to show that the Son derives His power from the Father, of Whom He receives His nature. Hence, Hilary says (De Trin. ix), “The unity of the divine nature implies that the Son so acts of Himself [per se], that He does not act by Himself [a se].”
Reply to Objection 2. The Father's “showing” and the Son's “hearing” are to be taken in the sense that the Father communicates knowledge to the Son, as He communicates His essence. The command of the Father can be explained in the same sense, as giving Him from eternity knowledge and will to act, by begetting Him. Or, better still, this may be referred to Christ in His human nature.
Reply to Objection 3. As the same essence is paternity in the Father, and filiation in the Son: so by the same power the Father begets, and the Son is begotten. Hence it is clear that the Son can do whatever the Father can do; yet it does not follow that the Son can beget; for to argue thus would imply transition from substance to relation, for generation signifies a divine relation. So the Son has the same omnipotence as the Father, but with another relation; the Father possessing power as “giving” signified when we say that He is able to beget; while the Son possesses the power of “receiving,” signified by saying that He can be begotten.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.