Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
Well jeepers, dear BroJoeK, I guess we need to start off with a definition of "substance," a philosophical term not much heard of in "science."
The entry for "substance" at the Stanford Encyclopedia On-Line:
The philosophical term ‘substance’ corresponds to the Greek ousia, which means ‘being’, transmitted via the Latin substantia, which means ‘something that stands under or grounds things’.From the the Catholic Encyclopedia On-Line: "Substance, the first of Aristotle's categories, signifies being as existing in and by itself, and serving as a subject or basis for accidents and accidental changes."
Thus, "substance" refers to that which does not change. It is sui-generis and perfectly self-subsisting. It is eternal Being in and of itself.
I believe this perfect One Being expresses to man as Three Divine Persons — Father, Son, Spirit. Each Person has been revealed to man in history. But each Person — though they seem "divisible" to us, from the human perspective — is indivisible in the Godhead, the One Substance and — as reflected through the Son — the One Logos of God's Creation, Alpha to Omega.
Well, that's just me. Let's go to the source you cited ("Nicaean Creed," Marquis of Bute's translation), and you can draw your own conclusions:
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Eternal and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.Please note: When I read this, every time I hit the word "Catholic," I instantly translate it in my own mind as "Christian." Lower-case-"c" catholic means "universal." Beyond its creedal differences, Christianity is truly "universal" in its appeal to human souls. So I think I'll stick with the Word "Christian," for public discourse purposes....
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.
God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.
Thanks so much for writing, dear BroJoeK!
Few of these specific details qualify as “history”, they are all religious beliefs.
***There it is again, for all to see. When the gospels record a piece of history, in this case an exchange between Jesus and a crowd, there’s nothing to disqualify it as historical when it’s just describing mundane facts and no miracles. But you, for the 2nd time in this thread, have labelled historical observations contained in the gospels as a religious belief.
You are a joke, a brojoke as a historian. No wonder why you drifted into heresy.
FRiend, I am familiar with many, if not all, of your “proof texts”, and I also know the historical arguments which conclude they have been misunderstood.
***Such “historical arguments” in the past have been properly called out as the thread title says, Damnable Heresy. Pushing that idealogical garbage is what heretics do.
So, in opposition to what the Gospel writer John actually, explicitly did say in this passage, which you deem “heretical”, you would have us accept as “orthodox” and even “historical” your own interpretations of “proof texts” which never actually say what you claim.
***Nope. Once again you lie. I said it was wonderful that you consider it historically reliable. No doubt the other parts of scripture that you like to label “proof texts” you will consider historically unrreliable, because they directly contradict the heretical beliefs you are pushing.
Last I checked, that wasn’t Kevmo’s job.
***We are called to be defenders of the faith, and Jesus Himself had harsh words for false teachers such as yourself. No doubt you would say that Jesus was exceeding His authority when He confronted false teachers of His day. That’s what heretics do.
Sorry, FRiend, but I’m not going to debate your article.
***Of course not, HEretic, because the article already proves the vast majority of what you’ve been saying is simple heresy.
It’s all I can do to keep up with what you’re posting here — including all your Four-D’s.
***The other article is on the religion forum, and the kind of posts you started out with would be wiped clean. We would have ended up discussing historicity, which is what I wanted to do. But you’re here to troll, push heresy, and disrupt & want nothing to do with an orderly exchange. Oh well, at least out here in the open forum I get to properly label you as a genuine heretic.
“Gnosticism is a real word which first described real people (Greeks) who lived thousands of years ago.”
Spirited: Gnosticism did not begin with the Greeks, but with certain Jewish exiles in Babylonian. They sowed the seeds of Gnosticism with their occult Kabbalah. It is btw, the Kabbalahs’ Doctrine of Emanation that is the seedbed of modern evolutionary theories.
“...rejected the material world, in favor of the spiritual realm.”
Spirited: They did. However, they did at least retain a sense of “something” higher that allowed them to believe in a spiritual realm, even though there was really nothing there.
But in “killing” God, and closing off the supernatural realm, modern Western Gnostics (naturalists; empiricists, secular humanists, dialectical materialists, immanentists)have cast themselves into the abyss. For them there is nothing-—no source for life, consciousness, mind, meaning, or purpose.
Since just before the turn of the century Western Gnostics began fleeing to Buddhism and Hinduism in the belief that these Eastern systems would provide for them what naturalism took away. But what they do not know is that centuries before Jesus Christ walked this earth, Buddha took God away and deconstructed the Hindu idea of soul. But for a certain small segment of Hinduism that retains belief in God, all of the rest are types of naturalism.
Kevmo’s posts seem to be exactly what spirited irish wants.
***Is that true, Spirited? Or do you think that it would have been better to open up this thread under the religious forum guidelines (even “open” in the RF has good rules) and brojoke’s early projections of his own intentions would have been deleted. We would not have ended up where we are now, but on the other hand it is doubtful that a genuine heretic such as brojoke would be exposed.
So the Father is God, the Son is God,
***And to deny that is heresy. As the title of this thread says, Damnable Heresy. From the article:
John identifies antichrists... they specifically deny the living, personal Holy Trinity in favor of Gnostic pagan, immanent or Eastern pantheist conceptions.
I’ll be sure to give your opinion all the consideration it’s due.
It’s simple. Just read the thread again. I came here to discuss historicity and you started “attributing thoughts and intentions” towards me that did not exist (I know my own thoughts & intentions). So by the time I went a few rounds with you, you refused to click on simple FR links that proved your bowlsheet was untrue, it became obvious after seeing “you had an idealogical agenda” that the agenda was simple heresy. It was a progression. And it was caused you you. I didn’t come here to argue against a heretic, I came to discuss historicity. But since you degenerated the discussion I am allowed to point out that you’re simply a heretic, a false teacher that Jesus has very harsh words for. You are properly labelled a damnable heretic.
You always do, heretic troll.
“...but on the other hand it is doubtful that a genuine heretic such as brojoke would be exposed.”
Spirited: True. On the other hand, the BroJoes of this world provide ample opportunity for penetrating analysis and exposure of vain, self-refuting, nihilistic thoughts, philosophies, theories, systems, etc. for the edification of truth-seekers.
Is there some kind of points system? All I got was "heretic".
boop quoting Vogelin:
If I've ever seen that term, "immanentize the eschaton" before, it surely fell into a memory black-hole... ;-).
The idea is familiar, of course, since it is the claimed goal of liberal ideology.
So now I "get" that "Gnosticism" is simply a term of derision thrown at our "immanitizers" liberals.
Fine.
But in the annals of smack-down terms, "Gnosticism" has got to be one of the least effective.
Nobody even knows what the word means, much less how it might apply to our materialistic socialistic-liberals.
And for us to accuse liberals of wishing to bring about "heaven on earth" seems to me less a put-down than underhanded compliment.
And most people don't "get" the underhanded part.
Furthermore, if the term "Gnosticism" can refer to anything modern, it must surely be some form of modern "spiritualism", and yet our liberl-socialism is self-avowedly based on Marx's dialectic materialism.
And indeed, isn't unrelenting materialism the great sin decried by everyone including the new Pope?
Yes, I "get" the part about "Gnosticism considers its knowledge not subject to criticism.... " and that is one claim made by anti-evolutionists against science.
But the problem described is one common to all of human nature: once we have settled a question in our own minds, we may not always wish to revisit the process of exactly how we got there.
Nevertheless, all such scientific processes are available for study, somewhere.
So if, somewhere along the line, your Eric Voegelin ran into some particularly obtuse Marxist professors, that doesn't prove their entire materialistic ideology is somehow ironically based on Gnosticism.
Do you see my point? How can you with straight-face accuse a materialist of being Gnostic? Doesn't compute.
Indeed, if you accuse your dialectical-materialist professor of being too "Gnostic", meaning "spiritual", might not the good professor take that as a compliment?
Sure, I "get" that you need a term of derision to label opponents with, but to me at least, "Gnostic" doesn't fill the bill.
Why not use something simpler, more direct, like, oh, say: "dufus"?
Works for me.
Calm down, FRiend.
Yes, I "get" that you are going nuts here, and need some serious counseling, which in no way can I provide you.
Further, this is a site for adults, not children, and so, FRiend, you are responsible for your own insanity, not us.
But let me ask this: will it help your mental disturbances if I reassure you that nobody on this thread has "denied the deity of Christ" -- assuming, of course, that none of our other posters are Jewish.
So far as I know, everybody here who claims to be Christian acknowledges what the Bible says about Jesus -- that He is Son of God, Son of Man, Messiah/Christ and other such terms of respect.
Now FRiend, if that doesn't satisfy you personally, if it creates emotional problems for you, if you detect "heresy" and can't deal with it in a reasonable, civilized & FRiendly way, then again I suggest to you counseling, and maybe finding a different forum or site to express your outrage at the world.
Please provide quote where I said any such thing.
Please post quote which says any such thing.
I understand that you need help, and you need to get over this, FRiend.
penetrating analysis
***If what brojoke has been doing here qualifies as penetrating analysis, then the whole field of historical research is doomed.
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.