|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Does Scripture support the Trinity?
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Sorry, Duo. I recognized the overstepping after the two-minute limit had passed.
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Dear Bonaventura
You are wrong.
According to the christian faith all men are co-substantial. We have one essence, or nature, the human essence, or human nature. We all share that same essence, because we are all humans. We also have one will and one operation. This means that to will is common among men; not that we will the same things. To will is common. When the christian church teaches that god has one will, it means that the three divine persons will in the same way, just like man's will is the same. When we say that Christ has two wills, we say so because Christ is both god and man, so there is His divine will and His human will. His human will is the same as the will of me, Andreas, you Bonaventura and so on. To will is of the nature. For more information on what the one will / one operation means please read St. Maximos the Confessor's works. We don't have to rerun that ecumenical council here.
And we do talk about monotheism, because there is one divine nature; just like there is one human nature. Polytheism means to be many different divine natures; not many different divine persons. In fact, Christianity has preserved the concept of one divinity from the Jews and the concept of many persons from the heathens. This is the official teaching of the church.
Dear Freddy
There are no individuals in the trinity. That would be a heretical opinion. The reason why there are no individuals is that one cannot divide between the three persons. They do not consist of matter. We are two different individuals because I take a space in Greece and you take a different space in a different country. But god does not exist in places. So, we cannot say they are individuals. Besides, the term person means much more than that.
And we do not collectively make up man. We are all man. I am man, you are man etc. We do not make up anything. Humanity is in each and every one of us. Just like divinity is in each person of the trinity.
Dear Mousethief
You could argue that Aristotelian term "essence" is not the most appropriate to describe reality, but I have just sticked to what the fathers of the church taught always. Basil, Gregory and so on teach specifically that there is one man in many persons, meaning that there is one human nature, but many different human persons.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I fear you have read them wrong. There are billions of men, yet only one human nature.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I fear you have read them wrong. There are billions of men, yet only one human nature.
Um, you are wrong. Hear ye, hear ye, so that you can amend your ways (or ideas) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:
Gregory (On "not three gods" -- epistle to Ablabius)
The argument which you state is something like this: Peter, James, and John, being in one human nature, are called three men; and there is no absurdity in describing those who are united in nature, if they are more than one, by the plural number of the name derived from their nature.
We say then, to begin with, that the practice of calling those who are not divided in nature by the very name of their common nature in the plural, and saying they are "many men", is a customary abuse of language, and that it would be much the same thing to say they are "many human natures".
Thus it would be much better to correct our erroneous habit, so no longer to extend to a plurality the name of the nature, than by our bondage to habit to transfer to our statements concerning God the error which exists in the above case. But since the correction of the habit is impracticable... we are not so far wrong in not going contrary to the habit in the case of the lower nature, since no harm results from the mistaken use of the name: but in the case of the statement concerning the Divine nature the various use of terms is no longer so free from danger: for that which is of small account is in these subjects no longer a small matter.[/qb]
[ 09. May 2005, 05:54: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Ruthy, this is what i'd like to discuss: In a previos post I said:
quote:
I think you are mistaken when you attempt to disect humanity into 'parts'. Likewise, I think you are mistaken when you attempt you disect God into 'parts'; he is Triune. You seem to be suggesting that 'part' of God isn't God: namely his spirit. That doesn't make sense to me. To suggest that my spirit isn't 'me', or indeed, that my body isn't 'me', is to fall into the grip of Pagan philosophy. It represents an unaccepatble departure from Judeo-Christian anthropology.
quote:
When you said that...
[holy spirit] can be seen as divine because it is the very vital force of Jehovah and hence absolutely Holy.
...I responded withn this question:
quote:
Are you suggesting that without something that isn't God (i.e. holy spirit), Jehovah would have no vitality? Are you really suggesting that God's vitality is derived from something (holy spirit) that is less than Jehovah himself? I hope not! Otherwise we have a Jehovah who can do nothing but for something (holy spirit) that is less than himself!
So, Ruthy, is Jehovah capable of acting without holy spirit? If holy spirit is the 'very vital force of Jehovah', but is not God, does Jehovah need holy spirit? Are you suggesting that Jehovah only acts through something that is sub-ordinate to him? Is holy spirit a created force? Is it one of Jehovah's creatures? If holy spirtit was created, but is at the same time 'the very vital force of Jehovah', how did Jehovah create holy spirit? Does Jehovah rely on something that is not Jehovah for life [L vitalis, from vita life, from vivere to live]?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
This is the reasoning for the NWT rendering it as "a god" (lower case) in John 1:1.
This then led to the problem with:
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before, me.
Which of course I hold to mean that worship of Jesus would be idolatry (depending upon your definition of worship)
I completely agree with you. If we give Jesus worship and he is not the Almighty God, then we are in serious trouble.
This becomes interesting if you look at how the word "worship" (pr?skun?? ?????????) is used in the New Testament. It is used to apply to God as much as it is used to apply to Jesus.
This chart is very interesting because it shows how the NWT translates the same word differently depending on who it applies to. About 35 times it applies to God, the Devil, demons, idols, "the beast" and "his image". All those times, the NWT translates the word as "worship". But the 15 times that it applies to Jesus, the word magically becomes "obeisance".
This is indeed very interesting, and I must say quite a revelation to me, but I still maintain that this does not point to a trinity.
Even if that point doesn't prove the Trinity to you, Ruthy, would you agree that it shows that Jesus (according to the New Testament) can receive the same worship that Jehovah receives? If Jesus can receive that worship according to the New Testament, how does that make you reflect on passages such as the Ten Commandments, where Jehovah says that only he can receive our worship?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Yes, that does cause a huge problem - could you worship the flag, as long as you gave it less worship than you would give to Jehovah?
That is a very good question, which I admit atm I cannot justify. (but watch this space ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
There's no rush, take your time!
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
quote:
There is no doubt that Jesus is divine and he is a god (theos)
Again the JW argument runs into huge problems. The first commandment sctricly prohibits us having other Gods than the true one. If Jehovah is the "only true god" then where does that leave Jesus?
Precisely where Jehovah put him, at his right hand, but still subordinate to the only true God, Jehovah.
If he is not subordinate tell me what
1Cor 15:24-28 means?
I agree that Jesus' role includes some form of voluntary subordination to his Father. That is shown most fully for us in the fact that he was made a little lower than the angels for a time when he came to Earth, and when he took on a role here on Earth where he could fully say "The Father is greater than I am".
But when I think about statements like that, I am forced to think of passages that speak of a wife being subject (G5293 - the same Greek word as at 1 Cor 15:28 and Eph 5:21[!]) to her husband. Is the wife therefore of a different nature to her husband? Is she therefore a creature of a lower order than her husband? Well, we know that isn't the case. They are of the same nature - as the Son, however much rule he has and how much he obeys the Father, is of the same nature as him. Subordination or being subhect to someone does NOT imply that the two persons are of a different nature.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
Ahh - you are getting so close here, Ruthy! The Holy Spirit is indeed the very essense of God - he is truly divine. There is nothing about him that is not God.
Yes I agree that the HS is God, what I have isssue with is the Trinitarian extrapolation that "he" is another person, in his own right, also.
quote:
Originally posted by anglicanrascal:
can I leave you with this page?
By all means, but I don't think that it clarifies much. I haven't had time to look up each of the references in the tables yet but I do have a few comments about the introductory paragraph:
It states that the Holy Spirit must be a person rather than a force because:
1)a force "could not speak" (Acts 13:2)
This is a gross simplification of the word epo in this verse.
Do our consciences not "speak" to us?
Do not actions "speak" louder than words?
Does not a witness have to "speak" yet Job 16:8 speaks of wrath (or in some translations wrinkles ) being a witness.
And if he were a person who could speak why would he use other people to speak for him:
Mat 10:20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.
and 2) A force could not be grieved.
Can we not be grieved in our spirit?
Isa 54:6 For the LORD hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God.
OK - it's time for me to go home for my dinner now, but I would like to talk to you further about the Holy Spirit.
I firmly believe that the weight of the biblical evidence shows that the Holy Spirit is a person, not some kind of metaphor for God's power.
I hope you can see from our dicussion earlier in this post why we believe that the Bible shows us that Jesus is to be worshipped and how, when we compare that with statements that only God is to be worshipped, we believe that Jesus is the True God.
As a taster for next time: quote:
The following is solid biblical evidence that points to the Holy Spirit as a distinct person in His own right and performs functions we attribute to personhood: He appoints missionaries (Acts 13:2; 20:28), He leads and directs them in their ministry (Acts 8:29; 10:19-20; 16:6-7; 1 Corinthians 2:13), He speaks through the prophets (Acts 1:16; 1 Peter 1:11-12; 2 Peter 1:21), He corrects (John 16:8), comforts (Acts 9:31), helps us in our infirmities (Romans 8:26), teaches (John 14:26; 1 Corinthians 12:3), guides (John 16:13), sanctifies (Romans 15:16; 1 Corinthians 6:11), testifies of Christ (John 15:26), glorifies Christ (John 16:14), has a power of his own (Romans 15:13), searches all things (Romans 11:33-34; 1 Corinthians 2:10-11), works according to his own will (1 Corinthians 12:11), dwells with saints (John 14:17), can be grieved (Ephesians 4:30), can be resisted (Acts 7:51), and can be tempted (Acts 5:9).
In many languages, including Greek, words have masculine, feminine, or neuter genders which have no real counterpart in English. While the Spirit is often referred to by a neuter Greek pronoun, since the pneuma has a neuter tense in Greek (such as John 14:17, 26; 15:26), in other instances the masculine pronoun is used which emphasizes the Holy Spirit's personhood. Jesus said,
"But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom (neuter pronoun) the Father will send in my name, He (masculine pronoun) will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (John 15:16, RSV).
We see Jesus use similar language in John 15:26, and especially John 16:13:
"When the Spirit of truth comes, He (masculine pronoun) will guide you into all truth.”
Pax,
anglicanrascal
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonaventura*
Shipmate
# 5561
|
Posted
Dear andreas1984
Sorry, what you have written is not correct. I suggest you consult Kallistos Ware's "The Orthodox Way" for an explanation on this, and why a simple analogy to humanity won't work.
BTW if humanity only got one will, then we would all live in utopia now!
--------------------
So lovers of wine drink up! The Beloved has lifted his red glass. And paradise cannot be, now, far away. -Hafëz
Posts: 252 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
I haven't read through any of the most recent posts yet, so forgive me if I haven't answered any specific questions yet.
I just wanted to sum up what I have gleaned from this discussion so far. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong in any of my assumptions.
As far as I can see, the impasse that we seem to have reached is the important business of "One God".
We are all in agreement, are we not that there can only be "One True God" and that he exacts exclusive devotion.
As brought out earlier I have no problem with the concept that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are "one".
Jesus is one with the Father because all that he has ever done has been for the glory of Jehovah, his father and ours. Jesus' will perfectly harmonises with Jehovah's and because of this, Jehovah has purposed to appoint him King, which is why Psalm 45:6 says that Jehovah is his throne.
The Holy Spirit is one with Jehovah because it is His power to act out his will, therefore the "will" of the Holy Spirit equates perfectly with the will of the Father. Whether you wish to make the Holy Spirit into a "person" is up to you; personally I feel it is a stretch of a metaphore used by Jesus (and we all know how effective he was in the use of metaphores to get his points across Matt 13:34)
Where I find the Trinity doctrine offensive is in its declaration of there being 3 Gods, which I see as a clear violation of Jehovah's exclusive devotion.
On the other hand I can see that some could find the fact that Jesus apparently accepted "worship"(specifically by Thomas) as being likewise such a violation if he was not God himself.
I would argue that Jesus so perfectly reflected Jehovah and always did his Father's will (perfectly and with divine authority, not as we try to do in our imperfection)and all for his Father's glory (John 5:30). Because of this Jehovah permitted Jesus to recieve such reverence as being tantamount to worshipping himself.
Trinitarians, however solve this problem by qualifying the 3 Gods statement with another saying that they are also the same God.
This lacks logic in my mind but I can see now how this works for many.
On this point, therefore, I doubt that we will ever agree but I thank you all sincerely for helping me to understand the issue much better. This whole thread has certainly blown the "mystery" explanation wide open.
I can only praise my God that, whoever turns out to be right in the end, he can discern the intentions of our hearts and can see that our only motivation is to worship him whole-souled.
--------------------
Love 12uthy
(Romans 12:1) . . .present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.. . .
Posts: 213 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonaventura*
Shipmate
# 5561
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I would say, however, that it is precisely the concept of an immanent trinity that causes the difficulties with the Incarnation. I believe that if we conceive of Christ as God-With-Us, or God-as-He-is-visible-to-us, or the Divine Human, these difficulties go away.
Christ as the Word existed from the beginning, because humanity has always had a concept of God. But in taking on a human form He brought light into the world in a way that it had not existed before. Not that it hadn't existed, but it had not existed in the world.
An important concept here is that God works from first things through last things into intermediate ones. Not, as you would expect, from first things through intermediate ones into last. So He did not descend through a process of self-limitation. He was born as an infant and was lifted up. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
That is not quite where my head goes but still...
I would recommend to you Jarl E. Fossum "The image of the invisible God: Essays on the Influence of Jewish Mysticism on Early Christology"
Best,
--------------------
So lovers of wine drink up! The Beloved has lifted his red glass. And paradise cannot be, now, far away. -Hafëz
Posts: 252 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Posted by Ruthy:
Where I find the Trinity doctrine offensive is in its declaration of there being 3 Gods, which I see as a clear violation of Jehovah's exclusive devotion.
Ruthy, I find the notion of three Gods offensive too. The Doctrine of the Trinity most certainly does not make any form of Tri-theistic declaration. It does not assert the existence of three Gods. There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He is Tri-une (as in unity): Three in One and One in Three.
Orthodox Christianity is Trinitarian Monotheism: it neither separates nor confounds (confuses) the three 'persons' of the Trinity.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
So, Ruthy, is Jehovah capable of acting without holy spirit? If holy spirit is the 'very vital force of Jehovah', but is not God, does Jehovah need holy spirit? Are you suggesting that Jehovah only acts through something that is sub-ordinate to him? Is holy spirit a created force? Is it one of Jehovah's creatures? If holy spirtit was created, but is at the same time 'the very vital force of Jehovah', how did Jehovah create holy spirit? Does Jehovah rely on something that is not Jehovah for life [L vitalis, from vita life, from vivere to live]?
This is a very academic argument and one which I think detracts from the nature of God and more importantly from our worship of him.
It is not I who have separated God into "parts" but the Trinity doctrine.
The fact is that the Holy Spirit is intergral to Jehovah himself, whether he could survive without it is not our concern. No he did not create it, he IS it or rather IT is him, his will, his thoughts and his means of fulfilling his will.
When Jehovah "speaks" do we really think that he has vocal cords and that he needs them to speak? It's all nonsense, we can only understand Jehovah by putting these things into concepts that we are familiar with, that is why Jesus used metaphors, as did many other Bible writers and indeed did the prophets of old.
If our doctrine's rely upon us knowing the physically unknowable God then we could be "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."(2Ti 3:7)because we have missed the point, frankly.
We are a temple to the Spirit because we worship God, Jehovah, the True God, The Most High, whatever term you wish to use. If our spirit, though imperfect, harmonises with Jehovah's spirit as it will if we love him wholeheartedly, then we are worshipping Him in Spirit and Truth, which is what he is looking for.
I hope this answers your question.
--------------------
Love 12uthy
(Romans 12:1) . . .present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.. . .
Posts: 213 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So the Father IS the Holy Spirit? The trinity doctrine is PERFECTLY predicated on the canonical scriptures.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So the Father IS the Holy Spirit? The trinity doctrine is PERFECTLY predicated on the canonical scriptures.
No, to suggest that the Father is the Spirit is to confound them.
[ 09. May 2005, 12:00: Message edited by: m.t_tomb ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Posted by Ruthy:
This is a very academic argument and one which I think detracts from the nature of God and more importantly from our worship of him.
I don't think it's an academic argument at all. If you can't answer these questions then I will conclude that you haven't thought properly through the implications of your monadism in terms of the whole counsel of Scripture from Creation in Genesis to New Creation in Revelation.
The Christian way of reading the Scriptures is to endeavour to read them in such a way as no interpretation of one part of Scripture is regugnant to another part of Scripture. If your pnematology does not stand up when looked at in the light of Jehovah as the creator of all that is, seen and unseen, then you have a faulty pneumatology.
p.s. Only God can have a temple. The Church is a temple to the Holy Spirit because he is God. Anything else is idolatry.
[ 09. May 2005, 12:08: Message edited by: m.t_tomb ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Absolutely MTT
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Ruthy posted:
quote:
When Jehovah "speaks" do we really think that he has vocal cords and that he needs them to speak?
No, he doesn't need vocal chords, but he does need the Word! If God creates by speaking how did God create the Word? Answer, he didn't! It is not possible for the Word to be created because without the Word God could not have spoken anything into existence (See John 1:3).
[ 09. May 2005, 12:23: Message edited by: m.t_tomb ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
No, he doesn't need vocal chords, but he does need the Word! If God creates by speaking how did God create the Word? Answer, he didn't! It is not possible for the Word to be created because without the Word God could not have spoken anything into existence (See John 1:3).
Am I right in assuming that you also mean the divine truth by the Word? Certainly divine truth and divine good are part of the definition of what God is.
[ 09. May 2005, 12:28: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
No, he doesn't need vocal chords, but he does need the Word! If God creates by speaking how did God create the Word? Answer, he didn't! It is not possible for the Word to be created because without the Word God could not have spoken anything into existence (See John 1:3).
Am I right in assuming that you also mean the divine truth by the Word? Certainly divine truth and divine good are part of the definition of what God is.
Jesus said, 'I am the truth' and I know that his 'word is truth'. The truth is true before it is spoken.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
Jesus said, 'I am the truth' and I know that his 'word is truth'. The truth is true before it is spoken.
This sounds like the Word to me, and it would explain how it was "in the beginning with God."
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
Jesus said, 'I am the truth' and I know that his 'word is truth'. The truth is true before it is spoken.
This sounds like the Word to me, and it would explain how it was "in the beginning with God."
Jesus doesn't just tell the truth: he is the truth. The Apostle John speaks of being 'in the truth'; the Apostle Paul speaks of being 'in Christ'. Different language; similar concepts. Whatever the language, we're talking about a person.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
p.s. Only God can have a temple. The Church is a temple to the Holy Spirit because he is God. Anything else is idolatry.
Haven't I already said this
--------------------
Love 12uthy
(Romans 12:1) . . .present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.. . .
Posts: 213 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
quote:
Posted by Ruthy:
This is a very academic argument and one which I think detracts from the nature of God and more importantly from our worship of him.
I don't think it's an academic argument at all. If you can't answer these questions then I will conclude that you haven't thought properly through the implications of your monadism in terms of the whole counsel of Scripture from Creation in Genesis to New Creation in Revelation.
The Christian way of reading the Scriptures is to endeavour to read them in such a way as no interpretation of one part of Scripture is regugnant to another part of Scripture. If your pnematology does not stand up when looked at in the light of Jehovah as the creator of all that is, seen and unseen, then you have a faulty pneumatology.
In what way does my pnematology not stand up in the light of Jehovah as the creator?
--------------------
Love 12uthy
(Romans 12:1) . . .present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.. . .
Posts: 213 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So the Father IS the Holy Spirit? The trinity doctrine is PERFECTLY predicated on the canonical scriptures.
No because a trinity has to have three persons being one and that is only 2 (and only if you consider Jehovah's Spirit to be a seperate person and a god in it's own right)
--------------------
Love 12uthy
(Romans 12:1) . . .present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.. . .
Posts: 213 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
quote:
Posted by Ruthy:
This is a very academic argument and one which I think detracts from the nature of God and more importantly from our worship of him.
I don't think it's an academic argument at all. If you can't answer these questions then I will conclude that you haven't thought properly through the implications of your monadism in terms of the whole counsel of Scripture from Creation in Genesis to New Creation in Revelation.
The Christian way of reading the Scriptures is to endeavour to read them in such a way as no interpretation of one part of Scripture is regugnant to another part of Scripture. If your pnematology does not stand up when looked at in the light of Jehovah as the creator of all that is, seen and unseen, then you have a faulty pneumatology.
In what way does my pnematology not stand up in the light of Jehovah as the creator?
Did Jehovah create holy spirit?
If you say that Jehovah did create holy spirit, I will ask how because, according to your definition, holy spirit is the means by which Jehovah does everything: 'it' is His 'vital force'. In other words without holy spirit Jehovah would have no vitality; no ability to create, act or communicate.
If you say that Jehovah did not create holy spirit then I will ask you why you insist that 'something' that is not Jehovah existed with Jehovah before creation.
If you insist that holy spirit is eternal and uncreated I will ask you how you can maintain that 'it' is not God.
So:
Did Jehovah create holy spirit? If so, how?
Or, is holy spirit eternal? If so how can you maintain that 'it' is not God?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
Jesus doesn't just tell the truth: he is the truth. The Apostle John speaks of being 'in the truth'; the Apostle Paul speaks of being 'in Christ'. Different language; similar concepts. Whatever the language, we're talking about a person.
Yes. The person is God.
Jesus IS the truth. This is also "the Word." It is possible to talk about God in respect to His divine truth, but this isn't really any other than God Himself. His truth is merely an aspect of what He is. Love is another aspect. These can be spoken of separately, but they can't really be divided because they are actually the same, just as Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same God.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Freddy,
Yes, but Jesus is the truth because he is God; he isn't God because He's the truth. Likewise, to say that God is love is different than saying that love is God.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
Dear andreas1984
Sorry, what you have written is not correct. I suggest you consult Kallistos Ware's "The Orthodox Way" for an explanation on this, and why a simple analogy to humanity won't work.
BTW if humanity only got one will, then we would all live in utopia now!
Sir, you do not understand what "one will" means and therefore you have problems with your understanding of the trinity. You say that the three divine persons have one will. I agree with you. You say that this is why they are one god. I agree with you. But you have no idea what this means. Therefore, by giving it a different meaning than the one intended by the church, you go away from orthodoxy. We use the same words but we use them to express different meanings. This difference in meaning is obvious when we talk about man.
According to the fathers who taught that the three divine persons have one will, humans have one will too. All our fathers meant by "one will", is "to will is one". They meant that they have the same ability to will. You are using the term "one will" as well, but you use it to mean "to will the same things at the same time". This is not what those who explained the oneness of god based on the oneness of the divine essence meant! Therefore your understanding of the triune god is problematic.
I don't know what Kallistos wrote. Besides, I do not belong to his book's target group. I do know what Maximos confessed in front of Pyrros. Maximos clearly shows that to will is of the nature; therefore all things that participate in the same nature have the same will. A synonym for nature is essence.
This is a quote from his discussion with Pyrros. I do not have the time to translate parts from the ancient text, so if you are interested in the matter, and you should be, please read St. Maximos works (or any other orthodox work from the era of that ecumenical council on the two wills of Jesus).
quote:
Saint Maximos the Confessor said to Pyrros:
It is not the same thing to will and how to will, just like it is not the same thing to see and how to see. Because the "to will", exactly like the "to see", is of the nature, and it is appropriate for all those who have the same nature or genus. But the "how to will", exactly like the "how to see", that is to will to walk, or not to will to walk, to will to see something at the right, or at the left, or above, or below, or to lust it, or to understand the reasons for the things, it is the way of the use of the will and of the sight, and is to him only that has the ability, and it distinguishes him from the other with an obvious way.
So, when the church teaches that the three divine persons have one will, we mean that they have the same ability to will, just like humans have the same ability to will. The same applies to the term "operation". There is one operation in god, just like there is one operation is man.
Sometimes I have this feeling, that the west has fallen in the heresy of Sabelious.
One more thing: The one operation of god, according to the church, is his creative operation, i.e. his giving being to the creatures.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
You say that the three divine persons have one will. I agree with you. You say that this is why they are one god. I agree with you.
This is backwards. They have one will because they are one God; not the other way around.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
You say that the three divine persons have one will. I agree with you. You say that this is why they are one god. I agree with you.
This is backwards. They have one will because they are one God; not the other way around.
Actually, the church always thought that it goes both ways. Sure, we have human will because we are humans, but when one has the human will, one is human; it cannot be something else. Just like god. When a person has the divine will, that person is divine, i.e. he participates in the divine nature / essence.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonaventura*
Shipmate
# 5561
|
Posted
Andreas1984:
I really think you should read de trinitate. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
--------------------
So lovers of wine drink up! The Beloved has lifted his red glass. And paradise cannot be, now, far away. -Hafëz
Posts: 252 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
Jesus is the truth because he is God; he isn't God because He's the truth. Likewise, to say that God is love is different than saying that love is God.
I think that it works both ways. It's not just that He is the truth, He is the ultimate divine truth itself. Similarly He is love itself and wisdom itself. Love is not God, but nothing is love itself other than God.
This is quite relevant to this discussion, because if Jesus is essentially the divine truth which is the Word, then the point of the Word being "made flesh" is to bring that truth to level of humanity for the purpose of saving them from evil.
This doesn't make Jesus another person than the Father, it makes Him God accommodated to our fallen nature.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
Jesus is the truth because he is God; he isn't God because He's the truth. Likewise, to say that God is love is different than saying that love is God.
I think that it works both ways. It's not just that He is the truth, He is the ultimate divine truth itself. Similarly He is love itself and wisdom itself. Love is not God, but nothing is love itself other than God.
This is quite relevant to this discussion, because if Jesus is essentially the divine truth which is the Word, then the point of the Word being "made flesh" is to bring that truth to level of humanity for the purpose of saving them from evil.
This doesn't make Jesus another person than the Father, it makes Him God accommodated to our fallen nature.
Which is the heresy of modalism isn't it?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
Which is the heresy of modalism isn't it?
No. Modalism involves consecutive, not simultaneous, conceptions of God. I am just saying what Paul said:
quote:
Colossians 2 - "In Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power."
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
Which is the heresy of modalism isn't it?
No. Modalism involves consecutive, not simultaneous, conceptions of God. I am just saying what Paul said:
quote:
Colossians 2 - "In Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power."
True. And thanks for helping me see the difference. However, Paul doesn't say that Christ is the fulness of the Godhead does he? I can accept that the Father and the Spirit indwelt Christ during his earthly ministry. This is what I take to be Paul's meaning. To encounter Christ was to encounter the fulness of the Godhead: Father, Son (1 John 1:1), and Holy Spirit. However, one encounters the fulness of the Godhead in Christ only because he is the locus for the indwelling of both Father and Spirit. So, yes, I suppose it is possible to say that to encounter Christ is to encounter the Trinity.
[ 10. May 2005, 16:04: Message edited by: m.t_tomb ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
Paul doesn't say that Christ is the fulness of the Godhead does he? I can accept that the Father and the Spirit indwelt Christ during his earthly ministry. This is what I take to be Paul's meaning. To encounter Christ was to encounter the fulness of the Godhead: Father, Son (1 John 1:1), and Holy Spirit. However, one encounters the fulness of the Godhead in Christ only because he is the locus for the indwelling of both Father and Spirit. So, yes, I suppose it is possible to say that to encounter Christ is to encounter the Trinity.
I'm not sure that Paul means only that the Father and the Spirit indwelt Christ during His earthly ministry.
On another thread people talked about how no one will be able to deny God once they stand in His presence in the next life. How do we picture this? Is it the Father's presence that we stand in? Is the Son at His right hand? Are all three there? I think that most people think in terms of standing before only one. So wouldn't that be Jesus?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
How do we picture this?
God is immaterial. He does not take up space. His presence can be signified though by many ways. Remember Elias? God appeared to him through the sound the leaves made. God appeared to humanity in the flesh of Jesus. God's presence is most clearly manifested through the uncreated light He emits.
So, we cannot actually see God; yet we can become aware of His presence in many ways.
P.S. Christ will judge the people through His humanity; not through His divinity. Through their divinity, all three divine persons judge the people. When we stress that Jesus will judge us, we mean that He is Lord in His humanity as well as in His divinity.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
So, we cannot actually see God; yet we can become aware of His presence in many ways.
I realize that. I'm talking about heaven. Will God continue to be invisible there?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I realize that. I'm talking about heaven. Will God continue to be invisible there?
You do not seem to realise that God is immaterial. There is an ontological difference between God and mankind. We are created, He is uncreated. We cannot see Him because he is immaterial and creation is material. We can become aware of Hid presence, but we cannot, have not, and will not see God.
According to the orthodox tradition, the uncreated light of God can be said to be God Himself. So, if that's what you are asking, one could really say that he has seen God when God reveals to him His uncreated light.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
12uthy
Shipmate
# 9400
|
Posted
There is a lot of talk about the "physical" nature of God, but how do angels fit in to this, they are created and yet we cannot see them.
Can they see God?
Just a thought.
--------------------
Love 12uthy
(Romans 12:1) . . .present YOUR bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with YOUR power of reason.. . .
Posts: 213 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
There is a lot of talk about the "physical" nature of God, but how do angels fit in to this, they are created and yet we cannot see them.
Can they see God?
Just a thought.
According to the orthodox tradition, all created things are material. So, angels too, in a way, they are material. The only being that is immaterial is God. Take our thoughts for example. Are they immaterial? Well, there is a materialistic underlying basis. Can we see our thoughts? No.
As far as the angels are concerned, of whose nature I know almost nothing, I think that there are degrees in their closeness to God. Some are closer to God than others, so, they experience His presence in different degrees.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
You do not seem to realise that God is immaterial. There is an ontological difference between God and mankind. We are created, He is uncreated. We cannot see Him because he is immaterial and creation is material. We can become aware of Hid presence, but we cannot, have not, and will not see God.
Yet Jesus said, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father."
I think that most Christians believe that in heaven we will see God in a human form. I realize that He is not material and that at the same time He is substance itself. I also realize that as He is in Himself He is a discrete degree beyond any human or angelic power to behold Him.
At the same time I do think that He appears to us. And not just as light. He is not simply a force. He is an individual. Isn't this the whole point of the Incarnation?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonaventura*
Shipmate
# 5561
|
Posted
andreas1984:
We could perhaps debate the merits of the a latin vs. social conceptualisation of the trinity, but that can perhaps be the stuff for another thread.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Freddy and MTT:
You have modalism and you have sabellianism and there is a difference between the two, but I suggest we don't split hairs over this.
And specifically to you Freddy, the quote about "whover has seen me has seen the Father" must be weighted against the following:
Joh 5:36-37 But I have a greater testimony than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to perfect, the works themselves which I do, give testimony of me, that the Father hath sent me. And the Father himself who hath sent me hath given testimony of me: neither have you heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
Which suggests that the Father is indeed invisible, and moreover that the visions of God in the OT especially the throne visions in Isaiah and Ezekiel could not involve the Father (?). chew on that.
I think the point of the incarnation was not simply to make the invisible visible, but also that God divinized our human nature by partaking in it.
whisper
I could perhaps dare say that the purpose of Jesus' life is the fulfillment of God's eternal longing to become human. /whisper
[ 10. May 2005, 22:28: Message edited by: Bonaventura ]
--------------------
So lovers of wine drink up! The Beloved has lifted his red glass. And paradise cannot be, now, far away. -Hafëz
Posts: 252 | From: Et in Arcadia requiesco | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
the quote about "whover has seen me has seen the Father" must be weighted against the following:
Joh 5:36-37 But I have a greater testimony than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to perfect, the works themselves which I do, give testimony of me, that the Father hath sent me. And the Father himself who hath sent me hath given testimony of me: neither have you heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
Which suggests that the Father is indeed invisible, and moreover that the visions of God in the OT especially the throne visions in Isaiah and Ezekiel could not involve the Father (?)
Except that the Bible record is contradictory. Jehovah appears to Moses and many others as the Angel of Jehovah or simply Jehovah.
Yes, the Gospels make it very clear that the Father is invisible:
quote:
John 1.8 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
I think that the weight of the passages declare that while the Father is invisible, the Son is visible and shows us the Father.
quote:
Matthew 11.27 "Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."
John 8.19 "Then they said to Him, “Where is Your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither Me nor My Father. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also."
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
andreas1984:
We could perhaps debate the merits of the a latin vs. social conceptualisation of the trinity, but that can perhaps be the stuff for another thread.
According to the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, we believe in one god, because there is one divine nature. I have not said something different than that.
Neither I nor the Cappadocians are really fond of analogies. This is why we don't use them, unlike Augustine. Behind every analogy there lies heresy, because the analogy is only to some extent true about the trinity. I confess I hate Augustine's analogies in the context he uses them. Now days they are used by different kinds of people to show either a)there are three divine natures b)there is only one divine person. They might have worked at his time, but in contemporary times they don't seem to work. The Cappadocians explained why god is one. They did n't propose analogies. They just did the difficult work of finding a working explanation.
Like it or not, we have built our theology using terms like "nature" and "person". (we = RCC + OC) So, if we want to see how those before us understood one god, we should also accept these terms. Sure, god is something much more than the terms we use to describe him. He is not limited by the human concepts used by theologians. But when there is the fear of having people slipped into heresy, we should stick to the one nature explanation, because it's so easy for everyone to understand. Let's start from this explanation, and build our discussion on it.
I have found out that people do not understand what the word essence means in the context of the trinitarian debate. Why don't we make clear to everyone that essence is not a substance, but it's a nature? They use the term essence to escape the debate. It's like the term essence is a mystical word, a word that can mean nothing to us, but somehow it means something to god. But essence is a human term; it's not a divine revelation. We have made the term and we should know what it means. Essence, in this context, means nothing more than the nature of something. It is true that the fathers said that all human persons have the same essence. Why don't we start our discussion from this fact? I think that this would help all people understand that essence is not something mystical, it's something easily understood by everyone.
I used St. Maximos's works because you questioned the one will of humanity letting the people assume that one will, just like essence, is supposed to be a mystical term signifying something that is true only for god. But this is the wrong way to follow! It leads people to some sort of thinking that there is one divine person. In fact, Maximos does quote the Cappadocians to explain that the church always thought that just like man has one will, god has one will too. Which backs my argument and my understanding of the trinity.
I understand that people are not used to terms like essence, nature, person or will. But unless someone has new terms to propose, words that are understood by all people, I think we should try to show the correct explanation of these terms to all people, so they can leave uncertainty or heresy and embrace orthodoxy.
By the way, the monothelite vs dithelite debate, was all about our understanding of the trinity. In fact, in my humble opinion, all seven ecumenical councils were all about our understanding of the trinity. If the monothelites were right, then there would either have to be three wills in the trinity, and introduce therefore three gods, or one divine person, and introduce the Sabellian heresy. The same applies for the one operation vs two operations debate.
From the very first ecumenical council which affirmed that there are three divine persons, to the very last ecumenical council, which affirmed that the icons are to be used (and thus taught that Christ has indeed have two natures, and that He is Lord with both of His natures, and the two natures do not mix into a third nature, but there is a unity of natures in one person), there has been a fight between different understandings of the trinity, between orthodoxy and heresy.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
while the Father is invisible, the Son is visible and shows us the Father.
When we say that the Son is visible, we mean that His humanity is visible, not His divinity. His divinity, like the divinity of His Father and of His Father's Spirit, is unvisible because it is immaterial. So, when we say that the Son of man is visible, and that He is the image of the invisible God, we mean that through His humanity we are brought to the understanding of God, who is working through His human nature to draw people closer to Him.
So, it's just like in the icons. When we see Christ, we see His humanity, but because His humanity and His divinity belong to the same person, we worship Him and we acknowledge His divine presence,
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
When we say that the Son is visible, we mean that His humanity is visible, not His divinity. His divinity, like the divinity of His Father and of His Father's Spirit, is unvisible because it is immaterial. So, when we say that the Son of man is visible, and that He is the image of the invisible God, we mean that through His humanity we are brought to the understanding of God, who is working through His human nature to draw people closer to Him.
I assume that you mean visible to the spirit, or understandable.
So are you saying that the God that we see after death in the next life is only the humanity of Jesus Christ? Or are you saying that after death God is just as invisible as He is to us in this world?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
I don't know much about what happens after death. I am really focused on what may happen while we are alive. I know that we can see God now; we don't have to wait until after the resurrection. (You could read St. Gregory the Palamas's works on that) For me, what really matters, is to comply to Jesus's commandments now, to die to oneself, and to live in Christ. I trust God for what will take place after we die.
Yes, I meant visible to the flesh, and understandable to the spirit.
I know for sure that we will get resurrected in the flesh, and live with Christ in the flesh. He is in the flesh, and he will continue to be in the flesh. We will be aware of the presence of the Father, the Logos, and the Spirit, but I think that we will still be limited from our having a body. So, the bodily eyes will see what the apostles saw; yet in spirit we will worship the true god.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
So you believe that we are resurrected as to the flesh, not that we die and go to heaven. That certainly does change everything.
I think, though, that Christians who believe that people die and go to heaven have the idea that in heaven it is possible to see God, and not just as light.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
God is light.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So you believe that we are resurrected as to the flesh, not that we die and go to heaven. That certainly does change everything.
I think, though, that Christians who believe that people die and go to heaven have the idea that in heaven it is possible to see God, and not just as light.
Freddy, Christians that believe that people die and go to heaven, without a bodily resurrection, have departed from the catholic faith. To be honest with you the concept of physically 'seeing' God is less important that the concept of knowing Him. We shall fully know him even as we are fully known by him (1 Cor. 13.12).
So, just as God does not look on the outward appearance but upon the heart, likewise we will not look upon God's outward appearance but shall know him in the same way that he knows us. That we be the most 'heavenly' part of meeting God.
I also believe that I shall physically see Jesus for I will be physically like him in his resurrection. We will be of the same immortal substance. So, in the respect that the poor in spirit 'shall see God', I will see Jesus, who is God the Son.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
