The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Don't forget that the Catholic Church also includes 23 Eastern Catholic Churches. So, you could still attend a Byzantine Rite liturgy AND be in communion with the Pope 😁

I see no use in that- sorry just being frank.  To me, he is just another theologian.

[Hamba Tuhan]

49 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well if we haven't even defined "substance" it would be difficult to even make that claim, I think.

Mate, this is a gripe you'll need to take up with the Neo-Platonist philosophers and some of the Early Church Fathers. It appears it was rather important to them what stuff things were made of, with perfecton requiring an inmaterial substance.

As for me and my house, we prefer the living, breathing God of Moses over the unknowable god of the philosophers, who, like other 'work of men's hands ... neither see[s], nor hear[s], nor eat[s], nor smell[s]' (Deut. 4:28).

Edited February 25, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As for me and my house, we prefer the living, breathing God of Moses over the unknowable god of the philosophers, who, like other 'work of men's hands ... neither see[s], nor hear[s], nor eat[s], nor smell[s]' (Deut. 4:28).

Just to clarify the Catholic position. God is not unknowable. In fact, God explicitly calls us to know Him.

Here's the very first paragraph in the catechism:

Quote

1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Saviour. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.

God wants us to know Him. He's not unknowable. It's just that we can't fully know Him now (through a glass darkly and all that). He is incomprehensible in that He is so much more than we are, so much more than our intellect can comprehend, and so much more than our language can express. Mystical union with Him, however, is absolutely possible, and like all things mystical, is also ineffable.

I will argue that anyone who claims to fully know God and comprehend Him is deluded.

Edited February 25, 2021 by MiserereNobis

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well if we haven't even defined "substance" it would be difficult to even make that claim, I think.

Have you read the Letter of Eusebius Pamphilus to the Church of Cesarea?  (It starts at the bottom of that page in the link).  According to his account of the Nicene Council, there was considerable discussion on the meaning of the terms presented in the creed.   After Eusebius was permitted to present the creed that was produced by the Church of Cesarea, he says:

Quote

   Having made this representation of our faith, there was no pretence for contradiction.  But our pious emperor himself was the first to declare, that it was extremely well conceived, and that it expressed his own sentiments, exhorting all to assent to, and sign it, that they might unite in its doctrines, with the addition only of the single word consubstantial; which he [Constantine] himself explained by asserting that he did not use the term with reference to corporeal affections, and that the Son did not subsist from the Father, either by division or abscission, since it was impossible that an immaterial, intellectual and incorporeal nature could admit of any bodily affection; but that it must be understood in a divine and mysterious manner.  It was thus that our most wise and religious emperor argued on this subject.  But the bishops, taking occasion from the word consubstantial, committed to writing the following form:--

   THE CREED

   We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things, visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father; God of God, light of light, true God of true God; begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made, both in heaven and in earth; who for us men, and for our salvation, descended, was incarnate, and was made man, and suffered, and rose again the third day; he ascended into heaven, and shall come to judge the living and the dead:  And in the Holy Spirit.  But the holy catholic and apostolic Church of God anathematizes those who affirm that there was a time when the Son was not, or that he was not before he was begotten, or that he was made of things not existing; or who say, that the Son of God was of any other substance or essence, or created, or liable to change or conversion.

   When this form was dictated by the prelates, their expressions "of the substance of the Father," and "consubstantial with the Father," were not suffered to pass without examination.  Hence, therefore, several questions arose, and answers were made, and the sense of these terms was carefully considered.  They admitted that the words "of the substance" signified that the Son was of the Father, but not a part of the Father.  We thought it well to assent to this explanation, as conveying the pious doctrine, that the Son was of the Father; but not, however, a part of the Father.  We therefore agreed to this opinion; nor did we reject the word consubstantial, having in view the promotion of peace, and being anxious to avoid a departure from the right belief.  For the same reason, we approved also the words "begotten, not made," since the word made, they said, was common to the other creatures which were made by the Son, and to which he has nothing similar; and that therefore he is not made like those who were created by himself, but is of a more excellent substance than any created being.  The divine oracles inform us, that he was of the Father, by a mode of generation, which can neither be conceived nor expressed by any created intelligence.

   The question whether the Son is consubstantial with the Father being thus examined, it was agreed that this was not to be understood according to the manner of material things, nor that of mortal beings, since it could be neither by division, nor abscission, nor by a change of the paternal essence and power, since the unbegotten nature of the Father is foreign from all these things.  But by the expression "consubstantial with the Father" nothing else is intended, than that the Son of God has no similitude with created beings, but resembles in all things the Father only, by whom he was begotten, and that he is of no other substance or essence than that of the Father.  The proposition being thus explained, we thought that we might justly accede to it; since we knew that some of the most learned and distinguished of the ancient bishops and writers had made use of the term consubstantial, in treating of the divinity of the Father and the Son.

   This is what I intended to say concerning the faith which was declared, and to which we all gave our consent; not, however, without inquiry and examination, but according to the senses adduced, which were discussed before our most religious emperor, and for the reasons already mentioned, unanimously approved.  We also agreed without difficulty to the anathema put forth by the prelates, and subjoined to the form of faith, because it prohibits the use of unscriptural expressions, from which nearly all the confusion and disturbances of the Church have arisen.  Since, therefore, no divinely inspired writing has made use of the phrases, "of things not existing," and "there was a time when he was not," and others which are added to them, it did not seem proper that they should be spoken or taught.  We therefore consented also to this salutary decree, not having been accustomed, in times past, to the use of such terms.

There's a lot of substance abuse going on in that quote  

And, I see a great irony in the last paragraph where he says the anathama was a prohibition against unscriptural expressions, when the very expression "homoousios (consubstantial) with the Father", (which according to Eusebius was recommended to be included in the creed by Constantine), is just such an expression.

Edited February 25, 2021 by InCognitus

[Hamba Tuhan]

38 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

 

Quote

 But by the expression "consubstantial with the Father" nothing else is intended, than that the Son of God has no similitude with created beings, but resembles in all things the Father only, by whom he was begotten, and that he is of no other substance or essence than that of the Father.

 

And there it is. An otherwise harmless (and even accurate) word was chosen not to explain God but rather to widen the gulf between created and Creator, between men and the Son of Man, between us and our Saviour.

[3DOP]

21 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

The early debates involved Creator vs created, and that got entangled with subordination in some ways. Neo-Platonism couldn't tolerate more than one God (nor a material one), so there had to be an answer to Jesus's obvious divinity that didn't divide God or 'trap' Jesus in a material state. Fine on the first point. Not so fine on the second one.

But then what about us? Yes, we are created, but from what? Intelligences that are co-eternal with the Father? Boom. We are now likewise homoousia. That's the real divider. Are we children of God by adoption only or also by birth? We teach our children to sing the truth of the latter.

This isn't really (much) about the Son's relationship to the Father; it's about the sons' (and daughters'!) relationship to the Father ... and what that teaches us about Who He really is.

The Neo-Platonic influence on Christianity would only allow a single Being made of immaterial (because everything material is yucky) God-stuff (substance). In contrast, the true and living God is a family Man:

I had learned to call thee Father,

Thru thy Spirit from on high,

But, until the key of knowledge

Was restored, I knew not why.

Just for the record Hamba...Catholics believe that matter is good. We teach this. This isn't defined...but it is more than permissible speculation for Catholics to hold that Lucifer and a third of the angels rebelled, because Lucifer got wind of the idea that the Second Person of the Trinity was going to become incarnate. It was an immaterial Satan who couldn't abide flesh, according to most Catholic scholars. 

I know you think everything is made out of matter. We don't. But it isn't because we think it is "yucky". Why would we kneel after every low Mass at the words, "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us", if we were taught that flesh, or even matter itself were "yucky"? I am not arguing that we are right about immaterial spirit. I am arguing that it is false to think that Catholics hate matter. We are made out of matter. A human body ascended to the right hand of God, and that fills us with the surest hope and great joy. This is primary part of why we celebrate the Ascension every year on the fortieth day after the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Satan hates it. God loves matter and especially animate matter made in his image and likeness with rational souls, and freedom to choose. Again, the devil was the original, "material is yucky" boy, from a Catholic perspective. I am trying to help you not to be ignorant about what you are talking about when you talk about Catholics. I have always liked your posts and I bear no ill will. But that statement about "everything material is yucky" shows that there is crazy misguidance that you have received about the way Catholics are instructed to believe.

[Hamba Tuhan]

10 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Just for the record Hamba...Catholics believe that matter is good.

Thanks, mate. My post was not an attempt to explain what Catholics believe, just to address one of the influences that Neoplatonism brought to bear on the early church. And according to Plotinus, the founder of Neoplatonism, 'matter is to be identified with evil and privation of all form or intelligibility'.

Quote

A human body ascended to the right hand of God, and that fills us with the surest hope and great joy.

Curiosity question: do you believe that Jesus has a human body at this very moment in time? As a missionary who spoke with thousands of American Catholics, I was stunned the first time I was told that Jesus no longer has a human body of 'flesh and bone', but I heard it multiple times.

[mfbukowski]

55 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Have you read the Letter of Eusebius Pamphilus to the Church of Cesarea?  (It starts at the bottom of that page in the link).  According to his account of the Nicene Council, there was considerable discussion on the meaning of the terms presented in the creed.   After Eusebius was permitted to present the creed that was produced by the Church of Cesarea, he says:

There's a lot of substance abuse going on in that quote  

And, I see a great irony in the last paragraph where he says the anathama was a prohibition against unscriptural expressions, when the very expression "homoousios (consubstantial) with the Father", (which according to Eusebius was recommended to be included in the creed by Constantine), is just such an expression.

Yes, I am familiar with those arguments, which are just plain scary.

And to think of the cultural consequences on western culture for all these years, religious wars, families divided, erroneous ways of seeing reality into different realms, the effects are incalculable.

And people think philosophy is a waste of time.

An unexamined life is not worth living 

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Thanks, mate. My post was not an attempt to explain what Catholics believe, just to address one of the influences that Neoplatonism brought to bear on the early church. And according to Plotinus, the founder of Neoplatonism, 'matter is to be identified with evil and privation of all form or intelligibility'.

Curiosity question: do you believe that Jesus has a human body at this very moment in time? As a missionary who spoke with thousands of American Catholics, I was stunned the first time I was told that Jesus no longer has a human body of 'flesh and bone', but I heard it multiple times.

Agree 

 

Edited February 25, 2021 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Thanks, mate. My post was not an attempt to explain what Catholics believe, just to address one of the influences that Neoplatonism brought to bear on the early church. And according to Plotinus, the founder of Neoplatonism, 'matter is to be identified with evil and privation of all form or intelligibility'.

Curiosity question: do you believe that Jesus has a human body at this very moment in time? As a missionary who spoke with thousands of American Catholics, I was stunned the first time I was told that Jesus no longer has a human body of 'flesh and bone', but I heard it multiple times.

 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I had discussions with a Catholic priest who was stymied by that question.

 

Hamba, to the question about our Lord's Resurrected Body? A million million times YES. YES. Forever and forever. Why would He leave us? What would He do with His most Sacred Body?

I almost replied to a comment by Calm about her Mom's funeral, and her Mom's corpse, or "shell", as I didn't like it being described. Calm, you know I love you, understood in the inferior, Platonic (oh that's a good one!) internet way. I am only saying that it was my Catholic instinct kicking in, regretting that one could perceive a human corpse that way. But I knew you meant no disrespect towards your Mom, so I didn't comment. But that body will live again, and that is why at the Requiem Mass Catholics incense the body and treat it with the greatest dignity. It will live again. Who knows how? Who cares? Lets not talk atoms and molecules. We believe it. Like we believe the Eucharistic Mysteries. I hope you don't mind me bringing this up now. I just want to be disassociated from "Catholics" who haven't pondered the implications of Christ Incarnate in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, of Christ Incarnate in the stable of Bethlehem, of Christ Incarnate in His Passion and Suffering, Death and Burial, of Christ Incarnate in His glorious Bodily Resurrection, and of Christ Incarnate in his Ascension in to Heaven. NO. NO. NO. Jesus will never leave us alone. The God-Man is one of us always. He is one of us now. Forever. He would never forsake His most precious Body. Never. Ever. If we be saved, we will blessedly gaze upon His Five Precious Wounds, in His Glorified Body for all eternity, and never tire, for ever, of the mystery of the Creator's love for His unworthy creature.  

A Catholic priest was stymied? O God help us. No wonder you left and are happy to be gone. I believe you Mark. I am so sorry that the Catholic faith today is so dulled and muted. Where is that priest's joy, not even knowing whether Jesus shed His body to be put in a dumpster? In a way Mark, I am pleased, for your sake, that you have met with such ignorance even in a priest. How can I blame Hamba Tuhan when this is what you have also heard from those who say they are Catholic? I hope you can be saved...truly...and this gives me more hope...Oh it is diabolical...what has happened in our day. God love you. Thank you for sharing this. It helps me understand you better. And may God have mercy on the priest too. It isn't all his fault, nor the poor souls that called themselves Catholic that Hamba met. But...with dogmatic infallibility, these Catholics were as unenlightened about their faith as the outsiders inquiring. 

I can get references if needed! This isn't just me. It is all the saints, and angels of heaven. And all the holy doctors and martyrs and confessors of the Catholic faith, before about 1965. God love all you good people who understandably misunderstand the Catholic faith.

Rory

PS: Jesse, I don't mind you quoting the New Catechism when it corresponds with the ancient faith, which is much more often than not. Keep quoting it. The New Catechism is insufficiently disoriented for the modernists in the Church. I doubt that it is "stymied" about whether Jesus left His body to rot somewhere?

Edited February 25, 2021 by 3DOP

[InCognitus]

37 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Curiosity question: do you believe that Jesus has a human body at this very moment in time? As a missionary who spoke with thousands of American Catholics, I was stunned the first time I was told that Jesus no longer has a human body of 'flesh and bone', but I heard it multiple times.

I know you didn't ask me (sorry!), but earlier I was looking to try to find a survey study with an indication of the percentage of Christians who don't believe in a physical resurrection, because I am always surprised at how many Christians I talk to that believe in a non-physical resurrection and consider heaven to be devoid of any physical matter.  I have never heard a Catholic express that point of view, and that's why I was surprised by something that was reported in this article in The Catholic World Report, "Why Christians believe in the resurrection, not reincarnation":

Quote

The belief in the resurrection of one’s physical body at the end of time is central to Christian theology, and finds its basis in the resurrection of Christ, who rose in body and soul three days after his passion and death.

But according to a new Pew survey, 29 percent of Christians in the US hold the New Age belief of reincarnation – the belief that when one’s body dies, one’s soul lives on in a new and different body, unrelated to the first.

The percentage of Catholics in the US who said they believe in reincarnation was even higher – 36 percent; just shy of the 38 percent of religiously unaffiliated people who said they believe the same.

However, according to Catholic teaching, belief in anything other than the resurrection of the body is completely incompatible with a Christian theology and anthropology of the human person.

I have never thought of this idea as "reincarnation", simply because I consider "incarnation" to mean embodied in flesh or taking on flesh (so I take issue with that use of the word in this article).  And the Christians I've encountered who hold these kinds of beliefs reject the flesh completely.  But their belief is similar to that described above, since these Christians typically say that the "spiritual body" described by Paul in 1st Corinthians 15 is a "new and different body, unrelated to the first", and there is no physicality to that body at all.

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Mate, this is a gripe you'll need to take up with the Neo-Platonist philosophers and some of the Early Church Fathers. It appears it was rather important to them what stuff things were made of, with perfecton requiring an inmaterial substance.

As for me and my house, we prefer the living, breathing God of Moses over the god of the philosophers, which, like the other 'work of men's hands ... neither see[s], nor hear[s], nor eat[s], nor smell[s]' (Deut. 4:28).

Yes of course exactly right!  Phew!

But there are others as well on the thread.   I thought for a minute you were advocating what I call "substance theology"- which didn't sound at all like you!!  

But regarding the apostasy- this philosophical infiltration WAS the apostasy.  

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

 

Hamba, to the question about our Lord's Resurrected Body? A million million times YES. YES. Forever and forever. Why would He leave us? What would He do with His most Sacred Body?

I almost replied to a comment by Calm about her Mom's funeral, and her Mom's corpse, or "shell", as I didn't like it being described. Calm, you know I love you, understood in the inferior, Platonic (oh that's a good one!) internet way. I am only saying that it was my Catholic instinct kicking in, regretting that one could perceive a human corpse that way. But I knew you meant no disrespect towards your Mom, so I didn't comment. But that body will live again, and that is why at the Requiem Mass Catholics incense the body and treat it with the greatest dignity. It will live again. Who knows how? Who cares? Lets not talk atoms and molecules. We believe it. Like we believe the Eucharistic Mysteries. I hope you don't mind me bringing this up now. I just want to be disassociated from "Catholics" who haven't pondered the implications of Christ Incarnate in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, of Christ Incarnate in the stable of Bethlehem, of Christ Incarnate in His Passion and Suffering, Death and Burial, of Christ Incarnate in His glorious Bodily Resurrection, and of Christ Incarnate in his Ascension in to Heaven. NO. NO. NO. Jesus will never leave us alone. The God-Man is one of us always. He is one of us now. Forever. He would never forsake His most precious Body. Never. Ever. If we be saved, we will blessedly gaze upon His Five Precious Wounds, in His Glorified Body for all eternity, and never tire, for ever, of the mystery of the Creator's love for His unworthy creature.  

A Catholic priest was stymied? O God help us. No wonder you left and are happy to be gone. I believe you Mark. I am so sorry that the Catholic faith today is so dulled and muted. Where is that priest's joy, not even knowing whether Jesus shed His body to be put in a dumpster? In a way Mark, I am pleased, for your sake, that you have met with such ignorance even in a priest. How can I blame Hamba Tuhan when this is what you have also heard from those who say they are Catholic? I hope you can be saved...truly...and this gives me more hope...Oh it is diabolical...what has happened in our day. God love you. Thank you for sharing this. It helps me understand you better. And may God have mercy on the priest too. It isn't all his fault, nor the poor souls that called themselves Catholic that Hamba met. But...with dogmatic infallibility, these Catholics were as unenlightened about their faith as the outsiders inquiring. 

I can get references if needed! This isn't just me. It is all the saints, and angels of heaven. And all the holy doctors and martyrs and confessors of the Catholic faith, before about 1965. God love all you good people who understandably misunderstand the Catholic faith.

Rory

PS: Jesse, I don't mind you quoting the New Catechism when it corresponds with the ancient faith, which is much more often than not. Keep quoting it. The New Catechism is insufficiently disoriented for the modernists in the Church. I doubt that it is "stymied" about whether Jesus left His body to rot somewhere?

Thanks so much for your answer.

So why is it then that the Father is not embodied nor can be?

It does not hinder his being "omnipresent"?   Or can Jesus also be omnipresent in his present form?

Hasn't Jesus lost some divine characteristics by taking on a body?

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Hamba, to the question about our Lord's Resurrected Body? A million million times YES. YES. Forever and forever.

Thanks, mate.

Quote

Why would He leave us? What would He do with His most Sacred Body?

Questions I have also asked.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

I am always surprised at how many Christians I talk to that believe in a non-physical resurrection and consider heaven to be devoid of any physical matter.

Same. But this has been the dominant belief expressed to me by a wide variety of Creedal Christians of all varieties. So much so, in fact, that I have found it easier/more pleasant to speak with Muslims on this topic. They at least seem to unapologetically believe in a physical resurrection for everyone.

Interestingly, one of the accusations repeated in the 16th-century Jesuit letters that formed a part of my PhD research was that their belief in a physical paradise inhabited by physical people enjoying physical pleasures was what made Muslims so 'fleshly' and licentious.

[3DOP]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks so much for your answer.

So why is it then that the Father is not embodied nor can be?

It does not hinder his being "omnipresent"?   Or can Jesus also be omnipresent in his present form?

Hasn't Jesus lost some divine characteristics by taking on a body?

You are welcome my friend.

I dunno...why is it then the Father is not embodied. I do not say that the Father could not be embodied. Only that He is not embodied. If the Church which I have accepted taught that God the Father was embodied I would believe it with all my heart.

The human body of Christ, or of the Father cannot be omnipresent...as I am seeing it at this time. But I think you believe in omnipresence with material bodies. So...I am sure I could come round to such a position. But I would have to say that the omnipresence of a material being would need to be independent of the material. It seems hard for matter to be everywhere. Let me ask, do you think that omnipresence can be physical? Whether it seems defensible or not, all of Jesus' "divine characteristics" are retained while becoming flesh. This is part of the Good News. What great news! God is compatible with our flesh, and indeed, it has been God's plan for eternity, as far as I understand what the Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches, and to which I submit my will and intellect.

I don't know Neo-Plato from Roger Maris. (He hit 61 homers for the Bronx Bombers in '61 if I am not mistaken). Were you already gone? If we borrowed from Neo-Plato as claimed, I cannot say. But if Neo-Plato says that Jesus has to get rid of His body to retain "divine characteristics" then I say that however much Neo-Plato seems to have been influential in some respect, he has also been doctrinally rejected by Catholics. The Church denies Plato, or Neo-Plato, if he says that humanity is incompatible with divinity.   

[mfbukowski]

Quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia that display the opinions of Church Fathers who say that God cannot be embodied.

Quote

 

https://www.catholic.com/tract/god-has-no-body

Certain groups, notably the Mormons, have committed the error of saying that God the Father has a body, and have thus become anthropomorphites, people who say that God has a human form.

In recent years, this form of doctrinal decay has also set in among certain segments of American Evangelicalism, most notably in the Pentecostal Word Faith movement. Evangelicals such as Finnis Dake, Jimmy Swaggart, Kenneth Copeland, and Benny Hinn have all (temporarily or permanently) bought into the idea that the Father has a body.

Anthropomorphites argue that man is made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26–27) and point to verses that refer to the strong right arm of God, the eyes of God, and so forth.

In doing this, they profoundly misunderstand Scripture. First, the image of God we bear involves our rational soul that separates us from animals (the function that the image plays in Genesis 1 is to separate humans from the animals God has just created). Second, talk in the Bible about God’s strong right arm, his eyes, and such is metaphorical language concerning God’s power and knowledge. This can be seen by the fact that the Bible also speaks of God as having feathers and wings; yet even the anthropomorphites would not go this far (see Ps. 91:4—”He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge”).

Anthropomorphites maintain their doctrine in defiance of verses, such as John 4:24, where Jesus teaches us: “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” This means God has no body, because a spirit is, by nature, an incorporeal being. As Jesus tells us elsewhere, “a spirit has not flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39).

There is a big difference between being a spirit and having a spirit. Jesus says that the Father is a spirit, not that the Father has a spirit; this means that he lacks a body entirely.

The Church Fathers, of course, agreed, and loudly declared the fact that God is an unchangeable, immaterial spirit who has an entirely simple (“incomposite”) nature—that is, a nature containing no parts. Since all bodies extend through space and thus can be divided into parts, it is clear that God cannot have a body.

“What of Christ’s body?” you may ask. It is true that Jesus, who is God, assumed an earthly body when he was born of the Blessed Virgin, and that this body, now glorified, continues to exist. But since the Lord only took on human flesh in these “last days,” and since God has always existed, without beginning or end, we must still conclude that having a body is not part of God’s unchangeable nature: he exists in eternity as pure spirit, even though he chose for the Son to also take on a human nature in addition to his bodiless, timeless, divine nature.

Tatian the Syrian

“Our God has no introduction in time. He alone is without beginning, and is himself the beginning of all things. God is a spirit, not attending upon matter, but the maker of material spirits and of the appearances which are in matter. He is invisible, being himself the Father of both sensible and invisible things” (Address to the Greeks 4 [A.D. 170]).

Athenagoras

“I have sufficiently demonstrated that we are not atheists, since we acknowledge one God, unbegotten, eternal, invisible, incapable of being acted upon, incomprehensible, unbounded, who is known only by understanding and reason, who is encompassed by light and beauty and spirit and indescribable power, by whom all things, through his Word, have been produced and set in order and are kept in existence” (Plea for the Christians 10 [A.D. 177]).

Irenaeus

“Far removed is the Father of all from those things which operate among men, the affections and passions. He is simple, not composed of parts, without structure, altogether like and equal to himself alone. He is all mind, all spirit, all thought, all intelligence, all reason” (Against Heresies 2:13:3 [A.D. 189]).

Clement of Alexandria

“The first substance is everything which subsists by itself, as a stone is called a substance. The second is a substance capable of increase, as a plant grows and decays. The third is animated and sentient substance, as animal, horse. The fourth is animate, sentient, rational substance, as man. Wherefore each one of us is made as consisting of all, having an immaterial soul and a mind, which is the image of God” (Fragment from On Providence [A.D. 200]).

“Being is in God. God is divine being, eternal and without beginning, incorporeal and illimitable, and the cause of what exists.” (ibid.).

“What is God? ‘God,’ as the Lord says, ‘is a spirit.’ Now spirit is properly substance, incorporeal, and uncircumscribed. And that is incorporeal which does not consist of a body, or whose existence is not according to breadth, length, and depth. And that is uncircumscribed which has no place, which is wholly in all, and in each entire, and the same in itself” (ibid.).

“No one can rightly express him wholly. For on account of his greatness he is ranked as the All, and is the Father of the universe. Nor are any parts to be predicated of him. For the One is indivisible; wherefore also it is infinite, not considered with reference to inscrutability, but with reference to its being without dimensions, and not having a limit. And therefore it is without form” (Miscellanies 5:12 [A.D. 208]).

Origen

“Since our mind is in itself unable to behold God as he is, it knows the Father of the universe from the beauty of his works and from the elegance of his creatures. God, therefore, is not to be thought of as being either a body or as existing in a body, but as a simple intellectual being, admitting within himself no addition of any kind” (Fundamental Doctrines 1:1:6 [A.D. 225]).

“John says in the gospel, ‘No one has at any time seen God,’ clearly declaring to all who are able to understand, that there is no nature to which God is visible, not as if he were indeed visible by nature, and merely escaped or baffled the view of a frailer creature, but because he is by nature impossible to be seen” (ibid. 1:1:8).

Athanasius

“God, however, being without parts, is Father of the Son without division and without being acted upon. For neither is there an effluence from that which is incorporeal, nor is there anything flowering into him from without, as in the case of men. Being simple in nature, he is Father of one only Son” (Letter on the Council of Nicaea 11 [A.D. 350]).

Didymus the Blind

“God is simple and of an incomposite and spiritual nature, having neither ears nor organs of speech. A solitary essence and illimitable, he is composed of no numbers and parts” (The Holy Spirit 35 [A.D. 362]).

Hilary of Poitiers

“First it must be remembered that God is incorporeal. He does not consist of certain parts and distinct members, making up one body. For we read in the gospel that God is a spirit: invisible, therefore, and an eternal nature, immeasurable and self-sufficient. It is also written that a spirit does not have flesh and bones. For of these the members of a body consist, and of these the substance of God has no need. God, however, who is everywhere and in all things, is all-hearing, all-seeing, all-doing, and all-assisting” (Commentary on the Psalms 129[130]:3 [A.D. 365]).

Basil the Great

“The operations of God are various, but his essence is simple” (Letters 234:1 [A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan

“God is of a simple nature, not conjoined nor composite. Nothing can be added to him. He has in his nature only what is divine, filling up everything, never himself confused with anything, penetrating everything, never himself being penetrated, everywhere complete, and present at the same time in heaven, on earth, and in the farthest reaches of the sea, incomprehensible to the sight” (The Faith 1:16:106 [A.D. 379]).

Evagrius of Pontus

“To those who accuse us of a doctrine of three gods, let it be stated that we confess one God, not in number but in nature. For all that is said to be one numerically is not one absolutely, nor is it simple in nature. It is universally confessed, however, that God is simple and not composite” (Dogmatic Letter on the Trinity 8:2 [A.D. 381]).

Gregory of Nyssa

“But there is neither nor ever shall be such a dogma in the Church of God that would prove the simple and incomposite [God] to be not only manifold and variegated, but even constructed from opposites” (Against Eunomius1:1:222 [A.D. 382]).

John Chrysostom

“[Paul] knows [God] in part. But he says, ‘in part,’ not because he knows God’s essence while something else of his essence he does not know; for God is simple. Rather, he says ‘in part’ because he knows that God exists, but what God is in his essence he does not know” (Against the Anomoians 1:5 [A.D. 386]).

“Why does John say, ‘No one has ever seen God’ [John 1:18]? So that you might learn that he is speaking about the perfect comprehension of God and about the precise knowledge of him. For that all those incidents [where people saw a vision of God] were condescensions and that none of those persons saw the pure essence of God is clear enough from the differences of what each did see. For God is simple and non-composite and without shape; but they all saw different shapes” (ibid., 4:3).

Augustine

“In created and changeable things what is not said according to substance can only be said according to accident. . . . In God, however, certainly there is nothing that is said according to accident, because in him there is nothing that is changeable” (The Trinity 5:5:6 [A.D. 408]).

Cyril of Alexandria

“We are not by nature simple; but the divine nature, perfectly simple and incomposite, has in itself the abundance of all perfection and is in need of nothing” (Dialogues on the Trinity 1 [A.D. 420]).

“The nature of the Godhead, which is simple and not composite, is never to be divided into two” (Treasury of the Holy Trinity 11 [A.D. 424]).

“When the divine Scripture presents sayings about God and remarks on corporeal parts, do not let the mind of those hearing it harbor thoughts of tangible things, but from those tangible things as if from things said figuratively let it ascend to the beauty of things intellectual, and rather than figures and quantity and circumscriptions and shapes and everything else that pertains to bodies, let it think on God, although he is above all understanding. We were speaking of him in a human way, for there is no other way in which we could think about the things that are above us” (Commentary on the Psalms 11[12]:3 [A.D. 429]).

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

 

Nobody said it would make him "yucky" but it is pretty clear that He would lose many characterisitics that make him "divine".

The key to the question is why those characteristics are considered "un-divine"

We take pride in eternal change and eternal progression.   Why is progression undesirable?  I have no clue except that Plato said so.

That was an assumption of pagan Greek culture.   God changes his mind in the bible.

[3DOP]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia that display the opinions of Church Fathers who say that God cannot be embodied.

Nobody said it would make him "yucky" but it is pretty clear that He would lose many characterisitics that make him "divine".

The key to the question is why those characteristics are considered "un-divine"

We take pride in eternal change and eternal progression.   Why is progression undesirable?  I have no clue except that Plato said so.

That was an assumption of pagan Greek culture.   God changes his mind in the bible.

Mark.

I appreciate the research. I do not doubt that a lot of Catholics say that God the Father can't have a body because it would be philosophically absurd. I don't know why, or if they are right, but I do not assent that far. I would have to look in to why the Fathers say that God the Father MUST be unembodied. All I am saying is that I believe in the Catholic Church for other reasons, and if the Catholic Church taught otherwise, that the Father was corporeal, I would accept it, just as I accept His incorporeality because of what the Church has taught. I am not obligated to support the reasoning as far as I know as to the absurdity that any Catholics claim to see if the Father has a body. I am confident that with a little time (weeks, months?) I can present evidence to show that even with a "bodily disadvantage", the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus, Incarnate, loses no "divine" characteristics. 

I should be tired. See you soon, God willing. Take care. The day will be dawning so soon. Let us love the light!

Rory

PS: Cut me a break when I am not immediate. I tend to look in more these days on weekends. Some of you all are retired (I am getting there) but I am still working almost 55 hours a week. I am happy. It is the best job of my short life. But it is hard to stay current here.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Calm, you know I love you, understood in the inferior, Platonic (oh that's a good one!) internet way.

Some of my family feel the same way about how I see bodies. It doesn’t bother me. I think part of it is a likely coping mechanism for dealing with my chronic issues.  Also possibly some body dysmorphia looking back to how my teen years felt (I was a petite, lightweight sprite who somehow turned into an earth mother/sex goddess, it was both physically uncomfortable and embarrassing...being called voluptuous felt like a slap rather than the compliment it was meant to be...and limiting...so much for being a gymnast). I feel like I have been fighting my body for decades because almost everything I tried to do to make myself function and feel even a little better backfires instead of improves things. My mom struggled her whole life and took care of herself better than anyone I know and at the end it feels like her body betrayed her with constant pain and dementia.  One or the other is more endurable (until it gets to extremes) it seems to me as the mind can discipline the body to relieve or limit pain as well as seek distraction while with no pain, the childish state of dementia can still find great enjoyment in life. But constant pain and a mind that makes choices to avoid pain that actually make the pain worse...thank goodness death came when it did. 
 

I would much rather look on resurrection as a brand new start in terms of my physical side where my body contributes to fulfilling all my dreams instead of destroying so many of them at this point.
 

But I might be outside the norm in my church as I know many LDS see their body as a personal temple, something to treasure, something that is theirs eternally. 
 

On the flip side, I see something infinitely beautiful in the idea that at death our mortal bodies are meant to break down and become part of the Earth again, that the Earth through instruction from God gave and gives of itself so I might experience mortality and learn whatever it is I am supposed to be learning during this time and that when it is time I give it back in order that someone or something else can also experience what they need to in order to progress.  I do not view our physical tabernacles as distasteful or mundane things, but something miraculous and charitable and deserving of much greater respect than they usually get. 
 

Hope this doesn’t come across as a pity fest, I include the less pleasant stuff in order to explain my thought process, not because I see myself as suffering in some extraordinary way. I don’t see my life as extreme or that bad, mostly frustrating in that I feel a small improvement might make huge changes (such as if the pain that comes when I am on my feet for more than 15 minutes didn’t happen, I could spend my days walking or riding a bike which I love and which would help both body and soul or do volunteer work at school like I used to do; if the mild dizziness on being vertical went away, I would feel safe to drive and could get to the pool on my own, go searching for a doctor to work with me now I have some extra money, go shopping for a variety of quality food for me and my family; if my tailbone didn’t hurt, I could sit up and do my craft hobbies I enjoy and make gifts).  I am comfortable laying flat on my side in bed, right or left...that is it. The tech allows me not to be bored...but at the end of the day have I made the world a better place or just been entertained?

Edited February 25, 2021 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I am still working almost 55 hours a week. I am happy. It is the best job of my short life. But it is hard to stay current here.

Oh, mate, all best with that!

[Teancum]

On 2/21/2021 at 11:27 AM, JLHPROF said:

While I certainly wouldn't be looking to offend those of another faith I see no reason not to call a spade a spade.

Everything Elder Holland said was correct.  I'm not sure that there's a benefit to ignoring the differences.  While there is obviously a benefit to finding common ground I don't for a second see one in trying to downplay the differences.

Everything he said was correct when looking at it from an LDS perspective.  Though at least until about 1835 and even now in the BoM and early D&C-See the preamble to Section 20 in the first 38 verses or so-LDS agrees with most of Orthodox Christianity.  So yea Holland is correct as to how we believe in the Godhead now but that does not mean he is ultimately correct. But I think nobody has any clue as to what God is if a God even exists so what do I know?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Everything he said was correct when looking at it from an LDS perspective.  Though at least until about 1835 and even now in the BoM and early D&C-See the preamble to Section 20 in the first 38 verses or so-LDS agrees with most of Orthodox Christianity.  So yea Holland is correct as to how we believe in the Godhead now but that does not mean he is ultimately correct. But I think nobody has any clue as to what God is if a God even exists so what do I know?

There is a saying which is derived from a system of metaphysics originating with the presocratic Greek philosopher Heraclitus.

"The only constant is change"

ποταμοῖσι τοῖσιν αὐτοῖσιν ἐμϐαίνουσιν, ἕτερα καὶ ἕτερα ὕδατα ἐπιρρεῖ.

• Ever-newer waters flow on those who step into the same rivers.

As a church, we believe in eternal progression, and the contemporary philosophy most used in LDS theology is called "Process Philosophy "

In short I believe that the apparent contradictions in section 20 prefigure the idea of a God who is eternal and yet constantly changing. No conflict at all, and in fact unbelievably profound that that idea shows up so early while Joseph was teaching meat and the babies saw only contradiction.

Reminds me of the savior saying that we must eat his flesh 

Some get that idea, others don't 

Google "Heraclitis"

Can't do it for you on this device.

Edited February 25, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

So yea Holland is correct as to how we believe in the Godhead now but that does not mean he is ultimately correct. But I think nobody has any clue as to what God is if a God even exists so what do I know?

Ultimately correct? About what?

As you point out, we go by faith, and so no one can fully understand God on this side of the Veil

So yes he IS ultimately correct on our beliefs 

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Ultimately correct? About what?

As you point out, we go by faith, and so no one can fully understand God on this side of the Veil

So yes he IS ultimately correct on our beliefs 

Yes or no on our/your beliefs.  But not on others.  And since you agree no one can understand God on this side of the "Veil" whatever that is, then why should we rely on anyone who tries to tell what God is or even if there is a God?

Edited February 25, 2021 by Teancum

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I know you didn't ask me (sorry!), but earlier I was looking to try to find a survey study with an indication of the percentage of Christians who don't believe in a physical resurrection, because I am always surprised at how many Christians I talk to that believe in a non-physical resurrection and consider heaven to be devoid of any physical matter.  I have never heard a Catholic express that point of view, and that's why I was surprised by something that was reported in this article in The Catholic World Report, "Why Christians believe in the resurrection, not reincarnation":

I have never thought of this idea as "reincarnation", simply because I consider "incarnation" to mean embodied in flesh or taking on flesh (so I take issue with that use of the word in this article).  And the Christians I've encountered who hold these kinds of beliefs reject the flesh completely.  But their belief is similar to that described above, since these Christians typically say that the "spiritual body" described by Paul in 1st Corinthians 15 is a "new and different body, unrelated to the first", and there is no physicality to that body at all.

That is purely the philosophy of Plato.

For him reality consists of immaterial forms that are "Ideas".  These forms are the IDEAL thought- mental thing - that designs, sor of, the object.

So Parmenides for example came up with this idea, also other sources.  Remember the Pythagorean theorem for triangles you learned in HS geometry?  Plato also learned from Parmenides this idea of Forms.   

So in the Realm of thought- exist these "things" called Forms- LIKE the Pythagorean theorem- which define the perfect triangle.   Now here on earth in the world of material- material things are all FORMED by the ideal triangle which is defined by the IDEA or FORM of the triangle which is an abstract idea.

So theoretically out there in the immaterial world there is a form of the Ideal Chair, say which cannot be made of material because it is an idea.   So after you have seen a few chairs, you get the idea that there are over-stuffed chairs, folding chairs, rocking chairs, green chairs and red chairs, made of wood or some other material - but all share in being defined as a "CHAIR" because we know the FORM of a chair in our minds.

Only ideas really "exist" and the material world is an ILLUSION which is a mere reflection of the Ideal Forms.

So long story short, God is not even the Ideal Man, but the Form of Goodness. 

God is not even a person- It is the Ideal Idea of Goodness which we worship!  

By definition then God CANNOT be embodied and still be God because God is a Form - an Idea- in this case the Ideal Idea.

Man cannot be God's image - that is Hebrew stuff not Greek!  God is not even the Form for man- God is the Form of Goodness Itself.

And Forms cannot BE material or they would cease to be Forms- which are strictly MENTAL and exist in a world of intelligence as ideas.

So along comes Plotinus and essentially says "Hey you Christians!  God cannot be material- what's your problem??  You want a God made out of mud and the stuff we find on the street of Athens?   Matter by its very nature is what this world is made of- but God is in the World of Forms!   The Form of Goodness wants nothing to do with worms like men who live in the Mudworld of matter!!

And so the Incarnation becomes a big deal!  How could God- the Form of Goodness- take on a human body?  No way!

So now we split God into two forms essentially- two natures- one of which is material and the other of which is divine.

But it's OK because they are "consubstantial"- meaning the divine substance is there PLUS the Human, material substance.

Two natures, One Being. (whatever that means)   And so now we have the son of Man AND the Son of God.  The word Adam, I understand actually MEANS "earth" or mud-  but remember that is a whole different thing for the Hebrews- but they share the idea that WE are God's IMAGE 

So with Plotinus entering the picture everything gets "muddied"   We get pagan Greek ideas mixing with Hebrew ideas and eventually nearly 400 years later, we get the Council of Trent coming up with "consubstantial" defined by Constantine so that he doesn't have a religious war on his hands.

https://iep.utm.edu/god-west/#:~:text=For Plato%2C this does not,good in an of itself.&text=God as pure form is,he cannot become more perfect.

Quote

To Plato, God is transcendent-the highest and most perfect being-and one who uses eternal forms, or archetypes, to fashion a universe that is eternal and uncreated. The order and purpose he gives the universe is limited by the imperfections inherent in material. Flaws are therefore real and exist in the universe; they are not merely higher divine purposes misunderstood by humans. God is not the author of everything because some things are evil. We can infer that God is the author of the punishments of the wicked because those punishments benefit the wicked. God, being good, is also unchangeable since any change would be for the worse. For Plato, this does not mean (as some later Christian thought held) that God is the ground of moral goodness; rather, whatever is good is good in an of itself. God must be a first cause and a self-moved mover otherwise there will be an infinite regress to causes of causes. Plato is not committed to monotheism, but suggests for example that since planetary motion is uniform and circular, and since such motion is the motion of reason, then a planet must be driven by a rational soul. These souls that drive the planets could be called gods.

 

Edited February 25, 2021 by mfbukowski