Jump to content

GOD the man


Recommended Posts

Based its interpretation of Scripture, and the words of the Fathers, the Catholic Church teaches – and has always taught – that the Beloved is absolutely simple.  This was confirmed by the 4th Lateran Council, in 1215 C.E. (Denzinger 428); and again by the 1st Vatican Council, in 1869-1870 C.E. (Denzinger 1782).  The Beloved, it is affirmed, is pure spirit; neither a body, nor a composition of body and spirit.

The Dominican theologian, St Thomas Aquinas writes:

‘Every corporeal thing, being extended, is compound and has parts.  But God is not compound: therefore He is not anything corporeal.   With this demonstrated truth divine authority also agrees.  For it is said: God is a spirit (John 4:24): To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, only God (1 Tim. 1:17): The invisible things of God are understood and discerned by the things that are made (Rom. 1:29).’ (‘Summa Contra Gentiles - Chapter 20’). 

The Church teaches that the Beloved is absolutely immutable: ‘We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable……’ (4th Lateran Council: Constitution 1. Confession of Faith); and again: ‘First, then, the holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal.’ (The Council of Basel: Session 114). 

By ‘absolutely immutable’ is meant that in the Beloved there can be no change whatsoever.  Aquinas bases the Beloved’s absolute immutability on His absolute simplicity (a Spirit, having no parts); on His pure actuality (He has no potential for change); and on His infinite perfection.  According to Aquinas, mutability includes potentiality, composition and imperfection and as such is irreconcilable with God as ‘actus purus’ (the absolutely simple, absolutely perfect Essence). (cf. Summa Theologica: Part 1; Question 9; Article 1). 

 As far as I’m aware – and I stand to be corrected – the notion that the Beloved is a man first arose in the fourth century, by way of Audæus, via his literal interpretation of Genesis 1:27.

Theodoret of Cyrus writes:

‘The illustrious emperor thus took heed of the apostolic decrees, but Audæus, a Syrian alike in race and in speech, appeared at that time as an inventor of new decrees.  He had long ago begun to incubate iniquities and now appeared in his true character. At first he understood in an absurd sense the passage "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."  From want of apprehension of the meaning of the divine Scripture he understood the Divine Being to have a human form, and conjectured it to be enveloped in bodily parts; for Holy Scripture frequently describes the divine operations under the names of human parts, since by these means the providence of God is made more easily intelligible to minds incapable of perceiving any immaterial ideas.’ (‘Ecclesiastic History; Book 4; under the title: ‘Of the heresy of the Audiani’; my emphasis).

Concerning Jewish Belief:

Jews consider it the hallmark of idolatry to declare that HaShem can become a human; or that a human can become HaShem.

In the Tanakh, HaShem says this:

‘I will not give rein to my fierce anger, I will not destroy Ephraim again, for I am God, not man, the Holy One in your midst, and I shall not come to you in anger.’ (Hosea 11:9; my emphasis).

And this:

'Son of man, say to the ruler of Tyre, "The Lord Yahweh says this: Because your heart has grown proud, you thought: I am a god; I am divinely enthroned far out to sea. Though you are human, not divine, you have allowed yourself to think like God.’ (Ezekiel 28:1-2).

And this:

‘God is no human being that he should lie, no child of Adam to change his mind.  Is it His to say and not to do, is it His to speak and not fulfil?’ (Numbers 23:19; my emphasis),

Here, HaShem specifically tells us that if He were a human being, then He would be a liar, since all human beings lie on occasion. Moreover, He tells us that if He were a human being, then He would make promises, but not keep them.  HaShem does not renege on His promises.

Conclusion:

I do not expect you – as a member of the LDS community – to accept the teachings of other communities.  After all, you have – in addition to the Bible – your own body of Scripture; and I would expect you to be faithful to its teachings.  That is for you.  However, I would ask you – respectfully – not to buttress your own beliefs by making inaccurate statements about the beliefs of others.   

Blessings.

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Thanks, Niblo. Consider this an upvote since I can’t give you one yet. 

Bless you, my friend; but your vote rightly belongs to the Fathers and Scholars I rely on. 

Peace.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Niblo said:

Based its interpretation of Scripture, and the words of the Fathers, the Catholic Church teaches – and has always taught – that the Beloved is absolutely simple.  This was confirmed by the 4th Lateran Council, in 1215 C.E. (Denzinger 428); and again by the 1st Vatican Council, in 1869-1870 C.E. (Denzinger 1782).  The Beloved, it is affirmed, is pure spirit; neither a body, nor a composition of body and spirit.

The Dominican theologian, St Thomas Aquinas writes:

‘Every corporeal thing, being extended, is compound and has parts.  But God is not compound: therefore He is not anything corporeal.   With this demonstrated truth divine authority also agrees.  For it is said: God is a spirit (John 4:24): To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, only God (1 Tim. 1:17): The invisible things of God are understood and discerned by the things that are made (Rom. 1:29).’ (‘Summa Contra Gentiles - Chapter 20’). 

The Church teaches that the Beloved is absolutely immutable: ‘We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable……’ (4th Lateran Council: Constitution 1. Confession of Faith); and again: ‘First, then, the holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal.’ (The Council of Basel: Session 114). 

By ‘absolutely immutable’ is meant that in the Beloved there can be no change whatsoever.  Aquinas bases the Beloved’s absolute immutability on His absolute simplicity (a Spirit, having no parts); on His pure actuality (He has no potential for change); and on His infinite perfection.  According to Aquinas, mutability includes potentiality, composition and imperfection and as such is irreconcilable with God as ‘actus purus’ (the absolutely simple, absolutely perfect Essence). (cf. Summa Theologica: Part 1; Question 9; Article 1). 

 As far as I’m aware – and I stand to be corrected – the notion that the Beloved is a man first arose in the fourth century, by way of Audæus, via his literal interpretation of Genesis 1:27.

Theodoret of Cyrus writes:

‘The illustrious emperor thus took heed of the apostolic decrees, but Audæus, a Syrian alike in race and in speech, appeared at that time as an inventor of new decrees.  He had long ago begun to incubate iniquities and now appeared in his true character. At first he understood in an absurd sense the passage "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."  From want of apprehension of the meaning of the divine Scripture he understood the Divine Being to have a human form, and conjectured it to be enveloped in bodily parts; for Holy Scripture frequently describes the divine operations under the names of human parts, since by these means the providence of God is made more easily intelligible to minds incapable of perceiving any immaterial ideas.’ (‘Ecclesiastic History; Book 4; under the title: ‘Of the heresy of the Audiani’; my emphasis).

Concerning Jewish Belief:

Jews consider it the hallmark of idolatry to declare that HaShem can become a human; or that a human can become HaShem.

In the Tanakh, HaShem says this:

‘I will not give rein to my fierce anger, I will not destroy Ephraim again, for I am God, not man, the Holy One in your midst, and I shall not come to you in anger.’ (Hosea 11:9; my emphasis).

And this:

'Son of man, say to the ruler of Tyre, "The Lord Yahweh says this: Because your heart has grown proud, you thought: I am a god; I am divinely enthroned far out to sea. Though you are human, not divine, you have allowed yourself to think like God.’ (Ezekiel 28:1-2).

And this:

‘God is no human being that he should lie, no child of Adam to change his mind.  Is it His to say and not to do, is it His to speak and not fulfil?’ (Numbers 23:19; my emphasis),

Here, HaShem specifically tells us that if He were a human being, then He would be a liar, since all human beings lie on occasion. Moreover, He tells us that if He were a human being, then He would make promises, but not keep them.  HaShem does not renege on His promises.

Conclusion:

I do not expect you – as a member of the LDS community – to accept the teachings of other communities.  After all, you have – in addition to the Bible – your own body of Scripture; and I would expect you to be faithful to its teachings.  That is for you.  However, I would ask you – respectfully – not to buttress your own beliefs by making inaccurate statements about the beliefs of others.   

Blessings.

God isn’t a human being? Yet the Scriptures powerfully testify that he is in every way a man, and that to deny his divine humanity is to deny him. While on earth, his sacred human body had to be fully divine in order for him to to be able to offer it up as a perfect sacrifice for fallen humanity; and his sacred human blood was also fully divine, if not so his precious blood could not atone for our sins and make those who who truly love and honor him joint heirs with him in all he the gifts and powers he has inherited from his Father. To say that Christ’s humanity isn’t fully divine is to say that Christ has two distinct natures and isn’t infinitely and eternally perfect.

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (1 John 4) 

God is not a fallen, imperfect man that he should lie, but is a perfect man who doesn’t lie.

Edited by teddyaware
Link to comment
1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

God isn’t a human being? Yet the Scriptures powerfully testify that he is in every way a man, and that to deny his divine humanity is to deny him. While on earth, his sacred human body had to be fully divine in order for him to to be able to offer it up as a perfect sacrifice for fallen humanity; and his sacred human blood was also fully divine, if not so his precious blood could not atone for our sins and make those who who truly love and honor him joint heirs with him in all he the gifts and powers he has inherited from his Father. To say that Christ’s humanity isn’t fully divine is to say that Christ has two distinct natures and isn’t infinitely and eternally perfect.

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (1 John 4) 

God is not a fallen, imperfect man that he should lie, but is a perfect man who doesn’t lie.

You have consistently misunderstood and erroneously presented Catholic doctrine regarding the nature of God. Are you not reading what we post about our beliefs? Niblo had two long and substantive posts that you did not engage. 

Catholics believe that Christ was 100% divine AND 100% human. His humanity was perfect and not fallen, because of the immaculate conception of His mother. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

because of the immaculate conception of His mother

Please tell me if I have this right:

  1. Original Sin 
  2. Because of Original Sin there had to be an immaculate conception (somewhere) to prevent Jesus from inheriting Original Sin
  3. Veneration of Mary  <-  Insert immaculate conception here
  4. Birth of Christ, sinless

I've always wondered why couldn't the conception of Jesus been an immaculate conception instead of Mary?  Why did it need to be Mary?  Is it because of my remarks in #3? 

Of course from a Latter-day Saint view, this is entirely different.    As I'm sure you know, we completely reject #1, #2, and #3. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

God isn’t a human being? Yet the Scriptures powerfully testify that he is in every way a man, and that to deny his divine humanity is to deny him. While on earth, his sacred human body had to be fully divine in order for him to to be able to offer it up as a perfect sacrifice for fallen humanity; and his sacred human blood was also fully divine, if not so his precious blood could not atone for our sins and make those who who truly love and honor him joint heirs with him in all he the gifts and powers he has inherited from his Father. To say that Christ’s humanity isn’t fully divine is to say that Christ has two distinct natures and isn’t infinitely and eternally perfect.

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (1 John 4) 

God is not a fallen, imperfect man that he should lie, but is a perfect man who doesn’t lie.

You are a member of the LDS community.  It is only to be expected that you would defend its theology.  I commend you for that.

My posts were a response to the notion that: ‘Both Jews and Christians for three centuries believed that God was a man with human appearance.’

You have – I presume – read the words of the early Fathers; none of whom state that the Beloved is, in any way corporeal.  Are we to assume that they were ignorant of what the Bible has to say?

In general, there are two types of evidence: compelling and persuasive. 

By compelling, I mean evidence that is not able to be refuted.  If I said, for example, that Liz Truss is the elected leader of the Tory Party, and Prime Minister of the UK, no person who understood the message – and who checked the evidence – would be able to deny the message without being considered either a liar or a fool.   

By persuasive, I mean evidence that has the power to influence or persuade someone to believe that it is true.  Scriptural evidence is persuasive, nothing more.  That is why some say, in all sincerity, that the Beloved is ‘in every way’ a man; while others – with equal sincerity - say that He is not.

The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) declared: ‘We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable, incomprehensible and ineffable, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, three persons but one absolutely simple essence, substance or nature.’ (Constitutions: 1. Confession of faith). 

The Council of Basel (1431-45 A.D.) decreed: ‘First, then, the holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and Holy Spirit; one in essence, three in persons……………… These three persons are one God not three gods, because there is one substance of the three, one essence, one nature, one Godhead, one immensity, one eternity……. Therefore it condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the body of Christ, which is the church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views. Hence it condemns Sabellius, who confused the persons and altogether removed their real distinction. It condemns the Arians, the Eunomians and the Macedonians who say that only the Father is true God and place the Son and the Holy Spirit in the order of creatures. It also condemns any others who make degrees or inequalities in the Trinity.’ (Session 114).  

The Council decreed: ‘Also it holds, professes and teaches that one and the same Son of God and of man, our lord Jesus Christ, is perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity; true God and true man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father, and in the last days the same born according to his humanity for us and our salvation from Mary the virgin mother of God.’ (Session 13).  

The Church teaches that the Second Person of the Trinity (the ‘Divine Logos) is united ‘Hypostatically’ to Christ, and that this union took place at the moment of his conception.  It is also a doctrine of the Church that in the ‘hypostatic union’, each of Yeshua’s two natures (Divine and human) continue untransformed, unimpaired and unmixed with the other; and that this ‘Union’ will never end. 

In short, Yeshua was (and is) ‘Wholly God’ and ‘Wholly man).

In Hebrews we read (of Yeshua):

For it was not the angels that he took to himself; he took to himself the line of Abraham.  It was essential that he should in this way be made completely like his brothers so that he could become a compassionate and trustworthy high priest for their relationship to God, able to expiate the sins of the people.’ (2:16-17; my emphasis).

And again, from Hebrews:

For the high priest we have is not incapable of feeling our weaknesses with us, but has been put to the test in exactly the same way as ourselves, apart from sin.’ (Verse 15; my emphasis).

You write, that ‘while on earth, his (Yeshua’s) sacred human body had to be fully divine.’

I understand – and correct me if I’m mistaken – that the LDS community teaches that humans can go through a process of exaltation to godhood.  If this is correct, then you might argue that Yeshua passed through this process, while on earth.  But that would mean that he was born ‘wholly man’; and not divine at all.  At what point in his earthy development did he achieve full divinity; and where is the New Testament evidence for this?

If we say that he possessed a ‘fully divine’ body from birth, then he never was ‘completely like his brothers’.  Is the author of Hebrew's mistaken? 

Blessings.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Please tell me if I have this right:

  1. Original Sin 
  2. Because of Original Sin there had to be an immaculate conception (somewhere) to prevent Jesus from inheriting Original Sin
  3. Veneration of Mary  <-  Insert immaculate conception here
  4. Birth of Christ, sinless

I've always wondered why couldn't the conception of Jesus been an immaculate conception instead of Mary?  Why did it need to be Mary?  Is it because of my remarks in #3? 

Of course from a Latter-day Saint view, this is entirely different.    As I'm sure you know, we completely reject #1, #2, and #3. 

Mary needed to be free from original sin so that Her entire life was sinless, and thus She would be a fitting mother for Christ (and for the Church). The relationship between Her and Christ is so close. We believe that not only was She free from original sin, but She was also free from personal sin.

In your list, the veneration of Mary (#3) is not the cause of the Immaculate Conception, but the result of it. She gave Herself completely to God, as seen during the Annunciation, when Gabriel announced to Her that She would be the mother of Christ. We venerate Her because of Her holiness.

Link to comment
On 9/10/2022 at 6:52 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

+1, but, while your mileage may vary, I don't have any problem with the idea that the Big Bang is part of creation.  I don't know that there is as much of a gulf between science and religion as many atheists and anti-theists would like us to believe: I simply believe that God is the best Scientist in existence. ;) 

He's also pretty good at poker, but one of the Big Questions is whether or not he can be honest, being omniscient and all: clearly one of the huge theological problems no one ever thinks about.  ;)  🧐 .  I mean one of the main assumptions  in a game is that your opponent is trying his best, or he would be "throwing" the game!

Poor guy can't win for losing.  🤕

 

Link to comment
On 10/2/2022 at 11:31 AM, MiserereNobis said:

You have consistently misunderstood and erroneously presented Catholic doctrine regarding the nature of God. Are you not reading what we post about our beliefs? Niblo had two long and substantive posts that you did not engage. 

Catholics believe that Christ was 100% divine AND 100% human. His humanity was perfect and not fallen, because of the immaculate conception of His mother. 

I don't understand how this is not understood by non-Catholics. The dual nature of Christ was one of the first teachings in RCIA. Teddy clearly hasn't read the Catechism or any other clear statements such as the Athanasian Creed:

Quote
Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith.
For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost forever.
This is what the Catholic faith teaches: we worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity.
Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance.
For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit.
But the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have one divinity, equal glory, and coeternal majesty.
What the Father is, the Son is, and the Holy Spirit is.
The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated.
The Father is boundless, the Son is boundless, and the Holy Spirit is boundless.
The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, and the Holy Spirit is eternal.
Nevertheless, there are not three eternal beings, but one eternal being.
So there are not three uncreated beings, nor three boundless beings, but one uncreated being and one boundless being.
Likewise, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, the Holy Spirit is omnipotent.
Yet there are not three omnipotent beings, but one omnipotent being.

 

Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
However, there are not three gods, but one God.
The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord.
However, there as not three lords, but one Lord.
For as we are obliged by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person singly to be God and Lord, so too are we forbidden by the Catholic religion to say that there are three Gods or Lords.
The Father was not made, nor created, nor generated by anyone.
The Son is not made, nor created, but begotten by the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit is not made, nor created, nor generated, but proceeds from the Father and the Son.

 

There is, then, one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.
In this Trinity, there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less. The entire three Persons are coeternal and coequal with one another.
So that in all things, as is has been said above, the Unity is to be worshipped in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity.
He, therefore, who wishes to be saved, must believe thus about the Trinity.

 

It is also necessary for eternal salvation that he believes steadfastly in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Thus the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both God and man.

 

As God, He was begotten of the substance of the Father before time; as man, He was born in time of the substance of His Mother.
He is perfect God; and He is perfect man, with a rational soul and human flesh.
He is equal to the Father in His divinity, but inferior to the Father in His humanity.
Although He is God and man, He is not two, but one Christ.
And He is one, not because His divinity was changed into flesh, but because His humanity was assumed unto God.
He is one, not by a mingling of substances, but by unity of person.
As a rational soul and flesh are one man: so God and man are one Christ.
He died for our salvation, descended into hell, and rose from the dead on the third day.
He ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From there He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
At His coming, all men are to arise with their own bodies; and they are to give an account of their own deeds.
Those who have done good deeds will go into eternal life; those who have done evil will go into the everlasting fire.
This is the Catholic faith. Everyone must believe it, firmly and steadfastly; otherwise He cannot be saved.

 

Amen.

Source: Beginning Catholic

Link to comment
On 10/2/2022 at 6:48 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Mary needed to be free from original sin so that Her entire life was sinless, and thus She would be a fitting mother for Christ (and for the Church). The relationship between Her and Christ is so close. We believe that not only was She free from original sin, but She was also free from personal sin.

I up-voted your post when you posted this, but I just wanted to say that I hadn't thought about the added benefit of having Christ raised by a sinless mother.   Thank you for that explanation.  

On 10/2/2022 at 6:48 PM, MiserereNobis said:

In your list, the veneration of Mary (#3) is not the cause of the Immaculate Conception, but the result of it. She gave Herself completely to God, as seen during the Annunciation, when Gabriel announced to Her that She would be the mother of Christ. We venerate Her because of Her holiness.

I think I understood this part already (from what I know of Catholic belief), but I illustrated it badly in my post.  I really appreciate your explanation.  Thank you.

Link to comment
43 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I up-voted your post when you posted this, but I just wanted to say that I hadn't thought about the added benefit of having Christ raised by a sinless mother.   Thank you for that explanation

The joke is that if anything went wrong in their household, both Mary and Jesus, being sinless, would look sideways at Joseph 😁

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Damien the Leper said:

I don't understand how this is not understood by non-Catholics. The dual nature of Christ was one of the first teachings in RCIA. Teddy clearly hasn't read the Catechism or any other clear statements such as the Athanasian Creed:

Source: Beginning Catholic

If one views Godhood in the same category as manhood, then it is impossible to be both 100% man and 100% God.  An analogy would be it is impossible to be 100% lion and 100% tiger at the same time.  So it needs to be made clear that deity is seen as a different type of being than humanity, even if there is some overlap due to God sharing some of his attributes with Man.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Brahms said:

With Godhood considered a category I would say manhood and womanhood are subcategories of that category.  One who is God is either a man or a woman.

I was using manhood for humanhood, but otherwise agree. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

The joke is that if anything went wrong in their household, both Mary and Jesus, being sinless, would look sideways at Joseph 😁

I've heard similar jokes involving the story of the woman taken in adultery, and when Jesus said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her", and his mother was in the crowd too. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Brahms said:

Are you saying you believe Mary was sinless in some way other than through the atonement of her son, our Savior Jesus Christ?  

How do you reconcile that idea with Acts 4:12
“Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.”

I believe people were cleansed from sin before Jesus was born but only because of what Jesus would do in the future through his work which we call the atonement. 

I do believe Mary had been cleansed from her sins before her son Jesus was born.  I'm just not sure if our ideas are the same on this issue.  Close for sure but maybe not exactly the same.

Yes, the immaculate conception occurred because of the grace of Christ. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Brahms said:

If one views Godhood in the same category as humanhood, why would you think it is impossible to be both 100% human and 100% God?  I see that we have dual natures as we are now, one divine/godly and the other carnal/devilish. One mortal and the other immortal.  We can gravitate toward good and we can also gravitate toward evil.  We choose which way we will go, which of our natures we will fuel and develop.  As children of God our Father we are the same kind of being he is at some stage of our development process, whatever name you choose to label this stage of development. 

I know it's popular to believe Man and God are 2 separate types of living being, but in truth we are all the same thing at some level.  Do you agree with this or are you more aligned with Catholic beliefs?

Unless one views God and humans as identical (in my analogy that would he expressed as a lion is 100% lion and 100% Panthera Leo), I have already explained why from my definition they can’t be both 100% if speaking in terms of the same category, but not identical in that category. 
 

You are using different categories than I was, which is essentially what kind of species both are (we know humans are Homo sapiens). 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Calm said:

If one views Godhood in the same category as manhood, then it is impossible to be both 100% man and 100% God.  An analogy would be it is impossible to be 100% lion and 100% tiger at the same time.  So it needs to be made clear that deity is seen as a different type of being than humanity, even if there is some overlap due to God sharing some of his attributes with Man.

My complaint was against @teddyawareand his highly misinformed ideas of what we Catholics believe about the Trinity or Godhead. Am I missing something? 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

My complaint was against @teddyawareand his highly misinformed ideas of what we Catholics believe about the Trinity or Godhead. Am I missing something? 

I am just explaining why some Saints in my experience misinterpret what is meant by the phrase “100% man and 100% God” and think it is an illogical phrase.  Perhaps teddy views it this way as I get that impression at times from his writings, but it could be something else. If that is one of the filters with which he studies the nature of God, it would, imo, explain why he gets other details wrong. The principle has been explained here on the board before by Catholics and iirc I have quoted the Catechism on it a time or two, but that might have been something else…my point is teddy has been exposed to the Catholic thought (at least several times on this board on this issue if he reads others’ posts on the subject and not just his own) on what is meant by 100% man and 100% God and yet teddy presents the Catholic teaching incorrectly still. It seems therefore likely he has a very strong assumption that is interfering with the absorption of the actual beliefs Catholics have shared on the board. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
13 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Not in Catholicism. No one is 100% free from original sin and personal sin except Jesus and Mary. 

And the very idea that God is physically made of elements- matter- just as we all are, would be anathema.

I have a standing unanswered question about how Catholics view the present status of the resurrected body of Christ; where is it, how all that works, etc.  

Link to comment
54 minutes ago, Brahms said:

Should I assume you meant without the effects of the atonement to cleanse a person from all of his (or her) original and personal sins?  If not, please explain why not, in your understanding of Catholicism.

Mary did not need cleansing. She was perfect and free from both original and personal sin. 

I say this so you can understand the Catholic position. Obviously as a non-Catholic you disagree, but my point is just to inform. 

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Brahms said:

Maybe some other time you will feel free to talk about why you think Mary never committed a sin and share any evidence you have for that position. 

Oh they followed her around with a camera.

Come on!  What "evidence" do you have that the Savior was sinless?

It is a postulate of faith alleged necessary for the paradigm.

I imagine that in the history of the world it is possible that there were probably dozens or even hundreds who escaped sin.

Link to comment
On 9/1/2022 at 5:12 AM, ShemTov said:

can it be proven GOD was a man.

Of course. His doctor sent Him in for an ekgs, and he was in perfect health.

I cannot fathom what you are asking 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

imagine that in the history of the world it is possible that there were probably dozens or even hundreds who escaped sin.

Is this a serious comment?  If so, how do you see this happening?

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...