(matthew 24:36) “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the son, but only the father.".
(jesus seems to have forgotten to include the holy spirit not knowing either).
(acts 1:7) "he said to them: “it does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the father has placed in his own jurisdiction.".
@Sea Breeze:
Your diagram of the "tripartite nature of man" seems to be using the term "nature" as "internal structure" or "parts".
Soul, body and spirit of men are all spoken of with pronouns in the bible denoting personhood.
Wait. Are you implying that the "parts" of God are merely "referred" to as persons?
(matthew 24:36) “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the son, but only the father.".
(jesus seems to have forgotten to include the holy spirit not knowing either).
(acts 1:7) "he said to them: “it does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the father has placed in his own jurisdiction.".
First, “nature” (Greek: physis, Latin: natura) denotes what something is—the set of essential properties and capacities that make a being what it is and not something else.
Ok. Noted.
“Essence” (Greek: ousia, Latin: essentia or substantia) is closely related, often interchangeable, but with a subtle distinction: essence is that by which a thing is what it is; it is “that which makes a thing to be what it is.”
Alright. So it sounds to me like you are saying a "nature" is a descriptive set of attributes. This set of necessary attributes confirms the "essence" of the being. But why is "essence" anything more than the set of attributes? Part of this is a categorical description too. The term "human" is a category. Anything fitting into that category would have the "nature" of "human". But it seems "essence" is pretty much the same thing.
In concrete terms, the "nature" of a human is to be a rational animal; the "essence" is the underlying reality that actualizes this nature.
Ok, good. An example.
Humans have a whole host of characteristics, but most are shared. Like "two legs". This is common for "human" but doesn't really define "human". After all, a legless human is still a human. So the defining set of characteristics is a set : { animal, rational }. How rational? Would a mentally handicapped human cease to be human? Is a human fetus (not capable of meaningful rationality) not really "human"?
What does it mean to "actualize" a nature, other than display the necessary set of attributes that cause you to fit into the category?
In the case of God, nature and essence refer to the one, undivided, eternal act of existence—pure actuality (actus purus)—which is to be itself: Ipsum Esse Subsistens, Subsistent Being Itself, as Aquinas says.
Ok. But this is way too abstract for me at the moment.
I need more concrete examples. Do dogs have a "nature"? Do cats? What separates them? Do poems have a nature?
(matthew 24:36) “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the son, but only the father.".
(jesus seems to have forgotten to include the holy spirit not knowing either).
(acts 1:7) "he said to them: “it does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the father has placed in his own jurisdiction.".
@aqwsed,
You should have stopped after your second paragraph. You read and responded to my post well before the 30 minute edit time expired. And you did so with a large post. You type very quickly... very quickly.
It is telling that in every serious debate on the Trinity—or any essential Christian doctrine—the discussion quickly reveals that the real issue is not simply about one verse or another, but about the methods we use to interpret Scripture, the weight we give to context, and the very nature of Christian revelation itself.
Yeah. Thats why I was starting with common definitions. We haven't really gotten into that too much. But try for short, concise.
You mockingly reduce the debate to “wiggling and squinting” on both sides, as if Trinitarians and Unitarians alike are simply “forcing” their views onto the text. But this is a shallow caricature, not an argument.
Both sides spit out scriptures. You are putting out walls of text. Both sides have fundamentally different views of foundational concepts, even language.
What you label as “wiggling” is, in fact, the work of centuries of rigorous engagement with the totality of divine revelation, always seeking to avoid the fatal error of proof-texting.
And to people just reading the Bible, that looks a lot like reading your meaning into the scriptures.
Catholic theology rejects the notion that a doctrine should—or even could—stand or fall on an isolated verse.
Right. Take a look at my first post in the thread. I was sarcastically attempting to convey this very thought ..
(matthew 24:36) “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the son, but only the father.".
(jesus seems to have forgotten to include the holy spirit not knowing either).
(acts 1:7) "he said to them: “it does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the father has placed in his own jurisdiction.".
Lol.
These types of threads are the gift that keeps on giving. The one thing that everyone should take away from @aqwsed's large posts is that you can't - you can NOT - just post a scripture and pretend you have a mic drop moment.
There are scriptures that really imply Jesus is God, and the Unitarian view has to contend with those scriptures by wiggling and squinting and say, "well, you have to read it this way or that way, but not the way you are reading it". And there are scriptures that really seem to imply Jesus is not God, and the Trinitarians wiggle and squint and say "well, you have to read it this way or that way, but not the way you are reading it."
And what @aqwsed should take away is that these are discussions digested in short chunks of a paragraph or two... lol... nobody is reading you entire posts.
(matthew 24:36) “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the son, but only the father.".
(jesus seems to have forgotten to include the holy spirit not knowing either).
(acts 1:7) "he said to them: “it does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the father has placed in his own jurisdiction.".
@aswed12345:
Alright. Very good. Now we are getting somewhere. I gave you a like +1 for engaging at definitional level.
Others can engage too. But I'm going to press you on these definitions later.
(matthew 24:36) “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the son, but only the father.".
(jesus seems to have forgotten to include the holy spirit not knowing either).
(acts 1:7) "he said to them: “it does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the father has placed in his own jurisdiction.".
@aqwsed12345:
Holy forking shirt balls... your two books... errr I mean posts, are taking up at least $12 / month in SQL storage. Poor Simon.
Overload. Nobody is going to understand.
Especially after quoting 2 Hypostatic 15:2.
Define "nature". Define "essense". Contrast those terms. Define "fully" God. Define "fully" human.
For each term, define them concisely... so in three sentences. And by three, I mean one.
Every scripture you quoted, the other side reads in their favor. And around we go..... weeeeeeeeeeee
(matthew 24:36) “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the son, but only the father.".
(jesus seems to have forgotten to include the holy spirit not knowing either).
(acts 1:7) "he said to them: “it does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the father has placed in his own jurisdiction.".
There are literally dozens of scriptures that refute the Trinity, possibly even hundreds, but that hasn't stopped them until now.
How many times do we have to beat this dead horse? Every single scripture you think bolsters your position, the Trinitarias claim proves their position. There are literally dozens of scriptures that refute the Unitarian God, they would say. Maybe even hundreds.
According to Christian belief, Jesus was fully God while on earth. The concept of Jesus being fully God and fully human at the same time is a core Christian belief, known as the Incarnation.
Ok. What does it mean to be "fully" God? Or even "fully" human? My guess is that what you think it means is not what Trinitarians think - so again, you talk past each other.
This means that Jesus, while on Earth, possessed both divine attributes, like omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence.
Why? That seems like your definition.
If Jesus is God Almighty, how can he be described as the "Prince of Peace." (Isaiah 9:6) Surely he'd be the king of peace?
Oh snap. Another scripture they have no answer for. If only they would read their Bible, they would stumble across this scripture. How could they go thousands of years and not read this???!! .. It's definitely not the case that there is an answer that would be found by 5 minutes of Google searching.
(matthew 24:36) “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the son, but only the father.".
(jesus seems to have forgotten to include the holy spirit not knowing either).
(acts 1:7) "he said to them: “it does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the father has placed in his own jurisdiction.".
(Matthew 24:36) “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father."
Ohhh noooooos. I guess you found a scripture Trinitarians overlooked. Just wait until the Pope sees this verse. There's just no way to explain it.
things are moving right along.
“israel” has gone to war with iran.. who is fooled?.
this is uncle sam, same as in ukraine.. daniel layed out clearly the events of “d day” june 6, 1944 as the “ships of kittim” would sail against the king of the north.
What about his dog?
things are moving right along.
“israel” has gone to war with iran.. who is fooled?.
this is uncle sam, same as in ukraine.. daniel layed out clearly the events of “d day” june 6, 1944 as the “ships of kittim” would sail against the king of the north.
But what about the King of the North?
