Posts by aqwsed12345

92

Ecclesiastes 9:5 -"the dead know nothing at all"

by aqwsed12345 in

the narrator of the book of ecclesiastes had very little knowledge of many things that jesus and his apostles later preached.

the author does not make statements, but only wonders (thinks, observes, often raises questions, and leaves them open).

he looked at the world based on the law of moses and found nothing but vanity, as the earthly reward promised in the law did not always accompany good deeds and earthly punishment for evil deeds.

Ecclesiastes 9:5 -"the dead know nothing at all"

by aqwsed12345 in

the narrator of the book of ecclesiastes had very little knowledge of many things that jesus and his apostles later preached.

the author does not make statements, but only wonders (thinks, observes, often raises questions, and leaves them open).

he looked at the world based on the law of moses and found nothing but vanity, as the earthly reward promised in the law did not always accompany good deeds and earthly punishment for evil deeds.

The Satanic claim "you will not surely die" (Genesis 3:4) has nothing to do with the immortality of the soul. God proposed here that if they break His command, then "in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die." From this, it is apparent that here "you will die" did not refer to the literal, physical death, but the consequence of it, that man will die, or (his body) will return to the dust. Here, the word "death" does not refer to physical death but spiritual death, separation from God, and loss of grace.

"In the day that you sin, you will die" - When you sin, I will take away my grace, eternal life, and you will die.

When Satan says, "you will not surely die," he means, "Just go ahead and sin; God will not fulfill His threat (he's just bluffing)."

Then the "dispute" with Satan was not about the immortality of the soul but whether humanity will lose God's special privilege that the human body is free from the compulsion of death. God warned Adam not to eat from 'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil', or he would die on that day (Gen 2:17). Adam and Eve ate from it anyway, but did not die a biological death >on that day<, as they lived much longer (Gen 5:5). Adam, however, lost fellowship with God (he was driven out of Eden) and eternal life (he could no longer eat from the tree of life, Gen 3:23-24). Adam's (man's) death on "that day" was spiritual-religious death (cf. Eph 2:1), which led to biological death. So the "death" with which God threatens man is twofold: the death of supernatural life (i.e., loss of sanctifying grace) and [as a result] the mortal transformation of the body: before the Fall, man could have not died; since then, man cannot not die.

This of course is avoided by the Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation, and they want to explain away the "day" here as exactly a thousand years. But why would it be a thousand years "on that day"? I know there's a biblical statement, "With the Lord, a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (2 Peter 3:8), but that doesn't make it applicable here (this is a leap in logic), so this is entirely a leap of logic. Also, we know that this is metaphorical language, illustrating that God is outside time, and before Him, a day is not literally exactly a thousand years but eternity.

The Peter's part (which I say again, they arbitrarily tie together with the Moses' part using biblical leap logic) is obviously only symbolic: especially since the context does not explain how Adam "died" >that day<, but why the Last Judgment day is delaying in human terms, the answer: because in God's view our "time" is just a moment. "A thousand years" is an ancient analogy: a very long time.

And then, as I mentioned, the subject of the debate was not whether man has an immortal soul but whether he will die physically (i.e., whether God will carry out the threat, or be afraid that man has become like God, autonomous, or self-legislating).

So if we insist on taking the bodily death on that day literally, as Jehovah's Witnesses do, but rule out the false excuse, then Satan would be right: man did not die that day but lived much longer.

Also, since this is relevant to the topic, I'll mention that Jehovah's Witnesses often point out that why death would be a punishment if their souls would live on in heaven. But the question is inherently flawed, since we don't say that. Even then, it wouldn't be a punishment, a shame that this hypothetical scenario has nothing to do with what we teach. Just at first glance:

The first human pair's soul did not go to heaven, THEN when they died. So this is about the Old Testament, the deceased before Christianity. Before Christ's redemption, heaven was closed; then the deceased were all together in the underworld (in Sheol) in a joyless, sad existence, even if they were chosen for eternal bliss. Though separate from the damned (cf. Ez 32:17-32), this place - like a vestibule of hell - was not a place of joy but of silent sorrow, where they did not even praise God. This differs entirely from heaven, which only Christ opened through His death on the cross. From then on, death became joy, and from then on, the dead saints praise God, and from then on, they can intercede for us. So it did not yet happen that Christ "ascended on high, leading a host of captives" (Eph 4:8)
We do not say that the role of heaven is that man lives there eternally without a body, like a spiritual being. Because heaven here does not mean a spiritual realm but a state of cosmic glorification.
We also confess the resurrection of the body. Immortality and resurrection relate to each other as shell and core, beginning and end. The resurrection can only be imagined if life beyond death can be envisioned at all.
However, resurrection does not mean that man "comes out" of heaven (since as I wrote above, it's not a place), but that the body also rises and is glorified and unites with the already glorified soul.

Attributing continued existence to man after physical death does not eliminate the crisis of death. Even one who now goes directly to heaven in spirit after death does not "skip over" death. Another reason is that, as I explained in my previous comment, Adam could not have gone to a "good" place after his death; at best, he went to Limbo Patrum, which, though better than hell, was still a joyless, sad existence, one of hopelessness - who knew then, for millennia, that there would be redemption, especially extended to them?

It also belongs here that the idea that the body is the prison of the soul, like a garment, is a belief of Platonism; however, Catholic theology does not hold this but that the two form a close unity, and the state of the soul outside the body is not a "normal" state but a vis maior.

22

"Apostasy"

by Zilgee in

the so called apostates of first century later became the catholic church.

these apostates like saint athanasius, theologian, ecclesiastical statesman, and egyptian national leader decided which books would be part of the bible.

we are now following what they decided.

aqwsed12345

Good lectures to watch

22

"Apostasy"

by Zilgee in

the so called apostates of first century later became the catholic church.

these apostates like saint athanasius, theologian, ecclesiastical statesman, and egyptian national leader decided which books would be part of the bible.

we are now following what they decided.

aqwsed12345

My "favorite" denomination is Mormon; I once debated a similar topic there.

Mormon assertion: The Mormon Church is God's only true church.

Criticism: How do we know this?

Mormon: From the fact that the Holy Spirit has testified.

Criticism: To whom does the Holy Spirit testify?

Mormon: To everyone who sincerely asks God in prayer.

Criticism: And those who did not receive such an answer to their prayer?

Mormon: They did not pray sincerely enough.

Criticism: And for those to whom the Holy Spirit testified regarding another denomination? My friend is a member of the X Church, and the Holy Spirit told him that the X Church is God's true church. How can this be?

Mormon: That was not the Holy Spirit, but Satan, who pretended to be the Holy Spirit!

Criticism: How can we know when it's the Holy Spirit speaking and not Satan pretending to be the Holy Spirit?

Mormon: From the fact that the Holy Spirit confirms God's true church, and Satan works against it.

Criticism: So we know which is God's true church from the Holy Spirit confirming it, but we know when it's the Holy Spirit and not Satan speaking as the Holy Spirit from the fact that it's the Holy Spirit that testifies to God's true church – so we know nothing, as there is no point of reference anywhere?

The Mormon ended the debate at this point...

92

Ecclesiastes 9:5 -"the dead know nothing at all"

by aqwsed12345 in

the narrator of the book of ecclesiastes had very little knowledge of many things that jesus and his apostles later preached.

the author does not make statements, but only wonders (thinks, observes, often raises questions, and leaves them open).

he looked at the world based on the law of moses and found nothing but vanity, as the earthly reward promised in the law did not always accompany good deeds and earthly punishment for evil deeds.

aqwsed12345

There are several arguments in the Bible against the monistic anthropology view:

1. God is a spirit (pneuma) without a body, so there is not necessarily a need for a physical body to talk about personality. If personality does not depend on the body in an absolute sense, then we can not only say that we are a body, but also that we have a body.

2. The Old Testament primarily emphasizes human unity, but this does not mean it is strictly monistic:

- the Old Testament also contains references to the inner being of man

- several theologians (e.g., E. Jacob) showed that the term "heart" in the Old Testament refers to the inner being of man, which differs from the external man (cf. Ps 73:26)

- Prov 20:27 "The spirit of man is the lamp of the LORD, searching all his innermost parts."

- in the Old Testament, we see faint hints that there is life after the death of the body: Ps 73:24-26, Ps 49:6-16, Prov 15:24.

- the Old Testament strongly condemns necromancy (Lev 20:6; Deut 18:9-12; 2Kings 21:6; 23:24; Isa 8:19-20; 19:3; 1Sam 28:3-25), which at least makes it likely that Jews generally believed in the existence of the soul after death. Notably, while the prophets often ridiculed the worship of other gods by pointing out that these gods did not exist, they never refuted the inquiry from the dead by denying the continuation of the souls of the deceased!

- the intertestamental literature clearly represents the view that the soul continues to live after the body has been placed in the grave (it is unlikely that this would be entirely contrary to the Old Testament Hebrew view, rather, what was present in seed form in the Old Testament became an explicitly formulated belief before the New Testament times, openly professed by the Pharisees - with whom Paul, even as a Christian, agreed - against the Sadducees)

3. The New Testament clarifies the divine revelation in many ways; the biblical revelation is gradual, so the Old Testament's image of man also becomes clearer in the light of the New Testament's teaching.

- Paul, along with the Pharisees, not only believed in angels and resurrection but also in a soul separate from the body, as he testified during a debate

- Acts 23:6-8 "But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, 'Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!' And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection—and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both."

- We also see this duality in Paul's letters:

* 1 Cor 2:11 "For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God."

* 1 Cor 5:3 "For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed."

* 1 Cor 5:5 "deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."

* 1 Cor 7:34 "There is a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world—how she may please her husband."

* 2 Cor 4:16 "Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day." (from the context, it is clear that this is about the body and soul)

* 2 Cor 7:1 "Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God."

* Col 2:5 "For though I am absent in the flesh, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ."

- James also spoke of the body and soul: James 2:26 "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."

- in the New Testament, we see that the immaterial part of man continues to live after the death of the body: Mt 22:31-32 "But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." The future resurrection guarantees that they are alive now after their death (which is expressed in the present tense: God is their God now, not just in the past!)

- the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31) suggests that people continue to live in a conscious state between their death and resurrection, even though their bodies rest in the grave. It is not convincing to object that Jesus only used a popular legend here, for if the situation described in the parable cannot be true, then Jesus would have reinforced a mistake (as evidenced by the fact that Christians in almost every age took this parable as teaching!)

- Jesus' spirit (pneuma) separated from his body upon death and went to heaven with the thief's spirit (while their bodies were buried). Lk 23:46 "Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, 'Father, into your hands I commit my spirit (pneuma)!' And having said this he breathed his last."

- Lk 23:43 "And he said to him, 'Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.'"

Monistic interpretation: "Truly, I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise." (The word "today" refers to when Jesus makes the promise, not to when it is fulfilled.)
Objection 1: The word "today" would then be unnecessary redundancy, especially unlikely when someone is speaking with difficulty!
Objection 2: The natural reading is that Jesus, using his favorite expression ("Truly, I tell you"), emphasizes his statement: "Today you will be with me in paradise!"
Objection 3: The promise's immediacy makes Jesus' words especially comforting: even today!

- Stephen's spirit (pneuma) went to God upon death: Acts 7:59-60 "And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit (pneuma).' Falling to his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, 'Lord, do not hold this sin against them.' And when he had said this, he died." Stephen saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God, ready to receive him (7:56).

- Paul was convinced that death meant a joyful communion with Christ, and in this state, separated from our bodies, we are "naked" spirits, waiting for our resurrection and "putting on" the imperishable body: 2 Cor 5:1-10, Phil 1:21-24.

- The Epistle to the Hebrews speaks about worshiping God in the presence of the spirits of the righteous made perfect around God's throne: Heb 12:22-24.

- In the Book of Revelation, the deceased saints are in conscious communion with God: 4:4, 6:9-11, 7:9-17, 20:4.

- Peter speaks of the torment of the spirits of the unbelievers between their death and the final judgment: 1 Pet 3:19-20, 2 Pet 2:9.

The view of monism, in the light of the New Testament's teaching (as traditionally understood by Christians), thus does not hold up, no matter how popular it has become in recent decades. The rest of the text also confirms that the duality of the spirit-soul and body – a feature of human nature – is among the fundamental tenets of biblical anthropology. However, between 1930 and 1960, it became fashionable among theologians to deny this. Under the influence of J. Pedersen's Old Testament interpretations and R. Bultmann's New Testament interpretations, and due to their disillusionment from the 19th-century idealism, authors en masse insisted that according to the 'Hebrew way of thinking,' man forms a coordinated, indivisible (psychosomatic) unity: he does not have a body, he himself is the body, and so on. They were right in emphasizing that, by stressing the unity of personality in biblical thinking, they discarded the long-standing mixture of Christian faith and vulgar Platonism. Yet under the influence of academic fashion, they too quickly abandoned the doctrine of dual structure. Though this decision was relatively weak and methodologically dubious, they did not take the time to review it. Ultimately, this elicited a healthy reaction. Robert H. Gundry, in his recently published work on the concept of the body, reconstructs the biblical interpretation of almost every Christian generation on this issue. The duality is unmistakably outlined in the New Testament, as in contemporary Jewish religion; moreover, this view is presupposed by the doctrine of the intermediate state, i.e., the survival of the spirit-soul without the body between death and resurrection. As for the Old Testament, despite the vagueness of the concepts and the ambiguity of the words, it would be a mistake to think that this duality is not present in it. We often find references to the inner life of man, which the Old Testament authors call the heart.

John W. Cooper's relatively new study also challenges the monistic stance, advocating instead for a "holistic dualism" (Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-Dualism Debate, Eerdmans, 1989); other authors who have argued for a dualistic view in recent years include W. Grudem: Systematic Theology; R.H. Gundry: Soma in Biblical Theology With Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology; H. Ridderbos: Paul: An Outline of His Theology; John Murray: The Nature of Man; C. Ryrie: Basic Theology; C. Venema: The Promise of the Future.

19

Why are aqwsed12345 post`s so long ?

by smiddy3 in

jw
friends

there is no way i will even try to read such long posts and i`m sure many others here would agree with me.. smiddy3.

aqwsed12345

In the era of Idiocracy, in this post-modern and post-christian zeitgeist, this sophisticated and detailed presentation style may be unusual for those who are not used to discourses presented at this level, but in my opinion, the topics raised deserve an in-depth explanation :)

The source of my comments are basically my own notes, not lexicons or content generated with the ChatGPT algorithm, and they are not even available on the Internet.

Of course, I don't claim that I invented all this out of thin air, I am just a "dwarf standing on the shoulders of giants", as Bernard of Chartres said.

92

Ecclesiastes 9:5 -"the dead know nothing at all"

by aqwsed12345 in

the narrator of the book of ecclesiastes had very little knowledge of many things that jesus and his apostles later preached.

the author does not make statements, but only wonders (thinks, observes, often raises questions, and leaves them open).

he looked at the world based on the law of moses and found nothing but vanity, as the earthly reward promised in the law did not always accompany good deeds and earthly punishment for evil deeds.

aqwsed12345

Between Death and Resurrection, the 'anima separata'

21

What does this even mean?

by Blotty in

"the son is born of the father by generation, but generation should not be understood in the everyday sense.

the son is derived from the father through pure spiritual generation, through the unlimited sharing of his essence.

so, the birth of the son is an intellectual activity of god.".

aqwsed12345

21

What does this even mean?

by Blotty in

"the son is born of the father by generation, but generation should not be understood in the everyday sense.

the son is derived from the father through pure spiritual generation, through the unlimited sharing of his essence.

so, the birth of the son is an intellectual activity of god.".

aqwsed12345

The Origin of the Persons: the Trinitarian Origins

In the introduction to the Letter to the Hebrews (1:5), when Christ's divinity is proclaimed, it refers to these words from the second psalm: “You are My Son, today I have begotten You”. Concerning the Holy Spirit, Christ says He proceeds from the Father (Jn 15:26). Based on such biblical declarations, theology began to speak of Trinitarian origins or processes (processiones trinitariae) and two forms of origin. The origin of the Son is referred to by theologians as generation or birth (generatio), and that of the Holy Spirit as simple procession or origin (processio simpliciter).

The Magisterium of the Catholic Church, through the Athanasian Creed, teaches as a dogma: "The Father is from no one, neither created nor begotten. The Son is solely from the Father, not by creation but by birth. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made, not created, not begotten, but proceeds" (DS 75). The Council of Florence (1439) declared as a doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from a common principle (principium) by a common spiration (spiratio) (DS 1331).

First, we must clarify the concepts expressed here, then present their biblical foundation, and finally discuss the conclusions that can be drawn from them.

The Trinitarian origins fundamentally differ from the origins, births, and processes observed in the world of creatures.

1. Since each of the Trinitarian persons is God, and God exists eternally, it's utterly impossible for any divine person to precede another in time or be a cause to the other. And since the persons possess a single nature, there can be no rank difference among them. Therefore, Trinitarian origins signify only a logical succession, meaning one person's logical rationale (ratio) and principle (principium) is different from another's. The Father is such by eternally and continuously imparting his essence to the Son, and the Son is such by eternally accepting this essence. The Holy Spirit, similarly, accepts it eternally from both the Father and the Son.

2. The earliest Church Fathers used analogies to illustrate the Son's generation. Just as rays constantly emanate from the Sun ever since the Sun existed, and as water perpetually flows from an inexhaustible source ever since the source existed; similarly, the Son is eternally begotten from the Father, since the Father exists eternally. The word “today” in Psalm 2 refers to God's "eternal present" because, in Him, there's no past or future, yesterday or tomorrow – as taught in the dogma on God's eternity. The Trinitarian origins are eternal origins. However, these analogies are only partially accurate. The Sun physically causes the rays, and the source causes the stream, but physical causality must be excluded from God: He isn't a cause of Himself (causa sui) but has a spiritual rationale (ratio sui). The given analogies also fall short because, unlike the water source that would have more water if none flowed out, the divine essence doesn't lose anything in the Trinitarian processes, neither with the birth of the Son nor with the procession of the Holy Spirit. Consequently, the Son gains nothing from being begotten, nor does the Holy Spirit from proceeding. These processes might at most bring about a different mode of existence for the same divine essence but not a change. Therefore, classic Trinitarian theology refers to these processes as substantial processes (processiones substantiales), meaning both the one proceeding and the one from whom the procession originates are God, as the processes are different modes of the same divine essence (substantia).

3. Augustine believed that since God is a spirit, we must seek a comparison not in the world of material things but in the world of spiritual processes when we want to study God's inner life. One of the most important manifestations of our spiritual life is the formation of concepts, the birth of our concepts. Just as the unspoken concept (verbum mentis) is conceived and born in our consciousness, the Son is born from the Father in the same way. The Son is actually nothing but the concept that the Father forms of himself, his self-knowledge, which on the one hand has existed eternally, and on the other hand possesses such power and intensity that it becomes a separate person. - However, since God is the infinite embodiment of all values (true, good, beautiful, holy), and values evoke spiritual love from the soul, the Father also loves himself infinitely as completeness of value, and this infinite love must be reflected in the Son. The love of the Father reflected in the Son and its reflection in the Father, its "rebound," is essentially a single and eternal love, and it is also of such intensity that it becomes a separate person, the person of the Holy Spirit.

Augustine's analogy has three advantages:

It makes it clear that we can rightly speak of spiritual birth and origin, such as we encounter with the persons of the Trinity.
What is born in the human soul as self-knowledge and arises as love can be "immanent" too: the originator does not "step out" of the generator, as the spoken word "steps out" of the speaker, or as the born child essentially separates from its mother. This immanence characterizes the Trinitarian origins: the life, indeed the very essence of the Son, is identical with that of the Father; he does not step out of him or separate from him in any reality; likewise, the life and essence of the Holy Spirit remain in the other two persons.
Divine and human self-knowledge also resemble each other in that the birth of both can equally be called conception and birth. For our thoughts' conception and birth coincide in time, unlike animals' and humans' birth or conception. Therefore, these two expressions are completely synonymous: "the Father eternally begets the Son," and "the Father eternally gives birth to the Son."

Naturally, there are also essential differences between divine and human self-knowledge and self-love. Augustine already noticed these. Divine and human self-knowledge and self-love primarily differ in that our conscious self-knowledge and self-love do not exist from the first moment of our existence. Another difference is that human self-knowledge unfolds gradually and never becomes quite perfect; the same goes for our self-love. Our inner image of ourselves never fully reflects what we are. The Father, however, without any residue, perfectly "speaks" his entire essence into the Son and loves him in the Holy Spirit. The third and most significant difference is this: the intensity and power of God's self-knowledge and the mutual love of the first two persons of the Trinity are such that this knowledge and love move from the existence of thought (ens rationis) into the order of reality (becomes 'ens reale'): it becomes a real existing separate divine person, although at the same time its immanent nature is retained.

Different medieval theologians tried to develop further Augustine's explanation in various ways. Among these, classical Trinitarian theology accepted the version represented by Thomas Aquinas, and its technical expressions were used in various official statements by the Magisterium.

The theology of the Trinitarian origins teaches the following dogmas in the sense above:

WE CLAIM ABOUT THE FATHER THAT HE IS ORIGINATING AND WITHOUT BIRTH

The Scriptures attribute an origin to the other two persons but never to the Father. Early patristics used such descriptors for the Father: without beginning (anarchos), uncreated (agenétos), unborn (agennétos). This statement, however, is only linguistically negative; in substance, it proclaims the positive fact that the Father possesses the common divine essence in such a way that He does not receive it from anyone else but only gives it to the Son and, with the Son, to the Holy Spirit. The Father is "principium sine principio." He is the ultimate solution to the origin of the other two persons.

Saint Paul considers God's fatherhood so important that, as we have seen, he often refers to the Father as God. He is primarily the "Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Cor 1:3), to whom Jesus turns with feelings of submission and mutual love, not only as a human but as the second divine person; as God-man, he empties himself (Phil 2:7) and comes into the world as the Father's envoy (Jn 3:17) to reconcile the world with the Father and make men the children of God. His entire human life is childlike submission before the heavenly Father, from whom he received his divine essence, and whom he can call greater than himself in this sense (Jn 14:28). His perfect self-surrender as a man is both the model and the means by which man, although not identically, but analogously, can also become a child of the heavenly Father. For God wants to be primarily a Father to us: "For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers" (Rom 8:29; cf. Gal 3:26). The New Testament has a characteristic warmth because God spoke the final word to humanity as a Father. He sent His Son and declared through Him that He would accept humanity into His merciful love.

THE SON ORIGINATES FROM THE FATHER THROUGH GENERATION, BIRTH

This follows from the fact that the second person is not only morally but also metaphysically the son of the Father. Natural, metaphysical sonship necessarily presupposes generation or procreation. Therefore, He is the "proper" son (Rom 8:3), the "only-begotten" Son (Jn 1:14; 1Jn 4:9) of the Father. Holy Tradition, following the Letter to the Hebrews (1:5), often refers to the two expressions of the Psalms: to give birth (110:3), to give life (2:7).

The Son's generation or birth must be taken after the pattern of earthly children's procreation, but not identically, but analogously. For God is spirit, so only spiritual birth can be considered with Him. However, the analogy remains, so we must speak of a real birth. For everything is realized here that is included in the definition of earthly birth: the living comes from the living, there is a connection between the two, and the descent brings about essential identity.

When we say "verbum mentis" with Augustine, we emphasize the Son's immanence. But when we see birth in the origin of the Son, we do not emphasize immanence, but the communication, the "passing on" of identical nature.

The sonship of the second person is also very significant in the history of salvation. According to the apostle Paul, the Father created everything in Him that is in heaven and on earth, and everything stands in Him (Col 1:16-17). The Father even chose the called ones in Him before the creation of the world (Eph 1:4). For the Father constantly speaks His eternal thoughts into the Son, so the Son could be the Father's measure in the creation of the world. But for this reason, He is the founder of the Kingdom of God, He is the norm of all moral perfection, and He will also be the measure and executor of the Last Judgment. The final state will be formed in such a way that the Father will gather all created values under His dominion (Eph 1:10). The Son is also the "causa formalis" of our individual supernatural life, as the grace whose granting is the common work of the three divine persons carries over the image of sonship to the soul of the justified man. We will become children of the Father in the form in which Christ is in a filial relationship with the heavenly Father. Thus, we will share in Christ's divine sonship and become His co-heirs. And just as the Spirit connects Christ with the Father, so too the Holy Spirit will be the spirit of our filial relationship as well.

The birth of the Son is intellectual, and the origination of the Holy Spirit is a voluntary activity.

1. Not only does Augustine's analogy associate the Son's birth with the Father's intellectual activity, but Scripture also does this. The apostle Paul writes: "We preach Christ... the wisdom of God" (1 Cor 1:23-24; 2:6-9). This is further indicated by the term Word (Logos), which in the gospel of John does not mean a fleeting word or divine utterance but God Himself, who has been with the Father from eternity and became human in the fullness of time. It can also be added that according to Paul, He is "the image of the invisible God" (cf. 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15; Heb 1:3), in whom "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden" (Col 2:3). Based on such biblical statements, the patristics speak of the Son as essentially the Father's intellectual image of Himself, His self-knowledge, into whom He pours His entire essence.

2. We find fewer references in the Bible to the mode of the Holy Spirit's origination. Scripture generally calls Him the Spirit, so the Church Fathers view Him as the breathed-out love between the Father and the Son. And love is a work of the will. The constant epithet "holy" also points to the will, since holiness is essentially synonymous with the love, the willing of the good. The names "gift," "present" also refer to this, as giving a gift is usually a sign of love. A true gift is always exactly the goodwill that transfers the object. If the Father and the Son love each other, this "goodwill" is personal, not an accidental reality.

Based on these, since Augustine, it has been a generally accepted theological truth that the origination of the Holy Spirit can be associated with God's voluntary activity, the love of the Father and the Son for each other. The Father and the Son love each other in the Holy Spirit. This living love and intimacy, which binds the Father to the Son and the Son to the Father, cannot be compared to any earthly love. It is entirely spiritual in nature and is not such that the two persons expect something from each other. Both possess everything. This love, therefore, is the common joy of possessing infinite value and the happiness of perfect contentment in it. In the Holy Spirit, the Father is assured that the Son is wholly His and lives in Him with His whole love. For the Son, the Holy Spirit signifies the Father's similar love for Him. The joy and intimacy of divine life take place in the Holy Spirit as the personification of divine love and joy. The liturgy refers to this life lived in joy and intimacy when it speaks of the "blessed" Trinity. In salvation history, too, the Holy Spirit is the distributor of God's love, graces, and charisms (Rom 5:5; 1 Cor 12:4). As He connects the Son with the Father, or is the personified pledge of their connection, unity, so He connects the justified person, made God's child, to the Father through the Son: "You have received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry, 'Abba, Father!'" (Rom 8:15).

3. If we accept the theologians' thesis that the Son's birth is intellectual to the Father, and the origination of the Holy Spirit is the common voluntary activity of the Father and the Son, then we must distinguish two kinds of intellectual and voluntary activities in God. When discussing God's cognitive activities in theology, we think of the common intellectual activities of the three divine persons. The basis of these is the common divine essence; therefore, we call this essential activity (actus essentialis). In contrast, there is the so-called person-creating divine activity (actus notionalis), in which the Father begets the Son, which is therefore not the joint activity of three persons, but only that of the Father. Similarly, we can talk about the love-activity flowing from God's essence as an actus essentialis, identical in the three persons; and we can talk about person-creating love-activity as actus notionalis, the common activity of the first two persons.

How do these two kinds of intellectual and voluntary activities differ from each other? Fatherhood, sonship, and spiration differ from each other in reality, but our point of view only distinguishes them from the common divine essence. We must apply this principle here as well. Another question is the difference in the subject of knowledge and love. The subject of the person-producing activities is one or two persons, not three; the essential activities, on the other hand, are the common activities of the three persons. We can also think that the person-creating activity is always immanent in nature, while the essential activity can also be outwardly directed, e.g., creative activity.

4. Why the Son's origin must be considered generation, and not the Holy Spirit's as well, Augustine answered this question following the Greek Church Fathers: Generation and knowledge are related in content. The natural goal of generative activity is to create one's living image from one's essence. Our intellectual activity also creates the likeness, the image of the known object in our soul. Love, on the other hand, though directed at the likeness, presupposes it. Its deepest nature is not resemblance but union. Its goal is unity.

21

What does this even mean?

by Blotty in

"the son is born of the father by generation, but generation should not be understood in the everyday sense.

the son is derived from the father through pure spiritual generation, through the unlimited sharing of his essence.

so, the birth of the son is an intellectual activity of god.".

aqwsed12345

The names "Father" and "Son" presuppose one another; neither can exist without the other.The Son's origin can be described using the concept of birth in an analogical manner, and also how this concept stemming from the material world can be applied to the inner life of the Trinity. In this entry, we will deal with another name used for the second divine person in the prologue of John's Gospel (Jn 1:1-18). John the Evangelist calls Jesus "Logos" in Greek, which could simply be translated as "Word." The persons of the Trinity do not differ from the divine nature, only contrasting with one another: the difference between them is a difference marked by opposing references, relations. The names "Father" and "Son" clearly refer to this difference. However, in the case of the name "Word" ("Speech"), the interdependence and difference are not so striking. In everyday use, a word serves to communicate some intellectual, spiritual content with others; it has a sound form or is a series of written signs. In God's case, a word tied to the material world in this way can only be used in an analogous sense. However, the word used in this sense also has an essential aspect: someone utters (writes) the word. Therefore, the concept of the word inherently contains a reference: the word is uttered by someone, the word is referred to its speaker, the origin of the word refers to the speaker's activity.

If we purify the word from its material characteristics, sound form (written signs), and consider what the word refers to, we reach the intellectual content, concept, "inner word," signaled by the external word. Regarding the Trinitarian origins, we talked about how, starting with Augustine, Western theology considers the Son's birth, the Word, to be of intellectual origin. As a result of human understanding, the concept of the object is formed in the mind from the known object. The external, spoken or written word refers to this. The concept designates two aspects: on the one hand, it refers to the object about which the concept is, and on the other hand, it refers to the knowing subject, that is, to the one whose knowledge of the object embodies in the concept. These relations clearly indicate both the interconnection and the differences. The knowing subject is not identical to the concept, as there might have been a time when he did not yet know the object and thus had no concept of it. Similarly, the concept is not identical to the object of the concept; it differs from it. Often it concerns the objects of the external world, from which the knowable, the intelligible, is transmitted to the intellect by sensory organs, and the concept is formed through the processing activity of the intellect. The relationship between the knowing subject and the concept formed by his knowledge can be described with the substance-attribute concept pair: the knowing subject is the substance that carries the result of the knowledge, the concept.

Because of God's simplicity, the knower and the known, the divine intellect, and the divine nature are identical. Therefore, the duality of the concept and the object of the concept is not found in the divine nature in the sense that we encounter it in our created world. In God, there cannot be such a duality of the concept and the object of the concept that would, in some sense, divide the utterly simple divine essence. The divine intellect, which is identical to the divine nature, does not differ from the divine persons. However, at the same time, the operation of the unified divine intellect can be referred to the individual persons according to the peculiarities of the persons: the Father as a father, the Son as a son, the Holy Spirit as a holy spirit, without this dividing the unity of operation. This is not the case because the intellectual recognition of the individual persons does not create differences in the recognition itself; the differences are only in the relationships between the persons, but these are real, person-constituting differences.

In Thomas Aquinas' conception of the Trinity, the key concept is the self-standing, carrier-less reference (relatio subsistens). Fatherhood, sonship, and spiration are the self-existing references of the persons of the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These references are not carried by the divine essence. In our created world, the references do not stand on their own; they are always carried by some subject. The references differ from their carrier subjects, the reference is one thing, and its carrier subject is another. In the Trinity, however, the references designating the persons have no carrier subjects; they exist without a carrier subject. The divine nature cannot be considered their carrier subject, because if it were, then the persons would differ in something from the divine nature, and then it could no longer be said that every Trinitarian person is fully God. The Trinitarian persons are identical with the divine nature, and no difference can be established between the divine nature and them; the differences are only between the persons themselves: these differences signify that they are non-interchangeable persons.

Based on the above, it is clear that the word "Word" cannot signify some content of the common divine knowledge, but at the same time cannot be considered an external metaphor either. The use of the word "Word" gives insight into the mystery of the Trinity, but the ultimate incomprehensibility of the mystery does not cease even then. The Son's birth from the Father is analogous to the process in which a concept is born as a result of the intellect's cognitive activity. The word concept, by the way, is related to the word conception, as the Latin word conceptus also refers to conceptio. In human knowledge, the process of knowing can be a long process, and its result, the concept, is only an appendage to the knowing subject. The source of the eternal birth of the Word is not the operation of the divine intellect, since this is common to every person. The source of the Word's birth in the divine intellect's knowledge is the recognition of the Father as Father. According to the above, it is only in relation to the Son and the Holy Spirit, in contrast to them, that one can speak of this, the recognition as father, because this does not bring any division into the operation of the divine intellect. The "recognition as father" does not mean some specific part of divine knowledge that would be only the Father's. The recognition as father results from considering the personal characteristics of the Father, the reference of fatherhood, in connection with the divine intellect. In the recognition of the Father as father, he expresses himself by eternally, in eternal love, pronouncing the Word, who is as much God as he is, and who differs from him only in being pronounced. The pronouncement of the Word signifies the same thing as the birth of the Son from the Father; the Word and the Son are the same, the birth and the pronunciation by the Father are the same. It is therefore an approach to the father-son reference from the side of the divine intellect.

In the above sense, therefore, the Word is the fruit of the Father's self-knowledge, which is not some incidental content of the divine intellect but a divine person. Starting from this, let us deal with the further characteristics of the person of the Word, with the Trinitarian attributions related to the Word.

After examining the name "Word" given to the second divine person, this name points to the intellectual nature of the Son's origin from the Father. Starting from this, we can approach several names and attributions mentioned in the Scriptures. In the Trinitarian attributions (appropriationes), we attribute a name or property relating to the divine essence to a divine person because the name or property particularly reflects the person's distinctiveness. Thus, divine wisdom can be attributed to the Word, as the Word is the expression of the Father's knowledge and wisdom. That is why Thomas Aquinas refers to the Word as conceived or born Wisdom (sapientia concepta vel nata, Summa Contra Gentiles IV. 12).

Wisdom is a word with many meanings. Perhaps human wisdom can be described as the fullness of knowledge. However, this knowledge is not merely the sum of partial insights but a coherent knowledge illuminated by causes and relationships, where details do not obscure the whole but find their place within it. Aristotle relates wisdom to the knowledge of the "highest things." Since God is the highest, the ultimate cause and creator of everything, wisdom emanates from God and refers everything to Him. Wisdom, therefore, views the world primarily as God's creation, and interprets personal life and world events in terms of the work of redemption. From God's perspective, wisdom is the wisdom of the creating, providential, and redeeming God. The term "born Wisdom" is a good expression as it alludes both to the common, essential wisdom of the three persons (since the persons are identical with the divine essence, and this is identical with divine wisdom) and to the way in which it eternally comes into being in the Word. The Word is thus the knowledge, self-knowledge, and wisdom of God emanating from the Father, expressed by the Father. The divine self-knowledge, knowledge, and wisdom are the self-knowledge, knowledge, and wisdom of all three persons through the common divine nature, but in the Word, this is the knowledge and wisdom originating from and expressed by the Father.

The Letter to the Hebrews (1:3) refers to the Son as the brightness of the Father's glory and the image of the Father. The concept of an image or imago is taken from the created world, primarily from human creations. This concept inherently contains reference to the original. The more perfect the image, the more it resembles what it depicts. At first glance, it may seem that if the original is available, there is no need for the image. The necessity of the image arises only from the imperfection that the original is not at hand. One might similarly opine about the duality experienced in intellectual recognition, where knowledge is some kind of image of the known object. In our created world, the aspects of original and image, known object, and knowledge of it carry imperfection: the image is never entirely identical with the original, knowledge never fully knows the known object. The image and the original, knowledge, and known object essentially differ in existence. Metaphysics seeks to explain the unity and plurality, agreement, and discrepancy found in our empirical world. The explanation points to the complexity and limited existence of things. In one entry, we already mentioned that the "supernatural continuation" of metaphysics is found in the mystery of the Trinity, which illuminates that diversity is not merely due to the limitations of created existence. The difference determined by subsistent relations (relationes subsistentes) is as much a fundamental structure of complete existence as existence's unity. As complete existence coincides with complete goodness, so complete existence coincides with the three persons and their mutual relations. While natural reason can perceive the identity of complete existence with complete goodness, we cannot even approach the latter identity without God's revelation. In the fullness of intellectual life identical to complete existence, there is, in some sense, the duality of original and image, known, and knowledge, familiar from the created world. However, this duality is applied to God analogically. In God, the difference manifesting in the origins is not a difference based on varying substances. The original and the image, the known, and knowledge are essentially the same, with the only distinction arising from the eternal relationship of origin between them.

The Word's origin from the Father without origin and the created beings' origin from the uncreated God are in "structural" kinship with each other. There is a similarity between the Word and created beings because each of them is some endpoint of origin, a terminus. The endpoint of the Word's origin from the Father is the Word, consubstantial with the Father. This origin is an internal origin within God; its endpoint is also within God, and it cannot be considered a causal relationship in the strict sense. The origin of created beings is a causal relationship in the strict sense, resulting not in consubstantiality with God but in limited existence, distinct from God. However, there is a connection between created beings and the Word, resulting in the Word being considered the archetype of creation, and the origin of created beings being understood as a (limited) participation in the Word's origin as a model. Thus, the study of the Trinity seeking to approach God's inner life also illuminates the roles of the divine persons in creation and the history of salvation. For a more detailed description of this, we rely again on Gilles Emery OP's book: The Trinitarian Theology of St Thomas Aquinas, Oxford, 2010.

As we have seen, the knowledge of the Word comes from the Father, knowledge expressed by the Father. This knowledge extends to the possibilities of creating things similar to the divine nature, i.e., the possibilities of creation itself. Of these, the divine will freely chose our world, the created beings of our world. God knows the created beings not through some experience, but through His own knowledge, as the ideas of creation are in the divine nature. Therefore, divine knowledge includes the full depth of created existence, as it is the knowledge of the Creator. The Word, the knowledge expressed by the Father, thus includes the precise "blueprint" of creation, just as the plan of the house is present in the mind of the house's designer. God's word, however, is a creating word, a creating Word. In the Scriptures, we often read that God says something, and it becomes reality simply by God pronouncing it. The six-day creation narrative repeats like a refrain that God's word "let there be" is a "calling into being" word: "And God said, 'Let there be light!' And there was light" (Gen 1:3). The work of creation and the preservation of the world originate from the Father, and are realized through the utterance of the Father's Word, the Word. Therefore, the Letter to the Hebrews says (1:1-3):

"In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom also He made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word."

Thomas Aquinas deals with why it was especially fitting (convenient) for the Word among the three persons to become incarnate (Summa Theologiae III q.3.a.8). The main point Thomas Aquinas sees is the similarity between the Word and the creatures mentioned above. The person of the Word was especially suitable to become the firstborn of all creation after the incarnation and to restore the world corrupted by sin according to the original pattern. The apostle Paul writes (Col 1:15-17):

"He is the image of the invisible God, the Firstborn over all creation. For in Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."

Thomas Aquinas mentions three degrees regarding the similarity of creatures to the Word. The first degree applies to every creature: here the basis of similarity is that both the Word and the creatures originate from some source. The second degree includes rational creatures, where the similarity is greater due to their rationality. The third degree refers to the supernatural order. This similarity is related to the Son's origin from the Father and is manifested in supernatural divine sonship. The justified person, in the state of sanctifying grace and then in the beatific vision of God (visio beatifica) of salvation, partakes in the life of the Trinity based on similarity to the Son as the Son of the Father.