I do disagree with you, I just pointed out that even IF it were so, it would not be an argument. The bottom line: the CONTENT of Catholic theology was not influenced by some kind of evil "philosophy", and you will not be able to attack it, based on the fact that the philosophical concepts used for the TERMINOLOGY for formulating the doctrines are also used.
aqwsed12345
JoinedPosts by aqwsed12345
-
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat inthe trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
-
-
aqwsed12345
-
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat inthe trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
-
-
-
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat inthe trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
-
-
aqwsed12345
@Earnest
The misuse of 1 Corinthians 8:6 is a typical example of primitive JW hermeneutics where a verse is sandboxed but not even read properly. They interpret and quote this Bible verse in a misappropriated manner, focusing solely on its first part. This section contains two statements if we look closely:
- "...there is one God for us: the Father, from whom everything originates..."
- "...there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom everything exists..."
Here, of course, the Arians use only the first part of the sentence (taking it out of context!) as "evidence" that the only God is the Father. But what about the second part of the sentence? "There is one Lord, Jesus Christ." Thus, if the first half of the sentence's explanation by the Watchtower excludes the Son, Jesus, as God, then similarly from the second half, they must conclude that only Jesus is Lord, and the Father is not Lord. That would be interesting. However, this fits perfectly within Christian teaching, just as the other quote does, since a few lines down, the Scripture also indicates that the Father and the Son are one (Jn 17:11.22; cf. Jn 10:30). This clearly shows the relationship between the two persons in creation and distinguishes them according to their roles. Therefore, the person from whom creation comes is the Father, while the person through whom creation exists is Jesus. As for the often-voiced argument that here the Father alone is God, excluding Jesus, we can respond that in that case, Jesus is surely Lord alone, excluding the Father, which of course is impossible. This follows from the logic of the text. Moreover, Paul says this against the naming of some as gods by others, not against the naming of Jesus as God, so it cannot be undermined against this. But we know that the Son must be honored just as the Father is honored, that is, the honor that belongs to the Father also belongs to the Son (Jn 5:23). For instance, "Lord" (Greek Kyrios, Hebrew Adonai) is the word that the Jew used not to pronounce God's holy name, YHWH - that is, when God's name was written in the Bible, the Jew read it as "the Lord." This is not clear in English because it uses the term "lord" more generally and in a more versatile manner. This is clear in Thomas the Apostle's confession when he kneels before Jesus, saying, "My Lord, my God" (Jn 20:28) - meaning "Lord" and "God" are used interchangeably in the biblical language, and it's a peculiarity of usage that the Father and the Son are linguistically separated as "God" and as "Lord." What do we see an example of here? That extracting a single sentence from its textual context and ripping it out of the entire Bible leads to misinterpretations and untenable positions. This does not automatically mean that Jesus does not belong to the "one God" as the Father certainly belongs to the "one Lord" (e.g., Mt 11:25; Acts 4:29).
Jehovah's Witnesses refer to this scripture as allegedly indicating that only the Father is the true and complete God. The Christian response to this is that He is called God, from whom everything comes because from eternity, the Son and the Holy Spirit have originated, originate, and will originate from Him, although they are one and the same in the nature, substance of God. And that when He is called one God (by the biblical writer), these words exclude the false gods of the pagans, not the Son and the Holy Spirit, who are however one God with the Father. If we exclude the two other persons because the Father is called one God, by the same reasoning it would follow (from further reading of the verse) that since Jesus Christ is called one Lord, neither the Holy Spirit nor the Father can be one Lord, although Scripture repeatedly expresses the divine majesty, both with the word Lord and with the word God.
The Father's distinctive naming here is not opposed to the other persons of the Trinity, it does not separate them from deity, but in contrast to all creatures created by God, which the creation is attributed to all three persons collectively according to further parts of Scripture, and not solely and separately to the Father. The Father, as the first person in divinity and the origin of the other two, here signifies the Deity that includes all three; the naming of God in Scripture is sometimes attributed to the Father, per excellence, or exclusively, because he is the source of the deity of the other two persons, which they possess through their relationship with the Father, thus it can be said there is one God, the Father, yet the Son is also God, but he is not a different God, but with the Father and the Holy Spirit together they are one God, not without them, or excluding them from deity.
It is enough to point out that here Paul does not name the Father as the only God at the expense of (excluding) the Son, but excluding the pagan idols. Similarly, as he does not name the Son as Lord at the expense of (excluding) the Father, but excluding the pagan idols. Or would a Witness be willing to endorse the consequence of their stance and logic that the Father (or Yahweh) is not Lord?
The name of Jesus is also Yahweh, thus He alone is majestic [God], just as the Father is Yahweh, and as such, He alone is majestic [God]. The Father and the Son are not God at the expense of each other but at the expense of pagan idols. This is what the textual context itself says:
"For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords; yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)
Moreover, it is quite characteristic that the Jehovah's Witnesses' denomination elsewhere wants to relativize the deity of Jesus with the divinity of these "so-called" "many gods and many lords." Where does the Word say that Jesus is not part of the true God? According to Paul, the fullness of the deity lives in him bodily (Colossians 2:9).
Therefore, let the Arians etch into their minds that this passage is not written against the deity of Jesus, but against idols. And we have substantiated this with the textual context. For those who need further arguments to refute the Watchtower-Arian interpretation, we can recommend the following article:
-
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat inthe trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
-
-
aqwsed12345
From the fact that in a given, specific verse, the term "God" denotes one person (indicated the Father), it does not follow that the Godhead consists of only one divine person, as the Unitarians claim. The fact that the usual appropriate designation of the Son is "the Lord" does not mean that the Father is not Lord. We can refer to the Father and the Son as "the God and the Lord", but nothing follows that one or the other is less Lord or God than the other.
-
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat inthe trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
-
-
aqwsed12345
No one talks about three Gods. The fact that, along with the Bible, we refer to three different persons as God does not equate to the statement that there are three Gods. Because these persons are not three different Gods since their Godhood, their essence, is one and the same. The Trinity pertains only to the divine persons, not to the one divine essence; that is, there is only one God. What is one in God, we call the divine essence or nature; what is three in God, we call person or subject. Therefore, God is three persons in one essence, while Jesus Christ is a single (divine) person in two (divine and human) natures. The multiplicity of persons can in no way be contrasted with the unity of essence, although it is true that without revelation, we would have no idea that "personality" and "essence" do not always coincide. The fact that the two coincide in humans does not mean that the two concepts are the same thing. There would only be a conceptual contradiction if we were to say: one essence and yet three essences; one person and yet three persons. But: one essence and three persons is no more a contradiction than saying three men and one family, or a hundred soldiers and one company. We do not identify the three with the one, but the three divine persons with the one God. It is not possible to demonstrate a conceptual contradiction in this.
Deuteronomy 6:4 says, "Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one!" In the Bible, Yahweh is "one God" in the sense that there is no other: the only one. Therefore, the text does not claim that God, in terms of His being, is one person, but that there is only one God. How many persons exist is another question. Monotheism is the common confession of faith of Israel (Deut 4:39, 6:4, Isa 43:10) and the Trinitarian apostles (1Tim 2:5, James 2:19). The phrase "God is one" is a poor, literal translation of 'heis ho theos'. The meaning of the Greek elliptical sentence without a verb is this: there is one God - and not many, so this passage only contrasts with polytheism, not with the monotheistic doctrine of the Trinity. The masculine form of the Greek numeral (heis, mia, hen) refers to the singularity of a person; if the neuter 'hen' were used instead, it would imply some kind of unity or oneness.
The summary of the mystery of the Trinity: The one God is a Trinity, Deus unus Trinitas. Since it is impossible to affirm unity and trinity about the same subject without contradiction, the question arises: in God, what should be said to be one and what three. According to the teaching of the Fourth Lateran Council, in God, there are three persons or hypostases, and one essence, substance, or nature.
Therefore, in God, there is one essence, the totality of the divine being, what is sometimes called God's physical essence. The substance, which in theological language is often and in philosophy generally is what stands under (quod substat), as opposed to accidents: that which exists in itself and not in another as in an internal subject (ens existens in se et non in alio tamquam subiecto intrinsecae inhaesionis). However, in theological language and always in Trinitarian doctrine, it means the existing essence of a hypostasis. The nature, that is, the complete being from the perspective of activity; what is essentially static, dynamically considered as nature, the indirect principle of activities (principium quo agendi remotum).
In God, there are three: 1. The hypostasis (suppositum = the personal, independent being), that is, the complete, independent hypostasis, which not only exists by itself, as substance generally does, but also possesses its own, insofar as it is not attached to anything else as a physical or essential part (e.g., the arm to the human, the soul to the body). The complete hypostasis is characterized by its complete being in its kind and by its incommunicability. The complete, independent hypostasis forms a closed circle of being and activity; entirely unto itself, and in this sense, the possessor and subject of its activities (principium quod agendi): actions are of the suppositum. 2. Subsistence in the concrete sense is identical to the suppositum; in the abstract sense, it is the mode of being of the suppositum, or the complete, independent hypostasis. Thus, the suppositum subsists = the hypostasis exists independently. 3. The person is a rational hypostasis, that is, a being whose closed independence and personal existence consist in (at least potentially) holding itself through the power of its own consciousness and will: conscious and self-powered, having rights over itself (sui iuris). This is also articulated by Boethius's famous definition: persona est rationalis naturae individua substantia. Therefore, a person is an individual who, in terms of its mode of being, is hypostatic, and in terms of its being, is rational (actual consciousness is not a part of the concept of person!).
Although the content of these expressions was professed by the fathers from the beginning, insofar as they spoke of the one divine reality as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the expressions themselves were not initially fixed unambiguously and only gained their precisely outlined meaning after centuries of fluctuation. Thanks to the linguistic genius of Tertullian and his unmatched authority, the Latin usage settled sooner in this development.
Among the Greeks, there was never any discrepancy that what is one in God was called φύσις. But already οὺσία was taken by many in the spirit of Platonic philosophy to be identical with ὑπόστασις, and thus with Origen, they professed ἑτεροουσία about the Father and the Son; the Council of Antioch in 269 also read monarchianism into Paul of Samosata's ὁμοούσιος. The Latins hesitated for a long time to use hypostasis, which in a literal translation means substantia, because since Tertullian, the Latin Church had used substantia to indicate what is one in God. Even in 362, a Council in Alexandria had no objection to someone professing one hypostasis or three consubstantial hypostases about the Trinity. However, the Greeks long struggled with persona, because the corresponding Greek word πρόσωπον also means actor's mask, role, appearance, and in this sense, it was also misused by Sabellianism. Basil significantly contributed to making Greek Trinitarian terminology more precise. Since then, the Greeks' preferred formula is: μία οὺσία ἐν τρίσιν ὑποσπάσεσιν.
The believing mind transfers these expressions to the Trinity, just as it does other concepts, not analogically or metaphorically, but in their proper sense, and teaches: The one divine reality or nature, that is, Being from itself, subsists in three persons; that is, the one divine essence is the completely identical possession of three persons. We prove this from the sources of revelation. The relationship between the three persons and the divine reality is such that the divine reality and the three persons differ only in value, not in actual difference (virtualiter, non realiter); the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit differ from each other actually (realiter metaphysice), namely, in that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and/through the Son.
The persons of the Trinity are relative (relational) persons. This means: each of the three persons must only be thought of in relation to the other two; the Father is a person only by begetting the Son and breathing the Spirit; the Son is a person only by being begotten from the Father and breathing the Spirit; the Holy Spirit is a person only by being breathed forth from the Father and the Son. If one were to stop thinking at the Father or the Son, it would create the illusion as if a Trinitarian person could be considered in isolation; which would only be possible if one did not place the defining characteristic of Trinitarian personhood in the subsisting relation; and this, in turn, could only be conceptualized in the form of Sabellianism or Tritheism.
From this, it follows that the definition of the divine person must include, as an essential feature alongside the incommunicable complete autonomy, the being-for-others: the Trinitarian persons exist for each other. The personal reality of a created person does not signify isolation and shrinkage. Each human being is created by God to live in community, from community, and for community, and in this way, their being is essentially complemented; but primarily so that they may live for God, thereby ensuring the only worthy content of life for the person, the eternal truth. However, this openness for others is rooted in their finitude, and its realization, the community of persons, can at most extend to a community of feelings, thoughts, and interests; there is no way (within the order of nature) for two persons, however close they may be, to transfer their substance to one another. In the Trinity, the relativity of the persons means precisely this: The Father pours His entire substance into the eternal Word, the Father and the Son breathe their entire being into the Holy Spirit. The life community of the Trinity is so intimate that it surpasses all measure, and gives a hint of why the Church so often utters this prayer: "O beata Trinitas!" (Oh, blessed Trinity!), and what it means for the hope prefigured in sanctifying grace: eternal participation in the life community of the Trinity.
The perichoresis (mutual indwelling) of the Trinity: The persons of the Trinity fully permeate each other and are in each other. This is a doctrine of faith. The Council of Florence solemnly declares: "In God, all is one, where there is no opposition of relations (in Deo omnia sunt unum, ubi non obviat relationum oppositio). Because of this unity, the Father is entirely in the Son and entirely in the Holy Spirit, the Son is entirely in the Father and in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is entirely in the Father and entirely in the Son." This mutual full reality-community is called περιχώρησις by the Greek Church, which means mutual indwelling, interpenetration, circumincession: the persons mutually permeate each other, each with the full content of their reality passing into the other; in Latin, it is more often referred to as circuminsessio, being-contained-in-each-other, reality-in-each-other: the persons, with the full content of their reality, rest in each other.
-
73
Rekindled Light — The Narrative Structure of the Hexaemeron (Genesis 1:1–31)
by Mebaqqer2 ini used to comment here many years ago when i had an interest in biblical research in relation to jehovah’s witnesses.
these days my biblical research is little concerned with jehovah’s witnesses.
i feel my time is better spent researching the diachronistic development of the biblical text and ascertaining what the biblical writers and editors intended in the times in which they lived.. i have recently placed a summary diagram for a paper that i have written with original research entitled the narrative structure of the hexaemeron on academia.edu.
-
-
aqwsed12345
The world was created by God. The creation is the work of the triune God, who created the universe, the heavens and the earth, the visible and invisible things, and also mankind. The fact that God is the Creator of the world (meaning everything that exists: people, animals, plants, planets, star systems, molecules, electrons, waves, space, time, natural and mathematical laws) means that the world owes its existence directly to God.
Divine creation cannot be compared to human creation, as there is an infinite qualitative difference between the two. A creature can only shape or use the already existing matter, but it is never capable of creating matter itself out of nothing. According to Suarez, following in the footsteps of Thomas Aquinas, it must be declared that "a creature cannot even be made an instrument of creation" (Suarez. Disp. Metaph. 20. 2,11).
In summary: God is uniquely the source of creation because God does not collaborate in the act of creation with any tools, companions, or materials. God's creative activity is exclusive. The way God brings things into being, no one and nothing else can. God's capability to create is an incommunicable attribute to the creature. To be able to create, to call being out of non-being, one must be God.
God created the world out of nothing. The world is purely the product of divine will, meaning there is no material for creation (nulla datur). Thus, there is no eternally existing matter independent of God, and it is therefore asserted that God not only shaped the pre-existing primordial matter (second creation) but also created the matter itself. According to this, creation is: creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo).
The creation from "absolute nothingness" (nihil negativum) is testified not only by Scripture (lumen revelationis) but also by natural human reason, philosophy (lumen naturae). If God were not the creator of matter, then matter would be as eternal as God. This dualistic notion ultimately leads to atheism. Because if God were not the creator of matter, then He would not be Lord over it. If God were not the absolute ruler of everything, meaning if there were anything that could exist without owing its existence to God and beyond His jurisdiction, then God would not be omnipotent. If God were not omnipotent, then He would not be God. In other words, if God had not created the world out of nothing, then God would not exist, which is inconceivable in light of the known order and purposefulness in the world.
How did God create the world? God simply willed it, and the world came into being. God created the world with a single act of will. In other words, God created the visible and invisible things through His word. However, this word should not be understood in an anthropomorphic sense, but rather in a sense similar to the Greek Logos (word, reason, knowledge, will). Thus, the world is purely the product of divine will. Creation occurred in two stages:
- Direct or first creation (creatio inmediata seu prima): God created matter, the natural forces governing matter, the personal spiritual beings, and consequently, space and time as well. Without matter, there is no space, and without space, there is no time (however, the proof of this belongs to the realm of philosophy). This creation happened outside of time, and at this time, God created from "absolute nothingness" (nihil negativum, the denial of all existence).
- Indirect or second creation (creatio mediata seu secunda): This refers to God's wise activity when He further transformed the world through its elements. This creation occurred in time, and God used the relative nothingness (nihil privatum), the so-called primordial chaos (tohu wa-bohu), as its material.
According to Scripture, the world was created by the command of God: "He spoke, and they were created; He commanded, and they were created" (Psalm 148:5). "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light" (Gen 1:3).
The testimony of Scripture on the primary creation from nothing: "Consider the heavens above, and the earth below and everything on it. Reflect that God made them from nothing, and mankind came to be in the same way" (2 Macc 7:28).
BUT:
The testimony of the Bible on the second creation: "Your almighty hand, which formed the world out of formless matter..." (Wisdom 11:18). - This indicates that there was also a first creation, which occurred from nothing.
The cause of creation of the world is God's goodness, and its purpose is the communication of the supreme good. The cause of creation is solely God's infinite goodness (bonitas Dei sola), whereby God wished to communicate Himself, the supreme good, to others (sese et summum bonum communicare voluit).
God is omnipotent, which means that nothing forces God; thus, He created the world freely. Accordingly, He could have chosen not to create anything, as He is the happiest in and of Himself, and does not depend on any of His creations. So, why did He create the world? To this question, we cannot get more than Augustine's response due to the unconditional and absolute nature of the divine will: "If someone asks: why did God create heaven and earth? He must be answered: because He willed it. And if they press further: why did He will it? Then they seek something greater than the will of God; but they will not find anything greater. Let human audacity restrain itself, and not seek what does not exist" (August. Gen. C. Manich. I. 2,4). Thomas Aquinas does not speculate but asserts: "In no way does the will of God have a cause - God's will has no other reason" (Thom. Aquin. STh. I. 19,5).
The result of creation is both the visible and the invisible world. According to Thomas Aquinas, the specific result of creation is the existence of things (Thom. Aq. S.Th. I. 45,6). Interpreting revelation through this, we profess that the result of creation is both the visible and the invisible world (creatura visibilis et invisibilis) as a whole, which is divided into two parts (heaven and earth):
- Earth (terra): every visible or perceptible reality with senses or instruments, and the natural sky itself (caelum physicum).
- Heaven (caelum): the "kingdom of heaven" of angels and saints (caelum angelorum et beatorum), the heavenly realm of God (caelum Dei maiestaticum), distinguished from God's eternal and infinite glory and majesty (aeterna et infinita Dei gloria et maiestas), with which He inherently and eternally possesses, and will forever possess, being omnipresent and supreme over all, with an omnipotent eternal divine dominion over everything (omnipraesens ac aeternum divinum omnipotens dominium super omnia).
When and how long did it take for God to create the world? Regarding the time of creation, it can be stated with certainty that God created the world with an eternal act of creation that began in time. The "first creation," meaning the creation of matter, time, space, natural and mathematical laws, did not occur in time. It could not have happened in time since time presupposes space, and space presupposes matter. Therefore, it makes no sense to ask "when" in relation to the first creation. Based on the opinions of the Church Fathers and philosophical arguments, it is most probable that the first creation occurred instantaneously.
As for the time of the second creation, by which we mean God transforming the primordial chaos into an ordered world, besides the fact that it occurred in time, there is no consensus. The Church has not yet decided with all its authority, and it might not, because this question lies on the boundary of theology and natural science, and there is a great risk of stepping out of bounds from both sides.
The indirect creation is described in Scripture in the story of the six days of creation (hexaëmeron). Its interpretation is not fully clarified yet, and many free opinions exist within the Church, which, although not equally accepted, are neither condemned nor supported. One thing is certain, Scripture does not err and does not mislead, but attention must always be paid to the implied intention of the author and the literary genres. There cannot be any real discrepancy between the true (!) meaning of Scripture's only authentic place and the certain (!) results of natural science. Thomas Aquinas warns: "One must not compromise the truthfulness of Scripture, but also not expose it to the mockery of the unbelieving scholars with a wrong interpretation" (Thom. Aqin. STh. I. 68 1, c). With this in consideration, here are some concepts in order of their probability:
1. The most probable view is that the hexaëmeron should be interpreted literally, but this literality should not be understood in a primitive and exaggerated manner. The sacred text does not require it in every aspect, but only where the revealed truth and the nature of the text demand it. Nonetheless (within certain limits), it is free to follow other interpretations. The position of the Church Fathers on this point is not uniform and clear. Some explained the creation story in a literal sense, others followed an allegorical explanation, and these include not the least authoritative figures (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, Athanasius, and Gregory of Nyssa). They thought that either the second creation also occurred instantaneously, or we do not know how long it took. The biblical six days were then explained as a vision: According to this, the creation story is a faithful proof of the (supposed) primordial revelation (revelatio archaica) given to Adam, which, despite being passed down orally from generation to generation before the Mosaic recording, still retains traces of its original form. The six days are not the six days of creation but six days experienced, whose morning and evening marked the beginning and end of the revelation. According to this, God revealed the secret of creation to Adam (according to others, to Moses) over six (seven) nights, the essence of which is that the entire world originates from God. The succession of created things is not an actual but a logical sequence, in which each preceding work is always a prerequisite for the following one. Thomas Aquinas found this proposal clever and exceedingly suitable for defending the authority of the Bible. This hypothesis seems to be supported by the fact that the second creation story does not take the first into account (the order of creation changes: in the first, man is created last; in the second, first), which seems to indicate that the inspired author did not intend to provide a documentary account of the world's formation. He merely wanted to convey religious truths in the language of his time by incorporating into the Bible the popular legends that preserved variations of the primordial revelation. However, God guided the author in the selection of stories, thus it is entirely a product of divine revelation, and as such, cannot be subject to criticism (Cf. Pius XII: Humani generis; Mediator Dei). Since Adam also saw the creation of Eve in a dream (tardema), it is not unfounded to propose that the entire visible creation was also shown to him in a vision, especially since God typically communicated revelations through dreams and visions thereafter. The theory gains particular authority because it was developed well before the evolutionary theory, and it is not shadowed by the suspicion of conducting defensive battles to preserve the authority of Scripture, presenting what is essentially a forced reduction of the content of revealed truth as reconciliation. The theological qualification of the theory: probable opinion (sententia probabilis): a view supported by more serious internal reasons; or common opinion (sententia communis): a free opinion generally professed by theologians as a revealed truth.
The Book of Genesis tells the events "from Adam's perspective." The six days are spent in six dreams, during which God communicated the creation of the world to Adam through visions (a mix of reality and symbols). We must start with the so-called "second" creation story. Adam's perspective. He wakes up, finds himself in the middle of a "Garden"... God brings animals before him in reality (not all of them!) and he names them - naming grants power over something. He observes the sexual dimorphism in higher animals, arousing in him the desire for completion, and then God casts a "deep sleep" (in Hebrew: tardema) upon him. Then, with six days spent, we loop back to the first creation story, where God symbolically narrates the creation of the world. It's practically like rewinding time in a movie for him. For example, the first day is when the earth was covered by a thick cloud of carbon dioxide, and hence he only saw light and darkness. That's why the "placement" of the Sun, the Moon, and the stars in the sky comes "later." Once the frame clears, he can see them. This is important even for the most primitive people. The stars provide location and time determination. From a "geocentric" perspective, God projects the images into Adam's heart in the dream. This was the true biblical explanation that avoids both 'creationist' and 'scientist' pitfalls.
2. The second hypothesis is committed to an absolute literal interpretation of the six days of creation. As natural science seems to shake this belief, deeply religious scientists have developed the tenets of so-called scientific creationism, which, with varying degrees of success, attempts to justify through a thorough examination of scientific results that the idea of six days of creation and the assumption of a relatively young world is scientifically irrefutable and can even be supported. There are several points on which this hypothesis can be debated, but many of their findings cannot be completely dismissed. However, care must be taken not to support our claims with weak arguments, as this would undermine the authority of the very Scripture we intend to defend. Thomas Aquinas emphasizes the principle: "When we wish to represent revealed truth scientifically, we must be cautious; if we support the truth of faith with weak rational reasons, the unbelievers will mock us, because they think we accept as true what the faith offers based on those weak arguments" (Thom. Aquin. Summa contra gentiles. I. 13. fin.). This theory also has its zealous followers, who, though with strong faith, naively do not see and do not want to see the problems. They not only take the creation story literally but also read more into it, mixing it with modern interpretative models, than it contains. The qualification of the theory: pious opinion (sententia pia): a teaching that is neither obligatory nor refutable from a theological perspective, yet is in harmony with ecclesiastical sentiment.
3. Other theologians see the six days as six major periods. However, this theory raises several issues. The Bible clearly mentions six 24-hour cycles. If we interpret the day symbolically from the six days, then why take the number six literally? It is not customary in Catholic exegesis to interpret one part of the same sentence symbolically and another literally. Besides, the six periods do not correspond to the sequence generally accepted by the natural sciences in terms of evolution or geological history (the Earth and light exist before the Sun). If it satisfies neither the proponents of evolution nor matches the traditional understanding, the efforts of the theory's proponents seem unnecessary. Moreover, Thomas Aquinas' caution about being careful is particularly relevant here. Nevertheless, the view remains popular and tolerable today. Theological classification: common opinion (sententia communis): a free opinion supported by several theologians.
4. Nowadays, many hold the controversial free opinion that the six days of Scripture have no historical message, and the Book of Genesis simply proclaims the truth using the Babylonian worldview: nothing exists eternally, nothing (neither the sun, the moon, nor the stars) is a god, only the one eternal and true God, from whom all other beings derive. According to this theory, the reason creation is divided into 6 + 1 days is because Scripture wants to establish the sanctification of the Sabbath and the seven-day cycle. However, this periodization explanation does not, in fact, justify the sanctification of the Sabbath, since, according to it, the scriptural basis relies on no fact, no historical truth. The main flaw of the theory is its circular reasoning: The Sabbath must be sanctified because it is written that God rested on the seventh day. But if God did not rest, especially not after six days, then why was it written? To sanctify the Jewish Sabbath? This would be a classic example of a logical fallacy. The theory is discredited by being essentially a revised version of the anti-Christian and atheist Friedrich Delitzsch's pan-Babylonian and mythic explanation, which was so thoroughly dismantled by Christian counter-criticism that it remained untenable in its original form, but due to some partial truths, it is still tolerated near the Catholic faith. Therefore, its classification is: tolerated opinion (sententia tolerata): in a matter of free inquiry, an opinion that many consider contrary to sound theological standpoint, yet it has not incurred the disapproval of the teaching authority.
The above four theories are not of equal theological value or likelihood. Their classification ranges from the common opinion to the tolerated opinion. Naturally, besides these, many other theories have been developed to interpret the creation story, but they are all related to one of the above four, thus it can be generally stated that "since no opinion obliges with the obedience of faith," anyone wishing to remain Catholic must choose from among these four theories, at least until there is a doctrinal church resolution.
Let's be more careful because this is a boundary area.
- Do not turn into dogma what is not (only the special creation of man is dogma). The requirement for literal interpretation is not synonymous with a primitive explanation.
- Do not unify our voice with those who reject the literal interpretation.
BUT! Following Thomas Aquinas and Pope Pius XII, the literal interpretation also allows many possibilities, even in this question. According to Thomas Aquinas, if real questions are posed concerning the authority of the Bible, then one cannot argue by appealing to the authority of the Bible (Summa contra gentilles). This leads to Protestant blind faith: "It is so, period. If you don't believe it, you're damned." This is not an argument externally. Moreover, if we press too hard, we suggest that we do not have a real answer and do not understand what we believe. Catholic faith seeks understanding ("fides quaerens intellectum").
Here is the issue of Noah and the dinosaurs, for example, what needs to be taken literally? What directly follows from the story:
- There was an unparalleled flood, preserved by many other folk myths (e.g., Gilgamesh).
- Humanity was wiped out.
- The catastrophe was God's punitive judgment on people, to indisputably enforce divine justice, proclaiming that His moral laws cannot be relativized.
- There was a huge ark, which carried many animals.
What does not necessarily follow from the text:
- The flood did not need to sweep across the entire earth, as it was sufficient to destroy only the inhabited area, which at the dawn of humanity was a very small area (this is true both on biblical and evolutionary grounds). Thus, for humanity, the world (as known to them) was destroyed.
- Consequently, it was not necessary to take every animal onto the ark, only those needed for a small family's sustenance and those important for the survival and rapid proliferation of these animals - through the intricate interconnections of the food chain.
- It is not necessary to believe that there was no rainbow before the flood, only that it was not made into a symbol of the covenant. In the sense that today's faithful humanity views the rainbow, it did not exist.
In summary: the dinosaurs did not necessarily have to be extinct due to the flood. There are several other explanations, but none of these belong to the field of theology. Theology is not a natural science. It does not deal with whether a scientific hypothesis is true or not, but with whether it is compatible with revelation or not.
Evolution is not exclusively Darwin's theory but also includes the scientifically proven work of the never excommunicated or indexed Brno Augustinian canon, Georg Mendel. According to Darwin, acquired characteristics are inherited; this contradicts reality. For example, someone becomes a weightlifter, trains, but their son is not necessarily, genetically determined to be one. Mendel developed the theory of genes, which the discovery of DNA confirmed. He established the basic laws of inheritance, which were further developed with higher mathematics (God wrote the book of nature in the language of mathematics) and experimentally verified. Evolution has two basic laws: a) Every offspring has a different set of genes from its parents (direct ancestors), even if only slightly. b) Each individual (including identical twins or dividing single-celled organisms) is affected by different environmental factors. If "mutation" and "selection" are real (and they are), and we add population genetics and species formation through the isolation of populations, there is no problem. From a Catholic perspective, only the leap in the order of being (from non-living to living, from living to human) is unacceptable, both philosophically, theologically, and not supported scientifically.
In my opinion, the Protestant type of creationism is heretical, according to a council decision from the 1200s. On one hand, it is dogma that God also works through secondary causes (natural laws), not constantly performing supernatural miracles. This is not accepted by creationist Protestant letter fanatics. On the other hand, the theory of "evolution" is not synonymous with "Darwinism," a nature-philosophical system burdened with flaws, used by agnostic, deist, atheist thinkers as a "scientific" argument, without distinguishing Darwin's actual scientific truths. It is heresy to claim that the animal or human soul is merely a state of matter with higher energy and lower entropy. This doctrine of reductionism (reducible from one to the other) was also condemned in the Middle Ages. That is, God's direct intervention ("miracle"), that is, Creation, is necessary for non-living to become living, living to become human. Darwinists do not accept this. However, there is such an excess of being, for example, between the living and the non-living, the human and the living, that has never been scientifically proven. For example, they could not provide the "formula of life," it is not possible to produce living from non-living in a purely immanent way. I adhere to the Biblical Commission's 1909 response on what must be taken literally from the first three chapters of the Book of Genesis, as well as to the notion that interpreting everything literally, just as interpreting everything metaphorically (denying historical reality), is heresy. The fact that "evolution" within a single order of being (the living world) is possible aligns with the idea that God allows the inner autonomy of Creation to unfold, using secondary causes. This Thomistic realist optimism represents this view, in contrast to the monoenergist perspectives of Islam, Judaism, and Protestantism.
It is not the six-day creation story that primarily contradicts the theory of evolution, as even the Church Fathers and Thomas Aquinas did not uniformly interpret it, and the vision theory (interpretation number 1) played a prominent role. The real problem is sin. If humans appeared on Earth billions of years after life itself (and in this context, it is irrelevant whether we accept the separate creation of humans and the "mulier ex primo homine" as a near-dogmatic belief), it means that struggle for existence, suffering, and especially death existed on Earth before the first couple's sin and did not "come into the world as a consequence of sin," as taught by Apostle Paul. Then, nature "does not groan and labor with us," but had its own troubles without us. Then, "death did not enter the world through one man," but God - horrifying to say - designed destruction into the world order.
But there is no problem with sin. To my knowledge, "kosmos" is not the word used in Paul's text here. That is, the entry of sin into the world is not a question of natural science. After all, we can only speak of sin in the case of creatures with moral free will. Death and decay are part of "chronos," not "kairos." God created this world as transient; the "paradisiacal state" refers to the relationship to humans, as Francis of Assisi also commanded the animals. God created humans in a supernatural state, and according to the Council of Trent, original sin primarily signifies the loss of this state. The consequence of this is death, but as a punitive, retributive form of death. Thus, the "death" - the passing of the material body - does not necessarily follow from sin, something the Church has never infallibly taught. According to the consensus of the Church Fathers, if humans had not sinned but were not created in a state of supernatural grace, they would still have had to die. However, this death would not have been accompanied by uncertainty and would likely have been similar to the deaths of Jesus and Mary, and if they had not lost original righteousness, they would have been transfigured without death, similar to the Transfiguration on Mount Tabor. Our foreparents did not fall out of heaven, the paradise. If someone refers to the "leopard and the kid" (a Jehovah's Witness's childish image of the paradisiacal state), they must take literally the forging of swords into ploughshares and the 1000-year earthly kingdom, but they cannot do so, as chiliasm has long been condemned as heresy. The relevant opinions of the old theologians and Church Fathers were purely philosophical speculations, without scientific support.
- Direct or first creation (creatio inmediata seu prima): God created matter, the natural forces governing matter, the personal spiritual beings, and consequently, space and time as well. Without matter, there is no space, and without space, there is no time (however, the proof of this belongs to the realm of philosophy). This creation happened outside of time, and at this time, God created from "absolute nothingness" (nihil negativum, the denial of all existence).
-
19
4-1-05 WT Galileo and Catholic Church: Lessons to be learned
by blondie ini won't go through the whole account of galileo; he believed what his eyes told him, not the church, and died under house arrest.. .
the wts has these comments:.
because galileo rejected an interpretation of scripture based on greek philosophy, he stood condemned!
-
-
aqwsed12345
Galileo's case requires meticulous investigation, but one thing must be noted. Legends circulate about Galileo being tortured and his bravery. The truth is that he was neither tortured nor was he brave. The trial primarily raised not a scientific issue but a canonical one. Namely, Galileo illegally obtained church approval for his book and mocked the Pope in several pamphlets, who, while not closed off to Galileo's ideas and heeding the scientific consensus of his time, cautioned Galileo. Independently, the Pope took special care of Galileo's welfare. The case eventually took on a scientific character, and the ecclesiastical judges led themselves into error. However, there's an excuse here too because although Galileo's main assertion, that the earth rotates, proved to be fundamentally true, his proofs did not hold up. (For example, he used the tides as evidence, which are known not to be caused by the Earth's rotation but by the Moon's orbit around the Earth.) However, this does not affect the issue of the Church's infallibility, as the Church did not claim infallibility in condemning Galileo. Indeed, there was an error on the part of the Church as well, but to reproach an institution that has been operational for nearly 400 years for a single mistake is to show a double standard. Galileo, having reconciled with the Church in his old age, died a free man. His daughters became nuns. It is not true that the Church condemned Galileo's discovery. It only opposed the way Galileo recklessly and unnecessarily proclaimed his discoveries in a manner that seemed to confront the Holy Scriptures.
Galileo's arguments about the earth's motion were indeed not convincing, and the true discoverer of the earth's rotation was not him but Copernicus. The notion that Galileo was "burned" or that he was kept in a cruel prison in Rome is as historically inaccurate as the claim that he defiantly said before his ecclesiastical judges, "And yet it moves!" These are all anti-church fabrications, tales of freethinkers. Galileo lived and died as a deeply believing Catholic, and his best friends were indeed priests and Jesuits. However, he undoubtedly erred in positioning his astronomical views as contrary to the Holy Scriptures. This was unnecessary, as the Earth's rotation around the Sun is only seemingly in contradiction with the Holy Scriptures. Copernicus did not do this, and therefore the Church never acted against him. The issue with Galileo was not an outdated physical view but the defense of the authority of the Holy Scriptures.
In reality, during Galileo's time, the heliocentric model was not only new but also scientifically unproven. Many of the era's greatest scientists denied it, such as Tycho Brahe. The committees that interrogated Galileo requested that he not proclaim this system as fact until it was scientifically verified (because until then, it seemed more accurate to adhere to the Earth-centered worldview suggested by the Bible and espoused by most scientists of the time). When he broke this promise and wrote again about the system developed by Copernicus as a fact, he was brought before an ecclesiastical court. Although several church scholars supported him (!), those who voted against him were in the majority. He was nominally sentenced to prison but in reality had to live in "house arrest" at his home, where he could continue his work. Galileo remained a believer throughout his life, and towards the end, his nun daughter was his main consolation. As for the "unscientificness" of the church of the time, the entire system that Galileo advocated was developed by a devout church man: Copernicus; and -- as mentioned -- Galileo's circle of friends included many scholarly priests who tried to support him, but the part of the committee that sought a verdict proved to be stronger.
Around 1610, Galileo began to advocate for the correctness of the heliocentric worldview, for which he was indeed reported to the Inquisition, since some leaders of the Catholic Church had previously taken a stance in favor of the geocentric worldview. The Inquisition acquitted him, but even if they had not, he would not have lost much, as the Inquisition did not engage in burning people, torturing them, or other nonsense. They merely examined whether the accused person was worthy of the Church's care. Those who overtly denied the Church's teachings could no longer go to church, were not buried in consecrated cemeteries, and their children were not baptized. For atheists, this probably was not such a big loss...
Throughout his life, Galileo continuously argued in favor of the heliocentric worldview, including engaging in debates with church scholars. Nobody wanted to burn him or excommunicate him for this. In fact, in 1632, with the approval of Pope Urban VIII and the Inquisitorial body, his book "Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo" (Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems), which contained a summary of the debates that had taken place over the previous decades, was published. There is no clearer proof that the Church had no issue with his teachings. There was another reason why he still had to stand trial before the Inquisition. In the book, he argued in favor of the heliocentric worldview in his own name, and for the Ptolemaic geocentric theory under the name of a fictional character named Simplicio (meaning "Simpleton"). This complied with Pope Urban VIII's request that the book should present scientific arguments of the time for and against both worldviews and that it should also include his own papal opinion as the official stance of the Church. However, as a kind of snub, Galileo put the Pope's words into the mouth of Simplicio, making a laughingstock of the Pope. Urban VIII took the joke lightly, but he did not support the scientist further, who thus became vulnerable to the church leaders who represented significant political power at the time.
However, the Inquisition did not even bring him to trial for this reason. Posterity has thoroughly confused the story of the proceedings, and revisionists have turned it to their advantage. Galileo was summoned to Rome years before the publication of his book because he openly disputed certain passages of the Bible, deeming certain parts of the Holy Scriptures as nonsensical. The subject of the trial was his assertion that the Bible tells an untruth in the Book of Joshua, where it says:
"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."
And in the Book of Psalms, where it states:
"Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously."
The above quote can also be translated as "the earth stands firm, it does not move." Later Bible translations interpreted and translated it in the form seen here, which shows that the quote is to be understood allegorically. However, Galileo interpreted it literally and, in the name of science, questioned the word of the Holy Bible. The situation was worsened by the fact that quite a few theologians also wanted to interpret the obviously symbolic lines literally. The trial dragged on for years and was still ongoing when the "Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo" was published. Galileo eventually lost the trial, not least because of the aforementioned insolence towards the Pope, who withdrew his approval for the book. Posterity is told that the Church "banned" Galileo's book, but this is not true; it simply was not printed, which practically meant it was rendered impossible, as at that time, book printing and distribution were almost entirely under the supervision of the Church. It is also not true that he was sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life, as the Inquisition did not have the power to order such a measure. There was no guard in front of Galileo's house; he was only threatened with the danger of excommunication if he left the building or received visitors. In his advanced age, the scientist lost his sight, and then it was permitted for him to receive guests. It was then that his last book written during his "captivity" reached the Netherlands, where it was printed. Those who have read the adventures of Till Eulenspiegel may know why it was there, of all places.
And although this is the first thing that comes to mind for everyone upon hearing Galileo's name, he never actually said "and yet it moves." This phrase was put into his mouth 124 years later by his first biographer, the also scholarly Vincenzo Viviani. It was 1761, a time when there was a great need for "enlightened" heroes who were persecuted in the "dark Middle Ages" for their progressive work... A few years later, the infamous Order of the Illuminati was formed, who from the start elevated Galileo as an icon, as a "victim of outdated religious dogmas," although he himself would have likely protested, being a deeply devout Roman Catholic.
-
52
Colossians 1:15-16 and the word "other"
by yogosans14 in"he is the image of the invisible god, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities.
all [other] things have been created through him and for him.
" (col. 1:15-17, for context.
-
-
aqwsed12345
*
What does Colossians 1:15 mean according to rabbinical sources?
*
*
"He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the Firstborn of all creation..." (Colossians 1:15)
The Watchtower Society refers to this Bible verse to support its doctrine that the Son is a "creature," as opposed to the universal Christian teaching that the Son is "begotten of the Father before all ages [...], begotten, not made". But is the Watchtower Society's interpretation correct? First of all, let's clarify that the Bible nowhere calls Christ created (ktistheis), a creature (ktisma), or the first creature (protoktisma or protoktisis). So, what does this statement mean in relation to the Son?
Christ being "the Firstborn of all creation" (Greek: prototokos pasēs ktiseōs) refers to His inheritance, as the term "firstborn" here traditionally in the Bible implies that Jesus is the distinguished heir of everything that has been created. The heir owns everything that belongs to the Father (though he may not have entered into his inheritance yet). It is said about this relationship: "You have put everything under his feet." Furthermore, everything that the Father created was created in him, through him, and for him. If there were something over which he would not have the same lordship as the Father, then that thing would likely have been excluded from these pronouns, and it would have been created by the Father without consideration of him.
Therefore, "the Firstborn of all creation" means that He is the distinguished, noble heir, hence the Lord, of all creation. Prototokos = firstborn: here it signifies superiority and the pre-existence of the heir, and not that he is the first-creation, as the Watchtower Society claims.
The usage of the term in the Old Testament is instructive. David is called the firstborn in Psalms 89:27, but not because he was literally Jesse's first child (since he was the youngest), but to denote the power of the kingdom of Israel with him, clearly not in a chronological sense, but as a title of dignity. Similarly, Jeremiah 31:9 refers to Ephraim as the firstborn, even though Manasseh was the first chronologically (Genesis 41:50-52). The nation of Israel was called by God "my firstborn son" (Exodus 4:22), clearly not in a chronological sense, since Isaac's firstborn was not Israel, but Esau. Furthermore, Israel was also Jehovah's firstborn, not counted among the nations (Numbers 23:9).
In Hebrews 1:6, the term "prototokos" is used as a title for Jesus. However, in the context, Jesus is portrayed as Almighty (1:3), the radiance of God's glory (and his image) (1:3), Creator (1:10), worthy of worship (1:6), and is called God by the Father (1:8). These characteristics can only apply to God.
Thus, the issue here is that Christ has the rights of "the Firstborn" over all creation, meaning that the Son is not a part of creation, but its Lord.
Let's see how the Watchtower Society argues:
"Does the Bible teach that all who are said to be part of the Trinity are eternal, none having a beginning?"
Yes, the Son had no temporal beginning, as the Father did not create Him, but the Scriptures consistently state that He was begotten (gennao) / born (tikto) by the Father before all ages (aións), and according to John 1:1a, He, the Word, was "in the beginning", not that He came into being, or was created in the beginning.
"Trinitarians say that “first-born” here means prime, most excellent, most distinguished; thus Christ would be understood to be, not part of creation, but the most distinguished in relation to those who were created."
The Watchtower too can recognize that "the Firstborn" in the biblical context is a title, meaning distinguished, honored heir. For example, the Watchtower publication Aid to Bible Understanding writes:
"David, who was the youngest son of Jesse, was called by Jehovah the 'first-born,' due to Jehovah’s elevation of David to the preeminent position in God’s chosen nation and his making a covenant with David for a dynasty of kings. (Ps. 89:27) In this position, David prophetically represented the Messiah.—Compare Psalm 2:2, 7 with 1 Samuel 10:1; Hebrews 1:5."
So they too can correctly recognize the biblical meaning of "firstborn", if their ideological bias is not in the way...
"If that is so, and if the Trinity doctrine is true, why are the Father and the holy spirit not also said to be the firstborn of all creation?"
This is an "argument from silence," why should all those titles be listed for each divine person? The Father does not need to be called the "firstborn of all creation" (let alone "from among") because He was not born. The Holy Spirit was not born but proceeded. But it was Jesus who came into the world of creation as an heir (Hebrews 1:2), not the Father and not the Holy Spirit. Incidentally, Jewish rabbinic writers called Yahweh as "Bekoroh Shel Olam" (בכורו של עולם), which essentially means the same thing that Paul used here: the Firstborn of the world. In a Jewish context, then, this title proves His deity, not His creatureliness.
This, if we really want to remove the possessive (genitive) construction, can also be translated as: "firstborn over all creation." The Watchtower arbitrarily clarifies this ambiguity. Their interpration would only be acceptable if the text was prototokos ek tōn ktismatōn; this structure only has a linguistic basis in verse 18 (ek = from, among), where Paul says Jesus is "the firstborn from among the dead" (prototokos ek tōn nekrōn).
"“The firstborn of Israel” is one of the sons of Israel; “the firstborn of Pharaoh” is one of Pharaoh’s family; “the firstborn of beast” are themselves animals."
However, Israel's firstborn was born from an Israelite, Pharaoh's firstborn was born from Pharaoh, the firstborn of beast was born from an animal, and that's exactly why they actually belong to that group. The Son, however, was obviously not born "from all creation" or any specific creature, but from the Father (Hebrews 1:5), and thus the so-called partitive genitive is not self-evident here. It would need at least an "ek" (prototokos ek pasēs ktiseōs), or at least the word order would need to be reversed (pasēs ktiseōs prototokos).
"Does Colossians 1:16, 17 (RS) exclude Jesus from having been created, when it says “in him all things were created . . . all things were created through him and for him”?"
Yes, and this is corroborated when read in conjunction with John 1:3 (where they forgot to insert their favorite "other" term in the NWT), indicating that the Son does not belong to the category of created, the thins that "became", or "came into being".. The possessive/genitive case does not necessarily mean that the πρωτότοκος (firstborn) is part of the κτίσις (creation), and if the words themselves do not demand this meaning, then the context directly excludes it. The πρωτότοκος (firstborn) does not fall within the πᾶσα κτίσις (all creation); because the expression used is not τὰ ἄλλα (the others) or τὰ λοιπά (the rest), but τὰ πάντα ἐκτίσθη (all things were created), which are absolute and comprehensive, leaving no room for exceptions.
Scripture declares of the Son that He created everything, and without Him, nothing was made that has been made (Jn 1:3, Col 1:15-17). The idea that a lesser god outside Jehovah also participated in creation is refuted by Isaiah 44:24; Malachi 2:10; Job 9:2,8. The Father did not create alone, but the Son (Jn 1:1-4, Col 1:16, Heb 1:2) and the Holy Spirit (Gen 1:2, Job 33:4, Ps 104:30) also took part in creation, and creation is exclusively a divine capability; even a creature cannot be made an instrument of creation. God is uniquely the source of creation because He does not collaborate with any tool, partner, or material in the act of creation. God's creative activity is exclusive. The way God brings things into existence, no one and nothing else can. God's ability to create is an incommunicable attribute to creatures. To be able to create, that is, to call existence out of non-existence, one must be God.
It logically follows from this that the Son cannot belong to the category of created, the things that came into being, thus cannot be the "first creature." In the Bible, there is only one Creator, God Himself (Gen 2:4-7, Acts 14:15), and God created everything with His own hands (Neh 9:6, Isa 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, Ps 95:5-6). Creation is solely and directly the act of God. However, it's also true that God is more than just the Father: He is also the Son, and when God created, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit created.
- https://www.forananswer.org/Colossians/Col1_15.htm
- Old Testament Background of the Firstborn: Robert Keay (on Col 1:15)
- The Structure and Rhetoric of Colossians 1:15-20: Luis C. Reyes
- The Latest JW Argument from Col 1:15 Ray Goldsmith
- Is Prototokos a 'Partitive Word?' Luis C. Reyes
According to the WTS, Jesus is just the first, directly created creature, God's 'masterpiece or junior partner', who created the "rest" of creation. The WTS, translating the phrase 'firstborn of all creation' faithfully, kept it as a possessive structure and refers to it in other publications, suggesting that this text of Scripture asserts Christ's status as a "creature".
Based on the context of the text, we see that Paul isn't discussing the timing of Christ's birth, but his identity (image of God), role (creation), and rank (heir).
The translation of "firstborn of all creation" depends on the meaning of 'ktisis' (creation) and 'pas' (all, whole), as well as the interpretation of the possessive structure (whose is it?). Regarding the translation of "firstborn of all creation", the 'ktisis' here is a richly meaningful word: establishment, foundation, institution (1Pt 2:13), the creation of the world as a process, although looking back it is a completed act (Rom 1:20, 2Pt 3:4), or the created world and its things, the creatures (Rom 8:39). The verb 'ktizo' (to create) appears twice in verse 16, usually translated as "was created". Its first occurrence (ektisthe) refers to creation as a one-time event, and the second form (ektistai) also refers to the created world as a permanent, existing one. It's not about the firstborn of "all the creatures" (ktismata), but the firstborn of creation, i.e., the thole created world (ktisis).
The meaning of 'pas' is "all" or "every single one", depending on what it refers to. Since it is about the created world here and not individual creatures, the meaning of "all" is evident.
The basic meaning of 'prototokos' is the firstborn, first born; the Bible often uses it in a biological sense, less often in the sense of priority, superiority in rank. In our case, the choice may be influenced by the fact that everything in heaven and on earth was created by Christ (verse 16, cf. Jn 1:3), which excludes the possibility that he himself could be classified into the "creatures" category. Thus, Christ "has the rights of the firstborn over all creation". This possible use of the word is confirmed by the whole Bible. When God gives firstborn status to David, he talks about his rank among kings (Ps 89:28 LXX), since he was the last son in his family. Jacob considered the firstborn status a purchasable legal position (Gen 25:31 LXX, Heb 12:16). God calls Israel his firstborn because of its privileges (Ex 4:22 LXX; according to Jer 31:9 LXX, however, Ephraim).
The WTS among its objections claims that the Bible uses the expression in a biological sense, e.g. Pharaoh's firstborn or the firstborn of animals (as we saw: it also uses it in another sense). It also asks why, if firstborn status means rank, the Bible only uses it for the Son, and not for the Father and the Holy Spirit? The answer is simple: the Son is the one who became human, and with whom this concept can be associated at all, based on its basic meaning.
Therefore, the interpretation of 'prōtotokos pasēs ktiseōs' primarily depends on how we understand the possessive structure. From a purely logical point of view, several cases are possible (1) Jesus is the firstborn of the entire created world, i.e., he is the firstborn in all creation, therefore he is a "product" of the created world, but the Society would also deny this, (2) Jesus is the firstborn of the entire creation process, the first product, as the Society understands it, so he is someone born before all creatures (3) Jesus is the firstborn over all creation.
Paul cannot claim of Christ that he lists Christ among the creations (the created world) created by creation, since he claims that he created everything (see following verses and Jn 1:3). It is not about creatures (ktismata), but about creation (ktisis). He does not claim that Christ is the "firstborn of the Creator (ho ktistes)" (which would be prototokhos tou ktistou), but that he is the firstborn of all/whole creation (he ktisis). For this reason alone, the analogy drawn with the parental relationship is also unthinkable (e.g. "like Pharaoh's firstborn," etc.) is incorrect.
As for the repeated insertion of "other," it does not follow from the textual context. The textual context can also assist in the correct translation of the phrase "the firstborn of all creation". This is about the Heir who was before all, is above all, precedes everyone in everything (1:17-18), and in whom is the inheritance of the believers. The text talks about, and only about, that he created everything, so we can exclude the interpretation that he could be the firstborn, the first product of the universe he created.
According to verse 16, the world was created "in him" (en autó), or "with him" (di' autou), and thirdly "for him" (eis auton), or according to interpretive translations: "for his sake", "flowing into him" was created. Some translations interpret "eis auton" as "for him" everything was created, i.e., that it should be his; since 'eis' expresses some kind of intentionality, Jesus could also be the goal of the created world in the sense that man in the world should have been like him.
The Bible never calls Christ a creature (ktistheis), a creature (ktisma) or the first creature (protoktisma or protoktisis). The Bible claims that he created everything, without him nothing came into being that has become (Jn 1:3, Col 1:15-17). From all this it logically follows that he cannot belong to the created, the things that have become, so he cannot be the "first creature" either.
In the Bible, there is only one Creator, God Himself (Genesis 2:4-7, Acts 14:15), and God created everything with His own hands (Neh 9:6, Isa 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, Ps 95:5-6) and by His word (Ps 33:6, Jn 1:3). Creation is thus solely and directly God's work. A "first created" being, an assistant, did not participate in it, not even indirectly. Based on all this, the Society's interpretation that Christ would be the first product of the creation process, who then created everything else, is excluded.
The interpretation "the firstborn in all creation" is not acceptable. Even in this train of thought, in verse 23, we find a text that can be translated as: 'en pasé ktisei' = "in all creation [under heaven]". If Paul had thought the same in verse 15, he would surely have formulated it just as clearly (en ktisei) there.
The "firstborn among all creation" could only be acceptable if the text was 'prototokos ek ton ktismaton'; this structure only has a linguistic basis in verse 18 (ek = from, out of, among), where Paul says that Jesus is the 'firstborn from the dead' (prototokos ek ton nekron).
-
49
What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?
by slimboyfat inthis is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.
if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.
the verse says:.
-
-
aqwsed12345
This is not heresy, as it does not establish any ontological inferiority or ontological subordination. Jesus Christ was also a real man; thus, he could have said and done all this as a man. Under the title of the Trinitarian procession (processio, ἐκπόρευσις), the Son is in a (conceptual) dependence on the Father, and this provides sufficient logical basis for the manner of speaking that the Son follows after and is "subordinate" to the Father in the economy; moreover, the Father, as the source of the Trinity, is αὐτόθεος, and therefore it is particularly appropriate to attribute the name "God" to Him in distinction from the other two persons. This should inform our understanding of Jn 17:3 and 1 Cor 8:5–6.
Not every expression that tastes of heresy immediately contains heresy. Namely, the so often mentioned subordinate expressions most often allow for a completely correct orthodox meaning: a) From the standpoint of origin, the Father is first, the Son is second, and the Holy Spirit is third. This sequence does not imply a rank, essence, and temporal sequence within the Trinity itself; however, in human perception tied to time and in expression, it takes on a form of subordination; one who is for any reason placed later in the order, our discursive thinking and valuation are inclined to also place lower in rank; yet, one who speaks thus does not necessarily wish to deny actual essential and rank equality, or indeed teach heretical subordination. b) In the series of visible missions, the Son appeared in a later phase of salvation history, the Holy Spirit even later; whereas the Father is the eternal sender, who Himself is not sent; thus, from this perspective, it can be said that the Father is invisible, while the Son has become visible; similarly for the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if the early Church Fathers, when reasoning about the mysteries of faith, do not yet distinguish precisely between sending and manifestation, property and appropriation (proprium et appropriatum), their teaching is not heretical.
Trinitarian appropriation (appropriationes) is the appropriation of some common divine excellence, i.e., property or act, to a particular person (Thom Verit. 7, 3.). This appropriation of common divine excellences, or Trinitarian appropriation, is allowed under two conditions: a) It must not attribute a common excellence to one person in such a way as to exclude the others; i.e., the appropriation must remain an appropriation and not take on the character of a property; otherwise, it would contradict the preceding proposition. b) It must be theologically grounded; that is, it must take into account the personal properties. Appropriation is only correct if it is related to the personal properties. In this interpretation, it is the universal conviction of theologians that appropriation is not only allowed but also very beneficial.
Each divine person of the Trinity is not only the possessor but also the representative of their personal properties; thus, if we attribute related excellences to them, we also make our knowledge about them more direct, vivid, and enriched; e.g., if we attribute inventive, faithful, holy love for humanity to the Holy Spirit. Indeed, "if we always spoke of the undivided Trinity in an undivided way, we would never know it as Trinity." (Leo M. Serm. Pentec. 2, 2.) The ultimate reason for this is the limitation of our mind, which can only get a somewhat colorful and sharp picture of the divine persons of the Trinity by making each a separate object of contemplation, beyond what the Trinitarian constituting opposing relations say. The logical basis for this is given, on the one hand, in that a certain common divine property or activity in our finite consideration is more closely related to one divine personal property than another, e.g., our adopted sonship with the sonship of the eternal Word; on the other hand, in the fact that, as a result of the Incarnation, at least about the Son of God, we assert excellences that are no longer mere appropriations.
In creation, and especially within the supernatural order, divine attributes and activities gain a very distinctive color, efficacy, and life when we bring them into direct and lively contact with a divine person. This is because, on one hand, the power and warmth of the respective Trinitarian person's personal attributes also radiate upon them. It says much more: The Spirit of God (the warming, vivifying, fertilizing Spirit) hovered over the waters, than if we simply read: God was over the waters. On the other hand, through appropriation, the natural or supernatural states of being also enter into mutual relations which mimic the Trinitarian relations, and reflect the rich fertility and harmony of the Trinitarian community of life onto creation. For instance, the relationship between freedom and authority, tradition and research, is seen in a completely new light once we associate it with the Word and the Spirit through appropriation.
Therefore, it's not surprising that Scripture also makes ample use of appropriations. For example, the angel attributes the Incarnation to the Holy Spirit (Lk 1:35); Saint Paul usually attributes the name "God" to the Father, and the name "Lord" to the Son (1 Cor 12:4; cf. Rom 11). The Apostles' Creed attributes the work of creation to the Father, redemption to the Son, and sanctification to the Holy Spirit, thus integrating the pivotal facts of salvation history into the golden chain of the Trinity. The Church Fathers also widely use appropriations, and the great medieval theologians develop their system (L. Bonav. Breviloqu. 1, 6; Thom I 39, 7 8; beautiful deep appropriations concerning the Holy Spirit in Gent. IV 21 22).
The main types of Trinitarian appropriations (according to Thomas Aquinas):
1. From the perspective of divine being: According to Augustine, in the Father we see eternity (for he is without origin), in the Son beauty (the radiant image of the Father), and in the Spirit enjoyment (the seal of the holy love of the Father and Son) (August. Trinit. VI 10, 11; cf. Hilar. Trinit. II 1.). Furthermore: "In the Father shines unity, in the Son equality, and in the Holy Spirit the harmony of unity and equality. With respect to the Father, there is unity in all things, due to the Son there is equality, and due to the Holy Spirit, connection." (August. Doctrina chr. I 5.) Here, the relation to personal properties is evident: We claim unity about the thing without relation to anything else, represented by the Father, who is the principle without origin; equality is most strikingly reflected in the Son, who is the image of the Father; the Holy Spirit, as the bond of love between Father and Son, is therefore particularly suitable to represent the harmony that connects opposites.
2. From the perspective of capabilities, we attribute power to the Father (He is the source of the Trinity), wisdom to the Son (the eternal Word, into which the Father speaks, utters His thought), and goodness to the Holy Spirit (the gift of love from the Father and Son). Related appropriation: the Father as God (self-existing); the Son as Lord (through whom all things were made); the Spirit as the Giver of Life and Comforter.
3. From the perspective of activity: According to Saint Paul, "For from him and through him and for him are all things." (Rom 11,36) Here, the origin of things is put into an appropriative relation with the Trinity. That is, the Father as the source of the Trinity is most suitable to represent the founding principle and cause. The Son, as the exhaustive expression of the Father's self-knowledge, is suitable to represent the exemplar causes; furthermore, as (according to the Greek Trinitarian understanding and formulas) the mediator who leads the divine substance to the Holy Spirit, in outward activity he is also considered as the mediator (through whom all things that were made, were made). The Holy Spirit, as the completer of the Trinitarian self-giving and the seal of the love of the Father and Son, is suitable to be the personal representative of the purpose of every natural and supernatural activity. From this follow also the following frequent and productive appropriations: the Father as creator, the Son as shaper, the Spirit as completer; in the supernatural order, the Father as creator and giver of grace, the Son as the redeemer of grace, the Holy Spirit as the principle of individual sanctification; in all divine activity, the Father initiates, the Son continues, and the Spirit completes; or the Father commands, the Son executes, and the Spirit completes. Therefore, the "Son is the arm of the Father, the Holy Spirit is His finger" (the hymn's "digitus paternae dexterae" is an extraordinarily tender and expressive phrase for the entire Trinity). In worship, all prayerful and sacrificial devotion is directed to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit.
In fact, God Himself is a mystery, since the finite mind cannot comprehend the infinite God. The fact that the trinity is a mystery does not mean that what is in Revelation cannot be understood by reason. The doctrine of the Trinity summarizes the biblical data: there is only one God, but at the same time there are three persons, who by nature are what only God can be, and who do things that only God can do. God is one God in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is not meaningless, it is just beyond reason, unprecedented in the created world: God does not resemble human ideas (cf. Acts 17:29). 1 Cor 14:33 does not speak about the being of God, but about the need for church order (i.e. he is the God of peace).
"Mystery of faith" (mysterium fidei) in the full sense of the word: every religious truth that the mind, with its sheer natural talents, cannot either determine or understand with its specific concepts. Thus, it contains two components: The mind on its own cannot determine its existence, and even if it has gained knowledge of its existence through revelation, it is subsequently unable to justify it with purely natural reasons; moreover, it cannot define its meaning with specific, but only with analogical concepts. In other words: A mystery of faith is such a religious truth for which the mind on its own cannot determine either that the predicate "must" be asserted about the subject, or that the predicate "can" be asserted about the subject; for example, the one God is three persons; Jesus Christ is truly present in the Eucharist under the appearances of bread and wine. If either of these two components is missing, that is, if the existence of a religious truth can be recognized by reason, but its manner is not comprehensible (for example, God created the world), or its existence cannot be determined by reason, but once we learned it from revelation, its content is already accessible to reason (for example, Christ appointed a head for His Church; there are seven sacraments), then we are not dealing with a mystery of faith in the full sense of the word, a primary mystery, but only with a secondary mystery of faith.
Those who define the mystery of faith as the incomprehensible, indomitable religious truth do not define it accurately. Because there is something incomprehensible, indomitable in every human knowledge; and that is why the deeper-thinking people of every age talk a lot about the depths and mysteries of existence, and praise the docta ignorantia (Nicholas of Cusa). However, this is something entirely different from the nature of the Catholic mystery. The world of nature hides secrets because our mind does not create its realities but faces them as givens and can only perceive them fragmentarily; the mystery of faith, on the other hand, cannot be measured by reason because it is from the higher, superhuman world of realities.
The Bible uses the word "mystery" in two different senses. Generally, it tends to refer to an event or phenomenon in which God and man meet each other, and God gives Himself as a gift to man (Eph 1:9; 3:9-11; 5:32; Col 1:26). The other meaning of the mystery in the Bible is concealment and incomprehensibility (Rom 11:25; cf. 11:33-34; 1Cor 15:51; Rev 17:7). In this regard, theologians categorize the mystery of the Trinity among the so-called absolute mysteries (mysteria absoluta).
The fact that the doctrine of the Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense is indicated by the Jesus himself when he says: "No one knows the Son except the Father; no one knows the Father except the Son, and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." (Mt 11,27.) John the Evangelist: "No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son (the only begotten God), who is in the bosom of the Father, has revealed him." (Jn 1,18) Paul the apostle: "No one knows the things of God, except the Spirit of God." (1 Cor 2:11; cf. 1 Tim 6:16.) Since the Church Fathers Irenaeus and Origen, it has been unequivocally taught that the Trinity surpasses the mind. When the Arians boldly wanted to lift the veil that covers the inner nature of the Deity, their main weapon against their heretical position was reference to the mystery of the Trinity (Iren. II 28, 6; Origen. Princip. IV 1; Athanas. Serap. I 20; Cyril. H. Cat. 4, 7; Basil. Ep. 38, 4; Nazianz. Or. 31, 8; Nyssen. Or. cat. 3; Cyril. Al. Trinit. 3; August. Trinit. IX 1.).
But what does this mean? It cannot be determined by the mere powers of the natural mind that the one divine reality is a trinity of persons.
It's not a posteriori: for the a posteriori proof of God starts from the created world and reaches the absolute being through the thread of causality. It is already a theologically established truth that God's trinity as such is not manifested in creation; for God's external activity is the common work of the three persons: Therefore, the mind does not have a foothold in creation to recognize the one God subsisting in three persons as the absolute being.
And it's not a priori either: we cannot deduce the Trinity from the nature of God known through reason; partly because we do not know the divine reality in a proportionate way, partly because experience does not provide any analogy for a triple relative subsistence of one substance.
But even if we have come into possession of this mystery through revelation, we can neither understand nor subsequently justify it. For even if the analogy of human spiritual life suggests that God's absolute life cannot lack the richness that feeds on the contrast of spiritual activities and life contents, and even if the mind faithfully following the traces of revelation can penetrate a good way into the cloud hiding the Divinity, its laborious thought processes invariably lose their way at three landmarks in the impenetrable fog sea of the mystery:
Initially, independently of the revelation, the mind cannot determine that there are only two categories of spiritual activities and capabilities, reason and will, and hence only two origins are possible in God.
Initially, without revelation, it cannot determine and prove to be necessary that divine life activities are productive; because it is very conceivable from the outset that the object and proportional expression of divine understanding and volition is the independent infinite absolute reality, without the difference of opposing subsistent aspects.
Independently of revelation, the mind can neither determine nor judge it possible that the one divine absolute reality can be the existential content of three subsistent aspects, which are only value-differently from it, but are really different from each other.
While the Trinity is a supra-rational truth, it is not irrational, but completely rational. For the Trinity is God's self-revelation. But God is absolute reason, therefore this revelation is the radiance and evidence of absolute reason. God cannot give anything other than what is his essence. True, the Trinity is a mystery in the strict sense of the word, and therefore the human mind cannot fully demonstrate the logic that this mystery contains. But for this very reason, irrationality cannot be demonstrated from it either. The mind on its own can determine that God is immeasurably superior; this unattainability is always maintained for our mind, whether it reaches for it for understanding or for refutation.
But the mind, illuminated by revelation, can demonstrate in a negative direction that the mystery of the Trinity does not contradict clear arguments, and in a positive direction it can catch a ray of the abundance of light bursting forth from it.
The doctrine of the Trinity could only be shown to be irrational if it contradicted any logical principle, namely the principle of identity and contradiction. But this is not the case. We do not say that the same subject is one and three, but we affirm that the divine reality is one, and the persons are three; or we call the substance one and we state the subsistence as relatively three.
Indeed, the content of the mystery of the Trinity (the triple relative subsistence of one absolute reality) contradicts experience, even the metaphysical findings derived from the material of experience. But its irrationality cannot be inferred from this. For every deeper thinking person has sensed that experience does not exhaust the categories and possibilities of existence, and that is why even within this world, the mind inferring from the present to the past, from the here to the far, is cautiously warned not to hastily infer from non-existence to impossibility. This is particularly true when the mind, leaving the ground of experience beneath itself, rises toward the regions of the absolute Being, where, according to the strict requirement of natural theology, every metaphysical concept must be re-evaluated with the triple method of God-knowledge. Therefore, it cannot be said that the relatively triple subsistence of the absolute Being is irrational; the less so, because reason also determines that God is above the sexes, therefore the Aristotelian categories cannot set a limit to his existential content and mode of existence.
The mind can first and foremost pour its content into systematically processed concepts and thus speak appropriately about it; it can determine which expressions and phrases correspond to the content of the mystery and which do not.
The general rule of speaking about the Trinity is: everything in God is one, where there is no contrast of relations; therefore, if the excellence of nature is the predicate, the subject can be nature or a person; if the predicate is personal excellence, the subject can only be a person. If we now consider that the concrete noun (and the male adjective in Indo-European languages) generally denotes the autonomous reality, the suppositum, hence the person in the doctrine of the Trinity, the abstract noun (and the neuter adjective) denotes the nature, it is generally not difficult to navigate and determine the correctness or incorrectness of a phrase or expression. Thus,
a) we can say that the Father, as well as the Son and the Holy Spirit, are eternal, omnipotent, etc., but we cannot speak of three eternal or omnipotent entities.
b) It is correct: the Son is someone else (alius) than the Father, but not: the Son is something else (aliud). It's correct: the one God is in three distinct persons (in tribus personis distinctis), not correct: the one God is divided into three persons (in tribus personis distinctus), as this endangers the unity of the essence.
c) We can say: God begets, God breathes; the Son is God from God; because the concrete noun signifies the suppositum; but we can't say: divinity begets, divinity is Father. However, often the established language usage decides. The speech of the believer cannot roam freely like that of the philosopher; "our speech must be according to a definite rule, lest the liberty of speech should generate an impious belief about the thing itself". (August. Civ. Dei X 23.) If anywhere, here, in the mystery of mysteries, Paul's warning is appropriate: "O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter". (1 Tim 6:20. How much the sealed language usage of the Church decides is a telling example: the Latin Deus triplex is incorrect, but the identical etymon, dreifaltig, threefold is orthodox.)
The believing mind may attempt, in the humble consciousness of its limitations, to illuminate some aspects of the mystery of the Trinity with analogies taken from natural or supernatural life. Of course, it must not forget that in these there will always be more difference than similarity; each one is only good for casting a faint, fading light on one aspect of the mystery. The Greek church fathers used more external analogies: the sun, its light, its ray; in a tree the root, trunk, flower; plant, flower, fragrance; source, stream, estuary; three torches that are ignited from each other (perhaps better: three torches whose flames merge). The newer catechesis and speculation also refer to other analogies: the three dimensions of space, the three moments of time (past, present, future); the three moments of processes: beginning, continuation, end; the three transcendent basic properties: one, true, good; the three basic categories of causality: real, formal and goal-cause (with the last two in relation to the three proofs of God the onto-, nomo-, teleological). The most fruitful analogy, however, is human spiritual life. The Greeks also stayed more on the surface here, as they associated the second divine person, the Word, with the spoken word, the Holy Spirit with the breath. The brilliant mind of Augustine reached the root of spiritual existence, and there he found the purest mirror image of the Trinitarian origins: "The Trinity gives a certain image of itself in the intellect and in the knowledge, which is the offspring of the intellect: the word it says about itself; thirdly, love; and these three are one substance. And the Begotten One is not less, for the intellect knows itself as much as its existence is; and love is not less, for it loves itself as much as it knows itself, and as much as it exists". (August. Trinit. IX 12, 18.)
If we consider any of the aspects that make up the mystery of the Trinity as given from the revelation, we can almost unravel the rest along its thread; a clear sign of how powerful logic prevails in all the relations of the Trinity. For example, if we take this truth as given: there are two fertile origins in God, we can deduce that these origins are immanent, eternal, and substantial, that their product can only be a person and there can only be three persons, two of whom generate the third as one principle.
Finally, the believing mind can reveal the philosophical, theological, and religious significance of the mystery of the Trinity.
-
49
What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?
by slimboyfat inthis is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.
if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.
the verse says:.
-
-
aqwsed12345
@Blotty
Both Justin Martyr and Tertullian held that the Son was begotten of the Father and is truly God, not that the Father created/made him and that he is an (arch)angel.
In John 8:28, Jesus refers to Himself not as "the Son", "the Word", or "the Son of God", but specifically with the title "the Son of Man", thus this statement pertains to His human nature. Jesus' human knowledge was limited and he learned new things, see Luke 2:52, Hebrews 5:7-9. Of course, in terms of His divine nature too, He naturally obtained all His knowledge from the Father, not through a temporal process - I suppose, I hope you do not imagine this in some anthropomorphic way.
According to JW theology, the Father is not inherently and actually omniscient either, just has an "ability" to "foreknow", which he exercises "selectively" according to his will. This view was actually adopted by Jehovah's Witnesses from the Socinians, who believed that God's omniscience was limited to what was a necessary truth in the future (what would definitely happen) and did not apply to what was a contingent truth (what might happen). They believed that, if God knew every possible future, human free will was impossible and as such rejected the "hard" view of omniscience. So based on this, even if the Son did not know something, it would not exclude him from being a real God based on your logic.
Here, Augustine parallels the statement "neither the Son, but the Father" with Genesis 22:12 ("Now I know that you fear God"). This article elaborates on the manner of Jesus' knowledge as follows:
13) Christ’s Knowledge: How much did Jesus know? If he was God, why was some of His knowledge limited?
The Jehovah's Witnesses contend that Jesus could not be God because of his limited knowledge for Jesus “learned obedience” (Should You Believe, Chapter 7), did not know the precise day and hour of the Last Day (ibid.), and was given a revelation by God (ibid.). Much of the Jehovah's Witnesses’ confusion here likewise stems from their inability to comprehend the hypostatic union of the God-man Jesus (i.e., it was the created human Jesus, who was not God, who learned obedience). Nor do they understand the nature of Jesus’ three-fold human knowledge.
Theologians are in general agreement that Jesus had a) the beatific, or intuitive, vision of God; b) infused knowledge, and c) acquired knowledge (Catholic Encyclopedia, 930).
A) Vision/Intuitive or Beatific Knowledge
With respect to His vision knowledge it is taught that “Christ in His humanity, i.e., in His human intellect, from the very first instant of the incarnation, had the immediate vision of God, (ibid., 930). “[T]he two, hypostatic union and vision, of necessity go together.”
Christ’s self-awareness as a Divine Person in His human nature includes the beatific, or immediate, vision of God.
Christ’s vision of God, it is common teaching, was not comprehensive with regard to its primary object, the divine essence; it was limited because it was human. Nor does it extend, as to its secondary objects, to all that the divine knowledge comprehends, but only to what pertains to the object of God’s vision knowledge…. not to the object of the knowledge of simple understanding …; and here it extends particularly, if not exclusively, to all that pertains to His mission and man’s salvation. (ibid.)
B) Infused Knowledge
Whereas “the vision is inexpressible in human concepts (Catholic Encyclopedia, 930) and is a knowledge that ‘Christ derived from His contact with the Father,” Christ’s infused knowledge is “expressible in human concepts and words” (ibid., 938). “The distinction may be explicit in Scripture (cf Jn 7.16; Mt 11.27). Infused knowledge is similar to angelic knowledge, “Because vision knowledge is incommunicable in human terms, and Christ’s mission entailed the communication to men of divine mysteries …” i.e., salvation, “ … a communicable knowledge of these mysteries was necessary” (ibid.). Infused knowledge was required because of Jesus’ mission.
Today theologians incline to explain the extension of Christ’s infused knowledge from the purpose and nature of His mission; this was a coming in lowliness, not in glory, and did not require the knowledge of all human learning … but only of all that pertains to men’s salvation …. This was necessary and sufficient for Christ to discharge His mission.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 938)
C) Acquired Knowledge
“The fact of Christ’s experiential, or acquired, knowledge is considered certain by theologians today,” and like all of us was “limited and restricted.” This knowledge “was perfect in keeping with the concrete circumstances of His time and place, age and mission, and His dealings with people for His redemptive and prophetic mission” (ibid.). Jesus “grew” in this knowledge (cf Luke 2.40, 52) through observation and experience and from other people (ibid.).
D) The Three Kinds of Human Knowledge were Distinct, but not Separate
“[The] three kinds of human knowledge in Christ, required by what Scripture and revelation say of the God-man, did not hinder or exclude but rather complemented one another. The three were required on different grounds and existed on different levels, while uniting in one human consciousness for the purpose of Christ’s mission” (ibid., 938, 939).
The three kinds of knowledge were the acts and possession of one human intellect and one human awareness; they were distinct, not separated. Their perfect harmony, however, remains mysterious; it is part of the very mystery of Christ.” (ibid., 939)
Some modernists place less emphasis on Christ’s vision knowledge believing that it could lead to interference and the exclusion of genuine human experience (Encyclopedia of Religion, 25).
14) Jesus’ ignorance of the Last Day - Christ knew the Last Day in His vision knowledge which is inexpressible in human concepts, not His infused knowledge. But did the Holy Spirit know the day and hour of the Last Day?
At Mark 13:32 Jesus stated “But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” “Son” in this context does not refer to the “God” of the God-man Jesus but the man and His human knowledge. St. Augustine offered a solution to the question of Christ’s limited knowledge that today is universally accepted, namely, that “Christ had no communicable knowledge of the Last Day because it did not pertain to His mission to reveal it.” “[One] could say that Christ knew the Last Day in His vision knowledge, not in His infused knowledge” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 939) (emphasis added).
Augustine said this in the context of the question about human infirmities taken on by Christ; his solution here too has prevailed: Christ took all of these infirmities, except ignorance, which is not only a consequence but also a principle of sin. (ibid.)
Roch A. Kereszty explains “The Word has known man and the fullness of human experience from all eternity through his divine knowledge. But in the process of the Incarnation, he empties himself of his divine “status,” renounces, it seems, the direct use of his divine consciousness and knowledge, and becomes aware of himself as man and learns as man gradually about God, himself, people and the world. He consummates his human experience in all these dimensions only in dying and rising to a new, definitive form of human existence (Fundamentals of Christology, 317).
There are also practical considerations regarding Christ’s limited knowledge of the Last Day. Not only was it not necessary in order to fulfill His mission, but mankind’s awareness of the exact day and hour has the propensity for unrepentant man, subject to death at any moment, to put off repentance and salvation until the last possible minute. This would countermand Christ’s command to be constantly vigilant (Matthew 25: 1-13).
The Jehovah's Witnesses contend further that even if, “as some suggest, the Son was limited by his human nature from knowing, the question remains, Why did the Holy Spirit not know?” (Reasoning, 409). The answer is that the Holy Spirit did know because He is one of the Hypostases or Persons of the Holy Trinity. Remember, usually “Father is not a title for the first person of the Trinity but a synonym for God” (Encyclopedia of Religion, 54). God is by nature triune and one of those Persons is the Holy Spirit. Therefore, when Jesus stated that only the Father knows exactly when the Last Day shall be, his reference to the Father, the triune God, by definition included the Person of the Holy Spirit.