Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Hypostatic Quaternity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Machinist View Post

    It's a serious pickle. But not really.
    That reads as two contradictory statements.

    Originally posted by Machinist View Post
    For some, things like this don't make them question anything. It has a significant impact on others.
    For my own part the questions that a perfect man/incarnate god raise are completely ludicrous.

    For example what died on the cross? A man? Or a god? How do those who adhere to this belief in a perfect man explain Luke 2.25?
    "It ain't necessarily so
    The things that you're liable
    To read in the Bible
    It ain't necessarily so
    ."

    Sportin' Life
    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      That reads as two contradictory statements.

      For my own part the questions that a perfect man/incarnate god raise are completely ludicrous.

      For example what died on the cross? A man? Or a god? How do those who adhere to this belief in a perfect man explain Luke 2.25?
      Both did. Hypostatically.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Machinist View Post

        Both did. Hypostatically.
        God died on the cross? Is that what you are contending?

        How can a god be killed?
        "It ain't necessarily so
        The things that you're liable
        To read in the Bible
        It ain't necessarily so
        ."

        Sportin' Life
        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

          God died on the cross? Is that what you are contending?

          How can a god be killed?
          The Flesh died on the cross, I think God went into Hell or something like that before He quickened Jesus' body with Life. I wouldn't think God ever died, just Jesus' body.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Machinist View Post

            The Flesh died on the cross,
            Yet Jesus body contained two natures.

            Originally posted by Machinist View Post
            I think God went into Hell or something like that before He quickened Jesus' body with Life. I wouldn't think God ever died, just Jesus' body.
            That suggests the apocryphal work the Gospel of Nicodemus with its exciting account of the descent into hell.
            "It ain't necessarily so
            The things that you're liable
            To read in the Bible
            It ain't necessarily so
            ."

            Sportin' Life
            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Machinist View Post
              I am attempting to reconcile it all, and I think I see something in the philosophical fog that looks like Jesus was and is the Incarnation of God, and all of this stuff is actually reconcilable and satisfyingly so.
              If your willing to risk being labeled a heretic by Western Christendom, you could follow the Oriental Orthodox Church in their dissent regarding the Council of Chalcedon. You could then go along with WLC's so called Neo-Apollinarianism.
              P1) If , then I win.

              P2)

              C) I win.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                Any analogy regarding the Trinity breaks down pretty quickly because of the absolute uniqueness of the Trinity.
                I think WLC's Cerberus analogy is the best when it comes to the Trinity (Reasonable Faith). I'm rather sceptical of the Trinity being either biblical or necessary for salvation. Logically speaking, Monarchianism is more simple imo.
                Last edited by Diogenes; 02-20-2021, 03:12 PM. Reason: Added Reasonable Faith link to analogy.
                P1) If , then I win.

                P2)

                C) I win.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                  I think WLC's Cerberus analogy is the best when it comes to the Trinity. I'm rather sceptical of the Trinity being either biblical or necessary for salvation. Logically speaking, Monarchianism is more simple imo.
                  Although it's not "in the Bible" as "the Trinity", I believe it is biblical. That said, I do not believe it's necessary for Salvation. I think there are a lot of things that are necessary to be a teacher or a preacher or an elder or a deacon or even a growing Christian.

                  I don't think one has to believe in the Trinity or even the Virgin Birth to be saved.

                  Now, I do NOT believe one can be saved DENYING the Trinity or the Virgin Birth.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Machinist View Post
                    ?
                    Why couldn't there be a hypostatic 4-ness?
                    In the Summa, it's limited to 3 merely due to that being the number of witness in 1 John 5:7, though the translation of that verse is in dispute. (Summa).
                    Last edited by Diogenes; 02-20-2021, 03:17 PM.
                    P1) If , then I win.

                    P2)

                    C) I win.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                      Then there was the status of his mother. By the fifth century the virgin Mary was increasingly becoming the object of personal devotion and this led to the question about her role as the mother of Jesus. Did she give birth to the Christ, to God, or to a man? This raised another thorny question, can God be birthed by a mortal woman? Certainly the mythology of the Hellenistic world showed that demi-gods and heroes could be. However, the God that is the Alpha and Omega was another matter.
                      I've always thought calling Mary the Theotokos odd as Christotokos is much more applicable. I've never been comfortable with Marian devotion.
                      P1) If , then I win.

                      P2)

                      C) I win.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                        Although it's not "in the Bible" as "the Trinity", I believe it is biblical. That said, I do not believe it's necessary for Salvation. I think there are a lot of things that are necessary to be a teacher or a preacher or an elder or a deacon or even a growing Christian.

                        I don't think one has to believe in the Trinity or even the Virgin Birth to be saved.

                        Now, I do NOT believe one can be saved DENYING the Trinity or the Virgin Birth.
                        At a certain point it does get reduced to, shall we say, the fundamentals. For that we can turn to, for instance what Paul and Sylas to their jailer in Philippi

                        Scripture Verse: Acts 16:31

                        And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

                        © Copyright Original Source


                        We can see this expressed again by Paul in his Epistle to the Romans

                        Scripture Verse: Romans 10:9-10

                        because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

                        © Copyright Original Source


                        Those appear to be the basic, essential, minimal requirements.

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          At a certain point it does get reduced to, shall we say, the fundamentals. For that we can turn to, for instance what Paul and Sylas to their jailer in Philippi

                          Scripture Verse: Acts 16:31

                          And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

                          © Copyright Original Source


                          We can see this expressed again by Paul in his Epistle to the Romans

                          Scripture Verse: Romans 10:9-10

                          because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

                          © Copyright Original Source


                          Those appear to be the basic, essential, minimal requirements.
                          EGGzackly.

                          I once was lost, but now am found
                          was blind, but now I see,
                          twas trusting Jesus as my Lord
                          not The-o-lo-gy.

                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                            EGGzackly.

                            I once was lost, but now am found
                            was blind, but now I see,
                            twas trusting Jesus as my Lord
                            not The-o-lo-gy.

                            Which yet again brings up something I've frequently noted, the sentiment expressed in the oft quoted maxim that is usually, although incorrectly, attributed to St. Augustine: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas ("In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, diversity [some times "liberty" or "charity"]").

                            While it does indeed appear to have been a view that Augustine held[1] it actually seems to originate with the Catholic Archbishop of Spalato, Croatia (on the eastern shore of the Adriatic Sea), Marco Antonio Dominis' De republica ecclesiastica in 1617[2]. Shortly thereafter the Lutheran theologian Rupertus Meldenius (a.k.a. Peter Meiderlin) said essentially the same thing.

                            The point being that there is plenty of room for differences of opinion on things that aren't a requisite to being a Christian, or salvific, although for the bedrock pillars of the faith there should be unity among Christians. For instance, whether or not angels sing or Adam had a bellybutton are just not something that is important.




                            1. As can be seen by the following remark by Thomas Aquinas in his brilliant unfinished masterpiece, Summa Theologica (1274):

                            "In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of the Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."

                            2. See A common quotation from "Augustine"?



                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                              Which yet again brings up something I've frequently noted, the sentiment expressed in the oft quoted maxim that is usually, although incorrectly, attributed to St. Augustine: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas ("In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, diversity [some times "liberty" or "charity"]").

                              While it does indeed appear to have been a view that Augustine held[1] it actually seems to originate with the Catholic Archbishop of Spalato, Croatia (on the eastern shore of the Adriatic Sea), Marco Antonio Dominis' De republica ecclesiastica in 1617[2]. Shortly thereafter the Lutheran theologian Rupertus Meldenius (a.k.a. Peter Meiderlin) said essentially the same thing.

                              The point being that there is plenty of room for differences of opinion on things that aren't a requisite to being a Christian, or salvific, although for the bedrock pillars of the faith there should be unity among Christians. For instance, whether or not angels sing or Adam had a bellybutton are just not something that is important.




                              1. As can be seen by the following remark by Thomas Aquinas in his brilliant unfinished masterpiece, Summa Theologica (1274):

                              "In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of the Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."

                              2. See A common quotation from "Augustine"?

                              I think I basically have three classifications....

                              A) to be saved, you need to know very little
                              2) to be a growing Christian, you actually need to be learning and trusting
                              c) to be a teacher/deacon/elder, there is a bigger list of things on which we must agree for you to be a teacher in our fellowship.

                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

                                I think I basically have three classifications....

                                A) to be saved, you need to know very little
                                2) to be a growing Christian, you actually need to be learning and trusting
                                c) to be a teacher/deacon/elder, there is a bigger list of things on which we must agree for you to be a teacher in our fellowship.

                                Which was why I noted that the core belief constituted the "basic, essential, minimal requirements"

                                I'm always still in trouble again

                                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                505 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X