Discussions of the Divine Nature.

[IfIonlyhadabrain]

It is a very edifying activity to both meditate on and contemplate the things of God. No great saint went without engaging in such activities. So, I thought it might be a good idea to start a thread that engaged in such questions as deal with the nature of God.

In the Old Testament, God reveals Himself as "I Am, who Am." (in some renditions, "I Am that I Am").

In the New Testament, Jesus says that "I Am the Way, the Truth and the Life." (which I like to rewrite as "I Am; the Way, the Truth and the Life).

In Genesis, we are learn that we were made in the Image and Likeness of God, and that all things have Likeness to God, but humans in particular (and Angels and Demons) bear God's Image. Any Catholic (I say Catholic because I can't speak for other Christian groups, though I have heard some say otherwise) theology course you might attend would teach you that what the Image of God refers to is intelligence, free will and the ability to love.
We believe in a Triune God, a Trinity, that there are three Persons in the Being of God.

A few correlations had occurred to me, and I'm sure have occurred to many people. First, that the Image of God is a tri-part Image, just as God is a Trinity. Second, that Jesus reveals Himself in a threefold way: Way, Truth, Life. It is my belief that these three identifications (Trinitarian Persons, Image of God, Jesus' revelation of Himself in the threefold manner) are all merely different ways of describing the nature of God, the Divine.

In the Old Testament, we see the moral laws summed up in the Decalogue, and that all laws fall under one of these ten. In the New Testament, Jesus reduces these laws even further to two, Love God with (essentially) your whole being, and love others as yourself, and that all of Ten Commandments fall under one of these two laws. I believe there is a similar kind of expansion/reduction made between the NT and OT in God's revelation of Himself, both as the I Am, who Am, and as the I Am the Way the Truth and the Life.

Often we describe ourselves in terms of things we do, things we have accompished, our personal appearance, our qualities and attributes, etc. We say things like "I am a good soccer player" or "I am tall." When God said "I Am, who Am" He used very specific wording in identifying Himself. First, and what is usually noticed foremostly is the use of the word "Am" in the second part of the phrase. God identifies His being as being. His essential nature is existence, to exist, to be. Not merely "to be this" or "to be that" which is how we describe ourselves (and we do this because we are instrinsically finite, thus our definitions of ourselves are finite), but as being, fully and completely. God is neither this nor that, He is all. The use of the word "am" rather than "is" indicates that His being is inclusive of all aspects and qualities. For, when one says "I am..." it is usually followed by some aspect or quality which is part of the being of that person. In describing Himself this way, He indicates that His nature is the fullness of being, as no quality or aspect follows "am," suggesting that all do.

The second part of His self-description is the word "who." By using this term, God indicates His essential nature as that of Personhood. God is not a collection of principles. God is not an attribute or quality. God is not an action, or a collection of actions, or the finality of actions. God, moreover, does not have personhood. God is personhood.

There is also a third aspect to this self-description which has just occurred to me. This is that God is in unceasing activity, which is unchanging, and eternally present. This goes back to the use of the term "am." God does not describe Himself in terms of time, such as "will be" or "was." He says "I Am, who Am." Now, always as is. Not changing, but not motionless. This presents a sort of canundrum, as we understand that change and motion are two sides of the same coin. For, what is in motion is changing (whether it be change of quality, or place, or whatever). It seems that if something is unchanging, then it must also be motionless. However, the canundrum can be solved if one shifts to the opposite end of the spectrum. We already know that God is infinite, the fullness of being. If our being implies change, living from one moment to the next, and the fullness of being is infinite, then fullness of being implies infinite change, or infinite motion. When speaking in such terms, we mean speed. The motion of God, then, is inifinitely fast, thus God's being is simultaneous in every aspect. This is how we can refer to Him as being eternally present. For, all things occur at once to Him. This is also how He can be unchanging, yet active.

Yet, there is an aspect to God's self-identification that is often taken for granted, and is, in fact, the most basic reality to the Nature of God that can be understood from the phrase "I Am, who Am." It comes from the very first word "I." The implication of this term is this: that God is self-aware, and this implies intelligence. You may be saying "of course... isn't that obvious?" Yes, it is, that is the point. It is so taken for granted that we don't even think about it. The very first word is "I." The very first implication that is ever made about this statement is that God is an intelligent being.

I Am who Am.

I - The first thing that is revealed is that God is intelligent.
Am - The second thing that is revealed is that God has being, existence which is tangible and which can be described. God is actual.
Who - The third thing that is revealed is that God is a Person.
Am - The fourth thing that is revealed is that God is the fullness of being. God is fully active/actual.

The Jesus speaks in the New Testament and says "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." As I see it, this is an expansion of the revelation of the nature of God. The first two parts are the same, but what follows is a deeper qualification of God as a Person and as the fullness of being. What you will find is that "who Am" is a definition of "I Am" (when speaking about God anyway).

Who Am - The Way, the Truth and the Life. Jesus was revealing that the Personal Nature of God is actually Triune. However, is it deeper than this. The Personal Nature of God is exactly identical to God's Essential Nature.

Consider this thought experiment. If we are made in the Image of God, and the Image of God is Intelligence, Free Will and Love, and that the Image of God is identical to the Personal Nature of God (The Way, the Truth and the Life), then we can make a positive correlation between intelligence, free will and love, and way, truth and life.

This has been clear to me for quite some time. However, I was often confused because something didn't really make a lot of sense to me. It is this: the immediate correlation that comes to mind goes like this:

Way = Free Will
Truth = Intelligence
Life = Love.

And this seems correct, since I had always been taught that the Second Person proceeded from the First as the knowledge of God made real, and that the Third Person proceeded from the First and Second as the Love between the First and the Second made real.

There is no doubt in my mind that the third correlation (Love = Life) is correct, since in human life love is the unitive principle which fructifies into life. New life, being procuded from love, is the fulfillment of human nature.

Doubt, however, has come to mind about whether the first two correlations are correct. However, reversing the correlations didn't seem to made sense either. Yet, there was discord in my mind, especially after reading a talk from Pope Benedict XVI. In it, he said that the primary nature of God is intelligence, not will. He talked about God as Logos, the Word, which we know is the name of the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus, the Son. This also didn't make a lot of sense to me because, if Jesus is the Logos, and the primary nature of God is intellect, and the Second Person is the knowledge of the Father made real, then that places the Person of Jesus as primary before the Father, who is Will, because Jesus is intellect.

Needless to say, this was all very confusing, as any discussion about God can being. His inner nature is a mystery, and will always be difficult to comprehend. Yet, there seemed to be an answer to the riddle. God is an intellectual being, and it didn't make sense that His nature could be so confusing and seemingly contradicting when all that He produces is ordered, structured, and is based upon immutable principles.

So, after much thought, I believe I have discovered the answer. The Father is the primary Person of the Trinity, from whom proceeds the Son. The primary nature of God is intellect, from which proceeds freedom of will (for a thing can only be free in will if it is intelligent, and an intelligent thing can only be free in will). Thusly, we can only conclude that the primary nature of the Father is that He is an intellectual being (but also free in will, and loving), and that the primary nature of the Son is the be the Free Will of the Father (but also intelligent and loving).

You see, words are not intelligence itself, but the products of intelligence. Moreover, unlike the common understanding of our time, words are not merely sounds, or ink-blots on paper, words may also be found in actions, in simply being.

Also, you cannot divide free will from actions. If you do not act, then you are not excercising your will. If you do act, then you are excercising your will. This is what will is: the actualization of thought intended. We do nothing without first having it in our minds. This does not mean that we first think about what we do whenever we do it, but rather that our actions (even those which we don't think about doing) are the products of intellectual intention. Nothing you do arises from anything but who you are. We each of us decide how we wish to be. This is the meaning of habituation. If we wish to do something without having to think about it, then we do it enough times that our being automatically expressed that intention.

The Second Person of the Trinity is the Free Will of God, the intellectual intention of the Father made real, made actual. When Christ said "but not my will, but yours be done" He was speaking from Him human nature concerning His Divine nature. His nature, as the Second Person of the Trinity, is the be the intellectual intention of the Father made real, made actual. God the Father, then, is the intelligence which intends. The Son is that intention actualized. The Holy Spirit is the unitive principle of Love, which exists between the Father and the Son (that is, the intellectual intention of the Father, and the actualized reality of the Son in union) made real as the fulfillment of the being of God. The Holy Spirit is the Life of God (while also being intellectual and free of will).

Thus, the real correlation is this:

The Way (which is the guiding principle) = Intellect (which is the understanding principle)
The Truth (which is the actual reality) = Free Will (which is the actualization of thought)
The Life (which is the fulfillment of being, product of union) = Love (which is the unitive principle)

In "I Am, Who Am" all three of these ideas are present.

I - God is an intellectual being - The Way - Intellect
Am - God is an actual being - The Truth - Free Will
Who - God is a personal being - All three - The Trinity
Am - God is the fulness of being - The Life - Love

I hope this will spark some discussion, because I would like to further discuss this in terms of the Church.

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

bump as I would like to see some discussion about this awesome post as well

I'm not sure yet what I can add

 

[Knowledge3]

Concerning the correct Christology of Jesus, Jesus is God the Son having two natures in perfect union with the Word.

The Incarnation is His manifestation as God and his humanity came from Mary, His Mother. In His perfect nature, there is no separation.

 

[IfIonlyhadabrain]

Bump.

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

IfIOnlyHadaBrain,

Have you read any books on this topic?

 

[katealpha]

Well argued but I don't understand it.

 

[IfIonlyhadabrain]

Pro, to answer your question, no, not directly. I've certainly read many things, from books to internet aricles,etc, that relate to what I've talked about here, but noting directly. For example, I've read Aristotle's beliefs about the Unmoved Mover. I've read speeches the Pope has given, which touch on the subject of God's nature. I've read parts of Saints' visions, etc. and naturally, I'm familiar with the Bible. So yes I have read about this, but nothing which speaks about it so directly.

There was so much about this subject which I've had roiling about in my mind for so long, which are steadily becoming clearer. For example, when I was much younger, in my teens, I had been taught by my religious instructor that God creates through thought. It was the thought of God alone which produced all things. Moreover, if God at any time ever stopped thinking about us, or any one of us, we'd cease to exist. This starts to become clearer when we think about God in terms of being foremostly an intellectual being... that this is His primary nature.

This also seems to be supported in scientific theory. Theories such as String Theory, M-Theory, Quantum Physics, etc, indicate a few things. First, everything can be, and is, understood by relation, and in relation to other things. Second, the smallest bit of "matter-stuff" which composes everything in the universe seems to be nothing more than information. If this is true, then it seems to follow that since the universe is made up of information, and that this information relates set laws and principles, that the universe comes from a logical and structured mind. Since thought itself is nothing more than the relation of ideas, or information (which is acquired through the senses), then this goes further to support the idea that the universe is the product of an intelligent mind.

It seems so abundantly clear that God is foremostly an intelligent being (and maybe I just took if for granted before without actually realizing it) it seems surprising that I or anyone could have missed it. Particularly when the Bible uses many different methods of indicating this.

So the question might come to mind, "well this is interesting and all, but it really seems unimportant. We can never know God fully, what matters is that we trust in and believe in Him, right?" Well, this has also be something which has been on my mind for a little while. It was also sparked by something I read that Pope Benedict XVI said.

It seems to me that the moral decisions people make daily are based in their theological position on the primary nature of God, even if they don't realize that this is precisely what they are doing. As odd as it may sound, this applies to everyone, including athiests.

I have indicated that essence of God is Personhood. God is a Person, who is also three Persons. This might seem odd to say, since we're used to saying God is three persons in one being. But really, God is Three Persons in One Person. This must be true, because if each Person of the Trinity is fully God, and each Person of the Trinity is truly a Person, then this means that, as being fully God, God must therefore, as a single being, also be a single person (who is also three persons).

We are also persons. Or rather, we have personhood. We bear the Image of God, and the essence of God is personhood. Therefore, we are also persons. Personhood consists of these: Intelligence, Free Will, and (the capacity to) Love (and this may include all joyous emotions, which are not also animalistic, such as bliss).

Since God is Person, and we each of us were given personhood by God when He breathed life into us, it stands to reason that what we believe to be true of that personhood we must also believe of God. So, let us say that a man believes that truth is unimportant, what matters is how you live, then this man believes that Free Will is the primary part of personhood, and the other two are beneath it. He may even place intellect as tertiary, saying that if you live well and love well, then you will be happy.

Take another example: a woman believes that what matters most is your feelings. It doesn't matter how much you know, how much oyou learn, you'll never know it all, so why bother. You can't predict the future. Just let your feelings guide you. So, in this instance, Love (so to speak) is placed as primary, while Free Will is placed secondarily (since what matters is what you do while you're being guided by your feelings), and again Intellect is teritary.

Of course, then we could also say that a man believes truth is the most important thing, that knowing it, knowing the principles and laws which govern reality, your actions would be guided rightly, and in this you will gain happiness. This is the Catholic view, for knowing Truth is knowing God, who will guide your Way, and give you Life.

So the moral decisions that we make can be based upon any combination of these qualities of personhood. We can do immoral things when we know the truth, but are unwilling to act on it, placing our happiness as most important to us. We can do immoral things when we do what we want (just because we have a right to do it) despite better judgement and even with disregard to our own happiness, placing will as most important. Even if we do place the intellect as primary we can still sin because old habits and innate desires confuse it. Our old positions affect our current.

Reason is the handmaiden of Faith. I'm sure you're heard this before. This seems to conflict with this notion that knowledge and intellect should be our highest esteem, that truth should be held as most important. To know God is to know truth, to seek truth is to seek God. We are taught that the purpose of this life is to KNOW, love and serve God (in this order). If you do not know God, you cannot love Him. You cannot know God without seeking truth. So, what does it mean to say that reason is the handmaiden of Faith?

The answer is this, that Faith is utterly concerned with truth. Reason can be faulty and often leads to error. Faith is trusting that the truth has been revealed to us, and that God is guiding us in truth. Reason as the handmaiden of Faith is the principle that we do trust that truth has been revealed to us, that God is guiding us in truth, but that we must always seek to understand that truth which He so desperately wants us to know.

The Faith is the deposit of Truth. We are to have faith, but are not to abandon reason, for without reason, what good is the revelation of truth as given through faith? Blind faith is a false faith.

Herm.... now I think I'm rambling.

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

Pro, to answer your question, no, not directly. I've certainly read many things, from books to internet aricles,etc, that relate to what I've talked about here, but noting directly. For example, I've read Aristotle's beliefs about the Unmoved Mover. I've read speeches the Pope has given, which touch on the subject of God's nature. I've read parts of Saints' visions, etc. and naturally, I'm familiar with the Bible. So yes I have read about this, but nothing which speaks about it so directly.

There was so much about this subject which I've had roiling about in my mind for so long, which are steadily becoming clearer. For example, when I was much younger, in my teens, I had been taught by my religious instructor that God creates through thought. It was the thought of God alone which produced all things. Moreover, if God at any time ever stopped thinking about us, or any one of us, we'd cease to exist. This starts to become clearer when we think about God in terms of being foremostly an intellectual being... that this is His primary nature.

This also seems to be supported in scientific theory. Theories such as String Theory, M-Theory, Quantum Physics, etc, indicate a few things. First, everything can be, and is, understood by relation, and in relation to other things. Second, the smallest bit of "matter-stuff" which composes everything in the universe seems to be nothing more than information. If this is true, then it seems to follow that since the universe is made up of information, and that this information relates set laws and principles, that the universe comes from a logical and structured mind. Since thought itself is nothing more than the relation of ideas, or information (which is acquired through the senses), then this goes further to support the idea that the universe is the product of an intelligent mind.

It seems so abundantly clear that God is foremostly an intelligent being (and maybe I just took if for granted before without actually realizing it) it seems surprising that I or anyone could have missed it. Particularly when the Bible uses many different methods of indicating this.

So the question might come to mind, "well this is interesting and all, but it really seems unimportant. We can never know God fully, what matters is that we trust in and believe in Him, right?" Well, this has also be something which has been on my mind for a little while. It was also sparked by something I read that Pope Benedict XVI said.

It seems to me that the moral decisions people make daily are based in their theological position on the primary nature of God, even if they don't realize that this is precisely what they are doing. As odd as it may sound, this applies to everyone, including athiests.

I have indicated that essence of God is Personhood. God is a Person, who is also three Persons. This might seem odd to say, since we're used to saying God is three persons in one being. But really, God is Three Persons in One Person. This must be true, because if each Person of the Trinity is fully God, and each Person of the Trinity is truly a Person, then this means that, as being fully God, God must therefore, as a single being, also be a single person (who is also three persons).

We are also persons. Or rather, we have personhood. We bear the Image of God, and the essence of God is personhood. Therefore, we are also persons. Personhood consists of these: Intelligence, Free Will, and (the capacity to) Love (and this may include all joyous emotions, which are not also animalistic, such as bliss).

Since God is Person, and we each of us were given personhood by God when He breathed life into us, it stands to reason that what we believe to be true of that personhood we must also believe of God. So, let us say that a man believes that truth is unimportant, what matters is how you live, then this man believes that Free Will is the primary part of personhood, and the other two are beneath it. He may even place intellect as tertiary, saying that if you live well and love well, then you will be happy.

Take another example: a woman believes that what matters most is your feelings. It doesn't matter how much you know, how much oyou learn, you'll never know it all, so why bother. You can't predict the future. Just let your feelings guide you. So, in this instance, Love (so to speak) is placed as primary, while Free Will is placed secondarily (since what matters is what you do while you're being guided by your feelings), and again Intellect is teritary.

Of course, then we could also say that a man believes truth is the most important thing, that knowing it, knowing the principles and laws which govern reality, your actions would be guided rightly, and in this you will gain happiness. This is the Catholic view, for knowing Truth is knowing God, who will guide your Way, and give you Life.

So the moral decisions that we make can be based upon any combination of these qualities of personhood. We can do immoral things when we know the truth, but are unwilling to act on it, placing our happiness as most important to us. We can do immoral things when we do what we want (just because we have a right to do it) despite better judgement and even with disregard to our own happiness, placing will as most important. Even if we do place the intellect as primary we can still sin because old habits and innate desires confuse it. Our old positions affect our current.

Reason is the handmaiden of Faith. I'm sure you're heard this before. This seems to conflict with this notion that knowledge and intellect should be our highest esteem, that truth should be held as most important. To know God is to know truth, to seek truth is to seek God. We are taught that the purpose of this life is to KNOW, love and serve God (in this order). If you do not know God, you cannot love Him. You cannot know God without seeking truth. So, what does it mean to say that reason is the handmaiden of Faith?

The answer is this, that Faith is utterly concerned with truth. Reason can be faulty and often leads to error. Faith is trusting that the truth has been revealed to us, and that God is guiding us in truth. Reason as the handmaiden of Faith is the principle that we do trust that truth has been revealed to us, that God is guiding us in truth, but that we must always seek to understand that truth which He so desperately wants us to know.

The Faith is the deposit of Truth. We are to have faith, but are not to abandon reason, for without reason, what good is the revelation of truth as given through faith? Blind faith is a false faith.

Herm.... now I think I'm rambling.

Lol, I don't mind your rambling, I rather enjoy it.

I'm not sure if it would be correct to say that God is 3 persons in 1 person, but other than that I very much agree with what you say. I also think that much of the problems in the modern world is related to downgrading of the intellectual aspect of God and thus a relativization of Truth in our world.

I do believe that Pope Benedict XVI is on the right track in focusing on what Truth is and that a relativization of the Truth is something to be fought against.

For indeed how are we to love God, if we do not know Him.

Indeed reason is a handmaiden of faith.

 

[IfIonlyhadabrain]

Am I the only one who finds it odd that so few people here on a Catholic forum want to discuss this? Discuss God?

 

[isshinwhat]

I am reading Frank Sheed's Theology and Sanity again and was struck by this passage from Chapter 17. For those who have not read it, I cannot recommend it highly enough. I cannot make it through a single page without coming to a paragraph, saying to myself, "wow...," and re-reading it again. A truly wonderful gift. I pray that Frank Sheed is enjoying the company of the Angelic Doctor and the rest of the Doctors of the Church.

I pray for you, Mr. Sheed, may the Lord deign that you pray for me, too.

THIS doctrine of the one person and two natures of Christ Our Lord, which is simply the answer to the questions who and what He is, is so vital to the understanding of what He did, and indeed to the understanding of all that we ourselves are and do, that we must examine it in more detail. There is not the tiniest scintilla of truth in it which will not cast a great beam of light. The tendency to dismiss the vast mass of Christ's revelation upon it and the Church's meditation upon His revelation as mere theology can come only from a total unawareness of its meaning.

Notice that it was the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity who became man, not the First, nor the Third, nor all Three. For the redemption of the world why was the Second Person chosen? Some hint at the answer will be found in what we have already seen about the special relation of the Second Person to God's original plan of creation. God designed this creation according to the design of His intellect: and it is by way of intellect that the Son of God proceeds within the Blessed Trinity. God made this universe as a mirroring in the finite of His own perfection: but the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is that same mirroring in the infinite. As St. John tells us in the prologue to his Gospel, all things whatsoever that were made were made by the Word of God Who was with God and Who was God. Given this special linking of one Person within the Blessed Trinity to God's original plan for this universe, it seems fitting that, when owing to the sin of man there was damage to be repaired, the repairing should fall to the same Person, and that He who had established all things should, in St. Paul's phrase, re-establish them. Thus it was the Word who became Flesh and dwelt among us that we, believing in His name, might be made the sons of God: as He was. God the Son took to Himself a human nature, not merely wearing it as a disguise or taking it up as an instrument He might use, but making it His own as my nature is my own, making it His own so utterly that we can express the new relation only by saying that He, God the Son, became man. He did not take a human nature simply to be able to do the things that a man does, to act the part of a man, to pass for a man. Let us say it again. He became man. To the question what are you? He could answer with no mitigation or reservation "I am man". That would not have been the whole answer, for it would not have reached His Divine Nature. But it would have been wholly true. The relation between His nature as man and His person was as direct, as intimate as the relation between my nature and my person. He could say "I am man" as completely as I can say "I am man". Indeed He could say it with better title for He was more of a man than I: His human nature was not diminished by sin as mine is.​

http://www.katapi.org.uk/TandS/Contents.htm

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

I am reading Frank Sheed's Theology and Sanity again and was struck by this passage from Chapter 17. For those who have not read it, I cannot recommend it highly enough. I cannot make it through a single page without coming to a paragraph, saying to myself, "wow...," and re-reading it again. A truly wonderful gift. I pray that Frank Sheed is enjoying the company of the Angelic Doctor and the rest of the Doctors of the Church.

I pray for you, Mr. Sheed, may the Lord deign that you pray for me, too.

Awesome, I have that book, just haven't picked it up yet, I think I need to.

I would have loved to have been able to hear him speak in the streets and parks of London.

 

[IfIonlyhadabrain]

isshinwhat, thank you for that quotation. I will go and meditate on it now. There are some things in it which I have though about before, but his wording is so clear and succinct, that it holds it to a new light. Also, there are things toward the end, which are clearly true, but which I wish to now incorporate into a larger theme. Thank you again for this treasure.

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

but his wording is so clear and succinct

That's Frank Sheed for ya, the man definitely had a gift, which he utilized to bring many people to Christ and His Church.

 

[isshinwhat]

Definately! You read something and it makes so much sense, but you stop and think, "did I just read that? That was sooooo deep!" Then you go rea-read the chapter just to make certain you didn't miss anything, and sure enough, you did. He had an amazing gift for clarity.

 

[isshinwhat]

Had another "Sheed Moment" a few minutes ago...

The co-existence in Christ of a human intellect with the divine intellect may at first seem more difficult to conceive than the co-existence of the two wills.
A human intellect proceeds toward knowledge discursively as the philosophers say, step by step as ordinary men say.
The external world makes its impact upon the bodily senses;
and from the evidence of the external world which thus gets through, the soul forms its concepts, and compares its concepts to form judgments;
and as its experience increases, its knowledge grows.
But all this in a necessarily limited way.
It does seem difficult to conceive that the one identical person who, by His divine nature, knew all things could also proceed to acquire by the operation of His human intellect scattered sparkles of the infinite light of knowledge in which He already lived.
It is, I say, hard to conceive, yet not inconceivable.
The human nature and the divine nature belong to one person,
but they are not one nature.
The one person could operate, really and truly, in both natures.
If Our Lord wanted to lift a load He could have lifted it either by the effortless fiat of the divine will or by the hard effort of the human muscles.
Our Lord's human nature was a reality.
His human senses and His human intellect were reality.
His human senses could not do other than receive the impact of the external world;
His human intellect could not do other than act upon their evidence to form concepts and judgments.
The Godhead did not swallow up the manhood.
While we are upon this question of Our Lord's human intellect, there are two other things to be said about it. It has been the steady teaching of theologians that Our Lord's human intellect had both infused knowledge and the Beatific Vision.
What it must have been like for the one human mind to move along so many roads at once we cannot well picture.
But there is no contradiction in the idea of the mind moving by one road to a goal it has already reached by another.
The point to be grasped is that neither infused knowledge nor beatific knowledge are beyond the power of human nature to receive from God.
Many men have had infused knowledge—though not continuously;
and all the saved will have beatific knowledge.

17.Redeemer

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

Had another "Sheed Moment" a few minutes ago...



17.Redeemer

Amazing!

 

[SolomonVII]

Through Christ, intimate knowledge of the Father becomes possible for all of mankind. As intimately as a man and a women know each other, through Christ, with Christ, and in Christ, we become intimate with the Father.

Fully man, the nature of the person of Christ and the nature of our own humanity are identical. What God has given to Christ, Christ freely gives to us through the Holy Spirit and what the Father has given to Christ is the wholeness of his Being.
Through Christ then, even the nature of our Divinity become redeemed and unified the divinity of the Father. We truly become a complete likeness of God's image.

Unlike the first Adam, Christ shows us that the Way is not to become full of oneself. To become filled of the pride of egoism that comes with the realization that in the likeness of Divine Free Will, even our willing for separateness from God becomes possible.

Instead, the Way of Christ was to humble himself, to empty himself out fully and completely in order that the ego of his human self-awareness and self-identification could be theby be filled with the the great "I Am" who is the Father. Only through sacrificing his own carnal will and through actively rejecting the temptations of Satan could the Father's Will truly become Christ's own.

The contradiction of the first being the last and the last being first is not a contradiction at all when one realizes that only through emptying oneself out and thereby clearing a path for the Spirit of Christ do we allow room in out heart for God himself to fill. The greatest man alive can shine only with the greatness of his own mortal nature, but it is in the least among us that a space has been cleared in order that the Glory of God Himself can shine from within.

The Old Covenant stresses God's completely transcendant nature, but it is only through Christ that the immanence of the Spirit becomes actualized in our own humanity. Only through Christ does it become possible for us to experience God through our own humanity.

Through the Eucharist we, the Church become the body of Christ, quickened by the very Spirit of Christ.

Hence Trinity, the nature of the Divine, is a definition of not just God, but it describes our own humanity as well, and the relationship that we may have with God.

 

[IfIonlyhadabrain]

Solomon, I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I would like to offer my own thoughts about several things I've read here, both from your post and from the others here.

The first, which may be rather controversial, you your use of the term "divine." The reason I want to talk about it is because it is a term which has always been applied to God, and which is commonly understood as denoting a Godly nature. So, historically, attributing divinity to man has implied that men are godly beings. Let's get something clear. Divine does not equal God. They are different terms which mean different things.

What brought me to this realization was some discussions I was having with Hindus. See, it is a Hindu belief that humans have divinity. It is also a Hindu belief that there is only one God (capital G), but many gods (lower-case g). During my discussions I learned, not because it was said clear, but because I connected the dots, that when they were speaking of divinity, they had the same concept in mind as the Christian "Image of God" concept. That is, by saying humans had divinity (but were not Divine), they meant that humans had intelligence, free will and emotions.

I came to realize that we call God Divine because that is His nature. God IS Divine. We have divinity, but that is not our nature, it is only part of our nature. Human divinity is the Image of the Divine. Divinity, then, is nothing more than Personhood, for that is what the Image of God is, that is what God's nature is.

So, then we can also understand the meaning of there being many gods, but only one God. That gods (and this was said by one of the Hindu persons I spoke to) are nothing other than what we might call angels or saints. This, of course, means that we are all gods. The point here is that I'm talking about a shift in our term-definition. Traditionally, we have understood "gods" to be beings of supernatural ability. Understood this way, none of us are gods. If we understand the term as meaning "beings who are persons, who bear the Image of God, who have divinity, given by the Divine," then wse may be inclined to say we are gods. However, to avoid heated conflict, it's best not to apply the term, as so many connotations would be carried with it so as to completely bury the meaning of your statement.

So, instead of saying we're all gods, I shall move forward. I would like to now consider further the Hindu concept of God.

Though there are, like most religions, many divergent theological views, positions and schools, and so when I talk here about the Hindu belief in God I will clearly not be speaking on behalf of all Hindus, I do know I speak for at least a portion in this regard.

I believe that the Hindu concept of God very closely resembles the Catholic Trinitarian one. In fact, the Hindu God is often referred to as the Hindu Trinity, though there is wide controversy about the meaning of it. I believe that it very closely resembles the Christian concept of God as Person, one God, but three Persons. While it is true that the Hindu God manifests itself in hundreds of different forms, or avatars, I submit that it is clear that there is a distinct primacy of three Persons, rather than hundreds. It is these three persons which take on the hundreds of different avatars of the Hindu gods.

The three persons which make up the Hindu Godhead are Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva the Destroyer. From the outset, there may be two different reactions to the suggestion that these three persons correlate with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. One reaction might be total skepticism, for there is surely no clear connection with these different personalities. Another reaction might be optimistic curiosity, followed by doubt, for, while the first two persons might correlate with the Father and the Son (which itself might be a stretch), surely we couldn't correlate the Holy Spirit with Shiva, the "Destroyer."

However, I suggest that there is, in fact, a correlation, and to understand it we need to look a little bit more closely to Hindu cosmology. In Hinduism, the universe has always existed, and reality is cyclic. It very much mirrors the observations we can make about nature. Things are born, they live, and then they die. This is true about the universe too. It begins, it lives, and then it is destroyed, and it is its destruction which brings about its rebirth. For, just as the dead of winter brings the new life of spring, Shiva the Destroyer paves the way for Brahma to create the world anew.

So, if we want to understand the correlation more clearly, we can talk about the Hindu Trinity in terms such as this: Brahma the Initiator, Vishnu the Doer, and Shiva the Completer (The one who brings things to fruition, to completion). If we talk about them like this, then their correlation with the Christian Trinity should be clearer.

We recognize that the nature of God is Person. The Image of God is personhood. Each Person of God is fully and truly Person, just as surely as each is fully and truly God. God the Son is a mirroring of the Father, who proceeds from God's knowledge, His Intellect. Intellect precedes action, it initiates action. Free Will proceeds from Intellect, just as surely as the Son proceeds from the Father.

If, as Sheed points out, the Son is a mirroring of the Intellect of the Father (and may I point out that free will proceeding from the intellect produces actions which reflect the mind of the person acting) to the infinite, while the universe is the mirroring of the Intellect of the Father to the finite, then we should be able to say without much doubt that the universe was initiated(/initiates) by the Father just as surely as the Son proceeds from Him. It may be argued that is was the Son who carried out the wishes of the Father in creation, for we read in Genesis that when God created He did so by His word (ie, God said "Let there be light," and there was light), and we know that the Son is the Word. Yet, we cannot ignore the fact that the Father truly is the Initiator of all things. Thus, we can see the correlation between the Father and Brahma.

Sheed points out the fact which I will use to demonstrate the correlation between the Son and Vishnu. This fact is the reality of the special connection that the Son has with creation. For, as Sheed says, just as the Son established all things, it fell to Him to re-establish them. If we are to talk about the Son as the Person of the Trinity whose relationship with creation is that of immediate interaction, of establishment and identification, we can talk about Him as the Doer. If the Father is the Intelligence who Initiates, then the Son, who eternally does as the Father directs, is the Free Will who Does. Thus, the relationship between the Son and creation should be starkly apparent. We can see the correlation between the Son and Vishnu.

How about Shiva and the Holy Spirit? Until understanding the reason Shiva is called the Destroyer, this correlation is the most difficult to make. Once we understand that Shiva is called the Destroyer because that is what completes a life and makes way for life to begin anew, once we understand that Shiva is the Destroyer because Shiva is the Completer, then the correlation with the Holy Spirit becomes less difficult to make.

The Holy Spirit is the Person of the Trinity who is often not thought about. We pray to the Father every Mass, together though the "Our Father." The Son, Jesus Christ, is the object of every Mass, and who we read about all the time in Scriptures. We do hear about the Holy Spirit now and again, but the Holy Spirit isn't often talked about. We know that the Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Trinity. He has many names: Paraclete, Love, Sanctifier, Consoler, Life Giver, etc.

Theologically speaking, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, because He is the Infinite, Perfect love between the Father and the Son made real. The Spirit is the fruition of the union between the Father and the Son, just as surely as a child is the fruition of the union between a man and a woman. Sanctifying Grace is the Life of the Holy Spirit within us, and this Life is only present when we are in union with God, through Christ. When we are in union with Christ, the two become one, and we become the Body of Christ. Christ shows us the perfect love that He has for His Father, and since His Father is our Father, we aught to have the same love for Him. When we become the Body of Christ, we begin to understand and share that same love for the Father, and just as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the love between the Father and the Son, so too do our bodies, each being the Body of Christ, become temples of the Holy Spirit, who is born within us.

If the Father is our Creator, and the Son establishes our union to the Father, then it is the Spirit who perfects us in that union. Through the Spirit, we are made whole, our nature and our purpose is brought to completion. In the Communion of Saints, united to the inner union of the Trinity, we are completed, and our lives are renewed over and over for eternity. Just as a child completes the meaning of the union between man and wife, just as a child completes the meaning of their love for one another, so too does the Holy Spirit complete the meaning of our love for the Father, with the Son, with whom we share a brotherhood. The Holy Spirit completes the meaning of our union with God, into perfection. So, the correlation between Shiva and the Holy Spirit can be understood.

Whether this is an accurate way of talking about Hinduism and Christianity or not, I cannot say with 100% surety, as I have never heard or read it talked about in such a way. These are my own observations. However, if the Son really can be correlated with Vishnu, then a deeper understanding of the Avatar Krishna can be found. The culmination of Krishna's journey on earth was his wedding to Rukmini, after which he restored Dharma to the universe. If we understand the correlation of the Son and Vishnu, the Christ is Krishna and Rukmini is the Church, His bride, and the restoration of Dharma as the re-establishment of the Divine Plan? As I say, just my observations.

Anyway, more on the meaning of union later.

 

[SolomonVII]

Solomon, I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I would like to offer my own thoughts about several things I've read here, both from your post and from the others here.

The first, which may be rather controversial, [] your use of the term "divine." The reason I want to talk about it is because it is a term which has always been applied to God, and which is commonly understood as denoting a Godly nature. So, historically, attributing divinity to man has implied that men are godly beings. Let's get something clear. Divine does not equal God. They are different terms which mean different things.

I find these verses most intriguing on the subject (from USCCB online) John 10:

10 And Jesus walked about in the temple area on the Portico of Solomon. 24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, "How long are you going to keep us in suspense? 11 If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly." 25 Jesus answered them, "I told you 12 and you do not believe. The works I do in my Father's name testify to me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not among my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish. No one can take them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, 13 and no one can take them out of the Father's hand. 30 14 The Father and I are one." 31 The Jews again picked up rocks to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from my Father. For which of these are you trying to stone me?" 33 The Jews answered him, "We are not stoning you for a good work but for blasphemy. You, a man, are making yourself God." 34 15 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods"'? 35 If it calls them gods to whom the word of God came, and scripture cannot be set aside, 36 can you say that the one whom the Father has consecrated 16 and sent into the world blasphemes because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? 37 If I do not perform my Father's works, do not believe me; 38 but if I perform them, even if you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may realize (and understand) that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."
I have always found these words of Jesus most intriguing. From what I have come to understand, what Jesus was referring to would be the idea of ancients referring to their own leaders as sons of gods.
Jesus does not contradict this idea, but uses it to illustrate that it is performing the Father's work, becoming one with the will of the Father, that mkaes one a Son of the Most High.
Contrast Jesus with the King of Babylon, the Luciferian morning star of whom Isaiah has written. The King uses the gits that Goad has given him not to confort the sick, or aid the widows, but for his own personal glory. For him, the worms await, rather than the eternal life that comes only to those who are atoned, and at-one with the Most High.

What brought me to this realization was some discussions I was having with Hindus. See, it is a Hindu belief that humans have divinity. It is also a Hindu belief that there is only one God (capital G), but many gods (lower-case g). During my discussions I learned, not because it was said clear, but because I connected the dots, that when they were speaking of divinity, they had the same concept in mind as the Christian "Image of God" concept. That is, by saying humans had divinity (but were not Divine), they meant that humans had intelligence, free will and emotions.

The ability (and responsibility) to make moral choices above all is what separates man from the rest of creation. christ is called in Easter Orthodox theology the Icon of God. to the extent aht he becomes the perfect relction of the glory of God, He and the Father are one.

I came to realize that we call God Divine because that is His nature. God IS Divine. We have divinity, but that is not our nature, it is only part of our nature. Human divinity is the Image of the Divine. Divinity, then, is nothing more than Personhood, for that is what the Image of God is, that is what God's nature is.

So, then we can also understand the meaning of there being many gods, but only one God. That gods (and this was said by one of the Hindu persons I spoke to) are nothing other than what we might call angels or saints. This, of course, means that we are all gods. The point here is that I'm talking about a shift in our term-definition. Traditionally, we have understood "gods" to be beings of supernatural ability. Understood this way, none of us are gods.

To the extent that we sinners would credit miracles to the aggrandizment of their own ego, perhaps the non-exstence of the supernatural, and miraculous in our lives as sinners is a blessing in disguise.
Miracle is to the glory of God, not to our own glory. The transcendant separateness of God is absolutely necessary in this regard.

If we understand the term as meaning "beings who are persons, who bear the Image of God, who have divinity, given by the Divine," then we may be inclined to say we are gods. However, to avoid heated conflict, it's best not to apply the term, as so many connotations would be carried with it so as to completely bury the meaning of your statement.

I see what you mean. with such a usage of of the term, Jesus came very close to being buried with stones.

So, instead of saying we're all gods, I shall move forward. I would like to now consider further the Hindu concept of God.

Though there are, like most religions, many divergent theological views, positions and schools, and so when I talk here about the Hindu belief in God I will clearly not be speaking on behalf of all Hindus, I do know I speak for at least a portion in this regard.

I believe that the Hindu concept of God very closely resembles the Catholic Trinitarian one.

There is aspects of Truth in all religions....

In fact, the Hindu God is often referred to as the Hindu Trinity, though there is wide controversy about the meaning of it. I believe that it very closely resembles the Christian concept of God as Person, one God, but three Persons.
....

The three persons which make up the Hindu Godhead are Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver, and Shiva the Destroyer. From the outset, there may be two different reactions to the suggestion that these three persons correlate with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. One reaction might be total skepticism, for there is surely no clear connection with these different personalities. Another reaction might be optimistic curiosity, followed by doubt, for, while the first two persons might correlate with the Father and the Son (which itself might be a stretch), surely we couldn't correlate the Holy Spirit with Shiva, the "Destroyer."

However, I suggest that there is, in fact, a correlation, and to understand it we need to look a little bit more closely to Hindu cosmology.

....

So, if we want to understand the correlation more clearly, we can talk about the Hindu Trinity in terms such as this: Brahma the Initiator, Vishnu the Doer, and Shiva the Completer (The one who brings things to fruition, to completion). If we talk about them like this, then their correlation with the Christian Trinity should be clearer.

We recognize that the nature of God is Person. The Image of God is personhood. Each Person of God is fully and truly Person, just as surely as each is fully and truly God. God the Son is a mirroring of the Father, who proceeds from God's knowledge, His Intellect. Intellect precedes action, it initiates action. Free Will proceeds from Intellect, just as surely as the Son proceeds from the Father.

If, as Sheed points out, the Son is a mirroring of the Intellect of the Father (and may I point out that free will proceeding from the intellect produces actions which reflect the mind of the person acting) to the infinite, while the universe is the mirroring of the Intellect of the Father to the finite, then we should be able to say without much doubt that the universe was initiated(/initiates) by the Father just as surely as the Son proceeds from Him. It may be argued that is was the Son who carried out the wishes of the Father in creation, for we read in Genesis that when God created He did so by His word (ie, God said "Let there be light," and there was light), and we know that the Son is the Word. Yet, we cannot ignore the fact that the Father truly is the Initiator of all things. Thus, we can see the correlation between the Father and Brahma.

Sheed points out the fact which I will use to demonstrate the correlation between the Son and Vishnu. This fact is the reality of the special connection that the Son has with creation. For, as Sheed says, just as the Son established all things, it fell to Him to re-establish them. If we are to talk about the Son as the Person of the Trinity whose relationship with creation is that of immediate interaction, of establishment and identification, we can talk about Him as the Doer. If the Father is the Intelligence who Initiates, then the Son, who eternally does as the Father directs, is the Free Will who Does. Thus, the relationship between the Son and creation should be starkly apparent. We can see the correlation between the Son and Vishnu.

.... <length>
The Holy Spirit is the Person of the Trinity who is often not thought about. We pray to the Father every Mass, together though the "Our Father." The Son, Jesus Christ, is the object of every Mass, and who we read about all the time in Scriptures. We do hear about the Holy Spirit now and again, but the Holy Spirit isn't often talked about. We know that the Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Trinity. He has many names: Paraclete, Love, Sanctifier, Consoler, Life Giver, etc.

Theologically speaking, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, because He is the Infinite, Perfect love between the Father and the Son made real. The Spirit is the fruition of the union between the Father and the Son, just as surely as a child is the fruition of the union between a man and a woman. Sanctifying Grace is the Life of the Holy Spirit within us, and this Life is only present when we are in union with God, through Christ. When we are in union with Christ, the two become one, and we become the Body of Christ. Christ shows us the perfect love that He has for His Father, and since His Father is our Father, we aught to have the same love for Him. When we become the Body of Christ, we begin to understand and share that same love for the Father, and just as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the love between the Father and the Son, so too do our bodies, each being the Body of Christ, become temples of the Holy Spirit, who is born within us.

If the Father is our Creator, and the Son establishes our union to the Father, then it is the Spirit who perfects us in that union. Through the Spirit, we are made whole, our nature and our purpose is brought to completion. In the Communion of Saints, united to the inner union of the Trinity, we are completed, and our lives are renewed over and over for eternity. Just as a child completes the meaning of the union between man and wife, just as a child completes the meaning of their love for one another, so too does the Holy Spirit complete the meaning of our love for the Father, with the Son, with whom we share a brotherhood. The Holy Spirit completes the meaning of our union with God, into perfection. So, the correlation between Shiva and the Holy Spirit can be understood.

Whether this is an accurate way of talking about Hinduism and Christianity or not, I cannot say with 100% surety, as I have never heard or read it talked about in such a way. ....
As I say, just my observations.

Anyway, more on the meaning of union later.

It is difficult for a Christian to look at another religion without understanding it in Christian terms. After 2000 years of Christian acculturation, Christian symbols are at the very core of our being.
A lesson from Vatican II would be that it is far better to approach different religions with all the respect and admiration that they deserve, rather than with the contrary tendancies of fear, contempt and demonization that has all too often been the practices of the past.
Who cannot, for example be struck by the crystal clear philodophing that is a part of the Buddhist traditions, or the awesome grandiosity of Hindu cosmology and myth.

However, at the heart of the Christian message lies the humanity of God, as best expressed in the biography of Jesus. Even as the grandiosity of the Hindu cosmology is similarily expressed in the Jewish creation stories of the world through the utterance of the Word, "BE!", or in its Greek counterpart LOGOS, which describes the reasonableness and purposefullness that infuses the whole of Creation,....
yet for Christians, the creation of the world is best expressed in all of its simplicity, in the common image of a baby in His mother's arms.
In this visage of Christ, the face of the Father is revealed to be that of a Person, fully God to be sure, but fully human too.

 

[IfIonlyhadabrain]

The ability (and responsibility) to make moral choices above all is what separates man from the rest of creation. christ is called in Easter Orthodox theology the Icon of God. to the extent aht he becomes the perfect relction of the glory of God, He and the Father are one.

Right, and it the ability to make moral choices is derived from our Personhood; it is derived from our intellect and free will, and finally from moral satisfaction (which is tied to emotion). Intellect to know what choice to make, Free Will to carry out that choice in conscience, and satisfaction in knowing that you've done the right thing (or guilt for knowing you did the wrong thing) to reinforce that choice in the future.

yet for Christians, the creation of the world is best expressed in all of its simplicity, in the common image of a baby in His mother's arms.
In this visage of Christ, the face of the Father is revealed to be that of a Person, fully God to be sure, but fully human too.

Yes, and I suppose this is where at least one commonality between the Hindu Trinity and the Christian Trinity breaks down. For Krishna, though he was Vishnu the God, was only merely in the appearance of flesh. He was unlike Christ, who truly was and is fully human, while remaining fully God.


On a different note, and I just thought I'd mention it while it was on my mind, Sheed's description of Christ's true dual-nature struck a real cord in my mind. Previously, I did not understand the passage which tells us that God emptied Himself to become a man. I say this because, theologically speak, we know that Christ was fully God and fully man, and it didn't make sense to me that it would be so that God could empty Himself to become man, yet fully retain His Godly nature.

I guess the error I was making was a subconscious division of Christ: that each nature held a different person. Consciously, I understand that this isn't true, but I suppose I'd never made the reality clear that though Christ had two natures, it was one person, and it was this one person who chose from which nature to speak from. It isn't surprising that this subconscious fallacy had nestled its way into my mind. Grasping the dual-nature of Christ, and its implications is no simple task, and truly is a Mystery. However, Sheed's description of this subject was quite clear in making this discernment.

What really strikes me about the realization is this idea: God emptied Himself and became man. While Christ was both God and man, He generally speaks from one nature or the other. But it's more than this, Christ did not merely speak from one nature or the other, but He lived and experienced from one nature or the other. What I mean by this is, when He was enduring His suffering, His Passion and Death, He really truly did empty Himself of His Godliness. God does not endure pain and suffering. As God, Christ could have experienced the Passion with passivity to the injury that was taking place against His body, no doubt with sorrow for the actions of those sinning against Him, but with passivity to the injury against Him. But, He did not. He emptied Himself of His Godly nature and experienced His Passion fully as a man. He made all of His choices, faced His fears, endured the pain, watched His mother weep for Him, felt the abandonment of His friends, the betrayal of His disciple......... all as one of us.