You don't believe the creation is eternal do you? The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth. The traditional Christian belief is in creation ex nihilo.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We humans came into reality a short time ago.... God the Father has never experienced being created... If E = mc2 then we can divide and conclude that...
Mass (m) = Energy (E/c2)
Mass cannot be created or destroyed, it merely changes forms throughout the eternities. And these are the properties of God the Father, he cannot be created or destroyed. I have often thought on the following verse...
The position of Augustine and Aquinas was to insist that the ultimate 'alpha point' or origin for the Holy Spirit is the Father, even when it may be said there are places in Scripture where it is reasonable to conclude in the immediate instance that the Holy Spirit has proceeded from the Son.
Any other position here seems to undo the Monarchical Position of the Father in which is seen the essence of the Unity of the Most Holy Trinity.
If I drink wine from the bottle, I may say that the wine has proceeded from the bottle. If I drink wine from the glass, I may say that the wine has proceeded from the glass, though I must also acknowledge that in the first instance the wine proceeded from the bottle.
The Bible says the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds out of the Father.But the question I have in the back of my mind is where and when did God reveal these details about Himself? Can we definitively answer these questions from something revealed through the prophets, through Christ, or through the apostles? Does the Bible say anything about it?
For those who take a definitive dogmatic stand, would you say that we should we consider the theological opinions of those who participated in ecumenical councils to be prophetic revelation like we do the Bible? If so, which council(s) and which participants?
That statement is also contradictory with the statement He is, which usually is used to indicate God has always existed as He is.
Here is the definition for source from one online dictionary:
a : a generative force : cause
b (1) : a point of origin or procurement : beginning (2) : one that initiates : author; also : prototype, model (3) : one that supplies information
We don't have an official position, since it was written in Latin, and no one in the East could read that.
Not really, since the RCC has held the stance since the Middle Ages that the Filioque means the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as one principle, a term that is quite clear in Latin.Do you think the eastern and western versions of the creed interpret the concept of 'proceeding' to refer to different things?
A handful of Eastern theologians bothered to learn Latin. Most just relied on translations. There wouldn't really be a translation of this, since Saint Athanasius wrote in Greek, and therefore the Greeks weren't looking for Latin works of his to translate into Greek.Immigration must have been extremely limited. Maybe they could have taught one guy to read it back then.
Not really, since the RCC has held the stance since the Middle Ages that the Filioque means the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as one principle, a term that is quite clear in Latin.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/principium
The Bible says the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds out of the Father.
Ecumenical Councils were never intended to be some new revelation, they are intended to confront people spreading lies as Christ's teachings, and to set the record straight.
Christ says the Spirit proceeds (in Greeks it means "come out of") from the Father in John 15:26. In John 14:26, Christ describes the Father as the sole origin for the sending of the Holy Spirit, although the sending is done in Christ's name (as in, through him). In John 14:16, Christ describes the Spirit as ultimately being given by the Father.If the Greeks had
There seems to be a lot more 'detail' in the Bible about the Son in relation to the Father. As far as the Bible goes, what scriptures point to the Spirit proceeding exclusively from the Father in the sense we are discussing? Maybe we could discuss them.
Someone from the RCC Anglican, or certain groups on the Protestant side could present scriptures they use for the Filioque if anyone it up to it. The Bible refers to the 'Spirit of Christ'.
You don't believe the creation is eternal do you? The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth. The traditional Christian belief is in creation ex nihilo.
You don't think God created plasma?The m (mass) = E/c2 (plasma) is eternal. Who knows the many times the mass has disassociated into plasma and re-associated into mass as the Father has willed it? The mass of the universe will soon disassociate into plasma one more time...
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. -2 Peter 3:10
And he will use that plasma and do something else with it. I want to be there when he re-creates a new heaven and earth!
No, the Orthodox Church says the Son is eternally begotten of the Father.The Trinty has been defined by the Roman Catholic Church as the Son being equal to the Father. I understand the Eastern Church has another definition where the Son came from the Father only at the Incanation
I think that is very possible.Do you think the eastern and western versions of the creed interpret the concept of 'proceeding' to refer to different things?
Not if we take it to mean what it is officially intended to mean by both parties.I think that is very possible.
No, since the official RCC explanation of the Filioque, which existed since the Middle Ages, says it means the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as one principle, which, in Latin, unequivocally means source or basis for existence in this context.One may be referring to 'Source', and the other to through Whom the Spirit is believed to proceed.
I fear to tread here, however I suspect that the intent of the filioque in the west was to some extent political and part of the campaign of the Carolingian Dynasty against the weight of the Byzantine Empire. I believe that theologically they had no intent to change the meaning of the creed.Not if we take it to mean what it is officially intended to mean by both parties.
Whatever their intent, they did theologically change the meaning of the creed, and made it official in the Second Council of Lyon where they gave a dogmatic explanation of what the Filioque meant.I fear to tread here, however I suspect that the intent of the filioque in the west was to some extent political and part of the campaign of the Carolingian Dynasty against the weight of the Byzantine Empire. I believe that theologically they had no intent to change the meaning of the creed.
The thing is, "principle", in Latin, means origin, and there is no possible way to get around that.The Latins I believe, when they are speaking correctly speak of procession as point of departure
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?