Is this proof that the first God was a man?

[Greatest I am]

During my travels I came across this.

“
The Vatican wrote:
The Holy Spirit Proceeds from the Father and the Son

Only the Word, the Son, "proceeds" from the Father by eternal generation. God, who eternally knows himself and everything in himself, begets the Word. In this eternal begetting, which takes place by way of intellect (per modum intelligibilis actionis), God, in the absolute unity of his nature, that is, of his divinity, is Father and Son. "He is," and not "he becomes," "he is" so eternally. "He is" from the beginning and without beginning. Under this aspect the word "procession" must be understood correctly. There is no connotation proper to a temporal "becoming." The same is true of the "procession" of the Holy Spirit.



I don't quite know what this means either. But it is clear that asking the question which of the Trinity came first displays a serious ignorance of the doctrine of Trinity.”

Is this proof that the first God was a man?

Regards
DL

 

[tomspug]

I don't really see how you came to this conclusion from the passage. Can you elaborate?

 

[Greatest I am]

I don't really see how you came to this conclusion from the passage. Can you elaborate?

The key phrase is "There is no connotation proper to a temporal "becoming."

This indicates to me that God is being taken out of the temporal realm. The only other realm is the physical one. One of men.

Is this why the Pope is to be thought of as infallible?

Regards
DL

 

[doppelganger]

This indicates to me that God is being taken out of the temporal realm. The only other realm is the physical one. One of men.

There's simply no way it could be otherwise, frankly, when "God" is thought of as a noun, but to reduce it to the temporal realm of ideated things.

 

[tomspug]

The key phrase is "There is no connotation proper to a temporal "becoming."

This indicates to me that God is being taken out of the temporal realm. The only other realm is the physical one. One of men.

Is this why the Pope is to be thought of as infallible?

Regards
DL

I certainly don't consider him to be. He's a man with sin just like everyone else.

 

[Troublemane]

I agree with Robin Williams who said the female form is proof God is male!

 

[Greatest I am]

There's simply no way it could be otherwise, frankly, when "God" is thought of as a noun, but to reduce it to the temporal realm of ideated things.

I am not sure what you are saying. Could you rephrase or elaborate?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I certainly don't consider him to be. He's a man with sin just like everyone else.

Yes. Just like God. Killing is a sin. God has killed.

Regards
DL

 

[Troublemane]

Its impossible for God to have sinned, since to sin is to move away from God. So thats just silly. :angel2:

 

[Greatest I am]

Its impossible for God to have sinned, since to sin is to move away from God. So thats just silly. :angel2:

If genocide and killing humans is not a sin, then what is?

Are we to take Hitler out of hell or put God there?

Regards
DL

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

BTW,

The Pope is not understood to be ordinarily infallible. He is not infallible in his day to day writings or even most exhortations and encyclicals, he is certainly a servant of God, falible in his relations and sinful as are we all.

The Catholic Church has defined, however, that the Pope can excercise the dogmatic infalliblity that is proper to the Universal Church (he is the universal bishop) (ie. that same infallibility that defined the Nicene Creed, for example) . Neither does the Universal Church make infallible declarations from day to day, but only when a matter of "what the faith is" needs to be clarified.

Thus Catholicism understands there to be different ways in which an infallible definition can be secured:
- By an Ecumenical Council in union with the Pope
- when the entire body of the faithful shares a consensus on a given doctrinal question
- when the Pope, as the universal bishop, speaks ex cathedra to define a universally binding tenet of the faith

Essentially, the Pope does not make these definitions out of his own personal subjectivity when the need arises to give them. He is seen really as the final gaurantee of the Church's faithfullness to her traditions, the Faith she has recieved. He is in this sense, highly constrained by everything that has gone before him.

These are not ordinary activities. I don't expect most to agree, but just to understand that everything (in fact most things) coming from the Vatican is not to be regarded as a new infallible statement.

 

[blackout]

Which came first...
the cauldron or the wand?

 

[Greatest I am]

BTW,

The Pope is not understood to be ordinarily infallible. He is not infallible in his day to day writings or even most exhortations and encyclicals, he is certainly a servant of God, falible in his relations and sinful as are we all.

The Catholic Church has defined, however, that the Pope can excercise the dogmatic infalliblity that is proper to the Universal Church (he is the universal bishop) (ie. that same infallibility that defined the Nicene Creed, for example) . Neither does the Universal Church make infallible declarations from day to day, but only when a matter of "what the faith is" needs to be clarified.

Thus Catholicism understands there to be different ways in which an infallible definition can be secured:
- By an Ecumenical Council in union with the Pope
- when the entire body of the faithful shares a consensus on a given doctrinal question
- when the Pope, as the universal bishop, speaks ex cathedra to define a universally binding tenet of the faith

Essentially, the Pope does not make these definitions out of his own personal subjectivity when the need arises to give them. He is seen really as the final gaurantee of the Church's faithfullness to her traditions, the Faith she has recieved. He is in this sense, highly constrained by everything that has gone before him.

These are not ordinary activities. I don't expect most to agree, but just to understand that everything (in fact most things) coming from the Vatican is not to be regarded as a new infallible statement.

Thanks for this.

Am I to expect something on the OP as well done?

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Which came first...
the cauldron or the wand?

It is sort of saying that it does not mater if the chicken came before the egg or not. We elect the one we have. The chicken or the egg.

Regards
DL

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

I don't quite know what this means either. But it is clear that asking the question which of the Trinity came first displays a serious ignorance of the doctrine of Trinity.”

Is this proof that the first God was a man?

I'm not sure what your question is. How would this be evidence that the "first" God was a man?

This aspect of the doctrine of the Trinity has strong roots in the Gospel of John. The Son, the Eternal Word, "is God and was with God from the beginning" (ie. eternity). The Son was glorified by the Father "before the world began" and the Son "recieves everything [he has] from the Father".

Thus the Son, though God, is seen to be "eternally begotten" of the Father. He recieves his being from the Father, he lives for and from the Father and the Father endlessly gives himself to the Son. It was not arbitrary that God the Son became man, because it is proper to his person. The Son is "for and from" and thus he images for us what it is like to live in communion with the Father's will.

Once Incarnate, the Son did not abandon his communion with the Father, he continued to live for the Father and from him. But now, as a man, he lives from man (Son of Man) and for man (giving himself up even to death). Thus, in the person of the Son, human kind and the Father meet.

 

[Greatest I am]

I'm not sure what your question is. How would this be evidence that the "first" God was a man?

This aspect of the doctrine of the Trinity has strong roots in the Gospel of John. The Son, the Eternal Word, "is God and was with God from the beginning" (ie. eternity). The Son was glorified by the Father "before the world began" and the Son "recieves everything [he has] from the Father".

Thus the Son, though God, is seen to be "eternally begotten" of the Father. He recieves his being from the Father, he lives for and from the Father and the Father endlessly gives himself to the Son. It was not arbitrary that God the Son became man, because it is proper to his person. The Son is "for and from" and thus he images for us what it is like to live in communion with the Father's will.

Once Incarnate, the Son did not abandon his communion with the Father, he continued to live for the Father and from him. But now, as a man, he lives from man (Son of Man) and for man (giving himself up even to death). Thus, in the person of the Son, human kind and the Father meet.

I can dither that.

What I don't quite get and what points to a man being God is this. I think.

"There is no connotation proper to a temporal "becoming."

What do you make if this?

Regards
DL

 

[syringa28]

So, that's mean it wasn't a right path to trust and to belief. When something illogical raises when talking about God, so there nothing to be hold on anymore.

 

[Greatest I am]

So, that's mean it wasn't a right path to trust and to belief. When something illogical raises when talking about God, so there nothing to be hold on anymore.

Sure there is.

Seeing that some think has no logic is revelation that leads to a logical answer. God must be logical.

He is.

Regards
DL

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings.

Is this proof that the first God was a man?

It's not "proof" of anything because it's man-made doctrine written by a committee several hundred years after the time of Christ.

Regards,

Bruce

 

[Pagan Spiritualist]

I don't see how this nonsense(to me anyway), proves anything. I couldn't even understand what it meant. Since I believe the universe is God and we are all a part of God, the first man was God. To put it more correctly, God was the first man... Also, the first woman. They then made sweet love and had a child, and it was God too.