Yep. A human ousia and a divine ousia, within one hypostasis (person), the two ousia being united in Christ's one Person without separation, confusion, absorption or division. 100% God, and also simultaneously 100% man.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Made in the Image of G-d?
- Thread starter xkatz
- Start date
Sultan Of Swing
Well-Known Member
Right I get it. And I'm guessing you mean a human ousia and a divine ousia, right, not a Greek one? Unless Greeks aren't human, which is a debate for another time.
Out of interest, is there anything in existence, apart from Jesus, that has two natures?
Right I get it. And I'm guessing you mean a human ousia and a divine ousia, right, not a Greek one? Unless Greeks aren't human, which is a debate for another time.
Yes, I meant divine nature, not Greek.
Currently wracking my brain for anything, and so far, nothing's coming up. So I'mma say no on that count.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
thats very true, not everyone 'interprets' it the same way.
Thats why I accept Jesus interpretation of it. He viewed them as two real historical people. He viewed the account as literal. Adam and Eve were real people who God created.
And thats why I view them as real people....not as symbols of something but as our first parents.
You really don't follow this do you? I accept Jesus interpretation too. But oddly, MY interpretation of Jesus' interpretation is different from YOUR interpretation of Jesus' interpretation. Explain that.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
you can read what Jesus said about Adam and Eve and its clear that he believed them to be real people because he said that their marriage set the standard for all marriages.
So if you dont view Adam and Eve as real people, then perhaps you dont really understand Jesus teachings.
So, you are saying that your interpretation is better than mine? On what basis? Because it's yours?
Again, I read the same passage and I don't hear the same conclusions you do. Jesus' use of Adam and Eve was to speak about a truth about our nature, not about historical facts. It's exactly like when I speak of Romeo and Juliet. Do you interpret this as me arguing for their historicity? If not, why not? You are for Jesus, then why not for me?
Again, why is your interpretation better than mine? And that is in fact what this all boils down to. You do not seem able to see from another point of view. You see only through your own eyes, and therefore if it doesn't fit that, they're all wrong and you alone stand in truth. That sums it up? "I am right because how I see is what is the truth. Everyone else is wrong".
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
on what basis do his words indicate he is speaking only of human nature and not of historical facts?
Matt 19:3 And Pharisees came to him intent on testing him, and they asked: Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on every sort of grounds? 4 In reply he said: Have you not read that the one who created them from the beginning made them male and female 5 and said: For this reason a man will leave his father and his mother and will stick to his wife, and the two will be one flesh? 6 So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has yoked together, let no man put apart. 7 They said to him: Why, then, did Moses direct giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her? 8 He said to them: Out of regard for your hard-heartedness, Moses made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but that has not been the case from the beginning. 9 I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the grounds of sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery.
From this above passage, can you point out why you believe Jesus is speaking only in terms of human nature?
From what I bolded above. The story of Adam and Eve was part of their culture. Jesus cited it as a reference point for them and turned it back on them as they claimed the scriptures supported them. In other words, "It says in your own writings which you claim to justify you something with contradicts you". It was not a statement about Jesus' thoughts about the historicity of them. The were figures that were part of his culture's mythology which was a cornerstone of their belief systems. All cultures have these. He was simply using them as a vehicle of communication. Functionally, this is how he was using the citation. Not to say jack diddly about earth history in the manner you wish to hear.
Neither Jesus or anyone in his culture ever thought in terms like this. This mode of thinking is Modern, post 1700's Europe. And you are entirely reading into this Modern thought in the passage, and trying to get it to say what you want it to say. Hence, it is not Jesus' interpretation you are citing, but your own.
Now to add another layer to this, even if Jesus took them as actual historical figures in the Modern sense of the word, as if he possibly even thought in terms like this which I can safely say he would not have, as he was after all a part of his culture, it has no bearing whatsoever on Modern arguments about the history of mankind. Aside from it being entirely about value systems, and not anthropological studies, the best you could say is Jesus assumed they were. And that proves nothing as well. I do not believe that Jesus, in any religious sense of the word, understood everything there was to know about everything, like knowing what the lottery ticket numbers were going to be 2000 years in the future, or the details of earth history on geologic scales, evolutionary terms, etc. Yes Virginia, Jesus would not have known this! And that doesn't matter.
Riddle me this. Why would Jesus have to be scientifically accurate to be a valid spiritual teacher? What does being a scientist, or a geologist have to do with knowledge of timeless spiritual matters of the human condition? What on earth do you imagine omniscience means? Some sort of magical seer who sees all, knows all? That's not Jesus. That's the Wizard of Oz.
So now you have two good reasons why and how I understand the above Bible passage, and why I find your interpretation to only work in a very limited fashion that falls apart once you move into other areas of perceptual knowledge, such as I have laid out. And I'm sure I could add a few more layers to this as well. So as I said, I interpret this differently than you, as we each are coming from different vantage points. That's how these things work for everything we read, look at, examine, and consider in life, be that with scripture or anything else. It is not a black and white world that is either your thoughts, or error. It's all vantage points.
Last edited:
ZooGirl02
Well-Known Member
When the Catholic Church says that human beings are created in the image of God, it means that we are capable of rational thought like God is. Animals are not created in the image of God because they are not capable of rational thought. Just because we are capable of rational thought does not mean that we do not have free will. It is that free will which God gave us which resulted in Adam and Eve committing the original sin.
I didn't know the Catholic church officially teaches that God has a brain and utilizes rational thought processes the same as humans. Do you have a reference to this as an official statement?
Except of course for the fact that they are capable of rational thought. They problem solve all the time. They create and use tools for towards helping themselves, the same as humans. And now, they can even understand and use fire and teach each other how to use it - exactly like us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQcN7lHSD5Y
How exactly do you define rational thought? Philosophies? Abstract conceptualizations such as mathematics? If so, then most humans aren't human.
Don't all animals have free will too, or do you believe they are nothing other than programmed machines? Don't they make choices for themselves within a certain relative context the way humans do? Humans too are driven by impulse, but can choose to delay gratification out of strategic choice. Animals do this as well.
Where exactly is the line between humans and animals? And then where exactly is the line between humans and God?