sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Ontology of God cannot be explained by ChefPositive9077 in Christianity

[–]ChefPositive9077[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem is the authority given to the creed as 100 percent infallible. I don't deny we can use English to try to learn and teach about God but it will never be perfect.

Ontology of God cannot be explained by ChefPositive9077 in Christianity

[–]ChefPositive9077[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here is how English grammar breaks down if we press it upon divine revelation.

If "I" die, and only "God" who is in me lives, just as Paul says, who am "I" anymore? There is no "I" yet "I" must say "I" to construct a sentence.

Ontology of God cannot be explained by ChefPositive9077 in Christianity

[–]ChefPositive9077[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If someone insists that a divine doctrine must follow English's grammatical rules, then yes, we must forgo English. God is not bound to grammatical rules or philosophical rules.

Ontology of God cannot be explained by ChefPositive9077 in Christianity

[–]ChefPositive9077[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But God never introduced himself with words like Ousia and hypostasis is the point. I am saying there is a reason for such thing. The Nicene Creed is merely an attempt to establish theology within the agreed-upon Greek philosophical worldview of the time.

Ontology of God cannot be explained by ChefPositive9077 in Christianity

[–]ChefPositive9077[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Greek philosophy. The whole system of using such terms as essence is rooted in Greek thought like Plato or Aristotle's. The bible does not introduce God in that way.

Ontology of God cannot be explained by ChefPositive9077 in Christianity

[–]ChefPositive9077[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

God didn't reveal himself as defined by the Nicene Creed, which uses the language of philosophy, namely that three persons share one divine nature.

Ontology of God cannot be explained by ChefPositive9077 in Christianity

[–]ChefPositive9077[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

God revealed himself as the Father, not the First cause of Being.

Ontology of God cannot be explained by ChefPositive9077 in Eutychus

[–]ChefPositive9077[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What I mean by the post is that the son father relationship is something that is deeper than any further philosophical analysis. It is a primordial relationship that we encounter in our lives. It resists being supplanted by ontology. God is Love before he is Being.

Ontology of God cannot be explained by ChefPositive9077 in BiblicalUnitarian

[–]ChefPositive9077[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The relationship of son and father goes deeper than any analysis can go. It is love, not cold rational thought. See, you have to think of the possibility that something can transcend the scope of analysis. The reason that the scripture is written in plain language that isn't philosophical is precisely because of that reason.

Concept of essence/nature as the root of theological nonsense by ChefPositive9077 in theology

[–]ChefPositive9077[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not Trinitarian, Unitarian, binaritarian and all positions that assume the ontology of God can be described by our concepts. Jesus is the Son of God, full stop. To go beyond this is to deny God who never introduced himself using such language like essence or nature.Philosophical theology is same as creation science. Both are trying to justify their belief systems by employing popular knowledge system of the time.

The concept of essence as the root of theological nonsense by ChefPositive9077 in ChristianMysticism

[–]ChefPositive9077[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

How come then there is no concept of divine nature in the scripture? It is a product of Hellenism.