Can God cause Himself to not be God? No, God cannot do the logically impossible, not because He lacks the power to do it (which is an erroneous way of looking at the question) but because logic proceeds from God's being, and it would thus be contrary to God's nature to be illogical.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>No
do not deny the Lord, or deign to grasp divinity
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'm getting what I'm saying out of this book, why aren't you?
>Transubstantiation is logically impossible
How do you figure? He turned water into wine, walked on water, and spoke from a bush that burned but wasn't consumed by the flames. How is transubstantiation any more logically impossible than the rest?
It would require a man to be omnipresent, and it would require souls and divinity to be something I can eat
2 years ago
Anonymous
God can do it
2 years ago
Dirk
Can god lie?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Well sure, my idea of a perfect God can lie and has lied in the past.
2 years ago
Dirk
Ok
The christian god cannot lie, and we're discussing christian theology
2 years ago
Anonymous
Then the christian god is not God, right. He's not perfect.
2 years ago
Dirk
Non sequitur but please stay out of threads if you want to discuss something else
2 years ago
Anonymous
You love to fail pointing out logical fallacies, don't you tripgay.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>It would require a man to be omnipresent
But the Eucharistic presence does not entail Christ's "local presence," per Aquinas (the attribute of "place" is an accident, just as color and taste are): "Now it is evident that Christ’s body does not begin to be present in this sacrament by local motion."
>[Aquinas thus] affirms that the ascended body of Christ remains in heaven and does not move through space and time to be present on the altars across the world. Yet, if there is no change of place by which the substance of the bread and wine are removed and replaced by the body-blood of Christ, then the only other alternative is that there is a change of substance which does not require such displacement of location.
https://dogmatics.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/transubstantiation-in-thomas-aquinas-part-two/
https://i.imgur.com/Ed1T9HY.jpg
Duns Scotus taught that transubstantiation is not possible.
How do radtrads cope?
>Duns Scotus taught that transubstantiation is not possible.
I don't know enough about this to offer any meaningful comment,* but the recently published book "Transubstantiation" by Brett Salkeld - a Catholic writer, although the book is from Baker Academic - does spend 8 or 10 pages discussing Scotus's disagreement with Aquinas, and its significance. (This is a book I have on the shelf, but have not yet read.)
*Beyond noting that Scotus fully submitted to the authority of the Church in this matter. And if the Church - the pillar and foundation of truth - disagreed with Scotus in this matter, it agreed with Scotus as against Aquinas in the matter of the Immaculate Conception.
>With God anything is possible.
except when this goes badly for the christard's argument. then all of a sudden god cannot do the illogical or generally just the impossible, although no christard could get out yet from this latter being completely circular.
John Dunce believed in transubstantiation he just disagreed with Aquinas with what the bread became.
And Aquinas in turn did not believe in immaculate conception proposed well by Dunce.
So well done OP for utterly failing to understand the basics and being desperate to misconstrue those ideas.
14 And Micaiah said, As the LORD liveth, what the LORD saith unto me, that will I speak.
15 So he came to the king. And the king said unto him, Micaiah, shall we go against Ramothgilead to battle, or shall we forbear? And he answered him, Go, and prosper: for the LORD shall deliver it into the hand of the king.
16 And the king said unto him, How many times shall I adjure thee that thou tell me nothing but that which is true in the name of the LORD?
17 And he said, I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have not a shepherd: and the LORD said, These have no master: let them return every man to his house in peace.
18 And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee that he would prophesy no good concerning me, but evil?
19 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.
20 And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.
21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.
22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.
With God anything is possible. If you think transubstantiation can't happen, you're not giving God enough credit.
Transubstantiation is logically impossible, which God can only do if He ceases to be God
God's divinity is so much that such is possible without affecting God's nature.
logic is a b***h if only the Lord gives the word
fear God
Can God cause Himself to not be God? No, God cannot do the logically impossible, not because He lacks the power to do it (which is an erroneous way of looking at the question) but because logic proceeds from God's being, and it would thus be contrary to God's nature to be illogical.
>No
do not deny the Lord, or deign to grasp divinity
I'm getting what I'm saying out of this book, why aren't you?
what translation do you use?
>Transubstantiation is logically impossible
How do you figure? He turned water into wine, walked on water, and spoke from a bush that burned but wasn't consumed by the flames. How is transubstantiation any more logically impossible than the rest?
None of those things are logically impossible
It would require a man to be omnipresent, and it would require souls and divinity to be something I can eat
God can do it
Can god lie?
Well sure, my idea of a perfect God can lie and has lied in the past.
Ok
The christian god cannot lie, and we're discussing christian theology
Then the christian god is not God, right. He's not perfect.
Non sequitur but please stay out of threads if you want to discuss something else
You love to fail pointing out logical fallacies, don't you tripgay.
>It would require a man to be omnipresent
But the Eucharistic presence does not entail Christ's "local presence," per Aquinas (the attribute of "place" is an accident, just as color and taste are): "Now it is evident that Christ’s body does not begin to be present in this sacrament by local motion."
>[Aquinas thus] affirms that the ascended body of Christ remains in heaven and does not move through space and time to be present on the altars across the world. Yet, if there is no change of place by which the substance of the bread and wine are removed and replaced by the body-blood of Christ, then the only other alternative is that there is a change of substance which does not require such displacement of location.
https://dogmatics.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/transubstantiation-in-thomas-aquinas-part-two/
>Duns Scotus taught that transubstantiation is not possible.
I don't know enough about this to offer any meaningful comment,* but the recently published book "Transubstantiation" by Brett Salkeld - a Catholic writer, although the book is from Baker Academic - does spend 8 or 10 pages discussing Scotus's disagreement with Aquinas, and its significance. (This is a book I have on the shelf, but have not yet read.)
*Beyond noting that Scotus fully submitted to the authority of the Church in this matter. And if the Church - the pillar and foundation of truth - disagreed with Scotus in this matter, it agreed with Scotus as against Aquinas in the matter of the Immaculate Conception.
>With God anything is possible.
except when this goes badly for the christard's argument. then all of a sudden god cannot do the illogical or generally just the impossible, although no christard could get out yet from this latter being completely circular.
>God can only do
STOP RIGHT THERE HERETIC SCUM
NOBODY DELIMITS OMNIPOTENCE ON MY WATCH
I AM CONFISCATING YOUR REPLY
NOW PRAY YOUR ROSARY OR ITS OFF TO PURGATORY
So anyway how do radtrads deal with this fact of history
explain yourself
Duns Scotus taught against what Trent made dogma
The opinion of duns Scotus is heresy today to Rome
the ancient theology of Britain played upon his reason no doubt, but frankly that doesn't matter too much to me and you still haven't given sauce
Did he though?
I second this anon in requiring sauce
https://evangelicalanswers.blogspot.com/2020/12/john-scotus-eriugena-and.html?m=1
The point is that transubstantiation is not the uniform, ancient view of the church. Moreover it's not even the uniform western scholastic view.
>*underscore* only *underscore*
>Britain
No such thing then. Nice try 🙂
Saint Aristobulus
I don't see what thats meant to mean and he was alice 1000 years before Dunce.
he is in the New Testament
Duns Scotus? His name is Duns Scotus? Seriously?
why he throwing gang signs though?
gangsters are throwing his sign as if it were really theirs
many such cases
By not accepting the historical tomb based on Christian apologetics.
No he didn't.
The dogma of transubstantiation is the result of mistakenly fighting rationalism with human metaphysics.
John Dunce believed in transubstantiation he just disagreed with Aquinas with what the bread became.
And Aquinas in turn did not believe in immaculate conception proposed well by Dunce.
So well done OP for utterly failing to understand the basics and being desperate to misconstrue those ideas.
He disagreed with what Rome dogmatized
If I state the view of Scotus I am condemned as a heretic by rome
No that's not how the church works
So what? You can't be a saint and be wrong occasionally?
14 And Micaiah said, As the LORD liveth, what the LORD saith unto me, that will I speak.
15 So he came to the king. And the king said unto him, Micaiah, shall we go against Ramothgilead to battle, or shall we forbear? And he answered him, Go, and prosper: for the LORD shall deliver it into the hand of the king.
16 And the king said unto him, How many times shall I adjure thee that thou tell me nothing but that which is true in the name of the LORD?
17 And he said, I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills, as sheep that have not a shepherd: and the LORD said, These have no master: let them return every man to his house in peace.
18 And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee that he would prophesy no good concerning me, but evil?
19 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.
20 And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.
21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.
22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.
where did he say that?