Christology - Revision history

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "â€“" to "-"

2022-12-13T08:58:37Z

Text replacement - "â€“" to "-"

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:58, 13 December 2022
Line 65:		Line 65:
	::::: '''without separation;'''		::::: '''without separation;'''
	:::::: (á¼Î½ Î´ÏÎ¿ ''Ï†ÏÏƒÎµÏƒÎ¹Î½'' á¼€ÏƒÏ…Î³Ï‡ÏÏ„Ï‰Ï‚, á¼€Ï„ÏÎÏ€Ï„Ï‰Ï‚, á¼€Î´Î¹Î±Î¹ÏÎÏ„Ï‰Ï‚, á¼€Ï‡Ï‰ÏÎ¯ÏƒÏ„Ï‰Ï‚		:::::: (á¼Î½ Î´ÏÎ¿ ''Ï†ÏÏƒÎµÏƒÎ¹Î½'' á¼€ÏƒÏ…Î³Ï‡ÏÏ„Ï‰Ï‚, á¼€Ï„ÏÎÏ€Ï„Ï‰Ï‚, á¼€Î´Î¹Î±Î¹ÏÎÏ„Ï‰Ï‚, á¼€Ï‡Ï‰ÏÎ¯ÏƒÏ„Ï‰Ï‚
	:::::: ~~â€“~~ ''in duabus ''naturis'' inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter'')		:::::: - ''in duabus ''naturis'' inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter'')
	::: the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union,		::: the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union,
	::: but rather the property of each nature being preserved,		::: but rather the property of each nature being preserved,

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "
2022-12-10T10:22:52Z

Text replacement - "<! —" to "<!--"

← Older revision Revision as of 12:22, 10 December 2022
Line 176: Line 176:

|nature, essence
|nature, essence

<! —
<!--

|-
|-

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "— >" to "-->"

2022-12-10T10:22:45Z

Text replacement - "— >" to "-->"

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:22, 10 December 2022
Line 183:		Line 183:
	\|		\|

	— >		-->
	\|}		\|}

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "--" to " — "

2022-12-10T10:04:02Z

Text replacement - "--" to " — "

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:04, 10 December 2022
Line 150:		Line 150:

	\|-		\|-
	\|Ï„á½¸ á½„Î½--the being		\|Ï„á½¸ á½„Î½ — the being
	\|''quod est''--what is		\|''quod est'' — what is
	\|being, entity, substance		\|being, entity, substance

Line 176:		Line 176:
	\|nature, essence		\|nature, essence

	<!--		<! —

	\|-		\|-
Line 183:		Line 183:
	\|		\|

	-->		— >
	\|}		\|}

Line 206:		Line 206:
	I much prefer English to either the Greek or the Latin vocabulary, even though English is a Johnny-come-lately.		I much prefer English to either the Greek or the Latin vocabulary, even though English is a Johnny-come-lately.

	I am in the image and likeness of God first and foremost by being a person--an incommunicable, indefinable, unique spiritual reality. I have an identity.		I am in the image and likeness of God first and foremost by being a person — an incommunicable, indefinable, unique spiritual reality. I have an identity.

	What I give in love is my person.		What I give in love is my person.

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "â€™" to "’"

2022-12-10T09:20:32Z

Text replacement - "â€™" to "’"

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:20, 10 December 2022
Line 161:		Line 161:
	:: The Romans felt the absence of a present participle of esse to be a deficiency in their language. As the educated classes and the substantial Greek-speaking sector of the rest of the population were well aware, it exists in Greek. ...		:: The Romans felt the absence of a present participle of esse to be a deficiency in their language. As the educated classes and the substantial Greek-speaking sector of the rest of the population were well aware, it exists in Greek. ...

	:: As present participle of ''esse'', Julius Caesar proposed ''ens, entis'', on the analogy of ''potens, potentis'' (which is strictly the present participle of ''posse'', but is used only as an adjective, in the sense “powerful”). He might have added that ''abesse'' and ''praeesse'', which are also compounds of esse, have the present participles ''absens, -entis'' “being absent” and ''praesens, -entis'' “being present”. ~~Caesarâ€™s~~ proposal had the approval of the influential teacher Quintilian and later of the grammarian Priscian, but it never took hold in the classical period. ''ens'' and the rather wonderful ''ens entium'' “the being of beings” were once used in philosophical writing; note esp. the principle of ~~Occamâ€™s~~ razor, ''entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,'' “entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity,” (i.e. the least complex theory to fit the facts has most chance of being the correct one). (Unlike other philosophical maxims such as ''post hoc, ergo propter hoc'', “after this, therefore on account of this,” and ~~Pascalâ€™s~~ ''cogito, ergo sum'', “I think, therefore I exist,” this phrase, which is not actually to be found in ~~Occamâ€™s~~ extant writings, was not pithy enough to be retained in its original language in modern vernaculars.)		:: As present participle of ''esse'', Julius Caesar proposed ''ens, entis'', on the analogy of ''potens, potentis'' (which is strictly the present participle of ''posse'', but is used only as an adjective, in the sense “powerful”). He might have added that ''abesse'' and ''praeesse'', which are also compounds of esse, have the present participles ''absens, -entis'' “being absent” and ''praesens, -entis'' “being present”. Caesar’s proposal had the approval of the influential teacher Quintilian and later of the grammarian Priscian, but it never took hold in the classical period. ''ens'' and the rather wonderful ''ens entium'' “the being of beings” were once used in philosophical writing; note esp. the principle of Occam’s razor, ''entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,'' “entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity,” (i.e. the least complex theory to fit the facts has most chance of being the correct one). (Unlike other philosophical maxims such as ''post hoc, ergo propter hoc'', “after this, therefore on account of this,” and Pascal’s ''cogito, ergo sum'', “I think, therefore I exist,” this phrase, which is not actually to be found in Occam’s extant writings, was not pithy enough to be retained in its original language in modern vernaculars.)
	\|-		\|-
	\|[''hypostasis'']		\|[''hypostasis'']

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "â€" to "”"

2022-12-10T08:51:18Z

Text replacement - "â€" to "”"

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:51, 10 December 2022
Line 100:		Line 100:
	:; [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%80%CF%81%CF%8C%CF%83%CF%89%CF%80%CE%BF%CE%BD ''Wiktionary'']		:; [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%80%CF%81%CF%8C%CF%83%CF%89%CF%80%CE%BF%CE%BD ''Wiktionary'']

	:: Ï€ÏÏŒÏ‚ (prÃ³s, ~~“towardsâ€~~) +â€Ž á½¤Ïˆ (á¹“ps, ~~“eyeâ€~~).		:: Ï€ÏÏŒÏ‚ (prÃ³s, “towards”) +â€Ž á½¤Ïˆ (á¹“ps, “eye”).

	::- face, visage, countenance		::- face, visage, countenance
Line 112:		Line 112:
	:; [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/persona#Latin ''Wiktionary'']		:; [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/persona#Latin ''Wiktionary'']

	:: Unknown. Possibly from Etruscan ðŒ˜ðŒ„ðŒ“ðŒ”ðŒ– (Ï†ersu) (with some Latin suffix), itself perhaps from Ancient Greek Ï€ÏÏŒÏƒÏ‰Ï€Î¿Î½ (prÃ³sÅpon, “mask, ~~characterâ€~~), and possibly, as Roman writers often suggested, from personÅ (“to sound ~~throughâ€~~).		:: Unknown. Possibly from Etruscan ðŒ˜ðŒ„ðŒ“ðŒ”ðŒ– (Ï†ersu) (with some Latin suffix), itself perhaps from Ancient Greek Ï€ÏÏŒÏƒÏ‰Ï€Î¿Î½ (prÃ³sÅpon, “mask, character”), and possibly, as Roman writers often suggested, from personÅ (“to sound through”).

	\|face, visage, mask, '''person'''		\|face, visage, mask, '''person'''
Line 121:		Line 121:
	:; [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hypostasis#Etymology ''Wiktionary'']		:; [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hypostasis#Etymology ''Wiktionary'']

	:: from á½‘Ï€ÏŒ (hupÃ³) + ÏƒÏ„Î¬ÏƒÎ¹Ï‚ (stÃ¡sis, ~~“standingâ€~~)		:: from á½‘Ï€ÏŒ (hupÃ³) + ÏƒÏ„Î¬ÏƒÎ¹Ï‚ (stÃ¡sis, “standing”)

	\|[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/substance ''substantia'']		\|[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/substance ''substantia'']
Line 127:		Line 127:
	:; [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/substantia ''Wiktionary'']		:; [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/substantia ''Wiktionary'']

	:: From ''substÄns'', present active participle of ''substÅ'' (“stand under; ~~existâ€~~), from ''sub + stÅ'' (~~“standâ€~~).		:: From ''substÄns'', present active participle of ''substÅ'' (“stand under; exist”), from ''sub + stÅ'' (“stand”).

	\|substance (subsisting being, subsistence?)		\|substance (subsisting being, subsistence?)
Line 161:		Line 161:
	:: The Romans felt the absence of a present participle of esse to be a deficiency in their language. As the educated classes and the substantial Greek-speaking sector of the rest of the population were well aware, it exists in Greek. ...		:: The Romans felt the absence of a present participle of esse to be a deficiency in their language. As the educated classes and the substantial Greek-speaking sector of the rest of the population were well aware, it exists in Greek. ...

	:: As present participle of ''esse'', Julius Caesar proposed ''ens, entis'', on the analogy of ''potens, potentis'' (which is strictly the present participle of ''posse'', but is used only as an adjective, in the sense ~~“powerfulâ€~~). He might have added that ''abesse'' and ''praeesse'', which are also compounds of esse, have the present participles ''absens, -entis'' “being ~~absentâ€~~ and ''praesens, -entis'' “being ~~presentâ€~~. Caesarâ€™s proposal had the approval of the influential teacher Quintilian and later of the grammarian Priscian, but it never took hold in the classical period. ''ens'' and the rather wonderful ''ens entium'' “the being of ~~beingsâ€~~ were once used in philosophical writing; note esp. the principle of Occamâ€™s razor, ''entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,'' “entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity,~~â€~~ (i.e. the least complex theory to fit the facts has most chance of being the correct one). (Unlike other philosophical maxims such as ''post hoc, ergo propter hoc'', “after this, therefore on account of this,~~â€~~ and Pascalâ€™s ''cogito, ergo sum'', “I think, therefore I exist,~~â€~~ this phrase, which is not actually to be found in Occamâ€™s extant writings, was not pithy enough to be retained in its original language in modern vernaculars.)		:: As present participle of ''esse'', Julius Caesar proposed ''ens, entis'', on the analogy of ''potens, potentis'' (which is strictly the present participle of ''posse'', but is used only as an adjective, in the sense “powerful”). He might have added that ''abesse'' and ''praeesse'', which are also compounds of esse, have the present participles ''absens, -entis'' “being absent” and ''praesens, -entis'' “being present”. Caesarâ€™s proposal had the approval of the influential teacher Quintilian and later of the grammarian Priscian, but it never took hold in the classical period. ''ens'' and the rather wonderful ''ens entium'' “the being of beings” were once used in philosophical writing; note esp. the principle of Occamâ€™s razor, ''entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,'' “entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity,” (i.e. the least complex theory to fit the facts has most chance of being the correct one). (Unlike other philosophical maxims such as ''post hoc, ergo propter hoc'', “after this, therefore on account of this,” and Pascalâ€™s ''cogito, ergo sum'', “I think, therefore I exist,” this phrase, which is not actually to be found in Occamâ€™s extant writings, was not pithy enough to be retained in its original language in modern vernaculars.)
	\|-		\|-
	\|[''hypostasis'']		\|[''hypostasis'']

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "â€œ" to "“"

2022-12-10T08:49:33Z

Text replacement - "â€œ" to "“"

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:49, 10 December 2022
Line 100:		Line 100:
	:; [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%80%CF%81%CF%8C%CF%83%CF%89%CF%80%CE%BF%CE%BD ''Wiktionary'']		:; [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%80%CF%81%CF%8C%CF%83%CF%89%CF%80%CE%BF%CE%BD ''Wiktionary'']

	:: Ï€ÏÏŒÏ‚ (prÃ³s, ~~â€œtowardsâ€~~) +â€Ž á½¤Ïˆ (á¹“ps, ~~â€œeyeâ€~~).		:: Ï€ÏÏŒÏ‚ (prÃ³s, “towardsâ€) +â€Ž á½¤Ïˆ (á¹“ps, “eyeâ€).

	::- face, visage, countenance		::- face, visage, countenance
Line 112:		Line 112:
	:; [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/persona#Latin ''Wiktionary'']		:; [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/persona#Latin ''Wiktionary'']

	:: Unknown. Possibly from Etruscan ðŒ˜ðŒ„ðŒ“ðŒ”ðŒ– (Ï†ersu) (with some Latin suffix), itself perhaps from Ancient Greek Ï€ÏÏŒÏƒÏ‰Ï€Î¿Î½ (prÃ³sÅpon, ~~â€œmask~~, characterâ€), and possibly, as Roman writers often suggested, from personÅ (~~â€œto~~ sound throughâ€).		:: Unknown. Possibly from Etruscan ðŒ˜ðŒ„ðŒ“ðŒ”ðŒ– (Ï†ersu) (with some Latin suffix), itself perhaps from Ancient Greek Ï€ÏÏŒÏƒÏ‰Ï€Î¿Î½ (prÃ³sÅpon, “mask, characterâ€), and possibly, as Roman writers often suggested, from personÅ (“to sound throughâ€).

	\|face, visage, mask, '''person'''		\|face, visage, mask, '''person'''
Line 121:		Line 121:
	:; [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hypostasis#Etymology ''Wiktionary'']		:; [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hypostasis#Etymology ''Wiktionary'']

	:: from á½‘Ï€ÏŒ (hupÃ³) + ÏƒÏ„Î¬ÏƒÎ¹Ï‚ (stÃ¡sis, ~~â€œstandingâ€~~)		:: from á½‘Ï€ÏŒ (hupÃ³) + ÏƒÏ„Î¬ÏƒÎ¹Ï‚ (stÃ¡sis, “standingâ€)

	\|[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/substance ''substantia'']		\|[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/substance ''substantia'']
Line 127:		Line 127:
	:; [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/substantia ''Wiktionary'']		:; [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/substantia ''Wiktionary'']

	:: From ''substÄns'', present active participle of ''substÅ'' (~~â€œstand~~ under; existâ€), from ''sub + stÅ'' (~~â€œstandâ€~~).		:: From ''substÄns'', present active participle of ''substÅ'' (“stand under; existâ€), from ''sub + stÅ'' (“standâ€).

	\|substance (subsisting being, subsistence?)		\|substance (subsisting being, subsistence?)
Line 161:		Line 161:
	:: The Romans felt the absence of a present participle of esse to be a deficiency in their language. As the educated classes and the substantial Greek-speaking sector of the rest of the population were well aware, it exists in Greek. ...		:: The Romans felt the absence of a present participle of esse to be a deficiency in their language. As the educated classes and the substantial Greek-speaking sector of the rest of the population were well aware, it exists in Greek. ...

	:: As present participle of ''esse'', Julius Caesar proposed ''ens, entis'', on the analogy of ''potens, potentis'' (which is strictly the present participle of ''posse'', but is used only as an adjective, in the sense ~~â€œpowerfulâ€~~). He might have added that ''abesse'' and ''praeesse'', which are also compounds of esse, have the present participles ''absens, -entis'' ~~â€œbeing~~ absentâ€ and ''praesens, -entis'' ~~â€œbeing~~ presentâ€. Caesarâ€™s proposal had the approval of the influential teacher Quintilian and later of the grammarian Priscian, but it never took hold in the classical period. ''ens'' and the rather wonderful ''ens entium'' ~~â€œthe~~ being of beingsâ€ were once used in philosophical writing; note esp. the principle of Occamâ€™s razor, ''entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,'' ~~â€œentities~~ are not to be multiplied beyond necessity,â€ (i.e. the least complex theory to fit the facts has most chance of being the correct one). (Unlike other philosophical maxims such as ''post hoc, ergo propter hoc'', ~~â€œafter~~ this, therefore on account of this,â€ and Pascalâ€™s ''cogito, ergo sum'', ~~â€œI~~ think, therefore I exist,â€ this phrase, which is not actually to be found in Occamâ€™s extant writings, was not pithy enough to be retained in its original language in modern vernaculars.)		:: As present participle of ''esse'', Julius Caesar proposed ''ens, entis'', on the analogy of ''potens, potentis'' (which is strictly the present participle of ''posse'', but is used only as an adjective, in the sense “powerfulâ€). He might have added that ''abesse'' and ''praeesse'', which are also compounds of esse, have the present participles ''absens, -entis'' “being absentâ€ and ''praesens, -entis'' “being presentâ€. Caesarâ€™s proposal had the approval of the influential teacher Quintilian and later of the grammarian Priscian, but it never took hold in the classical period. ''ens'' and the rather wonderful ''ens entium'' “the being of beingsâ€ were once used in philosophical writing; note esp. the principle of Occamâ€™s razor, ''entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem,'' “entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity,â€ (i.e. the least complex theory to fit the facts has most chance of being the correct one). (Unlike other philosophical maxims such as ''post hoc, ergo propter hoc'', “after this, therefore on account of this,â€ and Pascalâ€™s ''cogito, ergo sum'', “I think, therefore I exist,â€ this phrase, which is not actually to be found in Occamâ€™s extant writings, was not pithy enough to be retained in its original language in modern vernaculars.)
	\|-		\|-
	\|[''hypostasis'']		\|[''hypostasis'']

Mxmsj: /* Communicatio idiomum */

2019-02-04T08:27:14Z

Communicatio idiomum

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:27, 4 February 2019
Line 250:		Line 250:
	:::- relationships define Who is Who.		:::- relationships define Who is Who.

	== Communicatio ~~idiomum~~ ==		== Communicatio idiomatum ==

			"Idiomatum" is the genitive plural form of [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/idioma#Latin ''idioma, idiomatis.'']

			The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicatio_idiomatum "communication of idioms"] means that some qualities of God the Son in His divine nature are communicated to His human nature, and vice-versa.

	In Jesus, there is only one Person, who was, who is, who always will be God the Son.		In Jesus, there is only one Person, who was, who is, who always will be God the Son.
Line 256:		Line 260:
	That Person has two natures: the full nature of God and the full nature of a human being. He is "true God and true man."		That Person has two natures: the full nature of God and the full nature of a human being. He is "true God and true man."

	Because that single Person unites the two natures (the doctrine of "hypostatic union"), some of the properties or qualities of one nature are communicated to the other nature.		Because that single Person unites the two natures (the doctrine of "hypostatic union"), some of the properties or qualities of one nature are communicated to or shared with the other nature.

	There is only one "who" in Jesus.		There is only one "who" in Jesus.

Mxmsj: /* References */

2019-02-04T08:22:08Z

References

@@ Line 249: / Line 249: @@
 :::- identity crisis: God is simple.  Are there three "entities" in one being?
 :::- relationships define Who is Who.
 == References ==

Mxmsj: /* Stretching the limits of language */

2019-02-04T08:03:23Z

Stretching the limits of language

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:03, 4 February 2019
Line 92:		Line 92:
	{\| {{Prettytable}}		{\| {{Prettytable}}
	\|-		\|-
	!Greek		! width="30%" \|Greek
	!Latin		! width="30%" \|Latin
	!English		! width="30%" \|English
	\|-		\|-
	\|[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosopon Ï€ÏÏŒÏƒÏ‰Ï€Î¿Î½ (prosopon)]		\|[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosopon Ï€ÏÏŒÏƒÏ‰Ï€Î¿Î½ (prosopon)]
Line 151:		Line 151:
	\|-		\|-
	\|Ï„á½¸ á½„Î½--the being		\|Ï„á½¸ á½„Î½--the being
	\|quod est--what is		\|''quod est''--what is
	\|being, entity, substance		\|being, entity, substance