Evidence for God from Science

http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/TP/TP004.html

Clip: I answer that, As has been said above (Article [2]), what is assumed is not the term of the assumption, but is presupposed to the assumption. Now it was said (Question [3], Articles [1],2) that the individual to Whom the human nature is assumed is none other than the Divine Person, Who is the term of the assumption. Now this word "man" signifies human nature, as it is in a suppositum, because, as Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 4,11), this word God signifies Him Who has human nature. And hence it cannot properly be said that the Son assumed a man, granted (as it must be, in fact) that in Christ there is but one suppositum and one hypostasis. But according to such as hold that there are two hypostases or two supposita in Christ, it may fittingly and properly be said that the Son of God assumed a man. Hence the first opinion quoted in Sent. iii, D. 6, grants that a man was assumed. But this opinion is erroneous, as was said above (Question [2], Article [6]).

It looks like Thomas Aquinas is saying that the Christ -- the Word made flesh -- did not take on another person, as in two persons in one being, but took on human nature, but not another person -- one being with two natures.

Am I right?

Thanks.

The link you provided is to a heavily abridged version of Third Part, Q. 4, Art. 2 of Summa Theologica. A lot of information has been left out. I'll read my complete version and let you know my take on it.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:The link you provided is to a heavily abridged version of Third Part, Q. 4, Art. 2 of Summa Theologica. A lot of information has been left out. I'll read my complete version and let you know my take on it.

FL

Thanks FL, I thought it was missing something...
-
-
-

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:The link you provided is to a heavily abridged version of Third Part, Q. 4, Art. 2 of Summa Theologica. A lot of information has been left out. I'll read my complete version and let you know my take on it.

FL

I didn't know it was abridged. Is the complete version available online?

Thanks for your reply.

Christian2 wrote:I didn't know it was abridged. Is the complete version available online?

I don't know if you can get a complete version online. I have Summa Theologica in a hardcover, two-volume set. It isn't an easy read...I'm still at it.

FL

PS: to understand what the author is saying about question 4, you first have to understand what he said about questions 2 and 3; and question LXIV of part 1, article 2...and more. I may be a while...!

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Christian2 wrote:I didn't know it was abridged. Is the complete version available online?

I don't know if you can get a complete version online. I have Summa Theologica in a hardcover, two-volume set. It isn't an easy read...I'm still at it.

FL

PS: to understand what the author is saying about question 4, you first have to understand what he said about questions 2 and 3; and question LXIV of part 1, article 2...and more. I may be a while...!

OK, I appreciate the help.

Did he believe Jesus was a man, a human being?

Christian2 wrote:Did he believe Jesus was a man, a human being?

Aquinas thinks that the Word (that is, Jesus) assumed a human body. Now, when your body was formed, a personality/a disposition/an innate way of relating to the world unique to you was formed along with your body. So, a human spirit arises from a human body. In other words, your spirit was not pre-existing and then placed into your body while in your mother's womb.

In Jesus' case, according to Aquinas, a body was prepared for the Word (Heb 10:5) and the eternal I AM assumed that body. So, Jesus was fully human like us but had the personality He always had from eternity past. He was God in human flesh.

There is much more to Summa Theologica, Third Part, also called the Treatise on the Incarnation. In my copy, it runs from pages 701 to 845 (of Volume 2!) and gives Aquinas' thoughts on such things as, #9. Christ's Knowledge in General; #14. Of the Defects of Body Assumed By the Son of God; #15. Of the Defects of Soul Assumed by Christ, just to name a few.

Also interesting is the Treatise on the Resurrection...but that's another topic.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote: In Jesus' case, according to Aquinas, a body was prepared for the Word (Heb 10:5) and the eternal I AM assumed that body. So, Jesus was fully human like us but had the personality He always had from eternity past. He was God in human flesh.

And this is what Trinitarian Christians believe.

Christian2 wrote:And this is what Trinitarian Christians believe.

Is there another kind of Christian?!

From what I've read in Part Three, Aquinas' exegesis conforms to the biblical text. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians and other pseudo-Christian cults recognize a different Jesus and are worshipping a different god.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Christian2 wrote:And this is what Trinitarian Christians believe.

Is there another kind of Christian?!

From what I've read in Part Three, Aquinas' exegesis conforms to the biblical text. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians and other pseudo-Christian cults recognize a different Jesus and are worshipping a different god.

FL

Thanks.

What is your understanding of these two short articles?

http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/e ... ord-become

http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/a ... jesus-take

Christian2 wrote:What is your understanding of these two short articles?

http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/e ... ord-become

http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/a ... jesus-take

From a summary reading of both articles, I would say that they agree with Aquinas, Third Part, Q 2, & 4, in that Jesus did not assume a human body having its own pre-existing, innate, non-divine personality, which He took over and subjugated. Jesus kept His own personality which he had from eternity past. In other words, God was not a parasite living in a human body and taking it over like a symbiote. Jesus, as God, is integrity personified: the human body was His and His alone, and He was - and is - God incarnate.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Christian2 wrote:What is your understanding of these two short articles?

http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/e ... ord-become

http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/a ... jesus-take

From a summary reading of both articles, I would say that they agree with Aquinas, Third Part, Q 2, & 4, in that Jesus did not assume a human body having its own pre-existing, innate, non-divine personality, which He took over and subjugated. Jesus kept His own personality which he had from eternity past. In other words, God was not a parasite living in a human body and taking it over like a symbiote. Jesus, as God, is integrity personified: the human body was His and His alone, and He was - and is - God incarnate.

FL

Thank you for your help.