A. General reflections. 8 min., 58 sec. Real Audio.

B. Deeper reflections. 9 min., 21 sec. Real audio.

- - - - -

What are your questions, comments, reflections? What resources do you recommend?

If natural theology does not speak directly of the nature of God but only speaks through analogy, saying what God is like ...

and, if through kataphasis we affirm that God is like this or that ...

but, if through apophasis we deny that he is like this or that in precisely the same way that creatures are ...

then, eminently, what does revealed theology reveal ?

quote:

How can the eternal Logos of God express Himself within the finitude of a creature in the person of Jesus? Balthasar's answer is that the humanity of Jesus is more than simply an analogous representation of the Godhead in the world. Rather, the concrete analogy of being appears in His own person, both God and man. The consubstantial image and expression of the Father in the incarnate Word does not merely make the divine beauty, goodness, and truth visible in the world-it IS that beauty, goodness, and truth itself.

The Logic of Revelation by John-Peter Pham

pax,
jb

Footnote re: kataphasis, apophasis and eminence

INDUCTIVE DEVELOPMENT OF ATTRIBUTES



The elaboration of the idea of God is carried out along

three converging lines.



(1) The positive way of causality



In virtue of the principle that whatever excellence is

contained in an effect is represented in the efficiency

of the cause, reason affirms that every positive

perfection of created being has its transcendental

analogue in the first cause. Hence, from the

existence of an intelligent being, man, in the

cosmos, we rightly infer that God is intelligent ,

that is to say, His infinite perfection is

superabundantly adequate to all the operations of

intellect.



(2) The negative way



If we fix our attention precisely on the Infinity of God,

then, focusing the negation not upon the positive

content of any created perfection but upon the fact

that, because it is finite it is determined in kind and

limited in degree, we may affirm that it is not found in

God. We may say, e.g., that He is not intelligent.

The meaning of the statement is not that God

lacks intelligence but that in Him there is no

intelligence exactly as we know it. Again, since

there is no imperfection in God, every concept of

defect, privation, and limitation must be negated of

God. Many negative names, it is true, are applied to

God; as when, for instance, He is said to be

immutable, uncaused, infinite. It should, however, be

carefully observed that some attributes, which, from

the etymological point of view are negative, convey,

nevertheless, a positive meaning. Failure to perceive

this obvious truth has been responsible for much

empty dogmatism on the impossibility of forming any

concept of the Infinite. The basic note in the idea of

the Infinite is existence, actuality, perfection; the

negative note is subordinate. Furthermore, since the

force of the latter note is to deny any and all

limitations to the actuality represented by the former,

its real import is positive, like the cancellation of a

minus sign in an algebraic formula; or, it discharges

the function of an exponent and raises actuality to the

nth power.



(3) Way of eminence



The concept of a perfection derived from created

things and freed of all defects, is, in its application to

God, expanded without limit. God not only possesses

every excellence discoverable in creation, but He also

possesses it infinitely. To emphasize the

transcendence of the Divine perfection, in some

cases an abstract noun is substituted for the

corresponding adjective; as, God is Intelligence

; or, again, some word of intensive, or exclusive,

force is joined to the attribute; as, God alone is good,

God is goodness itself, God is all-powerful, or

supremely powerful.


Divine Attributes - The Catholic Encyclopedia

Here it is! Jim Arraj's:The Jesus of History & The Jesus of Faith

Jim asks: Have the findings of the historians about Jesus made it more difficult, or impossible, to believe in the Jesus that faith proposes to us?

I encourage you to explore the answers that Jim proposes. Perhaps we could kick off this thread by citing our favorite quotes from this last section of The Christian Mysteries?

pax,
jb

Glad to see that finally made its way onto the net.

I'll start out easy, here, and say that the first and most helpful thing about Jim's approach is the distinction between the Jesus of Faith and the Jesus of history. Granted that these are both the same Jesus, but the way we talk about the Jesus of Faith will be very different from the way we talk about the Jesus of history. The New Testament is more concerned about the former, presupposing certain "givens" about the latter: e.g., that he really lived, taught, worked miracles, was arrested, tried, suffered, died. Even here, however, the New Testament presents these deeds with the Jesus of Faith in mind.

Enough for now. Jim's work here is a very important one, Catholic theology at its best!