Joseph Albrigo

@Eurokipper @jaredadairbell That's intriguing, bc the LDS church refused to ordain anyone with black blood, anyone related to these races, bc of this curse. They only changed this practice in the 70s upon supposedly receiving new revelation, saying blacks could now be ordained.

@JosephAlbrigo @jaredadairbell I don’t think I mentioned anything about that, but now that you mention it, no, you are incorrect. There are no claims that people of India or Africa are in any way related to the lamanites. None in the Book of Mormon and none that I have ever heard in LDS discourse.

Are Mormons RACIST?

@salsoleto @5Solas2 Here is the way I tgink about it: The referent is the person, and the person is shown and made visible in the image, and the image used to show the person is the sacred humanity

@JosephAlbrigo @5Solas2

Nope. Only Jesus.

@salsoleto @5Solas2 I'm using icon in the general sense, not referring to Col, just the basic definitional use of the term, in which case in can and must be applied to the sacred humanity of Christ

@JosephAlbrigo @5Solas2

@salsoleto @5Solas2 Sure, the predicate is applied to the person, but as we said earlier, that which is attributed to the person corresponds a nature. The divine nature is invisible, so we predicate the term to the human nature since it is in fact visible.

@JosephAlbrigo @5Solas2

@salsoleto @5Solas2 I'm not struggling with metaphysics here, my point is that bc Christ's sacred humanity is that of a divine person, when we see the sacred humanity we actually see the divine person for the person is hypostatically united to the sacred humanity. It's the same move as above

@JosephAlbrigo @5Solas2

@salsoleto @5Solas2 Is the Christ's body the body of a divine person? During the crucifixion, did a body die or did Jesus Christ the person die?

@JosephAlbrigo @5Solas2

@salsoleto @5Solas2 Such that when Christ is said to be an icon in that in seeing Him we see the divine person, this attribute is according to the human nature, but the person apprehended is divine and the person is God so we can say we see God when we see Jesus

@salsoleto @5Solas2 I'm not trying to apply human attributes to the divine nature. I specifically noted that the attributes of the person are attributed according to the proper nature. Perhaps the only clarification is that "whole" wasn't helpful, but what's true of a nature is true of the person

@salsoleto @5Solas2 It's not a category error bc the 2nd person of the Trinity is hypostatically united to the sacred humanity. Christ is a person subsistining in 2 natures. Anything attributed to person of Christ is thereby attributed to the whole person according to the natures

@JosephAlbrigo @5Solas2 You’re taking a predicate applied to Christ as a person and applying it to His body as such... that’s the category error.

@salsoleto @5Solas2 Eikon is never undefined, it has a definition intrinsically. Context draws out the precise meaning, but a term need not be defined in the text explicitly. Which I'd good bc St Paul never does define it

@JosephAlbrigo @5Solas2 No.. Words have a range of meaning, but context determines which one is intended. Paul doesn’t leave eikon undefined... he explains it in vv.16–20, so there’s no need to default to an assumed definition.

@salsoleto @5Solas2 What is the category error?

@JosephAlbrigo @5Solas2 Because I don't agree. It's a category error

@salsoleto @5Solas2 But importantly we must understand the meaning of the titles before we have further depth given to them, and beyond that, when further depth is given to them, we should expect that to be indicated, which it is, but it never conflicts with the base meaning

@JosephAlbrigo @5Solas2

@salsoleto @5Solas2 Not solely usage. The term also has inherent meaning, and as we are discussing in the other section, I see no reason to believe St Paul is explaining eikon apart from sight. He already used it in context and, since terms mean things, we needn't expect further explanation

@JosephAlbrigo @5Solas2 You don’t assume a meaning unless it’s rejected.... you derive meaning from usage. And Paul explains eikon in Col 1:16–20 without appealing to sight, so that sense isn’t part of his usage here.

@salsoleto @5Solas2 It can also come from the meaning of the word...right? The main reason I bring this up is bc even if we disagree about what St Paul is saying, we should be able to agree Christ is the icon of God in this sense I'm proposing

@JosephAlbrigo @5Solas2 That doesn’t settle the meaning of eikōn in this text... that has to come from Paul’s usage.

@salsoleto @5Solas2 Why? We agree "for" applies what is said to Christ, but I don't see how it automatically applies to the titles. The titles have meaning and don't necessitate further explanation, so why assume the later verses explain the titles without explicit connection?

@JosephAlbrigo @5Solas2

@salsoleto @5Solas2 But to claim the basic definition of the term cannot be applied to deny the base meaning of the term. You don't allow St Paul to mean the simple definition despite him never rejecting it, so we must assume it applies unless specifially abrogated (Univocal was the wrong term lol)

@JosephAlbrigo @5Solas2

@salsoleto @5Solas2 But surely you don't actually think that...? We agree that in seeing Jesus, even if only perceiving His sacred humanity, one see God, right? Like, that's I believe St Paul is communicating, and even if you disagree that St Paul is saying this, we agree on the content of the claim

@JosephAlbrigo @5Solas2 Because it's wrong

@salsoleto @5Solas2 ...definition of the titles since St Paul's words have meaning in themselves and don't require further explanation, and any further explanation must be understood as deepening our understanding not contradicting it, unless St Paul explicitly proposes a kind of contradiction

@salsoleto @5Solas2 The subject of V15 is Christ, not the titles, right? If we agree on this, why think "for" applies to something other than the subject? I propose we can see a connection when we encounter similar concepts in the later verses, but we shouldn't read it as an necessary...

@salsoleto @5Solas2 It feels like your default in this discussion is to disagree with my interpretation, even when I'm genuinely trying to put forward a reading that should mesh seamlessly with both of our faith traditions

@salsoleto @5Solas2 ...feels like a radical double standard. Beyond that, I don't see why you are so resistant to my interpretation, since we both agree on the contents of my claim, namely that in seeing Jesus man sees God Himself, even tho he may only sensibly perceive His sacred humanity.