Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
God Himself does not know what He is because He is not anything [i.e., "not any created thing"]. Literally God is not, because He transcends being. [80] When he says "He is not anything" and "God is not", Scotus does not mean that there is no God, but that God cannot be said to exist in the way that creation exists, i.e. that God is uncreated.
[3] By defining what God or the divine is we limit the unlimited. As Saint Augustine wrote, similarly, "if you can grasp [God], it isn’t God." [4] A cataphatic way to express God would be that God is love. The apophatic way would be to state that God is not hate (although such description can be accused of the same dualism).
the Akkadian nominal stem il-meaning 'god' or 'goddess', derived from the Semitic ʾil-the god Anum (An) the Akkadian word šamû, meaning 'sky' the syllables an and il (from the Akkadian word god: An or Il, or from gods with these names) a preposition meaning "at" or "to" a determinative indicating that the following word is the name of a god
In the New Testament the Greek word θεῖον (theion) in the Douay Version, is translated as "divinity". Examples are below: Acts 17:29 "Being therefore the offspring of God, we must not suppose the divinity to be like unto gold, or silver, or stone, the graving of art, and device of man." Romans 1:20
An antonym is one of a pair of words with opposite meanings. Each word in the pair is the antithesis of the other. A word may have more than one antonym. There are three categories of antonyms identified by the nature of the relationship between the opposed meanings.
The claim here is that we understand God because we can share in his being, and by extension, the transcendental attributes of being, namely, goodness, truth, and unity. [2] So far as Scotus is concerned, we need to be able to understand what ‘being’ is as a concept in order to demonstrate the existence of God, lest we compare what we know ...
Devaughn Vele gets a good grade for concentration. The Denver Broncos receiver couldn't have figured that he would catch a touchdown when Bo Nix threw it toward the back of the end zone.
Rather it is a complex functional subjective term just like dharma, with shades of meaning, that depends on circumstances, purpose and context. [7] Gene F. Collins Jr. defines Adharma as irreligiosity. Gene states that it is anything contrary to the laws of existence. According to him, they are those actions which are contrary to one's Dharma.