Rate This. After escaping execution, Tarik, a Bosnian prisoner of war, immigrates to the United States looking to leave his past behind. Years later, the man who spared his life shows up on Tarik's doorstep asking for a favor.
In the Name of the Son: The Gerry Conlon Story | Irish Academic Press
Director: Harun Mehmedinovic. Writer: Harun Mehmedinovic. Filmovi za skidanje. Amazing must-see's. Ex-Yu movies I've seen. Use the HTML below. You must be a registered user to use the IMDb rating plugin. Edit Cast Cast overview, first billed only: Sergej Trifunovic Tarik Jack Dimich Pavle Elvedin Slipac Milan Ingrid Walters Ayanna Nino Cirabisi Passenger Zoran Radanovich Serb Officer Zoran Danilovic Serb Soldier Val Morrison Serb Soldier Edin Gali Passenger Ryan O'Quinn World Cup Announcer Chip Mullaney Edit Storyline A film that looks at human conflicts in the present, brought about during personal clashes in the Bosnian war in Certificate: Not Rated.
Edit Details Official Sites: Official site. Language: English Bosnian Serbian. Color: Color. Edit Did You Know? Trivia The first live action short film in history to receive an exclusive screening for the US Congress officials on Capitol Hill. Add the first question. Edit page. Clear your history. IMDb Everywhere. Article 2. Whether "Word" is the Son's proper name?
It would seem that "Word" is not the proper name of the Son. For the Son is a subsisting person in God. But word does not signify a subsisting thing, as appears in ourselves. Therefore word cannot be the proper name of the person of the Son. Further, the word proceeds from the speaker by being uttered. Therefore if the Son is properly the word, He proceeds from the Father, by way only of utterance; which is the heresy of Valentine; as appears from Augustine De Haeres. Further, every proper name of a person signifies some property of that person. Therefore, if the Word is the Son's proper name, it signifies some property of His; and thus there will be several more properties in God than those above mentioned.
Further, whoever understands conceives a word in the act of understanding. But the Son understands. Therefore some word belongs to the Son; and consequently to be Word is not proper to the Son. Objection 5. Therefore to be Word is not proper to the Son. For it signifies an emanation of the intellect : and the person Who proceeds in God , by way of emanation of the intellect , is called the Son; and this procession is called generation, as we have shown above I Hence it follows that the Son alone is properly called Word in God.
Hence that which in us has intellectual being, does not belong to our nature. But in God "to be" and "to understand" are one and the same: hence the Word of God is not an accident in Him, or an effect of His; but belongs to His very nature. And therefore it must needs be something subsistent; for whatever is in the nature of God subsists; and so Damascene says De Fide Orth. The error of Valentine was condemned, not as the Arians pretended, because he asserted that the Son was born by being uttered, as Hilary relates De Trin.
Reply to Objection 3. In the term "Word" the same property is comprised as in the name Son. To show that He is of the same nature as the Father, He is called the Son; to show that He is co-eternal, He is called the Splendor; to show that He is altogether like, He is called the Image; to show that He is begotten immaterially, He is called the Word. All these truths cannot be expressed by only one name.
To be intelligent belongs to the Son, in the same way as it belongs to Him to be God , since to understand is said of God essentially , as stated above I and I Now the Son is God begotten, and not God begetting; and hence He is intelligent , not as producing a Word, but as the Word proceeding; forasmuch as in God the Word proceeding does not differ really from the divine intellect , but is distinguished from the principle of the Word only by relation. Reply to Objection 5. When it is said of the Son, "Bearing all things by the word of His power"; "word" is taken figuratively for the effect of the Word.
Hence a gloss says that "word" is here taken to mean command; inasmuch as by the effect of the power of the Word, things are kept in being, as also by the effect of the power of the Word things are brought into being.
- The Kentucky Derby: How the Run for the Roses Became Americas Premier Sporting Event.
- The Golden Tablet of Fishing.
- Working Papers & Publications.
Basil speaks widely and figuratively in applying Word to the Holy Ghost ; in the sense perhaps that everything that makes a person known may be called his word, and so in that way the Holy Ghost may be called the Son's Word, because He manifests the Son. Article 3. Whether the name "Word" imports relation to creatures? It would seem that the name 'Word' does not import relation to creatures. For every name that connotes some effect in creatures, is said of God essentially. But Word is not said essentially , but personally.
Most Read in Culture
Therefore Word does not import relation to creatures. Further, whatever imports relation to creatures is said of God in time ; as "Lord" and "Creator. Therefore it does not import relation to the creature. Further, Word imports relation to the source whence it proceeds. Therefore, if it imports relation to the creature, it follows that the Word proceeds from the creature. Further, ideas in God are many according to their various relations to creatures. Therefore if Word imports relation to creatures, it follows that in God there is not one Word only, but many.
Further, if Word imports relation to the creature, this can only be because creatures are known by God. But God does not know beings only; He knows also non-beings. Therefore in the Word are implied relations to non-beings; which appears to be false. On the contrary, Augustine says QQ. For God by knowing Himself, knows every creature.
Now the word conceived in the mind is representative of everything that is actually understood. Hence there are in ourselves different words for the different things which we understand. But because God by one act understands Himself and all things, His one only Word is expressive not only of the Father, but of all creatures.
And as the knowledge of God is only cognitive as regards God , whereas as regards creatures, it is both cognitive and operative, so the Word of God is only expressive of what is in God the Father, but is both expressive and operative of creatures; and therefore it is said Psalm : "He spake, and they were made;" because in the Word is implied the operative idea of what God makes. The nature is also included indirectly in the name of the person ; for person is an individual substance of a rational nature. Therefore the name of a divine person , as regards the personal relation, does not imply relation to the creature, but it is implied in what belongs to the nature.
Yet there is nothing to prevent its implying relation to creatures, so far as the essence is included in its meaning: for as it properly belongs to the Son to be the Son, so it properly belongs to Him to be God begotten, or the Creator begotten; and in this way the name Word imports relation to creatures.
Names with "son" in Meaning
Since the relations result from actions, some names import the relation of God to creatures, which relation follows on the action of God which passes into some exterior effect, as to create and to govern; and the like are applied to God in time. But others import a relation which follows from an action which does not pass into an exterior effect, but abides in the agent—as to know and to will: such are not applied to God in time ; and this kind of relation to creatures is implied in the name of the Word.
Nor is it true that all names which import the relation of God to creatures are applied to Him in time ; but only those names are applied in time which import relation following on the action of God passing into exterior effect.
Creatures are known to God not by a knowledge derived from the creatures themselves, but by His own essence. Hence it is not necessary that the Word should proceed from creatures, although the Word is expressive of creatures. The name of Idea is imposed chiefly to signify relation to creatures; and therefore it is applied in a plural sense to God ; and it is not said personally.
But the name of Word is imposed chiefly to signify the speaker, and consequently, relation to creatures, inasmuch as God , by understanding Himself, understands every creature; and so there is only one Word in God , and that is a personal one.
God's knowledge of non-beings and God's Word about non-beings are the same; because the Word of God contains no less than does the knowledge of God , as Augustine says De Trin. Nevertheless the Word is expressive and operative of beings, but is expressive and manifestive of non-beings.