Thread: Kerygmania: Only Begotten Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000969
Posted by 12uthy (# 9400) on
:
I've been wondering lately about the origin of the term "Only begotten" when referring to Jesus Christ. I can only find it twice in the gospel of John as well as once in the 1st Letter of John.
How reliable do we think the translation is of this expression?
[ 19. November 2013, 02:07: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
Who else would you think might be considered "begotten of the Father"?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
I would think the issue is what begotten means, not whether the translation is reliable.....?
But if you mean it's only in John and 1 John so should it be in the creeds, then yeah, reasonable question.
Posted by 12uthy (# 9400) on
:
Evensong is right I think my issue is with it's meaning. I have many Muslim friends who have issue with the idea that "begotten" denotes some kind of sexual activity as opposed to the understanding that we Christians tend towards which would be better translated as "created" or would it, what do we think?
Can anyone shed any light on the original greek expression?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
The point of the term is precisely that we don't understand the Son/Word to be created. The Word was with God and the Word was God. And therefore, if God, not created. So we need a word to use of the Son that isn't 'created' and 'begotten' is Biblical. (To the extent that that matters - 'of one substance' is certainly not in the Bible, but why should it be?)
The understanding that the Fathers expressed through 'begotten' was that the Word shares the same nature as God - it is the same 'kind' of 'being' as God. The process in the created world that is closest to this, bringing into existence something of the same kind as the bringer is 'begetting'.
Obviously, there are things you can say to Muslims to counteract misunderstandings of how we understand the Trinity. You can talk of how religious language has to apply created language to the uncreated, and so you can't transfer across all of what it denotes when used of the 'created' order. When it comes down to it though, Muslims don't believe God is a Trinity and we do.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
So what do Muslims think of Unitarians?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
So what do Muslims think of Unitarians?
Possibly included as "People of the Book"?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
The Greek word would be monogenes, which as you can see is the word for "one, only, solo" tacked onto the word you see in terms such as "generated, genealogy, genetics". It definitely means one-of-a-kind with respect to origin, and the "gen" part of of it suggests something more akin to biology or simple derivation (like a river which flows out of a snowpack?) than to creation, where the two things involved are totally different beings. With geneo, they are of the same kind--God of God, light of light, etc.
Monogenes is the word you would use of a human only-begotten son (the only one of his father), though I think it appears in one place of Isaac, who was in fact Abraham's second-born son. But for the purposes of the passage, Ishmael is totally out of the picture (not being the child of promise) and so Isaac gets monogenes.
The "begotten" part doesn't have to imply a particular action within time--all human begettings are like that, but God the Father's begetting of Christ is not (as if there ever were a time when Christ did not exist). Problem is, we have only human language to apply to a distinctly non-human situation, so you have to do some explaining when you use the term. Just as we do when we speak of the three "persons" of the Trinity, which does not imply separateness in the way that it would for three human persons. Oh the joys of language as applied to God. ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
You know, the real fun comes in when you have to translate this into a language that HAS no specific word for siring, fathering, begetting, and so your choices for monogenes are the wimpy "only" or the feminine "bore, gave birth to". In Vietnamese, we've gone for the feminine (bearing a son) which is a bit odd-looking with all the masculine pronouns, but we wanted to preserve the emphasis on the bearer and born being both of the same kind.
Posted by 12uthy (# 9400) on
:
quote:
When it comes down to it though, Muslims don't believe God is a Trinity and we do. [/QB]
I have to say it and no offence meant but speak for yourself. I am a unitarian and I have to say that I get on much better with my muslim friends because of it.
That is really why I wondered at the original greek expression. Does it really support Jesus being God or as I believe, a god, ie of divine origin?
Posted by 12uthy (# 9400) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The Greek word would be monogenes, which as you can see is the word for "one, only, solo" tacked onto the word you see in terms such as "generated, genealogy, genetics". It definitely means one-of-a-kind with respect to origin, and the "gen" part of of it suggests something more akin to biology or simple derivation (like a river which flows out of a snowpack?) than to creation, where the two things involved are totally different beings. With geneo, they are of the same kind--God of God, light of light, etc.
Monogenes is the word you would use of a human only-begotten son (the only one of his father), though I think it appears in one place of Isaac, who was in fact Abraham's second-born son. But for the purposes of the passage, Ishmael is totally out of the picture (not being the child of promise) and so Isaac gets monogenes.
The "begotten" part doesn't have to imply a particular action within time--all human begettings are like that, but God the Father's begetting of Christ is not (as if there ever were a time when Christ did not exist). Problem is, we have only human language to apply to a distinctly non-human situation, so you have to do some explaining when you use the term. Just as we do when we speak of the three "persons" of the Trinity, which does not imply separateness in the way that it would for three human persons. Oh the joys of language as applied to God.
You know, the real fun comes in when you have to translate this into a language that HAS no specific word for siring, fathering, begetting, and so your choices for monogenes are the wimpy "only" or the feminine "bore, gave birth to". In Vietnamese, we've gone for the feminine (bearing a son) which is a bit odd-looking with all the masculine pronouns, but we wanted to preserve the emphasis on the bearer and born being both of the same kind.
So what you are saying, forgive me if I've got it wrong, is that Jesus is the only one of the same genetic makeup as God, our Father. That makes much more sense to me and gives me something to tell my muslim friends. Have I got it right?
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
Fascinating discussion -- but as it hinges almost entirely on the translation and meaning of a word in a Biblical text, it's much more in the purview of Kergymania than of Purgatory. Fasten your seatbelts and enjoy the ride, and please do continue the discussion over there.
Trudy, Scrumptious Purgatory Host
Posted by 12uthy (# 9400) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Fascinating discussion -- but as it hinges almost entirely on the translation and meaning of a word in a Biblical text, it's much more in the purview of Kergymania than of Purgatory. Fasten your seatbelts and enjoy the ride, and please do continue the discussion over there.
Trudy, Scrumptious Purgatory Host
Thanks Trudy
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Um, well, strictly speaking God hasn't got any genetics--I think you'd do better with the more general word "kind" or even the less-than-respectful "same kind of thing". The idea is that a duck begets a duck, a horse begets a horse, and God... well...
But never "a god." A god (lowercase god) is a different kind of thing altogether from the One True God that we know as the Holy Trinity. For Jesus to be the only begotten does NOT mean that he is outside the Trinity, rather it defines his position within the Trinity (in relationship to God the Father, I mean--Jesus is the SECOND person, not the First).
Lowercase gods (to run with the tangent for a moment) seem a lot closer to what we would call tutelary angels, or even patron saints, assuming that any of these things exist. Basically minor characters with a supernatural authority over one particular field (not all of life), and that authority delegated to them by the High God who made and upholds everything, and who could unmake them in a moment if he chose. Not the same "species" as the Trinity at all.
As for the Muslims, I'm afraid they won't be happy with your explanation no matter how you phrase it. To them, the notion of the Trinity is all tri and no unity. They honestly can't see how we can claim to believe in One God. No blame to them, really--the Trinity is humanly speaking incomprehensible, and believable only for those who have been given faith by the Holy Spirit. So your friends are bound to think you're tap-dancing around tri-theism, no matter how you phrase it. And that won't sit well with monotheists who don't recognize your own monotheism. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Was wondering ..
Here is a link to John1:14 (Blue Letter Bible with Greek provided)
Where the word we find translated as "only-begotten" is μονογενής (monogenēs). Verse 14 also provides a clear link to the word Word, so that the only-begotten in verse 14 is clearly the Word who was "with God, was God, and was in the beginning with God" (John 1:1-2)
These verses were and are critical to the traditional understanding that the Word made flesh was God the Son. The Word who was made flesh and dwelt among us. They have been subject to much detailed scholarship and much previous discussion in Keryg. Here is a link to a previous thread in Keryg looking at John1:1.
So I think the sense one makes out of "monogenes" is very much dependent on what sense one makes of the earlier context. Traditional Christian belief has been content with the understanding that these verses in John foreshadow Trinitarian belief. The Word who became flesh was God the Son, and he was there from the very beginning with God. Jesus the Son was not a creation of God the Father. He eternally was,is and will be the Son. So the term monogenes, because of its context, is not taken to mean begotten in the same way as humans "beget." As the
The roots of the Arian controversy and others are to be found here as well.
I'm with the traditionalists here. I'm happy that John 1 foreshadows not just a significant element of Trinitarian doctrine but also foreshadows the understanding of Jesus as fully God and fully man. They "saw his glory". Hence this summary from the Nicene creed.
"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one being with the Father.
Through him all things were made."
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
(Sorry about the "As the". Missed it in preview and missed the edit time. Should have been deleted)
Posted by 12uthy (# 9400) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But never "a god." A god (lowercase god) is a different kind of thing altogether from the One True God that we know as the Holy Trinity. For Jesus to be the only begotten does NOT mean that he is outside the Trinity, rather it defines his position within the Trinity (in relationship to God the Father, I mean--Jesus is the SECOND person, not the First).
Lowercase gods (to run with the tangent for a moment) seem a lot closer to what we would call tutelary angels, or even patron saints, assuming that any of these things exist. Basically minor characters with a supernatural authority over one particular field (not all of life), and that authority delegated to them by the High God who made and upholds everything, and who could unmake them in a moment if he chose. Not the same "species" as the Trinity at all.
As for the Muslims, I'm afraid they won't be happy with your explanation no matter how you phrase it. To them, the notion of the Trinity is all tri and no unity. They honestly can't see how we can claim to believe in One God. No blame to them, really--the Trinity is humanly speaking incomprehensible, and believable only for those who have been given faith by the Holy Spirit. So your friends are bound to think you're tap-dancing around tri-theism, no matter how you phrase it. And that won't sit well with monotheists who don't recognize your own monotheism.
Why must the fact that Christ adn the Father are of the same "species" necessarily indicate a Trinity? Your explaination of the tutelery angel fits much better with me, why cannot Christ be the one special god-like angel made flesh rather than God made flesh.Does that make sense.
You are right that muslims will never accept Trinitarian Christians because they count them as the ones who as the Koran puts it "add gods to God" They will never accept any kind of Trinitarian explanation but they might accept an explanation that put Jesus as not equal to God.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
Evensong is right I think my issue is with it's meaning. I have many Muslim friends who have issue with the idea that "begotten" denotes some kind of sexual activity as opposed to the understanding that we Christians tend towards which would be better translated as "created" or would it, what do we think?
No no no. We do not believe Jesus was created. We had this big fight back in the 4th century about this, and the phrase "begotten, not made" was included in the Creed just to rule this out. Whatever 'begotten' means, it does NOT mean 'created'.
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
why cannot Christ be the one special god-like angel made flesh rather than God made flesh.
Because then God didn't love us enough to suffer and die for us Himself, He just sent some other schmo to do it.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Because part of our salvation was uniting the human nature to the divine. This required somebody who, well, united the human nature to the divine. Uniting the human nature to the angelic isn't quite the same thing. At all.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
You are right that muslims will never accept Trinitarian Christians because they count them as the ones who as the Koran puts it "add gods to God" They will never accept any kind of Trinitarian explanation but they might accept an explanation that put Jesus as not equal to God.
What Muslims "will never accept" is a matter for them, surely? If they understand that the basis of traditional Christian belief in Jesus is not about "adding gods to God" (I can assure you it isn't), then of course they are free to accept or not accept whatever they like. But suppose they do not understand? Do you understand clearly enough to explain these thing to your friends?
We've had Muslims on SoF before who have participated in discussions about tenets of Christianity and Islam. Such discussions sometimes clarify matters, resolve misunderstandings, bridge gaps. One can always try. Perhaps one or two of your friends might consider joining this website? Just a thought.
Peaceful co-existence (or at any rate more peaceful co-existence) between folks of different religious beliefs should not be dependent on folks of one faith changing their beliefs to suit the scepticism of folks of another. Trinitarian understanding was orthodox amongst Christians a long time before Islam came into being. So was a belief about living peaceably with all, in so far as it depends upon us. From Romans 12
quote:
14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.
We may not always have done a very good job in living up to that standard, but it's another aspect of Christian belief which does not need to change.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
Why must the fact that Christ adn the Father are of the same "species" necessarily indicate a Trinity? Your explaination of the tutelery angel fits much better with me, why cannot Christ be the one special god-like angel made flesh rather than God made flesh.Does that make sense.
My apologies for assuming that you weren't a unitarian.
For what it's worth: - a tutelary angel is no more of the same species as God than a human being, or a cat, or a stag beetle, or an oak trees, or a prokaryote or a lump of pumice stone. An angel has infinitely more in common with a lump of pumice stone than it has with God.
- that being so, why would God go to all the trouble of making a special angel into flesh? A human being could do the job just as well. Besides, angels would have traits that conflict with being a human being - an angel could no more become a human being and stay an angel than a human being can genuinely become a cat and stay a human being. Only God, being infinitely different from human beings, could become a human being (or an angel, or a cat, or a lump of pumice stone) and remain God, since God is so infinitely different from us that there isn't even any trait God has that's incompatible with any created trait. (Being a centimetre long is incompatible with being a kilometre long, but being red is so different from being a centimetre long that there's no incompatibility between them.)
Anyway, if Jesus is of divine origin, that either means he was created by God just like everything else created (in which case why would he be 'only-begotten'?) or else Jesus is God. There can't be any middle ground - it wouldn't make sense.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Only God, being infinitely different from human beings, could become a human being (or an angel, or a cat, or a lump of pumice stone) and remain God,
I can see where you're coming from David...but this assumes we were not made in God's image. It means the gulf between man and God is huge....
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Anyway, if Jesus is of divine origin, that either means he was created by God just like everything else created (in which case why would he be 'only-begotten'?) or else Jesus is God. There can't be any middle ground - it wouldn't make sense.
Being a second person of the trinity doesn't make any sense either. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Psalm 2 is an interesting addition to the fray:
Psalm 2.7: I will tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to me, ‘You are my son; today I have begotten you.
God begot the King, his chosen one. The King in the OT was God's right hand man.
And we say the same in the creed. "Seated at the right hand of the father".
12uthy: Regarding your Muslims friends. I really wouldn't worry about trying to explain/make compatible the trinity with a Muslim idea of God.
Like Lamb Chopped said, it looks and smells like tritheism to them and fair enough.
The only way it isn't tritheism is if the "people" of the trinity are not static, but move around continuously. No one definition is able to catch and box any of them adequately...
For interfaith stuff.....its much more about working together for peace....not arguing doctrine IMO.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
p.s. A few other instances of begotten in the bible.
Dunno if it's the same term used.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
why cannot Christ be the one special god-like angel made flesh rather than God made flesh.
Because then God didn't love us enough to suffer and die for us Himself, He just sent some other schmo to do it.
And of course there is Hebrews 1. Particularly v 4 and its subsequent emphasis.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
why cannot Christ be the one special god-like angel made flesh rather than God made flesh.
Because then God didn't love us enough to suffer and die for us Himself, He just sent some other schmo to do it.
And of course there is Hebrews 1. Particularly v 4 and its subsequent emphasis.
Neither Hart's atonement theory and the Hebrews verse suggests why Jesus has to be God IMO.
The atonement theory because God suffering and dying to forgive sin doesn't really work as God could easily forgive sin without suffering and dying.
The Hebrews line is from a Psalm and suggests Jesus is above the angels but not = God as later doctrine suggests.
Why does Jesus have to = God?
1) because we really shouldn't worship him otherwise. But we certainly began to in NT times
2) because then he would have had less status than the Roman Emperor who was also God. And that just wouldn't do. We know Jesus was better than the emperor.
But then we're left with the difficulties of the fact that he was a human being.
Hence, Jesus becomes both a human being and God.
Problem solved. As long as you don't expect an answer on how he is both at once.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by 12uthy (# 9400) on
:
Yes Mousethief you are right we fought this argument in the 4th century but it was never won only conquered by the greater political power of the time. It was never satisfactorily argued only by creating an increasingly elaborate explanation which took the argument way beyond the simple common uneducated man. I know that God's ways are far beyond our own but by elaborating on the simple propitiatory sacrifice issue you are taking it beyond what the common man can comprehend and I don't believe that a loving God would want this; he always exulted the humble uneducated ones.
This was never meant to turn into another Arian Controversy so I am going to leave it there.
Thank you all for your contributions it's been fascinating especially thanks for the definitions of the monogenes, it helps a lot.
Thanks 12uthy
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Thought I given my view on the question of Jesus = God earlier in the thread, Evensong.
I was just pointing out in the post you quote that the Epistle to the Hebrews rules out the possibility that Jesus was some kind of angel - since 12uthy had suggested that. Hebrews is generally reckoned to have a low Christology, but this, from Hebrews 1, doesn't strike me as very low. Pretty John 1:1-2 if you ask me.
quote:
3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.
So I'm not sure you can pray in aid the low Christology of Hebrews either.
(Tries to avoid junior Hosting hat).
The wider question of how Jesus could have been both fully God and fully human is a good one, of course and has been looked at a lot in Purgatory over the years. I'm just not sure it belongs in a Keryg thread looking at what "Only Begotten" means.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Only God, being infinitely different from human beings, could become a human being (or an angel, or a cat, or a lump of pumice stone) and remain God,
I can see where you're coming from David...but this assumes we were not made in God's image. It means the gulf between man and God is huge....
But maybe woman and God are closer? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
The gulf's so huge that it's not a gulf at all. Another way of putting it is that God is closer to each of us than we are to ourselves. You don't get more different than that.
Be careful of saying that we're in the image of God. Historically, the next question has usually been 'what about us is in the image of God?' and then you get various ideas about what particular bit of us separates us from animals, and so on. And once you focus on some particular identifiable characteristic, people usually started to point out that it didn't appear to be equally shared between people. So when the image of God is taken to mean some quality shared with God, it quickly becomes used to justify hierarchy in human society - for example, women are seen as having less share in the image of God. It also develops anti-ecological ideas. If you think we have more in common with God than other creatures do, then again we seem to get a hierarchy with other creatures existing for the sake of human beings.
There are other more recent interpretations of 'in the image of God' - for example, that we are representatives of God or represent creation to God - that don't require ideas of similarity and don't have such hierarchical implications.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Hmmmm - I doubt the virgin birth myself. I think Jesus was so full of God's Spirit that He was sinless - I don't think he was any different genetically from any other human.
I don't believe He was God either - He was 'full of God'. Thus a perfect example for us because we could be so too.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
Why must the fact that Christ adn the Father are of the same "species" necessarily indicate a Trinity? Your explaination of the tutelery angel fits much better with me, why cannot Christ be the one special god-like angel made flesh rather than God made flesh.Does that make sense.
The short answer will be that in the case of God, the whole witness of the Scriptures, of Christ himself, and of God's people OT and NT is that there is only one God. If you don't mind my putting it baldly, they all make it clear that "God" is a species of which only one example exists. So the minute you acknowledge two (or three) Persons (via the whole "begotten" thing and the bits about God having a Son, Spirit, etc), you are also roped into the Trinity in Unity, the Three Personed-One who is only One God. It's the only way to do justice to what the Scriptures, and Christ himself, say, without pitching either the "one" or the "three" overboard. (NOTE: this is NOT to say that we understand it!)
As for why he could not be a lesser god, tutelary angel, or whatever, the problem is that begetting implies that the begotten is of the same kind as the begetter. Ducks beget ducks, again. Not woodpeckers. To descend from theology to natural science, even our own world teaches us that. We rightly disbelieve all those tabloid stories of women producing kittens or squirrels on the delivery table, because we all know that what you beget (or bear) is of the same nature as yourself. For Jesus to be a lowercase god or angel or demiurge of some sort, we would need to invoke creation, not begetting.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
You are right that muslims will never accept Trinitarian Christians because they count them as the ones who as the Koran puts it "add gods to God" They will never accept any kind of Trinitarian explanation but they might accept an explanation that put Jesus as not equal to God.
You are very right. The person and work of Jesus is precisely where the divide between Christianity and Islam comes, and there's no ducking that fact or smoothing it away. We can only pray for one another and do our best to live in charity.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Triune God saved us, lifted us up in to Himself, deified us by becoming human. From halfway through eternity of being continuously Begotten.
And it ain't partial mousethief. What's left?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I was just pointing out in the post you quote that the Epistle to the Hebrews rules out the possibility that Jesus was some kind of angel - since 12uthy had suggested that.
Yes. Fair enough.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Hebrews is generally reckoned to have a low Christology, but this, from Hebrews 1, doesn't strike me as very low.
If you go through Hebrews, you actually get 50/50 on high and low Christology. Some of the highest Christology and some of the lowest in the entire bible. Go figure.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Only God, being infinitely different from human beings, could become a human being (or an angel, or a cat, or a lump of pumice stone) and remain God,
I can see where you're coming from David...but this assumes we were not made in God's image. It means the gulf between man and God is huge....
But maybe woman and God are closer?
The gulf's so huge that it's not a gulf at all. Another way of putting it is that God is closer to each of us than we are to ourselves. You don't get more different than that.
Be careful of saying that we're in the image of God. Historically, the next question has usually been 'what about us is in the image of God?' and then you get various ideas about what particular bit of us separates us from animals, and so on. And once you focus on some particular identifiable characteristic, people usually started to point out that it didn't appear to be equally shared between people. So when the image of God is taken to mean some quality shared with God, it quickly becomes used to justify hierarchy in human society - for example, women are seen as having less share in the image of God. It also develops anti-ecological ideas. If you think we have more in common with God than other creatures do, then again we seem to get a hierarchy with other creatures existing for the sake of human beings.
There are other more recent interpretations of 'in the image of God' - for example, that we are representatives of God or represent creation to God - that don't require ideas of similarity and don't have such hierarchical implications.
I was thinking more along the lines of the fact that I do actually think we are of the same substance of the father.....there is something of God in everything God has created....
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
Yes Mousethief you are right we fought this argument in the 4th century but it was never won only conquered by the greater political power of the time. It was never satisfactorily argued only by creating an increasingly elaborate explanation which took the argument way beyond the simple common uneducated man. I know that God's ways are far beyond our own but by elaborating on the simple propitiatory sacrifice issue you are taking it beyond what the common man can comprehend and I don't believe that a loving God would want this; he always exulted the humble uneducated ones.
True story! I agree that it's insane that none but a hard core theologian can grasp the essentials of the trinity.
But saying that the early church controversy is just elaborating on a simple propitiatory sacrifice is wrong wrong wrong 12uthy.
It was never that simple. Scripture has alot of different options on what the life, death and resurrection of Jesus means.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
p.s. A few other instances of begotten in the bible.
Dunno if it's the same term used.
It's not the same term in any of the references cited. Leviticus and Job both construct the phrase differently. Ps 2 and Ezekiel (in the Septuagint version) both use a related, but different verb. The primary surviving text of 2 Esdras is in Latin. It does use the Latin unigenites which elsewhere is used as a translation of the Greek monogenes.
It doesn't appear at all in the Luke 3 reference. The other NT references are all quotations of the same verse from the psalms. They all use the same Greek verb as the Septuagint of Ps 2 and the Ezekiel (meaning begotten) but not monogenes.
Posted by cheesymarzipan (# 9442) on
:
Here are some references I found for monogenes and monogene.(Using the text of the septuagint, which seemed the easiest way of searching for a greek term)
The hebrew for that seems to be yachid, yechidah (though I am not knowledgeable about either greek or hebrew).
Mostly the word is used to signify 'only child' (Isaac, Jairus's daughter, Jephthah's daughter etc) though the Hebrew term also apparently means darling or lonely.
[ 28. December 2010, 14:24: Message edited by: cheesymarzipan ]
Posted by 12uthy (# 9400) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The short answer will be that in the case of God, the whole witness of the Scriptures, of Christ himself, and of God's people OT and NT is that there is only one God. If you don't mind my putting it baldly, they all make it clear that "God" is a species of which only one example exists. So the minute you acknowledge two (or three) Persons (via the whole "begotten" thing and the bits about God having a Son, Spirit, etc), you are also roped into the Trinity in Unity, the Three Personed-One who is only One God. It's the only way to do justice to what the Scriptures, and Christ himself, say, without pitching either the "one" or the "three" overboard. (NOTE: this is NOT to say that we understand it!)
As for why he could not be a lesser god, tutelary angel, or whatever, the problem is that begetting implies that the begotten is of the same kind as the begetter. Ducks beget ducks, again. Not woodpeckers. To descend from theology to natural science, even our own world teaches us that. We rightly disbelieve all those tabloid stories of women producing kittens or squirrels on the delivery table, because we all know that what you beget (or bear) is of the same nature as yourself. For Jesus to be a lowercase god or angel or demiurge of some sort, we would need to invoke creation, not begetting.
But even if you accept that ducks beget ducks and Gods beget Gods it still doesn't mean that the two are one person any more than my sons are the same person as me. Or indeed equal to me.I have authority over my children just as the father has authority over the son. There are several scriptures to indicate this (remembering that we are in Kerygmania)but none to indicate that they are equal in authority. No doubt you will correct me if I am wrong there
Posted by Hart (# 4991) on
:
God the Son and God the Father very definitely aren't the same person -- that's a key claim of Trinitarian theology. Denying this is modalism or Sabellianism or Patripassianism. In Tertullian's Against Praxeas he describes this view as "crucifying the Father and driving away the Paraclete."
The big problem with saying they're the same person is that it makes the Biblical scenes of Christ praying to the Father into play-acting, or lying as we call it in ordinary parlance. With more than one person in the Trinity, the Trinity becomes founded on relationship, the relationship that we see in Christ's prayer life, a relationship we can be drawn into.
I used to think like you that the Christological Controversies were simply 'politically' settled until I went back and actually read the texts. The orthodox position that emerged over time really is the only way, for me, of remaining faithful to the scriptures and preaching the Love of God. Is the language somewhat arbitrary? Sure. In fact that's the whole point: the position doesn't stretch the mystery to fit the philosophical paradigms, in fact it stretches the paradigms to fit the mystery. Hence, a few somewhat arbitrary choices had to be made about what word would be used for what.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I was thinking more along the lines of the fact that I do actually think we are of the same substance of the father.....there is something of God in everything God has created....
There is something of sugar in every chocolate bar, but that doesn't make sugar and chocolate the same substance.
quote:
I agree that it's insane that none but a hard core theologian can grasp the essentials of the trinity.
That is insane, just not in the way you think. Hard core theologians can't grasp it either. The Trinity is a mystery, not an article in Popular Science.
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
But even if you accept that ducks beget ducks and Gods beget Gods it still doesn't mean that the two are one person any more than my sons are the same person as me.
We don't believe they're the same person. The Trinity is 3 persons. By definition.
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
I used to think like you that the Christological Controversies were simply 'politically' settled until I went back and actually read the texts. The orthodox position that emerged over time really is the only way, for me, of remaining faithful to the scriptures and preaching the Love of God. Is the language somewhat arbitrary? Sure. In fact that's the whole point: the position doesn't stretch the mystery to fit the philosophical paradigms, in fact it stretches the paradigms to fit the mystery. Hence, a few somewhat arbitrary choices had to be made about what word would be used for what.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Thank you BroJames and Cheesymarzipan for those contributions.
Which begs the question what the term was in the original creed.
I realised I didn't even know if the creed was written in Greek or Latin so a bit of googling came up with this:
Interpretation of the Greek text The original creed was written in Greek, the language of the eastern Mediterranean where both councils were seated. Most modern scholarly opinion believes that μονογενή means "only" or "unique" coming from μονο - "mono" meaning "only" and γενή coming from γενος "genus" meaning kind - "only one of its kind", thus the translation "only Son" in the above modern translation of the creed.
Older English translations as well as the Latin contain "only-begotten", "unigenitum" on the belief that γενή comes from the word for γενναω "born". On the other hand Old Latin manuscripts of the New Testament translate μονογενή as "unicus", "unique".
No doubt debate will continue as to the author's intentions both in the New Testament, as well as the separate issue of the intended meaning in the creeds. The Greek word ὁμοουσιον indicates in orthodox theology that The Father and the Son are "of the same substance" or "of the same essence" because the Son is begotten of the Father’s own being (εκ της ουσιας του πατρος) from here
And now I'm getting a bit confused.
Is it fair to say the original wording in the Greek creed was monogenes which can just mean unique?
But it's the latin version that brings in the whole
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Sorry....missed edit window. Just ignore that last line except for the confused face!
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
One thing that throws a wrench into the whole business, for me, is that μονογενῆ is used to describe Isaac vis-a-vis Abraham in Hebrews 11:17. We know he was NOT the only son that Abraham begat. Either the writer of Hebrews just screwed up, or μονογενῆ has a broader range of meaning than just "only begotten" or even "only".
Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on
:
My lexicon (BDAG) gives its meaning as something like "pertaining to being the only one of it's kind or class", which would apply to Isaac, since he was the only son in the covenant.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I'd like one of our Greek experts to comment. Seems to me if you're saying someone is the only son of the covenant you'd have to include some reference to the covenant in the noun phrase.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
My lexicon (BDAG) gives its meaning as something like "pertaining to being the only one of it's kind or class", which would apply to Isaac, since he was the only son in the covenant.
What word are we discussing here? Monogenes? Is that the word in the creed too?
Posted by Anselm (# 4499) on
:
Yes, sorry Evensong, it is monogenes that I was commenting on.
Mousethief:
I think that the Abrahamic covt is on view in this verse, given the context of verses 8-12, where the language of the Abrahamic covt is clearly being used.
And also the following verse (18) where the quote from God comes from is from Gen 21:12 where the covenant preference for Isaac over Ishmael is the direct subject of the passage.
Hebrews 11
Posted by 12uthy (# 9400) on
:
Could it be possible that the mono in monogenes does not mean only but means "of one" ie of the same one substance.
This would surely reconcile our problem with Issac making the translation "begotten" rather than "only begotten"
Or am I just being simplistic?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I'm not sure that parsing the Creeds for literal or allegorical meaning tells us much, Evensong. The clear intention was to rule out Jesus as a creation of God, either in heaven or on earth. I think the long running Arian controversy demonstrated that in spades, and it cannot be "undemonstrated" by word analysis.
The world of Christian understanding might have been very different if some compromise had been found. No harm in revisiting the arguments, even arguing that Christianity might have benefited from allowing a greater diversity. Folks have done that. And I guess one can still "lobby for reform" along similar lines.
But I'm with Hart on the matter.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
But even if you accept that ducks beget ducks and Gods beget Gods it still doesn't mean that the two are one person any more than my sons are the same person as me. Or indeed equal to me.I have authority over my children just as the father has authority over the son. There are several scriptures to indicate this (remembering that we are in Kerygmania)but none to indicate that they are equal in authority. No doubt you will correct me if I am wrong there
This is where I pick up the other bit of my argument, the one about God being a "species" of one. IF you accept that there is only one true God (and if you don't, we can argue that on some other thread!), and IF you also admit the evidence in Scripture as to there being more than one "person" rightfully bearing that title--in the case in point, we're talking about the only-begotten of the Father, Jesus--THEN you are forced into the Trinitarian position. It's the only way to reconcile the huge emphasis in Scripture on One God, One Only, and the equally strong emphasis on Jesus as the Son of God, as God himself, somehow the same yet distinct from the Father (and so also for the Spirit, which is another can of worms!).
Now you can deny either of those two premises, and get a rip roaring discussion going (probably in Purg?). But I don't want to derail things here, just point out that monogenes is one item of evidence under the second premise that ultimately leads to the Trinitarian conclusion.
***
As for equality and authority, that too is another huge Purg discussion, and I'd be happy to do it on another thread if you're interested. But monogenes of itself says nothing one way or the other about authority and equality with the Father. To get there, you have to rely on other Scripture.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'd like one of our Greek experts to comment. Seems to me if you're saying someone is the only son of the covenant you'd have to include some reference to the covenant in the noun phrase.
No Greek expert, but just pointing out that you can use a term as the author of Hebrews does if your audience already understands what you're driving at. I really doubt any of the readers of Hebrew were particularly interested in Ishmael (or Keturah's sons!), and since the whole book is a theological discussion of the Promise, it would make sense to refer to Isaac as monogenes--he's the only one of Abraham's children who "counted" in that sense.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
p.s. A few other instances of begotten in the bible.
Dunno if it's the same term used.
It's not the same term in any of the references cited. Leviticus and Job both construct the phrase differently. Ps 2 and Ezekiel (in the Septuagint version) both use a related, but different verb. The primary surviving text of 2 Esdras is in Latin. It does use the Latin unigenites which elsewhere is used as a translation of the Greek monogenes.
It doesn't appear at all in the Luke 3 reference. The other NT references are all quotations of the same verse from the psalms. They all use the same Greek verb as the Septuagint of Ps 2 and the Ezekiel (meaning begotten) but not monogenes.
Okay. I'm still lost.
Barnabas said the John passages use the word monogenes. But you are saying all the NT references are not monogenes?
And I've finally understood monogenes is the word in the creed (original Greek version) but unigenites in the Latin version that has a different connotation?
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
Could it be possible that the mono in monogenes does not mean only but means "of one" ie of the same one substance.
This would surely reconcile our problem with Issac making the translation "begotten" rather than "only begotten"
Or am I just being simplistic?
I think, from the url I quoted above, "of the same substance" is a different Greek word from monogenes. So two different words happening there.
Yet in the creed it seems only son and only begotten are conflated under the meaning of monogenes only?
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not sure that parsing the Creeds for literal or allegorical meaning tells us much, Evensong. The clear intention was to rule out Jesus as a creation of God, either in heaven or on earth.
It may have been the intention of the creed, but if the word is only monogenes, then it has not expressed it well at all.
Which makes me wonder why.
And I was originally trying to find out if the same word was used in the creeds as it was in scripture. BroJames seems to think it wasn't, yet the link I said says it was.
Hence my confusion...
If you're trying to say not created, why use monogenes?
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
And I guess one can still "lobby for reform" along similar lines.
But I'm with Hart on the matter.
I'm not trying to reform anything at this point Barnabas. I'm trying to figure out what the creed means in its wording and in relation to scripture.
[ 29. December 2010, 12:13: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Evensong
You can check out the Greek using the Blue Letter Bible.
I've set the first link at John 1:14. Cick on the blue "C" button and you get this.
You can check out the other references yourself. John 1:14 shows "monogenes". According to my Greek NT dictionary, Hebrews 1:5 (and 5.5) uses a different word (from the Greek "gennao".) I've had a quick look at another online resource and the same word is used in the Septuagint Greek in Psalm 2:7 (the origin of the Hebrews 1:5 and 5.5 texts). Generally, "gennao" means to father a child.
So when John 1:14 uses monogenes, he is not using the general word for fathering a child. The John text implies a unique, "one and only", begetting. From which it is actually quite a short journey to "begotten, not made" (Creed), given the rest of the context in John 1. But one which took a long time, and not without much controversy on the way.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Okay. I'm still lost.
Barnabas said the John passages use the word monogenes. But you are saying all the NT references are not monogenes?
No, I'm just saying that none of the references from your link: quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
p.s. A few other instances of begotten in the bible.
Dunno if it's the same term used.
use the term monogenes, except (arguably) 2 Esdras which uses unigenitum which is often used in Latin as the translation for the Greek monogenes.
Monogenes is used in the NT in the following passages:
Luke's Gospel and John 1 and John 3, Hebrews and 1 John.
In those cases it is used to denote an only child (subject to the question how this applies to Isaac), or to denote Jesus' relationship to the Father. My impression is that in relation to Jesus two questions are in mind (a) Is he created by the Father - is he a creature? [A. No. The -genes tells us that he is begotten of the father - i.e he is of the same kind as the Father] (b) Are there others like him, also begotten of the Father? [A. No. The mono- tells us that he is unique in this respect.]
John goes on in John 1 to argue that through Jesus, the word made flesh, we are given the power to become children of God "born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Our status as children of God derives from Jesus' unique status as the only-begotten of God.
[ 29. December 2010, 15:29: Message edited by: BroJames ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Evensong
I've done a bit of Googling around and found the following online resources, which go some way towards uncovering the information you are looking for.
Here is a link to the Nicene Creed (Revised Version), giving Greek, English and Latin texts.
The word "begotten" appears in the sixth, seventh and tenth lines. In the sixth line the root Greek word is "monogenes" (only-begotten). In the seventh and tenth lines the root Greek is "gennao" (beget). You can confirm this by clicking on the Greek characters and getting the transliteration into our alphabet.
In both case, where "gennao" is the root, the text is qualified; "begotten from the Father before all ages" and "begotten, not made". The clear intention of the revised text was to rule out any sense that God created Jesus. Both the key New Testament words are used.
To clarify the revision of the Nicene Creed, here is a Wiki link which includes, inter alia, the changes to the Nicene Creed arising from the Arian controversy. If you scroll down, there is a line by line comparison.
So far, I haven't found a Greek text online for the original version of the Nicene Creed.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
PS - now I have! Here is the Greek, English and Latin for the original 325CE version of the Nicene Creed.
The Greek text shows the use of the root words "monogenes" and "gennao" again, and again it seems clear that the intention was to rule out Jesus as a creation of God.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Thank you BroJames and Barnabas. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
I was getting confused because I thought that link provided had the John texts in it too. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
And I was getting confused by all the different begottens in the creed. The different words you pointed out Barnabas cleared that up. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm doing NT Greek next year. Not before time!!
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Thanks, Evensong. Wish I had done NT Greek! Such NT Greek understanding that I do have has been very slowly accumulated. (Maybe I should!)
12uthy
It occurred to me that it might be worth illuminating the beliefs of Arians as some kind of help in understanding why Trinitarian Christians do not "as the Koran puts it 'add gods to God'".
Here is the link to the Wiki article on Arianism. As the article says, much of what we can now read about the beliefs of Arius and Arians is found in documents written by those who believed them to be wrong. But there are a few helpful documents whose contents have been preserved. And here is a key extract (quoted in the Wiki article). quote:
A letter from Arius to the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia succinctly states the core beliefs of the Arians:
Some of them say that the Son is an eructation, others that he is a production, others that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we cannot listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that by his own will and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established, he was not. For he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning
Arius did not believe that Jesus was semi-divine, or angelic, but "perfect God". What separated him from the Orthodox looks on the face of it to be a little thing. He sees that since Jesus was begotten, there must have been "a time before all times" when God the Father was and God the Son was not. God the Son had a beginning. Which seems perfectly logical. But it created a problem.
Did he really mean that God the Father created God the Son? It's actually not clear that he even meant that. But from the above quote, he allowed for the possibility that it was so. In the end, and despite all the sometimes unedifying politics during the controversy, this seems to be the key as to why Arianism was ruled out. In the process, what was demonstrated that it was not orthodox Trinitarian belief to "add gods to God". We believe in one God.
So whatever the Koran meant by "add gods to God", the Arian controversy demonstrates that orthodox Christian belief in the Trinity does not do that. Where we differ from Islam is about the self-revelation of this one God, who is in His essence unknowable "immortal, invisible, in light inaccessible hid from our eyes" (as the beautiful old hymn puts it). Our monotheism is expressed as "One in three Persons" because we believe this is how God has revealed Himself. Although His essence remains a mystery to us. We see through a glass, darkly (another wonderful quote). We specifically do not claim to see everything about the essence of God. But what we do see is wonderful, and enough for us.
At least, that's how I see what we see! It is just a layman's view.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
My notes on this:
μονογενή means "only" or "unique"
coming from μονο — "mono" meaning "only"
and γενή coming from γενος "genus" meaning kind - "only one of its kind",
mistake at this point is to translate "genus" according to its Latin meaning.
In Greek, however, "genos" (γένος) may mean offspring, a limited or extended family, a clan, a tribe, a people, a biological entity (e.g. all the birds), or indeed any group of beings sharing a common ancestry.
Older English translations as well as the Latin contain "only-begotten", "unigenitum" on the belief that γενή comes from the word for γενναω "born".
Old Latin manuscripts of the New Testament translate μονογενή as "unicus", "unique".
"only-begotten" is currently deemed an acceptable translation into English within Orthodox Christian jurisdictions that routinely use liturgical Greek.
A considerable part of this confusion is due to the similarity of the key Greek verbs "gennao" and "gignomai".
"Γεννάω" (gennao) means "to give birth" and refers to the male parent.
The female equivalent is "τίκτω" (tikto), from which derive the obstetric terms "tokos', labour, and "toketos", delivery, and words such as "Theo-tokos", Mother of God, and the proparoxytone "prototokos", firstborn, as opposed to the paroxytone "prototokos", primipara (one giving birth for the first time).
Γίγνομαι (gignomai) means "to come into existence".
The etymological roots of the two verbs are, respectively, "genn-" and "gen-", and therefore the derivatives of these two verbs exhibit significant auditory and semantic overlap.
the Greek word for "parent" can derive both from "gennao" (γεννήτωρ, gennetor, strictly applicable only to the male parent)
and from "gignomai" (γονεύς, goneus, which applies to both parents).
In ancient and modern Greek usage however, the word "monogenes" invariably refers to a son without other brothers, or a daughter without other sisters, or a child without other siblings.
both "only-begotten" and "only one of its kind" are equally valid translations.
the word "monogennetos" (a father's only son) and "monotokos" (a mother's only child) do not exist
"monotokos" means a female who can only have one offspring at a time.
The Greek word ὁμοούσιον indicates that the Father and the Son are "consubstantial", i.e. of the same substance, essence or being, because the Son is begotten of the Father’s own being (ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός)
Here and elsewhere (such as John 1:14) where the Greek has MONOGENETOS HUIOS, an English translation may read either "only Son" or "only begotten Son." The Greek is ambiguous. The root GEN is found in words like "genital, genetics, generation," and suggests begetting. However, it is also found in words like "genus" and suggests family or sort or kind. Accordingly, we may take MONOGENETOS to mean either "only begotten" or "one-of-a-kind, only, sole, unique".
Posted by 12uthy (# 9400) on
:
Leo thank you whole heartedly for that, it has been most enlightening.
Barnabas thank you also, you have also enlightened me, however, I must confess that I still cannot believe in the three persons in one God, firstly because I don't believe the paraclete to be a person and secondly it makes no sense to me to make the Christ joined to the Father in any way. As for the idea that it had to be God that came and died for us, that is nonsense. He had to be human is the important thing so as to be a propitiatory sacrifice for Adam.
I accept now that Jesus was begotten not made by God the father but as to him being two persons in the same God it still smacks of "adding gods to God" because it is an unnecessary complication.I can find no Scripture to support it.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
OK 12uthy. Happy to leave it there. The Personhood of the Holy Spirit is probably best handled in some separate discussion. And I guess that if you don't take the Creeds plus the church's stance against Arianism as strong evidence (to present to sceptical Muslims) that orthodox, traditional, Christianity was a monotheistic religion before Islam emerged, there is probably nothing more to be said about that either. (Others' Mileage May Vary.)
In the end, we all have to speak as we find, and it's better that we do so.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 12uthy:
He had to be human is the important thing so as to be a propitiatory sacrifice for Adam.
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
More nonsense
[ 31. December 2010, 12:00: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why does Jesus have to = God?
1) because we really shouldn't worship him otherwise. But we certainly began to in NT times
This is the key thing IMO. Passages such as Thomas saying "My Lord and my God!" would be completely inappropriate if Jesus were *not* God.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why does Jesus have to = God?
1) because we really shouldn't worship him otherwise. But we certainly began to in NT times
This is the key thing IMO. Passages such as Thomas saying "My Lord and my God!" would be completely inappropriate if Jesus were *not* God.
Does that mean you think the Roman Emperor was God too?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Did Thomas say "My Lord and my God" to the Roman emperor too? Slut.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Did Thomas say "My Lord and my God" to the Roman emperor too? Slut.
Host hat on
Mousethief, this is a C3 violation. Personal insults are not allowed on this board.
Host hat off
Moo
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I wish to apologize to Evensong if she thought I was calling her a slut -- I was not. I have opened a Styx thread on this.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Did Thomas say "My Lord and my God" to the Roman emperor too? Slut.
I don't know.
But how is that relevant? Others certainly did.
Calling someone God doesn't make them so. I'm certainly not of the opinion Roman Emperors were God/s
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I wish to apologize to Evensong if she thought I was calling her a slut -- I was not.
No worries. Easy to confuse me with Thomas.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Did Thomas say "My Lord and my God" to the Roman emperor too? Slut.
I don't know.
But how is that relevant? Others certainly did.
Calling someone God doesn't make them so. I'm certainly not of the opinion Roman Emperors were God/s
I think the point is that Thomas isn't just anybody, but a person recorded in the Gospel as calling Jesus, God. The Gospels being part of the New Testament, being part of the Bible, being part of the Tradition of the Church. What other people elsewhere called somebody else really is, as you say, irrelevant. But what's in the Gospels surely isn't irrelevant to the Christian faith. Nu?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Sticking a "liberal interpretation" hat on my head for once. Just suppose that the author of John (or some subsequent editor) is using the character of Thomas to make a point. What is that point?
Surely, it is the same point made in the John 1 prologue. That even the doubting disciples recognised via the resurrection that Jesus was, in very truth, the Divine, eternally existent Word, who was God,who was what God was, who had indeed become flesh and dwelt among them. Even if one sees the gospel as polemical at this point, then what other point could the author have possibly been making?
The best evidence available says that the text of John pre-dated by well over two hundred years the key ecumenical councils which settled the issue for Orthodoxy. Which I take as impressive evidence that there were at least some "John" Christians who believed in Jesus, the Divine Saviour, the Word made flesh, from very early on. Whatever other variations may have co-existed.
The notion that the Orthodox views re Trinity and Person of Jesus did not have clear Apostolic antecedents doesn't make any sense to me. It seems very clear that the ingredients were all there in John's gospel at least, and were recognised by many as being authoritative long before the settling of the canon. All of which seems pretty clear to me just through reading Irenaeus, writing before the end of the 2nd century.
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
Thanks for the link. What a happy way to start the new year!
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
<tangent>
Oh, you mean the sig! We liked that a whole lot too. Singing the Lord's song in a strange land (well at least an unfamiliar place).
<tangent>
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Did Thomas say "My Lord and my God" to the Roman emperor too? Slut.
I don't know.
But how is that relevant? Others certainly did.
Calling someone God doesn't make them so. I'm certainly not of the opinion Roman Emperors were God/s
I think the point is that Thomas isn't just anybody, but a person recorded in the Gospel as calling Jesus, God. The Gospels being part of the New Testament, being part of the Bible, being part of the Tradition of the Church. What other people elsewhere called somebody else really is, as you say, irrelevant. But what's in the Gospels surely isn't irrelevant to the Christian faith. Nu?
Hmnn. No, it's not irrelevant what Thomas says. I was really just raising the point that it wasn't uncommon in that age to call people you thought highly of, God.
So just calling Jesus God doesn't make him God. Anymore than calling a Roman Emperor God makes him God....at least God as we understand the term today....
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Sticking a "liberal interpretation" hat on my head for once. Just suppose that the author of John (or some subsequent editor) is using the character of Thomas to make a point. What is that point?
Surely, it is the same point made in the John 1 prologue. That even the doubting disciples recognised via the resurrection that Jesus was, in very truth, the Divine, eternally existent Word, who was God,who was what God was, who had indeed become flesh and dwelt among them. Even if one sees the gospel as polemical at this point, then what other point could the author have possibly been making?
That he was better than the Emperor?
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The best evidence available says that the text of John pre-dated by well over two hundred years the key ecumenical councils which settled the issue for Orthodoxy. Which I take as impressive evidence that there were at least some "John" Christians who believed in Jesus, the Divine Saviour, the Word made flesh, from very early on. Whatever other variations may have co-existed.
The notion that the Orthodox views re Trinity and Person of Jesus did not have clear Apostolic antecedents doesn't make any sense to me. It seems very clear that the ingredients were all there in John's gospel at least, and were recognised by many as being authoritative long before the settling of the canon.
I don't actually want to get into a raging debate about this. Been there, done that, got the tshirt.
The gospel of John is very antisemitic and the main source of the Jesus = God idea. I can't help that think the early church was very influenced by Roman society on this one.
But it's actually neither here nor there. This is what they decided, this is what were are.
Mentally and rationally, I think the trinity causes more problems than it answers, especially in relation to scripture.
The reason I can sit with it and call myself a trinitarian is because the prayers work. They make sense, they are powerful...
At the end of the day....that's kind of where it's at.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
No need to be shy, Evensong. I'm sure you can give succinct reasons for your own views. Which is all I've been trying to do. In this context, all any of us can do is to provide shorthand summaries, behind which there may be much reading and reflection.
But if you don't that's OK.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
I've never been called shy before.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
OK! Encouraged by that, let me be specific. On the face of it, the notion that Thomas is saying that Jesus is "better than the emperor" supposes a dating and authorship of John which would make that comment appropriate. For on the face of it, nothing could be further from the mind of an AD 30's disciple confronted with a risen Jesus.
Therefore it seems that you must hold a view of the authorship, dating and purpose of John's gospel which would make such a polemic appropriate. Is that the case, and if so, what is the basis for that view?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
For on the face of it, nothing could be further from the mind of an AD 30's disciple confronted with a risen Jesus.
Why?
If it was common practice in the Roman world? As a way to give glory and honor to someone important?
The imperial cult started in about 30BC and went on long after John would have been written.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
For on the face of it, nothing could be further from the mind of an AD 30's disciple confronted with a risen Jesus.
Why?
If it was common practice in the Roman world? As a way to give glory and honor to someone important?
The imperial cult started in about 30BC and went on long after John would have been written.
How about the first and second commandments?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I suppose that was too brief? The first and second commandments seem to me to be symbolic of something deeply ingrained in Jewishness, namely that to profane the name of the Lord was deeply, deeply wrong. So if we take it to be historical, or representative of a genuine apostolic conviction (it doesn't really matter which) it is hardly likely that Jews of AD30 vintage would have addressed even their beloved leader in the same language which was commonplace (lip-service or otherwise doesn't matter) in Greco-Roman culture. Jews knew deeply that their beliefs contradicted such divinisings of Emperors.
And this notion of profane speech passed over directly into early Christian practice. People were martyred precisely because they would not proclaim allegiance to Roman Emperors in such terms.
So the sitz im leben which I see seems to exclude any possibility of that, which is why I also see the Thomas declaration as the final underlining of the truth of the prologue. Which seems to me, on literary grounds alone (never mind the issue of history) to be the purpose of the author at that point in the gospel. It is a massive, final underlining. Clearly you see the sitz im leben differently, but I am at a loss to understand why.
[ 03. January 2011, 10:06: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
For on the face of it, nothing could be further from the mind of an AD 30's disciple confronted with a risen Jesus.
Why?
If it was common practice in the Roman world? As a way to give glory and honor to someone important?
The imperial cult started in about 30BC and went on long after John would have been written.
How about the first and second commandments?
It's exactly the second commandment (lets go Exodus 20:4-5 here) that makes me think John and Thomas were influenced by Roman culture and have strayed from the Judaism and theocentricness of Jesus.
quote:
Ex 20:4-5
4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5You shall not bow down to them or worship them;
Jesus is a human being. He is of the earth. How can he be God? There is no form on earth that can be compared to God. How can worshipping him not be idolatry?
This is why making Jesus God is, IMO, a Roman, not Jewish, invention.
The sitz im leben has to be a Roman/Hellenistic transference. How can it be otherwise?
Idolising a human being is completely at odds with Jewish belief.
[ 03. January 2011, 11:48: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Thanks, Evensong, that's very clear. I understand better where you are coming from.
I think your position holds intellectual water only if you reclassify John's gospel as sub-Apostolic at best i.e in no way an accurate witness to the Apostolic tradition. Which kicks the prologue of the gospel and its literary cohesiveness into the non-authoritative long grass. Orthodox understandings of the Trinity and the person of Christ may well end up in the same long grass. At which point you and I would part company. But amicably.
Posted by Orlando098 (# 14930) on
:
I think the "only begotten" language is rather confusing - I think a fair number of people would not know what it means at all, and of those who do know, most might assume if means the Holy Spirit impregnating Mary.
It seems rather obscure theological talk to say the son was begotten of the father even though they have both always existed and are both the same being... (in the same way it seems hard to know what saying the Son is the "second" person is supposed to actually mean in this context) but as someone said the Trinity has never made a lot of sense looked at logically and has to be approached with faith
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The sitz im leben has to be a Roman/Hellenistic transference. How can it be otherwise?
Idolising a human being is completely at odds with Jewish belief.
quote:
If it was common practice in the Roman world? As a way to give glory and honor to someone important?
There's a problem with the sequence here. From a very early time Christians were firmly of the opinion that it was wrong to worship the Roman Emperor. They didn't see it as a way to give glory and honour to someone important; they saw it as an infringement on the honour due to God.
At the same time, they were giving divine honours to Jesus. So on the above account they were simultaneously adopting the Hellenistic viewpoint and decisively rejecting it.
The sequence would have to run: Jewish origins of the Christian movement. The Christian movement then moves into the Hellenistic world and becomes Hellenised. But then - and this is the bit that is a problem - it would have to have reJudaised. Because from a pretty early period it didn't understand the supposedly Hellenised parts of its belief in a Hellenised way - it understood them to be saying pretty much the things that a Jew would never say.
Why would people reJudaise the claim that Jesus was God if they didn't know enough about Judaism to know that it was something that no Jew could ever say?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The notion that the Orthodox views re Trinity and Person of Jesus did not have clear Apostolic antecedents doesn't make any sense to me. It seems very clear that the ingredients were all there in John's gospel at least, and were recognised by many as being authoritative long before the settling of the canon.
Yes, this is clearly true.
The language used here, and in the other Johannine writings, is Temple language, based on the Torah and Psalms and Temple worship, and its literary context is the apocalyptic literature of the previous few centuries. Its thoroughly Jewish, not Roman or Greek at all.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Thanks, Evensong, that's very clear. I understand better where you are coming from.
I think your position holds intellectual water only if you reclassify John's gospel as sub-Apostolic at best i.e in no way an accurate witness to the Apostolic tradition. Which kicks the prologue of the gospel and its literary cohesiveness into the non-authoritative long grass. Orthodox understandings of the Trinity and the person of Christ may well end up in the same long grass. At which point you and I would part company. But amicably.
I'm happy to hold both John and the Synoptics in heterodox tension and keep the entire New Testament as faithful witness to apostolic tradition.
I am not happy to override the Synoptic tradition for the Johannine one however, which, IMO, alot of later church doctrine does.
The bible, New Testament or Old Testament, rarely holds only one position on God. It's the "church" that tends to do that.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The sitz im leben has to be a Roman/Hellenistic transference. How can it be otherwise?
Idolising a human being is completely at odds with Jewish belief.
quote:
If it was common practice in the Roman world? As a way to give glory and honor to someone important?
There's a problem with the sequence here. From a very early time Christians were firmly of the opinion that it was wrong to worship the Roman Emperor. They didn't see it as a way to give glory and honour to someone important; they saw it as an infringement on the honour due to God.
At the same time, they were giving divine honours to Jesus. So on the above account they were simultaneously adopting the Hellenistic viewpoint and decisively rejecting it.
Or transferring that rejection on something that fit better.....?
So yes, succumbing eventually, but not to the original enforcer.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The sequence would have to run: Jewish origins of the Christian movement. The Christian movement then moves into the Hellenistic world and becomes Hellenised. But then - and this is the bit that is a problem - it would have to have reJudaised. Because from a pretty early period it didn't understand the supposedly Hellenised parts of its belief in a Hellenised way - it understood them to be saying pretty much the things that a Jew would never say.
Why would people reJudaise the claim that Jesus was God if they didn't know enough about Judaism to know that it was something that no Jew could ever say?
You've lost me a bit here Dafyyd. But my idea is only a theory. It's quite possibly off. It's just the only way I can make sense of why John's gospel chose to break the second commandment.
Do you have a better idea?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
It's just the only way I can make sense of why John's gospel chose to break the second commandment.
Do you have a better idea?
Well ....There is always the possibility that the ecumenical councils got it about right. John's gospel only breaks the second commandment if it is not a truthful witness.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Why would people reJudaise the claim that Jesus was God if they didn't know enough about Judaism to know that it was something that no Jew could ever say?
You've lost me a bit here Dafyyd. But my idea is only a theory. It's quite possibly off. It's just the only way I can make sense of why John's gospel chose to break the second commandment.
Do you have a better idea?
All the other evidence that we have is that Christians were just as concerned about breaking the second commandment (*) as Jews were.
Greek philosophers may well have wanted to glorify and honour their teachers; they may well have believed that their teachers were more deserving of divine honours than the emperors were. Yet as far as we know, there's no instance of a philosopher, even a cynic, refusing to sacrifice to the emperor. The only people we know of who did that were the Jews and the Christians. The Christians didn't refuse to sacrifice to the emperor because they wanted to honour someone else more; they refused because they thought they had to obey the first (**) commandment.
The Hellenistic influence theory doesn't explain why, except in the one case of Jesus, the early Christians kept on regarding the first commandment as one of their defining principles. It doesn't explain why the Christians didn't notice that they were violating it every time they gave divine honour to Jesus.
The reason we have a doctrine of the Trinity is that the early Christians could see that there was a need to explain why worshipping Jesus was not a violation of the first commandment. Faced with the choice between ceasing worship of Jesus, abandoning the first commandment, and saddling Christianity with the Trinity (which is at best counterintuitive) they felt they had to choose the Trinity.
In summary, the early Christians walked into treating Jesus as divine knowing what they were doing.
(*) I assume that you're using the Talmudic/Modern Jewish numbering.
(**) 1st century Jewish/ Christian numbering.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
It's just the only way I can make sense of why John's gospel chose to break the second commandment.
Do you have a better idea?
Well ....There is always the possibility that the ecumenical councils got it about right. John's gospel only breaks the second commandment if it is not a truthful witness.
You and Dafyd have lost me.
The second commandment says nothing in the form of anything in heaven or earth should be made an idol.
How is worshiping a human being not contravening that?
The trinity explains that Jesus is God and Man.
How is worshiping man not in contravention of that commandment?
[ 04. January 2011, 11:48: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well ....There is always the possibility that the ecumenical councils got it about right. John's gospel only breaks the second commandment if it is not a truthful witness.
And you ignored my comment that John was a truthful witness...
Just not the only one...
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Don't think I ignored it, Evensong. But perhaps I should have added, for clarity, "to an apostolic understanding of the person of Jesus."
That understanding just strikes me as the central theme of the gospel; not just in the prologue, not just in the Thomas declaration. It's in the "I am"s with which the text is decorated and dotted.
The bread of life, the light of the world, the resurrection and the life, the door, the good shepherd, the way the truth and the life, the true vine. And, strikingly, "Before Abraham was, I am".
[ 04. January 2011, 12:12: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Don't think I ignored it, Evensong. But perhaps I should have added, for clarity, "to an apostolic understanding of the person of Jesus."
So all the other apostles are irrelevant if they differ from John's understanding?
Or are you using the word apostolic in terms of what comes after the bible?
In that case, yes, they took John's line. Which still leaves you the problem of worshipping a man.
But I'm a bit of an evangelical (?) that way.... I take scripture more seriously than I do the Church.
[ 04. January 2011, 12:16: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Don't think I ignored it, Evensong. But perhaps I should have added, for clarity, "to an apostolic understanding of the person of Jesus."
So all the other apostles are irrelevant if they differ from John's understanding?
Well Matthew and Luke seem to think that the disciples "worshipped him" (Matthew 28:17, Luke 24:52)
And in Ananias's vision of Jesus in Acts 9 he seems to reckon that the Christians worship Jesus (Acts 9:14)
And Paul talks about "all people everywhere who worship our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 1:2)
And the writer to the Hebrews quotes approvingly that "All God's angels must worship him" (Heb 1:6)
And in 2 Peter there is reference to "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1)
And in Philippians Jesus is said to be "in very nature God" (Philippians 2:6)
So I'm not sure the other apostles are entirely in opposition to John.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The second commandment says nothing in the form of anything in heaven or earth should be made an idol.
How is worshiping a human being not contravening that?
It's not making Jesus into an idol if Jesus is God already. It's not us who made Jesus God; God did.
quote:
The trinity explains that Jesus is God and Man.
How is worshiping man not in contravention of that commandment?
We don't worship Jesus as man. We worship Jesus as God.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Don't think I ignored it, Evensong. But perhaps I should have added, for clarity, "to an apostolic understanding of the person of Jesus."
So all the other apostles are irrelevant if they differ from John's understanding?
I think you missed the significance of the "an". The synoptic gospels strike me as more Messianic in their view of Jesus. But even in the synoptics it is a transformed Messianic message.
I don't see the synoptics being in opposition to John. Nor the early letters (Romans, 1 & 2 Cor, Galatians). But I do see a distinctive in John. It strikes me as the most "ontological" of the gospels. The "I am"s emphasise clearly the overall importance of the "being" of Jesus, in contrast say to the Mark emphasis on "doings and sayings". As someone said, John comes across much more as an intentional "portrait" than a narrative biography.
And perhaps that, as much as anything, goes some way to explaining the particular influence of the gospel during the journey towards orthodoxy.
Posted by ByHisBlood (# 16018) on
:
I worship Christ - period.
We presently have the Man Jesus who is the only mediator between us and God. The sole Judge of all, The Creator, The Saviour, The King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
So like all believers, I have, I will and I do worship Christ just as He is.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The second commandment says nothing in the form of anything in heaven or earth should be made an idol.
How is worshiping a human being not contravening that?
It's not making Jesus into an idol if Jesus is God already. It's not us who made Jesus God; God did.
quote:
The trinity explains that Jesus is God and Man.
How is worshiping man not in contravention of that commandment?
We don't worship Jesus as man. We worship Jesus as God.
But he was a man.....that's the whole point.....it just breaks the second commandment.
To worship a man, then say that man must be God because we worship him is just bizarre. It doesn't make any sense.....
It's like saying that man is wearing a dress, he must be a woman.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Don't think I ignored it, Evensong. But perhaps I should have added, for clarity, "to an apostolic understanding of the person of Jesus."
So all the other apostles are irrelevant if they differ from John's understanding?
Well Matthew and Luke seem to think that the disciples "worshipped him" (Matthew 28:17, Luke 24:52)
And in Ananias's vision of Jesus in Acts 9 he seems to reckon that the Christians worship Jesus (Acts 9:14)
And Paul talks about "all people everywhere who worship our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 1:2)
And the writer to the Hebrews quotes approvingly that "All God's angels must worship him" (Heb 1:6)
And in 2 Peter there is reference to "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1)
And in Philippians Jesus is said to be "in very nature God" (Philippians 2:6)
So I'm not sure the other apostles are entirely in opposition to John.
Quite right. Not entirely in opposition. John just goes a step further in actually using the word God twice in reference to Jesus.
But it raises the question even for them. What were they doing worshiping a man?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Don't think I ignored it, Evensong. But perhaps I should have added, for clarity, "to an apostolic understanding of the person of Jesus."
So all the other apostles are irrelevant if they differ from John's understanding?
I think you missed the significance of the "an". The synoptic gospels strike me as more Messianic in their view of Jesus. But even in the synoptics it is a transformed Messianic message.
I don't see the synoptics being in opposition to John. Nor the early letters (Romans, 1 & 2 Cor, Galatians). But I do see a distinctive in John. It strikes me as the most "ontological" of the gospels. The "I am"s emphasise clearly the overall importance of the "being" of Jesus, in contrast say to the Mark emphasis on "doings and sayings". As someone said, John comes across much more as an intentional "portrait" than a narrative biography.
And perhaps that, as much as anything, goes some way to explaining the particular influence of the gospel during the journey towards orthodoxy.
Yes. It is much more ontological. Naturally so as it's later....more time to reflect.
And yes....all the creedal stuff seems to be more concerned with ontology, rather than message.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
To worship a man, then say that man must be God because we worship him is just bizarre. It doesn't make any sense.....
We don't say that he is God because we worship him. We worship him because he is God.
Okay, we get it, you don't believe in the incarnation. But we do, so for us worshipping Christ is not breaking the second commandment. Is that hard to understand? Not accept. Understand. Not understand the Incarnation. Understand that we believe it.
[ 05. January 2011, 02:04: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
No it's that mousethief.....it's just ignoring the fact that even if Jesus is God, he was a human being also, and a worshiping a human being is a direct contravention of the second commandment.
As a human being, Jesus is of the earth. As God says nothing in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth should be worshipped. It is a direct contravention of the faith of Jesus.
I've never heard anyone able to get around this. It's like it's just completely ignored by Christians.
But I put up with it. That's the way we've gone. I'm happy with the fact that the trinity is irrational.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Oops. I meant it's not that mousethief.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Jesus wasn't in the form of something terrestrial; he was something terrestrial. That wording doesn't apply to him at all. That wording is about fashioning with your hands an image/idol that is modeled on something like a cow, a tree, etc. Like the golden calf that Aaron made. But Jesus wasn't fashioned by hand on the model of something else in order to be an idol. It's apples and oranges.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Evensong , read your Creed. Jesus is God, Incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, the only begotten son, light from light. He is true God from true God, and became truly human. He was not simply a man who received special gifts, or God taking on the form of a human. Both viewpoints are heretical. He did not abandon His divine nature to become human, nor did He abandon His human nature on His ascension. Christ was before this universe was, He will be after this universe ceases.
Read your Creed.
[ 05. January 2011, 03:25: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
What Gee D said.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I am sure Evensong has read the Creeds many times and spent a good deal of time looking at the history of their origins. Sharing our different understandings of these things "on an open hand", no matter how vigorously we do that, is one of the most valuable aspects of this community. Something very much in my mind today.
Evensong, on your worship point, I'm going to go back to a text which IIRC you recommended a few months ago (by Raymond Brown) and see what if anything he has to say about your point.
Meanwhile, there is a key excerpt from the Nicene Creed which is worth consideration, since it affirms who is worthy of worship.
quote:
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
And in scripture, so far as the Person of Jesus is concerned, there are also these immortal lines from Revelation, made doubly immortal by the music of Handel.
quote:
Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.
Blessing and honour, glory and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever
The four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped.
The tension with Judaism created by the worship of Jesus is undeniable but it is not just a matter of the tension between the synoptics and John.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
As a human being, Jesus is of the earth. As God says nothing in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth should be worshipped. It is a direct contravention of the faith of Jesus.
Where does God say that?
Exodus 20: 4-6? No. Doesn't say that. That says we shall not make idols in the form of anything in heaven, earth, etc; or worship them. The referent of them is clearly idols. It's not 'things in the form of anything in heaven, earth, etc.'
The second commandment is silent on the subject of things that aren't idols.
Your interpretation would have the implication that many of the early Israelites would have been wrong to worship God. Anyone who thinks God is in heaven, or doesn't hold or hasn't yet come across the doctrine of divine simplicity would equally fall foul of it.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
The commandment says that we should not make idols.
Jesus was not shaped by human hands.
Moo
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The commandment says that we should not make idols.
Jesus was not shaped by human hands.
Moo
I'm not sure that's relevant. Neither were the sun, moon and stars, and we're clearly not meant to worship them.
This is getting Purgatorial, I guess, but the point of the second Commandment is to prevent idolatry, so that we don't give the worship that's due to God to some created thing that isn't worthy of it, that can't really satisfy us. Only God is worthy of it.
And Judaism is particularly strict about the difference between creator and created. There is no pantheism in there. A physical object, be it never so spectacular or wondrous, is not God, nor is a human being, even if they are amazingly charismatic or holy.
I guess I'm saying that idolatry is prohibited because its object is not God rather than because its object is something else. And that one of the features of Judaism is the absolute distinction between God and creation.
So the Incarnation is very, very shocking in this context. That's why it's so important. And if it is true, then the second commandment does not apply in this case, because in this case AND THIS CASE ONLY the human being is indeed God.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Jesus was not shaped by human hands.
I'm not sure that's relevant. Neither were the sun, moon and stars, and we're clearly not meant to worship them.
That would be covered under the first commandment rather than the second, wouldn't it? It's the first commandment that tells us not to worship things that aren't God. The second tells us not to mistake things that we've made for God.
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Jesus was not shaped by human hands.
I'm not sure that's relevant. Neither were the sun, moon and stars, and we're clearly not meant to worship them.
That would be covered under the first commandment rather than the second, wouldn't it? It's the first commandment that tells us not to worship things that aren't God. The second tells us not to mistake things that we've made for God.
C1 says - you shall have no other gods before me. So I'd say it prohibits polytheism rather than idolatry. But one might still say - well, the one God is conveniently located in this golden calf (for example), which is prohibited by C2.
So I guess it would depends whether you thought the stars were extra gods (which would breach C1) or whether you thought (like Akhenaten) the Sun (for example) was God himself, which would breach C2.
(I now feel like I'm discussing the rules of some obscure sport... )
I think my main point (about why worshipping Jesus is OK) still stands though.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Evensong , read your Creed. Jesus is God, Incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, the only begotten son, light from light. He is true God from true God, and became truly human. He was not simply a man who received special gifts, or God taking on the form of a human. Both viewpoints are heretical.
The latter suggestion, IMO, is what the Nicene creed gives the impression of. They try get around that heresy by saying he was truly human.
But back to the point of the heresy of worshiping a man.
Your comment on divine and human natures I think hits the mark more and is what Chalcedon tries to work through.
If he had his human and divine nature at the same time, then he could be worshiped as a man because he was also God at the same time. Viola! Problem solved.
But another is created. How is someone truly human if they are also God?
Well, Chalcedon couldn't figure it out. They just said, it is so. Take it or leave it.
So like I said before, it's still irrational, but we can either take it or leave it.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The tension with Judaism created by the worship of Jesus is undeniable but it is not just a matter of the tension between the synoptics and John.
True. It's just heightened in John because of the higher Christology.
An interesting question would be if it was considered acceptable to worship the Messiah? Or if even that was part of the Hellenization of Jewish religion?
Or you could even go back and look at what the word "worship" means in the original texts I suppose...
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The commandment says that we should not make idols.
Jesus was not shaped by human hands.
Moo
I'm not sure that's relevant. Neither were the sun, moon and stars, and we're clearly not meant to worship them.
This is getting Purgatorial, I guess, but the point of the second Commandment is to prevent idolatry, so that we don't give the worship that's due to God to some created thing that isn't worthy of it, that can't really satisfy us. Only God is worthy of it.
And Judaism is particularly strict about the difference between creator and created. There is no pantheism in there. A physical object, be it never so spectacular or wondrous, is not God, nor is a human being, even if they are amazingly charismatic or holy.
I guess I'm saying that idolatry is prohibited because its object is not God rather than because its object is something else. And that one of the features of Judaism is the absolute distinction between God and creation.
Thank you TurquoiseTastic. You said that much better than I could have.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Why is it illogical for somebody to be both a man and God? The two aren't defined in such a way as to be mutually exclusive. Light is both a wave and a particle. How is that possible? It's possible because "wave" and "particle" are not mutually exclusive, as was previously thought.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Why is it illogical for somebody to be both a man and God? The two aren't defined in such a way as to be mutually exclusive.
No?
You don't think the nature of God and the nature of Man are different?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Christ had both natures. Next.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
I'm aware of that Mousethief.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Then why did you say it? I mean as a reason why Christ couldn't be God and Man? You are simply asserting that they are incompatible. That's not good enough. You need to explain WHY or IN WHAT WAY they are incompatible.
You might as well say, "Look at the definition of a wave. Look at the definition of a particle. They're not the same thing, are they?" No, they're not. And yet a photon is both.
In like manner, the nature of God and the nature of Man are different. And yet Christ was both. To show he can't be you need to explain not just that the nature of God and the nature of Man are different. Nobody with more than a 5th grade Sunday School education would argue with that. You need to show they are incompatible. I'll wait over here.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Saying Jesus had two natures does not explain the pardox of how it is possible to be both God and a human being at the same time.
You acknowledge the two natures are different, but you think they are compatible. You want me to explain why they are incompatible?
I'm not sure if you're pulling my leg but I'll have a go.
1) a human being has a body, God does not
2) a human being is not omnipotent, God is
3) a human being is not omniscient, God is
etc etc
How can you say these two things are compatible at the same time?
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
If he had his human and divine nature at the same time, then he could be worshiped as a man because he was also God at the same time. Viola! Problem solved.
But another is created. How is someone truly human if they are also God?
Well, Chalcedon couldn't figure it out. They just said, it is so. Take it or leave it.
So like I said before, it's still irrational, but we can either take it or leave it.
Except that I don't think we can leave it.
If Jesus is not divine then what he said and did seem to focus far too strongly on himself - making it far too easy for us to fall into (what would then be) the trap of worshipping him!
That's why I think we have to take it... but I do somewhat agree with you that it's only once we've decided that we are going to take it that we'll have any patience with subsequent attempts to understand how this could be...
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
1) a human being has a body, God does not
2) a human being is not omnipotent, God is
3) a human being is not omniscient, God is
In all the above cases, you have a quality possessed by one thing that is absent in the other. God doesn't have the positive quality of 'not having a body' - it's just that God does not have a body.
God doesn't have a body. Therefore, God doesn't have a different body from humans. Therefore, when God became human and took on a body there wasn't any body already there to get in the way. It's the same with any other attribute of humans that God doesn't have: God doesn't have them so they don't get in the way.
(Neither being omniscient or not being omniscient are properties properly speaking, for that matter. They're both short hand speaking. Jesus' human intellect knew things as a human does. God does not have a human intellect; God's method of knowing is completely and utterly unlike humans. Therefore, once again, there's no conflict.)
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Except that I don't think we can leave it.
If you worship Jesus, then no, you can't leave it.
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
If Jesus is not divine then what he said and did seem to focus far too strongly on himself - making it far too easy for us to fall into (what would then be) the trap of worshipping him!
Could it not have been the evangelists that emphasized this as they were trying to prove he was the Messiah?
I think Jesus (in the synoptic gospels at least) is theocentric. He always points to God the father.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
1) a human being has a body, God does not
2) a human being is not omnipotent, God is
3) a human being is not omniscient, God is
In all the above cases, you have a quality possessed by one thing that is absent in the other. God doesn't have the positive quality of 'not having a body' - it's just that God does not have a body.
God doesn't have a body. Therefore, God doesn't have a different body from humans. Therefore, when God became human and took on a body there wasn't any body already there to get in the way. It's the same with any other attribute of humans that God doesn't have: God doesn't have them so they don't get in the way.
I'm not sure I'm following you here Dafyyd but it sounds like because one is positive and one is negative, they can be conflated without a problem?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The tension with Judaism created by the worship of Jesus is undeniable but it is not just a matter of the tension between the synoptics and John.
True. It's just heightened in John because of the higher Christology.
An interesting question would be if it was considered acceptable to worship the Messiah? Or if even that was part of the Hellenization of Jewish religion?
Or you could even go back and look at what the word "worship" means in the original texts I suppose...
I followed that final bit of advice and the results were interesting. In Matthew 28, where Jesus is described as being the subject of worship twice, the key word is proskyneo (lit: towards to kiss), which means to make obeisance to, do reverence to.
Here's the Blue letter Bible link, set at the first of those texts.
The same root word is used in the Revelation text which I referenced above - again as you can confirm via the Blue Letter Bible.
In the Creed we find a small but probably significant difference. The root word is summproskyneo (you can confirm that using the link to the Creed I provided earlier), meaning worship together.
I'm not quite sure about this but I read the implication to be that whenever we worship God, we worship the three Persons of the Trinity who are the expressions of God we know by revelation. Or as a modern song puts it
"Give glory to the Father
Give glory to the Son
Give glory to the Spirit
While endless ages run"
In short the Creed seems to be saying that the act of worshipping God will inevitably mean worshipping Father, Son and Holy Spirit at the same time.
There are implications in that for the practice of worship today. In what we say, or sing, if we continually give more emphasis by Name to one Person of the Trinity, we may be going against the intention of the Creed that when we worship God, we both do obeisance to, and remind ourselves that, God is the Holy Trinity.
The final thought about proskyneo is that it is the most frequently used word for worship in the NT, and represents an action done "in the presence of" the subject of worship. So it contains this element of "encounter by faith".
The next most frequent latreuo has similar tones but also includes the conception of serving more generally (works of Christian service may be seen as a part of our worship).
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Interesting results Barnabas. I found a bit more:
"Worship" in the Hebrew Language
Beyond the contextual clues in the Old Testament ("bowed down his head", "bowed himself to the earth", "bowed down", "bowed their faces to the ground", "fell to the ground", "kneeled before", "fell down", "prostrated") which help us understand what worship is, the Hebrew word shahhah by itself, often translated as worship, actually means to prostrate.
Hebrew: SHAHHAH (worship)
"In our modern western culture worship is an action directed toward God and God alone. But this is not the case in the Hebrew Bible. The word shehhah is a common Hebrew word meaning to prostrate oneself before another in respect. We see Moses doing this to his father in law in Exodus 18:7. When the translators translate the word shehhah they will use the word "worship" when the bowing down is directed toward God but as "obeisance" or other equivalent word when directed toward another man. There is no Hebrew word meaning worship in the sense that we are used to using it in our culture today.
From an Hebraic perspective worship, or shehhah is the act of getting down on ones knees and placing the face down on the ground before another worthy of respect." (Taken from Ancient Hebrew Research Center)
Key Idea: The Hebrew word often translated as worship actually means to prostrate.
"Worship" in the Greek Language
Beyond the contextual clues in the New Testament ("fell down", "fell on their faces", "fell at his feet", "bowing the knee", "held Him by the feet") which help us understand what worship is, the Greek word proskyneo by itself, often translated as worship, doesn't necessarily mean prostration.
Greek: PROSKYNEO (worship)
"In Classic literature: The basic meaning of proskyneo, in the opinion of most scholars, is to kiss. the prefix indicates a connection with the cultic practices going back beyond Greek history. On Egyptian reliefs worshippers are represented with outsreched hands throwing a kiss to (pros-) the deity. Among the Greeks the verb is a techical term for the adoration of the gods, meaning to fall down, prostrate oneself, adore on one's knees. Probably it came to have this meaning because in order to kiss the earth (i.e. the earth deity) or the image of a god, one had to cast oneself on the ground.
[Something noteworthy regarding the Greek word proskyneo and the Hebrew word shahhah: The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament that existed prior to the 1st century. "In the overwhelming majority of cases in the Septuagint proskyneo translates the Hebrew shahhah in the hithpael, meaning to bow down, and is used both of bowing down before men and of worship..." Later proskyneo was also used in connection with the deification of rulers and the roman emperor cult. In addition to the external act of prostrating oneself in worship, proskyneo can denote the corresponding inward attitude of reverence and humility." (Colin Brown, NIDNTT II, pg. 876) So the translators of the Septuagint chose to translate the Hebrew word shahhah as the Greek word proskyneo. Thus, it seems they saw proskyneo as an adequate Greek term to describe the prostration described within the Hebrew shahhah.] From this site
So the question remains.....?
The words worship encompasses can be "give respect to"?
So perhaps, in the synoptic gospels, it was reverence rather than recognition that Jesus = God?
Possible.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In the Creed we find a small but probably significant difference. The root word is summproskyneo (you can confirm that using the link to the Creed I provided earlier), meaning worship together.
I'm not quite sure about this but I read the implication to be that whenever we worship God, we worship the three Persons of the Trinity who are the expressions of God we know by revelation. Or as a modern song puts it
Is the worship together emphasis on the people worshiping together or on the thing being worshiped being together? Is it possible to tell?
If the latter, then yes, your argument makes sense and is certainly in keeping with creedal theology.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
It applies to the Godhead for sure. The context is the Holy Spirit who is "togetherworshipped" with the Father and the Son. I also get the sense that it is a reminder of the phrase from Jesus in John's gospel about proskyneo "in spirit and in truth".
On reflection, it also is like the church saying to all who worship God sincerely (however imperfectly conceived), "this is the God who you worship, as he has revealed Himself to us".
I suppose I draw a distinction between idolatry and confusion, when considering worship. "Knowing in part" implies a greater commonality than we may credit at first. I've always been impressed by the insight from Lewis that a character who showed genuine goodness and was a follower of Tash was, all-unknowing, a follower of Aslan. My personal experience as a Christian persuaded me many years ago that my understanding of God became idolatrous whenever I got "too big for my boots" about theological accuracy. Pride in one's understanding gets in the way. Worship is "face down".
That's probably a personal and 21st century reflection on a 4th century Creed. Creeds are confessional for the church, but this reference to worship might also be seen as "outreaching" to those who see God differently.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's the same with any other attribute of humans that God doesn't have: God doesn't have them so they don't get in the way.
I'm not sure I'm following you here Dafyyd but it sounds like because one is positive and one is negative, they can be conflated without a problem?
There's only one 'y' in my username.
What I mean is there's nothing on the one side to be conflated.
By 'a negative quality' do you mean 'a kind of quality that is like a positive quality but negative', or 'not having a quality of that kind at all'?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
In the English translation I am used to in Orthodox churches of various stripes in the US, we say of the HS, "with the Father and the Son together he is worshipped and glorified."
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My personal experience as a Christian persuaded me many years ago that my understanding of God became idolatrous whenever I got "too big for my boots" about theological accuracy. Pride in one's understanding gets in the way. Worship is "face down".
True story.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What I mean is there's nothing on the one side to be conflated.
I'm afraid I'm not following your logic Dafyd.
Or are you saying the two natures are so different that they can exist both in Jesus at the same time because there is no overlap?
Like I can be a subatomic particle and a cat at the same time but still call myself a cat because a cat and a subatomic particle are so different?
Even if I could figure out your logic, I'm not sure it explains how one human being can have two distinct natures tho...
Unless Jesus is a different order of being altogether and not like us who have one nature.
[edited to include the fact that I know he is not a different order of being according to the creeds. Just in case yous decided to jump on me for that. ]
[ 09. January 2011, 04:27: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Or are you saying the two natures are so different that they can exist both in Jesus at the same time because there is no overlap?
Yes.
quote:
Unless Jesus is a different order of being altogether and not like us who have one nature.
Jesus is two orders of being: one is the same order of being as the rest of us, and the other is God. Of course, Jesus is different in having two natures. This is a point where we just have to say that the argument gets us to this point, and either we accept the conclusion or we don't.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Or are you saying the two natures are so different that they can exist both in Jesus at the same time because there is no overlap?
Yes.
That is an argument I have never heard before. Even tho I don't get it, I will ponder it. Thank you.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Jesus is two orders of being: one is the same order of being as the rest of us, and the other is God. Of course, Jesus is different in having two natures. This is a point where we just have to say that the argument gets us to this point, and either we accept the conclusion or we don't.
The Chalcedonian creed goes further than you. It's says the two natures exists with
quote:
without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without con- trasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union.
So it is saying Jesus is not different from us because he does have one nature.
What they don't say is how.
So like you said and like I have said often enough on this thread, it is an unexplained paradox, take it or leave it.
I can accept it in so far as it is the mystery of God.
But when people start trying to pretend it makes sense, and vilifying those who have trouble accepting such a thing, then I get rather ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But when people start trying to pretend it makes sense, and vilifying those who have trouble accepting such a thing, then I get rather
Yes. It is a dogmatic statement, but it defends a most interesting dogmatic belief (thought to be confirmed by theoria i.e. contemplation and reflection, not theory. Namely that the essence of God cannot be defined and it is presumptuous to think otherwise. It seems clear that was at least one of the intentions of the Cappadocean Fathers.
The stress is in part on the unknowability of the essence of God, in part on how He has chosen to make Himself known. "Knowing in part" is I think inbuilt. The idea that a statement can be both dogmatic and humble about human limitations, at one and the same time, sometimes gets "lost in translation".
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But when people start trying to pretend it makes sense, and vilifying those who have trouble accepting such a thing, then I get rather
Yes. It is a dogmatic statement, but it defends a most interesting dogmatic belief (thought to be confirmed by theoria i.e. contemplation and reflection, not theory. Namely that the essence of God cannot be defined and it is presumptuous to think otherwise.
Are not dogma and such a belief that the essence of God cannot be defined at odds with each other? Is not the task of dogma to define such things?
All the creeds were put in place to pronounce heresies and excommunicate people. That was their background and historical context. Nicene was Arians, Chalcedonian was the Monophysites etc etc.
You don't excommunicate people if you think you cannot define the essence of God.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I guess you can excommunicate them for being presumptuous? Or more presumptuous than the church believes is in line with the Apostles' teaching?
I'm no expert on anathematisation, don't even like the word (what would you expect from a nonconformist?). I guess one might say that the Cappadoceans and the 4th/5th Century Orthodox were apophatic about the essence of God but kataphatic about his self-revelation. They were sure about what they were sure about!
But we probably need an Orthodox view on that, rather than one from a self-declared Dissenting "piggy with a straight tail". To understand better does not imply full agreement.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Are not dogma and such a belief that the essence of God cannot be defined at odds with each other? Is not the task of dogma to define such things?
Mostly in the disputes over the creeds the positions that were condemned as heretical was more defined than the position that was eventually declared orthodox.
Although conservative apologetics used to like to talk as if Jesus dictated the orthodox faith, complete with creeds, to Peter, in fact usually what happened was that the group that was later declared heretical came in to try and tidy things up, and orthodoxy was a reaction that said 'hang on a moment, you're leaving out things that we think are important'.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Mostly in the disputes over the creeds the positions that were condemned as heretical was more defined than the position that was eventually declared orthodox.
I don't know enough about all the creeds to say whether this is true or not but it certainly applies to Chalcedon and a lot of trinitarian theology.
I've realised that whenever you think you can define the Trinity in rational terms, you're almost undoubtedly espousing a heretical position of some sort.
So this must be the origin of the strange term "generous orthodoxy".
From the outside looking in, orthodoxy does not seem at all generous. From the inside looking out, it's nothing but generous because it is almost completely ambiguous.
The only thing that works is the perichoresis idea. They move around continually. When you think you've got them down, you've lost them.
[ 13. January 2011, 11:46: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
like electrons--you can have their position or their mass (I think?) but you can't know both at the same time.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Position versus velocity. Does that apply to electrons or only to particles at the quantum level? But I take your point.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Very interesting that Heisenberg should turn up here! In a much-praised BBC TV series (The Ascent of Man), the presenter, Dr Bronowski, observed that he preferred to describe the Uncertainty Principle as the Principle of Tolerance.
There is a very funny scene in the movie "Catholic Boys (aka Heaven Help Us)" where a not-too-bright student is asked to describe his thoughts on the Trinity (a homework exercise IIRC). The student, who had not done his homework, alights on the word "mystery" and waffles around that word, making the simple point that it is a mystery and mysteries cannot be understood, therefore the Trinity cannot be understood, therefore he does not understand it!
I always thought that was quite neat.
Thinking again about "only-begotten" (which is where we started here) what I think has happened is that the meaning of the "word-on-its-own" was seen, in context, to be the best that John could do to capture something of the Divinity of Christ. Essentially, that contextual argument got caught up in something much bigger; the struggle of the church both to understand and express the uniqueness of Jesus and how he had been instrumental in God-understanding and God-encounter. From the 1st chapter of John again, there is this (to me) wonderful summary of this journey. Here it is, via the Blue letter Bible link.
"The only begotten has declared Him" or as later translations put it "made Him known".
The principle of tolerance suggest to me that we must always remember the qualification "in so far as He can be known to any extent by mortals". I think we all struggle to hold the apophatic and kataphatic in necessary tension. Perhaps the tragedies of the use of dogma by the church illustrate, better than anything else, how difficult it is for us to take our "knowing in part" seriously.
As I've got older, I feel the poignancy more. We fall out of friendship and into emnity because of the different ways we understand what it means to love the one who called our forefathers in the faith "friends". Our differences don't need to lead to that.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Position versus velocity. Does that apply to electrons or only to particles at the quantum level?
It applies to all particles at the quantum level, which most certainly includes electrons.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0