quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I'm just querying the very affirmative language being used - not just by you, it's the usual thing. To combine the terms used in the previous posts, it seems that the full Christ, in his fully human nature, circumcised and all, is bodily present.

But he's not a bodily present human in the way that I am. Dare we risk a little dash of the metaphorical to explain the difference between Jesus and me?

---

Certainly. Christ, as God incarnate, risen and ascended is the completeness of both humanity and divinity; is present in both fashions according to the mystery of the nature of God-hood.

And you aren't.

What you are is, metaphorically speaking, a simple 3-D presence - occyping one place at a time, limited, flawed and comprehendable. Christ otoh occupies the many-dimensioned presence of a Creator who is both within and beyond. So you're right to say that Christ certainly is not present at the eucharist in the same way you are.

He is present within, around, and beyond the eucharist. Whereas you are occupying as much as your bottom can fit on a seat, and the oxygen you breathe!

I'm sure it's a lot more complex than that, actually.
 

---

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I'm just querying the very affirmative language being used - not just by you, it's the usual thing. To combine the terms used in the previous posts, it seems that the full Christ, in his fully human nature, circumcised and all, is bodily present.

But he's not a bodily present human in the way that I am. Dare we risk a little dash of the metaphorical to explain the difference between Jesus and me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I'm just querying the very affirmative language being used - not just by you, it's the usual thing. To combine the terms used in the previous posts, it seems that the full Christ, in his fully human nature, circumcised and all, is bodily present.

But he's not a bodily present human in the way that I am. Dare we risk a little dash of the metaphorical to explain the difference between Jesus and me?

---

Certainly. Christ, as God incarnate, risen and ascended is the completeness of both humanity and divinity; is present in both fashions according to the mystery of the nature of God-hood.

And you aren't.

What you are is, metaphorically speaking, a simple 3-D presence - occyping one place at a time, limited, flawed and comprehendable. Christ otoh occupies the many-dimensioned presence of a Creator who is both within and beyond. So you're right to say that Christ certainly is not present at the eucharist in the same way you are.

He is present within, around, and beyond the eucharist. Whereas you are occupying as much as your bottom can fit on a seat, and the oxygen you breathe!

I'm sure it's a lot more complex than that, actually.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sorry, but I don't see anythinbg in the Bible to say that Christ is bodily present in bread and wine.

What I do see is that Christ is bodily with the Father and from Heaven he shall come bodily to reign at the second coming.

In the meantime he, together with the Father, is constantly present within us by his Holy Spirit. This presence within is not dependent on any sacramental elements or ceremony.

---

quote:

---

John 6
I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sorry, but I don't see anythinbg in the Bible to say that Christ is bodily present in bread and wine.

What I do see is that Christ is bodily with the Father and from Heaven he shall come bodily to reign at the second coming.

In the meantime he, together with the Father, is constantly present within us by his Holy Spirit. This presence within is not dependent on any sacramental elements or ceremony.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sorry, but I don't see anythinbg in the Bible to say that Christ is bodily present in bread and wine.

What I do see is that Christ is bodily with the Father and from Heaven he shall come bodily to reign at the second coming.

In the meantime he, together with the Father, is constantly present within us by his Holy Spirit. This presence within is not dependent on any sacramental elements or ceremony.

---

I think you have to do some serious theological gymnastics to get around:

quote:

---

John 6
I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”

---

---

quote:

---

Why is "Christ's being God... something we'll never attain"?

---

quote:

---

Because we're creatures; we can never be God, God being uncreated, eternal, infinite, etc. We share in Christ's divine nature by being united to Christ, but that's different from our becoming gods.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Is "bodily with God" a metaphor?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes he's also a vine, a light and a load of water.

That doesn't mean he lives in my garden, in a lightbulb or in the sink in my kitchen.

It's a metaphor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
Originally posted by Garasu:

quote:

---

Why is "Christ's being God... something we'll never attain"?

---

Originally posted by churchgeek:

quote:

---

Because we're creatures; we can never be God, God being uncreated, eternal, infinite, etc. We share in Christ's divine nature by being united to Christ, but that's different from our becoming gods.

---

But was Jesus (qua Jesus) "uncreated, eternal, infinite, etc."? We presumably believe that, as fully human, he had a beginning and an end; that he did not have knowledge unavailable to his time, he could not have run a mile in less than a second...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
If you exist bodily you must have a location, yes? So where would that be?

---

This is one that puzzles me, as well. In the end, I have to take it on faith that there's some piece we don't have. Possibly it has to do with the transformation of a resurrected body; we're told our mortal body is like a seed that dies and a plant grows from it. The plant is very unlike the seed. The accounts of Jesus post-Resurrection have him walking through walls, but standing on floors; bearing scars you can touch; going unrecognized and being recognized; appearing and disappearing; eating fish and bread; and ascending into the clouds. WTF?

Again, it's a one-off in our experience. So far we have little if any experience with other resurrected humans (possible exception, depending on your theology, might be Marian apparitions; she's supposed by some churches to have been raised bodily into heaven; other churches reject the idea, so YMMV).

And since we tend to believe people's souls or spirits "go to heaven" when they die, but since souls/spirits are immaterial, heaven isn't either, this poses a problem for the idea of a physical body also being there. It made more sense in antiquity, but they were wrong about what the cosmos is like.

This is probably something we'll never be able to figure out until we too are raised. I'm OK with that. I figure if the hereafter, which we call heaven, is something we could understand now, it would probably make for a miserable eternity.
 

---

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Evensong :

quote:

---

God the Son relates to Jesus the Man as defined by the creed of the Council of Chalcedon (fully man, fully God) but what about after the resurrection?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I'm just querying the very affirmative language being used - not just by you, it's the usual thing. To combine the terms used in the previous posts, it seems that the full Christ, in his fully human nature, circumcised and all, is bodily present.

But he's not a bodily present human in the way that I am. Dare we risk a little dash of the metaphorical to explain the difference between Jesus and me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes he's also a vine, a light and a load of water.

That doesn't mean he lives in my garden, in a lightbulb or in the sink in my kitchen.

It's a metaphor.

---

So you don't think the word "real" is important in this passage? Also isn't "it's a metaphor" the same argument used by modernists to deny the incarnation and resurrection?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes he's also a vine, a light and a load of water.

That doesn't mean he lives in my garden, in a lightbulb or in the sink in my kitchen.

It's a metaphor.

---

So you don't think the word "real" is important in this passage? Also isn't "it's a metaphor" the same argument used by modernists to deny the incarnation and resurrection?

---

Sure they do. Doesn't mean they're right.

Identifying metaphors can be a tricky business, but it's completely impossible to suggest that Jesus didn't use them and so couldn't be using one here. Every parable is a metaphor: the Kingdom of Heaven is like...

EDIT: Also, I'm not at all convinced the word 'real' means what you think it means. When Jesus talks about someone never going hungry again or never being thirsty again, it doesn't bear any resemblance to the food and drink I'm familiar with. If Jesus is 'real' food then everything else I consume clearly ISN'T 'real', which actually points against him being bread and wine, not for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
But he's not a bodily present human in the way that I am. Dare we risk a little dash of the metaphorical to explain the difference between Jesus and me?

---

Certainly. Christ, as God incarnate, risen and ascended is the completeness of both humanity and divinity; is present in both fashions according to the mystery of the nature of God-hood.

And you aren't.

---

That's all very nice, and I really like the idea that Christ is beyond and around and just under the edge of the eucharist and all that, but you've dropped the fully human and bodily present circumcised Jewish male stuff. That's the stuff I'm really good at - not the Jewish bit, but I can be massively bodily present. In fact my bodily presence is more impressive than you know who's.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by churchgeek:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
If you exist bodily you must have a location, yes? So where would that be?

---

This is one that puzzles me, as well.

---

The key to the problem is that, in addition to the material universe which the scientists can weigh and measure and theorise about, there is an immaterial universe. If one believes in a God “out there” (and not merely something within us like the ground of our being), as I do, it is obvious that He does not exist in the material universe, that there are no atoms or molecules in His makeup, since that would pin Him down to one specific location, whereas theists believe that He is present everywhere.

The vital question is posed by Keith Ward in his book “Why there almost certainly is a God -Doubting Dawkins” : Can a conscious mind exist without a physical body to support it? I believe this is the test that divides most Christians (and other theists, Jewish, Muslim or other) from most atheists. The former must answer Yes; the latter generally answer No.

Paul in 1 Cor 15 discusses the nature of the resurrected body. It is spiritual and imperishable, not natural and perishable. After death we have a spiritual body, but it is still human. So after his death Jesus similarly had a spiritual body, which was still human as well as being divine. In 1 Cor 15.3-8 Paul states that he was told that Jesus “appeared” on a number of occasions, including the appearance to himself (which he regards as of the same nature as the earlier appearances he mentions, but it is not suggested was accompanied by a physical body). (I suspect that the evangelists, writing 20-40 years later, embroidered their accounts with details which were intended to emphasise the reality of Christ’s resurrection by crediting him with a physical body, which Paul, who presumably got his information from Peter when he spent a fortnight with him in Jerusalem some three to six years after the Crucifixion, does not suggest.)

Appearances of Jesus in modern times, such as His well-known appearance to the late Hugh Montefiore which converted him in an instant from being wholly Jewish to being a Christian (though still Jewish as he emphasised in his book “On being a Jewish Christian”), take a similar form to the appearances that Paul lists. While He may not visibly appear at the Eucharist, He is present, and we believe especially present in the bread and the wine.

There is no need to postulate that, after His Resurrection, Jesus had a physical or material body which in some unscientific way did not prevent him from being present everywhere, and especially at every celebration of the Eucharist. What happened to the body in the tomb then? I found this a difficult obstacle to overcome in my conclusions as to what happened; but the well-known Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner(1874-1958) provides an explanation that is so plausible that I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it is right:

“.... deliberate imposture [i.e. the theft of the body by the disciples with the intention of proclaiming that Jesus had risen from the dead] is not the substance out of which the religion of millions of mankind is created. We must assume that the owner of the tomb, Joseph of Arimathea, thought it unfitting that one who had been crucified should remain in his own ancestral tomb. Joseph of Arimathea therefore secretly removed the body at the close of Sabbath and buried it in an unknown grave; and since he was, according to the gospels, “one of the disciples of Jesus”, or “one who was looking for the kingdom of God”, there was some measure of truth in the report spread by the Jews, though it was, in the main, only the malicious invention of enemies unable to explain the “miracle”.

The fact of the women going to anoint the body is proof that neither they nor the other disciples expected the resurrection, and that Jesus had not told them beforehand that he would rise again. ...

There can be no question but that some of the ardent Galilaeans saw their lord and Messiah in a vision. That the vision was spiritual and not material is evident from the way Paul compares his own vision with those seen by Peter and James and the other apostles. As to his own vision, we know from the description in the Acts of the Apostles and from his own account that what he saw was no vision of flesh and blood but a vision “born of the light“, “an heavenly vision in which God had revealed in me his Son”. Consequently the vision seen by the disciples, a vision which Paul deliberately compares with his own, was a spiritual vision and no more. This vision became the basis of Christianity: it was treated as faithful proof of the resurrection of Jesus, of his Messiahship, and of the near approach of the kingdom of heaven. But for this vision the memory of Jesus might have been wholly forgotten, or preserved only in a collection of lofty ethical precepts and miracle stories.”

That is in my view a convincing explanation of what happened, except that there was more than one vision if Paul is to be believed - and Paul is one witness who I am sure believed that what he wrote was true, and he received the tradition from Peter, who is another witness whose evidence to Paul about the appearances is virtually certain to have been what Peter believed to be true. Joseph of Arimathea ordered his gardener to remove the body from the tomb and bury it elsewhere as soon as the Sabbath ended (which would have been at sunset on the day after the crucifixion, Easter Saturday in modern parlance). The gardener rolled away the stone which closed the tomb, and did just that, unbeknownst to the disciples; but he left the two pieces of linen cloth in the tomb, as there was no point in burying them, and he believed them to be the property of his master Joseph. Peter and John found them (Jn 20.5-7), and they are now at Turin and Oviedo - the evidence for the genuineness of the Shroud and the Sudarium has become increasingly convincing in the last 30 years.
 

---

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I never thought I'd encounter someone who believes in the real presence but rejects the bodily resurrection of Jesus. You really do learn something new everyday.
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Bizarre. Questions-- if this iswhat you think happened, what prevented Joseph, a member of the high council, from informing his fellow council members of the removal of the body as soon as he heard of their confusion? For thatmatter, how did the gardener get past a sealed entrance guarded by soldiers? All unbeknownst to them, too . . . And what would any good Jew, master or servant, want with cloths that had held a dead and unressurected body? That's about the strongest form of ritual contamination there is.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Stupid me started a thread when I don't have proper time to devote to it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Evensong :

quote:

---

God the Son relates to Jesus the Man as defined by the creed of the Council of Chalcedon (fully man, fully God) but what about after the resurrection?

---

Is there are problem with the concept of "after" when considering an eternal being existing outside time?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Questions-- if this is what you think happened, what prevented Joseph, a member of the high council, from informing his fellow council members of the removal of the body as soon as he heard of their confusion? For that matter, how did the gardener get past a sealed entrance guarded by soldiers? All unbeknownst to them, too . . . And what would any good Jew, master or servant, want with cloths that had held a dead and unressurected body? That's about the strongest form of ritual contamination there is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by egg:
As to Arethosemyfeet, do you not believe that Christ is present at every celebration of the Eucharist? Not perhaps literally in the bread and wine, because his presence is not physical; but the sharing of the bread and wine among the communicants, to many people, makes his presence more real.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Does "literally" mean something different from literally, that is, when the inverted commas are missing?

When Jesus is "literally" present does that mean actually, physically, bodily, really and in every respect just like the other human beings there are present? Or is it more like when the cyclist, Jason Kenny, was literally on fire last night. That is, not actually on fire at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
And what does that mean, then? How is his presence different from mine?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
But clearly not really, substantially there in the sense that I am, which is what words of that sort usually mean. You're using them to describe a sort of presence that is not obviously real or substantial.

I realise that you're wanting to assert something that is really important to you, and strong words seem to offer welcome emphasis, just as it probably felt right to the commentator to say that Jason Kenny was literally on fire, but he wasn't, and I don't think the presence of Jesus is quite as substantial as mine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Biblical angels are usually in male human form. They speak. They have legs and feet. They can stand, walk, or sit. They hold things in their hands. They blow trumpets. They're strong and wise, and they fly swiftly. They belong to God's kingdom. Are they real?

Is it too far fetched to consider the possibility that God's kingdom might not only be real, but also be able to connect with the world?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Biblical angels are usually in male human form.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Biblical angels are usually in male human form.

---

Only if you ignore the cherubim and the seraphim.

And if we can believe Ezekiel they are hard to ignore...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless: being indistinguishable from strangers

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Are cherubim and seraphim angels?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Is it too far fetched to consider the possibility that God's kingdom might not only be real, but also be able to connect with the world?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Egg, you have some rather odd priorities. You freely ignore or rewrite the only text we have which comes down from the time of the events (that is, the text of the New Testament) but you place all your trust in traditions and imaginative reconstructions rom long after the fact, and that are normally regarded as theories and best guesses, not inspired truth, even by those who treasure them most. If I may dare the analogy, this is to throw away the body itself and keep the wrappings! Very odd.

You also seem to have a distaste for the physical and material. Why must it be that the resurrected body of Christ have no molecules? To quote Lewis, "God likes matter; he invented it." Do you consider that it is somehow beneath Christ to possess a resurrection body which is composed of matter? Because that is certainly what he gave his disciples to believe, with his "Touch me and see; a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." Not to mention his eating fish in front of them. Surely this would be misleading, bordering on outright lie, unless he meant them to understand that his body was "real" in the sense that theirs was: touchable, composed of matter, alive and handle-able, not a materialization or an apparition or any other kind of ghost.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by egg:
So far as possible, though I am not a professional historian, I try to reconstruct what may have happened without resort to miracles - I do not regard the appearances of Jesus as miracles in the sense of being contrary to the natural order, since I believe that Jesus is alive today in the non-material world and able to manifest himself in the material world if he wishes to do so (as he did to an Oxford friend of mine quite recently shortly after the death of her husband).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If it's all metaphorical, why is it described as "a hard teaching", and why did it put off so many of Jesus' followers?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by egg:

As to the Resurrection, Paul is writing 20 to 40 years earlier than the evangelists, he had spent a fortnight with Peter in Jerusalem not very long after the Resurrection (2 to 6 years at the outside), and he passed on what he had been told to the Church in Corinth without any mention of the appearances of Jesus which he lists being accompanied by a physical body;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by egg:
The result of my struggles is that I am more than ever convinced that the natural order includes both a material world and a non-material world; and that this fact resolves a number of conundrums.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
*raises hand*

If Jesus' human, physical nature is everywhere now, doesn't that mean ours will be too when we are raised?

(Recalling that the human nature and God nature are not confused or transmuted according to Chalcedon )

---

No, because Jesus' 'physical nature' isn't everywhere now. That's the whole point. He is here with us by his Holy Spirit. We wait for the second coming for Jesus to come again. In the meantime God is with us through his Holy Spirit.

Christ in you the hope of glory isn't a physical nor even sacramental presence. He is within you by the Spirit who infills you.

Is this not elementary stuff?

[ 09. August 2012, 13:17: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
If you recall the OP, I'm trying to reconcile all this with Chalcedon so no, it's not elementary.

If Jesus is no longer here (physically or otherwise) and it is the Holy Spirit that is present now (spiritually) then what is Jesus now?

His fully human nature would be dissolved according to your interpretation and he would now be only God the Son. His human nature no longer exists.

Is that correct?

Lamb chopped and others have said they believe he retains his human nature. I just can't see how.

[ 09. August 2012, 13:33: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
If Jesus is no longer here (physically or otherwise) and it is the Holy Spirit that is present now (spiritually) then what is Jesus now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Lamb chopped and others have said they believe he retains his human nature. I just can't see how.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
His fully human nature would be dissolved according to your interpretation and he would now be only God the Son. His human nature no longer exists.

Is that correct?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As for the appearances to Paul (rather than appearances in general)--

what do you do with Luke's note that "the Lord Jesus stood by Paul's bed and said, 'Courage! Just as you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify to me in Rome.'"

What is the point of an immaterial non-physical being standing at a particular point in space? Let alone noting it. You might as well have a vision or dream sequence, it would make better sense under your hypothesis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
How do God the Son (the second eternal hypostasis of God) relate to the risen and ascended Christ?

God the Son relates to Jesus the Man as defined by the creed of the Council of Chalcedon (fully man, fully God) but what about after the resurrection?

How does the relationship change?

---

quote:

---

If it doesn't, is it his fully human nature that is present "bodily" to us in the Eucharist (or any other "appearance" today)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
If you recall the OP, I'm trying to reconcile all this with Chalcedon so no, it's not elementary.

If Jesus is no longer here (physically or otherwise) and it is the Holy Spirit that is present now (spiritually) then what is Jesus now?

His fully human nature would be dissolved according to your interpretation and he would now be only God the Son. His human nature no longer exists.

Is that correct?

Lamb chopped and others have said they believe he retains his human nature. I just can't see how.

---

I don't think anybody's going to be able to fully explain the how of this (except maybe Jesus himself). This is some scattergun stuff that follows.

First of all, we really don't know a whole lot about human nature in its resurrected state. Jesus is the firstfruits from the dead, so we can try to figure out stuff from what we know of him--but the fact that he is also God sort of confuses the issue. I suppose we'll all find out some day.

What is clear, is that there IS a human nature even after the resurrection, and it involves the body as well as the spirit, soul, or whatever you want to call the immaterial part of us. Human nature will still exist after the Last Day. We aren't going to morph into angels or cats or something--we'll still be this nature, this species, if you will. And if we can (and will) do it, Christ can (and has already) as well.

This means that Christ is our earnest money, our downpayment, our guarantee of our own resurrection. Not that he isn't a great many more important things than that! But he fulfills this function for us as well, which is nice of him.

He also told us just before his ascension "I am with you always, to the very end of the world/age". And he did this right after promising to send the Spirit. He did the same kind of one-two promise at the Last Supper ("I will ask the Father, and he will send you another Comforter... I will not leave you as orphans, I will come to you"). So we are not in a situation where Jesus is gone, out of here, no longer present, and the Spirit is his substitute! Rather we have both the Son and the Spirit (and the Father too, as he said: "We will come to [the one who loves me], and make our home with him"). Basically we've got the whole Trinity.

Now I doubt anybody's got trouble with the Father and the Spirit being present everywhere everytime simultaneously. It's the Son (and specifically his human body) that troubles some people. We can't take the easy way out and say that the Ascension undoes the Incarnation, that's not what the evidence of the text says (and what have we to go on but that?) We also can't say dogmatically exactly what the limitations are on a resurrected human body, since there is exactly one of them in existence right now, and that is in Jesus' custody. Now if he'd let us run experiments on him--but he won't.

So we get lots of speculation. Which is not bad, if we can keep humility and realize we haven't got all the puzzle pieces. Luther put forward the theory (and it's only a theory, God has not spoken from on high to say this is exactly how it works) of what is technically called "the communication of attributes." What this means is that Jesus' two natures, which are inextricably and permanently one Person (that's the Creed, folks, not Luther)...

These two natures basically help each other out. (Now that bit's Luther!) So what the divine nature cannot do by its own characteristics (such as being tempted, dying, sleeping, etc.) the human nature can and does do, and takes the divine nature along for the ride in the unity of the Person Jesus the Christ. And what the human nature cannot do by its own characteristics (including miracles, omnipotence, being everywhere, etc. etc.) the divine nature does and carries the human nature along with it in the unity of the one Person Jesus.

Which also explains the Eucharist. You have a very human-nature-focused sacrament that is nevertheless impossible without the work of the divine nature. It is Christ's human body and blood that we receive (really, the whole Christ); but this would not be possible if it were not for his divine ability to be everywhere, perform wonders, and so forth.

As I said, this is only a theory (the communication bit, I mean) and nobody is obliged to believe it. But it makes sense to me. If it doesn't work for you, you can easily fall back on the fact that we know crap-all about ordinary human nature, let alone Christ's. There's plenty of room for any amount of mystery.

[ 09. August 2012, 23:32: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 

---

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Egg, the situation you describe is not at all unusual historically and IMHO has nothing to do with the question of Christ's humanity after the ascension. I too have had ... contacts? ... similar to what you describe. I suspect a lot of people have, but keep quiet about them for fear of being mocked or locked up. In more vivid forms we would call them visions (or dreams if asleep). In less vivid forms we would call them impressions, "feelings," or in some traditions "a word from the Lord."

There are certain differences between them and the resurrection appearances of Scripture, though. First of all, if anybody had had a camera in the garden or in that upper room, it would certainly have shown up Jesus. (He DID eat that fish, which was decidedly "this world" in nature.) More to the point, those appearances were usually to many people at once, on one occasion to over 500 people. And there is no recorded disagreement on what they were seeing--nobody saying "He ate fish" while someone else says "No, he played the tuba". Whatever they saw, they saw it together. But the kind of vision/impression you describe is in my experience almost invariably seen by a single person, which makes it impossible to cross-confirm, and therefore suggests it is a different class of "appearance," done for a different purpose. Fine and good and a great blessing--but not at all wise to treat as if it were the same sort of thing the early Christians got during the forty days before the ascension. Apples and oranges.
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Does 'present to us' mean the same as 'present'?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Does 'present to us' mean the same as 'present'?

---

No. But he is also present!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
That's all very nice, and I really like the idea that Christ is beyond and around and just under the edge of the eucharist and all that, but you've dropped the fully human and bodily present circumcised Jewish male stuff. That's the stuff I'm really good at - not the Jewish bit, but I can be massively bodily present. In fact my bodily presence is more impressive than you know who's.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Does 'present to us' mean the same as 'present'?

---

No. But he is also present!

---

How would you say his presence differs from that of other human beings?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by gorpo:
[QUOTE]When you report to have seen someone, there´s absolutely no need to report that the person was acompanied by a physical body. Visible things are physical. Light is an electromagnetic radiation. Only physical stuff can emit or reflect light, and therefore there is no possibility for a human eye to capture the vision of something that is not physical or is not reflecting from some physical source.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by egg:

I do not believe that the risen Christ had a physical body capable of being weighed and measured by science and of passing through locked doors and of appearing and disappearing at will. Apart from anything else, I would expect such a phenomenon to have caused an electromagnetic storm every time He appeared or disappeared - one cannot gather together the atoms and molecules necessary to make a normal physical body out of nothing without some very peculiar scientific consequences.

---

quote:

---

And, for the reasons I have already given, I do not consider that this would be consistent with Paul’s views about the non-material nature of the post-death body.

---

quote:

---

I prefer Paul’s account to those of the evangelists, and it is more consistent with modern science, provided you accept the existence of the immaterial world to which I have referred (which any theist, like Jesus Himself, must do).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by egg:

I do not believe that the risen Christ had a physical body capable of being weighed and measured by science and of passing through locked doors and of appearing and disappearing at will. Apart from anything else, I would expect such a phenomenon to have caused an electromagnetic storm every time He appeared or disappeared - one cannot gather together the atoms and molecules necessary to make a normal physical body out of nothing without some very peculiar scientific consequences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by egg:

When Jesus appeared to Bishop Hugh Montefiore, he was clearly visible and audible to him; but the Bishop accepts that a camera would have recorded nothing. You are taking a scientific view of something that is not in the realm of which science takes cognisance, but in the realm of the Transcendent.

I do not believe that the risen Christ had a physical body capable of being weighed and measured by science and of passing through locked doors and of appearing and disappearing at will. Apart from anything else, I would expect such a phenomenon to have caused an electromagnetic storm every time He appeared or disappeared - one cannot gather together the atoms and molecules necessary to make a normal physical body out of nothing without some very peculiar scientific consequences. And, for the reasons I have already given, I do not consider that this would be consistent with Paul’s views about the non-material nature of the post-death body.

As to the fish, actually there was a precedent for a heavenly or spiritual body appearing to eat without ceasing to be a heavenly or spiritual body: “I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One ... All these days I merely appeared to you and did not eat or drink, but you were seeing a vision” (Tobit 12.15,19).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Yes, in my view: Christ is present to us in the Eucharist as a human being (and therefore also as God, because of him being the particular human being he is). Really, truly, completely, substantially, yet sacramentally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:


However, for the religious purposes in question here it is far from clear that the "human nature" of Jesus would have to be restricted to one species of "sapients",

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

But for this thread it is important to note that the change from a "physical body" to a "resurrection body" is, or at least certainly can be, entirely unproblematic as far as human nature is concerned. As long as before and after one can talk of a "rational animal", human nature will not have changed one bit. The difficulty with switching bodies is rather one of individualization. It is a major philosophical headache to explain in what way "you" can remain "you" while switching bodies in some sense. However, as it happens, Jesus is the only Being where that is not a concern. Because of course He is actually a Divine Person who has a Divine nature, and merely assumed a human nature as well. His Personal identity across a "human body switch" rests assured in his Divinity, yours is a lot harder to argue.

So worry not whether you will still be human after the resurrection, worry whether you will still be you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Luther put forward the theory (and it's only a theory, God has not spoken from on high to say this is exactly how it works) of what is technically called "the communication of attributes." What this means is that Jesus' two natures, which are inextricably and permanently one Person (that's the Creed, folks, not Luther)...

These two natures basically help each other out. (Now that bit's Luther!) So what the divine nature cannot do by its own characteristics (such as being tempted, dying, sleeping, etc.) the human nature can and does do, and takes the divine nature along for the ride in the unity of the Person Jesus the Christ. And what the human nature cannot do by its own characteristics (including miracles, omnipotence, being everywhere, etc. etc.) the divine nature does and carries the human nature along with it in the unity of the one Person Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
That idea is not consistent with Chalcedonian orthodoxy.

---

quote:

---

I do believe that, however, it is that bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, they become so such that Christ is present in a unique way, under the form of a sign.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
If his presence is unique I am no further on, and am left with a mystery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
That idea is not consistent with Chalcedonian orthodoxy.

---

What idea is - in your opinion - not consistent with Chalcendon?

---

quote:

---

However, as it happens, Jesus is the only Being where that is not a concern. Because of course He is actually a Divine Person who has a Divine nature, and merely assumed a human nature as well. His Personal identity across a "human body switch" rests assured in his Divinity, yours is a lot harder to argue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
That idea is not consistent with Chalcedonian orthodoxy.

---

What idea is - in your opinion - not consistent with Chalcendon?

---

This bit in particular:

quote:

---

However, as it happens, Jesus is the only Being where that is not a concern. Because of course He is actually a Divine Person who has a Divine nature, and merely assumed a human nature as well. His Personal identity across a "human body switch" rests assured in his Divinity, yours is a lot harder to argue.

---

Sounds like you are confusing (mixing) and changing the human nature of Christ by his God nature - or his God nature gives his human nature some kind of extra advantage or change compared to us.

Chalcedon argues against that kind of thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:


I don't quite understand the words. What is 'under the form of a sign?' Why 'under' and not the more usual 'in'?

---

quote:

---

I don't understand the sense. Present in a unique way is good English, but my questioning on this thread has been about how Jesus is present and how his presence is like or unlike that of his worshippers. If his presence is unique I am no further on, and am left with a mystery. What is a unique sort of presence like? Well, not like anything else, it would appear.

---

quote:

---

I am inclined to think that what is being claimed is in fact of a metaphorical or poetic nature and the assertion that it is 'real' (though not as we know real) is part of the game.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
"God nature" presumably means what used to be referred to as "Divine nature".

I find the old terminology far clearer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
But I don't think that's what IngoB's saying. He's using the word 'person' in a more theologically traditional way. He's not denying that Christ had a human psychology.

---

Applying the word "person" in a traditional theological way ( i.e. three "persons" of the Trinity ) only applies to Christ's God nature as second person of the Trinity, not his human nature.

The human nature of Christ is not a person in the traditional sense, only God the Son is a person.
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw (# 2252) on :
 
As IngoB said, you seem to be confusing what has been meant traditionally by 'person' and 'nature'.

There is a way of talking about the Incarnation whereby there is no human person who is Christ, but only a divine person (namely the Son) who has a human nature. To some modern ears this will sound like a denial of Christ's full humanity. To some traditional ears, the suggestion that there is a human person who is Christ will sound like a denial of the Incarnation.

And this is why it matters what we mean by 'person', or else we talk past each other. I think the word 'person' should be abolished from discussions of the Trinity and Incarnation if humanly possible, since it just misleads moderns utterly - when we in everyday life use the word 'person', we mean something like 'individual centre of consciousness'. But when traditionally people talk about Christ as a 'divine Person' what they intend is a claim about metaphysical subjecthood, an answer to the question 'who is this?'. Jesus is God. That is who he is. That is who is living this human life. I think the usages are analogical. There is an orthodox, albeit untraditional, way of affirming that there is a human person Christ. But there is no more than a verbal dispute between the person who holds this view and the person who uses more traditional language. They just mean something subtlely different by 'person'.
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw:
There is an orthodox, albeit untraditional, way of affirming that there is a human person Christ. But there is no more than a verbal dispute between the person who holds this view and the person who uses more traditional language.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Angels are "divine" after all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Sounds like you are confusing (mixing) and changing the human nature of Christ by his God nature - or his God nature gives his human nature some kind of extra advantage or change compared to us. Chalcedon argues against that kind of thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Angels are "divine" after all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Arius thought Jesus was divine, just not God. Divinity is not restricted to God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Makes some people uncomfortable because they think of Jesus as an exalted divine being but that's not at all what Chalcedon says. It says he is God and man. !00% God, 100% man.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Churchgeek:

The mind-boggling thing about the Church's affirmation of the risen Christ's continuing to be fully human and fully divine is that he has taken human nature into the very heart of the Trinity, into the inner relationships and life of the Trinity. That has important implications for us - and it's symbolized by the Ascension and the affirmation that Christ is "seated at the right hand of God."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

Jesus' 'physical nature' isn't everywhere now. That's the whole point. He is here with us by his Holy Spirit. We wait for the second coming for Jesus to come again. In the meantime God is with us through his Holy Spirit.

---

I think this might risk falling into modalism, the idea that God the Trinity used to be present as the Son and is now present as the Spirit. Whereas I think the Spirit is more the one who enables us to perceive or to have a relationship with the other persons of the Trinity – in particular, the one who enables us to recognise Jesus as the Son of the Father.

On the other hand, it is possible to have a very real relationship and communication with someone who is not physically present. I got into some difficulty with this though - I once suggested that our relationship with the risen Jesus is a bit more ‘long distance’ than the relationship the disciples had with him on earth and I was accused of heresy! I don’t know which heresy though – anybody who does, please let me know

I think this is a very good point:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The consecrated bread and wine manage to be bodily present just as much as you are, and are as available for inspection by the senses and manipulation by the hands as you are. Rather you are "more impressive" at being human than they are, in a literal sense: you appear to be human, for you are, they do not appear to be human at all, though they are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
And the essence of a human being is, according to classical philosophy / theology, simply to be a rational animal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw:


And this is why it matters what we mean by 'person', or else we talk past each other. I think the word 'person' should be abolished from discussions of the Trinity and Incarnation if humanly possible, since it just misleads moderns utterly - when we in everyday life use the word 'person', we mean something like 'individual centre of consciousness'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Angels are "divine" after all.

---

Are they? I have never, ever, heard that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Sounds like you are confusing (mixing) and changing the human nature of Christ by his God nature - or his God nature gives his human nature some kind of extra advantage or change compared to us. Chalcedon argues against that kind of thing.

---

Who knows what you mean by all the terms that you are using there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
But by whatever way of talking about it, it is clear that you have only one way of being you, a human way, whereas the second Person of the Trinity has two ways of being the Son, after the Incarnation: a Divine way, and a human way. Clearly then, if your human way of being you is severely disrupted or changed somehow, it is at least not immediately clear how you can continue as yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Whereas if the Son's human way of being the second Person of the Trinity is severely disrupted or changed somehow, it remains entirely feasible for Him to retain Personal continuity through His Divine way of being Himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The Being of Jesus Christ is more complex than the being of Evensong, and as it turns out that means that certain philosophical problems can be raised with regards to your resurrection that do not apply to Jesus Christ in the same way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ancilla:
This is certainly the traditional position, but I am concerned about the implications of it. Whilst all humans are equally animals, not all humans can really be described as equally ‘rational’ and this approach could be used to suggest that some (babies or people with severe learning disabilities) are less human than others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Unless Jesus' rational soul (which is his human nature as defined by the creed) disappears after the resurrection, I don't see why I should have such trouble.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
In which case he will no longer be fully human. Hence, Chalcedon no longer applies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
However, in order to say that these resurrection bodies are Evensong and IngoB, respectively, we must track the identity through the incorporeal bottleneck: this soul used to be associated with that worldly matter, then with nothing but its own incorporeal operation, but now is associated with this resurrected matter. But how can we say this, if we do not know how to assign individuality at the incorporeal stage? If we do not know how to put the labels Evensong and IngoB to the disembodied souls, then we cannot reasonably call the resurrected beings by those names either.

---

I'm afraid I don't see why we cannot assign individuality at the incorporeal stage. God certainly knows who we are. And it is God that resurrects us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
However, Chalcedon itself speaks explicitly of a God-person: "not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ".

---

quote:

---

concurring in one Person

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

However, you for example are clearly just one human person in one human nature. Therefore, you and Christ are not human in exactly the same way. You differ concerning what sort of persons you are. If this destroys your theologies of salvation or whatnot, then that is just too bad. But it is what Chalcedon happens to say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm afraid I don't see why we cannot assign individuality at the incorporeal stage. God certainly knows who we are. And it is God that resurrects us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
The descriptions addended thereafter pertain to both his human and God nature. I don't know where you got the God-person from. God nature yes, God person no.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
I have been taught the complete opposite in my university studies. Only if Jesus is fully human like me (excepting sin) and fully God can salvation be wrought. Standard orthodox, Athanasian teaching. And this is what Chalcedon affirms.

---

That depends on what you mean by "fully human like me". If you mean "having human nature just like me", then you are right. If you mean "being a human person just like me", then you are wrong. And I mean "wrong" as in heterodox, contra Athanasian teaching, against what Chalcedon affirms. It's also rather interesting how easily you seem to have swallowed "excepting sin". A rather enormous exception that is, I would say, for a simple-minded "saved because the same"...
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Arrgghhhhhh! Just spent half an hour responding and trying to clean up the code but have to have dinner now so will try again later!.

[ 18. August 2012, 12:24: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
I have been reading a lot of medieval theologians and early church theologians grappling with classical philosophers. I know understand your language much better. Hell, you even argue like Aquinas - state the axiom, build the argument.

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
God can only know us if we are knowable, omnipotence is limited by possibility. So the question is in what way we remain identifiable in the absence of our body.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
So my point here is that this incorporeal activity must either be "individual" or acquire "individuality" somehow during the transient presence of the body.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I have God-person from Chalcedon explicitly calling the person of the Jesus Christ "God the Word", and from insisting explicitly that there is only one person. Any person that can be called "God the Word" without blasphemy is undoubtedly a God-person. We call how "God the Word" appeared in our world, in His human nature, by the name Jesus Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
That depends on what you mean by "fully human like me". If you mean "having human nature just like me", then you are right. If you mean "being a human person just like me", then you are wrong. And I mean "wrong" as in heterodox, contra Athanasian teaching, against what Chalcedon affirms. It's also rather interesting how easily you seem to have swallowed "excepting sin". A rather enormous exception that is, I would say, for a simple-minded "saved because the same"...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Hell, you even argue like Aquinas - state the axiom, build the argument.

---

If there is any other way to argue, then I don't want to know about it. But yeah, I'm a hobby Thomist as far as theology goes. (And as far as mysticism goes, I like the "dry" style of Master Eckhart a lot - so maybe I'm just a hobby Dominican...)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
You're thinking Aquinas here again right? Matter is the principal of individuation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Whichever way it happens (or whether we lose individuality at all), my main point was that if the way we do it is different from the way Jesus does it because of his God nature, then something is amiss.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
You are assuming the "person" is attached to his God nature, not his human nature. I don't think that is a valid assumption.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
If that were the case, then he only "assumes" or "appears" to be fully human.

---

quote:

---

Geddes, L. (1911). Person. In The Catholic Encyclopedia.
[W]e have a definition comprising the five notes that go to make up a person: (a) substantia - this excludes accident; (b) completa - it must form a complete nature; that which is a part, either actually or "aptitudinally" does not satisfy the definition; (c) per se subsistens - the person exists in himself and for himself; he is sui juris, the ultimate possessor of his nature and all its acts, the ultimate subject of predication of all his attributes; that which exists in another is not a person; (d) separata ab aliis - this excludes the universal, substantia secunda, which has no existence apart from the individual; (e) rationalis naturae - excludes all non-intellectual supposita.

To a person therefore belongs a threefold incommunicability, expressed in notes (b), (c), and (d). The human soul belongs to the nature as a part of it, and is therefore not a person, even when existing separately. The human nature of Christ does not exist per se seorsum, but in alio, in the Divine Personality of the Word. It is therefore communicated by assumption and so is not a person. Lastly the Divine Essence, though subsisting per se, is so communicated to the Three Persons that it does not exist apart from them; it is therefore not a person. ...

The human nature of Christ is possessed by the Word and exists by His infinite esse. It has no separate esse of its own and for this reason is not a person. The suppositum is a suppositum as being ens in the strictest sense of the term. Of all Latin theories this appears to approach most nearly to that of the Greek fathers. Thus in the "Dialogues of the Trinity" given by Migne among the works of St. Athanasius, the author, speaking of person and nature in God, says: He gar hypostasis to einai semainei he de theotes to ti einai (Person denotes esse, the Divine nature denotes the quiddity; M. 28, 1114).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Personally I don't understand how salvation is wrought in this Athanasian sense. I'm just trying to get the assumptions straight in my head on the two natures.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
If Jesus was without sin, then he was not like me. If he was not like me, how am I redeemed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
If Jesus was without sin, then he was not like me. If he was not like me, how am I redeemed?

---

Well, personally I'm not particularly impressed by the idea that the Logos necessarily had to become like us in order to affect our salvation. I see not the slightest reason why that should be the case. Yes, it sure is fitting and beautiful (in a tragic manner) and presumably best that God became man. Necessary? Nonsense. God is omnipotent, if He wills you saved, so you are. No ifs, buts and whys. (In this I agree, as I do most of the time, with St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas...)

From this perspective then, I would ask: would it be fitting and beautiful (in a tragic manner) and presumably best that God became sinful man? Even if that were possible (I don't think it is...), I would say no, that would be inappropriate, ugly and bad. God is the ought to our is, and He remains so on becoming human. Jesus is how a human being ought to be - tragically so, amidst humans that are not how they ought to be.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0