|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: How much of Western Christianity is Unitarian?
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I assume, then, that their attention, thought processes, judgments, desires, and actions are all identical. Unlike humans'.
I am trying to understand what you are talking about... I am trying to relate those words, attention, thought process, judgments, desires, and actions, to my personal experience of God and to what the fathers of the church said about God... You might be talking about what the fathers called "gnome" (sorry, but the Greek text does not render properly)... We decide on which course of action to follow after thinking and judging between different scenarios... But this was not what Jesus Christ did in his human nature, according to the fathers, let alone the divine persons in their divinity!
But I'm not sure if that's what you are talking about... If this is what you mean, then my reply is that that meaning of these words does not apply to the divine persons.
By the way, the Scriptures do distinguish between the hypostases and natures. Terminology might be different (although, I think the word nature is used in the scriptures the way we are using it in this thread, I think it's something in James, I don't remember) but the distinction is real.
The Angel of the Lord or Lord of Glory etc. (who, from ancient times was identified with Jesus before the Incarnation) is to be distinguished from God the Father... The distinction between the persons exists in the scriptures... just like the fact that the Angel of the Lord in uncreated, just like God the Father, exists in the scriptures. At least, this has been the understanding of the ancient Church.
[ 23. April 2007, 16:02: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
if the Father is the divine essence, rather than the person in whom the divine essence subsists, then He is not a hypostasis, and we do not have a Holy Trinity.
Not a Trinity of hypostases, but you agree that "hypostasis" was an introduced concept.
No, I don't. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Hypostasis is what makes the Trinity a trinity. The particular terminology may not have been used from earliest times but the Fathers developed a linguistic mode of communicating the concept when it became necessary. I never claimed that the concept was introduced.
Sorry, I misunderstood your comment about the term being "novel." So you are saying that the idea existed, and is present in the Gospels, but was only given a name later. Is that right?
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
quote:
What is wrong with Augustine's psychological model - which I think is more in keeping with Jesus' statements above?
Please would you explain what that is? I'm not familiar with it (at least not by name or attribution to Augustine). Thanks.
It is the idea that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are like the soul, body, and operation of a single individual. Augustine describes it in a number of places. Here is a quote from Book VI: On the Trinity:
quote:
For what are so different as soul and body? Yet we can say the soul was with a man, that is, in a man; although the soul is not the body, and man is both soul and body together. So that what follows in the Scripture, "And the Word was God," may be understood thus: The Word, which is not the Father, was God together with the Father.
The Athanasian Creed uses similar terminology
quote:
37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
This seems more in keeping with Jesus' statements about the Father being "in" Him, and the Holy Spirit going out from Him (or Them).
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I assume, then, that their attention, thought processes, judgments, desires, and actions are all identical. Unlike humans'.
I am trying to understand what you are talking about...
Nothing complicated. Only that if there is an absolute unity of cognition and volition then we truly are talking about One.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
if the Father is the divine essence, rather than the person in whom the divine essence subsists, then He is not a hypostasis, and we do not have a Holy Trinity.
Not a Trinity of hypostases, but you agree that "hypostasis" was an introduced concept.
No, I don't.
Hypostasis is what makes the Trinity a trinity. The particular terminology may not have been used from earliest times but the Fathers developed a linguistic mode of communicating the concept when it became necessary. I never claimed that the concept was introduced.
Sorry, I misunderstood your comment about the term being "novel." So you are saying that the idea existed, and is present in the Gospels, but was only given a name later. Is that right?
That's how I've understood it. Why would the Fathers introduce a new concept about the Trinity? Surely they would just have been expressing what had been the mind of the Church beforehand, otherwise they wouldn't have had to codify it because nobody would have seen Arianism as a problem.
As I understand it, it was the case with many doctrines that, before they were defined, many would have been unable to articulate what their beliefs on the matter were if they were to be asked, simply because it was just taken for granted and never had to be thought about. It's the same when I have the occasional conversation about Christianity with my Wiccan friend (of which we had a few after he came to my Baptism last year and had all sorts of questions). I remember one occasion when he asked me why we Christians believe that Christ was born on the 25th of December, and would it not be better to celebrate Jesus' birthday on a more realistic date (and gave the example of sheep in fields in the snow, &c.) I explained that we don't claim to know when Jesus was born, and that Christmass isn't a celebration of his birthday but rather of the Incarnation, of God becoming man. This was all new to him because his understanding had been that God was (in his words) 'out there, somewhere', and that Jesus was his son, by which, after some discussion, it came to light that he understood "offspring", and not the sense in which I was using "Son of God". He had never had any reason to question his ideas about Christian beliefs before because nothing he ever heard from Christians had challenged it until he and I actually sat down and had a conversation about it.
I know that this example isn't directly analogous but the point I'm making is that it is possible to for a concept to exist in people's minds without them necessarily having a way to accurately articulate it, never having had the need to do so until that concept is challenged. I understand the definitions of the Councils as the prayerfully considered, Spirit-led responses to such challenges in the face of heresy.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
quote:
What is wrong with Augustine's psychological model - which I think is more in keeping with Jesus' statements above?
Please would you explain what that is? I'm not familiar with it (at least not by name or attribution to Augustine). Thanks.
It is the idea that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are like the soul, body, and operation of a single individual. Augustine describes it in a number of places. Here is a quote from Book VI: On the Trinity:
Thanks, Freddy. I'll read the Catholic Encyclopaedia in a while but my initial reaction to the idea based on the summary of it you gave is that, while the analogy seems to work at first glance because the soul, body, and operation (hypostases) are all united in the single person (nature), it fails because no single one of them can claim to be that human person. Rather, they are merely constituent parts of a whole. That is not the case with the Trinity. The Father is not a part of some deeper reality called God, likewise the Son and the Holy Spirit. Rather, each of the three Persons is God by nature - fully.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
[Cross-post: agreement with Freddy:]
The point is that Freddy and I can disagree on whether or not to do something. The Persons of the Godhead can't, which makes them united in a way that Freddy and I aren't.
[ 23. April 2007, 18:08: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
As I understand it, it was the case with many doctrines that, before they were defined, many would have been unable to articulate what their beliefs on the matter were if they were to be asked, simply because it was just taken for granted and never had to be thought about.
That makes sense to me. I agree that this has often been the case.
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
while the analogy seems to work at first glance because the soul, body, and operation (hypostases) are all united in the single person (nature), it fails because no single one of them can claim to be that human person. Rather, they are merely constituent parts of a whole.
But, wait, I do claim to be one person, even though it is only my conscious, tangible self that is claiming this. My soul is beyond my awareness, and my effect on others is beyond (sort of) my control.
In the gospels, neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit claim anything. Jesus does virtually all the talking.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
while the analogy seems to work at first glance because the soul, body, and operation (hypostases) are all united in the single person (nature), it fails because no single one of them can claim to be that human person. Rather, they are merely constituent parts of a whole.
But, wait, I do claim to be one person, even though it is only my conscious, tangible self that is claiming this. My soul is beyond my awareness, and my effect on others is beyond (sort of) my control.
In the gospels, neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit claim anything. Jesus does virtually all the talking.
Yes, you're right. My wording was sloppy. I ought to have said that no one of them can properly be referred to as being that human person.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
The three divine persons neither agree with each other nor disagree...
They live in each other according to their nature, not because some kind of necessity but because of their free will.
To will is common and identical, just like it happens with us men. Those who will are three however, and not one, just like people are many and not one.
My problem is that we are discussing about these things as if they were not dependent to our private and personal life... As if we can make meaningful discussions about God no matter what our standing in front of God is... It's not an issue of "talking"... but of inner fights and personal direct experience.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
I ought to have said that no one of them can properly be referred to as being that human person.
Are you sure? I talk about myself, and others talk about me, as if what you see is really me.
When Thomas said to Jesus "My Lord and My God" was he speaking improperly? While Jesus acknowledged both the Father and the Holy Spirit, He often spoke as if He was it.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
My problem is that we are discussing about these things as if they were not dependent to our private and personal life... As if we can make meaningful discussions about God no matter what our standing in front of God is...
I do agree that only those enlightened by God - who love Him and are obedient to Him - can grasp these things. Because apart from this they are not real.
Is this what you are saying?
My understanding, though, is that none of us can claim enlightenment. We can only rehearse our conjectures and cite evidence that we think is valid.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
I ought to have said that no one of them can properly be referred to as being that human person.
Are you sure? I talk about myself, and others talk about me, as if what you see is really me.
This isn't a discussion about common parlance, though. Do others really talk about "Freddy" referring simply to your body, or to your soul, or to your operation as being fully you? In day to day language, are they even thinking about such matters when they're referring to you or addressing you? I doubt it. People may look at photographs of me and say, 'That's Michael.' They may look at my corpse in my coffin when I'm dead and gone and say, 'That's Michael.' In so doing, I doubt their intention would be to make some sort of philosphical statement about what actually constitutes a human person and whether it is proper to refer to a body as though it were a person, and it would be wrong to draw conclsions about the nature of the human being from such use of language.
quote:
When Thomas said to Jesus "My Lord and My God" was he speaking improperly? While Jesus acknowledged both the Father and the Holy Spirit, He often spoke as if He was it.
That's precisely the point I'm making in the last paragraph of this post about why the analogy fails. Jesus could say that because, the Son, as a hypostasis fully having the divine nature, can properly be referred to as God. He is not merely a constituent part of God in the way that a body is a constituent part of a human being.
[ 23. April 2007, 19:43: Message edited by: Saint Bertelin ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
quote:
When Thomas said to Jesus "My Lord and My God" was he speaking improperly? While Jesus acknowledged both the Father and the Holy Spirit, He often spoke as if He was it.
That's precisely the point I'm making in the last paragraph of this post about why the analogy fails. Jesus could say that because, the Son, as a hypostasis fully having the divine nature, can properly be referred to as God. He is not merely a constituent part of God in the way that a body is a constituent part of a human being.
I think we are talking about more than "body". I mean the whole natural person, including the conscious mind. Materialists do think that this is the whole person. The person that you see and interact with contains and assumes the person's invisible inner soul as well as that person's effect on the world.
Aside from which, I think that you are coming from the hypostatic model of the trinity when you say that each person of the trinity must be individually God. Do the gospels say that?
I don't think that the gospels mention that each person of the trinity is equally or individually God. I think they say things like "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" and "I and My Father are one."
It is Nicea that broke the persons, or hypostases, out so that each must be God individually. This creates an impossible paradox that cannot be explained. Why not accept an explanation that avoids this paradox and is more consistent with the Bible?
With Augustine's model you have the elements that we normally think of as constituting a single individual - one of which is internal and invisible, one that is external and visible, and the third of which is the result of the interaction of the other two.
I always wonder why this model was not the dominant one from the start, but I guess that it is because Jesus addresses the Father as if He were another person. And yet theologians have no trouble believing that there is a perfect unity between Father and Son. Curious. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Freddy, Jesus revealed God to the holy men before the Incarnation, and he does so after the Incarnation. In the Old Covenant we have the Angel of the Lord, the Lord of Glory etc, who is distinct from the Father, but who bears the name YAHWE. Is that Anegl created or uncreated? In Nicea, the opinion of Arius that he was created and that the church should change her mind and no longer teach that Jesus is uncreated, was rejected by the council. No novel views were introduced. The faith of the church as expressed by those who had actual experience of God was affirmed.
You speak of paradox. I see no paradox. But then again, I am not saying that the trinity is a paradox...
Anyway, enough said. I will only affirm my faith in the Trinity (which, in Greek, simply means three). It makes me feel strange to see the faith that once shook the foundations of the earth to be almost forgotten. Nevertheless I do not lose faith in God nor trust in man. Let those who deepen their view continue. Let all, no matter what it is they are doing, contribute something good for the generations to come.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
In the Old Covenant we have the Angel of the Lord, the Lord of Glory etc, who is distinct from the Father, but who bears the name YAHWE. Is that Anegl created or uncreated?
Sorry, perhaps you could clarify a few matters here.
Where does it say that YHWH is distinct from the Father? (Western theology does not normally refer to the Logos as an angel.)
Consider, when God spoke to Moses and said 'I am the Lord your God; you shall have no other Gods beside me,' was that the Logos revealed, or not?
When YHWH reveals himself to Moses he says 'I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.' Is the one who appeared to Moses the same as the one who was worshipped by Abraham?
(Incidentally, does Augustine anywhere deny that it is the Logos that appears in the theophanies of the New Testament? I associate that denial particularly with pseudo-Dionysian theology, which I gather is not regarded with much opprobrium by the Eastern Orthodox.)
Dafyd
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Freddy, Jesus revealed God to the holy men before the Incarnation, and he does so after the Incarnation. In the Old Covenant we have the Angel of the Lord, the Lord of Glory etc, who is distinct from the Father, but who bears the name YAHWE. Is that Anegl created or uncreated?
That angel is just an angel that the Lord filled with His Spirit so that the Lord spoke through the angel - just as if it were God Himself, or YAWEH, speaking. This is why these beings are alternately called "angel" and "the Lord". So it is the same God all the way through. But the "Father" was never seen by anyone, because He can't be seen.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
You speak of paradox. I see no paradox. But then again, I am not saying that the trinity is a paradox...
This isn't a paradox?:
quote:
15. Ita deus Pater: deus Filius: deus [et] Spiritus Sanctus.
15. So the Father is God: the Son is God: and the Holy Ghost is God.
16. Et tamen non tres dii: sed unus est Deus.
16. And yet they are not three Gods: but one God.
17. Ita dominus Pater: dominus Filius: dominus [et] Spiritus Sanctus.
17. So likewise the Father is Lord: the Son Lord: and the Holy Ghost Lord.
18. Et tamen non tres domini: sed unus [est] Dominus.
18. And yet not three Lords: but one Lord.
19. Quia sicut singulatim unamquamque personam Deum ac Dominum confiteri, Christiana veritate compellimur:
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity: to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord:
20. Ita tres deos, aut [tres] dominos dicere, catholica religione prohibemur.
20. So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion: to say, There be [are] three Gods, or three Lords.
Maybe contradiction is a better word.
You don't see the problem here?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
quote:
When Thomas said to Jesus "My Lord and My God" was he speaking improperly? While Jesus acknowledged both the Father and the Holy Spirit, He often spoke as if He was it.
That's precisely the point I'm making in the last paragraph of this post about why the analogy fails. Jesus could say that because, the Son, as a hypostasis fully having the divine nature, can properly be referred to as God. He is not merely a constituent part of God in the way that a body is a constituent part of a human being.
I think we are talking about more than "body". I mean the whole natural person, including the conscious mind. Materialists do think that this is the whole person. The person that you see and interact with contains and assumes the person's invisible inner soul as well as that person's effect on the world.
Aside from which, I think that you are coming from the hypostatic model of the trinity when you say that each person of the trinity must be individually God. Do the gospels say that?
The Church teaches that. I don't understand the Gospels of the Church separately from the Church, for that would be folly.
quote:
I don't think that the gospels mention that each person of the trinity is equally or individually God. I think they say things like "He who has seen Me has seen the Father" and "I and My Father are one."
It is Nicea that broke the persons, or hypostases, out so that each must be God individually. This creates an impossible paradox that cannot be explained. Why not accept an explanation that avoids this paradox and is more consistent with the Bible?
How can the Bible be understood apart from the Church of whose Sacred Tradition it is part?
quote:
With Augustine's model you have the elements that we normally think of as constituting a single individual - one of which is internal and invisible, one that is external and visible, and the third of which is the result of the interaction of the other two.
I always wonder why this model was not the dominant one from the start, but I guess that it is because Jesus addresses the Father as if He were another person. And yet theologians have no trouble believing that there is a perfect unity between Father and Son. Curious.
You do know, don't you, that Augustine is only grudgingly referred to as Saint Augustine? We cannot deny what has been declared, that he is indeed a Saint of the Church, but there are many who will not refer to him as any other that Blessed Augustine.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
The Church teaches that. I don't understand the Gospels of the Church separately from the Church, for that would be folly.
Of course. Orthodoxy is really very interesting in that.
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
How can the Bible be understood apart from the Church of whose Sacred Tradition it is part?
I see. So it's not about looking for the clearest and most consistent understanding of the Bible?
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
You do know, don't you, that Augustine is only grudgingly referred to as Saint Augustine?
Yes, I was aware of that. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
The Church teaches that. I don't understand the Gospels of the Church separately from the Church, for that would be folly.
Of course. Orthodoxy is really very interesting in that.
I see.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
How can the Bible be understood apart from the Church of whose Sacred Tradition it is part?
I see. So it's not about looking for the clearest and most consistent understanding of the Bible?
It's precisely about that! For me, an understanding of the Bible cannot be clear when it is not consistent with the rest of the understanding of the Church and the other parts of it's Holy Tradition as led by the Holy Spirit, including the Fathers and the worship of the Church, which is why I quoted those passages from those anaphoras earlier in the thread.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
You do know, don't you, that Augustine is only grudgingly referred to as Saint Augustine?
Yes, I was aware of that.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Dear Dafyd
The early apologists and martyrs identified Jesus with the one that is called the Angel of the Lord etc. It seems that even Jesus Himself says that Moses was writing about him and that Paul also identifies Jesus with the Lord of Glory. The fathers of the first and the second ecumenical council also identified Jesus with that Angel. If you read their works, and the works of the heretics like Arius and Aunomius, you will see that they took it for granted that it was Jesus the one that appeared (bodiless of course) to the Patriarchs and the Prophets of the Old Covenant. In Orthodoxy, that line was followed even up to the ninth ecumenical council, in the fourteenth century.
Augustine, on the other hand, in the first books of his de trinitate, books that had not been translated in Greek till the fall of Byzantine Empire (I think), says that the entire trinity was revealed to the patriarchs and Prophets by means of created beings that stopped existing when the revelation was over.
This is very different from the Orthodox understanding of theosis... which is God the Son revealing in Himself God the Father (whoever has seen me has also seen the Father).
Dear Freddy
Arius also argued that that Angel who said that His Name was YAHWE, was a created being. This is were the Orthodox fathers differed. While the Father (like the Son) cannot be seen by anyone because He is bodiless, we may say that the Patriarchs and the Prophets and the Saints and the Apostles "saw" God, in a way that transcends creation, when they where glorified. The vision the Orthodox tradition is talking about is what the Scriptures called "glorification" and God's "Glory".
To sum up Orthodox tradition on the matter:
The One that said to Moses He Is the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, is Jesus before the Incarnation.
You can read for example Justin the Martyr when he discusses these things with Trypho the Jew. The same line of argument Justin uses there was used throughout the Byzantine history by the Eastern (and ancient Western, like Ambrose) theologians...
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01283.htm chapter 56 and forth, for example
[ 24. April 2007, 04:26: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jrrt01
Shipmate
# 11264
|
Posted
Andreas1984, I am still trying to understand why you think much of Western Christianity is unitarian. You appear to make statements expecting us to disagree with them. You talk of the unity of the divine nature/essence, and a union of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. As far as I can tell, this is identical with the formal doctrine (ie spelled out in liturgy and official statements) of the Anglican church. Usually this is expressed differently (one substance/essence, three distinct persons) but surely the underlying concept is identical.
You note that the creed and Basil both write of God the Father, but not God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. But other orthodox saints of the same era use such language for Christ and the Holy Spirit. For example:
quote:
But if, although the Father is called ‘One God’, the Son is nevertheless God, it is very plain that though the Father is called ‘Very God’, the Son is very God likewise.
Chrysostom, Commentating on Galatians 3.20.
Or again:
quote:
Yea, for it is far beyond all thought to hear that God the Unspeakable, the Unutterable, the Incomprehensible, and He that is equal to the Father, hath passed through a virgin’s womb, and hath vouchsafed to be born of a woman, and to have Abraham and David for forefathers.
Chrysostom, On Matthew 2.
Yet obviously Chrysostom did not believe in two Gods (or three Gods), but one God (as On Philippians 7 shows).
So it appears to be perfectly orthodox to talk of there being just one God, and yet to talk of God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit, to talk of God as unity or one (with respect to substance/essence) and as union/communion/three with respect to person. This is what anglicanism holds to.
How then are we unitarians? I am bewildered.
Posts: 62 | From: Manchester | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Arius also argued that that Angel who said that His Name was YAHWE, was a created being. This is were the Orthodox fathers differed. While the Father (like the Son) cannot be seen by anyone because He is bodiless, we may say that the Patriarchs and the Prophets and the Saints and the Apostles "saw" God, in a way that transcends creation, when they where glorified.
Well I hate to agree with Arius about anything. But it is not so much that the Angel of Jehovah was a created being named YAHWEH as that God Himself, who is YAHWEH, revealed Himself through angels before the Incarnation. Here is the teachings of my church:
quote:
Mention is made several times in the Word of 'the angel of Jehovah', and in every case when used in the good sense it represents and means some essential quality with the Lord and from the Lord. Which one it represents and means however becomes clear from the train of thought. They were indeed angels who were sent to men and women, and who also spoke through the prophets. Yet what they spoke did not originate in those angels but was something imparted through them. In fact their state at the time was such that they knew no other than that they were Jehovah, that is, the Lord. But as soon as they had finished speaking they returned to their previous state and spoke as they normally did from themselves.
[2] This was the case with the angels who uttered the Word of the Lord. This is the reason why angels were sometimes called Jehovah.
[3] So that man may be spoken to by means of articulated sounds heard in the natural world, the Lord employed angels as His ministers by filling them with the Divine and by rendering unconscious all that is their own, so that for the time being they knew no other than that they themselves were Jehovah. In this way the Divine of Jehovah which belongs in highest things comes down into the lowest constituting the natural world in which man sees and hears. Arcana Coelestia 1925
The issue was how God Himself, who communicates interiorly with humanity, could communicate with a humanity that was distancing itself from Him.
The solution was that He would "come down" and show Himself. This is why this was predicted immediately after the description of the Fall in Genesis.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
To sum up Orthodox tradition on the matter:
The One that said to Moses He Is the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, is Jesus before the Incarnation.
Essentially this is how I see it too. Jesus was Jehovah, or YAHWEH. But what I mean by this is that Jesus is the one God of heaven and earth - God as we can know and understand Him. This is why John says:
quote:
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
John 6:46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father.
That is, God the Father is invisible and unknowable. Jesus came to "declare Him." So in Jesus dwells the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
While Jesus did say that He was Jehovah - and in fact they executed Him because of this claim - He didn't explain clearly how this was the case. The teaching of my church about this is this:
quote:
If when the Lord was in the world they had been told that He was the Jehovah mentioned so many times in the Old Testament they would not have accepted it because they would not have believed it. And there is the further reason that as regards the Human the Lord did not become Jehovah until He had in every respect united the Divine Essence to the Human Essence, and the Human Essence to the Divine Essence. These became fully united after the final temptation, which was that of the Cross; and it was for this reason that after the Resurrection the disciples consistently called Him Lord, and Thomas said,
My Lord and my God. John 20:28.
And as the Lord was the Jehovah mentioned so many times in the Old Testament, therefore He also told the disciples,
"You call Me Master and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If therefore I your Lord and Master have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one anothers' feet." John 13:13, 14, 16.
These words mean that He was Jehovah God. Arcana Coelestia 2921
So Jesus was not only the YAHWEH of the Old Testament but was the Father made visible, a role that in the Old Testament was performed, imperfectly and inadequately, by angels.
I don't think that this is so different from Orthodox teaching, except that it erases the distinction between YAHWEH and the Father.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Dear jrrt01
You say that anglicans hold to a unity of substance/essence. This is a very pious phrase, proclaimed from antiquity by the fathers and the saints and the confessors and the faithful. It's not the phrase I dispute, it's the meaning we ascribe to that phrase that I want to explore.
I say there is a unity of substance/essence in the three divine persons, but I also say there is a unity of substance/essence in the six+ billion human persons... Is this the sense anglicanism confesses one substance/essence and is this the reason for calling God one? Or is there something more to it?
Is the unity of essence interchangeable with the phrase unity of nature, or not? This is the question I posed, and I think that people in this thread said they do not think that God is one like I say man to be one...
I would be more than happy to be mistaken, but the feeling I get is that people mean something different to what the ancients believed in... Take Saint Bertelin for example, and the difference he sees in what the fathers taught and what he had been taught as an anglican... Maybe he is more qualified to speak about Western Christianity, since he was Anglican for many years.
Dear Freddy
I understand what your church teaches, but the saints (I skimmed through John the Chrysostom's on the trinity, cause jrrt01 pointed us to that Saint) taught differently and they explained why what you are saying is not the faith of their church. I don't think I should repeat their arguments, but you can read more on their reasons for rejecting that view in the works they have written...
By the way, the Athanasian Creed is off my radars... If you want to discuss about whether paradoxes exist, you can use the Creed of Nicea as confessed in the second ecumenical council, or the works of the fathers whose authority I accept.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
you can read more on their reasons for rejecting that view in the works they have written...
Thanks. That's very helpful.
This does, however, illustrate the idea that Western Christianity is unitarian. Orthodoxy does seem to go much farther than the Western churches in being willing to see YAHWEH and the Father as different entities.
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
By the way, the Athanasian Creed is off my radars... If you want to discuss about whether paradoxes exist, you can use the Creed of Nicea as confessed in the second ecumenical council, or the works of the fathers whose authority I accept.
You learn something every day. I didn't know that this creed was not accepted by the Eastern church.
So do you agree or disagree with these two statements from it?
quote:
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
If you agree with them, wouldn't you also agree that they represent a paradox?
[ 24. April 2007, 16:17: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Dear Freddy
If, by the term "God" we mean "divine nature" then I see no contradiction or paradox. In fact, many fathers have spoken about it that way: "there is one God, i.e. one divine nature". So, it depends on what you mean... If you mean "the father is a divine being*, the son is a divine being, the spirit is a divine being, but we can't say there are three divine beings, but there is one divine being", then yes, there is a contradiction here. Not a paradox. Just irrationality presenting itself as "mystery".
*I'm using the word "being" here in the everyday use... not in the patristic use where all men have one being, i.e. one way to be.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
jrrt01
Shipmate
# 11264
|
Posted
quote:
I say there is a unity of substance/essence in the three divine persons, but I also say there is a unity of substance/essence in the six+ billion human persons... Is this the sense anglicanism confesses one substance/essence and is this the reason for calling God one? Or is there something more to it?
Is the unity of essence interchangeable with the phrase unity of nature, or not? This is the question I posed, and I think that people in this thread said they do not think that God is one like I say man to be one...
Thankyou for your reply. It is my understanding that, yes, we do understand substance/essence (ousia) in precisely this way. There is the divine nature/essence (beyond our comprehension), and there is human nature/essence. The word took our nature/essence, so becoming consubstanstial with us just as the word was eternally consubstantial with the Father.
I haven't checked, but I doubt very much whether you'll find any Anglican official documents (including our liturgies) which say or suggest anything else.
Is this the only reason we declare God to be one (that the substance is the same?) No, of course not. Just as in Orthodoxy, we believe this to be the tradition of the Church, and faithful to scripture. There is one God. Yet there are three distinct persons.
Of course individual anglicans may stray into modalism in their conception, just as individual Orthodox may stray into polytheism in their conception. But Anglicanism stays firmly within the limits set by tradition about what may be said about the Trinity.
Posts: 62 | From: Manchester | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Thank you, father, for your reply! We are in agreement. I do confess though that what you said seems to me different from what others said in different threads in the past...
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I say there is a unity of substance/essence in the three divine persons, but I also say there is a unity of substance/essence in the six+ billion human persons... Is this the sense anglicanism confesses one substance/essence and is this the reason for calling God one? Or is there something more to it?
Is the unity of essence interchangeable with the phrase unity of nature, or not? This is the question I posed, and I think that people in this thread said they do not think that God is one like I say man to be one...
I would be more than happy to be mistaken, but the feeling I get is that people mean something different to what the ancients believed in... Take Saint Bertelin for example, and the difference he sees in what the fathers taught and what he had been taught as an anglican... Maybe he is more qualified to speak about Western Christianity, since he was Anglican for many years.
Just assuming for the sake of argument that you are right, how much difference do you think this makes?
I would guess that the average Westerner believes something like this:
- The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit have the same characteristics.
- The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are more closely united than individual men. (e.g. "The Holy Spirit says X" and "God says X" amount to the same thing in practical terms whereas "Ricardus says Y" and "humanity as a whole says Y" do not.)
- The Father, the Son and the Spirit are nonetheless distinct Persons.
- The Father, the Son and the Spirit are "consubstantial".
Now, I would be very, very surprised if Western theologians were unaware of what the Fathers meant by "consubstantial" - it's their job to know, after all - but it is true that the average Man in the Pew is less accustomed to thinking in terms of "substances". Thus I wouldn't be surprised to find that a fair number of people think (4) is equivalent to (2) rather than (1), but I don't see that it changes their beliefs or makes them Unitarian, only that they're expressing their beliefs sloppily.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Dear Ricardus
I have to climb even further on my personal Sinai for me to make a reply to what you are saying.
Give me some time to pray, and let's see what we will find.
This is what I want to comment on:
quote:
The point is that Freddy and I can disagree on whether or not to do something. The Persons of the Godhead can't, which makes them united in a way that Freddy and I aren't.
which, to my mind, is connected with this:
quote:
The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are more closely united than individual men.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Ricardus and Andreas, I am interested in those questions also.
It seems to me that Andreas' answer in the past is that this is not even a possible question, because the hypostases can neither agree or disagree - these words do not come close to describing what happens with them. Or something like that...
This just seems like a dodge to me. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
If the divine persons can disagree then this is a problem. On the other hand, if they exist in perpetual divine agreement - so that the internal processes of one cannot differ in any way from those of the other - then they are simply one - and, in my opinion, cannot be said to be distinct from each other.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Freddy, I'm not dodging... Let me explain...
I was reading Maximos the Confessor. He spoke about what you wrote as a side issue in his discussion concerning the two wills of Christ, and from what I understood what you said would be appalling to Maximus and alien to the faith of the Church. Here. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
But unless I develop my vision further and I see for myself what he was talking about, it wont be of any use for me to repeat what he said and wrote... As soon as I learn from my own experience what he meant, then I will be ready to discuss it with you.
Now that I'm thinking about it, I guess that the three divine persons do not choose to do good over doing right... Since they are good and since they know all things they just want what is good and operate in the way they operate... It's not an issue of thinking and deliberating and choosing between two conflicting options (to do good or bad). But, like I said, I have to do more than just think about it... So, gimme some time!
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Andreas, that's fine with me. It's in line with what you have said before - that these kinds of processes cannot really be attributed to God.
But either way, if there is absolute unity and congruence, how is there differentiation? And if there is differentiation, how are there not multiple gods?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
There is no absolute unity. There is absolute union. There's a difference between unity and union. Distinct persons can enter a union with each other, and in that sense we can say they are united with each other, but we do not call that a unity. In this sense, the Trinity is not a unity. You said that this is polytheism... Well, I'm reading Maximos works on the wills... People in his time said all kinds of different things for what terms like "will" mean. I mean, there are many Greek words that can be imprecisely translated in English as "will", but Maximos was adamant that those words are to be distinguished and that we should find the true meaning of those words and, because they have to do with theology, it is very important that we understand the nuances, because our salvation depends on our dogmas.
In a like manner, I say that we should be very careful when we use the term polytheism. It had a very specific meaning when used by the Church fathers and saints and confessors, and using the term with a different meaning can lead us to all sort of problematic views of God...
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
So, there is a genus called divinity, but there is no such genus, in the sense that it is not a genus like the ones that refer to created beings.
I can cetainly live with this formulation, though I would wonder how helpful it is, with regar dto how the term is heard, to speak of "genus" in the case of God.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Why? I mean, I guess you don't have a problem when someone speaks of God being good or all-knowing or when one says that God exists... Why is there a problem with that? I think it is useful because it helps us avoid unitarianism.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But either way, if there is absolute unity and congruence, how is there differentiation? And if there is differentiation, how are there not multiple gods?
My own understanding of the first question is that it is simply the case that it is so. It doesn't require further explanation. If there are three different hypostases, then they are, of necessity, distinct. What makes the Trinity different from any three of us is precisely that unity and congruence, as it were. Regarding the second question, we're going back to the question of hypostases, nature, and the trap of blurring the boundaries between the two.
With regards to the so-called "Athanasian" creed, it, like the Apostles' creed and various other local creeds, was just that: a local creed. It never had oecumenical status and was never accepted by the consensus of the Church. That doesn't necessarily mean that there's anything wrong with it*, but just puts its status into context.
*although its attribution to St Athanasius is questionable, at best, as it first appeared some considerable time after his repose, and contains theology that isn't in evidence (to my knowledge) in his other writings - unless, of course, that creeds double-procession theology is a later insertion).
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Why? I mean, I guess you don't have a problem when someone speaks of God being good or all-knowing or when one says that God exists... Why is there a problem with that? I think it is useful because it helps us avoid unitarianism.
True, but it can lead to tri-theism.
After all, I presume you don't think that Father, Son and Spirit are all members of the same class in the way that the ancients thought that Zeus, Apollo and Aphrodite were.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
The ancient Christians taught explicitly that the trinitarian confession purges both Hellenism and Judaism, keeping from each what is pious; from Hellenism the distinction into persons and from Judaism the unity of the nature. So, only with regards to the nature we can look upon Judaism and see what that means. As far as the distinctiveness of the persons is concerned, we can look upon Hellenism and see what that means. Hellenism purged from the notion that there are various divine natures is Christianity, and Judaism purged from the notion that there is only one divine person, is Christianity.
I think that what you say does not take into account that the trinity is supposed to preserve the distinction of the persons the Gentiles professed. Am I misunderstanding something?
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Am I misunderstanding something?
Perhaps you are misunderstanding that "person" is applied to God and humans analogously, not univocally. But I can't be sure.
Also, I don't think there is an equipoise in Christian theology between the faith of Israel and Greek mythology. The first is based on divine revelation, the second is not. I would be interested in seeing texts from the Fathers that say that Greek polytheism is helpful to Christians seeking to understand the mystery of the Trinity.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
I guess we should make some research about the use of the term person with regards to God and with regards to man. I have read definitions from the ancient fathers to the fathers of the hesychast controversy... They all give one definition to the term and they apply that both to God and rational beings. They don't seem to use it with different meanings in mind. Yes, of course, human person enter into debates and fights etc, but this does not have to do with the definition of the term person...
As for Judaism, I think we should not confuse between God's revelation to the holy people of Israel and Judaism itself. After all, the fathers use the Hebrew Scriptures to explain why Judaism is mistaken in not accepting a distinction in persons... They say for example that to Moses a person distinct from God the Father was revealed, and, therefore, when Judaism does not accept that, they are erring... Judaism most surely is not based on Revelation, although the Hebrew Scriptures do contain words about the Revelation that happened to the likes of Moses.
"of each heresy remains [i.e. we keep] what is useful" Saint Cyril wrote, concerning the distinction of persons that we took from polytheism and the one nature we took from judaism (de sancta trinitate, chapter 6)
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But either way, if there is absolute unity and congruence, how is there differentiation? And if there is differentiation, how are there not multiple gods?
My own understanding of the first question is that it is simply the case that it is so. It doesn't require further explanation. If there are three different hypostases, then they are, of necessity, distinct. What makes the Trinity different from any three of us is precisely that unity and congruence, as it were.
OK. I guess that's an explanation.
So the difference between distinction in God and distinction in humanity is that distinction in God doesn't involve any kind of distinction?
[ 25. April 2007, 13:59: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Judaism most surely is not based on Revelation, although the Hebrew Scriptures do contain words about the Revelation that happened to the likes of Moses.
While Jews may not fully understand the revelation given them, I think it is wrong to say that Judaism is not based on revelation.
As to Cyril. . . well, even Homer nods.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Judaism most surely is not based on Revelation, although the Hebrew Scriptures do contain words about the Revelation that happened to the likes of Moses.
While Jews may not fully understand the revelation given them, I think it is wrong to say that Judaism is not based on revelation.
As to Cyril. . . well, even Homer nods.
That definitely is an ultra-supercessionist view saying that Judaism not based on relevation. Even the Talmud, which from the Christian point-of-view is not revelation and contains some startling bits of nonsense mixed in with pearls of wisdom, certainly takes the Law of Moses as its starting point.
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Judaism most surely is not based on Revelation, although the Hebrew Scriptures do contain words about the Revelation that happened to the likes of Moses.
While Jews may not fully understand the revelation given them, I think it is wrong to say that Judaism is not based on revelation.
As to Cyril. . . well, even Homer nods.
And I am sure that Christians don't fully understand the revelation given to them/us.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JArthurCrank:
That definitely is an ultra-supercessionist view saying that Judaism not based on relevation.
Jesus also regarded the law of Moses as revelation, calling it the word of God:
quote:
Mark 7.7 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men — the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, 13 making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
So Jesus regarded Judaism as based on revelation. Furthermore He here rejects the parts that aren't based on revelation.
The message to Christianity, I think, is clear. It should be based on revelation, not "the tradition of men".
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
"of each heresy remains [i.e. we keep] what is useful" Saint Cyril wrote, concerning the distinction of persons that we took from polytheism and the one nature we took from judaism (de sancta trinitate, chapter 6)
"The distinction of persons that we took from polytheism"? How does that work?
Is it that we took the idea of polytheism and incorporated it into Christianity by leaving the distinction of persons, but doing so in such a way as to maintain a perfect union among them - whereas the ancient gods of polytheism disagreed and even fought?
[ 25. April 2007, 16:46: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
As for Judaism, I think we should not confuse between God's revelation to the holy people of Israel and Judaism itself.
Whoops. Sorry, andreas, I missed this sentence. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
I see you do regard the Old Testament Scriptures as revelation.
So your meaning is really that the Talmud, and other traditions on which Jewish practice is based, are not revealed. Is that right?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Guys it's not what I think of the Jews... It's the historical church stance that Judaism as separate from Christianity is a heresy, because they do not accept the distinction of the three divine persons which was taught and confessed by the Patriarchs and Prophets and Holy Men of the Old Covenant and by the Son of God and the Apostles and the Holy Men of the New Covenant.
Their "heresy" is seen as one among the other heresies that have to do with a mistaken view of the trinity. The ancients stressed that Christianity is similar to Hellenism in the distinction of the persons and to Judaism in the unity of the nature, but also opposing Hellenism on polytheism (i.e. the multiplicity of natures) and Judaism on believing that there is one divine person alone.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But either way, if there is absolute unity and congruence, how is there differentiation? And if there is differentiation, how are there not multiple gods?
My own understanding of the first question is that it is simply the case that it is so. It doesn't require further explanation. If there are three different hypostases, then they are, of necessity, distinct.
I like that.
I think it's a mistake to suggest that a thing can only be itself by virtue of being different from something else. e.g. Even on the human level I don't think you'd want to identify yourself as "not-Ricardus + not-Freddy + not-Andreas etc..." (even though it may be true).
There's a theory in linguistics called "structuralism" which claims that a word like (for example) "cap" only has meaning by not being a helmet, a bowler-hat, a balaclava, etc., but AIUI it's distinctly out of fashion.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Ricurdus, according to the ancient Church the three divine persons do have unique characteristics (idioms) that distinguish them from each other. The Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten of the Father alone and the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. The way they exist is unique to each of them.
[ 25. April 2007, 18:08: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
On the other hand, if they exist in perpetual divine agreement [snip] then they are simply one - and, in my opinion, cannot be said to be distinct from each other.
Dear Freddy
The ancient fathers and confessors said that the three divine persons have one will and that this gives testimony that God is one. They were very adamant about this. Today, I see some Shipmates making the same claim but the meaning of the word 'will' is different. You see, the ancient fathers explained that when we say that the three divine persons have one will, we don't mean that they will the same thing, but that their way of willing is the same. In other words, will means "to will". It's that "to will" that's one, just like it's the "to be" that's one, the way of being, that is the one essence or nature of the three persons.
I'm thinking about the difference between the Orthodox Saints' stressing they only mean "to will" and not "what to will" when they say there is one will in God just like there is one will in mankind. I think I now understand why they stressed that nuance of the term will. Thanks to Maximos the Confessor, I now see that it's because the identity of "what to will" does not mean anything with regards to nature that the fathers said that "to will" is what is identical in the three divine persons and this is a proclamation of their oneness.
You see, persons of different natures can will the same thing but this does not make them one with regards to nature. Both the Saints and God will the same thing. Both people in Heaven and God will will the same thing. Both angels and Saints will the salvation of all. But this does not mean that they are all one in nature. According to the ancients, only the way we will can show whether oneness exists or not. Because God wills in a different way than the Saints. God's will is sovereign and omnipotent and almighty. Man's will is not. So, to will the same thing is not a characteristic of oneness and this is why the Saints (opposing some heretics) stressed that the three divine persons have one will, like all men have one will, i.e. one way to will, and this shows their oneness, oneness in nature.
Do you think that things are clearer now?
I'm sorry if I sound difficult to read, but I have in mind many centuries of controversies within the church and many ecumenical councils and many pains the Saints went through to proclaim their faith, and I guess that's hard to follow. After all, not everybody is expected to know lots of things on the debates and controversies of antiquity.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
