|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Veiled in flesh the Godhead see
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Apologies if this has been done recently.
For the purpose of this thread I am taking it as read that Jesus was God incarnate, the God-Man, fully human and fully divine. Otherwise the question has no ground and is meaningless.
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see
Is this line from "Hark the Herald Angels Sing" good incarnational theology? Is the Godhead "veiled in flesh" in our Lord? Or is that docetic? Do we see the Godhead when we see Jesus? (By "we" here let's assume the apostles in the old days when our Lord walked the earth in the flesh.)
It sounds heretical to me but maybe I'm just not looking at it from the right angle.
Please discuss.
[ 06. May 2010, 19:13: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
I've always thought there is something about that line that makes it sound vaguely parasitic
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Well, I tend to think it's all God, and I don't fuss much about the details. If the story is true, then it's God with us ("Emmanuel"), as one of us but still God.
FWIW.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clavus
Shipmate
# 9427
|
Posted
Context is everything - the next line is 'Hail the Incarnate Deity'. If you sing both lines then you don't have a problem.
Posts: 389 | From: The Indian Summer of the C of E | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I see it as a poetic expression of the fact that one can't see God in his Essence without our human frailty being overwhelmed. It's link to the OT concept of God needing to be "veiled" by cloud or hidden in fire in order for a human to be able to apprehend him. In the Incarnation, the Godhead made this possible for humans.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
seasick
...over the edge
# 48
|
Posted
It's veiled as in clothed rather than veiled as in hidden. It's the same point that Tertullian makes in "On the Flesh of Christ": quote:
For One who was to be truly a man, even unto death, it was necessary that He should be clothed with that flesh to which death belongs.
As Clavus points out, heretical interpretation is anyway ruled out by the context.
--------------------
We believe there is, and always was, in every Christian Church, ... an outward priesthood, ordained by Jesus Christ, and an outward sacrifice offered therein. - John Wesley
Posts: 5769 | From: A world of my own | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mikko
Apprentice
# 13710
|
Posted
Seasick expresses it well:
quote:
It's veiled as in clothed rather than veiled as in hidden.
I work in translation. "The Word became flesh" was the greatest translation ever done. Therefore, as Andrew Walls writes:
quote:
God is the great Translator. In Christ, God is translated into humanity, so that we can look at that human being and say, 'This is what God is like.'
--------------------
praying for a glimpse of you
Posts: 15 | From: Under the northern star | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
Hark the Herald is by far my favourite Carol. I love the tune, I love the words. And unlike most carols I don't have theological problems with it - but that's a different thread, although I haven't seen the All Carols are rubbish because... thread yet this year.
As said above, this is a peice of poetry and context is key, consider:
quote:
Veiled in flesh the God-head see,
Hail the incarnate deity.
Pleased as man with man to dwell,
Jesus our immanuel.
Now, I sure ture scholars will correct me with this is two rhyming cuplets. Taking as a whole, Wesley is desribing, in what I think is beautiful language, the wonder of the incarnation - the true God-man who is content - more than content to dwell 'with man' - God become flesh - God with us.
Taking the first line on it's own it could be seen as a docetic statement but I really don't think it is.
From the old-testament we know that man cannot look on the God-head directly or we will die. So this 'veiled' is making the holy God accessible. To me, this line is an affirmation of the incarnation.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
MT,
I've also thought over this line and have happily settled my heart that this carol (and this verse particularly) is the MOST incarnational carol in the 'canon'. Given I attend a number of non-Orthodox carol services at this time of year, I just love singing this carol.
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fuff
Apprentice
# 14655
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Apologies if this has been done recently.
Is the Godhead "veiled in flesh" in our Lord? Or is that docetic? Do we see the Godhead when we see Jesus? (By "we" here let's assume the apostles in the old days when our Lord walked the earth in the flesh.)
It sounds heretical to me but maybe I'm just not looking at it from the right angle.
Please discuss.
What about when Jesus was asked to show the disciples, the Father? Wasn't His answer that those who see Him see the Father?
Posts: 22 | From: UK | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Yes, also that verse about "in him dwelt all the fullness of God bodily" or some such. (sorry, brain not awake yet)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Mousethief, a lot of apparent problems with Wesleyan hymnody are solved when you read on to the next line rather than treating it as an end-stopped line-break.
That certainly applies in this case.
I would go further and say that I owe an emerging understanding of the Incarnation and the Deity of Christ to this hymn. I remember singing it when I was about 11 and having something of an epiphany on that score.
You Orthodox are always out to pick holes in us Westerners' theology. I don't get uptight about that, you're just doing your 'job'.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
But relax. Charles Wesley was as Orthodox as you are on this particular point.
Gamaliel
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Also, like lots of Wesley, its Temple spirituality. A reference to the Veil of the Temple. Jesus himself takes the place of the Lord in his Holy of Holies as the object of worship.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Gallica officinalis
Shipmate
# 3886
|
Posted
There's always the alternative wording
'Veiled in Flesh the Godhead see,
Is the Docetic heresy'
More useful for remembering which heresy is which, than understanding Wesley's intention.
--------------------
Come for tea, come for tea, my people.
Posts: 874 | From: The Hemlock Hideout | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bacchus
Ship's Sommelier
# 11408
|
Posted
I've never worried about it because I've never sung enough of the verses to reach that point.
--------------------
Cogito, ergo spud.
I think, therefore I yam.
Posts: 2066 | From: Central Indiana, USA | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
Then there's the excellent Chip Davis instrumental version; no text to cause "problems" at all....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Cuthbert
Shipmate
# 3953
|
Posted
I should imagine there is a lot of heresy in Carols, that may help make them more interesting!
Posts: 160 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Hebrews 10:20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh (KJV)
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
I think it's fairly widely regarded as docetic. An old vicar of mine would puse his lips and all but cover his ears whenever it was sung.
But it sounds like good poetry. Who was it said "When, the hymn's shown to be heretical, sing the heresy." ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515
|
Posted
If you understand 'veiled' to equate to 'clothed', and take 'Godhead'/'Deity' to be poetic parallels (as often happens in the Psalms - english having it's origin from more than one language root allows for such parallelisms) and thus basically just saying 'God' (note NOT the Father etc...) then what's unorthodox about saying that in Christ Jesus we see God (obviously the Son/Word - but then Wesley doesn't say that) 'put on' flesh?
--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!
Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Whatever construction can be placed on the phrase under discussion, one doubts whether Charles Wesley had docetic intentions.
Consider two of his other nativity hymns;-
In 'Glory be to God on hight,' he writes: 'See the Lord of Earth and skies;/ Humbled to the dust he is,/ And in a manger lies.' And concludes: 'Knees and hearts to him we bow;/ Of our flesh and of our bone,/ Jesus is our brother now,/ And God is all our own.'/
And in 'Let earth and heaven combine..' he states: 'He laid his glory by,/ He wrapped him in our clay/...Infant of days he here became,/ And bore the mild Immanuel's name.'/ In another stanza he says: 'He deigns in flesh to appear,/ Widest extremes to join/...And we the life of God shall know,/ For God is manifest below.'/
Furthermore, in his passion hymn 'With glorious clouds encompassed round..' he is moved to exclaim: 'Didst thou not in our flesh appear,/ And live and die below,/ That I may now perceive thee near,/ And my Redeemer know?'
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
It's veiled as in clothed rather than veiled as in hidden.
I think 'veiled' is supposed to suggest hidden. Charles Wesley is delighting in the possibilities of rhetorical paradox that the incarnation gives rise to. He's set up the paradox as a chiasmus: Veiled in flesh the godhead see.
He's emphasizing the greater rhetorical paradox of seeing the godhead.
As Leo points out the equation of the veil with the flesh of Jesus is Biblical. Also the docetic heresy would mean that there wasn't really flesh there at all.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
If it has to be heretical, I should have thought it was Apollinarian ("God in a meat-suit") rather than Docetic ("Jesus' body wasn't real at all").
But I think it's a bit silly to imagine that a single couplet has to provide a complete description of the Incarnation. As it stands it is a partial description. It only becomes heretical if we treat it as the sum of all possible statements about Jesus Christ.
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Well, isn't it simply the case that Jesus' Godhead (Divinity / Divine nature) was "veiled", in the meaning of "somewhat hidden, recognizable only in the outlines", by His human nature? If the unveiled Logos had walked Palestine, how could anyone not have recognized Him as Divine? A supernova of eternal light would have bent every knee for sure... Yet many people did definitely not recognize Jesus as God. Jesus the man shall be transfigured to us when we do not see dimly anymore, when the Divine brightness does not turn us blind like it did a certain traveler on the road to Damascus.
Perhaps that's a nice definition of what human nature shall become: something that can let the Divine Light shine forth unimpeded (in Christ), and something that can stand seeing this Light (in the saints). But human nature sure veiled Divine nature in 1stC Palestine. I don't think that this is contrary to orthodox dogma. It does not deny that Christ is true God and true man in one Person. Rather it affirms that He had "two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union", hence with mere physical eyes God was not to be seen in Jesus, one had to acquire eyes of faith.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Jesus was one with the Father (from conception) and filled with the Holy Spirit from conception (cf. John the Baptist) so I don't see a problem with the entire God-head being veiled in flesh in a way that could be seen and touched etc (cf. 1 John).
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Gamaliel, thanks for the insult. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
I think it's just the word "veiled" that bugs me. And yes I think I meant Apollinarism. "The incarnate deity" doesn't distinguish orthodoxy from Apollinarism.
Ricardus, if your criterion is right (has to be more than a couplet to be a heresy) then you could write any heresy into a hymn as long as you were terse. That's not right.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Ricardus, if your criterion is right (has to be more than a couplet to be a heresy) then you could write any heresy into a hymn as long as you were terse. That's not right.
That's not quite what I meant. Consider the three statements:
a. "Jesus Christ was not really human" is heretical.
b. "Jesus Christ was fully God and fully man" is orthodox.
c. "Jesus Christ was fully God" is orthodox as far as it goes, and only becomes heretical if it's taken to be a complete description of Jesus.
My contention is that the couplet under discussion falls under category (c) rather than (a).
[ 20. December 2009, 23:13: 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
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
I really don't see the heresy; this is really getting to the point of seeing a Red under every bed.
The Word became incarnate in the Flesh. I really don't think Charles Wesley was thinking heretically.
"Veiled in Flesh the Godhead see, Hail the Incarnate Deity, Pleased as Man with Man to dwell, Jesus our Emmanuel."
There is absolutely nothing Docetic or Appollinarian here. MT your argument seems to be failing to see the forest for the trees. Haven't we seen *Cough* other shipmates *cough* try to construe the Nicene Creed itself heretically.
Charles Wesley was working within the many assumptions of orthodox Christology. If somebody has an interpretation problem with a through-away line in a song the answer is to seek the original teaching in full (find the asumption and get it explained to you), not make every utterance a legalistic declaration of orthodoxy. We wouldn't have many hymns in that case then would we?
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Then there's the excellent Chip Davis instrumental version; no text to cause "problems" at all....
If by Chip Davis you mean Mannheim Steamcleaner, then text is the least of the problems!
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I really don't see the heresy; this is really getting to the point of seeing a Red under every bed.
If you, SPK, don't see it, then anybody who does must be paranoid. Noted.
[ 21. December 2009, 01:21: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
While I think trying to parse the internal relations of what the rest of you (non-Quakers) call the "Trinity" is futile, that line does bother me a bit. It seems to suggest that the relationship between Jesus of Nazareth and the eternal Logos is similar to that between Clark Kent and Superman--the veil of flesh being analogous to Clark's glasses.
After all, to be perfectly human is to be in the image and likeness of God. So maybe Jesus is divine because he is perfectly human--there's nothing hidden. Or maybe that's a different heresy.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
It seems to suggest that the relationship between Jesus of Nazareth and the eternal Logos is similar to that between Clark Kent and Superman--the veil of flesh being analogous to Clark's glasses.
Thanks for that image!
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
There is a strange paradox in the use of the veil - both in the Jewish Temple and in Catholic liturgy, veils are used both to cover or hide and to reveal. The veil is the primary sign of the presence of God in the Holy of Holies and in the Tabernacle. Taken with the line from the Letter to the Hebrews, I wonder, MT, if this might not be used to acquit Wesley of the charge of Apollinarianism.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
brightmorningstar
Shipmate
# 15354
|
Posted
Its my second favorite carol, not that i particularly like carols but this one is excellent. I think both lines together tend to summarise very well what most of us have discussed.
Posts: 243 | From: London area | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by brightmorningstar:
Its my second favorite carol...
Which begs a question...
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think it's a metaphor. Taken literally, I suppose one might imagine a clothing of flesh over "something else" - without meaning to offend, "Terminator" springs to mind. Whereas "fully man" means more than just skin deep. The Word became flesh, not "covered in flesh" (i.e. physically existing inside that covering). But it seems very unlikely that the Wesleys thought in "Terminator" type terms.
I think Trisagion's post does a fine job of pointing to the deeper meanings of "veil".
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
You couldn't tell jesus was God by looking at him. His deity was 'veiled' in flesh only in the sense that Jesus wasn't some kind of "god-like" super-specimen of humanity.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
We mustn't make the mistake - not that anyone is! - of suggesting that Jesus was not "really" human but only appeared to be so. To say that is to place himself alongside Dr. Who ("really" a Time Lord) or Superman ("really" an alien from Krypton).
I'm sure this idea of Jesus "seeming" to be human is one of the ancient Christological heresies - I just can't remember which one! We must surely assert his full divinity and genuine humanity, both at the same time.
(Thus concludes the summary of last night's sermon!!)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
I would just like to note that, if Charles Wesley was a heretic, the faith needs all the heretics it can get...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I'm sure this idea of Jesus "seeming" to be human is one of the ancient Christological heresies - I just can't remember which one!
It's docetism (from the Greek verb dokeo, meaning to seem), although I think the heresy that MT is rightly concerned about is apollinarianism, where Jesus is seen as having a real human body and emotions but a divine mind and will.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Thank you, Trisagion; and (pace Tom Clune) I'm not saying that Wesley was a heretic!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I think the heresy that MT is rightly concerned about is apollinarianism, where Jesus is seen as having a real human body and emotions but a divine mind and will.
Yes, that's the one I was thinking of -- which I mistakenly called Docetism.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Make your minds up with the charge sheet! Is it Docetism or Apollinarianism? Why not split the difference and call it Orthodoxy?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Then there's the excellent Chip Davis instrumental version; no text to cause "problems" at all....
If by Chip Davis you mean Mannheim Steamcleaner, then text is the least of the problems!
Oh piffle. Mannheim Steamroller is excellent, even inspiring; a whole lot better than RAP, for instance....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
As Dafyd touched on earlier, the whole purpose of veiling something is so it can't be seen. On the other hand, a lyric that essentially said "you can't see it because it's veiled, but trust us, the Godhead is in there somewhere, probably behind the pancreas" wouldn't have had quite the same feel to it.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
While I think trying to parse the internal relations of what the rest of you (non-Quakers) call the "Trinity" is futile, that line does bother me a bit. It seems to suggest that the relationship between Jesus of Nazareth and the eternal Logos is similar to that between Clark Kent and Superman--the veil of flesh being analogous to Clark's glasses.
After all, to be perfectly human is to be in the image and likeness of God. So maybe Jesus is divine because he is perfectly human--there's nothing hidden. Or maybe that's a different heresy.
I'm not sure if it would comfort you or not that my history professor uses Superman as an example of a proper approach to the incarnation (as opposed to Batman.)
I guess the question in yours would be whether Jesus' perfect humanity was attained by effort and practice or simply natural to him. My prof's argument was that Superman didn't have to practice to be superman, it was just a byproduct of who he was. The ordinariness was the disguise, while Batman is an ordinary person who works his tail of to maintain the disguise of a superpower.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Make your minds up with the charge sheet! Is it Docetism or Apollinarianism?
This immediately after the post where I admitted my mistake and said it was Apollinarism. Yes, I made up my mind. I just said so. Learn to read for content.
quote:
Why not split the difference and call it Orthodoxy?
Because it isn't. D'oh.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
For some reason this thread reminds me of the inspired advice Fats Domino offered:
quote:
You should never sing the lyrics out very clearly.
Now that's sound theology.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007
|
Posted
"veiled in flesh the Godhead see" gives a wonderful poetic description of Rublev's 2nd person in his OT Trinity.
The central figure, with a red tunic for man clothed with a blue outer garment for God is sometimes taken for the 2nd person of the Trinity. However, here the 2nd person represents the Father on the grounds that we can only see the Father through the Son.
On the right hand of the representation of the Father (lhs of the icon) is the Son with a blue tunic for God and robed in an outer garment of flesh. In the original it is translucent. Absolutely beautiful.
The Trinity is completed, on the rhs of the picture by a figure wearing a blue tunic for God and clothed in an outer garment of green which represents the Holy Spirit.
However, there is still a space in front of the table/cup for the worshipper to kneel and complete the picture.
--------------------
... formerly of Muscovy, Lombardy & the Low Countries; travelling through diverse trading stations in the New and Olde Worlds
Posts: 1328 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
While I think trying to parse the internal relations of what the rest of you (non-Quakers) call the "Trinity" is futile, that line does bother me a bit. It seems to suggest that the relationship between Jesus of Nazareth and the eternal Logos is similar to that between Clark Kent and Superman--the veil of flesh being analogous to Clark's glasses.
After all, to be perfectly human is to be in the image and likeness of God. So maybe Jesus is divine because he is perfectly human--there's nothing hidden. Or maybe that's a different heresy.
I'm not sure if it would comfort you or not that my history professor uses Superman as an example of a proper approach to the incarnation (as opposed to Batman.)
I guess the question in yours would be whether Jesus' perfect humanity was attained by effort and practice or simply natural to him. My prof's argument was that Superman didn't have to practice to be superman, it was just a byproduct of who he was. The ordinariness was the disguise, while Batman is an ordinary person who works his tail of to maintain the disguise of a superpower.
I don't like it any better for that--it still implies that Jesus' humanity is a disguise, not his "real" self. It says we see God through the man,not in the man. While I have no investment in orthodoxy (upper or lower case),that feels wrong to me.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
