|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: Only Begotten
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Jesus wasn't in the form of something terrestrial; he was something terrestrial. That wording doesn't apply to him at all. That wording is about fashioning with your hands an image/idol that is modeled on something like a cow, a tree, etc. Like the golden calf that Aaron made. But Jesus wasn't fashioned by hand on the model of something else in order to be an idol. It's apples and oranges.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Evensong , read your Creed. Jesus is God, Incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, the only begotten son, light from light. He is true God from true God, and became truly human. He was not simply a man who received special gifts, or God taking on the form of a human. Both viewpoints are heretical. He did not abandon His divine nature to become human, nor did He abandon His human nature on His ascension. Christ was before this universe was, He will be after this universe ceases.
Read your Creed.
[ 05. January 2011, 03:25: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I am sure Evensong has read the Creeds many times and spent a good deal of time looking at the history of their origins. Sharing our different understandings of these things "on an open hand", no matter how vigorously we do that, is one of the most valuable aspects of this community. Something very much in my mind today.
Evensong, on your worship point, I'm going to go back to a text which IIRC you recommended a few months ago (by Raymond Brown) and see what if anything he has to say about your point.
Meanwhile, there is a key excerpt from the Nicene Creed which is worth consideration, since it affirms who is worthy of worship.
quote:
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
And in scripture, so far as the Person of Jesus is concerned, there are also these immortal lines from Revelation, made doubly immortal by the music of Handel.
quote:
Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.
Blessing and honour, glory and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and ever
The four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped.
The tension with Judaism created by the worship of Jesus is undeniable but it is not just a matter of the tension between the synoptics and John.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
As a human being, Jesus is of the earth. As God says nothing in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth should be worshipped. It is a direct contravention of the faith of Jesus.
Where does God say that?
Exodus 20: 4-6? No. Doesn't say that. That says we shall not make idols in the form of anything in heaven, earth, etc; or worship them. The referent of them is clearly idols. It's not 'things in the form of anything in heaven, earth, etc.'
The second commandment is silent on the subject of things that aren't idols.
Your interpretation would have the implication that many of the early Israelites would have been wrong to worship God. Anyone who thinks God is in heaven, or doesn't hold or hasn't yet come across the doctrine of divine simplicity would equally fall foul of it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
The commandment says that we should not make idols.
Jesus was not shaped by human hands.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The commandment says that we should not make idols.
Jesus was not shaped by human hands.
Moo
I'm not sure that's relevant. Neither were the sun, moon and stars, and we're clearly not meant to worship them.
This is getting Purgatorial, I guess, but the point of the second Commandment is to prevent idolatry, so that we don't give the worship that's due to God to some created thing that isn't worthy of it, that can't really satisfy us. Only God is worthy of it.
And Judaism is particularly strict about the difference between creator and created. There is no pantheism in there. A physical object, be it never so spectacular or wondrous, is not God, nor is a human being, even if they are amazingly charismatic or holy.
I guess I'm saying that idolatry is prohibited because its object is not God rather than because its object is something else. And that one of the features of Judaism is the absolute distinction between God and creation.
So the Incarnation is very, very shocking in this context. That's why it's so important. And if it is true, then the second commandment does not apply in this case, because in this case AND THIS CASE ONLY the human being is indeed God.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Jesus was not shaped by human hands.
I'm not sure that's relevant. Neither were the sun, moon and stars, and we're clearly not meant to worship them.
That would be covered under the first commandment rather than the second, wouldn't it? It's the first commandment that tells us not to worship things that aren't God. The second tells us not to mistake things that we've made for God.
--------------------
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
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Jesus was not shaped by human hands.
I'm not sure that's relevant. Neither were the sun, moon and stars, and we're clearly not meant to worship them.
That would be covered under the first commandment rather than the second, wouldn't it? It's the first commandment that tells us not to worship things that aren't God. The second tells us not to mistake things that we've made for God.
C1 says - you shall have no other gods before me. So I'd say it prohibits polytheism rather than idolatry. But one might still say - well, the one God is conveniently located in this golden calf (for example), which is prohibited by C2.
So I guess it would depends whether you thought the stars were extra gods (which would breach C1) or whether you thought (like Akhenaten) the Sun (for example) was God himself, which would breach C2.
(I now feel like I'm discussing the rules of some obscure sport... ![[Smile]](smile.gif) )
I think my main point (about why worshipping Jesus is OK) still stands though.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Evensong , read your Creed. Jesus is God, Incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, the only begotten son, light from light. He is true God from true God, and became truly human. He was not simply a man who received special gifts, or God taking on the form of a human. Both viewpoints are heretical.
The latter suggestion, IMO, is what the Nicene creed gives the impression of. They try get around that heresy by saying he was truly human.
But back to the point of the heresy of worshiping a man.
Your comment on divine and human natures I think hits the mark more and is what Chalcedon tries to work through.
If he had his human and divine nature at the same time, then he could be worshiped as a man because he was also God at the same time. Viola! Problem solved.
But another is created. How is someone truly human if they are also God?
Well, Chalcedon couldn't figure it out. They just said, it is so. Take it or leave it.
So like I said before, it's still irrational, but we can either take it or leave it. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The tension with Judaism created by the worship of Jesus is undeniable but it is not just a matter of the tension between the synoptics and John.
True. It's just heightened in John because of the higher Christology.
An interesting question would be if it was considered acceptable to worship the Messiah? Or if even that was part of the Hellenization of Jewish religion?
Or you could even go back and look at what the word "worship" means in the original texts I suppose...
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The commandment says that we should not make idols.
Jesus was not shaped by human hands.
Moo
I'm not sure that's relevant. Neither were the sun, moon and stars, and we're clearly not meant to worship them.
This is getting Purgatorial, I guess, but the point of the second Commandment is to prevent idolatry, so that we don't give the worship that's due to God to some created thing that isn't worthy of it, that can't really satisfy us. Only God is worthy of it.
And Judaism is particularly strict about the difference between creator and created. There is no pantheism in there. A physical object, be it never so spectacular or wondrous, is not God, nor is a human being, even if they are amazingly charismatic or holy.
I guess I'm saying that idolatry is prohibited because its object is not God rather than because its object is something else. And that one of the features of Judaism is the absolute distinction between God and creation.
Thank you TurquoiseTastic. You said that much better than I could have.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Why is it illogical for somebody to be both a man and God? The two aren't defined in such a way as to be mutually exclusive. Light is both a wave and a particle. How is that possible? It's possible because "wave" and "particle" are not mutually exclusive, as was previously thought.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Why is it illogical for somebody to be both a man and God? The two aren't defined in such a way as to be mutually exclusive.
No?
You don't think the nature of God and the nature of Man are different?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Christ had both natures. Next.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Then why did you say it? I mean as a reason why Christ couldn't be God and Man? You are simply asserting that they are incompatible. That's not good enough. You need to explain WHY or IN WHAT WAY they are incompatible.
You might as well say, "Look at the definition of a wave. Look at the definition of a particle. They're not the same thing, are they?" No, they're not. And yet a photon is both.
In like manner, the nature of God and the nature of Man are different. And yet Christ was both. To show he can't be you need to explain not just that the nature of God and the nature of Man are different. Nobody with more than a 5th grade Sunday School education would argue with that. You need to show they are incompatible. I'll wait over here.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Saying Jesus had two natures does not explain the pardox of how it is possible to be both God and a human being at the same time.
You acknowledge the two natures are different, but you think they are compatible. You want me to explain why they are incompatible?
I'm not sure if you're pulling my leg but I'll have a go.
1) a human being has a body, God does not
2) a human being is not omnipotent, God is
3) a human being is not omniscient, God is
etc etc
How can you say these two things are compatible at the same time?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
If he had his human and divine nature at the same time, then he could be worshiped as a man because he was also God at the same time. Viola! Problem solved.
But another is created. How is someone truly human if they are also God?
Well, Chalcedon couldn't figure it out. They just said, it is so. Take it or leave it.
So like I said before, it's still irrational, but we can either take it or leave it.
Except that I don't think we can leave it.
If Jesus is not divine then what he said and did seem to focus far too strongly on himself - making it far too easy for us to fall into (what would then be) the trap of worshipping him!
That's why I think we have to take it... but I do somewhat agree with you that it's only once we've decided that we are going to take it that we'll have any patience with subsequent attempts to understand how this could be...
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
1) a human being has a body, God does not
2) a human being is not omnipotent, God is
3) a human being is not omniscient, God is
In all the above cases, you have a quality possessed by one thing that is absent in the other. God doesn't have the positive quality of 'not having a body' - it's just that God does not have a body.
God doesn't have a body. Therefore, God doesn't have a different body from humans. Therefore, when God became human and took on a body there wasn't any body already there to get in the way. It's the same with any other attribute of humans that God doesn't have: God doesn't have them so they don't get in the way.
(Neither being omniscient or not being omniscient are properties properly speaking, for that matter. They're both short hand speaking. Jesus' human intellect knew things as a human does. God does not have a human intellect; God's method of knowing is completely and utterly unlike humans. Therefore, once again, there's no conflict.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Except that I don't think we can leave it.
If you worship Jesus, then no, you can't leave it.
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
If Jesus is not divine then what he said and did seem to focus far too strongly on himself - making it far too easy for us to fall into (what would then be) the trap of worshipping him!
Could it not have been the evangelists that emphasized this as they were trying to prove he was the Messiah?
I think Jesus (in the synoptic gospels at least) is theocentric. He always points to God the father.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
1) a human being has a body, God does not
2) a human being is not omnipotent, God is
3) a human being is not omniscient, God is
In all the above cases, you have a quality possessed by one thing that is absent in the other. God doesn't have the positive quality of 'not having a body' - it's just that God does not have a body.
God doesn't have a body. Therefore, God doesn't have a different body from humans. Therefore, when God became human and took on a body there wasn't any body already there to get in the way. It's the same with any other attribute of humans that God doesn't have: God doesn't have them so they don't get in the way.
I'm not sure I'm following you here Dafyyd but it sounds like because one is positive and one is negative, they can be conflated without a problem?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The tension with Judaism created by the worship of Jesus is undeniable but it is not just a matter of the tension between the synoptics and John.
True. It's just heightened in John because of the higher Christology.
An interesting question would be if it was considered acceptable to worship the Messiah? Or if even that was part of the Hellenization of Jewish religion?
Or you could even go back and look at what the word "worship" means in the original texts I suppose...
I followed that final bit of advice and the results were interesting. In Matthew 28, where Jesus is described as being the subject of worship twice, the key word is proskyneo (lit: towards to kiss), which means to make obeisance to, do reverence to.
Here's the Blue letter Bible link, set at the first of those texts.
The same root word is used in the Revelation text which I referenced above - again as you can confirm via the Blue Letter Bible.
In the Creed we find a small but probably significant difference. The root word is summproskyneo (you can confirm that using the link to the Creed I provided earlier), meaning worship together.
I'm not quite sure about this but I read the implication to be that whenever we worship God, we worship the three Persons of the Trinity who are the expressions of God we know by revelation. Or as a modern song puts it
"Give glory to the Father
Give glory to the Son
Give glory to the Spirit
While endless ages run"
In short the Creed seems to be saying that the act of worshipping God will inevitably mean worshipping Father, Son and Holy Spirit at the same time.
There are implications in that for the practice of worship today. In what we say, or sing, if we continually give more emphasis by Name to one Person of the Trinity, we may be going against the intention of the Creed that when we worship God, we both do obeisance to, and remind ourselves that, God is the Holy Trinity.
The final thought about proskyneo is that it is the most frequently used word for worship in the NT, and represents an action done "in the presence of" the subject of worship. So it contains this element of "encounter by faith".
The next most frequent latreuo has similar tones but also includes the conception of serving more generally (works of Christian service may be seen as a part of our worship).
--------------------
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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Interesting results Barnabas. I found a bit more:
"Worship" in the Hebrew Language
Beyond the contextual clues in the Old Testament ("bowed down his head", "bowed himself to the earth", "bowed down", "bowed their faces to the ground", "fell to the ground", "kneeled before", "fell down", "prostrated") which help us understand what worship is, the Hebrew word shahhah by itself, often translated as worship, actually means to prostrate.
Hebrew: SHAHHAH (worship)
"In our modern western culture worship is an action directed toward God and God alone. But this is not the case in the Hebrew Bible. The word shehhah is a common Hebrew word meaning to prostrate oneself before another in respect. We see Moses doing this to his father in law in Exodus 18:7. When the translators translate the word shehhah they will use the word "worship" when the bowing down is directed toward God but as "obeisance" or other equivalent word when directed toward another man. There is no Hebrew word meaning worship in the sense that we are used to using it in our culture today.
From an Hebraic perspective worship, or shehhah is the act of getting down on ones knees and placing the face down on the ground before another worthy of respect." (Taken from Ancient Hebrew Research Center)
Key Idea: The Hebrew word often translated as worship actually means to prostrate.
"Worship" in the Greek Language
Beyond the contextual clues in the New Testament ("fell down", "fell on their faces", "fell at his feet", "bowing the knee", "held Him by the feet") which help us understand what worship is, the Greek word proskyneo by itself, often translated as worship, doesn't necessarily mean prostration.
Greek: PROSKYNEO (worship)
"In Classic literature: The basic meaning of proskyneo, in the opinion of most scholars, is to kiss. the prefix indicates a connection with the cultic practices going back beyond Greek history. On Egyptian reliefs worshippers are represented with outsreched hands throwing a kiss to (pros-) the deity. Among the Greeks the verb is a techical term for the adoration of the gods, meaning to fall down, prostrate oneself, adore on one's knees. Probably it came to have this meaning because in order to kiss the earth (i.e. the earth deity) or the image of a god, one had to cast oneself on the ground.
[Something noteworthy regarding the Greek word proskyneo and the Hebrew word shahhah: The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament that existed prior to the 1st century. "In the overwhelming majority of cases in the Septuagint proskyneo translates the Hebrew shahhah in the hithpael, meaning to bow down, and is used both of bowing down before men and of worship..." Later proskyneo was also used in connection with the deification of rulers and the roman emperor cult. In addition to the external act of prostrating oneself in worship, proskyneo can denote the corresponding inward attitude of reverence and humility." (Colin Brown, NIDNTT II, pg. 876) So the translators of the Septuagint chose to translate the Hebrew word shahhah as the Greek word proskyneo. Thus, it seems they saw proskyneo as an adequate Greek term to describe the prostration described within the Hebrew shahhah.] From this site
So the question remains.....?
The words worship encompasses can be "give respect to"?
So perhaps, in the synoptic gospels, it was reverence rather than recognition that Jesus = God?
Possible.
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In the Creed we find a small but probably significant difference. The root word is summproskyneo (you can confirm that using the link to the Creed I provided earlier), meaning worship together.
I'm not quite sure about this but I read the implication to be that whenever we worship God, we worship the three Persons of the Trinity who are the expressions of God we know by revelation. Or as a modern song puts it
Is the worship together emphasis on the people worshiping together or on the thing being worshiped being together? Is it possible to tell?
If the latter, then yes, your argument makes sense and is certainly in keeping with creedal theology.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
It applies to the Godhead for sure. The context is the Holy Spirit who is "togetherworshipped" with the Father and the Son. I also get the sense that it is a reminder of the phrase from Jesus in John's gospel about proskyneo "in spirit and in truth".
On reflection, it also is like the church saying to all who worship God sincerely (however imperfectly conceived), "this is the God who you worship, as he has revealed Himself to us".
I suppose I draw a distinction between idolatry and confusion, when considering worship. "Knowing in part" implies a greater commonality than we may credit at first. I've always been impressed by the insight from Lewis that a character who showed genuine goodness and was a follower of Tash was, all-unknowing, a follower of Aslan. My personal experience as a Christian persuaded me many years ago that my understanding of God became idolatrous whenever I got "too big for my boots" about theological accuracy. Pride in one's understanding gets in the way. Worship is "face down".
That's probably a personal and 21st century reflection on a 4th century Creed. Creeds are confessional for the church, but this reference to worship might also be seen as "outreaching" to those who see God differently.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's the same with any other attribute of humans that God doesn't have: God doesn't have them so they don't get in the way.
I'm not sure I'm following you here Dafyyd but it sounds like because one is positive and one is negative, they can be conflated without a problem?
There's only one 'y' in my username.
What I mean is there's nothing on the one side to be conflated.
By 'a negative quality' do you mean 'a kind of quality that is like a positive quality but negative', or 'not having a quality of that kind at all'?
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
In the English translation I am used to in Orthodox churches of various stripes in the US, we say of the HS, "with the Father and the Son together he is worshipped and glorified."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
My personal experience as a Christian persuaded me many years ago that my understanding of God became idolatrous whenever I got "too big for my boots" about theological accuracy. Pride in one's understanding gets in the way. Worship is "face down".
True story.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What I mean is there's nothing on the one side to be conflated.
I'm afraid I'm not following your logic Dafyd.
Or are you saying the two natures are so different that they can exist both in Jesus at the same time because there is no overlap?
Like I can be a subatomic particle and a cat at the same time but still call myself a cat because a cat and a subatomic particle are so different?
Even if I could figure out your logic, I'm not sure it explains how one human being can have two distinct natures tho...
Unless Jesus is a different order of being altogether and not like us who have one nature.
[edited to include the fact that I know he is not a different order of being according to the creeds. Just in case yous decided to jump on me for that. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ]
[ 09. January 2011, 04:27: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Or are you saying the two natures are so different that they can exist both in Jesus at the same time because there is no overlap?
Yes.
quote:
Unless Jesus is a different order of being altogether and not like us who have one nature.
Jesus is two orders of being: one is the same order of being as the rest of us, and the other is God. Of course, Jesus is different in having two natures. This is a point where we just have to say that the argument gets us to this point, and either we accept the conclusion or we don't.
--------------------
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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Or are you saying the two natures are so different that they can exist both in Jesus at the same time because there is no overlap?
Yes.
That is an argument I have never heard before. Even tho I don't get it, I will ponder it. Thank you.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Jesus is two orders of being: one is the same order of being as the rest of us, and the other is God. Of course, Jesus is different in having two natures. This is a point where we just have to say that the argument gets us to this point, and either we accept the conclusion or we don't.
The Chalcedonian creed goes further than you. It's says the two natures exists with
quote:
without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without con- trasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union.
So it is saying Jesus is not different from us because he does have one nature.
What they don't say is how.
So like you said and like I have said often enough on this thread, it is an unexplained paradox, take it or leave it.
I can accept it in so far as it is the mystery of God.
But when people start trying to pretend it makes sense, and vilifying those who have trouble accepting such a thing, then I get rather ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But when people start trying to pretend it makes sense, and vilifying those who have trouble accepting such a thing, then I get rather
Yes. It is a dogmatic statement, but it defends a most interesting dogmatic belief (thought to be confirmed by theoria i.e. contemplation and reflection, not theory. Namely that the essence of God cannot be defined and it is presumptuous to think otherwise. It seems clear that was at least one of the intentions of the Cappadocean Fathers.
The stress is in part on the unknowability of the essence of God, in part on how He has chosen to make Himself known. "Knowing in part" is I think inbuilt. The idea that a statement can be both dogmatic and humble about human limitations, at one and the same time, sometimes gets "lost in translation".
--------------------
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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But when people start trying to pretend it makes sense, and vilifying those who have trouble accepting such a thing, then I get rather
Yes. It is a dogmatic statement, but it defends a most interesting dogmatic belief (thought to be confirmed by theoria i.e. contemplation and reflection, not theory. Namely that the essence of God cannot be defined and it is presumptuous to think otherwise.
Are not dogma and such a belief that the essence of God cannot be defined at odds with each other? Is not the task of dogma to define such things?
All the creeds were put in place to pronounce heresies and excommunicate people. That was their background and historical context. Nicene was Arians, Chalcedonian was the Monophysites etc etc.
You don't excommunicate people if you think you cannot define the essence of God.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I guess you can excommunicate them for being presumptuous? Or more presumptuous than the church believes is in line with the Apostles' teaching?
I'm no expert on anathematisation, don't even like the word (what would you expect from a nonconformist?). I guess one might say that the Cappadoceans and the 4th/5th Century Orthodox were apophatic about the essence of God but kataphatic about his self-revelation. They were sure about what they were sure about!
But we probably need an Orthodox view on that, rather than one from a self-declared Dissenting "piggy with a straight tail". To understand better does not imply full agreement.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Are not dogma and such a belief that the essence of God cannot be defined at odds with each other? Is not the task of dogma to define such things?
Mostly in the disputes over the creeds the positions that were condemned as heretical was more defined than the position that was eventually declared orthodox.
Although conservative apologetics used to like to talk as if Jesus dictated the orthodox faith, complete with creeds, to Peter, in fact usually what happened was that the group that was later declared heretical came in to try and tidy things up, and orthodoxy was a reaction that said 'hang on a moment, you're leaving out things that we think are important'.
--------------------
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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Mostly in the disputes over the creeds the positions that were condemned as heretical was more defined than the position that was eventually declared orthodox.
I don't know enough about all the creeds to say whether this is true or not but it certainly applies to Chalcedon and a lot of trinitarian theology.
I've realised that whenever you think you can define the Trinity in rational terms, you're almost undoubtedly espousing a heretical position of some sort.
So this must be the origin of the strange term "generous orthodoxy".
From the outside looking in, orthodoxy does not seem at all generous. From the inside looking out, it's nothing but generous because it is almost completely ambiguous.
The only thing that works is the perichoresis idea. They move around continually. When you think you've got them down, you've lost them.
[ 13. January 2011, 11:46: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
like electrons--you can have their position or their mass (I think?) but you can't know both at the same time.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Position versus velocity. Does that apply to electrons or only to particles at the quantum level? But I take your point.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Very interesting that Heisenberg should turn up here! In a much-praised BBC TV series (The Ascent of Man), the presenter, Dr Bronowski, observed that he preferred to describe the Uncertainty Principle as the Principle of Tolerance.
There is a very funny scene in the movie "Catholic Boys (aka Heaven Help Us)" where a not-too-bright student is asked to describe his thoughts on the Trinity (a homework exercise IIRC). The student, who had not done his homework, alights on the word "mystery" and waffles around that word, making the simple point that it is a mystery and mysteries cannot be understood, therefore the Trinity cannot be understood, therefore he does not understand it!
I always thought that was quite neat.
Thinking again about "only-begotten" (which is where we started here) what I think has happened is that the meaning of the "word-on-its-own" was seen, in context, to be the best that John could do to capture something of the Divinity of Christ. Essentially, that contextual argument got caught up in something much bigger; the struggle of the church both to understand and express the uniqueness of Jesus and how he had been instrumental in God-understanding and God-encounter. From the 1st chapter of John again, there is this (to me) wonderful summary of this journey. Here it is, via the Blue letter Bible link.
"The only begotten has declared Him" or as later translations put it "made Him known".
The principle of tolerance suggest to me that we must always remember the qualification "in so far as He can be known to any extent by mortals". I think we all struggle to hold the apophatic and kataphatic in necessary tension. Perhaps the tragedies of the use of dogma by the church illustrate, better than anything else, how difficult it is for us to take our "knowing in part" seriously.
As I've got older, I feel the poignancy more. We fall out of friendship and into emnity because of the different ways we understand what it means to love the one who called our forefathers in the faith "friends". Our differences don't need to lead to that.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Position versus velocity. Does that apply to electrons or only to particles at the quantum level?
It applies to all particles at the quantum level, which most certainly includes electrons.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
