|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: God the Son and the risen and ascended Christ
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Egg, you have some rather odd priorities. You freely ignore or rewrite the only text we have which comes down from the time of the events (that is, the text of the New Testament) but you place all your trust in traditions and imaginative reconstructions rom long after the fact, and that are normally regarded as theories and best guesses, not inspired truth, even by those who treasure them most. If I may dare the analogy, this is to throw away the body itself and keep the wrappings! Very odd.
You also seem to have a distaste for the physical and material. Why must it be that the resurrected body of Christ have no molecules? To quote Lewis, "God likes matter; he invented it." Do you consider that it is somehow beneath Christ to possess a resurrection body which is composed of matter? Because that is certainly what he gave his disciples to believe, with his "Touch me and see; a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." Not to mention his eating fish in front of them. Surely this would be misleading, bordering on outright lie, unless he meant them to understand that his body was "real" in the sense that theirs was: touchable, composed of matter, alive and handle-able, not a materialization or an apparition or any other kind of ghost.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Maybe he's a Docetist.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Egg, you have some rather odd priorities. You freely ignore or rewrite the only text we have which comes down from the time of the events (that is, the text of the New Testament) but you place all your trust in traditions and imaginative reconstructions rom long after the fact, and that are normally regarded as theories and best guesses, not inspired truth, even by those who treasure them most. If I may dare the analogy, this is to throw away the body itself and keep the wrappings! Very odd.
You also seem to have a distaste for the physical and material. Why must it be that the resurrected body of Christ have no molecules? To quote Lewis, "God likes matter; he invented it." Do you consider that it is somehow beneath Christ to possess a resurrection body which is composed of matter? Because that is certainly what he gave his disciples to believe, with his "Touch me and see; a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." Not to mention his eating fish in front of them. Surely this would be misleading, bordering on outright lie, unless he meant them to understand that his body was "real" in the sense that theirs was: touchable, composed of matter, alive and handle-able, not a materialization or an apparition or any other kind of ghost.
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
Sorry, that went off too soon. I will not repeat the quotation.
Yes, I struggle to reconcile what I find in the Bible with what the scientists tell me about the universe that God has created, in order to arrive at a rational system of belief – and for me, at any rate, a rational system is preferable to one that involves irrational breaches of the natural order designed by God. The result of my struggles is that I am more than ever convinced that the natural order includes both a material world and a non-material world; and that this fact resolves a number of conundrums. I do NOT believe that every word in the Bible is literally true. Take Palm Sunday: Matthew’s belief that there were two donkeys is almost certainly a misunderstanding of the Jewish custom of saying things twice in poetry, in Zech.9.9. I do not believe there were two donkeys, despite the fact that Matthew says there were. How many women went to the tomb of Jesus early on the first Easter Day, and who were they (or she)? The four evangelists all give different answers. This may not matter very much, but you cannot say that the gospels tell a consistent story. Nor is the whole of the Old Testament literally true. Do you believe that God made the sun stand still for most of a day so that Joshua could complete his defeat of the Amorites? It was the belief that that must be true because it was in the Bible which was a large part of the ground on which the Roman Catholic fundamentalists of 400 years ago criticised Galileo, since his theories were incompatible with the biblical account in Joshua 10.12-15.
As to the Resurrection, Paul is writing 20 to 40 years earlier than the evangelists, he had spent a fortnight with Peter in Jerusalem not very long after the Resurrection (2 to 6 years at the outside), and he passed on what he had been told to the Church in Corinth without any mention of the appearances of Jesus which he lists being accompanied by a physical body; while the appearance to himself on the road to Damascus, which he treats as of the same nature as the appearances to the disciples, seems clearly (from Acts as well as from Paul himself) not to have involved a physical body. If Peter had told him that the Jesus who appeared to them had a physical body, it is almost inconceivable that Paul would not have passed that on to the Corinthians.
What I get from the Evangelists (inter alia) is a very clear indication that Jesus believed that God his Father existed in a non-material form but one in which there could be communication between his Father and himself. It is quite clear that he did not believe that God his Father had a physical form: “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” was his answer when Philip asked him, rather naively, to show the disciples the Father.
There is a lot of evidence for the existence of life after death, so much so that the majority of the distinguished members of the Archbishops’ Commission on Spiritualism concluded “When every possible explanation of these communications has been given, and all doubtful evidence set aside, it is very generally agreed that there remains some element as yet unexplained. We think that it is probable that the hypothesis that they proceed in some cases from discarnate spirits is the true one” (http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/religion/cofe_report/cofe_report.html).
Where are these discarnate spirits? They are not in the material world. They must be in the non-material world. So is God. So is Jesus, with his spiritual human and his divine body. I can see that this concept of a non-material world may not have come easily to the evangelists, though Paul in 1 Cor 15 clearly recognised that our resurrection bodies were not of the same material nature as our earthly bodies, and seems to have thought that the body of the risen Christ was of the same nature (“the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep”); but it makes more sense to me to suppose that the evangelists were doing their best to emphasise the reality of the Resurrection by adding touches indicating a physical appearance, than that the risen Christ had a material body – and it is more consistent with Paul’s much earlier teaching .
The reason why it must be that the risen body of Christ had no molecules is that if it had that would fix its location at one place in the material universe; whereas I believe that it is present everywhere at all times, and particularly in the Eucharist, however many celebrations of it may be going on at the same time.
That does not make the risen Christ a ghost as you suggest. Read Hugh Montefiore on the appearance of Jesus to him: that was no ghost. The truth is that your view of the universe is too small, and makes no room for God, its creator, or the spiritual bodies of the dead, or the spiritual body of Christ Himself, at all.
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
So far as possible, though I am not a professional historian, I try to reconstruct what may have happened without resort to miracles - I do not regard the appearances of Jesus as miracles in the sense of being contrary to the natural order, since I believe that Jesus is alive today in the non-material world and able to manifest himself in the material world if he wishes to do so (as he did to an Oxford friend of mine quite recently shortly after the death of her husband).
How does a non-material being manifesting simultaneously to different people in this world fits the natural explanation?
If somebody claimed to see a visible manifestation from a dead person, the only natural explanations could be: 1) the person didn´t actually die; 2) the observer had an hallucination; 3) the observer confused someone alive with the dead person.
To say that a visual manifestation of a spiritual entity is more credible then a physical body ressurecting makes no sense.
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
If it's all metaphorical, why is it described as "a hard teaching", and why did it put off so many of Jesus' followers?
Could it be that it links salvation directly to the person of Jesus? And that would be enough reason for scandal among jews. The same way as sayng "Jesus is the only way to God" puts off liberal christians of today.
If Jesus is making a reference to the sacrament when he says "eat my body, drink my blood" we have a big problem. It makes participation on the sacrament a requirement for salvation, which would mean taking part on an actual christian church would be an absolute requirement. There would be no hope for those who never took the Eucharist to be saved.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
As to the Resurrection, Paul is writing 20 to 40 years earlier than the evangelists, he had spent a fortnight with Peter in Jerusalem not very long after the Resurrection (2 to 6 years at the outside), and he passed on what he had been told to the Church in Corinth without any mention of the appearances of Jesus which he lists being accompanied by a physical body;
When you report to have seen someone, there´s absolutely no need to report that the person was acompanied by a physical body. Visible things are physical. Light is an electromagnetic radiation. Only physical stuff can emit or reflect light, and therefore there is no possibility for a human eye to capture the vision of something that is not physical or is not reflecting from some physical source. You might argue somehow that we can see an hologram that is not the actual physical body it appears to be. But still, the light in it must come from some physical source.
From a purely naturalistic point of view it would make a lot more sense to admit nobody has seen anything, and the stories were just made up.
Paul´s silence concerning the specificity of a physical body could also mean the absence of any serious controversy on that matter in the early Church. However, some controversy around this fact might have surfaced years latter, and therefore, when the author of John wrote his gospel, he felt necessary to make explicit references to a physical ressurected body.
Of course you could still argue that the history in the gospel of John was just made up... but so could have been the history of the vision of Paul.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Just briefly--if Paul does not hammer away at the physicality of Jesus' appearances, it may easily be because everyone in the audience knew and accepted that fact already. You don't hear me going on and on about (say) the eternal nature of God in Sunday school because I take that as read, given the people with whom I am interacting.
As for the appearances to Paul (rather than appearances in general)--
what do you do with Luke's note that "the Lord Jesus stood by Paul's bed and said, 'Courage! Just as you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify to me in Rome.'"
What is the point of an immaterial non-physical being standing at a particular point in space? Let alone noting it. You might as well have a vision or dream sequence, it would make better sense under your hypothesis.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Apart from the fact that to the Jewish mind there could be no resurrection without the bodily aspect. It would have been totally alien and complete nonsense to believe that there could be a resurrection that left the bones in the tomb and consist merely of subjective appearances and visions.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
*raises hand*
If Jesus' human, physical nature is everywhere now, doesn't that mean ours will be too when we are raised?
(Recalling that the human nature and God nature are not confused or transmuted according to Chalcedon )
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
The result of my struggles is that I am more than ever convinced that the natural order includes both a material world and a non-material world; and that this fact resolves a number of conundrums.
Thank you for saying that. It solves every one of these apparent conundrums.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
*raises hand*
If Jesus' human, physical nature is everywhere now, doesn't that mean ours will be too when we are raised?
(Recalling that the human nature and God nature are not confused or transmuted according to Chalcedon )
No, because Jesus' 'physical nature' isn't everywhere now. That's the whole point. He is here with us by his Holy Spirit. We wait for the second coming for Jesus to come again. In the meantime God is with us through his Holy Spirit.
Christ in you the hope of glory isn't a physical nor even sacramental presence. He is within you by the Spirit who infills you.
Is this not elementary stuff? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
[ 09. August 2012, 13:17: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
If you recall the OP, I'm trying to reconcile all this with Chalcedon so no, it's not elementary.
If Jesus is no longer here (physically or otherwise) and it is the Holy Spirit that is present now (spiritually) then what is Jesus now?
His fully human nature would be dissolved according to your interpretation and he would now be only God the Son. His human nature no longer exists.
Is that correct?
Lamb chopped and others have said they believe he retains his human nature. I just can't see how.
[ 09. August 2012, 13:33: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
If Jesus is no longer here (physically or otherwise) and it is the Holy Spirit that is present now (spiritually) then what is Jesus now?
He is the Word made flesh. The Word remains. By "the Word" I mean what God teaches us in the Bible.
The Holy Spirit is His enlightening presence with us that opens the Word to us if we are willing.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Lamb chopped and others have said they believe he retains his human nature. I just can't see how.
The Word is human. It is physical. It is God talking with us in concrete terms, so that we can both know and love Him. When we see the Word with the eyes of our spirit, that is, when we truly understand, love and obey it, then we see God and He is present with us.
--------------------
"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
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
His fully human nature would be dissolved according to your interpretation and he would now be only God the Son. His human nature no longer exists.
Is that correct?
No, it‘s not. The spiritual body that, according to Paul, human beings have after death, though transformed, is still human. The spiritual body that Jesus has after his death is still both human and divine. If the two elements can co-exist during his lifetime on earth, which I understand to be the conclusion at Chalcedon, they can equally co-exist in his spiritual body after his death. I see no difficulty in this, given the Chalcedon hypothesis or doctrine. There is no reason why his spiritual human body should be dissolved by his death, anymore than ours is - which is in effect the conclusion that the majority of the Archbishops’ Commission on Spiritualism reached. I agree with Lamb Chopped ("he retains his human nature") on this.
[ 09. August 2012, 15:17: Message edited by: egg ]
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As for the appearances to Paul (rather than appearances in general)--
what do you do with Luke's note that "the Lord Jesus stood by Paul's bed and said, 'Courage! Just as you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify to me in Rome.'"
What is the point of an immaterial non-physical being standing at a particular point in space? Let alone noting it. You might as well have a vision or dream sequence, it would make better sense under your hypothesis.
Let me quote you what Hugh Montefiore (later Vicar of Great St Mary's Cambridge and Bishop of Birmingham) says:
"At the age of 16, sitting in my study one afternoon, and indulging in an adolescent muse, I saw clearly a figure in white (although the figure was and is still clear in my memory, I would doubt if it would have shown up on a photograph). Although I had never even read the New Testament, or attended a Christian service of worship, I knew immediately that the figure was Jesus, and I heard the words 'Follow me'. And that is what I have (not all that successfully) tried to do. Many explanations of such visions of Jesus have been attempted (Wiebe, 1997), but so far as I am concerned it was an incursion of the Transcendent into my life. ... My conversion was as simple and as momentous as that" ("On being a Jewish Christian", pp.13-14).
Bishop Hugh goes into this particular event in more detail in his longer book,"The Paranormal: A Bishop Investigates", and is satisfied that it was what he calls a veridical hallucination, i.e. something that occurred in his mind but was induced by an outside agent, in this case Jesus or God.
There are plenty of similar occurrences which those of a sceptical bent are inclined to dismiss as fantasy; but it is extremely difficult to convince the confirmed sceptic of what to rational people - and Hugh Montefiore was as rational as anyone I know - is the obvious explanation.
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
How do God the Son (the second eternal hypostasis of God) relate to the risen and ascended Christ?
God the Son relates to Jesus the Man as defined by the creed of the Council of Chalcedon (fully man, fully God) but what about after the resurrection?
How does the relationship change?
That relationship doesn't. Christ's humanity is, as it always was, the humanity of the eternal Word. What changes is that humanity itself, into the glorified and risen humanity which we hope to share.
quote:
If it doesn't, is it his fully human nature that is present "bodily" to us in the Eucharist (or any other "appearance" today)?
Yes, in my view: Christ is present to us in the Eucharist as a human being (and therefore also as God, because of him being the particular human being he is). Really, truly, completely, substantially, yet sacramentally.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
If you recall the OP, I'm trying to reconcile all this with Chalcedon so no, it's not elementary.
If Jesus is no longer here (physically or otherwise) and it is the Holy Spirit that is present now (spiritually) then what is Jesus now?
His fully human nature would be dissolved according to your interpretation and he would now be only God the Son. His human nature no longer exists.
Is that correct?
Lamb chopped and others have said they believe he retains his human nature. I just can't see how.
I don't think anybody's going to be able to fully explain the how of this (except maybe Jesus himself). This is some scattergun stuff that follows.
First of all, we really don't know a whole lot about human nature in its resurrected state. Jesus is the firstfruits from the dead, so we can try to figure out stuff from what we know of him--but the fact that he is also God sort of confuses the issue. I suppose we'll all find out some day.
What is clear, is that there IS a human nature even after the resurrection, and it involves the body as well as the spirit, soul, or whatever you want to call the immaterial part of us. Human nature will still exist after the Last Day. We aren't going to morph into angels or cats or something--we'll still be this nature, this species, if you will. And if we can (and will) do it, Christ can (and has already) as well.
This means that Christ is our earnest money, our downpayment, our guarantee of our own resurrection. Not that he isn't a great many more important things than that! But he fulfills this function for us as well, which is nice of him.
He also told us just before his ascension "I am with you always, to the very end of the world/age". And he did this right after promising to send the Spirit. He did the same kind of one-two promise at the Last Supper ("I will ask the Father, and he will send you another Comforter... I will not leave you as orphans, I will come to you"). So we are not in a situation where Jesus is gone, out of here, no longer present, and the Spirit is his substitute! Rather we have both the Son and the Spirit (and the Father too, as he said: "We will come to [the one who loves me], and make our home with him"). Basically we've got the whole Trinity.
Now I doubt anybody's got trouble with the Father and the Spirit being present everywhere everytime simultaneously. It's the Son (and specifically his human body) that troubles some people. We can't take the easy way out and say that the Ascension undoes the Incarnation, that's not what the evidence of the text says (and what have we to go on but that?) We also can't say dogmatically exactly what the limitations are on a resurrected human body, since there is exactly one of them in existence right now, and that is in Jesus' custody. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) Now if he'd let us run experiments on him--but he won't.
So we get lots of speculation. Which is not bad, if we can keep humility and realize we haven't got all the puzzle pieces. Luther put forward the theory (and it's only a theory, God has not spoken from on high to say this is exactly how it works) of what is technically called "the communication of attributes." What this means is that Jesus' two natures, which are inextricably and permanently one Person (that's the Creed, folks, not Luther)...
These two natures basically help each other out. (Now that bit's Luther!) So what the divine nature cannot do by its own characteristics (such as being tempted, dying, sleeping, etc.) the human nature can and does do, and takes the divine nature along for the ride in the unity of the Person Jesus the Christ. And what the human nature cannot do by its own characteristics (including miracles, omnipotence, being everywhere, etc. etc.) the divine nature does and carries the human nature along with it in the unity of the one Person Jesus.
Which also explains the Eucharist. You have a very human-nature-focused sacrament that is nevertheless impossible without the work of the divine nature. It is Christ's human body and blood that we receive (really, the whole Christ); but this would not be possible if it were not for his divine ability to be everywhere, perform wonders, and so forth.
As I said, this is only a theory (the communication bit, I mean) and nobody is obliged to believe it. But it makes sense to me. If it doesn't work for you, you can easily fall back on the fact that we know crap-all about ordinary human nature, let alone Christ's. There's plenty of room for any amount of mystery.
[ 09. August 2012, 23:32: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Egg, the situation you describe is not at all unusual historically and IMHO has nothing to do with the question of Christ's humanity after the ascension. I too have had ... contacts? ... similar to what you describe. I suspect a lot of people have, but keep quiet about them for fear of being mocked or locked up. In more vivid forms we would call them visions (or dreams if asleep). In less vivid forms we would call them impressions, "feelings," or in some traditions "a word from the Lord."
There are certain differences between them and the resurrection appearances of Scripture, though. First of all, if anybody had had a camera in the garden or in that upper room, it would certainly have shown up Jesus. (He DID eat that fish, which was decidedly "this world" in nature.) More to the point, those appearances were usually to many people at once, on one occasion to over 500 people. And there is no recorded disagreement on what they were seeing--nobody saying "He ate fish" while someone else says "No, he played the tuba". Whatever they saw, they saw it together. But the kind of vision/impression you describe is in my experience almost invariably seen by a single person, which makes it impossible to cross-confirm, and therefore suggests it is a different class of "appearance," done for a different purpose. Fine and good and a great blessing--but not at all wise to treat as if it were the same sort of thing the early Christians got during the forty days before the ascension. Apples and oranges.
--------------------
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
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Does 'present to us' mean the same as 'present'?
No. But he is also present!
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Does 'present to us' mean the same as 'present'?
No. But he is also present!
How would you say his presence differs from that of other human beings?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Firstly, I think people use "Jesus' human nature" here to mean all sorts of things. "Nature" is however a technical term here, referring to the essence of a being. And the essence of a human being is, according to classical philosophy / theology, simply to be a rational animal. If you have ever watched any Science Fiction movies, then it will be readily apparent to you that a rather wide variety of beings can be imagined to be "rational animals", all of which would be - in the technical terminology here employed - human. Of course, if we ever did find aliens (or if we convinced ourselves that dolphins are "rational animals"), then we would probably open up a new genus of "sapients", of which humans only represent one species (land-dwelling terrestial "sapients").
However, for the religious purposes in question here it is far from clear that the "human nature" of Jesus would have to be restricted to one species of "sapients", if then such a genus is required at all (if there is anybody but us who is a "rational animal"). What this means for possible "aliens" is a question for a different thread. But for this thread it is important to note that the change from a "physical body" to a "resurrection body" is, or at least certainly can be, entirely unproblematic as far as human nature is concerned. As long as before and after one can talk of a "rational animal", human nature will not have changed one bit. The difficulty with switching bodies is rather one of individualization. It is a major philosophical headache to explain in what way "you" can remain "you" while switching bodies in some sense. However, as it happens, Jesus is the only Being where that is not a concern. Because of course He is actually a Divine Person who has a Divine nature, and merely assumed a human nature as well. His Personal identity across a "human body switch" rests assured in his Divinity, yours is a lot harder to argue.
So worry not whether you will still be human after the resurrection, worry whether you will still be you.
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
That's all very nice, and I really like the idea that Christ is beyond and around and just under the edge of the eucharist and all that, but you've dropped the fully human and bodily present circumcised Jewish male stuff. That's the stuff I'm really good at - not the Jewish bit, but I can be massively bodily present. In fact my bodily presence is more impressive than you know who's.
No, your bodily presence is not "more impressive" than that of Christ in the Eucharist as far as "bodily presence" per se goes. The consecrated bread and wine manage to be bodily present just as much as you are, and are as available for inspection by the senses and manipulation by the hands as you are. Rather you are "more impressive" at being human than they are, in a literal sense: you appear to be human, for you are, they do not appear to be human at all, though they are.
Of course, we necessarily judge what a thing is (its nature) by its appearances. We have no other means available to us for discerning the nature of things than our sense data. However, we all know that appearances can be deceiving. A Fata Morgana for example is not actually water in the distance, but an optical illusion. If we were to walk in the desert, and saw a Fata Morgana, we may well discern that it would be useless to pursue it in the search for water but hold steady to our course. What has happened there? Well, we have judged other sense data which we have received earlier, for example by reading the Wikipedia article on "Fata Morgana", to be more trustworthy than the immediate impression of our senses. And while in theory we could check whether this is a "Fata Morgana" by running after it, in practice we may die trying if walking in the desert. So this is a case where we may well decide to believe in what we have been told (by for example Wikipedia) over and against what our eyes tell us, even though we cannot empirically verify this trust. We walk away from that Fata Morgana in faith.
And of course, that's just what the traditional teaching on the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist means: trusting that Jesus is really there, over and against what our senses are telling us, in spite of not being able to empirically verify this - physically being with Jesus in 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
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Does 'present to us' mean the same as 'present'?
No. But he is also present!
How would you say his presence differs from that of other human beings?
Well, unless you know of any other human beings who by a divine miracle akin to that of creation are made to be truly present under the appearance of bread and wine, I don't really have a point of comparison!
I do not know how it is that Jesus is present in the Eucharist. To understand that would be to understand God's creative action, which I don't, and can't. I do believe that, however, it is that bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, they become so such that Christ is present in a unique way, under the form of a sign. What is vitally important for me though is that it is Jesus as a human being who is present to us. In his divine nature, Christ is omnipresent. Contrary to Luther's rather odd position, the same does not hold of his human nature. Until he comes again, we meet Christ as our brother, fellow human being, and saviour, in some places more than others. Above all, we meet him when he feeds us with himself.
[ 10. August 2012, 10:29: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
[QUOTE]When you report to have seen someone, there´s absolutely no need to report that the person was acompanied by a physical body. Visible things are physical. Light is an electromagnetic radiation. Only physical stuff can emit or reflect light, and therefore there is no possibility for a human eye to capture the vision of something that is not physical or is not reflecting from some physical source.
Paul, 1 Cor.15.8: “and last of all he was seen of me also” (KJV), or “last of all he appeared to me also” (NIV).
Luke, Acts 9.7: “And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no man” (KJV, or possibly “hearing a sound” - there is quite a long discussion of the correct translation of this verse in wikipedia s.v. “Conversion of Paul the Apostle”, but all translations agree that they saw no one).
Acts 22.9: “And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.”
Acts 26.14: “I heard a voice ...”, not, in so many words, did anyone else.
So “was seen of me” or “appeared to me” does not necessarily mean that the physical body of Christ was present (or those accompanying Saul would have seen it too). Or do you take the view that Luke’s statements, though consistent with Paul’s account, are untrue?
When Jesus appeared to Bishop Hugh Montefiore, he was clearly visible and audible to him; but the Bishop accepts that a camera would have recorded nothing. You are taking a scientific view of something that is not in the realm of which science takes cognisance, but in the realm of the Transcendent.
I do not believe that the risen Christ had a physical body capable of being weighed and measured by science and of passing through locked doors and of appearing and disappearing at will. Apart from anything else, I would expect such a phenomenon to have caused an electromagnetic storm every time He appeared or disappeared - one cannot gather together the atoms and molecules necessary to make a normal physical body out of nothing without some very peculiar scientific consequences. And, for the reasons I have already given, I do not consider that this would be consistent with Paul’s views about the non-material nature of the post-death body.
As to the fish, actually there was a precedent for a heavenly or spiritual body appearing to eat without ceasing to be a heavenly or spiritual body: “I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One ... All these days I merely appeared to you and did not eat or drink, but you were seeing a vision” (Tobit 12.15,19).
I prefer Paul’s account to those of the evangelists, and it is more consistent with modern science, provided you accept the existence of the immaterial world to which I have referred (which any theist, like Jesus Himself, must do).
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
I do not believe that the risen Christ had a physical body capable of being weighed and measured by science and of passing through locked doors and of appearing and disappearing at will. Apart from anything else, I would expect such a phenomenon to have caused an electromagnetic storm every time He appeared or disappeared - one cannot gather together the atoms and molecules necessary to make a normal physical body out of nothing without some very peculiar scientific consequences.
Leaving aside, the 'science' of all this, which we probably shouldn't, what if one is God?
quote:
And, for the reasons I have already given, I do not consider that this would be consistent with Paul’s views about the non-material nature of the post-death body.
It is vanishingly unlikely that a Pharisaic Jew such as Paul held the dualistic view you seem to be ascribing to him. Modern readers of Paul can be tempted to read, for example, "spiritual body" in 1 Corinthians 15 as "non-material body", rather than "a body [which is] of the Spirit", which is a far more plausible rendering of the Greek. The point is not one about non-physicality, but one about glorification, about being set free from sin and (mere) fleshiness.
quote:
I prefer Paul’s account to those of the evangelists, and it is more consistent with modern science, provided you accept the existence of the immaterial world to which I have referred (which any theist, like Jesus Himself, must do).
I am perfectly OK with believing in immaterial things, whether numbers or angels. What I do not believe is that any human being could be an immaterial thing. And unless Jesus Christ is a human being, I am not saved.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
I do not believe that the risen Christ had a physical body capable of being weighed and measured by science and of passing through locked doors and of appearing and disappearing at will. Apart from anything else, I would expect such a phenomenon to have caused an electromagnetic storm every time He appeared or disappeared - one cannot gather together the atoms and molecules necessary to make a normal physical body out of nothing without some very peculiar scientific consequences.
Quantum theory says you're wrong. Pretty much anything is technically possible within the bounds of quantum mechanics, it's just some things are incredibly unlikely in the normal course of things. Given a God who has power over the whole created order, making the unlikely happen is perfectly plausible.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
When Jesus appeared to Bishop Hugh Montefiore, he was clearly visible and audible to him; but the Bishop accepts that a camera would have recorded nothing. You are taking a scientific view of something that is not in the realm of which science takes cognisance, but in the realm of the Transcendent.
I do not believe that the risen Christ had a physical body capable of being weighed and measured by science and of passing through locked doors and of appearing and disappearing at will. Apart from anything else, I would expect such a phenomenon to have caused an electromagnetic storm every time He appeared or disappeared - one cannot gather together the atoms and molecules necessary to make a normal physical body out of nothing without some very peculiar scientific consequences. And, for the reasons I have already given, I do not consider that this would be consistent with Paul’s views about the non-material nature of the post-death body.
As to the fish, actually there was a precedent for a heavenly or spiritual body appearing to eat without ceasing to be a heavenly or spiritual body: “I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One ... All these days I merely appeared to you and did not eat or drink, but you were seeing a vision” (Tobit 12.15,19).
Concerning the fish eating, the example you give is pure Docetism (=only seeming to be so). We can't talk that way about Jesus without stepping into a morass of heresy.
Concerning the appearance to Paul on the road to Damascus, my understanding is that his companions heard the voice and saw the light (but without grasping the communication or apparently seeing through the light well enough to see who was talking). I haven't got the Greek handy ATM but I believe there are two different verbs involved as for what Paul did and what they did. But if so, this does not break the rule that where the risen Christ appears in his resurrection body (and not in a simple vision, say), he is perceived by all of those present. (Heck, that light was blinding--and Paul himself seems not to have figured out who it was in the light until the person identified himself. Small wonder if the folk with him who did not understand the words spoken did not get the ID either)
The reason I'm so concerned with this issue is that to say Christ rose, but not physically, is to hollow out the meaning of the resurrection. To say that he relinquished his physical body (or any part of his human nature) is to say that he is no longer our brother, no longer our Kinsman-redeemer. It is to re-establish the gulf between God and mankind, which God went to such pains in the Incarnation to overcome. And it incidentally leaves us with the problem of what Jesus did with his cast-off body--are the bones around somewhere? Which would, as a matter of fact, leave death victorious...
--------------------
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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Yes, in my view: Christ is present to us in the Eucharist as a human being (and therefore also as God, because of him being the particular human being he is). Really, truly, completely, substantially, yet sacramentally.
So we too will be omnipresent in our risen and ascended state?
If not, it must be God the Son present in the Eucharist because according to Chalcedon the human nature and God nature do not transmute.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
However, for the religious purposes in question here it is far from clear that the "human nature" of Jesus would have to be restricted to one species of "sapients",
I sincerely doubt the early church fathers (up to and including Chalcedon) would be worrying about the bounds of "human" nature beyond humans.
Athanasius (who constructed the soteriology of Jesus having to be God to save humanity ) would not have been interested in such a question IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But for this thread it is important to note that the change from a "physical body" to a "resurrection body" is, or at least certainly can be, entirely unproblematic as far as human nature is concerned. As long as before and after one can talk of a "rational animal", human nature will not have changed one bit. The difficulty with switching bodies is rather one of individualization. It is a major philosophical headache to explain in what way "you" can remain "you" while switching bodies in some sense. However, as it happens, Jesus is the only Being where that is not a concern. Because of course He is actually a Divine Person who has a Divine nature, and merely assumed a human nature as well. His Personal identity across a "human body switch" rests assured in his Divinity, yours is a lot harder to argue.
So worry not whether you will still be human after the resurrection, worry whether you will still be you.
That idea is not consistent with Chalcedonian orthodoxy.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Luther put forward the theory (and it's only a theory, God has not spoken from on high to say this is exactly how it works) of what is technically called "the communication of attributes." What this means is that Jesus' two natures, which are inextricably and permanently one Person (that's the Creed, folks, not Luther)...
These two natures basically help each other out. (Now that bit's Luther!) So what the divine nature cannot do by its own characteristics (such as being tempted, dying, sleeping, etc.) the human nature can and does do, and takes the divine nature along for the ride in the unity of the Person Jesus the Christ. And what the human nature cannot do by its own characteristics (including miracles, omnipotence, being everywhere, etc. etc.) the divine nature does and carries the human nature along with it in the unity of the one Person Jesus.
That again is very anti Chalcedonian. The two natures do not transmute.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
That idea is not consistent with Chalcedonian orthodoxy.
What idea is - in your opinion - not consistent with Chalcendon?
--------------------
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
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Divine Outlaw Dwarf posted quote:
I do believe that, however, it is that bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, they become so such that Christ is present in a unique way, under the form of a sign.
I'm sure this is a sincere, thought-through and well-understood belief, but though I warm to its poetic or metaphorical sense, I cannot make any sense of it as a belief.
I don't quite understand the words. What is 'under the form of a sign?' Why 'under' and not the more usual 'in'?
I don't understand the sense. Present in a unique way is good English, but my questioning on this thread has been about how Jesus is present and how his presence is like or unlike that of his worshippers. If his presence is unique I am no further on, and am left with a mystery. What is a unique sort of presence like? Well, not like anything else, it would appear.
So there is the insistence that he really, honest to goodness, I can't tell a lie, absolutely is 100% present, but well, what?
I am inclined to think that what is being claimed is in fact of a metaphorical or poetic nature and the assertion that it is 'real' (though not as we know real) is part of the game.
A linguistic or literary or conceptual game is absolutely fine with me. It's what I think I'm doing. I doubt, though, that you will come clean and agree, or that you will be able to explain (let alone give evidence to justify) your claims that it really is really real.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
If his presence is unique I am no further on, and am left with a mystery.
Bingo! Mystery is not a dirty word when we're talking about God.
"'Twas God the word that spake it, He took the bread and brake it, And what the word did make it, That I believe and take it."
We know the what, but not the how.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
That's a different sort of belief from the sort I am familiar with. It's belief that not only doesn't depend on evidence, it doesn't even need to be precisely expressed. It can include the undefined, the mystery, and not be troubled by it.
I think it's really a choice to adopt a set of ideas and a way of talking about them. Which is fine, it's just that you can't really question it from the outside, because it isn't out there in the public arena, it's a private or group convention. "This is how we talk about the eucharist. We talk about the real presence."
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
That idea is not consistent with Chalcedonian orthodoxy.
What idea is - in your opinion - not consistent with Chalcendon?
This bit in particular:
quote:
However, as it happens, Jesus is the only Being where that is not a concern. Because of course He is actually a Divine Person who has a Divine nature, and merely assumed a human nature as well. His Personal identity across a "human body switch" rests assured in his Divinity, yours is a lot harder to argue.
Sounds like you are confusing (mixing) and changing the human nature of Christ by his God nature - or his God nature gives his human nature some kind of extra advantage or change compared to us.
Chalcedon argues against that kind of thing.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
"God nature" presumably means what used to be referred to as "Divine nature".
I find the old terminology far clearer.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
That idea is not consistent with Chalcedonian orthodoxy.
What idea is - in your opinion - not consistent with Chalcendon?
This bit in particular:
quote:
However, as it happens, Jesus is the only Being where that is not a concern. Because of course He is actually a Divine Person who has a Divine nature, and merely assumed a human nature as well. His Personal identity across a "human body switch" rests assured in his Divinity, yours is a lot harder to argue.
Sounds like you are confusing (mixing) and changing the human nature of Christ by his God nature - or his God nature gives his human nature some kind of extra advantage or change compared to us.
Chalcedon argues against that kind of thing.
Yes it does. But I don't think that's what IngoB's saying. He's using the word 'person' in a more theologically traditional way. He's not denying that Christ had a human psychology. Now, there's a perfectly sensible debate to be had about the continued usefulness of the traditional terminology (as opposed to the doctrines expressed therein, which are part of the Faith) - but a lot of disputes along the present lines seem to me merely terminological (I'm not entirely convinced by IngoB's position on the continuity of Christ's identity, but that's by the by.)
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I don't quite understand the words. What is 'under the form of a sign?' Why 'under' and not the more usual 'in'?
I can assure you, at least in the circles I move in, 'under' is more usual. Lest we give the impression that Christ is somehow 'in' the eucharistic elements. On the contrary, the Blessed Sacrament is Christ.
quote:
I don't understand the sense. Present in a unique way is good English, but my questioning on this thread has been about how Jesus is present and how his presence is like or unlike that of his worshippers. If his presence is unique I am no further on, and am left with a mystery. What is a unique sort of presence like? Well, not like anything else, it would appear.
Exactly. That is precisely what I, and many others, believe. And we believe it, without pretending to understand it - as I said, I firmly believe I could not understand the eucharistic change without understanding creation, and thereby God, which I cannot - because Christ teaches it to us through his Church. 'Thou art here, we ask not how'.
quote:
I am inclined to think that what is being claimed is in fact of a metaphorical or poetic nature and the assertion that it is 'real' (though not as we know real) is part of the game.
I can only insist, with millions of Christians throughout history, that it is not. When I say, of the Eucharist, 'this is the Lamb of God', I am not speaking metaphorically. I do not understand how it can be that this is the Lamb of God. But mystery does not equal metaphor. Rather, as so often in theology, my literal speech is stretched to the very point of breaking, at which point the only proper response is worship.
Where signification and metaphor do enter into it is in the fact that Christ comes to us under the form of signs. Surely the fact that he comes to us as food is of symbolic importance. This is the new passover, the forging of the Christian community, food for the journey, a foretaste of the heavenly banquet....
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
"God nature" presumably means what used to be referred to as "Divine nature".
I find the old terminology far clearer.
God nature is more accurate.
Angels are "divine" after all.
Arius thought Jesus was divine, just not God.
Divinity is not restricted to God.
Makes some people uncomfortable because they think of Jesus as an exalted divine being but that's not at all what Chalcedon says.
It says he is God and man. !00% God, 100% man.
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
But I don't think that's what IngoB's saying. He's using the word 'person' in a more theologically traditional way. He's not denying that Christ had a human psychology.
Applying the word "person" in a traditional theological way ( i.e. three "persons" of the Trinity ) only applies to Christ's God nature as second person of the Trinity, not his human nature.
The human nature of Christ is not a person in the traditional sense, only God the Son is a person.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
As IngoB said, you seem to be confusing what has been meant traditionally by 'person' and 'nature'.
There is a way of talking about the Incarnation whereby there is no human person who is Christ, but only a divine person (namely the Son) who has a human nature. To some modern ears this will sound like a denial of Christ's full humanity. To some traditional ears, the suggestion that there is a human person who is Christ will sound like a denial of the Incarnation.
And this is why it matters what we mean by 'person', or else we talk past each other. I think the word 'person' should be abolished from discussions of the Trinity and Incarnation if humanly possible, since it just misleads moderns utterly - when we in everyday life use the word 'person', we mean something like 'individual centre of consciousness'. But when traditionally people talk about Christ as a 'divine Person' what they intend is a claim about metaphysical subjecthood, an answer to the question 'who is this?'. Jesus is God. That is who he is. That is who is living this human life. I think the usages are analogical. There is an orthodox, albeit untraditional, way of affirming that there is a human person Christ. But there is no more than a verbal dispute between the person who holds this view and the person who uses more traditional language. They just mean something subtlely different by 'person'.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw:
There is an orthodox, albeit untraditional, way of affirming that there is a human person Christ. But there is no more than a verbal dispute between the person who holds this view and the person who uses more traditional language.
I believe there is a way both orthodox and traditional of affirming that there is a human person Christ. That is, if we take it that 'human... x' and 'x with a human nature' mean the same thing. And it seems to me a basic metaphysical error to assume that they mean anything different.
Believing that Christ was a divine person with a human nature but not a human person implies to me that nature is the word for an odd type of substance. (This is the basic metaphysical error of assuming that if there is a noun there must exist some ontological entity corresponding to the noun.) Nature is not a word for an entity in its own right - it's a word for the essential properties of a substance. Grammatically, it's a reification of an adjectival phrase.
'Person' is a word for a rational relational entity. Natures, however, are not any kind of entity at all. You cannot have a human nature attaching to something that is not a human person, since natures are qualities of entities rather than independent entities themselves.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Sounds like you are confusing (mixing) and changing the human nature of Christ by his God nature - or his God nature gives his human nature some kind of extra advantage or change compared to us. Chalcedon argues against that kind of thing.
Who knows what you mean by all the terms that you are using there. But by whatever way of talking about it, it is clear that you have only one way of being you, a human way, whereas the second Person of the Trinity has two ways of being the Son, after the Incarnation: a Divine way, and a human way. Clearly then, if your human way of being you is severely disrupted or changed somehow, it is at least not immediately clear how you can continue as yourself. Whereas if the Son's human way of being the second Person of the Trinity is severely disrupted or changed somehow, it remains entirely feasible for Him to retain Personal continuity through His Divine way of being Himself. To claim anything else would deny that the Son is a Divine Person and has Divine nature, which Chalcedon very much affirms. The Being of Jesus Christ is more complex than the being of Evensong, and as it turns out that means that certain philosophical problems can be raised with regards to your resurrection that do not apply to Jesus Christ in the same way.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Angels are "divine" after all.
Not even by virtue of scare quotes can this sentence resemble a truth.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Arius thought Jesus was divine, just not God. Divinity is not restricted to God.
These sentences are either simply self-contradictory, or they makes use of some non-standard definitions of the words "divine", "Divinity" and/or "God". Whether this non-standard word use reasonably can be blamed on Arius is perhaps of academic interest. However, the supposed association with this heresiarch certainly indicates what we should do with this egregious re-definition of terms: reject them outright.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Makes some people uncomfortable because they think of Jesus as an exalted divine being but that's not at all what Chalcedon says. It says he is God and man. !00% God, 100% man.
This makes no sense whatsoever. If Jesus Christ is 100% God, then clearly He is an exalted Divine Being. What precisely could be missing in someone who is 100% God that would make Him anything but exalted as Divine Being?
--------------------
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
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Might need some vocab study, seriously. And who said anything about Christ's natures transmuting? The natures remain themselves. If they did not, no communication of attributes would be necessary. But Christ is not a milkshake.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ancilla
Shipmate
# 11037
|
Posted
Thanks Evensong for posting this! and sorry for getting in on the debate quite late. One thing that baffles me is, do we believe there has been a change in the life of the Trinity? I was taught that the activity of the Trinity in the world (the ‘economic’ trinity) doesn’t mean there is any change in the eternal (‘immanent’) nature of God the Trinity. Which sounds right – eternal and unchanging God, etc. But this sounds right as well:
quote:
Originally posted by Churchgeek:
The mind-boggling thing about the Church's affirmation of the risen Christ's continuing to be fully human and fully divine is that he has taken human nature into the very heart of the Trinity, into the inner relationships and life of the Trinity. That has important implications for us - and it's symbolized by the Ascension and the affirmation that Christ is "seated at the right hand of God."
So how do we reconcile those two things?
The other question that seems to be coming out of the debate is, how is Jesus (Man and God) present with us now? Is he somehow ‘separable’ from his risen body, or is his presence always in his risen body?
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Jesus' 'physical nature' isn't everywhere now. That's the whole point. He is here with us by his Holy Spirit. We wait for the second coming for Jesus to come again. In the meantime God is with us through his Holy Spirit.
I think this might risk falling into modalism, the idea that God the Trinity used to be present as the Son and is now present as the Spirit. Whereas I think the Spirit is more the one who enables us to perceive or to have a relationship with the other persons of the Trinity – in particular, the one who enables us to recognise Jesus as the Son of the Father.
On the other hand, it is possible to have a very real relationship and communication with someone who is not physically present. I got into some difficulty with this though - I once suggested that our relationship with the risen Jesus is a bit more ‘long distance’ than the relationship the disciples had with him on earth and I was accused of heresy! I don’t know which heresy though – anybody who does, please let me know ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I think this is a very good point:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The consecrated bread and wine manage to be bodily present just as much as you are, and are as available for inspection by the senses and manipulation by the hands as you are. Rather you are "more impressive" at being human than they are, in a literal sense: you appear to be human, for you are, they do not appear to be human at all, though they are.
If we believe Christ to be present in the bread and wine, then we believe him to be present physically, since the bread and wine are physical. But that is still something slightly different from saying that his resurrection body is present – which we also believe, but I wouldn’t begin to know what we mean by it!
However I haven’t quite understood how that fits with this:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And the essence of a human being is, according to classical philosophy / theology, simply to be a rational animal.
This is certainly the traditional position, but I am concerned about the implications of it. Whilst all humans are equally animals, not all humans can really be described as equally ‘rational’ and this approach could be used to suggest that some (babies or people with severe learning disabilities) are less human than others. I appreciate this is in no way IngoB’s intention – but it does make me wonder if this is a rather human definition of humanity, derived from our experience of humans combined with a bit of a prejudice against the non-rational aspects of our nature, and that what God considers to be important and defining about us might be different.
--------------------
formerly Wannabe Heretic
Vocational musings
Posts: 424 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw:
And this is why it matters what we mean by 'person', or else we talk past each other. I think the word 'person' should be abolished from discussions of the Trinity and Incarnation if humanly possible, since it just misleads moderns utterly - when we in everyday life use the word 'person', we mean something like 'individual centre of consciousness'.
Couldn't agree more.
It ends up being a party of three people.
Totally anthropomorphic.
Mayhap I shall start another thread on the term person.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Angels are "divine" after all.
Are they? I have never, ever, heard that.
In the adjectival sense.
Just as divine outlaw dwarf is not God. She is expressing transcendence.
I can have "divine" chocolate ice cream. It isn't God, it is "transcendent".
Divine as a noun means God, gods or a theologian (old usage). As an adjective, the qualities are ascribed.
Biblically, you do get heavenly or divine beings that are not God. Sons of God (Job) or spirits of the dead (the awakened Samuel) and other such entities with divine (transcendent) attributes.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Sounds like you are confusing (mixing) and changing the human nature of Christ by his God nature - or his God nature gives his human nature some kind of extra advantage or change compared to us. Chalcedon argues against that kind of thing.
Who knows what you mean by all the terms that you are using there.
The ones of the creed. Footnote 76 is excellent.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But by whatever way of talking about it, it is clear that you have only one way of being you, a human way, whereas the second Person of the Trinity has two ways of being the Son, after the Incarnation: a Divine way, and a human way. Clearly then, if your human way of being you is severely disrupted or changed somehow, it is at least not immediately clear how you can continue as yourself.
Unless Jesus' rational soul (which is his human nature as defined by the creed) disappears after the resurrection, I don't see why I should have such trouble.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Whereas if the Son's human way of being the second Person of the Trinity is severely disrupted or changed somehow, it remains entirely feasible for Him to retain Personal continuity through His Divine way of being Himself.
In which case he will no longer be fully human.
Hence, Chalcedon no longer applies.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Being of Jesus Christ is more complex than the being of Evensong, and as it turns out that means that certain philosophical problems can be raised with regards to your resurrection that do not apply to Jesus Christ in the same way.
Only if you mix the natures.
And as lamb chopped has said, Jesus is not a milkshake.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ancilla:
This is certainly the traditional position, but I am concerned about the implications of it. Whilst all humans are equally animals, not all humans can really be described as equally ‘rational’ and this approach could be used to suggest that some (babies or people with severe learning disabilities) are less human than others.
It is certainly true that if some aliens were to observe only human babies or people with severe learning disabilities, then they would find it more difficult to come to the conclusion that the proper definition of a human being is "a rational animal". However, a blind eye is no less an eye just because it fails to see. And with sufficient effort, one can likely discern even in a blind eye that its essential purpose is seeing. Babies are not yet as rational as they hopefully will be, and people with severe learning disabilities precisely have disabilities: some lack in what they ought to be capable of.
The classical statement is not intended to classify individual beings, who may realize the constituent qualities to a greater or lesser extent, but to define a category of beings against other categories of beings. A human baby is expected to grow into a rational adult, a puppy is not. A person with severe learning disabilities has a problem, a dog with the same power of discernment does not. (The latter comparison is merely for the sake of my argument concerning the purpose of categorization: I do not know to what degree any such comparison makes sense at all, and it is not my intention to insult anyone with this.) The point of such a categorization is not to drop all we know about the world (babies grow up, people can be dysfunctional) and exclusively fixate on the terms of the definition. The point is to supply a firm anchor point to which to relate such knowledge about the world. Growing up into what, dysfunctional as compared to what?
I would also note that the classical understanding of "rational" is very broad. And then it truly is foundational for human activity. To use some word play to illustrate the point: To be understanding, you have to understand.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Unless Jesus' rational soul (which is his human nature as defined by the creed) disappears after the resurrection, I don't see why I should have such trouble.
The confession of Chalcedon does not define the rational soul as human nature, it simply says that Jesus Christ (as human) has a rational soul and a body. While I would agree that the rational soul in some sense is human nature (namely in the sense that it is the substantial form of the body), Chalcedon itself is not engaging in such philosophical definitions...
The problem is roughly this: we know how to say that this body is Evensong, and that body is IngoB, because bodies can be told apart in many ways. At the simplest level, two bodies cannot occupy the same place at the same time. We know however that these bodies end in death. We believe that the soul persists beyond this death though. In order to do so, it must rely at least in part on an incorporeal operation, one that does not 'die' with the body, as its support. It is much less clear though how to make a distinction between Evensong and IngoB in terms of this incorporeal operation. In particular, for something incorporeal we cannot just point and say "this is here, that is there". Now we bring back a resurrection body, which again will make it easy to distinguish between two (resurrected) human beings. However, in order to say that these resurrection bodies are Evensong and IngoB, respectively, we must track the identity through the incorporeal bottleneck: this soul used to be associated with that worldly matter, then with nothing but its own incorporeal operation, but now is associated with this resurrected matter. But how can we say this, if we do not know how to assign individuality at the incorporeal stage? If we do not know how to put the labels Evensong and IngoB to the disembodied souls, then we cannot reasonably call the resurrected beings by those names either.
However, in the case of Jesus Christ, His human soul can always be labelled as that one which is directly associated with the Second Person of the Trinity. Whether we can track the individual Jesus Christ to His disembodied soul based on His human history is the same problem as tracking your or my individuality. However, for the Son we also have His Divine life to identify Him, and so the rational soul of Jesus Christ is identifiable no matter what traces the world may leave. This is not true for you and me (or at least not in the same straightforward manner).
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
In which case he will no longer be fully human. Hence, Chalcedon no longer applies.
This depends on what you mean by "fully human". Chalcedon establishes a clear distinction between "person" / "subsistence" and "nature". Whatever you may think that these words mean, the former is one, the latter is clearly distinct in two, in Jesus Christ. So they cannot mean the same, according to Chalcedon. The key point is "one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures". Whenever we speak of two things then, as in "truly God and truly man", we acknowledge in two natures. By the same token, this division into two cannot carry into what is one. We cannot say that the Second Person of the Trinity, the Son, is truly a God-person and a human-person. For then either there are two persons, which is explicitly denied, or the distinction is merely a manner of speaking, in which case we should not speak this way in order to avoid confusion. However, Chalcedon itself speaks explicitly of a God-person: "not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ".
In conclusion, it is not only possible but mandated by Chalcedon to speak concerning Christ of one Divine Person in two distinct natures, one human, the other Divine. However, you for example are clearly just one human person in one human nature. Therefore, you and Christ are not human in exactly the same way. You differ concerning what sort of persons you are. If this destroys your theologies of salvation or whatnot, then that is just too bad. But it is what Chalcedon happens to say.
(All this may simply boil down to overloading "person" with meaning through the ages. But you have to argue that, and boy, are there arguments to be had about what "person" precisely means...)
--------------------
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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
However, in order to say that these resurrection bodies are Evensong and IngoB, respectively, we must track the identity through the incorporeal bottleneck: this soul used to be associated with that worldly matter, then with nothing but its own incorporeal operation, but now is associated with this resurrected matter. But how can we say this, if we do not know how to assign individuality at the incorporeal stage? If we do not know how to put the labels Evensong and IngoB to the disembodied souls, then we cannot reasonably call the resurrected beings by those names either.
I'm afraid I don't see why we cannot assign individuality at the incorporeal stage. God certainly knows who we are. And it is God that resurrects us. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
However, Chalcedon itself speaks explicitly of a God-person: "not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ".
It does not speak of a God person. It speaks of a Person:
quote:
concurring in one Person
The descriptions addended thereafter pertain to both his human and God nature.
I don't know where you got the God-person from. God nature yes, God person no.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
However, you for example are clearly just one human person in one human nature. Therefore, you and Christ are not human in exactly the same way. You differ concerning what sort of persons you are. If this destroys your theologies of salvation or whatnot, then that is just too bad. But it is what Chalcedon happens to say.
I have been taught the complete opposite in my university studies. Only if Jesus is fully human like me (excepting sin) and fully God can salvation be wrought.
Standard orthodox, Athanasian teaching.
And this is what Chalcedon affirms.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm afraid I don't see why we cannot assign individuality at the incorporeal stage. God certainly knows who we are. And it is God that resurrects us.
God can only know us if we are knowable, omnipotence is limited by possibility. So the question is in what way we remain identifiable in the absence of our body. Just to get the idea across, assume our disembodied soul would be nothing but a number: Adam is 1, Eve is 2, ..., Evensong is so-and-so many billions, ... Clearly, God can tell that 1 is not 2. But now assume that we all have the same number: Adam is 1, Eve is 1, ..., Evensong is 1, ... Then God would have no idea which of the many 1s to give Adam's resurrected body to.
All that talks about Jesus having human nature, and you being fully saved because of that, etc. is however based on the idea that all humans have the same human nature. If Evensong's nature is human and Jesus' nature is human, but they are not the same (like a house cat and a lion are both a kind of feline, but not the same kind), then that idea seems to rest on shaky grounds. But if they are all the same, then God may have trouble identifying who is who once the individuation provided by the body is gone. Now, human nature has (according to "Aristotelian" philosophy) also an incorporeal activity. After all, we say that the soul persists after death, namely in doing this. So my point here is that this incorporeal activity must either be "individual" or acquire "individuality" somehow during the transient presence of the body. Traditionally, it is said that "understanding" is the incorporeal activity in question. But then just how do we think of "understanding" per se to be either "individual" or to have acquired "individuality"? That may seem trivial, since people clearly understand differently around us. However, we are used to assigning such differences to the body: scientists might look at Einstein's brain to find hints of genius in its anatomy, or we are searching for where memory is being stored. However, if this sort of thing is or becomes, at least in part, "incorporeal", then such searches might be in vain.
Anyway, I do not really know what I'm talking about in all this. But this is my point: what is supposed to happen there is not exactly trivial.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The descriptions addended thereafter pertain to both his human and God nature. I don't know where you got the God-person from. God nature yes, God person no.
I have God-person from Chalcedon explicitly calling the person of the Jesus Christ "God the Word", and from insisting explicitly that there is only one person. Any person that can be called "God the Word" without blasphemy is undoubtedly a God-person. We call how "God the Word" appeared in our world, in His human nature, by the name Jesus Christ. You call how I appear on SoF, in my avatar form, IngoB. That does not mean that IngoB is somebody else than me. It also does not mean that IngoB is anything other than a human person, albeit one here appearing within the limits set to an avatar by the forum software.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I have been taught the complete opposite in my university studies. Only if Jesus is fully human like me (excepting sin) and fully God can salvation be wrought. Standard orthodox, Athanasian teaching. And this is what Chalcedon affirms.
That depends on what you mean by "fully human like me". If you mean "having human nature just like me", then you are right. If you mean "being a human person just like me", then you are wrong. And I mean "wrong" as in heterodox, contra Athanasian teaching, against what Chalcedon affirms. It's also rather interesting how easily you seem to have swallowed "excepting sin". A rather enormous exception that is, I would say, for a simple-minded "saved because the same"...
--------------------
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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Arrgghhhhhh! Just spent half an hour responding and trying to clean up the code but have to have dinner now so will try again later!.
[ 18. August 2012, 12:24: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
I have been reading a lot of medieval theologians and early church theologians grappling with classical philosophers. I know understand your language much better. Hell, you even argue like Aquinas - state the axiom, build the argument. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
God can only know us if we are knowable, omnipotence is limited by possibility. So the question is in what way we remain identifiable in the absence of our body.
You're thinking Aquinas here again right? Matter is the principal of individuation.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So my point here is that this incorporeal activity must either be "individual" or acquire "individuality" somehow during the transient presence of the body.
Whichever way it happens (or whether we lose individuality at all), my main point was that if the way we do it is different from the way Jesus does it because of his God nature, then something is amiss.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I have God-person from Chalcedon explicitly calling the person of the Jesus Christ "God the Word", and from insisting explicitly that there is only one person. Any person that can be called "God the Word" without blasphemy is undoubtedly a God-person. We call how "God the Word" appeared in our world, in His human nature, by the name Jesus Christ.
You are assuming the "person" is attached to his God nature, not his human nature. I don't think that is a valid assumption.
If that were the case, then he only "assumes" or "appears" to be fully human.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That depends on what you mean by "fully human like me". If you mean "having human nature just like me", then you are right. If you mean "being a human person just like me", then you are wrong. And I mean "wrong" as in heterodox, contra Athanasian teaching, against what Chalcedon affirms. It's also rather interesting how easily you seem to have swallowed "excepting sin". A rather enormous exception that is, I would say, for a simple-minded "saved because the same"...
Fair points.
Personally I don't understand how salvation is wrought in this Athanasian sense. I'm just trying to get the assumptions straight in my head on the two natures.
If Jesus was without sin, then he was not like me. If he was not like me, how am I redeemed?
Anyways......sorry to take so long to respond - been very crazy at home and work. But thanks for your posts. Good food for thought.
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
