|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: God the Son and the risen and ascended Christ
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
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?
If it doesn't, is it his fully human nature that is present "bodily" to us in the Eucharist (or any other "appearance" today)?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
It doesn't change--the ascension doesn't undo the incarnation, thank God. He's still one person, both human and divine. And in the eucharist we get the full Christ,not just one nature of him. (that would be rather--what's the heresy again--I forget--of us.)
--------------------
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
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
What Lamb Chopped said.
The way I currently see it, when we take the Eucharist we are taking the fully human, firstborn male circumcised Jew, into ourselves as the body of Christ so that we inherit the promises of the earlier covenants. At the same time we take the fully Divine Christ into ourselves in the blood of the new covenant.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I'm just querying the very affirmative language being used - not just by you, it's the usual thing. To combine the terms used in the previous posts, it seems that the full Christ, in his fully human nature, circumcised and all, is bodily present.
But he's not a bodily present human in the way that I am. Dare we risk a little dash of the metaphorical to explain the difference between Jesus and me?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I'm just querying the very affirmative language being used - not just by you, it's the usual thing. To combine the terms used in the previous posts, it seems that the full Christ, in his fully human nature, circumcised and all, is bodily present.
But he's not a bodily present human in the way that I am. Dare we risk a little dash of the metaphorical to explain the difference between Jesus and me?
Certainly. Christ, as God incarnate, risen and ascended is the completeness of both humanity and divinity; is present in both fashions according to the mystery of the nature of God-hood.
And you aren't.
What you are is, metaphorically speaking, a simple 3-D presence - occyping one place at a time, limited, flawed and comprehendable. Christ otoh occupies the many-dimensioned presence of a Creator who is both within and beyond. So you're right to say that Christ certainly is not present at the eucharist in the same way you are.
He is present within, around, and beyond the eucharist. Whereas you are occupying as much as your bottom can fit on a seat, and the oxygen you breathe! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I'm sure it's a lot more complex than that, actually. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I'm just querying the very affirmative language being used - not just by you, it's the usual thing. To combine the terms used in the previous posts, it seems that the full Christ, in his fully human nature, circumcised and all, is bodily present.
But he's not a bodily present human in the way that I am. Dare we risk a little dash of the metaphorical to explain the difference between Jesus and me?
There's a connection between the kingdom of God and where we are, when it's God's will that there should be. We're connecting with the unseen risen Christ, fully human and fully Divine, in the Eucharist.
The mystery is how. Some say it's through remembrance, some say that transubstantiation occurs.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
And some say that where two or three are gathered in his name...
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
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."
IME, traditions that see Christ's saving work as simply taking on a human body so that he could have a human body to sacrifice on the Cross (whether this is thought to be his paying a debt or taking punishment due humanity) tend to miss the significance of the Resurrection and Ascension - and, again IME, tend to forget that he really is still as human as he's always been since the Annunciation. The importance of that is that we have assurance that what happened to Christ in his flesh after he died is what God plans for us as well. Obviously Christ's being God is something we'll never attain, and it makes a difference between us and Christ, but just as Christ's human flesh was raised and transformed, so will ours be. I think that's why Paul says if Christ isn't raised, our faith is in vain.
To paraphrase St. Irenaus, God the Son became like us in order to make us like him. He's taken our human nature so that, being joined to his divine nature, it could become imperishable, and this has implications for our human nature as well. (Somehow. It's a Mystery!)
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
I'll bite: Why is "Christ's being God... something we'll never attain"?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
Because we're creatures; we can never be God, God being uncreated, eternal, infinite, etc. We share in Christ's divine nature by being united to Christ, but that's different from our becoming gods.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I'm just querying the very affirmative language being used - not just by you, it's the usual thing. To combine the terms used in the previous posts, it seems that the full Christ, in his fully human nature, circumcised and all, is bodily present.
But he's not a bodily present human in the way that I am. Dare we risk a little dash of the metaphorical to explain the difference between Jesus and me?
Certainly. Christ, as God incarnate, risen and ascended is the completeness of both humanity and divinity; is present in both fashions according to the mystery of the nature of God-hood.
And you aren't.
What you are is, metaphorically speaking, a simple 3-D presence - occyping one place at a time, limited, flawed and comprehendable. Christ otoh occupies the many-dimensioned presence of a Creator who is both within and beyond. So you're right to say that Christ certainly is not present at the eucharist in the same way you are.
He is present within, around, and beyond the eucharist. Whereas you are occupying as much as your bottom can fit on a seat, and the oxygen you breathe!
I'm sure it's a lot more complex than that, actually.
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.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Sorry, but I don't see anythinbg in the Bible to say that Christ is bodily present in bread and wine.
What I do see is that Christ is bodily with the Father and from Heaven he shall come bodily to reign at the second coming.
In the meantime he, together with the Father, is constantly present within us by his Holy Spirit. This presence within is not dependent on any sacramental elements or ceremony.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sorry, but I don't see anythinbg in the Bible to say that Christ is bodily present in bread and wine.
What I do see is that Christ is bodily with the Father and from Heaven he shall come bodily to reign at the second coming.
In the meantime he, together with the Father, is constantly present within us by his Holy Spirit. This presence within is not dependent on any sacramental elements or ceremony.
I think you have to do some serious theological gymnastics to get around:
quote:
John 6
I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”
[ 06. August 2012, 20:58: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sorry, but I don't see anythinbg in the Bible to say that Christ is bodily present in bread and wine.
What I do see is that Christ is bodily with the Father and from Heaven he shall come bodily to reign at the second coming.
In the meantime he, together with the Father, is constantly present within us by his Holy Spirit. This presence within is not dependent on any sacramental elements or ceremony.
Bodily with God? How does that work? Am I bodily with God, or is Jesus bodily with God in a different way?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sorry, but I don't see anythinbg in the Bible to say that Christ is bodily present in bread and wine.
What I do see is that Christ is bodily with the Father and from Heaven he shall come bodily to reign at the second coming.
In the meantime he, together with the Father, is constantly present within us by his Holy Spirit. This presence within is not dependent on any sacramental elements or ceremony.
I think you have to do some serious theological gymnastics to get around:
quote:
John 6
I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”
52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
53Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.”
Yes he's also a vine, a light and a load of water.
That doesn't mean he lives in my garden, in a lightbulb or in the sink in my kitchen.
It's a metaphor.
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Originally posted by Garasu: quote:
Why is "Christ's being God... something we'll never attain"?
Originally posted by churchgeek: quote:
Because we're creatures; we can never be God, God being uncreated, eternal, infinite, etc. We share in Christ's divine nature by being united to Christ, but that's different from our becoming gods.
But was Jesus (qua Jesus) "uncreated, eternal, infinite, etc."? We presumably believe that, as fully human, he had a beginning and an end; that he did not have knowledge unavailable to his time, he could not have run a mile in less than a second...
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Is "bodily with God" a metaphor?
Only if you believe the tomb is still occupied.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes he's also a vine, a light and a load of water.
That doesn't mean he lives in my garden, in a lightbulb or in the sink in my kitchen.
It's a metaphor.
So you don't think the word "real" is important in this passage? Also isn't "it's a metaphor" the same argument used by modernists to deny the incarnation and resurrection?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Originally posted by Garasu: quote:
Why is "Christ's being God... something we'll never attain"?
Originally posted by churchgeek: quote:
Because we're creatures; we can never be God, God being uncreated, eternal, infinite, etc. We share in Christ's divine nature by being united to Christ, but that's different from our becoming gods.
But was Jesus (qua Jesus) "uncreated, eternal, infinite, etc."? We presumably believe that, as fully human, he had a beginning and an end; that he did not have knowledge unavailable to his time, he could not have run a mile in less than a second...
Right... I'm not sure how that refutes the idea we don't become God. Christ never became God, he always has been God and always will be. There is no "becoming God." Jesus of Nazareth is the human being God the Son became. There was no Jesus of Nazareth apart from the Incarnation of God. Jesus of Nazareth didn't become God; he came into existence because God became human.
He didn't have an end, though, precisely because, through the hypostatic union, he was God. That's the part that saves us and raises us from the grave as well. So, no, Jesus didn't have an end, and neither do we.
That doesn't mean all of this is easy to understand. We tend to understand patterns, and the Incarnation was a one-off. Also, God as Trinity is a one-off: there are no other trinities. So it's hard for us to understand. We have nothing else to relate it to, except by analogy and metaphor.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
If you exist bodily you must have a location, yes? So where would that be?
This is one that puzzles me, as well. In the end, I have to take it on faith that there's some piece we don't have. Possibly it has to do with the transformation of a resurrected body; we're told our mortal body is like a seed that dies and a plant grows from it. The plant is very unlike the seed. The accounts of Jesus post-Resurrection have him walking through walls, but standing on floors; bearing scars you can touch; going unrecognized and being recognized; appearing and disappearing; eating fish and bread; and ascending into the clouds. WTF?
Again, it's a one-off in our experience. So far we have little if any experience with other resurrected humans (possible exception, depending on your theology, might be Marian apparitions; she's supposed by some churches to have been raised bodily into heaven; other churches reject the idea, so YMMV).
And since we tend to believe people's souls or spirits "go to heaven" when they die, but since souls/spirits are immaterial, heaven isn't either, this poses a problem for the idea of a physical body also being there. It made more sense in antiquity, but they were wrong about what the cosmos is like.
This is probably something we'll never be able to figure out until we too are raised. I'm OK with that. I figure if the hereafter, which we call heaven, is something we could understand now, it would probably make for a miserable eternity.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Evensong : quote:
God the Son relates to Jesus the Man as defined by the creed of the Council of Chalcedon (fully man, fully God) but what about after the resurrection?
Is there are problem with the concept of "after" when considering an eternal being existing outside time?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I'm just querying the very affirmative language being used - not just by you, it's the usual thing. To combine the terms used in the previous posts, it seems that the full Christ, in his fully human nature, circumcised and all, is bodily present.
But he's not a bodily present human in the way that I am. Dare we risk a little dash of the metaphorical to explain the difference between Jesus and me?
Be as metaphorical as you like. The trouble here is that we don't even know what our OWN bodies (and spirits/minds/souls/wotsits) are, let alone what Christ's is. We don't know the limits and extent of our own human nature. You may yourself be more than three dimensional; if our perception has three-dimensional limits, how would we ever find out?
And that's just us. With Christ you can add the double complication of saying what effect a) his deity and b) his resurrection has on his physical/otherwise presence. Oh dear. Way, way above my paygrade.
To say categorically "Christ's body can or cannot do such-and-such" is to say something that we do not and cannot know. The best we can do is to rely on what witnesses we have (yes of course, Scripture) and what wisdom we possess (such as the ecumenical councils and the creedal warning not to divide the two natures--as if Christ were a sandwich, instead of one being!)
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes he's also a vine, a light and a load of water.
That doesn't mean he lives in my garden, in a lightbulb or in the sink in my kitchen.
It's a metaphor.
So you don't think the word "real" is important in this passage? Also isn't "it's a metaphor" the same argument used by modernists to deny the incarnation and resurrection?
Sure they do. Doesn't mean they're right.
Identifying metaphors can be a tricky business, but it's completely impossible to suggest that Jesus didn't use them and so couldn't be using one here. Every parable is a metaphor: the Kingdom of Heaven is like...
EDIT: Also, I'm not at all convinced the word 'real' means what you think it means. When Jesus talks about someone never going hungry again or never being thirsty again, it doesn't bear any resemblance to the food and drink I'm familiar with. If Jesus is 'real' food then everything else I consume clearly ISN'T 'real', which actually points against him being bread and wine, not for it.
[ 07. August 2012, 03:39: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Yes he's also a vine, a light and a load of water.
That doesn't mean he lives in my garden, in a lightbulb or in the sink in my kitchen.
It's a metaphor.
So you don't think the word "real" is important in this passage? Also isn't "it's a metaphor" the same argument used by modernists to deny the incarnation and resurrection?
Sure they do. Doesn't mean they're right.
Identifying metaphors can be a tricky business, but it's completely impossible to suggest that Jesus didn't use them and so couldn't be using one here. Every parable is a metaphor: the Kingdom of Heaven is like...
EDIT: Also, I'm not at all convinced the word 'real' means what you think it means. When Jesus talks about someone never going hungry again or never being thirsty again, it doesn't bear any resemblance to the food and drink I'm familiar with. If Jesus is 'real' food then everything else I consume clearly ISN'T 'real', which actually points against him being bread and wine, not for it.
If it's all metaphorical, why is it described as "a hard teaching", and why did it put off so many of Jesus' followers?
Incidentally, the use of the word "like" makes it a simile, not a metaphor.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But he's not a bodily present human in the way that I am. Dare we risk a little dash of the metaphorical to explain the difference between Jesus and me?
Certainly. Christ, as God incarnate, risen and ascended is the completeness of both humanity and divinity; is present in both fashions according to the mystery of the nature of God-hood.
And you aren't.
That's all very nice, and I really like the idea that Christ is beyond and around and just under the edge of the eucharist and all that, but you've dropped the fully human and bodily present circumcised Jewish male stuff. That's the stuff I'm really good at - not the Jewish bit, but I can be massively bodily present. In fact my bodily presence is more impressive than you know who's.
I haven't dropped anything, I think. To my mind the phrase 'completeness of humanity' rather covers anything that a male Jew might be, in the case of Jesus, a male Jew. I guess a lot depends on how literally one takes the idea. As Christ is ascended, I suppose I don't expect his human shape and form to be hovering around the place because I know that form is elsewhere. I suppose, too, being a Trinitarian I expect the fullness of God to be present in every person of the Trinity, including the Spirit promised to us by Christ as his continuing powerful presence.
So, maybe in the limited literal sense of a finite human body you are evidently present in a way Jesus isn't. But not in a pervasive, all compassing way the Creator of the world we live in, is.
Mind you, if what you mean is, wouldn't it be nice to have the resurrected body of the Christ sitting with us, visible to the eye, in the same way you would be present in a room, yeah, I'd like that too. I'm sure his disciples would've preferred it as well.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
If you exist bodily you must have a location, yes? So where would that be?
This is one that puzzles me, as well.
The key to the problem is that, in addition to the material universe which the scientists can weigh and measure and theorise about, there is an immaterial universe. If one believes in a God “out there” (and not merely something within us like the ground of our being), as I do, it is obvious that He does not exist in the material universe, that there are no atoms or molecules in His makeup, since that would pin Him down to one specific location, whereas theists believe that He is present everywhere.
The vital question is posed by Keith Ward in his book “Why there almost certainly is a God -Doubting Dawkins” : Can a conscious mind exist without a physical body to support it? I believe this is the test that divides most Christians (and other theists, Jewish, Muslim or other) from most atheists. The former must answer Yes; the latter generally answer No.
Paul in 1 Cor 15 discusses the nature of the resurrected body. It is spiritual and imperishable, not natural and perishable. After death we have a spiritual body, but it is still human. So after his death Jesus similarly had a spiritual body, which was still human as well as being divine. In 1 Cor 15.3-8 Paul states that he was told that Jesus “appeared” on a number of occasions, including the appearance to himself (which he regards as of the same nature as the earlier appearances he mentions, but it is not suggested was accompanied by a physical body). (I suspect that the evangelists, writing 20-40 years later, embroidered their accounts with details which were intended to emphasise the reality of Christ’s resurrection by crediting him with a physical body, which Paul, who presumably got his information from Peter when he spent a fortnight with him in Jerusalem some three to six years after the Crucifixion, does not suggest.)
Appearances of Jesus in modern times, such as His well-known appearance to the late Hugh Montefiore which converted him in an instant from being wholly Jewish to being a Christian (though still Jewish as he emphasised in his book “On being a Jewish Christian”), take a similar form to the appearances that Paul lists. While He may not visibly appear at the Eucharist, He is present, and we believe especially present in the bread and the wine.
There is no need to postulate that, after His Resurrection, Jesus had a physical or material body which in some unscientific way did not prevent him from being present everywhere, and especially at every celebration of the Eucharist. What happened to the body in the tomb then? I found this a difficult obstacle to overcome in my conclusions as to what happened; but the well-known Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner(1874-1958) provides an explanation that is so plausible that I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it is right:
“.... deliberate imposture [i.e. the theft of the body by the disciples with the intention of proclaiming that Jesus had risen from the dead] is not the substance out of which the religion of millions of mankind is created. We must assume that the owner of the tomb, Joseph of Arimathea, thought it unfitting that one who had been crucified should remain in his own ancestral tomb. Joseph of Arimathea therefore secretly removed the body at the close of Sabbath and buried it in an unknown grave; and since he was, according to the gospels, “one of the disciples of Jesus”, or “one who was looking for the kingdom of God”, there was some measure of truth in the report spread by the Jews, though it was, in the main, only the malicious invention of enemies unable to explain the “miracle”.
The fact of the women going to anoint the body is proof that neither they nor the other disciples expected the resurrection, and that Jesus had not told them beforehand that he would rise again. ...
There can be no question but that some of the ardent Galilaeans saw their lord and Messiah in a vision. That the vision was spiritual and not material is evident from the way Paul compares his own vision with those seen by Peter and James and the other apostles. As to his own vision, we know from the description in the Acts of the Apostles and from his own account that what he saw was no vision of flesh and blood but a vision “born of the light“, “an heavenly vision in which God had revealed in me his Son”. Consequently the vision seen by the disciples, a vision which Paul deliberately compares with his own, was a spiritual vision and no more. This vision became the basis of Christianity: it was treated as faithful proof of the resurrection of Jesus, of his Messiahship, and of the near approach of the kingdom of heaven. But for this vision the memory of Jesus might have been wholly forgotten, or preserved only in a collection of lofty ethical precepts and miracle stories.”
That is in my view a convincing explanation of what happened, except that there was more than one vision if Paul is to be believed - and Paul is one witness who I am sure believed that what he wrote was true, and he received the tradition from Peter, who is another witness whose evidence to Paul about the appearances is virtually certain to have been what Peter believed to be true. Joseph of Arimathea ordered his gardener to remove the body from the tomb and bury it elsewhere as soon as the Sabbath ended (which would have been at sunset on the day after the crucifixion, Easter Saturday in modern parlance). The gardener rolled away the stone which closed the tomb, and did just that, unbeknownst to the disciples; but he left the two pieces of linen cloth in the tomb, as there was no point in burying them, and he believed them to be the property of his master Joseph. Peter and John found them (Jn 20.5-7), and they are now at Turin and Oviedo - the evidence for the genuineness of the Shroud and the Sudarium has become increasingly convincing in the last 30 years.
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I never thought I'd encounter someone who believes in the real presence but rejects the bodily resurrection of Jesus. You really do learn something new everyday.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Bizarre. Questions-- if this iswhat you think happened, what prevented Joseph, a member of the high council, from informing his fellow council members of the removal of the body as soon as he heard of their confusion? For thatmatter, how did the gardener get past a sealed entrance guarded by soldiers? All unbeknownst to them, too . . . And what would any good Jew, master or servant, want with cloths that had held a dead and unressurected body? That's about the strongest form of ritual contamination there is.
--------------------
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
Stupid me started a thread when I don't have proper time to devote to it. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Evensong : quote:
God the Son relates to Jesus the Man as defined by the creed of the Council of Chalcedon (fully man, fully God) but what about after the resurrection?
Is there are problem with the concept of "after" when considering an eternal being existing outside time?
God the Son is the eternal being.
God the Man is not.
So how are they squared if God the Man still exists sitting at the right hand of the Father now?
If God the Man is still fully human and still bodily alive and sitting at the right hand of God the Father, then I have to assume he still has two different natures - one human, one God.
If this is so, then I can only assume we too will be assumed into heaven as Jesus was (bodily and still fully human) in the New Creation.
That might work.
But the Biblical witness seems to say it will be New Creation on earth.
So that doesn't work.
So I'm still confused.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Questions-- if this is what you think happened, what prevented Joseph, a member of the high council, from informing his fellow council members of the removal of the body as soon as he heard of their confusion? For that matter, how did the gardener get past a sealed entrance guarded by soldiers? All unbeknownst to them, too . . . And what would any good Jew, master or servant, want with cloths that had held a dead and unressurected body? That's about the strongest form of ritual contamination there is.
You have to picture the scene. The body of Jesus would have been taken down from the Cross late on the Friday. All four gospels refer to Joseph of Arimathaea, and it seems that he organised this, with the permission of the Roman authorities, rather than see the body of Jesus hang on the Cross throughout the Sabbath. This is the only place in the New Testament in which he is mentioned, and we do not know what, if any, was his relationship with the disciples. He was rich and a member of the Sanhedrin: they were poor and from the country province of Galilee.
He was in a position to use a tomb close to the site of the Crucifixion - if the sites are correctly positioned in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, less than 50 yards away - and as time was short he had the body laid on the stone shelf in the tomb (now covered with a marble slab) on a 14 ft long linen cloth which was folded over it, and also put in the tomb the smaller piece of cloth, the sudarium, which had been wrapped round Jesus’ head to prevent too much blood getting on to those who took the body down (that the two pieces of cloth, which had quite separate histories after the Resurrection, were used on the same head is established with virtual certainty: see http://www.shroud.com/heraseng.pdf). That was all there was time to do before the Sabbath began at sundown on the Friday. One or more of the women accompanying Jesus saw where His body was laid. It may be that the story of the guards on the tomb is apocryphal. As to why Joseph did not tell the other members of the Sanhedrin what he had done, perhaps there is something in the statement in Jn.19.38 that he was “in fear of the Jews” because of his respect for Jesus, or perhaps he did not care to tell them that he had been in touch with the Roman procurator.
There was enough light after the Sabbath ended at sundown on the Saturday for the body to be reburied on Joseph’s instructions. It was not necessary for him to tell the disciples. On the following day, Easter Sunday, the appearance of Jesus to the disciples so filled them with joy that they did not need to go to Joseph and ask him what had happened; and it may be that they, lower class Galileans, did not care to trouble such an important member of the Jewish establishment.
As to the cloths, it may be that Joseph would not have wanted them; but to the disciples or to the women they held much more meaning and were preserved, irrespective of possible ritual contamination, one being sent to King Abgar of Edessa not long afterwards and the other being placed in a chest which remained in or near Jerusalem until the 7th century, when it was taken to Spain to avoid being captured by the Persians, and eventually to Oviedo, which remained in Christian hands and was never taken by the Moors.
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).
As to Arethosemyfeet, do you not believe that Christ is present at every celebration of the Eucharist? Not perhaps literally in the bread and wine, because his presence is not physical; but the sharing of the bread and wine among the communicants, to many people, makes his presence more real.
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
As to Arethosemyfeet, do you not believe that Christ is present at every celebration of the Eucharist? Not perhaps literally in the bread and wine, because his presence is not physical; but the sharing of the bread and wine among the communicants, to many people, makes his presence more real.
No, I believe that Christ is "literally" present in the consecrated elements. I also believe that Christ was bodily resurrected on Easter morning. Without the bodily resurrection Christianity doesn't work. Christ's conquest over death only makes sense if he is raised to a recognisable form of life, eating, breathing, with wounds in hand and side. To deny the physical resurrection is to make the risen Christ no more than an apparition, a ghost or a hallucination.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Does "literally" mean something different from literally, that is, when the inverted commas are missing?
When Jesus is "literally" present does that mean actually, physically, bodily, really and in every respect just like the other human beings there are present? Or is it more like when the cyclist, Jason Kenny, was literally on fire last night. That is, not actually on fire at all.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Does "literally" mean something different from literally, that is, when the inverted commas are missing?
When Jesus is "literally" present does that mean actually, physically, bodily, really and in every respect just like the other human beings there are present? Or is it more like when the cyclist, Jason Kenny, was literally on fire last night. That is, not actually on fire at all.
"Literally" was in quotation marks because I was quoting directly from the previous post. I believe Christ is literally present in the Eucharist.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
And what does that mean, then? How is his presence different from mine?
I don't know the hows, I would only be speculating.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Is literally a good word, then? When I'm in church you can bounce light off me, you can hear my stomach gurgling, you can slap me across the face and you can even get a blood sample. I am physically, really, bodily, actually and literally there in the building.
When we consider the presence of Jesus Christ, wouldn't it be helpful to use other words? You may want to assert very strongly that he is involved in some way, but literally present?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Literally. As in, not metaphorically, not just spiritually, not true-because-I-believe it, but really, substantially there. I'm not a theologian, I couldn't say whether I mean transubstantiation or consubstantiation or something else, but I believe that Jesus meant what he said about being the living bread, he meant what he said about the broken bread and cup of wine being his body and his blood.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
But clearly not really, substantially there in the sense that I am, which is what words of that sort usually mean. You're using them to describe a sort of presence that is not obviously real or substantial.
I realise that you're wanting to assert something that is really important to you, and strong words seem to offer welcome emphasis, just as it probably felt right to the commentator to say that Jason Kenny was literally on fire, but he wasn't, and I don't think the presence of Jesus is quite as substantial as mine.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
But clearly not really, substantially there in the sense that I am, which is what words of that sort usually mean. You're using them to describe a sort of presence that is not obviously real or substantial.
I realise that you're wanting to assert something that is really important to you, and strong words seem to offer welcome emphasis, just as it probably felt right to the commentator to say that Jason Kenny was literally on fire, but he wasn't, and I don't think the presence of Jesus is quite as substantial as mine.
You are, of course, welcome to your opinion.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Yes, but I haven't got as far as expressing my opinion yet, I'm still trying to understand yours. The presence of Jesus in the eucharist is clearly not like the presence of us worshippers, and it seems odd to affirm his presence with words that actually seem to refer precisely to those qualities which his presence lacks.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Biblical angels are usually in male human form. They speak. They have legs and feet. They can stand, walk, or sit. They hold things in their hands. They blow trumpets. They're strong and wise, and they fly swiftly. They belong to God's kingdom. Are they real?
Is it too far fetched to consider the possibility that God's kingdom might not only be real, but also be able to connect with the world?
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Biblical angels are usually in male human form. They speak. They have legs and feet. They can stand, walk, or sit. They hold things in their hands. They blow trumpets. They're strong and wise, and they fly swiftly. They belong to God's kingdom. Are they real?
Is it too far fetched to consider the possibility that God's kingdom might not only be real, but also be able to connect with the world?
I don't believe a word of that. I'm not convinced that angels are usually in male human form - Biblical accounts have them flying, speaking like thunder, shining, transporting, being indistinguishable from strangers and far more. I don't think they exist, and I'm not sure the authors of texts that describe them ever thought they exist. I don't think God's kingdom is an alternative reality alongside this, and I don't think alternative realities make sense outside of fiction.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Biblical angels are usually in male human form.
Only if you ignore the cherubim and the seraphim.
And if we can believe Ezekiel they are hard to ignore...
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Biblical angels are usually in male human form.
Only if you ignore the cherubim and the seraphim.
And if we can believe Ezekiel they are hard to ignore...
Are cherubim and seraphim angels?
Where angels appear in the world, is it not the case that it's usually in male human form?
quote:
Originally posted by hatless: being indistinguishable from strangers
You said it.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Are cherubim and seraphim angels?
Oooooh.....
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Is it too far fetched to consider the possibility that God's kingdom might not only be real, but also be able to connect with the world?
That’s the point I was trying to make yesterday. God’s kingdom is indeed real, but it is not of this world. As I said, God cannot have any atoms or molecules in his makeup (nor can Christ in his resurrected body), but He exists and He can communicate with us, mind to mind (mentally or in audible words or in visible form). If you cannot answer Yes to Keith Ward’s question (his exact words at p.19, which I quoted from memory yesterday, are “The question of God is the question of whether conscious mind can exist without any physical body”), you cannot be a Christian (or Jew or Muslim) in the normal theist sense recorded in the Bible and the Qur’an.
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
