Thread: God the Son = Son of God? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020201

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Was Jesus the second person of the Trinity?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Was Jesus the second person of the Trinity?

Yes.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
[Smile] OKayyyy. The second person of the Trinity became Jesus? I.e. was solely expressed as Jesus from conception?

And we might as well regard the second person of the Trinity as Jesus PRIOR to Incarnation?

[ 01. June 2017, 10:00: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I don't think of it in terms of the trinity. I see God and HS as the same - that which is love and holds the whole caboodle together in love.

Jesus, to me, was a man who was completely full of God (God's Spirit) and never sinned. He was perfect, even 'tho tempted as we are. So he's the 'best' human who ever lived. Could there be another, was there ever another? Yes , there could, but maybe circumstances meant Jesus became the only one we know of.

Follow him and learn from him, he's worth it.

Was he resurrected? I don't know, I hope so.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
And we might as well regard the second person of the Trinity as Jesus PRIOR to Incarnation?


Isn't that what separates standard Trinitarianism from something like modalism, it's not just that God decided for a limited period of time to incarnate himself as a human(as in modalism), but rather that the Son had existed right from the beginning, as part of the Godhead, even before he was incarnated?
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
The second person of the Trinity took on flesh at the conception of Jesus. Unlike the incorrect teaching of kenosis, and according to Paul's teaching, he didn't lay aside his divinity but rather added the form of a servant to his unchanging nature as God, becoming fully man as well as being fully divine.

At the resurrection his physical body was transformed into a resurrected spiritual body which he then took 'back' to Heaven where the man Jesus, eternally united with divinity, sits as God the only Begotten at the right hand of the Father.

[ 01. June 2017, 11:47: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
...sorry, I thought this had all been sorted 1600 years ago [Smile]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
And we might as well regard the second person of the Trinity as Jesus PRIOR to Incarnation?


Isn't that what separates standard Trinitarianism from something like modalism, it's not just that God decided for a limited period of time to incarnate himself as a human(as in modalism), but rather that the Son had existed right from the beginning, as part of the Godhead, even before he was incarnated?
exactly.


quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Unlike the incorrect teaching of kenosis, and according to Paul's teaching, he didn't lay aside his divinity but rather added the form of a servant to his unchanging nature as God, becoming fully man as well as being fully divine.

I think this is a misunderstanding of kenosis.

Kenosis holds that in the incarnation, Jesus set aside what we think of as the attributes or powers of divinity-- the "omnis"-- something that is evident from a cursory reading of the gospels, that Jesus was limited in knowledge & power, only able to know/do what he rec'd from the Father.

But kenosis would agree that the incarnate Christ is still "fully God". He has retained the divine will, the mind and heart of God. I think this is consistent with Phil. 2:5-8:

quote:
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

The point here seems to be the opposite of what Mudfrog is suggesting: that Jesus emptied himself of the "omnis" and yet is still fully God. Which I think changes the whole way we think about what it means to be God. It suggests to me that the "omnis" are secondary attributes/abilities-- things that God has, but which are not ultimately defining. Much like you can have red hair, but when your hair turns gray, you're still you.

According to Phil. 2, in my reading anyway, the defining characteristic of divinity-- the thing Jesus never gives up-- is sacrificial, self-giving love.

[ 01. June 2017, 15:38: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The second person of the Trinity became Jesus? I.e. was solely expressed as Jesus from conception?

And we might as well regard the second person of the Trinity as Jesus PRIOR to Incarnation?

The Word was with God in the beginning and the Word was God. That Word became flesh.
So Jesus is the same being as the second person of the Trinity, in so far as we can apply any language of 'same' and 'being' to God.

The Chalcedonian definition has it that Jesus is one person with two natures, a divine nature and a human nature.
As I understand it, the easiest way to explain this is to look at the grammar. Talking about persons or beings is addressing questions about which or how many. To say Jesus is one person is to say that the answer to the question 'which being is the human being conceived by Mary and which dwelt in her womb, etc etc' and the answer to the question 'which being is the second person of the Trinity, the son of the Father,' are the same being.
Talking about natures is addressing questions about what kind of thing something is. So saying Jesus has a human nature and a divine nature is to say that he is simultaneously a human kind of thing (with all the properties and capabilities that humans have, which he has in a human way) and
that he is a divine kind of thing (with all the properties and capabilities that God has, which he exercises in the way God does). Which or how many: one person. What is he? Human and divine.

A chair is wooden and chair-shaped. So you can have a wooden thing in a room, and a chair-shaped thing in a room, and yet have only one thing in that room.

When Jesus took decisions he took them simultaneously through the process that humans do and through the process that God does (in so far as it is meaningful to talk of a process of God making decisions which is not much). (The heresy that denies this is called monothelitism.)
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
This past Easter I read The Islamic Jesus by Mustafa Akyol. He makes a very strong argument that the doctrine of the Trinity, as we know it today, would have been foreign to the early Jewish Christian community which died out about the time Mohammad wrote the Qumran. Much of the Qumran understanding of Jesus comes from this deceased Jewish Christian Community.

Mustafa would say it is one thing to say Jesus is God's son, even the Christ, but quite another to say Jesus is one of the persons of the Triune God.

The Triune God comes out of a polytheistic Greek/Roman world view that Akyol says is not actually seen in the Gospels, but is introduced by Paul. To be sure, there is the triune formula of baptism in Matthew, but that was written in a post-Pauline world (we can get into all sorts of arguments as to whether Jesus actually said those words).

This side of eternity I would have to say I do not know how to get beyond this tension. Jesus is God's son, that is true. I will just leave it at that.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Since when has kenosis not been standard, mainstream Christian doctrine?

As far as I know it's never been defined as such by any major Council, but in the way Cliffdweller defines it my understanding is that it's been the prevailing small o and Big O o/Orthodox view.

Either Mudfrog has misunderstood it or he's putting forward something non-mainstream.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Mudfrog--

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...sorry, I thought this had all been sorted 1600 years ago [Smile]

Well, you know the Ship. Gotta rehash it, over, and over, and over.
[Biased]
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Since when has kenosis not been standard, mainstream Christian doctrine?

As far as I know it's never been defined as such by any major Council, but in the way Cliffdweller defines it my understanding is that it's been the prevailing small o and Big O o/Orthodox view.

Either Mudfrog has misunderstood it or he's putting forward something non-mainstream.

Well it all depends doesn't it?

What is your definition of kenosis?

Would it accord with the poetic 'emptied himself of all but love?' which actually contradicts Wesleys' other wonderful line 'Veiled in flesh the Godhead see, hail the'incarnate Deity'.

If Kenosis is defined as "Christ's 'laying aside' of certain divine attributes in the incarnation' (Alister McGrath) then I would reject it.

There is nothing in the Philippian hymn that suggests laying any divine attribute aside - it mentions no divine attributes at all. What it does say is that he made himself nothing in the sense of humiliation and status.

From my limited reading it seems that the earlier form of kenosis was that either Jesus used his divine attributes in secret (unlikely) or that he simply chose not to use them.

I have to say however that there are occasions when Jesus appeared to read the minds of his detractors, so there was a bit of omniscience going on.

The other objection to the later form of kenosis - i.e. that he laid aside all his divine attributes in order to become fully human - i that it goes against the immutability of God.

It seems to be that in Jesus the Word of God became flesh - he put on the form of a servant without actually becoming only a servant.

If Jesus was merely man from conception to resurrection, then who was on the cross?
If a man, great, he represents us.
But if he's not divine too - if God the Son did not die - then he cannot represent God for us as Saviour.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Mudfrog--

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...sorry, I thought this had all been sorted 1600 years ago [Smile]

Well, you know the Ship. Gotta rehash it, over, and over, and over.
[Biased]

Particularly as you, Mudfrog, seem to think that orthodox kenosis as explicated orthodoxly by cliffdweller from Phil. 2:5-8 is wrong. It was right 1600 years ago and it's right now. You aren't. God (the Son Person) in the flesh was qualitatively (morally) God substance in nature without any quantitative (morally neutral) God substance attributes (the omnis).

One should always be positive before being critical, but hey: The Person of God the Son DID partake of humanity, of being fully human, of suffering and serving when He had the rights of God, to what extent is the question of this OP.

You are coming from the most reasonable premiss that God the Son could not collapse in to an insensate ovum, utterly powerless, without consciousness, without will, I infer.

I feel that too. Most strongly.

How could a trans-infinite, pre-eternal, unmeasurable, immeasurable, a-measurable, dimensionless, non-spatial, non-temporal Person(-al being) inseparable from two others of the same ineffable, transcendent substance become as infinitesimal, constrained, oblivious as a cell?

On this one otherwise irrelevant world out of many in our galaxy, many ... many in the visible universe, many ... many ... many ... practically infinite in the inflated universe of the infinite in the eternal multiverse.

BUT the givens in the NT and their orthodox corollaries in the creed SEEM to demand that God the Son left the store completely to become a pinhead of protoplasm only once.

I'm bound to reiterate as I reply to all if I may, Stetson and particularly Dafyd who is being most rigorously theological.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I may be revealing myself to be thick, but aren't Mudfrog and Cliffdweller talking cross-purposes. It seems to me that the former is deprecating a version of kenosis that he doesn't agree with, and the latter is advocating a version of kenosis which is fundamentally different from that version, and which he may well agree with.


These days I find meditating on Trinitarian theology profoundly nourishing at some very deep level. However, I tend to approach it with open palms, and from the starting point that the bits that are too deep for me, the great saints of the C4 understood better than I ever will.

[ 02. June 2017, 10:10: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Nicely put for a fellow thicko Enoch.

Dafyd

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The second person of the Trinity became Jesus? I.e. was solely expressed as Jesus from conception?

And we might as well regard the second person of the Trinity as Jesus PRIOR to Incarnation?

The Word was with God in the beginning and the Word was God. That Word became flesh.
So Jesus is the same being as the second person of the Trinity, in so far as we can apply any language of 'same' and 'being' to God.

I have to keep gnawing at this bone. Sorry. So Jesus is the same subjective, personal being, centre of consciousness as the second person of the Trinity? The centre of consciousness OF the second person of the Trinity became (fully and completely transposed, migrated, collapsed, moved to) the human centre of consciousness Jesus? After months of non-consciousness and more of consciousness development?

Or AS WELL AS?

The second person of the Trinity added a human being to His person? Such that that human being remembered being God, not 'just' by nature but in Person? YHWH, ego eimi. Seeing Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Which He also would have done if He had become omni-less Jesus INSTEAD OF omni God, but in the same continuous consciousness but for the oblivion of the womb and pre-identity.

The Chalcedonian definition has it that Jesus is one person with two natures, a divine nature and a human nature.

Which person? I believe Catholic reasoning IS that the Person and the person are different beings. That they therefore(?) do not share the same consciousness. Or do they?

As I understand it, the easiest way to explain this is to look at the grammar. Talking about persons or beings is addressing questions about which or how many. To say Jesus is one person is to say that the answer to the question 'which being is the human being conceived by Mary and which dwelt in her womb, etc etc' and the answer to the question 'which being is the second person of the Trinity, the son of the Father,' are the same being.

The same continuous consciousness then. Shared by a Person and a person. Serially. Not in parallel? Not in overlap, intersection, superposition?

Talking about natures is addressing questions about what kind of thing something is. So saying Jesus has a human nature and a divine nature is to say that he is simultaneously a human kind of thing (with all the properties and capabilities that humans have, which he has in a human way) and that he is a divine kind of thing (with all the properties and capabilities that God has, which he exercises in the way God does). Which or how many: one person. What is he? Human and divine.

Aye. Was the person a subset of the Person? Did the person intersect with the Person with the natures of each and a shared consciousness? Or a NEW consciousness. Which I believe is Catholic reasoning. If a new, personal consciousness, then was that perichoretic with the Personal consciousness.

A chair is wooden and chair-shaped. So you can have a wooden thing in a room, and a chair-shaped thing in a room, and yet have only one thing in that room.

Aye. Jesus was human and divine. And by your analogy one consciousness that had been omni-God but then wasn't?

When Jesus took decisions he took them simultaneously through the process that humans do and through the process that God does (in so far as it is meaningful to talk of a process of God making decisions which is not much). (The heresy that denies this is called monothelitism.)

Aye, He had two WILLS. A nature doesn't have a will does it? A consciousness does. There were therefore two consciousnesses involved? Or the divine nature imparted another will in, subject to one consciousness?



 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
And we might as well regard the second person of the Trinity as Jesus PRIOR to Incarnation?


Isn't that what separates standard Trinitarianism from something like modalism, it's not just that God decided for a limited period of time to incarnate himself as a human(as in modalism), but rather that the Son had existed right from the beginning, as part of the Godhead, even before he was incarnated?
Do you mean a one-person or a Person of the three-Person, one-substance God didn't wear a human mask, as opposed to a Person of the three-Person, one substance God becoming human serially or even in parallel?

[ 02. June 2017, 14:05: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So Jesus is the same subjective, personal being, centre of consciousness as the second person of the Trinity? The centre of consciousness OF the second person of the Trinity became (fully and completely transposed, migrated, collapsed, moved to) the human centre of consciousness Jesus? After months of non-consciousness and more of consciousness development?

Or AS WELL AS?

According to the Chalcedonian definition, the distinction of each nature is not taken away by the union but the property of each nature is preserved.
In short, Jesus is a fully human being, and also is God. Since human beings are conscious in a human way and God is conscious in some other way, I suppose Jesus must have been conscious in two ways at the same time.
Words such as 'subjective' and 'consciousness' are foreign to the philosophy of the authors of the Creeds. They didn't believe as Descartes did that the mind is a single self-transparent consciousness. A century or so after Freud and other psychoanalysts we shouldn't believe that either.

quote:
I believe Catholic reasoning IS that the Person and the person are different beings. That they therefore(?) do not share the same consciousness. Or do they?
As I understand it, they are the same being, but not necessarily the same consciousness. (You are still the same person when you're asleep or under anaesthesia or otherwise not conscious, so consciousness is not the same as being even for a person.)

(I agree that it is hard to see how a flesh and soul human being can be the same as the Second Person of the Trinity which has neither flesh nor soul. But that I think is because we have no way of knowing what it is to be the Second Person of the Trinity, the being of God being entirely beyond our intellectual comprehension.)
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Thank you SO much for this Dafyd, really. I ain't done yet, but gotta go do some van drivin'.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Since when has kenosis not been standard, mainstream Christian doctrine?

As far as I know it's never been defined as such by any major Council, but in the way Cliffdweller defines it my understanding is that it's been the prevailing small o and Big O o/Orthodox view.

Either Mudfrog has misunderstood it or he's putting forward something non-mainstream.

Well it all depends doesn't it?

What is your definition of kenosis?

Would it accord with the poetic 'emptied himself of all but love?' which actually contradicts Wesleys' other wonderful line 'Veiled in flesh the Godhead see, hail the'incarnate Deity'.

If Kenosis is defined as "Christ's 'laying aside' of certain divine attributes in the incarnation' (Alister McGrath) then I would reject it.

There is nothing in the Philippian hymn that suggests laying any divine attribute aside - it mentions no divine attributes at all. What it does say is that he made himself nothing in the sense of humiliation and status.

From my limited reading it seems that the earlier form of kenosis was that either Jesus used his divine attributes in secret (unlikely) or that he simply chose not to use them.

I have to say however that there are occasions when Jesus appeared to read the minds of his detractors, so there was a bit of omniscience going on.

The other objection to the later form of kenosis - i.e. that he laid aside all his divine attributes in order to become fully human - i that it goes against the immutability of God.

It seems to be that in Jesus the Word of God became flesh - he put on the form of a servant without actually becoming only a servant.

If Jesus was merely man from conception to resurrection, then who was on the cross?
If a man, great, he represents us.
But if he's not divine too - if God the Son did not die - then he cannot represent God for us as Saviour.

Again, the problem here I think is that you are defining "Godness" as the "omnis"-- being all-powerful, all-knowing. You are suggesting that what makes God God is raw power in the way we in our fallible humanness understand God. So the minute we (or, imho, Paul) suggest that Jesus laid aside the "omnis" in the incarnation, you hear us as suggesting that the incarnate Christ was not fully God.

I believe there is sufficient evidence in both the gospels to support our (very traditional) reading of Phil. 2: There are abundant times when Jesus doesn't know something (e.g. when he will return), numerous times he makes clear that he is only able to do or know what the Father reveals/allows at that moment. Prior to the resurrection he is not omniscient, omnipotent, nor omnipresent-- he can only be one place at a time.

And yet, we agree with the ancient creeds that in every moment, he was indeed fully God. Because God is not defined by the "omnis". They are attributes-- like red hair or freckles or the ability to speak French. These may be part of how people know us, but they aren't defining elements-- they aren't the essence that makes you you.

But I think what is radical about the incarnation-- it is revealing a whole other way to understand God. It is part of our human fallenness that we think of the "omnis" as the defining element-- tied to the "myth of redemptive violence" discussed elsewhere-- it is the way of what we think of power-- the ability to do whatever we want. It is the way a child thinks of "Godness": "If I were God I would make the rivers flow with root beer and candy would grow everywhere like grass". Being God is all about being in control.

But Jesus shows us something different. Jesus shows us a way of thinking about power that is all about self-giving, sacrificial love. That is what is "immutable" about God-- the immutable, divine essence-- the divine nature.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I may be revealing myself to be thick, but aren't Mudfrog and Cliffdweller talking cross-purposes. It seems to me that the former is deprecating a version of kenosis that he doesn't agree with, and the latter is advocating a version of kenosis which is fundamentally different from that version, and which he may well agree with..

That was my first impression as well-- which is why I began by saying "Mudfrog has misunderstood kenosis". But his response to Gamaliel sounds more like he understands it, but is objecting to the ancient doctrine. His earlier post might have been a bit of a straw man-- misrepresenting to some degree what we believe. But the later one seems to be tracking with the historic doctrine, but simply disagreeing with it on the basis of "immutability". I would argue that "immutability" is a concept from Greek philosophy, not biblical theology. Rather, what we see in Scripture is the consistency of God's divine nature or character, which is what remains constant in Christ even as he lays aside the "omnis".
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So Jesus is the same subjective, personal being, centre of consciousness as the second person of the Trinity? The centre of consciousness OF the second person of the Trinity became (fully and completely transposed, migrated, collapsed, moved to) the human centre of consciousness Jesus? After months of non-consciousness and more of consciousness development?

Or AS WELL AS?

According to the Chalcedonian definition, the distinction of each nature is not taken away by the union but the property of each nature is preserved.

In short, Jesus is a fully human being
[person and substance?], and also is God [substance only?]. Since human beings are conscious in a human way and God is conscious in some other way, I suppose Jesus must have been conscious in two ways at the same time [this implies person as well as substance? But Jesus was ONE, new, single fully human person. NOT two persons. NOT a person and a Person. OR is consciousness an aspect of subjective person AND substance or even SOLELY an aspect of SUBSTANCE. This looks like a breakthrough I've never encountered before and as there's nothing new under the sun ... wrong! But it's thanks to reading what you say below and looping back that I'm here.].

Words such as 'subjective' and 'consciousness' are foreign to the philosophy of the authors of the Creeds. They didn't believe as Descartes did that the mind is a single self-transparent consciousness. A century or so after Freud and other psychoanalysts we shouldn't believe that either.


And there you are. I agree, thanks to Bertrand Russell initially, that 'cogito ergo sum' deconstructs to 'thought/thinking exists', 'something is thinking'. Is that congruent with what you are implying?

This is fascinating. What DID they assume about their personhood, their 'Me', their 'I'? I just Googled 'ancient greek philosophy of the mind'. Bugger me!

So, for now, my proposition that consciousness is an aspect of substance not person helps me and fits further with what you continue to say, I feel.


quote:
I believe Catholic reasoning* IS that the Person and the person are different beings. That they therefore(?) do not share the same consciousness. Or do they?
As I understand it, they are the same being, but not necessarily the same consciousness. (You are still the same person when you're asleep or under anaesthesia or otherwise not conscious, so consciousness is not the same as being even for a person.

Uh oh!

If a Person and a person are the same being CONCURRENTLY, in parallel, perichoretically, then being, there, means substance?

Can't be?!

Unless the perichoresis = substance?

If a Person and a person are the same being SERIALLY the problem goes away? And another arises ... a BIGGY. THE biggy: Whilst the second person of the Trinity was solely incarnate, who was minding the store?

Islam similarly makes the problems all go away by making God 'simple': a one person substance who shares nothing of his person.

'strewth!

Is
a consciousness a person whether conscious or not?

What do you mean by a being? A philosophical, objective entity? Something that exists? Or/and ... a subjective person?!

Is consciousness with will, intellect an attribute of the substance nature that
a consciousness, a person has, accesses when awake only? All painfully obvious stuff that I feel the need for definition of.

A person is a consciousness whether conscious or not?!

Stroll on!


(I agree that it is hard to see how a flesh and soul human being can be the same as the Second Person of the Trinity which has neither flesh nor soul. But that I think is because we have no way of knowing what it is to be the Second Person of the Trinity, the being of God being entirely beyond our intellectual comprehension.)

NO! NO!! And thrice!!! C'mon Dafyd. Your're my best hope!

We have propositions. We have logic. We must be able to come up with a narrative that is initially independent of modern physics, that is classically logical.

"a flesh and soul human being person can be the same as the Second Person of the Trinity which has neither flesh nor soul, concurrently, in parallel, overlapping IN CONSCIOUSNESS, in perichoretic separately willed, intellectual, conscienced consciousnesses ..."

AAAARRRGGGH! That still looks weasely. Meaningless!

"a flesh and soul human being person can APPEAR TO be the same as the Second Person of the Trinity which has neither flesh nor soul, DUE TO BEING concurrently, in parallel, overlapping IN CONSCIOUSNESS, in perichoretic separately willed, intellectual, conscienced consciousnessES ..."

Sigh. For now I'll assume willed, intellectual consciousness is a fact of nature, substance. And that the one person Jesus could therefore have two such perichoretic consciousnesses.

Where consciousness means a willed, intellectual entity.

Classically that deconstructs to ... a will?


* I find this as good an orthodox starting place as any.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
What Cliffdweller said.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I may be revealing myself to be thick, but aren't Mudfrog and Cliffdweller talking cross-purposes. It seems to me that the former is deprecating a version of kenosis that he doesn't agree with, and the latter is advocating a version of kenosis which is fundamentally different from that version, and which he may well agree with..

That was my first impression as well-- which is why I began by saying "Mudfrog has misunderstood kenosis". But his response to Gamaliel sounds more like he understands it, but is objecting to the ancient doctrine. His earlier post might have been a bit of a straw man-- misrepresenting to some degree what we believe. But the later one seems to be tracking with the historic doctrine, but simply disagreeing with it on the basis of "immutability". I would argue that "immutability" is a concept from Greek philosophy, not biblical theology. Rather, what we see in Scripture is the consistency of God's divine nature or character, which is what remains constant in Christ even as he lays aside the "omnis".
Which prior Greek sources contain these then?

Numbers 23:19 (KJV) God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

1 Samuel 15:29 (KJV) And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

Psalm 102:26 (KJV) They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:

Malachi 3:6 (KJV) For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

2 Timothy 2:13 (KJV) If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

Hebrews 6:17-18 (KJV)

17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

James 1:17(KJV) Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Did you mean impassible?

[ 03. June 2017, 14:38: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I may be revealing myself to be thick, but aren't Mudfrog and Cliffdweller talking cross-purposes. It seems to me that the former is deprecating a version of kenosis that he doesn't agree with, and the latter is advocating a version of kenosis which is fundamentally different from that version, and which he may well agree with..

That was my first impression as well-- which is why I began by saying "Mudfrog has misunderstood kenosis". But his response to Gamaliel sounds more like he understands it, but is objecting to the ancient doctrine. His earlier post might have been a bit of a straw man-- misrepresenting to some degree what we believe. But the later one seems to be tracking with the historic doctrine, but simply disagreeing with it on the basis of "immutability". I would argue that "immutability" is a concept from Greek philosophy, not biblical theology. Rather, what we see in Scripture is the consistency of God's divine nature or character, which is what remains constant in Christ even as he lays aside the "omnis".
Which prior Greek sources contain these then?

Numbers 23:19 (KJV) God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

1 Samuel 15:29 (KJV) And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

Psalm 102:26 (KJV) They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:

Malachi 3:6 (KJV) For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

2 Timothy 2:13 (KJV) If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

Hebrews 6:17-18 (KJV)

17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

James 1:17(KJV) Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Did you mean impassible?

I think we're saying the same thing here. The verses you're citing are all defining God's immutability in terms of his character, nature or heart. None refer to the "omnis" as immutable-- the thing that is "immutable" for God is his truth, goodness, and sacrificial love.

re: immutable v impassible: really I'm responding to the strain of Calvinist theology that conflates the two.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Ah! Agreed. Jesus had obviously had no omnis of Himself.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dafyd:
In short, Jesus is a fully human being [person and substance?]

I am not entirely sure I know how you're using the words 'person' and 'substance' and so I'm not sure how to answer the question.
The matter is complicated in that the word 'hypostasis' (translated 'substance') is ambiguous in philosophical Greek.

quote:
What DID they assume about their personhood, their 'Me', their 'I'? I just Googled 'ancient greek philosophy of the mind'. Bugger me!
I don't think they talked about their 'Me' or their 'I' as far as I'm aware.

quote:
So, for now, my proposition that consciousness is an aspect of substance not person helps me and fits further with what you continue to say, I feel.
Firstly, I think that in most contexts other than Trinitarian philosophy 'substance' and 'person' are identical: a 'person' is an individual rational substance. The use of two different terms in Trinitarian philosophy is largely to avoid the logical incoherence of saying that there's both three and one of exactly the same thing.

In any case assuming I know what you mean which may be unwise I think I was saying that Jesus must have had two consciousnesses, assuming I have understood the implications correctly.

quote:
Whilst the second person of the Trinity was solely incarnate, who was minding the store?
If I understand you correctly I think I was saying that the Second Person of the Trinity was not 'solely incarnate'. That would be claiming that the Incarnation was the conversion of the godhead into flesh, which is denied in I think the Athanasian Creed. The Second Person of the Trinity continued and continues to have a divine intellect and will, which would have been 'minding the store'.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Thanks again Dafyd, for your patience and precision.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dafyd:
In short, Jesus is a fully human being [person and substance?]

I am not entirely sure I know how you're using the words 'person' and 'substance' and so I'm not sure how to answer the question.

I was using them in the Trinitarian sense, which is incorrect in this context as you go on to demonstrate: a person is a substance, whereas a Trinitarian Person is not THE God ousia but is an hypostasis (a sub-substance?) of that ousia.

A substance, essence, ousia can therefore consist of others? Chemistry comes to mind. The substance water is made of two others, hydrogen and oxygen. Sub-substances.

So a p/Person - hypostasis - can be a substance, an ousia, an essence in themselves? According to Boethius to whom you allude below?

The matter is complicated in that the word 'hypostasis' (translated 'substance') is ambiguous in philosophical Greek.

Understood, Trinitarianly sub-stance = hypo-stasis != ousia = ... substance

quote:
What DID they assume about their personhood, their 'Me', their 'I'? I just Googled 'ancient greek philosophy of the mind'. Bugger me!
I don't think they talked about their 'Me' or their 'I' as far as I'm aware.
quote:
So, for now, my proposition that consciousness is an aspect of substance not person helps me and fits further with what you continue to say, I feel.
Firstly, I think that in most contexts other than Trinitarian philosophy 'substance' and 'person' are identical: a 'person' is an individual rational substance. The use of two different terms in Trinitarian philosophy is largely to avoid the logical incoherence of saying that there's both three and one of exactly the same thing.

Thanks.

In any case assuming I know what you mean which may be unwise I think I was saying that Jesus must have had two consciousnesses, assuming I have understood the implications correctly.

Agreed. And there's nowt wrong with your wisdom in dealing with my witless ambiguity.

quote:
Whilst the second person of the Trinity was solely incarnate, who was minding the store?
If I understand you correctly I think I was saying that the Second Person of the Trinity was not 'solely incarnate'. That would be claiming that the Incarnation was the conversion of the godhead into flesh, which is denied in I think the Athanasian Creed. The Second Person of the Trinity continued and continues to have a divine intellect and will, which would have been 'minding the store'.

I will pore over it again, thanks. I need these absolutes. And I'm sorry for not seeing with your clarity and what you clearly say!



 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
The Athanasian Creed on the Incarnation:

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

It was there all along.

Demonstrating how woefully ignorant one is without a basic, catechetical, theological education, which is true of many of us here.

The implications of point 35 are truly cosmic.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
I guess there is a paradox at the heart of Incarnation:

Is incarnation about God "coming down" or is it about humanity "being lifted up"?
 
Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on :
 
I was taught the Trinity is a mystery, in other words a truth but beyond our comprehension. Deconstructing the constituent parts probably won't add anything to its understanding, so I'm content to accept my duh will be enlightened into a d'oh once I've thrown off this mortal flesh.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
The Incarnation is most definitely God coming down. Jesus was fully man - an ordinary man, not lifted up in any way - however, in full union with that, he was also fully divine without making the human any more or any less human.

However, the ascension means that the human Jesus, the man, is now lifted up, exalted and glorified.

There is now a man in the Godhead.

[ 05. June 2017, 16:03: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Indeed.
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Was Jesus the second person of the Trinity?

No.

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power - Hebrews 1:3.

God imparted his personhood completely into Jesus Christ. Hence, God incarnate.

Jesus confirms he is the Father in John 14:8-9 in first person language.

Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Riiiiggghhht. He's not the Son, He's the Father. So who's the Son? What's He ever been up to?

Who did Jesus the Father pray to?

Did the Son mind the store? While the Father was down here?

[ 05. June 2017, 17:25: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
What is on the table for you Martin60? Are you questioning the trinity or only trying to better understand it?

For me, as you see, it is a version of modalism that holds true.

I feel that modalism is often expressed in terms of God switching into 3 different personal roles.

I find that to be a crude way of putting it, but none the less it is accurate. I would simply add one thing to that. God is not switching roles, he is simply shifting dimensions.

As I see modalism operating

1) God relates to man mentally and ideologically, as a supreme, benevolent, creator - at a personal level, this is God as Father.

2) God relates to man inwardly and emotionally as the Holy Ghost. This is power and energy, this is our motivation and inspiration. Much could be said here about the attributes of motherhood and femininity.

3) God relates to man materially as a brother. This completes the "image of God". Jesus is the incarnation of the full Godhead, as literally quoted and expressly understood by the early church.

So nothing about God's PERSON changed in the incarnation, he simply expressed to us - for the first time, a physically-human representation of himself (not counting Angel of the Lord encounters I suppose).

This completes a triune nature of God in three dimensions, not three persons. There is really no basis for God expressed in each dimension as being different individual persons. It is simply in our limited capacity that we struggle to relate to one person at three levels of reality.


just one. Unfortunately, staunch trinitarians

[ 05. June 2017, 17:36: Message edited by: Aijalon ]
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
sorry, I failed to delete that last line, disregard it.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Thanks to orthodox Trinitarian theology I'm understanding the Incarnation better.
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
Where did the X and Y Chromosomes come from, respectively? [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
You'll find the answer in the Gospels.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
The Creator, god?

IJ
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Was Jesus the second person of the Trinity?

No.

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power - Hebrews 1:3.

God imparted his personhood completely into Jesus Christ. Hence, God incarnate.

Jesus confirms he is the Father in John 14:8-9 in first person language.

Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip?

Cut that quote a bit short on both ends to prove a point, did we?


quote:
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” 9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.

Jesus clearly never said He was the Father, and clearly speaks to them being separate persons of the trinity.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Blimey ... Looks like we've got an outbreak of Oneness Pentecostalism aboard ...

Quick, let's head to port and into quarantine ...
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Yeah but sharkshooter, you're only using the whole text and perfect logic. You need to make your mind up FIRST, using common sense. THEN you can use any text that supports.
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Was Jesus the second person of the Trinity?

No.

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power - Hebrews 1:3.

God imparted his personhood completely into Jesus Christ. Hence, God incarnate.

Jesus confirms he is the Father in John 14:8-9 in first person language.

Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” 9Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip?

Cut that quote a bit short on both ends to prove a point, did we?


quote:
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”

8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” 9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11 Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.

Jesus clearly never said He was the Father, and clearly speaks to them being separate persons of the trinity.

I think you simply need to put yourself in Phillip's shoes bro. He never said anything about separate persons, YOU said that. And no trinity, some council said that.

Jesus went about speaking of HIMSELF in the second person. Maybe not common but he's no common man, and he had a mysterious mission to do.

So he ends his trip, and spills the full beans.... Bro - I'm him.

Now we come along later and we say "hmmm, nope, nobody talks like that, so Jesus must mean some other perrson. I mean, who personifies themselves in the second person? That's just wierd. So there must be more persons to God than just one..."

Hey, hello! Jesus just told you "it's 'me'".

He says nobody has seen the father, but now you have..... Hey. Get it in your head. He was hiding who he was up to the point near to his death. Why would Jesus hide who he was? He wanted people to continue to focus on what is above, to where he was going!
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
You can take the boy out of the cult ...
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Jesus went about speaking of HIMSELF in the second person. Maybe not common but he's no common man, and he had a mysterious mission to do.

So he ends his trip, and spills the full beans.... Bro - I'm him.

He doesn't say, "I'm him" or "I am the Father". That's an interpretation, and there are overwhelming difficulties with it. "I am the Father" would both be easier and clearer things to say than saying 'I am in the Father and the Father is in me,' which is what he actually said. If he could have said it clearly and in fact said something more complicated then unless there's some good reason to think otherwise he probably meant the more complicated thing.

Given all the times that Jesus prays to the Father one cannot simply identify Jesus with the Father. You have to dismiss far too much of what Jesus says as pretence or playacting. (In particular there are times when Jesus says that although the Father knows something he doesn't, which on your reading would be outright falsehoods.)
 
Posted by irreverend tod (# 18773) on :
 
Related to this, but slightly tangential, I've been using Richard Rohr's explanation of Trinitarian theology to try to explain this to the bemused of the parish. This includes the teens at secular youth club and the nice old ladies in our church. The book is his latest offering 'the divine dance' and looks at the general lack of engagement with the trinity and subsequent dualist thinking.
Since the contributions so far show that there re quite a few who do engage with trying to understand the philosophical I as wondering if anyone hear had any thoughts on what he has to say.
 
Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on :
 
The bible is a mixture of history, law, poetics, lists and revelation. What it isn't is a Haynes Manual which shows the workings of a three cylinder reciprocating engine if you stare long enough at the appropriate page. Some things you have to roll with and trust the engine will keep working.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Razor sharp Dafyd, Occam's razor sharp. The actual epitome of common sense in dealing with the data rather than the common sense of God having to be simple.
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Jesus went about speaking of HIMSELF in the second person. Maybe not common but he's no common man, and he had a mysterious mission to do.

So he ends his trip, and spills the full beans.... Bro - I'm him.

He doesn't say, "I'm him" or "I am the Father". That's an interpretation, and there are overwhelming difficulties with it.

The difficulties are not overwhelming, you're exaggerating. Follow me along. The issue is confusion of personification with personhood.


quote:
"I am the Father" would both be easier and clearer things to say than saying 'I am in the Father and the Father is in me,' which is what he actually said.

Insistence on being excessively literal I see. Ok, I grant you that it would be much clearer to say "I am the Father". But then, that would only work for you if Jesus didn't have a reason to be mysterious. Knowing him to be mysterious requires that we explore interpretive possibilities. In order for what Jesus said to be LITERALLY true, the trinity is a logical construction that makes his literal words, true.

I am telling you to simply GET PERSONAL, not literal. Being in the time, place, and context.... having a face to face discussion, and someone says "have you not known ME". That's an eye opener for Phillip - no. If I were Phillip, I would quite naturally conclude that Jesus is not being "literal" with me, he's getting natural and personal. Jesus was saying he was the person of the father, displayed as something else. He was - in disguise.

If someone wore a mask, and then told you who they really were, but didn't take off the mask, would you really be sure of who they were? Phillip could only be sure at a personal level, only through his friendship and relationship to Jesus can Jesus' statement be viewed. Jesus even uses Philip's name in response.
quote:
If he could have said it clearly and in fact said something more complicated then unless there's some good reason to think otherwise he probably meant the more complicated thing.

Probably?! I think the most important thing to address about that statement is the primary assumption that Jesus didn't make it easy to understand. Interpreted literally does necessitate obscurity, and the Trinity appears at first to clear up the obscurity, but I have to reject the imposition of the "could". Because he "could have" been more explicit doesn't equate to requiring us into a complicated trinitarian extrapolation.

At a relational level, his statement was pretty clear. Being as he emptied himself of visible manifested Glory, I find it fitting for him to refer to the Father as his aspect of Glory, and that the Glory was still attributable to him, in his identity, even if not apparent - by saying the Father was in him, and he in the Father. Jesus was saying he is a direct viewpoint of the Father - in person. The Father cannot be "in him" if the Father is in heaven. If they are both within each other, they are the same.

Furthermore, the manner of speech that was in use at that time, (customary talk, idioms, colloquial...) combined with facial expressions and gestures means that we are hopelessly obscured from really grasping the thrust of Jesus words. By stripping it down to merely a recorded text, we are sure to be off track. Body language counts for more than text. Put yourself in Philips shoes - imagine what he had seen, and then imagine Jesus talking to you.

quote:
Given all the times that Jesus prays to the Father one cannot simply identify Jesus with the Father.

Not so fast. odd as it may be for us to see someone praying to themselves.... think on that. Now how would that look to them? Would anyone have credited Jesus with sanity if as a veiled deity he prayed to himself? No! He prayed to what is above. He demonstrated. The Lord's prayer is an example of instructions.

Really though I find the logic of your statement to be massively flawed. You seem to reject Jesus as the person of the Father because this means his manner of prayer doesn't conform to our manner of prayer. Hmmmmm. Who are you making conform to whom? Seems you've assumed Jesus came to conform to all our manner of doing things? Clearly not!

quote:
You have to dismiss far too much of what Jesus says as pretence or playacting.

So this is trouble, I agree. Pretense is a nasty nasty word. It implies something other than genuine or serious behavior, yes? I will meet you where you are on this one. I reject the term pretense, but I find that play acting is a good fit.

Suppose I agree that playacting is accurate. What now? So it was playacting? I find regardless of whether one believes in a Triune-Tri-Person-Single-Being, or a Tri-Dimensional-Single-Person-Being..........it's still playacting either way. In other words, The Triune nature of Jesus in Trinitarian thought still has no need of speeking vocally unless by way of demonstration, since his will is tied perfectly in unison to the other persons.

How can 3 persons have a single will? As another matter to add to the discussion. Jesus eloquently states that he never does his own will - ever - He can only do the Father's will. He's a robot of his Dad by his own admission? [Eek!] [John 5]. So in the end.... I say Jesus has created an interplay dialogue with this person called Father, that ultimately points back to Jesus.

Not going to lie..... I fall on Modalism because it's easier, and simpler. It's all about the PERSONIFICATION of the father.

quote:

(In particular there are times when Jesus says that although the Father knows something he doesn't, which on your reading would be outright falsehoods.)

I know of only one occurrence, perhaps, in terms of the timing of 2nd Coming. In that case I have a valid explanation and it deals with mistranslated. Which other occurrences are you referring to, I don't recall and don't want to assume I have it right where these passages are.

[ 07. June 2017, 14:53: Message edited by: Aijalon ]
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Brother, expecting God to bend to human logic is a lost cause. He doesn't and he won't.
 
Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on :
 
The Trinity is either:
An intrinsic part of Christianity which cannot be valued without a complete understanding of its precise implications, and which it is our duty to deconstruct with all the powers of logic and prayer at our disposal, or,

An expression of the spiritual, creative and physical natures of the deity, especially regarding the personhood of Jesus Christ. A permanent mystery that cannot fully submit to deduction.

[ 07. June 2017, 15:07: Message edited by: romanesque ]
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Brother, expecting God to bend to human logic is a lost cause. He doesn't and he won't.

is this directed at me? I'm being "too logical" ? Please expand on that if indeed you are directing toward my last post.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
In order for what Jesus said to be LITERALLY true, the trinity is a logical construction that makes his literal words, true.
Insisting that the evidence we have about God make complete and logical sense to human understanding is a basic mistake in theology. For that matter, it's a basic mistake in science, too--it rests on the assumptions that a) We have all the evidence we need, without missing pieces, and b) we are innately capable of assembling that evidence into a correct paradigm.

I would argue that both a) and b) are dicey when it comes to our understanding of God. He never promised us that we would know and understand everything we want to know and understand. Indeed, he seems to emphasize our inability to understand him, as in the ending to the book of Job. Job's answer is one to keep in mind:

quote:
“I know that you can do all things,
and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
3 ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
4 ‘Hear, and I will speak;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.’
5 I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees you;
6 therefore I despise myself,
and repent in dust and ashes.”

tl;dr version: Don't try to fill in gaps in Scripture with human logic. It never ends well. Accept the gaps and walk cautiously around them.

[ 07. June 2017, 17:00: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Aijalon - tl;dr after your first line of empty rhetoric full of vacuous claim: 'The difficulties are not overwhelming, you're exaggerating. Follow me along. The issue is confusion of personification with personhood.'.
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
In order for what Jesus said to be LITERALLY true, the trinity is a logical construction that makes his literal words, true.
Insisting that the evidence we have about God make complete and logical sense to human understanding is a basic mistake in theology. For that matter, it's a basic mistake in science, too--it rests on the assumptions that a) We have all the evidence we need, without missing pieces, and b) we are innately capable of assembling that evidence into a correct paradigm.

I would argue that both a) and b) are dicey when it comes to our understanding of God. He never promised us that we would know and understand everything we want to know and understand. Indeed, he seems to emphasize our inability to understand him, as in the ending to the book of Job. Job's answer is one to keep in mind:

quote:
“I know that you can do all things,
and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.
3 ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’
Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
4 ‘Hear, and I will speak;
I will question you, and you make it known to me.’
5 I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees you;
6 therefore I despise myself,
and repent in dust and ashes.”

tl;dr version: Don't try to fill in gaps in Scripture with human logic. It never ends well. Accept the gaps and walk cautiously around them.

Firstly, are you sure you understood me? I was pointing out that the Trinity is construction of logical deduction - as usual based on assumptions. I'm pointing out the assumptions are not good ones.

The assumption is - based on human speech patters we are familiar with - Jesus MUST only be speaking of the Father as a different person.

Challenging assumptions is not the same as "being too logical".

I don't see my version of Modalism any more or less logical than Trinitarianism, either. Both have aspects of logic and reason. Both attempt to resolve a mysterious thing.

Secondly, your post seems to just dampen the mood of exploration, generally speaking. As if we aught to settle with "good enough", or as if "Trinitarianism is the best possible answer - even if flawed"

I don't view problem solving as merely a logical quest, nor my arguments excessively based on logical deduction.

If you prefer to fly over my thoughts, or, "the gaps" fine and well.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
You're not being logical at all.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Nor orthodox (neither small o or Big O).

Sounds like Oneness Pentecostalism to me - or the kind of confusion certain megachurch style evangelicals can get themselves into the further they drift from historic creedal Christianity.

Call me old-fashioned ...
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Jesus went about speaking of HIMSELF in the second person. Maybe not common but he's no common man, and he had a mysterious mission to do.

So he ends his trip, and spills the full beans.... Bro - I'm him.

He doesn't say, "I'm him" or "I am the Father". That's an interpretation, and there are overwhelming difficulties with it.

The difficulties are not overwhelming, you're exaggerating. Follow me along. The issue is confusion of personification with personhood.
I think you are not using personification to mean the generally accepted meaning of the word. I cannot be sure as you do not elaborate upon why you are under the impression that this is the issue.

quote:
"I am the Father" would both be easier and clearer things to say than saying 'I am in the Father and the Father is in me,' which is what he actually said.

Insistence on being excessively literal I see. Ok, I grant you that it would be much clearer to say "I am the Father". But then, that would only work for you if Jesus didn't have a reason to be mysterious. Knowing him to be mysterious requires that we explore interpretive possibilities. In order for what Jesus said to be LITERALLY true, the trinity is a logical construction that makes his literal words, true.[/QB][/QUOTE]

I could equally claim that you are being excessively literal about the saying, 'If you have seen me you have seen the Father'.
In your previous post you described Jesus as at the end of his trip and "So he ends his trip, and spills the full beans.... Bro - I'm him." "Hey, hello! Jesus just told you "it's 'me'"." Now you're saying that he's still being mysterious. If he's still being mysterious he's not spilling the beans and the hey hello! is unwarranted.

quote:
I am telling you to simply GET PERSONAL, not literal. Being in the time, place, and context.... having a face to face discussion, and someone says "have you not known ME".
An ARGUMENT does not suddenly become valid because you put KEY words in CAPITAL LETTERS.
Nor does your argument become more plausible because you hector and badger with phrases like 'I am telling you to'.
The phrase 'Get personal' means 'to start being rude, to use ad hominem arguments'. I don't think that's what you wanted to mean.
None of this persuades me that your interpretation is more likely to be right.

quote:
If I were Phillip, I would quite naturally conclude that Jesus is not being "literal" with me, he's getting natural and personal. Jesus was saying he was the person of the father, displayed as something else.
Yes, but Philip wasn't you.
You appear to be using the words 'natural' and 'personal' as antonyms to 'literal' which they are not.

quote:
Phillip could only be sure at a personal level, only through his friendship and relationship to Jesus can Jesus' statement be viewed. Jesus even uses Philip's name in response.
This does nothing to support your interpretation.
You are not the only person on the Ship to use the word 'relational' as a getout from the business of trying to talk sense.

quote:
Furthermore, the manner of speech that was in use at that time, (customary talk, idioms, colloquial...) combined with facial expressions and gestures means that we are hopelessly obscured from really grasping the thrust of Jesus words. By stripping it down to merely a recorded text, we are sure to be off track. Body language counts for more than text. Put yourself in Philips shoes - imagine what he had seen, and then imagine Jesus talking to you.
Unless your imagination allows you to infallibly recreate scenes you haven't witnessed you have no more access to the body language than anyone else does.

quote:
quote:
Given all the times that Jesus prays to the Father one cannot simply identify Jesus with the Father.

Not so fast. odd as it may be for us to see someone praying to themselves.... think on that. Now how would that look to them? Would anyone have credited Jesus with sanity if as a veiled deity he prayed to himself? No! He prayed to what is above. He demonstrated. The Lord's prayer is an example of instructions.
That might account for the Lord's Prayer which is explicitly an example of a prayer rather than Jesus himself praying. It doesn't deal with any of the instances of Jesus actually praying. There's no need for him to have done so in public on your account.

quote:
Really though I find the logic of your statement to be massively flawed. You seem to reject Jesus as the person of the Father because this means his manner of prayer doesn't conform to our manner of prayer. Hmmmmm. Who are you making conform to whom? Seems you've assumed Jesus came to conform to all our manner of doing things? Clearly not!
Using this argument one could argue anything. For example you say Jesus in the Lord's Prayer is giving us an example. But that's only true if Jesus conforms to our manner of giving us an example.
You try to argue that we should imagine Jesus' body language and take his words as natural and personal, but now you're arguing that Jesus' body language might not conform to our manner of body language and that Jesus's natural and personal might not conform to our manner of natural and personal.

You're relying on Jesus saying 'If you have seen me you have seen the Father'. Now you're saying we can't assume Jesus conforms to our manner of using pronouns. Maybe Jesus meant to say, If I have seen you I have seen the Father. He was saying that Philip was unwittingly the Father.

Your argument is basically taking refuge in nonsense.

quote:
Pretense is a nasty nasty word. It implies something other than genuine or serious behavior, yes? I will meet you where you are on this one. I reject the term pretense, but I find that play acting is a good fit.
Play-act: to behave insincerely, to pretend.

No, your claim that Jesus praying is equally play-acting on the Trinitarian point of view misunderstands the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation. On the orthodox doctrine he is genuinely a human being who is not the Father, and therefore prays to the Father as a human being. If you're going to worry about the Trinity not needing verbal communication, the same objection really applies to human prayer since God knows all the thoughts of our hearts better than we do anyway.

quote:
It's all about the PERSONIFICATION of the father.
In normal English usage one can only be a personification of an abstract concept. What you're saying here is therefore considerably less clear than you seem to think it is.

quote:

(In particular there are times when Jesus says that although the Father knows something he doesn't, which on your reading would be outright falsehoods.)

I know of only one occurrence, perhaps, in terms of the timing of 2nd Coming. In that case I have a valid explanation and it deals with mistranslated. Which other occurrences are you referring to, I don't recall and don't want to assume I have it right where these passages are. [/QB][/QUOTE]

The second comings are the occasions I'm thinking of. You might come out with your explanation instead of just telling us that you believe you've got one.
There's also the prayer in the Garden where Jesus speaks of having a separate will from the Father.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

Firstly, are you sure you understood me? I was pointing out that the Trinity is construction of logical deduction - as usual based on assumptions. I'm pointing out the assumptions are not good ones.

I'm taking issue with your proposition "The Trinity is a construction of logical deduction," which you said before in different terms. It is not. It is a series of statements which lay out what evidence we have in the Scripture, but refuse to draw conclusions beyond that. Which is why the various Trinitarian creeds are so frustrating for many people. They do not offer answers or explanations. They just say "Here's what we see in Scripture. Deal with it."

This is precisely what you are NOT doing--you are taking the evidence and turning it into a logical pretzel in the hopes of convincing us that there is no difficulty at all, how silly we are for thinking that there's something more complicated than modalism going on.

It's not working.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

The assumption is - based on human speech patters we are familiar with - Jesus MUST only be speaking of the Father as a different person.

Challenging assumptions is not the same as "being too logical".

I'm not calling you "too logical" in a complimentary sense, never fear. I'm referring to your rather amazing attempts to paper over the gaps in support of your position. The activity belongs to the human faculty of logic, although the result is less than impressive.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

I don't see my version of Modalism any more or less logical than Trinitarianism, either. Both have aspects of logic and reason. Both attempt to resolve a mysterious thing.

There again--no, Trinitarianism does not attempt to resolve a mysterious thing. It attempts to describe it--without going beyond the observed evidence (in the text, in this case). It is in fact very like a scientist's description of a new species of beetle. "Here's what we're seeing." No more than that.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

Secondly, your post seems to just dampen the mood of exploration, generally speaking.

Dampening the mood of exploration--well. If you are out in the yard and somebody warns you, "Hey, that's poison ivy, don't touch it"--wouldn't you want your mood of exploration to be dampened at that point?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Dafyd, a labour of love, may your word not return to you empty. In the next life.

Lamb Chopped, perfect qualification.
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
--you are taking the evidence and turning it into a logical pretzel

It's not working.

So I tied you in a knot? But you also say my ideas are unimpressive. I highly doubt I tied you in a logical knot! My points thus far are exceedingly simple actually, so unimpressive is about right. I would actually say that the main thing here is that Modalism is not a new idea, and it merely seeks to retract the Trinitarian definition. Modalism is looking at the picture of God by NOT defining God. It is a more natural view. Trinitarianism seeks to make a definition by way of resolving -or if you prefer to split hairs- navigating gaps in our view of God. Perhaps don't navigate. Go right into the gap, God invited you to jump in. Let's explore the danger together.

Here's me saying, "look at this" evidence. And you looking at the sky saying "stop being so logical" and "you're digging up I hole I very neatly covered up".

quote:
I'm referring to your rather amazing attempts to paper over the gaps in support of your position. The activity belongs to the human faculty of logic, although the result is less than impressive.
You have the air of a professor that scanned a paper, and graded it an F, but didn't give the student a justifiable reason because he found it so distasteful that the student would dare write on such a subject. He tries to be respectful of the young student, but fails on account of his air of loftiness.

quote:
Trinitarianism does not attempt to resolve a mysterious thing. It attempts to describe it--without going beyond the observed evidence (in the text, in this case).
Odd that you would stress "observed evidence" like a scientist of the text, and yet also insist that logic is not what it is about. Who decides on limiting the evidence to what set of things that can be considered in the definition?

quote:
It is in fact very like a scientist's description of a new species of beetle. "Here's what we're seeing." No more than that.
Excellent. And science bases conclusion on observations, yes indeed. If the scientists stop making observations about the beetle too soon, their definition of this species of the beetle could be off the mark.
quote:
"Hey, that's poison ivy, don't touch it"--wouldn't you want your mood of exploration to be dampened at that point?
Not sure I follow, I wonder if you mean that Modalism is dangerous in some heretical sense? This the Holy See looking out for me? Who are you protecting from poison ivy? You? Me? The impressionable youth? What is the danger, sir. Or have I exaggerated your analogy?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
First of all, you need to learn to read for comprehension. I said you were tying the evidence in pretzels, not me into a knot. Given my current state of decrepitude I fear that would be impossible.

Second, you need to learn the difference between "evidence" and "logical argument using evidence in order to reach a conclusion." A description is just that--a description. Start trying to deduce things from that description and you've made it into the realm of logic. Not necessarily in a successful way--but hey, that can be the third thing you study.

As for my supposed air of loftiness--this is actually my amused face, with a bit of gratitude for helping me pass the time. Your tone of gleeful irrationality suggests to me that I'm not going to cause you any personal real-life hurt if I shoot down your arguments. That isn't often the case. So I can have fun playing tether-ball for a bit.

[ 08. June 2017, 17:29: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
I am waiting for to shoot down my arguments, after all I have so much to learn, aren't you here to teach me the error in my logic?

Go on, discuss the evidence.

*this is me with chin in the palms of my two hands, fingers curled, blankly staring at chalkboard and checking my notes*

learn.
evidence.
gaps.
observation/science.
definitions.
learn!
poison-ivy?
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Toldja. I'm not doing logic. I'm not interested in arguing about the Trinity. The evidence is there, so take it or leave it.

And you can do your own homework. You're a big boy now.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
You're not being logical mate. At all. Lamb Chopped explained it perfectly. You have made up your mind based on nothing but prejudice and ignorant arrogance if not arrogant ignorance. That's me pointing a finger by the way.
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think you are not using personification to mean the generally accepted meaning of the word. I cannot be sure as you do not elaborate upon why you are under the impression that this is the issue.

Good point. personification may have been an awkward way of saying it. I am not sure how to describe speaking about yourself in a different place when in fact you are omnipresent. And without question, Jesus explanation of his oneness with the Father is awkwardly understood by the disciples.

I thing Jesus Christ is the expressed personification of the Father, personified in the flesh. I don't even think that the Hebrews would have thought of God as a person in the first place, but in our time we're overly focused importance of individuals.

I'm saying that along the way in the ministry, Jesus was, essentially, play acting. He was/is God, playacting as something lesser. In order to conceal his identity, he spoke of the Father (his own person) externally. Reason being he did not want his followers to initially believe him to be a deity on earth, rather, to continue to direct worship toward God in heaven.

If then, Jesus were God's full person revealed (God personified) yet he wanted to point toward a heavenly view of himself, he would in a sort-of-way be personifying Himself in the other direction (without them realizing). It was the first time God had exposed himself in a personal way to the common man. Prior to that walking or talking with God was limited to a selected few patriarchs and prophets.

quote:
I could equally claim that you are being excessively literal about the saying, 'If you have seen me you have seen the Father'.

So you agree that either way has validity. Good start.

quote:
In your previous post you described Jesus as at the end of his trip and "So he ends his trip, and spills the full beans.... Bro - I'm him." "Hey, hello! Jesus just told you "it's 'me'"." Now you're saying that he's still being mysterious. If he's still being mysterious he's not spilling the beans and the hey hello! is unwarranted.
by remaining mysterious I was only referring to the fact that he had not uncovered any of his Glory. So while he spoke to them more directly - first person - it was still an issue that had to be accept on faith and trust, not because he had proven himself God in a fully demystifying sense.


quote:
quote:
I am telling you to simply GET PERSONAL, not literal. Being in the time, place, and context.... having a face to face discussion, and someone says "have you not known ME".
An ARGUMENT does not suddenly become valid because you put KEY words in CAPITAL LETTERS.
Nor does your argument become more plausible because you hector and badger with phrases like 'I am telling you to'.
The phrase 'Get personal' means 'to start being rude, to use ad hominem arguments'. I don't think that's what you wanted to mean.
None of this persuades me that your interpretation is more likely to be right.

Simply saying that I believe it is paramount that we read the text in a person to person dialogue sense, rather than a text-book sense. IOW, put the words to a play, have them acted out before your eyes and ears, let that impress on you a little more. Take the words at face value directly out of the mouth of Jesus while looking in his face. Capitalizing was intended to accentuate Jesus-in-person. calling it an invitation for ad hominem arguments... I hadn't considered that angle, that's a little base. Maybe I should be prepared for that? Not sure.

quote:
quote:
If I were Phillip, I would quite naturally conclude that Jesus is not being "literal" with me, he's getting natural and personal. Jesus was saying he was the person of the father, displayed as something else.
Yes, but Philip wasn't you.
You appear to be using the words 'natural' and 'personal' as antonyms to 'literal' which they are not.

Maybe all i really need to say is that if I were in Philip's shoes I would naturally conclude Jesus is telling me he IS the Father. That would be hard to accept for me, but had I been there I would have had to consider that it had been said. Philip was seeking, Jesus was revealing to him as Philip was ready to hear.


quote:
quote:
Phillip could only be sure at a personal level, only through his friendship and relationship to Jesus can Jesus' statement be viewed. Jesus even uses Philip's name in response.
This does nothing to support your interpretation.
You are not the only person on the Ship to use the word 'relational' as a getout from the business of trying to talk sense.

I'm only saying that context is important, and a good exegetic requires that we walk along the passage in the shoes of the original audience. There's no "get out" involved, unless I'm trying to avoid some alternative form of exegete based on John's direction as the author for a particular understanding or problem his audience was having, and he was resolving. (more like an exegete of a Pauline Epistle).

This approach is the critical thing on which my interpretation rests. Otherwise, we are left with a literal analysis of the text alone. I think reading the text with emotion is highly important, and as fragile as this point may be to you, my point does require it.


quote:
you have no more access to the body language than anyone else does.
I think we all have a primitive understanding of body language, that's what I'm driving at. I never claimed to have special insight on theirs. I am only saying that we must allow ourselves to access our intrinsic understandings of having one-on-one conversations to best explain the passage. The current thing you seem to support is an overly-limiting viewpoint using text only. That leads to a robotic reading of the text, just what Rome wants! [Frown]

quote:
It doesn't deal with any of the instances of Jesus actually praying. There's no need for him to have done so in public on your account.
I'm not offended at the notion of Jesus as demonstrating, even when he doesn't explicitly say "here's how".

quote:
quote:
Really though I find the logic of your statement to be massively flawed. You seem to reject Jesus as the person of the Father because this means his manner of prayer doesn't conform to our manner of prayer. Hmmmmm. Who are you making conform to whom? Seems you've assumed Jesus came to conform to all our manner of doing things? Clearly not!
Using this argument one could argue anything.
no. not "anything" as that would make it impossible to tell what, if anything, about Jesus was genuine. I'm only saying that the interpersonal dialogue that was on display between Son and Father was uncharacteristic to others, for the simple reason that it would be insanity for others. I think Jesus otherwise walked (well maybe a little louder) and talked and carved wood (maybe a little better) like everyone else.


quote:
For example you say Jesus in the Lord's Prayer is giving us an example. But that's only true if Jesus conforms to our manner of giving us an example. You try to argue that we should imagine Jesus' body language and take his words as natural and personal, but now you're arguing that Jesus' body language might not conform to our manner of body language and that Jesus's natural and personal might not conform to our manner of natural and personal.
grasping -and- a hypothetical argument in my mouth. Scripture does foretell Christ as coming to earth in characteristically human fashion. His manner of birth, his Jewish upbringing, his profession..... There is wonderful evidence for audio visual Jesus Christ as plain old-fashioned 33AD as it could get.

quote:
You're relying on Jesus saying 'If you have seen me you have seen the Father'. Now you're saying we can't assume Jesus conforms to our manner of using pronouns. Maybe Jesus meant to say, If I have seen you I have seen the Father. He was saying that Philip was unwittingly the Father.
disregarding this on account of being ostentatious

quote:
quote:
Pretense is a nasty nasty word. It implies something other than genuine or serious behavior, yes? I will meet you where you are on this one. I reject the term pretense, but I find that play acting is a good fit.
Play-act: to behave insincerely, to pretend.
Did Jesus sincerely act as King of the universe - as God? Or not?

quote:
quote:
It's all about the PERSONIFICATION of the father.
In normal English usage one can only be a personification of an abstract concept. What you're saying here is therefore considerably less clear than you seem to think it is.
True, I should have been more clear. I'll say this, in very many ways, God the Father was an abstract concept to Israel, especially in that dark time. Therefore personifying him was one of the purposes Jesus was there for. Just as in our time God is very abstract the farther away we get from viewing Jesus, so with them as well.

quote:


The second comings are the occasions I'm thinking of. You might come out with your explanation instead of just telling us that you believe you've got one.
There's also the prayer in the Garden where Jesus speaks of having a separate will from the Father.

of the second coming in Matt 24, the KJV omits the Son from the verse, it states:
--But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

I will have to get home to get into that one again further as to how the extra bit on the Son is added by other translations and dive back into the textual criticism of the verse. It has been a while.

as far as Jesus in the garden. Prior to this Jesus discusses his use of figurative speech on the subject of the Father (John 16:25)

Nowthen, are we to believe Jesus was not clear as to the mission before him to suffer and die. Did he not know the answer to his prayer? I believe that in his veiled flesh he was acknowledging that suffering and dying was not desirable, was painful, but that it was necessary. It was, at that point, a foregone conclusion, yes? On the end times topic, we don't know the conclusion or timing. But on this subject we have hindsight and doctrine showing us that Jesus was not unwilling, but willing to die, planned on it.

Jesus wasn't just double checking with God on the gameplan. I think this prayer demonstrates the great effort and great sacrifice, not acting, but real, sacrifice that Jesus experienced and put himself through, on our behalf. This was more than a demonstration in words, it was a moment in time when Jesus was quite literally talking-to-himself in a very human way.

I just never did swallow, even before questioning the concept of Triune persons, that Jesus was ACTUALLY having second thoughts.

crude as it may seem.... when you are about to do something daring, might you say something under your breath? "here I go!"
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
You're not being logical mate. At all. Lamb Chopped explained it perfectly. You have made up your mind based on nothing but prejudice and ignorant arrogance if not arrogant ignorance. That's me pointing a finger by the way.

Don't care how you characterize the logic. Disagreements are great.

I do not appreciate the rudeness.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
What logic? You aren't or rather your argument isn't using any. From the word go. You are or rather your argument is answering the question as to why the sea is boiling hot using strained empty rhetoric which only Dafyd will read.

Minds immeasurably superior to ours worked for 400 years in response to your modernly mangled ancient heresy and all the others far more cleanly presented than in your presentation which uses incorrect definitions, irrational, personal semantics. You need or rather your argument needs to engage in a superior dialectical antithesis - without wresting scripture for a start, without using every sense except the obvious, the common, without being dependent on twisting meaning out of recognition - to the trinitarian synthesis. Please start at your convenience. Your argument is second rate by a country mile compared to the ancient heretics' arguments. Your argument must use Dafyd's methods. Not screeds of singular waffle unique to your understanding, that no scholar, no reference supports.

Stop making shit up, I say to your personified argument.

In pointing at you I have three fingers pointing back. In my ignorant arrogance I swallowed three heresies before breakfast.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think you are not using personification to mean the generally accepted meaning of the word. I cannot be sure as you do not elaborate upon why you are under the impression that this is the issue.

I thing Jesus Christ is the expressed personification of the Father, personified in the flesh. I don't even think that the Hebrews would have thought of God as a person in the first place, but in our time we're overly focused importance of individuals.
When you say they wouldn't have thought of God as a 'person' what do you mean by 'person'? Human being? Being possessed of intellect and will?
quote:
quote:
I could equally claim that you are being excessively literal about the saying, 'If you have seen me you have seen the Father'.

So you agree that either way has validity. Good start.
I am granting it for the sake of argument.
Fundamentally, you have to lean on one or two sayings (and even on your reading that saying doesn't expound your position explicitly) and then explain away the mass of contradictory sayings. Whereas the anti-modalist reading can take most of that at face value.
The general rule of interpretation is that the bits of the Bible that are clear explain the bits that are dark, rather than the other way around.
quote:
This approach is the critical thing on which my interpretation rests. Otherwise, we are left with a literal analysis of the text alone. I think reading the text with emotion is highly important, and as fragile as this point may be to you, my point does require it.
Except of course that if you read the text with emotion you see that your interpretation is wrong.
You can feel Jesus trying to find words that will explain a relationship more complicated than simple identity, saying one thing, no, that's a way of putting it not very satisfactory, trying to put it another way.

So: let's grant that you can find a way of reading it emotionally that supports your reading. I can equally find a way of reading it emotionally that supports the standard reading. Trying to appeal to reading emotionally does nothing to prefer your reading over any other.

There are other problems for your reading it emotionally or personally.
Your claim that all of Jesus' second person addresses to the Father are merely demonstrating prayer is simply impossible to maintain if you read the relevant passages with emotion.

quote:
quote:
Play-act: to behave insincerely, to pretend.
Did Jesus sincerely act as King of the universe - as God? Or not?
Yes, he did. If you're prepared to recognise that the King of the universe does not hang about in gold and purple roads riding war horses or chariots but is found in the marketplaces and streets riding on a donkey.
Jesus has a fair bit to say on what rulership should look like.

quote:
of the second coming in Matt 24, the KJV omits the Son from the verse, it states:
--But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

I will have to get home to get into that one again further as to how the extra bit on the Son is added by other translations and dive back into the textual criticism of the verse.

It's an application of difficilior lectio (the more difficult reading). Where you have two readings in the ancient manuscipts it's more likely that a later copyist edits out something odd than that a later copyist puts something odd in. In this case, it's more likely that a scribe thought, Jesus says he doesn't know something - that can't be right, and left it out, than that a scribe decided to put it in.

quote:
I just never did swallow, even before questioning the concept of Triune persons, that Jesus was ACTUALLY having second thoughts.
Then try reading the passage emotionally in a personal way, not just in a text-book way, and imagining the body language.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Good point. personification may have been an awkward way of saying it. I am not sure how to describe speaking about yourself in a different place when in fact you are omnipresent.

...I'm saying that along the way in the ministry, Jesus was, essentially, play acting. He was/is God, playacting as something lesser. In order to conceal his identity, he spoke of the Father (his own person) externally.

I believe this reading is based on a faulty understanding of divinity and the nature of the Trinity. Read the prior discussion a page or two back about kenosis. Many/most of us orthodox Christians do not believe Jesus retained the "omnis" when he was on earth. As you note, the gospels certainly don't portray him as having that sort of power/ability, and Phil. 2 seems to be implying that this is part of what it meant for him to "empty himself" and "become a servant." So there is no "play-acting" involved, no deception, no pretense. He wasn't "pretending" to be limited by space & time-- being limited by space and time is inherent to existing in a physical, material body and relating to mortals in a physical, space/time-bound universe. He seems to be limited by space/time because he WAS limited by space/time. He is only able to do/know supernaturally what the Father enabled him to do/know in the moment. His power came-- as he explicitly says on several occasions-- from the Father.

The reason this is so hard for us to grasp is that we have been trained (mostly by Greek philosophy) to define divinity by the "omnis". That's what "being God" means to us-- having the power to be/do/know everything. But I would argue that Phil. 2 suggests and Jesus demonstrates that the "omnis" are secondary attributes, not defining characteristics. They are abilities God has, but not the definition of who God is. The definition of who God is, as Jesus both states explicitly and demonstrates in his life & death, is love.

What is inherent, what is defining, what is immutable about God is that: the divine nature, the divine character. God not only has love or does love, God is love. In Jesus, stripped of the shiny "omni" bits that distract us, this is on full display.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

as far as Jesus in the garden...

Nowthen, are we to believe Jesus was not clear as to the mission before him to suffer and die. Did he not know the answer to his prayer? I believe that in his veiled flesh he was acknowledging that suffering and dying was not desirable, was painful, but that it was necessary. It was, at that point, a foregone conclusion, yes? On the end times topic, we don't know the conclusion or timing. But on this subject we have hindsight and doctrine showing us that Jesus was not unwilling, but willing to die, planned on it.

Jesus wasn't just double checking with God on the gameplan. I think this prayer demonstrates the great effort and great sacrifice, not acting, but real, sacrifice that Jesus experienced and put himself through, on our behalf. This was more than a demonstration in words, it was a moment in time when Jesus was quite literally talking-to-himself in a very human way.

I just never did swallow, even before questioning the concept of Triune persons, that Jesus was ACTUALLY having second thoughts.

Whereas to me, the notion of Jesus needing to check in with the Father at this moment is entirely credible, given the understanding of the ancient doctrine of kenosis described above. He only knows of the future what God has revealed to Him. He thinks he sees where this is heading and, understandably, it's disturbing. He's wrestling with it. And yet he is submitting himself to the Father's will, trusting in that. He understands his purpose, he shares the divine nature & character with the Father & the Spirit, but in his earthly incarnation is not omniscient and so only knows what is revealed.


quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

I thing Jesus Christ is the expressed personification of the Father, personified in the flesh. I don't even think that the Hebrews would have thought of God as a person in the first place, but in our time we're overly focused importance of individuals.

I'll say this, in very many ways, God the Father was an abstract concept to Israel, especially in that dark time. Therefore personifying him was one of the purposes Jesus was there for. Just as in our time God is very abstract the farther away we get from viewing Jesus, so with them as well.

Really??? What evidence do you have to support this???

The OT to my reading reveals a highly personal, very relational God-- one that the Hebrews can argue with, bargain with, badger, cajole, and bitch to when he doesn't seem to them to be coming thru on his promises. What evidence do you have to the contrary? At the moment this assertion seems to be to be pulled straight out of clear blue sky.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Interestingly, I once organised a poetry reading by a Buddhist poet. After the reading there was a Q&A / discussion time. There were Christians, Jews and Muslims present as well as people of no faith.

Afterwards, one of the Jewish guys observed to me that he found the whole thing interesting but quite 'cold' - Buddhism doesn't have a concept of God in the personal sense. He told me that if Judaism was about anything it was about the idea of a personal, Living God - the One who Is.

I don't know why I was so pleasantly surprised, but I was ...

So, what Cliffdweller said ...
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

The OT to my reading reveals a highly personal, very relational God-- one that the Hebrews can argue with, bargain with, badger, cajole, and bitch to when he doesn't seem to them to be coming thru on his promises.

This is what I like about him. And he's still that way.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Cliffdweller wrote:

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

I thing Jesus Christ is the expressed personification of the Father, personified in the flesh. I don't even think that the Hebrews would have thought of God as a person in the first place, but in our time we're overly focused importance of individuals.

I'll say this, in very many ways, God the Father was an abstract concept to Israel, especially in that dark time. Therefore personifying him was one of the purposes Jesus was there for. Just as in our time God is very abstract the farther away we get from viewing Jesus, so with them as well.
Really??? What evidence do you have to support this???

The OT to my reading reveals a highly personal, very relational God-- one that the Hebrews can argue with, bargain with, badger, cajole, and bitch to when he doesn't seem to them to be coming thru on his promises. What evidence do you have to the contrary? At the moment this assertion seems to be to be pulled straight out of clear blue sky.

Well, it's arguable that the OT God is RELATIVELY less personal than various pagan deities who were on offer around the same time eg. The Israelites weren't allowed to create images of him, and he didn't have a wife, family, consorts etc.

[ 10. June 2017, 17:56: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Less human, maybe. Not less personal.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Hm. The formatting came out as kind of confusing there.

This is the paragraph, by Cliffdweller, that I was replying to...

quote:
The OT to my reading reveals a highly personal, very relational God-- one that the Hebrews can argue with, bargain with, badger, cajole, and bitch to when he doesn't seem to them to be coming thru on his promises. What evidence do you have to the contrary? At the moment this assertion seems to be to be pulled straight out of clear blue sky.

 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Less human, maybe. Not less personal.

Exactly. I would say the God of the OT Is really quite amazingly personal-- in any terms. Again-- bargaining with God? Complaining to him about his slowness to act? Cajoling him? Badgering him? Trusting him enough to reveal your petty jealousies and revenge fantasies? I don't know about your relationships, but in our house, that's pretty much what "personal relationships" look like.

Still waiting for some evidence otherwise to support A's contention that the Hebrews did not have any notion of a "personal" God.

[ 10. June 2017, 20:08: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
The Israelites weren't allowed to create images of him, and he didn't have a wife, family, consorts etc.

I see how this demonstrates that the Israelite God was different from the gods of their neighbors, but I don't see how it either confirms or denies A's assertion that Yahweh is "less personal". As Lamb said, at best it goes to "not human".
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Less human, maybe. Not less personal.

Exactly. I would say the God of the OT Is really quite amazingly personal-- in any terms. Again-- bargaining with God? Complaining to him about his slowness to act? Cajoling him? Badgering him? Trusting him enough to reveal your petty jealousies and revenge fantasies? I don't know about your relationships, but in our house, that's pretty much what "personal relationships" look like.
Then there's that personal interaction that's foundational to who and what Israel is: wrestling with God.

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
The Israelites weren't allowed to create images of him ....

One reason for that could be because God had already created images of himself in the form of each human being. Making images of God detracts from the very personal images we already have (and are).
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Exactly. I would say the God of the OT Is really quite amazingly personal-- in any terms. Again-- bargaining with God? Complaining to him about his slowness to act? Cajoling him? Badgering him? Trusting him enough to reveal your petty jealousies and revenge fantasies? I don't know about your relationships, but in our house, that's pretty much what "personal relationships" look like.

[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]

Yep, we have "interesting" relationships too. Wouldn't have thought to admit it here... [Snigger]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Exactly. I would say the God of the OT Is really quite amazingly personal-- in any terms. Again-- bargaining with God? Complaining to him about his slowness to act? Cajoling him? Badgering him? Trusting him enough to reveal your petty jealousies and revenge fantasies? I don't know about your relationships, but in our house, that's pretty much what "personal relationships" look like.

[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]

Yep, we have "interesting" relationships too. Wouldn't have thought to admit it here... [Snigger]

We have teenagers. 'Nuff said.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
So do we. And not all of them are in their teens.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Nice tangent, direction on the God of Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob-Israel, Joseph, Moses et al. Personal. I don't see Baal, Marduk, Osiris, Horus, Anubis, Dagon, Semiramis being quite so ... personal.
 
Posted by wild haggis (# 15555) on :
 
Just reading Richard Rohr too. Makes you think. I'm enjoying it.
Steve Holmes also wrote a book on the Trinity - brilliant stuff. Paul Fiddes book about the Divine Dance - although you could shoot holes in the allusions - is good theology but dense!
Trinity is difficult and that is why it causes lots of theological arguments and folks often just say it is a mystery which may/may not be a cop out.
Certainly Trinity has very early evidence for Christians accepting it.
If Jesus is just a man how can he then save from sin - but that opens another theological debate.
The philosophical/theological nicities have caused debate from the beginning of Christianity if you read the Early Fathers.
The Cappadocian Fathers wrestled with it and I don't think I could better them. So much depends on definitions and Greek words often have wider semantic areas than English. So exact parallels are difficult.
I am a haggis of little brain and there are those with bigger brains. Not that I don't like wrestling theologically!!!
If Jesus was just a man (even adopted by God) then he wasn't that special, was he, so why worship him?
Anyway - great to debate.
So Happy Trinity Sunday everyone.
Don't fall off your 3 legged stool, squash your egg or start hunting of a 4 leaved shamrocks or stand on each others toes when you enter the eternal dance...........I give up!
How DO you describe indescribable -the Trinity in limited human language? Trinity is God after all. If we can describe him completely, he/she wouldn't be God.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
quote:
The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend.

Exodus 33 v 11


That's about as personal as it gets.
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

as far as Jesus in the garden...

Nowthen, are we to believe Jesus was not clear as to the mission before him to suffer and die. Did he not know the answer to his prayer? I believe that in his veiled flesh he was acknowledging that suffering and dying was not desirable, was painful, but that it was necessary. It was, at that point, a foregone conclusion, yes? On the end times topic, we don't know the conclusion or timing. But on this subject we have hindsight and doctrine showing us that Jesus was not unwilling, but willing to die, planned on it.

Jesus wasn't just double checking with God on the gameplan. I think this prayer demonstrates the great effort and great sacrifice, not acting, but real, sacrifice that Jesus experienced and put himself through, on our behalf. This was more than a demonstration in words, it was a moment in time when Jesus was quite literally talking-to-himself in a very human way.

I just never did swallow, even before questioning the concept of Triune persons, that Jesus was ACTUALLY having second thoughts.

Whereas to me, the notion of Jesus needing to check in with the Father at this moment is entirely credible, given the understanding of the ancient doctrine of kenosis described above. He only knows of the future what God has revealed to Him. He thinks he sees where this is heading and, understandably, it's disturbing. He's wrestling with it. And yet he is submitting himself to the Father's will, trusting in that. He understands his purpose, he shares the divine nature & character with the Father & the Spirit, but in his earthly incarnation is not omniscient and so only knows what is revealed.
I suppose if kenosis makes the most sense to you, I see what you mean, but I would say the hypostatic union is the better view. I don't see any explicit evidence for kenosis, it is only one way of of viewing Jesus in light of a perceived, or maybe 'apparent' loss of divine attributes. I think it best to explain that the attributes remained, but that they were simply not exercised. Or in other words, his divine power, identity and nature were fully retained, only not exercised.

I believe that the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness is one key point showing his struggle is to refrain from using divine power that he clearly still retained, otherwise how could Satan tempt him? How hard would it be to not use what is part of your innate nature? I think -hard- is the point we were to understand.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

I thing Jesus Christ is the expressed personification of the Father, personified in the flesh. I don't even think that the Hebrews would have thought of God as a person in the first place, but in our time we're overly focused importance of individuals.

I'll say this, in very many ways, God the Father was an abstract concept to Israel, especially in that dark time. Therefore personifying him was one of the purposes Jesus was there for. Just as in our time God is very abstract the farther away we get from viewing Jesus, so with them as well.

Really??? What evidence do you have to support this???

The OT to my reading reveals a highly personal, very relational God-- one that the Hebrews can argue with, bargain with, badger, cajole, and bitch to when he doesn't seem to them to be coming thru on his promises. What evidence do you have to the contrary? At the moment this assertion seems to be to be pulled straight out of clear blue sky. [/QB]

You took issue with a minor point of evidence. Perhaps not the best evidence, but all I'm saying is that when the Hebrew people had a heart issue, as was the case in that day, we can rightly say they had lost touch with the personal nature of God. Of course the Scriptures point toward a personal God, but as you know the religious paradigm of the day was one of tight regulations and work centered salvation. The leadership and majority had lost touch with the person of God, hence, the minority were the ones able to receive Jesus (God personified).

[ 12. June 2017, 16:00: Message edited by: Aijalon ]
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Good point. personification may have been an awkward way of saying it. I am not sure how to describe speaking about yourself in a different place when in fact you are omnipresent.

...I'm saying that along the way in the ministry, Jesus was, essentially, play acting. He was/is God, playacting as something lesser. In order to conceal his identity, he spoke of the Father (his own person) externally.

I believe this reading is based on a faulty understanding of divinity and the nature of the Trinity. Read the prior discussion a page or two back about kenosis. Many/most of us orthodox Christians do not believe Jesus retained the "omnis" when he was on earth. As you note, the gospels certainly don't portray him as having that sort of power/ability, and Phil. 2 seems to be implying that this is part of what it meant for him to "empty himself" and "become a servant." So there is no "play-acting" involved, no deception, no pretense. He wasn't "pretending" to be limited by space & time-- being limited by space and time is inherent to existing in a physical, material body and relating to mortals in a physical, space/time-bound universe. He seems to be limited by space/time because he WAS limited by space/time. He is only able to do/know supernaturally what the Father enabled him to do/know in the moment. His power came-- as he explicitly says on several occasions-- from the Father.

The reason this is so hard for us to grasp is that we have been trained (mostly by Greek philosophy) to define divinity by the "omnis". That's what "being God" means to us-- having the power to be/do/know everything. But I would argue that Phil. 2 suggests and Jesus demonstrates that the "omnis" are secondary attributes, not defining characteristics. They are abilities God has, but not the definition of who God is. The definition of who God is, as Jesus both states explicitly and demonstrates in his life & death, is love.

What is inherent, what is defining, what is immutable about God is that: the divine nature, the divine character. God not only has love or does love, God is love. In Jesus, stripped of the shiny "omni" bits that distract us, this is on full display.

Will need to think more about this one before responding, this is not an easy one. [Smile]

All the best.

A.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Humans don't have omnis. If they do, they ain't human and 'What is not assumed, is not redeemed' as C4th Gregory Nazianzen said.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

I thing Jesus Christ is the expressed personification of the Father, personified in the flesh. I don't even think that the Hebrews would have thought of God as a person in the first place, but in our time we're overly focused importance of individuals.

I'll say this, in very many ways, God the Father was an abstract concept to Israel, especially in that dark time. Therefore personifying him was one of the purposes Jesus was there for. Just as in our time God is very abstract the farther away we get from viewing Jesus, so with them as well.

quote:
(my response) Really??? What evidence do you have to support this???

The OT to my reading reveals a highly personal, very relational God-- one that the Hebrews can argue with, bargain with, badger, cajole, and bitch to when he doesn't seem to them to be coming thru on his promises. What evidence do you have to the contrary? At the moment this assertion seems to be to be pulled straight out of clear blue sky.

quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
You took issue with a minor point of evidence. Perhaps not the best evidence, but all I'm saying is that when the Hebrew people had a heart issue, as was the case in that day, we can rightly say they had lost touch with the personal nature of God. Of course the Scriptures point toward a personal God, but as you know the religious paradigm of the day was one of tight regulations and work centered salvation. The leadership and majority had lost touch with the person of God, hence, the minority were the ones able to receive Jesus (God personified).

I'm not sure what you mean by "minor point of evidence"-- if you'll reread your original post I think you'll see it was a bit unclear if that was your point. Your comment "I don't even think that the Hebrews would have thought of God as a person in the first place, but in our time we're overly focused importance of individuals... I'll say this, in very many ways, God the Father was an abstract concept to Israel," certainly implied to me and others that the Hebrew people were incapable of understanding God as personal being-- that they had no evidence of this in their oral or written tradition, when in fact the evidence is (as many posters have demonstrated) quite the reverse.

Now your correction seems a bit more understandable-- certainly it is true that Israel at many points deviated (as do we) from what was written in Scripture. And yes, there is a tendency the (and now, among both liberal and conservative Christians) toward rigid regulation and works-righetousness-- although I think that's a bit of an easy stereotype that doesn't really encompass all of what went astray (at times) for Israel-- as well as fails to recognize how very much like fallen Israel we often become. But even given that sketchy stereotype, I don't think it follows that Israel thought of Yahweh as "impersonal". Rather, I'd say it's more like "took God for granted." More like the spouse who has become indifferent or distant, but still "goes thru the motions" of being a good spouse-- remaining sexually chaste, providing financially, etc. I wouldn't say that the problem was that such a neglectful spouse did not conceive of their significant other as "personal" but rather that they were relating to them in a neglectful or even, yes, impersonal way. But that's different than saying they didn't think of their spouse as a person. Again, the very fact that Israel did presume at times on God's grace might be evidence of the fact that it was, first and foremost, a relationship.

As a bit of an aside, I will say that it's easy for us evangelicals to fall into easy stereotypes about "works righteousness" both re ancient Israel, contemporary Judaism and/or liturgical Christianity that don't really reflect the complex, nuanced relationships at play there. And we overlook the very real ways we fall into the same trap, just manifested in different ways. And of course, as Bonhoeffer reminded us, our desire to run away from any whiff of "works righteousness" carries with it the very real danger of "cheap grace". Far better, I think, to think in terms of a healthy understanding of discipleship, where you are moving toward something (the pearl of great price) rather than reacting against something.

But that's probably grist for another thread.

[ 12. June 2017, 18:06: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
I did make my initial point a bit unclear, true there. Was driving at the idea of the deviant Israel, rather than righteous Israel, being as the bulk of the OT stories are aimed at correction of wayward "stiff necked" and wicked unbelieving Israel. Respond further if I can later today.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
And good grist too, I think, Cliffdweller.

Meanwhile, is it just me or am I right in thinking that some posters here have misunderstood kenosis?

What objectors to kenosis have objected to isn't what I've understood by kenosis. Perhaps it's me who has the wrong end of the stick?
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
Not sure yet but looking into the Greek term and I think emptied is a fair enough word in translation but it seems to have carried with it some notion of Jesus as like a bucket that has spilled it's divine qualities.

This isn't the vein in which the term seems to be used, to me.

The word points toward the uselessness of a thing, or of something being made void, it has become useless.

It is not as if divinity can be put in a locker, and then unlocked later. But that seems to be the premise of Kenosis as postulated by some. It seems to presuppose that the nature of anything can be subdivided or parts of it extracted.

Whereas the alternative view is that the nature of something cannot be subtracted from or altered, only hidden.

I think I would default to a view of Phil 2:7 which shows the person of Jesus to have been made valueless, not that his divinity was extracted from his identity. It is simply his identity being obscured by the treatment and behavior of Him as a person-of-no-value (empty of/void of importance).

The empty of "certain qualities" is imposed on the text.

PHIL 2:5 For, let this mind be in you that [is] also in Christ Jesus, 6who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God, 7but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, 8and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, -YLT

The purpose of this is to focus us on being Christ-like in mind. We cannot empty ourselves of intrinsic qualities, rather, we are to be of a mind like Christ in our obedience to God through seeing "the fashion" in which Christ was humble.

I would say "empty ourselves" is equivalent to an abstract sense of "lowering ourselves".

The KJV has it less than literal perhaps, but on the money with: "made himself of no reputation"

Chapter 2 of Philippians goes on to explain how it is the "name" of Christ that is glorified now, confirming that the issue is the reputation of Christ being restored to a divine name, not that his qualities were refilled or restored.

(sorry - first refute of kenosis... and had not been really caught up to the whole of this thread, sorry for any repetition of material if offered earlier. If I had time I might have tried to read and catch earlier. Hope this was of use to someone, even for a good grimace!)
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Not sure yet but looking into the Greek term and I think emptied is a fair enough word in translation but it seems to have carried with it some notion of Jesus as like a bucket that has spilled it's divine qualities.

This isn't the vein in which the term seems to be used, to me.

The word points toward the uselessness of a thing, or of something being made void, it has become useless.

It is not as if divinity can be put in a locker, and then unlocked later. But that seems to be the premise of Kenosis as postulated by some. It seems to presuppose that the nature of anything can be subdivided or parts of it extracted.

Whereas the alternative view is that the nature of something cannot be subtracted from or altered, only hidden.

I think I would default to a view of Phil 2:7 which shows the person of Jesus to have been made valueless, not that his divinity was extracted from his identity. It is simply his identity being obscured by the treatment and behavior of Him as a person-of-no-value (empty of/void of importance).

The empty of "certain qualities" is imposed on the text.

PHIL 2:5 For, let this mind be in you that [is] also in Christ Jesus, 6who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God, 7but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, 8and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, -YLT

The purpose of this is to focus us on being Christ-like in mind. We cannot empty ourselves of intrinsic qualities, rather, we are to be of a mind like Christ in our obedience to God through seeing "the fashion" in which Christ was humble.

Where we have a dispute is what exactly are the "essential attributes" of divinity.

I would agree that Phil. 2 asserts that Jesus was at all times fully divine, so whatever it is that is essential to divinity, Jesus had it every bit as much in his earthly incarnation as he does in the resurrection.

The question is whether or not the "omnis" are essential divine attributes (as Greek philosophy would suggest) or whether they are merely secondary qualities. I might have, for example, great athletic ability (I don't, but this is hypothetical). If this ability rises to the level of Olympic competition, it might even seem like a defining quality-- the first line in my wiki page, the way people know/remember me. But if I lose that athletic ability thru age, lack of training, or a disabling accident (Christopher Reed comes to mind) I don't cease to be me. Whatever essential qualities make me me are still there-- even if I go thru a period of extended depression or bitterness. Those who know me well will recognize me. I'm still me.

In the same way, if the "omnis" are secondary divine qualities-- abilities but not defining essence-- they can be voluntarily set aside (the voluntary part is essential to the sovereignty of God) without compromising the essential "Godness" of God. This is especially true if that "setting aside" is consistent with what IS the essential, defining qualities-- the essence of what makes God God.

Scripture uses a lot of descriptive words to describe God. But the closest it comes to defining God is when Jesus tells us that God IS love. Again, not that God has love or does love, but rather that God IS love. I believe divine love-- that self-sacrificing, self-emptying love that we can only dimly understand-- is THE defining, essential quality of divinity. It is the thing that Jesus never sets aside. It is the thing that unites the Trinity in a single mind, a single will, a single character. The fact that Jesus temporarily sets aside the "omnis" in order to exist as a human being (something that is incompatible physically with the "omnis") is not an "exception" to divinity but rather the fullest, most complete expression of it.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Jesus did not know who touched Him when the Holy Spirit healed the haemorrhagic woman through Him. He didn't know that the Flood didn't happen. He didn't know that there was a future of thousands of years beyond the fall of Jerusalem. He took two goes to heal a blind man. He used nothing but His wits, some bits of string and the gift of faith healing to defeat the murderous establishment. And He died helplessly alone. Like the rest of us.

Where were the omnis?
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
Mr picky doesn't like the way Jesus does his miracles, making up problems. Seems easy to me that the blind man had his eyes fixed, possibly even replaced, and vision fixed next. Sort of like getting a car to run, then tuning it up.
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:


The purpose of this is to focus us on being Christ-like in mind. We cannot empty ourselves of intrinsic qualities, rather, we are to be of a mind like Christ in our obedience to God through seeing "the fashion" in which Christ was humble.

Where we have a dispute is what exactly are the "essential attributes" of divinity.
Perhaps so.
1) Are we even qualified to draft a complete list of essential divine qualities - I suggest we are not. 2) Suppose we take our best guess, is the text even talking about a variety of the qualities of divinity as far abilities. Again, no.

quote:
I would agree that Phil. 2 asserts that Jesus was at all times fully divine, so whatever it is that is essential to divinity, Jesus had it every bit as much in his earthly incarnation as he does in the resurrection.
Ok.

quote:
The question is whether or not the "omnis" are essential divine attributes (as Greek philosophy would suggest) or whether they are merely secondary qualities.
...
...
... if the "omnis" are secondary divine qualities-- abilities but not defining essence-- they can be voluntarily set aside (the voluntary part is essential to the sovereignty of God) without compromising the essential "Godness" of God. This is especially true if that "setting aside" is consistent with what IS the essential, defining qualities-- the essence of what makes God God.

I follow that, I think that makes sense. I am still not in agreement that this is what the text is saying to us, even if that is one possibility.

as I posted earlier, but I think you didn't respond to it because you were capitalizing on the less important part of my post...


"I suppose if kenosis makes the most sense to you, I see what you mean, but I would say the hypostatic union is the better view. I don't see any explicit evidence for kenosis, it is only one way of of viewing Jesus in light of a perceived, or maybe 'apparent' loss of divine attributes. I think it best to explain that the attributes remained, but that they were simply not exercised. Or in other words, his divine power, identity and nature were fully retained, only not exercised.

I believe that the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness is one key point showing his struggle is to refrain from using divine power that he clearly still retained, otherwise how could Satan tempt him? How hard would it be to not use what is part of your innate nature? I think -hard- is the point we were to understand."

quote:
Scripture uses a lot of descriptive words to describe God. But the closest it comes to defining God is when Jesus tells us that God IS love.
I don't think "closest" is accurate, as if that is the one and only essential quality we can see in the text. To list a few possibilities:

He is HOLY and set apart
He is everlasting/life/living water
He is loving, and personal
He is all consuming
He is word (all truth, light)


quote:
Again, not that God has love or does love, but rather that God IS love. I believe divine love-- that self-sacrificing, self-emptying love that we can only dimly understand-- is THE defining, essential quality of divinity.
Stopping at that point alone is an easy stopping point, isn't it. Love requires nothing in return, or does it? We know that Jesus does require something in return from the world he loves.... love is free for a while, but when this life expires on us, will we get in the kingdom for free? If we make that the ONE attribute of God -because we certainly like love, and need love- and yet we ourselves don't love others in return, God's other attributes come into play. Minor example perhaps, don't get carried away - Jesus did whip some people, might have been a brief episode, but I think it is a example of his love invoking other essential attributes. Its a mistake to say that because he is Love, that this is where his "essential" attributes end. Temporally as we observe it, if he's 99 parts love and 1 part wrath, who are we to ignore the wrath as an essential attribute? Once again that old problem of using only our recent observations to define something.

quote:
It is the thing that Jesus never sets aside. It is the thing that unites the Trinity in a single mind, a single will, a single character. The fact that Jesus temporarily sets aside the "omnis" in order to exist as a human being (something that is incompatible physically with the "omnis") is not an "exception" to divinity but rather the fullest, most complete expression of it.
Sure, love is never set aside, no problem. I see how if that is all you consider, it makes the Trinity simpler again, but it's fact to you, but not fact to me. Modalism as I initially understood it was too simple to explain how God was switching "modes" from being in heaven, to being on earth, it didn't explain the "omnis" aspect, rather it (like Trinity) required some kind of dissonance to be accepted by not know where the "omnis" went. So I naturally rejected it on those grounds because I believed that the Omnis were still involved and of course, retained, in heaven. So God didn't set aside omnipotence in a foot locker, and depart for earth. Somewhere, someone is running the universe. So, if we must concentrate on omnipotence generally, God would need a second person to be upstairs managing. The language Jesus uses largely supports that as far as a dialogue with the man upstairs - in light of shedding omnipotence. But, that is derived from a preconceived notion that he did shed parts of his nature to become human. (It's a little like a chicken and egg question) If one supposes that God did not actually remove any quality, but rather added humanity to his other qualities - the trinity falls apart.

Adding qualities is the viewpoint is the one that holds for me now because nowhere do we see evidence of any essential qualities of divinity being removed from Christ, rather only his treatment, behavior and visual representation being of a humble nature. God ADDS to his qualities a human nature (is human nature now an essential quality of his divinity?!) The language of Jesus in the personal talk between him and the father was part of a disguise, required for humility, in order that we as humans in God's likeness might later see that we are also sharing in the Glory and divinity of God through service to Christ as our Lord - heirs of Glory.

I found this view comforting and partly discovered it through exploring the glorification of Christ and particularly as I began to view visions of revelation in a more organic way. The vision points toward heaven merging with earth, the Father, in other words, brings his kingdom here, and the Immortal body of Christ. The material world is ADDED into his kingdom. The whole question is much more about what God added in creation and incarnation, instead of the reverse thing, which is us making it about reduction and division of things. he is here with me, his person, not a third person here with me. The spirit is his person and the father's person. This sits well with me because I feel closer to God by Him being one person. I feel that the personal interaction and dialogue of Jesus points us in that direction, in the direction of a single relationship to God, and to ONE person, not three. The Trinity frustrates that intent, and, I think that it obscures us from seeing and hearing from God clearly.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
as I posted earlier, but I think you didn't respond to it because you were capitalizing on the less important part of my post...

"I suppose if kenosis makes the most sense to you, I see what you mean, but I would say the hypostatic union is the better view. I don't see any explicit evidence for kenosis, it is only one way of of viewing Jesus in light of a perceived, or maybe 'apparent' loss of divine attributes. I think it best to explain that the attributes remained, but that they were simply not exercised. Or in other words, his divine power, identity and nature were fully retained, only not exercised.

I believe that the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness is one key point showing his struggle is to refrain from using divine power that he clearly still retained, otherwise how could Satan tempt him? How hard would it be to not use what is part of your innate nature? I think -hard- is the point we were to understand."

To some degree it's a semantic difference-- both of us agree that the pre- and post-incarnation Christ holds the "omnis". Both of us agree that "giving them up" was a voluntary action. So really it's a question of whether he retained the ability to do a "backsies" while on earth. The difference is your explanation requires "play-acting" on Jesus' part, and means that in several instances when he says explicitly or implicitly that he is only able to know or do what the Father allows he is being at best disingenuous. That doesn't fit as well with Jesus' character as revealed in Scripture. The notion that Jesus "set aside" the "omnis" is a more natural explanation IMHO.

With the caveat that this is beyond my pay grade, I also think it fits better with the physics of things-- that to be a mortal, physical being in a material, physical universe is incompatible with the "omnis".

I think the temptation story fits the kenosis explanation better than the "play-acting" explanation. The text talks about calling upon the angels to protect him-- the idea seems to be that Jesus can call upon the Father or the Father's agents to give him the power to do anything, but not so much that he has that ability in his incarnate state. I would also say the temptations read like a poetic depiction of kenosis itself-- it is an acting out, a living representation, of the choice to "empty himself".


quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
.
quote:
Scripture uses a lot of descriptive words to describe God. But the closest it comes to defining God is when Jesus tells us that God IS love.
I don't think "closest" is accurate, as if that is the one and only essential quality we can see in the text. To list a few possibilities:

He is HOLY and set apart
He is everlasting/life/living water
He is loving, and personal
He is all consuming
He is word (all truth, light)

I would agree with all those as defining qualities. Note that none involve the "omnis".


quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
.
quote:
Again, not that God has love or does love, but rather that God IS love. I believe divine love-- that self-sacrificing, self-emptying love that we can only dimly understand-- is THE defining, essential quality of divinity.
Stopping at that point alone is an easy stopping point, isn't it. Love requires nothing in return, or does it? We know that Jesus does require something in return from the world he loves.... love is free for a while, but when this life expires on us, will we get in the kingdom for free? If we make that the ONE attribute of God -because we certainly like love, and need love- and yet we ourselves don't love others in return, God's other attributes come into play. Minor example perhaps, don't get carried away - Jesus did whip some people, might have been a brief episode, but I think it is a example of his love invoking other essential attributes. Its a mistake to say that because he is Love, that this is where his "essential" attributes end. Temporally as we observe it, if he's 99 parts love and 1 part wrath, who are we to ignore the wrath as an essential attribute? Once again that old problem of using only our recent observations to define something.

I'm not as eager as you to include "wrath", and find those who are so, so very intent on making sure that stays in the equation... curious. And a tiny bit scary. But that may be a whole 'nother conversation. I would include "holiness" and "justice" as essential attributes. My point wasn't to create an exhaustive list, but simply to note, again, that the closest we get to a defining statement is "God IS love".


quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
.
]Sure, love is never set aside, no problem. I see how if that is all you consider, it makes the Trinity simpler again, but it's fact to you, but not fact to me. Modalism as I initially understood it was too simple to explain how God was switching "modes" from being in heaven, to being on earth, it didn't explain the "omnis" aspect, rather it (like Trinity) required some kind of dissonance to be accepted by not know where the "omnis" went. So I naturally rejected it on those grounds because I believed that the Omnis were still involved and of course, retained, in heaven. So God didn't set aside omnipotence in a foot locker, and depart for earth. Somewhere, someone is running the universe. So, if we must concentrate on omnipotence generally, God would need a second person to be upstairs managing. The language Jesus uses largely supports that as far as a dialogue with the man upstairs - in light of shedding omnipotence. But, that is derived from a preconceived notion that he did shed parts of his nature to become human. (It's a little like a chicken and egg question) If one supposes that God did not actually remove any quality, but rather added humanity to his other qualities - the trinity falls apart.

Yes, it is a chicken-and-egg question, but I think you've landed on the wrong end. As you yourself just said, "The language Jesus uses largely supports that as far as a dialogue with the man upstairs". Jesus' actions and words continually, consistently exemplify a degree of both distinction and unity with the Father & the Spirit that is best explained in the traditional Trinitarian formula. There's a reason why all the other options-- including the modalism and Oneness variations you're playing with-- were considered and rejected by the ancient church. The heterodox explanations you're suggesting all require this "play-acting" on Jesus' part. But that seems like a pretty slippery slope to me. Once you begin saying "well, yes, Jesus did say/do X, but he didn't really mean it, he was just pretending..." I think you've undermined the whole gospel record. That's far more than just the difference between literal and figurative interpretation-- it goes to the integrity and truthfulness (one of those essential attributes) of Christ himself.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
The Son of God is not a superhero; I'm not sure that the mark of divinity is his ability to know the future, read minds, be accurate in a history test or leap a tall building!

The mark of divinity is his essence, his nature, his eternity; he lost none of these things when he 'took on flesh'.

Even if he did 'leave his omnis behind in heaven' - as if they were tools in a toolkit he left at home - that would not mean that he lost or diminished his divinity.
In fact all it tells us for certain is that he didn't use them - we are not given any indication at all that he had lost the abilities.

One point to make, you gave a list of those things he wasn't able to do - e.g. he didn't know who touched him - and yet, in Matthew 9 v 4 we read:
quote:
Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?

It looks like he knew what people thought.
He knew, furthermore, who would betray him.

So maybe he knew more than a normal man would know?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

One point to make, you gave a list of those things he wasn't able to do - e.g. he didn't know who touched him - and yet, in Matthew 9 v 4 we read:
quote:
Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?

It looks like he knew what people thought.
He knew, furthermore, who would betray him.

So maybe he knew more than a normal man would know?

Yes-- and yet at other times he explicitly says he doesn't know some things (e.g. when he will return). What the incarnate Jesus seems to exemplify is that he is able to do all things as empowered by the Father. He is able to do miracles when empowered by the Father. He is able to know some things about the future that the Father has revealed to him. He has some amazing capabilities-- but always the supernatural abilities are framed as coming from the Father.

This is helps make sense of Jesus' statement that his followers will be "able to do even greater things" than he did. A pretty audacious and daunting statement! But if you think of it in this way, that we can do anything we are empowered by the Father to do, then it makes sense. We can know what the Father reveals to us. We can do what the Father gives us the power to do. And like Jesus we cannot know anything of the future that God has not revealed to us. Thus we are to follow his example of living our lives in constant dialogue and submission to God.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Mr picky doesn't like the way Jesus does his miracles, making up problems. Seems easy to me that the blind man had his eyes fixed, possibly even replaced, and vision fixed next. Sort of like getting a car to run, then tuning it up.

I love the way Jesus does his miracles, having problems. As with Lazarus.
 
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Indeed. But he, being subordinate to the will of the Father, did not divest himself of his divine essence. He was still homoousios - one with the Father.
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
I suggest God was merely relating to man, stooping to his level, when he asked Adam in the Garden -
"where are you".

It was not an indication that God lost track of Adam. ... Was not a GENUINE question as far as being a request for information.

I see the question of "who touched me" as no different. I accepted the use of playacting as a term of use even though it carries with it the modern day color and flavor of a more distasteful word that is frequently used against my position - "disingenuous".

Such a term being used projects on the discussion a fallacy. The fallacy is that we have understood God adequately when he says "XYZ", as soon as we have interpreted the words and expressions literally, and had them examined against some version of sensibility. If an expression seems grate on our sensibility, the tendency is to explain it some other way.

So the whole thing tends to lean back and forth between God being either confusing/nonsensical -or- disingenuous. Both are offensive concepts. I believe the Trinity seeks to prevent us from falling to either side, the side God actually intended his initial audience to go to.

If there is any error or flaw in our proposals, I propose we first resolve our gaps by filling in misunderstandings with more of the impression, or intent, and less of a literal, or even monotone textual analysis. Rationality has a tendency to cause us to impose concepts on the story to try to resolve the perceived problems. I see the Trinity is such a rationality. It is an invention that stops the pendulum swing between nonsense and playacting. But both nonsense and playacting are present in the story!

It really is nonsensical for God to come down to earth in a human form, born of a virgin, all God, and all man. And his speech is often quite nonsensical -in all honesty- to our minds. He actually insisted on being nonsensical when pressed for clearer explanations.

HIM "You must eat my flesh and drink my blood....."
THEM " ' you can't be serious' " (paraphrased)
HIM: " 'no, I'm serious' " (paraphrased)
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Who's Adam?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
aijalon I'm not sure who your post is directed at. I see you are defending against my suggestion that your position makes Jesus disingenuous. But I don't see the false polarity of "nonsense". Who is presenting or accusing "nonsense"? I don't see anywhere in your last post where you're addressing kenosis

[ 13. June 2017, 20:24: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Mudfrog, if I understand it correctly, kenosis isn't saying that Jesus ceased being one in essence with the Father.

The Trinity is never divided.

I know of no small o or Big O view of kenosis that suggests or involves the 'dismantling' of the Trinity.

I might be wrong but whatever views of kenosis people here are tilting at, they aren't actually what those who espouse kenosis believe.
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
aijalon I'm not sure who your post is directed at. I see you are defending against my suggestion that your position makes Jesus disingenuous. But I don't see the false polarity of "nonsense". Who is presenting or accusing "nonsense"? I don't see anywhere in your last post where you're addressing kenosis

I was heading you off at the pass, should you try the same approach others have used when the subject of Jesus being vague pops up. Perhaps not fair to you, I know. Responding to all as I can find the time.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
aijalon I'm not sure who your post is directed at. I see you are defending against my suggestion that your position makes Jesus disingenuous. But I don't see the false polarity of "nonsense". Who is presenting or accusing "nonsense"? I don't see anywhere in your last post where you're addressing kenosis

I was heading you off at the pass, should you try the same approach others have used when the subject of Jesus being vague pops up. Perhaps not fair to you, I know. Responding to all as I can find the time.
But that's not my argument-- at all. I'm not suggesting Jesus was "vague". In fact, my argument is specifically that Jesus was quite explicit (I even used that word) in saying "I can only do what the Father enables me to do" or "I only know what the Father has revealed to me". At the same time he was quite explicit about the unity of the Trinity-- "I and the Father or one", "If you see me, you have seen the Father." I am not arguing that this is "nonsense", although I would of course acknowledge there is a bit of mystery inherent in anything that is so transcendent, so beyond our material universe.

Again, if the post in question was directed toward me I'm not sure AT ALL how it relates to what I am saying, or really if you are tracking at all with the argument I am making. In fact, I'm not sure WHO the post could be directed toward because I don't see anyone here who is arguing in those terms. Yet you seemed to be setting it up as a false binary-- "either you think of Jesus as I do ("playacting") or you think Jesus' words are 'nonsense'". That is a false binary as obviously there are many other options. At least 4 or 5 other options have been argued on this thread-- yet I can't recall anyone arguing for the "nonsense" proposition (OK, maybe Martin... but I'm never quite sure what Martin is arguing...)

Let's stick to the arguments real posters on this thread are making, shall we? Rather than inventing imaginary opponents? The waters are muddy enough when we're talking about the Trinity w/o bringing in a bunch of strawmen.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
aijalon I'm not sure who your post is directed at. I see you are defending against my suggestion that your position makes Jesus disingenuous. But I don't see the false polarity of "nonsense". Who is presenting or accusing "nonsense"? I don't see anywhere in your last post where you're addressing kenosis

I was heading you off at the pass, should you try the same approach others have used when the subject of Jesus being vague pops up. Perhaps not fair to you, I know. Responding to all as I can find the time.
But that's not my argument-- at all. I'm not suggesting Jesus was "vague". In fact, my argument is specifically that Jesus was quite explicit (I even used that word) in saying "I can only do what the Father enables me to do" or "I only know what the Father has revealed to me". At the same time he was quite explicit about the unity of the Trinity-- "I and the Father or one", "If you see me, you have seen the Father." I am not arguing that this is "nonsense", although I would of course acknowledge there is a bit of mystery inherent in anything that is so transcendent, so beyond our material universe.

Again, if the post in question was directed toward me I'm not sure AT ALL how it relates to what I am saying, or really if you are tracking at all with the argument I am making. In fact, I'm not sure WHO the post could be directed toward because I don't see anyone here who is arguing in those terms. Yet you seemed to be setting it up as a false binary-- "either you think of Jesus as I do ("playacting") or you think Jesus' words are 'nonsense'". That is a false binary as obviously there are many other options. At least 4 or 5 other options have been argued on this thread-- yet I can't recall anyone arguing for the "nonsense" proposition (OK, maybe Martin... but I'm never quite sure what Martin is arguing...)

Let's stick to the arguments real posters on this thread are making, shall we? Rather than inventing imaginary opponents? The waters are muddy enough when we're talking about the Trinity w/o bringing in a bunch of strawmen.

Hmmm. I'm not aware that I've EVER accused Jesus of talking nonsense. I never would.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Good to know! And all the more reason, then, not to go chasing down the "nonsense" rabbit trail since no one is arguing for it.

[ 14. June 2017, 19:50: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
He was constrained by being fully human of course. He couldn't know that the texts were increasingly mythic with age. The oldest text being the book of Job of course. And not historically true. At all. In the slightest. He couldn't know that the Flood never happened and that Adam and Eve never existed, that Babel didn't happen, nor Sodom and Gomorrah or the Exodus. That He hadn't ordered Samuel to commit genocide. He was constrained in what He could know even with supernatural revelation from the Holy Ghost as well of course.
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
quote:
The difference is your explanation requires "play-acting" on Jesus' part, and means that in several instances when he says explicitly or implicitly that he is only able to know or do what the Father allows he is being at best disingenuous.
As I was saying, disingenuous basically goes along with it all. Jesus was not behaving or identifying himself as God, spent 30 years as a regular guy, in hiding. What is more disingenuous about a God, than that? The concept of being disingenuous doesn't hurt my position. I'd say it's a fact of the case, a basic premise of the whole situation.
quote:
The difference is your explanation requires "play-acting" on Jesus' part, and means that in several instances when he says explicitly or implicitly that he is only able to know or do what the Father allows he is being at best disingenuous.
The physical universe alone considered, true, my point remains that the Trinue nature of Christ is that his person coexists in multiple dimensions - physical being one. So then as far as the material universe where his person was present invisibly before, it became visibly manifest in mortal form at one location.
quote:
I would also say the temptations read like a poetic depiction of kenosis itself-- it is an acting out, a living representation, of the choice to "empty himself".
I guess it was more of a taunting, than tempting, in that light. One point there, you suggested that Satan wanted Jesus to call on the Father, but the Father isn't mentioned. If you are predetermined to view the story in light of multiple persons, I understand your interp.
quote:
I would agree with all those as defining qualities. Note that none involve the "omnis".
I thought you had said that you agreed that he retained the omnis. So I might be a tad lost as to whether we are talking about kenosis alone, or about kenosis only in light of it being needed to substantiate the Trinity. Kenosis was never my original target, but someone directed me there as far as it seemed to be foundational to the trinity according to those here.
quote:
I'm not as eager as you to include "wrath",
mentioning wrath doesn't make me eager about wrath, or is that merely a slight to me that I'm violent or angry? Again, my counter point is that I simply disagree that God is so neatly defined in just love alone. Excellent place to start when making an introduction of God. It's the first thing to know about God, but still incomplete.
quote:
But that seems like a pretty slippery slope to me. Once you begin saying "well, yes, Jesus did say/do X, but he didn't really mean it, he was just pretending..." I think you've undermined the whole gospel record. But that seems like a pretty slippery slope to me. Once you begin saying "well, yes, Jesus did say/do X, but he didn't really mean it, he was just pretending..." I think you've undermined the whole gospel record.
I guess in a certain light, "pretending" just sort of sounds mean, but it's a terribly wrong characterization of what was going on. Nothing is further from the truth. In fact, had Jesus not pretended to NOT be God, he would have been by nature being mean and impossible to understand. I would submit that without a little pretending, the Gospel would not have launched.

When I speak to my children in a high pitched soft voice, am I pretending? Is that untruthful because it isn't my deeper natural voice?

When I play soft and let them win a game, am I being "fake"?

Jesus was no different with us, his speech represents a softer tone of voice. I am not genuinely wanting to be soft in tone when my children need a lesson. I would rather bark at them. But I know that barking at them is not as effective.


[I earlier wrote]:
I suggest God was merely relating to man, stooping to his level, when he asked Adam in the Garden -
"where are you".

It was not an indication that God lost track of Adam. ... Was not a GENUINE question as far as being a request for information.

I see the question of "who touched me" as no different. I accepted the use of playacting as a term of use even though it carries with it the modern day color and flavor of a more distasteful word that is frequently used against my position - "disingenuous".


Shame on me for every allowing "play acting" as I had figured (wrongly) it would not carry the same definition as "disingenuous". I suppose in my limited vocabulary I don't have a great word to replace it, it's a pretty unique situation.

Seeing you wont let that go... aiming to hit it on the head in terms of the trinity (not merely kenosis).

Being vague is not the same as being untruthful. Attacking play-acting as a character flaw is fallacy because it is like putting Jesus in a box whereby his words must make sense on paper, and, if not, then he's being untruthful. The Trinity makes it possible for the words of Christ to be literally true, with a new concept never introduced in that time slid-into/underneath the context. Without the 3-persons concept, the words are very hard to grasp - obviously, yes? So, knowing that the Trinity was not the view of that time, we should rightly conclude that Jesus -aware of it- was not instructing people to create a whole new viewpoint of God's personhood, but, rather, he was being a little vague - on purpose. He was clear enough to be very frustrating though, he was leading them along toward a very difficult conclusion about his identity and personhood. I don't believe that the intention was to show himself as a different person than God, because he made it much more about one-ness, than three-ness. The three-ness implicit in the speech was, as I hold it, a natural hurldle in his mission to gradually introduce himself as God.

There is no other way to gradually introduce one's self as God in teaching is there? .... without using 2nd person language? I think the story shows his goals of 1) teaching about God, and 2) revealing himself to be God, were accomplished in succession. The former requiring his lessons to include demonstrations and -for lack of a better word- "play-acting". In effect he was -pretending- NOT to be God with most of the people, rather, revealing the higher truth to a limited few, and only as the ability to see the truth grew in them. This, wisely avoids the shock and revulsion factor triggered by an overt statement that he is God. Jesus uses that revulsion as a tactic in preying on the pharisees.

Without the notion of Trinity on the table for Peter and Paul - follow this analogy:
*Bruce Wayne says to the commissioner of police: "Batman and I are one".
The clear implication is that Batman and Bruce are - one and the same


John 10:33 demonstrates Jesus clearly came across as identifying himself as God in person - the same identity. Overbearing on the distinction of the term "Son" of God (as I predict you will do) doesn't work, because it purports that the term Son must equate to a new identity. Rather, the term Son, without the idea of trinity which didn't exist for them, means merely that Jesus humanity carries a temporal identity. In other words, his heavenly identity preceded his human identity and as evident by his humility, his heavenly identity was the greater aspect of his identity.

My position is merely as simple as the nature of what is -understood- by the implicit speech, and the Jews understood it exactly as intended. Removing the idea of the Trinity is to put one's self in the correct context to read the story.

[ 16. June 2017, 16:32: Message edited by: Aijalon ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Aijalon:

Away from office, posting on iPad, making copy feature difficult to use. But your last post really suggests you are Not following my argument for whatever reason. So, just to get us on the same page.

1. Nope. I never said Satan wanted Jesus to call on the Father during his temptation. Nope. Didn't say that, doesn't make any sense

2. Nope. I never said Jesus retained the omnis in his earthly incarnation

3. Think "wrath" is a pretty crappy place to begin talking about a God. Hard to imagine a worse starting point. Do you find that approach successful-- ever???
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
He was constrained by being fully human of course. He couldn't know that the texts were increasingly mythic with age. The oldest text being the book of Job of course. And not historically true. At all. In the slightest. He couldn't know that the Flood never happened and that Adam and Eve never existed, that Babel didn't happen, nor Sodom and Gomorrah or the Exodus. That He hadn't ordered Samuel to commit genocide. He was constrained in what He could know even with supernatural revelation from the Holy Ghost as well of course.

Congratulations once again on demonstrating the power of a fully closed mind. My you be blessed in your blessed ignorance.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Don't mistake me for your projection in the mirror.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
The difference is your explanation requires "play-acting" on Jesus' part, and means that in several instances when he says explicitly or implicitly that he is only able to know or do what the Father allows he is being at best disingenuous.
As I was saying, disingenuous basically goes along with it all. Jesus was not behaving or identifying himself as God, spent 30 years as a regular guy, in hiding. What is more disingenuous about a God, than that? The concept of being disingenuous doesn't hurt my position.
The orthodox doctrine of the incarnation is that Jesus was a regular human being.
There's a difference between not mentioning something and actively behaving insincerely.
It's one thing not to volunteer the information that you're an orphan unasked and another thing to carry on a pretend phone call to your father.

quote:
Without the notion of Trinity on the table for Peter and Paul - follow this analogy:
*Bruce Wayne says to the commissioner of police: "Batman and I are one".
The clear implication is that Batman and Bruce are - one and the same

Howabout: Robin says, Batman and I are one.
(Or Superman says, The Justice League are one.)

The clear implication is that Robin and Batman are of one mind or stand as one. Yes, in modern English that's a little awkward as a way to say we're united. But 'Batman and Bruce Wayne are one' is in modern English an awkward way to say 'Batman and Bruce Wayne are the same person'.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
As I was saying, disingenuous basically goes along with it all. Jesus was not behaving or identifying himself as God, spent 30 years as a regular guy, in hiding. What is more disingenuous about a God, than that? The concept of being disingenuous doesn't hurt my position.

It does if one finds the idea that God could be disingenuous—lacking in sincerity, falsely or hypocrtitically sincere—to be totally inconsistent with the God revealed in Scripture, which I do.

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Without the notion of Trinity on the table for Peter and Paul - follow this analogy:
*Bruce Wayne says to the commissioner of police: "Batman and I are one".
The clear implication is that Batman and Bruce are - one and the same

Howabout: Robin says, Batman and I are one.
(Or Superman says, The Justice League are one.)

The clear implication is that Robin and Batman are of one mind or stand as one. Yes, in modern English that's a little awkward as a way to say we're united. But 'Batman and Bruce Wayne are one' is in modern English an awkward way to say 'Batman and Bruce Wayne are the same person'.

How about a married couple saying "we are one."

Frankly, it would never occur to me to try to make "the Father and I are one" mean "the Father and I are the same person." I think that's a really hard sell. I would assume in means "the Father and I are united."
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
He was constrained by being fully human of course. He couldn't know that the texts were increasingly mythic with age. The oldest text being the book of Job of course. And not historically true. At all. In the slightest. He couldn't know that the Flood never happened and that Adam and Eve never existed, that Babel didn't happen, nor Sodom and Gomorrah or the Exodus. That He hadn't ordered Samuel to commit genocide. He was constrained in what He could know even with supernatural revelation from the Holy Ghost as well of course.

Congratulations once again on demonstrating the power of a fully closed mind. My you be blessed in your blessed ignorance.
And a mind so open that its brains fall out is good for what? A mind so actually closed to to any but the most wooden, literal, uneducated, anti-intellectual, superstitious, cook book interpretation of 700 years of texts from a crossroads of successive, huge, diverse cultures each with millennia of cultural evolution, as well as its own cultural microclimate.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
He was constrained by being fully human of course. He couldn't know that the texts were increasingly mythic with age. The oldest text being the book of Job of course. And not historically true. At all. In the slightest. He couldn't know that the Flood never happened and that Adam and Eve never existed, that Babel didn't happen, nor Sodom and Gomorrah or the Exodus. That He hadn't ordered Samuel to commit genocide. He was constrained in what He could know even with supernatural revelation from the Holy Ghost as well of course.

Congratulations once again on demonstrating the power of a fully closed mind. My you be blessed in your blessed ignorance.
Should I have an open mind about this recipe for genetic engineering? That Jacob knew something 3,500 years ago that we don't?

Genesis 30:37-39 (KJV)

37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.

38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.

39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
He was constrained by being fully human of course. He couldn't know that the texts were increasingly mythic with age. The oldest text being the book of Job of course. And not historically true. At all. In the slightest. He couldn't know that the Flood never happened and that Adam and Eve never existed, that Babel didn't happen, nor Sodom and Gomorrah or the Exodus. That He hadn't ordered Samuel to commit genocide. He was constrained in what He could know even with supernatural revelation from the Holy Ghost as well of course.

Congratulations once again on demonstrating the power of a fully closed mind. My you be blessed in your blessed ignorance.
Is this a guide for Christian sexual morality? As valid as Ephesians 5:25?

Judges 19 (KJV)

19 And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite sojourning on the side of mount Ephraim, who took to him a concubine out of Bethlehemjudah.

2 And his concubine played the whore against him, and went away from him unto her father's house to Bethlehemjudah, and was there four whole months.

3 And her husband arose, and went after her, to speak friendly unto her, and to bring her again, having his servant with him, and a couple of asses: and she brought him into her father's house: and when the father of the damsel saw him, he rejoiced to meet him.

4 And his father in law, the damsel's father, retained him; and he abode with him three days: so they did eat and drink, and lodged there.

5 And it came to pass on the fourth day, when they arose early in the morning, that he rose up to depart: and the damsel's father said unto his son in law, Comfort thine heart with a morsel of bread, and afterward go your way.

6 And they sat down, and did eat and drink both of them together: for the damsel's father had said unto the man, Be content, I pray thee, and tarry all night, and let thine heart be merry.

7 And when the man rose up to depart, his father in law urged him: therefore he lodged there again.

8 And he arose early in the morning on the fifth day to depart; and the damsel's father said, Comfort thine heart, I pray thee. And they tarried until afternoon, and they did eat both of them.

9 And when the man rose up to depart, he, and his concubine, and his servant, his father in law, the damsel's father, said unto him, Behold, now the day draweth toward evening, I pray you tarry all night: behold, the day groweth to an end, lodge here, that thine heart may be merry; and to morrow get you early on your way, that thou mayest go home.

10 But the man would not tarry that night, but he rose up and departed, and came over against Jebus, which is Jerusalem; and there were with him two asses saddled, his concubine also was with him.

11 And when they were by Jebus, the day was far spent; and the servant said unto his master, Come, I pray thee, and let us turn in into this city of the Jebusites, and lodge in it.

12 And his master said unto him, We will not turn aside hither into the city of a stranger, that is not of the children of Israel; we will pass over to Gibeah.

13 And he said unto his servant, Come, and let us draw near to one of these places to lodge all night, in Gibeah, or in Ramah.

14 And they passed on and went their way; and the sun went down upon them when they were by Gibeah, which belongeth to Benjamin.

15 And they turned aside thither, to go in and to lodge in Gibeah: and when he went in, he sat him down in a street of the city: for there was no man that took them into his house to lodging.

16 And, behold, there came an old man from his work out of the field at even, which was also of mount Ephraim; and he sojourned in Gibeah: but the men of the place were Benjamites.

17 And when he had lifted up his eyes, he saw a wayfaring man in the street of the city: and the old man said, Whither goest thou? and whence comest thou?

18 And he said unto him, We are passing from Bethlehemjudah toward the side of mount Ephraim; from thence am I: and I went to Bethlehemjudah, but I am now going to the house of the Lord; and there is no man that receiveth me to house.

19 Yet there is both straw and provender for our asses; and there is bread and wine also for me, and for thy handmaid, and for the young man which is with thy servants: there is no want of any thing.

20 And the old man said, Peace be with thee; howsoever let all thy wants lie upon me; only lodge not in the street.

21 So he brought him into his house, and gave provender unto the asses: and they washed their feet, and did eat and drink.

22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.

23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.

24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.

25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

26 Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light.

27 And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold.

28 And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place.

29 And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.

30 And it was so, that all that saw it said, There was no such deed done nor seen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt unto this day: consider of it, take advice, and speak your minds.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Of course not, you'll say, there are 'dispensations'. No?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Of course not, you'll say, there are 'dispensations'. No?

I don't think there are too many dispensationalists on this board.

I think we're veering even more off track than usual. Biblical interpretation/ literalism/ contradictions/ inspiration surely is another thread/board.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think Martin is jousting at Jamat, Cliffdweller. Jamat is a dispensationalist.

But yes, we do seem to wandering off the point ...
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think Martin is jousting at Jamat, Cliffdweller. Jamat is a dispensationalist.

Ah, yes, that fits.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think Martin is jousting at Jamat, Cliffdweller. Jamat is a dispensationalist.

Ah, yes, that fits.
Yes I am but unsure what he means.
Certainly every bad thing that goes into a Biblical story is not a pattern to emulate..even for a dispensationalist
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Thank goodness for that! That God kept changing His mind in step with the cultural evolution of our emotional intelligence. I wonder what He'll make up next?
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Aijalon:

Away from office, posting on iPad, making copy feature difficult to use. But your last post really suggests you are Not following my argument for whatever reason. So, just to get us on the same page.

1. Nope. I never said Satan wanted Jesus to call on the Father during his temptation. Nope. Didn't say that, doesn't make any sense

2. Nope. I never said Jesus retained the omnis in his earthly incarnation

3. Think "wrath" is a pretty crappy place to begin talking about a God. Hard to imagine a worse starting point. Do you find that approach successful-- ever???

I suppose you're right, not following some of the things you're saying.

1. I was trying to respond to your assertion that the temptation of Jesus was a display of kenosis itself. Assertion was perceived on my end to mean something toward the threeness/Trinity of God's person. Please recall I'm not arguing for or against Kensis by itself, only as far as it may relate to triune persons. It could be, maybe I'm wrong here too, that to you Jesus being an individual apart from the Father is such a foregone conclusion, that you're not able to see where I'm coming from.

2. YOu had said >> To some degree it's a semantic difference-- both of us agree that the pre- and post-incarnation Christ holds the "omnis". Both of us agree that "giving them up" was a voluntary action. So really it's a question of whether he retained the ability to do a "backsies" while on earth.
I was a little confused by this, but thought that we may simply have different lists of "omnis" and that you were exploring omnis in a way obscure to me. Perhaps you meant to say "post Ascension". In any case, moving on - that's cleared up.

I suppose we agree that Omnis are really a symantic discussion - which is great, it really does't support the idea of one essence in 3persons any more than one person in 3 dimensions.

3. Your third point is just "stick in the mud" talk, no substance there, other than irreverence. You may believe in a teddy bear or boyfriend/girlfriend God if you like.
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
The difference is your explanation requires "play-acting" on Jesus' part, and means that in several instances when he says explicitly or implicitly that he is only able to know or do what the Father allows he is being at best disingenuous.
As I was saying, disingenuous basically goes along with it all. Jesus was not behaving or identifying himself as God, spent 30 years as a regular guy, in hiding. What is more disingenuous about a God, than that? The concept of being disingenuous doesn't hurt my position.
The orthodox doctrine of the incarnation is that Jesus was a regular human being.
There's a difference between not mentioning something and actively behaving insincerely.
It's one thing not to volunteer the information that you're an orphan unasked and another thing to carry on a pretend phone call to your father.

To be obscure is not to be disingenuous. Jesus never pretended to be something OTHER than who he truly is, rather he directed his followers to look beyond him toward heaven. It was not for simple sake of being confusing, there was a purpose. Why would confusion on the part of the listener necessitate Jesus being disingenuous for fake, it' just doesn't equate.

quote:
quote:
Without the notion of Trinity on the table for Peter and Paul - follow this analogy:
*Bruce Wayne says to the commissioner of police: "Batman and I are one".
The clear implication is that Batman and Bruce are - one and the same

Howabout: Robin says, Batman and I are one.
(Or Superman says, The Justice League are one.)

The clear implication is that Robin and Batman are of one mind or stand as one. Yes, in modern English that's a little awkward as a way to say we're united. But 'Batman and Bruce Wayne are one' is in modern English an awkward way to say 'Batman and Bruce Wayne are the same person'.

Batman's (God's) identity was never understood to be multi-person by his audience. (Robin, in this instance, would be a messenger, not part of the trinity). [Smile]

Yes, as you say. It could have been less awkward to say that Jesus was either "of one mind" or "are one and the same". but he avoided both of those options. Rather, being obscure - and clearly intentionally, for it was definitely in his power to be crystal clear.

you also cleverly avoided my point, which rests on the fact that God's identity is indistinguishable - as one - to the disciples. This is the critical thing modern notions of the trinity fail on as I see, the context issue. Avoiding the context and concentrating on the scripted hollow text itself, and only that. Jesus said in round-about ways, he and God are indistinguishable - in their essence in mind and will, the disciples understood that toward the end. There is no revelation of Jesus by any hearer - and revelation by the hearer is the method of teaching - that Jesus is a different person. Rather, they hearers begin with the idea of Jesus as a separate person, and Jesus tries to UNDO that concept.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Says the Gospel according to Aijalon ...
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Aijalon:

Away from office, posting on iPad, making copy feature difficult to use. But your last post really suggests you are Not following my argument for whatever reason. So, just to get us on the same page.

1. Nope. I never said Satan wanted Jesus to call on the Father during his temptation. Nope. Didn't say that, doesn't make any sense

I suppose you're right, not following some of the things you're saying.

1. I was trying to respond to your assertion that the temptation of Jesus was a display of kenosis itself. Assertion was perceived on my end to mean something toward the threeness/Trinity of God's person. Please recall I'm not arguing for or against Kensis by itself, only as far as it may relate to triune persons. It could be, maybe I'm wrong here too, that to you Jesus being an individual apart from the Father is such a foregone conclusion, that you're not able to see where I'm coming from.

Hmmm... still not following. I never said Satan wanted Jesus to call upon the Father-- and am having trouble seeing how that would figure in to ANY of paradigm of the Godhead.

I did say that the temptation was a good representation of kenosis and Jesus' dependence upon the Father, but I'm not sure how you got from there to Satan wanting him to call on the Father.

fwiw, being a (Trinitarian) Pentecostal, you are not the first Oneness Christian I've conversed with.


quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

2. Nope. I never said Jesus retained the omnis in his earthly incarnation

2. YOu had said >> To some degree it's a semantic difference-- both of us agree that the pre- and post-incarnation Christ holds the "omnis". Both of us agree that "giving them up" was a voluntary action. So really it's a question of whether he retained the ability to do a "backsies" while on earth.
I was a little confused by this, but thought that we may simply have different lists of "omnis" and that you were exploring omnis in a way obscure to me. Perhaps you meant to say "post Ascension". In any case, moving on - that's cleared up.

Agh-- yes, I meant post-ascension. My bad. Thanks for the correction, mystery solved.


quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

3. Think "wrath" is a pretty crappy place to begin talking about a God. Hard to imagine a worse starting point. Do you find that approach successful-- ever???

3. Your third point is just "stick in the mud" talk, no substance there, other than irreverence. You may believe in a teddy bear or boyfriend/girlfriend God if you like.
Well, yes, I suppose that's true-- what we believe about God's nature is not as important as the true reality of God's nature. And if God truly is a wrathful, vengeful, bully we're probably better off being forewarned. Fortunately for me, I don't believe that is the case. It is not my experience of God, nor is it what I learn of God from what he has revealed thru Christ.

But my comment was in response to your remark that "wrath" was the most important "starting point"-- that it's important that "seekers" begin by understanding God's wrath before learning the rest of what we know about God.

I find the fact that you would think that to be both wholly insane and incredibly sad.

[ 19. June 2017, 22:49: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There's a difference between not mentioning something and actively behaving insincerely.
It's one thing not to volunteer the information that you're an orphan unasked and another thing to carry on a pretend phone call to your father.

To be obscure is not to be disingenuous.
I think that undermines your argument rather than supports it.
The exchange as I understand it has gone like this:
ME: If Jesus is the same person as the Father then Jesus is outright pretending when he prays in public to the Father.
YOU: Even on the Trinitarian account Jesus is pretending not to be God, so he's pretending on both accounts.
ME: There's a difference between not telling everyone everything (being obscure) and pretending something that's not true.
YOU: No, there's a difference between not telling everyone everything (being obscure) and pretending something that's not true.

quote:
Jesus never pretended to be something OTHER than who he truly is, rather he directed his followers to look beyond him toward heaven. It was not for simple sake of being confusing, there was a purpose. Why would confusion on the part of the listener necessitate Jesus being disingenuous for fake, it' just doesn't equate.
If talking out loud as if to someone else when there isn't a someone else doesn't count as pretending then nothing does. You seem to think anything short of an explicit lie doesn't count.
It's not confusion on the part of the listener if it's a reasonable reaction to what they hear.

And the point of the incarnation is not that people should look beyond God to heaven. There's no point in looking to heaven when God is on earth.

quote:
quote:
quote:
Without the notion of Trinity on the table for Peter and Paul - follow this analogy:
*Bruce Wayne says to the commissioner of police: "Batman and I are one".
The clear implication is that Batman and Bruce are - one and the same

Howabout: Robin says, Batman and I are one.
(Or Superman says, The Justice League are one.)

The clear implication is that Robin and Batman are of one mind or stand as one. Yes, in modern English that's a little awkward as a way to say we're united. But 'Batman and Bruce Wayne are one' is in modern English an awkward way to say 'Batman and Bruce Wayne are the same person'.

Batman's (God's) identity was never understood to be multi-person by his audience. (Robin, in this instance, would be a messenger, not part of the trinity).
Given that the Old Testament talks about God's wisdom as if it is someone other than God, I'm not so sure about that first sentence.
Robin would not be a messenger. I don't know where you get that from. Superman in my other example would be part of the Justice League.

quote:
you also cleverly avoided my point, which rests on the fact that God's identity is indistinguishable - as one - to the disciples.
Oh if only I had been able to find a point to avoid.
'God's identity is indistinguishable to the disciples' is not good English. (Glossing 'indistinguishable' as 'as one' doesn't make things better.) Something has to be indistinguishable from something else (or something notionally something else).
So here you are trying to say your point is resting on something and your statement of that something your point is resting on is complete nonsense.

Too many of your paragraphs are trains of association that don't seem to me to show what you seem to think they show and freighted with big words like 'indistinguishable' that aren't being used in the ways they're used in normal English.
That makes it hard to tell whether there's a point buried in there somewhere.

quote:
This is the critical thing modern notions of the trinity fail on as I see, the context issue. Jesus said in round-about ways, he and God are indistinguishable - in their essence in mind and will, the disciples understood that toward the end. There is no revelation of Jesus by any hearer - and revelation by the hearer is the method of teaching - that Jesus is a different person. Rather, they hearers begin with the idea of Jesus as a separate person, and Jesus tries to UNDO that concept.
The start of this paragraph seems to me to be saying, 'any argument that uses the word 'context' must be true, I've used the word 'context', my argument must be true'.
The middle of this paragraph about revelation and teaching and hearing is word salad. In so far as there are gleams of sense in it, they aren't true.
The final sentence makes sense but doesn't follow from anything you've said.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
A masterclass of reason, good for its own sake, not that it can ever heal the source.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
(Originally posted by Aijalon:) This is the critical thing modern notions of the trinity fail on as I see, the context issue. Jesus said in round-about ways, he and God are indistinguishable - in their essence in mind and will, the disciples understood that toward the end. There is no revelation of Jesus by any hearer - and revelation by the hearer is the method of teaching - that Jesus is a different person. Rather, they hearers begin with the idea of Jesus as a separate person, and Jesus tries to UNDO that concept.
The start of this paragraph seems to me to be saying, 'any argument that uses the word 'context' must be true, I've used the word 'context', my argument must be true'.
The middle of this paragraph about revelation and teaching and hearing is word salad. In so far as there are gleams of sense in it, they aren't true.
The final sentence makes sense but doesn't follow from anything you've said.

Bingo. Expert diagnosis for those with ears to hear.

[ 20. June 2017, 14:44: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
And an entry in the Quotesfile!
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
quote:
It's not confusion on the part of the listener if it's a reasonable reaction to what they hear.
That's just a totally false statement. A algebra student cannot blame the teacher for his own confusion at the start of a semester. The teacher will clearly point to the student's ignorance of the subject as the source of confusion.

No one would blame an incomplete puzzle for being confusing, the confusion is an incomplete view of the puzzle, wait for the picture to come together.

So too with Jesus' teaching. His patern of speech doesn't start with "pray to me" because that would have driven off his own followers. Rather, it began with "pray to the Father".

But today you and I pray to Jesus Christ. The puzzle is complete.

As to the rest of what you wrote about my "word salad" I won't bother to respond as you didn't really care to address anything directly. Nothing said was that hard for you. But just throw out crass criticism, I see the exit sign, I'll just leave so you may continue to discuss the pointless answers to the pointless question of whether Jesus is #1/#2or#3 in the Trinity. [Big Grin]

[ 20. June 2017, 20:29: Message edited by: Aijalon ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Typical.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
It wasn't just Dafyd who noticed the word salad.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
It's not confusion on the part of the listener if it's a reasonable reaction to what they hear.
That's just a totally false statement. A algebra student cannot blame the teacher for his own confusion at the start of a semester. The teacher will clearly point to the student's ignorance of the subject as the source of confusion.
Has anyone ever successfully taught you algebra?
This has not got anything to do with good teaching practice. But really I think your analogy is so out of alignment with the question of Jesus praying to the Father that it is impossible for me to address it at all.

quote:
No one would blame an incomplete puzzle for being confusing, the confusion is an incomplete view of the puzzle, wait for the picture to come together.
The picture won't come together if you wait.
You're talking as if the person who sets the puzzle solves it while the puzzle-solver watches. That's not how puzzles work.

quote:
So too with Jesus' teaching. His patern of speech doesn't start with "pray to me" because that would have driven off his own followers. Rather, it began with "pray to the Father".
We're not talking about whom Jesus tells the disciples to pray to. We're talking about whom Jesus prays to when he's not telling the disciples
that he's giving them instructions.

This would be like an algebra teacher telling the class that quadratics only have one solution.

quote:
As to the rest of what you wrote about my "word salad" I won't bother to respond as you didn't really care to address anything directly. Nothing said was that hard for you.
My point was that I couldn't address anything directly. You didn't care enough to write anything that could be directly addressed.

Consider: you wrote:
quote:
There is no revelation of Jesus by any hearer
People hearing don't reveal anything. Things are revealed to hearers, not by hearers. Did you mean, "There is no revelation by Jesus to any hearer"? I don't know, and why should I care when you clearly don't care enough to make it clear.
You're right: nothing said was that hard. It was that sloppy.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
It's not true word salad of course. That would be forgivable. This is just endlessly bad rhetoric. Fear is the key, but it's endless, unassuagable till death or, as in my case, till the authority deconstructs itself. As there is no authority here that can do that, that can't happen. Reason cannot replace, fill the infinite gaping maw of unreason.

[ 20. June 2017, 22:42: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
There's a lot of crunching in this thread, but it isn't really salad. It's nuts.

I think pizza works better than salad actually. God is the crust, the Holy Spirit is the cheese and Jesus is the sauce. Though if Christ is the True Foundation perhaps he's the crust. And maybe God's the Big Cheese; admittedly some cheeses are too strong for my taste. But I think the HS is definitely the sauce, I don't want very much, it mustn't be too spicy and there mustn't be too much.

The problem with pizza is that weirdos put things like pineapple on it. Like my godless Pentecostal pineappling sister. Probably Presbyterians and Lutherans etc put other odd things on their's. I know there's definitely too much oregano sometimes.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There's a lot of crunching in this thread, but it isn't really salad. It's nuts.

I think pizza works better than salad actually. God is the crust, the Holy Spirit is the cheese and Jesus is the sauce. Though if Christ is the True Foundation perhaps he's the crust. And maybe God's the Big Cheese; admittedly some cheeses are too strong for my taste. But I think the HS is definitely the sauce, I don't want very much, it mustn't be too spicy and there mustn't be too much.

The problem with pizza is that weirdos put things like pineapple on it. Like my godless Pentecostal pineappling sister. Probably Presbyterians and Lutherans etc put other odd things on their's. I know there's definitely too much oregano sometimes.

So the cheese and the sauce aren't God? What heresy is this?! Unipizzarism?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Pizzarianism, Pizzapneumatomachianism, Pizzamonarchianism, Pizzasabellianism at least.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
Aijalon: is English your first language? If it's not that would explain why you don't always quite make sense. If you say so we can try to make allowances for not always communicating with each other.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I'll wager it is. He's multiply separated from us by it.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Pizzarianism, Pizzapneumatomachianism, Pizzamonarchianism, Pizzasabellianism at least.

[Snigger]
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
It's not confusion on the part of the listener if it's a reasonable reaction to what they hear.
That's just a totally false statement. A algebra student cannot blame the teacher for his own confusion at the start of a semester. The teacher will clearly point to the student's ignorance of the subject as the source of confusion.
Has anyone ever successfully taught you algebra?
This has not got anything to do with good teaching practice. But really I think your analogy is so out of alignment with the question of Jesus praying to the Father that it is impossible for me to address it at all.

quote:
No one would blame an incomplete puzzle for being confusing, the confusion is an incomplete view of the puzzle, wait for the picture to come together.
The picture won't come together if you wait.
You're talking as if the person who sets the puzzle solves it while the puzzle-solver watches. That's not how puzzles work.

quote:
So too with Jesus' teaching. His patern of speech doesn't start with "pray to me" because that would have driven off his own followers. Rather, it began with "pray to the Father".
We're not talking about whom Jesus tells the disciples to pray to. We're talking about whom Jesus prays to when he's not telling the disciples
that he's giving them instructions.

This would be like an algebra teacher telling the class that quadratics only have one solution.

quote:
As to the rest of what you wrote about my "word salad" I won't bother to respond as you didn't really care to address anything directly. Nothing said was that hard for you.
My point was that I couldn't address anything directly. You didn't care enough to write anything that could be directly addressed.

Consider: you wrote:
quote:
There is no revelation of Jesus by any hearer
People hearing don't reveal anything. Things are revealed to hearers, not by hearers. Did you mean, "There is no revelation by Jesus to any hearer"? I don't know, and why should I care when you clearly don't care enough to make it clear.
You're right: nothing said was that hard. It was that sloppy.

You don't really seem serious about anything but dissecting hairs. The point of the analogy is to -in general- refute your false statement. You behave as if everything Jesus said was to be taken only as far as a reasonable person could draw a conclusion. Of course it is reasonable to consider the Father and Jesus as different persons based on his pattern of speech, it is reasonable because that is normal. But nothing is normal about Jesus and his Father's relationship. So what is common and normal cannot prove anything for you. "Reasonable" does not equate to proof of your position. I'm trying to tell you the storyline shows Jesus leading people toward an UNreasonable conclusion.

Jesus praying is at all times instructive for those hearing, even when it isn't recorded that he said "this is for your instruction". This is pretty clear in that these things were recorded and written for our benefit, and we learn from it. In fact, I would argue that in the case of play acting, it is actually the best kind of instruction (best acting) when you cannot tell that person is acting. There is something fake about a mere "demonstration", versus an actual live exercise. Like the difference between target practice and actually hunting.

In addition, hearing is instructive. TBH I feel that you are just playing hard to get, so as to make it seem my point is stupid, make me repeat myself in different ways so you can then mince my words, I will get in the dirt and explain it even more tediously.

The Gospels are narrative..... the hearer is put in the narrative for our instruction. What is understood by the hearers of the story are written down for our instruction. The response of those hearing him, give us revelation.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Jesus praying is at all times instructive for those hearing, even when it isn't recorded that he said "this is for your instruction". This is pretty clear in that these things were recorded and written for our benefit, and we learn from it. In fact, I would argue that in the case of play acting, it is actually the best kind of instruction (best acting) when you cannot tell that person is acting. There is something fake about a mere "demonstration", versus an actual live exercise. Like the difference between target practice and actually hunting.

But here you're not talking about enacting the reality (e.g. demonstrating the real way you hunt) but rather a fabrication-- you're talking about Jesus pretending things are one way (some distinction between himself and the Father) when in fact they are something quite different. That's not "demonstration", that's a deliberate misleading. If I "demonstrate" hunting by wearing bright colors, making a lot of noise, and showing how after shooting it the deer walks away unharmed afterwards, I'm not "demonstrating", I'm perpetuating a fallacy.


quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

The Gospels are narrative..... the hearer is put in the narrative for our instruction. What is understood by the hearers of the story are written down for our instruction. The response of those hearing him, give us revelation.

And what does the evidence suggest Jesus' hearers thought when Jesus said "I and the Father are one"? Why do you think John includes this in his gospel-- what did John intend us to think when we read it?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
quote:
It's not confusion on the part of the listener if it's a reasonable reaction to what they hear.
That's just a totally false statement. A algebra student cannot blame the teacher for his own confusion at the start of a semester. The teacher will clearly point to the student's ignorance of the subject as the source of confusion.
Has anyone ever successfully taught you algebra?
This has not got anything to do with good teaching practice. But really I think your analogy is so out of alignment with the question of Jesus praying to the Father that it is impossible for me to address it at all.

quote:
No one would blame an incomplete puzzle for being confusing, the confusion is an incomplete view of the puzzle, wait for the picture to come together.
The picture won't come together if you wait.
You're talking as if the person who sets the puzzle solves it while the puzzle-solver watches. That's not how puzzles work.

quote:
So too with Jesus' teaching. His patern of speech doesn't start with "pray to me" because that would have driven off his own followers. Rather, it began with "pray to the Father".
We're not talking about whom Jesus tells the disciples to pray to. We're talking about whom Jesus prays to when he's not telling the disciples
that he's giving them instructions.

This would be like an algebra teacher telling the class that quadratics only have one solution.

quote:
As to the rest of what you wrote about my "word salad" I won't bother to respond as you didn't really care to address anything directly. Nothing said was that hard for you.
My point was that I couldn't address anything directly. You didn't care enough to write anything that could be directly addressed.

Consider: you wrote:
quote:
There is no revelation of Jesus by any hearer
People hearing don't reveal anything. Things are revealed to hearers, not by hearers. Did you mean, "There is no revelation by Jesus to any hearer"? I don't know, and why should I care when you clearly don't care enough to make it clear.
You're right: nothing said was that hard. It was that sloppy.

You don't really seem serious about anything but dissecting hairs. The point of the analogy is to -in general- refute your false statement. You behave as if everything Jesus said was to be taken only as far as a reasonable person could draw a conclusion. Of course it is reasonable to consider the Father and Jesus as different persons based on his pattern of speech, it is reasonable because that is normal. But nothing is normal about Jesus and his Father's relationship. So what is common and normal cannot prove anything for you. "Reasonable" does not equate to proof of your position. I'm trying to tell you the storyline shows Jesus leading people toward an UNreasonable conclusion.

Jesus praying is at all times instructive for those hearing, even when it isn't recorded that he said "this is for your instruction". This is pretty clear in that these things were recorded and written for our benefit, and we learn from it. In fact, I would argue that in the case of play acting, it is actually the best kind of instruction (best acting) when you cannot tell that person is acting. There is something fake about a mere "demonstration", versus an actual live exercise. Like the difference between target practice and actually hunting.

In addition, hearing is instructive. TBH I feel that you are just playing hard to get, so as to make it seem my point is stupid, make me repeat myself in different ways so you can then mince my words, I will get in the dirt and explain it even more tediously.

The Gospels are narrative..... the hearer is put in the narrative for our instruction. What is understood by the hearers of the story are written down for our instruction. The response of those hearing him, give us revelation.

What?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
We're going to need an extremely large quantity of beer with this pizza my friends. Or maybe Jesus can change water into GIN this time around. Bapistries full of the stuff.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
You behave as if everything Jesus said was to be taken only as far as a reasonable person could draw a conclusion. Of course it is reasonable to consider the Father and Jesus as different persons based on his pattern of speech, it is reasonable because that is normal. But nothing is normal about Jesus and his Father's relationship. So what is common and normal cannot prove anything for you. "Reasonable" does not equate to proof of your position. I'm trying to tell you the storyline shows Jesus leading people toward an UNreasonable conclusion.

I will readily agree that Jesus is constantly leading his disciples and his listeners—and us—to unexpected conclusions, but what unreasonable conclusion does the storyline show Jesus leading anyone to?

I'm sorry Aijalon, but if I understand what you're arguing, I just can't make it square with Scripture, much less with Jesus as the Gospels portray him. Call it "play acting" or whatever, I can't see how what you seem to be suggesting is anything other than dishonesty on Jesus's part, with the apparent expectation that the disciples will see through the dishonesty in a nudge, nudge, wink, wink sort of way. And if that's the case, then it seems to me that we cannot really trust what Jesus, who calls himself "the Truth," says.

It's not Jesus's play acting that leads to unexpected conclusions. It's Jesus's very forthright statements about who he is and what the kingdom of God is that does that.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
You don't really seem serious about anything but dissecting hairs.

I'm not dissecting hairs for the sake of dissecting hairs. What I am trying to say is that it seems to me your argument is so covered in hairs that it is impossible to address the argument.
If you want us to address the argument it's your responsibility to get the hairs out of the way. Now, if English isn't your first language then that's different and we can try to work things out. But at the moment it looks as if you're being careless with your words and it's a reasonable supposition that you're equally careless with your thoughts.

quote:
The point of the analogy is to -in general- refute your false statement.
Which analogy? Which statement?

quote:
You behave as if everything Jesus said was to be taken only as far as a reasonable person could draw a conclusion. Of course it is reasonable to consider the Father and Jesus as different persons based on his pattern of speech, it is reasonable because that is normal. But nothing is normal about Jesus and his Father's relationship. So what is common and normal cannot prove anything for you.
If Bruce Wayne were to tell Commissioner Gordon that 'Batman and I are one' you believe it would be reasonable of Commissioner Gordon to conclude that Bruce Wayne is Batman. But now you say that what is reasonable and normal does not apply to Jesus. So when Jesus says 'I and the Father are one' you are saying that cannot prove anything for us.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Aijalon.

Trinitarianism is dialectically unavoidable. No other conclusion is possible using reason predicated on the text. A sufficiently logically trained, literarily educated atheist or Muslim could conclude nothing else. They would dismiss the text of course. So why don't you? Your arguments, your method of discourse, is too weak, too uneducated, not up to the task. You don't use any unitarian resources. Why not? They will be much better than yours. And still fail of course. But they fail better than you.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Jesus praying is at all times instructive for those hearing, even when it isn't recorded that he said "this is for your instruction". This is pretty clear in that these things were recorded and written for our benefit, and we learn from it. In fact, I would argue that in the case of play acting, it is actually the best kind of instruction (best acting) when you cannot tell that person is acting. There is something fake about a mere "demonstration", versus an actual live exercise. Like the difference between target practice and actually hunting.

This paragraph undoes itself. First you say Jesus was only praying for our instruction. Then you say that if Jesus were praying for our instruction he would have done it in such a way that we didn't know he was praying for our instruction. That's a contradiction.
The equivalent of an actual live exercise would be Jesus overseeing the disciples praying. Not the disciples watching Jesus praying.
One of the things that we are instructed in by Jesus' prayers is that Jesus isn't the Father.

quote:
The Gospels are narrative..... the hearer is put in the narrative for our instruction. What is understood by the hearers of the story are written down for our instruction. The response of those hearing him, give us revelation.
You could have tried to say that more clearly the first time.
I agree with all that. (*) However, as the disciples' response to the passage of John 14 that we have been discussing is not recorded or written down it doesn't do anything to establish your argument. Nowhere do any of the disciples react by saying Jesus and the Father are one and the same.

(*) Would it kill you to sort out your grammar? Are you under some religious vow that your verbs must not agree in number with their subjects?
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
I quoted your false statement to you.

I never claimed to be here to win at grammar, or spelling, or typing. All three good skills though, true!. I am flattered that you did take the time to diagram the sentences (or the run-ons).

Are you able to read/have a conversation without being irked by imperfect grammar?

BBL and have a good weekend!

[ 22. June 2017, 21:36: Message edited by: Aijalon ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Learn.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I quoted your false statement to you.

I never claimed to be here to win at grammar, or spelling, or typing. All three good skills though, true!. I am flattered that you did take the time to diagram the sentences (or the run-ons).

Are you able to read/have a conversation without being irked by imperfect grammar?

BBL and have a good weekend!

Dafyd made no false statement. You did. Your argumentation is just not up to this.

[ 23. June 2017, 09:39: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I quoted your false statement to you.

If you mean:
quote:
It's not confusion on the part of the listener if it's a reasonable reaction to what they hear.
that's a true statement.

I'm afraid your analogy to algebra teaching would be an attempt to blame the pupils for rubbish teaching.

quote:
I am flattered that you did take the time to diagram the sentences (or the run-ons).

Are you able to read/have a conversation without being irked by imperfect grammar?

I can't read nonsense or word salad, no.

"Diagram" the sentences? I wouldn't know how.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Aijalon

I used to come to refine my position. It broke. Yours is so broken already, why do you come?
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
I quoted your false statement to you.

If you mean:
quote:
It's not confusion on the part of the listener if it's a reasonable reaction to what they hear.
that's a true statement.

I'm afraid your analogy to algebra teaching would be an attempt to blame the pupils for rubbish teaching.

quote:
I am flattered that you did take the time to diagram the sentences (or the run-ons).

Are you able to read/have a conversation without being irked by imperfect grammar?

I can't read nonsense or word salad, no.

"Diagram" the sentences? I wouldn't know how.

Not to let you down, I have been very sick last 4-5 days.

Rubbish teaching: That's just veering the analogy of the rails entirely, keep it to the actual situation. We know the teacher was not rubbish. We know the lesson is not easy. Don't conflate the term confusion with stupidity. That is overly limiting the connotation of the word.

Confused can be simply "not understanding".

THIS >> "Tell me plainly, not in figures of speech...." == disciples confused.

There is no need for confusion to be a levy of insult on the student or the teacher as you seem to suggest.

Ultimately, I'm simply saying it is possible to come to a reasonable conclusion, and yet still have the wrong conclusion (confused). That's pretty simple.

All the listeners in the story, naturally and reasonably would have thought of God as a separate person from Jesus at the outset, at first meeting. Jesus speaks naturally -as if- the Father was not himself, but subtly nudges them/us to think of Him as the same. Why add the obscurity if not to lead them to a different conclusion?

The Trinity wasn't a conclusion presented in the story. So in the end, to the simple man of Judea, I'd say having the same being as something, makes you the same as the something. Can't have an identical being and essence as a person without BEING that person. That's where the Trinity stopped making sense to me.

Jesus says, in summary, "I am God's being" No need to make further conclusions.

If we accept Jesus to be the being and essence of God at face value, we can't turn and override that idea because of Jesus' pattern of speech seems to be obscure. The obscurity is intricately tied to his personal face to face dialogue. This is where the context of the storyline leads us to put ourselves in the shoes of Phillip.

If you ask anyone if one person is one being, they will say yes. Person and being are equivalent. Only in a convoluted philosophical sense can that be made out as false. That sense has caused people I know to try to communicate to God as three people in three different ways (three relationships). For example, praying to the Holy Spirit, rather than the Father. This to them somehow makes their prayers more effective. They somehow believe that if they can have three relationships to God, they are more Godly, since after all God has three relationships with himself.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:

Confused can be simply "not understanding".

If one person offers a complaint, it might be them. If nearly everyone does, it is almost certainly you.

[ 29. June 2017, 16:53: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
Confused can be simply "not understanding".

No, it can't. 'Confused' means mixed together or muddled (from 'con', 'together', and 'found', 'to pour'). If you use 'confuse' to mean merely 'not understanding' you're going to confuse anyone trying to understand you. (*)

quote:
THIS >> "Tell me plainly, not in figures of speech...." == disciples confused.
I suspect this is a bald assertion without supporting argument but as you haven't troubled to put in into English sentences I cannot be sure.

quote:
Ultimately, I'm simply saying it is possible to come to a reasonable conclusion, and yet still have the wrong conclusion (confused). That's pretty simple.
It is of course possible for a reasonable conclusion to be wrong (though not confused). That is not the question.
If Clark Kent pretends to be talking on the phone to Superman and Jimmy Olson concludes that he's talking to Superman, the problem isn't that Jimmy Olson doesn't understand (or is confused). It's that Jimmy Olson understands perfectly well what is meant. It's just that Clark Kent is deliberately doing something where what is meant is false; he is deliberately giving a false impression.
You've been waffling away from the point and around the point and quibbling about playacting and pretending. But Jesus is on your account doing something that establishes a false belief.

quote:
Jesus speaks naturally -as if- the Father was not himself, but subtly nudges them/us to think of Him as the same. Why add the obscurity if not to lead them to a different conclusion?
By speaking as if Jesus is not the Father Jesus strongly and directly nudges the hearers into thinking their natural assumption is confirmed.
Why the obscurity if matters are as simple as you suggest? The obscurity suggests that things are not as they appear to 'the simple man of Judea'.

quote:
Jesus says, in summary, "I am God's being"
No he doesn't.

quote:
If we accept Jesus to be the being and essence of God at face value, we can't turn and override that idea because of Jesus' pattern of speech seems to be obscure.
The problem doesn't come where Jesus' pattern of speech is obscure. The problem for your position is the bits where Jesus' pattern of speech is perfectly clear.

quote:
The obscurity is intricately tied to his personal face to face dialogue. This is where the context of the storyline leads us to put ourselves in the shoes of Phillip.
Exactly. Try doing it and see. Put ourselves in Philip's shoes. Would Philip conclude that Jesus is saying he's the same person as the Father? Don't do any of the sterile logic chopping of two thousand years later. Put yourself in Philip's shoes after three years of following Jesus. Would Philip conclude from what Jesus says that Jesus is the same person as the Father? No, he wouldn't. If we imagine Jesus' language, Jesus' body language, we see quite clearly that's not what Jesus meant.
That clears it up. Go on try it.

(Short version: your instruction to 'put yourselves in Philip's shoes' only seems to you convincing because you're already convinced for other reasons.)

quote:
If you ask anyone if one person is one being, they will say yes. Person and being are equivalent. Only in a convoluted philosophical sense can that be made out as false.
Would that convoluted philosophical sense be obscure? Would Jesus' words be obscure because they're convoluted? 'I am in the Father and the Father is in me' is convoluted if anything is.

(*) Yes, that's a different yet related sense of 'confuse'.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Well that nailed that Jell-O to the wall!
 
Posted by Aijalon (# 18777) on :
 
You just claimed that I cannot use the word confused in a certain context, and then went on to use the word confused in that exact context. That's absurd.

I'm done.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
You just claimed that I cannot use the word confused in a certain context, and then went on to use the word confused in that exact context. That's absurd.

I never said anything about not being able to use the word in any 'context'. If you're saying I used the word to mean 'not understanding' I did not.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Aijalon:
You just claimed that I cannot use the word confused in a certain context, and then went on to use the word confused in that exact context. That's absurd.

I never said anything about not being able to use the word in any 'context'. If you're saying I used the word to mean 'not understanding' I did not.
Not usually one to agree with aijalon, but to be fair,
dictionary.com shows something similar to aijalon's meaning for the first four definitions. You have to go all the way to definition #5 to get anything that looks much like Dafyd's.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dafyd:
[qb] Not usually one to agree with aijalon, but to be fair, shows something similar to aijalon's meaning for the first four definitions. You have to go all the way to definition #5 to get anything that looks much like Dafyd's.

I don't think any of those senses mean 'not understanding' which is what Aijalon says he means by it. My definition was referring back to the original metaphor: all the senses involve a mental metaphorical mixing together.
There's also a distinction I think between 'being confused by' something else where the confusion comes from something else doing the confusing and just 'being confused' where the confusion comes from the person who is confused. My point is that if you can't attribute confusion to the person who is confused in the second sense where the person's state of mind is a reasonable reaction to the evidence.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

There's also a distinction I think between 'being confused by' something else where the confusion comes from something else doing the confusing and just 'being confused' where the confusion comes from the person who is confused. My point is that if you can't attribute confusion to the person who is confused in the second sense where the person's state of mind is a reasonable reaction to the evidence.

I find this confusing.

(and pedantic)

[ 30. June 2017, 22:59: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
but to be fair,
dictionary.com shows something similar to aijalon's meaning for the first four definitions. You have to go all the way to definition #5 to get anything that looks much like Dafyd's.

If we are being fair, aijalon's arguments could be used as an illustration of all of those definitions.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
but to be fair,
dictionary.com shows something similar to aijalon's meaning for the first four definitions. You have to go all the way to definition #5 to get anything that looks much like Dafyd's.

If we are being fair, aijalon's arguments could be used as an illustration of all of those definitions.
True that!
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0