Thread: Christ our God? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028796
Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on
:
I'd like to share some thoughts about Jesus and Christ and would love to know how others feel.
When I think of John 1.1 and Christ the Word existing in the beginning, and when I think of the second person of the Holy Trinity, I then find 'Jesus' talk limiting, and unhelpful. It seems some christians focus so much on the Jesus of history, and seem to ignore Christ the second person of the Godhead.
But then we talk of attributes of the Holy Spirit in all time, but what of Christ. How is the pre-existent Christ represented in art, where do we see Christ's action before Jesus?
I guess I wonder whether I have seen God as - Creator, Holy Spirit and then in the man Jesus. But thats not quite the Holy Trinity!
Yours,
Puzzled!
Lugg
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Magersfontein Lugg: It seems some christians focus so much on the Jesus of history, and seem to ignore Christ the second person of the Godhead.
To be honest, I don't assign these kinds of meanings to the names 'Jesus' and 'Christ'. Jesus is both man and God, and Christ is both man and God. The only distinction is that one is a name and the other one is a title, but in practice I use them pretty much as synonyms.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm not sure I'm aware of people talking about the attributes of God the Holy Spirit, 'all the time' ...
Even in charismatic circles, people rarely discuss his attributes in my experience. They may talk a lot about spiritual gifts, about particular experiences but very rarely will you hear people talk about the Holy Spirit as a Person - unless they're wanting to particularly emphasise his Personhood rather than - as is sadly often the case - treating God the Holy Spirit as some kind of impersonal 'faith force' who exists primarily to 'zap people' and give them some kind of boost ...
On the whole, I think most Christians, of whatever stripe, are pretty fuzzy on the whole thing. That includes evangelicals, liberals and everyone else.
I've even heard evangelicals - who ought, of all people, to know better - saying things like, 'Well, Jesus is sort of like God ... he's the Son of God ...' rather than saying that the Second Person of the Trinity is Very God of Very God, begotten not made ...
On the other hand, I think it's pretty much the norm in liberal circles to talk about Jesus the Man rather than as the Incarnate Word - the God-Man Christ Jesus ...
But event there the mileage varies. I'm not sure there's any stock answer to this one.
It's a bug-bear of mine but on the whole I'd say that most people in the pews or the plastic seats are pretty hazy about the whole thing.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It's those that aren't I worry about.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Strikes me that it's probably more helpful to speak of God the Son - rather than "the Christ" - when speaking of the second person of the Trinity in terms of his "pre-existence".
[ 04. November 2014, 21:20: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Jesus must have been a liberal as He ALWAYS talked of Himself as the Son of Man.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Magersfontein Lugg: It seems some christians focus so much on the Jesus of history, and seem to ignore Christ the second person of the Godhead.
To be honest, I don't assign these kinds of meanings to the names 'Jesus' and 'Christ'. Jesus is both man and God, and Christ is both man and God. The only distinction is that one is a name and the other one is a title, but in practice I use them pretty much as synonyms.
Agreed. The title Christ, which is simply the Greek form of "messiah" or "annointed one," has no meaning apart from the Jesus of history. It was Jesus who was born of Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, crucified, raised and ascended who is the long-awaited messiah, the Christ. Without Jesus there is still the second person of the Trinity, the Word/Logos of God, but there is no Christ.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Jesus must have been a liberal as He ALWAYS talked of Himself as the Son of Man.
If you read Daniel 7 you might interpret Jesus' chosen self-reference somewhat differently.
[ 04. November 2014, 21:51: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
But then we talk of attributes of the Holy Spirit in all time, but what of Christ. How is the pre-existent Christ represented in art, where do we see Christ's action before Jesus?
Liturgy teaches. When you say "Christ Our God" what immediately leaps to mind is this bit from the Dismissal at Matins, sung at a positively breathless race to the finish, at least at one of my local Orthodox cathedrals: quote:
Priest: Wisdom!
Choir: Master, bless.
Priest: Christ our God, the Existing One, is blessed always, now and ever, and unto ages of ages.
Choir: Amen. Preserve, O God, the Holy Orthodox Faith and Orthodox Christians, unto ages of ages.
Priest: Most Holy Theotokos, save us!
Choir: More honorable than the Cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim: without defilement you gave birth to God the Word. True Theotokos, we magnify you.
Against Nick Tamen and daronmedway, this teaches there is no real daylight between Christ and the Great I AM.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Agreed you can't go splitting Jesus the Christ into two separate pieces. To do so is to fall into any one of a dozen ancient heresies (someone else can name them, I'm having a brain fart today).
He is who he is. He is the same person pre-existently, during his earthly lifetime, and today--and forever, too. The fact that he took on human nature at a specific point in history does not change him as a person. He is one whole being. And to assign the name "Jesus" to some lesser slice of him only is IMHO an insult to the second Person of the Trinity, as on some level it denies the full Incarnation and maybe even throws doubt on God's good sense in choosing it.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
It is interesting to me that in the OT, God (Yahweh) was rather down to earth and human like in many situations. In the NT, and in modern Christianity, Jesus is the one whom the personal relationship is with. God the father having retreated and seeming more remote than in the OT.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
But then we talk of attributes of the Holy Spirit in all time, but what of Christ. How is the pre-existent Christ represented in art, where do we see Christ's action before Jesus?
As has been pointed out above Christ is probably not the right word but the notion of the per-incarnate Jesus - the eternal Son of God is a central plank of orthodox Christian theology.
quote:
Psalm 110 [NIV]:
The LORD says to my lord:[a] “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”
And that's before we even touch on Melchizedek or the nature of Abraham's three visitors or that in John 1 it says "all things were made through him"
So there's plenty of biblical places to start looking to consider this question. And I think that the hymn/song writers have thought about this question too...
From Heaven you came, helpless babe...
You laid aside your majesty...
AFZ
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
I'm not sure I agree with you no prophet. God certainly isn't beyond dickering with Abraham and Moses and sits down to eat with the elders in the desert. He exhibits the tender care of a bird for her chicks. On the other hand there are awesome theophanies almost too numerous to list, whereby the unapproachable god touches his creation with terrifying results. I'm thinking about the mountain theophany coincident with the meal with Moses and the elders, those in Ezekiel, Daniel, and Isaiah, not to mention the more primitive storm-god encounters in the Psalms.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
One thing I have never understood is the idea that the Jesus of history (being the 'human' bit) and the 'Christ of faith' (being the 'cosmic' bit) were somehow separable.
To use the word 'Christ' when referring to the 'non-human' part of him is, IMHO, to ignore and spoil the Jewish notion of Messiah.
But that's par for the course for some theologians who would prefer to rid the church of any Jewish identity anyway.
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on
:
I have no problem with Jesus as Son of God, Word of God, second person of the Trinity, etc.
But a long-ago pastor always used to proclaim from the pulpit that "There is a man in heaven waiting for you", as in the Assumption of Jesus was as a human man, and he remains incarnate.
This has always bothered me somewhat. Can't he remain as 100% God, Word of God, Son of God, etc. etc.?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
I have no problem with Jesus as Son of God, Word of God, second person of the Trinity, etc.
But a long-ago pastor always used to proclaim from the pulpit that "There is a man in heaven waiting for you", as in the Assumption of Jesus was as a human man, and he remains incarnate.
This has always bothered me somewhat. Can't he remain as 100% God, Word of God, Son of God, etc. etc.?
He is also a man.
quote:
For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.
1 Timothy 2 v 5
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Magersfontein Lugg: It seems some christians focus so much on the Jesus of history, and seem to ignore Christ the second person of the Godhead.
To be honest, I don't assign these kinds of meanings to the names 'Jesus' and 'Christ'. Jesus is both man and God, and Christ is both man and God. The only distinction is that one is a name and the other one is a title, but in practice I use them pretty much as synonyms.
Agreed. The title Christ, which is simply the Greek form of "messiah" or "annointed one," has no meaning apart from the Jesus of history. It was Jesus who was born of Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, crucified, raised and ascended who is the long-awaited messiah, the Christ. Without Jesus there is still the second person of the Trinity, the Word/Logos of God, but there is no Christ.
As has already been said, you can't separate the two. Also I would ask, when Christ ascended into heaven did he stop being Jesus Christ? Or is he still creator and ruler of heaven and earth, Christ Pantokrator?
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
As has already been said, you can't separate the two. Also I would ask, when Christ ascended into heaven did he stop being Jesus Christ? Or is he still creator and ruler of heaven and earth, Christ Pantokrator?
The snag is, if your theology is of the "Jesus is my boyfriend" school, it's difficult to imagine having the Pantokrator as your boyfriend. He frowns too much and tends to dwell in unapproachable light. Much easier to cuddle up on the sofa with the hippy Jesus of history.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
As has already been said, you can't separate the two. Also I would ask, when Christ ascended into heaven did he stop being Jesus Christ? Or is he still creator and ruler of heaven and earth, Christ Pantokrator?
The snag is, if your theology is of the "Jesus is my boyfriend" school, it's difficult to imagine having the Pantokrator as your boyfriend. He frowns too much and tends to dwell in unapproachable light. Much easier to cuddle up on the sofa with the hippy Jesus of history.
We can see Jesus as both - it's not one or the other
as this hymn reveals
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on
:
Yeah, but the trick is to do both at once. As the pithy St Simeon the New Theologian puts it: quote:
As a friend talking with afriend, we speak to God, and drawing near in confidence we stand before the face of the One who dwells in light unapproachable
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I don't know why Mudfrog is bringing in the apparent neglect of the Jewish roots of the Christian faith into play again ... because the way he's expressed things here regarding the divinity and humanity of Christ - 100% fully God, 100% fully man - is completely Chalcedonian and pukka orthodox (and Orthodox) theology whether we are RC, Orthodox or Protestant - or within the latter whether we are Wesleyan, Reformed or whatever else.
I've come across some Orthodox (and some Lutherans) who believe that Calvinism can go awry in its Christology and end up Nestorian - but that's another issue and one that makes my brain ache.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Because of the supposed difference in some circles between the Jesus of history and 'the Christ of faith'.
Why can it not be the 'Jesus of faith'?
I've seen the word Christ used as if there was something very philophical and theological about 'him' in distinction to the living person called Jesus of Nazareth.
I remember being in a discussion in a biblical studies seminar where the tutor said something like "Jesus would not have said, "XYZ"' and I replied something like, 'But what about Luke 24 - the road to Emmaus?'
His reply was, 'Yes but that was the risen Christ as if it was a different being!
To my mind the word Christ is a lot more rooted in the humanity of Jesus and the ministry of the Kingdom here on earth than the pre-existent and glorified second person of the trinity. The word Christ/messiah must retain its Jewish hopes and expectations and not be merely a 'cosmic' figure of faith that is 'different' somehow to Jesus.
[ 05. November 2014, 11:09: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
... How is the pre-existent Christ represented in art, where do we see Christ's action before Jesus?
I guess I wonder whether I have seen God as - Creator, Holy Spirit and then in the man Jesus. But thats not quite the Holy Trinity! ...
No, it isn't. That is conflating the Father and the Spirit and would be ditheism. It's possible that this was the area of theology that Arius was trying to simplify.
I think the starting point has to be that God is bigger than we are. That there are aspects of his trinitarian nature that are difficult to understand is a consequence of our limitations. It is not a legitimate accusation to raise against God that he is not easier for us to understand. The more amazing thing is that he condescends to reach out to us at all and tries to reveal himself to us. True, we can't exchange theological discourse with dolphins and they weren't invited to Nicea. But as far as we know, he does not try to share himself in that way with any other parts of his creation.
My understanding is that it is only because Jesus was incarnate that it is accepted that he can be represented in art. Had cameras been around in the first century, he could have been photographed. With few exceptions, it has generally been regarded as improper to try and represent the Father visually. Symbolically in the west, the Holy Spirit is often represented by a dove, derived from the baptism narratives, but I'm not sure whether Orthodox rules for iconography allow that. He is also sometimes represented as flames hovering over the heads of the disciples at Pentecost.
The pre-existent Son, not being incarnate, cannot be represented. I suppose, following 1 Cor 10:4 one could represent the pre-existent Son symbolically by using a rock, but I'm not aware that this has generally been done.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Has there been a tradition of pictorially representing the Angel of the Lord. who is often seen as being the pre-incarnate Jesus?
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
I'm going to suggest that people may implicitly mean different things when they refer to Jesus, Christ, and God the Son/the eternal Logos/Second Person of the Trinity. Further ISTM that the confusion involves category errors, to wit: when some people speak of Jesus, they mean a biological man born into history; when some people speak of Christ, they mean - at the most orthodox - the God-Man of the hypostatic union of Eternal Logos with human organism who was incarnate of the Virgin Mary (but in other cases they may simply be conflating a humanised Jesus with a title (Christ); and the trickiest or most ambiguous part is what they mean by the Second Person of the Trinity/God the Son/Eternal Word in relation to Jesus. Is there perhaps a tendency to forget/ignore that the hypostatic union is permanent, with the glorified humanity of Christ Jesus being incorporated once and for all into the Godhead, so that God the Son and the incarnate Christ are in fact absolutely the same?
Part of the confusion is, I think, that many (most?) people who call themselves Christians are not really or fully trinitarians, and if they are part of a tradition that uses the ecumenical creeds, don't really understand what the terms of these mean.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
Sorry to double post, but missed the edit window. To clarify, when I suggest that category errors may often be involved, I mean both the creation of separate categories that in this case do not exist in orthodox Trinitarian-Chalcedonian theology, as well as the idiosyncratic conflation of various conceptual categories, or the ignoring of some Christological concepts altogether. ISTM that there are great differences in popular understandings and what orthodox Trinitarianism and Christology actually teach.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
the idea that the Jesus of history (being the 'human' bit) and the 'Christ of faith' (being the 'cosmic' bit) were somehow separable.
They are really not different, except in terms of human perception and knowing.
The historical Jesus is nothing less and nothing more than that person we can know through the apparatus of historical science. Using secular techniques of paleographic, archeologic, sociologic, economic, etc., analysis, what can be said?
The Christ of faith? We'll that requires different kinds of knowing—can I say Science, without being misunderstood?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I'm not sure I agree with you no prophet. God certainly isn't beyond dickering with Abraham and Moses and sits down to eat with the elders in the desert. He exhibits the tender care of a bird for her chicks. On the other hand there are awesome theophanies almost too numerous to list, whereby the unapproachable god touches his creation with terrifying results. I'm thinking about the mountain theophany coincident with the meal with Moses and the elders, those in Ezekiel, Daniel, and Isaiah, not to mention the more primitive storm-god encounters in the Psalms.
I know we are at pains to see continuity between God of OT and NT, but not sure it seems quite the same. But perhaps I am conflating the 'personal relationship' with Jesus we hear much of presently versus the OT/NT characterisation.
I think we often construct God and Jesus in our own way, to fit personal,cultural and national biases. Which we often don't examine much. I hear of praying to Jesus, as if hived off and separate.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
…the 'personal relationship' with Jesus we hear much of presently…
and quote:
…praying to Jesus, as if hived off and separate…
I think you have the problem precisely nailed down.
You'll read others on these board scathingly mock the Jesus is My Boyfriend, Yay! piety for good reason.
There are certainly rich veins of Jesus is Lover, a eroto-spiritual (desiring) strain of piety. But, these are properly situated in a universal Church that insistently, publicly, repeatedly (even annoyingly) prays in the name of the Trinity.
It seems one can't worship with the Orthodox for 30 seconds without being hit with yet another invocation of the Trinity.
I hope it's not to tedious to quote the following. It's the run up to the recitation of Psalm 51. It's longer than the psalm itself. quote:
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
Glory to Thee, our God, glory to Thee!
O Heavenly King, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, Who art everywhere and fillest all things; Treasury of Blessings, and Giver of Life - come and abide in us, and cleanse us from every impurity, and save our souls, O Good One.
Holy God! Holy Mighty! Holy Immortal! Have mercy on us. (3x)
Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.
O most Holy Trinity, have mercy on us. O Lord, cleanse us from our sins. O Master, pardon our transgressions. O Holy One, visit and heal our infirmities, for Thy name’s sake.
Lord, have mercy. (3x)
Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.
Our Father, Who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy Kingdom come; Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.
Lord, have mercy. (12x)
Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.
Come! Let us worship God, our King!
Come! Let us worship and fall down before Christ, our King and our God!
Come! Let us worship and fall down before Christ Himself, our King and our God!
There is no Jesus! My BFF! here and the Trinity is invoked and implied…what…seven, eight, nine times.
Western liturgy get at things in a slightly different way—while still invoking the Trinity, just not as often—by being very particular about identifying which person of the Trinity is addressed, and they all get addressed.
With some churches, it seems to be Jesus, Jesus, Jesus all day long.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I think you have the problem precisely nailed down. ....
Silent Acolyte, I agree with what you're saying in your post, but if you don't mind me saying, that strikes me as a very odd phrase to use.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Against Nick Tamen and daronmedway, this teaches there is no real daylight between Christ and the Great I AM.
Actually, I would agree with what you've said here.
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
As has already been said, you can't separate the two. Also I would ask, when Christ ascended into heaven did he stop being Jesus Christ? Or is he still creator and ruler of heaven and earth, Christ Pantokrator?
I fear I wasn't clear. I agree that the two cannot be separated, which is what I understood the OP to be attempting to do, with Jesus=human and Christ=divine. My point was not to agree that the two are separate, but to say that the Jesus=human/Christ=divine dichotomy doesn't work because the title "Christ" has meaning only as applied to God Incarnate. It is God Incarnate who is the messiah, the annointed one of God; it was God's coming as Emmanuel that warrants the title "Christ."
But I agree completely that, as TSA puts it, there is no daylight between Christ and the Great I AM. John the Evangalist, it seems to me, goes to great lengths to emphasize that point.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
.....
With some churches, it seems to be Jesus, Jesus, Jesus all day long.
Your post was helpful. I am reminded of a sermon I heard in the early 1980s. The priest talked of "persona", as in the actor in Greek tragedy/comedy being the same person but swapping masks as he/she said different lines and acted differently in character. I found myself understanding the metaphor of trinity better. But I also understood that we may call it trinity, and God god, but these are also our metaphors, which may be helpful, but also limited. Like divine puns or something. Like "I love you enough kill you".
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
My point was not to agree that the two are separate, but to say that the Jesus=human/Christ=divine dichotomy doesn't work because the title "Christ" has meaning only as applied to God Incarnate.
Quoting myself because reading this, I think I still wasn't clear. I think it's closer to what I'm getting at to say that the title "Christ" is not somehow the word for the divine nature of God because the title finds its meaning in the context of the Incarnation.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
n p etc, that's modalism. Easy to understand. And wrong.
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I'm going to suggest that people may implicitly mean different things when they refer to Jesus, Christ, and God the Son/the eternal Logos/Second Person of the Trinity. Further ISTM that the confusion involves category errors, to wit: when some people speak of Jesus, they mean a biological man born into history; when some people speak of Christ, they mean - at the most orthodox - the God-Man of the hypostatic union of Eternal Logos with human organism who was incarnate of the Virgin Mary (but in other cases they may simply be conflating a humanised Jesus with a title (Christ); and the trickiest or most ambiguous part is what they mean by the Second Person of the Trinity/God the Son/Eternal Word in relation to Jesus. Is there perhaps a tendency to forget/ignore that the hypostatic union is permanent, with the glorified humanity of Christ Jesus being incorporated once and for all into the Godhead, so that God the Son and the incarnate Christ are in fact absolutely the same?
So where do you get that from? My understanding was that Jesus (the incarnate Son) ascended into heaven, where he sitteth at God's right hand, etc. If he was absolutely the same as God the Son (i.e. God), then he wouldn't be sitting next to him, surely, neither would he come again (in person, presumably) to judge the quick and the dead.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
My understanding was that Jesus (the incarnate Son) ascended into heaven, where he sitteth at God's right hand, etc. If he was absolutely the same as God the Son (i.e. God), then he wouldn't be sitting next to him, surely, neither would he come again (in person, presumably) to judge the quick and the dead.
The creeds say he sittith on the right hand of the Father, not the right hand of God.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Mudfrog: We can see Jesus as both - it's not one or the other
as this hymn reveals
There's a disappointing lack of Jesus on a sofa in this song.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
Interesting OP!
The classical name for the Son as God is of course "Logos", which is often translated as "Word". However, that falls short of what the Greek term would have implied in NT times (see Wikipedia, for example). Logos was used as a more technical term and would have meant "word" in a broad sense implying things like: reasoning, argument, principle, concept, understanding, idea, discourse, account.
That neatly folds into the association of the Son with the Intellect (and hence "Logos") and the Holy Spirit with the Will (and hence "Love") of God. IIRC this interpretation was already advanced by St Augustine (and possibly other Church Fathers before and after), but it certainly fitted St Thomas Aquinas' concepts about the human mind very well. For Aquinas was an "intellectualist" (as compared to Ockham et al.'s "voluntarism"), i.e., for him the intellect was first in discernment, followed by the will which desires what the intellect has determined as good (note: "intellect" here used in a very general sense, not just cool ratiocination). So this matches perfectly the order of the processions in God (first the Logos and then the Love). It also matches perfectly with the idea that the essence of a human being is to be a "rational animal". Then it makes sense that the "Intellect of God" incarnates as such a "rational animal". It also matches with the idea that we are created "in the image and the likeness of God" precisely by virtue of our rational capacity. Whereas the Logos is as the Son the perfect Image of God, a kind of ideal and infinite reflection as pure Knowing, we are like an imperfect and finite reflection as embodied knowing. And once more it makes sense that the perfect Image incarnates as the imperfect image.
There's plenty along these lines to be found in the old texts. I think this stuff is very nice, indeed, inspiring. However, it may also explain why it is not "depicted" or even sung about so much. For it appears easier to turn into art motions of the will (desire, love, ...) than of the intellect. The most concrete "Intellectual action" just was the Incarnation, and so that gets all the attention. My point is that asking why we don't do the Logos more in our "cultural performances" is perhaps a bit like asking why we don't do mathematics and philosophy more in our "cultural performances". And that we focus on the Incarnation is a bit like saying that the most important part of science is the engineering that comes from it, which is indeed a common attitude. Finally, if one was to take this intellectual angle serious, then perhaps the best way to celebrate the Logos would be to study theology.
Of course, for many moderns the very idea that Jesus Christ may have been God's Intellect incarnate might strike them as absurd, given the incessant focus on Jesus as the ultimate love machine in much of contemporary preaching. Yet the idea is of course that the will follows the intellect, that the Holy Spirit follows the Logos, and I think it is a fair characterisation of His mission to say that Jesus was teaching love. And teaching involves understanding, an opening of the eyes and the ears, first.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
God the Son is not absolutely the same as, congruent with, God.
[ 05. November 2014, 21:27: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
@Mudfrog, yes, I've come across the tendency you're referring to -- although perhaps not in as formal a theological context as the one's you're describing ie. I've not studied these things academically but take an 'amateur' interest as it were ...
So, yes, I can certainly relate to the points you're raising here.
The fact is, regarding the dichotomy that some set up between the 'Jesus of history' and 'the Christ of faith', we know more about the latter than the former ... in fact, in some ways we only have the 'Christ of faith' to go on as that's who the Church has represented to us through scripture and tradition (or God through the Church, scripture and tradition if that sounds too Church-centric for some people ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
) ...
Of course, those of us who are conservative theologically would argue that the 'Jesus of history' and the 'Christ of faith' are one and the same.
It's been well said of 19th century liberal German theologians that in attempting to reconstruct a 'Jesus of history' separate from a 'Christ of faith', they ended up looking down the well and saw their own reflections looking back up at them ... they'd effectively created a Christ in their own image.
Meanwhile, on the 'congruence' thing that Martin60 raises - who is apparently less 'PC hazardous' these days - I'm not sure what you're saying there Martin.
Are you saying that God the Son isn't God?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
It's very late and I'm tired but if I had more energy I might like to explore an issue that's cropped up for me elsewhere - and that is the issue of Christology and Calvinism.
Apparently, some Calvinists in the US have changed the words of that wonderful Wesley hymn, 'And can it be ...' so that it says, 'That Thou, my Lord, shouldst die for me.'
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
They've done this on the grounds that it might be confusing to say that God died.
Which raises a few issues about the hypostatic union - did the Incarnate Son of God die in his humanity or his divinity?
Of course, with the Chalcedonian concept of the hypostatic union the Person is one ... two natures in one ... so it is entirely correct of Wesley to have written, 'That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me.'
It's these well-meaning but misguided US Calvinists who are introducing some confusion here.
It's similar to their squeamishness over the term Mother of God in relation to Jesus. What, are you saying that Jesus is not God then?
And so it goes on ...
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Or as Graham Kendrick would have it:
quote:
Meekness and majesty, manhood and Deity,
In perfect harmony, the Man who is God.
Lord of eternity, dwells in humanity,
Kneels in humility and washes our feet.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
God the Son is not absolutely the same as, congruent with, God.
Not sure what you are trying to say. The three Persons of the Trinity are co-eternal and consubstantial. The Deity as we understand it in orthodox Christian theology is Three Persons of a single "substance", and in the Athanasian formula none is afore or after the other; each is God, yet there are not three Gods but one God.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I'm going to suggest that people may implicitly mean different things when they refer to Jesus, Christ, and God the Son/the eternal Logos/Second Person of the Trinity. Further ISTM that the confusion involves category errors, to wit: when some people speak of Jesus, they mean a biological man born into history; when some people speak of Christ, they mean - at the most orthodox - the God-Man of the hypostatic union of Eternal Logos with human organism who was incarnate of the Virgin Mary (but in other cases they may simply be conflating a humanised Jesus with a title (Christ); and the trickiest or most ambiguous part is what they mean by the Second Person of the Trinity/God the Son/Eternal Word in relation to Jesus. Is there perhaps a tendency to forget/ignore that the hypostatic union is permanent, with the glorified humanity of Christ Jesus being incorporated once and for all into the Godhead, so that God the Son and the incarnate Christ are in fact absolutely the same?
So where do you get that from? My understanding was that Jesus (the incarnate Son) ascended into heaven, where he sitteth at God's right hand, etc. If he was absolutely the same as God the Son (i.e. God), then he wouldn't be sitting next to him, surely, neither would he come again (in person, presumably) to judge the quick and the dead.
See my response above. Further, per Quicunque Vult, the Incarnation involves the taking of the manhood into God, rather than the transformation of divinity into man. God takes humanity into Himself; at the Ascension, the hypostatically unified Christ - God the Son united with the human nature - takes this humanity back into the internal being of the Triune Godhead.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Against Nick Tamen and daronmedway, this teaches there is no real daylight between Christ and the Great I AM.
Not sure I follow you TSA. I haven't suggested an ontological distinction between God the Son and Jesus the Christ, I've suggested that theological discussion of the Trinity is best couched in terms of God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit rather than God, Christ, and Holy Spirit.
For example, talk of "God and Jesus", as if Jesus is somehow a complementary or even optional addition to God's essence does violence to the doctrine of Trinity, as you so rightly point out. And it's a violence that has a genuine impact in the pew because it prevents people from worshipping and glorifying God in his essential nature as three persons eternally united in love.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, I can see what you are getting at, daronmedway and wince whenever I hear some evangelicals talk of 'God and Jesus' as if somehow God the Son is subordinate in some ontological sense to God the Father.
I'd also suggest that many evangelical charismatics are also weak on the Godhead of God the Holy Spirit.
It's a sorry state of affairs all round.
Meanwhile, without aiming to take sides on this one, as a Reformed flavoured Christian, Daron, are you aware of some of the accusations that Calvinist Christology is flawed?
This is something I've only come across recently, in terms of Orthodox objections to certain passages in R S Sproul's writings - but I'm told that the Lutherans take similar issue.
I could unpack that some more if necessary but whilst I've heard all manner of objections to Calvinism - as I'm sure you have too - this is the first time I've heard it challenged on a Christological or Trinitarian basis.
I'd always assumed that the Reformed were on the same page as all other Trinitarian Christians on that aspect ... It might well be that they are but certain people are trying to make out that they aren't for reasons best known to themselves - but it has set me wondering aloud ...
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
Interesting. Tell me more...
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
God the Son is not absolutely the same as, congruent with, God.
Not sure what you are trying to say. The three Persons of the Trinity are co-eternal and consubstantial. The Deity as we understand it in orthodox Christian theology is Three Persons of a single "substance", and in the Athanasian formula none is afore or after the other; each is God, yet there are not three Gods but one God.
However, God the Son is not identical to God inasmuch as there are true statements that can be made of one but not of the other. For example, 'is eternally begotten of the Father' or 'is in three Persons'.
(Cf incredibly arcane arguments about the lack of an article in John 1:1.)
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
God the Son is not absolutely the same as, congruent with, God.
Not sure what you are trying to say. The three Persons of the Trinity are co-eternal and consubstantial. The Deity as we understand it in orthodox Christian theology is Three Persons of a single "substance", and in the Athanasian formula none is afore or after the other; each is God, yet there are not three Gods but one God.
However, God the Son is not identical to God inasmuch as there are true statements that can be made of one but not of the other. For example, 'is eternally begotten of the Father' or 'is in three Persons'.
(Cf incredibly arcane arguments about the lack of an article in John 1:1.)
More to the point, God the Son is not identical to God the Father or God the Holy Spirit, as each Person is distinct, but indeed each is God and all together are one Triune God. Really, when one starts chopping up the Trinity, the concept degrades into a form of tritheism. The three "Persons" are interpenetrating and of one "Substance"/"Essence". Of course, talking about God in this way reveals how metaphorical our language has to be. Yet, perhaps that's little different to the metaphorical model of the structure of the atom and macro-atomic particles upon which nuclear fission was first achieved.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I can see what you are getting at, daronmedway and wince whenever I hear some evangelicals talk of 'God and Jesus' as if somehow God the Son is subordinate in some ontological sense to God the Father.
I'm not sure exactly how you're using "ontological" here, but God the Son is in fact begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. There is a hierarchy of sorts. The Father is the source, in some sense or other, whether through begetting or proceeding, of both the Son and the Spirit.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, my bad ...
@Daronmedway - how long have you got?
In essence it boils down to Orthodox accusations that the Reformed are confusing 'person' and 'nature' ...
I'll find some links if you want to go through it all with your Ovaltine or Horlicks (do they still make that?). It'll either send you off to sleep or have you in a rage. I'm not sure I'm cruel enough to do either to you ...
But in fairness, some interesting points raised that I'd not considered before.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I can see what you are getting at, daronmedway and wince whenever I hear some evangelicals talk of 'God and Jesus' as if somehow God the Son is subordinate in some ontological sense to God the Father.
I'm not sure exactly how you're using "ontological" here, but God the Son is in fact begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. There is a hierarchy of sorts. The Father is the source, in some sense or other, whether through begetting or proceeding, of both the Son and the Spirit.
This is true as long as we keep in mind that this "begetting" and "procession" are eternal and that there was never a "time" in which the Son and Spirit were missing from the Godhead. I think I perhaps detect in MT's post the Eastern emphasis on the monarchy of the Father. Yet within the Trinity itself none of the Persons is subordinate to the other. I was actually going to point at earlier that arguably the most metaphorical language of all in our Trinitarian formulations is that of so-called begetting and proceeding. Finally, of course, MT understandably gives a formulation that does not take the Filioque into account, something with which I wouldn't quibble but which some others would obviously wish to tweak.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
This: This I give you to share, and to defend all your life, the one Godhead and power, found in the three in unity and comprising the three separately; not unequal, in substances or natures, neither increased nor diminished by superiorities or inferiorities; in every respect equal, in every respect the same; just as the beauty and the greatness of the heavens is one; the infinite conjunction of three infinite ones, each God when considered in himself; as the Father so the Son, as the Son so the Holy Spirit; the three one God when contemplated together; each God because consubstantial; one God because of the monarchy. No sooner do I conceive of the one than I am illumined by the splendor of the three; no sooner do I distinguish them than I am carried back to the one. When I think of any one of the three I think of him as the whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part of what I am thinking of escapes me. I cannot grasp the greatness of that one so as to attribute a greater greatness to the rest. When I contemplate the three together, I see but one torch, and cannot divide or measure out the undivided light. - Gregory of Nazianzus.
[ 06. November 2014, 13:32: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Amen.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Agreed.
What I'm saying in the light of
"My understanding was that Jesus (the incarnate Son) ascended into heaven, where he sitteth at God's right hand, etc. If he was absolutely the same as God the Son (i.e. God), then he wouldn't be sitting next to him ..."
incoherently by Holy Smoke, is that Jesus - God the Son incarnate - didn't ascend to sit next to God the Son.
[ 06. November 2014, 21:17: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
I suspect that Gamaliel is referring to the idea that there is submission within the co-equality of the Trinity. And of course we have that fillioque jazz in the mix. But yes, I can certainly see that in some sense the Father is preeminent.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, I can see what you are getting at, daronmedway and wince whenever I hear some evangelicals talk of 'God and Jesus' as if somehow God the Son is subordinate in some ontological sense to God the Father.
I'm not sure exactly how you're using "ontological" here, but God the Son is in fact begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. There is a hierarchy of sorts. The Father is the source, in some sense or other, whether through begetting or proceeding, of both the Son and the Spirit.
This is true as long as we keep in mind that this "begetting" and "procession" are eternal and that there was never a "time" in which the Son and Spirit were missing from the Godhead. I think I perhaps detect in MT's post the Eastern emphasis on the monarchy of the Father. Yet within the Trinity itself none of the Persons is subordinate to the other.
Is submission incompatible with co-equality? The 'monarchy' of the Father - as you put it - suggests perhaps not. quote:
I was actually going to point at earlier that arguably the most metaphorical language of all in our Trinitarian formulations is that of so-called begetting and proceeding. Finally, of course, MT understandably gives a formulation that does not take the Filioque into account, something with which I wouldn't quibble but which some others would obviously wish to tweak.
Quite.
[ 06. November 2014, 22:19: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
I'd say not submission but congruence or unity of will.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
This is true as long as we keep in mind that this "begetting" and "procession" are eternal and that there was never a "time" in which the Son and Spirit were missing from the Godhead.
Absolutely. Since time does not apply to God, everything God is, God is, and there was never a time when God wasn't something He is now, and vice versa.
quote:
I think I perhaps detect in MT's post the Eastern emphasis on the monarchy of the Father.
I have never heard that term. Not at all sure what it means. What I would say (indeed, what I did say) is that the Father is in some sense the source of both the Son and the Spirit. Something not true of the Spirit or of the Son.
quote:
Yet within the Trinity itself none of the Persons is subordinate to the other.
I have no quibble with this.
quote:
I was actually going to point at earlier that arguably the most metaphorical language of all in our Trinitarian formulations is that of so-called begetting and proceeding.
Absolutely. But (a) it's what we have, and (b) it's a metaphor FOR something, that presumably is somehow gotten across in a meaningful way by the metaphor. You can take the biology out of the begetting, but you can't take the one-is-the-source-of-the-other out, without completely abandoning the metaphor entirely.
quote:
Finally, of course, MT understandably gives a formulation that does not take the Filioque into account, something with which I wouldn't quibble but which some others would obviously wish to tweak.
And no doubt ingoB will show up to trash the Orthodox again and prove why the entire concept of the Trinity collapses into a gibbering monad without the double procession. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And no doubt ingoB will show up to trash the Orthodox again and prove why the entire concept of the Trinity collapses into a gibbering monad without the double procession.
Pre-emptively announcing what bad stuff other posters will do is a clear personal attack; you should know better. Stop it.
/hosting
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
So there was never a ... time when God the Son hadn't been incarnate and isn't incarnate and isn't being crucified right now alongside being conceived?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So there was never a ... time when God the Son hadn't been incarnate and isn't incarnate and isn't being crucified right now alongside being conceived?
Martin, you have never been able to get your head around eternity. But the principle is quite simple. Eternity is to time like you looking at a painting. Just because you can see simultaneously both what is on the left side of the painting and what is on on the right (*), does not somehow intermingle these spatial distinctions within the picture. Likewise, the Logos in eternity simultaneously lives the birth as Jesus Christ, the growing up, the adult mission, the crucifixion, the death, the resurrection, the ascension to heaven and the residing in heaven since then. But that the Logos is simultaneously in all these events as the Person of Jesus Christ does not somehow intermingle the temporal distinctions within the life of Jesus Christ. Jesus still was a baby before a man, and a man before his mission, and on a mission before being crucified, and crucified before raised, and raised before ascending, and ascending before taking His place in heaven. One perspective does no more violence to the other than saying that you see the entire picture but that within the picture some things are more to the left than to the right.
A perhaps more interesting point is that God had always decided to incarnate, but that it still was a real decision. Basically, an eternal decision does not divide time into a before and after, but rather logic into the possible and the actual. To say that God decided to become Jesus Christ does not imply that He made up His mind (at some point in time), but rather that He realised eternally one possibility (and not another).
(*) Yes, I'm well aware that our perception of being able to see a large piece of the world all at once is an illusion generated by the brain out of rapid saccades of the eyes. However, accurate neuroscience and physiology is really not the point here...
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
I think Martin is asking whether Orthodox/Catholic doctrine considers the incarnation and subsequent ascension, glorification and session of God the Son as the God-man changed the nature or substance of the Trinity in some way.
[ 07. November 2014, 13:09: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I'd say not submission but congruence or unity of will.
Sure. But is it plausible that the Son's willing subordination to the Father is an expression of "eternal congruence" and "unity of will" between them and an eternal outworking of their co-eqaulity within the economy of the Trinity?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've not yet looked up the postings and notes on the issue of alleged Calvinist Christological and Trinitarian defects, daronmedway but I will get around to it ...
Suffice to say that it's partly to do with the issues you've highlighted but there was some other stuff in there too ...
I'm not necessarily attributing any credence to these objections - but they have been raised by former Calvinists who are now Orthodox and it may be part and parcel of their conversion/assimilation process ... ie. finding as much as they can possibly take issue with as far as their former affiliation goes ... the convertitis syndrome ...
But I'll dig some of it out. I does make my brain ache, though, I must admit and by and large, whatever tradition we're talking about, I'm always wary of the possibility of people exaggerating the apparent wrongs of their former position when they move on to pastures new ...
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The minutiae of the various dogma - can it explain how and why Jesus prayed to God?
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The minutiae of the various dogma - can it explain how and why Jesus prayed to God?
Jesus generally prayed to his Father, who of course, is God. Why wouldn't God the Son pray to the Father, the person to whom he was (and is and always be) united in love? Jesus didn't stop being a member* of the Trinity when became incarnate.
* (is "member" allowed)
[ 07. November 2014, 15:53: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
* (is "member" allowed)
That actually gets to the heart of it for me. These definitions are so complicated to get one's head around. Every time I think I understand it, it seems that I walk into another trap. I'm reminded of trying to get my head around that light is both a wave and particle. It's as if the ways we talk about it are too limited because we are stuck in our world just now.
Ingo said above about getting one's head around eternity. Have we these capacities?
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
The Orthodox have got this one all sewn up; get one word wrong and they act like Parisians scoffing at an Englishman trying to speak French.
[ 07. November 2014, 16:21: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Of course, they 'invented' it ...
No, seriously, but there is a point to be made here. We can only talk about the Trinity using the language/terminology we've all inherited from the Orthodox.
Or, perhaps more broadly, the paleo-Orthodox undivided Orthodox/Catholic (coterminous) Church of the first Millenium.
Although there were some divergences in Western/Eastern vocabularies and understandings before the Schism of course.
Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on
:
Thinking a bit more on this. (And really enjoying the comments)
Before the birth of Jesus I can't see - what was the difference between the second and third persons of the Holy Trinity?
A daft question, yeah, but...
What were the attributes of the 2nd person and how do they differ from the Holy Spirit?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
It's an interesting question but ultimately an unanswerable one.
Also, does it really matter?
Surely orthodox/Orthodox (small o/Big O) theology teaches that whilst the Persons of the Godhead are distinct, they share a congruence of attitudes (as it were) and intent.
If I can put it crudely, I can't envisage the Second Person of the Trinity 'falling out' or disagreeing with the Third Person of the Trinity ... as though aeons and aeons ago or in the vast expanse of Eternity there was ever some kind of difference of opinion or divergence ...
God the Holy Spirit is referred to as 'the Spirit of Christ' - 1 Peter 1:11 and Romans 8:9.
The scholars and NT Greek experts among us will be able to unpack those references.
However, they would appear to suggest that the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity share a congruence in terms of attributes - if we can put it this way then the Holy Spirit is a 'Christ-like' Spirit ... he acts in the way that Christ does ... with the same compassion, grace, insight and everything else that we see revealed in God the Son.
I can't see how it can be otherwise, nor, to be quite honest, what there is to be gained in trying to 'unpack' and speculate about this particular point.
'The things revealed belong to us ...'
Surely it's sufficient that 'the Word became flesh and dwelt among us ...' - with all that this entails - and that the Blessed Holy Spirit of God has been poured out and is active in our world?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Indeed IngoB, I've never got my empty little head, in the patronized, wee-wee end of the pool, beyond now. Just now. I've never understood how every Planck tick of eternity all HAS to be concurrent (and yeah, how many Planck ticks in a God tock?). Now. As opposed to there just being now. And I NEVER will. Every tick tocked. No freedom, no creativity, no love, nothing but one big Bender. Every frame of the movie of eternity back and forwards from now. Even when God grants me brains bigger than yours in the resurrection. I still won't have to believe it.
You do.
If He tells me that all of 'future' 'eternity' 'has' 'happened', I''ll' just have to believe Him. But some part of me ... just 'never' 'will'.
Whereas you have no doubt at all.
And it has NOTHING to do with intellect. Or faith.
Just the limits of disposition. Of invincible ignorance.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I think Martin is asking whether Orthodox/Catholic doctrine considers the incarnation and subsequent ascension, glorification and session of God the Son as the God-man changed the nature or substance of the Trinity in some way.
How can you change something that is not in time?
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
* (is "member" allowed)
That actually gets to the heart of it for me. These definitions are so complicated to get one's head around.
I'm not sure what's so complicated. One essence, three persons.
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The Orthodox have got this one all sewn up; get one word wrong and they act like Parisians scoffing at an Englishman trying to speak French.
And all Protestants are knuckle-dragging morons. FFS.
quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
Thinking a bit more on this. (And really enjoying the comments)
Before the birth of Jesus I can't see - what was the difference between the second and third persons of the Holy Trinity?
A daft question, yeah, but...
What were the attributes of the 2nd person and how do they differ from the Holy Spirit?
The second person is begotten. The third person proceeds. The second person was slain before the foundations of the world. The third person was not. The second person was always incarnate as the God-Man. The third person never was.
Again, "before the birth of Jesus" implies you are looking at God as being in time. The incarnation has a before/after aspect from our perspective, but for God it is an always/ever.
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Again, "before the birth of Jesus" implies you are looking at God as being in time. The incarnation has a before/after aspect from our perspective, but for God it is an always/ever.
Which is why singing Felix culpa (O Happy Fault) during the Paschal Vigil Mass Exsultet is daft.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Only in the poetic sense.
Not the woodenly literal.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I heard the event of the crucifixion described as 'a blessed sacrament'. It was real, it actually happened, but it revealed an eternal and permanent truth.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Aye, it happened once, half way through eternity. It isn't happening now and it didn't happen an eternity ago and it won't happen at the end of time.
Unless your narrative requires that.
In which case God bless you.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Yes, the cross happened once and for all.
But sacrifice and death as a principle, as 'essence' in the Godhead is eternal. God knows death personally as an eternal attribute.
In the Garden of Eden God told Adam not to eat the fruit or else he would die.
The serpent, correctly, said that eating the fruit would open their eyes to the knowledge (intimate experience) of good and evil.
After the Fall, God said that Adam and Eve had 'become like one of Us, to know good and evil.'
These things together show that intimate acquaintence with death is an eternal part of God's being - the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
When Adam fell he took that death into his own image and likeness - which is why the opposite of the human condition, of sin and death, is eternal life.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I think you were being rather over-earnest in response to daronmedway's quip, Mousethief.
I saw the funny side of it.
And it's not as if the quip doesn't ring true. The Orthodox seem to have a stock in trade of dotting people's 'i's and crossing their 't's when it comes to the Trinity - and that's no bad thing.
That doesn't mean that the rest of us aren't allowed to rib the Orthodox gently about that - which is what daronmedway seems to be doing.
I've not seen anything on this thread so far, whether from East or West that requires pistols at dawn ...
But our mileages may vary.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Magersfontein Lugg:
Thinking a bit more on this. (And really enjoying the comments)
Before the birth of Jesus I can't see - what was the difference between the second and third persons of the Holy Trinity?
What were the attributes of the 2nd person and how do they differ from the Holy Spirit?
Jonathan Edwards - following Augustine - has it that the Son is the image of the Father and the Spirit is the eternal bond of love between the Father and Son, who proceeds from the Father.
[ 08. November 2014, 13:54: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Not the mirror?
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
...that is the Spirit proceeds from the Father.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Not the mirror?
No, not the mirror; the image itself. There's is no mirror because the image is a person; a person who is the exact representation of the Father's being.
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Not the mirror?
Oh, I see what you mean. You're suggesting that the Holy Spirit might in some sense be understood as the mirror by which Christ images the Father. Interesting. But probably not orthodox.
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I'm going to suggest that people may implicitly mean different things when they refer to Jesus, Christ, and God the Son/the eternal Logos/Second Person of the Trinity. Further ISTM that the confusion involves category errors, to wit: when some people speak of Jesus, they mean a biological man born into history; when some people speak of Christ, they mean - at the most orthodox - the God-Man of the hypostatic union of Eternal Logos with human organism who was incarnate of the Virgin Mary (but in other cases they may simply be conflating a humanised Jesus with a title (Christ); and the trickiest or most ambiguous part is what they mean by the Second Person of the Trinity/God the Son/Eternal Word in relation to Jesus. Is there perhaps a tendency to forget/ignore that the hypostatic union is permanent, with the glorified humanity of Christ Jesus being incorporated once and for all into the Godhead, so that God the Son and the incarnate Christ are in fact absolutely the same?
So where do you get that from? My understanding was that Jesus (the incarnate Son) ascended into heaven, where he sitteth at God's right hand, etc. If he was absolutely the same as God the Son (i.e. God), then he wouldn't be sitting next to him, surely, neither would he come again (in person, presumably) to judge the quick and the dead.
See my response above. Further, per Quicunque Vult, the Incarnation involves the taking of the manhood into God, rather than the transformation of divinity into man. God takes humanity into Himself; at the Ascension, the hypostatically unified Christ - God the Son united with the human nature - takes this humanity back into the internal being of the Triune Godhead.
That doesn't answer my objection - in fact, all you're doing is quoting orthodox doctrine at me. You're an Anglican, if I recall - how about some Scripture and Reason, rather than medieval speculation? And does anybody really still hold to the QV these days - I've never heard it said in Oxford.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
Holy Smoke, indeed I am arguing the orthodox doctrine of the Church Catholic, and not mediaeval but Patristic. No dogma, no Church Catholic. The question would be what is essential doctrine, I.e., dogma. I would say the formulations of the undivided Church in respect to Christology and Trinitarianism are indispensable and de Fidiei. They are irreducible minimums. They are outworkings of scripture together with theological reasoning.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
My iphone keeps doing weird things with Latin. Should be de Fide
Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Holy Smoke, indeed I am arguing the orthodox doctrine of the Church Catholic, and not mediaeval but Patristic. No dogma, no Church Catholic. The question would be what is essential doctrine, I.e., dogma. I would say the formulations of the undivided Church in respect to Christology and Trinitarianism are indispensable and de Fidiei. They are irreducible minimums. They are outworkings of scripture together with theological reasoning.
OK, my view is that we use reason, scripture, and tradition to try to determine the underlying truths behind the Christian religion; you presumably see reason principally as a tool to refine and explicate the truths which you believe have already been established in orthodox doctrine. My issue with the latter is that I don't see any non-self-referential (i.e. non-circular) way of justifying the orthodox position.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
I suppose I use reason/lived experience on an entirely different level theologically, and that is basically one of dealing with the problem of theistic belief itself. To me, theism precedes Christianity and in a sense is superordinate to it. For that, my views are more in line with C20 Christian existentialists like - and primarily - Paul Tillich.
However, at the level of the "personal" God and the Christian Catholic religion, I uphold the established dogma of the Fathers of the Undivided Church.
Posted by Magersfontein Lugg (# 18240) on
:
Christ the Universal King yesterday - the Feast I mean was yesterday, made me think more on this. Christ of the Universe existing beyond time.
I find it mind blowing and far from the 'Jesus, Jesus,my boyfriend..' type of spirituality.
However, is this way of talking of Christ found in hymns or in worship texts. Maybe I translate in my head those, when they say 'Almight and All poswerful...' to mean God the Father when it may or could mean different.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0