 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Hey, Everyone. | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/9/2008 7:18 AM (GMT -6) |   | |
Sorry, but this is being posted with almost no reading since last night.
Two comments.
1. Years ago now, comparing Zizioulas' definition of perichoresisi to how a typical 'theonomist' used the term when he was trying to make hay about the members of the trinity suffering to submit to each other... I posted some things that I'd like to repeat now. Perichoresis got used in a way that supports three-gods, 'separate' persons each with their own will, and not one God in three persons. That was a convienent debating trick of appealing to a word no one understood. But a better word was supplied by Zizioulas and Meyendorff.
Perichoresis is translated, for slow folks like me, as co-inherence. To ME that means sharing. I share in the life of my own family. I glean from and am changed by the love the other three exchange. I co-share. The boundaries ARE there between what constitutes one person and another, but they are like semipermiable, moveable. I am "one flesh" with my wife, which means that part of me is her. Part of me IS her.
So, on what I'm going to quote here...I'm with TOM.
QUOTE:
D: …to the extent that my human spirit draws all of its consciousness from its "Father's Child/Father" relation and NONE from any other relationships in the created order…
Tom: I don’t see why it should be the case that others contribute nothing to our identity.
2. I'll have to read this now. I"ve been away. ...reading...
I don't 'not' see it.
I think the Meyendorff supports what you are after there. (My bro-in-law too.)
HumanHypostasis said...
I'm dumbfounded by POW's silence on 1Cor. "Now we see dimly as in a mirror, but THEN (when deified, when glorified, when ONE with God in Christ) we shall see [God] "face to face" (prosopon to prosopon; person to person, identity to identity). Now we know in part, THEN we shall KNOW EVEN AS WE ARE KNOWN." Please tell me, POW, that you see the mutual, interpersonal reciprocal nature of the relationship here.
Come ON ya'll.
T
(o)Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 1/9/2008 6:22:06 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/9/2008 7:19 AM (GMT -6) | |
In this video, Common pops the question to his girl and asks here to marry him. The line says, “I want you to have my last name.” As I was listening to it, I thought this might be a good analogy for the sort of ‘face to face’ exchange of life that determines identity, as I understand it. They marry, and she “gets his last name.” She keeps HER first name, a unique her that’s nobody else, and she brings this TO him, receiving in return HIS last name, which is also his identity, but his identity made hers, made HER identity through the interpersonal loving exchange of life (thoughts, feelings, and desires). So there’s a comingling. It’s two identities intertwined. And as well, she takes THIS relationship with him to be the sole relationship to tells her who she is, but who she is as an ‘other’ in relationship with God.
That’s as close as I can get to D.
T
Coinherence.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/9/2008 7:22 AM (GMT -6) | |
1 Corinthians 12:12-27 (KJV)
12For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
13For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14For the body is not one member, but many.
15If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
16And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
17If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
18But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
19And if they were all one member, where were the body?
20But now are they many members, yet but one body.
21And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
22Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
23And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
24For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked.
25That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
26And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
27Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
(o)Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 1/9/2008 6:32:45 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/9/2008 8:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Let's just tackle this straight.
“Christ does not possess a human hypostasis which, like ours, is particularized and distinct in relationship to all beings of the same species or of different species, but the Word's hypostasis, which is common to and inseparable from both his [human] nature and the [divine] nature which is greater than [his humanity].”
This is what I hear being said: Christ is distinct from all other human beings because his "hypostasis" is literally the Ground and Archetype for ALL human personae. As I recall, Christ literally IS "virtue" (way, truth, and the life)...thus he relates to all human personae equally even though Christ exists as a human individual. Of course this will make him necessarily different from all other humans. This just makes sense. Give you an example. Paul was called from birth to do specific things (as were other prophetic figures, like John the Baptist, whose very NAME was given by God). This was a "merely human purpose" for Paul before his conception that was "particularize and distinct" from every other human being. Same thing with Moses, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, etc. No other human being had the exact call to apostleship that Paul had...and no other human being was MEANT to. And the life mission of Paul was a PERSONAL CALLING (all prophetic/apostolic callings are personal, yes?) that was unique and distinct from the life missions of other "called" people, like John the Baptist...that was DIRECTLY ORDAINED by God. But Jesus didn't have any "human calling" from birth, like other prophetic figures: he just WAS who he WAS...in in so doing he was the virtue of ALL HUMAN NATURE. This is ALMOST what you were saying...
What’s the problem with just saying that where the Spirit supplies in each human being the “logos” which defines an individual human being’s purpose in the world in personal terms (that which makes us “logikoi” [discerners and conferrers of meaning] in Palamas’s words, i.e., grounds our created capacities for and development toward personhood), no such “logos” was supplied by the Spirit in Jesus’ case. In the case of Christ, the Logos himself, the source of all “logoi,” and not some sustaining “logos,” assumes that role."
The reason that you keep falling into Apolinarianism (and you do, bro) is because you associated a human being's "individual human beings purpose in the world in personal terms" DIRECTLY and EXHAUSTIVELY with the human spirit (nous, heart) of a person. In your mind, to possess a human spirit is SYNONOMOUS to possessing a "merely human calling." Because you do this, the only way that you can say that Jesus didn't have a "merely human calling" is to say that Jesus didn't have a human spirit ( and human "logos" ) like everyone else. You CANNOT claim that Jesus had "a human 'heart', like his mother (the Theotokos), from whence the human being Jesus cried 'Not my will, but Your will be done' " because of this belief you have. I know you see this very clearly by now. You'd be much better off saying this: part of a "human hypostasis" (GENERAL TERM) is the "how" of how it's hypostatic features are displayed. In the "human hypostasis" of the Logos is the fullness of humanity ITSELF...and the human being of Jesus operates accordingly. In the "human hypostases" of all other being is a merely human personal calling from God, a divine "particularized, distinct" purpose for our lives in the drama of Christ's Rule of Creation. This is not to say that Jesus has no human spirit or human "logos"! He took that on as part of human nature. It is to say that Jesus human spirit was DIVINE HUMANITY, through and through.
From all this, I hear that participating in the divine nature through Christ (Christification) does NOT abridge or remove the "personal calling" that was wired into a particular human being. That is to say, whenever a human being with a "personal calling" is filled with Christ's Spirit, that "personal calling' is not obliterated, such that we BECOME the Archetype in toto. Whenver Paul says "I, not I, but Christ"...he's saying the best possible thing. PAUL saw himself as being "personally called" to be an apostle of Christ, and that calling is "without repentence"...but he knew that in everything he did, Christ was working in and through him. It's like that "poverty of spirit" model with the two thought processes I did before...
A - "What the Logos would want/choose to believe/think/say/do in this moment with this particular hypostatic unity" (provided by "eschatological essence" of the hypostatic unity)
B - "What 'I' want/choose to believe/think/say/do in this moment with this particular hypostatic unity." (development of ego-periphery from emergent experiential center of the hypostatic unity)
As a thought process, if A is the "target disposition" of B at all times, this means that as B authentically and freely chooses to expresses itself, it will express A's reality at the same time with all the intensity with which it wishes to express itself. Two "intensities" of two thought processes are experienced in simultaneity in one choice! Not only that, but there's a reciprocal relationship such that A's reality will always guide and circumscribe B's becoming. In B's freely choosing itself, it is actually choosing to rest "in" A such that, with continual exercise, one can no longer tell where A ends and B begins. To experience the hypostatic unity's FULL expression of B is AT THE SAME TIME to experience the full expression of A's reality in and through B's choice. TWO distinct thought processes that are FORMALLY not the same...but united as ONE irreducibly relational reality. Bi-polar assymetrical relational unity where "kenosis" is "plerosis."
Let's work this out practically. I will use myself as an example. I have a "merely human personal calling" in my human hypostatic life. It's a particular, unique, distinct "way" that I relate to God and the world in my growth in personhood. The mystical union between the Holy Spirit and my human spirit will NOT change my human "nous" into exhaustively being the Archetype of all human personhood, removing my merely human personal calling. No, what occurs is that "Christ in me" (developed more and more through hesychasm and the "Jesus Prayer". These techniques WORK. Period. ) shines more and more until the "merely human personal calling" in my human hypostatic existence is done SYNERGISTICALLY through my human spirit in the power of Father's Spirit. As I keep my human spirit in continual "poverty of spirit" mode, ever living epicletically reliant on Father's Spirit...my "human hypostasis" is the occasion for not only the eternal peace that Jesus gives: "peace that passes all understanding"...but also for direct providential operation of God in and through through that human hypostasis via Father's Spirit. To the point that it's "I, not I, but God"...all day, everyday. Like Loder said...
This model further suggests that human development, currently being studied almost exclusively at the level of ego function and formation, is to be reinterpreted as centering not on the ego (Note: The self-understandings of "Tom", "Dwayne", "Brandon" are EGO-FORMATIONS...mental constructs that our brains have garnered because of our EMBODIED experiences between the "Self" and "Lived World"! This is extremely important to understand!) but on intensification as a bipolarity that extends between the ego and the Absolute Unity of Being. This bipolarity may be seen as the spiritual axis for human development, which intersects the arc of ego-development as one of it's polarities, and Absolute Unity at the center, as the other. Ego development (Erikson, Piaget, Kohlberg, etc) may be seen as circumnambulation around the center, the Absolute Unity of Being, but left to itself ego development is inextricably rooted in negation and eventual death. (Note: The mental formation of the ego CANNOT maintain it's self-relational integrity by itself. It needs a transcendent ground to do that. SK was RIGHT!) Spiritual development consists in increased access between the ego and the Divine center, not in ego development per se. Thus, the immature ego of the child may have greater access to the Center and be more spiritually mature than an adult ego with less access. (Note: Remember AKIANE, the artist child of God?) However, the adult ego may be more articulate with less access than the child and so effectively confuse the issue, making it appear incorrectly that ego development is definitive of spiritual development.
Although it cannot be fully spelled out here, this model suggests that the classic fourfold pattern of spiritual development is parallel to the phases of intensification. This pattern moves from awakening to purgation to illumination to unification, and at each stage access to the Divine center is enhanced as ego anxiety and strategies of defense subside. Thus, if the Christological nature of the model pertains as described above, then spiritual development may be conceived as a way of life in which one increasingly appropriates the bipolar coherence of Christ into one's own nature. It should be evident that this in no way represents ego inflation or egoistic striving: it is precisely the opposite; but the "I" who says "I, not I, but Christ" is not lost, only recentered from the ego ("Tom", "Dwayne", Brandon", etc) to the One who holds in his nature the full and complete account of the mutual indwelling of the Divine and the human.
and like Willard said...
Beyond contentment lies intelligent, energetic participation in accomplishing God's will in our world. We are no longer spectators, but are caught up in a vivid and eternal drama in which we play an essential part. We embrace our imposed circumstances, no matter how tragic they seem, and act for the good in a power beyond ourselves. "We are reigning---exercising dominion--in life by One, Christ Jesus" (Romans 5:17), looking toward an eternity of reigning with God through ages of ages (Revelation 22:5). We take action to accomplish the will of God in his power. Our tiny "willpower" is not the source of our strength. We hardly notice any exercise of it, though it is fully dedicated to carrying out God's purposes in every respect. But we are carried along by the power of the divine drama within which we live actively engaged. So far from struggling to resist sin, we are devoted to realization of righteousness all around us. This is the real meaning of "Yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." The strongest human will is always the one that is surrendered to God's will and acts with it.
This progression towards full identification of our will with God's will is one that, perhaps for most people, may not be fully realized in this life. But that does not really matter. It is a progression that it there for us to enter into now, thought the power at work within us as disciples of Jesus Christ. It may be that at present we cannot even imagine what it would be like for us to have a will significantly identified with God's will as just described. But we must never forget that he "is able to do exceedingly abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, in terms of the power that it working in us" (Ephesians 3:20, compare Isaiah 64:4). Our part is to begin as best we can.
So, here's the deal. I can COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND why Ware and others are saying what they say. 1) It helps maintains God's transcendence from human beings and 2) it makes a very useful delineation between Christ's "divine humanity" and our being in the IMAGE of Christ's divine humanity" I agree with all that. In addition, I'm saying that there IS an "identity shift" that goes on that MUST be recognized. And it's incapsulated by the "I, not I, but God" motif.
This should go some way to help us with this issue.
So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them... Post Edited (Imago Dei) : 1/9/2008 8:07:09 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/9/2008 8:18 AM (GMT -6) | | | I believe in COINHERENCE...reposting...
The Inner Nature of Complementarity according to Loder..."Knight's Move", pp. 78-80 1) Coexhaustiveness and mutual exclusiveness
Coexhaustiveness. The two modes in question account for all aspects of the one being in question. The atomic object is wave and particle and nothing else. Mutual exclusiveness. In spite of the unity of being, the two modes are, strictly speaking, mutually exclusive. They are not confused or mixed in any respect. Thus, any operationally valid definition of a wave is utterly incompatible with any operationally valid particle definition of vice versa. 2) Common and conjugate propertiesCommon properties. The two sets of concepts, though mutually exclusive, have some common properties. That is, some properties are actually defined for each mode exclusive of the other, but they are common to both. In the case of the wave/particle discussion of atomic objects, both modes have electrical charge and "spin" angular momentum (or magnetic momentum), such that their equations are similiar to a rotating top. Conjugate properties. Though some properties are held in common, others are distinct conjugate properties. That is, some properties are actually defined in only one mode exclusive of the other, even though they have a parallel or dialectical relation to a property in the other. For example, for the particle mode of explanation, there is space-time location; for the wave mode, there is momentum-energy vector.
3) Coinherence and reciprocity
Coinherence. The two modes of explanation are coinherent in the sense that each may be spoken of in terms of the other. Thus, Bohr speaks of a particle in a "state of motion," but this state is strictly defined only by referring to the wave mode. And he speak of a wave as passing through a hole in a screen, but space-time location is strictly defined only in the particle mode. in a more significant way of putting this, it may be said that the wave is "in" the particle and the particle is "in" the wave.
Reciprocity. The two modes are reciprocal in the sense that a quantum object evolves by the "alteration" of wave and particle modes, as seen from a macroscopic space-time framework. The wave collapses into a particle, and the particle expands back into a wave.
4) Completeness and equal necessity
Completeness. Each mode of explantion is complete in itself since a quantum object is not half-wave and half-particle, nor is it an ambiguous reality. Rather, explanation is complete and well defined in both modes, each mode in its own context of explanation accounting for the whole.
Equal necessity. At the same time, it must be said that both modes are equally necessary to give an exhaustive account of the atomic object, and neither mode is merely the epiphenomenon of the other. An atomic object is both wave and particle.
5) Assymetry and pointing
Assymetry. The assymetrical relation between wave and particle, due to the existence of the wave in mathematical space and the particle in three-dimensional space, gives rise to emergent qualities of the atomic object. Thus, the definition of the object according to the higher mode, the wave-mode, accounts for the natural stability in atoms in a way that the particle-mode cannot. Thus the modes, existing as they do on separate levels, allow for higher-mode explanations of implicit lower-mode phenomena not otherwise accounted for. The assymetry refers back to the model of differential unity graphically described in Chapter 3 (Epiklesis' Note: The Loop de Loop!)
Pointing. On the other side of this assymetrical relationship, there is a pointing relationship which allows lower-mode explanation to point to the emergent higher-level accounts. This last point may almost be said to follow the rule of the metaphor. It is intuitive, not provable; one may intuit the presence of the higher from the lower but not prove its existence thereby.
----------------------------------
Loder..."Knight's Move", pp. 85-86
Thus, we may begin by noting that the Chalcedonian formulation of the person of Christ as one hypostasis and two natures is illumined by the inner logic of complementarity. The basic pattern of the one reality requiring description by two mutually exclusive sets of concepts yielding an exclusive account of that reality applies directly to the person of Jesus Christ.
1) In the Chalecedonian description of Christ's one being, we have both co-exhaustiveness and mutual exclusiveness. As to coexhaustiveness, Jesus Christ is only "God" and "man" so that no third mode of any kind is required to describe his being. As to mutual exclusiveness, the two essences, "man" and "God," coexist and coinhere but they do not become confused or mixed; they remain distinct.
2) The are both common and conjugate properties between God and man in Jesus Christ. Common properties are, for example, life and a personal quality of existence; conjugate properties are, for example, a visible particularity and temporality for the human mode and invisible universality and eternity for the Divine mode.
3) The two modes are said to coinhere in the sense that Divine properties such as Logos are attributed to the flesh of Jesus and human properties to the Divine nature--thus the title of Barth's familiar work, The Humanity of God. On the other hand, reciprocal relationships pertain to the "inhominization" (enanthropesis) of God-the-Word and it's reciprocal, the "deification" (theosis) of the "flesh."
4) Completeness in the complementarity pattern is satisfied by the Chalcedonian statement, "perfect man," "perfect God"; and and equal necessity by Jesus necessarily being both God and man.
5) The assymetrical relation accounts for the way in which the higher nature of Jesus Christ, his "divinity," accounts for the transcendental qualities of his human existence in a way that human categories cannot. The pointing in the pattern is accounted for by the way in which his humanity points to or reveals his divinity in heuristic fashion.
Although this is not a complete Christology, it describes the fundamental structure compatibility between the philosophy of complementarity in Bohr and the paradoxical logic of the Nicene-Chalcedonian Christology, which is so central to Kierkegaard's position.
So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them... | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/9/2008 8:25 AM (GMT -6) | | Nesteruk. Light from the East. 116.
The claim of the so-called generic panentheism about the bilateral relationship between God and the world, as seen through Patristic eyes, runs the risk of affirming something similar to the old Patristic idea of perichoresis (co-inherence) of God to the world. Certainly this similarity must be analyzed which caution, for it must no be understood as analogous to the Trinitarian formula of co-inherence as interpenetration and mutual indwelling of the persons of the Trinity (in would be a theological nonsense to affirm that created nature is capable of interpenetrating the Divine. ) It can rather be paralleled with perichoresis in the christological context as the interchange and reciprocity of the human nature with the divine nature in Christ. Then, by analogy, one might affirm panentheistically the perichoresis of the Divine and the created in the sense of “interchange” and “reciprocity” (bilateral relationship) between God and the world. But even in this, so to speak “weak” form of the perichoresis, panentheism must not forget the origin of this perichoresis, i.e. that it proceeds from the personhood of the Divinity, not from the matter of the world. The Divine, having once permeated through the world, bestows on its matter an ineffable perichoresis with itself. The interchange or reciprocity of the Divine and the created is ultimately initiated and held by the hypostasis of the Logos of God. One can see again that the process of the Divine permeation of the world is one-sided and entirely determined by the Logos himself. This has been demonstrated by God through the incarnation of the Logos in Jesus Christ.
So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them... | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/9/2008 8:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
"Now we see dimly as in a mirror, but THEN (when deified, when glorified, when ONE with God in Christ) we shall see [God] "face to face" (prosopon to prosopon; person to person, identity to identity). Now we know in part, THEN we shall KNOW EVEN AS WE ARE KNOWN."
"The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend."
"Since then, no prophet has risen in Israel like Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face, who did all those signs and wonders the LORD sent him to do in Egypt—to Pharaoh and to all his officials and to his whole land. For no one has ever shown the mighty power or performed the awesome deeds that Moses did in the sight of all Israel."
"For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known."
--------------------------------------------------
1 John 3
See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and that is what we are. The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. Beloved, we are God’s children now; what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he [Christ] is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is. And all who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure.
We will be "human hypostases" in "face-to-face" "Sonship" relationship with the Father JUST LIKE Jesus was a "human hypostasis" in "face-to-face" "Sonship" relationship with the Father. That which was IMPOSSIBLE for humans to attain before, even Moses...was made possible through Christ. (Remember what Jesus said about John the Baptist? "Truly I tell you, among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist [This includes Moses]; yet whoever is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.) The fulness of the Abba, Father "face-to-face" interaction between God and humanity hadn't been established in human history before Jesus. We will "see him as he is" when we live in the age old mystery (Christ IN US, the hope of glory) has been fully revealed TO us and IN us by the Holy Spirit of Truth that testifies to Christ.
So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them... Post Edited (Imago Dei) : 1/9/2008 7:51:37 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/9/2008 11:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Wanna see something funny?
"Imago Dei" is in bi-polar assymetrical relational unity with "Human Hypostasis"
I'll use Loderian language...and some quotes from Knight's Move, page 57.
Take Imago Dei to be Level 1. It "guides, molds, guides, controls, sustains, motivates..." Level 2 reality.
Take Human Hypostasis to be Level 2. It "is responsive to, dependent upon, points to..." Level 1 reality.
Now the quotes...
"In the model's bi-polar relational unity, a mutual reciprocity exists between the two levels: the upper level implies the lower level, and the lower level implies the upper level. However, because the two levels are regulated by a form of marginal control principle sustained by the assymetry of the relationship, there is a hierarchical aspect to this mutual reciprocity. This hierarchical interplay in the "lower" level having a value and significance in and of itself, which being given its fully meaning only in relation to the "higher" level which exerts a controlling or "molding" function."
in another quote...
"In our use of the model to portray the relationality of spirit, the Holy Spirit and/or human spirit bind together in an assymetric, relational unity by means of the strange loop. ... Theologically understood, all relationships ultimately are a consequence of the creative-redeeming activity of the Holy Spirit, who binds together distinct polarities to form a dynamic, relational unity. Thus, in this theological context we are indicating...that the human spirit is properly functioning only when differentially united with the Holy Spirit.
The two poles and the assymetric relationship between them form a feedback loop. The top level "reaches" downward toward the bottom level and influences it, while simultaneously responding to the bottom level. Out of the dynamic character of the two poles and the assymetrical relations between them, the dynamic-differential relational unity emerges."
The Imago Dei is inseparably related to Human Hypostasis...and vice versa. The concepts are COINHERENT in each other. Moreover, the Imago Dei has "marginal control" over Human Hypostasis. It is only by the Imago Dei that we even know what a Human Hypostasis is or ever could be; it's circumscribes the complete reality of Human Hypostasis. The Imago Dei "determines" the nature of Human Hypostasis. At the same time, Human Hypostasis in being what it is has meaning in and of itself...but meaning that's unsustainable without "pointing to" and being grounded in Imago Dei. It is only by being in continuous "empowering" relationship working with the Imago Dei that Human Hypostasis can be fully operational.
Something else implied...
"Despair" happens when Human Hypostasis "leaps" into sin, such that it seeks "marginal control" over Imago Dei in their bi-polar assymetrical relationship. There is disequilibrium (not differential unity) between the human spirit and the Holy Spirit because of the opposite of poverty-of-spirit: the passion of pride (self-relation existentially "apart" from God) Basically, Human Hypostasis tries "guide, mold, guide, control, sustain, motivate..." its own human becoming...and NOT find it's true meaning in it's full submission to the reality of Imago Dei. The Human Hypostasis is then spiritless (non-perichoretic) and do nothing but experience fragmentation, loss, and death.
Does all this make sense? I think so...
-----------------------------
Nesteruk note, Light from the East, page 266, note 33. (All emphases mine)
In Greek Patristic literature, it was a prevailing view that the state of human being as it exists in the natural environment includes the body, soul (including the dianoia as an analytical part of the soul), and spirit [Spirit's note: the "eye of the soul", St. John of Damascus], which had never been dissociated from the Holy Spirit. Human spirit stands here for the nous (spiritual intellect, the organ of faith), linking the human person to its dynamic relationship to God and to the world. It is natural congeniality with God, which is articulated by the presence of the Holy Spirit in human being. But the Holy Spirit is the creator of both body and soul, whose unity forms a particular human person. The presence of the Holy Spirit in human constitution thus makes the human person open upward through it's calling to the Divine as its destiny. Without the Spirit, the Greek Fathers assert, the human being is incomplete and imprisoned through the conditions of the created nature. V. Lossky reaffirms this point by saying that "the distinction between person and nature reproduces in humanity the order of divine life, expressed by the dogma of the Trinity."
So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them... Post Edited (Imago Dei) : 1/9/2008 10:59:27 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/9/2008 12:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Ware. Orthodox Way. 123-124.
So the Jesus prayer begins as an oral prayer like any other. But the rhythmic repetition of the same short phrase enables the hesychast, by the very simplicity of the words which he uses, to advance beyond all language and images into the mystery of God. In this way, the Jesus Prayer develops, with God's help, into what Western writers call "prayer of loving attention" or "prayer of simple gaze", where the sould rests in God without a constantly varying succession of images, ideas, and feelings. Beyond this there is a further stage, when the hesychast's prayer ceases to be the result of his own efforts, and becomes--at any rate from time to time--what Orthodox writers call "self-acting" and Western writers call "infused". It ceases, in other words, to be "my" prayer and becomes to a greater or lesser extent the prayer of Christ in me.
Yet it is not to be imagined that this transition from oral prayer to prayer of silence, or from "active" to "self-acting" prayer, is rapidly and easily made. The anonymous author of "The Way of the Pilgrim" was granted continual "self-acting" prayer only after a few weeks of practicing the Invocation of the Name of Jesus, but his case is altogether most exceptional and should on no account be regarded as the norm. More commonly, those who recite the Jesus Prayer are granted from time to time moments of "rapture", coming unexpectedly as a free gift, when the word of prayer recede into the background or disappear altogether, and are replaced by an immediate sense of God's presence and love. But for the great majority this experience is only a brief glimpse, not a continuous state. It would in any case be most unwise to attempt to induce by artificial means what can only come about as the fruit of God's direct action. The best course, when invoking the Holy Name, is to consecrate our full efforts upon the recitation of the words; otherwise, in our premature attempts to attain wordless prayer of the heart, we may find that we end up not really praying at all, but merely sitting half asleep.
-----------------------------------------
I believe that it's INTENDED to be a continous state meant for human hypostases who "...reintegrate their personhood in God, so that their hypostatic constitution will no longer resemble the divisions in creation..." (Nesteruk)
So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them... Post Edited (Imago Dei) : 1/9/2008 11:27:06 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/10/2008 4:16 AM (GMT -6) | | "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'
"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead."
For judgment, I bet God will be like...
"Ok. I told y'all that you were gods in holy writ. Through Jesus of Nazareth, I showed y'all that you were gods. Now, did you become my Children, like I commanded...or not?"
Only God can conceive and bring forth gods. "We are his offspring."
So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them... Post Edited (Imago Dei) : 1/10/2008 3:22:25 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/10/2008 7:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Just as the Spirit sends the Son at the Annunciation, the Baptism, and the Transfiguration, and just as the Son in his turn sends the Spirit at Pentecost, so after Pentecost it is the Spirit's task to bear witness to Christ, rendering the risen Lord ever present among us. If the aim of the Incarnation is the sending of the Spirit at Pentecost, [then] the aim of Pentecost is the continuing of Christ's Incarnation within the life of the Church. This is precisely what the Spirit does at the epiclesis in the Eucharistic consecration; and this consecratory epiclesis serves as a model and paradigm for what is happening throughout our whole life in Christ.
"Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt 18:20). How is Christ present in our midst? Through the Holy Spirit. "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world" (Matt 28:20) How is Christ always with us? Through the Holy Spirit. Because of the Comforter's presence in our heart, we do not simply know Christ at fourth of fifth hand, as a distant figure from long ago, about whom we possess factual information through written records; but we know him directly, here and now, in the present, as our personal savior and our friend. With the Apostle Thomas, we can affirm "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28). We do not merely say "Christ was born"--once, very long ago; we say "Christ is born"--now, at this moment, in my own heart. We do not say merely "Christ died" but "Christ died for me". We do not say merely "Christ rose" but "Christ is risen"--he lives now, for me and in me. This immediacy and personal directness in our relationship with Jesus is precisely the work of the Spirit."
Ware. Orthodox Way. 93-94
***************************************************
Only a few Christians in each generation become elders, and still fewer become fools in Christ. But all the baptized without exception are Spirit-bearers. "Do you know realize or understand your own nobility?" ask The Homilies of St. Macarius. "...Each of you has been anointed with the heavenly Chrism, and has become a Christ by grace; each is king and prophet of the heavenly mysteries."
Ware. Orthodox Way. 100.
----------------------------------------
Being continously "born and borne" of Father's Spirit epicletically, we derivative "images" are Father's Child just as the Supreme Image, the "one man" Christ, is Father's Child...and we are revealed to be "images of the Image"
Or better yet...
In the Father's Spirit, we are to truly BE Father's Child(ren) to ourselves and all others, to the Father's glory
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
...
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. "
...
For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them... Post Edited (Imago Dei) : 1/10/2008 6:59:56 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/10/2008 8:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
As I was listening to it, I thought this might be a good analogy for the sort of ‘face to face’ exchange of life that determines identity, as I understand it. They marry, and she “gets his last name.” She keeps HER first name, a unique her that’s nobody else, and she brings this TO him, receiving in return HIS last name, which is also his identity, but his identity made hers, made HER identity through the interpersonal loving exchange of life (thoughts, feelings, and desires). So there’s a comingling. It’s two identities intertwined. And as well, she takes THIS relationship with him to be the sole relationship to tells her who she is, but who she is as an ‘other’ in relationship with God.
Let me get you "closer." (Common's song is called "Come Close" )
Both Common and his lady choose to define the marriage relationship itself (complete with all kinds of human interpenetration [name change, sex, etc) by it's ultimate ground, the Triune God...through God's Spirit, the spirit of relationship. Common and Wifey realize that the only way to preserve the marriage relationship (and the two individual "polarities" that make it up) is to ground their love commitment in the Ultimate Love Commitment, Christ and Christ's love relationship with the Father. Any other way, they realize, will result in polarization and/or dissolution. Both Common and Wifey "become" Christ as they center their individual "identities" solely in the "Father's/Father's Child" love relationship. As Common himself "becomes" Christ...and Wifey "becomes" Christ...and Christ's Spirit completely permeates all relationships of this couple (including parental), both human persons who used to see themselves fundamentaly as "Common" and "Wifey" now see themselves fundamentally as Christ's further Incarnation in the world. Common and Wifey still have all their historical particularity and unique perspective...but only established in, by, and with the "anointing" presence of Father's Spirit. Their ENTIRE FAMILIAL DYNAMIC would essentially say "I, not I, but Christ" as all relationality would be of Christ and in Christ.
There would be an "inconceivable oneness-in-differentiation" where Christ was ALWAYS "incarnated" through the hypostatic activity of "Common" and "Wifey" in their "Common/Wifey" love relationship...such that it's "Christ" giving love to and receiving love from "Christ" as both "Christs" exist in their UNDIVIDED, INDIVISIBLE LOVE for the Father.
Get it?
-------------------------------
For Christ's love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.
So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them... Post Edited (Imago Dei) : 1/10/2008 7:40:26 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/10/2008 8:56 AM (GMT -6) | | I'll tell you what, Tom. Just to see what happens. I will grant human hypostases the possibility of their own "person" (other than Jesus obviously), eternally and interpersonally distinct from the person of God the Logos...I will grant the human "persons" know God the Logos "face-to-face" as ETERNAL interpersonal difference.
I'll do this...IF...
you'll agree with me that when those human "persons" live self-consciously and epicletically as "Christ's further Incarnation", there is indeed the possibility of a mystical transformation (again, EPICLETICALLY) such that that human "person" in perichoretic indwelling of Father's Spirit actually "becomes" Christ: mind (Mind of Christ), body (Body and Blood of Christ), and spirit (Spirit of Christ). Our derivative "human personhood" then takes on the bi-polar assymetrical relationality that we see in the divine "human personhood" of Christ...such that we ARE Christ as we are IN Christ.
And IF...
you'll agree with me that a human "person" can ETERNALLY CHOOSE to "become" Christ in such a manner, so that their ETERNAL identity says "I, not I, but Christ!"Deal?
-------------------------------
For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.
So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them... Post Edited (Imago Dei) : 1/10/2008 8:24:04 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/10/2008 4:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Bruce:
I am "one flesh" with my wife, which means that part of me is her. Part of me IS her.
"I have the right to do anything," you say—but not everything is beneficial. "I have the right to do anything"—but I will not be mastered by anything. You say, "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both." The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.
So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them... Post Edited (Imago Dei) : 1/10/2008 3:17:33 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/10/2008 4:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Some questions I was just thinking about...
1) If every human hypostasis on Earth were "one with Christ in spirit" JUST LIKE men and women who sexually "know" each other are "one flesh" because of their interpentrating activity...wouldn't that make every human hypostasis on Earth literally "a Christ by grace."?
2) If #1 obtained, wouldn't every human hypostasis on Earth then have the mind of Christ, through Father's Spirit of Christ?
3) If I have sex with a prostitute, is it really the case that I'm actually uniting the bodily "members" of Christ himself with that prostitute? I'm being very VERY serious. If I were to take my penis (a member of mine) and have sex with some woman, is it really the case that that is Christ's "member" that I am uniting with that woman? If so, wouldn't this imply that is it possible that the my ACTUAL HUMAN FLESH (and that of every other human hypostasis on Earth) can actually be seen to be that of Christ HIMSELF, through some spiritual means?
I'm gonna risk something and say that the answers to all 3 can be "yes."
If we had any given human hypostasis...and that human hypostasis lived in EPICLETIC REALITY such that they possessed...
1) the spirit of Christ
2) the mind of Christ
3) the body/blood of Christ (members) and...
4) Christ's "Uncreated Father/Father's Child" relationship as the core of their human personhood...
...how would this human hypostasis not "be" Christ in some real way? Posting Ware again...
Just as the Spirit sends the Son at the Annunciation, the Baptism, and the Transfiguration, and just as the Son in his turn sends the Spirit at Pentecost, so after Pentecost it is the Spirit's task to bear witness to Christ, rendering the risen Lord ever present among us. If the aim of the Incarnation is the sending of the Spirit at Pentecost, [then] the aim of Pentecost is the continuing of Christ's Incarnation within the life of the Church. This is precisely what the Spirit does at the epiclesis in the Eucharistic consecration; and this consecratory epiclesis serves as a model and paradigm for what is happening throughout our whole life in Christ.
CONSECRETORY EPICLESIS (where "ordinary" physical objects like bread and wine are mystically "shown" to be the REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST by the Holy Spirit)is the MODEL and PARADIGM for our whole life in Christ.
"I, not I, but Christ."
So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them... Post Edited (Imago Dei) : 1/10/2008 4:14:09 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/10/2008 5:17 PM (GMT -6) | | |
I followed the Wikipedia link and saw this:
In Jungian theory, the Cosmic Man is an archetypical figure that appears in creation myths of a wide variety of mythology. Generally he is described as helpful or positive, and is also frequently the physical basis of the world, such that after death parts of his body became physical parts of the universe. He also represents the oneness of human existence, or the universe.
For example, in Chinese legend, Pangu is thought to have given the natural features of the Earth their form, and when he died his body became the Sacred Mountains of China. The Persian equivalent, Gayomart, released semen when he died, out of which came the first human couple.
So... NO WAY!
.
But you should check out Maximus the Confessor in Lars Thunberg's "Man and the Cosmos."]
http://www.monachos.net/library/Maximos_the_Confessor:_On_the_Free_Will_of_Christ
Maximos the Confessor: On the Free Will of Christ
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/10/2008 5:24 PM (GMT -6) | | "We offer to Thee this reasonable and unbloody sacrifice;
and we beg Thee, we ask Thee, we pray Thee that Thou,
sending forth Thy Holy Spirit on us and on these present gifts"
(the Deacon says: "Bless, Lord, the holy bread" )
"make this bread the Precious Body of Thy Christ"
(Deacon: "Amen. Bless, Lord, the holy chalice": )
"and that which is in this chalice, the Precious Blood of Thy Christ"
(Deacon: "Amen. Bless, Lord, both" )
"changing by Thy Holy Spirit"
(Deacon: "Amen, Amen, Amen." )
Invocation of the Holy Spirit for the mysterious transformation of the consecrated "sacrifice" into the Real Presence of Christ.
----------------------------
From The Epiklesis of the Divine Liturgy
In the Western Church from the eleventh Century on, there began to be developed the theory of ... transubstantiation ... as an attempt to explain the change. This is, in brief, that the substance of the bread and wine is changed into that of the Body and Blood of Christ, while the accidents (color, taste, etc.) remain. We reject this theory. How does the substance change and the accidents remain the same? It is only through the accidents that the substance is distinguished as such from some other substance. The Orthodox Church says that this rejection by the Roman Catholic Church is a rejection of simplification of everything, even the Incarnation. The whole Chalcedonian affirmation is that Christ is perfect Man without sin and perfect God, One in essence with the Father: One Person in Two natures without confusion, without change, without division, and without severance. (Council of Chalcedon, Tome of Leo, 451 A.D.). Therefore, if the Eucharistic Bread is Christ, the Incarnation is present. The bread must remain bread, and in the substance of the bread is contained the Godhead. It is not a replacement of bread into Body, but a change into Body. One substance also contains the substance of the divine. To destroy would mean that Christ destroys one nature to replace it by another. This is not so. Christ does not destroy, but He replaces with the bread His Holy Divine Substance. “This is my body —This is my blood.” It means equal and that, it truly is. In the 15th century the Eastern Church took over the term Transubstantiation without the theory, and used it as synonymous with the term “change” (conversion), in Greek “Metabole.” The Eastern Church does not recognize that the substance of the bread and wine is changed into the Body and Blood of Christ while the accidents remain under which the Body and Blood of Christ exist, but simply says that the bread and wine are changed into the Very Body and Blood of Christ by the descent of the Holy Spirit, through whom these things surpassing reason and understanding are achieved.
I've got it on GOOD RECORD...this can go for the human BODY, too!
So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them... Post Edited (Imago Dei) : 1/10/2008 4:55:31 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/10/2008 5:31 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/10/2008 6:24 PM (GMT -6) | | From B's posted site...
Q. …of Christ, as of a pure and spotless lamb, who was foreknown before the foundation of the world, yet manifested at the end of time for our sake (1 Pet 1:20). By whom was Christ foreknown?
R. The scriptural text calls the mystery of Christ “Christ”. The great Apostle clearly testifies to this when he speaks of the mystery hidden from the ages, having now been manifested (Col 1:26). He is of course referring to Christ the whole mystery of Christ, which is, manifestly, the ineffable and incomprehensible hypostatic union between Christ’s divinity and humanity. This union draws his humanity into perfect identity, in every way, with his divinity, through the principle of person; it is a union that realizes one person composite of both natures, inasmuch as it in no way diminishes the essential difference between the two natures. And so, to repeat, there is one hypostasis realized from the two natures and the difference between the natures remains immutable. In view of this difference moreover, the natures remain undiminished, and the quantity of each of the united natures is preserved, even after the union.
…With a clear view to this end, God created the essences of created beings, and such is, proplerly speaking, the terminus of his providence and of the things under his providential care. Inasmuch as it leads to God, it is the recapitulation of the things he has created. It is the mystery which circumscribes all the ages, and which reveals the grand plan of God (Eph 1:10-11), a super-infinite plan infinitely preexisting the ages. The Logos, by essence of God, became a messenger of this plan (Is 9:5 LXX) when he became a man and, if I may rightly say so, established himself as the innermost depth of the Father’s goodness while also displaying in himself the very goal of which his creatures manifestly received the beginning of their existence.
Great stuff. Thanks, B. I'm gonna keep that blog in the Favorites...
God became Human...so that Humanity could become God.
So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them... Post Edited (Imago Dei) : 1/10/2008 5:30:17 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/10/2008 6:35 PM (GMT -6) | | “On the walls of the catacombs in Rome there is sometimes painted the figure of a woman praying, the Orans. She is gazing towards heaven, her open hands raised with the palms upwards. This is one of the most ancient of Christian ikons. Whom does she represent—the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Church, or the soul at prayer? Or perhaps all three at once? However, it is interpreted, this ikon depicts a basic Christian attitude: that of invocation or epiclesis, of calling down or waiting upon the Holy Spirit.
There are three main positions that we can assume with our hands, and each has its own symbolic meaning. Our hands may be closed, our fists clenched, as a gesture of defiance or in an effort to grasp and to hold fast, thus expressing aggression or fear. At the other extreme our hands may hang listlessly by our sides, neither defiant nor receptive. Or else, as a third possibility, our hands may be lifted up like those of the Orans, no longer clenched by open, no longer listless but ready to receive the gifts of the Spirit. An all-important lesson upon the spiritual Way is understanding how to unclench our fists and to open our hands.
Each hour and minute we are to make our own the action of the Orans: invisibly we are to lift our opened hands to heaven, saying to the Spirit, Come.
The whole aim of the Christian life is to be a Spirit-bearer, to live in the Spirit of God, to breathe the Spirit of God.”
Bishop Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way, pp. 89-90
-----------------------------------------
Christ himself was treated as “the New Man” and the last Adam. The divine plan of salvation was consummated, the kingdom of God inaugurated through Christ, but the ultimate things were yet to come in fullness and glory. The king had come, but the kingdom was still to come. The promise of the kingdom was granted to the church by the Holy Spirit. The church has lived since then in two dimensions: in sight of ongoing secular history and world events in the time of decay and oblivion, but also in the time of the heavenly kingdom inaugurated by the risen savior (in which the church has lived epicletically in the expectation of the kingdom.)
The coming of Christ and the resurrection changed completely the human situation, for in fallen existence, the time form of the world is characterized by law (nomos); this implies that humans were involved in an irreversible chain of decay and corruption, which led them to mortality with no hope of undoing the things they had done. Everything that had been done became ontologically necessary, so that there was no way to overcome this necessity, which is indicated by the word “law”. The coming of Christ and the resurrection relieved us from this law; we are still living in the world or “fallen” temporal order, but we are relieved from the necessity of the law; that is, we have a chance of renewal and of entering the kingdom [of God], cleansing ourselves through constant participation in the resurrection of the Lord.
Alexei V. Nesteruk, Light from the East: Theology, Science, and the Eastern Orthodox Tradition, p.246
So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them... | | Back to Top | | |
| 1167 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:02 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|