 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Not a T & D discusion -- about creativity | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/7/2008 1:44 AM (GMT -6) |   | |
D: I'm open to say that Christ's human "logos" (being homoousias with our human "logos") did this as well, with respect to its relationship to the Uncreated Holy Spirit...all within Christ's ONE PERSON as an individualized, particularized human being.
This is agreeing with you, right?
Tom: Not really.
Well, it’s been nice knowing ya, I gotta go now and see…
…juuust kidding.
D: Again, Jesus is my main thing. Jesus is the epitome of what it means to be human. He is the very Archetype of Humanity…
Tom: I would say Jesus demonstrates what the kind-essential properties of human nature can accomplish. In Christ’s case this is accomplished by a divine person while in our case it’s accomplished by non-divine persons. This isn’t a fundamental difference in the sense that kind-essential properties are instantiated in both cases by ‘persons’. But the person in Christ’s case and ours is fundamentally different, viz., not the same; his is divine, ours non-divine.
It still looks to me (though I hear you saying ‘no’) like there’s a human person in Christ that emerges in your view.
D: …as Nesteruk would say. Ware is emphatic that Jesus has the same human makeup that we do, spiritually, emotionally, psychologically, etc...just with no sin or gnomic will. So whatever we say about ourselves that deals with what it fundamentally means to be a human being...it MUST be applied to Jesus' humanness. It simply must.
Tom: Then what did they condemn Nestorius for? Hmm. Politics maybe? I dunno. I'm just saying that to be a human being in our case fundamentally involves something that is fundamentally not the case about Christ, viz., that OUR human being occasions instances of finite, non-divine ‘personhood’. As I've said all along—when Chalcedon said Christ is “one person, two natures” they believed themselves to be denying in the case of Christ what they affirmed in the case of every other human being—the existence of a non-divine, human person.
Christ has all that fundamentally defines the kind-essential attributes of human nature, right. But where the instantiation of these attributes in our case occasions ‘human finite personhood’, their instantiation by Christ did not occasion ‘human finite personhood’. Dissimilarly, it was the divine person which became the occasion for the instantiation of these attributes. So where in our case non-divine personhood emerges with the exercise of human natural capacities, in Christ’s no such person emerges. How do I explain that? How do I explain the development over time of Jesus's self-understanding as the Son? I haven't the foggiest! I only know that the very first opportunity the gospels give us to see Jesus's own 'self-understanding' at work is in the Temple as a young boy, and he seems at that point to view himself very confidently as the Son on a mission. I can't disect his phychology any further. I know you (and Loder) feel you've got it all down, but portions of your explanation are unacceptable.
My point is just that there’s something we fundamentally are that Christ fundamentally is not—finite human ‘persons’ who determine themselves over and against the divine will (not in disobedience, but in obedience). I don’t think the human will in Christ did this, because for me such self-determination entails a ‘self’ and so is the what, where and how of the emergence of a human person, the one thing we DON’T want to attribute to Christ.
D: So, I'm willing to say that Jesus' human nature (human spirit/soul/body) PARTICIPATED in Jesus' divine nature (God the Son/Logos) via the human nature's indwelling of the Holy Spirit...such that Jesus' “true ‘self’...his ‘logos’... actually IS “a gift of creative capacities to interpret the divine themes of love, not specific determinations minutely prescribed.”
Tom: A human person (that which we don’t want to say Christ is, right?) is what occurs, I think, when the finite, volitional, center of human experience determines itself within that range of acceptable becoming (which is our logoi) offered it by God. Where or how else do be become ‘persons’? But if you have whatever is human in Christ making this sort of self-determination, then it would seem you have the emergence of a non-divine, human person in addition to the human person (determining itself over and against the divine).
It looks like you want to agree with me on relationality but then just move all this under your present Christological framework. I’m not sure.
Here’s basically how I see it. The ‘logoi’ are what the Logos offers to human beings for their ‘personal’ becoming in relation to God; they are the space in which we become fully realized ‘persons’ in ‘face to face’ relationship with God. And the key thing about human persons is that the particular actualized form of expression (from among the range of possible becoming defined by our ‘logoi’) is determined by the human that participates in that ‘space’ which God offers. This just is what ‘face to face’, inter-personal relationality is.
So if you saw that the human in Christ disposes itself in this same way, like us, then you have an additional (human) ‘person’ to deal with in Christ. But we don’t want to say this.
D: In other words, Jesus' human ‘self’ or ‘logos’ can freely choose options within the parameters of the “divine themes” and even “particular divine intention” ... WITHOUT there being meticulous "linetracing" of divine intention by the human being in the Eschaton.
Tom: Then a human, non-divine person emerges in Christ, for such activity is precisely what I take human personhood to be. I can’t say that the human natural capacities in Christ determine themselves freely in precisely the same way as occurs in us and then NOT attribute a ‘human person’ to Christ—because such determinations ARE the human person in my view.
See why we don’t agree? I’m glad you agree that WE, human persons, determine ourselves and relate to God in interpersonal fashion. But because you have to have a one-to-one correspondence between human beings and Christ, you want to apply how I’m trying to define human persons (the free and creative self-determination within a range of becoming prescribed by God) to Christ. And I don’t see that it works. It doesn’t work because in Christ there is no ‘human person’ standing in interpersonal ‘face to face’ relations with God the Logos. But there IS in our case. That’s our fundamental disagreement. You want to deny Christ a 'human person', but to be able to do so you have also to deny to Christ the free, determining exercise of human natural capacities,over and against the divine will, within a range of becoming offered it by God. If you have that in Christ, you have a second (human) person. It sounds like you have this in Christ. That's why you look Nestorian to me. But my thinking this is, to you, what makes me look Apollinarian to you. And that's that.
That’s why I earlier thought (just an idea, no commitments) that where God offers (and ‘lets go’) a ‘logos’, a ‘range of loving becoming’ with regard to which our human capacities (self)-determine, there is no ‘range of becoming’ offered to ‘the human’ in Christ for the same self-determination. That would mean two persons in Christ. For me, the only self-determining entity (or person) in Christ is the Logos, the giver of ‘logoi’ himself, who disposes his eternal self within a range of possibilities defined by human natural capacities. I don’t know how else to say Christ is ONE divine person. BUT, D (just to clarify), I don’t mean that God has no intentions for the human life of Jesus, for the occasions of Jesus’ life and context. I’m saying that whatever range of possible loving actions God has for Jesus, they are desires God has for himself (as the Logos), for his OWN human experience and not a ‘logos’ that’s given for the purpose of the coming into being of an ‘other person’ which whom God wishes to relate interpersonally. Christ is not THAT, but we ARE that.
Again, I’ve drifted too far from shore and feel like I’m just babbling.
T
Post Edited (Tom) : 3/7/2008 3:36:06 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/7/2008 7:34 AM (GMT -6) | | | Just when I think we're together...we're not. Dang!
Tom:
[1]A human person (that which we don’t want to say Christ is, right?) is what occurs, I think, when the finite, volitional, center of human experience determines itself within that range of acceptable becoming (which is our logoi) offered it by God. [/i]
Maybe I just need help on what this means...
The sixth council (Constantinople, 680-1), taking up what was said by the fourth, affirmed that, just as there are in Christ two natures, divine and human, so there is in Christ not only a divine will but also a human will; for if Christ did not have a human will like ours, he would not truly be truly a man as we are. Yet these two wills are not contrary and opposed to each other, for the human will is at all times freely obedient to the divine.
Kallistos Ware. Orthodox Way. pp. 72
****************************
How can the human will (inseparable from the operation of the human spirit/nous, from Ware's perspective) be FREELY OBEDIENT to the divine will...if there's not SOME activity of Jesus' human "unity of consciousness" to do the FREE CHOICE of obedience?
Does Ware's quote seem Nestorian to you?
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
Post Edited ("I am-in-I Am") : 3/7/2008 6:39:29 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/7/2008 9:25 AM (GMT -6) | |
Ware: …for the human will is at all times freely obedient to the divine…
Tom: And at other times what? Freely disobedient? Unfreely obedient? What? The important question is ‘Who’s’ will was the human will? And I say, it was the Son’s. One ‘who’. The relationship between the human and the divine in Christ was NOT, as it is with us, interpersonal, a relationship between two PERSONS. Either we ARE persons in relation to God in which case divine-human relationality as instantiated by Christ and us is in this respect DIFFERENT, or divine-human relationality as instantiated by Christ and us is NO different, in which case there are no ‘human persons’ in the universe at all. There are just thee persons (F, S, and SP).
What I want to avoid attributing to the Logos is a ‘human person’. So you tell me, D, after you’ve attributed to Christ everything human you want to attribute to him, what’s left from the slate of attributes, capacities (and/or their exercise), that is not attributed to Christ which is the human person we don’t want to attribute to Christ? If there’s nothing left on the list (and it looks to me like there’s nothing left), then it all got moved over and attributed to the Son. So it must be that ‘a human person’ was there hidden in what you DID attribute to Christ. But if there’s no ‘human person’ in what you did attribute to Christ and no ‘human person’ left on the slate of attributes or capacities or entities which constituted you list to begin with, then—as I suspected—there IS no human person to speak of anywhere in your scheme.
So wherein lays the ‘human person’? You don’t think it’s in the free exercise of the human will (because Jesus did that and he wasn’t a human person), you don’t associate it with the human ‘spirit’ (because Jesus possessed this and wasn’t a human person), and it has nothing to do with our ‘logos’ (because God the Logos offers a ‘logos’ to the human in Christ as well). Where DO you hide the human person then?
So the human in Christ is a self-determining, self-perceiving center of volition with a human spirit, all which freely disposes itself with respect to the ‘logos’ that defines it’s unique human becoming and self-perceiving. All this was assumed by the Logos and is not to be confused with the divine in Christ, and none of it constitutes ‘personal’ being per se or a ‘person’.
So what DOES constitute our being non-divine persons?
Tom
PS Sorry to sidetrack your ‘Creativity’ thread B.
Post Edited (Tom) : 3/7/2008 8:29:04 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/7/2008 1:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
So the human in Christ is a self-determining, self-perceiving center of volition with a human spirit, all which freely disposes itself with respect to the ‘logos’ that defines it’s unique human becoming and self-perceiving. All this was assumed by the Logos and is not to be confused with the divine in Christ, and none of it constitutes ‘personal’ being per se or a ‘person’.
I'm not making any of this up. I learned this from OTHERS. It's ORTHODOX TEACHING.
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/7/2008 3:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
So what DOES constitute our being non-divine persons?
According to Ware, it seems to be the situation of being born normally of two human parents. From what I'm gathering from Ware, the EO assume that human personhood is CREATED whenever two humans created a baby. In other words, they believe that a new human PERSON is created whenever two human parents conceive a child. But that in the Incarnation, that didn't happen.
Thirdly, Christ's birth from a virgin underlines that the Incarnation did not involve the coming into being of a new person. When a child is born from two human parents in the usual fashion, a new person begins to exist. But the person of the Incarnate Christ is none other than the second person of the Holy Trinity. At Christ's birth, therefore, no new person came into existence, but the pre-existenct person of the Son of God now began to live according to a human as well as a divine mode of being. So the Virgin Birth reflects Christ's eternal pre-existence.
Because the person of the incarnate Christ is the same as the person of the Logos, the Virgin Mary may rightly be given the title Theotokos, "God-bearer". She is mother, not of a human son joined to the divine Son, but of a human son who is the only-begotten Son of God. The son of Mary is the same person as the divine Son of God; and so, by virtue of the Incarnation, Mary is in very truth "Mother of God".
Kallistos Ware. Orthodox Way 76-77.
What do you think about this answer, Tom?
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/7/2008 4:15 PM (GMT -6) | |
Tom: So what DOES constitute our being non-divine persons?
D: According to Ware, it seems to be the situation of being born normally of two human parents. From what I'm gathering from Ware, the EO assumes that human personhood is CREATED whenever two humans created a baby. In other words, they believe that a new human PERSON is created whenever two human parents conceive a child.
Tom: That’s it? That’s WHAT a human person is? It’s just a particular biological history?
D: Thirdly, Christ's birth from a virgin underlines that the Incarnation did not involve the coming into being of a new person. When a child is born from two human parents in the usual fashion, a new person begins to exist.
What do you think about this answer, Tom?
Tom: Not much. I mean, I think it’s true that human beings born of two parents are persons. I don’t think ‘birth from two persons’ CONSTITUTES the experience of human personhood per se.
T
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/7/2008 4:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: So what DOES constitute our being non-divine persons?
D: According to Ware, it seems to be the situation of being born normally of two human parents. From what I'm gathering from Ware, the EO assumes that human personhood is CREATED whenever two humans created a baby. In other words, they believe that a new human PERSON is created whenever two human parents conceive a child.
Tom: That’s it? That’s WHAT a human person is? It’s just a particular biological history?
Exactly MY problem with this idea. 
******************************************
D: Thirdly, Christ's birth from a virgin underlines that the Incarnation did not involve the coming into being of a new person. When a child is born from two human parents in the usual fashion, a new person begins to exist. What do you think about this answer, Tom?
Tom: Not much. I mean, I think it’s true that human beings born of two parents are persons. I don’t think ‘birth from two persons’ CONSTITUTES the experience of human personhood per se.
Right. I said this back in November of last year in another thread:
With all due respect to the EO, I don't see any reason to believe that individual human personhood is grounded upon whether or not a human female's egg is fertilized by a male seed in normal sexual intercouse or not. (We are in the age of CLONING, you know!) Moreover, if personhood is can be based on IMMATERIALITY (spirit beings), then it makes no sense to say that a center of personal experience is fundamentally determined by material concerns. If there is a human baby (even CLONED) with a normally, developing brain, there may eventually be a rational, willing human animal that can express personality.
Like you, Tom, I saw that mere circumstance of biological birth could not CONSTITUTE human personhood.
But there are implications...and you've seen them. 
What I want to avoid attributing to the Logos is a ‘human person’. So you tell me, D, after you’ve attributed to Christ everything human you want to attribute to him, what’s left from the slate of attributes, capacities (and/or their exercise), that is not attributed to Christ which is the human person we don’t want to attribute to Christ? If there’s nothing left on the list (and it looks to me like there’s nothing left), then it all got moved over and attributed to the Son. So it must be that ‘a human person’ was there hidden in what you DID attribute to Christ. But if there’s no ‘human person’ in what you did attribute to Christ (I am's Note: Human Spirit, Human Soul, Human Body) and no ‘human person’ left on the slate of attributes or capacities or entities which constituted you list to begin with, then—as I suspected—there IS no human person to speak of anywhere in your scheme.
If we say that...
the human in Christ is a self-determining, self-perceiving center of volition with a human spirit, all which freely disposes itself with respect to the ‘logos’ that defines it’s unique human becoming and self-perceiving. All this was assumed by the Logos and is not to be confused with the divine in Christ, and none of it constitutes ‘personal’ being per se or a ‘person’.
...then this means that human nature ITSELF is anhypostatic as seen and defined by Christ's archetypal human nature. In other words, you can have a FULL human spirit, soul, and body doing volitional, emotive, rational action...with no corresponding created person "enhypostasizing" that human being.
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
Post Edited ("I am-in-I Am") : 3/7/2008 3:44:39 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/7/2008 6:07 PM (GMT -6) | |
Tom said...
PS Sorry to sidetrack your ‘Creativity’ thread B.
That's fine, Tom. You guys are way above my aptitude level.
Use this any way you have need.
P.S., how do you like my "mug" that I made for a sister-in-law for Christmas?
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/7/2008 6:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
D: ...then this means that human nature ITSELF is anhypostatic as seen and defined by Christ's archetypal human nature. In other words, you can have a FULL human spirit, soul, and body doing volitional, emotive, rational action...with no corresponding created person "enhypostasizing" that human being.
Tom: We’re back to repeating what we’ve each said 100 times.
I think human beings are non-divine persons. You don’t think non-divine personhood is even a theologically viable notion; you can’t, given the way you reason from you Christology. So tell me again why you thought we were even close to agreeing?
We’ve said all this before.
I thought that we were CLOSE to agreeing because I agreed with what you were saying about human creativity and it's relationship to the divine will. Working within the "divine themes" in such at way that meticulous control of the human will by the divine will did NOT need to obtain. All I did was apply YOUR thought to what we know about Jesus from the Councils and Orthodox teaching.
That's ALL.
So, isn't it the case that, to that extent, we DO agree?
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/7/2008 6:12 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/7/2008 6:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Trust me. I'm not just TRYING to rehash stuff here. It's just plain central stuff. Either we're gonna deal with the facts of this or not...
1) Jesus had a full human spirit, soul, and body...that is homoousias with our humanity. (We've WAY asserted this...and agreed on this point.)
2) Jesus' human will (inseparable from Jesus' human spirit) was always "freely obedient" (Constantinople) to the divine will.
3) There is NO created human person in Jesus, even given #1 and #2.
I'm OPEN, Tom, to you showing me where the created human person goes...besides "particular biological history". You seem to have it on lock that we are definitely created human persons. So help me see, given everything we're saying here, where YOU see it located.
Again, Tom, I'm OPEN. Just help me see it.
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
Post Edited ("I am-in-I Am") : 3/7/2008 5:27:41 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/7/2008 6:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Bruce:
D., can you tell me in sixty simple words what you are saying? I'm about a page behind, and have so much honey-do work to tackle this weekend that I'm content to miss out; but if you can help that would be OK too.
I'll try.
I've come to agree with Tom's idea of our "true self" being “a gift of creative capacities to interpret the divine themes of love, not specific determinations minutely prescribed.” Then I said if this is the way the human being works, then it MUST be the same way with Jesus, who is homoousias with us. Tom believes asserting the self-relationality of Jesus' human spirit is too close to Nestorianism. I believe asserting the self-relationality of Jesus' human spirit is necessary to affirm his human will being "freely obedient" to the divine will. In the end, Tom's having a very hard time trying to say that Jesus actually had all of the ingredients of being a human being (including a human "unity of consciousness" via the human "nous")...but with no created human person there. I'm telling him that, believe it or not, it really is Orthodox teaching.
Hence we are...
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
Post Edited ("I am-in-I Am") : 3/7/2008 5:29:00 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 3/7/2008 6:30 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/7/2008 6:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Do you understand the whole anhypostasis factor?
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/7/2008 6:35 PM (GMT -6) | | D: In other words, Jesus' human ‘self’ or ‘logos’ can freely choose options within the parameters of the “divine themes” and even “particular divine intention” ... WITHOUT there being meticulous "linetracing" of divine intention by the human being in the Eschaton.
Tom: Then a human, non-divine person emerges in Christ, for such activity is precisely what I take human personhood to be. I can’t say that the human natural capacities in Christ determine themselves freely in precisely the same way as occurs in us and then NOT attribute a ‘human person’ to Christ—because such determinations ARE the human person in my view.
See why we don’t agree? I’m glad you agree that WE, human persons, determine ourselves and relate to God in interpersonal fashion. But because you have to have a one-to-one correspondence between human beings and Christ, you want to apply how I’m trying to define human persons (the free and creative self-determination within a range of becoming prescribed by God) to Christ. And I don’t see that it works. It doesn’t work because in Christ there is no ‘human person’ standing in interpersonal ‘face to face’ relations with God the Logos. But there IS in our case. That’s our fundamental disagreement. You want to deny Christ a 'human person', but to be able to do so you have also to deny to Christ the free, determining exercise of human natural capacities,over and against the divine will, within a range of becoming offered it by God.
If you have that in Christ, you have a second (human) person.
It sounds like you have this in Christ. That's why you look Nestorian to me. But my thinking this is, to you, what makes me look Apollinarian to you. And that's that.
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
Post Edited ("I am-in-I Am") : 3/7/2008 5:39:08 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/7/2008 6:47 PM (GMT -6) | | | The Sixth Ecumenical Council
-----------------------------
Held in Constantinople in 680. Under Emperor Constantine IV. 170 Bishops were present.
The Monothelite Controversy
It concerned the last attempt to compromise with the Monophysites. Although Christ did have two natures (divine and human) He nevertheless, acted as God only. In other words, His divine nature made all the decisions and His human nature only carried and acted them out. Hence, the name: "Monothelitism" ("mono" one and "thelesis" will.)
The Council's Pronouncement
"Christ had two natures with two activities: as God working miracles, rising from the dead and ascending into heaven; as Man, performing the ordinary acts of daily life. Each nature exercises its own free will." Christ's divine nature had a specific task to perform and so did His human nature. Each nature performed those tasks set forth without being confused, subjected to any change or working against each other. The two distinct natures and related to them activities were mystically united in the one Divine Person of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."
Defender of Orthodoxy
St. Maximus the Confessor (580-662)
A simple, but enlightened monk; died in exile (Caucasus).
St. Andrew of Crete (+740)
Participated in the deliberations of the Council; author of the famous "Canon" which is read during Great Lent.
---------------------
 What else can I say? I am NOT making this up.
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
Post Edited ("I am-in-I Am") : 3/7/2008 5:59:53 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/7/2008 6:50 PM (GMT -6) | | B, love the pot. My daughter made a similar one and sent me a picture. I’ll have to find a way to upload it so you can see it. She tried to show me how to work the wheel and shape the clay last Fall. It was a disaster (for me)!
No need to recap the past couple of pages. SAME thing.
D: I thought that we were CLOSE to agreeing because I agreed with what you were saying about human creativity and its relationship to the divine will. Working within the "divine themes" in such at way that meticulous control of the human will by the divine will did NOT need to obtain.
Tom: If you agree with this, I’m glad. So, you’ll agree that human beings, fully realized and glorified, will be non-divine centers of self-determining, freely creative loving expression who perceive themselves as such in relation to God? Hey, if you’ll say that, then let's pack it up. In my book you believe in non-divine human personhood; you just don’t call it ‘personhood’. And since it's the experience (and not a particular explanation of it) that I'm fighting for, I'm cool. God can change your explanation of it if he thinks that's important.
But then you also posit this same exact human experience in Christ in addition and relation to the divine Logos. This looks Nestorian to me. But that dudn't phase you. So we're cool. We’ll AGERE on what our experience of fulfilled, glorified existence will be. That's good. We’ll just disagree on whether this experience constitutes non-divine human personhood or not. And then we’ll also DISAGREE on whether this same human experience is found in Christ in addition to the Logos.
Is this accurate?
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/7/2008 6:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom, did you check the 6th council info I put up?
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/7/2008 6:53 PM (GMT -6) | | | I KNOW that I'm not Nestorian...
The sixth council (Constantinople, 680-1), taking up what was said by the fourth, affirmed that, just as there are in Christ two natures, divine and human, so there is in Christ not only a divine will but also a human will; for if Christ did not have a human will like ours, he would not truly be truly a man as we are. Yet these two wills are not contrary and opposed to each other, for the human will is at all times freely obedient to the divine.
Kallistos Ware. Orthodox Way. pp. 72
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/7/2008 6:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
So, you’ll agree that human beings, fully realized and glorified, will be non-divine centers of self-determining, freely creative loving expression who perceive themselves as such in relation to God?
Within the "divine themes" idea you set out...WITH the reserved-right possibility of (but not necessity of) "meticulous" determination by God, yeah.
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/7/2008 6:59 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
I checked out the council stuff. I'd don't take the procedings of councils to be infallible.
Do you disagree with the Council's findings?
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 154 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 7:42 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 |
|
|