Post Edited (Sahid) : 6/10/2008 3:22:56 AM (GMT-5)

B: yet mystically become the body and blood of Christ.

Z: If 'mystically' means subjectively, metaphorically, or something along these lines, I'm on board. If 'mystically' means objectively, substantially, or something along these lines, then there needs to be SOME reason to believe what on it's face is arbitrary. If 'mystically' remains ambiguous, then I won't write a theological blank check. Such a degree of ambiguity is simply too uninteresting to comment on.

Tom: I don’t think by ‘mystically’ they mean ‘metaphorically’, Zach. To ‘metaphorically become’ just means ‘to represent’ or ‘symbolize’, so that ‘bread’ and ‘wine’ are metaphors or symbols representing the body and blood. That’s definitely not all the Orthodox mean.

----------------------

D: The Risen Christ Jesus DOES possess omnipresence, right?

Z: The Risen person Christ Jesus possesses omnipresence in the same way that the unincarnate Father and Spirit possess omnipresence.

Tom: How can the incarnate Son be present in the same way the unincarnate Father and Spirit are present? That would mean the incarnation is inconsequential to the Son’s existence/presence throughout the universe; that the resurrected-incarnate Son can be present without his resurrected-incarnate realities being present. But the incarnation defines the Son now. I don’t think you can have the Son without his incarnate realities.

Z: But when we speak of non-material beings as 'present' it is clear that we are speaking metaphorically…

Tom: I’d say we’re definitely speaking ‘literally’ when we speak of God’s presence in the universe.

---------------------

Tom: The larger question is, is this presence compatible with a distinction between Christ’s natural capacities (the capacities of his PERSON) and the natural capacities of non-divine PERSONS? I say it is. But you seem to say this presence brings about a oneness that reduces our bodies to Christ’s risen body.

D: It's like this: Non-divine persons just ARE "in" Christ's Divine Incarnate Presence. In him, we live, move, and have our being. Christ grounds the deepest "being" of all Creation...including all sentient beings. It just IS that way...with the glorified human Christ. There is a ONENESS of Creator and Created in the dual-natured, single person, Christ that can never be undone. By "resting" transparently in that Presence via our "poverty-of-spirit" via the Holy Spirit, we partake in Christ's divine life that's always all around us through "taking him in" epicletically and eucharistically. We experience this concretely as we partake in the Eucharist.

Tom: I don’t know what it means to say my ‘identity’, the ‘meaning’ of my existence in the world, the ‘person’ I am, is "in Christ’s incarnate presence." You have something specific in mind, but I can’t imagine what it is. I’d agree that the entire material created order is in Christ’s incarnate presence. In Christ all things hold together, in God we live and move and have our being, etc. Those are clearly biblical claims. But a) that includes my dog daisy and not JUST ‘non-divine persons’ (or the elements of communion), and b) I don’t think any of us KNOWS exactly what it means for creation to be ‘in’ God. We aim at defining that claim as best we can, but there’s some ‘missing’ in all our comments. But you seem to know exactly how our very identities subsist in the omnipresent 'body' of Christ. I don't think you know this. Sorry.

But it doesn’t matter (where it counts so far as the debate over personhood is related) that I (along with the entire created order) subsist in the creative-sustaining presence of Christ and his creative-sustaining word permeates my being. So I subsist in Christ (whatever that MOST fundamentally means). It’s still the case that I’m personally distinct from God in a way the human in Christ was/is NOT distinct from God. For I am a non-divine person. The way you keep insisting that we relate to the divine the way the human in Christ relates to the divine precludes our being non-divine persons for the simple reason that the way the human in Christ relates to the divine precludes the emergence of non-divine personhood in Christ. If we relate the same way (as you keep insisting must be the case), then the emergence of non-divine personhood is as precluded in us as it is in Christ. But if we are non-divine persons, it can only be so because there’s some very significant difference in the way the divine and the human relate in us as opposed to Christ. But you refuse to recognize any such difference. So I’m still at a loss as to understanding just how you make the claim that we’re non-divine persons at all.

My comment (the one to which you responded) was intended to note the implications which of our being free in our identities to creatively self-determine in love through our bodies has for the omnipresence question. Christ is omnipresent. We’re not. I don’t see any reason to think that we shall be either. And then lastly, none of this has anything to do with the elements of Communion.

T

Post Edited (Tom) : 6/10/2008 6:11:44 AM (GMT-5)

**  http://www.monachos.net/library/Cyril_of_Jerusalem%2C_The_Mystagogics_%28or_The_Mystagogical_Catecheses%29

Mystagogic 4:	On the mystery of the transformation of bread and wine into the Lord's true body and blood in the Eucharist.
Mystagogic 5:	On the movements of the Divine Liturgy and their meaning; with a spiritual commentary on the Our Father (the Lord's Prayer).

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 6/10/2008 9:59:42 AM (GMT-5)

Tom: I don’t know what it means to say my ‘identity’, the ‘meaning’ of my existence in the world, the ‘person’ I am, is "in Christ’s incarnate presence." You have something specific in mind, but I can’t imagine what it is.

D: Are you serious?

Tom: Eh, yeah.

D: How about “ecclesial hypostasis”?

Tom: That means either (a) that we possess our identities as persons in relating interpersonally to others within the Church, centered around our worship of Christ, or (b) that all of us together comprise a single ‘person’, the Church, a ‘community that is a person’. I reject (b) and go with (a).

D: How about being “one with Christ” through the Eucharist?

Tom: I still don’t know what it means for our ‘identities as persons’ to exist in the ‘material substance’ of Christ’s resurrected body. My ‘person’ is in his ‘body’? No, I don’t know what that means. Ecclesial hypostasis doesn’t explain it; nor does our “being one with Christ through the Eucharist.”

D: We both agree that the Uncreated Triune God desires as much "oneness" as possible with created, non-divine, self-relational entities...without eliminating the created "self" of the non-divine, self-relational entities.

Tom:  Right.

D: I'm pushing for oneness in "mind" (Mind of Christ), "spirit" (Spirit of Christ), AND "body" (Body/Blood of Christ), saying that, BY FAITH THROUGH GRACE, we can epicletically participate in all of these things, having them permeate and define the believer's existence.

Tom: To have the ‘mind’ of Christ is just to adopt his values and worldview as our own. That’s being ‘one’ with his mind. As for being materially one with Christ’s resurrected body, what Scriptural grounds do you have for thinking this is true at all? Ground that for me in Scripture. I don’t even see good theological reasons for thinking it’s true. And I can think of a couple good reasons for thinking we are NOT materially one and the same with Christ’s physical body.

And as I’ve tried to say here, you’re as one with the resurrected body of Christ as my house or dog or laptop are—by virtue of the sustaining presence of Christ’s creative word. That’s it. More importantly:

If we’re personally distinct from God (and we are), and if our persons are free to creatively determine the ‘embodied’ expression of love through the use of those natural capacities over which our persons are responsible (and they are and shall be more perfectly in the eschaton), then those natural capacities (including embodiment) are as distinct from God as are the persons who determine their movements. So being materially distinct from the Son’s risen body follows from being personally distinct from the Son—IF, that is, our persons freely determine the expressive form of embodied love we offer to God.

D: You don't seem to want any kind of oneness that may "blur" the lines between Christ-the-Logos and the believer, particularly (now) when it comes to "body" (material distinction). Is this fair to say?

Tom: Absolutely. You just said it as well: “We both agree that the Uncreated Triune God desires as much “oneness” as possible with created, non-divine, self-relational entities...without eliminating the created “self” of the non-divine, self-relational entities. So no, I won’t blur the lines. Do you want a oneness that blurs the lines?

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 6/10/2008 8:38:07 AM (GMT-5)

Worth a read. Especially as it is not trying to be philosophical, nor debate needless inventions occuring a thousand years later!

Mystagogic 4:	On the mystery of the transformation of bread and wine into the Lord's true body and blood in the Eucharist.
Mystagogic 5:	On the movements of the Divine Liturgy and their meaning; with a spiritual commentary on the Our Father (the Lord's Prayer).

7. Then having sanctified ourselves by these spiritual Hymns, we beseech the merciful God to send forth His Holy Spirit upon the gifts lying before Him; that He may make the Bread the Body of Christ, and the Wine the Blood of Christ; for whatsoever the Holy Spirit has touched, is surely sanctified and changed.
8. Then, after the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless service, is completed, over that sacrifice of propitiation we entreat God for...
10. ... In the same way we, when we offer to Him our supplications for those who have fallen asleep, though they be sinners, weave no crown, but offer up Christ sacrificed for our sins, propitiating our merciful God for them as well as for ourselves.

Post Edited (Son) : 6/10/2008 10:57:46 AM (GMT-5)

FROM THE SAME AS ABOVE:

19. After this the Priest says, "Holy things to holy men." Holy are the gifts presented, having received the visitation of the Holy Spirit; holy are ye also, having been deemed worthy of the Holy Spirit; the holy things therefore correspond to the holy persons. Then ye say, "One is Holy, One is the Lord, Jesus Christ." For One is truly holy, by nature holy; we too are holy, but not by nature, only by participation, and discipline, and prayer.

20. After this ye hear the chanter inviting you with a sacred melody to the communion of the Holy Mysteries, and saying, O taste and see that the Lord is good. Trust not the judgment to thy bodily palate no, but to faith unfaltering; for they who taste are bidden to taste, not bread and wine, but the anti-typical Body and Blood of Christ.

D: We are PERSONS who relate to each other (and God) are persons, as we ALL share in the ONE Personal Presence of the ONE Incarnate Word, Christ-the-Logos.

Tom: If we’re personally distinct from the divine Persons, then we have a personal presence as well, a presence we bring TO others. All persons have such a presence. My point is, though God is the personalizing source of our identities, that doesn’t mean God’s is the only “Personal Presence” there is.

--------------------------

D: The material substance of Christ's OMNIPRESENT Incarnational reality has DIVINITY in it, naturally.  The DEAD HUMAN BODY OF JESUS in the tomb after crucifixion was NO LESS CHRIST because it was separated from Christ's human soul at his physical death...and NO LESS LINKED to Christ's divine person during that time.  It is DIVINE humanity, being the natural energy of a divine person. And that divine humanity of the Risen Christ SUFFUSES our environment. But we are genuinely unaware. As Greg said, many American Christians steeped in Western thinking generally live like practical atheists, with respect to the Omnipresence of Christ-the-Logos. When we identify with Christ in his death and resurrection through Baptism, the Eucharist, and other modes of Grace...we, BY FAITH AND GRACE, are enabled to "taste and see that the Lord is good." and be genuinely nourished by that participation.

Tom: I’m all for recognizing the omnipresence of Christ. I’m all for the radical life changes that fully engaging that reality promotes and encourages. I’m all for participating in the life of God everywhere present. I agree Westerners miss this constantly.

But…(a) none of this discounts a memorialist understanding of Communion, (b) none of it makes meaningful the claim that “our personal identities subsist in the material resurrected body of Christ” (I still have no idea what that MEANS), and (c) none of it means my physical body becomes one and the same body as Christ’s resurrected body.

-----------------------

Tom: (1) To have the ‘mind’ of Christ is just to adopt his values and worldview as our own. That’s being ‘one’ with his mind. (2) As for being materially one with Christ’s resurrected body, what Scriptural grounds do you have for thinking this is true at all? Ground that for me in Scripture. I don’t even see good theological reasons for thinking it’s true. And I can think of a couple good reasons for thinking we are NOT materially one and the same with Christ’s physical body.

D: Look at 1 Corinthians 1-3. You cannot separate a believer possessing the "mind of Christ" from that believer possessing the Holy Spirit of Christ.

Tom: Sure. All believers possess the Spirit. Spirit-possession is what constitutes us as members of the Church. Nobody (as I phrased it) “adopts the values and worldview commitments of Christ” as her own without the indwelling Spirit. Big deal? (I don’t mean that flippantly. I mean it logically.) That’s completely compatible (and necessary to) the sort of interpersonal oneness I aim at.

D: You cannot separate a believer possessing the "mind of Christ" from being "God's temple" that God's Spirit "dwells in."

Tom: Why would I want to separate these? They’re essential to the sort of interpersonal distinction I want to maintain.

-----------------------------

D: We are of Christ...and Christ is of God, Paul says. The Holy Spirit reveals his divine self-understanding to the human spirit...revelation and indwelling without which the human spirit would NEVER have the mind of Christ. So, to reduce a believer's possession of the "mind of Christ" to merely taking on his beliefs and worldview as our own seems quite reductionistic to me.

Tom: What view of our “having the mind of Christ” are you offering in place of the simple adoption by the believer of the values, vision, and commitments of Christ? What would it MATTER outside of the concrete CHOICES of believers to make those values and commitments their own? Paul describes what I’m talking about in Phil. 2, “Let this mind by in your which was also in Christ…etc.” We have that mind when we choose to humble ourselves, to love others, to value them before God, to sacrifice for them, etc. Seeing the world this way is the mind of Christ we’re to have. There’s no super-duper metaphysical “melting” (to use JR’s phrase) of my mind into the divine mind. That’s unnecessary.

D: "Eat my flesh...drink my blood..." Do you really think this had absolutely NO connotations of Jesus asking a believer to participate in his PHYSICAL nature in order for them to have HIS life in THEM?

Tom: Absolutely. I think those who disserted Jesus misunderstood him. You have a problem with this because you think Jesus would necessarily have rushed to correct their misconceptions (being the good communicator he was). I’m not sure Jesus would have done that if he knew their darkened minds were the result of willful unbelief. I think Peter understood Jesus rightly. After everybody left, Jesus turned to them as ask, “You guys leaving me too?” to which Peter replied, “Where would we go? Only you have the WORDS that give life.” Peter didn’t say, “Sure, give us a bite. We’d like to live forever.” He understood eternal life to come from embracing, partaking of, eating/drinking Christ’s words and teaching. It’s about PERCEIVING THE TRUTH. That’s what mediates life, even to our bodies.

D: Is the Zwinglian reading of John 6 better than that of the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the Church on this particular issue? Read that Cyril of Jerusalem stuff that Bruce just put up.

Tom: You don’t mind dismissing overwhelming majorities in other cases, like open theism. You pretty much bite the bullet and admit that the vast majority was just plain WRONG.

----------------------

Tom: If we’re personally distinct from God (and we are), and if our persons are free to creatively determine the ‘embodied’ expression of love through the use of those natural capacities over which our persons are responsible (and they are and shall be more perfectly in the eschaton), then those natural capacities (including embodiment) are as distinct from God as are the persons who determine their movements. So being materially distinct from the Son’s risen body follows from being personally distinct from the Son—IF, that is, our persons freely determine the expressive form of embodied love we offer to God.

D: Dude...Mary GAVE Jesus the SAME DNA that all human beings have. Jesus is in the line of MITOCHONDRIAL EVE...just like Mary. He's human FAMILY in the deepest sense just like we are...and has the SAME genetic bloodline we all do. Moreover, Jesus' human body is composed of the "ashes of dead stars"...just like the rest of us. Christ Jesus's humanity is HOMOOUSIAS with us in every way I can think of, including materially. Of course, everyone's DNA makeup is unique...But we're all of one blood, absolutely inseparable from the created universe.

So what are you saying?

Tom: I’m saying the creative self-determination of the expressive form of love we offer God and others is intended to be EMBODIED. I’m saying that it’s through our bodies that we self-determine this freely creative expression of love. I’m saying it’s our bodies we determine. The human person has a body, an embodied context, over which THAT person is responsible, it’s the embodied space wherein our identities determine their expressive form. It’s not about DNA. Everyone’s DNA is NOT unique. Identical twins share identical DNAs. But they possess different bodies. SO…if my body is the embodied space whose shape and movements I freely determine in loving expression, and likewise you with your body, then our physical bodies can’t reduce to the bodies of some OTHER person whom we are not.

--------------------------

D: You don't seem to want any kind of oneness that may "blur" the lines between Christ-the-Logos and the believer, particularly (now) when it comes to "body" (material distinction). Is this fair to say?

Tom: Absolutely. You just said it as well: “We both agree that the Uncreated Triune God desires as much “oneness” as possible with created, non-divine, self-relational entities...without eliminating the created “self” of the non-divine, self-relational entities. So no, I won’t blur the lines. Do you want a oneness that blurs the lines?

D: I want a "oneness" that does full justice to all of the anthropological implications of the Incarnation of Christ-the-Logos (Christ actively demonstrating the human nature fully alive)...and human participation in the Risen Christ's divine life. No more...no less.

Tom: Then you must deny that we are non-divine persons or personally distinct from God, for you have no such thing in Christ and no grounds in Christology for thinking “non-divine persons” are even possible entities. That’s always appeared to me to be your position anyhow.

T

Conjoined twins Neelu and Peelu were rechristened Sohna and Mohna on the All-India Pingalwara Charitable Society premises here today. Physically healthy, the Siamese twins were being well looked after here. A three-member medical team was deputed to monitor their health.

An attendant with the conjoined twins at the All-India Pingalwara Charitable Society in Amritsar on Sunday.
— Photo by Rajiv Sharma

There's only ONE human body with this baby...so there can only be ONE human spirit in this one human baby...right, Tom?  God would deal with this ONE human body as ONE person, right?

(God richly bless these children...)

Post Edited (Son) : 6/10/2008 1:57:14 PM (GMT-5)

Zach on my right and D on my left! Whadawai do?

T: That would mean the incarnation is inconsequential to the Son’s existence/presence throughout the universe; that the resurrected-incarnate Son can be present without his resurrected-incarnate realities being present.

Z: Yeah. What's wrong with that?

T: What’s wrong with it is that it divides up PERSON, and that’s an extremely difficult (if not impossible thing) to do.

------------------

T: But the incarnation defines the Son now. I don’t think you can have the Son without his incarnate realities.

Z: But your view now has two distinct Sons with distinct "definitions."

T: I have two distinct ‘Sons’? I don’t see that. Looks to me like that’s what you have. On my view we can’t divide up a PERSON with regard to his/her relations, so that ‘I’, the PERSON I am, stand in some of my relations as, say, having accepted Christ, and in other of my relations as not having accepted Christ. PERSON is indivisible, so that ‘who’ I am is who I am wherever I am. Likewise, I’d suggest that all the Son is he is wherever he is; that the PERSON of the Son is all he is wherever he is, and that means incarnate. So the Son can’t stand as ‘incarnate Son’ in one his relations but as ‘unincarnate Son’ in other of his relations if in fact the Son was/is incarnate. The Son sustains a relation to all things, thus he brings all he is to all things. You have two distinct definitions of the Son in my view—one who is incarnate and one who is not (if you have the person of the Son present to realities without that Son BEING incarnate to all realities).

Z: It is my contention that the person of the Son is the same person with the same definition yesterday, today, and forever. Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection are events in the life of the Son, not definitions of the Son's 'essence' or 'substance' or any other similarly slippery term.

T: Granted. So you define the PERSON of the Son independently of any of the Son’s relations to the world. I don’t deny that the Son’s essential identity is established outside of his relations to creation. But that doesn’t mean that persons can divide up themselves so that in some instances they are persons who have had the experiences they’ve had and in other instances are the same persons who have not had the experiences they’ve had. Likewise, if the incarnation has consequences for the Son (and it does), then like other experiences, the Son can’t bear the consequences of incarnation in some circumstances and then in other circumstances be the same Son minus the consequences of incarnation. In other words, Z, all the experiences a person has go with the person wherever the person goes. There’s now no place or circumstance in which the Son is not the Son incarnate. That’s all I mean. There’s no meeting the Son anywhere in any circumstance without meeting the Son incarnate.

-----------------------

T: I’d say we’re definitely speaking ‘literally’ when we speak of God’s presence in the universe.

Z: Really? Why? You don't mean physically do you? So in what sense is God's presence in your laptop "literally."

T: By literally I don’t mean physically, no. But the whole question is just what ‘matter’ is is a fascinating question. I take matter to be the energies of God, period. But when I say God is literally present, I mean all that God is actually and potentially is part of the definition of every other actuality and possibility (whether spiritual or physical). In other words, God is present to all things in the sense that God holds them in existence, sustaining their being and apprehending their becoming. There's nothing which exists which does not exist moment by moment by virtue of God's constant, unfailing support and sustenance.

So, God's in my laptop in this sense. God's creative word actively sustains all the ongoing quantum events which are its enduring as the unique entity it is. God's creative word in/with/by all things, you might say, is the medium in which all things exist. That's what I mean by saying God is literally present to all things.

-------------------

Tom: B's right. TWO persons.

D: 1) Are there are two human spirits, corresponding to the two human persons in the conjoined twins in the ONE human body?

Tom: I’d say so, yes. But D, remember that conjoined twins are just that ‘CON-JOINED’. If you only have one person here, D, you don’t have conjoined anything. You just have one person, one spirit, one everything…except two heads.

I could just as easily take two normal human beings each with their own independent body and permanently hand-cuff them. What would that mean? All it would mean is that these two persons now are limited in the ways they can choose to determine their movements. Conjoined twins are an exaggerated example of this—and a deformation or depravity. It doesn’t make the independent development of personhood absolutely impossible, but it’s clearly not what God intends and not a part of our eschatological hope.

D: Is/are the human spirit(s)in the conjoined twins corresponding to the two human brains in the conjoined twins? In other words, is it the case that the REASON that there are two "persons" in the conjoined children is because there are TWO biological loci of embodied experience and reasoning?

Tom: That’s surely part of why there are two persons. But essentially you have two persons because you have two self-perceiving, self-determining centers of experience. I’m using ‘person’ loosely. I’m happy to say they’re only truly persons in the fullest sense in relationship to Christ. I’m also assuming they’re mentally healthy and self-determining. So you might have one receive Christ and come to faith and one not do so.

All that their conjoining complicates is the scope of possible movements. That’s not a huge ‘person’ issue.

D: In short, are their TWO HUMAN PERSONS because there are TWO HUMAN HEADS and TWO HUMAN MIND/BRAINS in the ONE HUMAN BODY? It seems that you locate human ‘person’ as an emergent reality from the human brain...and there is one "person" for every "brain" in a human body.

Tom: I’d say that—given optimum health and Christ-centeredness—wherever you have a ‘self-perceiving, self-determining embodied center of experience’...you have a ‘person’. But human persons dispose of and express their identities THROUGH some natural means, and embodiment appears to one of the means, or spheres, by which we dispose of ourselves. Do you doubt this? Do you agree that one and the same physical body can't symultaneously be determined by two persons each having different designs for that body at one and same time? Surely you see the problem here. If human persons are freely creative and self-determining EMBODIED entities, each must have it's own physical sphere or space to dispose. Conjoined twins doesn't discount this. It's just a complicated (conflicted) form of the same rule.

Gotta run.

T

Post Edited (Tom) : 6/10/2008 5:58:30 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Son) : 6/10/2008 6:31:12 PM (GMT-5)

D: This is what I gather from what you've said, Tom. TWO self-relational spiritual entities within ONE human body can indwell that human body and "share that body peaceably."

Tom: By “sharing peaceably” I just meant that those conjoined twins will have to cohabitate in one body. I don’t at all think that’s normal or what God intends embodied human existence to be. It’s like this—human persons are to develop their identities responsibly within an embodied context. That means they have to possess a body over which they’re responsible, the material space which serves as a ‘field of responsibility’ wherein choice is played out responsibly. Can two persons accomplish this within one and the same ‘space’ or ‘field’? Well, not fully, no. The scope of possible concrete choices gets narrowed very drastically, and to that extend personal development is retarded. Can there be ANY progress toward personal becoming. I’m sure there can be, sure. But it’s a situation they’ll have to tolerate and manage, and progress will not be what God intends.

D: With the conjoined twins, you say that there are TWO human spirits...TWO self-relational centers of experience...that share ONE embodied existence RIGHT NOW.

Tom: Not “one embodied existence,” no; not if we’re careful to define our terms. I’ll try to be specific about what I mean.

In the case of your twins, you have two embodied persons. I image each brain is able to exercise some level of independent exercise and/or influence over bodily movement. That independent exercise constitutes its own unique “embodied existence” as it were. But there’s another person who wants—no, who NEEDS—his own opportunity to exercise a measure of independent control over the shape of its own embodied expression. That’s how the person develops. One ‘body’, but two ‘embodied existences’ in the sense that an ‘embodied existence’ is not merely ‘the existence of a body’ but rather the personal disposing of the body or the hypostatization of the body. Each twin will only develop as a person to the extent to which he’s able to exercise the requisite independent disposition of will over its embodiment environment. That’s how we work. That’s how we’re designed. That these twins share the same physical space will make this extremely difficult, since the personal development of each requires a consistent measure of say-so over the disposing of the body, and they each share the same body. That is, each needs to establish his own “embodied existence” on the same turf. That may be impossible. But at best it’s extremely difficult.

D: The fact of the matter is that…

…Could this be living CONJOINED with Christ, pre-eschaton?

Tom: Why did I know you’d go here?  

I don’t think it’s a good policy to look to depravities of nature that make personal development all but impossible for analogies of how God wants us to relate in Christ.

D: Now place what we've been talking about in the context of "I, not I, but Christ-the-Logos". If I'm "conjoined" with Christ's Incarnate Presence (which is homoousias with me) IN MY BODY...and I use my own will in self-denial to Christ's will within me (inseparable from his Divine Presence in the core of my being)...then would that allow Christ and I to "share my body peaceably"?  I'm thinking so. But would you agree, Tom?

Tom: Again, I really don’t want to go to a depravity of nature for an analogy of how we best relate to Christ. But it seems to me that Christ shares my body in the sense that he directs me in the disposing of that body, not in the sense that his own material body and mine are to be viewed as one and the same body. What God wants is for us to dispose of our bodies the way he disposed of his, that is, in sacrificial love.

T

Tom:
In the case of your twins, you have two embodied persons. I image each brain is able to exercise some level of independent exercise and/or influence over bodily movement. That independent exercise constitutes its own unique “embodied existence” as it were. But there’s another person who wants—no, who NEEDS—his own opportunity to exercise a measure of independent control over the shape of its own embodied expression. That’s how the person develops. One ‘body’, but two ‘embodied existences’ in the sense that an ‘embodied existence’ is not merely ‘the existence of a body’ but rather the personal disposing of the body or the hypostatization of the body. Each twin will only develop as a person to the extent to which he’s able to exercise the requisite independent disposition of will over its embodiment environment. That’s how we work. That’s how we’re designed. That these twins share the same physical space will make this extremely difficult, since the personal development of each requires a consistent measure of say-so over the disposing of the body, and they each share the same body. That is, each needs to establish his own “embodied existence” on the same turf. That may be impossible. But at best it’s extremely difficult.

Conjoined Twins, Abby & Brittany Hensel turn 16

Tom==>"depravities of nature that make personal development all but impossible"

Post Edited (Son) : 6/11/2008 1:51:06 AM (GMT-5)