 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
OrthodoxBerean
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 6/12/2003 4:26 AM (GMT -6) |   | It was stated by a non Trinitarian that Jesus was alble to expereince himself as someone other than God. He says that since Christ took on the human nature that enabled him to expereince everything that we expereince, and since we can experince God as someone other than ourselves then it seems reasonable for God due to the human be able to expereince God as someone other than himself.
It is was my response that this is ontologically impossible. If you put a sould and a body together you have a human person, yet Christ was already a person when he added a humal soul to himself. Since this is teh case it was added to the divine person that already existed. For his theory to be correct Jesus upon becoming a man and taking on a human sould would have had to become a human person, hence two persons in one. It must be impossible for God to experince himself as someone other than God just because he was a human nature, since the human nauture that was taken on was by the divine person.
What do you think? Am I responding correctly or no?
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
OrthodoxBerean
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 6/12/2003 4:46 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I'll try to get back to you.
Thanks....I will be anxiously awaiting.
btw.. are you Eastern Orthodox?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/12/2003 5:03 AM (GMT -6) | | Here are some links:
Reliables:
Here's the "horse's mouth":
Oration XXIX. The Third Theological Oration. On the Son.
and
Oration XXX. The Fourth Theological Oration, Which is the Second Concerning the Son
and, or course:
On the Incarnation of the Word
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 06/12/2003 10:06:53 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
OrthodoxBerean
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 6/12/2003 5:59 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Thus everyone must see that He knows as God, and knows not as Man;-if one may separate the visible from that which is discerned by thought alone. ...
This is from the Oration.
Yet, if it can be said that the Son does not know somethinhg "actually" in his manhood could it then be postulated that he could experince God as someone else, "in his manhood". This just seems impossible to me.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/12/2003 9:15 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
OrthodoxBerean quote--from the Oration:
Thus everyone must see that He knows as God, and knows not as Man;-if one may separate the visible from that which is discerned by thought alone. ...
I'm just a potter, not a theologian. But what you quote strikes me as a good way to get a concrete handle on the matter of Jesus "ignorance." Right? The experience in the flesh defines the bourndary of what is "known" by the flesh.
I'd quickly add, that as the Son "enhypostasized" (assumed) the flesh personally, meaning that Christ was not God-with-a-man-suit, that all that the flesh "knew" the Eternal Word does too. (And so we have the true and famous doctrinal declaration that "One of the Trinity died. 'Anathema' to those who say otherwise.) And we can define the concrete boundary of the flesh as a boundary. Muscle memory is memory. Memory of smells and optical memory, etc.
Notice that I'm tracing what one Orthodox theologian called the "assymetrical" union of God and man in Christ.
Christ had "two wills" as will is an aspect of nature. Contemporary philosophers have a term, "two minds" that I'm not sure that I buy--probably don't.
Soley from the GregoryNaz quote I don't think that you have "two minds" in any comparable way. I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS! It seems to me that the modern temptation is to compare our HUMAN "thoughts with the DIVINE "thoughts" of God. How can they be compared??? I'm betting that in Christ the human thoughts and the divine thoughts are in now way comparable and therefore do not compete. And I'm betting that in the imagination of our contemporaries the thought structure is to consider them as being naturally in competition. What do you think about that, OrthodoxBerean?
** I'm sure that I'm dropping a thought or two from my progress of thought -- sorry. **
Something that seemed to make Modes shy about the two wills in Christ is the matter of the "fallenness" of humanity; and along with that to preserve some opportunity for Jesus humanity to perform-for-merit something that he wanted us to also perform in imitation of Christ. Immitation is Western (ala a'Kempas). Eastern does not have it, it has "participation." And as per man's "fallenness" it is bent-but-not-broken. That is, our humanity was created good, and though WE might be bad the "nature" that we are (when all the pieces are put back as designed--think K'Nex or Lego) is designed to be in relationship with God. SO... For Jesus to be in communion with God was "natural" even thought he assumed everything that was human of ours sans sin. The "human mind"--in my thinking here--naturally wished (will) to be in communion/faithfulness with God. (He of course went EVEN BEYOND THAT in choosing to suffer and to die on the cross.)
SO... I'd break their question down into two parts: As per able to expereince God as someone other than himself I'd say that (1) Christ could experience himself as other than God (suffer and die in his humanity, all the while both his body and his soul remained enhypostasized/united to his diety--even in death.) (2) Humanly he could experience God's Creative energies (His own--since the Word created everything as per John's Gospel and Genesis) that all of creation could experience. He didn't experience them any different than you or me, but being sinless probably experienced them more fully-human than you or I. (THAT PART MIGHT CATCH YOUR DEBATOR OFF GUARD!!!) Remember the "that God may be all in all" and see John Chrysostom's homily of it in http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2167 (LINKS to http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-12/npnf1-12-44.htm#P1912_1165237). (3) Because he did not have sin he could not experience God as an "other"--in the alienation of--but only as Creator and as consubstantial deity--Father and Spirit.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
OrthodoxBerean
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 6/12/2003 10:20 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
quote:
OrthodoxBerean quote--from the Oration:
Thus everyone must see that He knows as God, and knows not as Man;-if one may separate the visible from that which is discerned by thought alone. ...
quote:
I'm just a potter, not a theologian. But what you quote strikes me as a good way to get a concrete handle on the matter of Jesus "ignorance." Right? The experience in the flesh defines the bourndary of what is "known" by the flesh.
Yes, I see what is implied here. Yes, but is it not true that all is know by Jesus even in the flesh due to beatific vision?
quote:
I'd quickly add, that as the Son "enhypostasized" (assumed) the flesh personally, meaning that Christ was not God-with-a-man-suit, that all that the flesh "knew" the Eternal Word does too. (And so we have the true and famous doctrinal declaration that "One of the Trinity died. 'Anathema' to those who say otherwise.) And we can define the concrete boundary of the flesh as a boundary. Muscle memory is memory. Memory of smells and optical memory, etc.
Yes, it can be said that what the flesh knew but doesn't is seem right to be able to say that the "flesh" knew all the the Word knew, by virtue of the human soul being assumed by the divine word and the batific vision?
quote:
Notice that I'm tracing what one Orthodox theologian called the "assymetrical" union of God and man in Christ.
Christ had "two wills" as will is an aspect of nature. Contemporary philosophers have a term, "two minds" that I'm not sure that I buy--probably don't.
Soley from the GregoryNaz quote I don't think that you have "two minds" in any comparable way. I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS! It seems to me that the modern temptation is to compare our HUMAN "thoughts with the DIVINE "thoughts" of God. How can they be compared??? I'm betting that in Christ the human thoughts and the divine thoughts are in now way comparable and therefore do not compete. And I'm betting that in the imagination of our contemporaries the thought structure is to consider them as being naturally in competition. What do you think about that, OrthodoxBerean?
Well, I think that from the womb he knew everything due to the batific vision.
quote:
** I'm sure that I'm dropping a thought or two from my progress of thought -- sorry. **
Something that seemed to make Modes shy about the two wills in Christ is the matter of the "fallenness" of humanity; and along with that to preserve some opportunity for Jesus humanity to perform-for-merit something that he wanted us to also perform in imitation of Christ. Immitation is Western (ala a'Kempas). Eastern does not have it, it has "participation." And as per man's "fallenness" it is bent-but-not-broken. That is, our humanity was created good, and though WE might be bad the "nature" that we are (when all the pieces are put back as designed--think K'Nex or Lego) is designed to be in relationship with God. SO... For Jesus to be in communion with God was "natural" even thought he assumed everything that was human of ours sans sin. The "human mind"--in my thinking here--naturally wished (will) to be in communion/faithfulness with God. (He of course went EVEN BEYOND THAT in choosing to suffer and to die on the cross.)
Ok, you lost me here as far as the relevance goes with the original question.
quote:
SO... I'd break their question down into two parts: As per able to expereince God as someone other than himself I'd say that (1) Christ could experience himself as other than God (suffer and die in his humanity, all the while both his body and his soul remained enhypostasized/united to his diety--even in death.)
These effects, suffer and die, have physical ramifications. I am asking if Christ could experience himself as someone other than God pshyhologically. Could he really think that God is someone other who he is?
quote:
(2) Humanly he could experience God's Creative energies (His own--since the Word created everything as per John's Gospel and Genesis) that all of creation could experience. He didn't experience them any different than you or me, but being sinless probably experienced them more fully-human than you or I. (THAT PART MIGHT CATCH YOUR DEBATOR OFF GUARD!!!) Remember the "that God may be all in all" and see John Chrysostom's homily of it in http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2167 (LINKS to http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-12/npnf1-12-44.htm#P1912_1165237).
Hmmmm, the "more fully-human" part is intersting....
[quote](3) Because he did not have sin he could not experience God as an "other"--in the alienation of--but only as Creator and as consubstantial deity--Father and Spirit.
I can see this, but I still do not see how it would be possible for Christ to expereince himself as someone other than himself psychologically. Do you understand what I am asking?
You see if it could be stated that Christ could "psychologically" believe humanly that God is someone other than himself, hence the verse "my God and your God..." (Jn 20:17) then my opponent will come back and say if he can do that why does the Father have to be another person? Why can't the Father be the same person, but be that projection of God that Christ does not know that he is "humanly". Did that make sense?
Btw.... he is a Oneness Apostolic, who is trying to come up with a new Oneness theory that will work...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
OrthodoxBerean
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 6/12/2003 10:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Here is a quote from Fr. William G. Most
There are objections: In Lk 2:42 we read that He advanced in wisdom and age. So was He deficient in wisdom before? No, the Fathers of the Church, after St. Athanasius, point out there is a difference between actual growth in wisdom, and growth in manifestation of it, how much He showed. He measured it out in accord with each point of age.
Again, in Mark 13:32 He Himself said He did not know the day of the end. Pope St. Gregory the Great solves this problem by saying that He knew the day in His humanity, but not from His humanity. That is, in our terms, the information did register on His human mind, even though His humanity was not the source of that information.
What do you think?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/12/2003 10:42 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I can see this, but I still do not see how it would be possible for Christ to expereince himself as someone other than himself psychologically. Do you understand what I am asking?
Neither do I. There is NOT a complete human other than the God-man.
quote:
the verse "my God and your God..." (Jn 20:17)
This is just one of many verses that uses BOTH of his natures. "Now and not yet" is another interesting one.
quote:
my opponent will come back and say if he can do that why does the Father have to be another person? Why can't the Father be the same person, but be that projection of God that Christ does not know that he is "humanly". Did that make sense?
God-ness is determined by the Fountainhead which is the Father.
Read St. Iraneaus. (I should try to scan you a quote.)
Read the LINK I sent you via email (http://www.jbburnett.com/lossky/lossky-filioque.html) and the comment by the Catholic theologian about what happens when you begin with essence instead of Person.
The Oneness might defeat the RCC when the Thomist has it wrong on this. Read the Lossky article!!!
The Oneness LIKES to use Fathers, but in a way the Fathers would not recognize. Read Lossky!!!! | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/12/2003 10:43 AM (GMT -6) | | footnote 10
quote:
Fr. Th. de Regnon, inquiring why Filioquist considerations were never developed in the rich works of the Greek Fathers, asks: "Is this not proof that [such considerations] never occurred to them in their conception of the Trinity?" And he replies with a significant avowal: "In fact all these [Filioquist considerations] presuppose that, in the order of concepts, nature is anterior to person and that the latter represents a kind of efflorescence of the former" (Etudes de theologie positive sur la Sainte Trinite I (Paris, 1892), p. 309). He also writes: "Latin philosophy envisages first the nature in itself and then procedes to the expression; Greek philosophy envisages first the expression and then penetrates it to find the nature. The Latin considers personality as a mode of nature, the Greek considers nature as the content of the person" (ibid. p. 433).
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/12/2003 11:36 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
PoW: Read St. Iraneaus. (I should try to scan you a quote.)
J. Behr The Formation Of Christian Theology, Vol One: The Way To Nicea
Irenaeus departs from Justin's position, where the Word is a second God able to manifest himself, to reiterate the earlier position, that the Son reveals the Father. His characteristic position is that "the Father is the invisible of the Son, but the Son the visible of the Father" (AH 4.6.6). To suppose, as Justin had done, that the Son was distinct from the Father as "another God," one who, unlike the God of all, is able to come into contact with created reality, would simply undermine Irenaeus' theology-Christ would no longer be manifesting the Father, we would no longer be looking upon the one true God, and so would not be brought into communion with him. The Father of all is certainly invisible and infinitely beyond human comprehension, and so, Irenaeus argues, if human beings are to see him and thus enter into communion with him, rather than simply hear reports about him, a "measure" of the "immeasurable Father" (AH 4.4.2) is needed, and this is the Son, in whose human nature, rather than behind it, we can see the invisible Father. Yet at the same time, the Son preserves the invisibility of the Father, so that human beings might never think they comprehend all there is to know, despising the Father and turning away from their source of life and thus become subject to death, but rather that there might always be something towards which they might advance, in order that the glory of God might continue to be demonstrated for, as Irenaeus concludes, "The glory of God is a living man, and the life of man consists in beholding God" (AH4.20.7).
See where it applies? | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:19 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 |
|
|