quote:

---

There's a 2-Dimensional world with 2-Dimensional people living on it. They cannot perceive of the 3rd dimension. If I stuck three fingers into this world, the 2-D beings would see three circles. They would say: LOOK, THERE'S THREE CIRCLES! But in reality, it was three aspects of my much more complex being. In the same way, we percieve of God as being three because we can only see three apparently seperate beings.

---

This sounds a WHOLE lot like an idea that I thought up not too long ago. The idea started in my head embryonically (??) as a computer animation deal I had seen somewhere. I hadn't thought about it when I saw it, but the consequences didn't hit me until I thought about later QUITE suddenly. I didn't use fingers, I used geometric shapes. And I've NEVER read this or heard this anywhere else. DARNIT! And I thought I was being ORIGINAL for REAL! I guess there really IS nothing new under the FRIGGIN' sun. (I'll NEVER have a money-making idea. Somebody will have already thought about it.) Very, very, very disappointing. I was really proud of myself as being smart.

[Digression: This ain't the first time something like this has happened. Perhaps I'm guilty of historical amnesia or something. Some part of me really thinks that just maybe I can think of something that hasn't in some way already hasn't been conceived by someone else in the past. Oh, well...]



What I want to do is first deal with my ideas using the geometrical shapes, explaining them and giving implications. THEN I want to bring it into the realm of theology.


****************************************

Geometry and Perception

Anyways, I conceived of a 2-dimensional plane that had awareness. A sentient plane, if you will. Then you have a perfect sphere pass through the 2-dimensional plane. When the sphere passes through the 2-dimensional plane, the ONLY thing that the 2-d image will see is a perfect circle. Because of the perspective of the 2-d plane, it can ONLY experience a 2-d cross section of the sphere.

Now, let's make some twists here. Think of DIFFERENT geometric shapes. Lets imagine that there exists a CYLINDER with the exact same diameter as the perfect sphere. Moreover, the cylinder pentrates the sentient 2d plane in a perfectly perpendicular manner. Though, the two shapes are VERY different, from the perspective of the 2d plane, there would just be TWO INDENTICAL circles.

This same idea can be brought out using the CUBE and PYRAMID shapes. If positioned like the circle and cylinder, the only thing that the 2d plane would experience would be two identical squares.

But there is something that needs to be brought out. In both cases above, something is the same:

The 2 dimensional shape perceived by the sentient plane is a NATURAL PRODUCT of the intersection of 2d plane with the 3d object!

In other words, one CANNOT intersect a perfect sphere with a 2d plane WITHOUT the intersection being in the shape of a perfect circle. It just CANNOT happen. It's the same relation between a perfect cube (3d) and a perfect square(2d) What this means is that, in this scenario, even though the TOTALITY of the reality of the 3d object cannot be known with absolute certainty, we CAN be sure that the square DOES CORRESPOND with something in reality. If the 2d sentient plane understands the concept of intersection (and could speculate on 3d objects), it can say to itself:

"Ok, the object that corresponds with the perfect circle may INDEED be MORE than a perfect circle...but it CANNOT be any LESS. This perfect circle is TRUE, though incomplete infomration about the new object."

and it would be RIGHT!


Here were the implications that I had drawn:

1) This was an EXCELLENT example of what "critical realism" entails. Critical realism basically says that though we can perceive "objective reality", we can only do so from our perspective. This doesn't throw us into complete agnosticism. We can be confident that what we DO perceive gives us "true, yet incomplete" infomration about "objective" reality.

2) The presumption is to be that reality is ALWAYS "more" than what we perceive.

3) There is only SO MUCH "reality" that we can reasonabl grasp with our very finite senses.


Something is very important to consider at this point. Notice that the philosophical view assumed above is REALISM. It is assumed that for any object in objective reality, "it is what it is." and will not change. (This is not necessarily essentialism, it's something else I can't think of right now) Taken back to the geometric shapes example, it is assumed that the 3d object in some way CORRESPONDS to the shape perceived b the 2d plane.

Now, here's a more nominalist construction. See what you think.

What if you have a SENTIENT amorphous thing that sees the 2d plane and wants to interact with it? The amorphous thing can transform into ALL TYPES of shapes...and can "PROJECT" images as well. (You've really got to use your imagination here now!) Say that amorphous thing says:

"I want to portray myself to this 2d plane as a PERFECT SPHERE, but because of its perspective it wouldn't get what I want to communicate. As a matter of fact, it wouldn't be able to receive ANY 3d infomration I present AS 3d. Hmmm... What I'll do is PROJECT an image of a perfect circle through the 2d image. Yes, that will do!"

What would happen? The 2d image would see a perfect circle. The difference between this situation and the first one is that, in this scenerio, ALL THAT WOULD EXIST IN REALITY IS THE INTERSECTION (the circle) The intersection would NOT represent any type of correspondence with the actual amorphous object. It would represent the 2d plane interacting with its PROJECTED IMAGE. Consider this. If the 2d plane, at this point, attempted to extrapolate what the "3d" image is, it would be COMPLETELY WRONG because it was going by the wrong assumptions. It could speculate that the amorphous object was either a cylinder or a perfect sphere...and would be wrong as two left shoes. The ONLY thing that 2d object has to go on is the intersection...and in reality that's all there really is. Nominalism hardcore.

*********************

Making It Theological...

I'm going to start with the first idea: REALISM. Let's say that God is the perfect sphere OR perfect cylinder. Let's further say that the circle formed by the intersection with the 2d plane is THE INCARNATION OF GOD IN CHRIST. What one could say here is that, yes, God can indeed be more than what is represented in Jesus...but God cannot be FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT from what is represented in Jesus. Just like the 2d intersection with a perfect sphere will NOT produce a square, the Incarnation cannot produce something that is fundamentally NOT God. Jesus at least has to correspond in some way to God's actual essence. (Doc plays big on this, but I think in the wrong way.) If we take this to be true, then we can safely assume that Jesus KNOWS God in a way that we humans CANNOT know God (at least not yet) Thus when Jesus describes God, he has much more authority than anyone else because He has experienced God (himself) like no finite human being can.

Now, Jesus concretely describes an I-Thou relationship with God in Scripture. AND He concretely describes an I-Thou relationship with the Spirit. He nevers conflates the Father and the Spirit. And I suppose this should not really be surprising. In the Old Testament, there seems to be healthy distinction between the Spirit of God and the LORD God. Then Jesus makes this statement in John 17:4-5:

I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Now, this is interesting. It's one thing for Jesus to say that He's come from heaven. You MIGHT could have some type of monarchical modalism there. However, in this prayer, Jesus seems to indicate that there has ALWAYS been an I-Thou relationship between He and the Father. This must be seen as important because of who Jesus is! Now, let's try to place some things in order here.

1) Jesus has an "I-Thou" with God the Father.
2) Jesus has an "I-Thou" with the Spirit.
3) Jesus claims to be identify with God, almost to be ONE with God.
4) The Father, Son, and Spirit have Scripture to back claims of divinity.

Now, Jewgrass, what does this end up with. To my mind, you either go to some sort of TRITHEISM or TRIUNITY. Given the force of Deut 6:4 and other testimonies, I'd choose triunity.




Having said all of the above, notice that ALL of this proceeds from a thoroughly realist perspective. What if we used the more NOMINALISTICtake?

Jesus would be like the projected image of the perfect circle on the 2d plane. The projected image does NOT correspond to the amorphous object IN AND OF ITSELF. The projected images "corresponds" to the WILLING of the object. The interesting "is" what the object WANTS it to be! Jesus would then be the CONCRETIZATION of what God DESIRED to present himself as. In other words, Jesus would be the "consummate revelation" of GOD'S WILLING TOWARDS HUMANITY rather than God's ontological nature. He would TRULY be the "Word of God"! Now, at this point, people like Doc would say:

"Well, if this is the case, then God is being DISINGENOUS with us. He is acting like something when he IS something else."

But hopefully, the second scenerio shows you how problematic this idea really is. Even IF we were to say that it was really a CUBE that was "projecting" a perfect circle onto the 2d plane, WHAT ELSE COULD IT DO BUT RELY ON THE PROJECTION??? Nothing! Why? Because it has nothing else to rely on but the intersection. (Does this sound familiar? For you guy who were on the Anthropomorphism threads, it should sound VERY familiar) The only reasonable thing that the 2d plane could do is RESPOND to the perfect circle AS a perfect circle. Sure, it could go into rampant agnosticism and apathetic INACTION based upon that agnosticism. But it would miss out on interacting with the intersection AT ALL. But what the 2d image COULD do is TRUST and HOPE that the perfect circle corresponds to the will of the amorphous object. In other words, you can make the perfect circle (Jesus) your ABSOLUTE, and be related to it absolutely!!! (Love ya, Modes!)

Now what would this nominalistic view entail for the idea of the SOCIAL, perichoretic idea of the Trinity? It wouldn't stick. All that one could say is that God speaks of himself in Trinitarian terms. Ultimately, oneness could actually be the case.


_____________________________________________________


Here's my thought on it all though. And I want you guys to think REALLY, REALLY deeply on it:

In comparing the realist or nominalistic approach to the Trinity, would there be any real distinction between the FAITH BEHAVIOR of them? In other words, would either group treat the "consummate revelation" of God in Jesus as the central idea of faith and life, would there be any MEANINGFUL difference between them ultimately?

I don't think so. It wouldn't matter a hill of beans. BOTH groups would look to Jesus for their ideas of God and center there theology there. The only difference would be that the realism group would have more of a leg to stand on in saying that Jesus was the NECESSARILY UNIQUE revelation of God. But in our postmodern, post-foundational society, THAT claim and $.50 will get you a newspaper. But as far as faith ESSENTIALS, no big deal.


Whew! This was a lot. I hope that it was informative. I hope no one else has thought of ALL THIS too! If so, then I REALLY give up trying to be original! LOL

Peace,


Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

Edited by - mephi2k on 12/25/2001 1:46:30 PM

quote:

---

These are the only three aspects of God that have been revealed to us, but to say that God exists as three persons within the God-head goes against all Jewish interpretation, all logic, all reason, and, most importantly, all scripture.

---

Maybe not. I think I have an idea that if sufficient with logic, reason, and Scripture. I think of the Trinity as 3 "centers of willing" as Modes would say. 3 loci of volition within the same essential BEING. This Being could be defined as the seat of DIVINITY. Now, I know what you ask:

"How can THREE persons actually be ONE in any real way?"

I think a robust idea of perichoresis does the trick. Let me give you an idea here. (Digression: I want to give credit where it's due. I got this idea from a particular episode of "Wildcats", a comic book. I don't remember the issue.) Think of three distinct people. (Persons A, B, and C) Each has there own center of willing, right? Now, I want you to imagine that each of the three people can "jump" into either one of the other two. With this jump, not only is life essence shared, but also THOUGHTS, EMOTIONS, and MEMORIES. In other words, whenever person A "jumps" inside person B, Person A has all of the necessarily criteria to BE person B. Everything that Person B is...is OPEN and fully assimilated by Person A. And this can and does happen between all the persons continuously.

What you would end up having is three centers of willing that ultimately have ONE CONSCIOUSNESS. There is nothing hidden to any of them about any other of them. This is the ULTIMATE view of unity in plurality! To me, this is how it is easy to understand TRIUNITY as opposed to TRITHEISM. If this idea of perichoresis didn't exist, if there were three separate beings who not related in any type of empathetic level such as this at all, THEN you would have tritheism.

What does this entail? What I tried to hint at earlier. I believe that the Trinity fundamentally CHANGED with the Incarnation. By Jesus becoming fully human, this INTENSE sense of perichoresis was altered. Though Jesus was still "one" with the Trinity, there was not the same INTENSITY of perichoresis because of the necessary condescension of becoming human. This is how Jesus could say:

No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mat 24:36)

There was a separation of KNOWLEDGE here. (Another indication of the I-Thou relationship between Father and Son)

Just figured I'd throw this in.



Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

quote:

---

In comparing the realist or nominalistic approach to the Trinity, would there be any real distinction between the FAITH BEHAVIOR of them? In other words, would either group treat the "consummate revelation" of God in Jesus as the central idea of faith and life, would there be any MEANINGFUL difference between them ultimately?

I don't think so. It wouldn't matter a hill of beans. BOTH groups would look to Jesus for their ideas of God and center there theology there. The only difference would be that the realism group would have more of a leg to stand on in saying that Jesus was the NECESSARILY UNIQUE revelation of God. But in our postmodern, post-foundational society, THAT claim and $.50 will get you a newspaper. But as far as faith ESSENTIALS, no big deal.


Whew! This was a lot. I hope that it was informative. I hope no one else has thought of ALL THIS too! If so, then I REALLY give up trying to be original! LOL

---

quote:

---

First, where you quote, "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mat 24:36)"; that is taken in the EO views I've read as being indications of the lesser-ness of Christ's humanity versus divinity. That being true whether it be the divinity of the Son or of the Father and Spirit. That view, that this kind of thing is with regards to human versus divine is especially evident when commentary is made about verses of who is "greater". Else, one has to take a very domineering hierarchy of Father over the Son that the EO does not take.

---

I'm trying to understand really quick where you're coming from. This is what I'm hearing from you.

Meph, you may be saying that Christ was "less God" with your theological construction here. What does that do to our salvation?

If this is your concern then here we go...

It would be nice to know what "FULLY GOD" actually means. It has been so vaguely defined that it begs for clarification. However, I take it as meaning that Jesus, somehow, IS DEITY...and FULLY so. And he's also FULLY human. Now how that works OUT is what I'm after. The only thing that I am noting is that I believe that the perichoretic nature of the Trinity PRE-Incarnation and POST-Incarnation are NOT the same. Especially given the way that I have described perichoresis. If POST-Incarnation were exactly the same as PRE-Incarnation perichoresis, then "separation from God" in any meaningful sense WOULD NOT take place. By the imputation of sin or any other method. Moreover, if the above were the case, Jesus of Nazereth would know EVERYTHING that the Father and the Spirit would know. Nothing would be excluded. I contend that this occurs not because of any lessening of deity in Christ, but because of the very nature of being FULLY HUMAN.

That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that Jesus is "less divine" than the Father or the Son. If THAT were the case of what I was saying, then I may as well be a Mormon or something. I think that I'm saying what YOU are saying: that the aspect of Jesus' FULL humanity is what limits the EXERCISE and FULL ILLUMINATION of the Deity of Christ.

This is why I thought that that 2d circle image was a great example for Christ. (I will use the realist view here) The circle respresented on the 2d image can be said to BE the sphere, because it is an integral part of the sphere. Before the sphere's interaction with the 2d plane, the circle "existed" but within the framework of the sphere. However, due to the NECESSARY limitations of the 2d plane, when the sphere intersects the 2d plane, it's "sphereness" can ONLY be MANIFEST as a circle. This is not saying that the circle has any LESS "sphereness" because of where it is. It is still part of the sphere. It IS to say that a cross section of a sphere, FORMALLY speaking, not a sphere. Now, take all this to Jesus. The Son existed as the 2nd "person" in the Trinity eternally with God. When the Son was incarnated, his deity was NOT LOST, per se. However, his deity could only manifest itself according to it's current sphere of existence, namely a HUMAN being.

Therefore, we lose nothing in saying that Jesus was fully God and fully man...and we ALSO lose nothing in saying that the Trinity was "altered" somewhat when the Incarnation took place.

Does this help?

Next...


POW said:

quote:

---

Another reason that I don't like to see the Trinity or the Incarnation played with is the factor mentioned by Maximus of the THREE Incarnations of the Word: Creation, Revelation, and Incarnation proper.

If you speculate, then wouldn't you have to do so also at those other two points?

And what about "the image which He made in the beginning" that He came to Mary and Bethlehem to restore?

---

I'm trying to understand the problem. I've not read Maximus at all, being honest. So, I don't know much about HIS views of the 3 Incarnations. However, if his "Creation" and "Revelation" are in any way similar to the way systematic theologians deal with "cosmology/cosmogony" and "bibliology" respectively, then speculation (as you call it) is already being done. The point of all this is not to bring down the mystery of God. Some may think that attempting to whittle down mystery actually succeeds in devaluing the glorious nature of the mysterious item itself. Kind of like when a scientist studies some type of wonderous phenomena. They are often chided for spending so much time analyzing the wonder, that they don't spend much time ENJOYING and BASKING in it. However, I think that many of the people go from the wrong perspective. True, there are SOME scientists who break all glorious things down to laws, facts, and notations...simply for the sake of "knowledge" But a significant amount of scientist do what they do BECAUSE of the wonder! They ponder the wonderous NOT to devalue it, but to fully APPRECIATE it's wonder at all levels. It's the SAME WAY with me as a theologian. I don't do this JUST to dissect God, as it were. I do this BECAUSE I find the ideas so wonderous as to hardly be believed. My analogies and explanations are merely to help myself and others understand the VAST complexities of what God has done in human history and who God is, as he would seem to reveal himself. I do this because I'm in AWE of the whole thing! It's not just intellectual self-stimulation. It's something that PREACHES!


I think I'm like Doc in this manner. It's not that I don't like or RESPECT mystery. I don't see how one can truly appreciate God WITHOUT embracing the mysterious. However, I believe that what we see in our sciences is a testimony to the way things are: the MORE we ponder things over and over, the MORE CLARIFICATION we can get than what we've had before. I think this goes for theology as well. Like is says on this board...

The more rational sense a belief makes, the more passionately it can be embraced.

In other words, I believe we do God a SERVICE when we thoroughly work through these issues. But the catch is that (just like my systematic teacher used to say) that the primary end of all this should NOT be a dissection of God or the quinessential apologetic...but WORSHIP. The more that one discovers or ponders God, one should be MORE and MORE drawn to worship. It does for me personally. I find it hard to TRULY WORSHIP something that is UTTERLY UNINTELLIGIBLE to me. Especially when said unintellible thing is attempting to be ARTICULATED intelligibly. It'd be easier just to be a mystic. (Actually, we should ALL be mystics somewhat.) For me, and hopefully others, this stuff helps me understand SOME of what I'm worshipping and WHY it's so very important. It may not float everyone's boat, but it does mine.

I hope this clarifies where I'm coming from, POW. Love you lots, brah! Play on, player!




PS:

POW: You are right, though. I really DO need to read a bit more history. There's probably TONS of great ideas and things that are not really "new", just unknown because of a lack of HISTORICAL theologizing. Point's really been hit home with me on this issue. Just to let you know.

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

quote:

---

I have to emphasize to myself that in the personal willings of all three persons of the Trinity I want always to remember that they each always will the same. It is with respect to this that the actions/willing of Christ in Gethsemani (sp?) is so wondrous. (If possible...but not my will by yours...) Christ's humanity naturally preferred not to die, but as a choice that humanity that shared hypostatically in his divinity decided to agree with the Son's divine will--which was always Trinitarian... Wondrous! And in the EO writers ti shows up in Christology, and seems to have bearing and guidance on our own walk with God, "to will and to do..." So it is valuable stuff to go over.

---

This is why I like the idea of 3 "centers of willing" It helps the idea of the difference between the the PRE and POST-Incarnation states of the Trinity. Remember how I said that, with my perichoretic idea, the 3 centers of willing would, in essence, have ONE CONSCIOUSNESS? This would be the same thing as what you are mentioning. In the pre-Incarnation state, there WAS NO clashing of wills. How could their be with that type of perichoresis going on? However, in the POST-Incarnation, thanks to HUMANIZING effect, we see the very Son of God having to ALIGN HIS will with his Father's will by some effort. Isn't that what it's about? Jesus becoming ultimately resolute to the Father's will, despite the pain it will cause Him? (Actually, it depends on which Gospel we are reading. He seems QUITE resolute in John's Gospel.)

It'd almost be like this. In eternity, the will of God (Father, Son, and Spirit) was set down. The Divine Intention laid. When the Incarnation took place, the Son fully experiences PERSONAL doubt. Does this REALLY have to be? Can this cup be taken from me? Why am I now AGONIZING over this decision that I (WE, the Trinity) made so long ago? This took place not because of a lessening of deity but because of the fulness of his humanity.

Whatcha think?


PS: I will be leaving town today, so I won't be back online for about 8-10 days. Y'all ALL have fun...and see you in 2002. Pray for me and I'll definitely reciprocate!

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.

quote:

---

Meph: "However, in the POST-Incarnation, thanks to HUMANIZING effect, we see the very Son of God having to ALIGN HIS will with his Father's will by some effort."

---

quote:

---

First, where you quote, "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Mat 24:36)"; that is taken in the EO views I've read as being indications of the lesser-ness of Christ's humanity versus divinity. That being true whether it be the divinity of the Son or of the Father and Spirit. That view, that this kind of thing is with regards to human versus divine is especially evident when commentary is made about verses of who is "greater". Else, one has to take a very domineering hierarchy of Father over the Son that the EO does not take.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm trying to understand really quick where you're coming from. This is what I'm hearing from you.

Meph, you may be saying that Christ was "less God" with your theological construction here. What does that do to our salvation?

If this is your concern then here we go...

---

PoW: No, that was not what I was saying. I meant to just show that you did not have to interpret that verse the way you seemed to. And I furnished a parallel verse to demonstrate. I'm pointing to the "the lesser-ness of Christ's humanity versus divinity." and definitely NOT any "Christ was "less God""!


==2==

Meph: It would be nice to know what "FULLY GOD" actually means. It has been so vaguely defined that it begs for clarification.

PoW: Meph, go read a good book! (You say the above FAR too easily. How much has been spent on that very subject; and in this day and age those works are so acceesible -- even by an amature like me in my hours away from being a school crossing guard!) And, BTW, don't think that you will ever know "what "FULLY GOD" actually means" totally; for the Son, any more than you will for the Father.


==3==

Meph: ...Especially given the way that I have described perichoresis...

PoW perichoresis is used by contemporary EO authors also with reference to relationship between God and man, in specific ways.

Meph: The only thing that I am noting is that I believe that the perichoretic nature of the Trinity PRE-Incarnation and POST-Incarnation are NOT the same. Especially given the way that I have described perichoresis. If POST-Incarnation were exactly the same as PRE-Incarnation perichoresis, then "separation from God" in any meaningful sense WOULD NOT take place.

PoW: You are taking "separation from God" and treating it in a Scholastic way! Too rational. Not open to the mystery that it indicates. It is literally true, AND it is a mystery. THAT separation is what Christ experienced, and He said so. Your Scholasticism could become for you a crow-bar to pry the reality and mystery apart. And since the point of leverage is a soteriological gem, I'd be circumspect.


Meph: then "separation from God" in any meaningful sense WOULD NOT take place. By the imputation of sin or any other method.

PoW: "any other method."? Read some EO. (IEO is not, OF COURSE, an "imputation" view!)


Meph: Moreover, if the above were the case, Jesus of Nazereth would know EVERYTHING that the Father and the Spirit would know. Nothing would be excluded. I contend that this occurs not because of any lessening of deity in Christ, but because of the very nature of being FULLY HUMAN.

PoW: THERE is your LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!

PoW: It seems to me that it is the full humanity, AND the suffering of Christ throughout the WHOLE of the economy, which makes that mystery possible. Ware points out that very few of the Fathers venture to make speculation. Those that do only with purpose. And not willy-nilly!!!!! The fact ath Christ did progress from ignorance it fact. But remember, Christ was NOT JUST Incarnate. He bore sinful humanity as his own. (WANT A REAL SPECULATION? WOULD CHRIST HAVE GROWN IN STATURE HAD THE FALL NOT HAPPENED?)


Meph: I think that I'm saying what YOU are saying: that the aspect of Jesus' FULL humanity is what limits the EXERCISE and FULL ILLUMINATION of the Deity of Christ.

PoW: I agree, Meph. We are saying the same thing!

PoW: But with respect to the perichoresis being different post Incarnation (while I am interested in seeing what you are thinking....) I do NOT SEE THE NEED for it (which ussually stems from something needing "healing"), and I felt concerned whether it might mess up the way we understand salvation. (Nothing intheology ever stands by itslef, does it?)


Meph: This is why I thought that that 2d circle image was a great example for Christ.

PoW: As I understand it, Christ is the point of interaction, the nexis, the "mediator" between divinity and humanity. I like seeing that modeled too!

PoW: But that is why "IN CHRIST" is so powerful. It stands as a tower--like the eifel tower--with nothing else around it. We are IN HIM. We are HIS Body. Zizioulas made the statement that there is NO CHRIST WITHOUT THE BODY. Only the Eternal Son.

PoW: OUR perichoresis with the Trinity is IN HIM. Praised and Glorified be the "Vine" now and ever unto ages of ages!!!!


Meph: The Son existed as the 2nd "person" in the Trinity eternally with God. When the Son was incarnated, his deity was NOT LOST, per se. However, his deity could only manifest itself according to it's current sphere of existence, namely a HUMAN being.

PoW: Do you want to suggest that the Son did not continue to exist in heaven?


==4==

POW said:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another reason that I don't like to see the Trinity or the Incarnation played with is the factor mentioned by Maximus of the THREE Incarnations of the Word: Creation, Revelation, and Incarnation proper.

If you speculate, then wouldn't you have to do so also at those other two points?

And what about "the image which He made in the beginning" that He came to Mary and Bethlehem to restore?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm trying to understand the problem. I've not read Maximus at all, being honest. So, I don't know much about HIS views of the 3 Incarnations. However, if his "Creation" and "Revelation" are in any way similar to the way systematic theologians deal with "cosmology/cosmogony" and "bibliology" respectively, then speculation (as you call it) is already being done.

==5==

Meph quotes: The more rational sense a belief makes, the more passionately it can be embraced.

PoW: Suggest balancing this with confindence in the work of the Holy Spirit throughout the Church (which that work is the sole definition of anyways!) with respect to these issues. The "everyone, in all places, at all times" is only a poor approximation... But the conciliar definition rpoecess is what works. important things get corrected, and protected.

==6==

PS, POW: You are right, though. I really DO need to read a bit more history. There's probably TONS of great ideas and things that are not really "new", just unknown because of a lack of HISTORICAL theologizing. Point's really been hit home with me on this issue. Just to let you know.

PoW: I'll try and make a list of books.

==7==

Meph: In the pre-Incarnation state, there WAS NO clashing of wills. How could their be with that type of perichoresis going on? However, in the POST-Incarnation, thanks to HUMANIZING effect, we see the very Son of God having to ALIGN HIS will with his Father's will by some effort.

PoW: But doesn't that lessen our salvation?



Meph: When the Incarnation took place, the Son fully experiences PERSONAL doubt.

PoW: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE!

PoW: Suffering, yes. Doubt? (lack of faith?) In what?


Meph: Can this cup be taken from me? Why am I now AGONIZING over this decision that I (WE, the Trinity) made so long ago?

PoW: Meph, you REALLY, really NEED to read some church history!!!!!!!!!! (Even go re-read the quotes that I posted on the Incarnation thread!)

PoW: your statement could be cleared up by St. John of Damascus. (Search him on that thread.) Christ did not deliberate! (JD's "delibarative will") Rather he exercised his "natural will." As Doc{/b] is preaching, Christ was/is the first true fully human humanity!

He, Christ, dispite all the suffering, "naturally" willed to do the will of the Father. In HIM there was no turning. As the song "I want to walk as a Child of the Light says in its chorus: "In Him there was no darkness at all, the night and the day are both alike. The Lamb is the Light of the City of God. Shine out through my life Lord Jesus." For me to live is Christ!


I'LL TRY TO COME BACK LATER AND EDIT, OR AT LEAST FORMAT!

-PoW

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 12/26/2001 12:04:55 PM

quote:

---

St. Cyril of Alexandria directs our attention to the newsworthy significance of the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ: "since, through the mercy of God it was necessary for us to be made worthy of the Spirit again by being restored to our earlier condition, then the Only-Begotten Word of God was made man. He was free from sin so that in His unique triumph of sinlessness the nature of mankind, now crowned once more, might be enriched with the Holy Spirit, and thus by sanctification it was refashioned for God....For He was constituted the first new-beginning of the race since, as God, He anointed all those who believe in Him."

---

quote:

---

Perichoresis

by Andrew Stephen Damick

O elegant and gentle Leader of the dance,
we do not know the meaning of each step
nor how to rightly turn this way or hold this pose.
Each spinning step or angled movement's twist
does sometimes give us vertigo here where we stand;
this mystery of how the rhythm's pulse
and how the music's lilt are tuned to only You
has caught us up, and we are overwhelmed.

O grace-filled, grace-bestowing Leader of the dance,
please teach me how to twirl and how to move;
please teach me how the song pervades each dancer's form,
these dancers who have learned to dance with You
throughout the ages of the song, the holy song
You sang in ages past to Abraham,
to Isaac and to Jacob and his Hebrew seed:
Now sing to me and give me, too, this life.

O Leader of the dance, this perfect partnership
of Leader and of led, of God and man,
this Incarnation's holy dance we see in You,
You now invite us to accompany.
This awesome dance, a truly cosmic synergy,
the interpenetration of us men
with Deity -- with Trinity! -- the universe
beholds and stands amazed and bows its head.

O holy Leader of this cosmic circling dance,
the union of both man and God is here
and imaged in the holy mystery of life
conjoined, a woman and a man conjoined.
He takes Your role as gentle leader, she as Church,
she follows him, and he must die for her;
their dance together joins the dance eternal now,
and in that human dance we see our God.

O Holy Trinity, Your dance eternal now
descends on us and consecrates our own,
the revelation here as Body and as Blood;
herein we taste the God become a man,
and men become as gods as David prophesied.
The Trinitarian rhythm has become
our own, to guide our dance, to grasp our hands and lead
us in the dance of stillness perfectly.

May 2001

---

quote:

---

Jewgrass: yours is a predicament I have pondered on and off over the years. While many within the Christian community have held that the Trinity is clearly taught in scripture and while I do believe that is what scripture teaches, I have always been more than I little troubled by the fact that scripture never comes out and explictly says, "this is God." So I can understand where you are coming from. Having said this, let me give you my thoughts.
It would seem to me that, given the jealousy God displays in the Old Testament towards other gods and how harsh he is with false worship, it is our responsibility to listen to what he says very carefully about who he is. If he has revealed himself as Trinity in any way, we have the responsibility to worship him in the manner he has revealed himself. Personally, I do not find this easy and sometimes it is very confusing. But if God requires worship and he requires us to worship in the way he has revealed himself, it could be damning to our souls if we choose to ignore it because it is confusing. Finally, there are many other religions who believe Jesus is god. Does that make them religions of God? Mormons, for instance, do, as do many other religions. Does that make them true? Harold

---

quote:

---

No, that was not what I was saying. I meant to just show that you did not have to interpret that verse the way you seemed to. And I furnished a parallel verse to demonstrate. I'm pointing to the "the lesser-ness of Christ's humanity versus divinity." and definitely NOT any "Christ was "less God""!

---

I must not be understanding what "the lesser-ness of Christ's humanity versus divinity" means. Help me out.



POW:

quote:

---

Meph, go read a good book! (You say the above FAR too easily. How much has been spent on that very subject; and in this day and age those works are so acceesible -- even by an amature like me in my hours away from being a school crossing guard!) And, BTW, don't think that you will ever know "what "FULLY GOD" actually means" totally; for the Son, any more than you will for the Father.

---

Hmm...depends on what you mean by "good book" Though I'm not as well read as I would like to be, I will say that I HAVE read some theological books in my stint at seminary that state that the orthodox position of Christianity is that Christ is "fully God" In my reading of all those books, I have yet to find one that really goes into the implications of WHAT THAT MEANS. It's almost like my critique of Doc's view on certain things. It's one things to say "This is the correct teaching" and give the reasons why one believes that. It's COMPLETELY another to go deeply into the implications of said teaching to show its MEANING. Again, perhaps you can direct me to some more good books.



POW:

quote:

---

PoW perichoresis is used by contemporary EO authors also with reference to relationship between God and man, in specific ways.

---

That's cool. I'm just dealing with INTRA-trinity stuff right now.


POW:

quote:

---

You are taking "separation from God" and treating it in a Scholastic way! Too rational. Not open to the mystery that it indicates. It is literally true, AND it is a mystery. THAT separation is what Christ experienced, and He said so. Your Scholasticism could become for you a crow-bar to pry the reality and mystery apart. And since the point of leverage is a soteriological gem, I'd be circumspect.

---

Hmmm...I think that all I'm doing is THINKING this stuff out...NOT overrationalizing things. You and I are on different poles of this "mystery" continuum, buddy.



POW:

quote:

---

Meph: Moreover, if the above were the case, Jesus of Nazereth would know EVERYTHING that the Father and the Spirit would know. Nothing would be excluded. I contend that this occurs not because of any lessening of deity in Christ, but because of the very nature of being FULLY HUMAN.

PoW: THERE is your LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL!

---

Glad we agree.


POW:

quote:

---

But that is why "IN CHRIST" is so powerful. It stands as a tower--like the eifel tower--with nothing else around it. We are IN HIM. We are HIS Body. Zizioulas made the statement that there is NO CHRIST WITHOUT THE BODY. Only the Eternal Son.

PoW: OUR perichoresis with the Trinity is IN HIM. Praised and Glorified be the "Vine" now and ever unto ages of ages!!!!

---

This is cool stuff...but what does it have to do with what I'm essentially talking about? Again, I'm mainly dealing with INTRA-Trinity stuff. Not the INTERrelations between the Trinity and other creatures. This is NOT to say that that's not important, but I'm just making clear the scope of my discussion here.

quote:

---

Meph: The Son existed as the 2nd "person" in the Trinity eternally with God. When the Son was incarnated, his deity was NOT LOST, per se. However, his deity could only manifest itself according to it's current sphere of existence, namely a HUMAN being.

PoW: Do you want to suggest that the Son did not continue to exist in heaven?

---

HUH????????



POW:

quote:

---

Suggest balancing this with confindence in the work of the Holy Spirit throughout the Church (which that work is the sole definition of anyways!) with respect to these issues. The "everyone, in all places, at all times" is only a poor approximation... But the conciliar definition rpoecess is what works. important things get corrected, and protected.

---

From what I understand, this goes on the assumption that the Spirit is genuinely guiding the Church HISTORICALLY and that the Spirit will not allow central doctrine to be fundamentally corrupted. Such that if church tradtion may form a tether of sorts to what should and should not be kept as proper teaching and doctrine. This validates the use of patristics and what have you. I don't knock this. However, it seems to me that people use the Fathers and other historical theologians like present day philosophers use "the findings of scholars" If there is a person who backs MY view with MY presupps, I'll mainly use him. If there is a person who doesn't fundamentally back my view, I will us said person TO THE EXTENT that I can agree with him and he backs me. Everything else, I toss. I may be a novice, but this is sometimes how I see historical theologizing done. Calvinists love Augustine, yet some Orthodox people find his stuff not to cool. Who's to choose? Do you see the dilemma? This question has been asked before. What's your answer, POW?


POW

quote:

---

I'll try and make a list of books.

---

Waiting on it...



POW

quote:

---

Meph: In the pre-Incarnation state, there WAS NO clashing of wills. How could their be with that type of perichoresis going on? However, in the POST-Incarnation, thanks to HUMANIZING effect, we see the very Son of God having to ALIGN HIS will with his Father's will by some effort.

PoW: But doesn't that lessen our salvation?

---

How???



POW

quote:

---

Meph: When the Incarnation took place, the Son fully experiences PERSONAL doubt.

PoW: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE!

PoW: Suffering, yes. Doubt? (lack of faith?) In what?


Meph: Can this cup be taken from me? Why am I now AGONIZING over this decision that I (WE, the Trinity) made so long ago?

PoW: Meph, you REALLY, really NEED to read some church history!!!!!!!!!! (Even go re-read the quotes that I posted on the Incarnation thread!)

PoW: your statement could be cleared up by St. John of Damascus. (Search him on that thread.) Christ did not deliberate! (JD's "delibarative will") Rather he exercised his "natural will." As Doc{/b] is preaching, Christ was/is the first true fully human humanity!

He, Christ, dispite all the suffering, "naturally" willed to do the will of the Father. In HIM there was no turning. As the song "I want to walk as a Child of the Light says in its chorus: "In Him there was no darkness at all, the night and the day are both alike. The Lamb is the Light of the City of God. Shine out through my life Lord Jesus." For me to live is Christ!

---

So basically what you are saying is that the Gethsemene thing was more of a CRY OF EXASPERATION from Jesus more than a genuine wondering about the NECESSITY of His going through with his mission? I don't know if I agree with that.


Keeping it moving,



PS: Modes, I'll try to respond to your stuff soon. I'll reread your thesis.

PSS: Mag, First of all, thanks for the "Flatland" site. It wasn't just written in the 80s...but the 1880s! Oy friggin vay...talk about behind the times... Thanks for the kudos, too.

Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.