quote:

---

When Jesus was resurrected he had a glorified body. I have been taught that he would always have this body forever. Even given that Jesus is the God-man, wouldn't it seem that this body would be, in some sense, constricting to Jesus? Is he not now like us, confined to one place? And where is it in scripture that he must always have this body? Harold

---

quote:

---

http://ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-12/npnf1-12-44.htm#P1912_1165237

Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol. XII
St. John Chrysostom
HOMILIES ON FIRST CORINTHIANS
Homily XXXIX
1 Corinthians chapter 15

Ver. 24. "Then cometh the end."

For when these shall have risen again, all things shall have an end, not as now when after Christ's resurrection things abide yet in suspense. Wherefore he added, "at His coming," that thou mayest learn that he is speaking of that time, "when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God even the Father; when He shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power."

[6.] Here, give heed to me carefully, and see that no part escape you of what I say. For our contest is with enemies: wherefore we first must practice the reductio ad absurdum which also Paul often doeth. Since in this way shall we find what they say most easy of detection. Let us ask them then first, what is the meaning of the saying, "When he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father?" For if we take this just as it stands and not in a sense becoming Deity, He will not after this retain it. For he that hath delivered up to another, ceases any longer to retain a thing himself. And not only will there be this absurdity, but that also the other person who receives it will be found not to be possessor of it before he hath so received it. Therefore according to them, neither was the Father a King before, governing our affairs: nor will it seem that the Son after these things will be a King. How then, first of all, concerning the Father doth the Son Himself say, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work:" (John chapter 5, verse 17) and of Him Daniel, "That His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, which shall not pass away?" (Daniel chapter 7, verse 14) Seest thou how many absurdities are produced, and repugnant to the Scriptures, when one takes the thing spoken after the manner of men?

But what "rule," then doth he here say, that Christ "putteth down?" That of the angels? Far from it. That of the faithful? Neither is it this. What rule then? That of the devils, concerning which he saith, "Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness:" (Ephesians chapter 6, verse 12) For now it is not as yet "put down" perfectly, they working in many places, but then shall they cease.

Ver. 25. "For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet."

Again from hence also another absurdity is produced, unless we take this also in a way becoming Deity. For the expression "until," is one of end and limitation: but in reference to God, this does not exist.

Ver. 26. "The last enemy that shall be abolished is death."

How the last? After all, after the devil, after all the other things. For so in the beginning also death came in last; the counsel of the devil having come first, and our disobedience, and then death. Virtually then indeed it is even now abolished: but actually, at that time.

[7.] Ver. 27. "For He hath put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He saith, All things are put in subjection, it is manifest that He is excepted who did subject all things unto Him."

Ver. 28. "And when all things have been subjected unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subjected unto Him that did subject all things unto Him."

And yet before he said not that it was the Father who "put things under Him," but He Himself who "abolishes." For "when He shall have abolished," saith he, "all rule and authority:" and again, "for He must reign until He hath put all His enemies under His feet." How then doth he here say, "the Father?"

And not only is there this apparent perplexity, but also that he is afraid with a very unaccountable fear, and uses a correction, saying, "He is excepted, who did subject all things unto Him," as though some would suspect, whether the Father might Himself not be subject unto the Son; than which what can be more irrational? nevertheless, he fears this.

How then is it? for in truth there are many questions following one upon another. Well, give me then your earnest attention; since in fact it is necessary for us first to speak of the scope of Paul and his mind, which one may find everywhere shining forth, and then to subjoin our solution: this being itself an ingredient in our solution.

What then is Paul's mind, and what is his custom? He speaks in one way when he discourses of the Godhead alone, and in another when he falls into the argument of the economy. Thus having once taken hold of our Lord's Flesh, he freely thereafter uses all the sayings that humiliate Him; without fear as though that were able to bear all such expressions. Let us see therefore here also, whether his discourse is of the simple Godhead, or whether in view of the incarnation he asserts of Him those things which he saith: or rather let us first point out where he did this of which I have spoken. Where then did he this? Writing to the Philippians he saith, "Who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied Himself ofno reputation, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. Wherefore hathGod highly exalted Him." (Philippians chapter 2, verse 6-Philippians chapter 2, verse 9)

Seest thou how when he was discoursing of the Godhead alone, he uttered those great things, that He "was in the form of God" and that He "was equal with" Him that begat Him, and to Him refers the whole? But when He showed Him to thee made flesh, he lowered again the discourse. For except thou distinguish these things, there is great variance between the things spoken. Since, if He were "equal with God," how did He highly exalt one equal with Himself? If He were "in the form of God," how "gave" He Him "a name?" for he that giveth, giveth to one that hath not, and he that exalteth, exalteth one that is before abased. He will be found then to be imperfect and in need, before He hath received the "exaltation" and "the Name;" and many other absurd corollaries will hence follow. But if thou shouldest add the incarnation, thou wilt not err in saying these things. These things then here also consider, and with this mind receive thou the expressions.

[8.] Now together with these we will state also other reasons why this pericope of Scripture was thus composed. But at present it is necessary to mention this: first, that Paul's discourse was of the resurrection, a thing counted to be impossible and greatly disbelieved: next, he was writing to Corinthians among whom there were many philosophers who mocked at such things always. For although in other things wrangling one with another, in this they all, as with one mouth, conspired, dogmatically declaring that there is no resurrection. Contending therefore for such a subject so disbelieved and ridiculed, both on account of the prejudice which had been formed, and on account of the difficulty of the thing; and wishing to demonstrate its possibility, he first effects this from the resurrection of Christ. And having proved it both from the prophets, and from those who had seen, and from those who believed: when he had obtained an admitted reductio ad absurdum, he proves in what follows the resurrection of mankind also. "For if the dead rise not," saith he, "neither has Christ been raised."

Further; having closely urged these converse arguments in the former verses, he tries it again in another way, calling Him the "first-fruits," and pointing to His "abolishing all rule and authority and power, and death last." "How then should death be put down," saith he, "unless he first loose the bodies which heheld?" Since then he had spoken great things of the Only-Begotten, that He "gives up the kingdom," i.e., that He Himself brings these things to pass, and Himself is victor in the war, and "putteth all things under His feet," he adds, to correct the unbelief of the multitude, "for He must reign till He hath put all His enemies under His feet." Not as putting an end to the kingdom, did he use the expression "until," but to render what was said worthy of credit, and induce them to be confident. For "do not," saith he, "because thou hast heard that He will abolish all rule, and authority and power," to wit, the devil, and the bands of demons, (many as there are,) and the multitudes of unbelievers, and the tyranny of death, and all evils: do not thou fear as though His strength was exhausted. For until He shall have done all these things, "He must reign;" not saying this, that after He hath brought it to pass He doth not reign; but establishing this other, that even if it be not now, undoubtedly it will be. For His kingdom is not cut off: yea, He rules and prevails and abides until He shall have set to right all things.

And this manner of speech one might find also in the Old Testament; as when it is said, "But the word of the Lord abideth for ever;" (Psalms chapter 119, verse 89) and, "Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail." (Psalms chapter 102, verse 27) Now these and such-like things the Prophet saith, when he is telling of things which a long space of time must achieve and which must by all means come to pass; casting out the fearfulness of the duller sort of hearers.

But that the expression, "until," spoken of God, and "unto," do not signify an end, hear what one saith: "From everlasting unto everlasting Thou art God:" (Psalms chapter 90, verse 2) and again, "I am, I am," and "Even to your old age I am He." (Isaiah chapter 46, verse 4)

For this cause indeed doth he set death last, that from the victory over the rest this also might be easily admitted by the unbeliever. For when He destroys the devil who brought in death, much more will He put an end to His work.

[9.] Since then he referred all to Him, the "abolishing rule and authority," the perfecting of His kingdom, (I mean the salvation of the faithful, the peace of the world, the taking away of evils, for this is to perfect His kingdom,) the putting an end to death; and he said not, "the Father by Him," but, "Himself shall put down, and Himself shall put under His feet," and he no where mentioned Him that begat Him; he was afraid afterward, lest on this account among some of the more irrational persons, either the Son might seem to be greater than the Father, or to be a certain distinct principle, unbegotten. And therefore, gently guarding himself, he qualifies the magnitude of his expressions, saying, "for He put all things in subjection under His feet," again referring to the Father these high achievements; not as though the Son were without power. For how could He be, of whom he testified so great things before, and referred to Him all that was said? But it was for the reason which I mentioned, and that he might show all things to be common to Father and Son which were done in our behalf. For that Himself alone was sufficient to "put all things in subjection under Him," hear again Paul saying, (Philippians chapter 3, verse 21) "Who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of His glory, according to the working whereby He is able even to subject all things unto Himself."

Then also heuses a correction, saying, "But when He saith, all things are put in subjection, it is evident that He is excepted who did subject all things unto Him," testifying even thence no small glory to the Only-Begotten. For if He were less and much inferior, this fear would never have been entertained by him. Neither is he content with this, but also adds another thing, as follows. I say, lest any should doubt-ingly ask, "And what if the Father hath not been `put under Him?' this doth not at all hinder the Son from being the more mighty;" fearing this impious supposition, because that expression was not sufficient to point out this also, he added, going very much beyond it, "But when all things have been subjected unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subjected;" showing His great concord with the Father, and that He is the principle of all other good things and the first Cause, who hath begotten One so great in power and in achievements.

[10.] But if he said more than the subject-matter demanded, marvel not. For in imitation of his Master he doeth this: since He too pur-posing to show His concord with Him that begat Him, and that He hath not come without His mind, descends so far, I say not, as the proof of concord demanded, but as the weakness of the persons present required. For He prays to His Father for no other cause but this; and stating the reason He saith, "that they may believe that Thou hast sent Me." (John chapter 11, verse 42) In imitation therefore of Him, Paul here in his manner of speech goes beyond what was required; not that thou mightest have any suspicion of a forced servitude, far from it; but that he might the more entirely cast out those impious doctrines. For so when he is minded to pull up any thing by the roots, he is wont to do it, and abundantly more with it. Thus too, for example, when he spake of a believing wife and an unbelieving husband, companying with one another by the law of marriage, that the wife might not consider herself defiled by that intercourse and the embraces of the unbeliever, he said not, "the wife is not unclean," nor, "she is no wise harmed by the unbeliever," but, which was much more, "the unbeliever is even `sanctified' by her," not meaning to signify that the heathen was made holy through her, but by the very great strength of the expression anxious to remove her fear. So also here, his zeal to take away that impious doctrine by a very strong utterance was the cause of his expressing himself as he did. For as to suspect the Son of weakness is extreme impiety: (wherefore he corrects it, saying, "He shall put all enemies under His feet:") so on the other hand is it more impious to consider the Father inferior to Him. Wherefore he takes it also away with exceeding force. And observe how he puts it. For he said not simply, "He is excepted which put all things under Him," but, "it is manifest," "for even if it be admitted," saith he, "nevertheless I make it sure."

And that thou mayest learn that this is the reason of the things spoken, I would ask thee this question: Doth an additional "subjection" at that time befal the Son? And how can this be other than impious and unworthy of God? For the greatest subjection and obedience is this, that He who is God took the form of a servant. How then will He be "sub-jected?" Seest thou, that to take away the impious notion, he used this expression? and this too in a suitable though reserved sense? For he becomes a Son and a divine Person, so He obeys; not humanly, but as one acting freely and having all authority. Otherwise how is he co-enthroned? How, "as the Father raiseth up, even so He, whom He will?" (John chapter 5, verse 21) How are "all things that the Father hath His," and all that He hath, the Father's? (John chapter 16, verse 15) For these phrases indicate to us an authority exactly measured by that of Him that begat Him.

[11.] But what is this, "When He shall deliver up the kingdom?" The Scripture acknowledges two kingdoms of God, the one by appropriation, the other by creation. Thus, He is King over all, both Greeks and Jews and devils and His adversaries, in respect of His creation: but He is King of the faithful and willing and subject, in respect of His making them His own. This is the kingdom which is said also to have a beginning. For concerning this He saith also in the second Psalm, "Ask of Me, and I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance." (Psalms chapter 2, verse 8) Touching this also, He Himself said to His disciples, "All authority hath been given unto Me by My father," (Matthew chapter 28, verse 18) referring all to Him that begat Him, not as though of Himself He were not sufficient, but to signify that He is a Son, and not unbegotten. This kingdom then He doth "deliver up," i.e., "bring to a right end."

"What then," saith one, "can be the reason why He spake nothing of the Spirit?" Because of Him he was not discoursing now, nor doth he confound all things together. Since also where he saith, "There is one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus," undoubtedly not as allowing the Spirit to be inferior, is he therefore silent, but because for the time it was not urgent, he so expressed himself. For he is wont also to make mention of the Father only, yet we must not therefore cast out the Son: he is wont to speak also of the Son and of the Spirit only, yet not for this are we to deny the Father.

But what is, "that God may be all in all?" That all things may be dependent upon Him, that none may suppose two authorities without a beginning, nor another kingdom separated off; that nothing may exist independent of him. For when the enemies shall be lying under the feet of the Son, and He having them cast under His feet be at no variance with His Father, but at concord with Him in entire perfection, then He shall Himself "be all in all."

But some say that he spake this to declare the removal of wickedness, as though all would yield thenceforth and none would resist nor do iniquity. For when there is no sin, it is evident that "God shall be all in all."

---

quote:

---

PhD MP: One reason the EO thinkers fail to see the centrality of Jesus's resurrection is that they incorporate a Platonic ideal into their interpretation of Scripture. If, however, we let the biblical worldview (Hebraic), not a Greek one (neoPlatonism) provide us with our framework for reading the NT writers, we will see that the resurrection meant to them that Jesus was the eternal Davidic King, available permanently to save his people because he was raised from the dead. Without that resurrection, Jesus is not available to save anyone (according to the biblical view of humanity) because as a dead man he is powerless in the physical realm. A raised Savior means we have an available Savior--now and always in a body that cannot die (Rom. 6).

---

PoW: ??? How can ANYONE say that the resurrection is not central in Orthodoxy? HOW? Never been to a Pascha service? This missed the boat as far as Kansas is from San Diego harbor!!! Sad to say, I mean that!!! Boy!!! Go read some of their liturgy! Boy! Wow!!!


For an indication of how serious the Orthodox are about the Ressurection see thisLINK

As to the NeoPlatonism issue. Of course Christians at that time and place had to struggle with their mileu. But the history of the development of Christological doctrine shows that they were putting the witness of the Scripture into the words that would be understood. They did it in a HIGHLY persuasive way. If you make the effort to read the below you will see that!


PhD MP, the EO (EASTERN ORTHODOX) do not court the Platonic by missing the biblcal worldview. Read Meyendorff's "Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, or his Byzantine Theology for a delightful (and welcomed?) surprise! They transformed a culture. They adopted Hellenic terms and gave them new meanings and used, meanings and used which flew in the face of Hellenic philopophy.

See: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/orth_plato.htm

Is Orthodoxy Neo-Platonic? by Dr. Thomas Mether

quote:

---

TO A PARTICULAR NEO-REFORMED E-MAGS ALLEGATIONS OF: "Eastern Orthodox thinkers at times insist that they have purged neo-Platonism from their thinking by slight changes in Plotinus1s system." WAS RESPONDED...

This is an elaboration and variation on the original unsupported assertion with one difference. Which Eastern Orthodox thinkers when literally claim that "they have purged neo-Platonism from their thinking by slight changes in Plotinus1s system." No names named. And it ignores the very important distinction of ousia and hypostasis. If one looks at number of citations, the Fathers actually quote Aristotle more than Plotinus or the Platonists. Aristotle is a common conceptual framework to Orthodox and Calvinist theology. Much of the Fathers Platonist vocabulary comes from Origen1s attack on Celsus or from Pseudo-Denis whose neo-Platonism is Syriac, not Plotinean. Nicene vocabulary is a critical re-construction of Origen1s conceptual vocabulary. This is inherited by both Orthodox and Calvinists. And where Orthodox Trinitarian theology departs from the west, it is more Biblical than the west1s! Consider.

Towards late antiquity, two words were in philosophical use which meant substance or substantive being. s Aristotle put it, being can be said in many ways or there are many meanings of Being. He isolated and identified Being according to the different categories of which substance (ousia) was the most fundamental, Being as act and potency, Being as true, and Being as contingent as opposed to necessary/essential. There has been on and off again the debate over the question of whether this listing of the meanings of Being is complete. We will return to that in a bit. The Byzantine answer was it was incomplete.
As indicated, there were two words used for substantive being in late classical philosophy. The first was Aristotle1s ousia. The second was hypostasis from Stoic origins. But they each developed a meaning that made them not exactly synonymous. Ousia increasingly came to mean a substance/thing to the extent it was a kind of substance/thing or a thing of a typical nature or essence. Hypostasis increasingly came to mean a substantive mode of existence in its unique and distinctive particularity and individuality.

Into this context comes the tradition of Judaism. Philo uses these distinctions to suggest that the personal God of Israel is a uniquely distinctive and singular reality or hypostasis in contrast to the impersonal thought thinking itself thing (ousia) of Aristotle. One branch of Middle Platonism picks this up and God and souls become hypostases while impersonal things, including cups, chairs, etc., become ousias. The other branch of Middle Platonism represented by Numenius of Apamea pushes the God as impersonal monad and ousia interpretation which nevertheless reinforces the ousia = non-personal substance/thing of a typical kind and hypostasis = personal substance of a uniquely and distinctive individual (usually God as person).

We have here the elements of a conceptual revolution in ancient philosophy and religion. It was the characteristic trait of ancient philosophy, religion, and humanism that the individual was not valued in and of itself in its particularity but only as an paradigmatic instance of a universal ideal type. Person was just an epiphenomenal mask. By contrast, as Tillich brings out, even the post-Christian humanism of the modern world is Judeo-Christian to the extent the unrepeatable individual per se is valued in and of itself. The roots of this contrast is in the Trinitarian controversy and the debt the parties owed to Philo and Origen.

Consider, the Christological controversy was settled in terms of ousia (homoousia) as the substantive divinity of both the Father and Christ. They are of one essence. Now, in the Trinitarian controversy, given the pre-history of the words ousia and hypostasis and given that ousia was implied already in the omoousia solution to the christological issue and finally given that the conventional and more common word for person (prosopon) had no ontological weight given its epiphenomenal connotation, the Church Fathers chose hypostasis to designate God in his distinctive, unrepeatable, and individual personalities in all their distinctive particularity because it had ontological and substantive weightÐpersonhood was ontologically ultimate. They feared that the use of prosopon would convey a modalist or Sabellian message which would be a subordination of persons to impersonal ousia. And this is what the Latin and Calvinist west, even as early as in Augustine1s time, did not understand and confessed it did not understand. As Fr. Theodore Regnon, S.J. put it, "Latin philosophy (Christian theology) considers the nature in itself first and proceeds to the agent; Greek philosophy (Christian theology) considers the agent first and passes through it to find the nature. The Latins think of personality as a mode of nature; the Greeks think of nature as the content of the person. The western lack of understanding of what the Greek Fathers had accomplished in the nature of the distinction and relations of priority within it between ousia and hypostases led to a certain re-paganization of Trinitarian thought in which the philosophical essentialism of an unreformed ousiological metaphysics engenders the accent to fall on the divine unity in the west."

Now the so-called "monarchia of the Father" in eastern Trinitarian theology means person trumps impersonal thing. Even the divine ousia exists because the Father is the PERSONAL source of the communion of divine hypostases that is the ousia. The west tends to take it the other way around, beginning with ousia, and thus, from an eastern perspective, betrays the very essence of the meaning of the Trinity as interpersonality as ultimate reality. With the influx of insufficiently re-constructed philosophical concepts in the west, you get the re-paganization of Christian theology in the west as instanced by debates over God1s foreknowledge of future contingents, whether it is matter or form of an ousia/substantial thing that individuates (and individuates both things and persons), and so on. The west was captured by an ousiological metaphysics. This metaphysics held western theology in captivity. It is in its nominalist form coming from William Occam that we find it still in captivity in the Calvinist1s even having the very question of whether God knows future contingents in light of predestination, and time. This was a metaphysics, St. Maximos the Confessor points out, that saw time as an enemy and thus sought that stable enduring thing through change that thereby is the most fundamental kind of being. Thus, that kind of perdurance was dubbed with the past participle he says. In essence, what is called by contemporary philosophers "the metaphysics of presence" according to Maximos is really the metaphysics of the past, as fully complete and determinate, used paradigmatically to colonize all the other temporal modes of present and future. The present is the predestined creature of the past both in Calvin and Newton. The essentialism downgrades accidental being or sumbebekos. Now sumbebekos as accidental being was also not well understood in the west. It is not being that exists in another like a form of being found within one of the predicate categories. It designates the happenstantial, the contingently situational so it is not precisely necessary-essential that my wife has auburn hair; that she has this hair color is accidental in the sense of sumbebekos, it is fortuitous in the sense that her hair could have indifferently been auburn or not auburn but it is necessary that it have some color. This kind of accidental being can be found in every category. Thus, in the pagan Greek view, that a human is this or that individual is accidental but it is necessary that a human be somebody. The distinction then between accidental being in the sense of sumbebekos from an accident-predicate is that the accidental being is the contingent or fortuitious actuality according to every necessary category. So, accidental being in this sense is the contingent affection or actual constellation or situation or event that takes place according to the necessity of different categories. On the Orthodox reading, this sumbebekos is really God1s governance or the concrete realization of God1s purpose in time. To downgrade it is a spiritually sick symptom of the religiosity of sarx that finds time to be a corrosive force that bears no faith or hope. Thus, accidental being just as the unique particularity of persons and the future, is downgraded in pagan metaphysics in favor of fully determinate being-essences (the dead, fully completed and determinate and deterministic past idealized as enduring presence) or ousiological being for the paradigmatic past participle. It was not till Scotus developed his concept of haecceity and the individual1s will did you find the beginning of the overturn of a ousiological metaphysics in western Christian theology. Maximos pointed out the original meaning of sumbebekos was not negative as it as in pagan philosophical theology but was positive. It meant the adventurous and creative way things are "brought together." So, in Orthodox theology coming from Maximos, the pagan agenda to make (persons and) reality in its concreteness, in all its contingency, fortuity, distinctiveness, and unique unrepeatibility unreal in favor of impersonal, universal, and necessary is set on its head. Thus, sumbebekos, as very purposeful counterpoint in Byzantine theology, is the creative way (Logos) that God brings all things together (sumbebekos) in the existential fullness of their realization (uparktikos) of his eikonomia. This lead Maximos to revolutionize Aristotle1s categorical analysis of Being in one of its meanings. But to back up a bit. Now, the Cappadocians start to make systematic use of these terms ousia and hypostasis to build the foundations of eastern theology. But it is St. Maximos the Confessor who really completes this task and thus is called the father of Byzantine theology. This takes us back to the question of whether the meanings of Being given by Aristotle are an exhaustive list. For Maximos states:

It is no accident, or rather, is foreordained blind inspiration that the Stagirite spoke both worse and better than he meant. For when he says that ‘indeed the inquiry or perplexity concerning what being (on) is, in early times and now and always, is just this: what is substance (ousia) (Meta Z 1.5, 1028b).1 he begs the question by his reduction of the problem of Being to that of one kind of substantial being. For the categorial determinations of the meanings of Being that have their focus or reference to a more fundamental kind of being are multiple. For as Tradition has taught us to see, there is another substantive mode of existing which is that of the personal mode of existence. The logos was in our tongue but we could not see. There are hypostases that are a personal mode of existence (tropos hyparxeos) that is the referent or fundamental kind of being that has characteristic manners or modes (tropoi) of being as modifications of the first-personal to be (eimi) that is the voluntary (thelesis) analogue to ousiological energeia and that can existentially realize (uparktikos) itself contranaturally, naturally, or supranaturally with their respective vices and virtues.

So, for example, (remember Byzantium did not go through a dark ages like the west did. It maintained high literacy, even in Latin {because of their fierce pride in being descendents of the Romans, even military communiques to the Romanians, for example, were in Latin until 1081} classics were studied and known through the schools, and it had almost all the classical and patristic works of antiquity, in sharp contrast to the west, and thus, was the source, usually still unacknowledged in western secondary literature, of the Greek texts being translated by such as Moerbeke in the time of Aquinas down to the Renaissance when refugees from Byzantium brought texts, like the Dialogues of Plato, to Ficino), the question of individuation was never posed within the new metaphysical framework of Byzantine theology as a choice of the essence or matter of an ousia. Human existence is comprised of human nature (ousia), with its matter and form, as a species principle of nature (logos physeos) that is individuated by the personal mode of existence (tropos hyparxeos) of the hypostasis. But Orthodoxy has a developmental view. Even if there had been no fall, Adam would have still had to evolve from the Image into the Likeness through the Incarnation (anselmian theory is wrong on the eastern view if purpose of Incarnation was just to correct the fall because Church is the goal as the Body of Christ) in a process called theosis (deification) in synergy with the divine Energies. While in principle it is the hypostasis that individuates, instead of one of the metaphysical elements of the human ousia, it is the process of theosis that is the actual process of individuating the one becoming a person in the fulness of the Likeness of the interpersonality of the Trinitarian life. So, see, the east is in a very different conceptual universe, metaphysically, than the west and which the west has not appreciated as yet in its attempts to grasp eastern theology/metaphysics. So, Thomist and Calvinist discussions seem, from an Orthodox perspective to, too uncritically inherit a pagan concept without sufficient critical reflection on the legacy of its pre-Christian meaning and implications. The on-going issue of the relation of Greek philosophy and Orthodox theological expression is an issue for any properly responsible theology that has to be methodologically fastidious about the concepts it uses and/ or may read into Scripture. Proof of this, at least in the case of Thomas and Calvin, is the very need to be concerned about whether or not God knows individual souls, particulars, or future contingents. The Orthodox understanding is that the pagan concept of divine immutability was an allergic reaction to time and contingency that needed to find a time-proof foundation of necessity for religious reassurance. Time was the evil Kronos who ate its children. So, the concept is symptomatic of a spiritual sickness of the religiosity of sarx (which in Orthodoxy is not "flesh," but deathliness, related to sarcophagus, it is the opposite of spirit, it is de-spiritedness that emotionally believes in death more than God despite what the head believes). Pagan philosophical theology sought a predestinied necessity in a time-proof order or an anti-time God. Since everything human is temporal, one gets the unknown God because God is what anything temporal-mortal is not.

Using a Biblical base to modify Greek pagan concepts, divine immutability in Orthodoxy is God1s loyalty to his promise (his Word, his Church) to his (Church designed) creatures. It is the immutability of his commitment through and outside of time. It is the basis of the fact that economia was the telos, and thus, foundation of the creation. Church is the fulfillment of covenant. Covenant is the inner purpose for creation. Creation is the outer staging for the inner purpose. So, the Church, as Body of Christ, is the fruit from which the tree that bore it, the cosmos, was itself borne and born, as St. Diadochus of Gaza puts it. God1s immutability is that he is agape, essentially and contingently, immutably a sharer of Person with Persons, uncreate or create. Time has no nature apart from this agenda, and thus, is nothing in relation to it, and thus, is not an obstacle or issue for or about divine immutability unlike the unregenerate paganism of the insufficiently methologically critical Calvinism.

We derive our reconstructed metaphysics and cosmology from dogmatics. It was the Catholic and Protestant west that tried, especially after Aquinas, to mix and match. Only Luther showed some sophistication in these matters. But Calvin1s Institutes depends on un-re-examined concepts from the western philosophical-theological tradition. By the way, Barth1s discussion of Calvin is an effective deconstruction and expose of Calvin1s non-Christian philosophical legacies, including the neo-Platonic concepts in Calvinist theology. Anyway, I hope this shows just how minute the fine-tooth combing of Greek concepts in order to serve Christian theology was.

---

Edited by - potonwheel on 01/06/2002 8:29:51 PM

quote:

---

t's clear to me that the intended meaning of the NT writers is to present to us a Jesus who was in a permanently resurrected body. He will return in that body, and he resides in heaven now in that body. It bears scars and has physical characteristics.

To conclude that Jesus's body is merely spiritual or immaterial is heretical, in my view. Paul tells us our faith is meaningless and worthless, if Jesus did not rise in a physical body (see I Cor. 15).

Jesus permanently exists in that body, and it ties him permanently to the physical realm. One of the gloriously wonderful aspects of his incarnation and resurrection is that the trinitarian God has now connected himself to his creation by the Son's incarnation and eternal reign via his resurrection.

---

AGREED. Nicely put! And thanks for chiming in.

It was that non-sequitor that I countered. the counter is the ACTUAL HISTORY of what happened. You were WAY off. (My brotherinlaw is an Orthodox priest. And I've read all the say through those two books by Meyendorff; twice. i know of what I speak!!!) and I'M OBJECTIVE!!!

As to:

quote:

---

PoW wrote this above:
the Orthodox writers I've read say that his glorified body is not confined to a place. (Remember, that heaven is not a place!)

Response: You've attempted to assault my conviction that statements like this one is neoPlatonic and unrepresentative of the worldview of biblical writers. You've offered no biblical support for your view on Jesus's body, other than unsubstantiated appeals to some Ortho authorities.

I reject your tradition as equal to Scripture itself. Your tradition has a history of calling that which it thinks is true "apostolic" when in fact your tradition cannot substantiate those claims as "apostolic." The NT is above all other authorities in my view (including the Church), for it alone is directly from Jesus and it alone is the perfect interpretor of his truth to me. The worldview of its writers is the proper one by which to interpret this question of Jesus's resurrection.

Jesus's body is, according the NT writers, permanent. It is physical and confined to space and time. This says enormous things about his personal availability and connection to his universe.
Edited by - PhD MP on 01/06/2002 4:23:06 PM

---

PhD MP: You've attempted to assault my conviction...

PoW: CHILL. I don't "assault" anybody. Don't be so mellodramatic.!


PhD MP: You've offered no biblical support for your view on Jesus's body
PoW: I won't bother. I'll site YOU. I agree with what YOU'VE said. (And I'm getting late for church. )


PhD MP: Your tradition has a history of calling that which it thinks is true "apostolic" when in fact your tradition cannot substantiate those claims as "apostolic."

PoW: Read Zizioulas' Being as Communion. The apostolic" is insuficient in itself in EO. (Maybe it is in RCC?) to illustrate, any ordination must have both the laying on of hands of the historically linear hierarchs. AND the witness of the Spirit in the laity. The last part is VITAL. THAT is their tradition. Not what you thought it was.


PhD MP: Jesus's body is, according the NT writers, permanent.

PoW: Agreed.


PhD MP: It is physical and confined to space and time.

PoW: I'm guarded on the space. But that is a hard thing to think when all I've known is my own boundedness. What makes it hard is that it is so hard to understnd what WE shall be! Christ is the first fruits of that! Confinded time is a yes; but mortality--being killed by time--is a no.


PS -- I hope you find someone else to discuss with. I'm off on an internet-free sabatical.


PhD MP: This says enormous things about his personal availability and connection to his universe.

PoW: The Spirit ALSO does.



PotOnWheel

(ISA 64:8 "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.")


P.S. Not only the Resurrection (the icon of which is called an "Anastasis") but also the bodily visit to hell to preach to the captives is part of Eastern Orthodox tradition -- also called the "Harrowing of Hell".


If you want to know more about that, you can do a websearch.


Edited by - potonwheel on 01/06/2002 11:06:25 PM

quote:

---

When Jesus was resurrected he had a glorified body. I have been taught that he would always have this body forever. Even given that Jesus is the God-man, wouldn't it seem that this body would be, in some sense, constricting to Jesus? Is he not now like us, confined to one place? And where is it in scripture that he must always have this body? Harold

---

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We really should admit and embrace the fact that the Trinity borders on a familial polytheism. The unity of the Godhead prevents us from being polytheistic, but that unity does not override the triune nature the multiple persons that Yahweh has shown himself in history to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

quote:

---

“As the Son of the Father, the one whose very identity is constituted by the life-giving work of the one designated as Father, Jesus embodies and confers God’s creative and sustaining work. Consequently, God’s identity as “Father” expresses itself first in the specific and distinctive relationship to Jesus, the Son. That God is “Father” is not some “ontological” predication in and of itself that can be separated from speaking of the Father’s relationship to the Son, in whom the Father’s life is embodied.”

From “The God of The Gospel of John” by Marriane Meye Thompson, Eerdmans, 2001. p.98

---