OK, I'll try.

D: 1) No, you didn't answer the mind transfer issue. Not to my satisfaction...but I let that go.

Tom: I’m not going to even entertain any experiment or analogy that supposedly presents a ‘problem case’ for my view of personhood if that analogy requires that the person who supposedly embodies the problem be lied to and kept in the dark about the truth of his history. Come up with some ‘honest’ analogies and I’ll think about ‘em.

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

D: 2) In my mind, what's unique about the Son is that there is only ONE "identity" in the Eternal Godhead that subsists from the self-reflection of the Father AS self-reflection...and that's the Son. The Son has a unique, yet mutually understood relational perspective in self-relational movement in the Triune God.

Tom: Doesn’t look like there’s anything in it that describes the PERSONAL uniqueness of the Son to be. All you said is that the Son derives his existence from the Father as self-reflection. That's more metaphysical. Given that fact, D, and gong on Zizy's/AP's claims about freedom and loving personhood, how's the Son uniquely show/share/manifest/express love to the Father? That's what I'm looking for. THAT is a personal uniquness, whatever it is.

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

D: 1) One cannot be properly "incarnational" unless they are being robustly "trinitarian".

Tom: There’s a big difference (that I see) between, say, Zizy’s attempt to articulate a ‘trinitarian ontology of personhood’ based on the trinitarian relations and your attempt to do so based on the incarnation. But maybe that’s just me. I read Zizy—contemplate his arguments about love, freedom, and personhood, and say, “That makes sense.” I read you and feel something's not right.

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

D: This is why, Tom, I've made such a big deal about Jesus having a human spirit, the human "organ of faith"...over and against your amazing ambiguity in that area.

Tom: I am amazing, yes!

D: So, I am not saying that every human being is an incarnation of God. I've tried to make the distinction between Jesus and all other humans before. I'm saying that the PARADIGM of how Jesus' human spirit was interpenetrated by the Holy Spirit as "God's Anointed One" is the same for all human beings.

Tom: Plan on writing a book JUST on this distinction, because I don’t see it IN YOUR SYSTEM.

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

Tom: Having said that, I’ll agree that as ‘persons’ we shall be as one with the personal God as is possible for personally distinct beings. That’s it.

D: Good. So we just differ on what possiblities of "oneness" there are...given humans being "personally distinct beings."

Tom: I’m not sure we both agree on what we’re saying when we say we’re “personally distinct” from God. But at least you’re saying it’s so, and that’s new. The more I reread your past few posts, the more convinced I am that we’re not saying the same thing when we say “personally distinct.” Not sure.

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

Tom: But as soon as someone starts describing our ‘personhood’ or ‘identity’ as being equivalent to the Son’s (by describing our ‘personhood’, for example, as “being Christ himself”) I’m going to get uncomfortable and start objecting…

D: 1) I suppose you refer to John Behr…

Tom: No, I was referring to you. You earlier said we become “Christ himself” and that after agreeing with Zizy that God’s purpose in creating was to have personally distinct others, beings “other than God’s own self” with whom to relate. That means non-divine persons who are personally other than God. I’m not convinced you agree with Zizy.

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

Behr: Having died to the flesh, Christ not only now lives in the apostle, but Paul no longer lives--he identifies himself with Christ. Writing to the Galatians, he speaks of God having "revealed his Son in me" (1:16, not "to" me, as RSV), and praises them for having received him "as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus" (4:14)

Tom: Which one? As “an angel of God” or as “Christ”? They’re not the same. If the language implies the sort of identity transfer you seem to think it means, then they think Paul is both the very Christ himself and an angel of heaven. That fact that he mentions both, and the two he mentions are not the same entity, shows that he’s not talking about a blending/melding of ‘identities’. He just means that the treated Paul as they would treat an angel or Christ himself, not that they actually believed Byzantine theology and were convinced that Paul WAS Jesus Christ.

Behr: Born again through the gospel in Christ Jesus, Christians are the body of Christ. This is no loose analogy or metaphor…the apostle Paul makes the identification without qualification: "You are the body of Christ and individually members of it," all, that is who "by the one Spirit were baptized into the one body" (1 Cor 12:27,13)

Tom: I feel horrible standing up to somebody like Behr, but on what exegetical basis does he claim that “body of Christ” is not metaphorical language? That the “body” referred to is unqualifiedly the material body of Jesus himself? No qualification? The whole friggin letter of 1Cor is one sustained qualification by Paul on what he means by “body of Christ.”

D: Yeah....I see you getting uncomfortable. Oh, well.

Tom: Yeah, oh well. 

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

D: 2) It's not that I don't want to "change nothing else" on my views. A main difference between us is a) I BELIEVE in the Real Presence of Christ via epiclesis…but not you!

Tom: I think our main difference is that I believe we’re personally distinct from God and you do not (in spite of saying you do).

But it’s not true as you say that I don’t believe in the real presence of Christ. I just don’t locate it in the elements as you do. I locate it in a relational ontology, in the relations between persons, in the free choices of Christ’s followers to love, worship, and live in the power of the Spirit together. When we do THAT, we are the body of Christ and Christ is REALLY present in and with us, and THAT occurs even when we’re not eating the bread and drinking the wine. The elements are just what Jesus (not Behr or any of the Greek fathers) said they are: a memorial (“Do this in remembrance of me”).

Go ahead and spin the text as best you can, you’ve yet to make an exegetical case for your view of the elements. Good luck.

Tell me, D. If the elements were not what you suppose, how much of your theology now would be affected? How much is riding on your view of the bread and wine?

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

D: b) I believe in the "mystical birth" of the Son in the human spirit by the power of the Father's Spirit (which ALL of the EO people we've been citing are open to...but not you!)

Tom: I’m interested. Is the phrase “Christ born in us” or “mystical birth of Christ” in the Bible? Is the idea of Christ’s “being born in us" biblical language that I don't know about? Could be. I just don't recall. I know in Gal. 4.19 Paul travails until Christ is “formed” in the Galatians, and I don’t disbelieve THAT. Have you actually heard me deny the real presence of Christ in the believer? The formation of Christlike character? What makes you think I deny the real presence of the living risen Christ in believers? Because I don’t think the elements are the actual body and blood of Jesus?

T

Post Edited (Tom) : 4/15/2008 4:35:29 PM (GMT-5)

Tom: Whatever.

Post Edited (Tom) : 4/15/2008 1:17:52 PM (GMT-5)

EPIKLESIS...

Pow:  Just as Tom would not allow a mere sign with flowers to constitute the "remembrance" of the Lord's economy, so the Divine Liturgy does not make either the elements or words alone to constitute the Eucharist. Tom knows that the congregation becomes (and strives to 'be' throughout the week) the body of Christ, and he knows that the remembrance involves personal preparation and mutual work (intentional liturgy--having a beginning, a middle and an end). All this can be found below, and probably in the rest of the article too.

- B

Post Edited (plato's_playdough) : 4/15/2008 6:55:46 PM (GMT-5)

The meaning of the mystery is the union of the earthly and the celestial congregations brought about by the descent of the resurrected Christ. This is why the priest elevates the Eucharistic elements and cries out: “We bring Thee what is Thine from those who are Thine, to all and for all.”

 

 

ANOTHER SOURCE...

http://orrologion.blogspot.com/2007/09/sola-corpore-christi.html

This is the great mystery of the sacraments of Baptism, Chrismation (christ-ing) and Communion: we are re-created as members of the actual, incarnate Body of Christ Himself, the Church. We are made into the very Body of the God-man, Jesus Christ, the Logos and Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. In the Anaphora of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the priest, following the Words of Institution and as prelude to the epiklesis, prays: “send down your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here set forth”[165] – the same Holy Spirit that is called down to change the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of the Lord is called down at the same time “upon us” changing us, too! We who are also there “set forth” – episcopacy, presbytery, diaconate, laity – are changed into the very Body of Christ

Post Edited (plato's_playdough) : 4/15/2008 7:26:37 PM (GMT-5)

Rather than start with elements or with individual believers, try beginning with Christ!

FROM ABOVE: "The personal presence of Christ brings about the transformation of the elements"

I think the same can be said of US. The personal presence of Christ brings about our being his body. The personal presence of Christ makes eating and drinking to be the partaking of his body and blood. The elements remain individually bread and wine, and we remain individual persons.

Post Edited (plato's_playdough) : 4/15/2008 7:26:59 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Tom) : 4/16/2008 12:48:45 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Tom) : 4/16/2008 5:21:18 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (plato's_playdough) : 4/16/2008 6:05:01 PM (GMT-5)

B-

I don’t mind the questions Bro. No problem! I admit to not having really studied either the Catholic or Orthodox positions on the eucharist in much depth. But the little exposure I’ve had makes me think both positions rely on poor exegetical work, and what dependency upon the text there is appears to me to be a bit un-, what’s the word? ‘Unsophisticated’? ‘Un-nuanced’? Maybe ‘simplistic’ is better. For example, take Behr’s claim that since “body” in 1Cor. is employed by Paul “without [explicit] qualification,” it can’t be a metaphor and so designates the literal glorified body of the risen Christ. But Behr has to know that ALL metaphors are unqualified [comparisons]. Once you qualify it to specify your precisely meaning, you no longer have a metaphor. So the absence of explicit qualification that Behr claims disqualifies the metaphorical interpretation is actually the first argument in its favor. I said the whole letter was a sustained qualification of what Paul meant by “body.” I just meant his use of “body” is highly ‘occasional’, being determined by the specific issues he’s facing in Corinth. So from where I stand it’s almost impossible to make sense of Paul using “body” literally.

I appreciate your beginning with the “real presence of Christ.” I can get totally on board with this. But I don’t see how beginning with the “real presence of Christ” gets you transformed elements. It would seem to suggest no such transformation takes place. If the presence of Christ is here, among us, healing us, speaking to us, etc., prior to the elements becoming the literal body/blood of Jesus, then what leads you to believe that transformation occurs at all? In other words, B, I’d say that wherever the presence of Christ is the power and benefits of the death and resurrection are effectually offered, whether or not the elements are present. We know Christ is present, really, effectually, when no communion is celebrated. What's that say about the elements then? If you and I meet up to just share and pray together—the real presence of Christ is there, no less so than if we add the breaking of bread. So what need is there to say the elements mediate a real presence of Christ? Indeed, if we experience the presence of Christ (communally, personally, effectually) apart from the elements themselves, what EXPERIENCE leads you to beleive the elements are tranformed by the presence of Christ into the body/blood of Jesus?

I’m not saying communion is unnecessary of course. Symbols help, they're even necessary for the community. They focus our attention and the events of history that define our community. They provide continuity for the gospel story that we share in when we meet. But it seems to me that what mediates the real presence of Christ to our bodies is the way in which believers DO community when they come together—loving, serving, sharing, worshipping, forgiving, etc. If THAT brings Christ’s real presence—even to our physical bodies, say, via healing—then on what basis am I going to say that presence is mediated in the elements as they literally become the body and blood of Christ? In other words, what do I miss, what presence/power/healing, etc., is theoretically unavailable to me on my view which is only available to me on the EO view?

When we participate in communion the real presence of Christ is with/in us, yes, effectually mediating healing power and constituting us his body, but not through the transforming of the elements into Christ’s literal body and blood (so far as I can see). Rather, through our coming to perceive afresh the virtue of Christ’s death of which the elements give us a tangible reminder, we are asked “to remember” what happened. But the elements don’t become what happened.

I'm open to being wrong, but that's where I am.

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 4/17/2008 11:24:04 AM (GMT-5)

Again, just to clarify. I don’t disbelieve in the transformation of the elements into the actual body and blood of Jesus because I don’t think the ‘real’ presence of Jesus interacts with created reality at all. I disbelieve it because I want to locate the real, personal presence of Jesus in us, in persons, and in us via the ‘choices’ we make to love and relate interpersonally with others and serve them. Therein the real presence of Christ is mediated through us to each other and the world—dispositionally, freely and personally. That’s how the ‘matter’ of the created world is influenced and effected. I see no need to locate this presence in the elements. There’s nothing exegetical to suggest that’s how/where the presence of Christ is mediated, and I can’t come up with a good reason to conclude theologically that that’s what going on, and I can explain communion in a meaningful way, as a community building event, as a memorialist.

T

So you'll sign your X on the dotted line after this?

Post Edited (Corey) : 4/17/2008 11:50:42 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (plato's_playdough) : 4/19/2008 7:32:31 AM (GMT-5)