Isn't Christianity Wonderful!

Who cares if it is true.

quote:

---

The true theologian, Evagrius tells us, is one who prays. The same may be said of those who have so internalized the Word of God that they become capable of that perfect love. They, too, are true theologians. (John Breck )

---

• The point, I believe, is that Al is showing that we cannot KNOW for CERTAIN that it is true. That is what faith is for.
• I find that my experiences with and in Christ are far more real than my experiences otherwise.

• Maximus the Confessors three (3) Incarnations: Creation, Scripture, and Jesus Christ
• united duality of thin and thick (think C.S. Lewis) ("double concept of expansion and concentration. Christologically it is expressed through an equivalent vision of the "becoming thick" and "becoming thin,") and
• "how incarnational terminology could naturally be used about Scripture" (the second incarnation)

quote:

---

(Lars Thunberg, "Man and the Cosmos", Symbol and Mystery in St Maximus, pages 159-163.)

Here Maximus says that when the Logos wanted to come into being, he put down into the world the natural logo'i of the "conceptions" of his divinity. The distinction was then that the logoi of intelligible things should serve as his blood and the logoi of sensible things as his flesh. His unbroken bones, however, are logoi that concern the insight into divinity.

To eat his flesh, then, is to know the visible things, and to drink his blood is to know the intelligible things." In this eating, of course, the relationship to scriptural revelation is also implied, even more so . . . the whole process of spiritual development is involved. Thus flesh is interpreted as virtue, blood as knowledge (through theoria) and bones as the mystical union {theologia). Flesh and blood are also seen as the logoi of judgment and providence (i.e. o'tkonom'ia), while the bones are the hidden logoi of divinity.

We have here at the same time an indirect reference to the motif of becoming "thick" and "thin": Through the praxis of virtue the Logos becomes "thick." Through the understanding of the commandments, he becomes, as it were, "thinner," more spiritual (although virtue and understanding in themselves are equally important).

...and...

This now leads to a number of texts where this incarnation/elevation dynamism is directly related to the way in which man deals with Scripture. In Quaestiones et Dubia 61, it is most clearly expressed: The Logos that is hidden in the ten commandments "takes body" in us, going down with us through praxis and bringing us upward again through gnosis, elevating us until we reach the highest of all the commandments, that which says: "The Lord, thy God, the Lord is one."

This pertains to the basic difference between a literal reading of Holy Scriptures and a spiritual/anagogical understanding of them. ...

...we learn that both man and Scripture can be said to consist of body, soul, mind, and spirit. The body is understood both as the Old Testament (while the New Testament is the rest) and also in the whole of Scripture as that which is letter in a historical sense, while the meaning and scope of what is written is soul. One may also distinguish between letter as the body and the hidden truth as spirit. This shows clearly again the anthropological/christological perspective of Maximus's vision: When the Logos becomes incarnate in the Scriptures, he becomes, as it were, already a man. Thus his continued life as man on earth in the Church is a parallel to this presence in Scripture (where, I think, the stones of the building are like the letters, and what these stones contain is like the meaning and mind and spirit of scriptural revelation).

we learn that both man and Scripture can be said to consist of body, soul, mind, and spirit. The body is understood both as the Old Testament (while the New Testament is the rest) and also in the whole of Scripture as that which is letter in a historical sense, while the meaning and scope of what is written is soul. One may also distinguish between letter as the body and the hidden truth as spirit. This shows clearly again the anthropological/christological perspective of Maximus's vision: When the Logos becomes incarnate in the Scriptures, he becomes, as it were, already a man. Thus his continued life as man on earth in the Church is a parallel to this presence in Scripture (where, I think, the stones of the building are like the letters, and what these stones contain is like the meaning and mind and spirit of scriptural revelation).

---

......... MAYBE I CAN RETURN ...............

Two things, if you can find them here, are: what pertains to how scripture is an incarnation of the Word; and, how the incarnation of Christ in us, through the word, has a bi-directional aspect. THAT is what makes this fit on this thread! Knowledtge AND union. Judgement AND providence.

I'm not being sharp, or articulate. But the kind of divisions that lead to the discussion and argumentation above probably would NOT take place in the Christian East. (That's my intuition, anyways!)

Al

P.S. The reason I say this, about what I intuit, is that when a system requires "both" and expects them to work together, you just wouldn't expect a discussion of "either/or", or even a comparision in contrasts. Instead, the way they fit together and work together would be appropriate.



Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 10/30/2002 7:32:00 PM

quote:

---

flesh is interpreted as virtue,
blood as knowledge (through theoria) and
bones as the mystical union {theologia

---

quote:

---

Starkman, I agree its not wise to go strictly on the basis of experience, however certain. All our faculties should be (and usually are) used in deciding matters of truth. But even if all the rational evidence for Christ were disproven, rendering it irrational to believe in him as a historical figure -- something I am perfectly confident can never and will never be done -- I still could not doubt my experience of love. As Modes notes, I would just have to reinterprete it drastically. I suppose I'd have to become a mystic or something.

As matters stand, the supernatural experience of love confirms what my mind says is true, and my mind confirms what my experience leads me to believe is true.

I DO believe the experience itself argues against naturalism. The reduction of love to (say) chemical reactions seems like an unnatural and unnecessary and inaccurate imposition of an ideological scheme on reality.

I can't accept Mode's Kierkegaardian estimation of the improbability of the Incarnation. Whether or not the Incarnation (or anything else) can be assessed as probable or improbable depends wholly on the scale one measures it against. Of course, if one is restricting their reflections to (say) natural occurences (viz. measuring it against the probability of rain tomorrow, gravity operating, etc.) the incarnation is very improbable, regardless of the evidence for the resurrection, etc. But if one is measuring it against (say) the belief that a personal God of love exists, the experience of love, hungers of the heart, etc... then, given the historical evidence, it seems to me to be very probable -- more so, at least, than the probability that this was just a quick legend that developed.

Blessings

Greg

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

---

Greg, we don't actually disagree in the least! If one PRESUPPOSES a God of love....well, then, we are not really arguing FOR the existence of such a God bur FROM it, right? I am simply pointing out the order of reasoning here. Apologetically speaking, if one does not already believe in a God of love, arguments for things like the incarnation and resurrection have a much steeper hill to climb. If one DOES already believe in the God of love, the we are not really engaged in apologetics.

That's all I am saying. Of COURSE, if we presuppose the God of the Bible, we will find it very rational to believe what the Bible teaches us (most of the time ). But I thought this was an apologetic concern. Are you suggesting that we paint a sort of "total picture" and hope that our hearer finds it compelling enough to want to "jump in" from the outside? An "outside" that shares very little intellectual property with the Christian worldview, but is sensitive to the felt needs that Christ claims to meet? In fact, may feel them so deeply as to be moved into a whole new worldview? Needs that might drive us to respond to a call like:

"Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls."

If painting the alternate worldview picture helps reduce resistance to this call, then I would say it is worthwhile, so long as it doesn't claim to compete with this call. Ultimately, it is this call that counts, not our harmonizations of what we currently believe with what we perceive the Bible as requiring us to believe.

Do we really disagree? Or is it merely a matter of emphasis?

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

quote:

---

...outline...:

Maximus the Confessors three (3) Incarnations: Creation, Scripture, and Jesus Christ
united duality of thin and thick (think C.S. Lewis) ("double concept of expansion and concentration. Christologically it is expressed through an equivalent vision of the "becoming thick" and "becoming thin,") and
"how incarnational terminology could naturally be used about Scripture" (the second incarnation)

---

quote:

---

Are you suggesting that we paint a sort of "total picture" and hope that our hearer finds it compelling enough to want to "jump in" from the outside? An "outside" that shares very little intellectual property with the Christian worldview, but is sensitive to the felt needs that Christ claims to meet? In fact, may feel them so deeply as to be moved into a whole new worldview? Needs that might drive us to respond to a call like:

"Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls."

If painting the alternate worldview picture helps reduce resistance to this call, then I would say it is worthwhile, so long as it doesn't claim to compete with this call. Ultimately, it is this call that counts, not our harmonizations of what we currently believe with what we perceive the Bible as requiring us to believe.

---

Ah. This is why you feel that TESTIMONY is still the best apologetic, yes? It's a lot easier to gather momentum around the ubiquitous (and pretty undeniable) feeling of separation and alienation that we feel...than to deal strictly with the logical possibilities and probabilities of what a POSSIBLE God MIGHT do about a CERTAIN situation...if God existed at all.

Well, you know pretty much where I stand on this, so...

Holla,


PS: Doc, if you DID have to reinterpret the whole thing, in what terms would you do so? I'm curious.

quote:

---

2 Corinthians 12: 2I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know--God knows. 3And I know that this man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows-- 4was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. 5I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses. 6Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say.
7To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. 8Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. 9But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me. 10That is why, for Christ's sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong. "

---