quote:

---

What seems clear to me is the following:

1. that God relates perfectly with the divine community of Father, Son and Spirit.
2. We are invited to be reconciled with God and know God as we are fully known.
3. This implies profound intimacy and interpenetration of persons with one another and God.
4. God's internal relationship was the prototype for the sexual distinction, our full reconciliation in heaven will be its fulfillment.
5. We are not merely mental or disembodied spirits now or in heaven. So we should expect physically engaging intimacy that is far more profound and interpenetrating than sex here on earth could ever be.

---

Oh, HAYell, yeah. Not to be a peanut gallery or anything, this I think this is pretty tight. Nother thought. This is why porneia is screwed up on so many levels. Casual sex takes what should be an reflection of intimacy, interpenetration, knowledge ( of self and other), and mutuality, REMOVES the intimacy, and, in many ways, makes it a subject where domination, control, ignorance (Say, uh, what’s your name again, baby? Ah, I guess it don’t matter...), and inconsideration reign supreme. Terrible, huh?





"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend.

quote:

---

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

[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, notas 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."

---

1. [our]...imitation is impossible...

2. Christ is not really fully human.

quote:

---

The opinion generally prevails that Theodore's Christology is based on an inductive historico-biblical method which begins by recognizing the full humanity of Christ and tries from this point to solve the problem of the unity of subject in Christ. This is clearly a myth. Theodore, like many others of the Oriental Diocese, is a moralistic metaphysician who applies concepts and definitions to the divine nature and'. in advance determines what is for God possible and what is not. According to his doctrine of divine relations it is impossible far God to unite Himself by nature to human nature. His starting point is not the human nature of Christ, nor is it the biblical witness as history, but rather a definition and limitation of divine nature in terms of a necessity distinguished from will. It is exactly because of this transcendental starting point that Theodore's doctrine of the Trinity has no room for any real distinction between hypostasis and essence. In Cappadocian and Alexandrian Triadology the reality of the Divine Hypostases as distinguished from the divine essence is grounded in the belief that the Second Hypostasis of the Trinity really and truly lived and willed and suffered as a real and complete man and that He really and truly was resurrected in the flesh to become the first-born from the dead. For Theodore there is no need to distinguish between the hypostasis of the Logos and the nature of the Logos because the one person effected by the union of natures not only is not the Only-Begotten Son of God, as Sullivan clearly demonstrates, but also cannot be an hypostasis of the Trinity. Natural or hypostatic union is for Theodore a necessary union. There can be no doubt that Theodore would have wholeheartedly supported the attack on St. Cyril. Whether he would have changed his mind about the double consubstantiality of the One and Unique Hypostasis born of the Virgin when faced by the decision of the Fourth Ecumenical Council one can never know. On the other hand one can not preclude the very strong possibility that Theodore may have remained more faithful to Nestorius than did Theodoret and the other Antiochenes.

HIGHLIGHTS IN THE DEBATE OVER THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA'S CHRISTOLOGY
AND SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR A FRESH APPROACH (part 1)
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.09.en.highlights_in_the_debate_over_theodore.02.htm

---

quote:

---

Please never bring this idea up again. Thanks.

---