Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Take your time. I'm at work sitting at a desk just looking at cameras for five hours with nothing else to do.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Nature of Christ
- Thread starter Unveiled Artist
- Start date
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Cliff notes
@Shiranui117 Don't worry, you don't' have to reply to everything. I have more time on my hands to think until I get hope and clean up for inspection tomorrow.
The reason I say jesus is fully human is, cliff notes, that to share in our humanity, he has to be human just as we are. Once he is god, he can no longer share in our humanity (which is more than flesh and blood but spirit too). If he has the divinity and is the divinity of god, by spirit he is not human. He needs to be human both in spirit and in flesh for him and christians to share in his humanity.
For example,
John 1:14
Verse Concepts
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
This one is common. Word is actually the Word of god. It's god message or the Law of Moses. It isn't god himself. God "gave" his Word/Law/Message to mankind in the OT but no one followed. So he made his Law/Message/Word flesh to where instead of the word being something we write but something flesh and blood. Word walks among the people rather than told to the people. It's like being in a play with christ. Hence why Mass is so important.
Hebrews 2:9
Verse Concepts
But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.
I actually like Hebrews. God can't taste death. He can't die. Only humans can die.
-
Anyway, that's how I see it. I can't remember what we were talking about beforehand though.
@Shiranui117 Don't worry, you don't' have to reply to everything. I have more time on my hands to think until I get hope and clean up for inspection tomorrow.
The reason I say jesus is fully human is, cliff notes, that to share in our humanity, he has to be human just as we are. Once he is god, he can no longer share in our humanity (which is more than flesh and blood but spirit too). If he has the divinity and is the divinity of god, by spirit he is not human. He needs to be human both in spirit and in flesh for him and christians to share in his humanity.
For example,
John 1:14
Verse Concepts
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
This one is common. Word is actually the Word of god. It's god message or the Law of Moses. It isn't god himself. God "gave" his Word/Law/Message to mankind in the OT but no one followed. So he made his Law/Message/Word flesh to where instead of the word being something we write but something flesh and blood. Word walks among the people rather than told to the people. It's like being in a play with christ. Hence why Mass is so important.
Hebrews 2:9
Verse Concepts
But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.
I actually like Hebrews. God can't taste death. He can't die. Only humans can die.
-
Anyway, that's how I see it. I can't remember what we were talking about beforehand though.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
@Shiranui117 Sorry, I'm shootin' you with all of this at one time. I found something on the trinity you were describing earlier.
The early Christians were quick to spot new heresies. In the third century, Sabellius, a Libyan priest who was staying at Rome, invented a new one. He claimed there is only one person in the Godhead, so that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all one person with different "offices," rather than three persons who are one being in the Godhead, as the orthodox position holds.
Do you know the difference between the one Sabellius described and other other with three people are one? Why would one be wrong and the other not?
Of course, people immediately recognized that Sabellius’s teaching contradicted the historic faith of the Church, and he was quickly excommunicated. His heresy became known as Sabellianism, Modalism, and Patripassianism. It was called Sabellianism after its founder, Modalism after the three modes or roles which it claimed the one person of the Trinity occupied, and Patripassianism after its implication that the person of the Father (Pater-) suffered (-passion) on the cross when Jesus died. Trinity
The early Christians were quick to spot new heresies. In the third century, Sabellius, a Libyan priest who was staying at Rome, invented a new one. He claimed there is only one person in the Godhead, so that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all one person with different "offices," rather than three persons who are one being in the Godhead, as the orthodox position holds.
Do you know the difference between the one Sabellius described and other other with three people are one? Why would one be wrong and the other not?
Of course, people immediately recognized that Sabellius’s teaching contradicted the historic faith of the Church, and he was quickly excommunicated. His heresy became known as Sabellianism, Modalism, and Patripassianism. It was called Sabellianism after its founder, Modalism after the three modes or roles which it claimed the one person of the Trinity occupied, and Patripassianism after its implication that the person of the Father (Pater-) suffered (-passion) on the cross when Jesus died. Trinity
Placeholder post for when I get the references and explanations I promised. I had them typed out and edited into the post, but RF decided that my post was too long and erased my changes. >_>
EDIT: Alright, FINALLY I got time to do this.
First, concerning the essence-energies distinction I mentioned:
From Metropolitan Kallistos Ware's book The Orthodox Way:
Let me know if you have any follow-up questions or comments.
EDIT: Alright, FINALLY I got time to do this.
First, concerning the essence-energies distinction I mentioned:
From Metropolitan Kallistos Ware's book The Orthodox Way:
the Orthodox tradition draws a distinction between the essence, nature or inner being of God, on the one hand, and his energies, operations or acts of power, on the other. . . Because God is a mystery beyond our understanding, we shall never know his essence or inner being, either in this life or in the Age to come. If we knew the divine essence, it would follow that we knew God in the same way as he knows himself; and this we cannot ever do, since he is Creator and we are created. But, while God's inner essence is for ever beyond our comprehension, his energies, grace, life and power fill the whole universe, and are directly accesible to us. . . When Orthodox speak of the divine energies, they do not mean by this an emanation from God, an "intermediary" between God and man, or a "thing" or "gift" that God bestows. On the contrary, the energies are God himself in his activity and self-manifestation. . . Just as it would be wrong to think of the energies as a "thing" bestowed on us by God, so it would be equally misleading to regard the energies as a "part" of God. The Godhead is simple and indivisible, and has no parts. The essence signifies the whole God as he is in himself; the energies signify the whole God as he is in action. God in his entirety is completely present in each of his divine energies.
By virtue of this distionction . . . we are able to affirm the possibility of a direct or mystical union between man and God--what the Greek Fathers term the theosis of man, his "deification"--but at the same time we exclude any pantheistic identification between the two: for man participate sin the energies of God, not in the essence. There is union, but not fusion or confusion. Although "oned" with the divine, man still remains man". (pp. 21-23).
"All things are permeated and maintained in being by the uncreated energies of God, and so all things are a theophany that mediates his presence (pp. 21-23). At the heart of each thing is its inner principle or logos, implanted within it by the Creator Logos; and so through the logoi we enter into communion with the Logos (p. 33).
And now, for a breakdown of what I mean by the Divine Essence, and what Christ's Hypostatic Union (union of human and divine natures within His person) means:By virtue of this distionction . . . we are able to affirm the possibility of a direct or mystical union between man and God--what the Greek Fathers term the theosis of man, his "deification"--but at the same time we exclude any pantheistic identification between the two: for man participate sin the energies of God, not in the essence. There is union, but not fusion or confusion. Although "oned" with the divine, man still remains man". (pp. 21-23).
"All things are permeated and maintained in being by the uncreated energies of God, and so all things are a theophany that mediates his presence (pp. 21-23). At the heart of each thing is its inner principle or logos, implanted within it by the Creator Logos; and so through the logoi we enter into communion with the Logos (p. 33).
The final end of the spiritual Way is that we humans should also become part of this Trinitarian coinheritance or perichoresis, being wholly taken up into the circle of love that exists within God. . .
"I and the Father are one," said Christ (John 10:30). What did he mean?
For an answer we look primarily to the first two of the seven Ecumenical or Universal Councils. . . The central and decisive affirmation int he Creed is that Jesus Christ is "true God from true God", "one in essence" or "consubstantial" (homoousios) with the Father: he is God in the same sense that the Father is God, and yet they are not two Gods but one. . . But although Father, Son and Spirit are one single God, yet each of them is from all eternity a person, a distinct centre of conscious selfhood. . . There is eternally in God true unity, combined with genuinely personal differentation: the term "essence", "substance" or "being" (ousia) indicates the unity, and the term "person" (hypostasis, prosopon) indicates the differentiation. . .
Father, Son and Spirit are one in essence, not merely in the sense that all three are examples of the same group or general class, but in the sense that they form a single, unique, specific reality. . .Three human persons, Peter, James and John, belong to the same general class "man". Yet, however closely they co-operate together, each retains his ownwill and his own energy, acting by virtue of his own separate power of initiative. In short, they are three men and not one man. But in the case of the three persons of the Trinity, this is not the case. There is distinction, but never separation. . . None of the three ever acts separately, apart from the toher two. They are not three Gods, but one God. . .
Each of the three is fully and completely God. None is more or less God than the others. Each possesses, no one third of the Godhead, but the entire Godhead in its totality; yet each lives and is this one Godhead in his own distinctive and personal way.
Was that clear as mud, @Carlita ? "I and the Father are one," said Christ (John 10:30). What did he mean?
For an answer we look primarily to the first two of the seven Ecumenical or Universal Councils. . . The central and decisive affirmation int he Creed is that Jesus Christ is "true God from true God", "one in essence" or "consubstantial" (homoousios) with the Father: he is God in the same sense that the Father is God, and yet they are not two Gods but one. . . But although Father, Son and Spirit are one single God, yet each of them is from all eternity a person, a distinct centre of conscious selfhood. . . There is eternally in God true unity, combined with genuinely personal differentation: the term "essence", "substance" or "being" (ousia) indicates the unity, and the term "person" (hypostasis, prosopon) indicates the differentiation. . .
Father, Son and Spirit are one in essence, not merely in the sense that all three are examples of the same group or general class, but in the sense that they form a single, unique, specific reality. . .Three human persons, Peter, James and John, belong to the same general class "man". Yet, however closely they co-operate together, each retains his ownwill and his own energy, acting by virtue of his own separate power of initiative. In short, they are three men and not one man. But in the case of the three persons of the Trinity, this is not the case. There is distinction, but never separation. . . None of the three ever acts separately, apart from the toher two. They are not three Gods, but one God. . .
Each of the three is fully and completely God. None is more or less God than the others. Each possesses, no one third of the Godhead, but the entire Godhead in its totality; yet each lives and is this one Godhead in his own distinctive and personal way.
Let me know if you have any follow-up questions or comments.
Last edited:
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
No Christians to answer you question, only another Baha'i?
Isn't that ironic?
Funny, I'm having a good conversation as we speak. If you'd like to chat about scripture, I'm all for it. Outside of that, I don't care for ironic sarcasm. Very unlike you.
Haha, true. I think what you said is starting to get at why the Church speaks of Christ's "body, blood, SOUL and divinity" being in the Eucharist.
Honestly, what you explained lines up exactly with what the Catholics and the Orthodox say on this part of Jesus' being human. We also say that Jesus is the image of the invisible God. We die to our sins and are united to the Church, the Body of Christ, reborn as new creatures.
Could you explain where you see the difference between Protestants and the Church on this issue?
This kind of sounds like what the Mormons say: Jesus and the Father are completely separate entities, and yet they are united in a familial bond. @Katzpur might be tickled to see this.
Yeah, in Romans 8:29. We say the same thing.
Actually, we say the same thing. Christ is the Mediator between God and man. His being both God and man is what helps make this statement as powerful as it is.
It could be the case. We don't have a firm belief one way or the other. I don't recall seeing a teaching which states that spirits/souls go to a certain place that isn't earth between the time of death and the Last Judgement.
Christ would be the same since he is the body of the people. He is flesh and he is spirit. In this case, when his flesh died, his spirit would get a glorified body (assuming that the body he came down with when he visited his apostles).
Yes, we teach that Jesus rose in the same body and ascended into Heaven in the same body which was crucified. Everyone will also be resurrected in the body they had at the time of death (if you were blown to bits or cremated, you just get put back together again or have your body re-created. This is the creator of the universe we're talking about here, restoring a few billion deteriorated human bodies is easy peasy).
God, Who created the laws of nature, is certainly capable of circumventing those laws as He wishes.
Yes, precisely.
Yes, and Jesus, God incarnate, did die in the flesh. (Key phrase: In the flesh. We don't teach that Jesus ceased to exist, or that God was somehow held captive by the power of death. But Jesus did truly die.)
I suppose I don't understand why we need to learn how to forgive others or confess our sins only from Christ. That's like my mentor teacher saying that students only learn German from the teacher speaking it, and not from their fellow classmates speaking it.
Because He shared in all elements of our human life, including grief, so that we might share in all elements of His life. Jesus felt the same pain and grief for Lazarus that we do when a friend or family member dies.
Yes, this is why we affirm that Jesus was human just as we are, even in our fallen nature. He felt pain, temptation to sin, sadness, suffering and death. He had a soul, a body which could be damaged, a human mind, and a human will. This is why Jesus was agonizing so much in the garden of Gethsemane; his human mind and heart were in agony, knowing what was about to happen, and He was afraid, even desperate. Yet He did not succumb to this temptation; He is like us in all things except sin (Hebrews 4:15).
Actually, the Greek word used for "law" in this case is "nomos", if you check John 1:17. So, God's Law which He gave to Moses is not the Logos at all, but something else entirely.
Verse Concepts
But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.
I actually like Hebrews. God can't taste death. He can't die. Only humans can die.[/quote]Which is precisely why Jesus became the God-Man; God died in the flesh, so that once He had died in His humanity, His Divinity would burst death apart.
Because in various places, Jesus prays to the Father. If Sabellianism were correct, then this would simply be Jesus praying to Himself, which makes zero sense.
And now, for the event that's been days in the making... You'll find those quotes and sources I promised in the post that I reserved momentarily.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
You're right. I kept thinking "I'll get back to this'" and totally forgot.
Yep. The longer you practice and experience it, the more you literally understand it. I mean, metaphysical terms is cool and all but if it's fact, it should be explained in multiple ways from multiple sources that are not always religious in nature.
Yep, that's what Roman Catholics believe too. I don't hear "image of god" used much. It's in Hebrews, I know that much. It's quoted often.
Protestants are more: "Jesus IS god-the creator/god almighty, being, spirit, and human incarnate." It's a total idolization of jesus as a invisible being that's unknown (creator) and known (human christ) at the same time.
While Catholics agree, they say it more
Jesus is god because through christ/the Eucharist we are in union with god. So when we are in union with christ, we are in union with god. From what I experienced, it isn't "jesus is god" (unless having a conversation) but more "jesus united us with god through his divinity of the Eucharist". The former sounds more sci-fi, sorry to say. The second more realistic given the body is actually people and jesus is actually a human with a spirit as all humans have. I haven't figured out how to make sense of a creator and reality. When I look up at the moon and stars, I just can't see a creator or idealize "him." Probably why all other abrahamic faiths try not to describe him.
Yeah. Like the Church is married to Jesus. Same thing. Marriage as a vocation between male and female united as one. Yet, you would never mistake yourself as jesus. I know my friend's father and mother are two quite different people. To say they "are" each other is metaphysics talking (I hope) or ??
I think it's a matter of perspective.
For example, I believe in god (if I called it god) in that life creates in and of itself. Nothing outside of it. Nothing forming it. It forms within itself both living and nonliving. God IS life. It's more powerful than god created life. When you are a part of life rather than being contrast to it, it builds a more intimate connection. When you're apart, say in christianity, there's a balance between good and bad-a lot of binary morals. Judgement. Who is really Catholic (right baptism? wrong baptism?) who's going to hell-being born again by deeds? by faith? (protestants don't combine the two towards salvation as catholics do)
Jesus being only man and jesus being god really doesn't make a difference. The reason is if jesus was only a man, he was a man created, sent, without sin by god. So, it sounds more like christians want jesus to be god so they can relate to someone higher than themselves. If they thought of it just a regular human, it may feel like jesus would be their peer when being a man only means you have the temptation to sin and have flesh and blood (like the Eucharist hint hint).
Not sinning and being god's son doesn't make one a different type of human than you or I. Just different roles like Moses compared to, say, St. Mary.
I know it sounds stronger but if I thought about the reality of it, a human relates to a human. God can't relate to humans and humans can't god. It would, how would I say, I can't think of the word bu make the two obsolete or poof out of existence. Let man and god have their place and appreciate the marriage, image, and relationship each person has in relation to the other.
I think I read in the bible spirits/souls are on earth until judgement. God raises the dead and the living to be judged, and those dead in their sins go to hell (separated from god) and those living in christ/aka union with god will go to heaven-be in eternal unity with god. Most of it is in Revelations. I can't remember the first part since it's been so long ago that I read the full bible.
How I'd see it is he is an example of a human glorified onto god.
So, christians would die like he, and their body would be new and glorified, like his is, and they would go onto god, just as jesus and the saints. Like the Church on earth, Church in heaven. In other words, body of christ of the living united with god and those united with god through jesus on earth. (Hence the communication with the saints)
That's kind of creepy, to put it bluntly.
Hmm. What is your perspective if I said God IS the laws of nature and in itself capable of circumventing laws as god is designed to do naturally?
Well, it makes sense, though. Christ is the body of the people and spirit/actual person's spirit in union with his father as before humans existed. Since christians are the body of christ, when we sin, we sin against that body hence deteriorating the union between the body and god. That is why confession is important because you go to the Eucharist with a clean heart as not to be spiritually separate from the body in worship. So, being absolved from god through the priest is god absolving you from your sins and the priest is permitting you to be back in union with the Church.
You can still learn from your peers. You just can't take sacraments from them. In other words, you can learn German from your peers but they can't give you and grade your exam.
God can't feel pain, by his nature. Being human means being human in spirit not just flesh. His spirit would have had to have cried just as his flesh. God would have need to confess just as humans do. He would need to do things just as humans. God would literally need to cease being the creator and be a human. There is a movie called PRIEST I wish I can show you a clip of. It's inappropriate here because of short kissing but in the same scene the priest was in distraught with his homosexual feelings and whether he should be with his mate or go back to his vocation. He was yelling at god saying to his friend, "but he [god] was not human enough! oh I'm feeling a bit down today, so I'm going to cure the sick....how can someone with that power, that much knowledge know what I'm going through right now" In other words, how can a mind that is unlimited make himself limited to know what it's like to be limited but remain unlimited at the same time.
Just send a human and make it simple. Human saves human through the body (bunch of humans) in christ (the spirit of a human).
If jesus did not have inherited sin, he was not human. He can feel the pain of a thousand pound cement crush on his body, but he would never have the same experience as being a human. Just as the gay thing. You and I (pretending you're female?) are both humans, both females in the physical sense of the word, both this and both that. But in order to claim I am you, I have to be you. Not in you. Not through you. Not with you. BE you.
What was Moses' Law if it wasn't the commandments?
Hence, why he is human. Kind of get it now?
Haha.
Yep. The longer you practice and experience it, the more you literally understand it. I mean, metaphysical terms is cool and all but if it's fact, it should be explained in multiple ways from multiple sources that are not always religious in nature.
Yep, that's what Roman Catholics believe too. I don't hear "image of god" used much. It's in Hebrews, I know that much. It's quoted often.
Protestants are more: "Jesus IS god-the creator/god almighty, being, spirit, and human incarnate." It's a total idolization of jesus as a invisible being that's unknown (creator) and known (human christ) at the same time.
While Catholics agree, they say it more
Jesus is god because through christ/the Eucharist we are in union with god. So when we are in union with christ, we are in union with god. From what I experienced, it isn't "jesus is god" (unless having a conversation) but more "jesus united us with god through his divinity of the Eucharist". The former sounds more sci-fi, sorry to say. The second more realistic given the body is actually people and jesus is actually a human with a spirit as all humans have. I haven't figured out how to make sense of a creator and reality. When I look up at the moon and stars, I just can't see a creator or idealize "him." Probably why all other abrahamic faiths try not to describe him.
This kind of sounds like what the Mormons say: Jesus and the Father are completely separate entities, and yet they are united in a familial bond. @Katzpur might be tickled to see this.
Yeah. Like the Church is married to Jesus. Same thing. Marriage as a vocation between male and female united as one. Yet, you would never mistake yourself as jesus. I know my friend's father and mother are two quite different people. To say they "are" each other is metaphysics talking (I hope) or ??
I think it's a matter of perspective.
For example, I believe in god (if I called it god) in that life creates in and of itself. Nothing outside of it. Nothing forming it. It forms within itself both living and nonliving. God IS life. It's more powerful than god created life. When you are a part of life rather than being contrast to it, it builds a more intimate connection. When you're apart, say in christianity, there's a balance between good and bad-a lot of binary morals. Judgement. Who is really Catholic (right baptism? wrong baptism?) who's going to hell-being born again by deeds? by faith? (protestants don't combine the two towards salvation as catholics do)
Jesus being only man and jesus being god really doesn't make a difference. The reason is if jesus was only a man, he was a man created, sent, without sin by god. So, it sounds more like christians want jesus to be god so they can relate to someone higher than themselves. If they thought of it just a regular human, it may feel like jesus would be their peer when being a man only means you have the temptation to sin and have flesh and blood (like the Eucharist hint hint).
Not sinning and being god's son doesn't make one a different type of human than you or I. Just different roles like Moses compared to, say, St. Mary.
I know it sounds stronger but if I thought about the reality of it, a human relates to a human. God can't relate to humans and humans can't god. It would, how would I say, I can't think of the word bu make the two obsolete or poof out of existence. Let man and god have their place and appreciate the marriage, image, and relationship each person has in relation to the other.
I think I read in the bible spirits/souls are on earth until judgement. God raises the dead and the living to be judged, and those dead in their sins go to hell (separated from god) and those living in christ/aka union with god will go to heaven-be in eternal unity with god. Most of it is in Revelations. I can't remember the first part since it's been so long ago that I read the full bible.
How I'd see it is he is an example of a human glorified onto god.
So, christians would die like he, and their body would be new and glorified, like his is, and they would go onto god, just as jesus and the saints. Like the Church on earth, Church in heaven. In other words, body of christ of the living united with god and those united with god through jesus on earth. (Hence the communication with the saints)
That's kind of creepy, to put it bluntly.
Hmm. What is your perspective if I said God IS the laws of nature and in itself capable of circumventing laws as god is designed to do naturally?
Jesus exist through the body of the people. That's weird the saints have no bodies but jesus does. Yet, again and again, the flesh dies. Unless christians can't part with their flesh even though that's the reason christ died is to sacrifice the sins of the flesh and rise in literal spirit instead.
Well, it makes sense, though. Christ is the body of the people and spirit/actual person's spirit in union with his father as before humans existed. Since christians are the body of christ, when we sin, we sin against that body hence deteriorating the union between the body and god. That is why confession is important because you go to the Eucharist with a clean heart as not to be spiritually separate from the body in worship. So, being absolved from god through the priest is god absolving you from your sins and the priest is permitting you to be back in union with the Church.
You can still learn from your peers. You just can't take sacraments from them. In other words, you can learn German from your peers but they can't give you and grade your exam.
God can't feel pain, by his nature. Being human means being human in spirit not just flesh. His spirit would have had to have cried just as his flesh. God would have need to confess just as humans do. He would need to do things just as humans. God would literally need to cease being the creator and be a human. There is a movie called PRIEST I wish I can show you a clip of. It's inappropriate here because of short kissing but in the same scene the priest was in distraught with his homosexual feelings and whether he should be with his mate or go back to his vocation. He was yelling at god saying to his friend, "but he [god] was not human enough! oh I'm feeling a bit down today, so I'm going to cure the sick....how can someone with that power, that much knowledge know what I'm going through right now" In other words, how can a mind that is unlimited make himself limited to know what it's like to be limited but remain unlimited at the same time.
Just send a human and make it simple. Human saves human through the body (bunch of humans) in christ (the spirit of a human).
If jesus did not have inherited sin, he was not human. He can feel the pain of a thousand pound cement crush on his body, but he would never have the same experience as being a human. Just as the gay thing. You and I (pretending you're female?) are both humans, both females in the physical sense of the word, both this and both that. But in order to claim I am you, I have to be you. Not in you. Not through you. Not with you. BE you.
What was Moses' Law if it wasn't the commandments?
Hence, why he is human. Kind of get it now?
And now, for the event that's been days in the making... You'll find those quotes and sources I promised in the post that I reserved momentarily.
Haha.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Placeholder post for when I get the references and explanations I promised. I had them typed out and edited into the post, but RF decided that my post was too long and erased my changes. >_>
EDIT: Alright, FINALLY I got time to do this.
First, concerning the essence-energies distinction I mentioned:
From Metropolitan Kallistos Ware's book The Orthodox Way:
the Orthodox tradition draws a distinction between the essence, nature or inner being of God, on the one hand, and his energies, operations or acts of power, on the other. . . Because God is a mystery beyond our understanding, we shall never know his essence or inner being, either in this life or in the Age to come. If we knew the divine essence, it would follow that we knew God in the same way as he knows himself; and this we cannot ever do, since he is Creator and we are created. But, while God's inner essence is for ever beyond our comprehension, his energies, grace, life and power fill the whole universe, and are directly accesible to us. . . When Orthodox speak of the divine energies, they do not mean by this an emanation from God, an "intermediary" between God and man, or a "thing" or "gift" that God bestows. On the contrary, the energies are God himself in his activity and self-manifestation. . . Just as it would be wrong to think of the energies as a "thing" bestowed on us by God, so it would be equally misleading to regard the energies as a "part" of God. The Godhead is simple and indivisible, and has no parts. The essence signifies the whole God as he is in himself; the energies signify the whole God as he is in action. God in his entirety is completely present in each of his divine energies.And now, for a breakdown of what I mean by the Divine Essence, and what Christ's Hypostatic Union (union of human and divine natures within His person) means:
By virtue of this distionction . . . we are able to affirm the possibility of a direct or mystical union between man and God--what the Greek Fathers term the theosis of man, his "deification"--but at the same time we exclude any pantheistic identification between the two: for man participate sin the energies of God, not in the essence. There is union, but not fusion or confusion. Although "oned" with the divine, man still remains man". (pp. 21-23).
"All things are permeated and maintained in being by the uncreated energies of God, and so all things are a theophany that mediates his presence (pp. 21-23). At the heart of each thing is its inner principle or logos, implanted within it by the Creator Logos; and so through the logoi we enter into communion with the Logos (p. 33).
The final end of the spiritual Way is that we humans should also become part of this Trinitarian coinheritance or perichoresis, being wholly taken up into the circle of love that exists within God. . .Was that clear as mud, @Carlita ?
"I and the Father are one," said Christ (John 10:30). What did he mean?
For an answer we look primarily to the first two of the seven Ecumenical or Universal Councils. . . The central and decisive affirmation int he Creed is that Jesus Christ is "true God from true God", "one in essence" or "consubstantial" (homoousios) with the Father: he is God in the same sense that the Father is God, and yet they are not two Gods but one. . . But although Father, Son and Spirit are one single God, yet each of them is from all eternity a person, a distinct centre of conscious selfhood. . . There is eternally in God true unity, combined with genuinely personal differentation: the term "essence", "substance" or "being" (ousia) indicates the unity, and the term "person" (hypostasis, prosopon) indicates the differentiation. . .
Father, Son and Spirit are one in essence, not merely in the sense that all three are examples of the same group or general class, but in the sense that they form a single, unique, specific reality. . .Three human persons, Peter, James and John, belong to the same general class "man". Yet, however closely they co-operate together, each retains his ownwill and his own energy, acting by virtue of his own separate power of initiative. In short, they are three men and not one man. But in the case of the three persons of the Trinity, this is not the case. There is distinction, but never separation. . . None of the three ever acts separately, apart from the toher two. They are not three Gods, but one God. . .
Each of the three is fully and completely God. None is more or less God than the others. Each possesses, no one third of the Godhead, but the entire Godhead in its totality; yet each lives and is this one Godhead in his own distinctive and personal way.
Haven't gone back to read this yet. Give me a little bit.
Yeah, it gets into crypto-Sabellianism, especially when you start talking about the Oneness Pentecostals and their ilk.
Oddly enough, my experience with Catholics has been the inverse--we are in union with God/Christ in the Eucharist because Jesus is God.
I will agree that Catholicism seems to emphasize Jesus' humanity much more than the Orthodox do--focusing on His Passion and such.
It's also important to keep in mind that when Catholics and Orthodox speak of our union with God, it's a communion between separate entities with separate natures. We become part of the perichoresis, or the mutual indwelling of the members of the Trinity--Jesus dwells in us, we dwell in Jesus, the Father dwells in Jesus, we dwell in the Father.
Ultimately I think we're agreed on what Jesus being human means for the Church. Where we disagree is whether Jesus' Divinity is a reality or not.
Let me know if you ever come across the "on earth" part. I know the Bible speaks of Sheol/Hades where the dead dwell.
St. Athanasius' most famous one-liner is "God became man so man might become God."
Haha, I guess it depends on your perspective. I think many are content to simply believe that our souls alone will live forever, and that we permanently discard our mortal bodies at death. But mankind was always, from our inception, a confluence between the material and the spiritual--we were shaped from the earth, and given the breath of life by God. To be only one or the other would mean ceasing to be truly human.
This strikes me as materialistic pantheism, rather than the understanding of God as we encounter Him in the Bible and the life of the Church.
The Saints will receive their bodies back, as we all will. Jesus received His body back to show us what is to come for all of us.
Our bodies are not evil, or else God wouldn't have created us with them. Carnal desires have merely been twisted into sinful passions in the Fall.
Precisely.
And He did.
The reason we need to confess is because we miss the mark. Jesus never missed the mark for a reason--He gave us an example of what it means to be a true human, not merely a fallen one. And by living as a true human, He helps us to begin to live in that way as well.
We do teach that Jesus laid aside His knowledge, power and glory. He grew up and learned as a little boy, as we read in the Scriptures (Luke 2:40)
Haha, this is what the Muslims say.
"Inherited sin"? There is no such thing. We are born with the consequences of the fall--temptation to sin, mortality, suffering. But nowhere will you find the idea that we are born with inherited sin. That was an idea that Augustine pulled out of his butt because he never learned actual theology and had to somehow defend Christianity against its opponents in the West. His defenses of Christianity came from pagan Classical Latin philosophy, not from the teachings of the Church.
(I'm actually a guy.
) My only problem with this idea is that by this logic, Jesus would also have had to have been female to have had the same experiences as us and therefore be truly human.It was the Commandments, but it wasn't the Logos.
Yes, I've always gotten it, haha. I think we're talking past each other here.Hence, why he is human. Kind of get it now?
Sure, lemme know when you have.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I'd say I was in union with christ because christ took on my flesh/sins as a human, and through his spirit as a human, I can share in his physical passion and share in his passion in communion in which the Eucharist/body and blood (not spirit or symbol) by definition communes us to each other and thus to god.
Yeah. I don't know about Orthodox but Catholics go full blown. The difference between them and protestants in the literalism of christ's body being god too, is the Eucharist and christ is physically and spiritually present in real time during Mass rather than spiritually with a symbol of communion.
That's how I would see it three separate entities. Though, I gotta tell you, god being christ and the holy spirit is kinda redundant. To tell you honestly, when the spirit of christ came to the pentecost, that spirit was indeed holy. It's an adjective to describe christ's spirit that joins people in christ through baptism. Is there a scripture that says the holy spirit is an entity in and of itself with no being christ nor god?
Yeah. I think my perspective on christ's divinity is closer to Muslims, probably.
I mean, he's sent by god, so I wouldn't see how he wouldn't be divine. Though things like High Prophet and Image Of really tears down the to be verb "is" and uses prepositions to describe the nature of one entity and another. Maybe christ is god makes it more personal than christ sent by god with god's divinity?
I think a JW found something similar. They seem to be on top of scripture more than I notice of Catholics. We finally got a library in our parish and pushing bible study nowadays. In the 70s one lady was told by her priest she couldn't read her bible. She was so happy she could read it now in the early 2000s.
A man became the image of god so that man would be in the image of christ and thereby both are in union with god.
Hows that?
The laws of nature haven't changed after 2,000 some odd years. I mean, when did we keep our body in one age but now in this age we become ashes?
Since men are crucified in christ (since christ took on the sins of the world) so their sins can be crucified, there is no more flesh. The flesh/the temptation/the sin has been cleaned at baptism and still we sin so christians need to keep the flesh from sinning (for example, catholic's view on lust of the flesh) so that the spirit would be in union with god.
Nothing wrong with just being a spirit. God is originally spirit before he became man, right?
Em
ah em Yes and no. Pantheism is everything is god. So the tree would be god as so as the sun. It's not a "they aren't energy/breathe/moving active spirit" but literally the tree and the sun. Whereas how I describe god is energy. (yes, sounds materialistic. Just taking out religious words to describe a very real presence of spirit without the language of scripture) The sun is energy and so as the moon and so are we. God isn't an isolated sun and moon in which pantheist connect with one spirit but there is no outside or spirit-ual connection. Everything is energy-everything is spirit. When the breathe of god flushes over the water, only wind can do that (maybe dust and rocks etc). When the waters parted, only the earth can make that happen. I think Christians mystify what doesn't need to be mystified. If you mystify it, you separate it from creation. If you can describe it by creation, you see the creation in the image of god because they are one. (Not Catholic teaching, kind of paganism, using materalistic words but definitely not materalistic)
Where are the saints? I thought we are communicating with the saints now. Why do they need bodies in order to be in union with god? What is the importance of a glorified body?
A body that is tempted and has the ability to sin isn't the same body of christ who christians say cannot sin. Christ needs to sin to be human.
His pain doesn't mean anything if he is god. It's just not the same when you are relating to your boss as your peer. It would be weird going to the football game with your boss when you can't gossip about your boss as if he were your peer.
Examples. Image of. Etc doesn't make one human. I mean, it would have been nice if he had sin. A even better example that he is human and can be an example of repentance in prayer and union with god. He can help you as a human. He's sent and shares god's divinity, remember?
I've always thought that was weird. That's like saying I lay aside my brain, my arm, and my heart so that I can teach you what it's like to be human while at the same etime showing you I can live without these things (be god) at the same time.
Haha, this is what the Muslims say.
Haha. Someone told me that one time. I understand the god-only deal. Manner of worshi just not my type.
Interesting. Protestants throw it out there all the time. Learned something new.
On RF, how rare. (I'm actually a guy.
Haha. Well, when we say "man" we mean humanity. If christ was god, he'd have to come down and Be man (not male). Only a man can take on the sins of the world because he would Be the sins of the world in the flesh. He can't be in the image of himself. Incarnation sounds more hinduism and buddhism to tell you honestly.
Male, go figure.
Refresh my memory. What is the Logos apart from the commandments?
Pretty much. Except for how we define the divinity of christ in relation to his father. Other than that, I'd love to visit an Orthodox Mass. It sounds like the beliefs are different or different perspective as opposed to Roman.
You put it differently, but I think we ultimately agree here.
On this note, the Catholics and Orthodox have always been fully agreed. We Orthodox don't have Eucharistic Adoration, because the point of the Eucharist is to eat it, but we do profess Christ being physically and spiritually present in real time during Mass (though exactly how that is we don't claim to know).
Based on what you said in your first sentence, it might help to try thinking about this the other way. The Catholics say there is the one God in the three Persons. Orthodox say that there are the three Persons in the one God. I'm not entirely sure how to explain it right now (It's been a long while since I've actually gone over any of this with anyone and I have to leave for work in like 15 minutes lol), but bug me about it later and I'll get back to you. Also see if the excerpts from The Orthodox Way help you at all.
Yes, actually. John 14 makes this pretty clear:
I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; 17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.
26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
So we see that the Holy Spirit is a Helper Who is neither the Father (for He is being sent by the Father), nor is He the Son (for the Spirit is being sent in the name of the Son, and He is being sent by the Father after Christ asks the Father).
And one chapter later, in John 15:
26 “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me,
So we see that the Spirit testifies about Jesus.
Also, from Romans 8:
26 In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; 27 and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
So, the Holy Spirit intercedes for us before God, yet the Holy Spirit is God (2 Corinthians 3:17)
Here's also something which may or may not be explaining this better than I currently am: The Orthodox Faith - Volume I - Doctrine and Scripture - The Symbol of Faith - Holy Spirit
That's one way to look at it. But we see Jesus uniting all things in Himself: For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.
St. Ignatius of Antioch also writes in his letter to the Smyrnaeans: "There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible, even Jesus Christ our Lord."
Oy vey!
I'm glad that's over and done with...Except we are all made in the image of God, as per Genesis 1. Jesus is the image of the invisible Father, i.e. God made visible. He came to restore the image of God within us that had been covered up by sin.
I suppose I don't understand your question here?
Yes, we crucify the passions of the flesh, but we can't fall into the Gnostic trap of viewing our bodies as fleshy prisons. 1 Corinthians 15 shows that our bodies as they are now will pass away, but only so that they may be transfigured, as Christ was on Mt. Tabor (Mark 9).
Yes, but we have always been both spirit and body.
I suppose here it may be helpful to state that Orthodoxy is panentheistic--as in, God is in all things.Em
To us, we emphasize these mysteries to unite all things more closely with God.
They are in the presence of God, while their bodies are buried, burned or destroyed (respective to how they died).
We don't "need" bodies to be in union with God. Christianity isn't about a series of logical necessities or systematic theology (as much as Anselm of Canterbury's or Thomas Aquinas' writings seem to indicate otherwise), it's about our relationship with God and His love for us. Really, things could have been like Islam or what the rationalists say, where God could have just snapped His fingers and instantly fixed everything. He could have sent a human prophet to lead us into truth and union with Him. But instead, God the Son became a human to unite our human nature within Himself, so that He may be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:28, 2 Corinthians 5:18-19, Romans 5:10, Colossians 1:19-20).
So, were Adam and Eve not human until they sinned?
I don't see how this follows. If my boss comes into my department, straps on a hair net and starts doing all the same things I'm doing to help me and my department, then there is a community there. I would in no way say that my boss's getting down in the trenches with me means nothing just because they get paid more. If both my boss and I cut our fingers while using knives or cleaning sawblades, or run a cart over our feet, we feel the same pain. My boss's pain isn't cheapened just because she gets a bigger paycheck or because she has a different job title.
In the same way, Jesus suffered all that we did, truly and completely. Suffering through these things as God in the flesh doesn't make that suffering meaningless, because He still felt it in the same way that we do. If anything, the fact that God Himself came down to our level to experience what we do is a wonder to the Christian; God is sharing in our life, because He wants us to share in His.
The point of this is to encourage us and not to make us despair. If we are united in Christ, and Christ has conquered sin, then we can conquer it with His help. His living a sinless life was to give us hope that sin does not have to control our lives. We can rise above it with Him and instead live lives of virtue. Romans 6 and Romans 8 both teach this.
Yes, and this is what we teach.
I suppose I don't see how this follows.
LOL, it's odd, most everyone on the Internet thinks I'm female until I tell them otherwise. I've always wondered why... Is it my posting style? How I act?Male, go figure.
The governing principle that establishes the universe, giving it order and reason. It comes from Stoic and Platonic philosophy, and Philo of Alexandria was the first person to use it in Jewish theology.
Yeah, it's an entire set of different nuances, which adds up to a fundamentally different view of the world than that found in Western Christianity.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I had to laugh while reading to this point. Im at the grocery store but wanted to say good point. I'll get back to this later.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
How in the world did you write this under 12000 characters!
I can never figure how Christians speak and the language you guys use. "The glory of the Lord has said that we, as sinners, and caught the seed of the serpent of our first parents." (Made it up. I'll figure an example but when I see someone convert, it's like automatic mode as if the holy spirit gave you guys a new language of Godlish or something.
That makes A LOT of sense. I went to adore the Eucharist a couple of times. I don't know about my peers, but it's more about prayer and being in the spirit within the Church where christ is present (with the lantern on) more so than adoring bread and wine in a tabernacle. That's me, though. I never asked anyone else because it's always been a private adoration. One of those "don't ask people what they confessed" type feelings.
Good time to bug you about this.
Catholics say all three persons are one god.
Is that the same as "all the three persons in one god"?
I honestly don't see all three persons in one god nor in one god (or as or...) but all three persons have a relation-ship with each other. The source or connecting thing not person or spirit is a divinity and people personify this divinity/adjective as, um, god.
Father: Creator-a specific deity rather than a general god such as Zeus or specific to another faith like Krishna.
Son: A human being who by his birth, ministry, death, and resurrection has a relation-ship with his father (like father like son) thereby whatever the father says comes directly from the son. I mean, I don't have that close of a relationship with my mother to mistake me for my mother. So...
Holy Spirit. Just the Spirit of Christ the apostles received and christians receive. It's christ love, teachings, and so forth that connects a christian with god's grace, and so forth. Not specific in and of itself.
All interconnected. All divine. Not one are deities but have specific natures: Spirit/Creator, Human/Savior, Love personified (or, how you say, more pathenesitic). I'd relate more to the holy spirit first out of the three, then christ, and then god. Only because I have no clue what a god is.
Who is "he"? In the English language, when you designate a pronoun, you have to have a noun. It sounds like truth, love, grace, etc personified. Oh... I go to this Buddhist site and they were talking about christianity. Here is how one Buddhist explained it. Her priest finally made sense to her. I paraphrased it.
"I had a hard time when I was Catholic understanding "The Holy Ghost" and what it actually was. So a priest and his curate explained it as "it's the Love and Grace between Father and Son; that unique Relationship a affection bestowed by a Father upon his son, and subsequently shared out to Humanity by connection."'
Doesn't need to be a "third person" but the name for what happens when two people form a relationship and the attributes they share with each other.
On that note, who is the holy spirit? If god can send himself down as a human, wouldn't it make sense for god a spirit to come down himself rather than bringing another spirit-or it could be god sending down another attribute of himself so christians can connect. For example, sending his son for christians to connect with christ's humanity and union with god. Sending down the holy spirit so one would be baptized in christ's name.
Spit Balling here. (For those who do not know: an idiom for guessing)
Hence they can't be each other. As soon as you call all of them god, there needs to be an explanation. If they are separate, I completely understand.
I have to cut the rest of the Holy Spirit verses.
Christ spirit intercedes. Holy spirit (if correct above) is the result of that connection between the two people. Father is a creator/being. Son is savior/human. Former being their role. Latter being their nature. They both can be divine. Maybe it's a language issue, but calling them both god is very redundant when they all have different roles but follow the same purpose. Maybe trinity isn't the right word.
Remember, all is "in his name." If he were god, it wouldn't be in anyone's name. He'd just say, "Pray to me..." but jesus specifically said god wanted people to pray "in his name". Like the example of the letter and signature. God won't take the letter unless it has christ's signature. Basically, what you're saying is explaining the purpose of using "in his name."
God made visible is like saying that you're made from the invisible christ. Image of is a metaphor phrase (thinking of my English). It's not the thing it is is reflecting but a copy of itself. You can't make a copy of god or you'd have two gods. So image of is not copy but a likeness of. Like father like son-best I can figure it out.
Oh. When christ's body and spirit rose over 2,000 years ago and now our bodies turn to ages today, what type of body did he have as a human that changed within the last 2,000 years?
I got this from my favorite verse that brought me to christ. Galations 2:20. People are trapped in the sins of their flesh. So when they are crucified in christ (they die in christ or baptized in him to clear their sins, however put), they no longer live for themselves, but for the son of god. They know their flesh will die but they look forward to be with christ and god forever as an actual literal spirit.
That's why I asked why the body was so important. I've seen spirits without the bodies. They were spirits of deceased people that lived in our home. I experienced them now but I grown up to wear it's hard to see them anymore. Like the older you get, the more bias blocks you from the "other side" if you like.
Not christianity but that's how I understand spirits and bodies. Related to christianity, I don't see the importance of a body in heaven.
Interesting. Tell a Roman Catholic that and they'd look at you funny. Very literal over in these parts.
Why is mysteries more important than knowledge?
This is pretty much my point. If body and spirit goes together, why wouldn't saints have their bodies too?
Had to cut it short. What's the purpose of a body in heaven, though?
On earth, we are born, live, age, and pass away. Procreate, do the chacha, and so forth. In heaven?
Adam and Eve had temptation to sin and like christ, they had a choice to sin because of their temptations both from the devil. While Adam and Eve were just children in their mind. They weren't explained what death and punishment is, christ knows these things. Knowledge and union with god doesn't make one god. Not sinning doesn't make one without inherited sin. Also, I don't think Jews believe in inherited sin. Do Orthodox? I Can't remember. I think you said no.
I can never figure how Christians speak and the language you guys use. "The glory of the Lord has said that we, as sinners, and caught the seed of the serpent of our first parents." (Made it up. I'll figure an example but when I see someone convert, it's like automatic mode as if the holy spirit gave you guys a new language of Godlish or something.
That makes A LOT of sense. I went to adore the Eucharist a couple of times. I don't know about my peers, but it's more about prayer and being in the spirit within the Church where christ is present (with the lantern on) more so than adoring bread and wine in a tabernacle. That's me, though. I never asked anyone else because it's always been a private adoration. One of those "don't ask people what they confessed" type feelings.
Catholics say all three persons are one god.
Is that the same as "all the three persons in one god"?
I honestly don't see all three persons in one god nor in one god (or as or...) but all three persons have a relation-ship with each other. The source or connecting thing not person or spirit is a divinity and people personify this divinity/adjective as, um, god.
Father: Creator-a specific deity rather than a general god such as Zeus or specific to another faith like Krishna.
Son: A human being who by his birth, ministry, death, and resurrection has a relation-ship with his father (like father like son) thereby whatever the father says comes directly from the son. I mean, I don't have that close of a relationship with my mother to mistake me for my mother. So...
Holy Spirit. Just the Spirit of Christ the apostles received and christians receive. It's christ love, teachings, and so forth that connects a christian with god's grace, and so forth. Not specific in and of itself.
All interconnected. All divine. Not one are deities but have specific natures: Spirit/Creator, Human/Savior, Love personified (or, how you say, more pathenesitic). I'd relate more to the holy spirit first out of the three, then christ, and then god. Only because I have no clue what a god is.
Who is "he"? In the English language, when you designate a pronoun, you have to have a noun. It sounds like truth, love, grace, etc personified. Oh... I go to this Buddhist site and they were talking about christianity. Here is how one Buddhist explained it. Her priest finally made sense to her. I paraphrased it.
"I had a hard time when I was Catholic understanding "The Holy Ghost" and what it actually was. So a priest and his curate explained it as "it's the Love and Grace between Father and Son; that unique Relationship a affection bestowed by a Father upon his son, and subsequently shared out to Humanity by connection."'
Doesn't need to be a "third person" but the name for what happens when two people form a relationship and the attributes they share with each other.
On that note, who is the holy spirit? If god can send himself down as a human, wouldn't it make sense for god a spirit to come down himself rather than bringing another spirit-or it could be god sending down another attribute of himself so christians can connect. For example, sending his son for christians to connect with christ's humanity and union with god. Sending down the holy spirit so one would be baptized in christ's name.
Spit Balling here. (For those who do not know: an idiom for guessing)
Hence they can't be each other. As soon as you call all of them god, there needs to be an explanation. If they are separate, I completely understand.
I have to cut the rest of the Holy Spirit verses.
Christ spirit intercedes. Holy spirit (if correct above) is the result of that connection between the two people. Father is a creator/being. Son is savior/human. Former being their role. Latter being their nature. They both can be divine. Maybe it's a language issue, but calling them both god is very redundant when they all have different roles but follow the same purpose. Maybe trinity isn't the right word.
Remember, all is "in his name." If he were god, it wouldn't be in anyone's name. He'd just say, "Pray to me..." but jesus specifically said god wanted people to pray "in his name". Like the example of the letter and signature. God won't take the letter unless it has christ's signature. Basically, what you're saying is explaining the purpose of using "in his name."
God made visible is like saying that you're made from the invisible christ. Image of is a metaphor phrase (thinking of my English). It's not the thing it is is reflecting but a copy of itself. You can't make a copy of god or you'd have two gods. So image of is not copy but a likeness of. Like father like son-best I can figure it out.
The laws of nature haven't changed after 2,000 some odd years. I mean, when did we keep our body in one age but now in this age we become ashes?
Oh. When christ's body and spirit rose over 2,000 years ago and now our bodies turn to ages today, what type of body did he have as a human that changed within the last 2,000 years?
I got this from my favorite verse that brought me to christ. Galations 2:20. People are trapped in the sins of their flesh. So when they are crucified in christ (they die in christ or baptized in him to clear their sins, however put), they no longer live for themselves, but for the son of god. They know their flesh will die but they look forward to be with christ and god forever as an actual literal spirit.
That's why I asked why the body was so important. I've seen spirits without the bodies. They were spirits of deceased people that lived in our home. I experienced them now but I grown up to wear it's hard to see them anymore. Like the older you get, the more bias blocks you from the "other side" if you like.
Not christianity but that's how I understand spirits and bodies. Related to christianity, I don't see the importance of a body in heaven.
Interesting. Tell a Roman Catholic that and they'd look at you funny. Very literal over in these parts.
Why is mysteries more important than knowledge?
This is pretty much my point. If body and spirit goes together, why wouldn't saints have their bodies too?
Had to cut it short. What's the purpose of a body in heaven, though?
On earth, we are born, live, age, and pass away. Procreate, do the chacha, and so forth. In heaven?
Adam and Eve had temptation to sin and like christ, they had a choice to sin because of their temptations both from the devil. While Adam and Eve were just children in their mind. They weren't explained what death and punishment is, christ knows these things. Knowledge and union with god doesn't make one god. Not sinning doesn't make one without inherited sin. Also, I don't think Jews believe in inherited sin. Do Orthodox? I Can't remember. I think you said no.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Pretend your boss is a spirit and in order to get into the trenches, he'd have to put on a flesh suit (sorry, thinking of Aliens) to go with you in the trenches. Now, your human boss can probably do it because he is human as a boss and human in the trenches. But god? I thought he couldn't be around sin. Even as human, if he were human, he would sin and be tempted. Since he did not, he wasn't fully human spirit wise too. I'm the Muslim and Jew that can't figure how god can be human.
Where to go from here, I have no clue.It's more if god was still god as a human, his suffering, how would I say, wouldn't be actual suffering at all. I can't think of another analogy. I think this is where your belief and my perception kinda parts. I would need to believe a god can suffer. The way I understand god through christ as a human being, only humans can suffer. That's why we come to god is through (in and within) the suffering of a perfect human being.
But maybe meaningless wasn't the right word. I can't think of another word but yes, it has meaning, it's just not logical if going by the definition scripture has given god of the OT compared to different interpretations of god of the NT.
Haha. Well, when we say "man" we mean humanity. If christ was god, he'd have to come down and Be man (not male). Only a man can take on the sins of the world because he would Be the sins of the world in the flesh.
Not quite, though. This is saying that christ has to be fully human not god. I know we agree on the purpose, role, relationship, and so forth. Just the human is god part is throwing me off.
God can't be in the image of himself. In other words, god can't be in the image of christ if they are both one god.
You know, I don't know. Shiranui sounds female for some reason.
Pretty much. If you go an hour south of me, you'll find Roman Catholic Churches practicing a whole different way (outside the basics) like more focus on the saints in one area than another. In our area it seems more unitarian "All Saints collectively" while across the bridge, they focus specifically on Mary.
MonkeyFire
Well-Known Member
The fruit of the lord is love, peace, and joy making Jesus passive I do think.
LOL, lots of practice, my friend!
Thanks for bearing with me. It's been years since I've had a discussion about the Trinity this in-depth, and I'm a little embarrassed to say that I'm having to re-teach myself a lot of this stuff as I go. Boy, I forgot how much my brain hurts reading the writings of Church Fathers who lived in the time span of 300 AD to 800 AD… To do this topic justice, I've been trying to stick as closely to actual statements of the Fathers as possible, and I can at least say that I can cite sources whenever asked to do so now.
Aight, I laughed at this.
I would attribute it to catechesis doing its job, but when you put it like that, yeah, I think the Holy Spirit has a hand in it too.
So what I think you're saying is that the thing connecting the three Persons together is the relationship between them? I would agree, but I would also say that it goes further. I attempt to explain this in my next point.
Here is how I would tentatively put it, after reading through some of the Fathers here and there over the last 48 hours and processing what they've been saying:
Father: The arche (or source) of the Trinity. He is also the Creator.
Son: The Word (or Logos) and Wisdom (Proverbs 8:22) of God, Who is His own Person, sharing the same divine nature as the Father, and in all things being one with Him, except that the Father is the Begetter and the Son is the Begotten. All things were created through the Son.
Spirit: The breath of God (Genesis 1:2), Who gives life, inspiration and grace to all. Grace and life comes to us from the Father, through the Son and in the Holy Spirit. All things are sustained by His presence.
Everything that the Trinity does is the work of all three. The Trinity is not only one in nature, but also one in will and one in action. Three human beings are one in our general nature, but we have separate wills and act independently of each other. In the case of the Trinity, they always act as one in bestowing grace, receiving prayer, teaching, giving inspiration, creating, destroying, and so on. They do not each do three separate actions, but they each participate in the same action.
The "He" was referring to the Father… The Father would send the Holy Spirit.
Ugh… This is actual heresy, and I don't know how this possibly passes through Catholic seminaries as anything remotely correct. I've seen this explanation too, and it's not at all what the Church Fathers taught about the Holy Spirit. I guess it's what happens when the Romans make the Holy Spirit subordinate to both the Father and the Son by changing the Nicene Creed.
The Holy Spirit isn't an "attribute" of God, so to speak. He is indeed a Person, as I hope the verses I mentioned will satisfactorily demonstrate. But just to make it clear that the Spirit is a Person rather than an impersonal force, He is also said to intercede for us to the Father (Romans 8:28). Yes, the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ and of the Father, according to the mutual indwelling of the members of the Trinity, just as the Father is also the Source of the Spirit and the Father of the Son. But unfortunately, we have no idea how to describe the Son's relation to the Spirit. As far as I can tell, we know the Spirit's relation to the Son, but not the other way around. It's like describing zero divided by one, versus one divided by zero.
And it is exactly this explanation which I am attempting (probably poorly) to give. It doesn't help that I didn't read the Fathers at all before starting this conversation, so I might end up having to amend a few earlier statements. If you find something in what I say that seems contradictory to what I've said elsewhere, please let me know.
Another way of thinking about "in His name" is "with His authority". When we baptize, we baptize in the name of (or "with the authority of") the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The Apostles cast out demons in Christ's name (i.e. with His authority). So when we pray to the Father, we pray with the authority of Christ.
Jesus isn't a carbon-copy of the Father. They share all the same attributes, except that the Father is unbegotten, and the Son is begotten. Otherwise, they share the same essence (using that Greek word ousia here) and are thus the same being, yet different Persons/subsistences/manifestations (hypostasis) of that Essence.
When Christ rose from the dead in His incorrupt body, He was showing us in what manner we would be resurrected. Christ defeated corruption, and so He did not experience it. Had Christ's body been corrupt, that would mean that corruption could exert itself upon God, which is unthinkable. Rather, Jesus' body after His death became like what all our bodies will be after we rise from the dead.
Because our knowledge has its limits. There are some things that we can never truly understand. The Creator of all things is one of them. For example, I can never claim to understand you as you understand yourself. You may describe to me how you see the world, your inner thought patterns, your life experiences, and all of these things, but there are limits to how much of you as a person that I can comprehend (and being a guy already puts me at a disadvantage).
By expressing our faith in mysteries (which is like describing the blue ocean as we are submerged in it), we are able to speak of the parts of the sea which surround us, and yet leave room for what disappears into the blue infinity and in the black abyss. Even in Islam, one of the verses says in the Qur'an (paraphrasing here) "Even if all the trees in the world were cut down into pens, and if all the seas were turned to ink, still you could not write down all there is to know about God".
Here it is important to note the Orthodox perception of Heaven (as in, the state that the blessed experience after the Judgement). We do not believe that all the blessed will go to an immaterial realm known as Heaven (though such an immaterial realm of course exists, as Scripture abundantly states). Rather, we speak of Heaven, or more accurately, Paradise.
St. Isaac of Syria puts it best:
"As for me I say that those who are tormented in hell are tormented by the invasion of love. What is there more bitter and violent than the pains of love? Those who feel they have sinned against love bear in themselves a damnation much heavier than the most dreaded punishments. The suffering with which sinning against love afflicts the heart is more keenly felt than any other torment. It is absurd to assume that the sinners in hell are deprived of God’s love. Love is offered impartially. But by its very power it acts in two ways. It torments sinners, as happens here on earth when we are tormented by the presence of a friend to whom we have been unfaithful. And it gives joy to those who have been faithful." Source.
Correct, we do not believe this. "A son shall not bear the iniquities of his father", as it says in Ezekiel 18:20. We only inherit the condition caused by sin, which is suffering, temptation to sin, death, a rift in our relationship with God, corruption and disease. When Orthodox speak of "ancestral sin", that is what we mean, not that we inherit the guilt of Adam's and Eve's sin. In Christian thought, we are only truly human when we are in communion with God, as that was our original calling. And that is why God became man, to overcome all of the things that separated us from God--sin, temptation, death and corruption. By uniting our humanity to His Divinity, He bridged the gap that had been slowly widening as a result of our sins. By crucifying our sins in His flesh, He freed our flesh from sin. By dying, He destroyed the power of death over us. By rising incorrupt, He freed us from corruption and gave us a share in His Resurrection. He could not have done this had He not been also fully God, for only God has the power to destroy death, sin and corruption from humanity. No man or angel or created being can do that.
Now, we still sin, and therefore we still die, because that is what God promised us. But since Christ our God has assumed our humanity and united it with Himself, He has healed our human nature. At this point we're just computers that just finished installing the Windows Update with a patch to fix what used to be a system-breaking bug. Everything's in place, but we need to be shut down and restarted before the update takes effect. Our bodies will decay and become corrupt because of our sins, because that is what God said will happen. But this corruption will not continue forever, because Jesus defeated sin, death and corruption in His death and Resurrection.
He can be tempted (because He is human, and has taken on a human mind, soul, heart and body), but not sin. The entire reason that God the Word became man was to undo Adam's mistake. "The first Adam became a living being. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit." (1 Corinthians 5:45) Also see Romans 5:12-19.
God speaks with sinful human beings all the time. It's not that God CAN'T be around sin (just look at any time He interacted with a human being after Adam and Eve ever), but He cannot be overcome by it. He cannot sin, because that would mean that sin can overcome and corrupt God.
I think another point that needs to be made is that sinning is not necessarily a quality of being human. If it were, then how could we be faulted for acting according to our nature? But sin is an aberration, something not natural to us. That is the reason that we are urged not to sin, the reason that we are offered to be healed of our sins. It's the reason that Jesus calls Himself the Physician (Mark 2:17), because sin is a disease we need to be cured of, not an innate quality of our nature. If sin was necessarily a part of the human experience, then of course you would be right that God could never, ever become man.
Yeah, we teach that God suffered in the flesh. St. Cyril says in his Twelve Anathemas:
"the Word of God suffered in the flesh, that he was crucified in the flesh, and that likewise in that same flesh he tasted death and that he is become the first-begotten of the dead, for, as he is God, he is the life and it is he that giveth life".
And this is what we teach.
I'm hoping that some of what I've posted above can help you see where we're coming from.
Aha, now I think I see what you're saying. Mankind was made in the image of God, and if God became man, that would mean that God became in the image of God. But then we as Christians are remade in the image of Christ.
I think clarifying our terms here would help. God is the prototype, or the One on whom the image was based--the first model (that's literally what the Greek word means). We were modeled off of the Logos. When Christ became man, He re-established that image as our prototype. Christ is both the Creator and the One Who renews all of creation (Revelation 21:5). We are made new creatures in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17). It's not quite so much that God was in the image of Himself. Rather, it was that God was re-establishing that image by setting Himself forth once again as our prototype, and giving us the grace to be renewed in that image in which we were originally made, and giving us the example to continue in that image, so that we may attain to God's likeness (virtue, love, perfection, holiness, peace, communion).
I've been slowly getting through St. Athanasius of Alexandria's "On the Incarnation", and this is the basic gist of what he's been saying so far:
God had to let humanity die, because it was what He said would happen. And yet He couldn't let humanity pass away, because that was a miserable fate. So He had to do something. Repentance alone wouldn't cut it, because humanity had fallen into corruption and into the dominion of death. He needed to create the human race anew. So, in order to end the dominion of death, He took upon Himself humanity, which was liable to the corruption of death. He died so all might die in His death, therefore robbing death of its power.
The Word of God was the Person Who became man, because the image of God within man is the gift of reason and the ability to consciously choose. If you know your Aristotelian rhetoric, there are three types of reasoning: Pathos (emotional appeal), ethos (appeal to morality) and Logos (appeal to reason). So, God the Son, AKA God the Word, is the Logos, the organizing principle that governs and gives order to the entire universe. He is also both Reason and Wisdom. We were made in His image, and so God the Word became man to restore that image within us after it became covered up and stained with sin.
The Word could not die, but a human body could. Since He sanctified the human body through the grace of the resurrection, when we put on Christ, we also put on that grace. We still will die and our bodies will be corrupt, because that is the sentence of our sins. But once that sentence has been carried out, then our corrupt bodies will become incorrupt. A man couldn't do this, since we're only made from the image. An angel couldn't have done it, because angels aren't made in he image of God. "The Word of God came in His own Person, because it was He alone, the Image of the Father Who could recreate man made after the Image." And then I just have a few more quotes from that same work which you may find helpful concerning His Divinity and why He had to be both God and man:
"The Savior of us all, the Word of God, in His great love took to Himself a body and moved as Man among men, meeting their senses, so to speak, half way. He became Himself an object for the senses, so that those who were seeking God in sensible things might apprehend the Father through the works which He, the Word of God, did in the body. Human and human minded as men were, therefore, to whichever side they looked in the sensible world they found themselves taught the truth."
"When, then, the minds of men had fallen finally to the level of sensible things, the Word submitted to appear in a body, in order that He, as Man, might center their senses on Himself, and convince them through His human acts that He Himself is not man only but also God, the Word and Wisdom of the true God." (Source)
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
LOL You're the pro.
Human sacrifice and human being god were the few two things that tripped me up when I really started practicing at an intimate level. The trinity, and I guess like many christians in general, have their take and funny we all can use the bible to prove totally different views from the same source. Hence where that sola scriptura argument comes in. My friend gave me a copy of brief excerpts of what the Church fathers spoke of. I'll probably have a look see.
Yeah. It was weird. For example, one person, say John, on RF was conflicted whether he should be christian or not. When he wasn't christian, the talk was like you and I right now. Soon as he had a god-experience, his language completely switched to godlish kind of using the bible with English mixed. I never heard Catholics do this, to tell you honestly. Only bible-sola folk. Then John decided christianity wasn't for him, and his language changed.
In general this sounds a lot like, how would I put it, when one person does something, the other thinks about it. When twenty do it, the person may whisper the same. If a hundred people say "lord jesus save me" then they feel pressured to and call it the holy spirit and off they go. Interesting experience to see on and off RF.
Yeah. It makes my nose turn up every time. It's not bad in and of itself. Just, well, interesting.
Yah! -Does her happy dance!!- he got it. Wouldn't the relationship itself be deep already? Does there need to be "one Is another" for the relationship to be deeper than three parties relating to each other in a very divine sorta fashion?
Which makes sense...
Yes. This makes sense and all scriptural. Which goes back to my point, all of this doesn't make each other god. It's still deep, divine, and scriptural. What about "jesus is not god" vs "jesus is god" make what you say above true or not true?
I mean, when I read it, I see relationship between father and humanity through his son created and the creator's words incarnated as christ.
Maybe I have blinders on, but I honestly can't figure any other way to see christ other than a human intermediary to god.
I still see them separate and related. I do describe god as the breathe of life. Let me ask, why is "being given the breathe" and "being the breathe" (which I side with the latter) much stronger?
Ah.
Haha. How is it heresy, though? The holy spirit is the love and grace between father and son; that unique relationship bestowed by the father upon his son thereby the same is bestowed to humanity by this connection (the relationship). I paraphrased it.
If I thought of it in a picture, it would be the creator standing to the left. In the middle is his human incarnated son. The right. He sent a spirit (spirit sending a spirit?) upon his son (probably the dove and "this is my son" part in the gospels) thereby, when christ physically died (human flesh can't live on the cross if it's being crucified; it's a bloody sight), the spirit god gave christ became the spirit of those who were baptized in christ.
Christianity is getting weirder and weirder.
A force doesn't have to be impersonal. It's the love and grace that connects the father to his son thereby christians to christ. As a Person, I don't see how personification of a spirit makes it more important than being direct about its nature and what it does.
Pretty much. Remember. Christ not god. I know. I know. It doesn't seem that way because you are very close to the son so much that it's hard to differentiate him from the father. By doing so doesn't devalue who both of them are. JW makes it more concrete rather than mystical. Blame them on my views, lol.
WOAH You lost me. Not a carbon copy? How is he the father if he isn't at the very closest a carbon copy?
I agree he shares the same attributes as the father (keyword share between two people; can't share with yourself) but if you're not saying jesus is a copy of his father, how would you translate "image of"?
Aah. I see. Okay, that makes sense why you would believe that? I'd think it wouldn't devalue christ's example. Wouldn't it be just a good example if he didn't rise in body, so christians would know they won't "carry their sin" anymore eternally because that would be the final "repentance" and eternal penance?
I'll have to get back to the last two comments but the trinity is a whole topic in itself. There was something I read years back of the Arian Heresy. I think Arian was describing the divinity of christ that did not place jesus as god but subordinate to him or something similar. I remember agreeing with him but I googled it and it kept popping up with bias information and bad things about the "heresy" from the Church. If you find an objective source, it's a good read.
