Perhaps an "unfortunate" (accidental?) choice of words? Hmmmm....I don't think so. Perhaps it's the ancient way of saying "directly" (i.e. "live"). We can even rationalize that the burning bush was not the "face" of God, Christ's face is. And all those who saw Christ have also seen God—and lived! There is another meaning to "seeing God" and I am not sure what it is. Again, maybe an ancient phrase denoting something else.
Aren't you glad that Jesus is your lawyer? :)
Of course! Except He is the ONLY lawyer who doesn't rationalize but speaks the truth as it is. :)
Kosta: So, then what you are saying is that we have the mind of Christ, but not fully. Partially. Ten percent? Thirty? Eight nine?
FK: I have no idea, and I have no idea where you are going with this reasoning. In theosis do you actually achieve a complete understanding of God, i.e. a Divine understanding?
The point is that our "understanding" of God has nothing to do with knowing God. This was the point of the hesychastic fathers and the entire Palamite doctrine (against western scholastic approach), who argued that it is not through academic and intellectual reasoning that we ascend to God, but through prayer, as the Russian catechism says that through prayer we encounter "Divine abyss where words fall silent, where reason fades, where all human knowledge and comprehension cease, where God is. It is not by speculative knowledge but in the depths of prayerful silence that the soul can encounter God, Who is ‘beyond everything’." Hardly a divine "understanding" FK. :)
Why are you throwing this on me, I didn't bring it up?
I am not. I am throwing the whole idea of "understanding" God through reason (naked rationalism), rationalizations, logic and what not. Reason helps us know OF God and ABOUT God but that doesn't mean one "knows" God through reason. We can't figure God out, FK. He is a Mystery, eternal unknown to our intellect; the hesychastic fathers called Him "darkness" (where our mind cannot reach), beyond comprehension. All we have are His manifestations, and even they are miracles of their own kind (Incarnation being the chief among them, Holy Trinity, etc.).
I was being facetious when I asked what percentage of Christ's mind one has to have to know Christ? Our relationship with God cannot be measured or hinged on our "understanding" of God. Intellect is capable of describing or knowing God. God is ineffable and unknoable.
Perhaps an "unfortunate" (accidental?) choice of words? Hmmmm....I don't think so. Perhaps it's the ancient way of saying "directly" (i.e. "live"). We can even rationalize that the burning bush was not the "face" of God, ....
Yes, all of that is possible. All we can know for sure is that whatever "God's face" means, that is what we do not get to see. Consequently, all the examples of seeing God in the Bible do not include "God's face".
The point is that our "understanding" of God has nothing to do with knowing God. This was the point of the hesychastic fathers and the entire Palamite doctrine (against western scholastic approach), who argued that it is not through academic and intellectual reasoning that we ascend to God, but through prayer ...
I don't see why we can't use all methods given to us by God to become sanctified. Certainly no one can argue with prayer, but why is this at odds with knowing God better through His revealed Holy word. To me, anything that develops the relationship should count toward "knowing God".
We can't figure God out, FK. He is a Mystery, eternal unknown to our intellect; the hesychastic fathers called Him "darkness" (where our mind cannot reach), beyond comprehension. All we have are His manifestations, and even they are miracles of their own kind (Incarnation being the chief among them, Holy Trinity, etc.).
I would have to disagree with these fathers. It sounds like they are saying that since we can't know everything we shouldn't even bother to know what God intended to reveal to us. In order to have a relationship, one must know facts about the other. Obviously, that isn't all there is to it, but I can't love someone if I know nothing OF that person. Knowing OF the person is very helpful to KNOWING the person. It sounds like the hesychastic fathers are only taking a single approach.