I think you posited recently that we see the word "personal" very differently in relation to God. I think that's right. :) I don't use "personal" in any way to mean "private" as opposed to others.
FK: "If God is mostly unknowable mystery, and He doesn't have personal relationships with His children (as you recently said and argued that Jesus did not), then it follows that you do not see God as personal."
What abut the Reformed God who has preordained everyone according to his will to either go to heaven or hell? How personal is that?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe about as personal as it gets. :)
If God is impartial ("no respecter of persons" is what the Bible says!), then how can he also be personal?
Simple, the same way we are. Whether or not God is a personal Being has nothing to do with to whom He wishes to have a personal relationship ... WITH. You are a personal being, yet you do not have a personal relationship with all men. Same with God. ......... God is impartial in that there are not different rules for different people when it comes to being saved. Everyone, OT and NT is saved in exactly the same way. Wouldn't you agree? :)
FK: "Since when have YOU EVER followed anything called the Orthodox Catechism."
I do all the time, FK. I defer to the Church no matter what my opinion is. I do not presume to have the collective wisdom and knowledge of the Church.
Well, if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but I have a memory of your saying a long time ago that there IS NO official Orthodox Catechism put out by the Church. The Latins have theirs, but I remember the Orthodox view being that you did not get into that stuff. If there is a Catechism that you take as authoritative in a similar way the Latins do theirs, would you mind giving the link for it again?
FK: "Again, another of our current discussions has you saying the Jesus did NOT have personal relationships with His own disciples!"
No he didn't. He was their master; they were his disciples.
But in this very post that I am responding to you are arguing that the only way we can know God personally is through the humanity of Christ, ........... WHICH YOU DENY He showed to those CLOSEST TO HIM on earth. :) What's the deal? If Christ wasn't personal with His closest brethren, then how do you say that we can know Him personally?
You, on the other hand, fantasize about them socializing together. Where in the Bible does it says God socialized with anyone?
Plenty of places. Here is one example:
Matt 9:10-13 : 10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" 12 On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
Obviously, Jesus socialized with those who were not His disciples, since He notes that they needed Him. No teacher-pupil relationship there. Another example would be the wedding at Cana, as social an event as it gets. Do we suppose that Jesus went and just sat in a corner? No, He was a guest and talked with people just like anyone else. And again, what do you suppose all the thousands of meals that Jesus shared with His disciples were like? Were they silent, or only filled with "shop-talk"? Does that make sense to you?
Even when Christ washes his disciples' feet, it is a duty and obedience, not personal favor or an expression of affection.
You put yourself in the stinky feet of those disciples when Jesus did that for them, and then tell me with a straight face that it was a pro forma ceremony. :)
That is a big problem in western Christianity: the absolute drop-on-your-knees-face-to-the-ground reverence you see in Orthodoxy is lacking. Oh no, in the west we have "Daddy," we accept the Eucharist in the hand, etc. God is our Lord and Master, not our peer or buddy or fellow.
There is no issue about whether GOD is a "buddy" or a peer or an equal. The issue is in HOW God chooses to relate to us. Is it mechanical or is it personal?
You know, this must be a generational thing, FK. I think the X-generation (is that as in "crossed-out" or "canceled"?) does not speak the same language as the generation before.
If you are using the word "person" and "personal" as human, then God is not personal at all, except through Christ.
In the old days of collect phone calls, you could have a "person-to-person" call, meaning one individual human being to another.
Obviously, you don't mean "personal" to mean "human" because God is not human yet you say God is "personal." In the West, you even call the Hypostases as "Persons" of the Holy Trinity! That in itself is a source of some theological knots, no doubt.
Now you say that you don't use the word "personal" as "private" or "intimate" I suppose (unless you have another definition of that word too!), yet you do use as such it when you say I don't have a personal relationship with all men.
In fact I do, in the manner you use the word: every time I communicate with another human being I am communicating with a person, which makes my communication "personal."
Now, your definition of what is a person also qualifies animals as "persons," as I have already pointed out to you. There is a dictionary definition and then there is a faddish usage of words. If we are going to use the latter, then we will be talking right past each other, as we have on many on occasion, and that in itself is a source of great misunderstanding, and even frustration.
The Orthodox Church had official doctrine, to which the whole Orthodox Community subscribes. Any official orthodox site is as good as any other, but remember some people write better than others, so naturally some sites will give you a better idea than others.
I like the Russian Catechism written by a very young and extremely talented bishop, Hilarion Alfeyev. But that's my preference.
I often use the official Greek Archidiocese of North America (GOARCH) site which is more than catechism. Occaisonally I also use the Serbian Orthodx site, but that is not in English.
Rarely, I will consult Orthodoxinfo.com, a very conservative source.
No, there is no one official Catechism of the Orthodox Church, but there is official Orthodox doctrine expressed by all Churches in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.
Christ was visible, tangible, physical Person among them and they knew Him as such. Only by becoming a man could God present Himself to us in such a way that we can relate to Him as human beings. When we think of God, when we visualize God, when we describe God, we can only do that through Christ. As Christ said to the disciples when they asked Him to show them the Father, paraphrasing "you have known me all along." In other words, take a good look, you are looking at the Father! And that's the only way you will ever know Him on earth.
we can know God personally is through the humanity of Christ, ........... WHICH YOU DENY He showed to those CLOSEST TO HIM on earth
I do not deny that He showed His humanity...He hungered, wept, and slept. He showed all the human characteristics of a human being. To the disciples, he was a human being by the name of Jesus, who was their teacher. That is the extent of their "personal" relationship with Him.
Obviously, Jesus socialized with those who were not His disciples, since He notes that they needed Him.
They needed Him as their physician, not their drinking buddy. To the bets of my knowledge, Jesus was not a drinking buddy with anyone.
No teacher-pupil relationship there
Vis-a vis His disciples, there was a strict teacher-pupil relationship.
Another example would be the wedding at Cana, as social an event as it gets. Do we suppose that Jesus went and just sat in a corner?
I have no clue, the Bible doesn't say what He did except order a miracle. Nothing personal there.
No, He was a guest and talked with people just like anyone else
Extra-Biblical beliefs?
And again, what do you suppose all the thousands of meals that Jesus shared with His disciples were like? Were they silent, or only filled with "shop-talk"?
Yes, just like the last supper and His whole ministry vis-a-vis His disciples, all His activities were lessons.
He related to us through Christ's humanity, as a Lord to His subjects. I don't think it qualifies as "personal" except in some "neo-speak." Personal relationships are intimate. God is not intimate with anyone.