Posted on 11/24/2009 4:10:44 PM PST by NYer
Self-delusion. If everyone around you from the moment you can remember speaks about this something as if it were a fact, you unconsciously accept ti as a "fact." And if your well-being is attached to that fact, then the bond is even stronger, sort of like a security blanket.
I never had that experience, didn't grow up Christian or anything. Agnostic at most, then firmly Atheist
I can't say that I could ever be an atheist, as that would presuppose I know what God is (not). I would be immensely happy if someone were to enlighten me as to what God is. But that's too much to ask.
You can't even tell me what God objectively is
That is why the (!) is included. There is a body of teachings that have been relatively stable in terms of morality for more than a thousand years. That is what I mean. It is external to the individual; it resides in the Church. What it means is that the individual has a relatively stable set of moral codes that the Church indicates that he ought to follow that exists independently of his moods and his whims.
How would you even know they're from God when you can't tell me what God is?
The Church tells me that they're from God; I believe the Church. I don't know that they are from God; but I have faith in it. I cannot tell you what God is other than the phrases that we both have learned - Creator of All etc. Does it matter that we have no exacting definition of God right here and now? If it comes down to it, define electricity; or electromagnetism, or matter, or energy, or the universe itself, for that matter. You can't. It doesn't invalidate thinking about it, or using it in our everyday lives.
I believe. Credo. Else, we would be a whole lot closer to the robotic existence that our Calvinist friends would have us believe in...
I didn't have your religious education and for me it got pretty simple: God was what I heard other people say God was, and that didn't exist. Those that believed were naive, wishful or both.
I would be immensely happy if someone were to enlighten me as to what God is. But that's too much to ask.
You heard some of my thoughts on the topic a month or so back, and bit my head off, so it's gonna have to be someone else if it happens. :)
I think it does. Else our belief is nebulous and ill-defined. I think the Church spent many a General Council trying to achieve an exacting definition.
If it comes down to it, define electricity; or electromagnetism, or matter, or energy, or the universe itself, for that matter
How we relate to electricity, electromagnetism, or matter is qualitatively different and incomparable with how we relate topersonal relationshi ; with the latter we do. I believe it is only proper that we know exactly who we have that intimate relationship with, to know exaclty who that person is.
Please jogg my memory a little. I promise I will behave. :)
What does it mean that one of the key adjectives used is ineffable?
In his nature, God is ineffable to human mind. But the Church teaches that, in the "economy of our salvation" God revealed himself as three Hypostases, distinct and unconfused. In his nature, according to the Church teaching, God is a simple, indivisible monad.
In addition, the miracle of Incarnation resulted in the second Hypostasis of the Godhead taking on human nature, human soul and body, and becoming a man, while retaining his fully divine, eternal, uncircumscribed, greater than creation nature.
Furthermore, the Church teaches that the Father is without a cause. He eternally begets his Word and the Spirit eternally "effuses" or sprites from the Father and goes to the Son. As regards their existence, the Word (Son) and the Spirit proceeds form the Father and the Son is begotten of the Father.
However, the Hypostaese are co-equal, co-eternal and con-substantial (of same ineffable essence).
So, while the element of mystery (ineffable) is retained, the Church went into pretty detailed desxcription of the Triune God, none of which, of course is to be found in the Bible, but is derived from the "deposit of faith," believed "everywhere and always."
What if Origen was right or more right than the consensus? Although I am not working to rehabilitate Origen and don't know that much about him or his beliefs. You've referenced him before. Isn't he a foundational figure in Christianity? What was his heresy?
No, however, if one believes in an unrecognizable Jesus or God, then one is pagan.
Unrecognizable to whom? We have no pictures/photos/or physical description of Jesus Christ. All we have is the OT and NT to gauge who he is. As Kosta wrote earlier there is no evidence for the historical Jesus. How much is interpolation, well-meaning or not?
"We read that Christ grew from grace to grace."
Which on the face of it is so much gibberish. Christ is God. We do not believe that God 'grows' since he is the be-all and end-all and is one with the universe. Indeed, there is no universe without God; God exists without the universe, since it is His creation. We believe that 'time' was invented for us. God certainly has no need of it.
I agree that time is a human construct (as an interesting aside in the Hebrew Study Bible this is given some very good insight: Years have a celestial marker - the earth's movement around the sun, the month also has an astronomical physical influence - the moon cycle, but the week has none and is wholly God-made), but I don't follow your reference. Clearly Jesus was for a period of time subject to time on earth, how could he have died if not? Also Jesus growing up from grace to grace is not prima facie gibberish at all, but the NT Greek (which I do not speak - Kosta or Kolo would you mind commenting on the better/best translation?)
Luke 2:40 (Young's Literal Translation) 40and the child grew and was strengthened in spirit, being filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him.
Luke 2:40 (New King James Version) 40 And the Child grew and became strong in spirit,[a] filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him.
Luke 2:40 (New American Standard Bible) 40(A)The Child continued to grow and become strong, increasing in wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him.
I like Young's literal translation best, but I do not speak Greek. My understanding is that the baby Jesus grew up like human children do (subject to time), but that he also increased in strength spiritually. To be filled with wisdom is not to be full of it from the start, but implies a lesser state going to the greater state. To be strengthened in spirit carries the same meaning. This to me implies growth and growth over time.
"Cannot the formula be: follow the precepts/behavior of Christ (works) and Christ will fill the gaps needed (faith) to in the end become an heir, a full heir with Christ?"
Both elements are required, although, I don't believe that the order is necessarily a given. God enables us to reach out to Him and gives us all the help and aid that we require. What we do with that aid, or simply refuse it, is up to us. A further question: what would be your definition of 'full heir with Christ'? One might mistake that to be a Sidney Rigdon development if one is not careful.
OK, this threw me for a minute (thanks to Bing I know what you are talking about). I am not interested in "Rigdonism" or any ism for that matter. No thanks, but I am interested in authentic Christianity. My goal is not carefulness, but thoughtfulness and honesty. Let's get at the truth, no?
My mistake on the order, though none is given I think faith precedes work.
Belief in Jesus Christ (as a real historical figure) and his fulfilment of his mission as "restorer"/Savior for mankind & baptism.
Not in Eastern Orthodoxy. It is salvation. It is becoming 'god-like,' being restored to the likeness of God which was lost in Eden. It means dying unto oneself, and to the world, and, through grace, being restored.
Those who are like Christ are saved (see Matthew 25).
Agreed.
Matthew 25 doesn't ask for faith...
And though not explicit in Matthew it is implicit. As you've stated many times, there is outside our Biblical account little reason to believe that Jesus Christ ever existed. Hence the need for faith - despite the evidence, but faith coupled with reason.
...do the right thing with the right intention (love in your heart).
Nope, too subjective. There is structure there. We have a description of actions - baptism, laying on of hands, anointings - plus, Church offices (sorry Evangelist is not a general calling to all disciples, but a specific office in the Church), and an implied Priesthood/Church hierarchy.
Kosta in a previous posting (1177 this thread), you said "This inevitably leads back either to pagan polytheism, or back to monotheistic Judaism, which had to be stopped" regarding the Nicene Trinity.
I am currently reading the Jewish Study Bible on the OT. I was shocked and surprised to see the Jewish commentary and translation both supporting the idea of a council of gods at the founding of the world as contained and written in Genesis. The rabbis accepted this without much concern. Any comments/insights on how to view these passages or divine beings other than God?
I am wondering, since Judaism was in a state of apostasy when Christ arrives, might the powerful influences of the Persians, Greeks and even Egyptians have altered the foundational truths of pre-Christian Judaism?
This book is very expensive but if you can find it in a library, its worth the read. I know Rabbi Klein and have discussed this book with him. His theories are well founded and fascinating.
Through the Name of God: A New Road to the Origin of Judaism and Christianity (Contributions to the Study of Religion)
http://www.amazon.com/Through-Name-God-Christianity-Contributions/dp/0313316562/ref=sr_1_20?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260360363&sr=8-20
Thank you very much, Kolo. I love the religion threads when they don’t break down to petty meanness, but seek to share and educate. This one is a great example of that.
Two comments, Kolo. First, can you give us a little smidgen of the books insights and secondly - you need to write a review on Amazon. There isn’t even one for this poor guy’s book. LOL.
I will look for it in the Library. The Jewish Study Bible is very interesting as well. I don’t always agree with its textual conclusions, but the Midrash and Talmudic commentaries are fascinating. Another interesting point is that most Biblical critics of the OT are Germans of Jewish descent starting in the 18th century.
And how well does this detailed description work for you as far as helping "know exactly who we have that intimate relationship with, to know exaclty who that person is"?
I'd venture, not much. It's important for Church theology, but for the goal of knowledge sufficient for intimate relationship? I don't think so.
For me, ineffable means you're not going to get there in this manner -by detailed or exact definition, else God would be effable.
Paging Mr. Kierkegaard, Mr. Soren Kierkegaard, please go to the nearest courtesy phone...:o)
Way to Danish for my taste. :)
I like cheese Danish. ;O)
Origen's condemnation came as an afterthought (6th century. I would say that in his days (early third century), he was pretty much representative of most other Christian theologians in his suboridnationalist Trinitarian doctrine (Eusebius being another fine example, as well as all other Christian Apologetics worth mentioning). His teaching of the universal salvation of the souls (eventual annihilation of hell and salvation of the condemned) was taught by his followers, one of whom is a pillar of Christian orthodoxy, +Gregory of Nyssa, one of the three Cappadocian Fathers. +Gregory later recanted this doctrine, but for a while apparently it was not considered outside of the mainline Christian belief. In fact, Origen's works were compiled in the first volume of the collection of Christian doctrinal classics known as Philokalia, a treasure pit of Patristic writings in four volumes.
Unrecognizable to whom?
Doctrinally unrecognizable to the Church.
Mark: Which on the face of it is so much gibberish. Christ is God. We do not believe that God 'grows' since he is the be-all and end-all and is one with the universe.
1010RD: Also Jesus growing up from grace to grace is not prima facie gibberish at all, but the NT Greek (which I do not speak - Kosta or Kolo would you mind commenting on the better/best translation?) [Luke 2:40]
Tenten, first I don't speak Greek, but I can read koine Greek. My language expertise is in Church Slavonic, the closest equivalent to koine Greek, by design. Kolo is the speaker of Greek. He hears that language in divine liturgy every Sunday, so he is your first choice when it comes to correct interpretation/opinion in Greek.
Second, let me clear up something: Synoptic Gospels do not portray a divine Jesus. So, if you are looking for Jesus' divinity, John is the source (and even he is not always consistent).
Third, the Church looks at the Incarnate Logos as fully God and fully human, so in his humanity (i.e. in his human nature) Jesus would be growing up as any other child, including from grace to grace.
1010RD: Belief in Jesus Christ (as a real historical figure) and his fulfillment of his mission as "restorer"/Savior for mankind & baptism.
That is a doctrine that developed at a later date.
And though not explicit in Matthew it is implicit. As you've stated many times, there is outside our Biblical account little reason to believe that Jesus Christ ever existed. Hence the need for faith - despite the evidence, but faith coupled with reason.
That's true for the entire Bible. The point is, as a doctrinal tool, Matthew 25 does not say we will be judged on on our faith but on our works and intentions, and how they conform to Christ's.
Second, let me clear up something: Synoptic Gospels do not portray a divine Jesus. So, if you are looking for Jesus' divinity, John is the source (and even he is not always consistent).
Agreed to a point. What or how do you define divine?
Third, the Church looks at the Incarnate Logos as fully God and fully human, so in his humanity (i.e. in his human nature) Jesus would be growing up as any other child, including from grace to grace.
Words mean something "and" is not "or", "fully" is not "partially". I understand how a child grows, but how can God grow from grace to grace? It doesn't make sense.
I must run, but I love these discussions and cannot wait to hear Mark's and Kolo's perspectives.
Although Hebrew uses the word gods (many Jewish translations change it to "angelic beings"), oral Torah has a lot more "interesting stuff." I would like to see exactly what you are referring to. Just don't forget that Judaism was by all accounts a pagan religion; monotheistic, but pagan in practice.
since Judaism was in a state of apostasy when Christ arrives, might the powerful influences of the Persians, Greeks and even Egyptians have altered the foundational truths of pre-Christian Judaism?
I am not sure I understand what you mean by Judaism being in a state of "apostasy" when Christ arrives. Why was it in a state of "apostasy?" I would say , to the contrary. Beginning about 300 years before Christ, the Jews returned to worshipping Eli and observing the Sabbath.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.