Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
God a Trinity.
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postexactly. And my example was not describing the trinity, it was giving you an analogy of the hypostatic union. How Jesus could have two natures. You conflated my analogy to being an analogy about the trinity and got all confused because i was using a single person in my example with different "natures" represented by roles in life.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostYes. Modalism is the doctrine of one deity manifested in three separate aspects. Conversely, Orthodox Theology states that the godhead consists of three separate persons and that these three persons are truly distinct one from another.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
In the orthodox tradition, the Logos is eternal, but he become incarnate, i.e. became united with a human nature in 3 BC (or so). It is the Logos that is eternal, not the human nature. However the Logos is still in eternity the obedient Son, so some aspects of the incarnate Christ are reflected in the logos in eternity. Not actual human nature, though, since that wasn't adopted until 3 BC.
Is this what the NT authors actually meant by calling Christ preexistent? John 1 comes closest. The problem is that Jewish tradition speaks of divine attributes as if they were entities, so it's hard to know just how literally to take the NT language. I think it's fair to say, however, that although Jesus wasn't born until 3 BC, the fact that he shows us God tells us something about God. The Muslim God wouldn't die for us, even in incarnate form. At the very least preexistence says that God was, in some sense, always "incarnatable." There was something about him that made it appropriate for him to appear through a human and die. Personally I find three hypostases with one ousia a less than obvious way to describe this, but I do think Jesus as Word made flesh, and the various ideas about preexistence, implies a more complex concept of God than a pure transcendent idea like the Muslim one. Hence I normally identify myself as a Trinitarian, although I take the traditional philosophical language as one attempt to explain the implications of the incarnation on the nature of God, and don't see it as the ideal or final explanation.
[I speak of "human nature" and "the human" rather than simply calling Jesus a man because classical Christology rejects the idea that Jesus is a human person. While I understand the things that lead to this, I think it's a problem with classical Christology that one can't refer to Jesus as a man.]Last edited by hedrick; 05-13-2017, 08:15 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by hedrick View PostIn the orthodox tradition, the Logos is eternal, but he become incarnate, i.e. became united with a human nature in 3 BC (or so). It is the Logos that is eternal, not the human nature. However the Logos is still in eternity the obedient Son, so some aspects of the incarnate Christ are reflected in the logos in eternity. Not actual human nature, though, since that wasn't adopted until 3 BC.
Is this what the NT authors actually meant by calling Christ preexistent? John 1 comes closest. The problem is that Jewish tradition speaks of divine attributes as if they were entities, so it's hard to know just how literally to take the NT language. I think it's fair to say, however, that although Jesus wasn't born until 3 BC, the fact that he shows us God tells us something about God. The Muslim God wouldn't die for us, even in incarnate form. At the very least preexistence says that God was, in some sense, always "incarnatable." There was something about him that made it appropriate for him to appear through a human and die. Personally I find three hypostases with one ousia a less than obvious way to describe this, but I do think Jesus as Word made flesh, and the various ideas about preexistence, implies a more complex concept of God than a pure transcendent idea like the Muslim one. Hence I normally identify myself as a Trinitarian, although I take the traditional philosophical language as one attempt to explain the implications of the incarnation on the nature of God, and don't see it as the ideal or final explanation.
[I speak of "human nature" and "the human" rather than simply calling Jesus a man because classical Christology rejects the idea that Jesus is a human person. While I understand the things that lead to this, I think it's a problem with classical Christology that one can't refer to Jesus as a man.]
Comment
-
Originally posted by hedrick View Post<snip>
[I speak of "human nature" and "the human" rather than simply calling Jesus a man because classical Christology rejects the idea that Jesus is a human person. While I understand the things that lead to this, I think it's a problem with classical Christology that one can't refer to Jesus as a man.]
1 Timothy 2:5,
. . . For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; . . .. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by hedrick View Post[I speak of "human nature" and "the human" rather than simply calling Jesus a man because classical Christology rejects the idea that Jesus is a human person. While I understand the things that lead to this, I think it's a problem with classical Christology that one can't refer to Jesus as a man.]
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
173 responses
643 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
06-07-2024, 07:30 AM
|
Comment