The truth about Trinity

[Ahanu]

There would also have to be a compelling reason to assert another interpretation as 'valid'?

God bless,

Thomas

For you, to disregard tradition would mean a person goes groping in the dark.

I partially agree.

While this is true, I think it is also true tradition can cause a person to go groping in the dark.

Many of the Church Fathers, from their reading of the scriptures, believed in a young Earth, and so believed in a static universe too.

Tradition.

Sometimes I need to listen to what Socrates said:

"I have heard a tradition of the ancients, whether true or not they only know; although if we had found the truth for ourselves, do you think that we should care much about the opinions of men?"

By finding the truth for ourselves, I think we may arrive at truth.

For example, with the idea of the Incarnation of the Divine Essence versus the incarnation of the names and attributes of God, I believe the latter to be correct: Thomas, the painter, cannot himself become the painting; however, the painting does have a mirroring nature that, in a sense, reflects the painter, just as art reflects the pyschic mind of people. God is beyond human perception, much like humanity's sphere of reality is beyond the tree's sphere of reality in my backyard. Neither can Thomas decend from his level of reality into that of tree consciousness.

Perhaps you say: With God anything is possible. Dare limit the limitless?

Play a mind game with me. I follow a religious leader that believes nothing is impossible for God. "It's not impossible," my religious leader argues, "for us to have all been created today with ready-made memories of our childhood experiences, relationships, feelings, and so on. The universe didn't evolve over billions of years. No, God only made it appear so. Those dinosaurs were put there by God to confound the wise! Don't follow the Baha'is who say 'this world is very ancient!' They lie and say we have not all been created today! Even the textbooks that detail all of history to us are a lie. These histories were ready-made for us today by God!" I accept this truth . . . because nothing is impossible for God. You try to disprove it, but I only escape whatever rational proof you give by thinking up something to fit this everything-is-possible-with-God-scenario.

I have a problem with everything-is-possible-with-God-scenarios. What if the universe comes with boundary conditions, and God knows it? Of course, all human language to describe the God's Sphere of Reality is inadequate and impossible. Even for Jesus! Afterall, He had a brain, just like you and me, in which reality filtered through.

Back to the painter and painting issue.

JRR Tolkein, contemplating the idea of Incarnation in one of his stories, wrote:

"'I do not doubt,' said Andreth. 'And for that reason the saying of Hope passes my understanding. How could Eru enter into the thing that He has made, and than which He is beyond measure greater? Can the singer enter into his tale or the designer into his picture?'

'He is already in it, as well as outside,' said Finrod. 'But indeed the "in-dwelling" and the "out-living" are not in the same mode.'

'Truly,' said Andreth. 'So may Eru in that mode be present in Ea [the Universe] that proceeded from Him. But they speak of Eru Himself entering into Arda [the Earth], and that is a thing wholly different. How could He the greater do this? Would it not shatter Arda, or indeed all Ea?'

'Ask me not,' said Finrod. 'These things are beyond the compass of the wisdom of the Eldar, or of the Valar maybe. But I doubt that our words may mislead us, and that when you say "greater" you think of the dimensions of Arda, in which the greater vessel may not be contained in the less. But such words may not be used of the Measureless. If Eru wished to do this, I do not doubt that He would find a way, though I cannot foresee it. For, as it seems to me, even if He in Himself were to enter in, He must still remain also as He is: the Author without. And yet, Andreth, to speak with humility, I cannot conceive how else this healing could be achieved. Since Eru will surely not suffer Melkor to turn the world to his own will and to triumph in the end. Yet there is no power conceivable greater than Melkor save Eru only. Therefore Eru, if He will not relinquish His work to Melkor, who must else proceed to mastery, then Eru must come in to conquer him."

I see no need for God to literally enter the world in order for evil to be defeated. All responsibility passes to the One. It is He who will heal the world of Arda and rescue His children, for children, by themselves, are helpless.

Jesus, according to Catholics, could manipulate nature. For example, Jesus could literally control the weather; Jesus could literally resurrect the dead; Jesus could literally heal the blind; Jesus could literally heal the mentally ill; Jesus could literally do anything if He so desired. Jesus could do this, I suppose, because He is the Incarnation of the Divine Essence.

Now, in today's time, we don't need Jesus to literally control the weather. The Chinese can make it snow, or, at least, that is what's reported.

Beijing Weather Modification Office - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once science advances and evolves, I bet more things are possible, such as the prevention of tsunamis, hurricanes, and other natural disasters, or at least the avoidance of them. If humanity can control weather, what need would there be for Jesus, the Incarnation of the Essence of God? Or how about if humanity, living in a space station, has weather control, and so earthquakes are a thing of the past?

As for resurrecting the dead literally, to do so would be pointless, for the person would simply die again. What is important are the spiritual things. According to the Catholic, Jesus resurrected people. Where are they now? Perhaps they are transphysical, and can willingly transmit themselves to another plane of reality? Furthermore, what if the singularity is true? What if humanity radically changes to such an extent at the singularity that immortality is achieved? What need will there be for Jesus, the Incarnation of the Essence of God?

Singularity: Kurzweil on 2045, When Humans, Machines Merge - TIME

As for healing the blind and the mentally ill, what if humanity achieves the ability to heal such problems on their own? For example, my little brother has cerebral palsy. Cutting edge research like the Blue Brain project may be in its infant stage, but, in its maturity, the research itself will HOPEFULLY lead to solutions to such brain diseases:

EPFL | What's next?

To be brief: I don't need a magical Jesus to fix the Earth's problems. Afterall, it looks like He won't be having anything left to do. If God, hearing his childrens' cries, could just intervene and fix the world, then why not do it? Why does science even have to develop if we could just call on God to fix things for us?

Honesetly, from my understanding of the Incarnation, it fits in with the Church Fathers' worldview of a static universe. I do know of some Christian theologians (such as Polkinghorne and Ian Barbour) that do science and say otherwise. Perhaps the Incarnation gives you a way to encounter the monumental amount of suffering in the world. Perhaps the Incarnation is required in your worldview for evil to be vanquished. Why is the Incarnation a requirement for you, Thomas? I honestly do not believe an Incarnation (with a capital I) is required for imperfections to interact with perfections. I think we can rise above nature without the Incarnation.

 

[bob x]

To me, the sentence "The Word became Flesh" doesn't even have enough meaning to be either true or false. It is like "The number seven became a chair".

 

[Ahanu]

To me, the sentence "The Word became Flesh" doesn't even have enough meaning to be either true or false. It is like "The number seven became a chair".

Interesting, Bob. What do you make of Colossians 2: 9 ("For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form"), and do you think these words have enough meaning to be true or false?

 

[Thomas]

Many of the Church Fathers, from their reading of the scriptures, believed in a young Earth, and so believed in a static universe too.

Indeed, but scientific knowledge is incidental to their understanding of Scriptures, nor does such understandings change the essential elements of the Creed, although it will, of course, reflect on theology.

I'm sure, in ages to come, we will look back on our current understandings as similarly naive and ill-informed.

"I have heard a tradition of the ancients, whether true or not they only know; although if we had found the truth for ourselves, do you think that we should care much about the opinions of men?"

Well, I'm not knocking Socrates, but a 'truth' is only held to be a 'truth' when we agree to and accept it as such.

I'm not saying that opinion supersedes objective measurement, but I am saying we construe the world in a certain way, even scientifically, and render it 'true' accordingly.

By finding the truth for ourselves, I think we may arrive at truth.

As someone said, if man had to prove everything for himself, we'd still be living in the trees.

Why ignore the wisdom of the ages and invent the wheel every generation? Especially when 'ourselves' is the most fallible and error-prone element in the whole equation. In my experience, those who abandon tradition and insist "I'll do it my way" very quickly make the same errors that were made, and dealt with, long ago.

Do you ignore the teachings of the Bahai?

(I mean, who goes to a doctor, or a dentist, who claims to have ignored the findings and developments in medicine, in favour of 'doing his own thing'?)

For example, with the idea of the Incarnation of the Divine Essence versus the incarnation of the names and attributes of God ...

I would say names and attributes are predicated of something. If you're going to incarnate a name or an attribute, then necessarily you have to incarnate the thing the name or attribute is predicated of, else you're just talking in abstract terms.

I believe the latter to be correct...

Doesn't really matter what you or I believe, what matters is what the Tradition believes. But I do think your line of argument is flawed ...

... the painter, cannot himself become the painting; however, the painting does have a mirroring nature that, in a sense, reflects the painter, just as art reflects the psychic mind of people.

But the painting is not the painter, and that is the whole point.

It will represent the painter's psyche in that moment, but not the totality of the painter, nor can the painting 'act' ... the painting is a sign, not the thing signified, and furthermore the thing signified might well change, whereas the sign/painting/representation remains the same.

God is beyond human perception, much like humanity's sphere of reality is beyond the tree's sphere of reality in my backyard.

But not beyond conceptualisation ... As as man grows however, God reveals Himself in ways and forms that are intelligible and credible. The Abrahamic Tradition is a tradition of God finding man, not the other way round.

Neither can Thomas decend from his level of reality into that of tree consciousness.

OK.

Perhaps you say: With God anything is possible. Dare limit the limitless?

Quite. An anthropological argument does not apply when one is discussing God.

Play a mind game with me...

That does not invalidate the argument, it just shows how the argument can be mis-used.

The question here is why would God bother with such a deception, and what does that say about the God posited by such an argument? Thus I think such arguments can be refuted by their own logic. Occam's Razor, if I've got it right, applies here.

I have a problem with everything-is-possible-with-God-scenarios. What if the universe comes with boundary conditions, and God knows it?

Well that's an assumption.
I would say the universe does come with boundary conditions, it is finite. I would equally say the universe has the potentiality to be unbounded by virtue of participation in the Infinite.

Of course, all human language to describe the God's Sphere of Reality is inadequate and impossible.

Agreed ... with the exception of the language that is acceptable to God.

Thus one who loves is 'speaking God's language' even though he or she might not have the slightest notion about God. That's why I reckon children have a lot to teach us about God ... and not in what they say.

Even for Jesus! After all, He had a brain, just like you and me, in which reality filtered through.

Indeed. But he also had an hypostatic union with and to the Divine Essence. Just because He never called on those twelve legions of angels, it would be unwise to assume He couldn't (cf Matthew 26:53).

And again, when the centurion said "say but the word" (Matthew 8:8), he, too, was speaking God's language, the language of faith.

I see no need for God to literally enter the world in order for evil to be defeated.

No, God suffers no need or determination. God entered the world for the sake of man, that man might come to God, not for the defeat of evil.

God'e entry into the world is a gratuitous gift.

All responsibility passes to the One. It is He who will heal the world of Arda and rescue His children, for children, by themselves, are helpless.

Nevertheless, He accords His creation the signal dignity of participation in the process (for love is only real when both parties participate willingly and under no duress), but by that token responsibility rests with the individual, also.

Jesus, according to Catholics, could manipulate nature... If humanity can control weather, what need would there be for Jesus, the Incarnation of the Essence of God?

I suggest the purpose of the Incarnation was not meteorological?

As for resurrecting the dead literally, to do so would be pointless, for the person would simply die again.

Apparently so ... in which case the wise man would pursue the question, why did Jesus do what He did, rather than assume Scripture is making something of nothing.

What is important are the spiritual things.

No, everything is important, the physical things and the spiritual things.

Look after the physical, and the spiritual will look after itself.

According to the Catholic, Jesus resurrected people. Where are they now?

They are in the Communion of the Mystical Body.

Perhaps they are transphysical, and can willingly transmit themselves to another plane of reality...

I think you're technically over-complicating an eschatology ... simpler to acknowledge we don't know, and keep it simple.

As for healing the blind and the mentally ill...

You're missing the point of the miracle.

Miracles are not gratuitous acts of power, and Jesus doesn't perform them just because He can. They are, again, eikons.

To be brief: I don't need a magical Jesus to fix the Earth's problems.

No, nor do I.

Afterall, it looks like He won't be having anything left to do.

Are you sure? When technology falls aprt, as it seems to be hell-bent on doing, who's going to pick up the pieces?

If God, hearing his childrens' cries, could just intervene and fix the world, then why not do it? Why does science even have to develop if we could just call on God to fix things for us?

Because maybe that's not what our relationship with God is about.

Honesetly, from my understanding of the Incarnation, it fits in with the Church Fathers' worldview of a static universe.

I'm sorry Ahanu, but I don't think you've got Christianity yet, it's not about this world, it's about the next, and then this world.

Perhaps the Incarnation gives you a way to encounter the monumental amount of suffering in the world.

It's the only religion I know that does.

Perhaps the Incarnation is required in your worldview for evil to be vanquished.

It's not (see above).

Why is the Incarnation a requirement for you, Thomas?

It's not a requirement I brought to the Tradition, it's something the Tradition requires of me.

I honestly do not believe an Incarnation (with a capital I) is required for imperfections to interact with perfections.

Nor do I. But it is for theosis, for deification of the person that does not mean sublimation or extinction.

I think we can rise above nature without the Incarnation.

Well science will say you can't, and I tend to agree. A nature cannot transcend itself any more than a man can become a tree ... and in the case of theosis, we're talking about something beyond natures altogether ...

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Ahanu]

I'm sure, in ages to come, we will look back on our current understandings as similarly naive and ill-informed.

Of course.

As someone said, if man had to prove everything for himself, we'd still be living in the trees.

Why ignore the wisdom of the ages and invent the wheel every generation? Especially when 'ourselves' is the most fallible and error-prone element in the whole equation. In my experience, those who abandon tradition and insist "I'll do it my way" very quickly make the same errors that were made, and dealt with, long ago.

Do you ignore the teachings of the Bahai?

(I mean, who goes to a doctor, or a dentist, who claims to have ignored the findings and developments in medicine, in favour of 'doing his own thing'?)

Yes, I agree we stand on the shoulders of giants.

I said I partially agree tradition can shed light . . . but it can also cause darkness. Your blindspot reads "tradition can err." I think this can happen, but why not you?

I ignore some of the teachings of the Baha'i Faith, like the virgin birth! Besides, it does not matter if Jesus was born of a virgin or not. It just does not matter.

As for a doctor and his medicine, I do not see how the Trinity is a type of medicine for humanity. I fail to see it's purpose. It is more like an abstract doctrine that looks good on paper. I, however, can see the purpose of going to the dentist, having him numb my mouth with his needle, and then proceeding to pull a tooth out.

I would say names and attributes are predicated of something. If you're going to incarnate a name or an attribute, then necessarily you have to incarnate the thing the name or attribute is predicated of, else you're just talking in abstract terms.

I disagree. Let us say Thomas flies to another solar system, discovers an Earth-like planet there, and finds a machine. This machine tells nothing about the nature of its maker, but what if you discover the purpose of the machine is to tell time on your world, or maybe it is some type of food-maker (strange, I know). Perhaps the machine is useful for multipe tasks, and you think it is the best thing ever since sliced bread. It creates all these wonderful results, making life less difficult. It does not say the maker is made of flesh and blood, with ten toes and ten fingers and a human-like brain, much like you. This example is talking about something that is not beyond our human perception.

Likewise, you could look at Jesus or Baha'u'llah as incarnations of the Divine Word or Divine Algorithm, which, in turn, was originated by God. You follow their teachings, and, in turn, marvelous results will appear in the world. You can study the Messengers all you want, yet They will reveal noting about the nature of the Divine Essence. I follow Baha'is follow Baha'u'llah's teachings, and have faith world peace will be established.

Doesn't really matter what you or I believe, what matters is what the Tradition believes. But I do think your line of argument is flawed ...

I believe your tradition is flawed.

But the painting is not the painter, and that is the whole point.

It will represent the painter's psyche in that moment, but not the totality of the painter, nor can the painting 'act' ... the painting is a sign, not the thing signified, and furthermore the thing signified might well change, whereas the sign/painting/representation remains the same.

This is simply an image to represent the relationship between the Divine Essence (the Speaker or the Painter, for example) and the Word (the discourse or the painting, for example).

But I think you have the point.

But not beyond conceptualisation ... As as man grows however, God reveals Himself in ways and forms that are intelligible and credible. The Abrahamic Tradition is a tradition of God finding man, not the other way round.

Once you assert Jesus is the Incarnation of the Divine Essence, then there is no more need for a revelation from God. That is the point: static religion says, "no need to grow, we will remain children." The Trinity will always be the ultimate conception of who Jesus is. In a few thousand years I believe many of our "God concepts" will be blown out the water.

Indeed. But he also had an hypostatic union with and to the Divine Essence. Just because He never called on those twelve legions of angels, it would be unwise to assume He couldn't (cf Matthew 26:53).

Angels are simply people. Spiritual people. Afterall, Haggai is called the angel of the Lord. What you mean by Jesus' unique ability to call upon twelve legions of angels I do not know.

No, God suffers no need or determination. God entered the world for the sake of man, that man might come to God, not for the defeat of evil.

God'e entry into the world is a gratuitous gift.

Thanks for giving your understanding of the Incarnation.

No, everything is important, the physical things and the spiritual things.

Look after the physical, and the spiritual will look after itself.

For the scriptures, could it not be the other way around?

I think you're technically over-complicating an eschatology ... simpler to acknowledge we don't know, and keep it simple.

Uh, no. This is my understanding of your interpretation of the ascension, for, during a previous discussion, you said to literally read the ascension as Jesus taking a cosmic flight would be an incorrect reading. By the way, many Christians around my community read it that way. Therefore, it must mean transphysical in the sense above.

Are you sure? When technology falls apart, as it seems to be hell-bent on doing, who's going to pick up the pieces?

We are. All technology is falling apart? That is news to me!

I'm sorry Ahanu, but I don't think you've got Christianity yet, it's not about this world, it's about the next, and then this world.

Maybe not your Christianity, but I'm all too familiar with the Christianity I grew up with. I would agree with you there. The next world being the vision of the prophets: one filled with peace. After looking into that world, we focuse on this current world.

Well science will say you can't, and I tend to agree. A nature cannot transcend itself any more than a man can become a tree ... and in the case of theosis, we're talking about something beyond natures altogether ...

Nature comes in higher and lower grades. It seems to me we can transcend our lower nature (animal nature) and be born again into our higher nature (human nature).

Depends on the definition of nature.

 

[bob x]

Interesting, Bob. What do you make of Colossians 2: 9 ("For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form"), and do you think these words have enough meaning to be true or false?

Concerning Colossians, I think it is one of the pseudo-Pauline epistles, which does not fit well with Paul's writings because Paul didn't write it.
Concerning the specific sentence, it reflects the same thorough confusion as "seven became a chair".

 

[Thomas]

Your blindspot reads "tradition can err." I think this can happen, but why not you?

I'm not saying it can't ... I'm saying it's the best bet we've got — and you've got to be able to demonstrate where and how the tradition has gone wrong.

Invariably, it seems to me, when someone thinks he knows better than tradition, it turns out they know less.

Besides, it does not matter if Jesus was born of a virgin or not. It just does not matter.

Actually, it does. It's quite significant.

I do not see how the Trinity is a type of medicine for humanity. I fail to see it's purpose.

Well it explains creation, and it explains Divine Union.

Likewise, you could look at Jesus ... You can study the Messengers all you want, yet They will reveal noting about the nature of the Divine Essence.

Maybe not to you.

This is simply an image to represent the relationship between the Divine Essence (the Speaker or the Painter, for example) and the Word (the discourse or the painting, for example).

You keep applying anthropomorphic principles to the Deity. It's a false analogy.

Once you assert Jesus is the Incarnation of the Divine Essence, then there is no more need for a revelation from God.

Jesus is the Incarnation of God, yes ... but that alone does not constitute the totality of Revelation, what He said, what He did and what happened does.

That is the point: static religion says, "no need to grow, we will remain children."

Perhaps they do ... but Christianity does not:
"I gave you milk to drink, not meat; for you were not able as yet. But neither indeed are you now able; for you are yet carnal."
1 Corinthians 3:2

"For whereas for the time you ought to be masters, you have need to be taught again what are the first elements of the words of God: and you are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat."
Hebrews 5:12

Do not assume the totality of the message implies a static situation, rather the message of the Absolute is beyond conditioning in time and space, so static does not apply, any more than the idea of evolution — again, they're both anthropomorphic principles misapplied.

The Trinity will always be the ultimate conception of who Jesus is.

Wrong again. Jesus is not the Trinity. Jesus did not necessarily have to reveal the Trinity.

You keep making sweeping and erroneous statements about what Christianity is and says ... you're not helping your cause any.

In a few thousand years I believe many of our "God concepts" will be blown out the water.

Perhaps yours will be, but then that would be because it is founded on the natural operation of the intellect. Christianity's 'God concept' (as indeed in all the great traditions) will not be, because they are Revealed about the Absolute, which is aeternal.

Angels are simply people. Spiritual people. Afterall, Haggai is called the angel of the Lord. What you mean by Jesus' unique ability to call upon twelve legions of angels I do not know.

Depends what you mean by 'people' — if you mean 'an individual substance of a rational nature' then OK, angels are people. If you mean human beings, then no.

Jesus' unique ability is by virtue of His unique nature, and the authority it holds (cf Matthew 28:18).

For the scriptures, could it not be the other way around?

Well it's not for me to determine the content of Scripture, or to second-guess the Mind of God.

My point is, many, the physical world is where the real work takes place. many people pursue the spiritual (or rather, they pursue their notion of what the spiritual is) because it's easier ... loving one's neighbour is an easy concept to think, and difficult to do.

Uh, no. This is my understanding of your interpretation of the ascension...

Then you read me wrong.

for, during a previous discussion, you said to literally read the ascension as Jesus taking a cosmic flight would be an incorrect reading.

I'm saying the idea of Jesus floating up into the sky, and vanishing like a rocket ship, is probably a false reading ... one has to interpret Scripture according to the senses of Scripture, not according to post-modern literary criticism, or modern scientific speculation...

... but He may well have done.

We are. All technology is falling apart? That is news to me!

It's news to many. It's a matter of reading the signs.

Maybe not your Christianity, but I'm all too familiar with the Christianity I grew up with.

We're back to 'milk and not meat' again...

The next world being the vision of the prophets: one filled with peace.

Peace is in the heart. You don't need a prophet to tell or show you that.

Nature comes in higher and lower grades. It seems to me we can transcend our lower nature (animal nature) and be born again into our higher nature (human nature).

But you're still within human nature.

I would say that human nature is 'open' to the transcendent, (whereas animic nature is not) and can be incorporated into a higher nature, by participation ... but one cannot elevate oneself into the higher, specifically divine, nature.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[bob x]

Invariably, it seems to me, when someone thinks he knows better than tradition, it turns out they know less.

It seems to me quite the opposite, as to a lot of people. Science and political change would not have gotten anywhere if we stuck with this "the ancients knew best" rubbish: the ancients were quite ignorant about a lot of things.

I'm saying the idea of Jesus floating up into the sky, and vanishing like a rocket ship, is probably a false reading ...

No, I think it is "true" to how 1st-century people thought: there was a heaven of the birds and clouds (Hebrew shamayim "vapors", irregular from mayim "water") a few miles up, and the heaven of the stars and planets (Hebrew raqia' "firmament" from raq "solid") a few miles further, and up just past that the heaven of God and the angels (Greek ouranos treis "third heaven"; not a concept in pre-Zoroastrian Hebrew tradition). When the Baptism narrative in John describes the Spirit coming down from heaven in the form of a dove, he mentions that the dome of the sky cracked open to let it through: and you think, "Oh no, no, he can't really have thought that crudely about how the world works" but I tell you, "Errr... ummm... yes he could have."

The Ascension is a late addendum to the gospel texts to answer a plot-hole: "OK, if Jesus walked around again like a physical human being, eating fish and so on, where is he now?" The skeptical materialist in me thinks that "And after these things, he walked among us for 40 days" was the older form of the story, glossing over how it ended: to me, it is a quite sufficient "miracle" that he survived all those tortures for 40 days (my own response would surely have been to lie down and never get up again at all), but of course his health was wrecked. The notion of him stepping up onto the air like a ladder and walking up to a "heaven" that is a physical place a little further up than the stars made sense to people of that time, however little sense it makes to us after Neil Armstrong.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Bob x —

Science and political change would not have gotten anywhere if we stuck with this "the ancients knew best" rubbish

I agree on that point, but I think Tradition is more than that, and it's not sticking to the past for its own sake.

My point was rather along the line of "those who ignore (or who are ignorant) of history are condemned to repeat it".
And how often have I been told that an element of Christian doctrine cannot be this, or it must be that, on no other evidence than the credibility of the person arguing with me, who invariably demonstrate a significant lack of knowledge and understanding about what they're talking about.

On the other hand, people like yourself really keep me on my toes ... you know what you're talking about.

No, I think it is "true" to how 1st-century people thought: there was a heaven of the birds and clouds (Hebrew shamayim "vapors", irregular from mayim "water") a few miles up, and the heaven of the stars and planets (Hebrew raqia' "firmament" from raq "solid") a few miles further, and up just past that the heaven of God and the angels (Greek ouranos treis "third heaven"; not a concept in pre-Zoroastrian Hebrew tradition).

I'm not saying people didn't think that way, but I do balance that view (rightly or wrongly) with the evidence (it seems to me) of a highly sophisicated intellectuality, in both Hebrew and Hellenic thought, that counter-balances the apparent naivete of their language ... added to that the mythopoeic style of Hebrew writing?

In art, for example, the lack of perspective led critics to say for generations that the ancients simply did not see, or understand, perspective! It never occurred to them that the 'surface' was not important, the artwork is conveying an interior message, it was not intended as a display of technique ...

When the Baptism narrative in John describes the Spirit coming down from heaven in the form of a dove, he mentions that the dome of the sky cracked open to let it through

Where?

and you think, "Oh no, no, he can't really have thought that crudely about how the world works" but I tell you, "Errr... ummm... yes he could have."

He could have, and he might have, but I also think in its simplicity he actually comprehended a quite different reality. So I tend to think the ancients often expressed quite sophisticated ideas via quite simple analogies.

We say 'the sun rises in the East and sets in the West', d'you think in generations to come, critics will assume we're geocentric?

The Ascension is a late addendum to the gospel texts to answer a plot-hole:

Is Acts 1 thought of as late ... the ascension text an interpolation?

It's an interesting one. The Ascension narrative falls in line with the idea of Christ seated at the right hand of the Father, so I'm not sure there was ever a plot hole, other than how the resurrected Christ got from here to heaven ... and more importantly, and most significantly, what the Ascension means for nature.

So I can see the narrative used to express certain ideas, but the idea of 'ascension' is not foreign to the story of Christ, indeed it's implicit in many textual references. Nor do I think there was a need to invent a plot-fix — after the resurrection, Christ appears and disappears as He wills, with no need of explanation (I have always thought the post-resurrection appearance of Christ is a far bigger plot-hole pleading to be filled, but not ...), so the idea of Him just not being seen again would not have been too outrageous.

(Then again, maybe someone thought, if we leave this open, we'll have ever charlatan, snake-oil salesman and who-knows-what telling us that they've seen Him, know Him, know where He is ... )

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Ahanu,

You said,

"Once you assert Jesus is the Incarnation of the Divine Essence, then there is no more need for a revelation from God."

--> That is very profound. Thank you for sharing that.

 

[bob x]

I'm not saying people didn't think that way, but I do balance that view (rightly or wrongly) with the evidence (it seems to me) of a highly sophisicated intellectuality, in both Hebrew and Hellenic thought, that counter-balances the apparent naivete of their language ... added to that the mythopoeic style of Hebrew writing?

The naivete isn't "apparent"; it's genuine. The intellect is genuine also: the ancients weren't stupid, but they were ignorant. The Egyptians used some very impressive engineering tricks in the pyramids which we have difficulty reconstructing; but they were building rock-piles. They didn't built steel-girder-frames because they didn't know how.

In art, for example, the lack of perspective led critics to say for generations that the ancients simply did not see, or understand, perspective! It never occurred to them that the 'surface' was not important, the artwork is conveying an interior message, it was not intended as a display of technique ...

They DIDN'T understand perspective! You are wanting to believe that they knew how, and chose not to, based on no evidence. It is not all that easy to do; it remains difficult to teach, and was difficult to figure out in the first place.

Where?

My bad, in Luke (at 3:21) not John.

We say 'the sun rises in the East and sets in the West', d'you think in generations to come, critics will assume we're geocentric?

They will think, correctly, that we inherited our language from geocentrists.

Is Acts 1 thought of as late ... the ascension text an interpolation?

The whole first half of Acts is late. The second half (the "we" narrative) is the old material actually written by Luke the physician. The Third Gospel first appeared c. 130 without any attribution to any particular author or any association to a "book of Acts"; the bridging material in the first half of Acts is presumably composed (perhaps in large part from earlier sources, to be sure; but first set down in its present form) by whoever is writing the "cover letters" to "your eminence Theophilus" (patriarch of Antioch c. 150). The ascension is spliced into some texts of the gospel of Luke in the last verses; and the text of the first half of Acts was not stable, early on (some versions are as much as 40% longer than the canonical: it was being treated as an "open book" to which new material could be freely added, rather than as "scripture" to be faithfully copied, for a while).

(Then again, maybe someone thought, if we leave this open, we'll have ever charlatan, snake-oil salesman and who-knows-what telling us that they've seen Him, know Him, know where He is ... )

Like that "Paul" guy, hmmmm?

 

[bob x]

More generally: when you reinterpret the "Tradition" on the assumption that whenever some part of it is now seriously implausible, "they must have meant something else", then you are no longer following the tradition, but inventing a new one, and ascribing claims of anciency to it which really aren't accurate.

 

[Thomas]

"It is because the contemporary alternatives seem so one-sided and are not more evidently solutions to the problems which Thomas faced, and partly solved, that we return to him and to the tradition of theology and philosophy in which his Summa Theologiae appears: theology as the science of the first principle and this as the total knowledge of reality in its unity."
Wayne J. Hankey, God in Himself (Oxford University Press, 1987), p.159

There's a difference between ignorance and implausibility. In matters of religion especially, I find contemporary views as way more naive, ignorant and implausible than tradition.

God bless

Thomas

 

[Amergin]

Tradition is a system of dealing with the world and is obviously not based on scientific data or mathematics. Its function is as a contemporary way of dealing with the world in a time when knowledge of the world is sparce or wrong.

Tradition is based to some extent on the imaginative views of some revered ancestors or leaders. It is modified over time by many factors such as influence from foreign tribes or simply cultural evolution of the community. It serves its purpose and all human societies began with tradition but little factual science.

As new scientific discoveries are found Traditionalists have two ways to confront them. One is to re-interpret Tradition in a way that preserved its function but is not contradicted by new knowledge.

The other way (the Fundamentalist way) is simply to deny even the most obvious facts about the world rather than altering even the interpretation of primitive mythology. They simply deny evolution, the age of the Earth, the age of the Universe, principles of quantum and particle physics, chemistry, and geology. Some even keep alive the Tradition of the Flat Earth.

More enlightened Christians, Muslims, and Jews incorporate new scientific knowledge into their world view while interpreting scriptures in a more metaphorical and allegorical manner that does not deny their value.

Side comment: Evangelicals believe in the Rapture in which "true" saved Christians are sucked upward through the clouds into heaven while non-saved are slaughtered. I can understand that in a flat Earth.

However, the Earth is a sphere. So if English, Irish, and Portuguese saved people are raptured UP through the clouds into Heaven, what happens to the Australians? Are they raptured DOWN through the atmosphere in the opposite direction? Or is Rapture uniform? We get raptured up while Aussies get raptured down through the Earth's crust and mantle to the core where Heaven is??? How about people in Los Angeles? Do they get raptured sideways over the Earth's curvature eventually leaving the atmosphere and going into permanent orbit?

Count me out. I have asthma and I do not think my inhaler works up in the Stratosphere. I seriously doubt if I could even inhale in the Thermosphere or Exosphere. The Rapture gang is being conned.

Sorry, no offence. I was just trying to be funny.

Amergin

 

[Thomas]

As new scientific discoveries are found Traditionalists have two ways to confront them. One is to re-interpret Tradition in a way that preserved its function but is not contradicted by new knowledge.

Catholic theology is invariably at the forefront of that wave. As I keep pointing out, Christian, and indeed Catholic, scientists have made notable contributions to scientific discovery.

On the same point, a famous neuroscientist has pointed out that the polemic stance of those who insist on a religion v science separation, and who view the history of religion in the West as being anti-scientific, is evidence of a predominately and imbalanced left-hemisphere view of the world.

Side comment: Evangelicals believe in the Rapture in which "true" saved Christians are sucked upward through the clouds into heaven while non-saved are slaughtered. I can understand that in a flat Earth.

I think the 'Rapture' is more indicative of the recent knocks to the American psyche and self-image than a religious psyche ...

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Amergin,

One Theosophist teaches that Hell is a place geographically below the surface of the Earth, and Heaven is above.
　
"People find their own level on the astral plane [after death], much in the same way as objects floating in the ocean do. This does not mean that they cannot rise and fall at will, but that if no special effort is made they come to their level and remain there. Astral matter gravitates towards the center of the earth just as physical matter does; both obey the same general laws." (The Inner Life, page 156)
　
After people die, they automatically and unconsciously seek their own "specific gravity" on the astral plane, with the denser particles falling and the lighter particles rising. People of the lower astral sub-planes (Hell), then, generally reside below the surface of the Earth. This explains the orthodox religious teaching of Hell being below us and Heaven being above. (And as parts of the Earth are of great heat and pressure -- and accessible to dead persons of dense astral matter -- this explains the idea of Hell as a hot place.)
　
So, good Australians as well as good Los Angelians will rise to the outer edges of the earth’s astral sphere wherever they are, while bad Australians and bad Los Angelians will sink towards the center of the earth.

 

[Ahanu]

Invariably, it seems to me, when someone thinks he knows better than tradition, it turns out they know less.

And why is that? What tradition am I familiar with? I am endeavoring to understand your tradition when reading Hans Kung, for example, so I see no one arguing here, only one seeking understanding, while at the same time expressing his unproven hypothesis ("your tradition is flawed"). Can I not express what I currently know even if it is wrong? Arguing is rambling on and on, disregarding insightful replies altogether. I can understand the irritation of spending hours learning about a particular religion, and, in my case, having someone say Baha'is worship the Sun despite evidence that says otherwise. Do I continue to say Jesus is the Trinity? No.

Step into my shoes for a minute.

Last year I attended a Baptist service on the fourth sunday. It is when the sunday school teacher, sitting at the front of the church, teaches the children, who gather around the altar, before the entire congregation. What did he teach? Evolution is a "man-made" doctrine: it is not what the Bible teaches.

In other words, Adam (and Eve) did not have a corrupt "substance" (or "nature"), and, before the "Fall," they were not subject to the law of death. After the Fall this corruptible substance was passed on throught sex. Jesus escaped this inheritance because he was of the same substance as Adam and Eve before the Fall. This model of the Incarnation presupposes humanity is fixed. This was taught to me in my Batist Church while I was growing up. In this model of Incarnation Jesus repairs a damaged world, which was brought into being through the disobedience of the first parents (Gen. 2-3).

Athanasius believed this. So did Augustine. In the Literal Interpretation of Genesis Augustine believes paradise was free from suffering, from death, from illness. In the City of God Augustine believes Adam and Eve, if they would of not taken of the knowledge of good and evil, would of had sex free from lust. This model of Incarnation also influenced John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas.

However, the Incarnation as a response to "the Fall" has not always been upheld. Irenaeus paints Adam and Eve as ignorant, innocent children. Of course, the origin of humanity from a literal garden was still believed in, but the goal of the Incarnation was different. The Incarnation was not a response to the failure of Adam and Eve. Eastern Orthodox theology took this side. This is popular, I imagine, with Catholics too. This is why Thomas does not accept the purpose of Incarnation I proposed earlier (in which the Incarnation is for the rescue of humanity).

As you point out, evolutionary biology or any other scientific discovery does not undermine the creed, which holds Jesus was both divine and human. Creed is the tradition, I learned, not the theological reflection of various Church Fathers.

Anyway, I do not ask you questions about your tradition; I discovered you do not tailor your teaching for the learner. For example, I recall that earlier I asked for you to articulate the Incarnation without reference to substance metaphysics, and so you provided phenomenoligical (is that a word?) language, but to no avail! No tailoring for the learner, so I seek out the answer for myself from other writers. Perhaps their is little space for moving in articulating the Incarnation.

Actually, it does. It's quite significant.

I do not see its significance. Willingly blind, I suppose? Arthur Peacocke is critical of the virgin birth. Either God created the sperm or a fertilized ovum was implanted into Mary. Either option means that Jesus' humanity was not in continuity with the emergence of Homo sapiens.

 

[Ahanu]

Perhaps their is little space for moving in articulating the Incarnation.

I meant "there." Other grammatical errors are above. Please overlook them; I should of checked it before posting.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Washi wa nihongo mattaku dekihen!

Wo bu hui jong wen!

 

[Sensei]

Hi everyone : )

Thanks for your replies.