I would say He's wept a lot. In the 230 years between dyophysitism and dyothelitism, we have monothelitism:
During the 5th century, some regions of the Church were thrown into confusion because of the debates that erupted over the nature of Jesus Christ. Although the Church had already determined that Christ is the son of God, his exact nature remained open to debate.
...
The Christological definition of Chalcedon, as accepted by the Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, and Reformed churches, is that Christ remains in two distinct natures, yet these two natures come together within his one hypostasis.
...
Nevertheless, the resultant debates led the Chalcedonians to accuse the non-Chalcedonians of teaching Christ's humanity to be of a different kind from our own. Meanwhile, the non-Chalcedonians accused the Chalcedonians of espousing a form of Nestorianism, a rejected doctrine that held that Jesus Christ was two distinct subsistences.
This internal division was dangerous for the Byzantine Empire, which was under constant threat from external enemies, especially as many of the areas most likely to be lost to the empire were the regions that were in favour of monophysitism, and who considered the religious hierarchy at Constantinople to be heretics only interested in crushing their faith.
...
A ruling for the new doctrine [monothelitism] would provide common ground for the non-Chalcedonians and the Chalcedonians to come together, as the non-Chalcedonians could agree that Jesus has two natures if he has only one will, and some Chalcedonians could agree that Jesus has one will if he has two natures.
...
Not everyone was convinced, particularly a monk of Palestine named Sophronius, who believed that there was something unsound in the doctrine and so became the champion of Dyothelitism, the doctrine of the two wills of Christ.
...
In Rome and the West, opposition to monothelitism was reaching fever pitch ... The emperor [Constans II] continued to persecute any who spoke out against monothelitism, including Maximus the Confessor and a number of his disciples. Maximus lost his tongue and his right hand in an effort to have him recant. Nevertheless, his brutality had an effect, with the patriarchs, including the popes, remaining silent throughout the remainder of his reign.
Matters were eventually resolved some years after Constans II's death in 668.
Well arguably they haven't yet been resolved. Hence the sad division between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox that persists to this day.
Ah, yes - the miaphyitism argument about terminology...
A second Agreed Statement was published in the following year 1990 declaring:
The Orthodox agree that the Oriental Orthodox will continue to maintain their traditional Cyrillian terminology of "one nature of the incarnate Logos" (μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη), since they acknowledge the double consubstantiality of the Logos which Eutyches denied. The Orthodox also use this terminology. The Oriental Orthodox agree that the Orthodox are justified in their use of the two-natures formula, since they acknowledge that the distinction is "in thought alone" (τῇ θεωρίᾳ μόνῃ). ... we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they have used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common faith and continuous loyalty to the Apostolic Tradition that should be the basis for our unity and communion.
— Joint Commission Of The Theological Dialogue Between The Orthodox Church And The Oriental Orthodox Churches, Second Agreed Statement (1990)
Implementation of the recommendations of these two Agreed Statements would mean restoration of full communion between the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, but as of 2021 they have not been put into effect. Of the Eastern Orthodox churches, only the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Romania have accepted the Statements, as have the Coptic, Syriac and Malankara Churches on the Oriental Orthodox side. The Russian patriarchate has asked for clarification of some points. The monastic community of Mount Athos rejects any form of dialogue, whether with Oriental Orthodoxy or otherwise.
There are sticking points and heels dug in on both sides.
So yes, Christ weeping indeed.
I find it rather alarming that you appear to equate the two scenarios. When was the last time in this miaphysite debate that anyone was abducted or tortured? Not all disagreements about points of principle deserve tears.
Accept it or reject it but to me part of the wonder - and yes, I am not ashamed to use that word - of orthodox / Orthodox theology is that it holds these things in tension, that it holds paradoxes and contradictions together.
Surely people being abducted or tortured is something worthy of tears, whether it happened centuries ago or a week last Friday?
I don't see why it's so 'disturbing' to be concerned about that.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.
@Martin54 - yes, divine 'impassibility' is Orthodox but that doesn't obviate 'Jesus wept' in John's Gospel.
Besides, we are all of us describing situations - abductions, tortures etc centuries ago and grindingly slow rapprochement between Christian believers today - that we feel likely to cause Christ some concern given what we know of his character from the Gospels etc.
That doesn't mean that he is more concerned about theological debates between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox or between Calvinists and Armininians or pre-millenialists and a-millenialists or whatever else than he is about war, poverty or injustice.
But then the usual debates about Theodicy kick in ...
Should not God know at least as much as the whole of humanity? Is that expecting too much of God? Don’t we use omniscience to distinguish God from other things? In another thread we had a poster say that they thought God wasn’t necessarily omnipotent (without using those specific words). But the point was made. Perhaps there are some here who don't need or believe God has to be omniscient. I’d find that odd, but okay.
Is God omniscient? Yes. Was Jesus? No. Is that a problem for Jesus’ divinity? Also no.
If Jesus could set aside His divine immortality in order to become human without it meaning He was not God*, then I fail to see why Him setting aside His divine omniscience** in order to become human should be any more problematic.
.
*= which I think it’s safe to assume quite a few Christians would broadly agree with.
**= or any of the other omnis, for that matter.
My takes remain that there's nothing that faith and belief can't rationalize, and that you all still don't actually know any of these things (nor do some even really want to) any better than the people who invented such concepts. Both of those things are completely fine, of course. I just can't join-in.
Who are we, to presume to analyse thw nature of God?
We are those made in the image of God, and also presumably those who love him and are interested in him; and provided we conduct ourselves accordingly (and that’s a very big “if,” given the evils already described), I really don’t think he minds if we try to understand him.
Hee himself is the one who put us in this rather uncomfortable position, after all—thinking abimals, creatures of dust, however you care to put it—but who can now claim the Lord who made everything as a blood relative. We are never going to be able to “know our place” and keep a respectful distance from him again.
Surely people being abducted or tortured is something worthy of tears, whether it happened centuries ago or a week last Friday?
I don't see why it's so 'disturbing' to be concerned about that.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.
@Martin54 - yes, divine 'impassibility' is Orthodox but that doesn't obviate 'Jesus wept' in John's Gospel.
Besides, we are all of us describing situations - abductions, tortures etc centuries ago and grindingly slow rapprochement between Christian believers today - that we feel likely to cause Christ some concern given what we know of his character from the Gospels etc.
That doesn't mean that he is more concerned about theological debates between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox or between Calvinists and Armininians or pre-millenialists and a-millenialists or whatever else than he is about war, poverty or injustice.
But then the usual debates about Theodicy kick in ...
So does the human nature of God the Son still exist? And therefore weep?
And @Lamb Chopped. Very nice. We converge at the door of the tent.
Who are we, to presume to analyse thw nature of God?
We are those made in the image of God, and also presumably those who love him and are interested in him; and provided we conduct ourselves accordingly (and that’s a very big “if,” given the evils already described), I really don’t think he minds if we try to understand him.
Indeed - I think it matters quite a lot if the fathoming out involves bloodshed.
Surely people being abducted or tortured is something worthy of tears, whether it happened centuries ago or a week last Friday?
I don't see why it's so 'disturbing' to be concerned about that.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.
@Martin54 - yes, divine 'impassibility' is Orthodox but that doesn't obviate 'Jesus wept' in John's Gospel.
Besides, we are all of us describing situations - abductions, tortures etc centuries ago and grindingly slow rapprochement between Christian believers today - that we feel likely to cause Christ some concern given what we know of his character from the Gospels etc.
No. You might be doing this, but not all of us are. What I find disturbing is that you appear to find these two different scenarios equally concerning. That anyone could find persecution, abduction and torture just as concerning as long-lasting but apparently non-injurious disagreements about terminology suggests to me an alarming lack of perspective.
That doesn't mean that he is more concerned about theological debates between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox or between Calvinists and Armininians or pre-millenialists and a-millenialists or whatever else than he is about war, poverty or injustice.
I think that most 100% humans learn not to pay much attention to groups of mostly men persisting in disagreements about who's right.
And yes, the human nature of Christ still exists, and thank God for it, it's our primary claim on him, if you know what I mean. The ascension wasn't him undoing the incarnation--he took his human nature with him. Which is awesome, and makes me very happy.
Where did I say that torture, abduction and persecution was of equal weight or of lesser inportance than blokes with beards arguing about finer points of often arcane theology?
I said nothing of the kind.
I'll thank you to stop putting words in my mouth, twisting what I've written or impugning what you assume my position actually is.
I don't do that to you. I'll thank you to stop doing it to me.
There is a place for people who misrepresent the position of other Shipmates and Purgatory isn't that place. Please don't tempt me to invite you there.
Christ probably weeps over wat is sometimes said and done in his name.
Like what? Where? In the name of the Saviour the One Sent to Earth. Of infinite worlds he created from forever? He's local then? Earth local. Still. Transcendent, immortal. What's he do now? Apart from probably weep? And how does he map to the Second Person of the Holy and Undivided Trinity? Coterminously? Is God the Son now humanized? He couldn't weep before due to divine aseity? But he can now?
And yes, the human nature of Christ still exists, and thank God for it, it's our primary claim on him, if you know what I mean. The ascension wasn't him undoing the incarnation--he took his human nature with him. Which is awesome, and makes me very happy.
How do we know for sure he didn't shed that on his way up?
There is a place for people who misrepresent the position of other Shipmates and Purgatory isn't that place. Please don't tempt me to invite you there.
And yes, the human nature of Christ still exists, and thank God for it, it's our primary claim on him, if you know what I mean. The ascension wasn't him undoing the incarnation--he took his human nature with him. Which is awesome, and makes me very happy.
How do we know for sure he didn't shed that on his way up?
*shudder*
Just off the top of my head...
Paul refers to him as a man well after his ascension, as does Peter in his various sermons, speaking by the Holy Spirit. The author of Hebrews spends a lot of ink on the theological ramifications of what it means for us to have a high priest (Jesus) standing before God on our behalf who shares our very nature--which is, of course, human. There are various prophetic bits where someone "like a son of man" is receiving power, or authority, or a kingdom, from God--which are of course references to Jesus. And so on and so forth.
And yes, the human nature of Christ still exists, and thank God for it, it's our primary claim on him, if you know what I mean. The ascension wasn't him undoing the incarnation--he took his human nature with him. Which is awesome, and makes me very happy.
How do we know for sure he didn't shed that on his way up?
*shudder*
Just off the top of my head...
Paul refers to him as a man well after his ascension, as does Peter in his various sermons, speaking by the Holy Spirit. The author of Hebrews spends a lot of ink on the theological ramifications of what it means for us to have a high priest (Jesus) standing before God on our behalf who shares our very nature--which is, of course, human. There are various prophetic bits where someone "like a son of man" is receiving power, or authority, or a kingdom, from God--which are of course references to Jesus. And so on and so forth.
Most orthodox. So, is this the only time, in the eternity of infinite worlds, that God the Son has been incarnated in reverse?
First, I’m not clear on what you mean by “incarnated in reverse.” If you mean “gave up the creaturely nature he took on at his incarnation, the answer is “he didn’t give it up —now or ever.” Christ is human forever.
Second, obviously none of us knows what Christ may have done elsewhere, because he hasn’t told us. There are suggestions in the Scripture that this incarnation is and will be the only one; but they are suggestions, not straightforward statements of fact or promises. We have no idea whether any other world exists which holds creatures who have rebelled against God the way this world does. All other worlds may be unfallen (and if they are, it’s going to be embarrassing when we meet those people some day!). If fallen worlds exist besides ours, God’s character pretty much guarantees he will have done something to redeem them—but what, exactly, we don’t know. Perhaps some other act of even more appalling love. His creativity means I can’t even guess at what he might do.
I'm not on my phone anymore, so I can add--anyone interested in theoretical speculations on this might read C. S. Lewis' space trilogy, especially Perelandra. There the protagonist is forced to grapple with questions of what if? as he watches an unfallen world undergo temptation--and wonders what God will do if it falls. The "young wizard" series of books by Diane Duane deals with the same question more obliquely, as she postulates that every world has to go through a make-or-break choice which may result in a fall--or not!--she then shows how various species in her universe handled their choices, and what resulted, and even (occasionally) what "the One" did about them.
I'm not sure we entirely agree. Mutually aching brains do not agreement make. 😉
But I can certainly see where you are coming from.
I'm not convinced that adherence to the text equates in and of itself to fundamentalism.
Any attempt at Christian theology is going to revolve around the interpretation of texts deemed to be authoritative - but that doesn't necessarily imply a narrow biblicism.
Heck, conservative Protestants would criticise the Orthodox for not concentrating solely on scriptural data as they believe themselves to do - as though it is possible to consider these things outwith small t tradition or stonking Big T Tradition.
I don't agree that Christ's human will 'didn't stand a chance' either. It wasn't overwhelmed or subsumed.
If so he would have become little more than a meat-puppet. As someone once observed on these boards, the Incarnation isn't simply God walking around in a 'man-suit.'
Accept it or reject it but to me part of the wonder - and yes, I am not ashamed to use that word - of orthodox / Orthodox theology is that it holds these things in tension, that it holds paradoxes and contradictions together.
Of course it does so messily at times. We ain't ever going to get everything neatly battened down.
Who are we, to presume to analyse thw nature of God?
We are those made in the image of God, and also presumably those who love him and are interested in him; and provided we conduct ourselves accordingly (and that’s a very big “if,” given the evils already described), I really don’t think he minds if we try to understand him.
Hee himself is the one who put us in this rather uncomfortable position, after all—thinking abimals, creatures of dust, however you care to put it—but who can now claim the Lord who made everything as a blood relative. We are never going to be able to “know our place” and keep a respectful distance from him again.
And yes, the human nature of Christ still exists, and thank God for it, it's our primary claim on him, if you know what I mean. The ascension wasn't him undoing the incarnation--he took his human nature with him. Which is awesome, and makes me very happy.
Amen.
I must check out the Diane Duane books—and I heartily recommend Lewis along with you! 🥰
First, I’m not clear on what you mean by “incarnated in reverse.” If you mean “gave up the creaturely nature he took on at his incarnation, the answer is “he didn’t give it up —now or ever.” Christ is human forever.
Second, obviously none of us knows what Christ may have done elsewhere, because he hasn’t told us. There are suggestions in the Scripture that this incarnation is and will be the only one; but they are suggestions, not straightforward statements of fact or promises. We have no idea whether any other world exists which holds creatures who have rebelled against God the way this world does. All other worlds may be unfallen (and if they are, it’s going to be embarrassing when we meet those people some day!). If fallen worlds exist besides ours, God’s character pretty much guarantees he will have done something to redeem them—but what, exactly, we don’t know. Perhaps some other act of even more appalling love. His creativity means I can’t even guess at what he might do.
God became flesh then flesh became God. God changed. God was humanized. So he could weep. God cannot change. God does not weep.
So God the Son (aka Yahweh) has always been Christ? And he wasn't human forever but has been for the past two thousand years out of forever?
We have every idea that other worlds holding creatures have always existed. What we don't have is the meaningless fundamentalist concept of rebellion against God. I have nothing to be embarrassed about. Although my hopeless intrusive thinking says otherwise. All I need for redemption, apart from death, is proof of Love. Which cannot be appalling by definition.
I am not going to try to answer your post in detail, Martin54, because I have no idea what is the point you are making. I realise it is probably painful for you to think down to my level, but couldn't you at least try sometimes?
Just to clarify, when I wrote of Jesus weeping, I was using the word figuratively. And I was thinking of such events as the Albigensian crusade, to name just one.
I am not going to try to answer your post in detail, Martin54, because I have no idea what is the point you are making. I realise it is probably painful for you to think down to my level, but couldn't you at least try sometimes?
Just to clarify, when I wrote of Jesus weeping, I was using the word figuratively. And I was thinking of such events as the Albigensian crusade, to name just one.
And yes, the human nature of Christ still exists, and thank God for it, it's our primary claim on him, if you know what I mean. The ascension wasn't him undoing the incarnation--he took his human nature with him. Which is awesome, and makes me very happy.
How do we know for sure he didn't shed that on his way up?
*shudder*
Just off the top of my head...
Paul refers to him as a man well after his ascension, as does Peter in his various sermons, speaking by the Holy Spirit. The author of Hebrews spends a lot of ink on the theological ramifications of what it means for us to have a high priest (Jesus) standing before God on our behalf who shares our very nature--which is, of course, human. There are various prophetic bits where someone "like a son of man" is receiving power, or authority, or a kingdom, from God--which are of course references to Jesus. And so on and so forth.
I see. Well, and I'll apologize, but "speaking by the Holy Spirit" is problematic for me. And, Paul could have been wrong, of course, as well as Peter. The chances of that are not zero. And we don't know who wrote Hebrews, and it didn't have the easiest of times getting into the canon of scripture. Seems like a pretty iffy proposition, but then again, I don't need it to be true.
Jesus did not exhibit real knowledge it would have been absolutely naturally impossible for him to know. As you rightly said, if he were recorded as speaking in Maori, without anyone realising for over 1600 years at least, obviously, it could have been put down to madness, although glossolalia was rampant within a few years of his death, if that (Pentecost was something else). A genuine prophecy of something that couldn't be engineered on Earth, like the date of a supernova, would be pretty clinchy. Although alien tech might know by neutrino flux years ahead, but not to the day, or even the year. Trouble is they burst with gamma rays.
God's been known to stop the Earth rotating in the Bronze Age, and roll it back in the Iron. NASA are still covering that up of course. That would have done it for Jesus. It would have done it for me.
But he gave no proof. Including of being Love incarnate. Not in his hard sayings and not in his appalling act of entirely natural, human love.
First, I’m not clear on what you mean by “incarnated in reverse.” If you mean “gave up the creaturely nature he took on at his incarnation, the answer is “he didn’t give it up —now or ever.” Christ is human forever.
Second, obviously none of us knows what Christ may have done elsewhere, because he hasn’t told us. There are suggestions in the Scripture that this incarnation is and will be the only one; but they are suggestions, not straightforward statements of fact or promises. We have no idea whether any other world exists which holds creatures who have rebelled against God the way this world does. All other worlds may be unfallen (and if they are, it’s going to be embarrassing when we meet those people some day!). If fallen worlds exist besides ours, God’s character pretty much guarantees he will have done something to redeem them—but what, exactly, we don’t know. Perhaps some other act of even more appalling love. His creativity means I can’t even guess at what he might do.
God became flesh then flesh became God. God changed. God was humanized. So he could weep. God cannot change. God does not weep.
So God the Son (aka Yahweh) has always been Christ? And he wasn't human forever but has been for the past two thousand years out of forever?
We have every idea that other worlds holding creatures have always existed. What we don't have is the meaningless fundamentalist concept of rebellion against God. I have nothing to be embarrassed about. Although my hopeless intrusive thinking says otherwise. All I need for redemption, apart from death, is proof of Love. Which cannot be appalling by definition.
Well , here’s where things get sticky. God the Son has always existed, and he is the member of the Trinity who put on human nature and became the man Jesus Christ, roughly 2000 years ago. And remains both God and human to this day. So in that sense, God certainly changed.
But that’s not a problem for Christian’s thinking about verses like “I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O Israel, are not destroyed.” Those verses are clearly speaking of his character—that he keeps his commitments and doesn’t break his promises or give up on the people he loves. They say nothing about whether he might choose to take on a second, created nature—as he did in the Incarnation. In fact, his changeless love and commitment happen to be exactly what’s driving the Incarnation.
As for my use of the phrase “appalling love,” I think it must be the rare Christian who hasn’t looked at some particular act of God’s mercy, love or forgiveness and been shaken by it. The way I was last week when I realized just why Jesus was being so chatty with Pontius Pilate right before he sentenced him to death, when most of the time he stood silent. Then I compare it with a couple of other dialogues he had with people and realized: Jesus was trying to evangelize his executioner. If that doesn’t give a person pause, I have trouble imagining what will. Appalling? To me, yes. Just too much in so many ways.
First, I’m not clear on what you mean by “incarnated in reverse.” If you mean “gave up the creaturely nature he took on at his incarnation, the answer is “he didn’t give it up —now or ever.” Christ is human forever.
God became flesh then flesh became God. God changed. God was humanized. So he could weep. God cannot change. God does not weep.
So God the Son (aka Yahweh) has always been Christ? And he wasn't human forever but has been for the past two thousand years out of forever?
Well , here’s where things get sticky. God the Son has always existed, and he is the member of the Trinity who put on human nature and became the man Jesus Christ, roughly 2000 years ago. And remains both God and human to this day. So in that sense, God certainly changed.
To my mind (sticking with this orthodox Christological view), whether or not it means God "changed" is moot. I think it's possible to say that incarnation didn't change God the Son at all - I think that's at least part of what's intended in the doctrine of the incarnated Christ having two united natures, distinct and unmingled. My understanding is that these two natures are also inseparable and (thus) the incarnation irreversible - that it continues through His human death, resurrection and ascension - and that this in turn provides the strongest promise to those humans who follow Him of similarly looking forward to resurrection and eternal heavenly life. This is also consistent with the idea that incarnation didn't change God the Son - that His divine nature was able to resume His rightful place (in glory, etc) after His ascension. (The question of whether He also eternally submitted His will seems more open, but less significant in relation to being "changed".)
As for my use of the phrase “appalling love,” I think it must be the rare Christian who hasn’t looked at some particular act of God’s mercy, love or forgiveness and been shaken by it. The way I was last week when I realized just why Jesus was being so chatty with Pontius Pilate right before he sentenced him to death, when most of the time he stood silent. Then I compare it with a couple of other dialogues he had with people and realized: Jesus was trying to evangelize his executioner. If that doesn’t give a person pause, I have trouble imagining what will. Appalling? To me, yes. Just too much in so many ways.
An alternative view is that He did what was needed to ensure that the sequences of events required to bring about His crucifixion took place.
Lutheranism has a doctrine called “communication of attributes” which basically says that, while Christ’s two natures stay themselves and don’t intermingle to form some sort of weird compound, nevertheless the two natures can share the abilities only one nature has by rights—and so the whole Christ is able to die, rise, sleep, be tempted, be present everywhere, and so on. It’s more of a description than an explanation, though.
First, I’m not clear on what you mean by “incarnated in reverse.” If you mean “gave up the creaturely nature he took on at his incarnation, the answer is “he didn’t give it up —now or ever.” Christ is human forever.
Second, obviously none of us knows what Christ may have done elsewhere, because he hasn’t told us. There are suggestions in the Scripture that this incarnation is and will be the only one; but they are suggestions, not straightforward statements of fact or promises. We have no idea whether any other world exists which holds creatures who have rebelled against God the way this world does. All other worlds may be unfallen (and if they are, it’s going to be embarrassing when we meet those people some day!). If fallen worlds exist besides ours, God’s character pretty much guarantees he will have done something to redeem them—but what, exactly, we don’t know. Perhaps some other act of even more appalling love. His creativity means I can’t even guess at what he might do.
God became flesh then flesh became God. God changed. God was humanized. So he could weep. God cannot change. God does not weep.
So God the Son (aka Yahweh) has always been Christ? And he wasn't human forever but has been for the past two thousand years out of forever?
We have every idea that other worlds holding creatures have always existed. What we don't have is the meaningless fundamentalist concept of rebellion against God. I have nothing to be embarrassed about. Although my hopeless intrusive thinking says otherwise. All I need for redemption, apart from death, is proof of Love. Which cannot be appalling by definition.
Well , here’s where things get sticky. God the Son has always existed, and he is the member of the Trinity who put on human nature and became the man Jesus Christ, roughly 2000 years ago. And remains both God and human to this day. So in that sense, God certainly changed.
If he put on human nature, as a layer, did all of him?
Did the Second Person of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, meta-infinite, meta-eternal, (transcendent of infinity from eternity), creator of all infinite things for eternity, collapse in to a human egg?
After eternity of not collapsing in to anything?
Is this particular that scandalous?
But that’s not a problem for Christian’s thinking about verses like “I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O Israel, are not destroyed.” Those verses are clearly speaking of his character—that he keeps his commitments and doesn’t break his promises or give up on the people he loves. They say nothing about whether he might choose to take on a second, created nature—as he did in the Incarnation. In fact, his changeless love and commitment happen to be exactly what’s driving the Incarnation.
In which case they've done infinitely forever. Not just once a couple of millennia ago. After eternity of not. So how much of The Son is Jesus? The human layer? Along with all the other infinity of layers?
As for my use of the phrase “appalling love,” I think it must be the rare Christian who hasn’t looked at some particular act of God’s mercy, love or forgiveness and been shaken by it. The way I was last week when I realized just why Jesus was being so chatty with Pontius Pilate right before he sentenced him to death, when most of the time he stood silent. Then I compare it with a couple of other dialogues he had with people and realized: Jesus was trying to evangelize his executioner. If that doesn’t give a person pause, I have trouble imagining what will. Appalling? To me, yes. Just too much in so many ways.
A fine beholder's (not one I) share.
The only way Jesus can be transcendent and still meaningfully exist, have a real identity, is as the Earth local God-human nature and will hybrid. Not as an infinitesimal layer on God the Son. Who then becomes superfluous.
Unless the scandal of the particular must fundamentalistically apply, to maintain God the Son.
First, I’m not clear on what you mean by “incarnated in reverse.” If you mean “gave up the creaturely nature he took on at his incarnation, the answer is “he didn’t give it up —now or ever.” Christ is human forever.
Second, obviously none of us knows what Christ may have done elsewhere, because he hasn’t told us. There are suggestions in the Scripture that this incarnation is and will be the only one; but they are suggestions, not straightforward statements of fact or promises. We have no idea whether any other world exists which holds creatures who have rebelled against God the way this world does. All other worlds may be unfallen (and if they are, it’s going to be embarrassing when we meet those people some day!). If fallen worlds exist besides ours, God’s character pretty much guarantees he will have done something to redeem them—but what, exactly, we don’t know. Perhaps some other act of even more appalling love. His creativity means I can’t even guess at what he might do.
God became flesh then flesh became God. God changed. God was humanized. So he could weep. God cannot change. God does not weep.
So God the Son (aka Yahweh) has always been Christ? And he wasn't human forever but has been for the past two thousand years out of forever?
We have every idea that other worlds holding creatures have always existed. What we don't have is the meaningless fundamentalist concept of rebellion against God. I have nothing to be embarrassed about. Although my hopeless intrusive thinking says otherwise. All I need for redemption, apart from death, is proof of Love. Which cannot be appalling by definition.
Well , here’s where things get sticky. God the Son has always existed, and he is the member of the Trinity who put on human nature and became the man Jesus Christ, roughly 2000 years ago. And remains both God and human to this day. So in that sense, God certainly changed.
If he put on human nature, as a layer, did all of him?
Did the Second Person of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, meta-infinite, meta-eternal, (transcendent of infinity from eternity), creator of all infinite things for eternity, collapse in to a human egg?
After eternity of not collapsing in to anything?
Is this particular that scandalous?
But that’s not a problem for Christian’s thinking about verses like “I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O Israel, are not destroyed.” Those verses are clearly speaking of his character—that he keeps his commitments and doesn’t break his promises or give up on the people he loves. They say nothing about whether he might choose to take on a second, created nature—as he did in the Incarnation. In fact, his changeless love and commitment happen to be exactly what’s driving the Incarnation.
In which case they've done infinitely forever. Not just once a couple of millennia ago. After eternity of not. So how much of The Son is Jesus? The human layer? Along with all the other infinity of layers?
As for my use of the phrase “appalling love,” I think it must be the rare Christian who hasn’t looked at some particular act of God’s mercy, love or forgiveness and been shaken by it. The way I was last week when I realized just why Jesus was being so chatty with Pontius Pilate right before he sentenced him to death, when most of the time he stood silent. Then I compare it with a couple of other dialogues he had with people and realized: Jesus was trying to evangelize his executioner. If that doesn’t give a person pause, I have trouble imagining what will. Appalling? To me, yes. Just too much in so many ways.
A fine beholder's (not one I) share.
The only way Jesus can be transcendent and still meaningfully exist, have a real identity, is as the Earth local God-human nature and will hybrid. Not as an infinitesimal layer on God the Son. Who then becomes superfluous.
Unless the scandal of the particular must fundamentalistically apply, to maintain God the Son.
'Hypostases' aren't 'layers.'
The Eternal Word isn't wearing a 'Son' layer.
The man Christ Jesus isn't wearing a 'God' layer.
We aren't talking about masks or strips of wall-paper.
Oh, it’s not a matter of layers—as if you could scrape the human bit off. No, the problem here is that we don’t know much about how human beings are structured in their non-visible nature, and even less about God. Making statements about layers etc requires us to commit to a metaphor from the physical world which might have no relationship at all to what the reality is.
But as far as the question about an egg, i think we’re on sage ground to say that God the Son was in / with /United to that zygote. I couldn’t say when precisely that particular human nature came into existence, as we have no idea how things went in the absence of a human father.
First, I’m not clear on what you mean by “incarnated in reverse.” If you mean “gave up the creaturely nature he took on at his incarnation, the answer is “he didn’t give it up —now or ever.” Christ is human forever.
Second, obviously none of us knows what Christ may have done elsewhere, because he hasn’t told us. There are suggestions in the Scripture that this incarnation is and will be the only one; but they are suggestions, not straightforward statements of fact or promises. We have no idea whether any other world exists which holds creatures who have rebelled against God the way this world does. All other worlds may be unfallen (and if they are, it’s going to be embarrassing when we meet those people some day!). If fallen worlds exist besides ours, God’s character pretty much guarantees he will have done something to redeem them—but what, exactly, we don’t know. Perhaps some other act of even more appalling love. His creativity means I can’t even guess at what he might do.
God became flesh then flesh became God. God changed. God was humanized. So he could weep. God cannot change. God does not weep.
So God the Son (aka Yahweh) has always been Christ? And he wasn't human forever but has been for the past two thousand years out of forever?
We have every idea that other worlds holding creatures have always existed. What we don't have is the meaningless fundamentalist concept of rebellion against God. I have nothing to be embarrassed about. Although my hopeless intrusive thinking says otherwise. All I need for redemption, apart from death, is proof of Love. Which cannot be appalling by definition.
Well , here’s where things get sticky. God the Son has always existed, and he is the member of the Trinity who put on human nature and became the man Jesus Christ, roughly 2000 years ago. And remains both God and human to this day. So in that sense, God certainly changed.
If he put on human nature, as a layer, did all of him?
Did the Second Person of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, meta-infinite, meta-eternal, (transcendent of infinity from eternity), creator of all infinite things for eternity, collapse in to a human egg?
After eternity of not collapsing in to anything?
Is this particular that scandalous?
But that’s not a problem for Christian’s thinking about verses like “I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O Israel, are not destroyed.” Those verses are clearly speaking of his character—that he keeps his commitments and doesn’t break his promises or give up on the people he loves. They say nothing about whether he might choose to take on a second, created nature—as he did in the Incarnation. In fact, his changeless love and commitment happen to be exactly what’s driving the Incarnation.
In which case they've done infinitely forever. Not just once a couple of millennia ago. After eternity of not. So how much of The Son is Jesus? The human layer? Along with all the other infinity of layers?
As for my use of the phrase “appalling love,” I think it must be the rare Christian who hasn’t looked at some particular act of God’s mercy, love or forgiveness and been shaken by it. The way I was last week when I realized just why Jesus was being so chatty with Pontius Pilate right before he sentenced him to death, when most of the time he stood silent. Then I compare it with a couple of other dialogues he had with people and realized: Jesus was trying to evangelize his executioner. If that doesn’t give a person pause, I have trouble imagining what will. Appalling? To me, yes. Just too much in so many ways.
A fine beholder's (not one I) share.
The only way Jesus can be transcendent and still meaningfully exist, have a real identity, is as the Earth local God-human nature and will hybrid. Not as an infinitesimal layer on God the Son. Who then becomes superfluous.
Unless the scandal of the particular must fundamentalistically apply, to maintain God the Son.
'Hypostases' aren't 'layers.'
The Eternal Word isn't wearing a 'Son' layer.
The man Christ Jesus isn't wearing a 'God' layer.
We aren't talking about masks or strips of wall-paper.
Those statements don't follow anything I said in response to @Lamb Chopped talking about the 2nd Person putting on human nature. Only the former is a hypostasis. The divine and human natures, neither of which is a hypostasis, person, became one hypostasis. A person.
Oh, it’s not a matter of layers—as if you could scrape the human bit off. No, the problem here is that we don’t know much about how human beings are structured in their non-visible nature, and even less about God. Making statements about layers etc requires us to commit to a metaphor from the physical world which might have no relationship at all to what the reality is.
But as far as the question about an egg, i think we’re on sage ground to say that God the Son was in / with /United to that zygote. I couldn’t say when precisely that particular human nature came into existence, as we have no idea how things went in the absence of a human father.
We do, the human nature was in Mary's egg. Which was conceived by the Spirit. Not the Son.
I’m talking about how the physical necessities were handled. We’ve got no idea whether God used two eggs (with suitable modifications), whether he created a single sperm equivalent and then let things carry on normally, or whether he said “Why bother?” And simply doubled the chromosomes at some point, again with suitable modifications (including the provision of a Y chromosome). And there would have to be modifications to avoid any lethal genes being doubled, as well as something to carry out the role of paternal imprinting, and so on and so forth. Obviously the Spirit would know better than us what needed doing. But as he hasn’t chosen to tell us the details, and all we know is that Jesus has no human father, several scenarios are possible. And the point at which the two natures joined would be different depending on the point at which the human nature came into being. You said simply “Mary’s egg,” which would be fine after the Spirit does whatever he chooses to do with it by way of fertilization; but couldn’t happen when the egg was simply an ordinary egg, because at that stage there is no individual human nature to be joined to—an ordinary egg is haploid and not yet a new individual human. That’s why I didn’t simply accept your phrase “Mary’s egg.” As it stood, it sounded like nothing more needed to happen physically.
You said simply “Mary’s egg,” which would be fine after the Spirit does whatever he chooses to do with it by way of fertilization; but couldn’t happen when the egg was simply an ordinary egg, because at that stage there is no individual human nature to be joined to—an ordinary egg is haploid and not yet a new individual human.
It's my understanding that the H in Jesus H. Christ stands for "Haploid".
First, I’m not clear on what you mean by “incarnated in reverse.” If you mean “gave up the creaturely nature he took on at his incarnation, the answer is “he didn’t give it up —now or ever.” Christ is human forever.
Second, obviously none of us knows what Christ may have done elsewhere, because he hasn’t told us. There are suggestions in the Scripture that this incarnation is and will be the only one; but they are suggestions, not straightforward statements of fact or promises. We have no idea whether any other world exists which holds creatures who have rebelled against God the way this world does. All other worlds may be unfallen (and if they are, it’s going to be embarrassing when we meet those people some day!). If fallen worlds exist besides ours, God’s character pretty much guarantees he will have done something to redeem them—but what, exactly, we don’t know. Perhaps some other act of even more appalling love. His creativity means I can’t even guess at what he might do.
God became flesh then flesh became God. God changed. God was humanized. So he could weep. God cannot change. God does not weep.
So God the Son (aka Yahweh) has always been Christ? And he wasn't human forever but has been for the past two thousand years out of forever?
We have every idea that other worlds holding creatures have always existed. What we don't have is the meaningless fundamentalist concept of rebellion against God. I have nothing to be embarrassed about. Although my hopeless intrusive thinking says otherwise. All I need for redemption, apart from death, is proof of Love. Which cannot be appalling by definition.
Well , here’s where things get sticky. God the Son has always existed, and he is the member of the Trinity who put on human nature and became the man Jesus Christ, roughly 2000 years ago. And remains both God and human to this day. So in that sense, God certainly changed.
If he put on human nature, as a layer, did all of him?
Did the Second Person of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, meta-infinite, meta-eternal, (transcendent of infinity from eternity), creator of all infinite things for eternity, collapse in to a human egg?
After eternity of not collapsing in to anything?
Is this particular that scandalous?
But that’s not a problem for Christian’s thinking about verses like “I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O Israel, are not destroyed.” Those verses are clearly speaking of his character—that he keeps his commitments and doesn’t break his promises or give up on the people he loves. They say nothing about whether he might choose to take on a second, created nature—as he did in the Incarnation. In fact, his changeless love and commitment happen to be exactly what’s driving the Incarnation.
In which case they've done infinitely forever. Not just once a couple of millennia ago. After eternity of not. So how much of The Son is Jesus? The human layer? Along with all the other infinity of layers?
As for my use of the phrase “appalling love,” I think it must be the rare Christian who hasn’t looked at some particular act of God’s mercy, love or forgiveness and been shaken by it. The way I was last week when I realized just why Jesus was being so chatty with Pontius Pilate right before he sentenced him to death, when most of the time he stood silent. Then I compare it with a couple of other dialogues he had with people and realized: Jesus was trying to evangelize his executioner. If that doesn’t give a person pause, I have trouble imagining what will. Appalling? To me, yes. Just too much in so many ways.
A fine beholder's (not one I) share.
The only way Jesus can be transcendent and still meaningfully exist, have a real identity, is as the Earth local God-human nature and will hybrid. Not as an infinitesimal layer on God the Son. Who then becomes superfluous.
Unless the scandal of the particular must fundamentalistically apply, to maintain God the Son.
'Hypostases' aren't 'layers.'
The Eternal Word isn't wearing a 'Son' layer.
The man Christ Jesus isn't wearing a 'God' layer.
We aren't talking about masks or strips of wall-paper.
Those statements don't follow anything I said in response to @Lamb Chopped talking about the 2nd Person putting on human nature. Only the former is a hypostasis. The divine and human natures, neither of which is a hypostasis, person, became one hypostasis. A person.
Oh, it’s not a matter of layers—as if you could scrape the human bit off. No, the problem here is that we don’t know much about how human beings are structured in their non-visible nature, and even less about God. Making statements about layers etc requires us to commit to a metaphor from the physical world which might have no relationship at all to what the reality is.
But as far as the question about an egg, i think we’re on sage ground to say that God the Son was in / with /United to that zygote. I couldn’t say when precisely that particular human nature came into existence, as we have no idea how things went in the absence of a human father.
We do, the human nature was in Mary's egg. Which was conceived by the Spirit. Not the Son.
I didn't express myself very well.
The Spirit isn't the Son wearing a 'Spirit mask.' The Father isn't the Spirit wearing a 'Father Mask'. The ...
First, I’m not clear on what you mean by “incarnated in reverse.” If you mean “gave up the creaturely nature he took on at his incarnation, the answer is “he didn’t give it up —now or ever.” Christ is human forever.
Second, obviously none of us knows what Christ may have done elsewhere, because he hasn’t told us. There are suggestions in the Scripture that this incarnation is and will be the only one; but they are suggestions, not straightforward statements of fact or promises. We have no idea whether any other world exists which holds creatures who have rebelled against God the way this world does. All other worlds may be unfallen (and if they are, it’s going to be embarrassing when we meet those people some day!). If fallen worlds exist besides ours, God’s character pretty much guarantees he will have done something to redeem them—but what, exactly, we don’t know. Perhaps some other act of even more appalling love. His creativity means I can’t even guess at what he might do.
God became flesh then flesh became God. God changed. God was humanized. So he could weep. God cannot change. God does not weep.
So God the Son (aka Yahweh) has always been Christ? And he wasn't human forever but has been for the past two thousand years out of forever?
We have every idea that other worlds holding creatures have always existed. What we don't have is the meaningless fundamentalist concept of rebellion against God. I have nothing to be embarrassed about. Although my hopeless intrusive thinking says otherwise. All I need for redemption, apart from death, is proof of Love. Which cannot be appalling by definition.
Well , here’s where things get sticky. God the Son has always existed, and he is the member of the Trinity who put on human nature and became the man Jesus Christ, roughly 2000 years ago. And remains both God and human to this day. So in that sense, God certainly changed.
If he put on human nature, as a layer, did all of him?
Did the Second Person of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, meta-infinite, meta-eternal, (transcendent of infinity from eternity), creator of all infinite things for eternity, collapse in to a human egg?
After eternity of not collapsing in to anything?
Is this particular that scandalous?
But that’s not a problem for Christian’s thinking about verses like “I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O Israel, are not destroyed.” Those verses are clearly speaking of his character—that he keeps his commitments and doesn’t break his promises or give up on the people he loves. They say nothing about whether he might choose to take on a second, created nature—as he did in the Incarnation. In fact, his changeless love and commitment happen to be exactly what’s driving the Incarnation.
In which case they've done infinitely forever. Not just once a couple of millennia ago. After eternity of not. So how much of The Son is Jesus? The human layer? Along with all the other infinity of layers?
As for my use of the phrase “appalling love,” I think it must be the rare Christian who hasn’t looked at some particular act of God’s mercy, love or forgiveness and been shaken by it. The way I was last week when I realized just why Jesus was being so chatty with Pontius Pilate right before he sentenced him to death, when most of the time he stood silent. Then I compare it with a couple of other dialogues he had with people and realized: Jesus was trying to evangelize his executioner. If that doesn’t give a person pause, I have trouble imagining what will. Appalling? To me, yes. Just too much in so many ways.
A fine beholder's (not one I) share.
The only way Jesus can be transcendent and still meaningfully exist, have a real identity, is as the Earth local God-human nature and will hybrid. Not as an infinitesimal layer on God the Son. Who then becomes superfluous.
Unless the scandal of the particular must fundamentalistically apply, to maintain God the Son.
'Hypostases' aren't 'layers.'
The Eternal Word isn't wearing a 'Son' layer.
The man Christ Jesus isn't wearing a 'God' layer.
We aren't talking about masks or strips of wall-paper.
Those statements don't follow anything I said in response to @Lamb Chopped talking about the 2nd Person putting on human nature. Only the former is a hypostasis. The divine and human natures, neither of which is a hypostasis, person, became one hypostasis. A person.
Oh, it’s not a matter of layers—as if you could scrape the human bit off. No, the problem here is that we don’t know much about how human beings are structured in their non-visible nature, and even less about God. Making statements about layers etc requires us to commit to a metaphor from the physical world which might have no relationship at all to what the reality is.
But as far as the question about an egg, i think we’re on sage ground to say that God the Son was in / with /United to that zygote. I couldn’t say when precisely that particular human nature came into existence, as we have no idea how things went in the absence of a human father.
We do, the human nature was in Mary's egg. Which was conceived by the Spirit. Not the Son.
I didn't express myself very well.
The Spirit isn't the Son wearing a 'Spirit mask.' The Father isn't the Spirit wearing a 'Father Mask'. The ...
The relevance? I was responding to your comments about the 'hypostases' within the Godhead. You seemed to be suggesting that they were 'masks' or 'layers' of some kind.
Well, as for two eggs, I DO read science fiction....
Physically speaking, the man needs a full set of chromosomes. And one way of getting a full set would be to use two eggs and adapt them, or one of them. That's still going to take miraculous help, obviously, but it has the advantage of leaving him with almost all of his human heritage coming through Mary instead of half (and the other half through direct creation or something). I haven't a clue about the Y chromosome, but I've no doubt God could figure that out.
This is obviously total speculation, but hey, it's 3:30 in the morning and I can't sleep, so what the hey.
The relevance? I was responding to your comments about the 'hypostases' within the Godhead. You seemed to be suggesting that they were 'masks' or 'layers' of some kind.
Perhaps I'd misunderstood you. Easily done ...
Indeed, but no, I'm not aware of where I was Sabellian, Monarchian or Modal.
Well, as for two eggs, I DO read science fiction....
Physically speaking, the man needs a full set of chromosomes. And one way of getting a full set would be to use two eggs and adapt them, or one of them. That's still going to take miraculous help, obviously, but it has the advantage of leaving him with almost all of his human heritage coming through Mary instead of half (and the other half through direct creation or something). I haven't a clue about the Y chromosome, but I've no doubt God could figure that out.
This is obviously total speculation, but hey, it's 3:30 in the morning and I can't sleep, so what the hey.
I’m talking about how the physical necessities were handled. We’ve got no idea whether God used two eggs (with suitable modifications), whether he created a single sperm equivalent and then let things carry on normally, or whether he said “Why bother?” And simply doubled the chromosomes at some point, again with suitable modifications (including the provision of a Y chromosome). And there would have to be modifications to avoid any lethal genes being doubled, as well as something to carry out the role of paternal imprinting, and so on and so forth. Obviously the Spirit would know better than us what needed doing. But as he hasn’t chosen to tell us the details, and all we know is that Jesus has no human father, several scenarios are possible. And the point at which the two natures joined would be different depending on the point at which the human nature came into being. You said simply “Mary’s egg,” which would be fine after the Spirit does whatever he chooses to do with it by way of fertilization; but couldn’t happen when the egg was simply an ordinary egg, because at that stage there is no individual human nature to be joined to—an ordinary egg is haploid and not yet a new individual human. That’s why I didn’t simply accept your phrase “Mary’s egg.” As it stood, it sounded like nothing more needed to happen physically.
This an amazing post. Just wow. Why bother with all of this, really? Why not just bypass developmental biology altogether & put a miniature, fully formed Jesus baby into Mary and just increase its size gradually over nine months? No need for a zygote if you really think about it.
Comments
Matters were eventually resolved some years after Constans II's death in 668.
There are sticking points and heels dug in on both sides.
So yes, Christ weeping indeed.
I find it rather alarming that you appear to equate the two scenarios. When was the last time in this miaphysite debate that anyone was abducted or tortured? Not all disagreements about points of principle deserve tears.
Earlier today, you wrote: Hmm.
I don't see why it's so 'disturbing' to be concerned about that.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.
@Martin54 - yes, divine 'impassibility' is Orthodox but that doesn't obviate 'Jesus wept' in John's Gospel.
Besides, we are all of us describing situations - abductions, tortures etc centuries ago and grindingly slow rapprochement between Christian believers today - that we feel likely to cause Christ some concern given what we know of his character from the Gospels etc.
That doesn't mean that he is more concerned about theological debates between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox or between Calvinists and Armininians or pre-millenialists and a-millenialists or whatever else than he is about war, poverty or injustice.
But then the usual debates about Theodicy kick in ...
That's not to say we can ever fathom God out in his 'essence'.
My takes remain that there's nothing that faith and belief can't rationalize, and that you all still don't actually know any of these things (nor do some even really want to) any better than the people who invented such concepts. Both of those things are completely fine, of course. I just can't join-in.
We are those made in the image of God, and also presumably those who love him and are interested in him; and provided we conduct ourselves accordingly (and that’s a very big “if,” given the evils already described), I really don’t think he minds if we try to understand him.
Hee himself is the one who put us in this rather uncomfortable position, after all—thinking abimals, creatures of dust, however you care to put it—but who can now claim the Lord who made everything as a blood relative. We are never going to be able to “know our place” and keep a respectful distance from him again.
So does the human nature of God the Son still exist? And therefore weep?
And @Lamb Chopped. Very nice. We converge at the door of the tent.
No. You might be doing this, but not all of us are. What I find disturbing is that you appear to find these two different scenarios equally concerning. That anyone could find persecution, abduction and torture just as concerning as long-lasting but apparently non-injurious disagreements about terminology suggests to me an alarming lack of perspective.
I think that most 100% humans learn not to pay much attention to groups of mostly men persisting in disagreements about who's right.
And yes, the human nature of Christ still exists, and thank God for it, it's our primary claim on him, if you know what I mean. The ascension wasn't him undoing the incarnation--he took his human nature with him. Which is awesome, and makes me very happy.
I said nothing of the kind.
I'll thank you to stop putting words in my mouth, twisting what I've written or impugning what you assume my position actually is.
I don't do that to you. I'll thank you to stop doing it to me.
Like what? Where? In the name of the Saviour the One Sent to Earth. Of infinite worlds he created from forever? He's local then? Earth local. Still. Transcendent, immortal. What's he do now? Apart from probably weep? And how does he map to the Second Person of the Holy and Undivided Trinity? Coterminously? Is God the Son now humanized? He couldn't weep before due to divine aseity? But he can now?
Or mere reason (as in come let us) cannot apply?
*shudder*
Just off the top of my head...
Paul refers to him as a man well after his ascension, as does Peter in his various sermons, speaking by the Holy Spirit. The author of Hebrews spends a lot of ink on the theological ramifications of what it means for us to have a high priest (Jesus) standing before God on our behalf who shares our very nature--which is, of course, human. There are various prophetic bits where someone "like a son of man" is receiving power, or authority, or a kingdom, from God--which are of course references to Jesus. And so on and so forth.
Most orthodox. So, is this the only time, in the eternity of infinite worlds, that God the Son has been incarnated in reverse?
Second, obviously none of us knows what Christ may have done elsewhere, because he hasn’t told us. There are suggestions in the Scripture that this incarnation is and will be the only one; but they are suggestions, not straightforward statements of fact or promises. We have no idea whether any other world exists which holds creatures who have rebelled against God the way this world does. All other worlds may be unfallen (and if they are, it’s going to be embarrassing when we meet those people some day!). If fallen worlds exist besides ours, God’s character pretty much guarantees he will have done something to redeem them—but what, exactly, we don’t know. Perhaps some other act of even more appalling love. His creativity means I can’t even guess at what he might do.
Amen to all of this.
Amen.
I must check out the Diane Duane books—and I heartily recommend Lewis along with you! 🥰
God became flesh then flesh became God. God changed. God was humanized. So he could weep. God cannot change. God does not weep.
So God the Son (aka Yahweh) has always been Christ? And he wasn't human forever but has been for the past two thousand years out of forever?
We have every idea that other worlds holding creatures have always existed. What we don't have is the meaningless fundamentalist concept of rebellion against God. I have nothing to be embarrassed about. Although my hopeless intrusive thinking says otherwise. All I need for redemption, apart from death, is proof of Love. Which cannot be appalling by definition.
Just to clarify, when I wrote of Jesus weeping, I was using the word figuratively. And I was thinking of such events as the Albigensian crusade, to name just one.
Not a problem. I presume you mean this.
Why has unalloyed Love, as the ground of infinite being, never revealed itself? Why couldn't They in Christ?
And I'm more than happy with figurative, but for others, at least one, here it appears not to be.
I see. Well, and I'll apologize, but "speaking by the Holy Spirit" is problematic for me. And, Paul could have been wrong, of course, as well as Peter. The chances of that are not zero. And we don't know who wrote Hebrews, and it didn't have the easiest of times getting into the canon of scripture. Seems like a pretty iffy proposition, but then again, I don't need it to be true.
Jesus did not exhibit real knowledge it would have been absolutely naturally impossible for him to know. As you rightly said, if he were recorded as speaking in Maori, without anyone realising for over 1600 years at least, obviously, it could have been put down to madness, although glossolalia was rampant within a few years of his death, if that (Pentecost was something else). A genuine prophecy of something that couldn't be engineered on Earth, like the date of a supernova, would be pretty clinchy. Although alien tech might know by neutrino flux years ahead, but not to the day, or even the year. Trouble is they burst with gamma rays.
God's been known to stop the Earth rotating in the Bronze Age, and roll it back in the Iron. NASA are still covering that up of course. That would have done it for Jesus. It would have done it for me.
But he gave no proof. Including of being Love incarnate. Not in his hard sayings and not in his appalling act of entirely natural, human love.
Well , here’s where things get sticky. God the Son has always existed, and he is the member of the Trinity who put on human nature and became the man Jesus Christ, roughly 2000 years ago. And remains both God and human to this day. So in that sense, God certainly changed.
But that’s not a problem for Christian’s thinking about verses like “I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O Israel, are not destroyed.” Those verses are clearly speaking of his character—that he keeps his commitments and doesn’t break his promises or give up on the people he loves. They say nothing about whether he might choose to take on a second, created nature—as he did in the Incarnation. In fact, his changeless love and commitment happen to be exactly what’s driving the Incarnation.
As for my use of the phrase “appalling love,” I think it must be the rare Christian who hasn’t looked at some particular act of God’s mercy, love or forgiveness and been shaken by it. The way I was last week when I realized just why Jesus was being so chatty with Pontius Pilate right before he sentenced him to death, when most of the time he stood silent. Then I compare it with a couple of other dialogues he had with people and realized: Jesus was trying to evangelize his executioner. If that doesn’t give a person pause, I have trouble imagining what will. Appalling? To me, yes. Just too much in so many ways.
An alternative view is that He did what was needed to ensure that the sequences of events required to bring about His crucifixion took place.
Did the Second Person of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, meta-infinite, meta-eternal, (transcendent of infinity from eternity), creator of all infinite things for eternity, collapse in to a human egg?
After eternity of not collapsing in to anything?
Is this particular that scandalous? In which case they've done infinitely forever. Not just once a couple of millennia ago. After eternity of not. So how much of The Son is Jesus? The human layer? Along with all the other infinity of layers? A fine beholder's (not one I) share.
The only way Jesus can be transcendent and still meaningfully exist, have a real identity, is as the Earth local God-human nature and will hybrid. Not as an infinitesimal layer on God the Son. Who then becomes superfluous.
Unless the scandal of the particular must fundamentalistically apply, to maintain God the Son.
'Hypostases' aren't 'layers.'
The Eternal Word isn't wearing a 'Son' layer.
The man Christ Jesus isn't wearing a 'God' layer.
We aren't talking about masks or strips of wall-paper.
But as far as the question about an egg, i think we’re on sage ground to say that God the Son was in / with /United to that zygote. I couldn’t say when precisely that particular human nature came into existence, as we have no idea how things went in the absence of a human father.
Those statements don't follow anything I said in response to @Lamb Chopped talking about the 2nd Person putting on human nature. Only the former is a hypostasis. The divine and human natures, neither of which is a hypostasis, person, became one hypostasis. A person.
We do, the human nature was in Mary's egg. Which was conceived by the Spirit. Not the Son.
It's my understanding that the H in Jesus H. Christ stands for "Haploid".
I didn't express myself very well.
The Spirit isn't the Son wearing a 'Spirit mask.' The Father isn't the Spirit wearing a 'Father Mask'. The ...
I know. I don't see the relevance?
And @Lamb Chopped, two eggs?!
The relevance? I was responding to your comments about the 'hypostases' within the Godhead. You seemed to be suggesting that they were 'masks' or 'layers' of some kind.
Perhaps I'd misunderstood you. Easily done ...
Physically speaking, the man needs a full set of chromosomes. And one way of getting a full set would be to use two eggs and adapt them, or one of them. That's still going to take miraculous help, obviously, but it has the advantage of leaving him with almost all of his human heritage coming through Mary instead of half (and the other half through direct creation or something). I haven't a clue about the Y chromosome, but I've no doubt God could figure that out.
This is obviously total speculation, but hey, it's 3:30 in the morning and I can't sleep, so what the hey.
Indeed, but no, I'm not aware of where I was Sabellian, Monarchian or Modal.
And scrambled.
I keep to the scripts.
Now that is a fine excuse.
This an amazing post. Just wow. Why bother with all of this, really? Why not just bypass developmental biology altogether & put a miniature, fully formed Jesus baby into Mary and just increase its size gradually over nine months? No need for a zygote if you really think about it.
Hidden text - antisemitic and misogynistic slurs - la vie en rouge, Purgatory host