Assumptions we make about God.

[CaDan]

Yet we know that Christ became flesh (c.f. Holy Scripture). We have no Scripture that says He lost or cast off His flesh. Therefore, any conjecture that He does not have a real physical body is by definition extraBiblical and in the absence of Holy Tradition that affirms such it is simply a heterodox belief rather than the truth revealed to us through the word of God.

But such a belief may be inferred from I Cor. 15.

 

[Oblio]

Many heresies can be inferred from Holy Scripture.

 

[Momzilla]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Oblio again.

Fiddlesticks.

 

[CaDan]

Many heresies can be inferred from Holy Scripture.

I'm trying to have a discussion here. The discussion does not move forward if every statement draws the HERESY! response. That's not a discussion--that's a tribunal.

If you want to point me to Holy Tradition, that's fine. But Holy Tradition is not whatever Oblio posts. Point me to statements by the Fathers and the Councils that support your position. I'll read them. I really will.

 

[Oblio]

I'm trying to have a discussion here. The discussion does not move forward if every statement draws the HERESY! response.

I simply pointed out that inferring from Holy Scripture is not sufficient witness to the truth. Arius and many other heretics taught and inferred heresy from Holy Scripture.

But Holy Tradition is not whatever Oblio posts.

You are correct, Holy Tradition is what the Orthodox Church believes. If I err in communicating what she believes, I'll gladly be corrected by her members who point out my misunderstandings. The Orthodox Church is unified in her beliefs and has been for 2000 years.

 

[CaDan]

I simply pointed out that inferring from Holy Scripture is not sufficient witness to the truth. Arius and many other heretics taught and inferred heresy from Holy Scripture.



You are correct, Holy Tradition is what the Orthodox Church believes. If I err in communicating what she believes, I'll gladly be corrected by her members who point out my misunderstandings. The Orthodox Church is unified in her beliefs and has been for 2000 years.

I will not be drawn into that debate.

 

[Unnamed Servant]

I’ve thought about this before. As humans with a finite mind, we do tend to relate things of infinite nature to what we can understand. We can’t comprehend an infinite God, so we thus give him the body of a finite human-body; not as a definition of what he is, but rather a symbol of his essence. Infinite essence is the thing that I can’t get my mind around, nor do I need to; although it is fun to ponder on it to develop that sense of fearful awe that helps in devotion and daily life in Christ. Whatever we can imagine, whatever definition we give to God or heaven, they are only mere words. I find joy in the fact that no words, symbols, or human-relation can possibly describe God or the after life. Too often we think something is only as good as the words that describe it; however the after life is the only thing that goes beyond any words that we can give.

Amen! What a joy!

Love-In-Christ,

Unnamed Servant

 

[Crazy Liz]

I'm trying to have a discussion here. The discussion does not move forward if every statement draws the HERESY! response. That's not a discussion--that's a tribunal.

If you want to point me to Holy Tradition, that's fine. But Holy Tradition is not whatever Oblio posts. Point me to statements by the Fathers and the Councils that support your position. I'll read them. I really will.

Please, Orthodox brothers and sisters, pay attention to this request. We have precious little open-minded discussion around here. Somebody is asking you to back up your statements about Holy Tradition, and indicating a willingness to read whatever you post. Yet the responses below seem to be one-liners without the kind of support requested.

I think I've mentioned before how I participated in an online dialogue between Orthodox and Evangelical Christians about 10 years ago, and it was very helpful to me in many ways. I have been disappointed coming here to CF that interfaith discussions seem either to be so-called "fellowship" where only trivial matters are discussed, or debates where everyone's goal seems to be to win the argument or feel superior to their opponents, rather than to try to reach a respectful understanding. IDD finally got shut down because of this atmosphere.

The people participating in this thread are some of the people I most respect at CF. I know you are all capable of a respectful and thoughtful discussion. Take your time to check for sources, if you need to, but please, let's take one small step in this thread to begin changing the atmosphere of CF. Since last night I can see this thread deteriorating into the usual drivel that ends most intelligent discussions around here before they really even get started. Let's turn it around! Let's see if we can have a discussion here on CF that is aimed at understanding, sharing and careful persuasion, not a mere exchange of debating points.

 

[SolomonVII]

The whole idea of Christianity is firmly tied into the fact that God is personal. God the Father, as presented to us in the Old Testament is intensely personal, and intimately involved in the life of His people. He loves us, he is jealous, he is angry, he weeps, he is involved with us as a father to a child, as a husband to a wife,....

These are the assumptions that we as Christians make about God.

Eastern religions and physics understand the Laws governing the universe to be impersonal and indifferent. Gods of these religions are gods. They are of a pyshic, symbolic reality only. They do not occupy physical space.

What makes Christianity different from Judaism and Islam is the exaltation of the body. Jesus did not leave behind any bones for the archeologist to find, but His Body was raised into eternal life. His promise was that anyone that believes will have the same eternal life in heaven, which transcends space and time and is not comprehensible to our minds.

Following Old Testament precedents, Christianity assumes God not just to have a personality and emotions, but with the incarnation, a body and a biography existing in time and space. God is as we are in every aspect, so they may become as He is, brothers and sisters in Christ. It is this very assumption about God that makes Christianity so special. We can look into a child's eys and see God smiling back at us. God not only transcends his creation, but He is immanent in His creation. He lives in us, and through Him, we become truly alive.

When God is concieved as either being impersonal, or not having a biography and a body, everything changes. The whole essence of our spirituality changes.

 

[Suzannah]

Please, Orthodox brothers and sisters, pay attention to this request. We have precious little open-minded discussion around here. Somebody is asking you to back up your statements about Holy Tradition, and indicating a willingness to read whatever you post. Yet the responses below seem to be one-liners without the kind of support requested.

I think I've mentioned before how I participated in an online dialogue between Orthodox and Evangelical Christians about 10 years ago, and it was very helpful to me in many ways. I have been disappointed coming here to CF that interfaith discussions seem either to be so-called "fellowship" where only trivial matters are discussed, or debates where everyone's goal seems to be to win the argument or feel superior to their opponents, rather than to try to reach a respectful understanding. IDD finally got shut down because of this atmosphere.

The people participating in this thread are some of the people I most respect at CF. I know you are all capable of a respectful and thoughtful discussion. Take your time to check for sources, if you need to, but please, let's take one small step in this thread to begin changing the atmosphere of CF. Since last night I can see this thread deteriorating into the usual drivel that ends most intelligent discussions around here before they really even get started. Let's turn it around! Let's see if we can have a discussion here on CF that is aimed at understanding, sharing and careful persuasion, not a mere exchange of debating points.

Liz, I appreciate your reminder of love. I do want to say though, that when the Orthodox point to the truths ratified by Council, or points to the absence of something in Scripture, he/she is in effect pointing toward Tradition.

 

[Oblio]

... and lifting his hands he blessed them. While blessing them, he parted from them and was carried up into heaven. And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy. ... (Lk 24:51-52).

Notice the lack of the term spirit. He was blessing them (as a physical Being), and left them, and was carried up into heaven.

 

[Oblio]

... and He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead ...

This Jesus who was taken up from you into heaven, will come the same way as you saw him go into heaven (Acts 1:11).

 

[Crazy Liz]

Liz, I appreciate your reminder of love. I do want to say though, that when the Orthodox point to the truths ratified by Council, or points to the absence of something in Scripture, he/she is in effect pointing toward Tradition.

Yes, I realize these one-liners are meaningful pointers to you. I think I understand that, but it took me a while to understand everything they carry "between the lines." I'm sure I don't completely understand it, yet. Baptists can quote a "proof text," and everyone who shares that tradition will understand a much larger message than that conveyed by the words. The one-liners the Orthodox throw around often are even more pregnant with meaning, but you have to unwrap them for people who don't share your tradition. When you fail to do that, your replies come off sounding arrogant. Although I don't think you mean to convey that attitude, it sounds nearly as arrogant as the Calvinists who go around repeating their message of God's hate. I know how infuriating posts like that are to you. Unless you unpack your tradition (Please excuse my capitalization. I'm never quite sure when to use a capital T.) and explain it, being willing to check to find out whether someone has really understood, you will never persuade an open-minded person who is simply unfamiliar with your history and your code-words and phrases. I know this is hard and takes time to do on a forum like this, but I think it's worth the effort.

 

[elizabethevangeline]

Regarding Crazy Liz's request...

I'm an evangelical who has been lurking here for months. I have seen many threads "deteriorate" because the Orthodox posters are required to back up every reference they make to church teaching with a direct source only to receive responses similiar to "I'm not orthodox"...so the church teaching isn't valid. On the other hand, evangelicals/sola scripture folk can express their personal opinions or interpretations, back it up with "the Holy Spirit revealed it to me" and the rest of us are supposed to receive it as valid.

As I said, I'm an evangelical and I'm frustrated on behalf of our Orthodox brothers and sisters. I'm surprised they hang in here as long as they do. WE are a proud and stiff-necked people.

Oblio stated he was trying to communicate the teachings of the Church as best he can. CaDan's response? "I will not be drawn into that debate" ??? What is that supposed to mean???

 

[Crazy Liz]

The whole idea of Christianity is firmly tied into the fact that God is personal. God the Father, as presented to us in the Old Testament is intensely personal, and intimately involved in the life of His people. He loves us, he is jealous, he is angry, he weeps, he is involved with us as a father to a child, as a husband to a wife,....

Yes. However, the physical manifestations (primarily in Exodus) of God are far outweighed by the texts that emphasize that God is not to be depicted in any physical form. The OT seems to deny God's physicality, or at least to discourage humans from even trying to imagine it. Your mention of the distinction between Christianity and Islam or Judaism below partially acknowledges this. However, this must be held in tension with our understanding that God as revealed in the OT is our God, also.

Let's say those participating in this thread (with the possible exception of Cray, who hasn't participated much since posting the OP) agree with you that God is personal, but have different conceptions of whether personality requires physicality. This is the question I think we should be exploring.

These are the assumptions that we as Christians make about God.

No! They are not assumptions. The theory of an impersonal God results from assumptions. The theory of a personal God comes from revelation. Confusing assumptions and what God has chosen to reveal to us is going to lead us in all kinds of wrong directions. In this kind of discussion, we must carefully distinguish between assumptions and revelation.

Eastern religions and physics understand the Laws governing the universe to be impersonal and indifferent. Gods of these religions are gods. They are of a pyshic, symbolic reality only. They do not occupy physical space.

This is because they lack the revelation of God that is central to our faith.

What makes Christianity different from Judaism and Islam is the exaltation of the body. Jesus did not leave behind any bones for the archeologist to find, but His Body was raised into eternal life. His promise was that anyone that believes will have the same eternal life in heaven, which transcends space and time and is not comprehensible to our minds.

If eternal life transcends time and space, in what way can we say it is physical? The only way we understand physicality is in terms of time and space. Thus, I think, CaDan's question up-thread asking how you can say Christ still has a body if you can't locate it in time and space. This is a legitimate question. I actually have come to accept that this is one of those mysteries that we won't be able to understand until we also are granted eternal life in our resurrected bodies, which will also, at least to some degree, transcend time and space the same way Christ's resurrected body does.

However, this does not invalidate CaDan's question. In fact, I believe the greatest shortcoming of Friends tradition is the failure to adequately consider such questions. How can we admit we can't fully answer these questions, and yet persuade anyone it's wrong to completely disregard the physical, or its direct interaction with the spiritual?

(BTW, on this note, have any of you read Richard Foster's Streams of Living Water? I highly recommend it. I think Foster has a good handle on the first 5 "streams" of Christian spirituality, but, because he is a Quaker, doesn't fully grasp the sacramental "stream." - At least in the first edition of the book, which I read, his description seemed a good attempt by someone who had come to understand that it exists, but had not yet quite grasped it. Seeing that "in process" place may help narrow the gap in this discussion. Anybody up to the challenge of reading and discussing it?)

Following Old Testament precedents, Christianity assumes God not just to have a personality and emotions, but with the incarnation, a body and a biography existing in time and space. God is as we are in every aspect, so they may become as He is, brothers and sisters in Christ. It is this very assumption about God that makes Christianity so special. We can look into a child's eys and see God smiling back at us. God not only transcends his creation, but He is immanent in His creation. He lives in us, and through Him, we become truly alive.

When God is concieved as either being impersonal, or not having a biography and a body, everything changes. The whole essence of our spirituality changes.

I agree with this statement, but I think it's necessary to acknowledge the possibility of conceiving of God as personal, but not physical. This is the predominant OT conception of God. The Incarnation didn't involve God taking on a personality for the first time, but it did involve God taking on physical human flesh. We also know that after the resurrection, there apparently were differences in the physical properties of Christ's body. We are promised that our bodies will also be similarly changed.

[bible]1 john 3:2[/bible]

(forgive me for resorting to a "proof text." )

This is what is revealed to us. Let us discuss what God has revealed to us, and not get all mixed up with assumptions.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Regarding Crazy Liz's request...

I'm an evangelical who has been lurking here for months. I have seen many threads "deteriorate" because the Orthodox posters are required to back up every reference they make to church teaching with a direct source only to receive responses similiar to "I'm not orthodox"...so the church teaching isn't valid. On the other hand, evangelicals/sola scripture folk can express their personal opinions or interpretations, back it up with "the Holy Spirit revealed it to me" and the rest of us are supposed to receive it as valid.

As I said, I'm an evangelical and I'm frustrated on behalf of our Orthodox brothers and sisters. I'm surprised they hang in here as long as they do. WE are a proud and stiff-necked people.

Oblio stated he was trying to communicate the teachings of the Church as best he can.

Good points, EE. I was trying to point out that CaDan did not seem to be approaching the question that way. Perhaps CaDan's question should simply have asked for a fuller explanation, rather than for backup material. That was the way I understood it. I agree with you that requests for backup material have often been treated the way you describe. It's wrong. Sometimes it has to do with who is participating in a thread, too. Often new people jump into a debate trying to prove a point, and becomes center stage in the whole discussion, causing the original discussion just to get lost. I'm sure I've been guilty of that, myself, from time to time. I'm working hard to try to see that that doesn't happen in THIS THREAD. If you want to change the atmosphere, you've got to start somewhere.

CaDan's response? "I will not be drawn into that debate" ??? What is that supposed to mean???

I think it means he's not going to toss one-liners back at Oblio.

 

[Oblio]

The OT seems to deny God's physicality, or at least to discourage humans from even trying to imagine it.

Of course (as you hinted at) this was all blown away at the Annunciation of the Theotokos when Christ is proclaimed as the express image of the Father, or as Holy Tradition has proclaimed:

God is the Lord and has revealed Himself to us ...Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia

 

[Suzannah]

Yes, I realize these one-liners are meaningful pointers to you. I think I understand that, but it took me a while to understand everything they carry "between the lines." I'm sure I don't completely understand it, yet. Baptists can quote a "proof text," and everyone who shares that tradition will understand a much larger message than that conveyed by the words. The one-liners the Orthodox throw around often are even more pregnant with meaning, but you have to unwrap them for people who don't share your tradition.

Well, as a convert to Orthodoxy, I have to say that when I was a Protestant, I just did not find it as difficult as others seem to feel it is. To me, it was an easy transition. I should have more compassion and I will work on that in the future..

When you fail to do that, your replies come off sounding arrogant. Although I don't think you mean to convey that attitude, it sounds nearly as arrogant as the Calvinists who go around repeating their message of God's hate. I know how infuriating posts like that are to you. Unless you unpack your tradition (Please excuse my capitalization. I'm never quite sure when to use a capital T.) and explain it, being willing to check to find out whether someone has really understood, you will never persuade an open-minded person who is simply unfamiliar with your history and your code-words and phrases. I know this is hard and takes time to do on a forum like this, but I think it's worth the effort.

I think that in the case of this thread, Oblio unpacked it very well, and its meaning was quite plain and that it simply is not received because the receiver is not open to receiving it. To respond with "I will not get into the debate" and "I'm not Orthodox" is simply akin to getting up and leaving the dinner table because you don't like what is being served. These statements imply something far bigger than our perceived one-liners ever could: That is namely, that person is far more "correct" in their "private" interpretation, than 2000 years of unbroken Apostolic succession, and that the rest of us are idiots for not "seeing that." That arrogance you speak of, goes two ways, if it goes one way at all.

Both sides of this discussion need to be more merciful to the other.

 

[SolomonVII]

Line 1:
Actually the messianic prophecies of more than just strongly hint at the idea that the the Messiah that would be sitting on the throne would be called Everlasting Father and Almighty God.

Line 2:
Jacob struggled against a man that was the angel of God, and the context of this struggle was depicted as a struggle against God Himself.

 

[CaDan]

Oblio stated he was trying to communicate the teachings of the Church as best he can. CaDan's response? "I will not be drawn into that debate" ??? What is that supposed to mean???

I will not be drawn into the debate about the existence of Tradition or on the authority of the Scriptures.

Please, please, please do not confuse me with a sola scriptura evangelical. I'm not here to bash on Orthodoxy. I'm trying to have a discussion about the nature of God.

on edit: The first paragraph is not very clear and could be interpreted negatively. What I mean to say is that I express no opinion on the existence of Holy Tradition. I simply do not have enough information to make a claim one way or the other about it.

All I request is that someone point me to some reference regarding the claim at issue. I don't have the time to read through the entire ccel.org website to find it, if it exists.