Enduring Problems in Philosophy

I am an arch-heretic. I am not Trinitarian. I do not believe the atonement was finished at the cross. And I believe Christ took upon Himself sinful flesh.

So, I am out of the club! Lost for sure!
 
o2b said:
Then the moment God begat His Son, there were two, there was relationship, and time naturally spawned into existence. Not because God created it, but because it is a natural consequence of relationship itself.
Click to expand...

Since the Son is not a created being, he is not temporal in that relationship. He becomes temporal with the Immaculate Conception.

So I don't think time is a consequence of that primordial relationship. It is an eternal relationship (i.e. timeless).
 
o2b said:
I am an arch-heretic. I am not Trinitarian. I do not believe the atonement was finished at the cross. And I believe Christ took upon Himself sinful flesh.

So, I am out of the club! Lost for sure!
Click to expand...

Do you believe in Christ's two natures, 'fully man and fully God'?

I think it is orthodox to consider that Christ, as fully man, was capable of sin. But that he did not, in fact, sin.

Only by being capable of sin, but being pure of it in fact, was he able to redeem mankind.
 
Ren said:
Since the Son is not a created being, he is not temporal in that relationship. He becomes temporal with the Immaculate Conception.

So I don't think time is a consequence of that primordial relationship. It is an eternal relationship (i.e. timeless).
Click to expand...
Well, the way I understand it, Christ was begotten of His Father. Uncreated divine essence of the Father proceeded forth from Him and somehow is the Son. So, to me, the Son of God had a beginning. When He was begotten.
 
o2b said:
Well, the way I understand it, Christ was begotten of His Father. Uncreated divine essence of the Father proceeded forth from Him and somehow is the Son. So, to me, the Son of God had a beginning. When He was begotten.
Click to expand...

I struggle to reconcile the idea of having a temporal beginning and being God.

I'd tend to opt for the idea that non-physical causation can be intelligible outside of temporality.

But this might be fluff, I don't know lol. It's all quite mysterious, after all.
 
Ren said:
Do you believe in Christ's two natures, 'fully man and fully God'?

I think it is orthodox to consider that Christ, as fully man, was capable of sin. But that he did not, in fact, sin.

Only by being capable of sin, but being pure of it in fact, was he able to redeem mankind.
Click to expand...
Yes, Ren. Post #56.
 
Ren said:
I struggle to reconcile the idea of having a temporal beginning and being God.

I'd tend to opt for the idea that non-physical causation can be intelligible outside of temporality.

But this might be fluff, I don't know lol. It's all quite mysterious, after all.
Click to expand...
Yes, Ren, Post #48.

With a strict theos study, Christ is never referred to as God. Only as God's Son.

I think the Bible invests the term "God" with not only being divine, but so also being "the Source of all things." Christ, being God's Son, is not the Source of all things. Though He was divine by inheritance.

If that same terminology were applied to us, not a one of us would be referred to as a man, but as a son of man where only Adam was a man.
 
I have to stop for a while.

In order to "build my case," I need to build a couple of blocks that are needful prerequisites for sharing what I believe the blood of Christ is and how it atones man to God.

It'll take a bit.

I sure appreciate this discussion!
 
Ren said:
Immaculate Conception
Click to expand...
I'm also not all that convinced it was actually immaculate. I accept that Christ is important and was therefore conceived importantly and even with the announcements of angels, but I'm thinking it's more of the deeper meaning of it rather than the actual "immaculateness" of it. It's like miracles which I believe truly happen everyday but just not as grandiose or not with as much magic realism. However, the meaning and even its minute occurrence remains equally magical to me in as much as Christ remains supremely Godly to me because damn, sin is a weird thing.

So yeah, I am also a heretic. Welcome to the club!
Click to expand...

So, don't you think being ostracized as a heretic is also sort of ungodly in that it is hateful? What does sin actually look like when an alpha and omega God seems to encourage some sort of anarchy? However, I do often wonder what Christ might think about the things I think. God of course is all encompassing and all forgiving, but what about Christ? I think about the energy between Christ and the Pontius Pilate. I wonder what that stood for.
 
Last edited:
Sidis Coruscatis said:
It causes me severe distress that I can't contribute to this topic while being juxtaposed with the feeling that this will be immensely important to me in retaining telos henceforth.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
mintoots said:
I'm also not all that convinced it was actually immaculate. I accept that Christ is important and was therefore conceived importantly and even with the announcements of angels, but I'm thinking it's more of the deeper meaning of it rather than the actual "immaculateness" of it. It's like miracles which I believe truly happen everyday but just not as grandiose or not with as much magic realism. However, the meaning and even its minute occurrence remains equally magical to me in as much as Christ remains supremely Godly to me because damn, sin is a weird thing.
Click to expand...

But if Christ has a human mommy and daddy, then he's human but not divine.

Unless you think God the Son decided to temporarily dwell in the body of Jesus the man. But then, it's not "two natures in one person", but two natures in two persons.

Which I personally think takes away from the significance of Jesus.
 
Ren said:
Unless you think God the Son decided to temporarily dwell in the body of Jesus the man. But then, it's not "two natures in one person", but two natures in two persons.
Click to expand...
More like still God the Son but through Joseph's sperm.
 
By the way, the Immaculate Conception is the view that Mary was conceived immaculately in order to be a suitable vessel for Christ. It does not refer to Christ's conception.

My belief is that the Father joined a sperm like that of a descendant of David to Mary.

Romans 1:3
3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed [Greek: sperma] of David according to the flesh,

2 Timothy 2:8
8 Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed [Greek sperma] of David, was raised from the dead according to my gospel,

Hebrews 2:14
14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,

All orthodox churches do not believe Christ took the flesh of humankind after the fall.
 
mintoots said:
More like still God the Son but through Joseph's sperm.
Click to expand...

So Joseph would be Jesus's human father, and God the Father would be his divine father.

Hence, two persons. No? Wouldn't a single person have a single father?
 
Ren said:
So Joseph would be Jesus's human father, and God the Father would be his divine father.

Hence, two persons. No? Wouldn't a single person have a single father?
Click to expand...
Well, essentially in my book God is a father to all of us. I'm a single person too but although not of the same precise likeness as Christ, I am also a child of God. I see it as this.

o2b said:
By the way, the Immaculate Conception is the view that Mary was conceived immaculately in order to be a suitable vessel for Christ. It does not refer to Christ's conception.
Click to expand...
Good point. She as a vessel that is pure and has never been defiled.
 
Ren said:
But if Christ has a human mommy and daddy, then he's human but not divine.
Click to expand...
How can we categorically decide that Christ is not divine if God is alpha and omega, among us and within us?

Divinity is tricky because how do we define it exactly? Do we mean simply to refer to that which is beyond us? Something inexplicable or incomprehensible? Is it holiness? Does it necessarily have to be unavailable to humanity? What if the state of divinity is a state of holiness and least sin? Is there an argument against that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top