Enduring Problems in Philosophy

[o2b]

Hey Ren,

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?

My sense of this is that the following is who Christ is, with respect to His identity.

He who is of the lineage of God condescended to be of the lineage of man.

Now, I believe Mary was miraculously conceived and the event included God fertilizing an egg of Mary's with a sperm like that of the lineage of David. Where that sperm came from, I have no idea.

I see it that at the incarnation Christ laid aside His divine attributes forever. So never two persons. The same person who chose quite a change. He literally changed from being a divine Son to a human one. Christ was never both natures at the same time. He had a divine nature before the incarnation and has had a human one since.

That's how I see it, anyway.

 

[o2b]

Hey mintoots,

I cannot see how the Immaculate Conception can be true since Scripture makes it very clear, Christ was made of the seed of a fallen human. It is also written he took the same flesh and blood as the children of men. There is not a single child of man that had an unfallen nature (flesh).

By the way, what do you mean when you use the term alpha and omega?

 

[o2b]

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?

Well, Scripture says Christ made all that was ever made.

John 1:3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

I think the pat answer is likely. Omniscient, omnipresent, holy...

 

[John K]

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).

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.

I agree with Ren on this one o2b, and I would use a different tense to you, saying that Christ is begotten of the Father, rather than 'was' because it's an eternal act. To us with our temporal perspective, it looks like a continuous process of relationship between the two. Eternal doesn't mean unending duration of course, but outside of time. That's not to say God can't experience time because he is simultaneously present at every point of time and space - for Him it's a matter of choice rather than being bound to it's linear flow like we are.

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.

Funnily enough, I've never been very bothered by the possibility of miracles, even the grand ones. If God exists then he can do pretty much what he likes, so an intervention by Him that looks like a miracle to us is nothing remarkable. Some of the greatest miracles we encounter in fact come from the roots of physics - for example the event that created our universe in the first place, and the utterly incredibly small chance that it's key constants were all within the range that allow us to exist. You stand a better chance of winning a state lottery a million times in succession than this fortunate circumstance. The earth itself is another miracle - having a large moon to stabilise it's rotation and so keep its climate good for billions of years is another extraordinary chance; our sun is remarkably stable compared to others of the same class; and we are located in a relatively quiet region of our galaxy. I'm not saying these are divine interventions, but that we are the product of extraordinary, very low probability circumstances that are as challenging to believe as any divine miracle of intervention.

I see it that at the incarnation Christ laid aside His divine attributes forever. So never two persons. The same person who chose quite a change. He literally changed from being a divine Son to a human one. Christ was never both natures at the same time. He had a divine nature before the incarnation and has had a human one since.

That's how I see it, anyway.

Something I came across that I found very striking in exploring who and what Christ is goes as follows.
I think it's very difficult to accept Christ as just a holy man, a great prophet of the sort Mohammed became, for example, or like Moses was long before, or like the Buddha. He was very careful to exclude that possibility in the things he did and said, and during his trial he made it clear he was the Messiah, the Son of God, which is the excuse they used to crucify him. As C.S. Lewis says, he was either mad, or bad, or really God - there isn't room really in the canonical bible texts to seriously accept any other logical interpretation of what he claimed to be, because they were written deliberately to exclude that possibility. God is certainly how John (the Evangelist) saw him in that extraordinary first chapter of his Gospel.

 

[John K]

@o2b Would you say your views are similar to those of the Arian branch of Christianity. He had sort of similar ideas to yourself about Christ.

When Constantine became emperor, he set up the council of Nicea to resolve the issues that came from all these differing ideas about Christ's nature, and that resulted in the Creed of orthodox (East and West) Christianity that set the tone for the next 1700 years.

 

[Ren]

When Constantine became emperor, he set up the council of Nicea to resolve the issues that came from all these differing ideas about Christ's nature, and that resulted in the Creed of orthodox (East and West) Christianity that set the tone for the next 1700 years.

Interestingly, I heard (in the podcast aforementioned) that Constantine was baptized on his deathbed by... an Arian bishop!

 

[o2b]

@o2b Would you say your views are similar to those of the Arian branch of Christianity. He had sort of similar ideas to yourself about Christ.

When Constantine became emperor, he set up the council of Nicea to resolve the issues that came from all these differing ideas about Christ's nature, and that resulted in the Creed of orthodox (East and West) Christianity that set the tone for the next 1700 years.

Hey John,

Ummm, might you go back to Post #48?

Based on my personal study of the one Greek word that may refer to someone as God, realizing that same word may be used in a manner not referring to one as God (theos), the NT refers to the Father alone as God 1151 times and at most refers to Christ as God 1 time. And even that passage need not (Hebrews 1:8). In fact, something like 1077 times, the Bible refers to the Father as God while at the same time refers to Christ, but not as God.

It is simply not possible that the Bible supports the Trinity. The biblical evidence is vast.

I am unsure if I am Arian. It is alleged he said Christ was created. If he did say that, I am definitely not Arian. However, if He understood that Christ is of the lineage of God and thus divine by inheritance, yeah, I am likely Arian.

I think the papal system is the little horn power in Daniel. This power is clearly a subset of Rome. As Daniel relates, it appears after Rome already hit the scene and it is the first time Daniel describes a horn in religious rather than secular terms. I think the papal system has the following characteristics - uses the state to persecute the saints, insists that it was given the authority to change the weekly day of rest from the seventh-day Sabbath to Sunday, and denies Christ's literal Sonship to God.

Oh, and denies Christ took upon Himself sinful flesh (is of the lineage of the sons and daughters of man).

 

[Ren]

I see it that at the incarnation Christ laid aside His divine attributes forever. So never two persons. The same person who chose quite a change. He literally changed from being a divine Son to a human one. Christ was never both natures at the same time. He had a divine nature before the incarnation and has had a human one since.

I understand why you're not a Trinitarian now. If you were, you would have to say that God laid aside his divine attributes, which is obviously not the conclusion you want to reach.

But how would you defend yourself against the charge of polytheism? It seems that now you have God the Father and God the Son (until he laid aside his divine attributes), so two Gods instead of one.

 

[o2b]

I understand why you're not a Trinitarian now. If you were, you would have to say that God laid aside his divine attributes, which is obviously not the conclusion you want to reach.

But how would you defend yourself against the charge of polytheism? It seems that now you have God the Father and God the Son (until he laid aside his divine attributes), so two Gods instead of one.

By adding the following qualification to the one, true God. He is the Source of all things. He is even the Source of His Son. Meanwhile, the Son is not the Source of His Father.

I suppose the idea of King and Prince might be a rough parallel where to be "the one true God," one would have to have the attributes of the King. The Prince does not have all the attributes the King has. The King is the source of the Prince. The Prince is not the source of the King.

 

[Ren]

However, if He understood that Christ is of the lineage of God and thus divine by inheritance, yeah, I am likely Arian.

Again, sounds like polytheism to me, unless you think Christ is some kind of lesser divine entity (somewhat like Marcion and some Gnostics conceive of Christ).

 

[Ren]

By adding the following qualification to the one, true God. He is the Source of all things. He is even the Source of His Son. Meanwhile, the Son is not the Source of His Father.

I suppose the idea of King and Prince might be a rough parallel where to be "the one true God," one would have to have the attributes of the King. The Prince does not have all the attributes the King has. The King is the source of the Prince. The Prince is not the source of the King.

Ok, so you place Christ's divinity below that of the Father. Gotcha.

 

[o2b]

John 17:3
3 “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.”

1 Corinthians 8:6-7a
6 yet for us there is only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live. 7 However, there is not in everyone that knowledge;

 

[o2b]

Ok, so you place Christ's divinity below that of the Father. Gotcha.

I actually am unsure if I would put it that way, but perhaps. And of course, for me, all this is referring to Christ's pre-incarnate qualifications.

John 5:18
18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

 

[Ren]

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.

It's very different to be a created child of God vs. an uncreated one. There's a subtle difference between the two senses of the word 'child'.

If you think God is a father to you in the same way he is a father to Christ, you commit to Christ being fully human (but not fully God).

I hope I'm not driving you nuts with my sketchy scholastics, lol.

 

[o2b]

I have to admit, having a book on the subject and copy/pasting makes things real easy!

What characterizes David and all other sons and daughters of God save Jesus? Scripture supplies the answer.

Galatians 3:26
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

John 1:12-13
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Romans 8:15
15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.”

Galatians 4:4-7
4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

 

[mintoots]

I wrote a really long one but poof it became coco crunch so I will post this in advance for Renny before it's gone like magic.

I hope I'm not driving you nuts with my sketchy scholastics, lol.

Lol nope, it's not driving me crazy. I am if anything thrilled by the topic.

It's very different to be a created child of God vs. an uncreated one. There's a subtle difference between the two senses of the word 'child'.

If you think God is a father to you in the same way he is a father to Christ, you commit to Christ being fully human (but not fully God).

LOL how so? I do see Christ as human but also I would most likely commit to the thought of you, me, and all of us possibly being Godly. To me what makes Christ God, divine, or so, is the profound capacity to love. I think all humans are capable of this but Christ was on a league all of his own which would not have been possible without a strong divinity within him. I am more inclined to think that this capacity to love, if it should be the definition of divinity, is within us too. It's astounding how Christ loved. Mohammed fought. Siddharta reflected. Jesus seemed to have accessed a threshold of faith that was out of this world and used this to love even when it was most impossible to do. Maybe it was fluff, who knows? But damn he carried the cross. He was self-inflicting. A martyr! I mean who does that for the totality of humanity that's absolutely shitty? I think only the divine can do that and I think humans would only do that for immense love. In Christ's case, the love was both for man and God. It was very important for Christ that people saw God and loved God that he was self-punishing for it. Why? Right? I do very much acknowledge Christ's humanity and philosophically, one is one and not two. But then again, why not?

 

[Ren]

LOL how so? I do see Christ as human but also I would most likely commit to the thought of you, me, and all of us possibly being Godly. To me what makes Christ God, divine, or so, is the profound capacity to love. I think all humans are capable of this but Christ was on a league all of his own which would not have been possible without a strong divinity within him. I am more inclined to think that this capacity to love, if it should be the definition of divinity, is within us too. It's astounding how Christ loved. Mohammed fought. Siddharta reflected. Jesus seemed to have accessed a threshold of faith that was out of this world and used this to love even when it was most impossible to do. Maybe it was fluff, who knows? But damn he carried the cross. He was self-inflicting. A martyr! I mean who does that for the totality of humanity that's absolutely shitty? I think only the divine can do that and I think humans would only do that for immense love. In Christ's case, the love was both for man and God. It was very important for Christ that people saw God and loved God that he was self-punishing for it. Why? Right? I do very much acknowledge Christ's humanity and philosophically, one is one and not two. But then again, why not?

I don't think this shows that all humans are possibly Godly, but only that Christ is possibly Godly.

I'm going to keep my philosophical cap on (since, like @Sidis Coruscatis, I actually have only a limited knowledge of Scripture) and suggest that there is likely a fallacy of composition happening here. That is, affirming that what is true of a part must also be true of the whole, which is not the case.

Yes, humans are capable of love. But God loves infinitely. Yes, humans are capable of being good. But God is infinitely good. Do you see the difference? The fact that I am capable of being good doesn't entail that I am goodness itself. What is divine, it seems to me, is not the ability to be good, or to love, but the infinite activity of loving. God is often defined as a being of pure actuality. There is no 'potential' within him, because a potential is an unrealised state. But there is nothing that is not in His power to realise, nothing that requires a condition extraneous to Himself.

Sure, you can say that whenever a human being loves, they are, at that very moment, "like God"—in a manner of speaking, Godlike. But the important point is that they are not able to always love, and to love infinitely. If the latter is what it means to be divine, then human beings are not divine. The fact that they are terrestrial, time-bound, means that whatever they do is also time-bound, hence finite in nature. Not infinite love, but finite love.

If you think Christ is infinite love, then you draw a separation between Christ and the rest of humanity, by implying his divine nature. For it is not just that he loves a lot more than we do, but that he is love. Whereas we, though we can love, are not love itself (we are also capable of not loving, and in fact most of the time we do not love.)

 

[mintoots]

I don't think this shows that all humans are possibly Godly, but only that Christ is possibly Godly.

I'm going to keep my philosophical cap on (since, like @Sidis Coruscatis, I actually have only a limited knowledge of Scripture) and suggest that there is likely a fallacy of composition happening here. That is, affirming that what is true of a part must also be true of the whole, which is not the case.

Yes, humans are capable of love. But God loves infinitely. Yes, humans are capable of being good. But God is infinitely good. Do you see the difference? The fact that I am capable of being good doesn't entail that I am goodness itself. What is divine, it seems to me, is not the ability to be good, or to love, but the infinite activity of loving. God is often defined as a being of pure actuality. There is no 'potential' within him, because a potential is an unrealised state. But there is nothing that is not in His power to realise, nothing that requires a condition extraneous to Himself.

Sure, you can say that whenever a human being loves, they are, at that very moment, "like God"—in a manner of speaking, Godlike. But the important point is that they are not able to always love, and to love infinitely. If the latter is what it means to be divine, then human beings are not divine. The fact that they are terrestrial, time-bound, means that whatever they do is also time-bound, hence finite in nature. Not infinite love, but finite love.

If you think Christ is infinite love, then you draw a separation between Christ and the rest of humanity, by implying his divine nature. For it is not just that he loves a lot more than we do, but that he is love. Whereas we, though we can love, are not love itself (we are also capable of not loving, and in fact most of the time we do not love.)

Great points there on humanity and time. I do not disagree with it. Humanity is not necessarily divine at all times. But then again to me the potential remains. I go back to the spectra and the pathways to divinity and therefore pathways to becoming more loving and thus more God like. We fall back on the pathway to being Godlike but the aspiration remains valid. With Christ being way up there in the spectra, then Christ is most Godlike if not already God. But for humans who are far off the mark, we are a work in progress. The rigidity of not being Godlike is not necessarily true throughout time. At times we are loving, and when we are, we are moving closer towards divinity. It does not mean we won't slip off too or that we are sinless. We may well be confined within the finiteness of our lives as humans but so was Christ. But could we actually say that the love of Christ was so finite if even after his ascension, its ripples remained reverberating? Could we say the same of our loves that as our bodies and lives are taken, none of it will remain?

On God as infinitely good, yes, but also that God is equally infinitely the dark. This is what I understand of an encompassing divinity: that it is not selective and only decidedly good. The aspiration towards goodness and love is more of a chosen direction. (And here is where I'll face the wrath of @ Milktoast Bandit because I'm certain he'll say that God is good and only good). I'm not there yet but I aspire for goodness anyway.


P.S. Yes please wear the Philosopher's hat. I think this is a very important mindset to keep. I'm not really taking this conversation personally but also it's a discussion I would need to have with myself in the attempt to foster a faith in God that isn't blind. I believe in God regardless of my belief system potentially being crowded with fallacies, but I would have to keep that in check. Fallacies can be very dangerous if they evolve into morals to live by, so.

Funnily enough, I've never been very bothered by the possibility of miracles, even the grand ones. If God exists then he can do pretty much what he likes, so an intervention by Him that looks like a miracle to us is nothing remarkable.

Also an excellent point and one I replied extensively to earlier in the day, but I lost the draft to shiiternet. Why I say these points on miracles are excellent is because it becomes apparent to me that what makes a miracle miraculous is the meaning arbitrary to it. I often get lost in the science of it. For example, I think about how Christ managed to multiply bread and fish for a crowd at such short notice and the logistics make zero sense to me. Suppose that there was in fact a nearby bakery and fish farm that made it possible, would it have lost its meaningfulness to me? I have decided, no. From this story, what I gained was an understanding of Christ being able to provide thoughts for his followers to feed on and these thoughts were of God and of love. Whether or not there was actual fish and bread, the most reverberating message there was that Christ spread the word of God by crowds. And this was a miracle in itself.

I think the pat answer is likely. Omniscient, omnipresent, holy...

I'm not sure if I've already answered this but this is what I mean too by God being alpha and omega. That God is basically everything, time or no time, and therein lies an inscrutable divinity.

On the immaculate conception. Yes this is a point well taken. It was about the purity of the vessel and not necessarily the sperm. But what would have been the essence of having a pure vessel to ferry an image of God in? This is a rhetorical question. I have no answer to it. I'm wondering about it now....

 

[o2b]

Hey mintoots,

On God as infinitely good, yes, but also that God is equally infinitely the dark.

I admit that I recoil at this description for God. What exactly do you mean by dark?

 

[Ren]

On God as infinitely good, yes, but also that God is equally infinitely the dark. This is what I understand of an encompassing divinity: that it is not selective and only decidedly good. The aspiration towards goodness and love is more of a chosen direction. (And here is where I'll face the wrath of @ Milktoast Bandit because I'm certain he'll say that God is good and only good). I'm not there yet but I aspire for goodness anyway.

By 'dark' do you mean evil?

If that's the case, St Augustine already addressed this problem by refuting the Manicheans. The Manicheans were dualists who believed that good and evil were two opposing substances.

St Augustine emphasises that evil is not a substance, but a privation of the good. Since God is not deprived of the good, he has no 'evil' to speak of.