I have been thinking of the 'fully god 'and 'fully man' issue a little more. It seems to me that if one considers the union as combining the two together in one flesh without either of the two losing any part of them then it could be said that there is not a contradiction.
If we begin by asking the question what is man (irrespective of sin) and what is God? Then we may see that there is no contradiction in saying that what is man and what is God being put in flesh together: to say the answers of the above questions? I think to most Christians this might find this acceptable as for them it has already occurred (i.e., Jesus). As I have said previously, part of theology rests on faith as trying to prove it (or disprove with actual evidence), especial physical, would be quite challenging to say the least. I thin some would go far to argue that we must also be careful of crossing the line between understanding the relationship between the 'fully man' and 'fully god' and being so conceited to think that our conception will determine the relationship between the two. In other words, we need to remember that Jesus was/is Jesus regardless of what we think the relationship is/was; the relationship does not change even if our conception of it does. Our job is to understand the relationship and not to determine it.
I think a remaining question would be is Jesus without sin because he is 'fully God' or is it because he rested temptation, but unlike any other human is not sinful? I think if the argument that the two exists in one flesh, but are separate then the answer to be consist would have to be the later (i.e., rested temptation despite being fully man).
This I think this might bring back the argument that if Jesus was 'fully God' then he had an advantage on the rest of us (i.e., knowing what was right and wrong, how to go about things in a rightful manner, etc.). With the response being that we too can have access to this knowledge through first Jesus (as it is through him that we find entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven and through him we are brought to God--the father).
Monday, February 4, 2008
Sunday, February 3, 2008
'fully man' and 'fully god' (continue)
I suppose the best way in philosophy terms I can explain “conceptually separate” is, for example, to keep them epistemology and metaphysically separate in how we think of them.
I think it is important to realize there is a 'first principle' (as I said in my original posting) in Christianity and that is Jesus was God: this principle either rests of faith alone or very little evidence. The theologians would point to Jesus rational when people accused him of driving out demons by being a demon himself: it simply does not make sense that demons would expel one another because it would defeat the purpose of what they are trying to do: "[25]Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined...[26]If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself..." (Matthew 12). This passage could be interpreted to show either one or two things that either Jesus is the Son of God (and as such God himself) or at the very least he is on the side of divinity (i.e., doing god's work).
Once the 'first principle' is accepted then the argument might go: [second principle] we know Jesus was man as well as god (and not god alone) because he humbled himself in front of God and was obedient to his heavenly father (it makes no sense, some may argue, that a God would humble himself in front of himself and be obedient to himself). The response could be simply why not, if they are equal to each other? Who says a God could/should not humble himself in front of himself? Who are we to question a God's practice? In Christianity, there seems to be a debate that some like to perpetrate of whom is more important/powerful/etc. Jesus or God: it seems to me that most church's response have been the God is above Jesus (because of the humbling and obedience of Jesus to God (the father) in importantance (for a lack of better phrasing), but they are both equal in stature.
If we accept these two principles then this leads to the third principle, that Jesus is fully god and fully man (or at least some combination of both--I think it would be difficult to argue that Jesus was more man then God so if you are going to argue anything else then it must be that Jesus was more God than man, which according to some would not simply make sense. Remember there has been thousands of years in how religion has made us culturally think of Jesus--this is not to say the 'not make sense' group is correct or incorrect it just to make the point of cultural and religious bias and the changes of them over time.
Once you accept that Jesus is ‘fully god’ and ‘fully man’ then the next step is to pick an approach that best causes understanding for us. I think it is to keep them conceptually separate (as I explain the meaning of at the start of this posting) so we can work with them in our minds to understand them.
If you are looking for a coherent concept of ‘fully god’ and ‘fully man’ do you mean linear? It would be my opinion that theology cannot be completely linear as components of it rest on faith alone (for example, Jesus was a God--try actually proving it with evidence, especially physical?) and faith is rarely linear or even logical. I am now wondering if this means if faith is incoherent.
I think it is important to realize there is a 'first principle' (as I said in my original posting) in Christianity and that is Jesus was God: this principle either rests of faith alone or very little evidence. The theologians would point to Jesus rational when people accused him of driving out demons by being a demon himself: it simply does not make sense that demons would expel one another because it would defeat the purpose of what they are trying to do: "[25]Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined...[26]If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself..." (Matthew 12). This passage could be interpreted to show either one or two things that either Jesus is the Son of God (and as such God himself) or at the very least he is on the side of divinity (i.e., doing god's work).
Once the 'first principle' is accepted then the argument might go: [second principle] we know Jesus was man as well as god (and not god alone) because he humbled himself in front of God and was obedient to his heavenly father (it makes no sense, some may argue, that a God would humble himself in front of himself and be obedient to himself). The response could be simply why not, if they are equal to each other? Who says a God could/should not humble himself in front of himself? Who are we to question a God's practice? In Christianity, there seems to be a debate that some like to perpetrate of whom is more important/powerful/etc. Jesus or God: it seems to me that most church's response have been the God is above Jesus (because of the humbling and obedience of Jesus to God (the father) in importantance (for a lack of better phrasing), but they are both equal in stature.
If we accept these two principles then this leads to the third principle, that Jesus is fully god and fully man (or at least some combination of both--I think it would be difficult to argue that Jesus was more man then God so if you are going to argue anything else then it must be that Jesus was more God than man, which according to some would not simply make sense. Remember there has been thousands of years in how religion has made us culturally think of Jesus--this is not to say the 'not make sense' group is correct or incorrect it just to make the point of cultural and religious bias and the changes of them over time.
Once you accept that Jesus is ‘fully god’ and ‘fully man’ then the next step is to pick an approach that best causes understanding for us. I think it is to keep them conceptually separate (as I explain the meaning of at the start of this posting) so we can work with them in our minds to understand them.
If you are looking for a coherent concept of ‘fully god’ and ‘fully man’ do you mean linear? It would be my opinion that theology cannot be completely linear as components of it rest on faith alone (for example, Jesus was a God--try actually proving it with evidence, especially physical?) and faith is rarely linear or even logical. I am now wondering if this means if faith is incoherent.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
fully man and fully god
I think maybe a way that people can handle the "fully man” and "fully god" thing is to keep them conceptually separate. I am not sure if people would be just willing to do this or if they need a reason for doing so. If they do not need a reason then it works fine; if they do then a reason needs to be come up with.
On a theological said of things, I think a reason could be that Jesus himself while realizing he was God humbled himself in front of God (his father). I think for the Christians this might do; for those coming from the atheistic said of things I think they might want something else which is not based on theology as well as they would say: why was it necessary or why would Jesus humble himself in front of God as this could be thought as Jesus humbling himself in front of himself.
The response from the Christians would be either you do not understand our perceptive/understanding of the make-up and nature of the trinity (in it components or its whole) or that was part of what made Jesus so great and it is the goal of Christians to focus on God and the Kingdom of Heaven and not earthly issues (as Jesus demonstrated i.e., ‘walking the walk,’ rather than just preaching which is the message behind ‘God sending his only Son to us’). The atheistic (I mean from an intellectual side of things) might say that was fine-and-dandy for Jesus to do as he is God and thus at no risk for damnation or that because of being God he knows without a doubt that God exists and he knows without a doubt what is expected to be done and how to rightfully go about achieving it.
This leads us to the issue of whether or not Jesus was fully God and fully man (a circular issue). I think the Christians would respond by saying Jesus is shown to be fully man and fully God because he was faced by the same temptation in human form as rest of us (that he is God is an untouchable/should not be touched first principle of faith): I think this open the question of that if Jesus fell for temptation (such as that by Satan and offering the world) would he have faced damnation like the rest of us. I think the response would be it is not in the nature of Jesus to fall for temptation (I think they would be forced to say this as to suggest that Jesus had a nature that might have permitted him to have fallen would be blasphemy); however, the response to this could be, in that case is it fair to say Jesus was ‘fully man’ if he did not have the same nature as us. The response to this would be Jesus was the type/nature of person that would have not chosen (i.e., Free-will) to fall for temptation but he could have if he wanted to: which brings us into a debate about what makes a person fall for temptation and more importantly what prevent someone (in both cases here more specifically Jesus) including questions down the line of what is Free-will? Some also might consider it blasphemy to consider Jesus not having Free-will.
The aesthetics would respond saying what about Jesus’ inside understand of God existence and what is expected and how to go about it? The Christians would explain the knowledge is ours through Jesus and/or the Bible. The aesthetics would respond what about uncertainty. The Christians would respond uncertainty does not exist through Jesus or the Bible it exists either through not understanding what is being taught (i.e., limited capacity) or things (or ourselves) blocking/distracting us from understanding i.e., temptations, sin, etc.
I think to break the circular issue we need to say theology and atheism or even theology and philosophy (to say that theology and philosophy are two very different things) should not meet. I think too many people conceive theology as the Philosophy of Religion (which it is not as Philosophy of religion is the application of principles of philosophy on religion or religious issues) or they conceive theology as Religious Philosophy (which it is not as to say ‘religious philosophy’ is to suggest that its base root is philosophy that in my understanding that philosophy has its own rules/way-of-doing-things which do not rely on religious principles or beliefs for its base).
In short, (1) we need to keep fully man and fully god conceptually separate to understand them (and have faith in reality the two exists together in symbiosis); and (2) that theology and atheism or even theology and philosophy cannot be reconciled together, paired respectively.
On a theological said of things, I think a reason could be that Jesus himself while realizing he was God humbled himself in front of God (his father). I think for the Christians this might do; for those coming from the atheistic said of things I think they might want something else which is not based on theology as well as they would say: why was it necessary or why would Jesus humble himself in front of God as this could be thought as Jesus humbling himself in front of himself.
The response from the Christians would be either you do not understand our perceptive/understanding of the make-up and nature of the trinity (in it components or its whole) or that was part of what made Jesus so great and it is the goal of Christians to focus on God and the Kingdom of Heaven and not earthly issues (as Jesus demonstrated i.e., ‘walking the walk,’ rather than just preaching which is the message behind ‘God sending his only Son to us’). The atheistic (I mean from an intellectual side of things) might say that was fine-and-dandy for Jesus to do as he is God and thus at no risk for damnation or that because of being God he knows without a doubt that God exists and he knows without a doubt what is expected to be done and how to rightfully go about achieving it.
This leads us to the issue of whether or not Jesus was fully God and fully man (a circular issue). I think the Christians would respond by saying Jesus is shown to be fully man and fully God because he was faced by the same temptation in human form as rest of us (that he is God is an untouchable/should not be touched first principle of faith): I think this open the question of that if Jesus fell for temptation (such as that by Satan and offering the world) would he have faced damnation like the rest of us. I think the response would be it is not in the nature of Jesus to fall for temptation (I think they would be forced to say this as to suggest that Jesus had a nature that might have permitted him to have fallen would be blasphemy); however, the response to this could be, in that case is it fair to say Jesus was ‘fully man’ if he did not have the same nature as us. The response to this would be Jesus was the type/nature of person that would have not chosen (i.e., Free-will) to fall for temptation but he could have if he wanted to: which brings us into a debate about what makes a person fall for temptation and more importantly what prevent someone (in both cases here more specifically Jesus) including questions down the line of what is Free-will? Some also might consider it blasphemy to consider Jesus not having Free-will.
The aesthetics would respond saying what about Jesus’ inside understand of God existence and what is expected and how to go about it? The Christians would explain the knowledge is ours through Jesus and/or the Bible. The aesthetics would respond what about uncertainty. The Christians would respond uncertainty does not exist through Jesus or the Bible it exists either through not understanding what is being taught (i.e., limited capacity) or things (or ourselves) blocking/distracting us from understanding i.e., temptations, sin, etc.
I think to break the circular issue we need to say theology and atheism or even theology and philosophy (to say that theology and philosophy are two very different things) should not meet. I think too many people conceive theology as the Philosophy of Religion (which it is not as Philosophy of religion is the application of principles of philosophy on religion or religious issues) or they conceive theology as Religious Philosophy (which it is not as to say ‘religious philosophy’ is to suggest that its base root is philosophy that in my understanding that philosophy has its own rules/way-of-doing-things which do not rely on religious principles or beliefs for its base).
In short, (1) we need to keep fully man and fully god conceptually separate to understand them (and have faith in reality the two exists together in symbiosis); and (2) that theology and atheism or even theology and philosophy cannot be reconciled together, paired respectively.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Luke 14:26 and Luke 14: 33
I have found it useful to sometimes focus on general principles rather than specific and then applying the specifics to the general. For example, if detachment is taken as to be able to leave this world behind to gain eternal life (whether or not in a Christian sense). That Luke 14: 26 speaks to more of that people should not be consumed with human companionship. Luke 14, 33 states ‘…any of you who does not give everything he has cannot be my disciple”. These taken together it would seem to me it is all about detachment (or in other words as much it may seem to be painful for us, to be in a sense cold towards earthy-fondness unless risk being coming to close to them). I must admit that I have become increasing wary that the meaning of the Biblical phrases have been changed either because of language translation or intentional linguistically interpretation, which brings me back to my original point that unless a person wants to devote his/her life to Biblical studies including learning ancient Greek and possible Arabic, etc. then the best approach is to focus on the general principles an applying the specifics to the general (and even at this, we may have to accept some contradictions and to do our best to live with them unless risk going insane trying to get all the ‘ducks in a row’). Another thing that needs to be considered is assuming that Biblical words have kept their meaning through translation and interpretation is the absolute wording of things: i.e., an all or nothing approach such as “everything,” so I must ask myself is that I use translation and interpretation (and thus the focus on generality) as an excuse or is it valid that we have lost something overtime through written changes?
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Fears
Psalm 34, 4: I sought the LORD, and he answered me; he delivered me from my fears.
Matthew 10, 28: Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Outside the literal interpretation (of the devil) I read this to mean be weary of your actions, not because the physical consequences but rather the affects they have on your and others souls: because it is through individual persons that evil is done. Be weary of your actions by giving yourself and others respect.
Revelation 13, 16-18: [16] He also forced everyone…to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, [17] so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man’s number. His number is 666.
Hebrews 13, 5-6: [5]Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.” [6]So we say with confidence, “The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?”
Matthew 10, 28: Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Outside the literal interpretation (of the devil) I read this to mean be weary of your actions, not because the physical consequences but rather the affects they have on your and others souls: because it is through individual persons that evil is done. Be weary of your actions by giving yourself and others respect.
Revelation 13, 16-18: [16] He also forced everyone…to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, [17] so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name. This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man’s number. His number is 666.
Hebrews 13, 5-6: [5]Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, “Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you.” [6]So we say with confidence, “The Lord is my helper; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me?”
Monday, December 3, 2007
Luke 10, 10-11
[10] But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, [11] 'Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.’
I take "...we wipe off against you" to mean not to hold things against each other or to judge others as this is not matter for people to engage in, rather it is God’s.
There is some debate about the origins of the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke with some saying Luke is based on Mark and Matthew as well as there is a debate of whether Mark is based on Matthew or if Matthew is based on Mark. Type in “Mark’, “Matthew’, and/or “Luke’ into yahoo.com search and there will be a listing for Wikipedia on the first page for each one entered.
Some argue that the role of scholarship is to prove biblical teachings. I think the role of scholarship is to study biblical teachings and raise our spirits when there is evidence to support them and challenge our faith when there is not or when the evidence contends what we believe to be the case: after all if faith is not about being tested what is? Through this process our faith is strengthened as we face falsehoods or fears and conquering them by replacing them with truths. While learning truth may challenge our faith it will never destroy it as God exists and nothing can change this.
I take "...we wipe off against you" to mean not to hold things against each other or to judge others as this is not matter for people to engage in, rather it is God’s.
There is some debate about the origins of the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke with some saying Luke is based on Mark and Matthew as well as there is a debate of whether Mark is based on Matthew or if Matthew is based on Mark. Type in “Mark’, “Matthew’, and/or “Luke’ into yahoo.com search and there will be a listing for Wikipedia on the first page for each one entered.
Some argue that the role of scholarship is to prove biblical teachings. I think the role of scholarship is to study biblical teachings and raise our spirits when there is evidence to support them and challenge our faith when there is not or when the evidence contends what we believe to be the case: after all if faith is not about being tested what is? Through this process our faith is strengthened as we face falsehoods or fears and conquering them by replacing them with truths. While learning truth may challenge our faith it will never destroy it as God exists and nothing can change this.
Excuses
Luke 14, 16:..."A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests...[18]But they all alike began to make excuses...[21]The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, 'Go out quickly into the streets and alley of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, and blind and lame.'...I tell you, not one of those men who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.'
There are several points that I would like to bring up here: (1) those that refuse God's guidance will not be saved is the usual interpretation; (2) we cannot excuse our behavior from God is another standard interpretation: we can only ask for forgiveness; (3) that by making excuses in our personal daily lives we give up opportunities simply for no other reason than not considering our options; and (4) we have constructed social mechanisms that permit us to create polite social excuses that achieve nothing: as we try to deceive one another (yet we all know what each other is doing) and thus prevent humanity from becoming closer.
There are several points that I would like to bring up here: (1) those that refuse God's guidance will not be saved is the usual interpretation; (2) we cannot excuse our behavior from God is another standard interpretation: we can only ask for forgiveness; (3) that by making excuses in our personal daily lives we give up opportunities simply for no other reason than not considering our options; and (4) we have constructed social mechanisms that permit us to create polite social excuses that achieve nothing: as we try to deceive one another (yet we all know what each other is doing) and thus prevent humanity from becoming closer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
