Progressive Christology

[AletheiaRivers]

It's really awesome having you here Lily. You write so beautifully and have helped me look at some things in a new light, which I've really needed. It's very easy to become discouraged as a "progressive/liberal" Christian.

[PantaRhea]

A perennialist view described as emanationism may address some of this as in the following link:

 

http://www.khper.net/topics/worldviews/emanationism.htm

 

Take care, Earl

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi Earl,

 

I wasn't able to make your link work for some reason. However, if you go to the site I linked to, you will see that Nolan mentions emanationism as one of the proposed solutions to the problem of "becoming" for the Perennialist. However, it doesn't really solve the problem (that I am aware of). If the universe is a "flowing out of" a primal undifferentiated substance, why doesn't it share the same ontological properties as its source? Other ways of putting it is, how is the particular derived from the universal? Or the contingent derived from the necessary? How does Being become?

[PantaRhea]

Getting back to the topic (sorry):

 

* Is it possible in a progressive context to affirm the divinity of Christ?

* If so, how? Metaphorically, mythically, allegorically, spiritually, literally?

* If not, what do we make of this claim? Can we do without it?

* How does Jesus relate to Christ?

 

I think it is important to understand that the early Christians had an insight into something "true" about Jesus when they equated him with divinity. There is something which "resonates" with me when I read that Jesus said, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father."

 

The problem was with their ontological view of reality and the problem still exists today in the form of DesCartes' ontological dualism. It was understood that there is a "God substance" and a "human substance". How could it be that Jesus was of both God substance AND human substance? This was the basis (or the hidden assumption) for the debate about the trinity, transubstantiation, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection, etc. The debate continues today in the form of the mind/body question.

 

Can I affirm the divinity of Christ? Yes. But not with the same assumptions about reality that lie in the history of the question.

 

Do I agree with Marcus Borg that only the post-resurrected Jesus was divine? No.

 

If we discard our understanding of the "self" as being some kind of substance, and understand reality with an "event (or act) ontology" we can understand that a human act can also be a divine act, or, if you will, when a human's subjective aim is synonymous with God's subjective aim, we can become witnesses to the God/Man. What else can we call it when God's will = man's will?

[AletheiaRivers]

"And so being-time is Being unfolding itself as beings. Time is the unfolding of Being as beings. Time is activity: the radiance of Knowing expressing itself as spaces which are active as forms, as beings, as knowns...Enter completely into this moment and you will enter not only That which contains all time and expresses itself as all times, all moments, but you will fall into That which has no time, no space, no dimension because it is That in which all dimensions, all space, all times arise."

 

Eckhart & Zen are in agreement re so many things including Time & Being it seems. Take care, Earl

The infinite is unfolding as the finite >> The finite changes >> Time is change >> The finite IS time.

 

Thank you Earl. I got goosebumps.

[cunninglily]

If we discard our understanding of the "self" as being some kind of substance, and understand reality with an "event (or act) ontology" we can understand that a human act can also be a divine act, or, if you will, when a human's subjective aim is synonymous with God's subjective aim, we can become witnesses to the God/Man.  What else can we call it when God's will = man's will?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

can I hear an amen?!

 

lily

[earl]

A perennialist view described as emanationism may address some of this as in the following link:

 

http://www.khper.net/topics/worldviews/emanationism.htm

 

Take care, Earl

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi Earl,

 

I wasn't able to make your link work for some reason. However, if you go to the site I linked to, you will see that Nolan mentions emanationism as one of the proposed solutions to the problem of "becoming" for the Perennialist. However, it doesn't really solve the problem (that I am aware of). If the universe is a "flowing out of" a primal undifferentiated substance, why doesn't it share the same ontological properties as its source? Other ways of putting it is, how is the particular derived from the universal? Or the contingent derived from the necessary? How does Being become?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Personally, I think that all psychospiritual approaches are about proposed solutions to understanding & transcending self to stand "naked before God," not systems to truly grasp "God." God is always more than we can realize. you can only grasp a "thing;" grasping, be it concpetual or physical is a finite action carried out on a finite object. I do like to play with the concepts myself, though. Take care, Earl

[cunninglily]

Personally, I think that all psychospiritual approaches are about proposed solutions to understanding & transcending self to stand "naked before God," not systems to truly grasp "God." God is always more than we can realize. you can only grasp a "thing;" grasping, be it concpetual or physical is a finite action carried out on a finite object. I do like to play with the concepts myself, though.   Take care, Earl

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Speaking of psychospiritual approaches....are any of you interested in discussing ritual and praxis within a Progressive Christian context? I've always been interested in the techniques, methods, rituals etc. found within the larger Christian tradition such as hesychasm, praying in the spirit or in tongues, contemplation, incubation or silence, communion etc, as well as techniques found outside the Christian tradition that nevertheless offer potential to a Christian practice, such as certain basic shamanic approaches like trance drumming and so on...

 

anyone interested?

 

lily

[Cynthia]

I'd be very interested. Fair warning... I know virtually nothing about it now, but I'd love to learn!

[AletheiaRivers]

I'd be interested as well.

[PantaRhea]

Personally, I think that all psychospiritual approaches are about proposed solutions to understanding & transcending self to stand "naked before God," not systems to truly grasp "God." God is always more than we can realize. you can only grasp a "thing;" grasping, be it concpetual or physical is a finite action carried out on a finite object. I do like to play with the concepts myself, though.   Take care, Earl

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Interesting response in lieu of answering a few fundamental questions...

 

So, what are you really saying Earl? That there is nothing about God which can be "grasped"? Does "God" have any meaning then? Is this any different than nihilism? To say that God cannot be grasped is to already grasp something about God. It is to disagree, for instance, with the concept that God is not an exception to all metaphysical categories.

 

Process Theology claims that God can be prehended. In fact, it is not possible to exist and NOT prehend God. This means that God is in every experience. Every experience is of an integrated universe. Harteshorne defines worship as the "consciously unitary response to life." It is the conscious awareness of the integrety of all that is, the inclusive wholeness of the world.

 

Either God is the "Inclusive Wholeness of the World" or God is "Wholly Other". You imply that the concepts are only to be "played" with. And yet you haven't simply played with all concepts, you've made a choice from among them. Is your "play" simply a way of avoiding the critical examination of your assumptions? But, maybe you don't feel that there are any serious repercussions in making assumptions about that which is inevitably our ultimate concern (Tillich)?

Edited April 4, 2005 by PantaRhea

[earl]

Personally, I think that all psychospiritual approaches are about proposed solutions to understanding & transcending self to stand "naked before God," not systems to truly grasp "God." God is always more than we can realize. you can only grasp a "thing;" grasping, be it concpetual or physical is a finite action carried out on a finite object. I do like to play with the concepts myself, though.   Take care, Earl

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Interesting response in lieu of answering a few fundamental questions...

 

So, what are you really saying Earl? That there is nothing about God which can be "grasped"? Does "God" have any meaning then? Is this any different than nihilism? To say that God cannot be grasped is to already grasp something about God. It is to disagree, for instance, with the concept that God is not an exception to all metaphysical categories.

 

Process Theology claims that God can be prehended. In fact, it is not possible to exist and NOT prehend God. This means that God is in every experience. Every experience is of an integrated universe. Harteshorne defines worship as the "consciously unitary response to life." It is the conscious awareness of the integrety of all that is, the inclusive wholeness of the world.

 

Either God is the "Inclusive Wholeness of the World" or God is "Wholly Other". You imply that the concepts are only to be "played" with. And yet you haven't simply played with all concepts, you've made a choice from among them. Is your "play" simply a way of avoiding the critical examination of your assumptions? But, maybe you don't feel that there are any serious repercussions in making assumptions about that which is inevitably our ultimate concern (Tillich)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First, I don't believe we can ever truly understand the deepest/highest metaphysical truths with our intellect. If, the many mystics and other theological thinkers are right in asserting that God is beyond any human conceptualizing (& therefore the via negativa, apophatic way as getting at that), than how can one prehend God conceptually? More spcifically, what I was getting at is our innate inability to know (again at least in the intellectual sense) God, the Father, the uncreated one. We may know the effects of God-Holy Spirit, Word made flesh etc. We can know the revelations of God. We can, in a sense, become an echo chamber for God and in doing so we can enter into such a Divine communion that there is no real separation, (again I see most psychospiritual practice forms as ways to clear out enough personal crap to allow us to be an "empty echo chamber"-a bell can't ring if it isn't empty). Perhaps you can know is the sense of gnosis the Uncreated, the Godhead, to use Eckart's term but you can never decsribe as it would be ineffable. Words & concepts are innately finite descriptors-to assert one thing is to imply the non-assertion of something else. Perhaps why in the end Buddha simply help up a flower to illustrate all of his teachings. As to my statement re playing with concepts-what I mean is that given the foregoing "play" makes the most sense in that we're better off therefore neither taking our theories nor ourselves too seriously Take care, Earl

[Cynthia]

Well said Earl.

[PantaRhea]

First, I don't believe we can ever truly understand the deepest/highest metaphysical truths with our intellect. If, the many mystics and other theological thinkers are right in asserting that God is beyond any human conceptualizing (& therefore the via negativa, apophatic way as getting at that), than how can one prehend God conceptually? More spcifically, what I was getting at is our innate inability to know (again at least in the intellectual sense) God, the Father, the uncreated one. We may know the effects of God-Holy Spirit, Word made flesh etc. We can know the revelations of God. We can, in a sense, become an echo chamber for God and in doing so we can enter into such a Divine communion that there is no real separation, (again I see most psychospiritual practice forms as ways to clear out enough personal crap to allow us to be an "empty echo chamber"-a bell can't ring if it isn't empty). Perhaps you can know is the sense of gnosis the Uncreated, the Godhead, to use Eckart's term but you can never decsribe as it would be ineffable. Words & concepts are innately finite descriptors-to assert one thing is to imply the non-assertion of something else. Perhaps why in the end Buddha simply help up a flower to illustrate all of his teachings. As to my statement re playing with concepts-what I mean is that given the foregoing "play" makes the most sense in that we're better off therefore neither taking our theories nor ourselves too seriously   Take care, Earl

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think this "ineffability" stuff is a cop-out. The Church has been using it for years to prop up incoherent and irrational ideas - such as God's omnipotence, omniscience, etc.

 

Another quote from Harteshorne: "Here countless theologians long ago made an initial mistake for which the full price has yet to be paid: they began the idolatrous worship of 'the infinite'.

 

I asked a few questions about the concept of 'emanation' - or the idea that creation is an outflow of a primordial unchanging substance. You offered this idea as a coherent explanation from the Perennialist perspective. And now God is "ineffable"?

[earl]

First, I don't believe we can ever truly understand the deepest/highest metaphysical truths with our intellect. If, the many mystics and other theological thinkers are right in asserting that God is beyond any human conceptualizing (& therefore the via negativa, apophatic way as getting at that), than how can one prehend God conceptually? More spcifically, what I was getting at is our innate inability to know (again at least in the intellectual sense) God, the Father, the uncreated one. We may know the effects of God-Holy Spirit, Word made flesh etc. We can know the revelations of God. We can, in a sense, become an echo chamber for God and in doing so we can enter into such a Divine communion that there is no real separation, (again I see most psychospiritual practice forms as ways to clear out enough personal crap to allow us to be an "empty echo chamber"-a bell can't ring if it isn't empty). Perhaps you can know is the sense of gnosis the Uncreated, the Godhead, to use Eckart's term but you can never decsribe as it would be ineffable. Words & concepts are innately finite descriptors-to assert one thing is to imply the non-assertion of something else. Perhaps why in the end Buddha simply help up a flower to illustrate all of his teachings. As to my statement re playing with concepts-what I mean is that given the foregoing "play" makes the most sense in that we're better off therefore neither taking our theories nor ourselves too seriously   Take care, Earl

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think this "ineffability" stuff is a cop-out. The Church has been using it for years to prop up incoherent and irrational ideas - such as God's omnipotence, omniscience, etc.

 

Another quote from Harteshorne: "Here countless theologians long ago made an initial mistake for which the full price has yet to be paid: they began the idolatrous worship of 'the infinite'.

 

I asked a few questions about the concept of 'emanation' - or the idea that creation is an outflow of a primordial unchanging substance. You offered this idea as a coherent explanation from the Perennialist perspective. And now God is "ineffable"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, haven't run into anyone dead or alive (philosopher, theologian, or curbside bum) that can explain how you get something from nothing. But, you know, just as I don't expect physicists to ever really understand the material origins of the universe, don't expect anyone to figure out the Big Mystery/God, (if Jesus knew, seems like he kept it to himself ) I used to think that what would quell my existential angst would be if I had the opportunity that the character in 1 of my favorite TV programs, Joan of Arcadia, has-God showing up all the time to chat with her. However, if you've ever seen the show, you know that all she gets from god are little nudges in her moment-to-moment activities. However, I realize that it isn't my head that gets in the way of resolving my angst, (my intellectual insights into life), but rather it's my self-the emotional way of suffering in my daily encounters with life-what the early desert hesychasts would call the passions, (which they noted as the chief impediment to leading a fruitful path to God); more of a "heart thing" than a head trip. Knowing the big picture I doubt would resolve that but I wouldn't mind hearing from the Big Guy/Gal from time-to-time. Take care, Earl

[PantaRhea]

Sorry, haven't run into anyone dead or alive (philosopher, theologian, or curbside bum) that can explain how you get something from nothing. But, you know, just as I don't expect physicists to ever really understand the material origins of the universe, don't expect anyone to figure out the Big Mystery/God, (if Jesus knew, seems like he kept it to himself )

 

The philosopher, some theologians, and probably the curbside bum understand that no explanation is needed for something which doesn't happen. Is it just a few mystics who continue to believe it does happen?

 

I don't expect physicists to understand the "material" origins of the universe either because I don't think there are any "material" origins because I don't believe matter exists. I also don't believe an infinite, absolute, impassive, immutable, ineffable God exists (and for the same basic reasons that I don't believe something can come from nothing). However, I do think that an explanation of the origin of the universe is possible and I don't think we're too far from it - definitely a lot closer than we were in Meister Eckhart's time. To say we will never have an explanation is a claim to know more than can be known.

 

Fortunately I don't think many people try to get their theology from Joan of Arcadia, although I think the program, although lacking answers, provides a lot to consider.

 

If by "existential anst" you mean the sense of unconnectedness, meaninglessness, and purposelessness that is the result of feeling "trapped inside my head", isolated in a world which I've created, I don't have the disease. I do believe the cure has to do with an intellectual insight, which opens the door for an experience of union with the Whole. Sharing those insights is much more likely to lead to a fruitful path to God/dess than telling others that their questions are unanswerable.

[curlytop]

Hey all --

 

Jumping in late on this thread and haven't had a chance to read everything here yet, but just wanted to pipe in concerning God/dess's "ineffability" versus "grasp-ability" . . .

 

Is it perhaps a question of recognizing that our ideas and concepts about God are not God? They are of God, they are manifestations of God, but they are continually evolving . . . God is something Real that can be experienced, but our experiences of God are always mediated through our cultural conditioning, our physiology, our intellect, etc. In other words, as the Buddhists remind us, "the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon." But the finger is pointing to something that is Real. . .

 

Also, I'm a budding Ken Wilber fan and have read A Brief History of Everything and a Theory of Everything -- both excellent introductions to integral theory. There is also a website, www.integralnaked.org, where you can see listen to (and occasionally see, when such things are videoed), KW's discussions with all kinds of interesting folks, like Thomas Keating, Wayne Teasdale, and, most recently, Brother David Steindl-Rast. . .

 

Those of you interested in panentheism might want to check out the first talk between KW and Steindl-Rast. There is a 10 dollar a month fee to join Integral Naked, but you do get a free first-month trial. (Beware, however. It is addicting . . .)

 

Peace and light,

curlytop

[ComradeInChrist]

Either God is the "Inclusive Wholeness of the World" or God is "Wholly Other". 

 

In my experience God is both. God permiates the universe and is also greater than the universe. I believe that when we aproach the spiritual we each find the aspect of God that we need to find. To say that our experience of God is all there is would not be humble.

[soma]

Great question about Jesus. I feel Jesus worshiped God in everything because God is everything. The realization of God is in the soul, this Christ consciousness is what gave Jesus his miraculous power. He saw pure consciousness in man so was able to balance the personal and the impersonal aspects of God by serving man. He took the time and the troubles to detect the deceiving projections of the mind and dealt with them to become individually turned to the One Pure Consciousness of God. He placed God at the center of his own being and obeyed His will.

 

Jesus controlled his thought processes and brought them into line with pure consciousness so he did not see the universe divided against itself with difference, dissension and division, but as one in harmony with itself. This gave Jesus an approving mind that was stable and positive, and above all else a unity with everyone and everything in Christ consciousness.

[FredP]

Alright, time to liven this up. I was going to post this on Beach's topic, "The Nature of Jesus - Different Views," but since I already started my own thread for this discussion, I thought I'd be a little biased and put it here. Plus, since this is in the "debate" forum, it lends itself to more, well, debate.

 

I'll still quote her post, since that's what got my message started.

 

1. Trinitarian/incarnate= Jesus IS God

 

2. Divinitarian/Jesus is divine in nature= Jesus is NOT God ..but he is divine in nature because he perfectly relfects Go'd nature and qualities.

 

3. Uniatrainism..as in...UU Christian= Jesus is neither God nor divine in nature by prectly relfecting God, rather Jesus was and is merely a nobel example of a good man and teacher and a model for us to follow.

The words Trinitarian and Unitarian actually refer to conceptions of God's nature, not to how Jesus is, or is not, God. Trinitarianism of course presumes that there is a Christ figure in the Godhead, and is therefore amenable to the view that Jesus of Nazareth was that figure incarnate on Earth; while Unitarianism does not have that notion, and so is not amenable to that view (or historically speaking, is amenable to its denial).

 

I think it's important, actually, to differentiate the issue of God's nature from the issue of Jesus' divinity. I (at any rate) want to affirm with Trinitarian thinking that Godhead does include the figures of Christ and Holy Spirit, while also affirming that the relationship between the divine Christ and human Jesus is ... well, a little complicated.

 

Historically Christianity has adopted the Chalcedonian formulation of the two natures of Christ (you know, that pesky thing about Jesus Christ being fully divine and fully human in one person), and I am therefore inclined to say it holds a very important key to the truth -- something that I think we as progressives ought to take seriously. To finally put my cards on the table, I interpret this doctrine typologically: the reality that scripture and theology call Jesus Christ signifies a mode of being which is, mysteriously, both essentially divine, and at the same time essentially exactly what it is naturally. The entire manifest universe, in its true nature, is Jesus Christ, as yet in its infancy; but perfected it will be self-consciously so. So I offer this: Jesus Christ is not merely a great human example of divine sentiments (the popular liberal notion), or a divine person temporarily visiting an otherwise ordinary world (the popular conservative notion); but a real prototypical sign of the universal divine/human mode of being that is God's creative self-gift.

 

Incidentally, what seem to us to be long, dead theological alternatives, are also worth exploring typologically. Take the Arian view that Jesus was God's first creation, but not himself divine. I suggest that, at its best, this corresponds to the conventional view (Catholic and Protestant) that the universe is merely the "handiwork" of God: beautiful, artful, expressive, but not gifted with God's own being, except by a short visit long ago. We stand in relation to God as works of craftsmanship, created to love and serve and glorify God, but not ultimately to be united with God in God's own being. At its worst stands an atheistic materialism which denies not only that the universe is divine, but that anything at all is.

 

On the otherhand there is the Docetist view, that Jesus was fully divine, but only appeared to be human. I submit that this evokes the currently popular New Age view (which also shows up in a lot of Eastern thought) that the universe is an illusion: things are not really what they are, it's all a divine game of hide-and-seek, in which our ultimate goal is to wake up from our collective dream, and "remember" that none of this really exists in the first place. This view robs the natural universe of its dignity precisely as nature, and fails to take seriously the role of freedom and dignity -- and that taboo word, sin -- in making our reality what it is -- sometimes sublime, sometimes horribly messed up, usually both -- and in fixing (with God's help) what we have made of it.

 

What if this age-old doctrinal formulation contains the key to this problem, in a way that even its formulators didn't fully realize? That somehow, in a manner we may always fall short of comprehending, we are both truly divine, and truly human? The Eternal God emptied into material form. With all the dignity and responsibility that entails.

 

Something to think about....

Fred

[BeachOfEden]

Fred:

 

" Take the Arian view that Jesus was God's first creation, but not himself divine. I suggest that, at its best, this corresponds to the conventional view (Catholic and Protestant) that the universe is merely the "handiwork" of God: beautiful, artful, expressive, but not gifted with God's own being, except by a short visit long ago. We stand in relation to God as works of craftsmanship, created to love and serve and glorify God, but not ultimately to be united with God in God's own being. At its worst stands an atheistic materialism which denies not only that the universe is divine, but that anything at all is."

 

Yes, that is precisley what i believe and I have come to invent this new term it, "Diviniatain," to believe that Jesus was divine in nature because he was the first first thing that God created..and as was/is at God's right now. But I see this as being "different" than both triniatianism and unitarism..cause...Trinitarian believes that when Christ was born on earth through Mary that it was literally God as a baby=incarnation.

 

Unitarianism, from what the author of BibicalUnitarians.com told me..rejects the idea that Christ was ever incarnted of God but that they also reject the divinitarian idea that Christ DID have a pre-life in heaven as the first thing created directly by God. They believe that Jesus did NOT exist before he was born here on earth. The owner of this bibical unitarian site told me that if one holds the belief that jesus DID have a life in heaven BEFORE coming to earth and that he WAS the first created being by god then this is neither arianism or unitarianism..But I don't know..what do you think of this cliam of his? Also have you ever checked out bibicalUnitarians.com?

[soma]

Good post can I stradle the line and say Jesus is the man! Christ is the consciousness that is one with the Father.

 

The microcosm cannot grasp the macrocosm

because it is too vast. The image that our unit minds

can grasp is another unit being who serves as a model

for spiritual life. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth,

and the life." Jesus is pointing the way to the

macrocosmic mind and is the tangential point between

the macrocosm and the microcosm. By using Jesus as

a personal model and a focal point, we can attain

Christ consciousness. It is the perfect consciousness

for the human model because it has attained all of the

possibilities in the human state. In it all potential is

actualized on this earthly plane so it becomes the

prototype of being for the Christ conscious mind. It

admits and supports the idea that there are varied

upward paths to pure consciousness, and the diversity

in different world faiths diminishes as one approaches

Christ consciousness. Evolution and all spiritual paths

lead to pure consciousness.

In Christ consciousness the human ego with

which most of us identify is nothing but a tool to do

service with on this earthly plane, the external reality.

The inward reality is linked with the inward reality of

the whole universe. In Christ consciousness there is a

place in the mind that merges with the Mind of God

and draws strength and inspiration from it. Therefore,

Christ said, "I and the Father are one." The words, "I

and the Father are one" can be interpreted to mean

that I, the individual ego does not exist. The Father is

everything so nothing has existence except pure

consciousness; God is all there is; and I am a

nonentity. Christ consciousness is not identified with

the ego; therefore, Christ is the image of the true self

that is developed. He is a model for us to imitate, an

ideal that exists in our hearts and is a tangential point

between the microcosm and the macrocosm. Jesus is

pointing to God, the Father so we should not mistake

his fingers as the goal and run over his hand, but see

Jesus as the way.

When we come closer to our spiritual role

models, we come closer to all, and vice a versa; when

we come closer to all, we come closer to our role

models. Thus, we should work on expanding our

minds and seeing the all-pervading consciousness

working in life.

[AletheiaRivers]

The Eternal God emptied into material form.

I've read and re-read and re-read your excellently worded post, but think I must be missing something.

 

By the above quote do you mean that God is incarnate in all things all the time? (Which I don't necessarily disagree with.) If so, does this mean we just go back to God (un-empty the material form) with no survival of self? (I don't think you meant to imply this because you said that this view robs the natural universe of its dignity as nature ... so I must be misunderstanding).

 

Or do you mean that we are just a little bit of both (creature and divine) in one being? That God created creatures and then "emptied" some of himself into creation?

 

I love the interpretation (Jewish) of Genesis that "In the beginning..." when God said "Let us make man in OUR image" that he was actually referring to the just then created animals (creatures) as the "OUR". Meaning man is both creature (like the animals) and divine (with the spirit of God). I found that interpretation meaningful in that it affirmed the creature-ness of man as well as the divine-ness of man. Man is OF nature but also DIFFERENT than nature.

 

The entire manifest universe, in its true nature, is Jesus Christ, as yet in its infancy; but perfected it will be self-consciously so. So I offer this: Jesus Christ is not merely a great human example of divine sentiments (the popular liberal notion), or a divine person temporarily visiting an otherwise ordinary world (the popular conservative notion); but a real prototypical sign of the universal divine/human mode of being that is God's creative self-gift.

When I read that I immediately thought of the Eastern Orthodox idea of Theosis which I've been trying to learn about and struggling to understand.

Edited April 29, 2005 by AletheiaRivers

[cunninglily]

What if this age-old doctrinal formulation contains the key to this problem, in a way that even its formulators didn't fully realize?  That somehow, in a manner we may always fall short of comprehending, we are both truly divine, and truly human?  The Eternal God emptied into material form.  With all the dignity and responsibility that entails.

 

Something to think about....

Fred

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I think you're on to something Fred...which should be clear from other things I have posted here. We, along with Jesus, are born both of woman and of the Spirit, both truly divine and truly human, and it is IN this position, a paradoxical position, in a paradoxical reality, that we both enter the Kingdom of God and usher in the reign of the Kingdom of God on Earth. I don't think we can enter the Kingdom of God after we die, though I won't go into what I believe happens after we die here, but that it is AS a living breathing human being that we enter necessarily. The "cross" as symbol can be seen to typify this paradoxical position betwixt and between our divine heritage and our material manifestation. This is the intuited gist of my repeated use of the word "mediator" to describe the function of humanity in the purposes of God. We are "crucial" as humanity in manifesting the Will of God to all creation as Christs or Anointed Sons of God. That all humanity is already positioned thus, I believe with all my heart. It's who or what humanity is *naturally*. I believe that The Way as demonstrated in Christ Jesus develops this consciousness within us...though I would not deny that others who follow another revelation can not realize who and what they are or who and what humanity is... but I, as a Christian, believe that Jesus Christ exemplified this reality in a unique and critically important way.

 

lily

[Lolly]

What if this age-old doctrinal formulation contains the key to this problem, in a way that even its formulators didn't fully realize?  That somehow, in a manner we may always fall short of comprehending, we are both truly divine, and truly human?  The Eternal God emptied into material form.  With all the dignity and responsibility that entails.

 

Something to think about....

Fred

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Fred, every time I read your posts I wonder if you and I were not separated at birth

[des]

>Fred, every time I read your posts I wonder if you and I were not separated at birth

 

If so, it's maybe a good thing Lolly. You mighta come out with hair on your chest. :-)

 

--des