One of those things about Christianity that just plain baffles me is the notion that a Jewish man of the first century AD (haha!) is God. To me it seems inconsistent with the concept of divine simplicity (God not having parts). Is not having a human body having "parts"? What does the resurrection mean if God does not have a body or parts? I am not saying that the endless tower of turtles known as King Follett theology makes a great deal more sense; it is just a deferral of the question of causes and origins, if you ask me. But the incarnation is a real stumper too.
Our discussion of substance and accident in Professor Stak's wonderful Hume thread sent me off to an online essay that has the following baffling argument:
The distinction is an important part of the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Catholic theologians relied on the familiar terms to explain how the bread and wine could still taste, touch, and smell like real bread and wine (accidents), even as the substance had been changed into the physical body and blood of Christ. Reformed theologians rejected the doctrine not only on the grounds that it is historically novel and exegetically fanciful, but also because it is logically untenable. For example, Bavinck, without rejecting the longstanding distinction, argued that in transubstantiation the accidents retain such bread and wine properties that (irrationally) they act more like substances (Reformed Dogmatics, 4.571).
Seriously? Hasn't this line already been crossed with the incarnation? If you can't handle the divine presence in a wafer for such reasons, how can you possibly accept that God was fully present in the person of Jesus of Nazareth?
Seems inconsistent to me. I say the first step is the howler. That the God of classical theism should have incarnated in a man named Jesus.
“The past no longer belongs only to those who once lived it; the past belongs to those who claim it, and are willing to explore it, and to infuse it with meaning for those alive today.”—Margaret Atwood
One of those things about Christianity that just plain baffles me is the notion that a Jewish man of the first century AD (haha!) is God. To me it seems inconsistent with the concept of divine simplicity (God not having parts). Is not having a human body having "parts"? What does the resurrection mean if God does not have a body or parts? I am not saying that the endless tower of turtles known as King Follett theology makes a great deal more sense; it is just a deferral of the question of causes and origins, if you ask me. But the incarnation is a real stumper too.
Our discussion of substance and accident in Professor Stak's wonderful Hume thread sent me off to an online essay that has the following baffling argument:
The distinction is an important part of the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Catholic theologians relied on the familiar terms to explain how the bread and wine could still taste, touch, and smell like real bread and wine (accidents), even as the substance had been changed into the physical body and blood of Christ. Reformed theologians rejected the doctrine not only on the grounds that it is historically novel and exegetically fanciful, but also because it is logically untenable. For example, Bavinck, without rejecting the longstanding distinction, argued that in transubstantiation the accidents retain such bread and wine properties that (irrationally) they act more like substances (Reformed Dogmatics, 4.571).
Seriously? Hasn't this line already been crossed with the incarnation? If you can't handle the divine presence in a wafer for such reasons, how can you possibly accept that God was fully present in the person of Jesus of Nazareth?
Seems inconsistent to me. I say the first step is the howler. That the God of classical theism should have incarnated in a man named Jesus.
Kishkumen, I am not sure from which angle you are seeing more difficulty in the idea of the incarnation. It is definatly not something which has been approached as substance and accidents as if Jesus human quality were accidents. The creedal decisions were that Jesus was genuinely all human and still genuinely God. He was not just sort of human. (that is probably helped to be seen as possible by the idea of the Trinity in which the Son seperate person is eternally God. I think there is no way to bridge the whole gap of understanding beyond noting that no human can understand God completely.
A couple thoughts on the matter do come to mind. First if humans are created by God and have no other source of being then there is not much barrier between the two. In the incarnation God wills to limit himself. I think it can be said that the whole story and meaning system of Christianity requires the idea of incarnation as both really human and God. IN simple outline we come from God but our potential which is injured can be renewed, expanded and given new destiny by people sharing a new life with God in Jesus. This sharing is hope and faith looking to actualize the living principals Jesus spoke of and tried to embody for us. I think this makes more sense if Jesus in truly human sharing our ignorance uncertainties and fears. He lived by faith as we live by faith.
I find myself well aware that I am saying the Christian myth does not function without the idea of the incarnation. Maybe that means it is just myth and the mystery of incarnation is just a story device to make the story flow. On the other hand the flow of the story may be a reflection of a pattern of real meaning. That pattern might be understood as having more substance than the accidentals of how did this divine and human fit together.
I just can’t get how transubstantiation of the host is a problem if one already accepts that a human being can be “fully God.” The first problem I have is the incarnation itself, which flies in the face of Divine simplicity. Classical theism seems pretty logical to me—God as the cause and source of all things, but what need is there of Jesus? Sure, the Logos as an expression of the ordering principle of the Divine, but manifesting as some dude in Palestine? Really? And why only him? Why not follow Plotinus and make all human beings consubstantial with the Nous?
I just have a difficult time not seeing this as a strange mixture of history, myth, and philosophy, where the latter is clearly a late retrofit.
“The past no longer belongs only to those who once lived it; the past belongs to those who claim it, and are willing to explore it, and to infuse it with meaning for those alive today.”—Margaret Atwood
I just can’t get how transubstantiation of the host is a problem if one already accepts that a human being can be “fully God.” The first problem I have is the incarnation itself, which flies in the face of Divine simplicity. Classical theism seems pretty logical to me—God as the cause and source of all things, but what need is there of Jesus? Sure, the Logos as an expression of the ordering principle of the Divine, but manifesting as some dude in Palestine? Really? And why only him? Why not follow Plotinus and make all human beings consubstantial with the Nous?
I just have a difficult time not seeing this as a strange mixture of history, myth, and philosophy, where the latter is clearly a late retrofit.
Heh, I honestly have not put a lot of thought into this, but you have intrigued me greatly! It's typical of you ya know..... that magnificent mind of yours always seems to find a way to help us begin thinking through things again....
Heh, I honestly have not put a lot of thought into this, but you have intrigued me greatly! It's typical of you ya know..... that magnificent mind of yours always seems to find a way to help us begin thinking through things again....
You are very kind, Philo. I am probably just too unfamiliar with this material. All I can say is that stopping with Jesus as the one human manifestation of the divine does not make sense to me. Either all humans are divine or none of them are. That just one should be because reasons makes no sense to me. I come back to Jesus being a historical figure who was mythologized and then theologized, with the Nicene Creed being very much a product of the early fourth century in every way.
Jesus as an angel is more acceptable to me than Jesus as God. At least as a mythological and theological position.
“The past no longer belongs only to those who once lived it; the past belongs to those who claim it, and are willing to explore it, and to infuse it with meaning for those alive today.”—Margaret Atwood
I just can’t get how transubstantiation of the host is a problem if one already accepts that a human being can be “fully God.” The first problem I have is the incarnation itself, which flies in the face of Divine simplicity. Classical theism seems pretty logical to me—God as the cause and source of all things, but what need is there of Jesus? Sure, the Logos as an expression of the ordering principle of the Divine, but manifesting as some dude in Palestine? Really? And why only him? Why not follow Plotinus and make all human beings consubstantial with the Nous?
I just have a difficult time not seeing this as a strange mixture of history, myth, and philosophy, where the latter is clearly a late retrofit.
Kishkumen, I think the problem Protestants see in transubstantiation is not so much the logic but the fact that the doctrine is so historically tied to Catholic priesthood authority. Transubstantiation is seen as happening only if properly blessed by a person holding proper(RC linked to the Pope) priesthood authority. Protestants are going to see this late developing doctrine as part of and expansion of Papal power which Protestants are separated from.
In some ways it might be difficult to be sure if Lutheran view (which I incline to) of real presence is clearly different than transubstantiation. Well no Lutheran is going to call it that and well that's that.
/////
Is there some reason I should wish to be consubtantial with the Nous. If desired what is the process? Was this available to regular folks? Frankly I think available or not more people found Jesus more attractive.
Don’t Lutherans claim apostolic succession? (Witness my ignorance in its full glory.)
I think it makes a lot of sense to say that part of every person’s soul is undescended from the divine realm and is in the presence of the divine mind. The work comes in when we strive to connect with that divine part of ourselves.
“The past no longer belongs only to those who once lived it; the past belongs to those who claim it, and are willing to explore it, and to infuse it with meaning for those alive today.”—Margaret Atwood
Don’t Lutherans claim apostolic succession? (Witness my ignorance in its full glory.)
I think it makes a lot of sense to say that part of every person’s soul is undescended from the divine realm and is in the presence of the divine mind. The work comes in when we strive to connect with that divine part of ourselves.
My understanding is that Sweden had a bishop with proper succession heading the Lutheran church. In other countries there has not been.
"a part of every person is in the presence of the divine mind"
I think this is a worthy observation.
The Christian God is not really supposed to be so simple. I'm not sure what a "part" would be in the case of God, anyway. For that matter I'm not sure whether "part" in this context means "piece" or perhaps instead "property", as in Shakespeare. ("Discretion is the better part of valour" means that discretion is the better characteristic to have, not that discretion is a component in valour). The Christian idea of the Trinity ascribes three "persons" to God. So whether or not persons count as parts, God cannot be so simple.
I think the earliest recorded beginnings of Incarnation theology must have been the Gospel of John. "The Word", who was with God and yet also was God, and through whom all things came to be, somehow then became flesh and dwelt on Earth for a while.
You might have a clear grasp of a famously confusing point of Greek grammar concerning whether or not the Word in John "was God" or only "was a god" or "was divine": as you may well know well, the original line is "En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos" with the definite article before the theon but not before the theos. The standard line is that context or construction or something somehow makes the reading "God" definite in this case for the theos, and "a god" wrong, but I've never understood why. If it's not really that unambiguous then this might represent a transitional text with Jesus not yet quite considered God but on his way. Otherwise, this would seem to be the start of the Christian doctrine, with the declaration that God is not so simple after all because there is this Word that can both "be with God" and "be God".
[I audited a course in introductory New Testament Greek once, which is to say that I learned almost nothing because once the semester gets underway nobody has time to do any of the work in a course they're not taking for credit. Thirty-five years later I think that John 1:1 may literally be all of the Greek that I know.]
Divine simplicity means that the being of God is identical to the attributes of God. I am simplifying here for the sake of time and using a definition I found on Wikipedia, but it accords with what I have read elsewhere. I just can’t see that the attributes of God require God being three persons, one of whom was a Jewish teacher of the first century AD. How does the life and person of Jesus really accord with divine simplicity? It strikes me that the two are fundamentally incompatible. It is only by starting with the assumption that Jesus is God that one would even think to argue in favor of him fitting this concept of divinity, and to my mind it is a non-starter.
Last edited by Kishkumen on Tue Jul 13, 2021 3:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
“The past no longer belongs only to those who once lived it; the past belongs to those who claim it, and are willing to explore it, and to infuse it with meaning for those alive today.”—Margaret Atwood
