tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post5508729550369211662..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Index of recent argumentation regarding the Real Presence as monophysitismJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-12079998337796505552010-10-29T16:01:22.439-04:002010-10-29T16:01:22.439-04:00Transubstantiation is supposed to be a Roman dogma...Transubstantiation is supposed to be a Roman dogma, so I looked it up in Trent. Here's what it says in one of the chapters (and the associated canon essentially anathematizes anyone who disagrees with the chapter as worded):<br /><br />"And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which he offered under the species of bread to be truly his own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called transubstantiation."<br /><br />Locality is not mentioned in the dogma, nor is it logically implied either by the words of the dogma itself or the scholastic definitions of species and substance usually associated with the dogma, so if the monophysite argument depends on locality being part of the dogma that argument fails.<br /><br />The accusation of monophysitism is rarely applied to the Roman doctrine, anyway (because it doesn't work and only a rather dense person think it works). Where it is usually applied is to the Lutheran doctrine (which I assume is why Ed "got excited," which is to say disagreed with rhology and attempted to have a rational dialog with him as if he were someone capable of such a thing.<br /><br />The monophysite argument against Luther's teaching is according to some based on a misunderstanding of one of Luther's arguments with Zwingli. Loosely speaking this is what happened:<br /><br />Luther was taken to be arguing thus:<br /><br />Christ is divine and therefore omnipresent, so by a proper communicatio idiomatum the human nature of Christ is omnipresent, therefore He can be really present in the bread and wine of the Lord's supper.<br /><br />That would be a pretty lousy argument. The obvious reductio absurdum would be "then I'm receiving the body and blood of Christ when I eat a sandwich."<br /><br />But that isn't Luther's argument (so I'm told). Rather, he was making an analogy. He assumed that his intended audience agreed with thim that 1. Christ is present extensively and in the normal resurrected human way in Heaven, "at the right hand of the father." and that 2. Christ is also omnipresent, as a simple singular Person with both a human and divine nature. and 3. This is a proper communicatio idiomatum because if Christ's human nature is present merely at the right hand of the father but his divine nature were present everywhere, then most of the person of Christ is without his human nature, and only a small part of his divinity had become incarnate. <br /><br />Now assuming that his audiance agrees with that, Luther made the following analogy:<br /><br />Just as Christ's normal extensive local presence at the right hand of the father is consistent with his repletive "non-local" omnipresence, His intensive non-local sacramental presence is also consistent with his normal extensive non-local presence.<br /><br />Clear as mud? OK, but it was an argument by analogy, not a sacramental presence=omnipresence argument.<br /><br />You may deny that the repletive omnipresence of Christ exists, or say that it's merely spiritual and not physical, but you cannot 1. connect it with the doctrine of the Real Presence per se since that's a third mode of presence different than either the normal resurrected local presence of Christ in heaven or the repletive omnipresence of Christ by a proper communicatio idiomatum, and you certainly cannot 2. connect it with the Roman doctrine, which relies on completely different metaphysical assumptions.<br /><br />That's the background, in case you want to get an idea where this is all really coming from rather than substituting carictures and sophomoric ridicule of holy things with careful discernment.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-10795311872360894612010-10-19T13:10:09.714-04:002010-10-19T13:10:09.714-04:00Rhology,
Thank you. As you know, I speak from per...Rhology,<br /><br />Thank you. As you know, I speak from personal experience.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-35149362791641225242010-10-19T08:59:20.301-04:002010-10-19T08:59:20.301-04:00I doubt that you can persuade Rhology to actually ...<i>I doubt that you can persuade Rhology to actually attempt to have a real dialog with Ed, however. To Rhology a dialog seemingly means throwing out stock phrases </i><br /><br />...said the commenter who admits to have not read the interaction I had with Edward Reiss. steelikat, you really are a piece of work.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-78643523000747770832010-10-18T21:59:04.787-04:002010-10-18T21:59:04.787-04:00I agree. Extensive multilocality is really not the...I agree. Extensive multilocality is really not the question when it comes to the Real Presence, nor is Divine Omnipresence.<br /><br />I doubt that you can persuade Rhology to actually attempt to have a real dialog with Ed, however. To Rhology a dialog seemingly means throwing out stock phrases related to the subject at hand in a disconnected way punctuated by sophomoric insults.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-32547179567803094662010-10-18T21:00:28.541-04:002010-10-18T21:00:28.541-04:00I think there is talking past each other here. I t...I think there is talking past each other here. I think the more crucial idea here is that at least from a Lutheran standpoint, Communion is a Gospel proclamation that involves the elements of bread and wine. That should be the starting point first, that is - Is God proclaiming to the communicant the death of Jesus Christ in the bread and wine as body and blood of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins?<br /><br />So the first question should be - is this - is it a proclamation or not? If the answer is Yes which the Lutheran believes and if Rhology agrees to this, then the both of you can move forward and I should think it will be clearer why the elements are the body and blood of Jesus. If Rhology answers No, proving as to why not should be on the table? I think this is where the discussion should circle around in before multilocality etc is discussed. That just muddies the waters.<br /><br />I am an ex-Charismaniac Babtiscostal for 25+ years and I do believe I know the doctrine of the real absence of Christ in a Zwinglian way, that is the reason why I am interjecting in the discussion here about Gospel proclamation in the Supper first.<br /><br />BTW, Calvin was much closer to Luther on this than with Zwingli. Calvin and Melanchton were in communication on this though Calvin never jumped the line to stand with Luther, analysts say he was more closer to Luther than to Zwingli (his colleague/metor) on this subject.<br /><br />LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-17144650595994676572010-10-18T15:29:09.865-04:002010-10-18T15:29:09.865-04:00"In other words, again, you've got nothin..."In other words, again, you've got nothing. Thanks!"<br /><br />You're welcome! I'm sorry I couldn't have been even more help. I understand these are difficult concepts. I don't think it's necessary that we as laymen have a good understanding of difficult theological subjects so when it goes "over our heads" we can just let it go.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-66348924676683883842010-10-18T15:23:28.515-04:002010-10-18T15:23:28.515-04:00"You had said:
Christ is God and God is omnip..."You had said:<br />Christ is God and God is omnipresent therefore the body of Christ is ubiquitous or omnipresent by a proper communicatio idiomatum.<br />I pointed out that this suffers from the same problem as saying this:<br />Christ is God. God is a spirit. Christ is a spirit.<br />Christ is God. God is a Trinity. Christ is a Trinity. "<br /><br />Of course the former (the statement about something in particular being a proper communicatio idiomatum) does not suffer from the same problem as the latter. They suffer from completely different problems.<br /><br />I told you what I thought the problem with the former (Ed Reiss's argument about the Real Presence) was. Since the Real Presence is not a species of omnipresence, per se, it doesn't really have anything to do with the subject. Perhaps you found other genuine problems with it, but since it was Ed Reiss's argument you should take that up with him. I think it might be a proper communicatio idiomatum, for what it's worth, but I don't think that helps Ed with your challenge to him.<br /><br />The problem with the latter is this:<br /><br />"Christ is God." can mean EITHER:<br />1a. that Christ is the second Person of the Trinity. OR <br />1b. Christ has the Divine nature (but the former intented meaning seems more likely since the Trinity is what keeps coming up later).<br /><br />"God is a Trinity." means <br />2. There is one Divine Nature, yet three Divine Persons.<br /><br />"Christ is a Trinity" means nothing orthodox, and does not logically follow from 2 in conjunction with either 1.a or 1.b<br /><br />As you can see, there are different "problems," you haven't really given multiple examples of a single problem. Not that it matters one way or another, I'm just sayin'...steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-60600472519822982342010-10-18T14:46:10.380-04:002010-10-18T14:46:10.380-04:00In other words, again, you've got nothing. Th...In other words, again, you've got nothing. Thanks!Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-80134414679240542162010-10-18T14:41:24.411-04:002010-10-18T14:41:24.411-04:00Rhology,
The last comment of yours appears to be ...Rhology,<br /><br />The last comment of yours appears to be a reaction to a comment of mine that has disappeared.<br /><br />Anyway,<br /><br />"Obviously, what I mean is any example of a human being in more than one place at the same time. In the Bible." <br /><br />It would be essentially impossible to find an example of that since the only biblical account of a resurrected man is the gospel/acts accounts of Jesus Christ. The data is limited. Now if it were true that the bible had narrative accounts of many resurrected glorified men and their experiences, you could say "OK, so you interpret that one account as being bilocation, can you find another instance of bilocation in the many biblical passages that contain narratives of resurrected glorified men?" and you might have a good point. Otherwise your demand for "biblical evidence" doesn't make sense.<br /><br />"EXACTLY. But what the Bible DOES do is to show every human it ever discusses as in ONE place at ONE time. Never more than one place."<br /><br />Yes, but those are all discussions of fallen men, not resurrected men. The gospel/acts accounts of Jesus post-resurrection are the only narrative accounts of resurrected man in the whole bible (there are passages in the bible that discuss the resurrection but they aren't narratives with resurrected men in them). It therefore is unremarkable that there is no "evidence" of that kind outside the gospel/acts accounts themselves, which as you say may never have been referring to anything other than teleportation.<br /><br />I am not embarrassed that the sort of evidence you are demanding does not exist. I am a little embarrassed for you that you don't seem to understand why your demand makes no sense.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-47871131912336806202010-10-18T14:30:20.472-04:002010-10-18T14:30:20.472-04:00You had said:
Christ is God and God is omnipresen...You had said:<br /><br /><i>Christ is God and God is omnipresent therefore the body of Christ is ubiquitous or omnipresent by a proper communicatio idiomatum.</i><br /><br />I pointed out that this suffers from the same problem as saying this:<br /><br />Christ is God. God is a spirit. Christ is a spirit.<br />Christ is God. God is a Trinity. Christ is a Trinity. <br /><br />You have been corrected on this, yet you refuse to acknowledge this. Or you just don't understand it. In either case, the wise course of action would be to withdraw and do some more reading, rather than more clueless speaking.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-57511215843768599022010-10-18T14:27:32.142-04:002010-10-18T14:27:32.142-04:00Oh and by the way:
"Christ is a Trinity.&quo...Oh and by the way:<br /><br />"Christ is a Trinity."<br /><br />Are you saying you believe Christ is a Trinity, or are you saying that Edward Reiss claimed that Christ is a Trinity? If it's the former, I want to tell you that your conception is not orthodox and that you should give the subject more study. If it's the latter, that is all the more reason for you not to associate me with Ed Reiss.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-27995253493987332692010-10-18T14:22:44.377-04:002010-10-18T14:22:44.377-04:00Quite a lot of substance-free bloviating here, but...Quite a lot of substance-free bloviating here, but let me comment on a few things.<br /><br /><i>How can there be "evidence?" What can you mean by "evidence?</i><br /><br />Obviously, what I mean is any example of a human being in more than one place at the same time. In the Bible. <br />Just as obviously, you don't have any examples thereof. Your entire argument, or hypothesis, whatever it is, rests entirely on unfounded speculation on your part.<br /><br /><br /><i>If the bible nowhere ever discusses the incident again there cannot be any biblical evidence</i><br /><br />EXACTLY. <br />But what the Bible DOES do is to show every human it ever discusses as in ONE place at ONE time. Never more than one place. <br /><br /><br /><i>Do you mean evidence in the sense of finding other people who have also interpreted what they were reading to be a possible account of bilocation?</i><br /><br />??? Let's just stick with what the Bible says, not "what other people interpret". <br />You clearly don't have any biblical evidence, so now you're just smokescreening to cover your embarrassing lack of substantiation.<br /><br /><br /><i>before I go to that trouble I would like to ask you why you need me to do that. How would it help you?</i><br /><br />Sigh...Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-889178813643101782010-10-18T14:18:01.469-04:002010-10-18T14:18:01.469-04:00"You've apparently learned nothing from y..."You've apparently learned nothing from your numerous corrections."<br /><br />What you are talking about? You referred me to Edward Reiss and I responded by telling you what I thought he was saying and told you why I wasn't interested in discussing that subject and your response is:<br /><br />"You've apparently learned nothing from your numerous corrections."<br /><br />What can Edward Reiss and his arguments with you over the Real Presence, which arguments I had nothing to do with and want nothing to do with possibly have to do with "my numerous corrections?" <br /><br />Are you actually reading what I say or do you have a computer program that searches for phrases out of context and produces canned responses to them?<br /><br />"Quite the unsupported, specious, throwaway statement." <br /><br />What of it? I'm honestly and frankly telling you that I don't want to talk about it and why I don't want to talk about it. You are going to <i>argue</i> with that?<br /><br />"Just one piece of evidence."<br /><br />How can there be "evidence?" What can you mean by "evidence?" The question is what one thinks the meaning of one unique narrative passage is. If the bible nowhere ever discusses the incident again there cannot be any biblical evidence. Do you mean evidence in the sense of finding other people who have also interpreted what they were reading to be a possible account of bilocation?<br /><br />I suppose I could do a google search for that and--since just about every time in the past I've ever thought I were unique, inventive, or idiosyncratic I turned out to be wrong--I reckon I could probably find such an example, but before I go to that trouble I would like to ask you why you need me to do that. How would it help you?<br /><br />"I'm not even sure at this point that you fully understand the things you are writing."<br /><br />I'm quite sure you don't understand all of the things I am writing, given, for example, the non-sequitur: "You've apparently learned nothing from your numerous corrections." in response to my summarizing what I thought Ed Reiss was talking about and telling you why I didn't want to talk about it; and the demand for "evidence" regarding a unique biblical account of a specific event.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-278416139057867032010-10-18T13:36:41.540-04:002010-10-18T13:36:41.540-04:00Christ is God and God is omnipresent therefore the...<i>Christ is God and God is omnipresent therefore the body of Christ is ubiquitous or omnipresent by a proper communicatio idiomatum.</i><br /><br />Christ is God. God is a spirit. Christ is a spirit.<br />Christ is God. God is a Trinity. Christ is a Trinity. <br /><br />You've apparently learned nothing from your numerous corrections.<br /><br /><br /><i>I say that Christ is really, extensively, naturally, and locally present at the right hand of the Father, but really, intensively and sacramentally locally present in the Eucharist and leave it at that.</i><br /><br />Well then, congrats, you've escaped the conundrum in which RCs find themselves stuck. It's their claim that Christ is really, substantially present that gets them into so much trouble. <br /><br /><br /><i>I would say that Christ was telling the truth when he said "this is my body." </i><br /><br />Apparently you do not escape, however, the wrongheaded way that Edward Reiss was prevaricating. Either the spiritual is real or it is not. I think it is, and therefore when He said "This is My body", while pointing at the piece of bread (and yet His actual body was HOLDING the bread), to say that this is a spiritual reality is no less real than if it were transubstantiated.<br /><br /><br /><i>Since Zwinglists think it cute and clever to become blasphemous when discussing the real presence I won't say more than that or discuss the subject.</i><br /><br />Quite the unsupported, specious, throwaway statement. <br /><br /><br /><i>but if an account could be interpreted as either teleportation or bilocality I need more than thy dogma to help me choose which it is. </i><br /><br />That's the whole question! <b>Give me some reason to think it could reasonably be bilocality</b>. Just one piece of evidence. Just one. <br /><br /><br /><i>The reason is: Thou dost not have the authority to make dogma. </i><br /><br />I'm not even sure at this point that you fully understand the things you are writing.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-21671870574945833222010-10-18T13:30:38.147-04:002010-10-18T13:30:38.147-04:00"here's my Scriptural proof - in every si..."here's my Scriptural proof - in every single instance in Scripture, men are in one place at any one time. Every single time. Please provide counterevidence if you have it."<br /><br />I think that is the best scriptural proof one can have. That's not enough proof to produce a dogma, it seems to me. The only applicable accounts of resurrected man are the accounts of Christ's earthly travels after the resurrection and before the ascension. The data are limited.<br /><br />I didn't read Edward Reiss's comments carefully but I've seen that sort of thing before. Perhaps I'm mistaken about this but he seems to be defending the orthodox doctrine of the real presence against the charge of monophysitism by saying, essentially, Christ is God and God is omnipresent therefore the body of Christ is ubiquitous or omnipresent by a proper communicatio idiomatum.<br /><br />I wouldn't do that. Even if it's true that doesn't help in regards to the doctrine of the real presence. I say that Christ is really, extensively, naturally, and locally present at the right hand of the Father, but really, intensively and sacramentally locally present in the Eucharist and leave it at that. I would say that Christ was telling the truth when he said "this is my body." The rest is mystery. Since Zwinglists think it cute and clever to become blasphemous when discussing the real presence I won't say more than that or discuss the subject. As I said, I have a weak stomach for that sort of thing.<br /><br />What I was talking about was not the sacramental real presence but multilocality as an (admittedly speculative) natural attribute of glorified man and my reason for why it might make sense.<br /><br />"Teleportation does not equal multilocality,"<br /><br />No, but if an account could be interpreted as either teleportation or bilocality I need more than thy dogma to help me choose which it is. Neither attribute is natural to fallen man but one of them is natural to glorified man.<br /><br />"Why? What is the reason?"<br /><br />The reason is: Thou dost not have the authority to make dogma. <br /><br />"Ironic statement from a self-professed Lutheran who thinks we need a Magisterium, talking to a Reformed Baptist."<br /><br />Rest assured the irony was intentional.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-39766868139770721262010-10-18T08:25:07.347-04:002010-10-18T08:25:07.347-04:00since you're the only one being dogmatic here ...<i>since you're the only one being dogmatic here in regards to the question the burden of scriptural proof lies on you.</i><br /><br />OK, here's my Scriptural proof - in every single instance in Scripture, men are in one place at any one time. Every single time. Please provide counterevidence if you have it.<br /><br /><br /><i>I'm surprised that I'm the only one who has expressed skepticism in regards to it. </i><br /><br />You haven't - see Edward Reiss' comments, linked above.<br /><br /><br /><i>We will have spiritual bodies. What does that mean? </i><br /><br />It also says that those spiritual bodies will be like Christ's post-resurrection body. And yet was that body ever in more than one place at one time? No. Is it composed of flesh? Yes. Glorified, incorruptible flesh, sure, but flesh. Matter. <br /><br /><br /><i>we are dominated by the physical. </i><br /><br />Well, speak for yourself.<br /><br /><br /><i>will not be limited by time and space the way we are now: They will be naturally immortal and incorruptible. </i><br /><br />That doesn't show that they will not be limited by time or space. It merely shows that time won't affect us the same way, and it says nothing about space, which is the topic at hand.<br /><br /><br /><i>Christ was able to either bilocate or move with extraordinary swiftness from place to place. He could enter locked rooms. </i><br /><br />Teleportation does not equal multilocality, as I'm sure you're aware.<br /><br /><br /><i>All that does not prove your dogma incorrect but does suggest that we not accept it as dogma</i><br /><br />Why? What is the reason?<br /><br /><br /><i>OK magister. </i><br /><br />Ironic statement from a self-professed Lutheran who thinks we need a Magisterium, talking to a Reformed Baptist.<br /><br />Peace,<br />RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-83037270625067961162010-10-15T22:53:45.215-04:002010-10-15T22:53:45.215-04:00The bible says that we will be changed, that our g...The bible says that we will be changed, that our glorified bodies will be different from our bodies now as a mature plant is different than a seed. We will have spiritual bodies. What does that mean? It cannot mean that our bodies will be made of spirit--that's a contradiction in terms. In this life, we are dominated by the physical. You might say that we have corporeal spirits, not literally but in the sense that the spirit is dominated by the physical, almost a slave of the physical. "Spiritual bodies" must mean that the order of things will be reversed, that the spirit instead of the body will dominate, that the resurrected saints will not be limited by the physical, by time in space, to the degree and in all the ways we are now.<br /><br />Some examples of how the resurrected saints will not be limited by time and space the way we are now: They will be naturally immortal and incorruptible. Christ was able to either bilocate or move with extraordinary swiftness from place to place. He could enter locked rooms. He could disappear. He could asscend into heaven. He was not a ghost, though, the disciples touched him and saw that he was still a physical being.<br /><br />All that does not prove your dogma incorrect but does suggest that we not accept it as dogma. As we have seen, the resurrected saints will not be physically limited all the ways and to the degree we are now. But you dogmatically assert that one way their spiritual bodies will still be limited is that they will still be essentially and necessarily mono local.<br /><br />OK magister. Would it be presumptuous of me to say the burden of proof is on the one proposing the dogma?steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-45926550718740585482010-10-15T22:03:49.419-04:002010-10-15T22:03:49.419-04:00in fact since your argument depends on that dogma ...in fact since your argument depends on that dogma I'm surprised that I'm the only one who has expressed skepticism in regards to it.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-63858018529225652582010-10-15T14:34:59.759-04:002010-10-15T14:34:59.759-04:00"So you're saying you don't have any ..."So you're saying you don't have any biblical evidence. OK, thanks. Exactly what I've been saying."<br /><br />No, that's not <i>exactly</i> what you've been saying. You've been asserting as dogma the teaching that monolocality is an essential attribute of man and that if Christ, in the NT resurrection accounts for example, ever seemed to have bilocated that could only be discussed in the realm of communication of attributes.<br /><br />I responded by being skeptical of your dogmatic assertion; and since you're the only one being dogmatic here in regards to the question the burden of scriptural proof lies on you. I won't take descarte as established, since I've become aware of how cartesian the modern worldview and assumptions are even among people who explictly reject descarte.<br /><br /><br />Another thing I want to make clear is that I never intended to comment here on the specific topic of the eucharist. My comment was specifically about the question of multilocality per se.<br /><br />I find the arguments about the Lord's Supper to be disturbing and blasphemous, and I am forced to leave that discussion to people with stronger stomaches than I have. I am too sensitive.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-59709042731282552392010-10-15T13:51:55.338-04:002010-10-15T13:51:55.338-04:00Is mono-locality an essential attribute of man, in...<i>Is mono-locality an essential attribute of man, in the sense of being generally essential to pre-fallen man, fallen man, and resurrected glorified man?</i><br /><br />So you're saying you don't have any biblical evidence. OK, thanks. Exactly what I've been saying.<br />Now, what about the experience from <b>every person we've ever known, ever</b>? Also monolocal. <br /><br /><br /><i>To be thoroughly Christian in your thinking don't you need to be thoroughly "capital-T" Theistic?</i><br /><br />Yes. I'm not sure where I cast doubt on my theism, or Theism.<br /><br /><br /><i>There is a reason why scripture makes that distinction but that distinction is not exhausted by a discussion of our bodies being extended in space.</i><br /><br />Where's the argument?<br /><br /><br /><i>Do you think your understanding of the matter is somewhat cartesian? </i><br /><br />Did Descartes precede Docetism and monophysitism? Nope.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-70121901849565373002010-10-15T13:49:20.175-04:002010-10-15T13:49:20.175-04:00Rhology,
"Yes, I remember. All I'm askin...Rhology,<br /><br />"Yes, I remember. All I'm asking for is a bit of biblical evidence."<br /><br />Why? How do you know the bible tackles the question?<br /><br />To remind you, here is the question:<br /><br />Is mono-locality an essential attribute of man, in the sense of being generally essential to pre-fallen man, fallen man, and resurrected glorified man?<br /><br />Remember that not addressing a question, in cases where an answer is not necessary, is different than choosing an answer.<br /><br />I will grant that if you have a cartesian world-view, and insist that the bible must take a stance vis a vis that world view, you may have a point. That seems anachronistic to me, among other problems.<br /><br />"Omnipresence is a species of multilocality, yes. Specifically, God is everyWHERE."<br /><br />I think you need to give the question more thought. To be thoroughly Christian in your thinking don't you need to be thoroughly "capital-T" Theistic?<br /><br />"Show me any example of where a human is in more than one place at one time." <br />Perhaps that would help in regards to your understanding why omniscience is not the same thing as multilocality. To clarify, do you think a fictional example or a made-up scenario help? I don't pretend that I've ever seen it happen if that's what you're getting at.<br /><br />"There's a reason why our bodies are extended in space, why Scr makes a distinction between the physical and the spiritual."<br /><br />There is a reason why scripture makes that distinction but that distinction is not exhausted by a discussion of our bodies being extended in space.<br /><br />Do you think your understanding of the matter is somewhat cartesian? How do you think it was understood before Descarte?steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-19034967133537162712010-10-15T13:25:58.488-04:002010-10-15T13:25:58.488-04:00That however is the very proposition I am calling ...<i>That however is the very proposition I am calling into question, remember?</i><br /><br />Yes, I remember. All I'm asking for is a bit of biblical evidence. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Furthermore I don't believe multi locality is a divine attribute! Do you? You don't think divine omnipresence is mere multi locality, do you?</i><br /><br />Omnipresence is a species of multilocality, yes. Specifically, God is everyWHERE. Show me any example of where a human is in more than one place at one time. Yes, even a resurrected human. You can't. There's a reason why our bodies are extended in space, why Scr makes a distinction between the physical and the spiritual.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-60046566787848783772010-10-15T11:21:39.669-04:002010-10-15T11:21:39.669-04:00"Her son pre-existed her."
That is not ..."Her son pre-existed her."<br /><br />That is not a different way of motherhood. Existence is caused by creation, not motherhood. Actually in this one case existence is caused by the Father eternally begetting the son. That is still not a way of being a mother.<br /><br />If you are going to come up with different ways of being a mother you have to talk about things that mothers do, nourishing their children in their wombs, helping them with their homework, etc.<br /><br />"Her son is God in human flesh."<br /><br />That is the fact about her son that has invited us to think of how her way of being a mother is different than your mom's. That is not itself a different way of being a mother, however, it is a fact about her son.<br /><br />Look, it's OK. I don't expect you to come with anything. All I could come up with is the virginal conception and you don't seem substantially more clever than I. ;-)<br /><br />"You would need to show how multi locality suddenly becomes a communicable attribute of the divine"<br /><br />1. Perhaps I would need to show that if I was convinced that it were essential to resurrected human nature to be mono local. That however is the very proposition I am calling into question, remember?<br /><br />2. Furthermore I don't believe multi locality is a divine attribute! Do you? You don't think divine omnipresence is mere multi locality, do you?<br /><br />"I'm not talking about human nature qua human nature but one instance.."<br /><br />A concrete instance of human nature would be a person. I assume you mean you are talking about a particular individual human nature, in this case Christ's.<br /><br />Anyway, created natures are created natures. either it's the case that they are all created outside of time or it's the case that a nature comes into existence when the first being with that nature begins to exist. It wouldn't be the case that Plato was right in regards to some natures and Aristotle others.<br /><br />"except that 1 doesn't say 'and cannot take on an additional nature'"<br /><br />Right, that's why 2 contradicts it and 2a doesn't.<br /><br />"Saying 'Jesus is a divine and human person' covers all the bases"<br /><br />Actually it covers bases you probably wouldn't want covered according to standard theological usage but now that I understand that what you mean by it is "Jesus is a divine person with both a human nature and a divine nature," I won't misunderstand you.<br /><br />Boy I really ripped the seam out of that baseball metaphor. I had better stick to tailor metaphors.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-38600106704578067262010-10-14T23:43:49.304-04:002010-10-14T23:43:49.304-04:00If by that you mean Jesus is a singular divine per...<i>If by that you mean Jesus is a singular divine person who (now) has a divine nature and a human nature</i><br /><br />Obviously, yes. <br /><br /><br /><i> that's what you would be well advised to say, to avoid being misunderstood</i><br /><br />You who've clearly read virtually none of the preceding conversation w.r.t. monophysitism are hardly in a position to tell me I've badly communicated my position. Sorry.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i> I have to tell you I don't know how it's different, though</i><br /><br />1) Her Son pre-existed her. <br />2) Her Son is God in human flesh. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>I do think that Jesus's body came into existence at a point in time.</i><br /><br />Great, thanks!<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>I asked how you know that resurrected men are subject to physical laws forbidding multilocality.</i><br /><br />You'd need to show how multilocality suddenly becomes a communicable attribute of the divine instead of incommunicable. And where is your evidence besides 100% pure speculation? How about, you know, a Bible verse or sthg?<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>In particular in regards to bilocation I see a hint of it in the accounts of the post-resurrection Christ. </i><br /><br />You <b>imagine</b> them. Give me one clear example. You can't. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>you meant that 1. His human nature came into being at a point in time AND 2. His body came into being at a point in time.</i><br /><br />Correct. Again, all things I've clearly stated before.<br /><br /><br /><i>I'd almost like to think that natures are created outside of time</i><br /><br />I'm not talking about human nature qua human nature, but rather one instance - Christ took on a human nature when He took a human body.<br /><br /><br /><i>2. The second person of the trinity changed from being a divine person to being a divine-and-human person.<br />2 contradicts 1.</i><br /><br />Except that (1) doesn't say "and can't take on an additional nature". <br />What good is one credal statement if you're just going to trash a different credal statement? I don't even know what you're getting at now.<br /><br /><br /><i>He remained a divine person, the second person of the trinity, but now has both a human nature and the divine nature, is both truly God and truly man.</i><br /><br />Correct. And b/c He is still truly man to this very day and unto eternity future, He is in ONE place at any ONE time. Specifically, the right hand of the Father, in Heaven. Not in wafers and glasses of winejuice.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>That is a reason not to say "Jesus is a human-and-divine person, unless, again, you mean to say Jesus is a divine person who has both a human nature and the divine nature, in which case you should say just THAT.</i><br /><br />Since I don't see a diff between the 2, OK. But since you were the one who introduced the statement "Jesus is a divine person", YOU'RE the one being unclear and unorthodox, <i>sans</i> clarificatory statements. Saying "Jesus is a divine and human person" covers all the bases.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-51973897552549505922010-10-14T14:58:25.426-04:002010-10-14T14:58:25.426-04:00And here's a demonstration for you to mull ove...And here's a demonstration for you to mull over in regards to the "divine/human person" thing.<br /><br />1. The three Divine persons of the trinity are immutable and unchanging both in their hypostases and their divine nature.<br /><br />2. The second person of the trinity changed from being a divine person to being a divine-and-human person.<br /><br />2 contradicts 1.<br /><br />2a. The second person of the trinity did not change in his nature or hypostasis but did take on a human nature. He remained a divine person, the second person of the trinity, but now has both a human nature and the divine nature, is both truly God and truly man.<br /><br />2a does not contradict 1.<br /><br />That is a reason not to say "Jesus is a human-and-divine person, unless, again, you mean to say Jesus is a divine person who has both a human nature and the divine nature, in which case you should say just THAT.steelikathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07098688926233117226noreply@blogger.com