Thoughts on the Incarnation
| ultramarine passionate menage regret | 12/21/20 | | ultramarine passionate menage regret | 12/21/20 | | soul-stirring address | 12/21/20 | | ultramarine passionate menage regret | 12/21/20 | | soul-stirring address | 12/21/20 | | Claret dashing hospital hissy fit | 12/21/20 | | ultramarine passionate menage regret | 12/21/20 | | ultramarine passionate menage regret | 12/21/20 | | soul-stirring address | 12/21/20 | | ultramarine passionate menage regret | 12/21/20 | | soul-stirring address | 12/21/20 | | ultramarine passionate menage regret | 12/21/20 | | soul-stirring address | 12/21/20 | | ultramarine passionate menage regret | 12/21/20 | | soul-stirring address | 12/21/20 | | ultramarine passionate menage regret | 12/21/20 | | maize university blood rage | 12/21/20 | | ultramarine passionate menage regret | 12/21/20 | | Yellow laughsome internal respiration | 12/21/20 | | awkward amber mood | 12/21/20 | | ultramarine passionate menage regret | 12/21/20 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: December 21st, 2020 2:10 PM Author: ultramarine passionate menage regret
It goes without saying that the narrative of the Christ's birth is mythological, including the circumstances of the event itself (e.g., his mother was not a virgin, no one came knowing the "Son" of God was born, etc) as well as the people to whom he was born (his lineage).
The doctrine of the incarnation is also metaphysically confused, the two-persons language being an unsatisfying, paradoxical resolution to the problem of understanding God phenomenologically as compared to understanding God intrinsically. The ancient philosophers had no concept of metaphysical emergence (something we get from the sciences) and so Christ's God nature is confusingly understood to inhabit the same metaphysical plane, as it were, as his humanity.
Rather than this failed attempt at dual aspect monism, it is proper to suggest, as we would in broader theories of the philosophy of religion, that Jesus Christ is the "God man" in so far as he is emergent from the divine ground of being as epistemic revelation. Within the framework of phenomenology, where we talk about the effects of the divine ground of being in creation (cause, effect, extension, etc), Jesus is the making-explicit of the mediating processional moments of the divine ground (2 Cor 2:14). In his life, the moments of the divine ground become manifest.
However, just as we cannot ascribe the personhood of God to an external being-among-beings (God as person is revealed to our perceptual faculties through and as the self), we cannot call Jesus God in-himself. Christ is an epistemic instrument of the divine ground of being who we speak of as the God-Man in the religio-phenomenological frame, and who is an expression of but not identical to the animating spirit of the divine ground of being.
John talks of Christ as the incarnated Logos, as that power through which the divine ground of being created the life-world. This incarnational language is closer to the de-religious metaphysical reality. Christ is the making-known of the divine ground of being both epistemically (as revelation in time) and ontologically, as a world-historic making-carnate of that power through which the divine ground brings creation into being. This incarnation however is not limited to the Christ, indeed he is the first-fruits of it as epistemic revelation and, as a consequence, its ontological consummation in man. It is in this sense -- Christ as the mediator between the divine ground and the life-world, as the making manifest of the power that is the relation between divine ground and its creation -- that Christ is the ontological incarnation of the logos, in this sense that he is the God-Man.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4717708&forum_id=2#41590871) |
Date: December 21st, 2020 3:13 PM Author: Claret dashing hospital hissy fit
jesus is a kike manufactured product
hth
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4717708&forum_id=2#41591320) |
|
|