johnboy.philothea quote: Originally posted by Phil: quote: So, WHAT the doctrine is getting at --- our radical neediness & that we sin --- is essential. THAT the Incarnation meets those needs and reconciles our relationships is also essential. As I said, though, the literalistic accounts of past events regarding some of the HOWs and WHYs are not essential. For example, one might ask, was human reality ever truly edenic? Is that what the Fall necessarily entails? And, of course, substitutionary atonement, for example, is also not essential.
Good to see you back, JB. Just to be sure I'm understanding you, here, you do not hear CB denying the reality of Original Sin? Jesus' place in the Trinity is not in dispute? Not to my knowledge, among most traditional folk, that is. As you know, he's considered the incarnate Word/Second Person of the Trinity.
Emphatically no! quote: Cynthia's own words: [T]he resurrection proves that Jesus is the only Son of God, that there is none other like him, that in and through him God has reconciled heaven and earth and laid the foundations of the New Creation, that this is the pivotal moment in salvation history ... [A] sacrament does not merely symbolize a spiritual reality; it lives that reality into existence. Jesus' life, considered from this standpoint, is a sacrament: a mystery that draws us deeply into itself and, when rightly approached, conveys an actual spiritual energy empowering us to follow the path that his teachings have laid out. Yes, we come into constriction, but is that the same as punishment? I believe not. I believe rather that this constriction is a sacrament, and we have been offered a divine invitation to participate in it. ... It is difficult to risk love in a world so fragile and contingent. And yet, the greater the gamble ...
1
quote: Originally posted by Phil: quote: Regarding the interpretation of John 10:30, as with most Bible verses, exegetes struggle with interpretation from several angles (hence my reference to minority views referred to exegetical matters). In this particular case, Calvin most quickly comes to mind. One might check out the different commentaries. From Bracken's discussion, the John 10:30 take away was the moral union within a community and the bond of love which can unite human beings with one another and with the triune God. From Cynthia's discussion: "There is no separation between humans and God because of this mutual interabiding which expresses the indivisible reality of divine love." Perhaps Cynthia did intend this in as heterodox a manner as you received it? I can't make that case though from what I've read.
Prior to saying that, she said, "While he (Jesus) does indeed claim that 'the Father and I are one' (John 10:30)--a statement so blasphemous to Jewish ears that it nearly gets him stoned--he does not see this as an exclusive privilege but something shared by all human beings." I really dislike the term, "exclusive," here, as that's anathema to postmodern ears, and sweet perfume to those who loathe the idea of Jesus being the one and only incarnation of God. "Exclusive" gives the wrong impression. His union with the Father is indeed "exclusive" in the sense that none of us is one with the Father as He is, but that's not the best way to put it. Jesus never, ever taught that we already enjoyed the same kind of union with the Father that he experienced. You've given us an example of a "minority report" interpretation, but I'm not sure why such deserve honorable mention, here. As you noted earlier, the mainstream Christian tradition affirms an ontological union of being. The obfuscation I refer to is CB's "There is no separation between humans and God because of this mutual interabiding which expresses the indivisible reality of divine love." This totally evades the issue of Jesus's distinctive relationship with the Father by presenting us with a statement about Jesus's experience of divine union. It tells us nothing about Jesus, really, except that he experienced the unitive stage of spiritual growth. Her statement is undeniable, but does nothing to justify her contention that Jesus's union with the Father is not "exclusive." See what I mean?
2
I understand what you are saying but we are talking past each other somewhat. She's only saying that the bond of love is not exclusive. Whatever it is that makes Jesus the only son of God and so on and so forth is not being denied. It just ain't what's being talked about in this verse per other reasonable interpretations (based on esoteric exegetical stuff like the gender -neutral vs masculine- of certain nouns and such). See what I mean? As I receive what Cynthia is saying, I am focusing on her interpretation and commentary on John 10:30 ALONE. It is already abundantly clear to me from having read what she has explicitly affirmed in this book (quotes above and elsewhere) that she does not have a heterodox take on the Trinity. An alternate interpretation of John 10:30, whether by Cynthia, Calvin, Erasmus or via Joe Bracken, would NOT, in and of itself, deny the ontological union. The alternate interpretation only suggests that that particular verse happens to be talking about something else, in the case at hand, about LOVE. quote: Originally posted by Phil:Hope that clarifies. Perhaps you could read some of what she wrote as critically as you are reading my responses? (Wink and poke)
I'll let my contributions to this thread speak for themselves ... revealing that my critiques, like my affirmations, have been equal-opportunity. Again, Cynthia well articulates the essentials of the faith re: Christology, even soteriology vis a vis affirming our finitude and neediness and Jesus' efficacious role in reconciling and empowering us. She affirms what I affirmed and raises the same questions I asked, answering them in much the same Scotistic way that I have in all of my writings. This minority view is not heterodox. I don't mention it seeking honor or approval but because it best articulates the truth, celebrates the beauty, preserves the good and fosters the fellowship with which I resonate in my life of faith! quote: per Johnboy So, WHAT the doctrine is getting at --- our radical neediness & that we sin --- is essential. THAT the Incarnation meets those needs and reconciles our relationships is also essential. As I said, though, the literalistic accounts of past events regarding some of the HOWs and WHYs are not essential. For example, one might ask, was human reality ever truly edenic? Is that what the Fall necessarily entails? And, of course, substitutionary atonement, for example, is also not essential.
3