On the Meaning of Creeds

+
On the Meaning of Creeds/1
.
/ Subject > Re: God talking in NT #4 / 2Feb03 /
/ Newsgroup > soc.religion.christian.bible-study /
.
>>> Matthew previously wrote: For the Transfiguration
>>> reveals Jesus Christ as _equal_ to the Father
.
>> tx asketh: How do you figure that?
.
> On Jan29 Matthew Johnson (matthew_member@newsguy.com)
> answered: It is quite simple, actually, if you understand
> that the light of the Transfiguration is the _uncreated_
> light that flows from God Himself. But since you do not
> believe this, I will discuss the Transfiguration below
> without making this assumption.
.
textman replies: Ah, thx . . . I think?
.
>> The only way to derive such a conclusion from this passage
>> is by deliberately forcing it into the texts!
.
> No, that is not true. On the contrary: the only way to
> _avoid_ the conclusion is by deliberately forcing the
> text. See below.
.
See below the text? :(
.
>> A very NOT valid interpretation here.
.
> On the contrary: it is the only valid interpretation.
.
Because of the "_uncreated_ light that flows from God
Himself"? Your own statement suggests that the light flows
*from* God *to* JC. I do not see any equality of divinity
here, but rather distinction and uniqueness of identity. The
New Testament teaches that Jesus is the Messiah, which is
then interpreted as 'Lord' and 'Son of God' for the ignorant
Gentiles who did not know the meaning of phrases like 'son
of man' and 'the anointed one'. None of the inspired authors
ever thought that Messiah *really* means 'God the Son'!
So why should believers today suppose that they know better
about these mysteries than the testimony of the scriptures?
.
btw: where is your validity hiding?
.
>>> and the wonder of the vision is to give those disciples
>>> the strength to see Him crucified, understanding that
>>> being Almighty, He suffered VOLUNTARILY. <snip>
.
>> Ha! Nice try there, Matthew.
.
> How quick you are to dismiss with breezy comments
> insights you do not understand!
.
Right. Fastest text-gun in the west! :D
.
>> Actually the transfiguration episode is about
>> religious *authority*;
.
> It _does_ cover religious authority, true.
> But it is about _so much more_.
.
Right. The pericope functions effectively on various levels.
That's why I love it to pieces! It even has considerable
historical value; IF you can see your way beyond a strictly
literal reading. MJ here does NOT seem to understand that the
transfiguration episode is a prophecy story about the sources
of spiritual authority within the churches after Paul (about
60CE+). Within the four major traditions as they struggled to
define themselves in those turbulent and apocalyptic times.
.
>> hence the presence of Moses and Elijah.
.
> But the presence of Moses and Elijah accomplished much more
> than just that. Have you ever considered, for example, what
> it means that Moses, the Lawgiver, is shown as if risen from
> the dead, and Elijah, who was taken up into heaven without
> death, is shown also inferior to Christ?
.
Is that the message this passage speaks to you? That the
great prophets of old are *inferior* to the Christ? I always
thought that this was incidental, and of no great significance,
since the whole point here is to show Jesus' *solidarity* with
the prophetic tradition as a whole. Especially in its new and
radiant forms within the churches of Antioch (Peter),
Jerusalem (James), and Alexandria (John).
.
> Christ is shown here as Lord of the Law and the Prophets,
> and Lord of both the living and the dead.
.
No. It shows him as the *living* embodiment of a *living*
prophetic tradition! That is how the early churches saw Jesus
AND themselves. And yet the scribes and pharisees are always
out to kill both. As friend Matthew here just demonstrated.
Prophets dead. Dead prophets. I hear you. All the prophets
are all dead dead dead . . . right
.
>> But your view explains nothing at all!
.
> On the contrary: my view is the _only_ one that properly
> takes into account the appearance of Moses and Elijah. For
> who else could be Lord of both the Law and the Prophets,
> and even of the Living and the Dead, if not the Lord God?
.
I see. So the fact that Jesus made a prophecy, and then
fulfilled it six days later ...
.
"And he said to them, 'Truly I say to you, there are some
standing here who will not taste death until they see the
kingdom of God come with power.' And after six days Jesus took
Peter, James, and John with him, and led them privately up a
high mountain. And when they were alone He was transfigured
before them" (Mark 9:1-2/PV) [Please note that the Greek-text
wants to make it very clear that NO other prominent church
leaders/pillars (including especially that recently deceased
(at the time when Mark and Peter wrote all this), but still
very active, Paulos) were present for this particular occasion
(which occurred "up above us")!]
.
... means nothing? Means that Jesus is not a prophet? But
is far superior to all prophets, and is therefore utterly
divorced from the prophetic traditions (new and old) by virtue
of the fact that Jesus is not "really" the anointed one, but
*is* the Lord God? And you say that this is the only *valid*
reading of the text? grrrrrr
.
> For that matter, there are several other important themes of
> Mt17:1-13 that your view cannot explain, but mine does. Why,
> for example, is Peter rebuked for suggesting three tents?
.
Cause one tent would be more appropriate. Solidarity; see?
.
> Can it be just because Jesus is greater than any prophet?
> No. For that fails to account for the words the Father chose
> to rebuke Peter: He did _not_ say, "listen to Me", He said
> "this is my beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased; hear
> *Him*". The Father has given _all_ authority to the Son,
> because there is no 'Son' with whom He is 'well-pleased'
> other than the Son who is the only begotten, consubstantial
> to the Father.
.
If you remove the absurd and unbiblical word 'consubstantial'
from all this reasoning, then you just *might* have the
beginnings of a coherent position. :)
.
> Nor is this the only theme your reading neglects: where, for
> example, is your understanding of how Mt 17:1-13 shows Jesus
> Christ as fully human as well, revealing that human nature
> _is_ capable of being transfigured with this special light?
.
Cause I make that assumption *all* the time, Matthew! :D
.
>> So you fancy that Jesus is equal to God, do you?
.
> It is not 'fancy'. It is the result of _centuries_ of
> careful reading, with _much_ deliberation, of this
> passage and many others.
.
Right. I quite agree with all this. It took A LOT of time and
effort for the scribes and pharisees to reach the conclusions
they reached. And all along the way, controversy, "heresy",
and popular religious movements and philosophical developments
made an impact on the general course of Christian thought.
.
> So you see, the idea is not 'mine'. Rather, I paid attention
> to Solomon's advice, when He said: Those who do not harken
> to the councils set aside sound thoughts; But wise counsel
> abides in the hearts of the well-advised. (Prv 15:22LXX)
> Now how could anyone be well-advised, if he does not harken
> to the wise theology of the Ecumenical Councils?
.
Gatherings of scribes and pharisees can only generate worldly
wisdom, and the sort of theology that proceeds from pride
and vanity. It was not these "wise and powerful" scribes
and pharisees that began the science of biblical study and
criticism. It was the efforts of prophets and teachers like
Clement and Origen; and they accomplished a great deal long
before the Emperor ever thought to gather up his bishops so
as to make them put their disordered houses in order!
.
P.S. Part two of Creeds coming soon ...
x

+

     On the Meaning of Creeds/2
.
/ Subject > Re: God talking in NT #5 / 4Feb03 /
/ Newsgroup > soc.religion.christian.bible-study /
.
>> tx previously wrote: That Jesus IS God?
.
> Matthew answered: He is.
.
>> Well, silly believers think that the NT teaches this,
.
> No, it is not 'silly believers'. Rather, those who under-
> stand the many modes of symbolic expression of Scripture,
> these are the ones who realize that the NT teaches that
> Christ is consubstantial to the Father. We also realize
> He is consubstantial with us,
.
textman replies: There's that gross, awful, and highly
*unbiblical* word again!
.
> and it is precisely in this that we find our salvation. If
> He had not had divine nature when He died on the Cross,
> there would be no redemption from death; but if He had not
> had human nature when He died, the redemption would not have
> been for us, it would not have been truly our own. It is
> truly our own _precisely_ because He mediates between the
> created and the uncreated, uniting in His person all that
> we are with all that God is.
.
The scriptures teach that Jesus is the Mediator because that
is the function of the Messiah; but nowhere do they mention
that he was consubstantial, that he was fully god *and* fully
man. Jesus was/is a divine-man, and that's why he can be
Messiah and Mediator and Savior. But your idea that Jesus is
God (equal to the Father, and of the same substance) makes a
mockery of the divine-man idea. One of the first heresies to
arise as the Faith spread into the Empire was just this idea
that Jesus was really God who *appeared* to us as a man. The
claim that Jesus was 'fully-god' AND 'fully-man' really does
nothing to overcome the fatal weakness of this different
form of episcopal-Docetism.
.
>> but this is not so.
.
> Yes, it is so.
.
Can we agree that it *may* be so?
.
>> Only thoughtless and careless and grossly
>> uncritical readings lead to that conclusion.
.
> Wait a minute ... it was _your_ reading that failed to
> account for why Jesus is transfigured, but Moses and
> Elijah are not.
.
Let me put it this way: If Jesus is the divine-man (ie. the
incarnation of the Logos), then the difference between Jesus
and the prophets can be understood as a matter of degree (and
in this context the concept of Messiah makes sense). However,
if we define Jesus as "God" (first, last, and always), then,
obviously, it is NOT a question of degree anymore, but of kind.
The God-Man is a completely different order of being, and
therefore the prophets can have nothing to say to the Word,
but can only listen. Is this what the scriptures are hinting
at when Mk sayeth: "There also appeared before them Elijah
and Moses, and *they* were talking *WITH* Jesus" (9:4)?
.
> It was _your_ reading that failed to even notice the
> importance of Elijah having never died.
.
so sorry :(
.
> So whose reading looks 'thoughtless, careless and
> grossly uncritical' now?
.
ummm ... yours? :)
.
>> What? You don't believe me?
.
> Of course I don't.
.
>> What a shocker.
.
> I see from your sarcasm that you are not surprised. I am
> pleased to see that you can show at least _that_ much
> perception ;)
.
Why thank you, Matthew; that is most gracious of you.
Especially in light of the fact that perception is what
prophets do best. (hai!)
.
>> But hey, check this out: Apostles' Creed (2C)
.
> I checked it out long before now. I hardly need say, but I
> will do it anyway: I did _not_ reach the same tragically
> erroneous conclusion you delight in.
.
So then you admit that the Apostle's Creed is wrong?!
.
>> I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and
>> earth. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord.
.
> Now what did you think 'only begotten Son' means? And who
> else did we _ever_ call 'our Lord', if not the Lord God?
.
Since the Logos is the one "begotten" of the Father, he would
be the Eternal Son, whom we know as our Lord Jesus Christ. The
'Lord God' would be a reference to YHWH, the I AM, who was the
Logos prior to the new age. This is why Jesus can say that
"before Abraham was, I am". But strictly speaking, Jesus did
not exist prior to his birth around 7-4 BCE in Galilee.
.
>> Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin
>> Mary. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead
>> and buried. He descended into hell. The third day he rose
>> again from the dead. He ascended into heaven, and sits at
>> the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From thence he
>> shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
.
> And how many times have we read in, say, the Old Testament,
> that it is *God* who judges 'the quick and the dead' (Prv
> 24:12)? Yet here we read it is Jesus Christ who does this.
> So the conclusion is?
.
The Son judges for and by the Father. The 'son of god'
does not need to also be 'god the son' in order for all
this to happen.
.
>> I believe in the Holy Ghost. I believe in the holy catholic
>> church. The communion of saints. The forgiveness of sins.
>> The resurrection of the body. And the life everlasting.Amen
>> Please notice that the creed does NOT say that Jesus
>> is equal to God.
.
> Actually, it does. What did you _think_
> 'only begotten Son' means?
.
It means the Word of God. The same that was revealed in Jesus.
.
>> Nor does it say that Jesus IS God.
.
> Again: you are failing to take into account what 'only
> begotten Son' must mean.
.
It means the Word of God. The same that was revealed in Jesus.
.
>> How do you explain this gross oversight, Matthew?
.
> Which gross oversight? The only 'gross oversight' I see is
> your failure to take into account what 'only begotten Son'
> must mean.
.
It means the Word of God. The same that was revealed in Jesus.
.
> But now for a real surprise: I will cut you some slack ;) It
> was precisely because so many people failed to understand
> what 'only begotten Son' means that -- after much collective
> soul-searching -- the Church decided it _must_ add the
> clarifying comments we now see in the Nicene Creed, as it
> has become standard throughout the whole Christian world:
.
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven
and earth, of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of
God, *who was begotten of the Father before all ages*
*Light of Light, True God of True God*
*begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father,
*through whom all things came to be*
.
> The comments in asterisks are the clarifying comments that
> show that 'only begotten Son' means 'consubstantial to the
> Father' AND show what this in turn must mean.
.
So we have here an early fourth-century emperor-begotten creed
that uses words and ideas nowhere to be found in the sacred
texts. hmmm ... So then it took roughly two centuries or so
for the scribes and pharisees to figure out that 'son of god'
really means 'god the son'? And that "the Father and I are
one" must therefore be taken literally to mean exactly
'consubstantial' and nothing else? Is this right? Because
those early believers couldn't - wut? - couldn't know that
the words in 'son of god' could be used to form the phrase
'god the son'? What if that phrase *was* used as early as
the second century:
.
"3 This know we: that our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ is
God the Son of God, who was sent of God the Lord of the whole
world, the maker and creator of it, who is named by all names
and high above all powers, Lord of lords, King of kings, Ruler
of rulers, the heavenly one, that sitteth above the cherubim
and seraphim at the right hand of the throne of the Father:
who by his word made the heavens, and formed the earth and
that which is in it, and set bounds to the sea that it should
not pass: the deeps also and fountains, that they should
spring forth and flow over the earth: the day and the night,
the sun and the moon, did he establish, and the stars in the
heaven: that did separate the light from the darkness: that
called forth hell, and in the twinkling of an eye ordained the
rain of the winter, the snow (cloud), the hail, and the ice,
and the days in their several seasons: that maketh the earth
to quake and again establisheth it: that created man in his
own image, after his likeness, and by the fathers of old and
the prophets is it declared (or, and spake in parables with
the fathers of old and the prophets in verity), of whom the
apostles preached, and whom the disciples did touch. In God,
the Lord, the Son of God, do we believe, that he is the word
become flesh: that of Mary the holy virgin he took a body,
begotten of the Holy Ghost, not of the will (lust) of the
flesh, but by the will of God: that he was wrapped in
swaddling clothes in Bethlehem and made manifest, and
grew up and came to ripe age, when also we beheld it."
.
Now this quote is from the so-called 'Epistle of the Apostles'
being a mid-2C Roman document of considerable historical and
theological interest. For one thing it just happens to be the
*direct* literary and historical source of the 'Interrogatory
Creed' which Hippolytus of Rome recorded about 215CE. And
which continued to develop into the Apostles Creed of c.700CE;
ie. the creed originally came from the epistle, naturally.
.
Yet the phrase 'god the son' never made it into the earliest
creeds! Interesting historical datum, yes? Could it be because
they knew better than to do something like that? Yes. Which
would certainly explain why there's no such phrase or idea in
the Apostles Creed! So I guess what I'm saying by all this
is that the Nicene Creed is not really much of an improvement
on the Apostles Creed. Not from the perspective of a slightly
more biblical theology, I mean. That is to say that prophetic
literature is generally more authoritative than the stuff
that the scribes and pharisees get up to when they're all
in an uproar about some silly thing or another.
.
>>     - the untransfigured one - textman ;>
.
> Finally, a brutally honest self-assessment;)
.
Wuddaya mean "finally"? :(
.
So anyway, the authority of the Nicene Creed appears to reside
more in its popularity than in its supposed inspiration. No
doubt it was good for Christendom at the time, and perhaps in
the long run, but all this does not prove it to be true. Why?
Because creeds tend to be political and theological statements
rather than 'inspired teachings' as such. Have you seen some
of the more recent creeds that define the Faith in terms of
allegiance to the LORDGODHOLYBIBLE? The Lord sayeth, "It is a
great stench over all the land!"
.
       - the almost semi-creedal one - textman ;>
x

Goto GodTalk #6

textman
*