Selaphiel

I also have enjoyed what he's said about the crucified Christ being part of God's identity. He doesn't think the Church has done enough with that and he says something that I think touches on what you said about impassibility. Here is a quote....

that was part 1, more to follow...

No problem at all on the delay.

He doesn't talk a lot about identity vs nature. Mostly says that he looks at who God is rather than what God is or what divinity is. The focus isn't on what it means to be divine, rather it's about what roles God had that made him God and worthy of devotion and worship. He says that speaking of essence or nature were Greek categories and that there is a common distinction between functional and ontic Christology which doesn't correspond to Jewish thinking. I don't think he'd deny the creeds or talking about the substance (which I guess would indicate that Jesus was separate from God but was delegated certain roles). I think it's only that Second Temple Judaism and NT writers weren't concerned about substance or essence or nature, they were concerned about who God was to them and the world and how Jesus was included in that identity. Hope that helps.

Part 4/final:

One other thought. In one section he talks about personified aspects of God, like Word and Wisdom. He says that when his Word or Wisdom are talked about they are included in the divine identity. He then says that he's not deciding the question of if the personified Word and Wisdom are simply literary tools or if Word and Wisdom have some actual distinct reality or existence in God. He says that's only a secondary issue and doesn't address it (but he says a couple passages point toward them having distinct existence). I tend to think that's a pretty important question. Because if there are already distinct parts of God then the incarnate Jesus wouldn't be a completely new thing and there would have been a distinct reality that could have become incarnate (Word became flesh). But if personified Word/Wisdom is just a literary device then what happened in Jesus seems to be new in a different way.

:e4e:

Part 3:

The section I'm in now is dealing with what monotheism exactly means and how it was used in the OT so it might be helpful for my concerns.

Part 2:

He also talks about what it means for the divine identity to encompass the human, crucified Christ. He uses the Servant in Isaiah 40-55 and then looks at a few passages in the NT that use it. God is now God not just in Creator and Ruler but in self-giving and humiliation. Christ was exalted to the place of ruler because of his sacrifice. And in John we see that the exaltation is simultaneous with the humiliation and sacrifice.

I think he makes some good arguments about how Jesus is put into the identify of the one God. But I still wonder how that fits into monotheism. One section talks about how the inclusion of Jesus in the divine identity means that God is now inter-personal. I still struggle how interpersonality can be encompassed by monotheism. At least not if you are going to say that the persons in the Trinity have love for each other, where love generally implies will.

Part 1:

I finished the first section in Bauckham's Christology book. As I briefly mentioned before, Bauckham says that the NT writers focused on a Christology of identity rather than something based on nature, who God is rather than what God is. He says that a key to understanding NT Christology is to look at how Second Temple Judaism viewed God and monotheism and what separated God from all of reality. He uses God as Creator and God as Sovereign Ruler over all and brings out passages in the NT that place Jesus in those roles. He primarily uses Phil 2:6-11, a few passages in Revelation, and a few passages in John. He talks about the pre-existent Christ for the identity of Creator and then the exalted Christ for the identity of ruler. We see Christ involved in creation, given the divine name, given authority over all, and worshiped. All indications that Christ is part of the divine identity as viewed from Second Temple Judaism.

Stunning. It brought me to tears. In a good way of course. lain:
I'm sure Julliard will be calling any day now.

Thanks. :e4e:

I'm not too familiar with Ward. I only know him from a chapter he wrote in a book I have. A possible merge of classical and process would be very interesting.

I may make a post about it in the group, or just send you a longer PM eventually. I also want to make a post about that Paul/Stocism book. How to find the time.

How are you doing?

:e4e:

Amazing to see such brilliance gathered together. lain: At like 2:06 you can see one of them getting up in the camera's face. Obviously getting tired of someone spying on their meeting, hearing their talking and plotting.

Things are alright. Got some bad news about my dad the other day. He's had anemia for a while now and they've never figured it out but now they are saying he has a pretty rare blood disorder that has potential to be very serious. Other than that, not too bad. Busy at work. Been making some progress in Bauckham's Christology book which has been interesting so far. Are you familiar with it at all? He focuses on a Christology of identity rather than nature. In one section he was focusing on the Word and Wisdom which is one of the ways that Christ's divinity could make sense to me.

It's okay, feel free to continue. I don't mind at all and am enjoying the conversation. I'll respond as I have the time to consider it all.

About the unreadable... :chuckle:

I'm through lesson 7 now and Dr. McDaniel reads an excerpt that might as well have been written in Sanskrit for all I could understand of it.

As for the concentric structure it's not surprising considering how in the preface he stresses the idea of approaching any subject from multiple points of view. Which seems valid to me, even if my capabilities render it rather more maze-like than Whitehead's rays:



:eek:

I'm intrigued by the idea of no vacuous reality, but have concern about his view of God as merely an expression of creativity (as I recall it without going back) rather than the absolute. But maybe I need more explanation on that.

And I like his admonition to be humble in the presence of the mystery of life. But is there really no dogmatic certainty to be found?

If I am, it's by accident. :chuckle:

As for infinite regress, isn't that kind of a biological given, until you get back to either an Unmoved Mover or a big bang?

And if you thought it was a ridiculously hard book, then it would be impossible to me and therefore I'll stick to these short translated lessons. Of which I hope to get to a few more today.

I'll admit, I'm looking at this through a psychology lens more than a theology lens. Not sure if I can offer anything of interest, but I'll keep you posted on my progress.

I was going to try taking H&G to a local alpaca church but after seeing the pastor's preaching style I think I'll pass. :Plain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13KDXKJhYpo

He did touch on relation, maybe he'll go into more detail later on. Regarding a cell, I don't know, I'm hardly qualified to give an opinion, but while there are one-celled organisms, even so they have parts to them...cytoplasm, ribosomes, etc. so there's an intra-cellular dependency. And any other type of multicellular organism couldn't exist without dependency on other cells and the interactions between them. For example, during a neuronal action potential, sodium channels are opening and closing during polarization and depolarization. In this process, sodium and potassium are moving in and out of the cell. This interdependency in just one small but absolutely essential process makes me wonder if it's impossible for a cell to be without relation.

I listened to lessons 2,3, and 4 yesterday. It's nice that they're not too long, and I can pick them up again on another day. Interesting so far, Dr. McDaniel does a very good job of translating Whitehead into everyday language. I'm interested in the idea of the brain having interwoven forms of perception, not separate faculties for thinking, feeling, decision-making, etc. Also how Western philosophy has limited experience to the five senses. That concept is a profound one for me, although I know I've only got hold of a tiny thread of an enormous fabric. I'll continue, and thanks for recommending the series.

Thanks for the video. I haven't quite gotten to the Revelation stuff but I'll keep it in mind. And it's short so maybe I'll go ahead and watch. :up:

I think you are right about the OT giving nature an 'aliveness'. I also like your phrase of man being the priest of creation. :think: It makes me sad that care for the environment seems to be such a minimal concern in some groups of Christianity.

:chuckle: No need to refresh that. At least not yet.

I may have asked you this before but, are you familiar with Troels Engberg-Pedersen? Specifically his book, "Paul and the Stoics"?

I read it a few years ago but have been going back over it in light of what PPS has been saying in the Nang's Boastful Lie thread. I didn't think he drove for an ontological view of the change in Christians (which he doesn't, it's cognitive, how we understand ourselves) but I wondered if he addressed it at all. He does cover the question about Paul thinking Christians could ever be fully sinless. I may make a post about it in the Theology Group to see what you think. Would probably be too much for here.

:e4e:

Yes, I think views of salvation and the atonement should account for Jesus' entire life.

It's interesting you say that about salvation encompassing all of creation. I was reading my Eastern Orthodox study bible and here is a note on Ephesians 3:10:
Not only did men not know of God's mystery (v5), neither did the angels. They hear of it from men. How can this be? Because the church affects all elements of creation, from the material to the immaterial. The united, renewed humanity made possible by Christ is the basis of the reconciliation of the heavens and the earth. Therefore, the Church ascends above the angels, the principalities and powers. The basis of such an astounding work by men is Christ's Resurrection and exaltation (v11).

You're right about scripture having some about the redemption of all of Creation but I can't think of many (Rom 8 comes to mind). What do you think are the strongest passages for it?