Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 02-02-2012, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The ousia of God can't be apprehended directly by humanity.

This is equivalent to the (Platonic) idea of a nondual God. It is also consistent with Arius's assertions about an "inexpressible essence".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arius of Alexandria in "Thalia" (via Rowan Williams)

" And so God Himself, as he really is, is inexpressible to all.
He alone has no equal, no one similar (homoios), and no one of the same glory.
We call him unbegotten, in contrast to him who by nature is begotten.
We praise him as without beginning in contrast to him who has a beginning.
We worship him as timeless, in contrast to him who in time has come to exist."

Arius of Alexandria
"Thalia" (Rowan Williams)

Horatio Parker · 02-02-2012, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Since this is my thread, I'd like to return to its original point which certainly is not to provide mountainman yet another opening to repackage his idiotic conspiracy theory. The original topic was whether or not the Nicene Creed (and perhaps other creeds before it) was developed to counter the idea that that Jesus was the Father's ousia. In other words, the Christian system was identical with the surviving Hebrew conception of ayin and yesh (and where Yeshu = yesh). As such the Father was 'nothingness' and the first created thing that was yesh - his 'substance' or ousia. This was Jesus. The Logos, presumably would have been something which participated in the yesh or Jesus but was not Jesus.

On the contrary, the Creed was developed to reinforce the idea that Jesus was the Father's ousia. That the Greek philosophical view implied to some a hierarchy and consequential subordination that was intolerable.

stephan huller · 02-02-2012, 08:58 AM

Right. But I am suggesting the ousia was originally conceived as a separate hypostasis

Horatio Parker · 02-02-2012, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It would seem then that the Jewish mystical distinction between ayin and yesh is developed from the Platonic theory of ideas. Ayin (= nothing) and Yesh (= substance = Jesus?):

I was going to ask you about that, because the Wiki entry doesn't go back further than the 9th century.

I would expect something of the sort to be in Philo or another Jewish philosopher of similar stature if these ideas influenced Nicaea in any way.

mountainman · 02-02-2012, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

On the contrary, the Creed was developed to reinforce the idea that Jesus was the Father's ousia.

Specifically that Jesus was the same ousia, and not just a similar ousia, to the Father's ousia (which the Platonists seemed to have referred to, not so much as the Father, but as the "One" or the "All" or sometimes "The Good" ..... i.e. "Chrestos". The One in the "ONE SPIRIT SOUL" conceptualisation)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

I would expect something of the sort to be in Philo or another Jewish philosopher of similar stature if these ideas influenced Nicaea in any way.

Unexpectedly, the opposite influence seems to have been identified in the sense that the writings of Philo, although they dont mention the Christians, are described as being "Christianized".

stephan huller · 02-02-2012, 09:16 AM

No I am suggesting the yesh (= ousia = Yeshu) was a separate hypostasis from BOTH the Father and Son

Horatio Parker · 02-02-2012, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The reason I think my Jesus = ousia theory has so much going is that so much of the early terminology in Christianity is Platonic. Take the term gnostikos. It is a technical term from Plato which means to be brought into acquaintance with knowledge or the ability or capacity to know. Why is this important? I never really understood why Jesus coming to earth to reveal himself would have anything to do with the Father if - according to the old way of thinking, Jesus was the Son.

If Jesus was the yesh or ousia then it would make sense insofar as he is bringing humanity into acquaintance with the unknown and unknowable Father (a theme repeated over and over again in the Nag Hammadi literature).

In Philo I notice the ousia of God is repeated referenced as something which cannot be apprehended by humanity. Moses for instance is said to have only seen the hind parts of God. Clearly the Christians took matters one step further and argued that 'at the end of times' or something like that, the ousia made himself manifest.

This probably also explains why Jesus engages in 'deception' throughout the gospel narrative. Peter is convinced he is the Christ, the healed people think he is the Son but Tertullian preserves for us the Marcionite notion that all these witnesses are wrong. Why would Jesus engage in deception? Well now we have a clue. The ousia of God can't be apprehended directly by humanity.

Why would the ousia of the Father come down to earth if humanity is incapable of seeing him? Perhaps the theophany at the crucifixion is the solution. Something about the cross or appearing as dead may have made the parousia of the ousia manageable for humanity? I don't know. I am just trying to work out the details. Maybe God appearing dead allows living people to see him?

If anyone is going to gain a true vision of God, they will need tools. Hence, the Son. If we could see the entire ousia of God effortlessly, there would be no need for any distinction. The extent that a limitation or separation exists is related to our limited ability to perceive.

Consider enlightenment states and how they're attained. You don't just snap your fingers like a magician and poof you see God. The process you go through to get there, prayer, meditation, chanting etc that is the Son. Getting there is the Father.

Horatio Parker · 02-02-2012, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

No I am suggesting the yesh (= ousia = Yeshu) was a separate hypostasis from BOTH the Father and Son

That sounds like something beyond the One. A Cause for the First Cause. Sounds redundant to me, but I'm not sure what you have in mind.

stephan huller · 02-02-2012, 09:34 AM

The first created substance from the ideas was Jesus

sotto voce · 02-02-2012, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Consider enlightenment states and how they're attained. You don't just snap your fingers like a magician and poof you see God. The process you go through to get there, prayer, meditation, chanting etc that is the Son. Getting there is the Father.

If any analysis is premised on individual persons of deity, it is not Christian. One must take the Bible's descriptions as that of roles or relationships; never as persons or individuals, because that would be polytheistic.

The Son is the means of atonement. The Son sits at the right hand of God, i.e. is the effective action of God, being God made manifest. The Father is the need for atonement (justice) and the consequence of atonement (justification and adoption).

How is the Son manifested now? Through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit makes the Son known primarily through those who have accepted the gospel about the Son— Christians. Such people have changed lives, and cause others to change their lives in like manner. The Holy Spirit is present in what they say, and in what they do, which gives credibility to what they say. Some of what Christians, and therefore the Holy Spirit, have said, is contained in the books of the New Testament, which is regarded by Christians as the required standard for faith and behaviour.

Son, Father, Spirit, are all the very same person.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-02-2012, 08:58 AM	#53
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Right. But I am suggesting the ousia was originally conceived as a separate hypostasis

02-02-2012, 09:16 AM	#56
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	No I am suggesting the yesh (= ousia = Yeshu) was a separate hypostasis from BOTH the Father and Son

02-02-2012, 09:34 AM	#59
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The first created substance from the ideas was Jesus

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.