Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 02-02-2012, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Since interpreting symbolism isn't everyone's bag, I had better bring forward the heavy artillery:

Quote:

5. Now the commencement of Arius’s Thalia and flippancy, effeminate in tune and nature, runs thus:— ‘According to faith of God’s elect, God’s prudent ones, Holy children, rightly dividing, God’s Holy Spirit receiving, Have I learned this from the partakers of wisdom, accomplished, divinely taught, and wise in all things. Along their track, have I been walking, with like opinions. I the very famous, the much suffering for God’s glory; and taught of God, I have acquired wisdom and knowledge.’

And the mockeries which he utters in it, repulsive and most irreligious, are such as these—‘God was not always a Father;’ but ‘once God was alone, and not yet a Father, but afterwards He became a Father.’ ‘The Son was not always;’ for, whereas all things were made out of nothing, and all existing creatures and works were made, so the Word of God Himself was ‘made out of nothing,’ and ‘once He was not,’ and ‘He was not before His origination,’ but He as others ‘had an origin of creation.’ ‘For God,’ he [Arius] says, ‘was alone, and the Word as yet was not, nor the Wisdom. Then, wishing to form us, thereupon He made a certain one, and named Him Word and Wisdom and Son, that He might form us by means of Him.’ Accordingly, he says that there are two wisdoms, first, the attribute co-existent with God, and next, that in this wisdom the Son was originated, and was only named Wisdom and Word as partaking of it. ‘For Wisdom,’ saith he, ‘by the will of the wise God, had its existence in Wisdom.’ In like manner, he says, that there is another Word in God besides the Son, and that the Son again, as partaking of it, is named Word and Son according to grace. And this too is an idea proper to their heresy, as shewn in other works of theirs, that there are many powers; one of which is God’s own by nature and eternal; but that Christ, on the other hand, is not the true power of God; but, as others, one of the so-called powers, one of which, namely, the locust and the caterpillar, is called in Scripture, not merely the power, but the ‘great power.’ The others are many and are like the Son, and of them David speaks in the Psalms, when he says, ‘The Lord of hosts’ or ‘powers [Ps. xxiv. 10].’ And by nature, as all others, so the Word Himself is alterable, and remains good by His own free will, while He chooseth; when, however, He wills, He can alter as we can, as being of an alterable nature. For ‘therefore,’ saith he, ‘as foreknowing that He would be good, did God by anticipation bestow on Him this glory, which afterwards, as man, He attained from virtue. Thus in consequence of His works fore-known, did God bring it to pass that He being such, should come to be.’

6. Moreover he has dared to say, that ‘the Word is not the very God;’ ‘though He is called God, yet He is not very God,’ but ‘by participation of grace, He, as others, is God only in name.’ And, whereas all beings are foreign and different from God in essence, so too is ‘the Word alien and unlike in all things to the Father’s essence and propriety,’ but belongs to things originated and created, and is one of these. Afterwards, as though he had succeeded to the devil’s recklessness, he has stated in his Thalia, that ‘even to the Son the Father is invisible,’ and ‘the Word cannot perfectly and exactly either see or know His own Father;’ but even what He knows and what He sees, He knows and sees ‘in proportion to His own measure,’ as we also know according to our own power. For the Son, too, he says, not only knows not the Father exactly, for He fails in comprehension,[1] but ‘He knows not even His own essence;’—and that ‘the essences of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, are separate in nature, and estranged, and disconnected, and alien, and without participation of each other;’ and, in his own words, ‘utterly unlike from each other in essence and glory, unto infinity.’ Thus as to ‘likeness of glory and essence,’ he says that the Word is entirely diverse from both the Father and the Holy Ghost. With such words hath the irreligious spoken; maintaining that the Son is distinct by Himself, and in no respect partaker of the Father. These are portions of Arius’s fables as they occur in that jocose composition. [Athansius, Against the Arians 1.5 -6]

[1] Vid. de Syn. 15, note 6. κατάληψις was originally a Stoic word, and even when considered perfect, was, properly speaking, attributable only to an imperfect being. For it is used in contrast to the Platonic doctrine of ἴδεαι, to express the hold of things obtained by the mind through the senses; it being a Stoical maxim, nihil esse in intellectu quod non fuerit in sensu. In this sense it is also used by the Fathers, to mean real and certain knowledge after inquiry, though it is also ascribed to Almighty God. As to the position of Arius, since we are told in Scripture that none ‘knoweth the things of a man save the spirit of man which is in him,’ if κατάληψις be an exact and complete knowledge of the object of contemplation, to deny that the Son comprehended the Father, was to deny that He was in the Father, i.e. the doctrine of the περιχώρησις, de Syn. 15, ἀνεπιμικτοί, or to maintain that He was a distinct, and therefore a created, being. On the other hand Scripture asserts that, as the Holy Spirit which is in God, ‘searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God,’ so the Son, as being ‘in the bosom of the Father,’ alone ‘hath declared Him.’ vid. Clement. Strom. v. 12. And thus Athan. speaking of Mark xiii. 32, ’If the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son, and the Father knows the day and the hour, it is plain that the Son too, being in the Father, and knowing the things in the Father, Himself also knows the day and the hour.” Orat. iii. 44.

Now I need to dig up the original Greek to sort out the language, but I think everyone can begin to see (a) that Arianism was far more complex than is usually assumed and (b) that the Father's ousia/yesh (= Jesus) may well have been this other Word, separate from the Logos. I think it also gives a new spin on why one of the hypostases may have been called 'the stranger' (= alien from the Father)

Jesus was the stranger and was crucifed for good reason as insurrectionist to annihilate the ego of Joseph who's sins were the cross he carried and so he was the Lamb of God to liberate the son of Man. He is the product of religion only (as compared with "the horror" from the "Heart of Africa," for example) and so an archetypal illusion much like Nazareth was itself. But if 'all is illusion' except Truth and Beauty, religion itself is merely a tool to get the job done against the 'faculty of reason' and the Genesis has nothing to do with the origin of the Universe itself but is the beginning of the story line that we call myth where we come 'full circle,' and when the arrive there again will know the place as if for the first time. It is all illusion except in philosophy where only truth will stand.

That so makes heaven religion specific and understanding is the key to it and then there never was a father but we are the centre of the universe as God and Lord God (Father and Son), with the woman crowned above as the very mediatrix to get us there and so the placenta (nucleus) of our being who made us, and contained us as the individual we are, and so we carry her high as a mansion of our own (and that may be only a 'shit house' for some but certainly with no basement as she is it). She is Arjuna, just so you know.

But I am not here to argue that with you and am just telling you, just so you know.

Chili · 02-03-2012, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

But if 'all is illusion' except Truth and Beauty, religion itself is merely a tool to get the job done against the 'faculty of reason' and the Genesis has nothing to do with the origin of the Universe itself but is the beginning of the story line that we call myth where we come 'full circle,' and when the arrive there again will know the place as if for the first time. It is all illusion except in philosophy where only truth will stand.

Yes. Well said. Genesis(or, better IMO, Timaeus) relates to all beginnings.

And beauty is in evidence of truth only, and therefore must point to truth in the same way as love points to life as the 'first illusion' created ex-nihilo, and so is the last one to die in what we call the 'second death' where then only the 'infinite truth' still remains [that they call Ultimate Truth but really is infinite in its own continuum], and it is in this continuum that mythmakers claim ownership of eternal life by 'writing' a morphology for humans as a vechicle to 'get there' so they can remain, and can prosper in the beauty of life -- and thus not as warrior to survive and for this wisdom is needed to transform chaos into order, and that is what this vehicle called religion is all about.

This prepostrous idea of John that "my father is not your father" when talking to the Jews can only be true as seen from heaven where we are eternal as only there do we have 'sonship with him' as created after his own image,' and so we each have our own Father, but that is not a 'universal blank statement kind of father,' but it is God and is 'my God' for me and 'your God' for you, and so Gogol could rightfully say "he has no equal, he is God" and so not 'higher' than 'he' (to avoid the word 'greater' in that there is a difference between mansions and mansions to identify "good works' in heaven as per Rev.14:13).

To come full circle here let me add that Thomas made this clear as twin of Peter in doubt and faith and thus could say MY Lord and MY God, to echo in agreement that my father is personal.

Accordingly, it is not possible to know him unless we are one with Him and know who he is via sonship. So the bold statement Jesus made is a true statement, and so there is no father 'up there someplace' as He is without any relation to man even in the particular until 'we are one with him' . . . and that then is just us by way of comprehension only and never as Jew or as Catholic for that matter (just in case you wonder). Thomas Hardy called him Father Time for that reason, but needs 'us to make him known' and that only can be as son of Man now fully man.

Understand here that temporal life is an exctraction from eternal life wherein we consciously know that we will die (Gen.3:3), . . . which does not mean that we do not die in the TOL where we are eternal, which so then is where eternal life ends, and hence the 'father as Father' goes with it, or John's 'my Father' would be 'their father' as well.

Note also the chain of command from God is via the woman who delivers the "God said" because we are here now past Gen.1.

So now eternity is time related but suspended in time as identified by the particular while the contributions remain for the mainstay of the mythology by name, and so with a duty to protect for the well-being of mankind as a whole.

Chili · 02-03-2012, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Accordingly, it is not possible to know him unless we are one with Him and know who he is via sonship.

Which is directly to the point of intelligibility vs transcendence.

Transcendent until we get there and then intelligible and without intelligibility he could no longer be conceived as being transcendent and not even part of speech..

Chili · 02-03-2012, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I just went through the writings of Philo in order to see how he uses the term ousia. A couple of notes. Philo uses ousia to refer both to the threefold nature of being (spirit, soul, animal), the four elements (fire, water, air and earth) plus what he calls the fifth which is 'divine aether' which he equates with heaven.

Philo is obsessed with the idea of humanity's need to see the divine ousia. While he says it is impossible, he hints at ways it is impossible possible or almost happened.

Another thing I hadn't noticed before. Philo also uses ousia to mean 'property, possessions.' I wonder whether in the original interpretation of the gospel of Mark Jesus's command to give up one's possessions was connected with the idea of giving up one type of physical nature (soul) for another (spirit)?

It is not for humans to see or there would be sinners in heaven. Does that make sense to you?

Chili · 02-04-2012, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

For those who care about the Jesus = Yeshu = yesh argument here is a summary of Gikatillah's ninth chapter showing that according to his tradition Wisdom = yesh:

Quote:

Gate 9
[חכמה - Hokhmah]

"From the dire straits I called to the Lord [Yah], answer me with generosity,
Lord [Yah]." (Psalms 118:5)
Yah (L-rd) - יה
Yesh (There Is, Substance) - יש
Hokhmah (Wisdom) - חכמה
Ratzon (Will, Desire) - רצון
O'mek HaMachshavah (The Depth of Thought) - המחשבה עומק
O'mek Ram (Deep Height) - רם עומק
Yirah (Awe, Fear) - יראה
Yod Shel Shem (Yod of the Name) - שם של יוד
Machshavah (Thought) - מחשבה
E'den (Paradise, Pleasure) - עדן
Abba (Father) - אבא
Av (Father) - אב
Pele (Wonder) - פלא
Pelioth Hokhmah (Wonders of Wisdom) - חכמה פליאות
Ta'alumoth Hokhmah (Mysteries of Wisdom) - חכמה תעלומות
Hokhmah Ila'ah (Upper Wisdom) - עילאה http://www.bahaistudies.net/asma/gikatilla.pdf

The reason this matters of course is that 'mythicism' has very little historical context. It can be seen as an attempt to merely 'disprove' the humanity of Jesus. I think it is important to make sense of the Alexandrian and Marcionite traditions and as an added 'bonus' the idea of a human Jesus is demonstrated to be secondary, late development. There is a difference.

If Jesus was merely a mythical angelic figure the name 'Jesus' has to be explained. One wouldn't expect an angelic figure to possess a human name. Michael is an angelic name that became a human name late in history. Raphael is another.

So to recap - either mythicists are arguing that Jesus was an fictitious human figure OR he was an angelic figure later distorted into a human being by the orthodox. In the latter case (= Marcionitism) the name Jesus is a problem. Bottom line - it doesn't make sense to think that someone would invent an angel named Ἰησοῦς

A good summary statement here would be that anything that belings to an -ism doesn't know, so why worry about them?

Chili · 02-04-2012, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

There are at least two other appearances of the γυμνὸς γυμνῷ formula. The first, as mentioned, Jerome's understanding that Christianity is symbolized by a disciple who takes off his clothes after hearing Jesus's words in Mark 10:17 - 31 and is naked with a naked Jesus - presumably in a baptismal font. We have established that Jerome's knowledge here ultimately comes from Alexandria and the writings of Clement in particular, probably through Origen and Origenist circles.

I doubt if Jerome's references to being naked with a naked Christ refer to Baptism. They seem either to refer to Christ's poverty or to his nakedness on the Cross.

Andrew Criddle

They are all nuts. It simply means that for the trinity to collapse it must first be transcendent in the Visitation and then Intelligible in the Consolidating Ousia so that both Beauty and Truth my be known. It is called parousia here and so the 'final ousia' also known as 'final From, final Mass, and final Round of Samsara when dukkha is no longer.

The beauty of icons is that they do not 'beat around the bush' but 'set the bush on fire' by encounter.

Oh right, I hope it is understood that in the Hypostatic Union the Trinity must collapse or there would be mysteries remaining on this place here now on earth called heaven.

Chili · 02-04-2012, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Wherefore also the Lord says, “Sell what thou hast, and give to the poor; and come, follow me.” Follow God, naked of arrogance (γυμνὸς ἀλαζονείας), naked of fading display (γυμνὸς ἐπικήρου πομπῆς), possessed of that which is thine, which is good, what alone cannot be taken away—faith towards God, confession towards Him who suffered, beneficence towards men, which is the most precious of possessions.

But it is a stupid thing to give the gold away if only the 'the good of gold must be exchanged from "the gold [of this land] is good" in Gen.2:12 to the beauty of that gold so that in heaven the streets may paved with it, and see it wherever we go. So the true beauty of our gold now is found in our ability to walk away only from 'it is good' that has an opposite it evil, and thus keep the gold wherein now its true true beauty has been found.

So what they are doing is 'showing guilt' by giving their gold away and so put on that lion cloth again!!!!!!!!!!!!! and so idiots indeed they are.

But of course we are trained to 'respond to guilt' by giving money as a tithe instead of 'self evaluation/contemplation' with time spend 'doing beads' for example, and that is much cheaper too.

I think the upshot here is that 'doing beads' is better than bible reading and so is why a 'form of beads' is Universal in all primary mythologies, just so you know.

And Pete, if I can talk you out of your hard earned gold and the opals that you found on a bright sunny day 'on your turf' under the comfort of 'your Bodhi tree' for 'your benefit' and drink beer about it afterwards, that should be 'fair and square' and a 'done deal' with no reason to complain about it afterwards, and especially not 500 years later still.

Chili · 02-04-2012, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I will say it must have sounded odd to pagans to hear early Jews and Christians being obsessed with SEEING the divine ousia. I think Celsus touches on the inherent strangeness of this

Yes but we look with our eyes and see with our mind and so it is the final illumiation of which there can only be just one and hence the par-pusia.

Chili · 02-04-2012, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

This is just skimmed over. Quotes?

What do you think I am your secretary? How do you like your coffee? I will get to that report after the Superbowl

First of all, it was a request. If I am in a position to give you orders, that's news to me.

If you want to make a case for Philo's use of ousia(here on a discussion forum), then yes, please provide some quotes. We're talking about a major thinker, author of many books, using an important term with centuries of thought associated with. Yes, skimming is the right word. No big deal, I can take your statement at face value.

There will be other threads....and I'll be standing here with someone new. There will other songs to sing, another fall another spring etc.

And course you will be here, as the Bronx are here to stay with a new song every day so that the dancing of their heart may never die.

Chili · 02-04-2012, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

[But, do Commies read christian works? Apparently so.

DCH

They have to as there is no art beside the Church an that makes Russians feel pretty cold, I think.

The difference is that their reformation was followed by a crunch to the point that it politically made all men equal and so gave them a number with just a name behind it, but in essence psycholigically nuetered them and so their balls got frosted, just a little I agree, but are now resurging in their silver age and likely will recover as the soul of their nation that is still intact and may just have 'been a sleeper' dowsed a little by oppression maybe.

Opposite this our reformation was followed by reform werein we had a chance to exploit or spend all the entropy that was contained in the soul of our high culture origen, and now about have exhausted all of it and are pretty much a card number with just a name below it that we may serve it well, and that now may be much harder on us than we ever could imagine.

So Marx was really just a historian with a calculator this time and much like Bertrand Russell had no mind to inter-course with either.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.