FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-03-2012, 10:29 PM   #121
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

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)?
stephan huller is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 10:40 PM   #122
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Just laughs I went through Quis Dives Salvetur to check if I was right. A few appearances:

Quote:
Those who bestow laudatory addresses on the rich appear to me to be rightly judged not only flatterers and base, in vehemently pretending that things which are disagreeable give them pleasure, but also godless and treacherous; godless, because neglecting to praise and glorify God, who is alone perfect and good, "of whom are all things, and by whom are all things, and for whom are all things," they invest with divine honours men wallowing in an execrable and abominable life, and, what is the principal thing, liable on this account to the judgment of God; and treacherous, because, although wealth (ουσίας) is of itself sufficient to puff up and corrupt the souls of its possessors, and to turn them from the path by which salvation is to be attained, they stupefy them still more, by inflating the minds of the rich with the pleasures of extravagant praises, and by making them utterly despise all things except wealth, on account of which they are admired; bringing, as the saying is, fire to fire, pouring pride on pride, and adding conceit to wealth, a heavier burden to that which by nature is a weight, from which somewhat ought rather to be removed and taken away as being a dangerous and deadly disease. [QDS 1]

"Sell thy possessions." And what is this? He does not, as some conceive off-hand, bid him throw away the substance he possessed (τὴν ὑπάρχουσαν οὐσίαν), and abandon his property; but bids him banish from his soul his notions about wealth, his excitement and morbid feeling about it, the anxieties, which are the thorns of existence, which choke the seed of life. [QDS 11]

To him who is poor in worldly goods, but rich in vices, who is not poor in spirit and rich toward God, it is said, Abandon the alien possessions that are in thy soul, that, becoming pure in heart, thou mayest see God; which is another way of saying, Enter into the kingdom of heaven. And how may you abandon them? By selling them. What then? Are you to take money for effects, by effecting an exchange of riches, by turning your visible substance into money (ἀντίδοσιν πλούτου πρὸς πλοῦ τον ποιησάμενος, ἐξαργυρίσας τὴν φανερὰν οὐσίαν)? Not at all. But by introducing, instead of what was formerly inherent in your soul, which you desire to save, other riches which deify and which minister everlasting life, dispositions in accordance with the command of God; for which there shall accrue to you endless reward and honour, and salvation, and everlasting immortality. It is thus that thou dost rightly sell the possessions, many are superfluous, which shut the heavens against thee by exchanging them for those which are able to save. Let the former be possessed by the carnal poor, who are destitute of the latter. But thou, by receiving instead spiritual wealth, shalt have now treasure in the heavens. [QDS 19]
stephan huller is offline  
Old 02-03-2012, 10:52 PM   #123
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

For those who are interested, I am half way through the ousia references in the Stromata:

Quote:
For it is not possible to know the parts without the essence (οὐσίας) of the whole; and one must study the genesis of the universe, that thereby we may be able to learn the nature of man. [Strom 1.14]

Dialectics, according to Plato, is, as he says in The Statesman, a science devoted to the discovery of the explanation of things. And it is to be acquired by the wise man, not for the sake of saying or doing aught of what we find among men (as the dialecticians, who occupy themselves in sophistry, do), but to be able to say and do, as far as possible, what is pleasing to God. But the true dialectic, being philosophy mixed with truth (μικτὴ δὲ φιλοσοφίᾳ οὖσα τῇ ἀληθεῖ ἡ ἀληθὴς διαλεκτικὴ), by examining things, and testing forces and powers, gradually ascends in relation to the most excellent essence of all (ἐπὶ τὴν πάντων κρατίστην οὐσίαν) and essays to go beyond to the God of the universe, professing not the knowledge of mortal affairs, but the science of things divine and heavenly; in accordance with which follows a suitable course of practice with respect to words and deeds, even in human affairs. Rightly, therefore, the Scripture, in its desire to make us such dialecticians, exhorts us: "Be ye skilful money-changers" rejecting some things, but retaining what is good. For this true dialectic is the science which analyses the objects of thought, and shows abstractly and by itself the individual substratum of existences, or the power of dividing things into genera, which descends to their most special properties, and presents each individual object to be contemplated simply such as it is. [ibid 1.28]

And so it is said in the book of Wisdom: "For He hath given me the unerring knowledge of things that exist, to know the constitution of the word," and so forth, down to "and the virtues of roots." Among all these he comprehends natural science, which treats of all the phenomena in the world of sense. And in continuation, he alludes also to intellectual objects in what he subjoins: "And what is hidden or manifest I know; for Wisdom, the artificer of all things, taught me." You have, in brief, the professed aim of our philosophy; and the learning of these branches, when pursued with right course of conduct, leads through Wisdom, the artificer of all things, to the Ruler of all, -- a Being difficult to grasp and apprehend, ever receding and withdrawing from him who pursues. But He who is far off has -- oh ineffable marvel! -- come very near. "I am a God: that draws near," says the Lord. He is in essence remote (πόρρω μὲν κατ'οὐσία); "for how is it that what is begotten can have approached the Unbegotten?" But He is very near in virtue of that power which holds all things in its embrace. "Shall one do aught in secret, and I see him not?" For the power of God is always present, in contact with us, in the exercise of inspection, of beneficence, of instruction. [ibid 2.2]

Now, inasmuch as there are four things in which the truth resides -- Sensation, Understanding, Knowledge, Opinion, -- intellectual apprehension is first in the order of nature; but in our case, and in relation to ourselves, Sensation is first, and of Sensation and Understanding the essence of Knowledge is formed (τῆς ἐπιστήμης συνίσταται οὐσί); and evidence is common to Understanding and Sensation. Well Sensation is the ladder to Knowledge; while Faith, advancing over the pathway of the objects of sense, leaves Opinion behind, and speeds to things free of deception, and reposes in the truth. [ibid 2.4]

Wherefore also the Word says, "Call no man master on earth." For knowledge is a state of mind that results from demonstration; but faith is a grace which from what is indemonstrable conducts to what is universal and simple, what is neither with matter, nor matter, nor under matter. But those who believe not, as to be expected, drag all down from heaven, and the region of the invisible, to earth, "absolutely grasping with their hands rocks and oaks," according to Plato. For, clinging to all such things, they asseverate that that alone exists which can be touched and handled, defining body and essence to be identical (ταὐτὸν σῶμα καὶ οὐσίαν ὁριζόμενοι): disputing against themselves, they very piously defend the existence of certain intellectual and bodiless forms descending somewhere from above from the invisible world, vehemently maintaining that there is a true essence (τὴν ἀληθινὴν οὐσίαν εἶνα). "Lo, I make new things," saith the Word, "which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man." With a new eye, a new ear, a new heart, whatever can be seen and heard is to be apprehended, by the faith and understanding of the disciples of the Lord, who speak, hear, and act spiritually. For there is genuine coin, and other that is spurious; which no less deceives unprofessionals, that it does not the money-changers; who know through having learned how to separate and distinguish what has a false stamp from what is genuine. So the money-changer only says to the unprofessional man that the coin is counterfeit. But the reason why, only the banker's apprentice, and he that is trained to this department, learns. [ibid]

"For the very rich to be also good is impossible -- those, I mean, whom the multitude count rich. Those they call rich, who, among a few men, are owners of the possessions worth most money; which any bad man may possess." "The whole world of wealth belongs to the believer," Solomon says, "but not a penny to the unbeliever." Much more, then, is the Scripture to be believed which says, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man " to lead a philosophic life. But, on the other hand, it blesses "the poor;" as Plato understood when he said, "It is not the diminishing of one's resources (τὴν οὐσίαν ἐλάττω ποιεῖ), but the augmenting of insatiableness, that is to be considered poverty; for it is not slender means that ever constitutes poverty, but insatiableness, from which the good man being free, will also be rich."

From these remarks the greatest prayer evidently is to have peace, according to Plato. And faith is the greatest mother of the virtues. Accordingly it is rightly said in Solomon, "Wisdom is in the mouth of the faithful." Since also Xenocrates, in his book on "Intelligence," says "that wisdom is the knowledge of first causes and of intellectual essence (τῆς νοητῆς οὐσίας)." He considers intelligence as twofold, practical and theoretical, which latter is human wisdom. Consequently wisdom is intelligence, but all intelligence is not wisdom. And it has been shown, that the knowledge of the first cause of the universe is of faith, but is not demonstration. [ibid 2.5]

Whence "the fear of God" is divinely said to be the beginning of wisdom. Here the followers of Basilides, interpreting this expression, say, "that the Prince, having heard the speech of the Spirit, who was being ministered to, was struck with amazement both with the voice and the vision, having had glad tidings beyond his hopes announced to him; and that his amazement was called fear, which became the origin of wisdom, which distinguishes classes, and discriminates, and perfects, and restores. For not the world alone, but also the election, He that is over all has set apart and sent forth." And Valentinus appears also in an epistle to have adopted such views. For he writes in these very words: "And as terror fell on the angels at this creature, because he uttered things greater than proceeded from his formation, by reason of the being in him who had invisibly communicated a germ of the supernal essence (ἐν αὐτῷ σπέρμα δεδωκότα τῆς ἄνωθεν οὐσίας καὶ παρρησιαζόμενον), and who spoke with free utterance; so also among the tribes of men in the world, the works of men became terrors to those who made them, -- as, for example, images and statues. And the hands of all fashion things to bear the name of God: for Adam formed into the name of man inspired the dread attaching to the pre-existent man, as having his being in him; and they were terror-stricken, and speedily marred the work." [ibid 2.8]

But there being but one First Cause, as will be shown afterwards, these men will be shown to be inventors of chatterings and chirpings. But since God deemed it advantageous, that from the law and the prophets, men should receive a preparatory discipline by the Lord, the fear of the Lord was called the beginning of wisdom, being given by the Lord, through Moses, to the disobedient and hard of heart. For those whom reason convinces not, fear tames; which also the Instructing Word, foreseeing from the first, and purifying by each of these methods, adapted the instrument suitably for piety. Consternation is, then, fear at a strange apparition, or at an unlooked-for representation -- such as, for example, a message; while fear is an excessive wonderment on account of something which arises or is. They do not then perceive that they represent by means of amazement the God who is highest and is extolled by them, as subject to perturbation and antecedent to amazement as having been in ignorance. If indeed ignorance preceded amazement; and if this amazement and fear, which is the beginning of wisdom, is the fear of God, then in all likelihood ignorance as cause preceded both the wisdom of God and all creative work, and not only these, but restoration and even election itself. Whether, then, was it ignorance of what was good or what was evil? Well, if of good, why does it cease through amazement? And minister and preaching and baptism are superfluous to them. And if of evil, how can what is bad be the cause of what is best? For had not ignorance preceded, the minister would not have come down, nor would have amazement seized on "the Prince," as they say; nor would he have attained to a beginning of wisdom from fear, in order to discrimination between the elect and those that are mundane. And if the fear of the pre-existent man made the angels conspire against their own handiwork, under the idea that an invisible germ of the supernal essence ( τοῦ σπέρματος τῆς ἄνωθεν οὐσίας) was lodged within that creation, or through unfounded suspicion excited envy, which is incredible, the angels became murderers of the creature which had been entrusted to them, as a child might be, they being thus convicted of the grossest ignorance. Or suppose they were influenced by being involved in foreknowledge. But they would not have conspired against what they foreknew in the assault they made; nor would they have been terror-struck at their own work, in consequence of foreknowledge, on their perceiving the supernal germ. Or, finally, suppose, trusting to their knowledge, they dared (but this also were impossible for them), on learning the excellence that is in the Pleroma, to conspire against man. Furthermore also they laid hands on that which was according to the image, in which also is the archetype, and which, along with the knowledge that remains, is indestructible. To these, then, and certain others, especially the Marcionites, the Scripture cries, though they listen not, "He that heareth Me shall rest with confidence in peace, and shall be tranquil, fearless of all evil." [ibid]

But God has no natural relation to us, as the authors of the heresies will have it; neither on the supposition of His having made us of nothing, nor on that of having formed us from matter; since the former did not exist at all, and the latter is totally distinct from God unless we shall dare to say that we are a part of Him, and of the same essence as God. And I know not how one, who knows God, can bear to hear this when he looks to our life, and sees in what evils we are involved. For thus it would turn out, which it were impiety to utter, that God sinned in [certain] portions, if the portions are parts of the whole and complementary of the whole; and if not complementary, neither can they be parts. But God being by nature rich in pity, in consequence of His own goodness, cares for us, though neither portions of Himself, nor by nature His children. And this is the greatest proof of the goodness of God: that such being our relation to Him, and being by nature wholly estranged, He nevertheless cares for us. For the affection in animals to their progeny is natural, and the friendship of kindred minds is the result of intimacy. But the mercy of God is rich toward us, who are in no respect related to Him; I say either in our essence (τῇ οὐσίᾳ ἡμῶν) or nature, or in the peculiar energy of our essence ( τῆς οὐσίας ἡμῶ), but only in our being the work of His will. And him who willingly, with discipline and teaching, accepts the knowledge of the truth, He calls to adoption, which is the greatest advancement of all. "Transgressions catch a man; and in the cords of his own sins each one is bound." And God is without blame. And in reality, "blessed is the man who feareth alway through piety." [ibid 2.16]

What we do not, we do not either from not being able, or not being willing -- or both. Accordingly we don't fly, since we neither can nor wish; we do not swim at present, for example, since we can indeed, but do not choose; and we are not as the Lord, since we wish, but cannot be: "for no disciple is above his master, and it is sufficient if we be as the master:" not m essence (οὐ κατ' οὐσίαν) for it is impossible for that, which is by adoption, to be equal in substance to that, which is by nature; but [we are as Him] only in our having been made immortal, and our being conversant with the contemplation of realities, and beholding the Father through what belongs to Him. [ibid 2.17]

The adherents of Basilides are in the habit of calling the passions appendages: saying that these are in essence (οὐσίαν) certain spirits attached to the rational soul, through some original perturbation and confusion; and that, again, other bastard and heterogeneous natures of spirits grow on to them, like that of the wolf, the ape, the lion, the goat, whose properties showing themselves around the soul, they say, assimilate the lusts of the soul to the likeness of the animals. [ibid 2.20]

Similarly, they cite the dictum "The children of this age do not marry and are not given in marriage." But if anyone ponders over this answer about the resurrection of the dead, he will find that the Lord is not rejecting marriage, but is purging the expectation of physical desire in the resurrection. The words "The children of this age" were not spoken in contrast with the children of some other age. It is like saying, "Those born in this generation," who are children by force of birth, being born and engendering themselves, since without the process of birth no one will pass into this life. But this process of birth is balanced by a process of decay, and is no longer in store for the person who has once been cut off from life here. "You have one single Father in heaven" – and he is also, as creator, Father of all. "Do not call anyone on earth Father," he says. That is like saying that you are not to think of the man who sowed you by a physical process as responsible for your essence (τῆς οὐσίας ὑμῶν), but as a fellow worker, or rather a subordinate, in bringing you to birth. [ibid 3.12]

But if it was nature that guided them, like the animals without reason, to the production of children, and they were sexually aroused before they should have been, while they were still new and young because they were deceived and led astray, then God’s judgment upon those who did not wait for his will was a just judgment. At the same time, birth is holy. It was through birth that the universe was constituted; so too the substances (οὐσίαι), the creatures, the angels, the powers, the souls, the commandment, the Law, the gospel, the revealed knowledge of God. [ibid 3.17]

We must, then, as is fit, in investigating the nature of the body and the soul essence (τῆς ψυχῆς οὐσίαν), apprehend the end of each, and not regard death as an evil. "For when ye were the servants of sin," says the apostle, "ye were free from righteousness. What fruit had ye then in those things in which ye are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now, being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death: but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord." The assertion, then, may be hazarded, that it has been shown that death is the fellowship of the soul in a state of sin with the body; and life the separation from sin. And many are the stakes and ditches of lust which impede us, and the pits of wrath and anger which must be overleaped, and all the machinations we must avoid of those who plot against us, -- who would no longer see the knowledge of God "through a glass." [ibid 4.3]

Wherefore the Lord was not prohibited from this sanctification of ours. if, then, one of them were to say, in reply, that the martyr is punished for sins committed before this embodying, and that he will again reap the fruit of his conduct in this life, for that such are the arrangements of the [divine administration], we shall ask him if the retribution takes place by Providence. For if it be not of the divine administration, the economy of expiations is gone, and their hypothesis falls to the ground; but if expiations are by Providence, punishments are by Providence too. But Providence, although it begins, so to speak, to move with the Ruler, yet is implanted in substances along with their origin by the God of the universe ( ταῖς οὐσίαις σὺν καὶ τῇ
τῶν οὐσιῶν γενέσει πρὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν ὅλων). Such being the case, they must confess either that punish-merit is not just, and those who condemn and persecute the martyrs do right, or that persecutions even are wrought by the will of God. Labour and fear are not, then, as they say, incident to affairs as rust to iron, but come upon the soul through its own will. And on these points there is much to say, which will be reserved for future consideration, taking them up in due course. [ibid 4.12]

Let not the above-mentioned people, then, call us, by way of reproach, "natural men" (yukikoi), nor the Phrygians either; for these now call those who do not apply themselves to the new prophecy "natural men" (yukikoi), with whom we shall discuss in our remarks on "Prophecy." The perfect man ought therefore to practise love, and thence to haste to the divine friendship, fulfilling the commandments from love. And loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, or impiety, or adultery, or theft; but the thief, the impious, the adulterer, not as far as he sins, and in respect of the actions by which he stains the name of man, but as he is a man, and the work of God. Assuredly sin is an activity, not an existence (οὐκ οὐσίᾳ): and therefore it is not a work of God. [ibid 4.13]

For I will dare aver that it is not because he wishes to be saved that he, who devotes himself to knowledge for the sake of the divine science itself, chooses knowledge. For the exertion of the intellect by exercise is prolonged to a perpetual exertion. And the perpetual exertion of the intellect is the essence of an intelligent being (οὐσία τοῦ γινώσκοντος), which results from an uninterrupted process of admixture, and remains eternal contemplation, a living substance. [ibid 4.22]

On this wise it is possible for the Gnostic already to have become God. "I said, Ye are gods, and sons of the highest." And Empedocles says that the souls of the wise become gods, writing as follows: "At last prophets, minstrels, and physicians, And the foremost among mortal men, approach; Whence spring gods supreme in honours." Man, then, genetically considered, is formed in accordance with the idea of the connate spirit. For he is not created formless and shapeless in the workshop of nature, where mystically the production of man is accomplished, both art and essence being common (κοινῆς οὔσης καὶ τῆς τέχνης καὶ τῆς οὐσίας). But the individual man is stamped according to the impression produced in the soul by the objects of his choice. Thus we say that Adam was perfect, as far as respects his formation; for none of the distinctive characteristics of the idea and form of man were wanting to him; but in the act of coming into being he received perfection. And he was justified by obedience; this was reaching manhood, as far as depended on him. And the cause lay in his choosing, and especially in his choosing what was forbidden. God was not the cause. [ibid 4.23]

For production is twofold -- of things procreated, and of things that grow. And manliness in man, who is subject to perturbation, as they say, makes him who partakes of it essentially fearless and invincible (κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν ἄφοβον καὶ ἀήττητον); and anger is the mind's satellite in patience, and endurance, and the like; and self-constraint and salutary sense are set over desire. But God is impassible, free of anger, destitute of desire. And He is not free of fear, in the sense of avoiding what is terrible; or temperate, in the sense of having command of desires. For neither can the nature of God fall in with anything terrible, nor does God flee fear; just as He will not feel desire, so as to rule over desires. [ibid]

Now God, who is without beginning, is the perfect beginning of the universe, and the producer of the beginning. As, then, He is being (οὖν ἐστιν οὐσία), He is the first principle of the department of action, as He is good, of morals; as He is mind, on the other hand, He is the first principle of reasoning and of judgment. Whence also He alone is Teacher, who is the only Son of the Most High Father, the Instructor of men. [ibid 4.25]
stephan huller is offline  
Old 02-04-2012, 12:10 AM   #124
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

More from the Stromata:

Quote:
Now the soul of the wise man and Gnostic, as sojourning in the body, conducts itself towards it gravely and respectfully, not with inordinate affections, as about to leave the tabernacle if the time of departure summon. "I am a stranger in the earth, and a sojourner with you," it is said. And hence Basilides says, that he apprehends that the election are strangers to the world, being supramundane by nature. But this is not the case. For all things are of one God. And no one is a stranger to the world by nature, their essence being one (τῆς οὐσίας οὔσης), and God one. But the elect man dwells as a sojourner, knowing all things to be possessed and disposed of; and he makes use of the things which the Pythagoreans make out to be the threefold good things. [ibid 4.26]

Such were the apostles, in whose case it is said that "faith removed mountains and transplanted trees." Whence, perceiving the greatness of its power, they asked "that faith might be added to them;" a faith which salutarily bites the soil "like a grain of mustard," and grows magnificently in it, to such a degree that the reasons of things sublime rest on it. For if one by nature knows God, as Basilides thinks, who calls intelligence of a superior order at once faith and kingship, and a creation worthy of the essence (οὐσίας) of the Creator; and explains that near Him exists not power, but essence (οὐσίαν) and nature and substance (καὶ φύσιν καὶ ὑπόστασιν); and says that faith is not the rational assent of the soul exercising free-will, but an undefined beauty, belonging immediately to the creature; -- the precepts both of the Old and of the New Testament are, then, superfluous, if one is saved by nature, as Valentinus would have it, and is a believer and an elect man by nature, as Basilides thinks; and nature would have been able, one time or other, to have shone forth, apart from the Saviour's appearance. But were they to say that the visit of the Saviour was necessary, then the properties of nature are gone from them, the elect being saved by instruction, and purification, and the doing of good works. Abraham, accordingly, who through hearing believed the voice, which promised under the oak in Mamre," I will give this land to thee, and to thy seed," was either elect or not. But if he was not, how did he straightway believe, as it were naturally? And if he was elect, their hypothesis is done away with, inasmuch as even previous to the coming of the Lord an election was found, and that saved: "For it was reckoned to him for righteousness." For if any one, following Marcion, should dare to say that the Creator (Dhmiourgon) saved the man that believed on him, even before the advent of the Lord, (the' election being saved with their own proper salvation); the power of the good Being will be eclipsed; inasmuch as late only, and subsequent to the Creator spoken of by them in words of be good men, it made the attempt to save, and by instruction, and in imitation of him. [ibid 5.1]

And again, "Don't wear a ring, nor engrave on it the images of the gods," enjoins Pythagoras; as Moses ages before enacted expressly, that neither a graven, nor molten, nor moulded, nor painted likeness should be made; so that we may not cleave to things of sense, but pass to rational beings (τὴν νοητὴν οὐσίαν): for familiarity with the sight disparages the reverence of what is divine; and to worship that which is immaterial by matter, is to dishonour it by sense. [ibid 5.4]

"Cast your eyes round, and see," says Plato, "that none of the uninitiated listen." Such are they who think that nothing else exists, but what they can hold tight with their hands; but do not admit as in the share of essence (ἐν οὐσίας μέρει), actions and processes of generation, and the whole of the unseen. For such are those who keep by the five senses. But the knowledge of God is a thing inaccessible to the ears and like organs of this kind of people. Hence the Son is said to be the Father's face, being the revealer of the Father's character to the five senses by clothing Himself with flesh. "But if we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit." "For we walk by faith, not by sight," the noble apostle says. Within the veil, then, is concealed the sacerdotal service; and it keeps those engaged in it far from those without. [ibid 5.6]

If, then, "the milk" is said by the apostle to belong to the babes, and "meat" to be the food of the full-grown, milk will be understood to be catechetical instruction -- the first food, as it were, of the soul. And meat is the mystic contemplation; for this is the flesh and the blood of the Word, that is, taking hold of the divine power and essence (ληψις τῆς θείας δυνάμεως καὶ οὐσία). "Taste and see that the Lord is Chrestos," it is said. For so He imparts of Himself to those who partake of such food in a more spiritual manner; when now the soul nourishes itself, according to the truth-loving Plato. For the knowledge of the divine essence (ἡ γνῶσίς ἐστι τῆς θείας οὐσίας) is the meat and drink of the divine Word. Wherefore also Plato says, in the second book of the Republic, "It is those that sacrifice not a sow, but some great and difficult sacrifice," who ought to inquire respecting God. And the apostle writes, "Christ our passover was sacrificed for us;" -- a sacrifice hard to procure, in truth, the Son of God consecrated for us. [ibid 5:10]
Notice that the purpose of the sacraments are to receive a new divine yesh (= ousia).
stephan huller is offline  
Old 02-04-2012, 01:10 AM   #125
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
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
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 02-04-2012, 01:13 AM   #126
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

The last bit from Clement's Stromata:

Quote:
But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth." Then the Lord says in explanation, "I am the door of the sheep." Men must then be saved by learning the truth through Christ, even if they attain philosophy. For now that is clearly shown "which was not made known to other ages, which is now revealed to the sons of men." For there was always a natural manifestation of the one Almighty God, among all right-thinking men; and the most, who had not quite divested themselves of shame with respect to the truth, apprehended the eternal beneficence in divine providence. In fine, then, Xenocrates the Chalcedonian was not quite without hope that the notion of the Divinity existed even in the irrational creatures. And Democritus, though against his will, will make this avowal by the consequences of his dogmas; for he represents the same images as issuing, from the divine essence, on men and on the irrational animals (τοῖς ἀνθρώποις προσπίπτοντα καὶ τοῖς ἀλόγοις ζῴοις ἀπὸ τῆς θείας οὐσίας). Far from destitute of a divine idea is man, who, it is written in Genesis, partook of inspiration, being endowed with a purer essence (καθαρωτέρας οὐσίας) than the other animate creatures. Hence the Pythagoreans say that mind comes to man by divine providence, as Plato and Aristotle avow; but we assert that the Holy Spirit inspires him who has believed. The Platonists hold that mind is an effluence of divine dispensation in the soul, and they place the soul in the body. For it is expressly said by Joel, one of the twelve prophets, "And it shall come to pass after these things, I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy." But it is not as a portion of God that the Spirit is in each of us. But how this dispensation takes place, and what the Holy Spirit is, shall be shown by us in the books on prophecy, and in those on the soul. But "incredulity is good at concealing the depths of knowledge," according to Heraclitus; "for incredulity escapes from ignorance." [ibid 5.13]

Now the Stoics say that God, like the soul, is essentially body and spirit (καὶ πνεῦμα κατ' οὐσίαν). You will find all this explicitly in their writings. Do not consider at present their allegories as the gnostic truth presents them; whether they show one thing and mean another, like the dexterous athletes, Well, they say that God pervades all being (διὰ πάσης τῆς οὐσίας τὸν θεόν φασιν); while we call Him solely Maker, and Maker by the Word. They were misled by what is said in the book of Wisdom: "He pervades and passes through all by reason of His purity; " since they did not understand that this was said of Wisdom, which was the first of the creation of God. [ibid 5.14]

But undoubtedly that prophetic expression, "Now the earth was invisible and formless," supplied them with the ground of material essence (καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος ἀφορμὰς αὐτοῖς ὑλικῆς οὐσίας παρέσχητα). [ibid]

I do not pass over Empedocles, who speaks thus physically of the renewal of all things, as consisting in a transmutation into the essence of fire, which is to take place (εἰς τὴν τοῦ πυρὸς οὐσίαν μεταβολῆς). And most plainly of the same opinion is Heraclitus of Ephesus, who considered that there was a world everlasting, and recognised one perishable -- that is, in its arrangement, not being different from the former, viewed in a certain aspect. But that he knew the imperishable world which consists of the universal essence (τῆς οὐσίας ἰδίως ποιὸν κόσμον ᾔδε) to be everlastingly of a certain nature, he makes clear by speaking thus: "The same world of all things, neither any of the gods, nor any one of men, made. But there was, and is, and will be ever-living fire, kindled according to measure, and quenched according to measure."[ibid]

For to him knowledge (γνῶσιν) is the principal thing. Consequently, therefore, he applies to the subjects that are a training for knowledge, taking from each branch of study its contribution to the truth. Prosecuting, then, the proportion of harmonies in music; and in arithmetic noting the increasing and decreasing of numbers, and their relations to one another, and how the most of things fall under some proportion of numbers; studying geometry, which is abstract essence, he perceives a continuous distance, and an immutable essence which is different from these bodies (καὶ οὐσίαν ἀμετάβλητον, ἑτέραν τῶνδε τῶν σωμά των
οὖσαν). [ibid 6.10]

Wherefore Solomon also says, that before heaven, and earth, and all existences, Wisdom had arisen in the Almighty; the participation of which -- that which is by power, I mean, not that by essence (ἡ κατὰ δύναμιν, οὐ κατ' οὐσίαν λέγω) -- teaches a man to know by apprehension things divine and human. [ibid 6.16]

The sensible types of these, then, are the sounds we pronounce. Thus the Lord Himself is called "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end," " by whom all things were made, and without whom not even one thing was made." God's resting is not, then, as some conceive, that God ceased from doing. For, being good, if He should ever cease from doing good, then would He cease from being God, which it is sacrilege even to say. The resting is, therefore, the ordering that the order of created things should be preserved inviolate, and that each of the creatures should cease from the ancient disorder. For the creations on the different days followed in a most important succession; so that all things brought into existence might have honour from priority, created together in thought, but not being of equal worth. Nor was the creation of each signified by the voice, inasmuch as the creative work is said to have made them at once. For something must needs have been named first. Wherefore those things were announced first, from which came those that were second, all things being originated together from one essence by one power (πάντων ὁμοῦ ἐκ μιᾶς οὐσίας μιᾷ δυνάμει γενομένων). For the will of God was one, in one identity. And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist. [ibid]

Now the fifth in order is the command on the honour of father and mother. And it clearly announces God as Father and Lord. Wherefore also it calls those who know Him sons and gods. The Creator of the universe is their Lord and Father; and the mother is not, as some say, the essence from which we sprang [ἡ οὐσία ἐξ ἧς γεγόναμεν], nor, as others teach, the Church, but the divine knowledge and wisdom, as Solomon says, when he terms wisdom "the mother of the just," and says that it is desirable for its own sake. And the knowledge of all, again, that is lovely and venerable, proceeds from God through the Son. [ibid]

For the truth in regard to every object of intellect and of sense is thus simply universally declared. For instance, we may distinguish the truth of painting from that which is vulgar, and decorous music from licentious. There is, then, also a truth of philosophy as distinct from the other philosophies, and a true beauty as distinct from the spurious. It is not then the partial truths, of which truth is predicated, but the truth itself, that we are to investigate, not seeking to learn names. For what is to be investigated respecting God is not one thing, but ten thousand. There is a difference between declaring God, and declaring things about God. And to speak generally, in everything the accidents are to be distinguished from the essence (τῆς οὐσίας τὰ συμβεβηκότα διακριτέον). [ibid 6:17]

So shall the Gnostic taste of the will of God. For it is not his ears, but his soul, that he yields up to the things signified by what is spoken. Accordingly, apprehending essences (οὐσίας) and things through the words, he brings his soul, as is fit, to what is essential; apprehending in the peculiar way in which they are spoken to the Gnostic, the commands, "Do not commit adultery, "Do not kill;" and not as they are understood by other people. Training himself, then, in scientific speculation, he proceeds to exercise himself in larger generalizations and grander propositions; knowing right well that "He that teacheth man knowledge," according to the prophet, is the Lord, the Lord acting by man's mouth. So also He assumed flesh. [ibid 7:11]

He, therefore, who has God resting in him will not desire aught else. At once leaving all hindrances, and despising all matter which distracts him, he cleaves the heaven by knowledge. And passing through the spiritual Essences (τὰς πνετματικὰς οὐσίας), and all rule and authority, he touches the highest thrones, hasting to that alone for the sake of which alone he knew. [ibid 7:13]

And now it is only the man of knowledge who recognises all men to be the work of one God, and invested with one image in one nature (καὶ πάντας ἀνθρώπους ἑνὸς ὄντας ἔργον θεοῦ καὶ μίαν εἰκόνα ἐπὶ μίαν οὐσίαν περιβεβλημένους), although some may be more turbid than others; and in the creatures he recognises the operation, by which again he adores the will of God. [ibid 7:14]

The knowledge of the truth among us from what is already believed, produces faith in what is not yet believed; which [faith] is, so to speak, the essence of demonstration (ἥτις οὐσία ὡς εἰπεῖν ἀποδείξεως καθίσταται). But, as appears, no heresy has at all ears to hear what is useful, but opened only to what leads to pleasure. Since also, if one of them would only obey the truth, he would be healed. [ibid 7:16]
stephan huller is offline  
Old 02-04-2012, 01:57 AM   #127
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: middle east
Posts: 829
Default

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)?
I got all excited, reading this, until I came to your next entry: once again, more on Clement. What happened to your (far more meaningful, in my opinion) investigation of the writings of Philo?

You began a thread to explain, especially, one supposes, to those of us with little knowledge of, and even less understanding of, the meaning of "yesh", as it relates, potentially, to "ousia", particularly as the latter relates to the famous conference at Nicea in 325 CE.

This is, (again, only my opinion,) not simply interesting, it is, I think, very important, to explaining how "modern" Christianity, evolved. By modern, of course, I mean, post-Nicea.

The relationship between "yesh" and "ousia" remains unclear, (at least to me), and I had hoped that you were going to elaborate Philo's contribution to this debate. Maybe I am the only forum member who is confused about the meaning of "yesh". If so, then, please ignore this post.

That specific issue: the potential influence of Philo's writings, upon Arius, or his mentor from Antioch, Lucian, seems to me, at least, as very significant. Accordingly, I am disappointed to observe that after kindling our hopes, you allow that flame to expire, switching instead to the writings of the early third century author Clement of Alexandria, without explaining why his writings ought to enter into this discussion of "mystical controversy at the heart of Nicea".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
At this First Council of Nicaea twenty-two bishops, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, came as supporters of Arius. But when some of Arius's writings were read aloud, they are reported to have been denounced as blasphemous by most participants.[20] Those who upheld the notion that Christ was co-eternal and con-substantial with the Father were led by the young archdeacon Athanasius. Those who instead insisted that the Son of God came after God the Father in time and substance, were led by Arius the presbyter. For about two months, the two sides argued and debated,[21] with each appealing to Scripture to justify their respective positions...
Then, we seek to learn: Just what were those passages of "Scripture", that had been quoted at Nicea?

Does "Scripture" refer exclusively to the old testament, or embrace the new testament writings as well? Did the participants at Nicea exclude the old testament writings, and if so, why? Is there any evidence, today, that the participants at Nicea, in 325 CE, employed the writings of either Philo or Clement of Alexandria, in presenting their arguments to Constantine? How about the writings of Tertullian, or Origen, or Justin Martyr, or Irenaeus? We know them. Did they? Did they use those writings in their presentations to the Council?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller
Just laughs I went through [Clement of Alexandria's] Quis Dives Salvetur to check if I was right.
Right about what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller
Notice that the purpose of the sacraments are (sic) to receive a new divine yesh (= ousia).(emphasis tanya)
What I noticed is that you are now engaged in a completely off-topic, irrelevant pursuit: (one which may very well be of great interest for other reasons, but one having little or nothing to do with either Arius, or Nicea.)

The question here, upon which, I hope you could devote your considerable talents, instead of burying them, is how, (if at all,) Philo's writings could shed light upon the Arian controversy.

In my view, that means, first, you ought to elaborate, with precision, the issue at hand, that, is the Arian controversy, including the various positions, as we know them today, for the several parties engaged in this late third-early fourth century debate.

If thorough review of the use of "yesh" is critical to understanding Clement's writings concerning the Arian controversy (a century after Clement's death), or Origen's writings on the controversy, or on some of the hypothetical citations employed at Nicea to argue (for or against) Arius, then, your pursuit of Clement's supposed writings, is an appropriate investigation. First, though, you need to place the role of "yesh" in perspective.

Why would one expect Constantine, organizer of the Nicean conference, to understand, write, or read Hebrew? In my opinion, as one wholly ignorant, it is unbelievable that Constantine had the slightest inkling of "yesh". I do not imagine that this Greek military genius had the slightest interest in the religious shenanigans going on throughout his empire. What I imagine, he did care about, and care a great deal about, was grain shipments from Egypt to Rome. To the extent that Alexandria was in turmoil, with that turmoil disrupting those grain shipments, that's something that would have caused him to take notice. I cannot imagine that someone awakened the emperor one morning, with news that "yesh" had emerged as an issue that demanded a conference in Nicea, to ensure the smooth operation of commerce throughout the empire.

Are we to understand that without a proper perspective of the encyclopedic breadth of meaning of "yesh", one cannot comprehend the rationale behind the Arian controversy? If so, that argument has not thus far been elaborated, nor, in my opinion, is it likely to be persuasive, absent a more systematic description of the problem for which "yesh" is the answer.

tanya is offline  
Old 02-04-2012, 07:07 AM   #128
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
Alexandrian Christianity from Philo to Arius is a continuous tradition.
Like Marx followed Adam Smith.
I would not invite any comparisons between Marxism and Christianity, if I were you.
Doug Shaver is offline  
Old 02-04-2012, 09:02 AM   #129
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Quote:
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
It might be impossible to prove that baptism was the context Jerome had in mind but it is worth noting that Jerome consistently connects 'naked with naked' with Mark 10:21 (the same as in Clement's Letter to Theodore). There must be a twenty or so references to the Question of the Rich Youth in the Letters of Jerome. There are many interesting things to be found in these allusions. Yet we will focus only on those which (a) intimate that a ritual state of nudity was somehow connected with this pericope and (b) that Plato's understanding of a sublimated form of pederastic love will ultimately grow wings for the initiate into the divine mysteries and carry him up to heaven:

Quote:
if you will be perfect, go out with Abraham from your country and from your kindred, and go whither you know not. If you have substance, sell it and give to the poor. If you have none, then are you free from a great burden. Being yourself naked, follow a naked Christ [nudum Christum, nudus sequere]. The task is a hard one, it is great and difficult; but the reward is also great.[Letter 125]

For the present I will content myself by suggesting to your discretion that you should bear in mind the apostle's words: Are you bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife that is, seek not that binding which is contrary to loosing. He who has contracted the obligations of marriage, is bound, and he who is bound is a slave; on the other hand he who is loosed is free. Since therefore you rejoice in the freedom of Christ, since your life is better than your profession, since you are all but on the housetop of which the Saviour speaks; you ought not to come down to take your clothes, you ought not to look behind you, you ought not having put your hand to the plough, then to let it go. Rather, if you can, imitate Joseph and leave your garment in the hand of your Egyptian mistress, that naked you may follow your Lord and Saviour [ut nudus sequaris Dominum Salvatorem]. For in the gospel He says: Whosoever does not leave all that he has and bear his cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. Cast from you the burden of the things of this world, and seek not those riches which in the gospel are compared to the humps of camels. Naked and unencumbered fly up to heaven; masses of gold will but impede the wings of your virtue. I do not speak thus because I know you to be covetous, but because I have a notion that your object in remaining so long in the army is to fill that purse which the Lord has commanded you to empty. For they who have possessions and riches are bidden to sell all that they have and to give to the poor and then to follow the Saviour. Thus if your worship is rich already you ought to fulfil the command and sell your riches; or if you are still poor you ought not to amass what you will have to pay away.[Letter 145]

As for you, when you hear the Saviour's counsel: if you will be perfect, go and sell that you have, and give to the poor, and come follow me, you translate his words into action; and making yourself naked to follow the naked cross [nudam crucem nudus sequems] you mount Jacob's ladder the easier for carrying nothing [Letter 58]

Once upon a time a rich young man boasted that he had fulfilled all the requirements of the law, but the Lord said to him (as we read in the gospel): One thing you lack, if you will be perfect, go your way, sell whatsoever you have, and give to the poor; and come and follow me. [Mark 10:21] He who declared that he had done all things gave way at the first onset to the power of riches. Wherefore they who are rich find it hard to enter the kingdom of heaven, a kingdom which desires for its citizens souls that soar aloft free from all ties and hindrances. Go your way, the Lord says, and sell not a part of your substance but all that you have, and give to the poor; not to your friends or kinsfolk or relatives, not to your wife or to your children. I will even go farther and say: keep back nothing for yourself because you fear to be some day poor, lest by so doing you share the condemnation of Ananias and Sapphira; but give everything to the poor and make to yourself friends of the mammon of unrighteousness that they may receive you into everlasting habitations. Obey the Master's injunction follow me, and take the Lord of the world for your possession; that you may be able to sing with the prophet, The Lord is my portion, and like a true Levite may possess no earthly inheritance. I cannot but advise you thus if you wish to be perfect, if you desire to attain the pinnacle of the apostles' glory, if you wish to take up your cross and to follow Christ. When once you have put your hand to the plough you must not look back; when once you stand on the housetop you must think no more of your clothes within; to escape your Egyptian mistress you must abandon the cloak that belongs to this world. Even Elijah, in his quick translation to heaven could not take his mantle with him, but left in the world the garments of the world. Such conduct, you will object, is for him who would emulate the apostles, for the man who aspires to be perfect. But why should not you aspire to be perfect? Why should not you who hold a foremost place in the world hold a foremost place also in Christ's household? Is it because you have been married? [Letter 118]

But you will hear the Lord reply: “The one who is able to perform such a thing, let him do so,” “If you want to be perfect, go, sell all that you possess,” etc. In saying, “If you want to be perfect,” He does not make this burden a requirement, but allows freedom to pursue either course regarding children. Do you want to be perfect and raise yourself to the highest level of virtue? Imitate the apostles, sell everything you have, give to the poor, and follow the Lord. Separated from all creatures and stripped of everything that you own in the world, follow Him bare, with only a cross. Or, are you content not to be perfect, and to remain in the second-highest level of virtue? Then abandon everything you have, and give it to your children and parents. No one will rebuke you, if you follow this lesser way, provided that you also agree that it is fair that you defer to one whose way tends toward perfection.

You will want to tell me that such sublime virtue is for the men and apostles, but it is impossible for a refined woman, who needs a thousand things to maintain her way of life. Hear therefore what the apostle Paul says: “I do not mean that others are helped and that you are overburdened, but that, to relieve inequality, your abundance compensates for their poverty, so that your poverty is also relieved by their abundance.” That is why the Lord says in the Gospel, “Whoever has two coats, let him give to him who has none.”

Now, if we lived among the ice of Scythia and the snow of the Alps, where not only two and three coats, but even the animal-skins are scarcely sufficient protection from the harsh cold climate, would we be obliged to strip ourselves to clothe others? We must understand “coat” to mean all that is necessary to clothe us and provide what is naturally required, since we are born naked. And by “the provisions of a single day” is meant, whatever is necessary to feed ourselves. In this sense we fathom the commandment in the Gospel, “Do not worry about tomorrow,” that is, about the future, and the apostle’s statement, “While we have food and covering, we must be content.” [Letter 120]

When Nepotian laid aside his baldrick and changed his dress, he bestowed upon the poor all the pay that he had received. For he had read the words: if you will be perfect, sell that you have, and give to the poor and follow me, and again: ye cannot serve two masters, God and Mammon. He kept nothing for himself but a common tunic and cloak to cover him and to keep out the cold. [Letter 60]

I think it unnecessary to warn you against covetousness since it is the way of your family both to have riches and to despise them. The apostle too tells us that covetousness is idolatry, and to one who asked the Lord the question: Good Master what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life? He thus replied: If you will be perfect, go and sell that you have and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me. Such is the climax of complete and apostolic virtue— to sell all that one has and to distribute to the poor, and thus freed from all earthly encumbrance to fly up to the heavenly realms with Christ. [Letter 130]
It is important to note that this association between Mark 10:17 - 31 and 'naked with naked' continues into the Middle Ages. I am certain if we dig deeply enough in the monastic literature of the time we will continue to find interesting things. Giles Constable, writing in his Nudus Nudum Christum Sequi and Parallel Formulas in the Twelfth Century notes of only one such example "in the commentary on 1 John by Hugh of St Cher, who, after citing the injunction to "go sell what thou hast and give to the poor and come follow Me ... added, as if it were part of the Gospel text, 'nudus scilicet nudum.' This conflation exemplifies the association of the formula nudus nudum with the Biblical commands to follow Christ and helps to explain its popularity and prominence in the new evangelical piety of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries."

Who knew there was a St. Cher?

Oh, and Clement of Alexandria too:

Quote:
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.

Διὰ τοῦτο καί «Πώλησόν σου τὰ ὑπάρχοντα», λέγει κύριος, «καὶ πτωχοῖς δός, καὶ δεῦρο ἀκολούθει μοι·» ἕπου τῷ θεῷ γυμνὸς ἀλαζονείας, γυμνὸς ἐπικήρου πομπῆς, τὸ σόν, τὸ ἀγαθὸν τὸ ἀναφαίρετον μόνον, τὴν εἰς τὸν θεὸν πίστιν, τὴν εἰς τὸν παθόντα ὁμολογίαν, τὴν εἰς ἀνθρώπους εὐεργεσίαν κεκτημένος, κτῆμα τιμαλφέστατον. [Paed. 2.3]
stephan huller is offline  
Old 02-04-2012, 09:47 AM   #130
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

With regards to our original thread I think this point is decisive:

Quote:
If, then, "the milk" is said by the apostle to belong to the babes, and "meat" to be the food of the full-grown, milk will be understood to be catechetical instruction -- the first food, as it were, of the soul. And meat is the mystic contemplation; for this is the flesh and the blood of the Word, that is, taking hold of the divine power and essence (ληψις τῆς θείας δυνάμεως καὶ οὐσία). "Taste and see that the Lord is Chrestos," it is said. For so He imparts of Himself to those who partake of such food in a more spiritual manner; when now the soul nourishes itself, according to the truth-loving Plato. For the knowledge of the divine essence (ἡ γνῶσίς ἐστι τῆς θείας οὐσίας) is the meat and drink of the divine Word. Wherefore also Plato says, in the second book of the Republic, "It is those that sacrifice not a sow, but some great and difficult sacrifice," who ought to inquire respecting God. And the apostle writes, "Christ our passover was sacrificed for us;" -- a sacrifice hard to procure, in truth, the Son of God consecrated for us. [ibid 5:10]
All Christians partake of the ousia of Jesus in the sacraments. Perhaps this was his only real function - i.e. to embody the divine ousia, the divine yesh
stephan huller is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:28 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.