bourgeault28jan2012 by johnboyphilothea

VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 3

									johnboy.philothea

    quote:
    Originally posted by Phil:

        quote:
        So, WHAT the doctrine is getting at --- our radical
neediness & that we sin --- is essential. THAT the Incarnation
meets those needs and reconciles our relationships is also
essential. As I said, though, the literalistic accounts of
past events regarding some of the HOWs and WHYs are not
essential. For example, one might ask, was human reality ever
truly edenic? Is that what the Fall necessarily entails? And,
of course, substitutionary atonement, for example, is also not
essential.



    Good to see you back, JB.

    Just to be sure I'm understanding you, here, you do not
hear CB denying the reality of Original Sin?

    Jesus' place in the Trinity is not in dispute?

    Not to my knowledge, among most traditional folk, that is.
As you know, he's considered the incarnate Word/Second Person
of the Trinity.



Emphatically no!

    quote:
    Cynthia's own words:

    [T]he resurrection proves that Jesus is the only Son of
God, that there is none other like him, that in and through
him God has reconciled heaven and earth and laid the
foundations of the New Creation, that this is the pivotal
moment in salvation history ...

    [A] sacrament does not merely symbolize a spiritual
reality; it lives that reality into existence. Jesus' life,
considered from this standpoint, is a sacrament: a mystery
that draws us deeply into itself and, when rightly approached,
conveys an actual spiritual energy empowering us to follow the
path that his teachings have laid out.

    Yes, we come into constriction, but is that the same as
punishment? I believe not. I believe rather that this
constriction is a sacrament, and we have been offered a divine
invitation to participate in it. ... It is difficult to risk
love in a world so fragile and contingent. And yet, the
greater the gamble ...



                                 1
    quote:
    Originally posted by Phil:

        quote:
        Regarding the interpretation of John 10:30, as with
most Bible verses, exegetes struggle with interpretation from
several angles (hence my reference to minority views referred
to exegetical matters). In this particular case, Calvin most
quickly comes to mind. One might check out the different
commentaries.

        From Bracken's discussion, the John 10:30 take away
was the moral union within a community and the bond of love
which can unite human beings with one another and with the
triune God. From Cynthia's discussion: "There is no separation
between humans and God because of this mutual interabiding
which expresses the indivisible reality of divine love."

        Perhaps Cynthia did intend this in as heterodox a
manner as you received it? I can't make that case though from
what I've read.



    Prior to saying that, she said, "While he (Jesus) does
indeed claim that 'the Father and I are one' (John 10:30)--a
statement so blasphemous to Jewish ears that it nearly gets
him stoned--he does not see this as an exclusive privilege but
something shared by all human beings." I really dislike the
term, "exclusive," here, as that's anathema to postmodern
ears, and sweet perfume to those who loathe the idea of Jesus
being the one and only incarnation of God. "Exclusive" gives
the wrong impression. His union with the Father is indeed
"exclusive" in the sense that none of us is one with the
Father as He is, but that's not the best way to put it. Jesus
never, ever taught that we already enjoyed the same kind of
union with the Father that he experienced.

    You've given us an example of a "minority report"
interpretation, but I'm not sure why such deserve honorable
mention, here. As you noted earlier, the mainstream Christian
tradition affirms an ontological union of being.

    The obfuscation I refer to is CB's "There is no separation
between humans and God because of this mutual interabiding
which expresses the indivisible reality of divine love." This
totally evades the issue of Jesus's distinctive relationship
with the Father by presenting us with a statement about
Jesus's experience of divine union. It tells us nothing about
Jesus, really, except that he experienced the unitive stage of
spiritual growth. Her statement is undeniable, but does
nothing to justify her contention that Jesus's union with the
Father is not "exclusive." See what I mean?




                                 2
I understand what you are saying but we are talking past each
other somewhat. She's only saying that the bond of love is not
exclusive. Whatever it is that makes Jesus the only son of God
and so on and so forth is not being denied. It just ain't
what's being talked about in this verse per other reasonable
interpretations (based on esoteric exegetical stuff like the
gender -neutral vs masculine- of certain nouns and such). See
what I mean?

As I receive what Cynthia is saying, I am focusing on her
interpretation and commentary on John 10:30 ALONE. It is
already abundantly clear to me from having read what she has
explicitly affirmed in this book (quotes above and elsewhere)
that she does not have a heterodox take on the Trinity. An
alternate interpretation of John 10:30, whether by Cynthia,
Calvin, Erasmus or via Joe Bracken, would NOT, in and of
itself, deny the ontological union. The alternate
interpretation only suggests that that particular verse
happens to be talking about something else, in the case at
hand, about LOVE.

    quote:
    Originally posted by Phil:Hope that clarifies. Perhaps you
could read some of what she wrote as critically as you are
reading my responses? (Wink and poke)



I'll let my contributions to this thread speak for themselves
... revealing that my critiques, like my affirmations, have
been equal-opportunity.

Again, Cynthia well articulates the essentials of the faith
re: Christology, even soteriology vis a vis affirming our
finitude and neediness and Jesus' efficacious role in
reconciling and empowering us. She affirms what I affirmed and
raises the same questions I asked, answering them in much the
same Scotistic way that I have in all of my writings. This
minority view is not heterodox. I don't mention it seeking
honor or approval but because it best articulates the truth,
celebrates the beauty, preserves the good and fosters the
fellowship with which I resonate in my life of faith!

    quote:
    per Johnboy So, WHAT the doctrine is getting at --- our
radical neediness & that we sin --- is essential. THAT the
Incarnation meets those needs and reconciles our relationships
is also essential. As I said, though, the literalistic
accounts of past events regarding some of the HOWs and WHYs
are not essential. For example, one might ask, was human
reality ever truly edenic? Is that what the Fall necessarily
entails? And, of course, substitutionary atonement, for
example, is also not essential.




                               3

								
To top