The Hypostatic Union

[soren]

Soren, just out of curiosity, which graduate school will you be attending, and in what field? I'm actually starting up MA studies at Catholic University of America in the field of Church History, so we'll see how that goes

I'm in the MA theology program at the Franciscan University of Steubenville. It sounds like we were almost classmates. I considered going to Catholic U., but since I have a family I opted to live in an area with a super-low cost of living.

[maklelan]

This is profoundly wrong. In fact, thinking that it is a limitation to God if he cannot lie and thinking there is a contradiction in one person with two natures are similar blunders. The common thread is that each depends on not thinking deeply enough about the terms involved. I am convinced most people who see a contradiction in one person and two natures do so because they donâ??t think deeply (or in most cases not at all) about the meanings of person and nature. If one assigns no particular meaning to these words, then they tend to drop out of the picture, leaving the mind to grapple with â??1=2,â? which misses the point completely.

But if one manipulates the meanings of these words to fit the conclusion then it's easier to make 100% + 100% = 100%. Having read a bunch of the earlier propositions regarding the incarnation I find the situation even more contradictory.

(By the way â??100% God and 100% humanâ? is very inexact language. â??Wholly God and wholly humanâ? is more correct because â??100%â? implies exhautiveness, that is, it sounds as if Christâ??s humanity is his entire identity, which isnâ??t right. The difference is subtle but the consequences down the road are big.)

I still find it contradictory.

So it is really not God who is infinite but his influence?

You're still refusing to qualify it. You want to say that God is either infinite or not, but aspects of his being can be infinite and others not.

I already knew about Plotinus, though I have never really studied him. Since he is Third Century, he couldnâ??t have started the Gnostics going, though he did influence them. (Perhaps thatâ??s what you mean.) I think the similarities between the Plotinian â??Trinityâ? and the Christian one are skin-deep, but I will make a study of this subject before commenting more. I am going to read Plotinusâ??s Enneads and get back to you.

Excellent.

Of course, I donâ??t attribute perfect understanding to them. Christianity was needed to provide that. But Paul does not limit himself to saying they knew about his existence. They knew â??even his eternal power and Godhead.â? Thatâ??s a big claim.

Reason is as accessible to the natural man as it is to the Christian. The Greeks had no divinely invested authority, but they could know a lot about God inasmuch as reason can find him out from created things. The metaphysical nature of God is in fact a truth that can be known from reason, and it doesnâ??t matter whether a Greek makes the argument or a Christian or a Muslim. Has it ever occurred to you that your whole dismissal of the Greeks is purely ad hominem? What you are really objecting to is not Greek philosophy as such, but that God can be known by reason.

Besides, there are loads of LDS doctrines that have cognates in pagan philosophy and religion. For instance, the epicureans believed that the soul was made of matter, but was invisible, being more subtle in its nature and organization. Plato argued for the preexistence of souls, Mani and other philosophers taught a concept of good and evil akin to the Law of Opposition. Aristotle thought matter was eternal. Anthropomorphic gods and theomorphic men abound in Greek mythology. Many more examples can be drawn. In fact, the Greek philosophers themselves used the same kinds of arguments against the incarnation that you have been making.

And I've written and published a paper explaining how Joseph Smith was not at all influenced by the nominally similar ideas. The doctrine that was developed in the same time and place, quoted the same philosophers and and used the same unique vernacular, however, is a little more suspect in my book.

Let me be clear: I donâ??t think the similarities between LDS theology and ancient philosophies are a problem with Mormonism, but I do think you must take care to keep your standards consistent if you will lay such a charge on other faiths.

I think the exact same thing, which is why the thesis of my paper is that LDS shouldn't waste their time trying to argue that the fathers taught uniquely Mormon doctrines, because it can get them in trouble.

I recall reading in Augustineâ??s â??City of Godâ? that Plato was instructed by the prophet Jeremiah, but one must remember that this claim was in answer to the charge that Christianity was responsible for the decline of the Roman Empire. Augustine wanted to credit Christianity with as much good as possible to counter this charge. It was a silly argument, but I donâ??t think it amounts to what you say.

Martyr explicitly said that Plato had Moses' writings and took his ideas, and he wasn't the only one.

The relation of Christ and the Father is absolutely not one of the things the Greeks knew (including Plotinus). If you still think that is the claim I am making, you still understand nothing.

I'm not saying anything about the Greeks, I'm saying the early Church exercised an indordinant amount of eisegesis in developing their doctrines from the scriptures.

The only reason? You donâ??t think that any of the biblical texts concerning Godâ??s omnipresence have anything to do with it?

I do not think that at all, because there are more texts speaking of the absence of God's presence, meaning his omnipresence is something quite distinct from what you describe, plus the earliest and most common idea was that of an anthropomorphic God, but Origen said that this can't be so because "the philosophers despise it." When the Fathers started quoting the philosophers a lot of the theology changed. Most conspicuously, the nature of God. Paulsen has an excellent article explaining how Origen and Augustine were "reluctant witnesses" to the fact that the earliest ideas about God were anthropomorphic. It's in the Harvard Theological Review 83.2 (April 1990).

BTW: Who is Felix?

Minuscious Felix was an early apologist. Some think Tertullian was heavily dependent upon Felix's "Octavius."

Let me know when you get your paper done, and also tell me which books you find the most useful. I am just starting grad school and plan to do some research and writing on this subject as well.

The most useful book that covers a broad range of subjects is definitely Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines, but this is one of the most written about debates in all of religious history, so there are hundreds of excellent books. One that is really helpful is the Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils: Nicaea I â?? Lateran V, ed. Norman P. Tanner S.J. (London: Sheed and Ward, 1990)

[soren]

But if one manipulates the meanings of these words to fit the conclusion...

It is not manipulation of terms of the meaning of the words is defined and equivocation avoided.

then it's easier to make 100% + 100% = 100%. Having read a bunch of the earlier propositions regarding the incarnation I find the situation even more contradictory.

This is exactly what I am talking about. You persist in viewing it as a mathematical problem. The hypostatic union is a difficult teaching impossible to substantiate by reason. But the dilemma is not mathematical at all; it is existential. If you insist that it is a math problem and approach it only in that way, you will never understand it, no mater how good your teachers are and no matter how many books you read. You will be wrong on the very first principle and will interpet everything through the wrong filter.

If any equation expresses the hypostatic union, it is actually this: 100% + infinity = infinity.

You're still refusing to qualify it. You want to say that God is either infinite or not, but aspects of his being can be infinite and others not.

I refuse to qualify it, because God never qualifies his glory. In revealing himself to Moses, God gave his name as "I AM." He did not say "I am this," or "I am that." I AM simpliciter. Anything that places a limit on God lessens the propriety of the divine name. For what is a boundary but that beyond which a thing isn't. I accept the revelation of I AM as an absolute and therefore make no qualification of divine infinity.

And I've written and published a paper explaining how Joseph Smith was not at all influenced by the nominally similar ideas.

If Joseph Smith was influence by any philosopher, I think it was David Hume. Not that I think Smith read Hume, or probably even heard of him, but because the earthshaking influence of Hume's thought upon European and American culture echoes throughout the Mormon worldview. I could go for pages on this subject, but my basic summary is that "I will not believe what I don't comprehend" is a precise summation of Hume's skeptical philosophy. I further believe that a marked failure to distinguish between understanding and imagination, which characterizes all of Hume's thought, is basic to much LDS theological argument and even its spiritual dimensions.

The doctrine that was developed in the same time and place, quoted the same philosophers and and used the same unique vernacular, however, is a little more suspect in my book.

That's why it's ad hominem. Bear in mind, we do not attribute authority to philosophers as such, but only insofar as certain parts of philosophy are true and correctly reasoned. This is why aspersions on Greek philosophy make such a shallow argument. I do not reason, for instance, on the basis of Aristotle, but because Aristotle reasoned accurately from correct and evident premises. Once I understand the concepts involved, I see them for myself and I reason thereafter from the thoughts in my own mind. Thus impeaching Greek philosphy is a false apologetic, because it does not interact with the actual concepts involved.

I think the exact same thing, which is why the thesis of my paper is that LDS shouldn't waste their time trying to argue that the fathers taught uniquely Mormon doctrines, because it can get them in trouble.

Thank you! I get so tired of hearing claims about LDS doctrines in the early Church, claims which rarely reflect a good understanding of the Fathers anyway.

I'm not saying anything about the Greeks, I'm saying the early Church exercised an indordinant amount of eisegesis in developing their doctrines from the scriptures.

We haven't really talked much about scripture yet. The basic propositions for the hypostatic union require no eisegesis to identify.

1. Christ was a mn.

2. Christ was God.

3. God is not a man.

I do not think that at all, because there are more texts speaking of the absence of God's presence, meaning his omnipresence is something quite distinct from what you describe,

It means that God's presence is spoken of in more than one sense. One sense refers to God's existence and the other to certain modes of relation between Him and his creatures, which need to be looked at on a case by case basis. For instance, sin in the soul, which is defect in a creature, is an absence of God. Ignorance of the Gospel and lack of consolation are also absences of God. None of this denies his omnipresence.

plus the earliest and most common idea was that of an anthropomorphic God, but Origen said that this can't be so because "the philosophers despise it." When the Fathers started quoting the philosophers a lot of the theology changed. Most conspicuously, the nature of God. Paulsen has an excellent article explaining how Origen and Augustine were "reluctant witnesses" to the fact that the earliest ideas about God were anthropomorphic. It's in the Harvard Theological Review 83.2 (April 1990).

"God is a spirit." That text always holds up under scrutiny.

[maklelan]

"God is a spirit." That text always holds up under scrutiny.

My wife and I are headed to the temple, so I just have time to respond to this. I believe that, under scrutiny, this serves my position much more than yours. In Greek the indefinite article does not exist, so this phrase can be rendered "God is spirit." Modern translations have switched to this more literal reading. Anyone who demands the indefinite article remain there needs to provide some sort of evidence for it. The question is, then, can spirit have a body. The answer, of course, is yes. If you turn one page back to John 3:6, you read that that which is born of spirit is spirit. The Greek is the same as John 4:24. It is inescapable then, that men and women who are born of the spirit are spirit, and they can indeed have bodies and spatial limitations. I've never read another interpretation of this scripture that does not force all kinds of eisegesis into the text. God's presence can leave the presence of a human, meaning he has spatial limitations, and to just say that it refers to another aspect of his presence is begging the question.

[cksalmon]

God's presence can leave the presence of a human, meaning he has spatial limitations, and to just say that it refers to another aspect of his presence is begging the question.

I haven't heard this before, mak. You're suggesting that Elohim is spatially limited? It makes sense, no doubt. But, I haven't heard this admission before. Feel free to cite the documents I've not perused. My gut hunch is that the LDS Elohim is spatially limited as well. I just thought I was imposing (purportedly) skewed logic on the situation.

Best.

CKS

[maklelan]

I haven't heard this before, mak. You're suggesting that Elohim is spatially limited? It makes sense, no doubt. But, I haven't heard this admission before. Feel free to cite the documents I've not perused. My gut hunch is that the LDS Elohim is spatially limited as well. I just thought I was imposing (purportedly) skewed logic on the situation.

Best.

CKS

It comes straight from our scriptures (D&C130:22):

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as manâ??s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

He has a body which is spatially limited. Through his spirit his influence can be omnipresent, but it can also leave someone's presence. He knows all, somehow, but not because he is physically omnipresent.

[erichard]

It comes straight from our scriptures (D&C130:22):

He has a body which is spatially limited. Through his spirit his influence can be omnipresent, but it can also leave someone's presence. He knows all, somehow, but not because he is physically omnipresent.

The way I understand the Restored Gospel, there are not two Jesus Christs (the mortal man and the uncreated, immaterial God of Greek philosophy) united into one by some Hypostatic Union (more philosophy).

Yet Jesus IS united into ONE by the Gospel plan with an INFINITE union of exalted Saviors and Abrahams and Sarahs from previous earths. Thus the true Savior is ultimately infinite, and ever-existing after all.

Do you agree?

Notice this scripture:

Moses 1

37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.

38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come, and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.

The Gospel plan is Eternal, and there have been an infinite number of previous earths like this one, so there are truly an infinite number of those who gained exaltation from these previous earths. And the prayer in John 17 that the disciples be "one", even as Christ is one with His father must ultimately unite in One all of these infinite exalted beings.

QED.

Richard

[maklelan]

Yet Jesus IS united into ONE by the Gospel plan with an INFINITE union of exalted Saviors and Abrahams and Sarahs from previous earths. Thus the true Savior is ultimately infinite, and ever-existing after all.

No. We believe Christ's Atonement is efficacious for all of God's creations, past and future.

[erichard]

No. We believe Christ's Atonement is efficacious for all of God's creations, past and future.

I am convinced that President Young was correct when he taught that each earth has its own Savior.

On the other hand, since Jesus is truly "one" with all those who live the Gospel in its fulness, even those from previous earths, then he is one with those Saviors also.

So it is correct, in my faith, to say that Christ's atonement is for the past and future. Because Christ is one in a greater Union that in fact does save all earths.

Richard

[maklelan]

I am convinced that President Young was correct when he taught that each earth has its own Savior.

On the other hand, since Jesus is truly "one" with all those who live the Gospel in its fulness, even those from previous earths, then he is one with those Saviors also.

So it is correct, in my faith, to say that Christ's atonement is for the past and future. Because Christ is one in a greater Union that in fact does save all earths.

Richard

Fantastic.

[soren]

My wife and I are headed to the temple, so I just have time to respond to this. I believe that, under scrutiny, this serves my position much more than yours. In Greek the indefinite article does not exist, so this phrase can be rendered "God is spirit." Modern translations have switched to this more literal reading. Anyone who demands the indefinite article remain there needs to provide some sort of evidence for it.

The same standard is true for anyone who would exclude the article. The distinction between "spirit" and "a spirit" is unknown in Greek, though English demands us to use one or the other even when both validly express the thought of the verse. No interpretation of the verse can presuppose either rendering as a principle, since either one involves a connotation to which the Greek is neutral.

The question is, then, can spirit have a body. The answer, of course, is yes. If you turn one page back to John 3:6, you read that that which is born of spirit is spirit. The Greek is the same as John 4:24. It is inescapable then, that men and women who are born of the spirit are spirit, and they can indeed have bodies and spatial limitations. I've never read another interpretation of this scripture that does not force all kinds of eisegesis into the text. God's presence can leave the presence of a human, meaning he has spatial limitations, and to just say that it refers to another aspect of his presence is begging the question.

This is the most interesting argument I have ever heard along these lines. I believe I can respond without commiting eisegesis.

Christ is teaching Nicodemus about baptism. when Nicodemus asks, "How can a man be born when he is old?" Christ answers by distinguishing between fleshly and spiritual birth: "What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit." Given that the verse teaches two kinds of birth for each part of the person,. Since the body is not born at baptism, it is quite correct in that context to say that what is born of spirit is spirit. To derive from this an interpretation that "Man is spirit (notwithstanding his possession of a body)" strains hard at the bit.

Further, the only similarity in the Greek of John 3:6 and 4:24 is that neither contains an article before "spirit." Beyond that, two untranslatable differences greatly distinguish the John 4:24 from John 3:6: the word order and the exclusion of the verb in John 2:24.

The pertinent section of John 3:6 reads:

... to gegennenmenon ek tou pneumatos pneuma estin.

... the [thing] born from the spirit spirit is.

John 2:24 syas:

Pneuma ho Theos...

Spirit the God...

In John 2:24, the placement os "Spirit" at the start of the sentence with no stated verb has the rhetorical force of emphaiszing the predicate as well as implying a very direct connection, such as a relationship of pure identity, between the predicate and subject. This is quite a different usage from John 3:6. Admittedly, it is a rhetorical difference, not one of absolute logic, but rhetoric impacts meaning, and the difference in rhetoric here distingushes the verses rather than forming a parallel. To make the claim that "the Greek is the same," John 3:6 would have to read:

... pneuma to gegennenmenon ek tou pneumatos.

But John 3:6 doesn't say that.

It is also worth noting that "to gegennenmenon" it a neuter noun, and therefore does not refer to a person like "ho gegennenmenos" of "ho Theos." Thus the topic of the sentence is not the whole person, or the whole man, which would have a masculine noun, but the specific part that is reborn in baptism, the spirit, which is the highest part of the self but is not a self accept through union with a body.

[soren]

It is also worth noting that "to gegennenmenon" it a neuter noun, and therefore does not refer to a person like "ho gegennenmenos" of "ho Theos." Thus the topic of the sentence is not the whole person, or the whole man, which would have a masculine noun, but the specific part that is reborn in baptism, the spirit, which is the highest part of the self but is not a self accept through union with a body.

Oops. I rescind this portion of my argument. Looking back at the context, I see that it is very poor.

[maklelan]

The same standard is true for anyone who would exclude the article. The distinction between "spirit" and "a spirit" is unknown in Greek, though English demands us to use one or the other even when both validly express the thought of the verse. No interpretation of the verse can presuppose either rendering as a principle, since either one involves a connotation to which the Greek is neutral.

So if the meanings are all identical, how do you reconcile Luke, who says that spirit can not have flesh and bone, with John, who says it can?

This is the most interesting argument I have ever heard along these lines. I believe I can respond without commiting eisegesis.

Christ is teaching Nicodemus about baptism. when Nicodemus asks, "How can a man be born when he is old?" Christ answers by distinguishing between fleshly and spiritual birth: "What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit." Given that the verse teaches two kinds of birth for each part of the person,. Since the body is not born at baptism, it is quite correct in that context to say that what is born of spirit is spirit. To derive from this an interpretation that "Man is spirit (notwithstanding his possession of a body)" strains hard at the bit.

I'm afraid I don't understand. He contrasts being born physically at birth and being born spiritually at baptism. When we are born spiritually at baptism we are spirit. It is not straining at the bit to say that man, being born of the spirit at baptism, is spirit, since that's exactly what the verse says.

Further, the only similarity in the Greek of John 3:6 and 4:24 is that neither contains an article before "spirit." Beyond that, two untranslatable differences greatly distinguish the John 4:24 from John 3:6: the word order and the exclusion of the verb in John 2:24.

The pertinent section of John 3:6 reads:

... to gegennenmenon ek tou pneumatos pneuma estin.

... the [thing] born from the spirit spirit is.

John 2:24 syas:

Pneuma ho Theos...

Spirit the God...

The verb is implied because it's a simple nominal phrase, while John 3:6 is not.

In John 2:24, the placement os "Spirit" at the start of the sentence with no stated verb has the rhetorical force of emphaiszing the predicate as well as implying a very direct connection, such as a relationship of pure identity, between the predicate and subject. This is quite a different usage from John 3:6. Admittedly, it is a rhetorical difference, not one of absolute logic, but as a difference in rhetoric it distingushes the verses rather than forming a parallel. To make the claim that "the Greek is the same," John 3:6 would have to read:

... pneuma to gegennenmenon ek tou pneumatos.

But John 3:6 doesn't say that.

Because it gets convoluted. You make the Greek syntax much more absolute than it really is. The omission of a verb does not necessarily distinguish the meaning of the phrase, especially when it's a simple nominal phrase like this.