tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post5080516788673292986..comments2024-03-28T21:32:26.550+00:00Comments on Bruce Charlton's Notions: Solving the Immanence versus Transcendence paradoxBruce Charltonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-37632791597721277812022-12-19T10:03:50.859+00:002022-12-19T10:03:50.859+00:00@Ryder
Did you see this?
https://charltonteachin...@Ryder<br /><br />Did you see this?<br /><br />https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2022/02/my-understanding-of-fourth-gospels.html<br /><br />" the word who was before Jesus the man was born. "<br /><br />My understanding is that *All* Men, including Jesus, lived pre-mortally as spirits; before we were incarnated. What was different about Jesus was (presumably) that his will, motivation etc was wholly in harmony with that of God the creator. This complete harmony translates in double-negative theology as that Jesus had "no sin". <br /><br />Thus Jesus could become a primary creator, fully divine, even while a mortal Man. And this was what made Jesus able to be the One who shows other mortal Men the path through resurrection to eternal life - other Men can be guided-by (as was Lazarus) and/or follow Jesus on this path. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-88026905075445013742022-12-19T07:26:42.491+00:002022-12-19T07:26:42.491+00:00Bruce, I’m not sure how often you delve back into ...Bruce, I’m not sure how often you delve back into older post comments, but thought I would give it a shot. I came across this post trying to learn more about your view on how humanity qualitatively changes over time (it came up in one of your comments on a recent post about voting being a litmus test).<br /><br />I would be very curious to see you revisit some of these passages in John, or at least flesh out what exactly you mean regarding the inconsistency between the prologue and the body of the gospel of John. Certainly, the language of the prologue is slightly different in its register than the bulk of the gospel, and the same tone comes up at the end of John 3 where Jesus is speaking with Nicodemus. As a result, critics are divided as to when, precisely, Jesus’s quotation ends and the narrator picks up (before or after the famous John 3:16?). <br /><br />Despite this difference in register, the claims of the narrator and the claims of Jesus in, e.g. his extended discourse with the disciples in chapters 14-16, and again in his prayer in ch 17, do not seem to be materially at odds. The kinds of claims Jesus makes (before Abraham was, I am; I and the father are one; etc.) seem to fit well with the word who was before Jesus the man was born. Add to this the very consistent documentary history of the document (where spurious additions such as in John 7 with the woman caught in adultery) are well known, and I find it difficult to see what the difficulty is with the classic christological reading of John 1. I would like to understand better, since I am convinced you are right *that* it is Jesus who has overcome or rendered obsolete the immanence/transcendence distinction. I’m not sure I see why the prologue must be spurious though (of course, the evangelist is the one who put the prologue before the story, not Jesus himself, so in that sense I can see what you are saying). I think it’s right to say that in Jesus both humanity and God’s entire mode of relating to humanity are forever different, and living as if the Old Testament could be straightforwardly determinative of what God asks of man in this age would be anachronistic and sadly mistaken. The source of the revelation is good, but the context has changed (the original point I was seeking further detail on from your blog).<br /><br />That is a point from this blog post that I think is worth emphasizing, that with the advent of Christ the world was fundamentally altered, never to return to the way it was. There is a reason history is divided into two parts (and not at Easter, mind you!). Rydernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-22887984278139358472021-12-19T09:48:28.543+00:002021-12-19T09:48:28.543+00:00Thank you, Bruce.Thank you, Bruce.Daniel Fnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-75566088094861727682021-12-19T06:10:15.737+00:002021-12-19T06:10:15.737+00:00@Daniel - I am unsure as to the theological meanin...@Daniel - I am unsure as to the theological meaning of the opening verses of the Fourth Gospel. My guess is that eth passage is essentially poetic (wonderful poetry!), but I am not confident that it is structurally a part of the original Gospel. I has a qualitatively different feel from the main part of the Gospel, seems (in so far as it is substantive) to be making different - and metaphysical - points of a nature and which are not reprised or re-explained elsewhere in the Gospel - and, in sum I think it may have been added later by someone else. But - whatever the first verses 'mean' they cannot be taken to contradict the main Fourth Gospel - which is clear, and repeats its main points. Bruce Charltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09615189090601688535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4683970826895755480.post-82810281690916811542021-12-19T03:20:43.872+00:002021-12-19T03:20:43.872+00:00Bruce,
How would you apply this way of seeing thi...Bruce,<br /><br />How would you apply this way of seeing things in the context of the opening verses of John: <br /><br />"In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God. The same [the Word = Jesus, or at least the Son prior to his taken on human form] was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. ... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us."<br /><br />Would the answer be that the Word is an essence or principle that is uncreated and existing prior to creation but that it only inhabited Jesus the man upon, say, his baptism? Or that "the beginning" spoken of here is in fact the point at which Jesus took on divinity, which marked the beginning of creation in the sense of man being able to become god? Or some other interpretation. <br /><br />(I know that you tend not to get bogged down in verse by verse thinking, and also that your theology is not limited by the dogmas and interpretations imposed upon Christendom by the early church counsels, so perhaps my line of questioning is simply beside the point in your schema. And to be clear: I'm not playing gotcha about ancient heresies or anything like that; I am legitimately interested in understanding how you might interpret these points.)Daniel Fnoreply@blogger.com