Navigation
RSS Syndication
Coptic Forums
The official forums of the Coptic Media Network, focusing on Coptic hymns, Orthodoxy, spirituality, friendship, and member experiences.
My God and Your God (John 20:17)
Truth.Seeker
posted on Apr 27, 2008 - 01:56 PM
The way I think about the Trinity is that the Father is the existence of God. The Son is the intelligence of God, and the Holy Spirit is the spirit of God.
So, whenever Christ is saying something that seems to be putting Himself lower than the Father, I take it to mean that He's appealing to His existence. In the context of John 20:17, He says to not cling to Him because He has not ascended to His Father/God. I take that to mean that He is not yet at His rightful place with respect to His eternal existence - with God the Father, not on Earth.
Biboboy
posted on Apr 27, 2008 - 02:51 PM
Agape,
By using the phrase "my God and your God," Christ's showing that the relationship between Him and the Father is different than our relationship with the Father. That's why he doesn't say "our God."
_________________
"Our hearts are restless until they find rest in You, Lord" (St. Augustine, Confessions, I, 1).
"Pray gently and calmly,
Chant hymns with understanding and rhythm;
Then you will soar like a young eagle
High in the heavens"
+ St. Evagrius the Solitary, On Prayer, 82.
In Christ,
Bishoy
HCOC Member
+ To Protect and Preserve +
HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!
Questions or comments on the copticheritage.org website? E-mail me!
Truth.Seeker
posted on Apr 27, 2008 - 03:55 PM
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Nothing inherent in "your God and my God" leads one to conclude that Christ's stressing the difference between His relationship with the Father and ours.
The same language could easily mean He's stressing that our Father is also His Father. The phrase, "what's mine is yours" is not said to stress differences, but to stress commonality.
This is not to say that you're not right about the difference between our relationship with the Father and His. This is to say that that conclusion doesn't flow from that language.
mikokiko
posted on Apr 27, 2008 - 10:51 PM
Well, I always used to take it in simplicity believing that it meant that His Father was the God that belongs to Him that is, as His Source of Existence, He being the Logos, not that He literally worships Him and that He created Him. But I don't know, I think that is somewhat along the lines of what Truthseeker was saying. Any other thoughts on this?
mikokiko
posted on Apr 28, 2008 - 04:59 AM
I noticed that St. Paul also calls God the Father the God of our Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:3), and I think explains this elsewhere when He counts the Lord among the creation saying: "Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15:28) It almost seems like the Scriptures are painting a picture of Christ being a "lesser God" than God the Father as St. Justin Martyr writes, and Origen apparently says.
Truth.Seeker
posted on Apr 28, 2008 - 12:36 PM
You're getting into dangerous territory.
Remember, Christ, as we know Him, did not exist as we know Him before His incarnation. In other words, He was the Word, and He only became Man 2000 years ago. (We say He always existed because we don't distinguish between His two natures). So, whenever St. Paul uses language that counts Christ with us, He's referring to the fact that Christ lowered Himself and became Man.
In the context of this specific chapter, my understanding is that Christ judges who gets to the Father or not, once He is finished judging, then that's it - all are under Him at that point. I take the language that says Christ will be subject to Him to just mean that His being a mediator will be finished after we are all judged, and that He will be more like the Word, before His incarnation. So, I don't take it to be lowering Him. I take it to actually mean that the Father and Christ will not be as different as they are now (because one of the things that Christ does - judging us, will be over).
mgeorge
posted on Apr 28, 2008 - 02:31 PM
Khristos Anesty, Piekhristos Aftonf, Christ is Risen, المسيح قام
Dear all,
The verse needs to be complete, the full verse says "Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’”"...
This is how i understand it. At this point Salvation is Complete (Cross and Resurrection) therefore, He has taken what is ours and given us what is His. Therefore Since God is His Father He is now Our Father, and since God is our God He is also his God.
_________________
Pray for me,
<b>Moheb</b>
<i>"Till we all come in the <u>unity of the faith</u>, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, <b>unto a perfect man</b>, unto the measure of the stature of <u>the fulness of Christ</u>" (Ephesians 4:13)</i> <b>AMEN.</b>
"εγω ειμι η αναστασις και η ζωη" - <b>ιησου χριστου</b>
Iqbal
posted on Apr 28, 2008 - 02:53 PM
Alithos Anesti! PiKhristos Aftonf! Indeed He is Risen! Orhneal e Harutyunn Christos!
Good points made by Biboboy and mgeorge--both of you are well acquainted with the Fathers I see! I find myself particularly drawn to the take offered by mgeorge (whilst recognising that the Orthodox approach to Scriptural exegesis does not demand a singular interpretation) which is not only in line with St Gregory of Nyssa's take on that particular verse but with his (though certainly not his in any exclusive sense) general hermeneutical approach to any such Christological text viz. to view through soteriological lenses.
mgeorge
posted on Apr 28, 2008 - 04:40 PM
From Iqbal:Alithos Anesti! PiKhristos Aftonf! Indeed He is Risen! Orhneal e Harutyunn Christos!
Good points made by Biboboy and mgeorge--both of you are well acquainted with the Fathers I see! I find myself particularly drawn to the take offered by mgeorge (whilst recognising that the Orthodox approach to Scriptural exegesis does not demand a singular interpretation) which is not only in line with St Gregory of Nyssa's take on that particular verse but with his (though certainly not his in any exclusive sense) general hermeneutical approach to any such Christological text viz. to view through soteriological lenses.
This is such a humbling compliment, I thank you for it, recognizing that it is not a personal conclusion, but God's work that reveals this to His people. Hence all glory be to the Trinity.
_________________
Pray for me,
<b>Moheb</b>
<i>"Till we all come in the <u>unity of the faith</u>, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, <b>unto a perfect man</b>, unto the measure of the stature of <u>the fulness of Christ</u>" (Ephesians 4:13)</i> <b>AMEN.</b>
"εγω ειμι η αναστασις και η ζωη" - <b>ιησου χριστου</b>
lowlyman
posted on Apr 28, 2008 - 07:46 PM
I agree with mGeorge too. if I may add that the Father begets the Son, and that the Father is greater in this sense only being the cause of the son, and in whom the Son exists (Read: being subject to him). That doesn't make the Son a lesser God.
Christos anesti
From Iqbal:Alithos Anesti! PiKhristos Aftonf! Indeed He is Risen! Orhneal e Harutyunn Christos!
Good points made by Biboboy and mgeorge--both of you are well acquainted with the Fathers I see! I find myself particularly drawn to the take offered by mgeorge (whilst recognising that the Orthodox approach to Scriptural exegesis does not demand a singular interpretation) which is not only in line with St Gregory of Nyssa's take on that particular verse but with his (though certainly not his in any exclusive sense) general hermeneutical approach to any such Christological text viz. to view through soteriological lenses.
Meghalo05
posted on Apr 28, 2008 - 08:35 PM
lowlyman,
I don't think we can say the Father was the cause of the Son. The Son like the father has no beginning. The Son is begotten of the Father, but the Father never caused the Son to come into existence. Whenever the Father was, so also was the Son.
This topic is quite interesting, and I myself have a hard time understanding why Christ said it in this manner. Sometimes I wish Christ and the Bible were more blunt on topics regarding Christology or Theology. In my opinion, it would make things easier for us. But the statment "My God and Your God" is probably fuel for those who deny the divinity of Christ. So is it an accurate statement to say with regards to the Economy of the Incarnation and birth of Jesus Christ, that the Father was his God? Opinions? I would love to hear from all of you on this topic, as I am clearly not knowledgable enough with regards to it.
Glory to the Resurrected One in All Things
mikokiko
posted on Apr 28, 2008 - 09:24 PM
Well, we know both King David and St. Paul said it. And Meghalou, yes we can say that the Father caused the Son, however His causing of His Son, that is, the making of Him His Son, is a different causing from the rest of creation. Since it is a Cause before all time. If one reads this from Proverbs 8 they will realize what I am talking about when they see that Christ, the Wisdom of the Father, was "created" from eternity. Obviously if something is created from eternity, that is, it is eternal creation, then there was never a time when it was not, making it Infinite. Therefore the word here has a different kind of connotation: that of Begetting, or the Brightness of God. As Light is never without its Emitted Brightness, so too is the Father never without His Effulgence, our Lord Jesus Christ.
By the way, I never suggested I believed that Christ is a Lesser God. I always knew that Christ was subject to, but not less than the Father. He is subject to the Father in roles as a Son, as His Servant, but both are eternal. One Expresses the Logic of the Other, this is the essence of Christ's subjection, as He does and "represents" the will of the Father.
God Bless
Truth.Seeker
posted on Apr 29, 2008 - 02:03 AM
Saying that the Father causes the Son is illogical. Something can only have a cause if it came into existence. The Son has always existed, therefore, He could not have had a cause. Also, saying something was "created from eternity" is paradoxical. The Son has always existed, therefore He was not created. Meghalo is right on this one.
Arius and St. Athanasius knew this concept very clearly. That's why Arius argued that Christ was created before everything else, which meant that "there was a time when He was not." St. Athanasius adamantly opposed this and said: 1) Christ was never created, 2) therefore, He always is.
Peter
posted on Apr 29, 2008 - 03:15 AM
From mikokiko:... Please no one reply with, because He is speaking from His human "side", or anything silly like that.
What is so silly about such a reply. It may very well be true. Yes it is too often used glibly or in a flip manner. But it is part of the economy of the Incarnation, that Christ oft did things purely as an example for us, for our edification. Sts Cyril and Gregory Nanzianus, namely, have written of such, among othe fathers..
_________________
“While the theologians are searching these abstruse
matters, many simple-souls will have slipped into the
Kingdom of God” - H.H. Pope Shenouda III
"If you wish to be a theologian then follow the commandments." - St. Gregory Nanzianus
mikokiko
posted on Apr 29, 2008 - 04:31 AM
You object to words that are used so commonly to describe the Son you've missed the whole point of my post. To Beget means: to cause; produce as an effect. Just the general notion that the Son was begotten if not carefully explained implies a time. That is there was a time when the Father was without Son and then begot Him. But because He is proper to the essence of the Father, therefore there was never a time when the Father existed and the Son didn't. But know that when we say that Christ was "made the Son" of the Father, or begotten out of Him, or generated from His Godhead, then we imply it eternally. Read the words of Proverbs 8, as they are in the Septuagint.
This is Wisdom speaking: "The Lord made me the beginning of his ways for his works.
He established me before time was in the beginning, before he made the earth:"
ESTABLISHED ME BEFORE TIME!! Wisdom was made eternally, this is speaking of the Eternal Logos. Of course Wisdom could not have been made by God, because then by what Wisdom did He make Wisdom? And how can Reason itself be made? God Himself is the Rational Principle of the Universe. If then that which is proper to the essence of God is ESTABLISHED BEFORE TIME as the words of the Holy Spirit write in Proverbs, there should be nothing wrong in me using such statements.
God Bless
Truth.Seeker
posted on Apr 29, 2008 - 12:37 PM
You forget that "beget" is an English translation of the original GREEK language. Look how far that got us with ousia, hypostatis, prosopon, etc... NEVER go to dictionary.com and look up an English word that has been translated from Greek to figure out the meaning of the original Greek word.
And let's look at the verses you're talking about:
22 “ The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way,
Before His works of old.
23 I have been established from everlasting,
From the beginning, before there was ever an earth.
"Possessed" and "established" are not the same as "caused." The Lord was always wise and that was established from everlasting. This is nothing like the logical implications of "cause."
The only argument that could be made is that the Father "eternally causes" the Logos because without the Father, the Logos would not exist. That reasoning would make the following statement also true: The Logos eternally causes the Father.
Remember, "cause" has a very specific logical meaning: a cause is a sufficient condition to bring something into existence. The Father is not sufficient to bring the Son into existence, because without the Trinity existing, the Father doesn't exist to cause anything.
Truth.Seeker
posted on Apr 29, 2008 - 12:48 PM
Peter,
I think mikokiko's concern is that any talk of Christ doing something from His "human side" divides Him into a "human side" and a "divine side." Something we don't do. I know for a fact that St. Cyril did not mean this in the writings he wrote, because he was an adamant proponent of my first statement.
What these Sts. are talking about are things like Christ being baptized.
Truth.Seeker
posted on Apr 29, 2008 - 01:07 PM
mikokiko,
It just hit me - I should just write what our own Orthodox Creed says:
We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light,true God of true God, begotten not created....
Obviously this means that we think there's a difference between "begotten" and "created."
Iqbal
posted on Apr 29, 2008 - 02:32 PM
There is nothing wrong with assertions which depict Christ saying/doing certain things as man, and doing/certain things as God.
It is perfectly Orthodox for example, to declare that Christ slept in the ship as man, and walked on the waters as God; or that Christ hungered as man, and feeds the world as God.
Such statements can ofcourse be taken out of an Orthodox context, but they are nevertheless capable of fitting well within an Orthodox context.
lowlyman
posted on Apr 29, 2008 - 03:02 PM
Seeker
I believe it was st john chrysostom who said that the father is the cause of the son.
Mikokiko
I like what u said, but I am not sure that the begetting is the property of the essence. Rather it is the property of the father?
Iqbal
Agreed
Lowly
From Iqbal:There is nothing wrong with assertions which depict Christ saying/doing certain things as man, and doing/certain things as God.
It is perfectly Orthodox for example, to declare that Christ slept in the ship as man, and walked on the waters as God; or that Christ hungered as man, and feeds the world as God.
Such statements can ofcourse be taken out of an Orthodox context, but they are nevertheless capable of fitting well within an Orthodox context.
mikokiko
posted on Apr 29, 2008 - 05:32 PM
Truthseeker before we go any further realize this: CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING.
Indeed when one clarifies that the Son of God is BEGOTTEN and not CREATED, then we know that it means there was never a time when He didn't exist but He eternally emanates forth from the Creator.
But Established very well carries the same implications as Creation. If David the prophet says in his psalms: "Who established the mountains by His strength,Being clothed with power;" (Psalm 65:6)
Why is it meant differently in Proverbs? Because of CONTEXT. I have been established BEFORE TIME. And the Lord M-A-D-E Me the beginning of His Ways.
If the Creed didn't clarify with what context what kind of begetting God the Father did then many would still be left believing it took place in time, but it says: "We believe in One Lord, Jesus Christ. The Only begotten Son of God. Begotten of the Father BEFORE ALL AGES."
I know creation is a dangerous word to use because it seems to imply that that person did not exist at one point, but when Wisdom Herself says the Lord made Me the beginning of His ways.
Truth.Seeker
posted on Apr 29, 2008 - 10:04 PM
lowly,
Provide me a reference.
miko,
Mikokiko exists. God exists. Does that mean Mikokiko and God have been around for the same amount of time? (Point being, "established" doesn't say anything about timing, "causation" does).
If the Orthodox Creed is sure to point out the Son is "not created," and you know it's a dangerous word to use, then just agree with me that it shouldn't be used.
It's like someone saying, "2+2 = 3, but I mean that only in the sense that 2 = 1.5." Well, I'd rather just say 1.5 + 1.5 = 3.
lowlyman
posted on Apr 30, 2008 - 01:13 PM
Truth.Seeker
see this first:
http://www.tektonics.org/guest/psekstasis.html
see: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2503.htm
http://www.antiochian.org/damascus
From Truth.Seeker:lowly,
Provide me a reference.
miko,
Mikokiko exists. God exists. Does that mean Mikokiko and God have been around for the same amount of time? (Point being, "established" doesn't say anything about timing, "causation" does).
If the Orthodox Creed is sure to point out the Son is "not created," and you know it's a dangerous word to use, then just agree with me that it shouldn't be used.
It's like someone saying, "2+2 = 3, but I mean that only in the sense that 2 = 1.5." Well, I'd rather just say 1.5 + 1.5 = 3.
Return to the Forum Index
Powered by the coptichymns.net Network of Coptic Hymns and Coptic Orthodox Sites.
Forum Statistics
| Total | Daily | ||
| Topics: | 7190 | 3.98 | |
| Users: | 6123 | 3.39 | |
| Posts: | 60543 | 33.55 | |
Online Members
| Iqbal | |
| Pharoh | |
| stylite39 |
372 unlogged users and 3 registered users online now.
Already a member? Log in above.
Not a member? Register your unique identity to participate more fully in our site!