Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
What about the dialectics of the history of (Christian) salvation, with the contradictions present in the nature of man and the fall of man becoming inverted by grace? The original sin is born out of a tree, given to a woman, and becomes part of the first man. Then this is inverted in the form of a woman, immaculate in conception (well, for the papists), who gives birth to a new Man, who goes to a painful tree to undo humanity’s fall. Isn’t that dialectical? Isn’t it dialectical that, to achieve this, the king of kings becomes a lowly carpenter in a Roman colony, a friend of prostitutes and taxmen? A man greater than time and the cosmos who comes to the evildoers who pray in his name incarnated in a piece of bread and wine?
I see your point about God’s perfection and eternal nature and you’re definitely 100% correct about that part. But it takes two to tango and theology is just as much about humans’ relation to the divine as it is about the divine in itself! That other part is temporal and I think there’s definitely a dialectical way to see it. I’m gonna call @Mardoniush@hexbear.net because I think she’s probably thought and read about this 10x more than I have.
I’d also point out the nature of the trinity and the Holy Spirits existence as a result of the inherent dialectic present between the static Father and the dynamic Logos of the Son.
But as AssortedBiscuits said, God’s perfection implies that there can’t ever be change, so what dialectical relationship can exist between the persons of the trinity? Usually both parts of a dialectic need to be able to move for there to be transformation. Also, since the three different persons still have the same nature, it seems strange to me to say they have any kind of contradiction between them, beyond the fact that each one is not the other two.
Ah, I forgot to mention the Zionist kabbalist asserts the tetragrammaton means, “I am becoming what I am becoming,” which makes more sense. As are all of us.
The fact that creation has change implies an inherent contradiction, which is why the Son is even distinct from the Father. Contradiction as a form doesn’t inherently mean an inconsistency of nature or of will, any more than a rock falling to the ground has an inconsistency between gravity and intertia. They’re both in contradiction in the sense of imbalance, and in accord, in that both are smoothly working according to their nature.
As for the lack of change in one part of the dialectic, that’s the contradiction that results in the Spirit, the mediating force that allows modification of the action of the static upon the dynamic. The static cannot change, the dynamic is in action, so something new must occur.
While its true binatarian conceptions are mostly dominant in the pre pauline church, after the fall of Jerusalem the divinity of the holy spirit becomes fairly standard, though the formal doctrine takes another century to develop.
Iraneus already inherits proto trinitarian views from the Joannines, as does Justin Martyr from the mostly separate Paulines. It’s hard to describe how orthodox those church fathers are, since in many ways Iraneus was the first to define heresy
What about the dialectics of the history of (Christian) salvation, with the contradictions present in the nature of man and the fall of man becoming inverted by grace? The original sin is born out of a tree, given to a woman, and becomes part of the first man. Then this is inverted in the form of a woman, immaculate in conception (well, for the papists), who gives birth to a new Man, who goes to a painful tree to undo humanity’s fall. Isn’t that dialectical? Isn’t it dialectical that, to achieve this, the king of kings becomes a lowly carpenter in a Roman colony, a friend of prostitutes and taxmen? A man greater than time and the cosmos who comes to the evildoers who pray in his name incarnated in a piece of bread and wine?
I see your point about God’s perfection and eternal nature and you’re definitely 100% correct about that part. But it takes two to tango and theology is just as much about humans’ relation to the divine as it is about the divine in itself! That other part is temporal and I think there’s definitely a dialectical way to see it. I’m gonna call @Mardoniush@hexbear.net because I think she’s probably thought and read about this 10x more than I have.
I’d also point out the nature of the trinity and the Holy Spirits existence as a result of the inherent dialectic present between the static Father and the dynamic Logos of the Son.
But as AssortedBiscuits said, God’s perfection implies that there can’t ever be change, so what dialectical relationship can exist between the persons of the trinity? Usually both parts of a dialectic need to be able to move for there to be transformation. Also, since the three different persons still have the same nature, it seems strange to me to say they have any kind of contradiction between them, beyond the fact that each one is not the other two.
Ah, I forgot to mention the Zionist kabbalist asserts the tetragrammaton means, “I am becoming what I am becoming,” which makes more sense. As are all of us.
The fact that creation has change implies an inherent contradiction, which is why the Son is even distinct from the Father. Contradiction as a form doesn’t inherently mean an inconsistency of nature or of will, any more than a rock falling to the ground has an inconsistency between gravity and intertia. They’re both in contradiction in the sense of imbalance, and in accord, in that both are smoothly working according to their nature.
As for the lack of change in one part of the dialectic, that’s the contradiction that results in the Spirit, the mediating force that allows modification of the action of the static upon the dynamic. The static cannot change, the dynamic is in action, so something new must occur.
The Trinity was heretical, originally.
While its true binatarian conceptions are mostly dominant in the pre pauline church, after the fall of Jerusalem the divinity of the holy spirit becomes fairly standard, though the formal doctrine takes another century to develop.
Iraneus already inherits proto trinitarian views from the Joannines, as does Justin Martyr from the mostly separate Paulines. It’s hard to describe how orthodox those church fathers are, since in many ways Iraneus was the first to define heresy