homoousios

wil

UNeyeR1
Moderator
Messages
23,154
Reaction score
2,656
Points
108
Location
a figment of your imagination
This came out of a discussion in a thread in the Islam section. I thought Muslims believed Jesus to be another prophet...I did not know they believed Jesus to be born of a virgin, and not have a father...

Create vs impregnate is the main issue. It depends how you define the words. Jewish father creates, Greek father impregnates. Jewish son is just a pious human being, Greek son is homoousios. When you start interpreting Hebrew metanarrative in terms of Greek metaphysics, only then Maryam gets impregnated to get a homoousios Son of God (or God the Son). If you keep both traditions separate, and understand semitic tradition from semitic mind, God caused Maryam to get pregnant with Jesus, without the help of a biological father or his own substance.

This got me to thinking about the trinity concept and if Jesus is G!d substance, did he have any dna? did he carry Mary's dna? G!d's?

I see this is something that came out of the council of Nicea? (tangential side of the question, farhan refers to this as Greek vs Semetic, yet Jesus was born into and the councils were in the Roman empire?)
 

Nick the Pilot

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,837
Reaction score
72
Points
48
Location
Tokyo, Japan
The Quran mentions the virgin birth of Jesus, so Muslims accept this idea.

And, since you asked, my belief system has it that the Virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus is only a symbolism. The symbolism is that Jesus symbolizes our universe, and Mary symbolizes what is described as "pre-cosmic matter", a "matter" from which our universe was "created". But somehow, along the way, this symbolism was promoted into being "fact" of the historical Jesus being the result of a virgin birth.

So, to answer your question, yes and no: Jesus "had" DNA if you accept the idea that Jesus is only a symbol of our universe, in which case the question is, does our entire universe have DNA (the answer is yes and no).
 
Last edited:

juantoo3

....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Messages
8,172
Reaction score
446
Points
83
Location
up to my arse in alligators
No time to "flesh" this out right now.

Suffice to say the whole Arian/Athanasian controversy revolved around whether or not Jesus was Divine substance. The "Divine Substance" crowd won the election, according to some exit polls by a landslide, and the losing "Mortal Substance" crowd was excommunicated.

Trouble is, the losing side didn't go away, and by the time Constantine was ready to be baptized, on his deathbed, it was by a Bishop from the losing "Mortal Substance" crowd. The two sides bickered back and forth excommunicating each other, vying for political supremacy for over a century after Nicea, before the "Divine Substance" crowd won out finally.

Point being, I have long thought it odd that a "Jewish Messiah" was executed in a Roman manner...but not by Romans. That almost 300 years after the fact a Roman political pariah was elevated to the status of G!dhood posthumously, in a manner quite similar to that used by and for Roman Emperors, under the reign of a Roman Emperor that wasn't really comfortable with the standard Roman "god" mantle commonly and traditionally bestowed on all Roman Emperors since Julius and Augustus some 400 plus years before. Thereby creating a storyline wherein this Messiah is executed but doesn't die, and in any case the "blame" for his execution is shifted away from Rome and onto the Jews.

While some ties are tenuous at best, it is difficult to deny the similarities with Mithraism (born of a virgin - in the "not having had sex yet" sense of the word; on December 25; "sprinkling" baptism for washing away sins - although it was the blood of a sacred bull that was used for this instead of the blood of "the Lamb of G!d").

No doubt Thomas will challenge a great deal of what I put forward, still he cannot seem to come to terms with British...specifically Welsh...Christians in the ranks of Constantine's army as he defeated his opponents to reconsolidate the Empire. Constantine's father Constantius was the Emperor over Britain, and it is documented that even at the height of the Diocletian purges, Constantius was quite liberal and generous in his toleration of Christians...in direct defiance of Diocletian and Galerius. Further, Constantine's Mother was not only acknowledged as a Christian in the various histories, the Catholic Church sainted her as Saint Helena. While Constantine engaged in his public life as a Pagan, worshipping the Sun god Sol, he did have an affinity for Christianity that allowed tolerance for that group that otherwise would not have been. And the Bishop of Glastonbury (Wales) was accorded special privilege by the Vatican for centuries by virtue of being the "oldest recognized Christian church" in existence until the reign of Henry VIII.

And nobody seems to question why Constantine was sainted as well...a pagan all of his life...and the insistent denial of any political involvement from the Church's perspective...yet somehow on his deathbed, baptized by an Aryan priest, Constantine managed to qualify for sainthood in the Athanasian Catholic Church.

It's a miracle! ;)
 
Last edited:

farhan

Well-Known Member
Messages
713
Reaction score
30
Points
28
This got me to thinking about the trinity concept and if Jesus is G!d substance, did he have any dna? did he carry Mary's dna? G!d's?
As with all metaphysical questions, you arnt gonna get a scientific answer. God is metaphysics, DNA is science. Keeping them reasonably sepatare keeps life easy.

If we take this Jesus is God's DNA argument further, Adam is double divine dna, and Eve is single divine DNA. That makes Adam God's double son and Eve God's single daughter. That also makes all of Adam/Eve's ofsprings tripple divine sons and daughters. o_O

(tangential side of the question, farhan refers to this as Greek vs Semetic, yet Jesus was born into and the councils were in the Roman empire?)
We are talking about two different civilizations here. Jesus lived in culturally jewish lands that were politically Roman. OT has many sons of God, son here having a jewish meaning. Greek/Roman culture had many sons of God, son here having greek meaning. Jesus was the only "cultural exchange" Son of God who was ethnically jewish, and was worshiped all over Europe.
 

farhan

Well-Known Member
Messages
713
Reaction score
30
Points
28
Suffice to say the whole Arian/Athanasian controversy revolved around whether or not Jesus was Divine substance. The "Divine Substance" crowd won the election, according to some exit polls by a landslide, and the losing "Mortal Substance" crowd was excommunicated.
Democratically elected God !!!
 

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,582
Reaction score
2,747
Points
108
I see this is something that came out of the council of Nicea?
No.

That Christ was the Incarnate Son of God was not in question. It was the nature of the relation of the Son to the Father that was disputed.
 

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,582
Reaction score
2,747
Points
108
No time to "flesh" this out right now.
LOL! I wish I'd said that!

Suffice to say the whole Arian/Athanasian controversy revolved around whether or not Jesus was Divine substance. The "Divine Substance" crowd won the election, according to some exit polls by a landslide, and the losing "Mortal Substance" crowd was excommunicated.
I think you've misunderstood the nature of the dispute.

The controversy revolved around the nature of Christ's divine substance, not His divinity, that was not in question.

One the one side there was 'of one substance' (the Athanasian position) and on the other 'of like substance' (the Arian position). It was not whether Christ was divine or mortal.
 

juantoo3

....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Messages
8,172
Reaction score
446
Points
83
Location
up to my arse in alligators
No.

That Christ was the Incarnate Son of God was not in question. It was the nature of the relation of the Son to the Father that was disputed.

But Thomas... by the understanding of that term in the Aramaic of the time and place...*all* were sons and daughters of G!d.

What drew the ire of the Romans is that the term was *specific* to the deification of the Emperors...Diocletian was a "Son of god," Galerius was a "Son of god," Julius Ceasar was a "Son of god," etc., etc. etc.... except in those political moments when a standing Emperor would have a previous Emperor's name and likenesses removed from wherever they were found...a Roman form of ex-communication. Constantine did this with Maxentius, the rival he defeated at the Milvian Bridge.

So the term "Son of G!d" was a loaded term culturally from both the Hebrew and the Roman sides...but neither implied what the Church settled on until Nicea when it took on a metaphysical aspect that wasn't there prior.
 

juantoo3

....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Messages
8,172
Reaction score
446
Points
83
Location
up to my arse in alligators
LOL! I wish I'd said that!

I thought you might get a kick out of that... ;)


I think you've misunderstood the nature of the dispute.

The controversy revolved around the nature of Christ's divine substance, not His divinity, that was not in question.

One the one side there was 'of one substance' (the Athanasian position) and on the other 'of like substance' (the Arian position). It was not whether Christ was divine or mortal.

I don't think I've misunderstood. I did state "substance." If you wish to frame it as "same" and "like," it still boils down to "Divine" and "Mortal," for reasons already mentioned...in that if "like" substance...*all* humans were made of "like" substance. That was the standard, traditional understanding from the Hebrew / Aramaic position of the era.
 
Last edited:

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,582
Reaction score
2,747
Points
108
I don't think I've misunderstood. I did state "substance."
I know. Let me clarify:

Suffice to say the whole Arian/Athanasian controversy revolved around whether or not Jesus was Divine substance.
No it wasn't. It revolved around whether Christ's Divine substance was the same Divine substance of the Father. That Christ was Divine was not a point of controversy. That Christ was a substance was not a point of controversy either. The Divine substance was the controversy, but no-one was suggesting it was a mortal and not divine substance.
 

Devils' Advocate

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,086
Reaction score
382
Points
83
Location
In this so called Reality. Well, most of the time.
I took the following quote from the article of the First Council from the Catholic Encyclopedia

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made out of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm

Thomas, this seems to say to me that the decision was made to reject any other form Jesus may have had. Which seems to contradict your assertion that it was merely a controversy of Divine substance. It seems at the very least, open to this interpretation.
 

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,582
Reaction score
2,747
Points
108
Hi DA -

Thomas, this seems to say to me that the decision was made to reject any other form Jesus may have had. Which seems to contradict your assertion that it was merely a controversy of Divine substance. It seems at the very least, open to this interpretation.
It rejected any form of divine substance that differs from the divine substance of the Father.

No-one mentioned 'mortal substance'.
 

A Cup Of Tea

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,311
Reaction score
569
Points
108
Yeah I read it as if he is divine "now", but what is rejected was that he wasn't always or his relationships with the divine is dfferent.
  • There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten
  • that He was made out of nothing (ex ouk onton)
  • or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change,
 

juantoo3

....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Messages
8,172
Reaction score
446
Points
83
Location
up to my arse in alligators
A bit more food for thought from the Jewish side:

Was Moses made of "Divine, G!d stuff?" He did more for the Jewish people than Yashua did.

Was Elijah made of "Divine, G!d stuff?" He did more for the Jewish people than Yashua did.

What about Melchizedek? He wasn't born and didn't die, and he is the one who formally blessed Abraham.

Indeed, if the Gospels are to be believed (and I really want to believe), Yashua was metaphysically coached by these three and equated by his followers as being type and kind of these three Old Testament persons. Yet according to Christian doctrine, Christ supercedes all of these, and only Christ is made of "G!d stuff," the others are not.

Compounded by the historical chase at the time among the Jews in Palestine for a Messiah, and even after several attempts over a span of about 150-200 years or so (before Yashua was born until approx. 130 AD +/-) that got them booted from their homeland...Yashua was one "Messiah" that was not widely recognized among the Jewish people. There are a host of excuses as to why, but the only valid one I believe is that the faith that he started (wittingly or not) still continues to this day.
 

wil

UNeyeR1
Moderator
Messages
23,154
Reaction score
2,656
Points
108
Location
a figment of your imagination
Was Moses made of "Divine, G!d stuff?" He did more for the Jewish people than Yashua did. Was Elijah made of "Divine, G!d stuff?" He did more for the Jewish people than Yashua did. What about Melchizedek? He wasn't born and didn't die, and he is the one who formally blessed Abraham.

For me, yes... we are all sons and daughters of the most high...

tis the choices we make that determine our futures and our legacies
 

juantoo3

....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Messages
8,172
Reaction score
446
Points
83
Location
up to my arse in alligators
True...but there was a strong Messianic "movement" among the Jews of Palestine at that period of time, that culminated with Bar Kochba.
 

Devils' Advocate

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,086
Reaction score
382
Points
83
Location
In this so called Reality. Well, most of the time.
Oh absolutely, there was a strong Messianic movement, which also proceeds to this day, if I am not mistaken. My comment was that Jesus would never be that messiah for the Jews. As I understand it (and this is an area I know barely enough to be dangerous!), the true messiah will be a descendent of King David. Also the true messiah will usher in world peace. That event should be hard to miss!
 
Top