Hi cyberpi -
cyberpi said:
Ok, someone throw this dog a bone... how do each of you explain just these two verses in your beliefs
It is axiomatic of any hermeneutical system or structure that the whole is transmitted in the whole, and parts in parts, and that the parts themselves derive their meaning from the whole into which they are knit – so the meaning of any part in particular can be found, or emerges, from the whole.
Contemplation of Scripture, as a whole, will provide the answer.
+++
John 13:3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;
That is 'explained' in the Mystery of the Trinity.
cf, for example, 'Trinity higher than being' in "The Mystical Theology" of Dionysius the Areopagite.
John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
That is 'explained' in the Mystery of the Incarnation.
cf "The distinction between natures was never abolished in their union"
as declared by the Council of Chalcedon.
"Be transformed by the renewal of your
nous
St Paul advised the Church in Rome (Romans 12:2)
This from
Christian Metaphysics: Trinity, Incarnation and Creation:
"At the heart of Christianity stand two mysteries: the Trinity and the Incarnation. The question (for the metaphysician) is this: do these two mysteries manifest some deeper reality or do they themselves comprise the
ne plus ultra of metaphysics?"
"By contrast I make no such restriction on the content of metaphysics. Indeed, to exclude the Trinity from metaphysics is in some important sense to falsify reality from the beginning."
Essay in full available on
The Veil
+++
As I wrote to someone recently, it is somewhat of a grand assumption to think that anything posted here (and no offence to any postee is inferred) can or does 'threaten' either Christian faith or Christian doctrine.
We've had some of the finest philosophical minds of the last 2,000 years working on the case (and equally some of the finest minds against us) with a rigour and a tenacity that is a marvel of the method (Aquinas, for example, still stands as a model).
We are a robust doctrine, if not bulletproof.
For every Bultmann who would tear it all down, is a Benoit who reveals the fallacy of his argument, a von Balthasar who unveils a new and magisterial beauty ... for every Rahner who renders the whole thing complex and inpenetrable, there is the simple lucidity of a Ratzinger ...
... and if I should appear, at times, sentimental, emotive and naive, please do not be mistaken, I'm just letting my proverbial hair down (I am in fact as bald as a coot) ... as an
anam cara of mine observed, 'we are not robots.'
Thomas
