For those interested:
St. John Chrysostom’s brilliant Easter sermon at the Great Vigil of Easter. It makes Easter all about Christ’s complete and utter victory over evil in the harrowing of hell.
The Lord has destroyed death by enduring it.
The Lord vanquished hell when he descended into it.
The Lord put hell in turmoil even as it tasted of his flesh.
Isaiah foretold this when he said,
“You, O Hell, were placed in turmoil when he encountering you below.”
Hell was in turmoil having been eclipsed.
Hell was in turmoil having been mocked.
Hell was in turmoil having been destroyed.
Hell was in turmoil having been abolished.
Hell was in turmoil having been made captive.
Hell grasped a corpse, and met God.
Hell seized earth, and encountered heaven.
Hell took what it saw, and was overcome by what it could not see.
"St. John Chrysostom’s brilliant Easter sermon at the Great Vigil of Easter. It makes Easter all about Christ’s complete and utter victory over evil in the harrowing of hell."
ReplyDeleteSincere question honest.
What does that mean the Christ accomplished complete and utter victory over evil? In what way? What evidence for this exists and how does this make the real world we actually see and experience better for this?
I understand the sentiment. I don't understand the application or reality of it in the real world of people.
I respect the posting.
I don't understand the above statement any more than I do this:
"Through the life, death, resurrection and ascension of the God-man - God gives himself in holy love to humanity, and responds, as man, to God. He does so by coming to us as man; and as man doing for us, what we could never do for ourselves."
by former WCG Ted Johnston on his Surprising God Blog.
These kinds of statements go round and round and seem to land no where in practical fact. Jesus is FULLY GOD and then FULLY MAN. Truly a mystery but am I at fault for questioning the sanity of such concoctions? Can something be fully black and fully white or fully full and fully empty?
Just because something makes no sense does not mean it can be explained as so deep and amazing that it takes another mind to understand it. That seems like a dangerous way to prove things.
Happy Bunny Day I guess. Maybe it's me.
Bear with me...
ReplyDelete"J.B. Torrance comments:
It is this thought of an all-inclusive vicarious humanity [of Jesus] which was developed by Irenaeus in his doctrine of anakephalaiosis or recapitulation... The Christ by whom all things were made is the same Christ who, for us and our salvation, assumed our humanity. In other words, the Son of God who created Adam for sonship and communion and immortality does not abandon his loving purposes for humanity, for every single human person. But in order to redeem humanity and to bring to fulfillment his purpose (his telos) for humanity, for everyone, he himself becomes a man that he might fulfill for us in his own person God's purposes of love and obedience and worship. Thus what is lost in the one man ("in Adam") - communion with God - is restored and fulfilled for each one of us in Christ ("the last Adam"), and held out for us by the Spirit in the Lord's Supper. This, of course, is the Pauline doctrine of Romans 5 and Ephesians 1 - that God's great purpose is that "he might gather together in one all things in Christ" (Eph 1:10) (p52"
What does this mean? It simply seems to be a theological run around trying to explain the inexplicable or even a false view endeavoring to be made true.
There never was a literal first Adam as we read in Genesis. Those who think there was compared to the science of human origins are truly in the dark ages. If there was no first Adam literally, then there can be no Second Adam literally. I would expect first century types to no understand human origins and make such analogies but today it simply is not good enough.
I did not find anything in my Presbyterian background as when actually reading it, it made no sense in reality. It seemed like doubletalk . I know this is why the more simple proof texting of WCG and the Wonderful World Tomorrow and K of G made much more sense at the time.
amen
ok not amen...
ReplyDeleteLet's ask if the Apostle Paul also used theological doubletalk? We feel obligated to accept this kind of thinking but if I made very clear OT references mean what they never could mean, I'd be dismissed as ingnorant and a fool. If Paul was a Pharisee of the Pharisees and a Hebrew of the Hebrews and "above his fellows," how on God's green earth could he be allowed to make this analogy from the OT????
In Galatians 3:16 The Apostle Paul notes:
"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."
The Apostle Paul is saying that the promises that God made to Abraham and his seed were not to the "seed " of Abraham, meaning his descendants, Isaac, Jacob, and the nation of Israel, including David, and Solomon, .......but to one "seed"....Jesus Christ. He misuses the idea of seeds just as one might misuse 'sheeps' thinking that 'sheep' was one and you'd have to say 'sheeps' to mean more than one. You know, 'feed my sheeps"???
Was God referring to one "seed" Jesus Christ or...........
was God referring to "seed" plural, meaning many individuals, the "seed" of Abraham, the nation of Israel....when God made his promises?
Consider the following.....
Genesis 13:16 KJV
16And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered
Genesis 15:5 KJV
5And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
Genesis 22:17 KJV
17That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies
Genesis 26:4 KJV
4And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
Would a Pharisee and smartest pencil in the Hebrew box use such a terrible analogy? He made the Torah mean what it never meant to win over Gentiles who probably would not be willing or able to check his source. Is this not doubletalk on Paul's part?
Dennis wrote: "...These kinds of statements go round and round and seem to land no where in practical fact. Jesus is FULLY GOD and then FULLY MAN. Truly a mystery but am I at fault for questioning the sanity of such concoctions? Can something be fully black and fully white or fully full and fully empty?..."
ReplyDeleteGood question! Christ couldn'tbe fully God and fully man. To say that Christ was anything but fully human (flesh, blood, bone) when He walked this earth is to teach the spirit of antichrist:
"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist..." 1John 4:3
To me that is black and white, but you asked: "...Can something be fully black and fully white or fully full and fully empty?"
It doesn't make any sense to put something like that together. It just does not mix. It would be like trying to make a saled dressing by mixing oil and vinegar together. They just won't mix and stay together, but it can taste good on a salad.
To make Christ full/half man and full/half God seems to make some sort of a freak being, but it can't happen.
It's almost like asking: what would one have if they mix a cat and a dog?
They just don't mix together!
John
"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist..." 1John 4:3
ReplyDeleteThis is an awfully early scripture pointing out that some were contesting that the Jesus story was about a flesh and blood human instead of a cosmic Christ. The church had to make him a story book earth man and this scripture indicates some were denying there ever was a fleshly Jesus and they knew it. The Church could not put up with that . But how can such a problem come up so soon. It was like saying JFK didn't exist. It wasn't all that long ago.
This problem indicates the Gospel Earth Jesus stories had not yet been formulated or circulated
However, I do like the picture here with this post of Jesus, the Son portrayed as the Sun with his head on the classic symbol of the ecliptic/celestrial equator cross of the Spring Equinox. Coming up out of the darkness of Hell as the sun rises to take away the darkness of winter at Easter is a nice touch
ReplyDelete:)
Dennis,
ReplyDeleteYou quote - Genesis 22:17 KJV
17That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies
Should you not also quote the next verse:-
Genesis 22:18 KJV
And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice
Isn’t Paul referring to this verse? Isn’t Paul saying that one of the promises to Abraham is that his ‘principle seed’, the Messiah should come from Abraham? Genesis does record a number of different promises made to Abraham.
Of course that would assume that God had a part in inspiring the scriptures, and in inspiring Paul – both of these things I realise you can no longer accept.
It is the age old story of the god who descended into the underworld at the winter soltice, but vanquished the forces of darkness by the equinox. It is the story of Osiris, Mithros, Jesus, and many others.
ReplyDeleteI understand that apologetic but in the context it is just another way of saying Abraham's descendents will be a blessing etc. Also, All those references say "seed" of course and the idea of Paul thinking it would refer to Messiah alone since it doesn't say "seeds" is just bad exegesis.
ReplyDeleteIf that is what Paul was referring to, the "seeds" idea is still flawed
Dennis,
ReplyDeleteI don't question your sincerity in what you now believe, but it sounds like you do not believe in God at all. If not, that's fine for you. Fot those of us who do, Thank You "No2HWA" for posting that. I don't know why early christianity named Resurrection Day Easter, but that doesn't change the event. You have to have faith that Jesus died and cleansed our sins and rose from the dead. Without his sacrifice we have no hope. Its sad that the COG's do very little if nothing to acknowledge the resurrection. Its a tragedy because this is the most joyful event that has ever happened in the history of mankind. Yes life is difficult but you ask what has changed in the world, people have hope and have a reason to strive to live a good life in this world, in expectation of eternal life in the next.
The Gospel According to Mish
Dennis,
ReplyDeleteI don't question your sincerity in what you now believe, but it sounds like you do not believe in God at all. If not, that's fine for you. Fot those of us who do, Thank You "No2HWA" for posting that. I don't know why early christianity named Resurrection Day Easter, but that doesn't change the event. You have to have faith that Jesus died and cleansed our sins and rose from the dead. Without his sacrifice we have no hope. Its sad that the COG's do very little if nothing to acknowledge the resurrection. Its a tragedy because this is the most joyful event that has ever happened in the history of mankind. Yes life is difficult but you ask what has changed in the world, people have hope and have a reason to strive to live a good life in this world, in expectation of eternal life in the next.
The Gospel According to Mish
I went to Easter services yesterday and was struck how in the old wcg we observed the ntbmo and passover but we did nothing to commemorate the resurrection. Our focus seemed to be much more on misery and death. Not so much about life victorious. Quite a remarkable difference in outlook.
ReplyDelete@mishmash I believe the early Christians called it Pascal. Easter is from the anglo-saxon. However like much of the language it has changed its meaning so I don't buy into the once pagan always pagan reasoning
It's interesting that Easter is basically a pagan holiday with Christian brushstrokes over it, and even though the pagan holiday's message is so much like the Christian message, Christians tend to deny that fact.
ReplyDeleteI like Easter, and we had a nice time with family having Easter dinner yesterday.
I've been to a variety of Easter services- in a variety of Christian churches, since I've left the WCG.
It was nice, too, to see an Islamic Mosque open up it's doors to let a Christian church have an Easter service there this year.
Norm
"I don't question your sincerity in what you now believe, but it sounds like you do not believe in God at all"
ReplyDeleteIt's more what I no longer am willing to believe not so much about what I do believe. I leave that door open to the learning and seeking that tends to lead me. It's not even a no God thing. It is the small God of the Hebrews and the cultic aspects of all that entails that no longer inspires. Seeing how the NT abuses and misuses the OT is a problem for me and for many theologians as well
Thank you Mickey. I remembered something about the Greek orthodox calling it Pascha too.
ReplyDeleteCan't we all please go back to that so we can enjoy the fact that without the resurrection there is no hope for eternal life ?
Let's just minus out the eggs but keep the chocolate !