Do We Have a Christ Followers Thread?

[YGIFS 19,458]

It's an interesting line of discussion.  Obviously his background and experiences lend themselves to a much more profound inquiry into the nature of dreams.  Are they, on some level, perhaps deity-imbued to us as a way of reaching our souls indirectly?  Like most topics, it's not binary to me---scientific versus non-secular. 

It can slide into more into another "Well, if I can sometimes control my dreams (lucid) either right before sleep or during the dream itself...then I have free will.  Well, dream free will which means I can't control everything...but the counterpoint---I can also control things in my dreams that I couldn't possibly do in my waking life."  That is to say, it has to be some modicum of independent existence from 'the Dreamer.'  Granted, I did not choose the color themes of the buildings in my dream.  And yet, I was able to in a somewhat lucid state, decide to enter one of them and take a box with an electric pencil sharpener in it and put it in my bag.  This is because earlier in the day in my waking life, I got frustrated with a hand-use one, and wished for an electric pencil sharpener.  Or did 'the Dreamer' know this and gently sweep my mind, and as a result my dream self's hand? 

If I say they are random neurological events, and sometimes I can even control them consciously to the point I remember making the decisions/choices upon my awake, is the religious retort simply, "That was God, or the Dreamer, or the Ancient Egyptian God Ren-the Director?"  If I admit they are completely visited upon me by a higher being, then don't I remember them more vividly?  If it's all a plan to incept me with feelings, ideas, and deeds...why the mystery?  Why the blackouts?  Why the nightmares?  Why can almost all primates dream, not just humans?  

Anyway, this is a fascinating topic of suggestion.  I'll hang back.  But I want just write this here to remember to come back to it because it is quite related to Axiom's discussion topic.  Another psychologist-theologian by trade.  Plenty of evidence to suggest why we remember truly bad events (death of a loved one) and truly wonderful events (birth of a first child).  Why so many random innocuous events from decades ago?  Why these seemingly benign 10-second clips from 3rd grade of just me waiting for my teacher to spell check my essay?  Are they, in aggregate, markers on a trail that we will need after we die?  The big memories, good or bad, we can recall them anytime.  Are the throw-away ones actually the ones we'll use to find our way later on?  Who is behind that?  

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

When I read an Axiom post I start to zone out and all I see is:

 

[Anastasis 23,720]

On 12/26/2022 at 3:00 PM, axiom of foundation said:

For centuries there has been both the use of icons and the resistance to icons.  The 2nd council of Nicaea in the 8th century decided against the iconoclasts and that “it is proper to accord to [icons] a fervent and reverent veneration, not, however, the veritable adoration which, according to our faith, belongs to the Divine Being alone – for the honor accorded to the image passes over to its prototype, and whoever venerate the image venerate in it the reality of what is there represented.”

So the line here that is drawn is between veneration, which is acceptable and proper, and adoration, which is for God alone.  I understand the argument, but in practice it is not familiar for me. 

 

There are a lot of angles that you can take that discussion.  Theological, historical, theogeopolitical, or just pragmatic.  ATM I prefer the latter. Shit there is even a monetary policy angle if you want to go there (don't xristo-crypto me bro!). I don't see much difference between having images (eikons) of my grandmother around the house and having images of Saints or the Feasts. They each represent things that are important to me and that I would like to surround myself with. Why wouldn't one have those images surrounding them and through those images have an outlet to express their connections and affinity. I understand why that might a foreign practice in a certain context for a protestant, but it seems totally natural with a broader perspective.   

Edited January 6, 2023 by Anastasis

[HamsterHookah 112]

17 hours ago, axiom of foundation said:

 

So what do the Christ followers of surly horns believe regarding dreams?  Are they simply the result of neurons firing when we sleep, or is there sometimes a supernatural element to them?  Do you pay any attention to your dreams or assign any significance to them? 

 

I think for most it's as you suggest-- nonsense and chaos and brain repair, etc.

I think for some, like your maths friend, there could very well be a spiritual gift of interpretation / dream interpretation under the realm of prophesy. 

1 Cor. 12:10 says: "to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues."

I think more interesting than your question actually is the idea that an infinite, all-powerful and knowing God Creator created everything except the laws of maths. As if maths alone stand outside of any other natural laws of the universe.

[gsoda3 3,362]

17 hours ago, axiom of foundation said:

For me, my dreams are mostly nonsense and chaos, and I have difficulty ever deriving any meaning from them.  But maybe I am just not paying enough attention to them.  

So what do the Christ followers of surly horns believe regarding dreams?  Are they simply the result of neurons firing when we sleep, or is there sometimes a supernatural element to them?  Do you pay any attention to your dreams or assign any significance to them? 

 

 

i'm 40, for the first 38 years of my life i didn't really consider dreams to be an area God worked in.  there are certainly evidences of the divine working through dreams throughout scripture but i wrote those cases off the same way i wrote off apostolic miracles-  they don't happen anymore in this era.  

 

but in the past couple years we've had missionary friends tell compelling stories of conversions occurring through dreams in people groups who believe dreams are a medium which God uses to interact with us.  different people, different places, but lots of similar stories.  it's hard to write them off completely and i would say i probably fall now in the camp who are still skeptical but probably believe God works through them.  

 

4 minutes ago, HamsterHookah said:

I think more interesting than your question actually is the idea that an infinite, all-powerful and knowing God Creator created everything except the laws of maths. As if maths alone stand outside of any other natural laws of the universe.

ain't no one 100% right all the time.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, HamsterHookah said:

I think for most it's as you suggest-- nonsense and chaos and brain repair, etc.

I think for some, like your maths friend, there could very well be a spiritual gift of interpretation / dream interpretation under the realm of prophesy. 

1 Cor. 12:10 says: "to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues."

I think more interesting than your question actually is the idea that an infinite, all-powerful and knowing God Creator created everything except the laws of maths. As if maths alone stand outside of any other natural laws of the universe.

The idea that mathematical facts and "objects" (numbers, shapes, etc) are in the category of the uncreated and thus fundamentally different than physical facts and objects, which are created, has been around at least since the ancient Greeks.   Leibniz wrote at length on this topic and listed mathematical facts as necessary, meaning that they must be so as their negation is not logically possible, and considered physical facts as contingent, meaning their negation is possible and therefore they must be made to be so by something external (i.e. created).  I don't believe God created mathematics, nor do I believe that God created Himself.  These are the uncreated, eternal things.  I think the realm of mathematics (shapes, numbers, abstract dimensional space, logical necessity, etc) is either some aspect of God, or the eternal "place" where God resides (i.e. heaven). 

        

5 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

 

i'm 40, for the first 38 years of my life i didn't really consider dreams to be an area God worked in.  there are certainly evidences of the divine working through dreams throughout scripture but i wrote those cases off the same way i wrote off apostolic miracles-  they don't happen anymore in this era.  

 

but in the past couple years we've had missionary friends tell compelling stories of conversions occurring through dreams in people groups who believe dreams are a medium which God uses to interact with us.  different people, different places, but lots of similar stories.  it's hard to write them off completely and i would say i probably fall now in the camp who are still skeptical but probably believe God works through them.  

 

ain't no one 100% right all the time.

I've heard similar.  I have a friend who recently had a dream that lead to his religious conversion.  He is a very dry, analytical type and was raised in nonreligious home.  I'm a bit envious of these folks; I wish I had some powerful dream that I was certain had significant meaning and purpose.    

[YGIFS 19,458]

Sometimes we project shit onto our dreams because it's the most interesting thing that happened to us that day.    

I wanna pick this up again this weekend.  Anybody got any drugs?  

[Gatorubet 30,720]

17 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I understand why that might a foreign practice in a certain context for a protestant, but it seems totally natural with a broader perspective.   

Yeah, blasphemy might be considered a foreign practice for a protestant. Given that the protestant church considers both saints and icon veneration to be unchristian.  And then there is Mary’s role in all this. See 500 years of religious wars. 

Whatever makes people happy is fine with me and I’m good with it.  The problem arises when anyone group says that my interpretation is the only one.  And even that is not a problem so long as they don’t try to insert any of that belief system into nonbelievers secular lives.     

 

[Anastasis 23,720]

4 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Yeah, blasphemy might be considered a foreign practice for a protestant. Given that the protestant church considers both saints and icon veneration to be unchristian.  And then there is Mary’s role in all this. See 500 years of religious wars. 

Whatever makes people happy is fine with me and I’m good with it.

 

Cool cool. 

Everybody should be certainly free to do themselves. 

500 years is a really cute measure. 

[Gatorubet 30,720]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

 

Cool cool. 

Everybody should be certainly free to do themselves. 

500 years is a really cute measure. 

Talk to Luther. He’s the antisemitic cutie.   My reply might’ve been snarkier than I had intended, but your comment seem to ignore the central tenets of Protestantism.  They tell me it was a big thing back in the day.

[Anastasis 23,720]

11 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Talk to Luther.

[Guest]

I'm curious also if the non Christians of surly ever assign any significance or meaning to dreams, or any other signs or omens.  An interesting phenomenon in the US over the last few decades is that the massive drop in church participation has coincided with the U.S. psychic industry growing 52% since 2005. I have a number of nonreligious friends who believe in signs and omens of various types.  They typically assign the message sender to nature or the universe, so it's not necessarily tied to belief in the supernatural.  But functionally it's indistinguishable - an important message or sign from a power greater than themselves that they should heed.

 

 

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

I'm curious also if the non Christians of surly ever assign any significance or meaning to dreams, or any other signs or omens.  An interesting phenomenon in the US over the last few decades is that the massive drop in church participation has coincided with the U.S. psychic industry growing 52% since 2005. I have a number of nonreligious friends who believe in signs and omens of various types.  They typically assign the message sender to nature or the universe, so it's not necessarily tied to belief in the supernatural.  But functionally it's indistinguishable - an important message or sign from a power greater than themselves that they should heed.
 
 

Non Christian (I suppose agnostic with an atheist twist) checking in.

No, I don’t assign much significance to dreams. I suppose they might give a glimpse of the subconscious without one’s conscious filters being applied. But in general, no. I also think ghosts, psychics and astrology are a bunch of bullshit geared towards people who are dumb enough to believe such things.

[HornOnTheBayou 9,062]

2 hours ago, Patricio Swayze said:

Non Christian (I suppose agnostic with an atheist twist) checking in.

No, I don’t assign much significance to dreams. I suppose they might give a glimpse of the subconscious without one’s conscious filters being applied. But in general, no. I also think ghosts, psychics and astrology are a bunch of bullshit geared towards people who are dumb enough to believe such things.

Same here. Although I'm more of the atheist with an agnostic twist. 

[HamsterHookah 112]

I don't think it was ever explicitly stated, but what do you Christ followers think the thorn in Paul's side was that he talks a lot about? 

[Post Oak 20,568]

19 minutes ago, HamsterHookah said:

I don't think it was ever explicitly stated, but what do you Christ followers think the thorn in Paul's side was that he talks a lot about? 

A woman

[South Austin 53,227]

1 hour ago, Post Oak said:

A woman

Rep this righteous mother fucker.

[Cacti 191]

7 hours ago, HamsterHookah said:

I don't think it was ever explicitly stated, but what do you Christ followers think the thorn in Paul's side was that he talks a lot about? 

I believe Paul was haunted by his conscience, by the guilt he felt for violently persecuting Christians. His conversion ended the persecution but, like all of us, he forever had to endure the memory of past wrongdoings.

I believe that is what tormented Paul.

[HamsterHookah 112]

38 minutes ago, Cacti said:

I believe Paul was haunted by his conscience, by the guilt he felt for violently persecuting Christians. His conversion ended the persecution but, like all of us, he forever had to endure the memory of past wrongdoings.

I believe that is what tormented Paul.

My pastor believes this as well. Thanks for the response.

[SHOOTER12 8,886]

9 hours ago, Post Oak said:

A woman

Sort of, no evidence but I think it was lust that plagued him....or is that just me? P

[Frank Drebin 5,836]

On 1/20/2023 at 9:13 AM, HamsterHookah said:

I don't think it was ever explicitly stated, but what do you Christ followers think the thorn in Paul's side was that he talks a lot about? 

I do not know.  I think God chose not to reveal what it was so all of his followers could relate to it. Every one of us has a thorn in our flesh.

[MissingInAction 25,556]

If God is the word for what is all-powerful and rules the universe then it sure as fuck is math. God is math/math is God. What makes math even more God like is that a majority of people are ignorant to its workings the same way ancient humans were ignorant to truth of the sun, moon, and stars.

Of all of these only God is the construct of man.

Edited February 15, 2023 by MissingInAction

[HamsterHookah 112]

1 hour ago, MissingInAction said:

If God is the word for what is all-powerful and rules the universe then it sure as fuck is math. God is math/math is God. Whay makes math even more God like is that a majority of people are ignorance to its workings the same way ancient humans were ignorant to truth of the sun, moon, and stars.

Of all of these only God is the construct of man.

There was a poster I think on this thread positing that math is outside of God, so maybe a peer?

[MissingInAction 25,556]

55 minutes ago, HamsterHookah said:

There was a poster I think on this thread positing that math is outside of God, so maybe a peer?

The idea of a literal singular God entity is just silly IMO. As likely as breaking a mirror brings seven years bad luck. 

God as a metaphor for math is something I can work on accepting.

[mchookem 16,769]

[Guest]

3 hours ago, MissingInAction said:

If God is the word for what is all-powerful and rules the universe then it sure as fuck is math. God is math/math is God. Whay makes math even more God like is that a majority of people are ignorance to its workings the same way ancient humans were ignorant to truth of the sun, moon, and stars.

Of all of these only God is the construct of man.

 

1 hour ago, MissingInAction said:

The idea of a literal singular God entity is just silly IMO. As likely as breaking a mirror brings seven years bad luck. 

God as a metaphor for math is something I can work on accepting.

I can't remember the last time I had a conversation on the relationship between God and math on the internet, but it has been too long.  I remember your username, MissinginAction, because it is a good, distinctive user name and not one like "longhorn_texas86" that used to be common, but I don't remember your views or ideological positions on theological topics.  In any case, we can start with the "God as a metaphor for math" view expressed here.

My position is that math is the unbounded realm of possibilities, meaning whatever is possible can be described by math and whatever is not possible is outside of math.  I believe that either A) God "lives" and can choose options in the realm of possibilities, and He cannot choose things outside what is possible because that is nonsense, or B) the realm of what is possible (i.e. math) is actually some aspect of God.  But I don't think that math is synonymous or interchangeable with God.  The reason I think that is because God has knowledge of choices and He makes choices between possibilities, and math itself cannot do that.  An analogy here is that math is the ultimate game, i.e. fundamental set of rules, and God is the supreme player of the game of games.    

      

[SydneyCarton 49,505]

1 hour ago, MissingInAction said:

The idea of a literal singular God entity is just silly IMO. As likely as breaking a mirror brings seven years bad luck. 

God as a metaphor for math is something I can work on accepting.

I always liked to throw out Gravity, fwiw. 

[MissingInAction 25,556]

2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

I always liked to throw out Gravity, fwiw. 

Absolutely. How do we define/explain gravity? 

Maths.

 

[SydneyCarton 49,505]

1 minute ago, MissingInAction said:

Absolutely. How do we define/explain gravity? 

Maths.

 

Sure. But I fucking hate math. Fuck math, ChevyChase.gif times infinity. 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, MissingInAction said:

The idea of a literal singular God entity is just silly IMO.

Now that I got a bit more time I wanted to comment on this as it relates to option B that I mentioned in my previous post (that the realm of what is possible is some aspect of God).  I think the existence of a singular God is a metaphysical necessity.  Here is why:

In the realm of what is possible, there possibly exists entities that are capable of choosing/selecting some possibilities and moving them from possibility to actuality.  We know such entities are possible because you and I are such entities, and also because some possibilities are actualities while others are not.  However, it is possible that you and I, or any other non-omnipotent entity doesn't exist.  Maybe the very world we live in is not even selected for actual existence, preventing our existence.  So some other more powerful possible entity, defined as one capable of making more fundamental choices regarding reality & actualities, could deny lesser entities their existence. 

But for an omnipotent entity, defined as an entity that can choose any possibility and convert it into a reality, no other entity could possibly deny its existence.  Since it is a possibility that cannot be denied, then it exists as an actuality.  Now for why there are not multiple omnipotent entities, this is because multiple omnipotent entities could not possibly exist in the unbounded realm of possibilities - unless they were perfectly united in will and were homoousios - because otherwise they could disagree and select contradictory things, and contradictions are not possible in the realm of the possible.  Thus the realm of the possible demands a Supreme Monarch.  

[Neonmoon 38,130]

God is a concept by which we measure our pain 

[Guest]

2006 Rose Bowl is the standard by which we measure our pain 

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

2010 championship at the Rose Bowl is the standard by which we measure our pain 

[HamsterHookah 112]

58 minutes ago, axiom of foundation said:

Now that I got a bit more time I wanted to comment on this as it relates to option B that I mentioned in my previous post (that the realm of what is possible is some aspect of God).  I think the existence of a singular God is a metaphysical necessity.  Here is why:

In the realm of what is possible, there possibly exists entities that are capable of choosing/selecting some possibilities and moving them from possibility to actuality.  We know such entities are possible because you and I are such entities, and also because some possibilities are actualities while others are not.  However, it is possible that you and I, or any other non-omnipotent entity doesn't exist.  Maybe the very world we live in is not even selected for actual existence, preventing our existence.  So some other more powerful possible entity, defined as one capable of making more fundamental choices regarding reality & actualities, could deny lesser entities their existence. 

But for an omnipotent entity, defined as an entity that can choose any possibility and convert it into a reality, no other entity could possibly deny its existence.  Since it is a possibility that cannot be denied, then it exists as an actuality.  Now for why there are not multiple omnipotent entities, this is because multiple omnipotent entities could not possibly exist in the unbounded realm of possibilities - unless they were perfectly united in will and were homoousios - because otherwise they could disagree and select contradictory things, and contradictions are not possible in the realm of the possible.  Thus the realm of the possible demands a Supreme Monarch.  

I’ve been watching some cosmological shorts on RightNow media, so this hits close to home.

[MissingInAction 25,556]

1 hour ago, axiom of foundation said:

Now that I got a bit more time I wanted to comment on this as it relates to option B that I mentioned in my previous post (that the realm of what is possible is some aspect of God).  I think the existence of a singular God is a metaphysical necessity.  Here is why:

In the realm of what is possible, there possibly exists entities that are capable of choosing/selecting some possibilities and moving them from possibility to actuality.  We know such entities are possible because you and I are such entities, and also because some possibilities are actualities while others are not.  However, it is possible that you and I, or any other non-omnipotent entity doesn't exist.  Maybe the very world we live in is not even selected for actual existence, preventing our existence.  So some other more powerful possible entity, defined as one capable of making more fundamental choices regarding reality & actualities, could deny lesser entities their existence. 

But for an omnipotent entity, defined as an entity that can choose any possibility and convert it into a reality, no other entity could possibly deny its existence.  Since it is a possibility that cannot be denied, then it exists as an actuality.  Now for why there are not multiple omnipotent entities, this is because multiple omnipotent entities could not possibly exist in the unbounded realm of possibilities - unless they were perfectly united in will and were homoousios - because otherwise they could disagree and select contradictory things, and contradictions are not possible in the realm of the possible.  Thus the realm of the possible demands a Supreme Monarch.  

There is a classic episode of The Twilight Zone which expounds on this very idea. A couple of "spacemen" land on a planet and discover a tiny alien race. One of the space dudes starts to fuck with them, and the aliens begin to worship him as a god.

Futurama as well as probably several other scifi shows have offered their creative interpretations. 

That really is the only option other than total fucking luck.

[Anastasis 23,720]

4 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

unless they were perfectly united in will and were homoousios

[Anastasis 23,720]

1 hour ago, axiom of foundation said:

2006 Rose Bowl is the standard by which we measure our pain 

I hate you right now. 

[Guest]

On 2/15/2023 at 9:37 PM, Patricio Swayze said:

On 2/15/2023 at 9:33 PM, axiom of foundation said:

2010 championship at the Rose Bowl is the standard by which we measure our pain 

Somehow they both work.  We can measure it by seeing how far we are from paradise, and also by how close we are to absolute despair.   

On 2/15/2023 at 9:59 PM, HamsterHookah said:

I’ve been watching some cosmological shorts on RightNow media, so this hits close to home.

Any ones in particular you would recommend? 

On 2/15/2023 at 11:07 PM, Anastasis said:

I thought you would appreciate that part.  That overview is a basic outline of an ontological argument I put together some years ago. It has similarities to other OAs, which is the nature of such arguments.  I developed several over the years and would send them to sidis for consideration and review.  They were not very well articulated when I first put them together, and also filled with superfluous technical details, but sidis is a true agnostic gentleman philosopher and would always take the time to provide comment. 

For me, it's inescapable that actuality requires experience and choice, and that only actuality can produce other actualities.  It follows that there must be Actus Purus.  It's either that or the acceptance of mere brute facts, which I think is absurd.  

 

 

[Guest]

On 2/15/2023 at 11:07 PM, Anastasis said:

 

On the topic of ousios, I read about the use of this word in the Lord's Prayer some time ago and thought some here might find it interesting.  

The word that is translated to "daily" in the English version of the Lord's Prayer is epiousion - "Give us today our epiousion bread." This word is difficult word to translate because it only appears in the Lord’s Prayer and nowhere else in the Bible nor anywhere else in all of ancient Greek literature.  The Koine Greek word for day/daily is hemera and it is used throughout the new testament – in fact, all other instances of "day” or “daily" in the English New Testament are hemera, including the word for “day” in the same verse in the Lord’s Prayer “give us this day…”  – so Jesus did not likely say a word or phrase in Aramaic that meant daily in the literal sense as there would be no need for the gospel writers to develop the new word epiousion for that.  The term epiousion seems to be a neologism from combing epi, which means “above,” “over,” or “super,” and ousia, which means “essence,” “being,” “substance,” or “nature.”   Early Christian writers on the subject viewed the term as meaning “super-substantial,” “super-essential,” “supernatural,” or essential/necessary/needed, and also as spiritual or non-material.  They also saw it as a direct reference to the Body of Christ, being the bread of heaven and the bread of life for the mind and soul.  

Here is a long passage on the topic from the early Christian scholar Origen, written sometime in the early third century (bold is mine for emphasis):

Spoiler

Give us today our Needful Bread, or as Luke has it, Give us daily our Needful Bread. Seeing that some suppose that it is meant that we should pray for material bread, their erroneous opinion deserves to be done away with and the truth about the needful bread set forth, in the following manner. We may put the question to them—how can it be that He, who says that heavenly and great things ought to be asked for as if, on their view, He has forgotten His teaching now enjoins the offering of intercession to the Father for an earthly and little thing, since neither is the bread which is assimilated into our flesh a heavenly thing nor is it asking a great thing to request it?

For my part I shall follow the Teacher's own teaching as to the bread and cite the passages in detail. To men who have come to Capernaum to seek Him He says, in the Gospel according to John, Verily, verily, I tell you you seek me not because you saw signs but because you ate of the loaves of bread and were filled . . . for he that has eaten and been filled with the loaves of bread which have been blessed by Jesus seeks the more to grasp the Son of God more closely and hastens toward Him.

Wherefore He will enjoin: Work not for the food that perishes but for the food that abides unto life eternal which the Son of Man shall give you. And when, upon that, they who had heard inquired and said: What are we to do that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered and said to them: This is the work of God that you believe on him whom He has sent. As it is written in Psalms, God sent His Word and healed them, that is the diseased, and believers in that Word work the works of God which are food that abides unto life eternal.

And my Father, He says, gives you the true bread from heaven, for the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. It is true bread that nourishes the true man who is made in God's image, and he that has been nourished by it also becomes in the Creator's likeness. What is more nourishing to the soul than Word, or what more precious to the mind of him that is capable of receiving it than the Wisdom of God?

What is more congenial to the rational nature than Truth? Should it be urged in objection to this view that He would not in that case teach men to ask for needful bread as if something other than Himself, it is to be noted that He also discourses in the Gospel according to John sometimes as if it were other than Himself but at other times as if He is Himself the Bread. The former in the sense of the words: Moses hath given you the bread from heaven yet not the true bread, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.

In the latter sense, to those who had said to Him Ever give us this bread, He says: I am the bread of life: he that comes unto me shall not hunger, and he that believes on me shall not thirst; and shortly after: I am the living bread that is come down from heaven: if anyone eat of this bread he shall live unto eternity: yea and the bread which I shall give is my flesh which I shall give for the sake of the life of the world.

Now since all manner of nourishment is spoken of as bread according to Scripture as is clear from the fact that it is recorded of Moses that he ate not bread and drank not water forty days, and since the nourishing Word is manifold and various, not all being capable of nourishment by the solidity and strength of the divine teachings, He is therefore pleased to offer strenuous nourishment befitting men more perfect, where He says:

The bread which I shall give is my flesh which I shall give for the sake of the life of the world: and shortly after: Except you eat the flesh of the son of Man and drinks His blood, you have not life in yourselves. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood hath life eternal, and I will raise him up in the last day. for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.  As the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so also he that eats me—he too shall live because of me. This is the true food, Christ's flesh, which being Word has become flesh, as it is said And the Word became flesh. When we eat and drink the Word He tabernacles in us.

When He is assimilated the words are fulfilled: We beheld His glory. This is the bread that is come down from heaven. Not as the fathers ate and died, he that eats this bread shall live unto eternity. Discoursing to infant Corinthians who walk in the way of man Paul says: I gave you milk to drink, not meat, for you were not yet able. Nay even now you are not yet able, for you are still of the flesh; and in the Epistle to Hebrews: And you are become in need of milk, not of solid nourishment. For any one who partakes of milk is devoid of moral reason, for he is infant.

But solid nourishment is for mature men who by force of use have their senses trained to discriminate good and evil. In my opinion the words: One man hath faith to eat anything, but he that is weak eats vegetables are also in his intention meant to refer not to material forms of nourishment but to the words of God that nourish the soul: Of these the man most faithful and mature is able to partake of any, he being denoted in the words One man hath faith to eat anything, whereas the weaker and more immature is content with simpler teachings that do not quite produce full strength in him, reference being intended to him in the words But he that is weak eats vegetables.

There is also in Solomon a saying in the Proverbs which I think teaches that the man who by reason of simplicity is incapable of the stronger and greater sentiments is better, short of false thought, than the man who, though more ready and keener and of greater insight into things, fails to penetrate the principle of peace and harmony in all. Solomon's passage runs as follows: Better is hospitality of vegetables served with friendship and grace than a fatted calf with enmity.

 

Many a time do we accept untutored simpler entertainment, accompanied by good conscience, as guests at the table of those who are unable to furnish us with more, with greater satisfaction than any elevation of words upreared against the knowledge of God and proclaiming with ample plausibility a sentiment alien to the Father of our Lord Jesus who has given the law and the prophets. In order, therefore, that we may neither fall sick of soul for lack of nourishment nor die to God because of famine of the Lord's word, let us in obedience to the teaching of our Savior, with righter faith and life, ask the Father for the living bread which is the same as the needful bread.

Let us now consider what the word epiousion, needful, means. First of all it should be known that the word epiousion is not found in any Greek writer whether in philosophy or in common usage, but seems to have been formed by the evangelists. At least Matthew and Luke, in having given it to the world, concur in using it in identical form. The same thing has been done by translators from Hebrew in other instances also; for what Greek ever used the expression enotizou or akoutisthete instead of eistaota dexai or akousai poice se.

Exactly like the expression epiousion, needful, is one found in Moses' writings, spoken by God: Ye shall be my periousios—peculiar people. Either word seems to me to be a compound of ousia—essence—the former signifying the bread that contributes to the essence, the latter denoting the people that has to do with the essence and is associated with it. As for ousia, essence, in the strict sense, by those who assert the priority of the substance of immaterial things, it is ranked with immaterial things which are in possession of permanent being and neither receive addition nor suffer subtraction. For addition and subtraction are characteristic of material things in reference to which growth and decay take place owing to their being in a state of flux, in need of imported support and nourishment.

If the import exceeds the waste in a period growth takes place, if it is less, diminuation; and if, as in conceivable, there are things receiving no import at all, they are in what I may term unmitigated diminuation. Those on the other hand who hold the substance of immaterial things to be posterior and that of material things to be prior, define essence in these terms: It is the primary matter of existing things out of which they are or the matter of bodily things out of which they are; or that of terms out of which they are; or the primary unqualified substance or presubstance of existing things; or that which admits of all transformations and modifications though itself as such inherently incapable of modification; or that which undergoes all modification and transformation.

On their view essence is inherently unqualified and inarticulate as such. It is even indeterminate in magnitude, but it is involved in all quality as a kind of ready ground for it. By qualities they mean distinctively like the actualities and the activities in which movements and articulations of the essence have come to be, and they say that the essence as such has no part in these inherently though it is always incidentally inseparable from some of them and equally receptive of all the agent's actualizations however it may act and transform. (For it the force associated with the essence, pervading all that would be responsible for all quality and the particular dispositions involving it.)

And they say that it is throughout transformable and throughout divisible, and that any essence can coalesce with any other, all being a unity not withstanding. What I have said in this discussion of essence raised by the expressions the needful bread and the peculiar people has been to distinguish the meanings of essence. And since we have already seen that it is spiritual bread for which we ought to ask, we must needs understand the essence to be akin to the bread, so that just as material bread on assimilation into the body of the nourished passes into its essence, so the living bread which is come down from heaven being assimilated into the mind and soul may impart its own power to him who has lent himself to nourishment from it, and so become the needful bread for which we ask.

And again, in like manner, as the nourished attains strength varying according to the character of the nourishment whether solid and fit for athletes or of the nature of milk and vegetables, so it follows that when the word of God is given either as milk as befits children, or as vegetables as suits invalids, or as flesh as is proper for combatants, each of the nourished acquires this or that power or nature according to the word to which he has lent himself.

Moreover, there is a kind of reputed nourishment which is in reality harmful, a second that is productive of disease, and another that cannot even be assimilated, and all of these may be transferred by analogy to varieties of reputedly nourishing teachings. Needful, therefore, is the bread which corresponds most closely to our rational nature and is akin to our very essence, which invests the soul at once with well being and with strength, and, since the Word of God is immortal, imparts to its eater its own immortality.

It is just this needful bread that seems to me to be otherwise termed in Scripture a tree of life, he who stretches forth his hand to which and takes of it shall live unto eternity. And under a third name this tree is termed wisdom of God in Solomon's words: She is a tree of life to all that take hold upon her and to those that lean upon her as upon the Lord she is safe. And since the angels also are nourished by God's wisdom receiving power for the accomplishment of their proper works from their contemplation in truth with wisdom, it is said in Psalms that the angels also are nourished, men of God designated Hebrews holding communion with the angels and, as it were, even becoming messfellows with them.

Such is the meaning of the saying:  Bread of angels hath man eaten. Far from us be such poverty of mind as to suppose that it is of some material bread, such as is recorded to have come down from heaven upon those who had quitted Egypt, that the angels continually partake and are nourished, as though it was actually in this that the Hebrews had communion with the angels, God's ministering spirits. And while we are considering the needful bread and the tree of life and the wisdom of God and the common nourishment of saintly men and angels, it is not untimely to refer to the three men recorded in Genesis who were entertained by Abraham and partook of three measures of fine flour of wheat kneaded into ember-cakes, and to observe that this may perhaps simply be told in a figurative sense.

It would show that saints are able upon occasion to impart spiritual and rational nourishment not only to men but also to divine powers, either for their benefit or for the exhibition of their most nourishing acquisitions, the angels being cheered and nourished in such display and becoming the readier to cooperate in every way and henceforth to conspire in the apprehension of fuller and greater things by the man who has cheered and so to say nourished them with his store of nourishing teachings already acquired.

No wonder that a man may nourish angels when even Christ avows himself to stand before the door and knock in order that He may enter into him that opens to Him and sup with him on his fare, thereafter Himself in turn to impart His own to him who first according to his individual power has entertained the Son of God. So then the partaker of the needful bread, having his heart confirmed, becomes a son of God whereas he that has portion in the serpent is none other than a spiritual Ethiopian and himself in turn changes into a snake by reason of the serpent's toils so that, even should he express a desire for baptism, he is reproached by the Word and hears it said: Snakes, offspring of vipers, who hath prompted you to flee from the coming wrath?

And David speaks of the serpent body being fed on by Ethiopians: Thou has shattered the heads of the serpents in the water, you hast crushed the serpent's head, you hast given him to be food for the Ethiopian peoples. If it is not absurd to suppose that, since the Son of God and also the Adversary are of essential substances, either of them may become nourishment to this soul or that, why need we hesitate in the case of all powers, better and worse, including human beings, to believe that each one of us may derive nourishment from any of them?

As Peter was about to commune with the centurion Cornelius and those who met together with him in Caesarea, and thereafter to impart the words of God to the Gentiles also, he saw, the vessel let down from heaven by four corners, in which were all manner of quadrupeds and reptiles and beasts of the earth, whereupon he was also bidden rise up and stay and eat, and after he had said in deprecation: Thou knowest that nothing common or unclean hath ever entered my mouth, he was commanded to call no man common or unclean because what God had made clean ought not to be made common by Peter; in the words of the passage, what things God hath made clean make not you common.

Accordingly the clean and unclean food distinguished according to the law of Moses in terms of various animals bear an analogy to the differing characters of rational beings and teaches that some are nourishing for us but others the reverse until God has cleansed and made all, or those from every race, nourishing. But while that is indeed so and while there is such diversity among foods, the needful bread, for which we ought to pray in order to be counted worthy of it, and, being nourished by the Word that was God with God in the beginning to be made divine God, is one and transcends all the foods mentioned.

But it will be said that the word epiousion, needful, is formed from epienai, to go on, so that we are bidden to ask for the bread proper to the coming age, in order that God may take it in advance and bestow it on us now. Thus what was to be given as it were tomorrow would be given us today, today being taken to mean the present age, tomorrow the coming. Since, however, as far as I can judge, the preceding interpretation is better, let us go on to consider the added reference to today in Matthew or the expression daily written in Luke.

To call the whole present age today is a usage frequent in the Scriptures, as in the passages: He is father of the Moabites until today, and He is father of the Ammonites until today, and this account has been reported among Jews until today, and in the Psalms, Today if you hear His voice harden not your hearts. In Joshua, this is expressed very clearly: Turn not away from the Lord in the days of today. And if today means the whole present age, yesterday is probably the bygone age. That I have understood to be its meaning in Psalms and in Paul in the Epistle to Hebrews.

In Psalms it is thus: A thousand years are in thine eyes as a yesterday that had passed—whatever the much talked of millennium means, it is likened to yesterday as opposed to today; and in the apostle it is written, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and unto the ages. No wonder that the whole of an age counts with God as the space of a single day with us, aye and less as I think. We may also consider whether the accounts of feasts or assemblies recorded in terms of days or months or seasons or years have symbolical references to ages. For if the law contains a shadow of coming things, its many Sabbaths must be a shadow of many days and its moons come round in the course of intervals of time, completed by some manner of a moon's conjunction with some sun.

And if a first month and tenth till fourteenth day and a feast of unleavened bread from fourteenth till twenty-first contain a shadow of coming things, who is wise and to such a degree God's friend as to have vision of the first among many months and its tenth day and so on? What need I say of that feast of seven weeks of days, and of that seventh month whose new moon is a day of trumpets and on whose tenth day falls a day of atonement, which are known to God alone who has enacted them? Who has to such a degree received the mind of Christ as to interpret those seventh years of freedom for Hebrew domestic slaves and of remission of debts and of cessation from tillage of the holy land?

And over and above the feast of every seven years there is yet another year, the so-called Jubilee, clearly to imagine whose nature even partially, or the true laws to be fulfilled in it, is for no one save Him who has contemplated the Father's counsel in reference to the order in all the ages according to His unsearchable judgments and His univestigable ways. In trying to reconcile two apostolic passages it has often occurred to me to raise the question how there can be consummation of ages at which Jesus has been manifested once for all unto abolition of sins if there are going to be ages following after this. The Apostles' passages are as follows: In the Epistle to Hebrews, but now at a consummation of the ages He hath been manifested once for all unto abolition of sins through His sacrifice; but in the Epistle to Ephesians, in order that He may show forth, in the years following, the exceeding riches of His Grace in kindness toward us.

Well, in conjecture as to matters so great, I believe that, just as the year's consummation is it's last month after which arises another month's beginning, so probably the present age is a consummation of numerous ages completing as it were a year of ages, and after it certain coming ages will arise whose beginning is the coming age, and in those coming ages God shall show forth the riches of His Grace in kindness, when the greatest sinner, who for having spoken ill against the Holy Spirit is held fast by his sin throughout the present age and the coming one from beginning to end, shall after that, I know not how, receive a dispensation.

When a man has had vision of these things and has given thought to a week of ages with intent to contemplate a kind of holy sabbath—keeping and a month of ages to see God's holy new moon, and a year of ages to survey the feasts of the year when every male must appear before the Lord God, and the corresponding years of so many ages to discern the seventh holy year, and seven weekly years of ages to sing a hymn to the Enactor of Laws so great, how can he after such consideration cavil over what is the merest fraction of an hour in the day of such an age, instead of doing everything to become, through his preparation here, worthy of obtaining the needful bread and to receive it while it is today and daily, what daily means being already clear from the foregoing explanations.

For he who prays today to God, who is from infiniti to infiniti, not only for today but also in a sense for that which is daily shall be enabled to receive from Him who hath power to bestow exceedingly above what we ask or think even things—to use extreme language—which transcend those that eye hath not seen and ear hath not heard and that have not gone up into the heart of man. These considerations seem to me to have been very necessary for the understanding of both the expressions today and daily when we are praying that the needful bread be given us from His Father.   

 

[Not that Bob 743]

But they shouted, all the louder. "Crucify Him!"

[Not that Bob 743]

Woman, why are you crying?

[Patricio Swayze 17,058]

Happy zombie Jesus day to y’all Christians.

[HamsterHookah 112]

Happy Resurrection Day brothers and sisters.

[SHOOTER12 8,886]

On 2/15/2023 at 8:30 AM, Frank Drebin said:

I do not know.  I think God chose not to reveal what it was so all of his followers could relate to it. Every one of us has a thorn in our flesh.

This may be more accurate than we can imagine. I know it makes me very introspective, and consider my thorn(s).

And yes, Happy Easter, or just Happy Sunday to you all.

Edited April 10, 2023 by SHOOTER12

[Bozo_Casanova 26,851]

Bumping because empires once changed hands over stuff like this.  @Kyrie Eleison @Anastasis would love takes from both of you here, both on the amusing “porcine” metaphor and what this being an apparently lively topic says, if anything, about the state of the SBC.
 

 

Edited June 11 by Bozo_Casanova

[Kyrie Eleison 9,312]

8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Bumping because empires once changed hands over stuff like this.  @Kyrie Eleison @Anastasis would love takes from both of you here, both on the amusing “porcine” metaphor and what this being an apparently lively topic says, if anything, about the state of the SBC.
 

 

it means he's a heretical gnostic...

[Anastasis 23,720]

6 hours ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

it means he's a heretical gnostic...

Heretics gonna heretic. 

[Anastasis 23,720]

BTW, hard to reply substantively without understanding what his particular "couple of issues" are. Could be like core christological shit, or just basic rhetorical anti-creedal southern baptist stuff. Or probably both. If their convention feels the need to relitigate something that was debated and largely resolved like 1700 years ago, for whatever reason, have at it. Time is a flat circle. 

Edited June 12 by Anastasis

[HouTex 1,942]

6 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Bumping because empires once changed hands over stuff like this.  @Kyrie Eleison @Anastasis would love takes from both of you here, both on the amusing “porcine” metaphor and what this being an apparently lively topic says, if anything, about the state of the SBC.
 

 

Interesting.  I didn’t think there was a Christian religion that hadn’t adopted the Nicene Creed.  Learn something new every day. 

[Anastasis 23,720]

8 minutes ago, HouTex said:

Interesting.  I didn’t think there was a Christian religion that hadn’t adopted the Nicene Creed.  Learn something new every day. 

Its like basically Jehovah's witnesses, the LDS, and apparently the SBC.