Achronos
What's so good about Cincinnati? You like it? You think Cincinnati is cool? I've never heard anyone say, 'I'm going to Cincinnati on vacation.'
Site Supporter
Warned
Hoplitarches
 Offline
Faith: Building Steam with a Grain of Salt
Jurisdiction: Just as little is seen in pure light as in pure darkness.
Posts: 9,304
And we gave him the Rolling Stone cover?!
|
 |
« on: October 19, 2011, 11:55:39 PM » |
|
I hear this quite a bit from Evangelicals, such as William Lane Craig when he is debating on the historicity and authenticity of the Resurrection by saying that God raised Jesus.
My problem with this is wouldn't you have to explain what God is before you can say God raised Jesus, and why only Jesus?
From an Orthodox perspective, God raising Christ from the dead isn't how it's supposed to be phrased?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
“Without music, life would be a mistake.”
“The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.”
"Face the facts of being what you are, for that is what changes what you are."
"We see at once that the words absolute, divine, eternal, and so on do not express what is implied in them.
|
|
|
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Exarchos
Offline
Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 25,968
EXTERMINATE!
|
|
« Reply #1 on: October 19, 2011, 11:59:02 PM » |
|
I hear this quite a bit from Evangelicals, such as William Lane Craig when he is debating on the historicity and authenticity of the Resurrection by saying that God raised Jesus.
My problem with this is wouldn't you have to explain what God is before you can say God raised Jesus, and why only Jesus?
From an Orthodox perspective, God raising Christ from the dead isn't how it's supposed to be phrased?
Well, didn't St. Paul say that God raised Jesus from the dead? What's wrong with using biblical language to describe the event? Besides, what's the difference between saying God raised Jesus from the dead and saying Jesus raised Himself from the dead? If Jesus is God, then those two statements logically mean the same thing, don't they? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 20, 2011, 12:00:55 AM by PeterTheAleut »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Achronos
What's so good about Cincinnati? You like it? You think Cincinnati is cool? I've never heard anyone say, 'I'm going to Cincinnati on vacation.'
Site Supporter
Warned
Hoplitarches
Offline
Faith: Building Steam with a Grain of Salt
Jurisdiction: Just as little is seen in pure light as in pure darkness.
Posts: 9,304
And we gave him the Rolling Stone cover?!
|
|
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2011, 12:02:14 AM » |
|
I hear this quite a bit from Evangelicals, such as William Lane Craig when he is debating on the historicity and authenticity of the Resurrection by saying that God raised Jesus.
My problem with this is wouldn't you have to explain what God is before you can say God raised Jesus, and why only Jesus?
From an Orthodox perspective, God raising Christ from the dead isn't how it's supposed to be phrased?
Well, didn't St. Paul say that God raised Jesus from the dead? What's wrong with using biblical language to describe the event? Besides, what's the difference between saying God raised Jesus from the dead and saying Jesus raised Himself from the dead? If Jesus is God, then those two statements logically mean the same thing, don't they? Well see that's what I am trying to get at. Why say God raised Jesus from the dead, because to me in this context it seems God is arbitrary. Rather if you say Jesus raised Himself from the dead well that kind of eliminates explaining what God is in the argument right? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
“Without music, life would be a mistake.”
“The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.”
"Face the facts of being what you are, for that is what changes what you are."
"We see at once that the words absolute, divine, eternal, and so on do not express what is implied in them.
|
|
|
|
akimori makoto
|
|
« Reply #3 on: October 20, 2011, 12:19:07 AM » |
|
St Paul's language does give the sense of an action taking place externally -- the act of raising appears to be done to Christ.
Our hymnography, by contrast, tends to talk in terms of the gates of hell being unable to hold the Author of Life, thereby putting the focus on Christ's divinity. For this reason, I have always been a bit uncomfortable with St Paul's wording and have longed for it to be explained to me in satisfying terms.
Also, in the New Testament, the word "God" is often used to mean "God the Father", suggesting that St Paul is making the statement that the person of the Father raised the person of the Son.
Good question.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 20, 2011, 12:38:04 AM by akimori makoto »
|
Logged
|
The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
|
|
|
|
genesisone
|
|
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2011, 07:41:08 AM » |
|
The Son always obeys the will of the Father. It is/was the Father's will that Christ be raised from the dead. It was Christ in His divinity Who accomplished and fulfilled that will.
I'm going to have be alert, now, I guess, to watch for this phrasing in our hymns as so many of them deal with the Resurrection. An example doesn't come to mind immediately.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Theophilos78
Elder
Offline
Faith: Elohimist Christian
Posts: 1,318
|
|
« Reply #5 on: October 20, 2011, 08:48:30 AM » |
|
I hear this quite a bit from Evangelicals, such as William Lane Craig when he is debating on the historicity and authenticity of the Resurrection by saying that God raised Jesus.
My problem with this is wouldn't you have to explain what God is before you can say God raised Jesus, and why only Jesus?
From an Orthodox perspective, God raising Christ from the dead isn't how it's supposed to be phrased?
Not necessarily. Keep in mind that the apostles first proclaimed the resurrection to the Jews, who knew what the word "God" meant. Besides, Jesus' resurrection from the dead signified God's seal on His Messianic claims. God raised Jesus from the dead and declared Him Lord and Christ. This is a Christological formulation. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 20, 2011, 08:50:10 AM by Theophilos78 »
|
Logged
|
Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
|
|
|
Theophilos78
Elder
Offline
Faith: Elohimist Christian
Posts: 1,318
|
|
« Reply #6 on: October 20, 2011, 08:55:16 AM » |
|
The Son always obeys the will of the Father. It is/was the Father's will that Christ be raised from the dead. It was Christ in His divinity Who accomplished and fulfilled that will.
Yes, in Christian theology God the Father sends (Jesus' incarnation), introduces (Jesus' baptism), and glorifies (Jesus' resurrection) the Son, who emptied Himself and took human form for the redemption of mankind. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Longing for Heavenly Jerusalem
|
|
|
|
FountainPen
|
|
« Reply #7 on: October 20, 2011, 09:12:25 AM » |
|
From what i understand and fwiw, death had no hold or claim over Him, in other words, no one raised Him in terms of performing an act resisting death. He simply rose from the dead because nothing held Him there.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: October 20, 2011, 09:13:34 AM by FountainPen »
|
Logged
|
None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
ialmisry
|
|
« Reply #8 on: October 20, 2011, 10:13:20 AM » |
|
I hear this quite a bit from Evangelicals, such as William Lane Craig when he is debating on the historicity and authenticity of the Resurrection by saying that God raised Jesus.
My problem with this is wouldn't you have to explain what God is before you can say God raised Jesus, and why only Jesus?
From an Orthodox perspective, God raising Christ from the dead isn't how it's supposed to be phrased?
Well, didn't St. Paul say that God raised Jesus from the dead? What's wrong with using biblical language to describe the event? Besides, what's the difference between saying God raised Jesus from the dead and saying Jesus raised Himself from the dead? If Jesus is God, then those two statements logically mean the same thing, don't they? Well see that's what I am trying to get at. Why say God raised Jesus from the dead, because to me in this context it seems God is arbitrary. Rather if you say Jesus raised Himself from the dead well that kind of eliminates explaining what God is in the argument right? by perichoresis the Father raised, the Son rose. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
and both come out of your mouth
|
|
|
JLatimer
Elder
Offline
Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202
|
|
« Reply #9 on: October 20, 2011, 12:10:52 PM » |
|
I hear this quite a bit from Evangelicals, such as William Lane Craig when he is debating on the historicity and authenticity of the Resurrection by saying that God raised Jesus.
My problem with this is wouldn't you have to explain what God is before you can say God raised Jesus, and why only Jesus?
From an Orthodox perspective, God raising Christ from the dead isn't how it's supposed to be phrased?
Well, didn't St. Paul say that God raised Jesus from the dead? What's wrong with using biblical language to describe the event? Besides, what's the difference between saying God raised Jesus from the dead and saying Jesus raised Himself from the dead? If Jesus is God, then those two statements logically mean the same thing, don't they? That's how St. Cyril of Alexandria explains it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
|
|
|
|
