There was a difference of opinion between Lutherans and Calvinist reformers in Christology regarding The Son as the Logos, Word or Verb of God and Jesus the fully incarnate man. Kenotic theory ran of the opinion that The Son emptied himself entirely into the fleshly incarnate being of Jesus. Calvin believed there was a difference.
The difference is that The Son and Logos, Verb or Word did not entirely transfer himself into the fleshy incarnation of Jesus Christ. If he had then Jesus wouldn't have been able to experience the human experience fully as he did. The juxtaposition of nature in the eternal and heavenly with the worldly and temporal creates implicit difficulties in understanding.
With Plato's theory of forms it is easy to find a solution to the enigma. Jesus as man was like a Universal form making itself into a particular, with the difference being that the particular was the Universal in nature and being, yet limited in the capacities of the Universal as the particular. While the particular fleshy form of Jesus could live as a man, suffer and be crucified, the fleshy form could not have the vision and perspective of the Universal form.
Jesus as the Word of God, as The Son, would keep the experience of being a man upon return to the Universal form. For Jesus though the Universal form is the being containing all possible sets or forms including Himself as a particular. Upon visiting the disciples after crucifixion and resurrection the Lord Jesus had an ambiguous form neither entirely fleshy nor entirely Universal. A mode of being neither physical and subject to the physical laws of cosmology nor in a form of heavenly non-temporal being that is a metaphysical question for humans.
The Son as the progenitor of all forms was of God, and was with God co-eternally. The Son is God yet a distinct personality-for-others. When the Son became the particular Jesus Christ the form of The Son ineluctably remained while the particular expressed its existence.
The difference is that The Son and Logos, Verb or Word did not entirely transfer himself into the fleshy incarnation of Jesus Christ. If he had then Jesus wouldn't have been able to experience the human experience fully as he did. The juxtaposition of nature in the eternal and heavenly with the worldly and temporal creates implicit difficulties in understanding.
With Plato's theory of forms it is easy to find a solution to the enigma. Jesus as man was like a Universal form making itself into a particular, with the difference being that the particular was the Universal in nature and being, yet limited in the capacities of the Universal as the particular. While the particular fleshy form of Jesus could live as a man, suffer and be crucified, the fleshy form could not have the vision and perspective of the Universal form.
Jesus as the Word of God, as The Son, would keep the experience of being a man upon return to the Universal form. For Jesus though the Universal form is the being containing all possible sets or forms including Himself as a particular. Upon visiting the disciples after crucifixion and resurrection the Lord Jesus had an ambiguous form neither entirely fleshy nor entirely Universal. A mode of being neither physical and subject to the physical laws of cosmology nor in a form of heavenly non-temporal being that is a metaphysical question for humans.
The Son as the progenitor of all forms was of God, and was with God co-eternally. The Son is God yet a distinct personality-for-others. When the Son became the particular Jesus Christ the form of The Son ineluctably remained while the particular expressed its existence.
No comments:
Post a Comment