The Creed begins: "I believe in ONE God...", yet we talk about the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. How can this be?
Why just one? Because Christianity grew out of Judaism and we are bound by the Jewish affirmation in Deuteronomy 6:4:
Shema, Yisroel! Adonai Elohenu; Adonai Echod!
Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God; the Lord is One!
What distinguished Israel from the surrounding polytheistic cultures was (and is) an uncompromising loyalty to the one God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their Covenant with HIM on Sinai.
The Hebrew of the Shema is short, clear, and concrete: ONE GOD! Christianity inherits that from Judaism.
Our other parent, however, was equally firmly founded in the Greek language (the earliest copies of the books of the New Testament are all in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic) and our thinking is grounded in Greek philosophy.
In the New Testament, Jesus says:
"I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)
"Whoever has seen me, has seen the Father." (John 14:9)
"Before Abraham was, I AM." (John 8:58.)
"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." (John 17:21)
And He talks about the Father sending a Comforter (John 14:16) who will teach (John 14:26) -- clearly another Person.
Greek theologians, starting from the basis: "Jesus said it -- I believe it." then go to the question: "How can this be?" Their answer (which we will see more of, later in this series) is that the Triune God is one ousia (essence/nature) in three hypostases (instances or persons).
The three Persons share the Godhead by a process called "perichoresis", which has a parallel on the computer on which I am writing this post.
The basic hardware now (Sep 2010) is a ~5 year old Dell SX270 PC, running the Fedora 13 distribution of the Linux operating system. Under Linux, a program called "Virtual Box" from Sun/Oracle runs the Windows 2000 operating system at the same time, and on the same hardware, as Linux. I switch back and forth with a mouse click.
The two "computer hypostases" share data and hardware, and can "talk" to one another, yet are completely individual. I can also add more instances -- other OSs operating in parallel on the same hardware -- subject to limits on timing and disk space. In an experiment, 3 instances running slowed the box down unacceptably.
The Holy Trinity, obviously, are not limited by finite numbers of clock cycles or storage space. ;-)
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Believe In?
The first three words of the Nicene Creed in English are: "I believe in..." Only one word in Greek -- "Pisteuo"; two in Latin: "Credo in..."
Not just "I believe" -- like "I believe 2 + 2 = 4" or "I believe the sun will rise in the East tomorrow" -- Greek would use "Theoristeo" or "Pestho" for mere intellectual belief.
Instead, we have the word for "visceral belief", "passionate belief" -- a belief that commits one to changing one's life and habits. The older (by 150 or so years) Apostles' Creed, which scholars think was alate 1st or early 2nd Century Roman "Baptismal Symbolon" (Great & Holy Oath, sworn at Baptism) also begins "Credo in . . ." in Latin.
By this Symbolon, this Baptismal Oath, we commit ourselves not merely to intellectual belief, but to real change of heart, change of life, change of behavior. And by our repetition of the Nicene Creed in the Eucharistic Liturgy (Holy Sacrifice of the Mass), we re-commit ourselves over and over again.
The New Testament word for this change is "metanoia", from the Greek roots "meta" ("another, beside, beyond") and "nous" ("mind"). This is often translated "repent" in English, but, while repentance is in there, it is all too often an intellectual exercise, rather than a will-full and heart-felt commitment to change. True metanoia is hard work, not just repeating a formula.
St. James (The Brother of the Lord) says in his Epistle: "Faith without good works is dead." And what better (or harder) work than to change oneself?
Not just "I believe" -- like "I believe 2 + 2 = 4" or "I believe the sun will rise in the East tomorrow" -- Greek would use "Theoristeo" or "Pestho" for mere intellectual belief.
Instead, we have the word for "visceral belief", "passionate belief" -- a belief that commits one to changing one's life and habits. The older (by 150 or so years) Apostles' Creed, which scholars think was alate 1st or early 2nd Century Roman "Baptismal Symbolon" (Great & Holy Oath, sworn at Baptism) also begins "Credo in . . ." in Latin.
By this Symbolon, this Baptismal Oath, we commit ourselves not merely to intellectual belief, but to real change of heart, change of life, change of behavior. And by our repetition of the Nicene Creed in the Eucharistic Liturgy (Holy Sacrifice of the Mass), we re-commit ourselves over and over again.
The New Testament word for this change is "metanoia", from the Greek roots "meta" ("another, beside, beyond") and "nous" ("mind"). This is often translated "repent" in English, but, while repentance is in there, it is all too often an intellectual exercise, rather than a will-full and heart-felt commitment to change. True metanoia is hard work, not just repeating a formula.
St. James (The Brother of the Lord) says in his Epistle: "Faith without good works is dead." And what better (or harder) work than to change oneself?
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Who Dat I? (Part II)
But aren't "Image" and "Likeness" the same thing?
Not quite.
The Hebrew word for "image" here -- tselem -- has the meaning "to shadow forth"; i.e. cast a shadow on the world. God's Chosen People are to show forth His might and glory to the whole of the world.
The Ten Commandments (in one of the forms they appear in Genesis) forbid the worship of images -- and we are as forbidden to worship ourselves (images of God) as we are forbidden to worship physical objects (statues, books). We all know people who suffer from Narcissism -- who are so bound up in themselves that they cannot see or understand or love others.
"Image" then, is something in the outer, physical world, that we see with the body's eyes. It is how we (as individuals or as a people) appear to others. We need to be careful of the image we project -- of the example we give.
"Likeness" -- Hebrew "demwuth" -- is an interior resemblance. The closest resemblance that the ancients could imagine was that of a father who begets a son -- Genesis 5:3 - Adam begat a son in his own likeness, after his image. We often see sons who are the spitting image of their fathers, and who act like them -- image and likeness. We will come across the word "beget" again, later in this series of essays.
"Likeness" was also the condition the ancients thought necessary for things or people to communicate with one another. It is because we are like one another that we can can talk to our families, and our friends -- strangers from the same city are a little less like us, and people from different lands are even less like us, and much harder to understand.
So we see in the Bible's story of creation, that mankind (and specifically Israel) are created to shadow forth the Glory of God among the nations, and to be like God, as a child is like its father. This is a striking difference from the stories that the cultures who surrounded Israel told about their gods, and their beginnings.
In the Sumerian, Assyrian, and other cultures (from whom the Biblical authors borrowed images and ideas), humans are the cattle or slaves of the gods, to be exploited or slaughtered at the whim of the deities. Not so Israel, where God promises Noah that He will not destroy the earth and his people.
A god promising to protect his people from outside enemies was very common; a God promising to protect His children from Himself was unheard of. A marvel -- a God of Love!
The Church thus teaches that we -- you and I and the family down the way -- are not just a bag of skin & bones with a job and a mortgage. We consist of Body, Spirit, and Soul.
"Body" is easy to see, easy to take apart, and relatively easy to understand. We share the quality of a physical body with animals, plants, and even one-celled organisms -- all one extended family.
"Spirit" (Latin "spiritus"; Greek "pneuma"; Hebrew "nefesh") comes from the idea of breath as the "vital essence" -- that which does not breathe (a rock, for instance) is not alive. Certainly, a body which no longer breathes is no longer alive. (Modern technology can detect signs of life for a little longer -- but not much.)
We also speak of persons without bodies as "spirits" -- the older word is "Ghost". God the Father has no body (Jesus does!), the Church teaches -- nor does the Holy Spirit (whom we older speakers of English remember as "the Holy Ghost" :) More on this anon, when I talk about "God".
"Soul" (Latin "anima"; Greek "psyche"; Hebrew "ruach") is that part of us that thinks, decides, imagines, and is self-aware, and aware of others like ourself. Some animals -- our ape cousins, whales & dolphins, dogs, cats and others -- seem also to be aware, have emotions, and plan; they seem to have less complex souls than we do, and certainly cannot express themselves as we do.
And it is in this Soul that our likeness to God resides -- like Him, we are aware, we think, we feel, we have free will, we have immortality. From this likeness to Him flows our right to human dignity (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) and our duty to treat other humans, animals, and even the earth itself with respect and good stewardship.
We are all His creatures, and from those of us to whom are given great gifts -- His Love and Likeness -- much is to be expected.
Not quite.
The Hebrew word for "image" here -- tselem -- has the meaning "to shadow forth"; i.e. cast a shadow on the world. God's Chosen People are to show forth His might and glory to the whole of the world.
The Ten Commandments (in one of the forms they appear in Genesis) forbid the worship of images -- and we are as forbidden to worship ourselves (images of God) as we are forbidden to worship physical objects (statues, books). We all know people who suffer from Narcissism -- who are so bound up in themselves that they cannot see or understand or love others.
"Image" then, is something in the outer, physical world, that we see with the body's eyes. It is how we (as individuals or as a people) appear to others. We need to be careful of the image we project -- of the example we give.
"Likeness" -- Hebrew "demwuth" -- is an interior resemblance. The closest resemblance that the ancients could imagine was that of a father who begets a son -- Genesis 5:3 - Adam begat a son in his own likeness, after his image. We often see sons who are the spitting image of their fathers, and who act like them -- image and likeness. We will come across the word "beget" again, later in this series of essays.
"Likeness" was also the condition the ancients thought necessary for things or people to communicate with one another. It is because we are like one another that we can can talk to our families, and our friends -- strangers from the same city are a little less like us, and people from different lands are even less like us, and much harder to understand.
So we see in the Bible's story of creation, that mankind (and specifically Israel) are created to shadow forth the Glory of God among the nations, and to be like God, as a child is like its father. This is a striking difference from the stories that the cultures who surrounded Israel told about their gods, and their beginnings.
In the Sumerian, Assyrian, and other cultures (from whom the Biblical authors borrowed images and ideas), humans are the cattle or slaves of the gods, to be exploited or slaughtered at the whim of the deities. Not so Israel, where God promises Noah that He will not destroy the earth and his people.
A god promising to protect his people from outside enemies was very common; a God promising to protect His children from Himself was unheard of. A marvel -- a God of Love!
The Church thus teaches that we -- you and I and the family down the way -- are not just a bag of skin & bones with a job and a mortgage. We consist of Body, Spirit, and Soul.
"Body" is easy to see, easy to take apart, and relatively easy to understand. We share the quality of a physical body with animals, plants, and even one-celled organisms -- all one extended family.
"Spirit" (Latin "spiritus"; Greek "pneuma"; Hebrew "nefesh") comes from the idea of breath as the "vital essence" -- that which does not breathe (a rock, for instance) is not alive. Certainly, a body which no longer breathes is no longer alive. (Modern technology can detect signs of life for a little longer -- but not much.)
We also speak of persons without bodies as "spirits" -- the older word is "Ghost". God the Father has no body (Jesus does!), the Church teaches -- nor does the Holy Spirit (whom we older speakers of English remember as "the Holy Ghost" :) More on this anon, when I talk about "God".
"Soul" (Latin "anima"; Greek "psyche"; Hebrew "ruach") is that part of us that thinks, decides, imagines, and is self-aware, and aware of others like ourself. Some animals -- our ape cousins, whales & dolphins, dogs, cats and others -- seem also to be aware, have emotions, and plan; they seem to have less complex souls than we do, and certainly cannot express themselves as we do.
And it is in this Soul that our likeness to God resides -- like Him, we are aware, we think, we feel, we have free will, we have immortality. From this likeness to Him flows our right to human dignity (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) and our duty to treat other humans, animals, and even the earth itself with respect and good stewardship.
We are all His creatures, and from those of us to whom are given great gifts -- His Love and Likeness -- much is to be expected.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Who Dat I? (Part I)
Yeah -- you!
Who are you?
More to the point, _WHAT_ are you?
Relatively modern (18th-19th Century) Utilitarianism defines a human being as a bag of skin full of bones and soon-to-be decayed meat, whose value is what it can generate in the way of cash or notoriety during its short life. We, in general, tend to visualize ourselves as the little person sitting an inch or so behind our eyeballs, looking out at the world through them, and pulling strings to make our muscles move.
Neither of these is a particularly useful or comfortable model of what goes on in the few pounds of grey goo between our ears, much less of what the meaning and value of human life may be. Utilitarianism denies them, and the little person is just baffled.
Studies of injuries to the brain itself and nerves have given us the idea that certain areas of the brain process certain kinds of data (sight, sound, memory, etc.). but we have not (yet) the foggiest idea of _HOW_ that gets done, much less an overview of how a personality fits into the synapses and wrinkles of the brain.
We are beginning to get hints that there are timing cycles (one part of the brain sends a signal which prompts other parts to do things, then pass the signal along) -- by analogy to the way we have designed and built computerss to do what they do. Our sharpest observational tool, however -- MRI -- as of early 2010 has a resolution of "a few millimeters", according to a recent issue of Science News.
In that roughly 125 mm^3 (5 mm x 5mm x 5mm) voxel (cube), the article estimates there are roughly 55 _MILLION_ neurons and their associated synapses. A very rough and clumsy tool, indeed.
At the present level of development in Neurology and Cybernetics, we cannot even begin to say, with any level of scientific confidence, just what the human mind is and is capable or incapable of, much less what it means. First-class scientific minds will shrug, and say: "We're workin' on it."
==========
Modern science is not the only means of gaining knowledge and insight. There is an enormous amount of speculation and philosophy in the corpus of human literature that stretches back over 5,000 years. Not all of it is equally useful -- Sturgeon's Law says: "Ninety percent of everything is crud." -- this applies to science, too. ;-)
Almost all human societies postulate that a person is more than a bag of bones with a job and a credit report -- and there is legitimate question about the humanity of those who do believe that. Living in community requires that we perceive and acknowledge persons, situations, and rules beyond our own skins, and it also breeds an expectation that others will do the same.
Different societies conceive of that expectation differently, and cloak it in different images. As Catholic Christians (my target audience), we are formed around the images produced by Israel and the Church, and many of those images are recorded in the Bible.
My question at the top of this essay is also asked in Psalm 144:3 (Geneva Bible):
"LORD, what is man that thou regardest him, or the son of man, that thou thinkest on him?"
The answer is in Genesis 1:26 (KJV):
"God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'."
Now, no one but the stupidest and most concrete-headed literalist imagines that God is a gigantic physical human on steroids, sitting on a physical throne plastered with jasper and smaragdine and dilithium crystals, so what is this "image" and "likeness" we are formed in?
We see Jewish ideas of what a person consists of developing over time, from the very concrete "nefesh" (breath) to the very abstract idea of a rational, immortal soul by Jesus' time (Pharisees and some others). The Church has always taught that a person consists of a body and soul -- and this soul is the part of us that is in the "image of God".
To Be Continued . . .
Who are you?
More to the point, _WHAT_ are you?
Relatively modern (18th-19th Century) Utilitarianism defines a human being as a bag of skin full of bones and soon-to-be decayed meat, whose value is what it can generate in the way of cash or notoriety during its short life. We, in general, tend to visualize ourselves as the little person sitting an inch or so behind our eyeballs, looking out at the world through them, and pulling strings to make our muscles move.
Neither of these is a particularly useful or comfortable model of what goes on in the few pounds of grey goo between our ears, much less of what the meaning and value of human life may be. Utilitarianism denies them, and the little person is just baffled.
Studies of injuries to the brain itself and nerves have given us the idea that certain areas of the brain process certain kinds of data (sight, sound, memory, etc.). but we have not (yet) the foggiest idea of _HOW_ that gets done, much less an overview of how a personality fits into the synapses and wrinkles of the brain.
We are beginning to get hints that there are timing cycles (one part of the brain sends a signal which prompts other parts to do things, then pass the signal along) -- by analogy to the way we have designed and built computerss to do what they do. Our sharpest observational tool, however -- MRI -- as of early 2010 has a resolution of "a few millimeters", according to a recent issue of Science News.
In that roughly 125 mm^3 (5 mm x 5mm x 5mm) voxel (cube), the article estimates there are roughly 55 _MILLION_ neurons and their associated synapses. A very rough and clumsy tool, indeed.
At the present level of development in Neurology and Cybernetics, we cannot even begin to say, with any level of scientific confidence, just what the human mind is and is capable or incapable of, much less what it means. First-class scientific minds will shrug, and say: "We're workin' on it."
==========
Modern science is not the only means of gaining knowledge and insight. There is an enormous amount of speculation and philosophy in the corpus of human literature that stretches back over 5,000 years. Not all of it is equally useful -- Sturgeon's Law says: "Ninety percent of everything is crud." -- this applies to science, too. ;-)
Almost all human societies postulate that a person is more than a bag of bones with a job and a credit report -- and there is legitimate question about the humanity of those who do believe that. Living in community requires that we perceive and acknowledge persons, situations, and rules beyond our own skins, and it also breeds an expectation that others will do the same.
Different societies conceive of that expectation differently, and cloak it in different images. As Catholic Christians (my target audience), we are formed around the images produced by Israel and the Church, and many of those images are recorded in the Bible.
My question at the top of this essay is also asked in Psalm 144:3 (Geneva Bible):
"LORD, what is man that thou regardest him, or the son of man, that thou thinkest on him?"
The answer is in Genesis 1:26 (KJV):
"God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'."
Now, no one but the stupidest and most concrete-headed literalist imagines that God is a gigantic physical human on steroids, sitting on a physical throne plastered with jasper and smaragdine and dilithium crystals, so what is this "image" and "likeness" we are formed in?
We see Jewish ideas of what a person consists of developing over time, from the very concrete "nefesh" (breath) to the very abstract idea of a rational, immortal soul by Jesus' time (Pharisees and some others). The Church has always taught that a person consists of a body and soul -- and this soul is the part of us that is in the "image of God".
To Be Continued . . .
Friday, January 1, 2010
Creed?
The Symbolum Nicaenum, or Nicene Creed, is a fusion of the creeds drawn up at the Council of Nicea (325) and the Council of Constantinople (381). It was at these councils that the true nature of Jesus was defended against two heresies that had sprung up: the Arians denied Christ's divinity and the Docetics denied Christ's humanity. The councils, drawing upon the traditions handed down to them from the Apostles, condemned both heresies and declared that Jesus was indeed both true God and true man.
The Nicene Creed
I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages.
Who for us men and for our salvation He came down from heaven.
And was made flesh by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary and was made man.
He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father.
And I believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
I confess one baptism for the remission of sins.
And I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
What's Up?
Just Who -- and What -- is God, anyway? What can 21st Century Catholic Christians believe and do?
It is much easier to say what God is _NOT_, that what He IS -- but I will try a bit, nonetheless.
This used to be called "Catechism", but I like short words and pithy (i.e. colorful) language. I am a Conservative Old Catholic Bishop, and I am going to build on the foundation of the Nicene Creed -- preserving the words and meanings of the Fathers, but often re-casting them in modern terms. I will be going through the Creed word-by-word and phrase-by-phrase, amplifying and explaining as I go.
I have been urged to write a full-fledged Catechism, but I am really much better at short essays.
I welcome comments and dialogue.
BpSam AT am-cath.org
It is much easier to say what God is _NOT_, that what He IS -- but I will try a bit, nonetheless.
This used to be called "Catechism", but I like short words and pithy (i.e. colorful) language. I am a Conservative Old Catholic Bishop, and I am going to build on the foundation of the Nicene Creed -- preserving the words and meanings of the Fathers, but often re-casting them in modern terms. I will be going through the Creed word-by-word and phrase-by-phrase, amplifying and explaining as I go.
I have been urged to write a full-fledged Catechism, but I am really much better at short essays.
I welcome comments and dialogue.
BpSam AT am-cath.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
