/lit/ - Literature

>>11524003
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

is what he meant.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+22&version=NIV

YHW had a plan but Jesus had to meme it up and YHW wasn’t very happy.

>>11524003
He was quoting Ps. 22

>>11524003
He was asking himself why he had forsaken himself.

>>11524082

Even Jesus doubted. You must have faith and accept God's silence.

It was Judas made up to look like Jesus on the cross

we are most with god when he abandons us

Because everyone makes mistakes. Just slipped through. Crucifixion is really painful-- anybody could say something regrettable in frustration if they were getting tortured to death.

>>11524003
can anyone explain what exactly it means the Jesus was literally God but also a man, like what does that mean metaphysically

>>11525454
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father"

From the Nicene Creeds

>>11525475
This.

>>11525454
Look up hypostatic union. It's not just a Christian idea, hypostases are used in Neoplatonic thought. In most Christian theology, Christ was both fully man (human), and fully God. That is how He was "of one substance" with the Father. See also filioque.

>>11525475
>>11525512
you guys didn't really explain fuck all though. Like what does Aquinas say about this

>>11525525
uh bro i explained it pretty well. can you rephrase your question so that you will get the answer you actually want? what did Aquinas say about what?

and you know you can find the summa for free right? http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/17611

Here I even did the search for you.

>>11525527
sorry i was rude, i meant that i dont get what it means for god to be a man, like philosophically, and then how does that impact the way he acts

>>11525541
It means Christ was a man. Just what it sounds like. He was born of a mortal woman and had a childhood (which we know nothing about) and grew up like anyone else does. He had a heart and lungs and liver and lived and suffered as man has always done. This is an incredibly important point for our relating to Christ on a personal level, understanding his painful but voluntary sacrifice on the cross and especially how that is relevant to use following His example. He suffered death. He was a man. Contrast this with other deities such as Ganesh or Apollo or animal spirits for example.

He was also the Word incarnate. That means he was fully God. He performed miracles, including resurrection.

>>11525525
Aquinas doesn't have the final say on Christian theology. I'm going to push back on >>11525512 a little bit too and say that the filioque is not accepted by Eastern Christianity and there is certainly no consensus between East and West on the matter. St. Athanasius' On the Incarnation is one of the earliest and most respected works on Christology. Give it a read. It is pretty short and you will find the pdf very easily

>>11525555
but how do we connect those two descriptions into one concept with higher philosophical concept. Or is that not supposed to be done in religion?

>>11525541
Look up the Fourth Ecumenical council in regards to Dyophysitism and Monophysitism. Apostolic Christianity arrived at the conclusion that Christ had two wills and two natures; a human will and a human nature, and a divine will and a divine nature. We hold that Christ's human will and nature voluntarily submit themsleves to his divine will and nature giving the perfect example of complete submission and deference to God. This topic gets pretty difficult to discuss in a chan discussion. If you go to Jay Dyer's youtube channel he has heaps of videos on Christology though.

>>11525541

>What does the incarnation mean metaphysically

Exactly the right question to ask! To answer in brief, the Chalcedonian formula is that Christ is one "person" but with two natures- divine and human. This has the implication that most predicates must be attributed to Christ "in" one or the other of his natures. The principle of unity between the two natures here is the "person," which Aquinas would call a "subsistent relation"- what one might call an ineliminable, real feature of how God relates to himself.

This is the core of Christian hope, since it bridges the metaphysical gap between man and God.

>>11525563
Other anon already did with the diagram of the Trinity. Look it up. Catholics believe in God as the ineffable source of all things, and imo the term is overused to the point of losing its meaning. Christ's hypostatic union is connected to the 'higher' philosophical concept of the Trinity by the presence of the Holy Spirit and the Father, who are also present in Scripture and relevant to how Christianity is revealed to man. Read John 14.

Your questions incidentally are getting to the boundary of where answers can't be given, but only understood by mystical experience btw. This is not a bad thing.

>>11525559
>St. Athanasius' On the Incarnation
i read the first bit of this and i dont understand how Jesus, who accepts all the harm that happens to him, can be the same as God who is omnipotent

does it mean that our reality sequesters God into frailty somehow, he can be harmed when he is aperson in our world? or is the harm done to Jesus not real because it was just his body and his soul was never attacked?

the other important bit i wanted for you

>>11525572
^^^this
>>11525581

>>11525583
the prince is coming?

>>11525572
i put a bookmark for the youtube channel i understand we maybe cant explain it over text like this

>>11525577
>, real feature of how God relates to himself.
is this how he relates to himself in our world? when i think of what god is it seems to be it must be all merging, all the same thing, united into something

>>11525578
the holy spirit is the thing that made me think about christianity, i felt something come into me once and i didnt understand what it was, it was so beautiful and clear, and it told me to be only good towards everything, and things made sense for a while, but then it stopped and got bad again and i lost the connection with what it was

>>11525581
>i read the first bit of this and i dont understand how Jesus, who accepts all the harm that happens to him, can be the same as God who is omnipotent
Like I said here >>11525572 Christ has two wills and two natures: human and divine. Christ can accept harm and even be killed because harm and death are a part of human nature and Christ took on complete human nature.

>does it mean that our reality sequesters God into frailty somehow, he can be harmed when he is a person in our world? or is the harm done to Jesus not real because it was just his body and his soul was never attacked?
Our reality doesn't sequester into God and God has no frailty. I'm speaking from the Orthodox perspective but we have the Energy/Essence distinction which Catholicism doesn't have. This allows us to differentiate between God's essence (inaccessible to us) and his energies(accessible to us). Christ was able to be harmed and murdered because he took on universal human nature and so he accepted universal human experience. This concept of universal recapitulation is the basis for the resurrection. God became Man so that man may become god. St. Maximus the Confessor's The Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ is a good short book that talks about this topic

>>11525587
Those are the words of Jesus. I'm assuming he is foretelling of his own death in a riddle, and referring to the Prince of peace. Christ the risen savior y'all.

>>11525601
>God's essence (inaccessible to us) and his energies(accessible to us).
this makes a lot of sense to me, god can only be felt in how he becomes things we can see which changes his nature?

>>11524003
He was expecting a Xenu ex Machina to bail him out as the last minute.

>>11525609
Yeah kind of. Jay Dyer who I recommended earlier uses the analogy of knowing a person. As you spend time with a person you will learn what they are interested in what they have done and what their opinions and views are but no one can ever really know another person's essence because we only know other's by their actions and words. The only person whose essence I know is my own. The same principle holds true to God. We can know God by what God has done, we can know God from what he has told us about himself, but we can never know God's essence like we know our own essence and much less than we can know another person because God's essence is completely unknowable and foreign to us. Even in the resurrection when we achieve theosis and literally partake in the divine nature of God, we will never interact with God's essence because it transcends us and is above and beyond any kind of comprehension or reach.

>>11525627
>because it transcends us and is above and beyond any kind of comprehension or reach.
i have a thing i use for this idea, i call it the fundamental. i guess if that's how you see God we have a similar outlook

>>11525632
Christianity doesn't have the Neoplatonic idea of the One though. When we refer to God whether in Essence or Energies, we specifically to a person. That is why we constantly talk of a personal God rather than an unconscious "force" or "oneness" or anything like that. It is important to note that God's energies aren't just the work of God or radiation from Him or anything like that. God's Energies are God just as much as His Essence is God.

>>11525587
NOW THIS IS A STORY ALL ABOUT HOW

>>11525643
>
anon this post litearlly blew my mind. God is antecedent to any other conception basically, he is a person, he is x, he is y, our ideas cant encapsulate him by philosophical structuring?

it's like aform of intellectual submission i guess, that is actually a really crazy idea

>God is antecedent to any other conception and a form of intellectual submission
Deleuze is God.

woops wrong pic.

>>11525654
I'm glad I could help senpai. If you really want to develop these ideas further I would seriously urge you to call an Orthodox priest and have a chat with him. My catechism classes have more philosophical value (and practical advice) than any internet forum or youtube videos ever gave. Even if you don't really believe but find the philosophy interesting go and tell the priest that you want to learn. It will blow your mind.

>>11525600
Something similar happened to me. I guess we should start going to Church

>>11524003
He couldn't see Jesus because he was behind a tree

>>11525664
i really believe something im just a very broken person and i cant make sense of it. I think a priest would be a good thing for me, and the Orthodox does appeal to me in a few ways

ty anon have a good night

>>11525674
Good night anon. Hope you talk to that priest

>>11525604
I assumed he was talking about the devil

>>11525664
>orthodox priest

>>11525454
From a psychological perspective, I believe it represents the archetype of the son in union with the archetype of the father, with the spirit being our individual divine essence.

>>11524174
top damage control
well played xtians

>>11525688
>From a psychological perspective
t. Jordan B. Peterson

>>11525682
Better Orthodox than some novus ordo faggots

>>11525594
How he relates *in himself*. That's why the Incarnation is so important for Christians. Through relating correctly to Christ, we come to participate in the inner dynamic of God Himself.

>>11524174
>God doubted himself
Makes sense

Autoplurality is just as illusory as the Phenomenal delirium.

>>11525777
I've autoplurality'd just a while ago and it was as real as it gets, I mean it was a routine performance, but gotta release the tension somehow

bum

>>11524090
bugs.. easy on the edge

>>11524022
YHWH

>>11524003
He said it in order to teach the Romans and the Jews and all others that it is God who forsakes and no one else. There is nothing Christ could not do, but he abased himself even unto crucifixion, out of love. It was not a murder or an execution, but a self sacrifice.

I don't think it could be said that he doubted God or the plan for atonement, as after all he is also God, and has known all along what he would suffer. Instead it seems that he must show the agony we have submitted him to and introduce the question to our hearts and minds. Maybe it is rhetorical, and he will answer that question not with words, but with resurrection and the promise of salvation.

>>11526020

As cruelly revelatory of communion's falsehood as the question Jesus asked.

>>11525777
Checked.

>>11524191
Either a larping Gnostic or Muslim.

>>11524003
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3w0IQsN8XQ

>multiple people answer the question correctly within the first couple of posts
>people are still trying to give answers that aren't correct

At least we got a cool discussion of the Trinity out of it.

>>11527207
which ones? the epic buggsy post?

>>11527277
These:

>>11524013
>>11524045

He's quoting the opening of Psalm 22. And that's important, because Psalm 22 starts as a lament but ends as a song of praise:


From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;
before those who fear you I will fulfill my vows.
The poor will eat and be satisfied;
those who seek the Lord will praise him—
may your hearts live forever!

All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the Lord,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before him,
for dominion belongs to the Lord
and he rules over the nations.

All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before him—
those who cannot keep themselves alive.
Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
They will proclaim his righteousness,
declaring to a people yet unborn:
He has done it!

>>11527207
Which answers were incorrect?

>>11527427
Yours.

Maybe God didn't want to watch what was happening to his son, and in the moment of his death, Jesus was as alone and human as the rest of us.

The virgin Jesus vs. the Chad Socrates.

>>11524003
my guess is that to know ultimate suffering you have to think that god has abandoned you