Things I don't get about Real Presence

[Obsidian]

Godhead means all the qualities of deity, which we are told dwelt in him bodily. You missed the point. (Leaving aside the fact that your statement that omnipresence is not an essential thing for God to have). This brings us back to my question: please explain to me how the finite can contain the infinite. And if you accept that you cannot explain it but believe none the less that the fullness of the godhead dwells in Jesus Christ bodily, then you will have to grant that when I argue that just because we cannot rationally explain that the bread and wine are Jesus' body and blood does not make the statement false.

How about we do it this way: You try explaining to me a logical argument for why the fullness of God dwelling in a human does not make sense. What logical rule do you think would preclude an "infinite" person from indwelling a "finite" body? I've already stated that I don't see a contradiction. So I don't know what else you want me to do.

I do not think that Jesus was omnipotent or omniscient during his time on earth. I'm not altogether certain that he even has those qualities now, either, but I am at least for the sake of argument conceding that he does. It seems to me that an omniscient and omnipotent person could embody a finite space in a glorified human body.

By contrast, I've already listed some reasons why it doesn't make sense for us to be physically consuming human flesh.

Again, why? What are all the possibilities for "another dimension"?

If the physical human flesh we're eating is in a different location or different dimension from us, then physically we cannot eat it. To physically eat something, you have to put it in your mouth, not leave it hanging out undigested in another dimension.

[Kelp]

Oh I'm sorry, you can't handle an exclamation mark?

I would have thought that the tremendous sarcasm and scientific ridicule I was heaping on Maxentius's view would have been the more offensive part of my argument.

I don't really care if you're incredulous, I do care when you get into these little snits you're prone to that make talking to you pointless. I suppose you're going to call me a commie or something next.

[Maxentius]

How about we do it this way: You try explaining to me a logical argument for why the fullness of God dwelling in a human does not make sense. What logical rule do you think would preclude an "infinite" person from indwelling a "finite" body? I've already stated that I don't see a contradiction. So I don't know what else you want me to do.

Well, its just elementary logic--just like two protons cannot occupy the same space, something infinite cannot be contained in the finite. This is true of energy, matter, space--you name it.

There is nothing to prove because it is axiomatic, and if you cannot accept such axioms I suggest the foundation of your reason is lacking.

You made an argument based upon reason, when I point out an obvious case where reason cannot give a ready answer, you merely assert that you will embrace unreason because you don't have a problem with it. Interestingly, that approach doesn't bother me too much when it comes to something God has revealed. But as I said, it means any argument against the RP by you based on it being "not logical" or "not making sense" can be safely discarded--for when you want to you throw reason under the bus and embrace e.g. the silly notion about the finite containing the infinite.

I'm not altogether certain that he even has those qualities now, either, but I am at least for the sake of argument conceding that he does. It seems to me that an omniscient and omnipotent person could embody a finite space in a glorified human body.

So why can't it be in several places at once?

By contrast, I've already listed some reasons why it doesn't make sense for us to be physically consuming human flesh.

Your "sense" seems to be applied arbitrarily.

If the physical human flesh we're eating is in a different location or different dimension from us, then physically we cannot eat it. To physically eat something, you have to put it in your mouth, not leave it hanging out undigested in another dimension.

If the finite contains the infinite, then logic says the finite is now infinite, i.e. it is no longer finite. That means Jesus' body is accessible everywhere.

That "makes sense".

[Kelp]

Well, its just elementary logic--just like two protons cannot occupy the same space, something infinite cannot be contained in the finite. This is true of energy, matter, space--you name it.

My only problem with this is we don't know if this applies to something immaterial like a human soul (Aquinas' problem with multiple angels in the same place notwithstanding). The Holy Spirit indwelling believers would seem to indicate that immaterial beings can share the same space.

I think of Jesus' body as being like a glove. God the Son's "hand" is in the glove but He still exists outside of it at the same time. Now this is obviously incomplete, it leaves out Jesus' human faculties, but I think it captures the basic, "capacity" issue. Of course, I still wrestle then with how God's infinite knowledge could "funnel" through a human brain, maybe if it wasn't all there at once?

[Maxentius]

I think of Jesus' body as being like a glove. God the Son's "hand" is in the glove but He still exists outside of it at the same time. Now this is obviously incomplete, it leaves out Jesus' human faculties, but I think it captures the basic, "capacity" issue. Of course, I still wrestle then with how God's infinite knowledge could "funnel" through a human brain, maybe if it wasn't all there at once?

If Jesus' human nature is "like a glove", and there is therefore part of the Logos which is not Incarnate, what do we make of the Word (i.e. Logos) becoming flesh? This is, I think, the significance of the fullness of the godhead dwelling in in Jesus Christ's body--if there is somewhere the fullness is where his humanity is not, we in effect have the fullness of the godhead not dwelling in him bodily, which would mean he did not "become" man, but that his humanity is like a coat--or glove--he can put on or take off at will. This has, I believe, severe consequences for the doctrine of the Incarnation.

This is, I admit, a difficulty. However, if I resolve the difficulty one way, I will have to say that e.g. God is not necessarily omnipresent, as Obsidian does, or perhaps to say that Jesus' human nature is a separate person and that Jesus Christ is some kind of hybrid of God and man, as Nestorius did. Or I will have to become Eutychian, and say there is no real human nature in Christ after all. There is another option, though, and that is receiving what the Christ, the Prophets and Apostles teach us and use out intelligence ministerially to understand what is revealed, instead of saying in effect "my philosophy says that the bread cannot be flesh, so it must be bread....".

This is one reason why Lutherans historically have clung to Jesus' words "This is my body..." and "This is my blood..." We teach that these words are meant to be believed for our salvation's sake, while many other churches seem to believe they need to be explained: perhaps by saying that because a human body is necessarily limited in space that it cannot be bread, or by saying that though what we receive really is Jesus' body, its "accidents" are those of a completely different substance. And the reason others believe they need to be explained is because it offends their reason. As we have seen here, that is really the chief argument of those who deny the RP. It is not because the words "This is my body.." are difficult to understand, it is because their intellectual and philosophical framework say the words cannot mean what they say. For this reason we get arguments like "Jesus said he is a vine, which is figurative, so he must have been figurative when he said 'This is my body...', because just like it is impossible for Jesus to be a vine and speak--vines have no brains or mouths--it is impossible for the bread to be his body". For us, the context determines what is figurative or not--not a-priori assumptions based on our scientific knowledge. The context of the Lord's Supper and Jesus' discourses are quite different, so there is no a-priori reason to assume one should interpret the other. This means we are left with his words of institution, clarified by the writings of St. Paul. And those who assert a symbolic view have a steeper hill to climb, as their argument is based upon human reason, and not Scripture.

[Obsidian]

Well, its just elementary logic--just like two protons cannot occupy the same space, something infinite cannot be contained in the finite. This is true of energy, matter, space--you name it.

There's not really any such thing as infinite matter, and there may not even be any such thing as infinite space. But anyway, I think your main problem here is that you are being incredibly vague with your definitions. How is Jesus "finite," and how is he "infinite"?

If the finite contains the infinite, then logic says the finite is now infinite, i.e. it is no longer finite. That means Jesus' body is accessible everywhere.

I say that Jesus's body is finite (unless you're talking about its duration, which is eternal, but then again so is mine). His authority is infinite.

Furthermore, I think you may even be taking that statement from Colossians about the fullness of the godhead too far. Although the statement is in present tense, I think it may have also been intended to describe Jesus's earthly ministry (past tense) as well. But the gospels indicate in multiple verses that Jesus was not omniscient during his earthly minstry. So my point is that I'm not even sure "fullness of the godhead" necessarily includes omniscience, or other "infinite" qualities. The fullness of the godhead probably just means that Jesus is the complete image of the Father's personality.

In this fullness of the godhead idea, obviously we have to draw the line somewhere. Otherwise we could say that God would be exactly the same even in the absence of the Father, or the absence of the Holy Spirit. And I don't really think that statement would be true.

[Kelp]

But if we can't use reason to examine all the consequences of a plain reading doesn't it lead to nothing but wooden literalness and we wind up doing things like clinging to a 6000 year-old earth despite all evidence.

Isn't it the human reason known as literary criticism lead you to say "I am the vine" is figurative while "this is my body" can't be?

[Maxentius]

There's not really any such thing as infinite matter, and there may not even be any such thing as infinite space. But anyway, I think your main problem here is that you are being incredibly vague with your definitions. How is Jesus "finite," and how is he "infinite"?

I am not being vague at all. I am pointing out that you use reason when is suits you, and discard it when it does not. If you will not or cannot either answer the question of how the finite can contain the infinite, fine, I will just ignore your arguments based upon reason.

Furthermore, I think you may even be taking that statement from Colossians about the fullness of the godhead too far.

I think you ignore the passage in Collosians, as it demolishes your approach.

But the gospels indicate in multiple verses that Jesus was not omniscient during his earthly minstry.

Did God die for your sins, or not? You keep treating nature as if it is a person--and this category error by you is why you run into such difficulties. The second person of the Trinity has two natures--but he is one person. So any act by the person is according to the nature, so it is eminently possible for the second person of the Trinity to not use some of his divinity at particular times and places. It is equally possible for Jesus to allow his divine nature to shine forth--such as at the transfiguration, or when he walked on water. (If God can suspend the laws of physics by bypassing the surface tension of water so Jesus can walk on water, why can't he give us his body and blood?)

This is why "Did God die for your sins?" is an important question. It is a good way to discern if you believe certain things about the Incarnation.

So my point is that I'm not even sure "fullness of the godhead" necessarily includes omniscience, or other "infinite" qualities.

Then by definition, it is not godhead. I honestly can't believe you are arguing like this.

The fullness of the godhead probably just means that Jesus is the complete image of the Father's personality.

Jesus shares the same nature as the Father, which includes omniscience, omnipotence etc. If he does not, he is not God in the Flesh, and the Incarnation is a lie. I am frankly stunned that you would make such statements as above. They sound intrinsically heretical, though you may not mean them in that way.

Also, what do we make of "Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever?" How can that be if, as you say, e.g. omnipresence is not intrinsic to deity? If we take your theology seriously, we would have to say that the Logos was omnipresent, was not, and is again--yet Jesus hasn't changed.

There is a whole raft of difficulties in your approach, I think.

[RBerman]

Did God die for your sins, or not? You keep treating nature as if it is a person--and this category error by you is why you run into such difficulties. The second person of the Trinity has two natures--but he is one person. So any act by the person is according to the nature, so it is eminently possible for the second person of the Trinity to not use some of his divinity at particular times and places. It is equally possible for Jesus to allow his divine nature to shine forth--such as at the transfiguration, or when he walked on water. (If God can suspend the laws of physics by bypassing the surface tension of water so Jesus can walk on water, why can't he give us his body and blood?)

God can do any sort of miracle that he wants. If he wanted us to eat Jesus' flesh (meaning skin and muscle) then He could make it happen. But is that most natural reading of Jesus saying, "This is my body, broken for you" the night before he's tortured and killed?

[Maxentius]

But if we can't use reason to examine all the consequences of a plain reading doesn't it lead to nothing but wooden literalness and we wind up doing things like clinging to a 6000 year-old earth despite all evidence.

We can use reason, but ministerially, not magisterially. as an example, the Arians used a similar method of argumentation for passages which proclaim Jesus' full deity--it is figurative, it is rhetoric, it is an exaggeration etc. Thus, when Jesus says "I and the Father are one", it is re-interpreted as being one in will. Or, the second person of the Trinity is re-interpreted as a sort of almost-but-not-quite-full god. In a like manner to those who deny the RP, it has a lot more to do with the philosophical and intellectual framework of the individual than with what Scripture says.

Oh, the 6000 year old earth is not in the Scriptures. Perhaps you mean the Genesis creation account?

Isn't it the human reason known as literary criticism lead you to say "I am the vine" is figurative while "this is my body" can't be?

Literary criticism is a tool, not the master here. Can you give me a reason, apart from the philosophical commitments as to what human nature is capable of, why we should interpret Jesus' words of institution "figuratively"?

[Obsidian]

If you will not or cannot either answer the question of how the finite can contain the infinite, fine, I will just ignore your arguments based upon reason.

Well you're already pretty much ignoring me, because pretty clearly I've already answered that question. You just don't seem to like my answer, as shown in your statements below.

You keep treating nature as if it is a person--and this category error by you is why you run into such difficulties. The second person of the Trinity has two natures--but he is one person. So any act by the person is according to the nature, so it is eminently possible for the second person of the Trinity to not use some of his divinity at particular times and places.
. . . .
Jesus shares the same nature as the Father, which includes omniscience, omnipotence etc. If he does not, he is not God in the Flesh, and the Incarnation is a lie. I am frankly stunned that you would make such statements as above. They sound intrinsically heretical, though you may not mean them in that way.

It's not heretical to say that Jesus was non-omniscient when the Bible says pretty clearly that there are things he did not know. Your explanation about how part of Jesus knew everything and only part of him was limited, seems like a stretch to me. Philippians 2:7 says that Jesus became nothing. It doesn't say that only part of him became nothing while the rest of him remained in the "form of God." The Bible also says that Jesus did miracles such as excorcizing demons through the power of the Holy Spirit, rather than through his own power. And Jesus stated that the Father was greater than him. So I don't think my view is heretical at all.

If anything, I would say that your explanation sounds closer to heresy, because it sounds somewhat like Nestorianism. If Jesus had a human nature that did not know things his other (divine) nature did know, it's a little hard to see how that is different from two persons, with a four-part godhead. Anyway, even if the Chalcedonian creed does allow your view, I definitely don't think it requires it.

If we take your theology seriously, we would have to say that the Logos was omnipresent, was not, and is again--yet Jesus hasn't changed.

I don't think any of the persons was ever necessarily omnipresent. The Holy Spirit is present in multiple places at once, although probably not in all. The Bible frequently describes God as being present in certain locations, descriptions which would have no real meaning if he were present everywhere.

[Maxentius]

It's not heretical to say that Jesus was non-omniscient when the Bible says pretty clearly that there are things he did not know.

Right here you treat his human nature as a person. and therein lies your mistake. This is why my question about God dying for your sins is so important. If you cannot answer "God doed for your sins" you functionally

The Bible also says that Jesus did miracles such as excorcizing demons through the power of the Holy Spirit, rather than through his own power. And Jesus stated that the Father was greater than him. So I don't think my view is heretical at all.

Your citation of Scripture is one-sided and a bit "proof texty". Your questions would be answred if you didn't treat his two natures as two persons. The Father is greater than Jesus Christ not according to his deity, but according to his humanity. One person, two natures. You keep speaking of "Jesus" as if he is distinct from the second person of the Trinity. He is not, Jesus is the second person of the Trinity--the Word became flesh....

If anything, I would say that your explanation sounds closer to heresy, because it sounds somewhat like Nestorianism. If Jesus had a human nature that did not know things his other (divine) nature did know, it's a little hard to see how that is different from two persons, with a four-part godhead.

I suggest you don't know a lot about Nestorianism.

Anyway, even if the Chalcedonian creed does allow your view, I definitely don't think it requires it.

Have you even read Chalcidon?

I don't think any of the persons was ever necessarily omnipresent. The Holy Spirit is present in multiple places at once, although probably not in all. The Bible frequently describes God as being present in certain locations, descriptions which would have no real meaning if he were present everywhere.

Jeremiah 23:23-24

"The heavens and the earth" is Hebrew idiom for everywhere.

q.v. Psalm 139:7-12

[Kelp]

Sorry, I don't have much time today.

We can use reason, but ministerially, not magisterially. as an example, the Arians used a similar method of argumentation for passages which proclaim Jesus' full deity--it is figurative, it is rhetoric, it is an exaggeration etc. Thus, when Jesus says "I and the Father are one", it is re-interpreted as being one in will. Or, the second person of the Trinity is re-interpreted as a sort of almost-but-not-quite-full god. In a like manner to those who deny the RP, it has a lot more to do with the philosophical and intellectual framework of the individual than with what Scripture says.

I'm not sure I see the difference. The Lutheran commitment to RP seems to be at bottom an insistence on reading the words of institution literally no matter what but practically any theology can be pulled out of the Bible that way. I'm sure you remember Ranran the universalist. His insistence on reading "Christ is the Savior of all men" this way seems similar

Oh, the 6000 year old earth is not in the Scriptures. Perhaps you mean the Genesis creation account?

I meant those who add up the figures in the Genesis genealogies. Bad analogy, I guess. Flat-earthers might be closer to my intent.

Literary criticism is a tool, not the master here. Can you give me a reason, apart from the philosophical commitments as to what human nature is capable of, why we should interpret Jesus' words of institution "figuratively"?

Because it would be cannibalism (I know that contradicts my OP. I'm uncertain), because historically it's led to taking the host out of the hands of the laity (a logical step from RP but it seems to contradict the Eucharist's communal nature), because it seems arbitrary (see above).

[Maxentius]

Sorry, I don't have much time today.

I'm not sure I see the difference. The Lutheran commitment to RP seems to be at bottom an insistence on reading the words of institution literally no matter what but practically any theology can be pulled out of the Bible that way. I'm sure you remember Ranran the universalist. His insistence on reading "Christ is the Savior of all men" this way seems similar

No problem about time.

I see a difference. As I pointed out, many heretical doctrines are "supported" by taking words "figuratively".

As to the Lutheran approach to the words of institution, we take them literally because of the context, and because of their historical usage and understanding. We are not the only ones. RCs take them literally, too, but attempt to explain the reality with Aristotelean categories. The EOs have a quite similar view to the Lutheran view; will you accuse them of arbitrarily taking a particular passage literally more or less "just because"?

Regarding "Christ the savior of all men.." The difference is this: no where in Scripture are we told that the bread and wine are symbols. To the contrary, Jesus' words themselves, St. Paul's statement that failure to discern the body (!!) is to sin against the body and blood of the Lord. But we are told that there will be some who go to hell forever. So I do not see a parallel.

I meant those who add up the figures in the Genesis genealogies. Bad analogy, I guess. Flat-earthers might be closer to my intent.

The Bible does not teach a flat earth. Also, there is some ambiguity in the word "literal". "Literalness" is also determined by the kind of literature, its context etc. It is a false choice to bsically say that poetic literature is to be read the same way as historical accounts. And I stand by my statement that there is no reason in the text to take the words of Christ figuratively.

Because it would be cannibalism (I know that contradicts my OP. I'm uncertain), because historically it's led to taking the host out of the hands of the laity (a logical step from RP but it seems to contradict the Eucharist's communal nature), because it seems arbitrary (see above).

Fair enough. But cannibalism isn't just consuming human flesh--else biting one's fingernails would be cannibalism, right? So, if Christ distributes his living, divinized flesh in the bread, is it necessarily cannibalism? It might still be, but I would like to explore this further.

FWIW, we do not believe we eat his flesh in a "gross, capernatic" fashion. (http://bookofconcord.org/sd-supper.php#para127)

[Obsidian]

This is why my question about God dying for your sins is so important. If you cannot answer "God doed for your sins" you functionally

Well it can't be that important, because it's not an actual quotation from scripture. Saying that God died for our sins is ambiguous, anyway, because only Jesus died and not the other two persons. God died for our sins in the sense that Jesus died and Jesus is a member of the Trinity.

Right here you treat his human nature as a person. and therein lies your mistake.

I'm not treating a "nature" as a person. I'm treating a human person as a person. "Nature" means a trait or characteristic. Jesus didn't just have some human traits but was actually a human person. Anyway, I do think that the man Jesus was all there was, and I don't think there was also another Son floating around elsewhere at the same time. From my perspective, what you're doing is calling the human person a "nature" and then suggesting that since there is also another divine nature, there must also be some other divine person out there (although you aren't calling it another person). In my mind that would basically be a Quadrinity. And no, I don't go out of my way to study Nestorianism, but from what I do know of it, what you are saying just basically reminds me of it.

I hold that while on earth, Jesus was God in the sense that he was the same spirit and personality who formed the cosmos at the direction of the Father, but that he had "emptied himself" of his power and become nothing as described in Philippians 2. Then he called the Father greater, and relied on the other members of the Trinity for supernatural knowledge and power.

Have you even read Chalcidon?

I don't remember whether I had or not. I think that I had. I'm not a huge fan of these old creeds, though. Even the ones that I completely agree with don't usually seem all that helpful (e.g., "We believe in God the Father, etc. etc.").

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

The only part I disagree with is the part where it says "without change," because I think the Incarnation pretty clearly involved a change of some sort. I don't know what "without change" is even supposed to mean. Obviously you don't "become nothing" without changing. I would agree that the Incarnation did not change him from being the Son to being anyone other than the Son. And in the sense that he was unified with the Father, he still arguably had omnipotence and omniscience available to him (although more properly speaking, they were actually the Father's, and the Father obviously did not reveal all the knowledge to him). But the formula seems far more problematic for you, because it clearly emphasizes that there is no separation or division between the natures. But you are saying that Jesus divided his mind and separated his omniscience from his human persona. It makes more sense to say that the Father kept the knowledge from him than to say that he kept it from himself.

Jeremiah 23:23-24
"The heavens and the earth" is Hebrew idiom for everywhere.
q.v. Psalm 139:7-12

David had the Holy Spirit, and the point in Psalm 139 was that the Holy Spirit would follow David wherever David was. Jeremiah 23 does use the language of presence, but the presence basically seems to mean just a metaphor for power, which God can exercise anywhere on the earth. Alternatively/additionally, I think the reference to the whole earth may only signify multi-presence and not necessarily omnipresence.