Criticism of panentheism and pantheism.

[Metacrock]

Yes, that's more like what I'm talking about - totality, or unity. At any rate, what we perceive as being the universe plus anything else whatsoever. I shouldn't use universe or cosmos as they already have well established meanings, being something less inclusive than what I'm getting at.

Here's another good examples, actually kind of wierd the medieval and Renaissance theologians seem to be the ones closer related to pantheism than classical theism on the spectrum. Go figure.Nicolas of Cusa, Meister Eckhart all seem to emphasize the universe being part of god in one sense or another, but with God trascendent by being "nothing" or "beyond being." Again,I kind of got a Daoist vibe from it if I took out the Christian element aside from the divine immanence.

Scottus of Ireland is pretty explicit in equating God and nature, but again makes that distinguishment between that and the cosmos or the world (as the dark ages people would probably have thought of). Here's a statement he does make distinctions but at other times he definitely emphasizes the unity of God and the world

We Should not therefor understand God and creation as two differnt things, but as one and the same.

. However, the distinction is similar to spinoza's "Nature making nature" and "Nature being made nature." God plays a creative role and is transcendent in its absolute infinity.

Just food for thought.

that's the problem with trying to translate mystical experience into doctrine. IN systematic 2 Tillich talks about how his version of Christianity might be mistake for pantheism but it' not. Pantheism still treats God like a thing in creation even though that "thing" is the sum of all things.

[Superfund]

is the universe a quantum computer(for want of a better word) Is this pantheism?

I always understand christ better pantheisticly he consistantly self referanced as "the son of man." which i take as a old world universal term for human being. So Humble yourself as a child and believe in the one who he sends, So the boy sends the man. (or the girl sends the woman.)

Ok back to the alcohol (haha!)

Thanks for the entertainment guys

[Superfund]

Sorry for being a bit vague

this was the quantum computer theory I was reading /peace

http://www.grahamhancock.com/phorum/rea ... 13&t=51413

[Metacrock]

ok that's very interesting. thanks for the link.

[Superfund]

http://www.professorenforum.de/volumes/ ... oeller.pdf about halfway through its fascinating

[Metacrock]

is the universe a quantum computer(for want of a better word) Is this pantheism?

I always understand christ better pantheisticly he consistantly self referanced as "the son of man." which i take as a old world universal term for human being. So Humble yourself as a child and believe in the one who he sends, So the boy sends the man. (or the girl sends the woman.)

Ok back to the alcohol (haha!)

Thanks for the entertainment guys

the phrase son of God is a euphemism for Messiah. It's from the Hebrew.

[Superfund]

I thought that wasn't conclusive.

Among Jews the term "son of man" was not used as the specific title of the Messiah. The New Testament expression ὅ ὑιὸς τοῦ ἀνθρόπου is a translation of the Aramaic "bar nasha," and as such could have been understood only as the substitute for a personal pronoun, or as emphasizing the human qualities of those to whom it is applied. That the term does not appear in any of the epistles ascribed to Paul is significant."[7]

"In the Gospels the title occurs eighty-one times. Most of the recent writers (among them being II. Lietzmann) have come to the conclusion that Jesus, speaking Aramaic, could never have designated himself as the "son of man" in a Messianic, mystic sense, because the Aramaic term never implied this meaning."

Thats just wiki but i never found any other kind of concrete theologocal understanding of this either. It does fit with the selflessness of christ if you think about it. If it was clear that the reference was to messiah I dont see how it fits with say admonishing people to be silent about his activities. Also making so many self references to messiah to me doesn't sit well within the example he was setting and actualy to self reference as messiah all the time for me detracts from that.

/peace

[Metacrock]

The reference to the figure in Daniel "one like unto a son of man" which Daniel saw in a vision is taken to be Messiah. I'm going by memory but it seems like that's in Edhersheim's list.

It could still be a reference to the vision in Daniel 7 and have implications of his role in the redemption of man without being specially a Messianic epithet.


PDF by Richard Longnecker

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/ ... 8_JETS.pdf

the upshot of this article, which very scholarly is that we can't use Enoch to establish a pre Christian use of the term. Nor can we use Daneil 7 to prove there was such a pre christian designation. But nothing in that material rules out Jesus' own use of it as a link between himself and the figure in Daneil 7.