tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post2893610428089147768..comments2024-02-19T04:50:58.170-08:00Comments on Shuck and Jive: God the Trinity--BobJohn Shuckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-54005976924527519912007-09-14T06:20:00.000-07:002007-09-14T06:20:00.000-07:00Thanks to all of you for the great comments! I th...Thanks to all of you for the great comments! I thought of popping in to address one or another, but you all are doing just fine! It would be fun to have you all over for a sarsparilla!John Shuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00798753206614838161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-36082622853680730652007-09-14T06:05:00.000-07:002007-09-14T06:05:00.000-07:00Hmm... so by Chris' logic, a candidate for ministr...Hmm... so by Chris' logic, a candidate for ministry must be rejected if s/he fails to believe in the following:<BR/><BR/>1. Jesus' biological father is actually the third person of the Trinity ("conceived by the Holy Ghost")<BR/><BR/>2. The Virgin Birth<BR/><BR/>3. Pontius Pilate was solely responsible for Jesus' torture and execution<BR/><BR/>4. Jesus went to Hell<BR/><BR/>5. The Holy Catholic Church<BR/><BR/>6. Baptism grants forgiveness of sins<BR/><BR/>It's a pretty radical statement, especially considering that the Nicene Creed was written about 260 years after Paul died and almost 300 after Jesus was crucified. The Apostles' Creed is not much older, maybe about 100 years at the most.<BR/><BR/>It's also pretty radical considering that claiming the Apostle's and Nicene creeds as a list of essentials would also get one rejected by the OPC or PCA, who adhere strictly to the Westminster Confession of Faith.<BR/><BR/>I don't know how many times John, Bob and I can rehash the history of the mainline Presbyterian church to get the point across: we made a conscious decision to reject the idea of a list of Fundamentals or Essentials for candidates for ordination as a matter of principle (specifically, that liberty of conscience is a gift from the Lord of the conscience). <BR/>---<BR/>Just as our understanding of the world around us changes over time, our understanding of God changes over time. The very idea of a <I>Book of Confessions</I> is to show that we realize that we as a Church grow in our view of God. It is the very essence of the Reformation that the Church understand this: ecclessia reformata, semper reformanda, secundu Verbum Dei! The Church reformed, ever being reformed, after the Word of God!Flycandlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08599392875619723740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-68401281371105144812007-09-14T00:11:00.000-07:002007-09-14T00:11:00.000-07:00Chris,You said:"The Church isn't shutting out deba...Chris,<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><BR/>"The Church isn't shutting out debate on the issue, but it's going forward with what it believes is true to the core of its being."<BR/><BR/>"The Church"?!<BR/><BR/>Q.E.D.Jodiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15447125159108080797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-26657738657138614872007-09-13T23:58:00.000-07:002007-09-13T23:58:00.000-07:00It's the narcissism of our time, combined with an ...It's the narcissism of our time, combined with an ignorance of history and the theological tradition, that leads people to believe that they have captured some new data demanding a reworking of the doctrine of God such that personal Trinitarianism would be abrogated.<BR/><BR/>The Church isn't shutting out debate on the issue, but it's going forward with what it believes is true to the core of its being. I find it funny that these accusations of intellectual stubborness are never leveled at the academic establishment's claims of evolution and global warming. Should universities be funding the work at the Creation Museum in order to ensure that debate goes forward? If not, why is the Church expected to do the equivalent on the nature of theology? Especially among the officers who vow to uphold essentials.<BR/><BR/>And here's a clue: if it's in the Apostles Creed or the Nicene Creed, it's essential. Trinity, incarnation, resurrection, and return are all found there. You can have a legitimate debate on what they mean in light of Biblical data, ideas held at the time, and further theological exploration. But to dismiss them as church power plays is callous handling of history.Chris Larimerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01770607122746467750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-8196592854836352412007-09-13T15:03:00.000-07:002007-09-13T15:03:00.000-07:00The concept of a List of Essentials is dangerous b...<I>The concept of a List of Essentials is dangerous because it quashes liberty of conscience. It means that you are no longer able to disagree with me about how we discuss the Trinity today, what metaphors are appropriate or not, and whether the doctrine is Biblical or not.<BR/><BR/>To put it in Jodie's term, it shuts down the marketplace of ideas.</I><BR/><BR/>This is exactly what is happening in the Catholic Church. Just this week, we learn that <A HREF="http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i-VQn87SczaWHedgt8a84YsyWAmA" REL="nofollow">the Catholic Church is investigating an American theologian for not exactly toeing the Vatican line</A>. This is hardly an isolated case in that church. I think this is exactly the consequence of imposing "essentials", whatever those may be, on a church--the suppression of free inquiry leads to a stifling of religious thought and a shutdown of the human brain in religious circles. Theology becomes an exercise in simply justifying what is handed down from above, rather than a true exercise in theological exploration.Mystical Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10828225180668865911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-6051055045558038022007-09-13T13:01:00.000-07:002007-09-13T13:01:00.000-07:00Bob, I couldn't have said it any better, and I thi...Bob, I couldn't have said it any better, and I think it illustrates my point about the danger of essentials beautifully.<BR/><BR/>The concept of a List of Essentials is dangerous because it quashes liberty of conscience. It means that you are no longer able to disagree with me about how we discuss the Trinity today, what metaphors are appropriate or not, and whether the doctrine is Biblical or not.<BR/><BR/>To put it in Jodie's term, it shuts down the marketplace of ideas. I will say that the idea of a marketplace of theological ideas is bone-chilling for some, as it eliminates dogma. I submit that our historical Presbyterian tradition calls on us to open that marketplace up and have open, honest, respectful discussion (not unlike John and Bob's conversations series). If we ask ourselves tough questions about the Trinity, I believe our faith in the Trinity will ultimately become stronger.<BR/><BR/>I know that there is a lot of talking at cross-purposes here. What I mean by "essential" is different from what Bob means by "essential" is different from what John means by "essential". I know that John and even Bob are not using the word in the sense that J. Gresham Machen did, but my fear is that in the context of the Presbyterian churches in the United States, that word has Machen's ghost firmly attached to it. We must not, we cannot go down that road again.<BR/><BR/>I suppose it begs the question: so then what do we call it, Mr. Smarty Pants? How 'bout "crucial"? What is crucial to what I believe about Christianity? What, if I had limited words or time to explain my faith, would I consider the crucial elements? Being the language geek that I am, I also like the fact that the root of the word "crucial" is the Latin <I>crux</I>, or "cross".Flycandlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08599392875619723740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-68515562699265460212007-09-13T12:55:00.000-07:002007-09-13T12:55:00.000-07:00flyCan't promise any ambrosia but I have some cont...fly<BR/><BR/>Can't promise any ambrosia but I have some contacts among the Catholics. Maybe I can get you a few thousand years off on your time in purgatory.<BR/><BR/>But wait! I don't believe in purgatory! Oh well . . .Pastor Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10510081361292855641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-50929757132650401122007-09-13T09:41:00.000-07:002007-09-13T09:41:00.000-07:00JodieFirst, the various debates you suggest are al...Jodie<BR/><BR/>First, the various debates you suggest are already going on inside the Church. There is a great deal of debate about how to talk about the Trinity today, what metaphors for the Trinity are appropriate and what are not, and even whether the doctrine is Biblical and/or useful or not.<BR/><BR/>Remember I find it essential. Not all do.Pastor Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10510081361292855641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-5489143769072714542007-09-13T09:06:00.000-07:002007-09-13T09:06:00.000-07:00Aric,As almost always, very well put.My 'but' is t...Aric,<BR/><BR/>As almost always, very well put.<BR/><BR/>My 'but' is this. If the doctrine of the Trinity is all that you say, then it will hold its own in a fair debate in the marketplace of ideas. Challenges to the doctrine should be met with well thought out "pros" and "cons", its merits and detriments should be aired out, if corrections or adjustments are found necessary they will surface, and all of us will be enriched by the experience.<BR/><BR/>The worst possible response to such challenges are cries of "heresy" and "blasphemy". That reaction indicts the doctrine and those that profess it and gives it the kiss of death really. <BR/><BR/>That is where the cutting edge of the discussion lies. Not what it says or means, but how to insure the right and privilege to challenge any doctrine on its own merits. <BR/><BR/>The Fundamentalists want to shut down all said discussions and for me that invokes a "give me liberty or give me death" response. I imagine I am not alone.<BR/><BR/>JodieJodiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15447125159108080797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-57456242093007010552007-09-13T06:39:00.000-07:002007-09-13T06:39:00.000-07:00BTW, I think we should offer a prize for whoever c...BTW, I think we should offer a prize for whoever can figure out the subtle hint I gave about the origin of "hoo-hoo-dilly" and "cha-cha". John or Bob, can you arrange for some coupons for comped cups of ambrosia in the afterlife?Flycandlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08599392875619723740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-10847564330400950052007-09-13T05:57:00.000-07:002007-09-13T05:57:00.000-07:00To mesh both Seeker and Jodie's points, another fa...To mesh both Seeker and Jodie's points, another famous example of political leaders claiming divine parentage is Romulus and Remus.<BR/><BR/>In a nutshell, an early Italian king forced Rhea Silvia to become a Vestal Virgin for thirty years (so that she would produce no heirs for her father). The god Mars found her attractive and raped her. On finding she was pregnant, the king ordered her to be buried alive (standard punishment for VVs who broke their vows) and the twin boys to be killed. A servant felt pity on the baby boys and set them adrift in the Tiber. A she-wolf found them and nursed them until a shepherd found the boys and raised them himself. Long story short, the boys grew up and slew said king. After a bit of weirdness involving vulture sightings and trench-jumping, Romulus got to found the Eternal City on his pick of the hills (Palatine) and named the city after himself (Roma) and killed his brother. Tradition says that Romulus was borne up into heaven at the end of his life (in a whirlwind) and made into the god Quirinius.<BR/><BR/>See a few Biblical parallels? Even if one believes that Jesus' virgin birth, divine nature and bodily resurrection are literally true, one has to admit that the early Christians would find these aspects of their faith as particularly satisfying pokes in the eye to their Roman overlords. I still maintain that until Nero, Christianity was tolerated as just another fashionable cult by Rome (like the cults of Cybele, Isis, Mithras and Sol Invictus). Things changed when Nero needed a scapegoat for the burning of Rome while he farted around with a stringed instrument and started tossing Christians in the Colosseum. You see the subtle and not-so-subtle jabs at Nero throughout Revelation.Flycandlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08599392875619723740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-15185628876929204732007-09-12T23:00:00.000-07:002007-09-12T23:00:00.000-07:00Seeker,I sympathize with you feeling like you're e...Seeker,<BR/><BR/>I sympathize with you feeling like you're excluded or treated badly by trinitarian Christians. You and Jodie both have a point about there being Christians before the formulation of the doctrine of the trinity and of it not being explicit in scripture.<BR/><BR/>However (you knew there was a but coming) you miss the point when you call the trinity an "accident of history". Everything is an accident of History. You are an accident of history. Jesus is an accident of history if you go that direction. It changes nothing. We live in a world in which Christians for over 16 centuries have expressed their faith primarily in trinitarian terms and by and large this has been enriching, indeed, the most breathtaking theology the church has produced is trinitarian in every era. Furthermore, the doctrine was codified in the fourth century, but it has roots deeper and the value in it is the way it opens scripture and dogmatics up in amazing ways. I am not prepared to say one MUST be trinitarian to be Christian. Clearly this is not true. However, missing the beauty of the trinity is like walking through the Louvre and then going - "meh".Aric Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15241157655075444268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-17668303032896146142007-09-12T17:47:00.000-07:002007-09-12T17:47:00.000-07:00At the time of Jesus, every emperor since at least...<I>At the time of Jesus, every emperor since at least Alexander the Great took on the title "Son of God".</I><BR/><BR/>The same could be said of the myth of the virgin birth of Jesus. Ancient heroes, Emperors, and Kings were often said to have been conceived by gods. Alexander the Great, for example, was said to have been conceived as the son of a god. Christians, by inventing the virgin birth myth, were appealing to this notion in the popular imagination that the greatness of Jesus required that he was conceived by a human-divine union.<BR/><BR/>Justin Martyr, in fact, made this very point himself, when he wrote that "we introduce nothing new beyond those whom you call sons of Zeus."Mystical Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10828225180668865911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-59727360213277290742007-09-12T17:40:00.000-07:002007-09-12T17:40:00.000-07:00(by the way Bob, there were Christians long before...<I>(by the way Bob, there were Christians long before anybody articulated a belief in the Trinity, so you cannot say that not believing in the Trinity makes you not a Christian - that is totally anachronistic - you can only say that not being a Christian implies you are not a Trinitarian)</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, yes, yes! This is one of my pet peeves about those who insist that you can't be a Christian if you are not a Trinitarian. Before the matter was settled in the fourth century, Christians of all stripes had all sorts of views about Jesus and his relation to God. To claim that one cannot be a Christian lest one believes in the Trinity ignores the diversity of belief that existed in the faith prior to the time that non-Trinitarian views were drummed out of the faith by those in power.<BR/><BR/>The Trinity is an accident of history. The votes over Arianism versus the Nicene version of the faith went back and forth. There was bloodshed, there was Imperial intervention, there was political intrigue. One side won--and now this accident of history is considered even today as an essential of the faith, and Christian gatekeepers use that as a stick to beat out heretics with. And the diversity of thinking on questions like these that existed prior to the "settling" of the matter is written out of Christianity as well, apparently. The word anachronistic totally applies here.Mystical Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10828225180668865911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-20893409234602478732007-09-12T17:27:00.000-07:002007-09-12T17:27:00.000-07:00**Because it leaves out the political implications...**Because it leaves out the political implications and context of 'Father/Son'.**<BR/><BR/>This might be anachronistic as well, but in today's times, the parent/child could still carry the political implications, with the understanding of how Father/Son functioned back then. Part of what would be carrying that back then is how male-dominated the world was, and just that the male had the highest power. Had the Israelites been matriarchal, I have no doubt God would be referred to as Mother. The point of the Roman Emperors being called the "Son of God" seems to put the emphasis, first and foremost, as a connection and divine right to rule, not to focus on the gender of the ruler. If it had been equal in terms of gender, then even child of God would carry weight. The "son" portion seems to be an afterthought, almost.OneSmallStephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08189124855157679020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-91234450343730057332007-09-12T17:04:00.000-07:002007-09-12T17:04:00.000-07:00I don't see any contradiction between these titles...I don't see any contradiction between these titles being both names and metaphors. The fact is that they are both. You simply can't get around the connotations associated with calling one person of the Trinity "Father". This is not a name pulled out of a hat, like Bill. If instead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we said Bill, Buffy, and Chad--those would be names. But when you use names that have roles associated with them in other contexts within human language, then you get into metaphor territory. It's impossible to escape that aspect of it. Especially when we are applying these titles to something that is so beyond ordinary experience--because something like God almost cannot be described except via resorting metaphors at some point in the discussion.Mystical Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10828225180668865911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-50111492493431756782007-09-12T17:01:00.000-07:002007-09-12T17:01:00.000-07:00Heather said "why not just go with 'parent/child'?...Heather said "why not just go with 'parent/child'?<BR/><BR/>Because it leaves out the political implications and context of 'Father/Son'. At the time of Jesus, every emperor since at least Alexander the Great took on the title "Son of God". It goes with "Lord" It means "boss of everybody" not just "heavenly child".<BR/><BR/>It was the position of the early Christians that their Lord was Jesus Christ, not the emperor, and that the title of "Son of God" belonged not ever to any emperor but forever and only to Jesus Christ who alone has authority to rule over his people. <BR/><BR/>It's a question of allegiance and loyalty. In today's language, they would have been shocked at us pledging allegiance to the flag of a nation, even if it were - truly - under God.<BR/><BR/>I am inclined to believe that was the first and foremost implication of Jesus being the "Son of God". Even if the philosopher theologians argued endlessly about the metaphysical and cosmological implications of the statement, the point they sometimes lost sight of was "who is your one and only boss?"<BR/><BR/>(by the way Bob, there were Christians long before anybody articulated a belief in the Trinity, so you cannot say that not believing in the Trinity makes you not a Christian - that is totally anachronistic - you can only say that not being a Christian implies you are not a Trinitarian)<BR/><BR/>JodieJodiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15447125159108080797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-89549437071346158882007-09-12T16:21:00.000-07:002007-09-12T16:21:00.000-07:00**all that I said that Father, Son and Holy Spirit...**all that I said that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are names, not metaphors. Therefore the sex of God does not apply.**<BR/><BR/>But there's more options here than just name or metapohr. Father and son also function as titles or descriptions. I understand what you're getting at, in needing to give some idea of what God is, and words are imperfect, at best. <BR/><BR/>But why not just go with Parent/Child? There's not such a biological association with those, as there is with father or mother. It just seems that Father/Son aren't used according to what they mean in referring to God as eternally being the son.OneSmallStephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08189124855157679020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-11181283719024665262007-09-12T15:52:00.000-07:002007-09-12T15:52:00.000-07:00Bob, my favorite line from the song comes at the e...Bob, my favorite line from the song comes at the end: If I ever have a son, I think I'm gonna name him...Bill or George! Anything but Sue! "<BR/><BR/>Seriously, though, any name, title, or metaphor you choose to assign to God is going to be an incomplete description of who God is and what he/she does. That's where the Muslims have got it right with their concept of 99 names of God. God is too vast, too ineffable, for any of us to capture anything but a piece of God's infinite nature. And while I'm a big fan of having a personal relationship with God, I also think that the nature of that relationship is nothing comparable to the relationship that we have with human beings. While giving God a personal-sounding title may help aid us in our ability to personalize the way we communicate with the Divine, even the personal way that we describe God is a kind of metaphor for a reality that is beyond our comprehension.<BR/><BR/>The only way that we as finite creatures can describe our encounters with the Infinite is via metaphors. That's all we've got. Father is a metaphor. Mother is a metaphor. Son is a metaphor. Creator does describe something of what God does, but it only captures a piece of it.<BR/><BR/>I would, of course, go further and argue that the Trinity is just another imperfect human attempt at describing God's ineffable reality--and a rather convoluted one at that.Mystical Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10828225180668865911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-90080551172225805312007-09-12T15:19:00.000-07:002007-09-12T15:19:00.000-07:00OK, I admit it, I came out as 50% Yankee on the Ar...OK, I admit it, I came out as 50% Yankee on the Are Y'all/Youse Yankee or Dixie? test. So this is the first place I have ever heard of the terms hoo-hoo-dilly or cha-cha. Does that make me irreparably Yankee?<BR/><BR/>Beyond that please note, all that I said that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are names, not metaphors. Therefore the sex of God does not apply. I knew a girl in high school called Douglas, sister of my best friend at the time. She did get assigned to boy's PE but neither her name nor her class assignment made her male. One could also point to Johnny Cash's funny song called, "A Boy Named Sue." Being called Sue didn't make him a girl, although it got him in a lot of fights. (favorite like from the song: "My name is Sue! How do you do! Now you gonna die!")<BR/><BR/>Do the names have implications for how we think about God? Of course! The real underlying problem goes back to an issue John and I talked about early on, one to which fly has referred and just came up again on John's site. God is personal. If God is personal we cannot use impersonal names or pronouns for God. We can use impersonal analogies and metaphors. In English as in Greek and Hebrew one can only use male or female names and pronouns for persons. God is not an it. One cannot have a personal relationship with a thing. So while we may talk about God as Creator, (a job title) that is not sufficient for a name of God because the word is not personal.Pastor Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10510081361292855641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-19624560223917497562007-09-12T14:59:00.000-07:002007-09-12T14:59:00.000-07:00flyYou are correct about not only the Confession o...fly<BR/><BR/>You are correct about not only the Confession of 1967 but all of the confessional documents in the Book of Confession outside of the Westminster Standards. The PCUS never adopted any other confessional documents until reunion in 1983<BR/><BR/>As to whether presbyteries may or may not make a list of essentials, that is currently in the judicial system of the PCUSA. The first curious bit is that no one challenged the San Diego list within the appropriate time period to bring a remedial case before the Synod PJC. The only way one could challenge San Diego's list of essentials in the judicial system now would be to bring a remedial case if a candidate is turned down because he/she did not make a statement that included an adequate description of what San Diego Presbytery considers essential.<BR/><BR/>The courts are in several curious places about the issue of essentials. Pittsburgh Presbytery's statement about essentials was overturned by the Synod PJC as was Sacramento's. One from a presbytery in Washington state was upheld by the Synod PJC. So we all wait with baited breath to find out what the GAPJC will say.<BR/><BR/>Pittsburgh's, Sacramento's and the one in Washington were all about obedience to the mandates (shall, shall not, is to be, is not to be) in the Book of Order. I think they all reference G-6.0106b.Pastor Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10510081361292855641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-25786874075675648002007-09-12T14:14:00.000-07:002007-09-12T14:14:00.000-07:00**Calling God "Father" gives God an explicit gende...**Calling God "Father" gives God an explicit gender and human sexual traits. The "Son" is appropriate, but only because Jesus of Nazareth was born with a penis.**<BR/><BR/>I would agree with this, because both are pretty much biologically determined. If we say that someone is a father, whether by birth or adoption, then we mean that person has certain physical characteristics. Without those biological characteristics, what makes Jesus a "son?" Or God a "Father?"OneSmallStephttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08189124855157679020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-59743244242953962162007-09-12T14:03:00.000-07:002007-09-12T14:03:00.000-07:00From now on, I propose that all genitalia be refer...From now on, I propose that all genitalia be referred to in John's blog as either a hoo-hoo-dilly or a cha-cha.Mystical Seekerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10828225180668865911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-23881613482377992362007-09-12T11:13:00.000-07:002007-09-12T11:13:00.000-07:00BTW, Viola, I'll finish The Book of Mormon as soon...BTW, Viola, I'll finish <I>The Book of Mormon</I> as soon as you finish <I>Dianetics</I>. ;-)<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>PS: I am more familiar with the former than the latter. Everything I know about Scientology I learned from <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trapped_in_the_Closet_%28South_Park%29" REL="nofollow">South Park</A>.Flycandlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08599392875619723740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30648257.post-48513446474086769142007-09-12T11:07:00.000-07:002007-09-12T11:07:00.000-07:00Excellent questions John.We know that Jesus had a ...Excellent questions John.<BR/><BR/>We know that Jesus had a penis because he was circumcised (Luke 2.21).<BR/><BR/>This causes some rather awkward theological questions.<BR/><BR/>1. Did Jesus heal his own tallywacker? If so, does that mean he was technically no longer a Jew?<BR/><BR/>2. When Jesus was bodily resurrected, did he get his foreskin back too? Maybe THIS was the question Thomas should have asked--then again, maybe not (John 21.27).<BR/><BR/>3. When Jesus returns in glory, will his foreskin also return in glory? Will that be something we necessarily want to see?<BR/><BR/>(I really shouldn't be writing this when there are so many thunderclouds about).<BR/><BR/>--<BR/><BR/>Viola, my point about the penis (hey John, how nasty is your blog rated NOW?) is that it would be appropriate to use the term for "male offspring" ("son") to describe Jesus and inappropriate to use the term for "female offspring" ("daughter") mainly because that as manifest on Earth, Jesus had a hoo-hoo-dilly and not a cha-cha. It has to do with whether Jesus was a Son or Daughter, not whether Jesus was begotten or not (misbegotten?).Flycandlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08599392875619723740noreply@blogger.com