The Filioque Clause

[MoreCoffee]

"proceeds from the Father and the Son" versus "Or Father and Mother in haven" ... yes, the latter looks a whole lot more troublesome.

 

[Pedrito]

Of course, Pedrito could dare to run the risk of being accused of heresy once again – by simply quoting some statements of Scripture that clearly define the orthodoxy or heresy of the Filioque clause – to the vexation of those who support it.

John 14:16: (MKJV)
16 And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, so that He may be with you forever,

John 14:26: )MKJV)
26 But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatever I have said to you.

John 15:26: (MKJV)
26 And when the Comforter has come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He shall testify of Me.


But why let direct statements made by the Son of God, stand in the way of cherished doctrine?

We can't have that, can we?

 

[kiwimac]

Statements made by Jesus while he was human are not useful here. His knowledge while human was limited and parochial (which the scriptures themselves tell us.) Further, you are quoting from John's Gospel which is the farthest away from Jesus' life in time period and the most mystical. There is no requirement on the believer to accept the filioque nor can there be but also there is no harm in accepting it either.

 

[kiwimac]

Your comment makes me think that (for example) the whole of the Lord's Prayer can be revised, as it was by the New Zealand church, making God our Father and our Mother--and much more besides that--and the response of most of the religious world is, well, modern language is a good thing.

But one word in the Creed that turns on a rather fine point and has been around for over a thousand years...is supposed to be a first rate controversy we have to face up to?? It seems like something is out of whack.

The NZPB offers the 'Father and Mother' in only a couple of places and has many other options. Gendered language for God is really not terribly useful, God is a spirit and thus has no gender other than what we ascribe which is why the Bible uses imagery of a woman in labour for God and speaks of God's "wings."

 

[Pedrito]

Post #83 [emphasis added]:

Statements made by Jesus while he was human are not useful here. His knowledge while human was limited and parochial (which the scriptures themselves tell us.) Further, you are quoting from John's Gospel which is the farthest away from Jesus' life in time period and the most mystical.

Pedrito invites comments from people such as (in alphabetical order) Josiah, Lämmchen and MoreCoffee, as well as other interested parties, on each of the two highligted areas above.

==============================================================================================

The matter is one of authority. It is a question of:
- How does God reveal His truth to mankind?
- If there is no absolute source of authority, how do we know who to trust?
- To which of the conflicting thoughts of human theologians should we give credence?
- If the Bible is deemed to be not a (that) source of authority:
... - How do we know that God even exists?
... - How do we know that He is interested in mankind in general and us as individuals?

Which then invites the question: Could one of the other world religions be the correct one?

The majority of Christianity places human thoughts about God – what He wants from us, and how we should placate (approach) Him – theology – above the Bible and the revelations therein.

Which means of course that they are not revelations at all.

==============================================================================================

Men devising ways of seeking God according to their own wisdom and their own perceived requirements, Pedrito wants no part of.

Pedrito chooses to use the consistent, coherent message of the Bible, as the basis for his beliefs.

 

[Albion]

The NZPB offers the 'Father and Mother' in only a couple of places and has many other options.

If you think that's a defense...OK. However, it doesn't change anything. This new Filioque controversy is considerably less important than many of the liberal changes in the faith that are made more or less routinely these days.

 

[kiwimac]

If you think that's a defense...OK. However, it doesn't change anything. This new Filioque controversy is considerably less important than many of the liberal changes in the faith that are made more or less routinely these days.

Why would you argue otherwise? Are you arguing that God has gender and that it is male only?

 

[atpollard]

Why would you argue otherwise? Are you arguing that God has gender and that it is male only?

He says He is.
God chose the terms Father and Son to describe the relationship and Jesus definitely had a specific gender.
The Holy Spirit chose masculine pronouns when both feminine and neuter pronouns were available in the original languages.
A goddess would not have raised an eyebrow in the eastern culture.
Yet God self-identifies as masculine.

That seems good enough for me.

 

[kiwimac]

He says He is.
God chose the terms Father and Son to describe the relationship and Jesus definitely had a specific gender.
The Holy Spirit chose masculine pronouns when both feminine and neuter pronouns were available in the original languages.
A goddess would not have raised an eyebrow in the eastern culture.
Yet God self-identifies as masculine.

That seems good enough for me.

The Bible also says that God is like a woman giving birth and has wings. Perhaps you might like to reconsider?

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Bible also says that God is like a woman giving birth and has wings. Perhaps you might like to reconsider?

Isn't poetry a wonderful thing.

 

[kiwimac]

Isn't it? I would argue that those portions of scripture referring to God as "he"are likewise allegorical because God is a spirit.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Isn't it? I would argue that those portions of scripture referring to God as "he"are likewise allegorical because God is a spirit.

Some argue that way. What's your take on him being "Our Father in heaven" and Jesus is a male and when Jesus spoke using personal pronouns about the Holy Spirit he said "he". Is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit allegorical as far as pronouns, titles, and human gender concerned?

 

[Albion]

Isn't it? I would argue that those portions of scripture referring to God as "he"are likewise allegorical because God is a spirit.

Yes, but aside from the fact that he took on a male body when incarnated, God is referred to as male and as a Father because of qualities that are associated with males and fathers. That's why the analogy, or allegory as you put it, is employed in Scripture and why it's wrong for mortals to decide to change that in favor of some other vision.

 

[psalms 91]

Yes, but aside from the fact that he took on a male body when incarnated, God is referred to as male and as a Father because of qualities that are associated with males and fathers. That's why the analogy, or allegory as you put it, is employed in Scripture and why it's wrong for mortals to decide to change that in favor of some other vision.

While you are correct that He is called these things He is also called the double breasted one which denotes a female atttribute

 

[MoreCoffee]

While you are correct that He is called these things He is also called the double breasted one which denotes a female atttribute

Double breasted one? Where's that said?

 

[Albion]

While you are correct that He is called these things He is also called the double breasted one which denotes a female atttribute

And there are some other terms of reference in Scripture that seem to be feminine, but he's still styled "the Father" and called by that word, so I'd say that that is the main image we are given of him.

 

[kiwimac]

And there are some other terms of reference in Scripture that seem to be feminine, but he's still styled "the Father" and called by that word, so I'd say that that is the main image we are given of him.

Bearing in mind the patriarchal nature of Jewish society I don't find that comment compelling.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Bearing in mind the patriarchal nature of Jewish society I don't find that comment compelling.

From an ancient manuscript recently discovered in my house office ...

Many have undertaken to write a story about I, the LORD and what I demand of humanity as their creator. While their intentions were honourable and their lives exemplary in many ways they were nevertheless unable to do what they set out to achieve. So I have decided to write this and to explain that no book can ever be so good and so perfect that it grants a right or makes a demand that ends in treating other people badly. I am the Lord your God and you shall not be unkind or evil in my name. You shall not elevate these commandments to rulership over you. You shall always seek what is good and never do what is bad. Yet when you do bad things and eschew the good that you ought to have done do not look for punishment. Turn around and retreat from the bad you are doing and back to the good you ought to do and live your lives in happiness.