Dale Tuggy on Origen on John

I have a Twitter/X  account, but I don't post there often. Today I took a peek and found this:

https://x.com/DaleTuggy/status/1786943516922306708.  The following is from Tuggy:

An interesting passage from Origen's commentary on John. Some readers still make the same mistake!

"Those, however, who are confused on the subject of the Father and the Son bring together the statement, "God . . . raised up Christ' [1 Cor 15:14]. . . and words like these which show him who raises to be different from him who has been raised, and the statement [in Jn 2:19], "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." They think that these statements prove that the Son does not differ from the Father in number, but that both being one, not only in essence, but also in substance, they are said to be Father and Son in relation to certain differing aspects, not in relation to their reality.

Comment: Yup, some still look at that text from John and conclude that Jesus and God are one and the same ("same in number"). Back to Origen,

For this reason, we must first quote to them the texts capable of establishing definitely that the Son is other than the Father, and we must say that it is necessary that a son be the son of a father and that a father be the father of a son. After this we must say to them that it is not strange for him, who admits that he can do nothing except what he sees the Father doing, and who says that whatever the Father does, the Son likewise also does, to have raised the dead, (which was the body), since the Father, who we must say emphatically has raised the Christ from the dead, grants this to him."

Comment: I think if you're a dualist you could accept this solution. If you're not, I think you can simply understand Christ to mean that after God would bring him back to life, he'd get up!

Comments

[mharko]

I must be at least a dualist, perhaps even a trioist.
Over at 'Forging Ploughshares' (https://forgingploughshares.org/), a series of posts over the last month by Paul Axton explore John, Origen, the Cappodocians, Maximus and Hegel, as elucidating and endorsing the Trinitarian, Chalcedonian formula. I've been reading them several times over the last 2 or so weeks. The coinkydink of your post today compels me to comment, plus I still haven't finished the last homework.
Knowing Hegel only vaguely from all the penumbra of his reputation, having never encountered or read him myself, I found the information there to be enlightening. Is there an English translation of key Hegelian writings that excel in clarity, accessibility and nuanced faithfulness to the original German you would recommend?
Reading more Origen is also on my to do list.

[BV]

Coinkydink or sinkydink? Be that as it may.

Thanks for the linkyplink. Fascinating! What can you tell me about this Paul Axton? Where is he coming from philosophically and denominationally? I intend to work though at least one of his articles.

I will get back to you.

Right now I have to get to work installing a faucet in the kitchen.

[mharko]

OMG, wish I could help you w/ that faucet, that's one of my bailywicks. 2.5 trips to the hdwr store, etc.
I'm afraid I know nothing about Mr. Axton but what is revealed there on the site. Protestant roots though, for sure, despite the Orthodox affiliations of many of his referents. Was Hegel affiliated w/ a denomination? Lutheran, Catholic? Axton states he was a seminarian. I could do my own research, and will, but just wondering out loud.
Hope the plumbing goes well, no leaks or callbacks.

[BV]

My coinage 'sinkydink' alludes to Jungian synchronicity. I also at the moment have sinks and faucets on my mind -- and I am once again battling the damned recalcitrance of matter!

To answer your question, Hegel was a Lutheran. I feel a Hegel jag coming on.

I will now upload a Hegel article to the Stack that may interest you.

[mharko]

We are in sink.

[BV]

Better than being under a damned sink!