(urth) Indescribable Christ?

Son of Witz sonofwitz at butcherbaker.org
Fri Feb 6 08:43:20 PST 2009

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ryan Bonneville [mailto:ryan.bonneville at gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, February 6, 2009 06:56 AM
>To: urth at urth.net
>Subject: Re: (urth) Indescribable Christ?
>>No doubt Stanislaus meant that Christ's divine nature is in this sense
>>unknowable.  As Jeff observes, part of the point of Christianity is
>>that Christ is not simply divine, but possesses two natures. Christ's
>>human nature, in and of itself, is as describable as any other human
>It's also a pretty sloppy way to do literary analysis.  Christ's divinity is
>attributed to Him and explicated by means of a textual analysis.  There is
>no reason at all that we could not perform a comparison with Severian.
>> In fact, saying that God exists, is good, wise, powerful
>> etc is in a sense untrue - all those words do not describe God
>> correctly.
>This is nutty.  I'm not really interested in getting into a theology debate
>- we've had enough of that lately - but if we take this to be true, then
>talking about God simply makes no sense at all.  We're doing literary
>analysis here; ruling out of bounds a discussion based on the ineffability
>of one of the points of comparison probably means we need to change the
>point of comparison.
>We are comparing Severian to two beings/a being whose nature we grasp
>primarily through a text.  There is nothing the least bit problematic about

I completely agree.  I've understood it as GOD, the Godhead, is indescribable, but that inaccessibility is the main reason for Jesus to be. To give us a path.  This is where the Logos comes in as that which reconciles God and Man. What's Jesus say about finding the Father only through me, or such. The Logos is the bridge. And we've been comparing texts and exegesis about to characters that may or may not be incarnations of the Logos.

But while we can talk and argue about texts and exegesis all day long, as we have, I do agree with the gist of Stanslaus's post. Which is that God is truly indescribable. Anyone not framing their attempts at description with there failure at hitting the mark strikes me as a fraud.  I particularly like the practice of using double negatives for God. "God is not impotent" rather than "God is all powerful"  there are better examples to be had, but as a mental framing discipline, it seems like good practice. 


More information about the Urth mailing list