Is a theophany God or not?

[earl40]

How would you answer this question posed? The context is that I am in a discussion with an EO and a RC. The EO guy wants to know when the Holy Spirit came in the form of a dove if that was Him. On the surface this seems simple but how would you answer in light of the RC view of transubstantion also.

 

[earl40]

Here is a simple way of phrasing the question....Could you classify the incarnation as a theophany?

 

[py3ak]

To the second question, no. A theophany is an appearance of God in a visible way - but the incarnation wasn't simply an "appearance" - it was an assumption.

The original question seems to make a category mistake. It is God who appears (kythes, or makes his presence manifest). But is God the appearance? No. The burning bush arrested attention - and the Lord spoke from the midst of it; but the bush was not the Lord.

 

[earl40]

To the second question, no. A theophany is an appearance of God in a visible way - but the incarnation wasn't simply an "appearance" - it was an assumption.

The original question seems to make a category mistake. It is God who appears (kythes, or makes his presence manifest). But is God the appearance? No. The burning bush arrested attention - and the Lord spoke from the midst of it; but the bush was not the Lord.

So The Holy Spirit would be categorized the same as the burning bush when He appeared as a dove (kythes)? The EO fellow is asking a point blank question "Was the dove the Holy Spirit in Luke 3:22?" As you can see that I will have to qualify my answer.

---------- Post added at 03:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:46 PM ----------

To the second question, no. A theophany is an appearance of God in a visible way - but the incarnation wasn't simply an "appearance" - it was an assumption.

The original question seems to make a category mistake. It is God who appears (kythes, or makes his presence manifest). But is God the appearance? No. The burning bush arrested attention - and the Lord spoke from the midst of it; but the bush was not the Lord.

So The Holy Spirit would be categorized the same as the burning bush when He appeared as a dove (kythes)? The EO fellow is asking a point blank question "Was the dove the Holy Spirit in Luke 3:22?" As you can see that I will have to qualify my answer.

 

[py3ak]

I would point him to the exact words of the text. John saw the Holy Spirit "descending like a dove" (Matthew 3): Luke has "a bodily shape like a dove". So it does not appear that you are talking about an actual dove, but a dove-like shape, which descended in a dove-like manner. That was a visible representation of the invisible God. Was it the Holy Spirit? It was the Holy Spirit who descended. Is that what the Holy Spirit looks like? That's a nonsense question - God is invisible. Was that shape and descent a manifestation of an action and a revelation of the special presence of the Holy Spirit? Absolutely.

If he's being difficult, I would just say that you can't answer questions about a non-existent dove and he needs to make his question more precise. If he still continues, show him a picture, and ask him if the picture is the thing pictured.

 

[earl40]

I would point him to the exact words of the text. John saw the Holy Spirit "descending like a dove" (Matthew 3): Luke has "a bodily shape like a dove". So it does not appear that you are talking about an actual dove, but a dove-like shape, which descended in a dove-like manner. That was a visible representation of the invisible God. Was it the Holy Spirit? It was the Holy Spirit who descended. Is that what the Holy Spirit looks like? That's a nonsense question - God is invisible. Was that shape and descent a manifestation of an action and a revelation of the special presence of the Holy Spirit? Absolutely.

If he's being difficult, I would just say that you can't answer questions about a non-existent dove and he needs to make his question more precise. If he still continues, show him a picture, and ask him if the picture is the thing pictured.

Yes I have asked him if the symbol is the thing signified. This is all about how he believes the bread and wine are The Lord's body and blood.

 

[py3ak]

Then point out that in his belief he is already accepting a metonymy. Christ NEVER says "this wine is my blood". He speaks only about the cup. Now if we are going to take that to the foot of the letter, as they say, then it is not the contents of the cup but the actual rounded clay or wood or metal. On that view, the wine is basically worthless, and the blood is solid.