The Theological Ruminator
Regardless what you say, even if it's no thing at all, someone'll think you're a heretic. Welcome to John Markism. 
That's better than John MarXism!
Though I'd bet if you held to the Christology of the first seven councils, nobody that mattered could rightly call you a heretic.
To my understanding...the cup is the same cup as in the last supper...blood.
Thanks for the comment, Bill. If this question refers to "cup of blood" then what exactly does Jesus mean non-metaphorically? Does he mean suffering? What does this mean about his nature as the God-man? In what sense can he be asking this question?
My take is that he is exactly saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will."
Your wit has not left you.
i agree with you jm - the whole garden event is a source of confusion - as well as the ascension, where christ says that "only the father knows"...subordination on some level seems evident. oh, and i know that "technically" the answer is that christ has chosen this subordination of role yet it is not one of essence...still.
Yeah - it's not easy to make sense of all that we know - that's for sure.
Subordination? John Mark, isn't that a bad word?
It "seems" evident - not necessarily is. Certainly can be difficult to properly explain/understand.
So Christ is not subordinate to the Father?
A while back Chris had linked to a heresy test. What I found interesting with it was that you had to know church history well enough to know that only 3 statements were orthodox. Every other statement was heretical(actually, I guess you had to know councilior history--the test guy took his heresy statements straight from the councils' condemnations). The quiz then graded you by how many heretical things you said you agreed with (but bestowed orthodoxy if you got the magic 3 correct). I could find nowhere on the site where the testmaker informed you of this. I'd venture very few could get it right, even if they took it after they were told only 3 statements were correct.
I'm nervous to say that we get along just fine not knowing the details, because I then recall the likes of Gwen Shamblin and T.D. Jakes (let alone the Christology of the health and wealth crowd) and see it all come back again. Maybe stuff like the Da Vinci code would spark much less controversy if we actually knew the history of the 4th century.
I don't know what the answer is but I wonder if we are so focused on "application" that we are ignorant of our heritage. Sometimes it pays just to know where we come from whether we think it is important to ministry or not, I think.
I also think a repeated Sunday School type offering of the first 5 centuries would do us a world of good, maybe along with the other new member stuff. For myself, reading the Fathers has given more depth to my faith than I ever imagined it would.
Wow. Good comment. Thanks. I'll forward your comments to Dr. Hannah. Maybe he can get you a historical theology job somewhere.
Commenting by HaloScan
