In round 3, Burke comes out swinging and swinging. But how much does he connect?
In my judgment, somewhat. Here’s an overview of his case, with some critical comments, and at the end I score the round.
First, Burke argues that Jesus’ messianic roles as atoning sin-offering, priest, redeemer, and Davidic king, do not require him to be divine, and further, that the first and last of these require that he is not God. I take it Burke’s point is that they require Jesus to be a human, and that no human is divine. Flag: In this context, the point is question-begging. Bowman no doubt affirms Chalcedon, according to which Jesus has both a divine and a human nature.
Next, Burke has a nice discussion of the Jewish habit, well attested in the NT and in other ancient writings, of talking about what God has predestined as already existing in heaven. This affects what one considers the natural reading of passages like John 17:5 (NIV) “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.” Burke nicely sketches the line of thought behind this habit – what is predestined is as good as done, so what is future is moved back, as it were, to the past or present – to a time which is “too late” to avoid. He gives a vivid example from Paul of talking about a future event as present: “And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus…” (Eph 2:6, NIV)
What is the significance of this? If Burke is right – and this is an interpretive point I’ve seen a number of commenters make, especially outside of polemical contexts – then Bowman can’t simply point to talk of Jesus’ pre-existence, but must also argue that the phenomenon at hand is not in the passage in question. I think Bowman’s best bet would be to concede many examples of this, and retreat to the view that this doesn’t explain all of the pre-existence implying talk in the NT, e.g. Jesus’ statements that he’s come down from heaven, etc.
In the section after this, Burke argues:
Rob has yet to address the Bible’s exclusive emphasis on Jesus’ humanity. He will say he accepts the humanity of Jesus in addition to his alleged deity, but Scripture says nothing of this position.
Flag: begging the question – it is the very matter at issue, whether or not the Bible asserts the divinity of Jesus. Bowman must concede the Bible’s (contra docetism) strong emphasis on the humanity of Jesus, but he need not concede any such “exclusive” emphasis.
And yet, it is striking that the preaching about Jesus in Acts is how it is – it is not what one would expect from a Christian who holds that a crucial point of faith is the “full divinity” of Jesus:
Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead… God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. …Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2: 22-36, NIV, emphases added)
Bowman’s position here differs from the Catholic one, and it seems to me that they have a principled reply to this, whereas Bowman does not. In his view, the Bible rather obviously implies, or can only be understood as teaching, the divinity of Jesus. Consequently, the apostles all did believe this. It would be surprising, then, to see them preach as above. In contrast, the Catholic holds that Mother Church, as much as the apostles, is an instrument of divine revelation, and the divinity of Jesus simply hadn’t been clearly revealed at this point. So perhaps the apostles held to a “primitive” (adoptionist?) christology, whereas later generations of inspired thinkers – bishops, mostly – came to full belief in the divinity of Jesus. I note in passing that Burke doesn’t address this sort of response. (Fair enough – his debate partner isn’t offering it.)
Next, Burke asks: “Why is Jesus never accused of claiming to be God throughout his trial?” Well, it is murky precisely how his trial went, and precisely what the charges were. There’s a suggestion of “blasphemy” but it is unclear to me what the contemporary Jewish concept of that was. Some insist that it must be a response to claims to divinity, while others hold it to be much broader, and could be raised at anyone as it were treading on God’s territory. Bowman assumes the first view, Burke the second. Myself, I see no easy way forward; what do scholars of NT era Judaism say about this?
Burke is right that apparently, Jesus several times denied some sort of equality with God. Trinitarians acknowledge this. Burke says:
The standard response claims he was “denying equality of rank, not equality of nature.” But Jesus had not been accused of claiming equality with nature. Ontology is not at issue here. The Jews had been outraged by Jesus’ apparent usurpation of God’s divine authority and privileges. His defence makes no sense in any other context. (original emphasis)
Flag: begging the question. We need a reason for thinking that ontology is not an issue here, not a mere assertion. I think this connects with the “blasphemy” issue. If it can be shown that Jews of the period, in particular, the Pharisees, had a habit of throwing a “blasphemy” charge at people who merely claimed divine anointing, inspiration, empowerment, etc., then it may be more plausible to read things as Burke does. (Given the Jewish idea of God, would they have likely entertained that this Jewish man before them was him?) But if a “blasphemer” was normally someone claiming to be God, or to have a divine nature, etc. then the point goes to Bowman.
Burke insists that on his view, Jesus was “literally” the Son of God, but not on Bowman’s traditional (small “c”) catholic christology. Why? If I understand him – Burke doesn’t clearly say why – it is because fathering is being part of the cause for a thing’s coming into existence. So a human mom and dad jointly cause junior to exist.
And if mom is a Clampitt, and dad is a Mullet, then junior is a descendant of both the Clampitts and the Mullets. Now Jesus is according to the Bible a descendant of David and of God. And so both Mary and God must be causes of Jesus’ coming into existence.
This is an interesting take on the issue – a development of the point in Luke that Jesus will be called “Son of God” because of the miracle wrought by God in Mary’s body.
The traditional catholic view is that Mary supplied the human nature – rational soul and body – which was united to the divine nature. Given this, I’m not sure why Burke demands that Bowman say what on his view it means to say that Jesus is the “Son of David” and “Son of God”.
What does it take to be the “literal father” of someone? It doesn’t strictly require intercourse, as a sperm donor may be a baby’s father. I take it, one must be the source or cause of the sperm which fertilized the egg. So I guess Burke is presupposing an account of just what happened in Mary – she supplied the egg, the spirit of God supplied the sperm. At first I thought that what Burke really wanted to say was that his view better makes sense of why the metaphor of Fatherhood and Sonship is apt when it comes to God and Jesus. But on reflection, no, I guess he is insisting on literal fatherhood of Jesus by God.
Burke may be presupposing that nothing is human unless it exists in some sense because of Adam. That is – something is a genuine human only if its causes can be traced back through Adam. This is somewhat plausible, but is by no means obvious. Take a subordinationist christology where the pre-existing logos takes the place of the human soul in Jesus. Is it obvious that such a being (ancient soul embodied in normal human body) wouldn’t be a human? I don’t think so – but this may be because I don’t think it is obvious whether dualism or physicalism is true. Does Burke, like some of the older Socinians and some present day biblical unitarians, hold that the Bible teaches physicalism about human beings? If not, what is the origin of the soul? If it is generated, as in Bill Hasker’s “emergent dualism” by the body, that’d fit well with his approach. But why think a human must have a soul generated in that way?
This is also relevant to the issue of Jesus dying. Suppose dualism is true. If so, perhaps when I die, my soul continues to exist while my body ceases to live. Burke holds that on the traditional account Jesus couldn’t die. But why not – the divine nature would still exist, but the human nature – or just the body part of it – ceases to function. What’s the problem? Is he presupposing the controversial premise that dying is ceasing to exist?
The trinitarian can agree with Burke’s account of the virginal and miraculous conception of Jesus. But not with the claim about existence and explanation above. The trinitarian view is that the Son would have existence whether or not there had ever been any humans.
The traditional view is that all it takes to be human is to have a human nature (which amounts to having a body and a rational soul). And Jesus has got one. Burke has a philosophical disagreement with this, not merely a biblical one.
On atonement, Burke agrees with the catholic view that to be a proper sacrifice Jesus had to be human. But he doesn’t agree that the sacrifice victim must also be divine.
A couple of traditional reasons for this latter claim are (1) Jesus had to be divine so he could divinize humanity, and (2) Jesus had to be divine because humans’ sins made an infinite stockpile of guilt, which could only be “paid for” by an infinitely valuable sacrifice, which can only a divine one.
It isn’t clear to me what either Burke or Bowman would say to these.
Burke briefly argues that Bowman’s account is contradictory: Jesus could and couldn’t be tempted. Jesus is seen, and is God, but God is never seen. Jesus dies and is also eternal. (As I remarked above, this last one isn’t obviously inconsistent – the point needs arguing.)
Finally, a methodological point from my last post. Burke falls into the same trap as Bomman – of thinking that we can proof-text our way through this dispute. We cannot. Both catholic and humanitarian christologies explain what the scriptures say about Jesus. The question is: which best explains the evidence. Burke and Bowman both realize this, which is why they are at pains to show that their interpretations are non-arbitrary. But equally, both attempt to deduce their position from the texts. In truth, the texts don’t obviously support either view over the other. But this is not to say that neither theory is better than the other. One theory may be a much better explanation than the other; while it has not been shown which it is, in my view Bowman should be worried that his theory seems to be sporting a fatal wound (inconsistency).
In my last post I said that Bowman was focused on explaining the following:
- Jesus is called “Lord” (Gr. kurios) in the NT, and kurios is the Greek translation (in the widely used ancient Septuagint translation) for YHWH in Hebrew.
- Statements and predictions about about YHWH / God in the OT are repeatedly applied to Jesus in the NT.
- The NT implies that prayer to Jesus is a good thing.
- Paul and the author of Hebrews say that Jesus created “all things”.
- Paul says that Jesus is “equal to” God.
- Paul says that all will confess that Jesus is the kurios.
- Jesus has been “exalted to the same level as” God.
- The Son is described as doing a lot of things God is elsewhere described as doing.
- The NT implies that the Son is properly worshiped.
I think I know what Burke would say to a lot of these – a lot of the answers will have to do with the idea that Jesus is an agent who works on behalf of God. But I think the fourth issue and Philippians 2 are pressing, in part because Bowman has pressed them.
This round is not easy to call, but I’m calling it a draw. Bowman has addressed a broad range of phenomena, and yet has not rebutted the very serious charge that his theory is multiply self-contradictory. Burke has rebutted some of the important pre-existence proof texts, and has properly pointed out the focus of the NT on the humanity of Jesus, and has raised the important issue of atonement. He shows that those holding a humanitarian christology can affirm most of what all sides agree the Bible says about the messiah. But he’s begged the question on some core issues, and seems to rely on some controversial philosophical theses about what is essential to human beings and about death, which may or may not be defensible – and which may arguably be beyond the scope of this debate – they meant, I think, to keep it to the Bible.
Score:
Bowman: 0
Burke: 1
draw: 2
Print 
PDF
I’m still trying to figure out your view. Evidently you reject soul sleep because you reject souls, right? But the question is: when your death is complete, do you thereby cease to exist (temporarily)? Yea or Nay?
Of course there are material “leftovers” – the corpse that used to be alive. But that is a side point.
Dale:
I cease to exist. The living body comprised everything that was “me”, and now that it is dead, the “me” has utterly ceased. There is only the dead body. This is why the Bible places such tremendous emphasis on bodily resurrection.
By the way, one of my colleagues has just told me that the Christadelphian position on death is best defined as “monistic thnetopsychism.” I like this because it is accurate, but also because it contains a long, complicated, impressve-sounding word that is difficult to spell.
Dave -
From comment #1:
I, too, believe Jesus was absolutely human. But, of course, it does not fall in line with what you would hope one would believe about Jesus, since we believe He was also divine.
Come on, now. Of course we believe Jesus descended from Abraham and David, as Scripture teaches it. He was a literal descendant of them. But he also not only came from Adam, Abraham and David, He came from God, was with God in the beginning, and was God in the beginning in all the glory of God. I know you disagree with this, but we believe Jesus literally descended from Abe and Dave, as that was a pointer to His Messianic nature.
Dave -
Thanks for reading my article. I hope I didn’t offend as to keep you from interacting over at my blog.
As to the two points (a and b) that you brought up in comment #31:
I will admit I am not able to walk down that path of great knowledge on the Jewish literature. I have not studied it, so you have the advantage. But what I will say is that I am still convinced that every passage you referenced about Christ and applied predestination principle, that application did not ‘fit the bill’, examples being John 1:14; 3:13; 6:62; 8:58; 17:5; Col 1:15-17; etc.
I understand the Jewish principle you have put forth, but again, I don’t believe those passages above, and others, fit into mere predestination or speaking about something as if it had existed though it had not. I believe we actually have pointers to Christ’s pre-existence before the ‘incarnation’.
Fortigurn -
Yes, you are right. But, for Dave or myself (or you) to believe that the Bible is God-breathed leads us to ‘naturally’ accept its teaching as truth. It’s ok to work from presuppositions, right?
Now, of course our presuppositions will go challenged, either being strengthened or changed. Dave (and you) are challenging such and it is good stuff to think through. But my point is that we all have presuppositions we are working with, even non-Trinitarians who seem to be reading the ‘plain’ teaching of Scripture from the passages about Jesus.
From my perspective, it is ‘plain’ that passages like John 1, Col 1, Heb 1, Phil 2, John 8, John 10, etc, etc point to Christ’s divinity. So I work from that presupposition when reading passages like John 17:5, not to mention John 3:13; 6:62; etc. Dave (and you) work from another presupposition when coming to those verses.
It happens. We need to be challenged, keep thinking them through, etc. But I am not sure that I should be so scolded from having the presupposition belief that Jesus is divine and then reading John 17:5 through that lens. It is part of the discipline of systematic theology.
Fortigurn -
I’m not sure if you are trying to stir? Forgive me if I have read you wrong, but some comments have not seemed respectful.
I never said ‘people exist before they are born’. But I will say that Christ existed before his physical birth through the virgin, Mary.
“thnetopsychism”?
I had to get confirmation that this is an actual word.
Scrabble players take note.
Hi Matt,
You are right about being limited in time.
About all of the the early church fathers of the first centuries still seem to have been subordinationists, while I am not aware of any ancient writings expressing a proper “ideal” pre-existence Christology. Don’t you agree that is at least of some significance?
Why I understand the specific concept of predestination required for upholding an “ideal” pre-existent Jesus to be unbiblical, is partly explained on this blog in this comment: http://trinities.org/blog/archives/1704#comment-92054
Peace,
H.
Scott,
‘I know you disagree with this, but we believe Jesus literally descended from Abe and Dave, as that was a pointer to His Messianic nature.’
How can you be descended from someone who doesn’t even exist until several thousand years after you?
I’m not trying to stir by the way, I’m trying to understand why you read ‘born of a woman’ as meaning ‘existing as a soul before you are born, and then entering an empty body’. Checking the relevant lexicons, I do not find that this is the meaning of the Greek.
Scott,
‘Yes, you are right. But, for Dave or myself (or you) to believe that the Bible is God-breathed leads us to ‘naturally’ accept its teaching as truth. It’s ok to work from presuppositions, right?’
It’s not ok to work from presuppositions about what the text means. How can we possibly find out what it really means, if we’re approaching the text having already decided what it means?
‘From my perspective, it is ‘plain’ that passages like John 1, Col 1, Heb 1, Phil 2, John 8, John 10, etc, etc point to Christ’s divinity. So I work from that presupposition when reading passages like John 17:5, not to mention John 3:13; 6:62; etc. Dave (and you) work from another presupposition when coming to those verses.’
But you don’t take those passages in their socio-religious Second Temple context. I understand the range of uses of ‘theos’ (Jesus himself even instructs us on the point), so when I read Jesus is called ‘theos’ I don’t assume it means he’s God. If I read language which appears to suggest pre-existence, I interpret it according to its socio-religious Second Temple context, in which I find abundant examples of such language used in a figurative way.
What I’ve noticed from Bowman (and from you), is that you don’t actually read the New Testament in its Second Temple context. I don’t understand the reason for this, since it is standard investigative technique for determining meaning in a text from which we are separated chronologically, geographically, an culturally, and it’s insisted on by standard scholarship in the field.
As for presuppositions, I avoid them. I read that the apostles taught Jesus is a man sent by God, a man appointed by God, a man through whom God worked, and then they baptized people. Rather than assume they were wrong, or that they really meant ‘God-man’ every time they said ‘man’, I choose to believe them. This way I avoid approaching the text with presuppositions. It’s just that simple.
Scott:
I wasn’t offended, though I do take issue with some of your criticisms and conclusions. Obviously the pre-existence of Christ is not something we’re going to agree on overnight, so I’ll leave it alone for the moment. But please do consider the material I’ve presented. It really is so important to read first-century Christian literature in a Second Temple Judaism context.
If I manage to find time for a rebuttal to Bowman’s Week 3 argument, would you be interested to read my analysis of Philippians 2?
Scott:
In what way was he a literal descendant of them?
But you believe Jesus has always existed, so how did he “come from God”? What does “come from God” mean to you? And how can Jesus be literally descended from men whose existence he predated?
Fortigurn -
Thanks for letting me know you aren’t stirring.
Because the genealogies are clear that Jesus is descended from both Abraham and David. Now, at the same time, Jesus challenges the idea that he is merely the Son of David (Mark 12:35-37). He still is, but He challenges that He is merely.
I know a Unitarian would claim that, yes, Jesus is more than the Son of David (Messiah). But interesting Jesus applied Lordship prior to His resurrection/ascension. Here is Kyrios of kyrios’s now, before He finished His sinless life and rose from the dead the vindicated Messiah.
In the end, we have no problem with the eternal Son-second person of the Trinity existing but having a human start through the actual conception in Mary.
Fortigurn -
But someone like an NT Wright is one of the greatest experts on second temple Judaism, and I suppose people like he and others seem to think these texts purport the divinity of Christ.
This is an important goal, one we can truly move towards. But, unfortunately, you and I (and Burke and Bowman) have them. Again, such needs to be challenged at times to either deconstruct or strengthen them. But we have them.
Scott, I need you to explain how you be descended from someone who doesn’t even exist until several thousand years after you. Saying Because the genealogies are clear that Jesus is descended from both Abraham and David’ doesn’t explain this.
I agree that Jesus challenges the idea that he is ‘merely the Son of David’. This isn’t in dispute. I agree that Jesus ‘applied Lordship prior to His resurrection/ascension’. This isn’t in dispute either. I want to know how person X can be the descendant of person Y, who didn’t even exist until thousands of years after person X.
All you’re telling me is that you believe Jesus has always existed and never had a beginning, but that Jesus gave birth to a ‘man suit’ which did have a beginning.
Scott,
‘But someone like an NT Wright is one of the greatest experts on second temple Judaism, and I suppose people like he and others seem to think these texts purport the divinity of Christ.’
I hate to break it to you, but this still doesn’t address the issue under discussion. The fact is that you don’t take those passages in their socio-religious Second Temple context. Citing Wright doesn’t change this fact.
You have also been made aware that significant Trinitarian scholars including heavyweights like Dunn agree that this language does not necessarily mean Jesus literally pre-existed, and that the language in its Second Temple context is best understood as figurative (Murphy-O’Connor, Robinson, Stowers, Macquarrie). The fact is that Trinitarian laymen are way behind Trinitarian scholarship. What is believed in the pews is a far remove from what is taught in the seminaries. A number of serious issues have already been conceded with regard to the immortal soul, the doctrine of the Trinity, and the identity of ‘satan’. This is seen plainly in the layman’s arguments used by Bowman and yourself.
But since you’ve cited Wright, let’s see if you’re really as happy with him as you think. You may not be aware that NT Wright does not believe that Jesus actually knew for certain he was God. He says Jesus believed that he was doing things which which only Scripture and Yahweh himself could do.
He says Jesus held this belief ‘with passionate and firm conviction’. But he also says that Jesus held this belief ‘with the knowledge that HE COULD BE MAKING A TERRIBLE, LUNATIC, MISTAKE’. [1]
That’s the NT Wright you’re talking about, who never says that Jesus actually knew as a definite fact that he was God, in the way we can know if we are tall or short, hungry or thirsty.
[1] Wright, ‘Jesus’ Self-Understanding’, in Davis & Kendall (eds.), The Incarnation’, pp. 47–61 (2002)
F -
I feel like you know the Trinitarian position, but as normal, it is argued that our stance doesn’t ‘add up’, ‘make sense’, ‘sound logical’, ‘sound reasonable’.
I’m not using that as an excuse, but I believe it to be completely in the realm of the great divine Yahweh whom we serve to have the divine Christ with Him from the beginning, but send the divine Christ ‘from heaven’, as the gospels attest, and be birthed as a human being, and thus, in his humanity, Jesus was the the son of Abraham and David.
I don’t know if I can explain it any clearer, lest I repeat myself and I know you don’t like me repeating myself.
F -
I am quite comfortable with NT Wright’s thoughts on Jesus and what it meant for Him to be human. It prompted me to write this article.
Hopefully I can stay up on the scholarship and not just be one of those in the pews.
Round 4 is up, do you mind scoring it?
Will do… thanks for the note.
Scott,
‘I feel like you know the Trinitarian position, but as normal, it is argued that our stance doesn’t ‘add up’, ‘make sense’, ’sound logical’, ’sound reasonable’.’
I didn’t actually use any of those statements in my reply. I just asked you to explain simply ow person X can be the descendant of person Y, who didn’t even exist until thousands of years after person X. Can you do that?
‘I am quite comfortable with NT Wright’s thoughts on Jesus and what it meant for Him to be human. It prompted me to write this article.’
I’m always interested to see Trinitarians come to conclusions which Unitarians have been repeating for the last 300 years. I admire your intellectual honesty in that article. However, you need to follow it to its logical conclusion:
‘I believe Christ, in his human incarnation, laid aside his omniscience, his omnipresence and his omnipotence. All of it!’
That means he wasn’t God. So what you have ended up with is a Jesus who looks just like the Unitarian Jesus. The reason for this is that the Bible only teaches the Unitarian Jesus.
I have posted a rebuttal to Bowman’s Week 3 argument here: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/04/the-great-trinity-debate-part-3-rob-bowman-on-jesus-christ-continued/#comment-31089
Dave,
Multiple quotes from the earliest church fathers show beyond doubt that they believed Jesus to be God. They were the ones that lived closest to Jesus actual teachings, the teachings of the Apostles, and were surely the most familiar with the Greek used in that day.
So were they all l00% wrong on this subject? It seems to me that is more then a little bit presumptuous to think!
cheryl,
‘Multiple quotes from the earliest church fathers show beyond doubt that they believed Jesus to be God.’
That’s fine, but we have the writings of the apostles to go on and they’re more authoritative. Remember, a vast majority of the earliest church fathers were insistent on the soul going to heaven or hell after death.
‘They were the ones that lived closest to Jesus actual teachings, the teachings of the Apostles, and were surely the most familiar with the Greek used in that day.’
Actually Jesus and the apostles are even closer. Just read the preaching speeches in Acts. Show me the arguments which the apostles used to teach people that Jesus is God before baptizing them. What did they say?
cheryl, try reading the ‘Old Roman Symbol’ and the ‘Didache’. These are the two earliest known Christian creedal statements, both dating to the 1st century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Roman_Symbol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache
What evidence is there that either of these documents contain the belief that Jesus is God?
“Remember, a vast majority of the earliest church fathers were insistent on the soul going to heaven or hell after death.”
A great many people still believe that. After all Paul, spoke of being “absent from the body and present with the Lord.”
And as far as the argument that Acts refers to Jesus as a man–which again Trinitarians also believe He was–and not as God proves that He wasn’t God, that is merely an argument from silence. Acts never speaks of God’s love either. Does that therefore prove that God doesn’t love people? It must, according to your argument!
cheryl,
‘And as far as the argument that Acts refers to Jesus as a man–which again Trinitarians also believe He was–and not as God proves that He wasn’t God, that is merely an argument from silence. Acts never speaks of God’s love either. Does that therefore prove that God doesn’t love people? It must, according to your argument!’
I am not making an argument from silence. An argument from silence would be ‘It isn’t mentioned therefore it isn’t true’. I am not saying that. Nor am I saying ‘It isn’t mentioned therefore they didn’t believe it’.
I am saying that the speeches in Acts provide evidence that the apostles baptized people with the knowledge that Jesus is a man. They do not provide evidence that the apostles baptized people with the knowledge that Jesus is God, or ‘God-man’. This is significant because it means that we have a record of the apostles preaching a Christology which is entirely Unitarian, but we have no record of the apostles preaching a Christology which is Trinitarian, or which teaches that Jesus is God.
For the Unitarian, the Acts is a wealth of Unitarian-worded preaching speeches. For those who believe Jesus is God, the Acts is an embarrassment requiring explanation. I await your explanation.
For those of us who see the multiple times the word “Lord” is used to speak interchangeably of Jesus or as a general reference to God in the book of Acts, the fact that He is not referred to as God in so many words is really not a problem. You can argue all you want that “Lord” when referring to Jesus does not mean He is God. It is not at all convincing however when the same word is used repeatedly referring to God. The only way you can say it doesn’t mean He is God then is to have an a priori committment to that belief and therefore say that it means one thing when it speaks of God and something totally different when it refers to Jesus. Therefore to us, the book of Acts refers to Jesus as God a multitude of times although not using those precise words.
And my point about the early church father’s was that they certainly interpreted the teachings of the apostles and Jesus Himself to mean that He was God. And they certainly were a whole lot more likely to understand the Greek of the day correctly then any of us now are. Therefore, my point stands.
cherylu:
Since when did “Lord” mean “God”?
Dave,
Acts 1:24, 3:22, 4:26, and 4:29 just for starters are places in Acts where “Lord” is used by itself referring obviously to God but not while using a term like “Lord God”. In these verses, “Lord” obviously means God. And this is just in the first few chapters of Acts. I didn’t check the rest of it for the same usage. Why then is the same word “Lord” when used for Jesus always taken by you to mean something else then it does when referring to God?
cherylu:
That’s not what I asked. I said “Since when did ‘Lord’ mean ‘God’?” Seems to me that you’ve just conceded “Lord” doesn’t mean God. By the way, most Trinitarians argue that Jesus is the “Lord” who was prayed to in Acts 1:24, and the title “Lord God” doesn’t prove that “Lord” = “God.” I think you’ve missed my point.
Because the OT shows that Jesus is called “Lord” in a different sense to God, and the NT continues this practice. I explain this in my rebuttal to Bowman, here. Please read it.
cherylu,
The earliest church fathers still were subordinationists, they believed the pre-existent Jesus was theos in a secondary sense, created, distinct from and subordinate to Almighty God.
Dave,
How about 7:49, and 17:26 if you don’t like 1:24? In all of these places God is referred to as Lord. And what about the others I listed?
These do not specifically refer to Jesus, any of them as far as I can tell. The ones in chapter 7 are OT quotes calling God “Lord”.
These are all places that call God “Lord”. I think it is you that missed the point! And by the way, I did read your post you linked above, twice now in fact.
cheryl, you haven’t proved that ‘Lord’ actually means ‘God’. You have simply showed that God is sometimes called ‘Lord’. That isn’t under dispute. What you need to do is show that the word ‘Lord’ really means ‘God’. Unless you can do that, then you can’t claim that Jesus being called ‘Lord’ actually meas that he is God.
cheryl,
‘And my point about the early church father’s was that they certainly interpreted the teachings of the apostles and Jesus Himself to mean that He was God. And they certainly were a whole lot more likely to understand the Greek of the day correctly then any of us now are. Therefore, my point stands.’
There are several problems with this. One is that you haven’t actually addressed what the apostles taught before they baptized people. Another is that you haven’t actually addressed the earliest Christian creedal statements, which predate the early Fathers. A third problem is that professional translators do actually understand the Greek far better than 2nd and 3rd century writers. More importantly, they understand far better what 1st century Jews meant when they used certain Greek words. When you claim that a 1st century Jew just meant ‘God’ when he used the word ‘Lord’, it’s just not credible, because there’s overwhelming evidence that 1st century Jews used the word ‘Lord’ of men as well as of God.
Helez,
From these quotes in this article, and ones I have read elsewhere, it seems to me that the church father’s recognized Jesus as God. Not a secondary created being.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Divinity_of_Christ.asp
Fortugurn,
How in the world do you take the verses in Acts that use the word “Lord” as referring to God and not specifically to Jesus?
I absolutely know of no other way to read them in these cases then that “Lord” here means “God”. If it used so often of God–and not Jesus in this way–is it not purely speculation to say that every time Jesus is called “Lord” He is not being called God? That becomes “special pleading” does it not?
I am not saying that this by itself 100% proves Jesus is God. However, there is lots of other evidence to convince me that He is too.
And if He is referred to as “Lord” repeatedly in the Book of Acts in the same way God is referred to as “Lord”, then this is the teaching that the apostles did before baptism, is it not? Or do you expect them to stop everytime they refer to “God” as “Lord” and say, “Now in this instance the use of the word Lord actually means God”? And then when they use it of Jesus, they must stop and say, “But of course you must understand, when we use the term “Lord” as referring to Jesus, it in no way means he is God”?
I thought context was a large share of the determining factor in knowing how a word was used. And in Acts, the word is used repeatedly referring to God.
cherylu,
Yes, I am aware of how some quotes from the early church fathers at first glance may “appear” (in the view of present Trinitarians) as if they believed Jesus was God, and such quotes are eagerly used by some to “prove” the early church believed Jesus was God. This is quite misleading though, because with being a bit more accurately informed about their writings, you will find that about all of them still seem to have been subordinationists, like the first-century Christians. The teaching of the apostolic fathers is *fairly* consistent with the teaching of the Bible in the matter of God’s supremacy and his relationship with Jesus. All of them speak of God as a separate, eternal, almighty, all-knowing Being. And they speak of the Son of God as a separate, lesser, subordinate spirit creature whom God created to serve Him in accomplishing His will. And the holy spirit is nowhere included as an equal of God. Also the later apologists were subordinationists.
I cannot address the complete list op people you refer to in your link, but as an example I will just pick the first one to demonstrate my point; Ignatius of Antioch. Have a look at some other quotes attributed to him:
“But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word…” (“The Ante-Nicene Fathers,” Volume I, page 52.) Note the distinction between “the only true God” and His Son. Using the word “God” for the Son does not mean equality with Almighty God. Also, Ignatius consistently speaks of “God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ” in his epistles to the Ephesians, Philadelphians, Trallians, and to Polycarp. And he says that “there is one God, the Almighty, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son”. (Ibid, p. 62)
Ignatius has the Son saying: “The Lord created Me, the beginning of His ways, for His ways, for His works. Before the world did He found Me, and before all the hills did He beget Me.” (Ibid, p. 108)
And: “There is one God of the universe, the Father of Christ, ‘of whom are all things;’ and one Lord Jesus Christ, our Lord, ‘by whom are all things.’” (Ibid, p. 116)
In Ignatius writings the Son is always presented as lesser than God and subordinate to him.
Robert M. Grant states in his book “Gods and the One God” that “the Christology of the apologies, like that of the New Testament, is essentially subordinationist. The Son is always subordinate to the Father, who is the one God of the Old Testament,” and “Before Nicaea, Christian theology was almost universally subordinationist.” (p. 109, 160)
Helez,
Some of these statements certainy do not sound subordinationist in any way. If these folks made such statements elsewhere, it is certainly not evident here. And even if they did, they do not in any way believe as the Universalists of today do. Which is the point I was trying to make–that those closest to Jesus and His apostles did not understand them to have taught at all what the Universalists are insisting they taught.
By the way, it seems that Trinitarianism is distinctly mentioned in at least one quote here. And it is the earliest dated one.
“[Christians] are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the Creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit”
“[Christians] are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the Creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit” Aristedes
“although he was the true God existing before the ages” Melito of Sardis
” in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King,” Irenaeus
“Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God” Origen
“”For Christ is the God over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from mankind, rendering the old man new” Hippolytus of Rome
“”If Christ was only man, why did he lay down for us such a rule of believing as that in which he said, ‘And this is life eternal, that they should know you, the only and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent?’ [John 17:3]. Had he not wished that he also should be understood to be God, why did he add, ‘And Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent,’ except because he wished to be received as God also? Because if he had not wished to be understood to be God, he would have added, ‘And the man Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent;’ but, in fact, he neither added this, nor did Christ deliver himself to us as man only, but associated himself with God, as he wished to be understood by this conjunction to be God also, as he is. We must therefore believe, according to the rule prescribed, on the Lord, the one true God, and consequently on him whom he has sent, Jesus Christ, who by no means, as we have said, would have linked himself to the Father had he not wished to be understood to be God also. For he would have separated himself from him had he not wished to be understood to be God” Novatian
Good grief, I knew I was in a hurry when I posted that last comment this a.m.–had an appt. I had to get to. But I didn’t realize I wrote “Universalists” instead of “Unitarians”–twice even! Hope I didn’t leave any one shaking their head and wondering what I was talking about. I apologize for my error and guess I had better slow down a bit! I also apologize for the other typos I made there.
cherylu, most unitarians today are subordinationists, so I’m not sure what you mean by “the” Unitarians…
Helez,
The Unitarians of today as I understand it from what Burke and others have said, do not believe in the prexistence of the Son as God before His birth on this earth as Jesus. That is what I am seeing come out in the quotes made above–that and the fact that they didn’t seem to be subordinationists in the quotes that I listed above.
cherylu:
Which church fathers are you talking about, cherylu? The earliest church fathers were men like Papias, Polycarp and Clement of Rome. None of them believed Jesus to be God. You will not find this in any of their writings.
Ignatius lived around the same time, and he did not believe Jesus was God either. Commentators now agree that his letters were corrupted by later writers, who added statements that he never wrote.
It is not until Justin Martyr (mid-second century) that we find a Christian calling Jesus God. But even Justin Martyr was not a Trinitarian; he believed Jesus was a separate being from the Father, as did many other Christians in his era.
Later church fathers (like Irenaeus) had mixed ideas about Jesus, but still believed him to be inferior to the Father. Tertullian openly stated that Jesus is a separate being from the Father. Even Origen (3rd Century) said that he believed Jesus’ deity was derived from the Father, and that he was not God inherently.
You really need to do some research and learn more about what the early church fathers actually taught. Nobody believed in the modern version of Trinitarianism until the 5th Century, when the Chalcedonian formula was created. Until then, there was a wide range of beliefs.
By the way, are you Catholic or Protestant?
cheryl,
‘How in the world do you take the verses in Acts that use the word “Lord” as referring to God and not specifically to Jesus?’
I take them as referring to God.
‘I absolutely know of no other way to read them in these cases then that “Lord” here means “God”.’
No, ‘refers to God’, not ‘means God’. If I use ‘Mr’ to refer to Dave Burke, that does not mean that ‘Mr’ means ‘Dave Burke’. If New Testament writers use ‘Lord’ to refer to God, that does not mean that ‘Lord’ actually means ‘God’. We know that ‘Lord’ does not mean ‘God’, because it is also used to refer to men.
‘If it used so often of God–and not Jesus in this way–is it not purely speculation to say that every time Jesus is called “Lord” He is not being called God? That becomes “special pleading” does it not?’
What you are doing is special pleading, yes. The fact that ‘Lord’ is used of God does not mean that when it is used of Jesus it means Jesus is God. That is illogical.
‘And if He is referred to as “Lord” repeatedly in the Book of Acts in the same way God is referred to as “Lord”, then this is the teaching that the apostles did before baptism, is it not?’
What do you mean ‘in the same way God is referred to as “Lord”‘?
‘I thought context was a large share of the determining factor in knowing how a word was used.’
It is.
‘And in Acts, the word is used repeatedly referring to God.’
So what? You are committing the prescriptive fallacy. Just because a word is used repeatedly of one referent does not mean that it is always used of that referent.
So back to the key issue. Please show me, anyone, where in Acts the apostles taught that Jesus is God before the baptized people. Instead we find that Jesus is ‘a man’, ‘a man appointed by God’, ‘a man through whom God worked’, ‘whom God raised’.
Dave,
Here is another web site with quotes from church fathers. Several of the men you said above did not believe Jesus was God are quoted here as stating that they definitely believed just that. By the way, I know nothing else about this web site. I just found it by doing a Google search. The same is true of the other one that I took quotes from. And for the record, I am protestant.
http://www.dtl.org/trinity/article/who-said.htm
cheryl, I suggest you check your sources with greater care. The site to which you just linked provides a single quote from Polycarp in which he appears to call Jesus God.
What the site does not tell you (most likely because they just don’t know), is that many manuscripts of Polycarp’s letter do not contain the words ‘and God’. The sentence would then read ‘who shall believe on our Lord Jesus Christ and on his Father that raised him from the dead’.
Claiming that Polycarp believed Jesus is God on the basis of a single sentence with a dubious reading, with many manuscripts against it, is not a strong argument.
Fortigurn,
So, what about all of the ones by Ignatius? I have others by him saying the same thing from another source too.
cheryl,
Remove the quotes which come from the fake letters of Ignatius, remove the quotes which contain additions by later writers trying to make Ignatius look ‘orthodox’, and get back to me with what you have left.
cheryl, try reading the ‘Old Roman Symbol’ and the ‘Didache’. These are the two earliest known Christian creedal statements, both dating to the 1st century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Roman_Symbol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache
These predate the authors you’ve quoted. What evidence is there that either of these documents contain the belief that Jesus is God?
Fortigurn,
So I take it you have proof that every one of those statments by Ignatius, (and the others that I haven’t quoted) were never made by him at all? Every single one? That is a lot of forgery!