Jun 072012
I had the pleasure of meeting J. Dan Gill recently in Atlanta. He’s a retired pastor in Nashville, Tennessee, but is very active with his wife Sharon in promoting what many call “biblical unitarianism,” what he calls a “One God” theology. (I prefer “unitarian Christianity” or “Christian unitarianism.”) He came to these views back in the 80s after rejecting “Oneness” Pentecostal theology. He’s an insightful speaker and Bible interpreter, always in pursuit of his dream “of seeing Christians pursue original / authentic Christianity together.”
He does a great job here, interviewing me about my background, Philosophy, the evolution of my views, and so on. Downloads are available on the version posted on his website, 21stcr.org.
Print 
PDF
Xavier,
and what, pray tell, is your “point”? Do entertan me …
MdS
villanovanus
Please see comment 31.
Xavier,
thank you for confirming your incapacity of “seeing” #32, then …
(If you have nothing to say, say nothing …)
MdS
MdS
I asked a simple question at #48. You didn’t even answer and instead went into a long diatribe about other things. So what is your problem really? Especially when we agree on the main thing?
Just a nickel’s worth of advice villanovanus, Pro 16.18. :/
Actually, Xavier, MdS said something quite amazing in his answer to your question. He said:
Exactly so. ALL of them – beginning at verse 10 – refer to the same subject.
So if the words of verse 12 ["as many as received him, to them he gave the power to become the sons of God"] are best understood as referring to “Jesus, in/as whom the logos became flesh,” then the same applies to verse 10.
Therefore, regardless of whether the pre-incarnate logos was personal or impersonal, the part played by the logos in creation is part of the resume of Jesus, in/as whom the Word became flesh.
Just as 1 Cor. 8:6 would lead you to expect.
But there is a logic problem still outstanding. So I have been listening again to Dale’s three videos on logic, and will state the problem there, as a syllogism.
@ Xavier (January 2, 2013 at 7:24 am)
This was the question …
[Xavier, #48 of January 1, 2013 at 4:45 pm] “Is phos OR logos, for that matter, described as auton before v.10?”
… and this was the answer …
[villanovanus, #49 of January 1, 2013 at 5:39 pm] “There are thee occurrences of the Accusative Singular Masculine auton (respectively at v.10-11-12), and they ALL refer to the logos, and/or to Jesus in/as whom the logos ‘became flesh’.”
¿Lo que no está aún claro para usted?
MdS
(I have spoken the truth, and I will never go back on my word – Isaiah 45:23)
P.S. What was the point and/or relevance of the question, BTW?
@ Marg (January 2, 2013 at 11:09 pm)
We seem to agree on SOMETHING, eventually
MdS
P.S. While I agree that “the part played by the logos in creation is part of the resume of Jesus”, I OBVIOUSLY do NOT agree that the pre-incarnated logos is exactly “the same subject” as Jesus. An impersonal entity is NOT identical to a person. Once again, the key word (verb) is “became” (egeneto)
Marg
I’m confused…if you don’t seem to care either way why do you continue to debate this matter?
MdS
Stick to your native English bro…you’re murdering my language.
So we agree that BEFORE v.10 auton is not used.
Thanks.
@ Xavier (January 3, 2013 at 6:24 am)
Is that all?
That was a moot point all along, and that proves exactly … what, anyway?
MdS
MdS
Nevermind bud.
Happy New Year.