Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
At the end of the gospel according to Matthew, Jesus is portrayed as saying,
All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age. (Matthew 28:18b-20, NRSV)
Does the author here imply, presuppose, or hint that the one God is tripersonal? Or are some but not all elements of creedal trinitarian claims to be found here? Or is there no support here for the claim that there is one God “in three Persons”?
In this episode I discuss this and two other triadic New Testament passages with evangelical apologist Dr. Robert M. Bowman Jr., the author of “Triadic New Testament Passages and the Doctrine of the Trinity” in the journal pictured here. Next week, he and I discuss a number of other such triadic passages – though far short of the more than eighty which he lists in his article.
You can also listen to this episode on Stitcher or iTunes (please subscribe, rate, and review us in either or both – directions here). It is also available on YouTube (scroll down – you can subscribe here). If you would like to upload audio feedback for possible inclusion in a future episode of this podcast, put the audio file here.
You can support the trinities podcast by ordering anything through Amazon.com after clicking through one of our links. We get a small % of your purchase, even though your price is not increased. (If you see “trinities” in you url while at Amazon, then we’ll get it.)
Links for this episode:
- Dr. Bowman’s blog The Religious Researcher
- Institute for Religious Research
- some debates and interviews by Dr. Bowman
- The Journal for Trinitarian Studies and Apologetics, January 2013 issue
- Bowman and Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in his Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ (kindle)
- Bowman, What Mormons Believe (kindle)
- Clarke, The Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity
- all the mentions of “the Holy Spirit” or “the holy spirit” in Matthew
- some relevant other trinities episodes
- some relevant trinities posts
- This week’s thinking music is “Stars Collide (Instrumental Version)” by Josh Woodward.
I wonder if there was any effort to consider textual issues. I find the current text of Mt28:19 doubtful.
I have not reviewed the others – but they are so distinct from the standard texts inc. the only legit creed – ICor8:6 – that they kind of look out of place.
Here’s some well-deserved egg:
https://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/review-journal-for-trinitarian-studies-and-apologetics-2/
https://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/2013/02/06/review-journal-for-trinitarian-studies-and-apologetics-1/
Hmmm…
Here, as promised on Facebook, a couple of brief comments on this episode which occurred to me, with rough time markers.
2-5 min – “triadic structure in how the NT talks about divine” We must be careful here, to show how this is relevant. There might be a threefold structure in how one talks about anything, e.g. Barack Obama, or football, but that doesn’t mean we think that thing is tripartite or triple in some way. In the next episode I suggest a reason which we see these triples in the NT.
Around 10 min – About Dr. Bowman’s claim that *any* theology is a hypothesis intended to explain the texts, and is not found, strictly speaking, in the explicit or implicit contents of the 1st c. texts – If he means a fully developed account of the trinity / Trinity, I agree. But, I would hasten to add that the Bible nowhere clearly implies that there’s a tripersonal god. In contrast, I think it implies as clearly as could be expected the defining thesis of Christian unitarian theology, that the one God is none other than (is numerically identical to) the Father (only). You see this in how all NT authors interchange “God” and “the Father,” and it is just right there on or just below the surface in unitarians’ favorite texts like John 20, 1 Cor 8, John 17, or Acts 2-3. The assumption that God = the Father is just as clear as that Paul = Saul, or that Peter = Cephas. Of course, I agree the texts are less clear as regards the exact status of the Son and Spirit. But they’re just about as clear in distinguishing Jesus from his God too.
18 min – His point that a “spirit” is normally a self. Well, not when there is talk of the spirit *of* someone. If I say that “my spirit is grieving” I’m not talking about someone else. My point is either about myself or about an aspect of myself. Similarly, one can argue, with “the Spirit of God.” But in truth, we couldn’t really examine the arguments here that “the Holy Spirit” in the Bible is or isn’t a self.
20-23 min – Even if Matthew 28 is best understood as implying that the Holy Spirit is a divine self – let me grant that for the sake of argument – this is compatible both with post-Constantinople trinitarianism, but also with a host of subordinationist unitarian views like we see in the first three centuries. e.g. Justin, Origen, Tertullian. A big difference between these is that the former holds the Three to be one god, but the latter do not. And Dr. Bowman grants that Mt 28 does not assert the there to be one God.
26 min – I think that Dr. Bowman, like many, underestimates the amount of disagreement in mainstream Christianity re: whether the Holy Spirit is a power given to believers, or something more akin to the divine Logos of the logos theologians (c. 150-325). This disagreement is remarked on by Origen, and seems to have been significant right up to 381, after which it was stamped out. And looking at the paucity of information in the NT, we can understand why!
30 min – Jesus being with us till the end of the age – this falls *far* short of claiming that Jesus is essentially omnipresent! The former claim is merely consistent with the latter, and provides to support for it.
31-35 If authority, the right to command and rule, supervenes on God’s divinity, AND Jesus has a divine nature, then at all times, Jesus has that authority. But as I point out, in Mt 28, Jesus is given all authority (by God). It’s not to the point to gesture at Phil 2 and mention the “incarnational context”. I think that perhaps Dr. Bowman is assuming some version of modern “kenosis” theory here on which, somehow, Jesus temporarily loses some divine attributes, or on which we have to revise what we think the divine attributes are. This is problematic and dubiously orthodox.
About the Father = God point, my friend pastor Sean Finnegan goes through many of the relevant passages here: http://21stcr.org/multimedia-2015/1_pdf/sf_only_the_father_is_god.pdf I can put all of this a big more technically, in terms of quantification and such, but it really doesn’t make the point clearer.
In his text, Finnegan, at some point, quotes …
Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by [???] whom are all things, and we exist through Him. (I Corinthians 8:6 NASB)
By non-trinitarians, that phrase, “Jesus Christ, by [???] whom are all things”, has been (tentatively) explained in various ways.
1. People who affirm to be (or are extensively considered) “unitarians” (while they are, at most, Subordinationists), but affirm some “pre-existent Son” and identify this “pre-existent Son” (somehow) with Jesus Christ, have of course no problem with this verse.
2. Some people who deny a “pre-existent Son”, boldly affirm that, by “all things”, this verse is actually speaking of the Church.
3. Some people who deny a “pre-existent Son”, claim that the only relevant point that Paul wanted to make was to contrast the “many gods and many lords” (1 Cor 8:5) with “one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live” (1 Cor 8:6).
4. Sean Finnegan, for whom “[t]his text leaves no wiggle room for complicated definitions of God”, claims that the meaning is that “[t]he Father made everything, and we experience all things through Christ”. Mmm …
For some reason, nobody seems to have thought the idea that Paul’s explicit reference to Jesus Christ is a prolepsis (that is Paul speaks of Jesus as already existing, when, in fact he was not, at Creation), for the simple reason that, unlike the Evangeliest John, Paul had not been smart enough to come up with the idea of ????? (????? ??’ ????? ??????? – John 1:3).
One Comment:
Dr. Bowman makes a comment that no trinitarian theories are explicitly taught in the bible. Basically, that any theology about the Father, Son, Holy Spirit grouping go beyond the biblical data, so that the biblical data is underdeterminative with the respect to any theory. He seems to be using some form of Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE), to arrive at his conclusions. But when using IBE, simpliciy/ parsimony are critera which the best explanation should possess- It would seem that in this respect orthodox trinitarin theory is far more complicated and ontologically extravagant than a simple unitarian understanding of the Father,Son, Holy Spirit collective.
Raymond,
Good point. Of course, Bowman’s orthodox religious beliefs include doctrines like Progressive Revelation and Divine Providence that cause him to presuppose that certain conclusions drawn from under determinative biblical data count as authoritative.
Thus, as an orthodox Christian, Bowman can’t simply rely upon the simplest forensic approach to the biblical data which would require drawing all conclusions from within the limited semantic and historic context of the canonical sources.
Bowman is hardly an “orthodox Christian”. Really he is a used text profiteer merely re-hashing tired, worn out centuries old arguments – sticking them in a marketable form – and hawking them in the House of Prayer to making a living off of the name of Jesus Christ.
May I encourage a more careful use of terms than to provide the least credence by using the term “orthodox” as an example.
Raymond,
what “simple unitarian
understanding” do you have in mind? Can you briefly illustrate it, bulleted list style?
Miguel,
Occams Razor states – do not multiply entities beyond what is required to produce an effect. In our case, lets say the effect of GOD.
Orthodox Trinitarinism- 3 necessary beings are required to produce the effect of 1 necessary GOD.
Bibliical Monotheism- 1 necessary being required to produce the effect of 1 necessary GOD.
Which do you think is the simpler theory?
Sorry, I ‘ll have to work on the bullet thing next time.
Raymond,
the bullets you shot are just fine. One thing, though, I still don’t understand: why do you use the expression “Father, Son, Holy Spirit collective”. What do you mean by “collective”? Who does the “1 necessary GOD” that you repeatedly refer to correspond to? The Father? Please explain. Thank you.
Yes, that’s exactly right, given that the suggested unitarian view really does adequately explain what is and isn’t said there. Simplicity is an important criterion, as are intelligibility and consistency – all of which are a problem for many trinitarian theories.
Dale,
what you refer to (rather vaguely) as “suggested unitarian view” is (rather obscurely) referred to by Raymond as “simple unitarian understanding of the Father,Son, Holy Spirit collective”. What is “unitarian” (let alone “simple”) about an alleged “Father,Son, Holy Spirit collective”? Thanks
What is simple compared to the various trinitarian theories is that the Father just is Yahweh himself, while Jesus is his human, virgin-born Son, specifically God’s Messiah, and “the Holy Spirit”, in keeping with OT and NT usage, can refer to God, to God’s power given to believers, or even in a few places to Jesus. So, no theological complications – hence, no *theological* controversies in the NT. Just a god, his special agent, and his power. Myself, I don’t refer to f, s, and h as a “collective” or “community”. I don’t see that theme anywhere in the NT.
Your rejection of any confusing idea on “Father, Son, Holy Spirit collective” (or “community”) is full and unequivocal. Thanks. I just wonder why you didn’t take issue with that expression, when Raymond used it, and, instead, gave the impression of endorsing Raymond’s comment entirely, with your, “Yes, that’s exactly right”.
As you know, I believe this picture does not adequately account for God’s ?????, nor for the relation between God’s ????? and Jesus.
Roman,
Thanks for posting the links to your responses to Bowman. I’ll take the time to read them over today. It would be interesting to see how Bowman would handle his own “challenge” reformulated from a biblical unitarian perspective:
1. Refute one or more of the essential propositions of biblical monotheism (unitarianism).
2. Show why the Trinity doctrine is a necessary alternative.
3. Identify why your religion requires that the biblical writers be associated with the Trinity doctrine.
4. Show that biblical monotheism (unitarianism) has any exegetical defects.
5. Explain why the Trinity doctrine is a better explanation of the full range of biblical information than biblical monotheism (Unitarianism)
Oh, if only Trinitarians were held to the same theological scruitiny and high standard that Unitarians (both your brand and mine) are held to.
Unfortunately I doubt he would take up the Challenge posited by me …
Roman,
Of course, this was a little bit of “tongue-in-cheek.”
Bowman believes that his view is the only possibility, so of course he thinks that it’s up to all of his opponents to “refute” him. Perhaps it doesn’t occur to him that others also look at all of the biblical evidence and arrive at different conclusions.
Absolutely, but I suppose that’s what we can expect when Your position has become “Orthodoxy,” it’s like that with anything, when Your position becomes the given you no longer feel the need to defend it. Just the way it is unfortunately.
Roman,
Good point. I actually like when people (like you) pose objections to my particular perspective on things because I’m open to reconsidering the evidence and making a sincere effort to reevaluate it. I just want to be able to give the most coherent and comprehensive explanation of the biblical testimony.
I’ve had to change my mind many times over the years because I’ve overlooked things, or someone has sorted out the evidence for me in a more plausible way. One of the reasons I haven’t published any of my research yet is because I want to keep the conversation “fresh” and to get as much critical feedback as possible,
Absolutely, Iron sharpens iron :).
Hmmmm… based on first hand experience, I would suggest that “openness” is quite a generous over-statement.
“One of the reasons I haven’t published any of my research yet is because
I want to keep the conversation “fresh” and to get as much critical
feedback as possible,”
Oh, oh, it looks like the cat came out of the bag while I wasn’t paying attention!
I had once suggested (on this forum) that you write a thesis and articles unpacking your views, and that you submit them for publication and scholarly consideration so as to follow the accepted peer-review process, and you replied by asserting that you’ve done that already. Now you say that you “haven’t published ANY of [your] research” because you want “to get as much critical feedback as possible.”
I trust that you understand that writing a thesis and articles that others have refused to publish isn’t the same as refraining from publishing because you’re holding off for critical feedback. So which statement was the truth and which came from Hillary?
~Sean
Sean,
I’m regularly in conversation with various academics (scholars), pastors, and others. I really don’t need to publish anything other than what you see on the various forums. I’m getting some good critical feedback which is what I’m looking for at this point (your included).
“I’m regularly in conversation with various academics (scholars),
pastors, and others. I really don’t need to publish anything other than
the ideas you see on the various forums. I am getting some good
critical feedback (yours included, of course) which is what I’m looking
for at this point.”
That’s fine, Rivers, but it’s not the impression you gave during our former dialogues. I had once suggested the following to you:
“If you wanted to behave responsibly in your effort to create a paradigm
shift, you’d go back to school and present your novel views in the form
of a doctoral thesis. If you can’t afford to do that or your situation
doesn’t allow that commitment at this time, you could write an article
and submit it to any number of peer reviewed religious journals, such as
JBL, NTS, etc.”
You replied:
“I’ve already done all that. Obviously, you don’t know me any better than
you know the scriptures. I can speak with authority on these matters
along with any of your favorite scholars. I don’t need to rely on
validation from my peers…At this point, I can only encourage you
to try having some humility and intellectual integrity. It will get you
much further in life (and biblical studies).”
Found here: https://trinities.org/blog/podcast-87-kermit-zarley-on-the-deity-and-preexistence-of-jesus/
Notice that I suggested that you write a thesis and submit articles to peer-reviewed journals, and your response was that “I’ve already done all that”.
It’s a bit ironic that you called into question my “intellectual integrity” when your very answer was itself misleading at best.
Based on your claim that you’ve “done all that”, I’ve asked you many times for either the references to your published work or some history about why work you submitted for publication wasn’t published. You’ve ignored all of those requests, rather than coming clean and admitting that you have not in fact “done all that”.
Let’s keep the dialogue honest, o.k.?
~Sean
Sean,
You may have misunderstood some of my previous comments. I was referring to various papers and the thesis I was required to write and submit during seminary (about 20 years ago).
If there’s something you need to know about my research, I would be more than happy to discuss it with you. I spend too much reading other publications (pertaining to all categories of biblical theology) to make the time to work on anything of my own.
Thanks for understanding.
Rivers 🙂
The Trinitarian Baptisma Formula (“baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”) has about the same “trinitarian” apologetic value of the infamous Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7). The only difference is that nobody doubts any more that the latter is a spurious addition, whereas all extant MSS of the NT have the TBF (Matthew 28:19).
There is no doubt that Eusebius of Caesarea has quoted Matthew 28:19-20, more than once, without the TBF.
TBF is only a retrospective label from a twenty-first century view point. The “TBF” is only one of many interpretations capable of Matt. 28.19.
Matt,
as the clarification seems needed, let me rephrase my previous comment this way. Many scholars (including, first and foremost, the Ecole Biblique de Jérusalem) believe that the Trinitarian Baptisma Formula (Matthew 28:19) is spurious, just like the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7) is spurious.
The MSS, (manuscript), evidence, and ANF quotation evidence for Matt. 28.19 is much stronger, (in my opinion anyway), than what it is for 1st John 5.7. I believe Matt. 28.19 with the “TBF” to be genuine, yet, there is absolutely no need to interpret the “TBF” “formula” in the sense of a Post-Biblical, Post-Apostolic “Tri{3}ad/Tri{3}nity”. Thanks for the clarification anyway.
Matt,
while, on the basis of extant MSS, it cannot be proved that the presence of the TBF in Matthew 28:19 is a later addition to the text, there are some arguments:
• Matthew 28:19-20 “flows” perfectly (in fact, much more naturally) without the TBF: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spiritteaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”• While there are several instances of baptism in the Book of Acts, not a single one of them is according to the TBF.
• Once again, There is no doubt that Eusebius of Caesarea has quoted Matthew 28:19-20, more than once, without the TBF.
As a general comment, while the TBF may not refer (probably does not refer) to the full-fledged “trinity” (co-equal, co-eternal), nevertheless, by requiring to administer the baptism “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”, it clearly refers to all three as persons. This is the essence of the doctrine of the “trinity”, is it not?
No, that is not the essence of it, because to be trinitarian (properly speaking) you must believe in a tripersonal god, and claiming that Father, Son, and Spirit are all divine persons is consistent with denying that, and indeed, with being the sort of unitarian that Origen is, where the one God is (identical to) the Father alone, but the Son and Spirit are lesser divine beings that derive from and depend on him.
Dale,
I see you immediately responded to this point, which must be very “delicate” for you, as confirmed by the general gist of your blog and, even more so, by the approach of your posts on Trinity (and History of Trinitarian Doctrines and Unitarianism) at SEP.
As I have already remarked plenty of times, you have this peculiar (and most historically challenged) idea, whereby EITHER the “trinity” is “whole hog” (co-equal, co-eternal), OR it isn’t.
It is the most uninfomed sort of historical-doctrinal-theological account the one that doesn’t take into account that, from Justin Martyr to the Cappadocian scoundrels, is a gradual process, almost inevitably leading (after and as a definitive solution to the Arian Controversy), to the full-fledged “trinity”.
The other alternative (the logos and the spirit as “inner” eternal attributes of God that became “expressed”) was never seriously defended other than by Marcellus of Ancyra. Athanasius, his former friend and associate, was smart and “political” enough to part ways with Marcellus, when he realized that that was not the winning side.
(I would avoid the grotesque of including Origen among the “unitarians”, if I were you … but I doubt you will ever heed my advice …)
Hi Miguel. I’ll concede fairly, that, yes, I can see your viewpoint on the shorter version for the MSS evidence, (I have looked into this). But, I don’t agree, (not enough time or space to give full reasons). Your welcome to believe that Matt. 28.19 has been tampered with retro-spectively. But I can’t agree. Enjoy your day.
Hi Matt,
thanks for your fair acknowledgement. Pity you don’t explain why you don’t/can’t agree … 🙂
Yesterday I just finished a 4 part post series on Robert Bowman’s “anti-trinitarian Challenge” (Perfect timing):
https://theologyandjustice.wordpress.com/2015/09/29/robert-bowmans-anti-trinitarian-theology-challenge-part-1/
https://theologyandjustice.wordpress.com/2015/10/02/robert-bowmans-anti-trinitarian-theology-challenge-part-2/
https://theologyandjustice.wordpress.com/2015/10/03/robert-bowmans-anti-trinitarian-theology-challenge-part-3/
https://theologyandjustice.wordpress.com/2015/10/05/robert-bowmans-anti-trinitarian-theology-challenge-part-4/
As a Trinitarian apologist, there are worse, but I dislike the common tactic trinitarians take that Robert Bowman also takes, where they make a statement and then cite a bunch of scriptures which supposedly provide evidence for the statement, except they don’t quote it, nor do they do any exegesis, they simply cite it, and when you actually read the cited scriptrues, and do so in context and in the original Language, you’ll see they don’t support the statement at all.
Roman,
Thanks for posting the links to your responses to Bowman. I’ll take the time to read them over.
Thanks for sharing these, Roman. I’m actually planning to do a podcast on his challenge. I will take a look at these.
Dale,
I enjoyed this first part of the interview with Rob Bowman. I think Bowman spoke humbly and intelligently (at least seeming willing to concede that there are other reasonable alternatives to his Trinitarian explanation of the implications of “the name” in Matthew 28:19-20).
I think it’s good that you brought up the issue of the presuppositions about “the deity of Christ” that underly Bowman’s rationale for arguing that the association of God the Father and Jesus Christ with holy spirit (Matthew 28:19-20) implies that “holy spirit” must be another “divine person.”
I’m glad you pointed out that biblical unitarians wouldn’t find this argument persuasive because we don’t need to accept Bowman’s orthodox belief that Jesus was ever “divine” like God the Father.
I’ll be looking forward to the second part of the interview.
Geez – Rob Bowman – of CRI fame… He and I had a head to head re the anhypostasis years ago – and he came away with his self-righteous, arrogant flapping tongue with nothing to say… Sorry – no respect for anything that comes out the poisonous Walter Martin gang.
Greg,
Yes, I’ve noticed that Bowman conducts himself differently when he’s not in a public setting where someone else can “edit” him. I thought he handled himself appropriately in this discussion with Dale.
Rivers
Much of my reflection starts with the arrogant, self-righteous and condescending Walter Martin – and how that spirit invaded CRI – and apologists to this day.
Maybe age – and some critical thinking – has mellowed Bowman from those years.
Greg,
Yes, I remember Walter Martin. I’m not sure about Bowman because he conducts himself differently depending upon the control he has over the circumstances.
I think he’s handled himself appropriately in all of the interviews and debates I’ve heard, but then I’ve also seen him take a very condescending and combative approach toward individuals on social media platforms that are more informal (or where he can moderate them).
It would be interesting to know what kind of “head to head” did you have with Rob Bowman.
Personally, I subscribe to the Confession of Chalcedon, except for the “[begotten] before all ages” and for any trinitarian reading. So, as concerns the natures and the person, I refuse both anhypostasis and enhypostasis, and fully subscribe to this:
“… the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (???????? ????), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ …”
MS
Simply em exchange – slightly heated – but all very clear. Rob – as all incarnationalists – denies the man Christ Jesus.
You’re extremely gracious Rivers.
I think the mistake he makes is that spirit always refers to a person, some times it does, but it also talks about “Someone’s” spirit, like Elijah, and in that sense it’s not another person within the being of Elijah, it’s his .. Power, or something of the sort. The same With “God’s Spirit.”
Roman,
I’m not sure if Bowman would be naïve enough to claim that spirit “always” refer to a person but I’ve never heard him offer an explanation for why “spirit” is often associated with impersonal characteristics in other texts. He seems to prefer a selective appeal only to texts where personal functions are attributed to holy spirit.
I also think Bowman’s concession here that the function of a “witness” can be attributed to “Joshua’s rocks” and other inanimate things critically weakens his suggestion that “another comforter” in John 14-16 requires that holy spirit be a divine person.
Key word – “selective” – yeah, trins are the greatest cherry pickers!!
Just like so called “pro-lifers”…who usually are trin as well…or at least incarnatinalists….:-)
Greg,
It’s understandable that a Trinitarian would be selective about the evidence that seems to validate their own theory but they also need to be able to offer a coherent explanation for the other evidence.
For example, we have holy spirit being “poured out” (Acts 2:17) but we don’t find any [other] persons in scripture being “poured out.” Thus, if Bowman is going to argue that holy spirit is a “person” because it “speaks” or “comforts” then he needs to be able to explain how a person can be “poured out.”
Roman
I had assumed you held to trin theology – and the hypostatic union. Am I incorrect? I wonder because you seem open to seeing the Holy Spirit as a power rather than a person.
Yes, you’re incorrect :), now I understand why you kept bringing up the hypostatic union and duel nature christology in our dialogue, I am most certainly not a trinitarian, my position is that the Father is God, the Most High, Yahweh, the Son, the Logos, is the first created being through which all other things were created, who became incarnate as Jesus, and that the Holy Spirit is more or less analogous to God’s power. In otherwords the JW Christology.
I hope that clears some things up.
Thanks Roman – sorry for the misunderstanding – you damned incarnationalists always keep off balance…:-)
BTW – typically I think we simply refer to this as Arian Christology as he was the first “big-name” proponent. Does not matter to me.
Arius was definitely NOT the first to teach Jesus/Logos was gentos,
(with the single “NU”), kitsis, or ginomai, (or other words in the
semantic range of “made” “created” “began existence” etc). This can be
shown from the ANF source texts, i.e in Greek and Latin. There is no
real, genuine or indisputable text, (when put under close scrutiny),
that actually says in it’s natural sense, (meaning without resorting to
twisting of any kind), that teaching Jesus or the Logos was either
gentos, (vs genntos), kitsis, or ginomai, etc, was then “heresy”, in
either the first or the second centuries. Only in the third century, is
there any indication that this was beginning to be considered
“un-othorodox”, (for want of a better word), rather than the norm, by
some, (contra the majority).
No disagreement – my comment noted the first kind of flagship name.
Comments are closed.