I recently read this somewhat disturbing post by our friend Fr. Aiden Kimel. Though he lightens things up with humor a couple of times, it is a pretty thorough condemnation of analytic theologians. A charge he makes by implication against analytic theologians (i.e. those trained in analytic philosophy who work on topics in Christian theology) is that like the “Arians” of old, we suffer from
…a triumphant rationalism antithetical to piety and the authentic exposition of Christian doctrine
Sorry, I just don’t see it at all. I see both deep and sincere piety and intense concern with being faithful to true tradition in all the analytic theologians I’ve known and/or studied. Surely, there are bad apples among us… but the same is true with other theologians. Keep in mind that I’m an anomaly; most analytic theoligans are more catholic than I am, indeed, being full and longstanding members of e.g. Anglican, Roman Catholic, Reformed, Orthodox, pentecostal, Baptist, or non-denominational evangelical churches.
As to “rationalism,” this is not a description really, but a term of abuse, meaning something like, prideful overconfidence in one’s own reasoning powers. This would seem a fitting charge against, say, Spinoza, or Hegel, or Swedenborg. But against Swinburne? Davis? Craig? Crisp? Brower? Anderson? Pawl? Zagzebski? I just don’t see it. There certainly are arrogant people in philosophy, but these ain’t them.
I note there’s a kind of over-heated rhetoric here, in a patristic mode:
The God of the Scriptures transcends definition and categorization; his divine nature exceeds all human comprehension. “To tell of God is not possible,” declares the Theologian, “but to know him is even less possible” (Or. 28.4). And again: “Our starting point must be the fact that God cannot be named.” (Or. 30.17)
This strikes me as bluster.
- God. There, I just named God. I’ll do it again: Yahweh. So much for his being unnameable.
- Can he be categorized? Seemingly, yes: divine being. God. Perfect being. Ultimate source of all else. Creator. Non-created. There are five or six categorizations, all true. So much for the claim that he’s uncategorizable.
- Does his nature exceed all human comprehension? If that means humans completely understanding God, then trivially, yes. Of course, no non-omniscient being can fully comprehend an omniscient one. But if it means that no human can understand God to any degree, this is obviously ruled out by the Bible. We can understand that God is good, loving, and powerful, and is much like a perfect human Father. Jesus is the revelation of God – if you’ve seen him, so to speak, you’ve seen the Father.
- Needless to say, I’ve just been “telling of” (i.e. talking about) God. So, it is false that “To tell of God is not possible.”
While there could be philosophical assumptions at play on which I’m missing the point four times here, I’m guessing that none of this rhetoric is being asserted as literally true. Why use it then? What is its function? I believe its function is just to silence, or at least denounce, people who are thought to be out of line, because they are not simply repeating the traditional words.
Fr. Aiden says,
When I read discussions of the trinitarian doctrine by analytic philosophers, I immediately note the confidence with which they write—confidence in their methods, confidence in their logic, confidence in their conceptualizations. But they neither begin nor end with mystery. They are consumed with dialectics and problem-solving. One would never guess that the doctrine of the Trinity is driven by the spiritual and liturgical experience of the Church catholic.
“they neither begin nor end with mystery” This is patently untrue. Analytic theologians often begin with the seemingly contradictory statements (mystery) of the “Athanasian creed” or somesuch. And they frequently emphasize that they haven’t rendered trinitarianism mystery-free. (Off the top of my head, see recent pieces by Hasker, Leftow, Senor, Rea, van Inwagen.) They are often, even usually, working with an apologetic motive, to defend mainstream Christianity against the charge of teaching patent contradictions. Is this not part of the life of the Church? Their arrogance, I think, is mostly if not all projected onto them by those who don’t understand what they’re doing. That they seem over-confident is, I think, caused by their not constantly hedging their claims, as is customary in recent theology, and in other fields. Very often they emphasize that their understanding of the Trinity is but a suggestion. Philosophers habitually assert, but are also (ideally, but also often: really) willing to have their points refuted.
Do they use logic? Do they go on at length? Do they make distinctions, and aim to be precise? Yes. But only in people’s imaginations are most of them “consumed with dialectics and problem-solving.” That’s an unkind charicature. Frankly, I’ve found them to be deadly serious about it all, and not simply focused on “winning,” showing their own cleverness, and so on. Keep in mind that many of these Christian philosophers work at secular schools, and all of them would like to be respected by their non-Christian peers, and it is not cool (in the wider philosophical community) to work on the Trinity.
What they’re doing, is taking traditional Christian claims seriously, trying to understand them as self-consistent. Why? Because they think traditional Christian claims are all true, since they know that contradictions are all false. This, to me, is the true way of humility. It shows love of truth, and clarity means that one opens one’s reasoning up to refutation. Unclarity is a way to make onself unrefutable, while to be clear is to take a risk. Also, until it is clear what these creedal claims are, we will be unable to search for evidence for them in the scriptures. (Evidence for what?) They know these are supposed to be truths to be believed, not merely words to be parroted. But: which truths, exactly?
And again, as catholic, the majority are loathe to depart from catholic tradition, esp. 4th-5th c., unless compelled by the strongest reasons. A well-known patristic scholar once remarked to me that he was pleasantly surprised to find that analytic theologians were more concerned to remain orthdox (catholic) than other theologians. For all I know, that’s true; it fits my evidence. They are generally conservative, and very hard to pull away by fads and specious arguments.
In Fr. Aiden’s view, the ancient “fathers”
dared to write on the Trinity only with fear and trembling, fully aware of their inability to bring to accurate speech the holy mystery.
Yeah, they use that rhetoric often enough, but they seem very confident to me, at least as self-confident as most present-day analytic theologians. Hear them thunder condemnation and insults at their opponents, certain in their philosophical speculations – the ancient bishops, I mean. Present day analytic theologians – I have never seen a single one of them condemn people in any way for not engaging in analytic theology, or for disagreeing with their favored theories. They are merely trying to serve the wider Christian public, whoever can benefit from their work, and they’re sticking out their necks to do it.
Fr. Aiden continues,
The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not an intellectual conundrum that we can solve, if only we would bring to bear upon it our most sophisticated philosophical analysis, nor is the doctrine in any way discredited by the acknowledgement that the Triune God eludes our attempts to comprehend the divine reality revealed in the Scriptures. We can identify the boundaries asserted by the trinitarian dogma, beyond which there is heresy. We can state the grammatical rules that govern churchly discourse on God. But ultimately all we can rightly do—and surely this is more than sufficient—is glorify the Mystery who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
He asserts here that intellectual work, attempt to clarify or understand “the” doctrine of the Trinity is utterly useless, hopeless. On what grounds, I wonder? It is best, he tells us, to merely worship the Trinity, and not try to theorize about it.
Well, we don’t see any conflict between the two. We are trying to love God with our minds. We worship God by trying to think carfully about him. You can opine that this is useless, but we feel that at bare minimum, we’re getting clearer on what the options are, on how to think about God, and ruling out certain dead-ends. Also, one can’t even understand the theology of the ancient “fathers” without some philosophizing. We also aim to love our neighbor by disentangling confusions, and so helping her to find her way around the issues at hand. Of course, not all our neighbors will desire this help!
For my part, I’m eternally grateful to analytic theologians for helping me to see some conflicts between the Bible and later catholic traditions. I have only respect for their long, difficult work in thinking through the contents of divine revelation. I don’t despise their despisers, but I ask them to reconsider. Analytic philosophers are not trampling holy things. Rather, they’re focusing careful, trained gazes upon them, for sustained periods. They speak about what they think they see, but don’t claim to be either prophets or gods. This much is true – few if any of them settle for only, or mainly negative mysterian haze. But none claims 20/20 vision.
Pingback: The Power of Love: Interlude: James Cone & the Church Fathers | Political Jesus
Sean
Many thanks.
It will take me some time to digest!
Are you a Jehovas Wittness?
Blessimngs
John
Hi John,
I don’t think that interpretation makes sense, though, because at John 8:58 you have a present tense verb modified by a phrase denoting past time. This is a PPA in Greek (Present of Past Action Still in Progress), and is properly rendered into English as K. L. McKay suggested:
“I have been in existence since before Abraham was born.”
If Jesus had merely responded by saying “I am the Messiah”, then that might have been a cryptic way to respond in light of your interpretation, but (a) he responded with PRIN ABRAAM GENESTHAI EGO EIMI, and (b) assuming that the textual witness most adopt is valid, he wasn’t answering the question “How could Abraham have seen you”, but “How could you have seen Abraham.” Someone who only existed in God’s plan couldn’t see someone who existed before he was born.
So, whether the Jews understood Jesus correctly or not, they asked how he could have seen Abraham, and he responded by saying that he’d been in existence since before Abraham was born. There is a logical correspondence between the question and the answer. Thus, the flow of the conversation simply makes the Socinian interpretation improbable, IMO. Moreover, even if we adopt the alternate reading for verse 57, i.e. “How could Abraham have seen you”, Jesus’ response still only makes sense to me when understood as a PPA, and rendered as McKay suggests.
You might find the article “‘I am’ in John’s Gospel” helpful, which can be purchased from Sage Publications for only $8.00, here:
http://ext.sagepub.com/content/107/10/302.extract
I say “only $8.00” because purchasing articles online often costs $25.00 to $35.00!
Sean
Sean
The Jews misinterpreted what Christ was saying to them
As I understand it Christ was affirming that he was the Messiah, and that Abraham would have rejoiced to see his day.
The I AM in verse 58 is translated from the Greek ‘ego eimi’ – or ‘I am , or I am the one’ a commonly used phrase and nothing to do with Exodus.
I personally do not read too much into the words – but I guess that I am not a strict ‘literalist’
Every BLessing
John
Hi John,
“I’m still not convinced that the ‘seeing His day’ is anything other than ‘in his mind’ – i.e. metaphorically. -but we’ll have to leave it at that.”
Abraham’s “seeing his day” was in his mind so to speak, because Abraham didn’t literally “see” Jesus, who hadn’t been born yet. As the footnote to Jn 8:56 states in The New Testament by James A. Kleist and Joseph L. Lilly:
“Abraham exulted (Gen. 15) in the thought of being a progenitor of the Messias, and ardently longed to see the fulfillment of the promise made to him. He did see it (my day): he saw the time of Christ’s life on earth, not actually, but in faith and prophetic vision, because in the birth of Isaac he saw the first step toward the fulfillment of that promise.”
So the fact that Abraham didn’t literally “see” Jesus isn’t at issue. The issue is: What did the Jews infer from Jesus’ words in verse 56, and how did Jesus respond to the question they asked in light of their inference? That’s where I think the Socianian view breaks down, as I’ve explained.
Sean
Thanks so much!
I am beginning to put the pieces of the puzzle together and your input was most useful.
I’m still not convinced that the ‘seeing His day’ is anything other than ‘in his mind’ – i.e. metaphorically.
-but we’ll have to leave it at that.
I’ve had Jehovas Wittnesses ‘at me’ on that one for many months – even insisting that the major lexicons ‘got it wrong’!!
I am fully ‘on board’ with you regarding Christs agential role.!!
It’s quite interesting to write down a simple business scenatio where A appoints B as his agent to
negotiate a contract with C – and then speculate on what might happen if circumatances change.
THEN try overlaying Christs words , primarily from John’s Gosple – perfect fit!!!
Thanks for the time and effort you put into your response.
Every Blessing
John
Hi John,
“(i) The main reason that the Jews wanted to get rid of Jesus is never highlighted…”
True, but I was giving you my own interpretation based on a detailed reading of the account, thoughtful consideration of context, and extensive interaction with and consideration of alternatives. Neither the popular Trinitarian answers nor the Socinian answer involving ideal preexistence seem compelling to me.
“(ii) Regarding John 8v58 the scriptures actually state that ‘Abraham has seen my day’ – not a ‘literal’ seeing but that Abraham had forseen the day when the Messiah would come. Remember Christ had just disclosed that He was the Messiah.”
True, but notice how the Jews respond in verse 57 says:
“Then the Jews said to Him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?'”
The Jews inferred from Jesus’ words that he was claiming to have seen Abraham while Abraham was alive and seeing his day. Rather than correct them, Jesus responded by confirming that he had been in existence since before Abraham was born!
“The use of the word ‘qualitative’ may be inaccurate – Would you say that my ‘suns rays’ analogy is ‘qualitative’”
I think that your analogy is a fine way to metaphorically speak of how Jesus could be the “image” of God, and how in seeing Jesus one sees God, not literally, but by virtue of his absolute obedience to his Father. My point had to do specifically with translating QOES at John 1:1c, though. QEOS is not a mass noun, whereas “light” in “light from the sun” is. The notion that QEOS, though a count noun, functions like a mass noun simply by virtue of its placement in relation to the verb is what I find to be theologically motivated nonsense.
“However how can ‘a god’ be with ‘God’”
I answered this on my blog, so to save typing I’ll quote myself:
“*Note: This should not be taken to suggest that I believe the early Christians were polytheists. Rather, I’m merely observing the historical fact that divine titles could be applied to agents of God in pretty much all forms of Jewish literature that existed at the time the New Testament was written. One often finds a strange disconnect in the writings of so many scholars and religious commentators in that while they often discuss the uncontroversial application of divine titles to agents of God in the Bible and in the literature of the period, they fail to recognize that it is precisely because Jesus is God’s agent — his living, breathing power-of-attorney — that we find divine titles applied to him. Once we recognize (a) the flexible use of such divine titles in the biblical period among monotheistic Jews, and (b) the contexts in which such applications were considered appropriate, then we come to realize something we might not have expected: Not only is it not surprising to find divine titles applied to Jesus in the New Testament, but it in light of his unique status as God’s agent par excellence, it would be downright shocking to find that such titles were NOT applied to him!”
Sean
Sean,
The use of the word ‘qualitative’ may be inaccurate – Would you say that my ‘suns rays’ analogy
is ‘qualitative’
Am I understanding you to say
– ‘the word was ‘a god’
– and as such it becomes possible for ‘a god to be WITH God’
-and this ties in with the pre-existence of the logos. ?
Of course in verse 14 we are told ‘and the logos became flesh’ – so by the above reasoning
‘a god’ became flesh.
.
Why should ‘the logos’ not be ;the way God acts – in other words “Power from High’ or ‘Holy Spirit’.
– or as I think John was trying to say “God’s Word-Wisdom’.
Every Blessing
John
.
However how can ‘a god’ be with ‘God’
Hi Sean,
Thanks your your detailed response!
Working backwards
(i) The main reason that the Jews wanted to get rid of Jesus is never highlighted – but
John 11 v 48 states “if we leave him alone all will believe him and the Romans will come and
take away our land and our nation”
Everything has always come down to power and politics!
(ii) Regarding John 8v58 the scriptures actually state that ‘Abraham has seen my day’ – not a ‘literal’
seeing but that Abraham had forseen the day when the Messiah would come. Remember Christ
had just disclosed that He was the Messiah.
There is tremendous argument over the meaning of the word ‘para’ in John 17v5. I find
Winers Grammar 48d p 349f(369) Buttman 339 (291f) credible when it states
“with the dative, ‘para’ indicated that something is, or is done in the immediate vicinity of
someone , or (metaphorically ) in his mind.
The JWs say this is incorrect -who knows.
People tend to frame their debate to achieve pre-determined objectives!
I certainly believe that Christ came into existence in his mothers womb when the ‘Power from on
High” (Logos/) came upon Mary.
I’mso sorry – but something urgent has just come up – I will be back later.
Blessings
John
Hi John,
I consider myself to be a simple fellow as well:-) And I think that you’re clearly correct to find the notion that John presents a person as literally being both “God” and “with God” at the same time to be problematic. I’m with you all the way in that regard. My reason for commenting was to point out the motivation behind the popular theory that QEOS (G-god) is “qualitative” at John 1:1c. The arguments that have been offered to support this thesis have ranged from weak to ridiculous, and the only reason, IMO, that it’s still accepted is because it’s thought to solve a theological problem, namely, the one Paul Dixon explicitly stated in the beginning of his thesis.
Frankly, the notion that Greek count nouns become “qualitative” simply because they are placed before the verb seems downright preposterous, and it certainly doesn’t seem to cohere with the available evidence, or the known flexibility of Greek vis a vis word order. But theologians have demonstrated an over-eagerness to embrace arguments that favor the “understanding” they already have about what the Prologue is saying.
I don’t know how closely you’ve followed the history of orthodox argumentation over John 1:1, but back in the early 1930s a fellow named Colwell published an article where he argued that definite predicate nouns that precede the verb will normally lack the article. Theologians seized upon that as proof that QEOS is definite at John 1:1c. How did they reach that conclusion without begging the question? By taking Colwell’s “rule” and assuming that the converse of it was true, i.e. that anarthrous (without the article) predicate nouns that precede the verb are normally definite. Then they dispensed with the word “normally” (or “usually”, I forget which), and some argued that an indefinite translation (i.e. “the Word was a god”) is grammatically impossible, and goes against a known rule of Greek grammar. They were mistaken. An indefinite translation did not go against Colwell’s rule; it went against the converse of it, which they assumed was valid in error.
Normally such flawed arguments would be discovered much more quickly via the scholarly vetting process, but Colwell told people what they thought they wanted to hear. What I don’t understand to this day is how people who supposedly knew Greek could have missed the many indefinite pre-verbal nouns in the GNT, including John. By my count, over half of the anarthrous predicate nominatives that occur before the verb in John are accurately rendered into English with the indefinite article. It was one of those odd situations where the supposed “authorities” were saying one thing, while first year students of Greek could see that such assertions just didn’t cohere with the evidence. So then, in the 70s, in stepped Paul Dixon and P.B. Harner, who both recognized the problem, saw that Colwell had been misused, and offered their own solutions, which, surprise, surprise, also tickled orthodox ears.
As for Christ’s preexistence, the clearest evidence of this in John is probably John 8:58, esp. when rendered properly, i.e. “I have been in existence since before Abraham was born” (K. L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach), p. 42
The reason the Jews wanted to stone Jesus after he uttered those words was because in their minds those words made Jesus a liar, and when an agent who claims to speak for God tells a lie in the context of his commission, that one makes God a liar, which would have been considered blasphemous.
~Sean
Newenglandsun, those outbursts are unnecessary. If our comments anger you, take a break and come back after the heat has subsided. We’re all passionate about what we believe and our tempers get the better of us all from time to time (I’m speaking for myself here). But anger serves no purpose if it’s self-defeating.
Sean
I must confess to being a simple fellow -and I still have a few problems.
For more than half a century I always wondered how someone could be ‘with God’ and ‘be God’
Then I surmised that maybe ‘the logos’ was not a person – and that would make it possible to
‘be’ and ‘be with’
So I reasoned, ‘the logos’ was an ‘aspect’ of God – maybe even the Holy Spirit.?
(I had given up believing the Holy Spirit was a ‘person’ by that time.)
I believed that I could see an analogy – the rays of the Sun, are the Sun ‘in action’ – and they are NOT the Sun
Likewise, I reasoned, the Holy Spirit is the way God acts in his creation, without being God.
So when we get to John 1 v14 ‘and the logos became flesh’ I reasoned that Gods Holy Spirit had entered into a human being. – and this tied in nicely with Luke 1 v35.
I am not familiar with QEOS ?
Having the ‘logos’ in an agential role appeals to me since I see Christ depicted everywhere as Gods divine agent – – but I’m still not sure how you got there!
Surely ‘the logos’ is simply John’s word for ‘Word-Wisdom ‘- a concept I can readily identify with.
– creation was by Gods spoken word – as in Genesis 1
– creation was by God’s wisdom
Would appreciate your ‘wisdom’ !
Every Blessing
John
“Therefore ‘theos’ probably refers to a ‘quality ‘ of ‘logos’ and some scholarly Bibles have translated it as ‘divine’ or ‘of Goid’”
That’s a very speculative view, IMO, and doesn’t appear to be supported by sound linguistic principles, a non-assumptive methodology, or compelling evidence. The reason it was proposed is because theologians came to recognize problems with understanding QEOS to be definite at clause c. Paul Dixon pretty well gave the game away in his DTS thesis:
“The importance of this thesis is clearly seen in the above example (John 1:1) where the doctrines of the deity of Christ and the Trinity are at stake. For, if the Word was ‘a god,’ then by implication there are other gods of which Jesus is one. On the other hand, if [QEOS] is just as definite as the articular construction…then the Trinity is denied.” (The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John), p. 2
Dixon was so motivated to secure “the deity of Christ” at John 1:1c (interpreted according to the presupposition of Trinitarianism) and to massage the evidence in that direction that he managed to convince himself that there is only one solitary indefinite PN in John’s gospel! (See the appendix of his thesis) Yet, in my judgement, over half of the pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives in John are indefinite nouns, and all translators render them in English as indefinite nouns.
Sean
“there is no ‘ho’ in front of the second theos allowing us to avoid the mistake of modalism”
Actually, not to nitpick, but it isn’t the lack of the article that helps avoid modalism; it’s the fact that QEOS in clause c is not definite. If QEOS were definite, which it could be regardless whether it’s articular or anarthrous, then modalism would be one possible interpretation of John 1:1, but not the only interpretation, and certainly not the likeliest interpretation.
Just as a human agent of God can be called “God” or “a god” (the latter seems more likely at John 1:1c) and not literally be God, so likewise hO LOGOS could preexist as a person and be called “God” or “a god” yet not be God. The Shiliah principle, which makes the application of divine titles appropriate for humans who represent God, would likewise make such applications appropriate for preexistence heavenly beings who represent God.
So, the author of John’s gospel could — and did, IMO — consider hO LOGOS to be the title of a heavenly being who represented God, and the application of divine titles would have been appropriate in light of the nature of hO LOGOS’s agency.
Although I think that “the Word was a god” is the best way to represent in English what John most likely meant by the Greek in clause c, it seems that it ultimately makes no more difference than whether Moses is called “God” or “a god” at Ex. 7:1. The divine title is not meant to identify Jesus as God but to show the degree to which he represents God as his cosmic power-of-attorney. Marianne Meye Thompson clarifies how this principle could apply at John 1:1c:
“Jesus is presented in the Gospel against the backdrop of the Jewish concept of agency and, furthermore, against the understanding that there is one chief agent through whom God acts. Such chief agents were variously understood to be a principal angel (Gabriel, Michael), an exalted patriarch (Enoch, Moses) or personified divine attributes (Wisdom, Word). Clearly the Word is understood as God’s chief and exclusive agent in creation (1:3)…Because Jesus is the chief agent of God, when one confronts him, one confronts God.” (Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Intervarsity Press, 1992), pp. 376, 377
newenglandsun
No- actually Central Africa!
All countries have their problems.
Just list all the pros and cons for each one- and assign a weighting for each of them.
Result will be interesting- and will surprise you.
Siyabonga
John
John,
NO WAY! YOU’RE FROM ZULULAND! NOT THAT I’VE WANTED TO GO AFRICA BUT I HATE THE UNITED STATES! LUCKY!
Sorry, didn’t mean all caps there.
newenglandson
Of course ‘theon’ is a form of ‘theos’ – but please tell me where ‘theos’ or ‘theon’ appear for a SECOND time in the words ‘ and the word was God”
As you very well know, God is never addressed as ‘theos’ – ‘theos’ is always preceded by the definite article when referring to the Lord God Almighty.
Just looking at your rantings we would say in my country that you are posessed by a ‘tokoloshe’ – I suspect that you are just not taking your lithium.
Please seek professional help.
Peace
John
newenglandsun
I’m so relieved that you are not a modalist.!!!!
However-
On 1st February at 0958 hrs you wrote
” there is no ‘ho’ in front of the second theos allowing us to avoid the mistake of modalism”
I must confess that I cannot see a second ‘theos’ in ‘ kai theos en ho logos’ !!!!!
Let me repeat –
(i) There is NO definite artical in front of ‘theos’
(ii) There is the definite article in front of ‘logos’
(iii) The syntax tells us that ‘logos’ is the subject while ‘theos’ is the predicate
SO TO REPEAT
It was ‘the logos’ which was WITH God- the scriptures do NOT say ‘and Christ was God’
The ‘logos’ is NOT a person but an aspect of God . The Holy Spirit, God’s Word Wisdom” the way God acts in his creation’
The best analogy I can think of is that the Sun emits rays which warm us on earth. The rays are the Sun in action. ..they are however NOT the Sun
See Luke 1v35 “And the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you therefore the child to be born will be called ‘holy’ , the Son of God”
Reading back through your blogs gives one a disquieting feeling – there are so many ‘holes’ in your story!
What kind of person ‘brags’ about being a’ third year double major ‘ -as if that signifies that you now ‘know it all’ !!
That is quite pathetic.
As you may learn (if you listen more and speak less) the half way to knowledge is a dangerous place to be!
Best Wishes
John
“By your logic, because you and Adolf share a human nature – this makes you Adolf Hitler!”
I’M NOT A MODALIST YOU FUCKING DOUCHEBAG!!!
Michael, you are right. And Dunn is by far not the only NT scholar who denies pre-existence of Jesus. John Macquarrie, John Knox, John Hick, JAT Robinson, while G.B. Caird saw pre-existence in Paul, he denies it explicitly in GJohn; Dutch scholars, several German scholars (Loofs, Ohlig, Kuschel), etc. This position is very well supported.
“I am certainly not insisting on a literal reading of the text here. I am just simply pointing out that what you accuse me of, you are doing yourselves. Now, let’s move on to as to how we can defend our positions philosophically, without the use of this Biblical idolatry.”
You’ve lost me. It is proper hermeneutics to note the genre of a text as well as recurring literary patterns in it. Then one considers contributing elements form the writer(s)’ presupposition pool. This includes factors such as culture, authoritative/influential writings, immediate circumstances to which the writing responds and intention. Such proper hermeneutics does not have one arrive at the Trinity fabrication of later centuries, much less confirm the dogmatic insistence that the NT writers were Trinitarian. That is why our approaches and therefore our conclusions are so vastly different.
newenglandsun
You keep confusing ‘nature’ and ‘identity’.
The one supreme God has an identity “God’ and his nature is ‘divine’
The Messiah has an identity ‘Jesus Christ’ and he had a human nature – and a divine nature by inheritance
Believers each have a unique identity and while have a human nature, partake in the divine nature
You keep implying that because Jesus is ‘divine’ that this makes him God !
You (newenglandsun) have a specific identity and a human nature
Adolf Hitler had a unique identity and a human nature.
By your logic, because you and Adolf share a human nature – this makes you Adolf Hitler!
This is absurd.!!
You need to ‘sharpen up ‘ your logic !
Perhaps Dale can help?
Best Wishes
John
Michael,
I went back to double-check the context of the Dunn quote as to whether he actually asserted that the prologue suggests that Jesus is non-pre-existent. He does not which I have quoted and will quote again.
“But more important, by affixing the expanded poem to his Gospel he conflates the Logos christology with his own Son of God christology, whereby it becomes clear that *for John the pre-existent Logos was indeed a divine personal being*” (244, Christology in the Making)
No, I am not driving a wedge between philosophy and the Bible. I am asserting that the two complement each other. Tradition is another complement to the Bible. You, by frowning on both philosophy and tradition and committing to Bible idolatry instead HAVE driven a wedge between the Bible and tradition as well as Bible and philosophy.
newenglandsun,
To cite someone’s interpretation of the Scripture is not to depend upon that person. That’s a bald non sequitur. I furnished the Dunn quote because you charged that every New Testament scholar believes John’s prologue presents Jesus as personally pre-existent, which is false. For my part, whether Dunn thinks so or not, I believe the prologue of John interpreted within its own linguistic and historical contexts does not present Jesus as personally pre-existent. It just so happens that Dunn and I agree.
Furthermore, the idea that looking to what the Scriptures say is “Bible idolatry” is also a non sequitur. Maybe someone actually worships the Bible, but certainly not anyone here. You insist on driving a wedge between the Bible and philosophy. But what could be more philosophical in the pursuit of knowledge about God than to attend to any special revelation he has given us? And even if you don’t think the Scriptures constitute special revelation from God, then at the very least they are a kind of philosophy in their own right. They are the ideas of their human authors and those who they quote (e.g. Jesus). Either way, then, it’s not the Bible versus philosophy. Rather, it’s because I seek/love wisdom (philo sophia) therefore I ought to pay heed to the Bible.
“One cannot if one accepts the mytical/metaphorical genre of the Gospel, as well as the typology so prevalent in it.”
Precisely. The point is that even METAPHORICALLY, scholars still see John as maintaining a personal pre-existence of the Logos. They assert it is only, strictly metaphor because a literal reading can ONLY give you God becoming man.
I am certainly not insisting on a literal reading of the text here. I am just simply pointing out that what you accuse me of, you are doing yourselves. Now, let’s move on to as to how we can defend our positions philosophically, without the use of this Biblical idolatry.
You’re missing Dunn’s point. What does that conflation mean? Does it mean that Jesus is personally warped back in time to literal pre-human existence, or that pre-existent Logos is merged with the historical Jesus? From Dunn’s writings and from personal interaction with one of his former students, Prof. James McGrath, Dunn did not see pre-existence in the prologue. One cannot if one accepts the mytical/metaphorical genre of the Gospel, as well as the typology so prevalent in it. One has to be inconsistent and dogma-driven to insist on a literalist interpretation of the prologue.
John, your latest comment reveals that you have no clue what the Trinity is. There is no ho in front of the second theos allowing us to avoid the mistake of MODALISM where God the FATHER becomes his own Son.
Thus, the Son is considered divine in John 1:1 to identify him as having the quality of the one he is with. Which is what Trinitarian thought already adheres to. Wonderful job once again at deliberately MISREPRESENTING your opponents!
Now, once again I’ll quote James Dunn.
“But more important, by affixing the expanded poem to his Gospel he conflates the Logos christology with his own Son of God christology, whereby it becomes clear that *for John the pre-existent Logos was indeed a divine personal being*” (244, Christology in the Making)
newenglandsun.
Regarding John 1v1 we need to bear in mind two things
V 1,3
and the word was God
kai theos en ho logos
(i) There is NO definite article (ho) before theos
(ii) The syntax in the Greek tells us that ‘theos’ refers to the predicate – the subject is ‘logos’
and it is prefixed by the definite article ‘ho’
Therefore ‘theos’ probably refers to a ‘quality ‘ of ‘logos’ and some scholarly Bibles have
translated it as ‘divine’ or ‘of Goid’
As the NAB Bible states ” the lack of the definite article with ‘God’ in Greek signifies predication rather than identification.
I always wondered how ‘x’ could be with someone and be ‘ that someone’ at the same time.
Of course the answer is that the ‘logos’ is NOT a person !
Best Wishes
John
“Do you see what Dunn is saying? That’s what I would say is the simple straight-forward truth of John 1.1-14, and that has nothing to do with Jesus pre-existing as a personal being–”God the Son”–prior to his birth.”
That’s the point I’m making. You are accusing ME of adopting and embracing a MAN’S opinion yet you DO THE SAME!
“So which is it? Bible alone with its Sitz im Leben or people’s opinions of it?”
It’s obviously the second one regardless of who you are as proofed by Michael.
Let’s go back to Dunn though again any way.
“But more important, by affixing the expanded poem to his Gospel he conflates the Logos christology with his own Son of God christology, whereby it becomes clear that for John the pre-existent Logos was indeed a divine personal being” (244, Christology in the Making)
“What’s the ‘simple straight-forward truth’ of John 1:1-14? Without adding any ‘man’s word’ to the Bible.”
I thought you said, “You can’t prove anything from “Bible alone” heresy which the traditionalists never adopted! Seriously?!? Which CANON do we accept any way?!?”
So which is it? Bible alone with its Sitz im Leben or people’s opinions of it?
newenglandsun,
Before you said,
. . . no NT scholar I have heard of would reject the position that Jesus’s pre-existence is found in John 1:1-14. And no early Church father rejected that position either.
And I said,
I’m sure you’ve heard of James Dunn. I don’t know if there is a NT scholar I regard more highly than him. In his Christology in the Making, he writes this on John 1.1-14:
“Prior to v.14 we are in the same realm as pre-Christian talk of Wisdom and Logos, the same language and ideas that we find in the Wisdom tradition and in Philo, where, as we have seen, we are dealing with personifications rather than persons, personified actions of God rather than individual divine beings as such. The point is obscured by the fact that we have to translate the masculine Logos as ‘he’ throughout the poem. But if we translated logos as ‘God’s utterance’ instead, it would become clearer that the poem did not necessarily intend the Logos in vv.1-13 to be thought of as a personal being. In other words, the revolutionary significance of v.14 may well be that it marks not only the transition in the thought of the poem from preexistence to incarnation, but also the transition from impersonal personification to actual person.” -Christology in the Making, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) 243, emphasis his.
Now you say,
What’s the ‘simple straight-forward truth’ of John 1:1-14? Without adding any ‘man’s word’ to the Bible.
Do you see what Dunn is saying? That’s what I would say is the simple straight-forward truth of John 1.1-14, and that has nothing to do with Jesus pre-existing as a personal being–“God the Son”–prior to his birth. The point of John 1:1-14 is that God’s word, or wisdom, that had been expressed in God’s creation and in his torah to Israel, is now expressed–most powerfully and perfectly expressed–in the man, Jesus of Nazareth. Or, as I have put it elsewhere, “Jesus was fittingly identified by the New Testament authors with the word (logos) of God (e.g. John 1.1ff) and the wisdom of God (e.g. 1 Corinthians 1.24, 30), because Jesus is the greatest expression, even the full embodiment, of God’s word and wisdom—the same word and wisdom of God expressed in God’s creation activity and in the good instruction (torah) he gave to Israel.”
What’s the ‘simple straight-forward truth’ of John 1:1-14? Without adding any ‘man’s word’ to the Bible.
newenglandsun
Sorry, I forgot to close the parenthesis ! I was being cynical !!
Sophisticated can also mean ‘false’.
One can criticise anyone, including Erasmus ’till the cows come home’ – but I can see that in the end you are just an ’empty drum catching cheap thrills by demonstrating your own verbosity!
Tant pis!!!
John
“If I know all mysteries and all knowledge . . . but do not have love, I am nothing.”
“Desideratus Erasmus tried to ‘get all good men in the same boat’ by simplifying things – but to no avail.!”
Well gee…get his name right and I might just take you seriously. As my third year in college with a double-major in history and religious studies I am well aware of the Protestant lies concerning the alleged destruction of traditionalists as well as the destruction anti-traditionalists have caused to Catholics.
“It seems that right from the start there has been a tension between ‘simple straight-forward truth’ and more ‘sophisticated forms of the faith.”
Sophistacated from the Greek word “sophiste” meaning wisdom. What can I say, I love wisdom. If you don’t, don’t become a philosopher.
newenglandsun
You may have wondered why ‘traditional ‘ Christianity has been marred by the shedding of blood and
particularly horrible violence ?
This is in spite of Christ’s own words recorded in John 13v35.
I think this has been as a result of attempts to claim ‘exclusivity’ by virtually every group that has embraced the faith. The multiplicity of interpretations which you refered to in a previous post is responsible for some of this. I put the rest down to a ‘dark’ side of human nature.
Desideratus Erasmus tried to ‘get all good men in the same boat’ by simplifying things – but to no avail.!
It seems that right from the start there has been a tension between ‘simple straight-forward truth’ and more ‘sophisticated forms of the faith.
Consider Matthew 11v25
“Jesus said in reply “I give you praise Father, Lord of heaven an earth for all you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned, you have revealed them to the childlike…”
I hope you find your way out of the ‘maze’ you are in!
In the end I think you will find that the truth is elegant in its simplicity !
Blessings
John
Yes, you are done with this conversation, because you’re giving your maturity away, and you cannot afford to shorten your life-span with such hysterical out-bursts. Your ego can’t handle being threatened either, and being merged into the Trinitarian ego-lie is indeed a threat to it. But I still think you are a nice guy. And I still think you are impressionable, hence your going bonkers like that. But we’ll cross swords again, and hopefully we will do it more gracefully.
Take care.
Are you KIDDING ME, Jaco?!? IMPRESSIONABLE?!? Hardly! I, UNLIKE YOU, HAVE thought quite CRITICALLY about the Trinity and WHY it is the actual Christian doctrine! I have already addressed you cannot prove nor disprove it from scripture. So the ONLY evidence we have left is philosophy of God and history. History PROVES that the Trinity is the ONLY valid Christian doctrine beyond REASONABLE DOUBT! Philosophy of God, with an emphasis on theosis, DECAPITATES anti-God-man tendencies! Your best argument against theosis is to insist that some men simply do not have the divine image which makes you a RACIST! I’M DONE WITH THIS CONVERSATION!
OMG…Now I’ve heard it all… Okee, I should have seen this kind of conversational decay coming…
I nevertheless think you’re a nice guy, though obviously impressionable. You’ll get there…
“A human who truly bears divinity in the Adamic sense of the word can just as successfully effect theosis, particularly if the true Source of such theosis demands it on those grounds.”
ONLY a being who is God can successfully become the source of theosis. Why? Because even if he was just a human who truly bears the divine image, all he can pass down to others is the divine image (something that humans have any way) at best. Whereas in theosis it’s a lot more than just that. At your rate, I could sacrifice myself for humanity since as a HUMAN BEING I am already created in the Adamic divine image. What your theology entails now though is equivalent to the racism that stems in the southern “Bible belt” states or some sort of Judeo-racist view insisting only members of religion x bear divine image. I’m not even going to ask if you’re a racist – YOU ARE A RACIST!!!
Newenglandsun,
I do not follow your reply:
“And they all affirm a literal reading of John generally contends against this. Thus, they compete against that literal reading in order to do so. Which is what I meant by that statement.”
What you’re writing here is incoherent. You said that no scholar denies pre-existence in John, particularly the prologue. I identified some who indeed do, precisely since a literal reading of those texts would violate the mythical/metaphorical strands in the Gospel.
“It was because of what anti-Trinitarianism would have done for salvation. If Jesus isn’t God, deification (theosis) is impossible. God becomes nothing more than a material postulate.”
Oh, no. “The ends justifying the means” ad hocs by “orthodox” hard-liners approximate absurdity. The implicit assumption that only someone who is ontologically God can effect theosis is a fallacy of necessity. A human who truly bears divinity in the Adamic sense of the word can just as successfully effect theosis, particularly if the true Source of such theosis demands it on those grounds. In his De Decretis, Athanasius was so obsessed with theosis, that he downplayed the otherwise alien design of his doctrine. He dismisses these concerns in Chapter 5 sections 19-21. The trinity brought with it its own moral, theological and philosophical issues that outweigh the supposed “evils” it was meant to oppose.
And just something on Bauckham and Wright: Bauckham’s “divine identity” proposal is one huge equivocation. Not only is his “identity” a misnomer, it’s a fuzzy and incoherent concoction of what amounts to categorisation, while calling it “identity.” And as such is not much different from the classical proposals since Nicaea. He also assumes the hard divine/mundane categorical divide which was not there in the first century. Much the same with Wright’s christology. He is so clear on justification and Paul, but where he touches on christology, he is shockingly unclear on ontology and functionality. The theological allegiances by these to scholars can be spotted by a mile. One refreshing criticism of Wright’s Christological attempts can be seen here: http://www.postost.net/2012/05/wright-divinity-jesus
“No, there are several NT scholars who do reject the preexistence. JAT Robinson, James McGrath, Fredrich Loofs, Ellen Van Leer (Roman Catholic), Hendrikus Berkhof (Dutch Reformed scholar) and a few others.”
And they all affirm a literal reading of John generally contends against this. Thus, they compete against that literal reading in order to do so. Which is what I meant by that statement.
“If there were as many anti-Trinitarian churches and institutions in the world as there were Trinitarian ones, and all of them had the freedom to express and debate these topics freely since inception, I can assure you, the picture would have been vastly different today.”
Jaco, I would highly recommend the book, “Atheist Delusions”. The reason for the rejection of anti-Trinitarianism was assuredly not because the other guys couldn’t make a Biblical case against it. It was because of what anti-Trinitarianism would have done for salvation. If Jesus isn’t God, deification (theosis) is impossible. God becomes nothing more than a material postulate.
“For an acknowledged ‘agnostic’ you seem to ‘know’ a great deal!!”
John, even agnostics know a great deal. The agnostic just acknowledges he can’t know it all.
“He says ‘ you can’t prove anything from ‘Bible alone’ heresy”
So I guess he is telling us that a bunch of ‘mere men’ has managed to ‘stare at the wall’ and come up with the most profound truths which over-ride the import of ‘mere scripture’”
John, you can’t. Because Richard Baukham (trained at Cambridge) and N.T. Wright (Oxford) both contend Jesus is God from NT evidence. That, and your friend Abel cited from James Dunn who…last time I checked…was a man. Not only that, but it was men in the fourth century C.E. (Trinitarian men if I recall New Testament class accurately) who put together “mere scripture” for you. So you apparently also follow teachings of men.
“I’m not saying those who deny the resurrection of Jesus should be dismissed as valid scholars. However, I’m saying that if you’re going to proclaim them as the best scholars in regard to establishing an historical Jesus, you would have to take the resurrection as figurative. I think we can both agree that the resurrection should be historical.”
No, this is still a red-herring. Regardless of what those scholars’ position is on the resurrection or any other “essential” Christian position, their arguments and the evidence for those need to be assessed on their own grounds. Fact remains that those scholars are respected and their arguments are compelling; not to mention brave for speaking against the Establishment.
“Now, onto another question. Do you reject the pre-existence of Jesus? Because no NT scholar I have heard of would reject the position that Jesus’s pre-existence is found in John 1:1-14. And no early Church father rejected that position either.”
No, there are several NT scholars who do reject the preexistence. JAT Robinson, James McGrath, Fredrich Loofs, Ellen Van Leer (Roman Catholic), Hendrikus Berkhof (Dutch Reformed scholar) and a few others. I don’t care about the early Church Fathers. The manuscript sources we have of them are all comparatively late, to some of them there is evidence of heavy tampering (cf. Ignatius recensions), and all of them write from a particular cultural – and hence – epistemological perspective.
“As to the notion of Jesus as God Almighty not having been developed yet, I would recommend you read some more of Fr. Kimel’s postings on this subject. He’s done far more homework than I have on this issue and has shown that the one God Almighty is the Father due to from this, emanates the other members of the Trinity and from this, their God Almighty essence is derived.”
All I’ve seen from Fr. Kimel (and I actually think he’s a very nice guy) are rationalisations and slippery slopes to ensure the Trinity is upheld. He cannot afford being consistent, since that would render any and all other doctrines he regards as heretical also acceptable by the same standards he employs in defending his own. A smart guy like you should have picked that up.
“This development is all throughout the Church fathers and the New Testament writings and on this, most NT scholars would agree with me, not you.”
Newenglandsun, I would have expected ad populums to be beneath you, really. If there were as many anti-Trinitarian churches and institutions in the world as there were Trinitarian ones, and all of them had the freedom to express and debate these topics freely since inception, I can assure you, the picture would have been vastly different today. So I’m afraid your ad populum is nothing to be proud of – it’s blood-stained to be sure…
Abel
Abel
You seem to have got our friend ‘newenglanssun’ to show his true colours!
He says ‘ you can’t prove anything from ‘Bible alone’ heresy”
So I guess he is telling us that a bunch of ‘mere men’ has managed to ‘stare at the wall’ and come up with the most profound truths which over-ride the import of ‘mere scripture’
And ‘newenglandsun’ has the timerity to suggest that Fr. Kimel and his cohorts has a ‘superior logic’ to Dale Tuggy, whom he suggests doesn’t know very much about logic anyway !!
From what I’ve seen, the Roman Catholics have failed to deliver anything when we come to the ‘logic’ of the Trinity.
We”’ve seen attemps at defeat Dales ‘Numerical Identity’ arguments which all fail., More recently there have been attempts to raise a ‘ Relational Identity’ type of thinking which has got nowhere!
Every Blessing
John
newenglandsun
For an acknowledged ‘agnostic’ you seem to ‘know’ a great deal!!
John
Abel
Of course I enjoy the tradition. The tradition is far easier to determine than the Bible which can have maximum about 1,000,000,000 interpretations per verse.
You can’t prove anything from “Bible alone” heresy which the traditionalists never adopted! Seriously?!? Which CANON do we accept any way?!?
newenglandsun
One moment you say you are agnostic – but I suspct you are a confused ‘groupie’ of Fr. Kimels!
His sophisticated ‘metaphysics’ are superficially attractive but ultimately an illusion my friend!
The previous writer has addressed your reference to John 1 .
His analysis is substantially accurate – in verse 14 it is the ‘logos’ which became flesh – Gods Word-Wisdom became incarnate. The Catholic Bible attests to the fact that the lack of the definite article and syntax of verse 1: 1.3 suggest that ‘logos’ is a ‘quality’ of God. Some suggest that ts God’s Holy Spirit which became incarnate..
Christ ‘began’ when the Holy Spirit entered into the Virgin Mary as is described in Luke 1v35.
” The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the most high will overshadow you”
The ‘metaphysics’ of the Early Church Fathers got mankind into a dreadful muddle.
Since then sincere souls have found the intellectual musings irresistable – and fallen into the same hole.!
But you will enjoy the tradition!
Good day
Abel
newenglandsun,
You said,
“. . . no NT scholar I have heard of would reject the position that Jesus’s pre-existence is found in John 1:1-14. And no early Church father rejected that position either.”
I’m sure you’ve heard of James Dunn. I don’t know if there is a NT scholar I regard more highly than him. In his Christology in the Making, he writes this on John 1.1-14:
“Prior to v.14 we are in the same realm as pre-Christian talk of Wisdom and Logos, the same language and ideas that we find in the Wisdom tradition and in Philo, where, as we have seen, we are dealing with personifications rather than persons, personified actions of God rather than individual divine beings as such. The point is obscured by the fact that we have to translate the masculine Logos as ‘he’ throughout the poem. But if we translated logos as ‘God’s utterance’ instead, it would become clearer that the poem did not necessarily intend the Logos in vv.1-13 to be thought of as a personal being. In other words, the revolutionary significance of v.14 may well be that it marks not only the transition in the thought of the poem from preexistence to incarnation, but also the transition from impersonal personification to actual person.” -Christology in the Making, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) 243, emphasis his.
I’m not saying those who deny the resurrection of Jesus should be dismissed as valid scholars. However, I’m saying that if you’re going to proclaim them as the best scholars in regard to establishing an historical Jesus, you would have to take the resurrection as figurative. I think we can both agree that the resurrection should be historical.
Now, onto another question. Do you reject the pre-existence of Jesus? Because no NT scholar I have heard of would reject the position that Jesus’s pre-existence is found in John 1:1-14. And no early Church father rejected that position either.
As to the notion of Jesus as God Almighty not having been developed yet, I would recommend you read some more of Fr. Kimel’s postings on this subject. He’s done far more homework than I have on this issue and has shown that the one God Almighty is the Father due to from this, emanates the other members of the Trinity and from this, their God Almighty essence is derived.
This development is all throughout the Church fathers and the New Testament writings and on this, most NT scholars would agree with me, not you.
I will order myself The Brothers Karamazov. Dostoyevsky was a remarkable man. I can relate to your frustration for having to relegate your readings to part-time. I’ve got a stack of partially read books and it seem to only grow in height…It’s like eating a growing elephant…lol!
“And which of these guys affirms the resurrection of Christ as well? Do you dismiss John as having historical value? Also, how does not mentioning you are God indicate you are not God? All of these guys would admit that the early Christians did in fact believe Jesus was God.”
You wanted scholarship and I provided you with some. John having historical value? All Christian writings from the first and early second century have SOME historical value, “John” included. Is “John” a historical account of the life of Jesus, such as by someone who walked around with a video recorder? No, as even Craig Evans had to admit in debate with Bart Ehrman. But 1) it does give profound insights into how Christians decades later in a specific geographical area understood Jesus and 2) what pre-existent (pun not intended) material and presuppositions the writer(s) used to make sense of Jesus.
Furthermore, what g/God meant to those early Christians cannot be assumed to mean exactly the same as what g/God meant to the fourth century church. All the scholars I cite appreciate that fact. So no, none of them believed 1) that the NT depicts Jesus as God Almighty (save Maurice Casey who rejects GJohn) and 2) that Jesus thought of himself as God Almighty.
You cannot start with an assertion or an a priori position and according to that position qualify or disqualify scholarship. Whether a scholar believes in the resurrection of Jesus or not, or whether they have a peculiar understanding of his resurrection is irrelevant. You take scholarship for what they offer you. I couldn’t care less as to whether Geza Vermes was a Jew or a Christian. His writings provide valuable insight into Jesus the Galilean Jew. Where I disagree with him, is not on matters of sentiment, but on conclusions drawn by other scholars who have worked in fields which were not Vermes’ forte, such as textual criticism, Christology, etc. The same goes for the others.
“Geza Vermes, JAT Robinson, James D.G. Dunn, James McGrath, Bart Ehrman (the guy you conservatives just love to hate), John Shelby Spong, Hendrikus Berkhof, Ellen Flesseman-Van Leer, Edward Schillebeeckx, Karl-Heinz Ohlig, Jacob Neusner, Marcus Borg, Maurice Casey…you want more?”
And which of these guys affirms the resurrection of Christ as well? Do you dismiss John as having historical value? Also, how does not mentioning you are God indicate you are not God? All of these guys would admit that the early Christians did in fact believe Jesus was God.
I’ve been working on The Brothers Karamazov right now. I’m a full-time student and my readings been regretfully relegated to part-time.
And once you’ve calmed down, maybe you can tell me which of Dostoyevsky’s works you recommend. I’ve only read excerpts of him.
Thanks,
Newenglandsun,
I do not follow your analogy on feeding animals. And I do not understand how I need to start feeding my 8 year-old Labrador broccoli if dogs have always eaten Bobtail…
Oh, I can cite several scholars, from various strands: Geza Vermes, JAT Robinson, James D.G. Dunn, James McGrath, Bart Ehrman (the guy you conservatives just love to hate), John Shelby Spong, Hendrikus Berkhof, Ellen Flesseman-Van Leer, Edward Schillebeeckx, Karl-Heinz Ohlig, Jacob Neusner, Marcus Borg, Maurice Casey…you want more? Which of your scholars suggest that the historical Jesus regarded himself as the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity, whose self-concept was that he was God Almighty Himself (or, one-of-themselves), who thought of God in threes, not One, who knew perfectly well that he created the heavens and earth, and who thought of himself in non-Hebraic terms, namely that he was of the same ousia as the Father, existing in two hypostases at once?
Jaco, when you feed an animal, do you give them every single little piece of food at once? If the answer is “yes”, you’re nuts. If the answer is “no”, you now understand what developed theology means.
The historical Jesus had a limited understanding of God? Which historical Jesus are you talking about? Whose historical Jesus? Cite your sources next time.
“The uncivility and lies are from those on the anti-Trinitarian, analytic side of the argument, Jaco.” What??? The trinity the best way to understand God??? Then Moses and the sages of the Wisdom writings and the writers of the pseudepigrapha and the historical Jesus and the Gospel writers had a profoundly limited and depraved understanding of God, Newenglandsun. You believe and in something they never did. You believe in something DIFFERENT – something they TOTALLY missed.
I lean toward existentialism myself, but that does NOT render the trinity more compelling.
newenglandsun
O.K. my friend , just carry on!
You’ll find yoursef just going in ever decreasing circles !
Seen your dreary type before!
John
John,
I USED to be a unitarian before I realized it was filled with bull.
Metaphysics – the philosophical study of the nature of reality, concerned with such questions as the existence of God, the external world, etc (dictionary.com)
You’re engaging in metaphysics via SPEAKING ABOUT God. And you’re telling me NOT to engage in metaphysics?!? HYPOCRITE!
newenglandsun,
You said
” Hence I try not to dabble too much in ‘logical constructs’ since they can only go so far in life AND DONT HELP ANYONE” (your emphesis.)
So my friend, what are you suggesting ‘helps anyone’?
We have seen a few people over the years adopting this approach – and ultimately getting no-where.
If one puts too much effort into ‘metaphysical musings’ one ends up with the ‘constructs’ which the Early Church Fathers used to consider the alleged Trinity!
The real danger is that philosophical constructs , which may become a framework for further contemplation , BECOME REGARDED AS “‘REALITY”
Good luck on your journey !
John
The uncivility and lies are from those on the anti-Trinitarian, analytic side of the argument, Jaco. I can’t speak for Fr. Kimel but my acceptance of the Trinity is certainly not uncritical. I certainly lean toward that side on debates BECAUSE it’s the best way to understand God. ESPECIALLY if you include theosis into the discussion.
FYI John, I NEVER ended my argument with “so, its all a great mystery so you must accept our doctrine”.
And as an agnostic right now, I have the least amount of biasedness here so I certainly wouldn’t be talking on “biasedness” if I were you.
But alas, my camp most certainly DOES have the best philosophers of our day. Soren Kierkegaard, Leo Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Friedrich Nietzsche, Jean-Paul Sartre, etc. I consider myself an existentialist.
Hence, I try not to dapple too much on *logical constructions* since they can only go so far in life and DON’T HELP ANY ONE!
Pingback: Against the Humbug of the “Humility” of Apophatic Theology and Theologians | Creakings of a Cog in God's Machine
Newenglandsum
JUst had a look at your most recent post and it confirms, once again, that the human mind is capable of infinite rationalisation.
It was precisely your type reasoning that got mankind burdened with man-made doctrine such as the doctrine of the Trinity.
You say
‘ ..all organic bodies are included in the category of substance ..thus they form a bridge between logic and metaphysics’
By this reasoning the created universe forms a bridge between logic and metaphysics… but in what sense?
I accept that ‘constructs’ are useful when pondering the ‘unexplainable’ but I will not accept an argument that ends with something like “… so, its all a great mystery so you must accept our doctrine’ !
We can then get into all of the gobbledygook and discuss the meaning of specific words…like ‘substance’. but that get’s us nowhere and tends us to draw further ans further away from Christ’s own words – which tend to be very clear indeed.!!
Your self-satisfaction is profound ! You fantasise that your ‘camp’ has the best philosophers of our age
These men and women are the modern day equivalent of the Early Church Fathers – the very people who created this mess that mankind is forced to live with today!
They got ‘there’ by the very same mental processes that you have described in your ‘blog’
God is ‘unexplainable’ but let’s not accept the gobbledygook that emerges from people with a certain theological bias!
Best Wishes
John
What a misconstrued picture painted by newenglandsun above and on his blog. The interaction between the non-Trinitarians on here and Father Kimel has been very civil and respectful. There are some serious issues with Fr. Kimel’s uncritical and blasé acceptance of the Trinity – an acceptance which is hardly different from the uncritical acceptance of doctrines he would denounce as heretical. On what basis are non-Trinitarian doctrines heretical? And if some neutral standard is applied to refute heresy, will the Trinity survive if the same standard were applied to it? Unconvinced…
Pingback: My Two Cents on Dale Tuggy and Fr. Aiden Kimel’s Debates | newenglandsun
it’s not that anti-analytic philosophers oppose logic. it’s precisely that anti-analytic philosophers already note that analytic philosophy is a rejection of logic.
the problem with your objection to the trinity stems from abuse of logic, not use of logic. you cannot be a good meta-physicist and use analytics to study the metaphysical. it defeats the entire purpose of what is *meant* by metaphysics (study of supernatural).
hence why aristotle noted that logic can only carry so far and that we must respect categories. why do echidnas and platypi lay eggs? why don’t other mammals lay eggs too? why don’t humans carry their young in bodily pouches like kangaroos do?
categorical errors are what you’re making. hence, you are not using logic. you are denying the very principles of logic.
A brief rejoinder:
Can analytic philosophers fix the doctrine of the Trinity? http://goo.gl/aKu3qv
Pingback: Can Analytic Philosophers Fix the Doctrine of the Trinity? | Eclectic Orthodoxy
Hi Dale, well said!
Thank you, Dale. This is a sane and balanced piece. I hope it is widely disseminated.
Sean,
The ‘mysterians’ of all ‘flavours’ would not get away with their speculation in any other field of endeavour.!
When it comes to matters of ‘faith’ , Trinitarians seem to enjoy total impunity!
I notice that Unitarians are contnually accused of rationalism – which is ironic!
Trinitarianism can only be the product of great rationalism since it is nowhere to be found in the scriptures .!!
How else did it arise than from human ‘musings’ ?
And people recording such musings must be accused of rationalism !!
Every Blessing
John
I had said:
“(b) the ones arguing that God is triune argue as though they have comprehended this conclusion.”
Please replace that with this:
“(b) the ones arguing that God is triune argue as though this conclusion follows from what they have comprehended.”
~Sean
I’ve been in dialogue with trinitarians for years, and I can’t tell you how many times the incomprehensibility of God has been presented as though it supports their side of the argument. That approach has always bewildered me, because (a) incomprehensibility does not imply triunity, and (b) the ones arguing that God is triune argue as though they have comprehended this conclusion.
What am I missing?
~Sean
Bruce is my father. Glad he liked this post too!
Thanks for this post, Dale. I wonder if it’d make a difference to Fr. Aiden Kimel if he personally knew any of these people? What if he went to church with such persons, would that make a difference?
Having recently studied a past theologian on the epistemology of theology, it is clearer to me now that Fr. Kimel’s position is a narrow one– for him it seems that there’s but one way to think about God- negative mysterianism. But my medieval friend enumerates five ways to be cognitively in touch with God. He’s a pluralist – he is a catholic – God can meet us in a number of cognitive ways, one of which is through explanatory arguments. It was surprising to me to learn that the arch-kataphatic theologian, Bl. John Duns Scotus, is an epistemological pluralist. No straight-jacketing of God there!
Peace,
Scott
Fr.Kimble
You said’
” one would never guess that the doctrine of the Trinity is driven by the spiritual & liturgical experience of the Church catholic’
And that is precisely the problem.!!!!
The ‘drivers’ of the Reformation failed to dispense with the accumulated detritus of the first fifteen centuries and failed humanity by refusing to go back to a ‘zero base’.
‘Tradition’ IS the problem.!
Men and women are lured into a ‘cozy nest’ of pre-packaged religion – from which only brave and thoughtful souls can break-free.!
The church Catholic may be the ‘church victorious’ in the eyes of its leaders – but humanity has paid a shocking price over the centuries.
Blessings
John
Well said, Dale. And it strikes me that Fr. Aiden Kimel is guilty of his own accusations. After all, his negative mysterianism is a position on the trinity doctrine, a position arrived at through logical reasoning/analysis and a position he insists is true with total confidence against all naysayers—to the point of writing his condemning post. You would never read, Swinburne for example, writing like this on his positions over against someone who disagrees.
Thanks, guys.
I have to ask… brothers?
Well said! Your persuasions are clear and refreshing. Let the calm, sincere voice of truth and reason prevail!
Yes! Very good. Thanks for replying to him.
Comments are closed.