Dale Tuggy interviewed by J. Dan Gill

@ Xavier (January 3, 2013 at 6:24 am)

So we agree that BEFORE v.10 auton is not used.

Is that all? 🙁

That was a moot point all along, and that proves exactly … what, anyway?

MdS

Marg

regardless of whether the pre-incarnate logos was personal or impersonal

I’m confused…if you don’t seem to care either way why do you continue to debate this matter?

@ Xavier (January 2, 2013 at 7:24 am)

I asked a simple question at #48. You didn’t even answer and instead went into a long diatribe about other things.

This was the question …

[Xavier, #48 of January 1, 2013 at 4:45 pm] “Is phos OR logos, for that matter, described as auton before v.10?”

… and this was the answer …

[villanovanus, #49 of January 1, 2013 at 5:39 pm] “There are thee occurrences of the Accusative Singular Masculine auton (respectively at v.10-11-12), and they ALL refer to the logos, and/or to Jesus in/as whom the logos ‘became flesh’.”

¿Lo que no está aún claro para usted?

MdS

(I have spoken the truth, and I will never go back on my word – Isaiah 45:23)

P.S. What was the point and/or relevance of the question, BTW?

MdS

I asked a simple question at #48. You didn’t even answer and instead went into a long diatribe about other things. So what is your problem really? Especially when we agree on the main thing?

Just a nickel’s worth of advice villanovanus, Pro 16.18. :/

villanovanus

Please see comment 31.

MdS

Thanks for helping me make my point. 😉

MdS

Is phos OR logos, for that matter, described as auton before v.10?

If it is then I stand corrected on the simple point I made above [comment #31].

MdS

it is your invoation of some imaginary “change” of grammatical gender between v.5 and v.10 that is grammatically and logically untenable.

I think we have noted down our slight disagreement concerning the subject of v.10. No need for any flippancy.

@ Xavier (January 1, 2013 at 7:50 am)

I don’t think it has to do with any theological conspiracy but a simple misreading of the text on your part. Maybe based on your own bias.

Who ever spoke of “conspiracy”? Certainly of bias, on the part of the English translators, as has been amply illustrated. Once again, it is your invoation of some imaginary “change” of grammatical gender between v.5 and v.10 that is grammatically and logically untenable.

I find your objections to my straightforward explanation of John 1:4-9 as an “interlude” a curious form of rejection. Seems like you have “invested” on your “theory” of the “change”.

Anyway, whatever makes you happy. 😉

MdS

villanovus

I don’t think it has to do with any theological conspiracy but a simple misreading of the text on your part. Maybe based on your own bias.

@ John (December 30, 2012 at 12:42 am)

I looked at this some time ago and found that ALL Protestant Bibles published before the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible in 1582 read ” IT was with God in the beginning.”
With the publication of the Douay-Rheims Bible most protestant Bibles rendered the scripture “HE was with God in the beginning”.

Actually, that still applies in 1607, that is before the publication of the KJV (begun in 1604 and completed in 1611):

“In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God. This same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. In itwas life, and that life was the light of men. And that light shineth in the darknes, and the darknesse comprehended it not.” (Lawrence Tomson, The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Translated out of Greeke by Theod. Beza, London: Robert Barker, 1607).

See “A Chronological Conspectus of the Opening Verses of the Gospel of John in Various Editions of the English Bible” (http://www.focusonthekingdom.org/610.htm).

MdS

John

Yes, we published this good info in our Focus on the Kingdom magazine years ago: http://www.focusonthekingdom.org/magazine.htm

We found about 50 translations with “IT”. Nothing remarkable in the sense that orthodoxy forced its way into the text, inadmissably, with HE and HIM.

@ Xavier (December 31, 2012 at 6:54 am)

So you believe it [John 1:10] goes back to speaking about logos, even though the subject has been changed to the “light” since v.4, because of the masculine pronoun “him” [auton]?

Correct. And any other explanation would be unsupported and therefore arbitrary.

And yes this hymn/poem shouldn’t be picked to death but we have sort of been bullied into it by many errant Christologies that have been thrown at it. Same with the similar hymns/poems of Col 1; Phil 2.

I agree. All the more so, it is necessary to be sober in examining it.

MdS

MdS

So you believe it goes back to speaking about logos, even though the subject has been changed to the “light” since v.4, because of the masculine pronoun “him” [auton]?

And yes this hymn/poem shouldn’t be picked to death but we have sort of been bullied into it by many errant Christologies that have been thrown at it. Same with the similar hymns/poems of Col 1; Phil 2.

@ Xavier (December 30, 2012 at 7:53 pm)

I think we’re misunderstanding each other here.

I think the “misunderstanding” is entirely yours. 🙂

The point I am trying to make is that the “light coming into the world” in v. 10 is described as “him” (auton) when previously in v. 5 the light was “it” (auto).

Try to see it this way. The group of 6 verses John 1:4-9 is an “interlude“, that presents the “word” (logos, masculine) as “life” (zôê, feminine) and, in turn, as “light” (phôs, neuter), with a sub-interlude (John 1:6-8) on John the Baptist being the “witness to the light”.

The ONLY “change between v. 10 and v. 5” is that v. 10 goes back to speak about the “word” (logos, masculine).

¿Está claro para usted? 🙂

(One of the greatest scholars on John, Raymond E. Brown, described somewhere the Prologue to the Gospel of John as something like a “grammatical nightmare” …)

(The use of the three images, word/life/light, BTW, should be enough to dispense once and for with the idea of a “personal pre-incarnated word”.)

MdS

@ Xavier (December 30, 2012 at 10:23 am)

It [the ALLEGED change of auto to auton in v.10] is a grammatical change not an alteration or corruption if that is what you think I meant.

Who, pray tell, would have operated that “change”, and why?

And what “mistake” are we making?

Who is “we”? Anyway, the mistake of assuming that some “change” needs to be invoked, of course.

MdS

Anthony Buzzard (December 29, 2012 at 12:45 pm)

Thanks, but everyone knows that logos is masculine gender, grammatically. But everyone should know too that sexual gender and grammatical gender do not necessarily correspond!

Logos is an IT and a HE or HIM, before IT (the word) becomes Jesus. Thus, 50 or so translations which unconfusingly and correctly read “all things were made by IT,” not “him”.

I think you are confusing grammatical and sexual gender. The fact that logos is masculine in Greek does not require in anyway that it should be rendered as HE, HIM rather than “it.”

You are simply spinning your own yarn.

Let me confirm what I have already affirmed: the “the ONLY unquestionable reason for using the Greek masculine pronoun autos [of course in its nominative case, as well as in the other cases, autou genitive and auton accusative] to refer to the Word/Logos (at John 1:10 as at John 1:3 and John 1:4) is that, in Greek, the word Logos happens to be of masculine gender.”

To any discerning reader this means that logos (and the pronoun that refers to it, autos) is masculine ONLY in grammatical gender, NOT in sexual gender, and therefore, a fortiori, it is abusive to refer to the pre-incarnated logos as though it was personal.

MdS

All,
Contributors to this blog have done a very workmanlike job on the subject of “The Word”.

You may consider adding to the Wikipedia paper styled “John 1:1″.

Of particular interest was the paragraph titled ” John 1:1 in English versions”.
I must warn that many editors of Wikipedia have a definite Trinitarian bias, and will delete papers submitted due to what they claim are ‘generalised’ comments, or comments without ( what they say ) are adequate cross references.

Every blessing for 2013!

John

villanovanus

Thanks, but everyone knows that logos is masculine gender, grammatically. But everyone should know too that sexual gender and grammatical gender do not necessarily correspond!

Logos is an IT and a HE or HIM, before IT (the word) becomes Jesus. Thus, 50 or so translations which unconfusingly and correctly read “all things were made by IT,” not “him”.

I think you are confusing grammatical and sexual gender. The fact that logos is masculine in Greek does not require in anyway that it should be rendered as HE, HIM rather than “it.”

@ Marg

As easily foreseen, Anthony has just made room for your obfuscation … :/

The question, as many times as needs to be repeated is: was the pre-incarnated Word a person?

If you want to put it more dierctly: did Jesus pre-exist as a person the Incarnation of the Word of God.

Enjoy your “search”.

MdS

Anthony Buzzard (December 28, 2012 at 7:22 pm)

Yes v.14 repeats what is IMPLIED by v.10. The word has become flesh when the word is a masculine person, auton. None of these is meant to be so complicated.

You repeatedly use the adjective “complicated”, but (at least in this case) the “complication” is ONLY in the eye of the beholder.

The ONLY unquestionable reason for using the Greek masculine pronoun autos to refer to the Word/Logos (at John 1:10 as at John 1:3 and John 1:4) is that, in Greek, the word Logos happens to be of masculine gender. No need to make this … er … complicated with dubious “implications”.

All we can say, objectively, is that “the word has become flesh”, when the verb “to become” (Greek. ginomai) is first used, that is at v.14. The rest is opinion. Your guess is as good as mine or Marg‘s or anybody’s.

Caird’s statement about John 1.1 implies an undermining of the Trinity. Whatever he might have expressed in public.

I don’t know what you mean by the expression “in public”. What Caird says about the “trinity”, in the rest of his book, is just as “public” as what he says at p.332.

MdS

Marg

The issue is the creed of Jesus. Because if you have a person other than the Father you automatically have a non-human Jesus. No need to make this complicated.

Xavier

Sounds familiar :p

MdS

Xavier

Read again … read better …

MdS

@ Xavier (December 28, 2012 at 11:06 am)

[1] … whether the pre-incarnate Word was impersonal or personal has not yet been established … [Marg]

[2] Of course it has been established! [presumably: that the pre-incarnate Word was impersonal – Xavier]

[3] It cannot be proved that the author of the prologue thought of the word as a real person. Wendt, Hans (1907), System der Christlichen Lehre.

As I believe we agree in the main, I feel entitled to asking you the question: are you aware that #3 is closer to #1 than to #2?

MdS

[Marg (December 28, 2012 at 9:14 am)]

… in the case of John 1:10, the Word was IN THE WORLD, and that Word IN THE WORLD is the man, Jesus. … the pronoun “him” is DOUBLY appropriate. It indicates the masculine gender of the word logos, and it ALSO stands as the personal pronoun referring to the man, Jesus.

Gasp! “Desperate, But Not Serious” …

… whether the pre-incarnate Word was impersonal or personal has not yet been established, and if it CAN’T be established, then it doesn’t matter.

Of course it obviously DOES matter and, as already evidenced, you seem to have … “no doubt” … as to the answer …

MdS

Autos does not have to mean a PERSON! It agrees with whatever it refers to, in gender and number. In this case the reference is to “the word” not “Word”.

That’s true, Anthony. But in the case of John 1:10, the Word was IN THE WORLD, and that Word IN THE WORLD is the man, Jesus.

So the pronoun “him” is DOUBLY appropriate. It indicates the masculine gender of the word logos, and it ALSO stands as the personal pronoun referring to the man, Jesus.

None of this demands that the pre-incarnate Word be a person. But it DOES indicate that the activity of the pre-incarnate Word is here being applied to the Word IN THE WORLD. And the rest of the section (vv. 11-13) reinforces the fact that the Word in the world is Jesus.
This Word came to his own (v. 13), and his own rejected him.
BUT (v. 12) –

As many as received HIM, to them [he] gave authority to become children of God …”

And then John changes to the present tense, which goes beyond the eyewitnesses and allows us to include ourselves in the company of those who receive him:
[even] to those who believe on the name of HIM

I repeat: whether the pre-incarnate Word was impersonal or personal has not yet been established, and if it CAN’T be established, then it doesn’t matter.
But I intend to keep looking at the evidence, because reading the Scriptures alone is nourishing.

@ Marg (December 27, 2012 at 11:19 pm)]

One thing that has not been mentioned is that the pronouns autou and auton can properly be translated with the personal pronoun him, [ummm …] because the Word was already “IN THE WORLD”.

The Word was indeed “in the world”, for the simple reason that …

All things were created by the Word [di’autou], and apart from the Word [chôris autou] not one thing was created that has been created. (John 1:3 – NET)

Does this imply that the Word that was in the world as God’s own agent of cosmic creation was personal before the Incarnation? You have written …

“It may be that John is personifying the Word in the first five verses [John 1:1-5] of his gospel.” [Marg #4 (December 20, 2012 at 9:21 am)]]

… and, unless you were using the verb “to personify” improperly, it means some thing like “to think of or represent (an inanimate object or abstraction) as having personality or the qualities, thoughts, or movements of a living being”. Very much like for Wisdom at Proverbs 8 …

Whether the preincarnate Word was personal or impersonal, the ACTIVITY of the preincarnate Word is here credited to Jesus, who was the Word IN THE WORLD.

You are simply wrong: the ONLY reason for using the Greek masculine pronoun autos to refer to the Word/Logos (at John 1:10 as at John 1:3 and John 1:4) is that, in Greek, the word Logos happens to be of masculine gender.

MdS

@ Greg [December 24, 2012 at 3:03 pm]

At #47 (December 24, 2012 at 4:30 am) commenting on your post #43 (December 23, 2012 at 10:49 pm), I made perfectly normal remarks and asked perfectly normal questions.

It is your choice to stop where you prefer to stop … 🙂

MdS

MdS,

The emphasis in the passage I quoted is not upon the symbols (as if they themselves were meant to become central objects of our faith), rather it is upon the idea that the (later) creeds should not be read as descriptions of metaphysical reality. If humanitarian Unitarians approached it in this manner, there would be nothing for them to object to because in it they would see simply a declaration of the importance of Jesus in God’s plan of redemption, as well as a statement about God and Christ’s unity in purpose. And if Trinitarians would cease and desist from their tyrannical insistence upon taking these creeds literally, they wouldn’t alienate other Christians whose consciences won’t allow them to recite them.

Now you keep accusing me of being vague in my attempt to describe the divinity of Jesus, but I think that it’s precisely the desire to be more specific that gets us into trouble. The writers of the New Testament (even John) were not writing philosophical treatises on the metaphysical relationship of Christ to God. They were explaining the importance of the man Jesus of Nazareth in God’s plan of salvation for mankind. I don’t see anything inadequate at all in the statement that God was “revealing himself fully through Jesus’ humanity, and in that sense the Word was made flesh.” I think what John wants us to understand is that Jesus is no ordinary man whom God chose to be the Messiah because of his righteousness; he’s more central than that: Jesus’ action/purpose in the world is God’s action and purpose. As John A.T. Robinson has suggested, Jesus is the human face of God.

This is why I see the truth resting somewhere between Unitarianism and Trinitarianism. From Unitarianism we take the all-important doctrine of Jesus’ true and uncompromised humanity. From Trinitarianism, we take the essential fact that Jesus is no ordinary human being, that he is indeed God acting in the world.

Now, I think I’ve said all that I want to or can say about this issue, so I will let you and others have the last word. It is my goal and desire to contribute to Christian unity, not division, and I think that too much verbiage all too often leads to unnecessary division in the body of Christ. My efforts here are to help Christians of all types see that, as impossible as it may seem, there are ways that we can come together. We just have to exercise a little humility, and refrain from dogmatism in areas that we really have no business making definitive statements.

I understand the question, MdS. That is the question some of us are searching for an answer to.

What seems apparent by now is that you are unwilling EVER to admit that you made a mistake – even when the mistake is too obvious to be denied.

That does not inspire confidence in your “assertions”.

I have been reminded that in John 1:10, the gender of both autou and auton is MASCULINE, and not NEUTER (as in v. 5).
This indicates that those two words refer to the Word (which is masculine in gender), rather than the light (which is neuter).

So – just for the sake of accuracy – John 10 should be understood as:

[The Word] was in the world, and the world was brought into existence by [the Word], and the world did not know [the Word].

The language is perfectly clear: the Word (including its light) was already IN THE WORLD in verse 10.

Comment #6 (December 20) includes the following:

“The true light, that gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.” So, if it was coming, it had not come, yet …
…So, the “turning point” between impersonal and personal is located somewhere between John 1:10 and John 1:14.

This is wrong. The Word was ALREADY in the world in verse 10, and was not just COMING INTO it.

That mistake needs to be corrected.

@ Marg

[December 23, 2012 at 7:18 pm]… By verse 10, the light was not COMING. The language is clear. The light “WAS IN THE WORLD“. It had already COME. … So verse 11 is not the turning point. The light was ALREADY in the world in verse 10. … And that light was Jesus.

[December 23, 2012 at 8:29 pm] … The whole sentence is:

[The light] was in the world, and the world was brought into existence through [the light], and the world did not know [the light]. [John 1:10]

I have no doubt about the personal identity of that light.

Jesus is a specific historical man, who was born in a specific time (ca. 6 BCE) and place (Bethlehem, Judea). (And who, so Christians believe, was mysteriously/miraculously conceived by God’s Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary, announced God’s Gospel of the Kingdom supporting his announcement with miraculous signs, was tried, killed by the Romans thanks to the PTBs of the Jews, raised by God and taken up to Heaven, where God bestowed upon him the power, honor and glory of “sitting at His right” as Lord).

It is something entirely different to affirm that the word/light/life that “was in the beginning with God”, that even “was God”, through which “everything was created” was indeed incarnated in/as Jesus Christ.

The question is NOT at what verse of the Prologue to the Gospel of John was the word/light/life incarnated in/as Jesus. The question is: was that word/light/life personal (in the OBVIOUS sense of the word person: “self-conscious being, endowed with reason, freedom and will”) before it “became flesh” in/as Jesus?

All those who affirm that the word/light/life was personal before the word/light/life “became flesh” in/as Jesus (once again, whether Subordinationists [like Samuel Clarke …], whether Arians or whether full-fledged Nicene-Constantinopolitan “trinitarians”) project their doctrinal prejudice on the Scripture. The distortion began very early, at least as early as Justin Martyr.

Does it mean to say that we should not ask ourselves questions about the “what or who” of the pre-incarnated word/light/life?

I affirm that we cannot dismiss those questions.

AFAIAC, Anthony‘ answer is reductive, because it doesn’t adequately account for the divinity of Jesus. In his case the risk, nay the consequence, is that of mere humanitarian unitarianism.

Greg‘ s answer, OTOH, is vague, and, ultimately legitimates (however he insists that he reject its Greek-philosophical-metaphysical understanding) the traditional “orthodox” phrasing of the “trinity”, invented by the Cappadocian scoundrels (Basil of Caesarea, his brother Gregory of Nyssa and their friend Gregory of Nazianzus). In his case, the risk is that of modalism.

Once again, the “common denominator” on which Christians can (and should) agree, IMO is the Old Roman Symbol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Roman_Symbol), while leaving the mystery to remain a mystery.

MdS

Knox is probably right historically, Greg, but the biblical evidence is different.

For example: although “God the Father” is a title used by several of the NT authors, “God the Son” is simply not there. That title was manufactured by theologians.

Altogether, the titles GOD the Father, Son OF GOD, and Spirit OF GOD are found about a hundred times in the NT.
That kind of consistency cannot be attributed to chance.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967 edition, Volume XIV, p. 299) says (regarding the formulation ‘one God in three persons’) that:
“… Among the Apostolic Fathers [the writers of the NT] there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”

That is a frank admission, which I admire.

On the other hand, there is ample evidence that the Messiah was more than a man. He is the “radiance of [God’s] glory and the express image of God’s essence” (Hebrews 1:2).
“In him dwells all the fullness of deity – the divine nature- in a body” (Colossians 2:9).

I take this to be the body that God prepared for him (Hebrews 10:5), so that he could make one sacrifice for sins for ever, and put an end to the OT sacrifices in which God could get no satisfaction.

You stated one of the reasons for the various extreme doctines that emerged throughout history when you noted that they seemed like over-compensations for some error in the other extreme.

That’s what we have to try to avoid.

Oops. I mangled the formatting again.

I imagine everyone will recognize that not ALL of the “quotation” above is actually a quotation. The last two paragraphs are my own comments.

But it may be worth repeating: the adjective phrase “coming into the world” (from verse 9) is NOT the predicate of the sentence in verse 10.
In v. 10, the unstated subject is obviously “the light”. What is said about the light is, “WAS IN THE WORLD”.

So, clearly, the light is not now COMING. It has already COME.

The whole sentence is:

[The light] was in the world, and the world was brought into existence through [the light], and the world did not know [the light].

I have no doubt about the personal identity of that light.

@ Greg (December 23, 2012 at 12:26 pm)

[1] … when I read much of the material from the Early Church Fathers, I see emphasis placed upon 1) The Father as the only true God, 2) Jesus as God’s only son, the Word made flesh, and 3) The Holy Spirit…in other words, the essentials, without extra baggage.

[2] There is a certain tension inherent in the notions that 1) There is only one true God, and that is the Father, and 2) Jesus is the one Lord to whom every tongue will confess and every knee bow. The human mind naturally asks, “How can these things be?” and, “What do they mean?” Especially in light of the Old Testament’s insistence upon the uniqueness and sole Lordship of YHWH.

[3] I think that the later Church creeds were divisive and speculative, but at the same time I don’t believe they were spawned without good reason, nor do I believe that they were necessarily inventing anything the Church hadn’t always believed. Do I think they went too far? Yes, but I believe this was largely overcompensation in their attempt to deal with certain false teachings — things which the historic Church had never believed.

[4] We now profess one God and one Lord. They stand together, and you cannot have one without the other.

[1]Interestingly enough NONE of the creeds (none of those that have become traditional, anyway), not the Apostles’ Creed, nor the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, nor even the s.c. “Athanasian Creed” makes any reference to the “Word made flesh”. We only have the Prologue of John’s Gospel, on one side, and the (more or less Platonizing) speculations of the Fathers of the Church of the other.

[2] I have already suggested that these difficulties do not issue from the “strict monotheism” of the OT and, more in general, of the well established Israelite faith.

All difficulties with this passage, for instance …

9 As a result God exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow – in heaven and on earth and under the earth –11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:9-11)

… IMO disappear IF we are ready to abandon (at least) two “dogmas” of classical theism: the “simplicity” of God and the “immutability” of God. I have no problem with abandoning either, but many Christians, while they are ill at ease with the (traditional and “orthodox”) doctrine of the “trinity” (“co-equal, co-eternal and tri-personal”), are at a disadvantage, because they tacitly (even unwittingly) accept both “dogmas” of classical theism.

[3] There sure was “overcompensation”. For anyone who knows anything about the History of Christian Doctrines, there is no question that (albeit introduced very early, as early as Justin Martyr), the belief that Jesus was the Incarnation of a pre-existing “personal entity” is NOT the faith of Apostolic Christianity. So, the answer to the question, “is the pre-incarnated Word a person?” (in the obvious sense of “self-conscious entity endowed with reason, freedom and will”) can only be answered in the negative. That is why Arius’ “solution”, apparently so “rational”, was, in fact, so devastatingly disastrous: to “compensate” for it, the Cappadocian scoundrels, ultimately had to artificially split the meaning of ousia and hypostasis, and then put them together again in the same bowl with the recipe “one ousia in three hypostases. Sheer verbal obfuscation, nay, a verbal idol to be accurate: the verbal equivalent of this visual idol (see http://www.biblewheel.com/images/trinityshield_300.jpg)

[4] So, who does “one God” refer to? And who does “one Lord” refer to?

MdS

@ Anthony Buzzard (December 23, 2012 at 7:37 am)

I think we are losing the simplicity of the faith.

The reason for the Son of God is reported by an angel to a young jewess. Why is this difficult?

Are you suggesting that even to ask whether the Virgin Conception is “a mere fact of a fact-with-meaning” is “losing the simplicity of the faith”?

These are the words of the angel Gabriel, BTW …

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. [Greek: dio kai to gennômenon agion klêthêsertai yios theou ] (Luke 1:35)

… and (contrary to what gradually became the traditional “orthodoxy”) they establish a direct causal connection between the Virgin Conception and the Divine Sonship of Jesus.

This is what the Catholic theologian Raymond E. Brown wrote:

“I cannot follow those theologians who try to avoid the causal connotation in the ‘therefore’ which begins this line, by arguing that for Luke the conception of the child does not bring the Son of God into being.” (The birth of the Messiah: a commentary on the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke, 1977, p. 291)

Any comments?

MdS

villanovus

I think we are losing the simplicity of the faith.

The reason for the Son of God is reported by an angel to a young jewess. Why is this difficult?

Anthony,

Trinitarians are as adamant as you are that Jesus Christ was a true, flesh and blood human being. The humanity of Christ has always been stressed by true Christians, and this is evident if you read the works of the early church fathers such as Ignatius or Irenaeus who fought against the heresy of docetism.

But the Church has also always had the faith that Jesus was no mere man, that in him something special and remarkable took place — the uniting of God and man. You might not like the language of the creeds that came later (and quite frankly, I have problems with them myself), but I think it’s inaccurate to suggest that the Church was inventing something new; rather, they were trying to clarify what had been the Church’s position all along, in response to perceived heresies.

So, as far as the humanity of Jesus is concerned, Trinitarians and Unitarians are in 100% agreement. It’s the divinity in/of Jesus that is in dispute. And this is where we all get into trouble, because we are trying to use human language, which is grossly inadequate, to describe a profound truth — God coming near to his creation in Jesus Christ.

Jesus is called the Holy One of God, he is the Word made flesh, he was born of a virgin, he never sinned, he was the unique (one and only) Son who alone knows God completely and who reveals God to us in full. These facts warrant him being called divine. But I completely understand the Unitarian desire not to obscure or diminish the true humanity of Jesus, hence they react against this concept. But what they seem to forget is that there’s an infinite gulf between God and his creation, so the notion that Jesus is just a very good man who is and can do all these things is absurd. Maybe the Christian Church hasn’t always described this divinity/humanity balance in the right way, and have perhaps even done so in ways that minimize Jesus’ true humanity, but one thing is for certain: the historic faith has always held Jesus to be more than just a man. Now what that means exactly, or how it is to be properly described, I don’t know. But I think Unitarians and Trinitarians should come together and acknowledge their common beliefs while allowing the mystery of the union of God and man in Christ to remain a mystery if necessary.

@ Anthony Buzzard (December 22, 2012 at 6:43 am)

Luke 4:43-5:1 and then the parallels in the parable of the sower: word = word of God = word of the Kingdom [Acts 8:4, 5, 8].

Once again, I consider your understanding reductive, but thank you.

You have affirmed that “Luke 1:35 is an explicit statement for us of Jesus as Son of God”. Care to unpack that? For instance, do you consider the Virgin Conception a mere fact of a fact-with-meaning?

Thanks,

MdS

SIGH! :/

villanovanus

Any Bible dictionary will point this out. Luke 4:43- 5:1 and then the parallels in the parable of the sower: word = word of God = word of the Kingdom [Acts 8:4, 5, 8].

The point is obvious.

MdS

John says nothing about “nature, essence” or “attributes”.

But knock yourself out. 😉

[Xavier (December 21, 2012 at 10:41 am)] It [“Jesus embodies ALL the qualities of God” is just as vague as Greg‘s “the divine was present in Jesus in an unprecedented manner”] [i]s clear and good enough for me.

The trouble is, once again, that it is NOT what the Prologue to the Gospel of John says …

… but you’re free to continue diluting to “metaphor mix” what the Bible says … 🙂

MdS

villanovanus

Thanks, your style is very combative.

In the light of the misunderstanding of “Word” as a ‘pre-Son’, it is much more instructive to say “word”. Through IT and NOT “him”. The logos is the immortality plan IN Christ and THROUGH this all things came into existence. It is the blueprint for the whole creation.

The “word”, not “Word”, is there with the One God as HIS “word/wisdom”.

Hope this is clear.

Logos is the creative activity of God in general and PARALLEL to spirit very often word is the Gospel in the NT and that Gospel of the Kingdom was in the mind of God from the beginning.

@ Xavier (December 21, 2012 at 7:56 am)

You seem to see this [the question of what does “word” in the Prologue of John’s Gospel refer to] more literally than me. I simply see it as it is sometimes suggested that Jesus embodies ALL the qualities of God [note: skenoo, “dwell/tabernacled”].

The question we are confronting, before it has to do with “Western glasses” or “Hebrew glasses”, is a question of accepting the Biblical text for what it says, NOT for what we would like to water it down to. In this respect, your “Jesus embodies ALL the qualities of God” is just as vague as Greg‘s “the divine was present in Jesus in an unprecedented manner”.

The Gospel of John says, very precisely:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. 2 The Word was with God in the beginning. (…) 14 Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory – the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. (John 1:1-2, 14 – NET)

NOT God’s Goodness, or Justice, or Mercy, or Truth, or Spirit, or Glory (although we may want to affirm that they are all implied), NOT ” ALL the qualities of God”, NOT “the divine”, BUT the Word or (if, like Anthony, you object to the capitalization) the word.

Or do you really believe that Jesus is one to one equal to the “church” when it says he is the “body”?

As far as I can think, Jesus ONLY referred to his own body during the institution of the Eucharist at the last supper (Matthew 26: 26, Mark 14: 12, Luke 22:19); before that, in anticipation of his death, also in Matthew 26:12, and Mark 14:8, which are two parallel allusions to his anointing after his death. Finally, as the Evangelist says, Jesus alluded to his body as “temple” in John 2:21.

Only Paul (again as far as I can think) uses the image/metaphor of the “body of Christ” to refer to the Church (1 Cor 12:12-14).

MdS

MdS

…the problem is NOT whether God’s Word and Spirits are “distinct persons”, but whether they can become distinct persons.

You seem to see this more literally than me. I simply see it as it is sometimes suggested that Jesus embodies ALL the qualities of God [note: skenoo, “dwell/tabernacled”]. Or do you really believe that Jesus is one to one equal to the “church” when it says he is the “body”?

Again, I think its a matter of taking our Western glasses off and looking at it through Hebrew ones.

@ Greg (December 20, 2012 at 11:48 pm)

Forgive me for commenting on your comment for Anthony, but I believe there are a few clarifications needed.

[1] I once read a Christadelphian publication that embraced the Textus Receptus reading of I Timothy 3:16, which says, “God was manifest in the flesh.”

[2] Unitarians … do indeed believe that the divine was present in Jesus in an unprecedented manner.

[3] We attempt to rationally explain the infinite, Almighty God, and we alienate each other in the process.

[4] The Trinity doctrine and the Unitarian insistence upon a non-divine Jesus are equally flawed. I think there’s a way to reconcile Trinitarian and Unitarian beliefs, but this will take both sides acting in humility and admitting their limitations. Speculation is not knowledge, and there is far too much speculation masquerading as knowledge in Christendom.

[1] The Textus Receptus, as you certainly know, is the “first printed Greek New Testament, published in 1516—a work undertaken in Basel by the Dutch Catholic scholar and humanist Desiderius Erasmus”. It was obtained by selecting, from the many MSS available, the “most probable” textual variant, but, of course, the criterion of probability remains rather subjective, so the critical editions of the Greek NT retain all those variants (at least as footnotes). Why do I make this long text-critical premise? Because it is far from obvious that “God” (theos) was the first word of the a.q. phrase from 1 Timothy 3:16. In several MSS there is (among others) the variant reading hos (“who”), obviously referred to Jesus. For an ample exposition of this problem see NET Note 3 tc appended to 1 Timothy 3:16 (NET – http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=1Ti&chapter=3&verse=16)

[2] The expression “unprecedented manner” is too vague and will remain a permanent source of disputes (as it has historically been, BTW …). Unless a more precise expression is agreed upon, so as replace not only the “full trinitarian” one (“co-equal, co-eternal person”), but also the Subordinationist and even Arian notions of “personal pre-existence”, any solution will remain “unstable”. THE problem is how to do away, in a satisfactory, scriptural manner, with the “personal pre-existence”.

[3] This is true. I suggest that a good criterion would be to resort to a formulation that makes the monotheism of the two other great “Abrahamic faiths” incomplete, NOT wrong. For instance, these two passages from the Quran …

When the angels said: O Marium, surely Allah gives you good news with a Word from Him(of one) whose name is the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near (to Allah). [Quran, 003.045 – Shakir translation]

O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only a messenger of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His messengers, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one Allah; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector. [Quran, 004.171 – Shakir translation]

… show an incredible nearness to the Christian notion of Virgin Birth and even of Word, but they also show the limits that make Islam (for the time being) not fully harmonizable with Christianity.

[4] This is all very true, but, once again, there is the risk that any “intermediate formula” is intrinsically unstable, and the source for further bitter disagreement. What happened between Nicea 325 and Constantinople 381 is enough (for anyone who is familiar with the history of Christian doctrines) to affirm that we need some “fence”, beyond which it is simply forbidden to carry any dispute.

My modest proposal is to do away, not only with the “Athanasian Creed”, but also with the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

The Church should eventually agree that Christians should not go, in their “dogmatic disputes” beyond the very basic limit set by the Apostles’ Creed, or to be more accurate (as its textus receptus is as late as the 8th century), its ancient version (2nd century): the Old Roman Symbol. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Roman_Symbol)

MdS

Anthony,

If you paid close attention to my post, I did not say that you and James White are saying the same things. I said that I thought you were TRYING to say the same things. Here’s what I mean, quite simply: both of you affirm the true humanity of Jesus, and both affirm that in Jesus, God was/is acting in the world, in such a way as to merit calling Jesus “God in the flesh.” I once read a Christadelphian publication that embraced the Textus Receptus reading of I Timothy 3:16, which says, “God was manifest in the flesh.” They went on to explain that they endorsed this idea completely, because God was acting in and through Jesus, and thus it was therefore perfectly legitimate to call Jesus God in the flesh. Trinitarians argue that Jesus has a divine nature and a human nature, whereas Unitarians argue that Jesus does not have a divine nature but a human nature only. Yet, if one qualifies the Trinitarian declaration regarding a divine nature, one can find common ground with Unitarians who do indeed believe that the divine was present in Jesus in an unprecedented manner.

What I am suggesting is the division in Christendom doesn’t have to exist, and that we don’t have to call each other heretics just because we do not use the same language to describe certain phenomena. Human beings are so incredibly frustrating…such that they erect barriers where there should be none. I think we do so by having too high an opinion of our intellectual capabilities. We attempt to rationally explain the infinite, Almighty God, and we alienate each other in the process.

The finite mind will never comprehend the infinite Creator of all that is. It is folly to think that we can. We are mortal creatures using language symbols to convey thoughts about that which is beyond all comprehension. The Trinity doctrine and the Unitarian insistence upon a non-divine Jesus are equally flawed. I think there’s a way to reconcile Trinitarian and Unitarian beliefs, but this will take both sides acting in humility and admitting their limitations. Speculation is not knowledge, and there is far too much speculation masquerading as knowledge in Christendom.

@ Xavier (December 20, 2012 at 3:24 pm)

It may seem so, because I use expressions like “essential attribute”. But, as I have already argued, you can see God’s Word (Greek: Logos; Hebrew: Dabar) and God’s Spirit (Greek: Pneuma; Hebrew: Ruwach) explicitly named as instruments of God’s creative activity in Psalm 33:6, and, I believe, alluded to as God’s “everlasting arms” in Deut 33:27. Irenaeus of Lyons (without any reference to Greek philosophy) understands both verses in this sense.

MdS

[Xavier (December 20, 2012 at 12:09 pm)] You should be [interested … in a dispute on “worldviews … Western vs Hebraic”] since its like asking what kind of computer software did the Apostles use.

I do no know how familiar you are with Intertestamental Hebrew Literature, Aramaic Targumim and Dead Sea Scrolls, but, if you were, you (should) know perfectly well that the Logos of John’s Gospel has ALL to do with the Hebrew dabar and the Aramaic membra, and NOTHING to do with the Hellenistic Logos other than in the sense that God’s revelation certainly doesn’t need to find its source in Greek philosophy.

MdS

MdS

I am much more interested in those questions and (hopefully) answers, than I am in a dispute on “worldviews … Western vs Hebraic”.

You should be since its like asking what kind of computer software did the Apostles use.

Think about it.

@ Marg (December 20, 2012 at 9:21 am)

It may be that John is personifying the Word in the first five verses of his gospel.

Make it 9 (verses), then, because John 1:6-8 refers entirely to John the Baptist (who “himself was not the light”) As for John 1:9, it is another “bridge verse”, announcing that “The true light, that gives light to everyone, was coming into the world.” So, if it was coming, it had not come, yet …

However, there is no personification in verse 10. The subject of the sentence is a real person, the man that the Word (with the light of life) became. HE (Jesus) was in the world, and the world was brought into existence through HIM (Jesus).

If you look at the Greek text, there simply is no equivalent of the English “he” at the beginning of the verse (en tô kosmô ên, “was in the world”), and “through him” is a biased and misleading translation of the Greek di’autou where autou is the Genitive Singular of the pronoun autos (“the same”), so the phrase simply means “through the same [Word]”, referring back to the very same Word of the beginning, NOT to any “he”.

John 1:14 unquestionably speaks of Jesus, the Incarnated Word of God. So, the “turning point” between impersonal and personal is located somewhere between John 1:10 and John 1:14. Personally, I consider John 1:11 the turning point, without being dogmatic about it.

What is important, though, and for the umpteenth time, is the key verb “became” (Greek egeneto): God’s impersonal Word became the divine-human person Jesus of Nazaret, God’s Messiah, God’s Son.

MdS

I appreciate the reference to Genesis 1. The similarities between that and John 1:1-3 are striking.

Genesis 1:1 – In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
The rest of the story shows God SPEAKING; and his words brought into existence all things – beginning with LIGHT and ending with LIFE.

John 1:1-4 – In the beginning the Word … was with God. All things came into existence through the WORD. In the Word was LIFE, and the life was the LIGHT of men.

It may be that John is personifying the Word in the first five verses of his gospel.
However, there is no personification in verse 10. The subject of the sentence is a real person, the man that the Word (with the light of life) became. HE (Jesus) was in the world, and the world was brought into existence through HIM (Jesus).

That clearly did not happen during his short life as a mortal man. It must have happened during his existence BEFORE the Word became flesh, as v. 3 indicates.

John does not say that the Word became ALIVE. The Word was “God” (fully divine), having the attribute of divine life. But the Word became FLESH – the man, Jesus.

@ Anthony Buzzard (December 19, 2012 at 6:50 pm)

Thank you for your reply. I see that you consider Word (logos), Light (phôs) and Wisdom (sophia) virtually equivalent and interchangeable, even if, as already remarked, sophia is never used in the Gospel of John. Fine.

OTOH, you have completely ignored my quotation (“The passages from St. John which present the Word as the medium of creation were explained by Socinus of REGENERATION ONLY.“) and question on the role of God’s Word (the Word spoken of in John 1:1, 14) in creation: cosmic creation, to be precise. Can you please clarify?

Also, can you please explain what prevented Socinus (and, perhaps, prevents you …) from considering God’s Word an essential attribute of God (NOT personal) that as such was fully deployed (also) at cosmic creation and that became a person (John 1:14) ONLY with/as/in Jesus?

Thanks

MdS

@ Anthony Buzzard (December 19, 2012 at 9:44 am)

Thank you for your reply. You say …

We are Socinians in Christology.

… and this is what we read in the “Christology” section of the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on “Socinianism” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14113a.htm):

“For Socinus, Christ was the Logos, but he denied His [personal] pre-existence; He was the Word of God as being His interpreter (interpres divinae voluntatis). The passages from St. John which present the Word as the medium of creation were explained by Socinus of REGENERATION ONLY. At the same time Christ was miraculously begotten: He was a perfect man, He was the appointed mediator, but He was not God, only deified man. In this sense He was to be adored; and it is here precisely that we have the dividing line between Socinianism and Unitarianism, for the latter system denied the miraculous birth of Christ and refused Him adoration.” [bolding and CAPITALIZATION by MdS]

Can you please comment on the above? In particular the bolded sentence and more in particular the CAPITALIZED BIT? If you fully agree that it is an appropriate account of Socinianism’s Christology, can you please explain what prevented Socinus (and, most of all, what prevents you …) from considering God’s Word an essential attribute of God (NOT personal) that as such was fully deployed (also) at cosmic creation and that became a person (John 1:14) ONLY with/as/in Jesus?

Thanks,

MdS

Xavier (December 18, 2012 at 11:01 am)

[villanovanus, December 18, 2012 at 8:18 am] … now even a fan of Samuel Clarke has admitted that the personal pre-existence of Jesus Christ is not evident, from the Scripture.

What “fan”?

Marg, of course, who greatly admires Samuel Clarke (perhaps without fully realizing the implications of his subordinationism).

MdS

[Marg (December 18, 2012 at 10:56 am)] Perhaps that question [whether the preincarnate Word was a who or a what] can never be answered in an absolutely foolproof way.

… the Evangelist John consciously and deliberately equates God’s Wisdom and God’s Word:

22 The Lord created [LXX; or, “possessed”, “fathered”] me [Wisdom] as the beginning of his works [or “way”], before his deeds of long ago. 23 From eternity I was appointed, from the beginning, from before the world existed. (Prov 8:22-23 NET)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was [fully] God. 2 The Word [Grk. “This”] was with God in the beginning. (John 1:1-2 NET)

… and as you correctly remarked, Wisdom (Heb. chokmah; Grk. sophia) is a personification (a rhetoric personal image), NOT a person.

MdS

MdS

now even a fan of Samuel Clarke has admitted that the personal pre-existence of Jesus Christ is not evident, from the Scripture.

What “fan”?

Greg, we at least have established the fact that Jesus DID exist before Abraham, as the preincarnate Word of God. There is no longer any doubt about that.

What’s more, in John 1:1, the activity of the preincarnate Word is viewed as the activity of the man whom the Word became. Through the Word, all things came into existence (v. 3). After the incarnation, HE (the man) was in the world, and the world was made by HIM – Jesus. We don’t have to suppose that the man preceded his birth; but his existence as the preincarnate Word explains the paradox.

In other words, after the incarnation, the name of Jesus is used, not ONLY of the man who was born of a virgin, but ALSO as a shortcut for referring to his exixtence as the preincarnate Word.

1 Co. 8:6 is a good example. When Paul said that all things come from the one God, through the one Lord, he meant ALL things – past, present and future. The past creation came through him as the preincarnate Word.
Present salvation comes through his life and death as a mortal man.
And all of God’s future plans will find their fulfilment in the resurrected, immortal Lord, when God has put all things under his feet.

I realize this doesn’t answer your question about whether the preincarnate Word was a who or a what. Perhaps that question can never be answered in an absolutely foolproof way. But searching the scriptures is never a waste of time, whether we find exactly what we are looking for or not.

I appreciate all the comments you make, Greg. I copied recently the comment you made on the thread THE EVOLUTION OF MY VIEWS ON THE TRINITY – PART 8 (DALE) (Comment #44, November 2, 2012) because I think you have caught the important things that we CAN and MUST know.

And maybe, even yet, we can make some progress on learning how the preincarnate Word is portrayed in the Bible.

[Xavier (December 17, 2012 at 6:51 pm)] Was it really worth it?

I think so: now even a fan of Samuel Clarke has admitted that the personal pre-existence of Jesus Christ is not evident, from the Scripture.

A small step for a Christian, a great step for Christianity 🙂

MdS

Marg and MdS,

This has been an interesting discussion to follow, but — and maybe it’s just me — I am having a hard time understanding just what has been accomplished here. There seems to be agreement on at least one point: Jesus preexisted his birth in Bethlehem in SOME form or fashion. But with the options ranging from Jesus being an idea in the mind of God to him being a fully conscious person, even God himself, that’s not really much of an accomplishment as far as I’m concerned.

I asked a question in a previous post which seemed to resonate with some, and it’s this: When the Word/word became flesh, did a what become a who, or did a who become a who? Now I’ve argued that so much of the division in Christianity over this issue may merely be a matter of semantics. Honestly, sometimes I think Anthony Buzzard and James White are ultimately trying to say the same things, they’ve just erected these artificial barriers (word constructions) between themselves in an attempt to comprehend the incomprehensible. It’s silly really, when you think about: the infinite God being dissected by his creatures! But at the same time, I do think this is a point that has to be settled, because it impacts God’s very identity, and of course the identity of Jesus. We can’t ever hope to fully comprehend God, but it does seem reasonable that we can arrive at a basic definition of who this being is.

When asked what the most important commandment of all is, Jesus, like any good religious Jew, said that it’s to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength. But first he cited the Shema — YHWH our God, YHWH is one — in what I think was an effort to define God. I think this is confirmed by the fact that the scribe agreed that God is one, and there is none other but he. Now it seems to me that it’s impossible that this scribe had a multi-personal God in mind, since Jews have never believed in such, and it seems equally if not more impossible that even if he did have a multi-personal God in mind (which, to be fair, we might redefine as a being complex in his unity), he certainly didn’t think that a fellow Israelite could belong to that Godhead. Jews were fierce monotheists, and I think a lot of Trinitarians forget this in their often careless exegesis of Scripture in defense of their position.

There’s a principal in biblical hermeneutics that says we must interpret difficult passages in light of the clear passages. We know for a fact that for all its hints of preexistence, Scripture is emphatic that Jesus was a genuine flesh-and-blood human being just like us. We also know that for all their unity, God and Jesus are clearly defined as two distinct persons/beings. God says in Isaiah that he was alone when he created all things. Peter in Acts says that the being known as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, glorified HIS servant Jesus. I could go on, but the point is this: indeed there are clear passages that define God as one person, and Jesus as someone other than this one person. Clear passages also define Jesus as one who began his existence at a specific point in time, as one born of a woman. So shouldn’t we accept these clear, simple statements at face value, and interpret passages such as those in John in light of these? It seems folly to me to read that the Word was with God and was God and became flesh, and “before Abraham was, I am,” and conclude that these somehow nullify or override the simpler, more basic statements.

I leave you with I Corinthians 15:45: “So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” (ASV) Did an eternal/immortal who become a finite/mortal who, who in turn became an eternal/immortal who?

The questions regarding John 8:58 have been answered, including the “revised version” which changed the parameters entirely. I leave the readers to judge for themselves whether the answers fit the biblical evidence.

We agree that John 8:58 establishes the FACT of Christ’s existence prior to that of Abraham. That is enough to explain why the Jews tried to stone him.

It doesn’t establish the KIND of existence Jesus was referring to. But there are other passages of the Bible that may shed some light on that question, and I plan to look at them. I am not prepared to state a dogmatic conclusion, and THEN look at the evidence.

Your original question was NOT

“What, other than a (misplaced, improper) charge of blasphemy would be (or would be perceived) in Jesus’ words (“… before Abraham came into existence, I am!” – John 8:58), so that “the Jews” would “pick up stones to throw at him” (John 8:59)?

Your original question was

what, precisely, would be (or would be perceived as) blasphemous in Jesus’ words …

… as if ONLY blasphemy would be punished by stoning, and therefore what he said had to be perceived as being blasphemous. That is sheer nonsense, as the passages that deal with stoning prove.

Now I will answer your REVISED question, which allows for a reason OTHER THAN something that could be perceived as blasphemous.

That reason is not hard to find. What he said was

Before Abraham was born, I am.

That was his answer to the faulty premise, “You are not yet 50 years old.”
Before Abrahm ever existed, he already “is”.

What KIND of existence he referred to is not here important. He was claiming an existence of SOME kind, before the existence of Abraham.
That claim made him GREATER THAN OUR FATHER ABRAHAM.

If the Jews were likely to stone someone who said that the baptism of John was from men, they would have no problem agreeing that someone who claimed to be greater than their father Abraham should be stoned.

what, precisely, would be (or would be perceived as) blasphemous in Jesus’ words (“… before Abraham came into existence, I am!” – John 8:58), so that “the Jews” would “pick up stones to throw at him” (John 8:59)?

I have now looked up every passage I can find that mentions stoning. In the OT, crimes that were to be punished by stoning INCLUDE:
1. Acting as a “medium” or spiritist (Leviticus 20:27)
2. Gathering sticks on the Sabbath day (Numbers 15:32-36)
3. Being a stubborn and rebellious son (Deuteronomy 21:21)
4. Certain types of sexual immorality (Deuteronomy 22:13-21, 23-27)
5. Covetousness (Joshua 7:19-23)
(There were also cases of gross injustice – such as the case of Naboth in 1 Kings 21:10-14.)

The NT also mentions stoning a few times.
1. In Matthew 23:37, Jesus mourned over Jerusalem, guilty of killing the prophets and stoning the ones God sent to them. [One outstanding example is Zechariah, son of Jehoiada, who was stoned by King Joash and his Jewish officials for telling them the truth – 2 Chronicles 24:21-22.]

2. Luke 20:1-6 describes an encounter between Jesus and Jewish religious leaders, in which Jesus asked them: “The baptism of John: Was it from heaven or from men?”
And they were stuck. If they said from heaven, he would ask them why they didn’t believe him. BUT –
If we say from men, all the people will stone us …
Apparently the Jewish people were quite ready to stone anyone who didn’t show proper respect for a prophet.

3. Acts 5:17-26 records a similar motive for stoning. The apostles had been imprisoned by the Sadducees, but had been miraculously released. They were found in the temple, teaching the people – the very thing they had been imprisoned for doing. So the commander and officers went and brought them to the Sanhedrin; but they did it without using force, because they were afraid the people would stone them.

4. Acts 6:8-10 tells of certain men who were “not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which [Stephen] spoke” (6:10). They finally stoned Stephen for saying something that, in all fairness, their own scriptures should have led them to expect (Acts 7:54-59).

5. And in Acts 14:19, Jews from Antioch (in Pisidia) and Iconium stoned Paul and took him out of the city, supposing him to be dead. Why? Because they were “filled with envy” (see ch. 13:45).

So – MdS – what makes you think that blasphemy is the only thing that would cause the Jewish leaders to pick up stones to throw at Jesus?

The words of Jesus himself show that his use of “I am” had NOTHING to do with Exodus, and he NEVER claimed to be God. That issue has already been settled several times.

MdS – The PREMISE of the Jews was, “You are not yet 50 years old“. It was a faulty premise, and Jesus’ answer corrects it.

… Wisdom is equated to the Hebrew equivalent of Logos, Dabar

Could you give a biblical reference to support this statement?

The two words are really not similar, and – so far as I am aware – are never used synonymously. In Proverbs, Wisdom (personified) SPEAKS, but her words are not synonymous with Wisdom itself.

I understand “Wisdom” to be an ATTRIBUTE of God, while “word” has to do with EXPRESSION – the revealing of his will and/or character.

[The question re stoning requires some study, but thank you for asking it.]

“The identification of Jesus’ I am statements with the ‘I am’ of Exodus I believe to be a misreading of the text…indeed the latter two [8:28; 13:19] there is a contrast with the Father who sent him…Even the Jews do not accuse him of this — only of calling God His Father, and thereby implying equality with God or as H. Oldberg interprets this from Rabbinic parallels, rebellious independence being ‘as good as God’ (5:18). What they take to be the blasphemy of making himself ‘a god’ in 10:33 is again made clear to be a misunderstanding of Jesus calling Himself ‘God’s son’…. The worst than can be said of Him at the trial is that He claimed to be ‘God’s Son”’ J. A. T. Robinson, Priority of John, 385-387.

“It is simply intolerable that Jesus should be made to say, ‘I am God, the supreme God of the OT, and being God I do as I am told,’ and in 13:19, ‘I am God, and I am here because someone sent me.”’ “Jesus’ Ego Eimi is not a claim to divinity.” Barrett, Comm. on John, p. 342, cf. p. 98.

“‘I am He’ means a claim to be the Messiah and implies neither divinity nor preexistence…Before Abraham’s coming, I am He, that is, the promised Messiah. The simple phrase ‘I am He’ is used by Jesus 15 times, but in every case but the present it is rendered in the Common Version, ‘I am He’ or ‘It is I.’ See Mat. 14:27, Mk 6:50, 14:62, Luke 21:8, 22:70, 24:39, John 4:26, 6:20, 8:24, 28, 13:19, 18:5. 6, 8.” Robert Young, LLD of Young’s Concordance, Concise Commentary on John 8:58.

@ Marg

[( December 14, 2012 at 1:02 pm)] He answered their question by correcting their inadequate premise:

Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am. [John 8:58]

And they picked up stones to stone him. [John 8:59]

The “premise” of “the Jews” was NOT “inadequate”: it was wrong, the very reverse of what Jesus had affirmed: Jesus was NOT affirming that he had –even literally – seen Abraham, BUT that Abraham had “seen” Jesus in prophetic vision.

Anyway, I had already explained everything in my posts #14 (November 26, 2012 at 12:36 pm), #34 (November 29, 2012 at 5:30 pm), etc.

The point, though, is that, in spite of my advice to take off your “personal preexistence glasses”, you insist in keeping them on your nose, when you read John 8:58.

And, once again, even admitting (NOT conceding) that John 8:58 implies personal pre-existence, it was you who insisted on the “Heavenly Preexistence” of the Messiah, quoting extensively from the Jewish Encyclopedia (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10729-messiah#anchor14 – see thread ” God and his Son: the Logic of the New Testament”, Marg‘s comment #29 of November 22, 2012 at 1:18 pm). There is NO mention of blasphemy there … so why would “the Jews” have tried to stone Jesus for a mere claim of “Heavenly Preexistence” as the Messiah?

You still haven’t replied …

[( December 14, 2012 at 1:10 pm)] I hate it when I mess up the formatting. Oh, well.

I hate it too!

I wonder if the S/W platform adopted by Dale allows for later editing of comments after they’ve been submitted. Maybe even friendly formatting? That would be marvellous.

Please, Dale, Be Friendly!

MdS

I think you’re right, MdS. The phrase “for eternity” probably modifies the noun death, rather than the verb see or taste. The death that anyone who keeps his word will in no way see is eternal death.

And they picked up stones to stone him.

So far, Jesus had not given the Pharisees any good reason for something as drastic as stoning. His claim to be the “light of the world” identified him with prophecies concerning the Messiah (as well as linking him with the Word – ho logos); but there was nothing they could do to discredit his claims.

For one thing, the miracles he was doing were evidence that he was truly “sent by God.” For another thing, no one had been able to convict him of any sin.

His repeated warnings to them about their sin, about their spurning of the truth, about their rejection of God, must have infuriated them; but the people knew that the prophets of the OT spoke in a similar way to the “leaders” of their day. In fact, many of the ordinary people thought his claim to be the Messiah was valid.
So there had to be something specific and serious to justify stoning.

Then Jesus made another claim:

I tell you truly, if anyone keeps my word, he will in no way see death forever.

The Jews surely knew he wasn’t talking about physical death. We “see” death around us all the time, and can expect to experience it ourselves. That’s obvious.
Instead, he was talking about the spiritual death implicit in his warning, “If you do not believe that I am [the one I claim to be], you will die in your sins.” If they continued to rebel against God, they could not escape that death.
But there is a way of escape, said Jesus. “Anyone who keeps my word (logon) will in no way see [THAT kind of] death, forever.”

The Jews preferred to talk about physical death. They said, “Abraham and the prophets died, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will in no way taste of death forever.’ Are you greater than our father Abraham? Who are you making yourself out to be?”

Before going on with the argument, it’s worth noticing the change from “SEE DEATH” to “TASTE OF DEATH”.

Those same words are found in Hebrews 2:9. There we read that Jesus, for the suffering of death, “was made for a little while lower than the angels …” Why? “… so that … he might TASTE OF DEATH.

Here, too, “tasting death” had to do with dying on account of sin.

Jesus had no sins of his own; but he died for sins that were NOT his own. God “laid on him the iniquity of us all”. He “bore our sins in his own body on the tree”. He “tasted of death” – the death that we deserved – so that we might become “righteousness of God in him”. That’s wonderful news.

But that is not what the Jews had in mind.

Errata – Corrige

Dale Tuggy’s article on the “Trinity” and the relative supplement on “Unitarianism” is NOT in IEP (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy), BUT in SEP (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

MdS

Knock yourself out friend.

PS: Mat 7.6 😉

@ Xavier (December 10, 2012 at 1:07 pm)

… there is only so much time and argumentation we can involve ourselves in before it becomes perfunctory don’t you think?

I agree: as I believe that I have provided more than enough evidence (scriptural, historical, logical and more generally philosophical) to make a decision, I will drastically “tone down” my arguing on the question “Did a what become a who, or did a who become a who?” …

… lest I may become suspect along the lines of 1 Tim 6:3-5 … 😉

@ Marg (December 10, 2012 at 2:39 pm)

I agree with you, MdS, that the cumulative misinterpretations of “orthodox” theologians have created what Anthony correctly calls “Christianity’s Self Inflicted Wound”. (….) But I am looking for biblical evidence, because I am convinced (as Samuel Clarke was) that all the doctrine we need can be found in the Bible itself. Therefore, until all such evidence has been explored, I am not committed to ANY conclusion.

Oh, but Samuel Clarke drew his conclusions all right and, sorry to inform you, while they were not “orthodox trinitarian”, they certainly amounted to Subordinationist trinitarianism. IOW they were essentially the same as those shared by most pre-Nicean Fathers, epitomized by Origen, with his infamous “eternal generation of the son”.

So even if you are reluctant to admit it, you HAVE (at least implicitly) drawn your conclusions. I believe there is nothing else to be discussed, in this respect.

MdS

I agree with you, MdS, that the cumulative misinterpretations of “orthodox” theologians have created what Anthony correctly calls “Christianity’s Self Inflicted Wound”. The Athanasian Creed is a perfect example of wrong beliefs, stated dogmatically, and then made mandatory for salvation.
(According to that Creed, we are both eternally damned.)

I also agree with you that “the question about the personal nature of the pre-incarnated Word/Logos” is not senseless, and probably not unanswerable. But I am looking for biblical evidence, because I am convinced (as Samuel Clarke was) that all the doctrine we need can be found in the Bible itself.

Therefore, until all such evidence has been explored, I am not committed to ANY conclusion. I have a fondness for the scientific method, which demands a testing of ALL the available evidence before a conclusion is drawn.

One thing, though, seems clear. Words have the purpose of REVEALING something.
For example, God is infinitely wise. Wisdom is an attribute of his. But his words (and his Word) REVEAL his wisdom, as well as his other attributes.

A similar idea is found in Heb. 1:3. God’s Son is “the out-shining of [God’s] glory, and the exact image of his essence” (Heb. 1:3). The Son reveals what God is like (as anyone would expect a true son to do).

And now, I will take a close look at the site you provided a link to, and see what evidence it provides.

@ Marg

In my previous comment addressed to you I made a remark on classical theism (and provided a link, http://www.theism.info). This was probably a bit too quick. So from the same website this is a more specific link: “Divine Immutability” (www.theism.info/immutability.html) that confronts two classical arguments, that from “perfection” and that from “eternity”. Enjoy, while remaining aware that this has very little (nothing, AFAIAC) to do with Scripture.

There is also a more philosophical link available. Let me quote the relevant passage from it:

The Incarnation is an especially knotty problem for DDI [Doctrine of Divine Immutability]’s Christian friends. In general, these argue that all change it involved occurred in the human nature God the Son assumed rather than in God; God was eternally ready to be incarnate, and eternally had those experiences of the earthly Christ which the Incarnation makes part of his life. Through changes in Mary and the infant she bore, what was eternally in God eventually took place on earth. (SEP > Immutability > 4. Arguments Against Immutability)

Is any of the above even remotely entailed in the Bible?

Of course not!

This is how the God of the Scripture gets disfigured through heathen-philosophical treatment …

[Marg, December 10, 2012 at 10:48 am] I think Greg is right: a lot of the misunderstandings of the past were due to “semantics”. I don’t want misunderstandings to hinder what could be a valuable learning experience for me, as well as anyone else who is willing to follow it.

Greg (and I with him) also asked a very clear question that you keep avoiding:

“Did a what become a who, or did a who become a who?” (“God and his Son: the Logic of the New Testament – conference presentation”, Greg’s comment # 109, November 20, 2012 at 12:49 am)

I believe it is by now only a matter of intellectual honesty, on your part, to simply give your own answer, without any further dithering, without any further ado.

[Marg, December 10, 2012 at 10:48 am ] I can find no suggestion in the New Testament that the word logos ever refers to an attribute. Can you give an example?

For that matter, you find no suggestion in the whole Scripture (OT + NT) that the word “God” (Hebrew: elohim; Greek: theos) is ever associated to the notion of “person”.

The Scripture (and the OT more so than the NT) refrains from the adoption of philosophical terminology and abstractions.

Does it mean that questions about the personal nature of God are senseless or anyway unanswerable? I don’t think so: there is enough evidence in the Scripture that God is self–conscious, reasons, makes choices and wills events to happen or not to happen. That is, that God has all the requirements of personality in the jointly agreed definition.

Likewise, is the question about the personal nature of the pre-incarnated Word/Logos senseless or anyway unanswerable? I don’t think so: it is only through a cumulative misunderstanding that (at least since Justin Martyr who, in turn, took his cue from Philo) the pre-incarnated Logos, of which we read both in the Gospel of John and the First Epistle of John, got to be understood as a “self-conscious entity, endowed with reason, freedom and will”. In the hope to “cure” this cumulative misunderstanding (that Anthony Buzzard refers to as “Christianity’s Self Inflicted Wound”), in the end, a “cure” was devised that was worse than the “wound” itself.

First the idea of the Logos as “second god” (deutheros theos – with Justin), then the verbal invention of the “eternal generation of the son” (Origen), then the abracadabra of the “one ousia in three hypostases” (the Cappadocian scoundrels, alias Basil of Caesarea, his younger brother Gregory of Nyssa and the close friend Gregory of Nazianzus).

MdS

Xavier

I am not quite sure what you’re complaining about.

You have spent no less than 18 posts at thread “God and his Son: the Logic of the New Testament – conference presentation (Dale)” (these are the ones I have marked: 2 7 9 13 18 25 26 30 33 37 42 44 91 107 111 115 122 127) to ask Marg always the same question and variants thereof.

In fact, at post #115 (Xavier, November 20, 2012 at 1:39 pm) you even wrote to me: “Maybe Marg can respond to you and finally settle for all of us what type of Christology she holds to.”

What obviously Marg needs is to be gradually led to imagine, understand and (perhaps) accept that, before the Incarnation, God’s Word was an attribute of >God yet NOT a distinct person (that is NOT a distinct “self-conscious entity, endowed with reason, freedom and will”).

MdS

@ Marg

[# 55 December 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm] The one thing that I find confusing is the differentiation you make between “what” and “thing”. Given the definition of person which we have agreed to accept, I understand a “who” to be a “person,” and a “what” to be a “thing”.

I can sympathise with your “confusion”, but there is no contradiction. Once we have accepted the general definition of person as “self-conscious entity, endowed with reason, freedom and will” the question becomes precisely this:

Does the Scriptural evidence about God’s Word (essentially from the Prologue to the Gospel of John – John 1:1-18 and also from the Prologue to the First Letter of John – see the “word of life” in 1 John 1:1-4) affirm (or imply) that before the incarnation in/as Jesus of Nazareth, God’s Word was a person (that is a “self-conscious entity, endowed with reason, freedom and will”) distinct from the One and Only self-existent God the Father Almighty?

I affirm that (in spite of secular strata of traditional interpretation) it does NOT.

I affirm that it is for those who accept the traditional interpretations (whether Subordinationist, Arian, or Nicene-Constantinopolitan “trinitarian”) to prove otherwise.

[# 55, December 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm] Is there some definition of a “thing” that makes it different from a “what”?

This is not the point. The point is: can you imagine, understand and (perhaps) accept that, before the Incarnation, God’s Word was an attribute of >God yet NOT a distinct person (that is NOT a distinct “self-conscious entity, endowed with reason, freedom and will”)?

If it can help, remember the scriptural image of God’s Word and Spirit as God’s “arms” (or “hands” – Deut 33:27; Psalm 33:6).

[# 56, December 9, 2012 at 11:04 pm] Are you suggesting that in order to become a person the Word had to become flesh? Does this mean that only a human being can be a person?

[# 57, December 9, 2012 at 11:12 pm] Did the Word have to become flesh in order to become a person? If so, what happened to the expanded definition of “person” that we agreed to accept?

I can understand your perplexity but, once again, there is no contradiction in my statements.

As you are well aware, the definition of person that I have proposed, and that you accept, was formulated in such a way that it applies not only to human beings but even to pure spirits like angels (and demons …) and even to God.

So NO, the Word DID NOT have to become flesh in order to become a person. For instance, certainly this is NOT the case with Subordinationism, Arianism, or Nicene-Constantinopolitan trinitarianism: all of which, in various ways, understand God’s Word/Son as a “person”, in its state pre-existing the Incarnation.

What I insist on is that the Scripture affirms otherwise: it is a not a logically necessary fact, but nevertheless a fact, that the Scripture does NOT affirm that the pre-incarnated Word was a person.

What I insist on is precisely the emphasis on the verb “to become”. Why? Because the Christian doctrine is so imbued with classical theism (see e.g. http://www.theism.info) that (perhaps tacitly) it abhors the idea that anything in God may change. Now the change of God’s Word from impersonal attribute to full-fledged person certainly IS a major, dramatic change in God.

Still this is precisely what the Scripture affirms:

“ 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. 2 The Word was with God in the beginning. (…) 14 Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory – the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. ” (John 1:1-2,14)

How did God’s Word “became flesh”? By being born as the person Jesus of Nazareth.

Or would you rather affirm that a perfectly pre-existing “person” merely “put on flesh”, as some sort of garment?

This (apart from all other conisderations for instance those of Anthony Buzzard) would obviously be docetism …

MdS

Forgive me for adding one more question, MdS, but I am anxious to understand what you are saying. Your last paragraph says (in part):

… God’s Eternal Word … with the Incarnation became (… “the Word became flesh”) a person …

Are you suggesting that in order to become a person the Word had to become flesh? Does this mean that only a human being can be a person?

Or have I misunderstood the paragraph?

@ Marg

I’m back, and see I’ve accumulated quite a backlog, in the meantime.

(#48, December 5, 2012 at 4:24 pm) I can cheerfully agree with this one [definition of person as “self-conscious entity, endowed with reason, freedom and will”].

I am very glad we agree on this definition because now the problem is much more precisely defined.

As for the rest, I am sorry to disappoint you but, as I deny that the pre-incarnated Word is a person (in the above sense), nay, I deny that the Scripture provides any support for this claim, it is for you to prove otherwise.

(#48, December 5, 2012 at 4:24 pm) As for John 14:11, I agree with you that those words are “straightforward and convincing”. However, in John 8:17-18, Jesus was answering a specific charge; and the fact remains that the Pharisees did not dispute the validity of his argument, obscure though it may be to you and me.

Your argument is very weak, because all we can say is that the reaction of the Pharisees to Jesus’ argument (based on Deut 17:6) is not recorded in John’s Gospel. This does not change the fact that Jesus’ argument remains rather strained and far less convincing than John 14:11. As the argument at Chapter 14 comes after the one at Chapter, I am inclined to concluding that Jesus had, in the meantime, abandoned his previous rather artificially legalistic, “rabbinic” argument.

(#50, December 8, 2012 at 7:59 am) Was the pre-incarnated Word a PERSON, or an inanimate THING?

First, I am glad that you appreciate the accuracy of the expression “pre-incarnated Word”, although I don’t agree that “pre-existent” is meaningless, but, rather, clumsy: it obviously refers, in a shorthand manner, to the nature of the Word that pre-existed the person Jesus in/as whom it was incarnated.

Second, I believe that the “dilemma” that you propose (PERSON, or THING) is a false dilemma. The Word (Greek: Logos; Hebrew: Dabar), before the Incarnation in/as Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God and God’s Messiah, was NEITHER a person distinct from the One and Only Eternal God, the Father Almighty, NOR a “thing”, BUT an eternal attribute of God.

In fact as I have already argued with Jaco (before he sulked off in a huff) one of the two eternal, essential attributes of God, the other being God’s Eternal Spirit (Greek: Pneuma; Hebrew: Ruwach).

You can see them explicitly named as instruments of God’s creative activity in Psalm 33:6, and, I believe, alluded to as God’s “everlasting arms” in Deut 33:27. Irenaeus of Lyons understands both verses in this sense.

(#52, December 8, 2012 at 4:35 pm) … I think you are right, MdS, in saying that the Word is eternal, as well as divine. (…) Were they [LIFE, LIGHT, GLORY, GRACE, TRUTH] also true of the Word prior to the incarnation? I don’t see why not.

Nothing of the above even slightly touches upon what Greg (and I with him) considers as the essential question: “did a what become a who, or did a who become a who?” (see “God and his Son: the Logic of the New Testament – conference presentation (Dale)” Greg’s comment # 109, November 20, 2012 at 12:49 am)

My answer (founded on Scripture) is: God’s Eternal Word (NEITHER a person, NOR a thing, BUT an eternal attribute of the One and Only Eternal God, the Father Almighty) with the Incarnation became (this is the exact translation of the Greek verbal form egeneto in John 1:14, “the Word became flesh “) a person, Jesus, the Son of God and God’s Messiah.

MdS

So – prior to the incarnation, the Word existed. We all seem to agree on that. And I think you are right, MdS, in saying that the Word is eternal, as well as divine.

That makes sense. I have looked at all the passages where the word logos is used, and it seems to have the same basic meanings as our English word. In every case, its purpose is to REVEAL something about the speaker.

So the Word revealed God’s will in creation, and we have no idea how much that takes in. It also revealed God’s attributes.

We are told explicitly that “in the Word was LIFE”. That is an attribute of God. So is LIGHT.

Then when the Word became flesh, the disciples “saw his GLORY, the glory as of an only-begotten of the Father, full of GRACE and TRUTH.” All attributes of God, true of the Word incarnate.

Were they also true of the Word prior to the incarnation? I don’t see why not.

MdS – I want to thank you for the term “pre-incarnated Word”. I had never heard that term before, and I greatly appreciate its accuracy.

“Pre-existent” is a meaningless word that theologians have manufactured. How can anything exist before it exists?

But the question Greg asked (and that I am asking) has nothing to do with a “pre-existent” anything.
Instead, the question is – Was the pre-incarnated Word a PERSON, or an inanimate THING?

I am very grateful for that precise term, MdS. It is so obvious – but I never thought of it. And it clarifies what we are looking for as we continue to look at John 8.

Not all dictionaries agree on the definition of person, MdS. However, all we need to do is agree on one. And I can cheerfully agree with this one.

Given this interpretation, whether the pre-incarnated Word is a “person” is exactly the CONCLUSION towards which I hope we are moving. I don’t think I have ever stated a conclusion, one way or the other, and I am not prepared to do so – YET.

You see, I was taught in high school – very forcibly – that NO conclusion should be stated until ALL of the evidence has been explored. We haven’t finished exploring the evidence that is familiar to me, and yours is still to come.

As for John 14:11, I agree with you that those words are “straightforward and convincing”. However, in John 8:17-18, Jesus was answering a specific charge; and the fact remains that the Pharisees did not dispute the validity of his argument, obscure though it may be to you and me.

Getting back to the narrative, when the Jews asked, “Where is your father?” Jesus answered, “You do not know me or my Father. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also.”
The words of John 14:11 fit here perfectly: “I am in the Father, and the Father is in me.” So “If you knew me, you would know the Father also.”

According to Eidersheim, Jesus’ answer regarding the two witnesses was a valid argument, and the Jews (obviously) did not dispute it.

Perhaps the clue is in the description of the second witness as “the Father who SENT me.” Jesus uses that phrase over and over. He never claimed to be on his own. He was the agent of another.
The miracles he did were evidence that he was what he claimed to be: sent by God. So his testimony was the testimony given to him by his God. It wasn’t his own, and he wasn’t testifying alone.

Whatever the reason, the Pharisees did not dispute the validity of his argument. Instead, they asked an insulting question: “Where is your father?”

To which he answered, “You do not know me or my Father. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also.” (v. 19)

This is the second time that he told them, “You do not know …” In v 14 he said,
“Even if I witness concerning myself, my witness is true, because I know where I came from and where I go, but you do not know where I came from or where I go.
You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one [that day is still future]. And even if I judge, my judgment is true, because I am not alone, but I and the Father who sent me.”

They didn’t know where he came from or where he was going. They judged according to the flesh. In the words of Paul (1 Corinthians 15:47) they were from the earth, and therefore earthy. He was the Lord from heaven, and therefore heavenly. He KNEW where he came from and where he was going.

I’m glad you had the chance to post your comment, MdS.

Our use of the word “person,” then, depends on the definition we adopt. If the word is defined as

person: self-conscious entity, endowed with reason, freedom and will

then it can certainly be used of ANY being – human or otherwise – that fits that definition. Including God.

I like the definition, and will understand it that way when you use it.

In any case, whatever you may think I imply, I am glad you agree that I have said nothing SO FAR that cannot be supported by the text. I hope that continues.

One thing I want to clarify is that when I say, ‘I think I know what Jesus actually said’ (in v. 58), I am talking about the literal words. He said (if John’s record is accurate)
Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”/cite>

What he MEANT by that is the subject of this discussion.
And I want to add that my mind is open to evidence in any direction. It just has to be TESTED – that’s all.

@ Marg

You haven’t said “anything so far that the text does not support”, but I suspect you keep implying something that the text does NOT support (NOT obviously, anyway): that the pre-incarnated Word was a person. OR, if for various reasons, you prefer, at least for the moment, to avoid the word “person”, a self, or a subject. If, OTOH, you said that you do not consider the pre-incarnated Word person (or a self, or a subject), then I really wouldn’t know what we are discussing.

[ December 1, 2012 at 9:35 pm] Jesus answered the Pharisees’ objection [“You witnessed about yourself. Your witness is not true.” – John 8:13] by pointing out that their law accepted the testimony of two men. He had definitely testified about himself, and his Father had also testified on his behalf. So their objection was not valid.

Jesus was here referring, at the same time, to his previous statement (“If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true” – John 5:31), and, with his later statement (“It is written in your law that the testimony of two men is true” – John 8:17) at this principle from Deuteronomy:

At the testimony of two or three witnesses they must be executed. They cannot be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. (Deut 17:6)

I must admit that I have never understood Jesus’ “logic”, here, because it is not at all obvious that the testimony about himself would count as one of the “two or three witnesses” required by the Law. I fact, it would clearly count as self-witness. So, ultimately, his miracles (supportd by Gof, the Father Almighty) would be all that would “witness” for his claim of being the Son of God.

[ December 1, 2012 at 9:35 pm] Nicodemus said to Jesus, “We know that you are a teacher come from God, because no man can do the signs that you do unless God is with him.”
Both the fact that he was doing “signs,” as well as the meaning of those signs, were known to the Pharisees.

Nicodemus had clearly become (like, Joseph of Arimathea) a secret disciple of Jesus (see John 19:38-39). So, it is entirely exorbitant to deduce from Nicodemus’ belief and behaviour what ALL the Pharisees were supposed to believe.

[ December 1, 2012 at 9:35 pm] I am inclined to agree with you that these men [“the Jews”] were only APPARENTLY (and deliberately) obtuse.

I am glad to see that we agree on this.

OTOH, and once again, nothing of what you’ve presented so far supports (NOT obviously, anyway) that the pre-incarnated Word was a person (or a self, or a subject).

[ December 2, 2012 at 7:26 pm] … I have been looking at my dictionary’s definition(s) of the word “person”. It seems to me that the word is naturally associated with humankind, in one way or another. The only major exception is the theological (and artificial) use of the word in connection with tri-unity.

I totally disagree. If, for instance, you adopt this definition …

person: self-conscious entity, endowed with reason, freedom and will [#]

… then there is no reason why it should not apply (not only to humans, but also) to purely spiritual beings like angels, demons and, yes, even God Himself. This, incidentally (albeit slightly expanded), is the definition of person adopted by Severinus Boethius (ca. 480–524 AD) and by Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD)

[ December 2, 2012 at 7:26 pm] Since I consider the idea of “one God in three persons” to be both unbiblical and irrational, I would like to avoid using the word “person” of anything except a human being.

I believe that, by doing that, you are “throwing away the baby with the bath-water”, because you make it impossible to discuss whether the pre-incarnated Word was a person (or a self, or a subject).

[ December 2, 2012 at 7:26 pm] Dale posted an article once describing God as a “self”. God speaks of himself as “I myself,” so that designation seems appropriate.

Can “self” be used to describe other animate (but non-human) entities? For example, Satan is not a “person” (i.e. human), but is he a “self”?

And THAT is the question!

If you DO agree with the above definition [#] of person, then ask yourself if it would apply also to “purely spiritual beings like angels, demons and, yes, even God Himself”.

If you NO NOT agree with the above definition, please explain why you don’t. 🙂

MdS

@ Marg

I’m travelling this week, with very limited access to computer. Will com back to you next week. 🙂

MdS

So “the light” was a preexisting “person” also? : /

@ Marg (November 30, 2012 at 12:29 pm)

Are we in agreement so far? Or have I misunderstood you?

We seem to agree on this, that Jesus, in his exchanges with “the Jews” (or Judeans – even “those … who had believed him” – John 8:31) opposed his spiritual and figurative words to their material, and literal understanding.

But let’s not forget the starting point, which is this claim of yours …

[Marg, #7] “I am also sure (at the moment) of what Jesus actually SAID in John 8:58.”

… so whether we agree on the interpretation of this verse or not depends entirely on whether I have managed to persuade you that to interpret it as a literal claim, on the part of Jesus, to his “personal pre-existence”, would mean to fall exactly in the same material, and literal understanding of “the Jews”.

So my question to you is: do you still read John 8:58 through “personal pre-existence glasses” …

… or have I eventually persuaded you to do away with them? 🙂

MdS

@ Marg (November 29, 2012 at 4:03 pm)

I agree with much of what you say, Villanovanus, but before I take too much for granted, there are two sentences in comment #14 that seem to be contradictory:

[MdS #1] First, you seem to disregard completely the fact that John the Evangelist attributes obtuse questions to Jesus’ interlocutors …

[MdS #2] So, while it is true that “the Jews” asked Jesus, “You are not yet 50 years old, and have you seen Abraham?” (John 8:57) …

The first sentence seems to suggest that the Jews did not really ask the question John attributes to them. The second says, quite clearly, that they really did ask the question. Could you clarify?

Your question is perfectly legitimate, and I need to unpack a bit more what I meant.

Perhaps, also, as I am not a native English speaker (I am Italian), I may have used improperly the phrase “the Evangelist attributes obtuse questions to …”. It was NOT meant to imply (not in my intention, anyway) that it was a mere literary device by the Evangelist John. Rather it was meant to imply that the (apparently obtuse) question of “the Jews” at John 8:57 backfired on them, very much like the (apparently obtuse) question of Nicodemus at John 3:4 was an opportunity for Jesus to correct his misconception.

See the following parallel.

The question of Nicodemus at John 3:4 (“How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb and be born a second time, can he?”) was ONLY APPARENTLY obtuse, BUT, in fact –by being over-literalistic– grotesque and (perhaps, even slightly) sarcastic: everybody knows perfectly well that NOBODY can literally re-enter one’s mother’s womb. This gives to Jesus the opportunity of correcting Nicodemus’ (fake?) obtusity, explaining the deep, meaning of his previous claim (“I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above [Greek: anôthen, which can also mean “again”], he cannot see the kingdom of God.” – John 3:3), that Nicodemus had responded to so obtusely (sarcastically?), in a deeply spiritual and theological sense (“I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. …” – John 3:5).

Similarly (but with an added element of aggression and polemic), the question of “the Jews” at John 8:57 (“You are not yet 50 years old, and have you seen Abraham?”) was ONLY APPARENTLY obtuse, BUT, in fact –by being over-literalistic– deliberately grotesque and mockingly sarcastic: everybody knows perfectly well that NOBODY can have literally seen someone who had lived possibly 1,800 years before. This gives to Jesus the opportunity of defeating their fake obtusity, explaining the deep, prophetic meaning of his previous claim (“Your father Abraham was overjoyed to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.” – John 8:56), that “the Jews” had responded to obtusely/sarcastically, in a deeply spiritual and theological sense (“I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!” – John 8:56).

I hope that my parallel is clearer, and hopefully also more convincing, now. 🙂

MdS

Xavier,

You didn’t need to disturb James. And, if you don’t like Aesop, I suggest you consider (in case you haven’t yet) the notion of passive-aggressive behaviour … 🙂

MdS

@ Xavier

You seem to approve of an half-harted, half-sactimonious apology …

… I suggest you look at “The Fox and the Grapes,” one of Aesop’s Fables … 😉

MdS

I shouldn’t have replied the way I did. I should have left the discussion once I saw I wouldn’t go anywhere. I apologise for my behaviour.

Enjoy your island…

Vilanovanus

First of all, I take good note that you have studiously skirted around both of my comments on the scriptural support (at least Deut 33:27 and Psalm 33:6) for BOTH God’s Logos/Dabar and Pneuma/Ruwach as God’s “everlasting arms”, which, AFAIAC, gives also full support to the legitimacy of considering them essential attributes of God: that is, to be clear (and however I try to avoid metaphysical language), integral to God’s essence.

I think you’re a bit paranoid. I have not skirted around your comments. I merely decided not belabour a point we probably agree on. I dared to mention hypostatisation of the logos, adding that you are not the one arguing for hypostatisation and there you go running wild with it… You’re a bit of a hair-splitter I see…

See above. Once again, I affirm that the pre-incarnated Logos is referred to, in the Prologue to the Gospel of John, as an essential attribute of God, somehow distinct in God (pros ton theon), BUT fully God (theos).

OTOH, if words mean anything at all, to refer to the preexistence of God’s Logos as “notional” suggests (to me, at least) that the distinction of the Logos in God is, for you, Jaco, “not evident in reality; hypothetical or imaginary” (see Collins English Dictionary, def. no. 2 of ” notional “). If you mean something different, it is now for you to clarify …

You default to ontological identity. I never said logos notionally preexisted. I said the use of logos was a way to describe WHAT notionally preexisted. God’s idea, purpose and plan – whether for repentance, salvation, Messiah or paradise – notionally or ideally preexisted. “Logos” was a way to articulate what notionally preexisted.

Your comment is so steeped with obscurity and ambiguity as to be unmanageable. I pass …

Good grief, you’re impossible to even have a decent dialogue with… I’d say Asperger’s…

I can be just as good at throwing names, if I want to: I suggest that you seriously consider Marian Hillar’s online article, “The Logos and Its Function in the Writings of Philo of Alexandria: Greek Interpretation of the Hebrew Myth and Foundations of Christianity” (http://www.socinian.org/philo.html).

Marian Hillar is not an expert on Philo. James Drummond spent 50 years working ONLY on Philo. Do your math. I’ve read Hillar’s superficial study and he doesn’t add anything new to what other non-experts have written on Philo.

You claim that, “of course”, you also take seriously Phil 2:9-11, Acts 2:36 and Acts 7:56, but then treat the Resurrected, Ascended Jesus Christ as no more than a mega-angel (of course, unless even this is merely … er … “notional” …). But Jesus is the Incarnation of God’s Logos (John 1:14 – where the Incarnated Word is crystal-clearly distinct from the Father) and, therefore God himself. If you suggest that the Lord (kyrios) Yehoshwah, after Resurrection and Ascension, remains somehow “inferior” to the Lord (kyrios) Yehowah, it is for you to say and justify.

False dilemma – as if Jesus can either be your sterile proposal or “a mega-angel.” There is a third option, sorry, and that is the one YOU chose to tip-toe around above. If you care, consider what I wrote earlier. You’ve also ignored the texts CLEARLY showing Jesus to be inferior to Yahweh. So it’s your ball…

You use so many obscure and vague words … let me try to put it in cleared and simpler words: are you suggesting that what irked “the Jews” was not so much the “song” (the claim to Messiahship, even –as they understood Jesus’ words – of personal pre-existence as Messiah) but the “singer”, “someone as detested by the Jews as Jesus”?

YOUR Wernicke’s and YOUR Broca’s… NOT my language… 😉

I am not sure what you mean by “additional”. Here is the Talmudic passage about the “seven preexistent entities”, anyway:

There were more – I’m not going to do your homework for you…

In the continuation of the quoted Pesachim passage, they are all explained in terms of “deep” understanding of the TaNaKh, but I see no mention of Dabar. Why? Simple, because Dabar is NOT “created before the world was created”, BUT is God Himself or, to be accurate (and, inevitably resorting to ontological lingo), an essential attribute of God, or, better, with the figurative language of the Bible, one of His “eternal arms”.

According to Philo, logos was neither created nor uncreated…now get your mind around that one…

I don’t think you’re the kind of character one can have a mature dialogue with. You’re petty and temperamental. Depending on your reply, I’ll decide whether you’re worth communicating with…

Hi there

Are you familiar with Robert Hach’s The Prophetic Pre-existence of the Messiah paper in Navas’ book?

Hey, bro. I’ve read about the author, but haven’t read the book. I’ll surely look for it, thanks!

[b] I totally disagree that a mere “notional pre-existence” is attributed to God’s Logos, anyway, certainly NOT in John 1:1,14: while it would be unfounded, exorbitant and arbitrary to affirm that the pre-incarnated Logos is referred to, in the Prologue to the Gospel of John, as a distinct person, it (it …) is certainly referred to as an essential attribute of God, somehow distinct in God (pros ton theon), BUT fully God (theos).

Maybe you can elaborate what you disagree with re. notional preexistence. You don’t believe that the Garden of Eden literally existed before its own creation, do you? Or even the patriarchs or Israel, do you? According to Philo, God’s logos was operational on all these preexistent entities before creation. Hence my insistence that logos was one way of formulating/expressing this concept.

[c] My use of the concept of prolepsis, applied to Paul, means that Paul (who “unlike the Evangelist John, … did not have –anyway didn’t resort to– the notion of Logos”) referred to the pre-incarnated Logos in Creation (e.g. 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16) with the name of Jesus Christ, that is proleptically (=“in anticipation of the circumstances [the Incarnation] that would make [the reference to Jesus Christ] applicable”).

I see where you make the connections, yes. Paul does use a different, yet similar, scheme. It is similar precisely since the Philonic duality we see in Hebrews is present in both John and Paul. That is where the two schemes agree. Logos was God by reference – in activity and plan. The rabbis appreciated the preexisted plan even before they realised in activity.

As for Philo, he did far worse than “hypostatise the Logos“: he more than bordered on bitheism when he spoke of the Logos as “second god” (deutheros theos – see Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis 2:62)

Philo use so much metaphor and figure of speech that one needs to use his own explanations to determine what he thought of logos. James Drummond’s Philo Judaeus is a great resource. As Dunn and Caird also insist, Philo’s logos was not a literal hypostatised person. It only approximates such a notion in figurative language, nothing more.

I think that you, Jaco, OTOH, are watering down the status of the pre-incarnated Logos AND the Lordship of the Resurrected, Ascended Jesus.

No “ontological identity” whatsoever. Once again, equality of Majesty, Power and Glory, that Yehowah, in His omnipotence, bestowed on His Son Yehoshwah.

I take seriously –actually at face value–Phil 2:9-11, Acts 2:36 and Acts 7:56.

Of course I do too. I just think your idea of logos could dangerously tilt the wrong way. Maybe you can explain where I’m watering down the status of the “pre-incarnated Logos AND the Lordship of the Resurrected, Ascended Jesus.” If I think of the Almighty and the Most High, I think of One, and that is Yahweh. Jesus executes according to what the Almighty bestows upon him. And as in pre-christian times when angels acted in Yahweh’s stead, even bearing Yahweh’s name without threatening Yahweh’s sole position as Almighty, in similar way Yahweh’s superiority is maintained even after Jesus ultimate exaltation (2 Cor. 1:3; 1 Cor. 11:2; Php 2:11). Position vs. function. That is the Jewish principle.

I am not sure what you mean by “[i]t wasn’t the claim itself that upset them, but the one claiming what he did.”

Presumably, by “the claim itself “, you mean, as I do, the claim of being eternally associated with God (as God’s Word).

But what do you allude to by “[what upset them was] the one claiming what he did”?

Taking the highest acceptible Christology assigned to this could be the functional status of Yahweh bestowed upon Jesus. I’m convinced that it is a reference to Jesus claiming to be the one intended since from before Abraham (even creation, namely the intended Messiah). Neither the concept of bearing Yahweh’s name nor the concept of the pre-intended Messiah is blasphemous per se. But the fact that someone as detested by the Jews as Jesus claiming to be the one, THAT is what made them play the blasphemy card.

Again, while the “preexistence of the Messiah” is only late Jewish spin, to reduce the status of the pre-incarnated Logos to mere “notional pre-existence” is to commit an error specularly opposite (and equally wrong …) to the spin on the “co-equal, co-eternal, tri-personal tri-unity” of the Cappadocian scoundrels (Basil of Caesarea, his younger brother Gregory of Nyssa and the close friend Gregory of Nazianzus).

What God expressed had already been determined. Both expression and plan/purpose were understood as God’s logos, as the one implies and eventually result in the other. Joseph Klausner in The Messianic Idea in Israel shows that the idea of notional preexistence was present and pervasive by the First Century. It was not as late as many would want it to be. All seven and additional preexistent entities are mentioned and focused on in the Book of Revelation.

I don’t think it’s a matter of disagreement between us – more like a fine-tuning of our positions…:-)

Jaco

@ Jaco (November 27, 2012 at 4:33 am)

No reason to feel sorry for “chipping in”: this is a public discussion, NOT a private debate … 🙂

Herebelow, I quotate your comments, with my own counter-comments.

[Jaco] [a]Logos theology was but one formulation of God’s activity in OT times seen in retrospect. It was particularly popular in Alexandria, Egypt with its champion, Philo. [b] But it was only one way of formulating what notionally “preexisted.” Paul, who studied at the rabbinical schools, appears to have had a more purely rabbinical take on preexistence. His was more in line with “preexistent” Torah, Israel, repentance, Messiah, etc. [c] Prolepsis is future reality experienced now from a human perspective, while notional preexistence is from God’s perspective. Logos theology and Jewish preexistence theology should not be polarised as you seem to do above.

[a] The Logos (Hbr. Dabar) is not the only activity/attribute of God that is repeatedly referred to in the OT. The other one is God’s Pneuma (Hbr. Ruwach). You can see them explicitly named as instruments of God’s creative activity in Psalm 33:6, and, I believe, alluded to as God’s “everlasting arms” in Deut 33:27 (see also ahead).

[b] I totally disagree that a mere “notional pre-existence” is attributed to God’s Logos, anyway, certainly NOT in John 1:1,14: while it would be unfounded, exorbitant and arbitrary to affirm that the pre-incarnated Logos is referred to, in the Prologue to the Gospel of John, as a distinct person, it (it …) is certainly referred to as an essential attribute of God, somehow distinct in God (pros ton theon), BUT fully God (theos).

[c] My use of the concept of prolepsis, applied to Paul, means that Paul (who “unlike the Evangelist John, … did not have –anyway didn’t resort to– the notion of Logos”) referred to the pre-incarnated Logos in Creation (e.g. 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16) with the name of Jesus Christ, that is proleptically (=“in anticipation of the circumstances [the Incarnation] that would make [the reference to Jesus Christ] applicable”).

[Jaco] [Logos] does describe God’s activity. That activity is also a description of God’s plan and purpose. So I think the definition of “logos of God” should be extended beyond merely an attribute of God. I’d say the logos of God is God-by-reference. Whether that be God’s activity, his plan, his purposes, etc., eventually all we can say is, “We discerned God.” To hypostatise logos is going way beyond what Philo intended, precisely since he described human logoi in similar language. (I know you’re not doing that, Villanovanus).

I disagree that to refer to God’s Logos (NOT as a person BUT) as an attribute of God is to “hypostatise logos”. In fact, if you consider the a.m. biblical images of God’s Logos/Dabar and Pneuma /Ruwach as God’s “everlasting arms” (BTW Irenaeus understood Deut 33:27 and Psalm 33:6 precisely this way – see his Against Heresies and his Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching), to speak of them as “attributes” of God is no more to “hypostatise” them than to speak of a man’s arms as his “attributes”.

As for Philo, he did far worse than “hypostatise the Logos“: he more than bordered on bitheism when he spoke of the Logos as “second god” (deutheros theos – see Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis 2:62)

[Jaco] I think you’re taking the “[Yehowah made His Son Yehoshwah LORD] on par with Himself” too far. You’re giving too much weight to ontological identity instead of pointing out the prominent notion of functional identity in John. John is misunderstood immediately if two central interpretive principles are ignored: Philo’s understanding of logos and secondly, the shaluach principle (John ch 5-7). Jesus is LORD in function and reference, not in himself.

I think that you, Jaco, OTOH, are watering down the status of the pre-incarnated Logos AND the Lordship of the Resurrected, Ascended Jesus.

No “ontological identity” whatsoever. Once again, equality of Majesty, Power and Glory, that Yehowah, in His omnipotence, bestowed on His Son Yehoshwah.

I take seriously –actually at face value–Phil 2:9-11, Acts 2:36 and Acts 7:56.

Why? Don’t you?

[Jaco] Their judgment [of “the Jews”] was wicked anyway. It wasn’t the claim itself that upset them, but the one claiming what he did. That was their issue (Thanks to James McGrath nicely pointing that out).

I am not sure what you mean by “[i]t wasn’t the claim itself that upset them, but the one claiming what he did.”

Presumably, by “the claim itself “, you mean, as I do, the claim of being eternally associated with God (as God’s Word).

But what do you allude to by “[what upset them was] the one claiming what he did”?

[Jaco] Dalman, Heine, Dunn and Kausner, among others, agree that Messiah preexisted in mind and purpose, not in reality.

Again, while the “preexistence of the Messiah” is only late Jewish spin, to reduce the status of the pre-incarnated Logos to mere “notional pre-existence” is to commit an error specularly opposite (and equally wrong …) to the spin on the “co-equal, co-eternal, tri-personal tri-unity” of the Cappadocian scoundrels (Basil of Caesarea, his younger brother Gregory of Nyssa and the close friend Gregory of Nazianzus).

MdS

@ Xavier (November 26, 2012 at 2:31 pm)

I think it [claim to be the Messiah] was seen on the level of being a false prophet, since Messiah was believed to be THE prophet and sole mouthpiece of YHWV (Deu 18). That’s why all those claimants were killed, especially when they did not restore/establish the Kingdom.

Neither Simon of Peraea nor Simon bar Kokhba (nor, more in general, any of the many Jewish Messiah claimants – see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Messiah_claimants) were accused, while living, of being “false Messiah” and/or “false prophet”. Only in hindsight they were disqualified, when, by being defeated, they proved –according to the Jewish expectations, that is– that they were not THE Messiah.

But you are right in seeing the claim to Messiahship as closer to the claim of being a prophet.

BTW, Deuteronomy provided two perfecly clear tests for self-proclaimed prophets (see Deut 13:1-4 and Deut 18:21-22), both of which, BTW, Jesus passed …

Good discussion and sorry for chipping in…

The problem with Paul is that, unlike the Evangelist John, he did not have (anyway didn’t resort to) the notion of Logos (which –which– before the Incarnation, is an eternal attribute of God, while it is NOT –NOT yet– a person), so, I believe, he refers with a prolepsis (= “anticipation of the … circumstances that would make it applicable”) to the “what” of the pre-incarnated Jesus Christ.

Logos theology was but one formulation of God’s activity in OT times seen in retrospect. It was particularly popular in Alexandria, Egypt with its champion, Philo. But it was only one way of formulating wat notionally “preexisted.” Paul, who studied at the rabbinical schools, appears to have had a more purely rabbinical take on preexistence. His was more in line with “preexistent” Torah, Israel, repentance, Messiah, etc. Prolepsis is future reality experienced now from a human perspective, while notional preexistence is from God’s perspective. Logos theology and Jewish preexistence theology should not be polarised as you seem to do above.

No objections here: once again, the Logos, before the Incarnation, is an attribute of God, while it is NOT –NOT yet– a person.

Yes and no, I think. It does describe God’s activity. That activity is also a description of God’s plan and purpose. So I think the definition of “logos of God” should be extended beyond merely an attribute of God. I’d say the logos of God is God-by-reference. Whether that be God’s activity, his plan, his purposes, etc., eventually all we can say is, “We discerned God.” To hypostatise logos is going way beyond what Philo intended, precisely since he described human logoi in similar language. (I know you’re not doing that, Vilanovanus).

Again, no objections here, BUT, after the Resurrection and the Ascension, the Eternal Father Yehowah made His Son Yehoshwah LORD, on a par with Himself, giving Yehoshwah equal Majesty, Power and Glory.

I think you’re taking the “on par with Himself” too far. You’re giving too much weight to ontological identity instead of pointing out the prominent notion of functional identity in John. John is misunderstood immediately if two central interpretive principles are ignored: Philo’s understanding of logos and secondly, the shaluach principle (John ch 5-7). Jesus is LORD in function and reference, not in himself.

And they understood dead well that for Jesus to imply that he was eternally associated with God (as God’s Word), was far more serious claim than to hint at some form of “pre-existence”.

Yes. Their judgment was wicked anyway. It wasn’t the claim itself that upset them, but the one claiming what he did. That was their issue (Thanks to James McGrath nicely pointing that out).

Dalman, Heine, Dunn and Kausner, among others, agree that Messiah preexisted in mind and purpose, not in reality.

Jaco

@ Marg (November 26, 2012 at 11:28 am)

The Lord’s words in John 8:58 answer a specific question of the Jews: “You are not yet 50 years old, and have you seen Abraham?” They were not asking about what Abraham had seen. They were questioning the age of Jesus. How could Jesus have seen Abraham if he was less than fifty years old?

First, you seem to disregard completely the fact that John the Evangelist attributes obtuse questions to Jesus’ interlocutors (just think of Nicodemus’ question to Jesus, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb and be born a second time, can he?” – John 3:4).

Second, you simply cannot quote snippets, ignoring the context. So, while it is true that “the Jews” asked Jesus, “You are not yet 50 years old, and have you seen Abraham?” (John 8:57), BUT Jesus had NEVER claimed that he had seen Abraham, INSTEAD he had affirmed, “Abraham saw my day in vision, and was overjoyed” (John 8:56). OBVIOUSLY Jesus was speaking of a prophetic vision of Abraham.

[Marg] His answer to their question was, “Before Abraham was born, I [already] am.” And they tried to stone him.
Obviously, the Jews did not understand it as shorthand to mean what you say, or they would hardly have tried to kill him. After all, he said something far more serious in verse 24: “… if you do not believe that I am, you will die in your sins.”

You seem to be unaware that, although John the Evangelist may seem to present “the Jews” as obtuse, in fact theirs was a deadly duel with Jesus, as they were bent on catching him out for blasphemy.

And they understood dead well that for Jesus to imply that he was eternally associated with God (as God’s Word), was far more serious claim than to hint at some form of “pre-existence”.

[Marg]… If they understood him to mean what you suggest, they didn’t think it was worth stoning him for.

On the contrary! See above.

[Marg]In verse 58, on the other hand, they tried to stone him because he was claiming pre-existence to Abraham. That fits the grammatical construction of the sentence, it answers the question they asked, and it was enough (in their eyes) to justify their violent response.

First, why would have been Jesus’ personal pre-existence sufficient ground for “the Jews” to consider it blasphemy, IF Jesus was indeed implying/claiming to be the Messiah? To claim to be the Messiah was NOT considered a blasphemy: many, before and after Jesus, claimed to be the Messiah, without being considered blasphemous. Just think of Simon of Peraea (c. 4 BCE) and of Simon bar Kokhba (died c. 135).

Also it was you who insisted on the “Heavenly Preexistence” of the Messiah, quoting extensively from the Jewish Encyclopedia (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10729-messiah#anchor14). No mention of blasphemy there …

Second, my friendly advice is, try to read the verse taking off your “personal pre-existence prejudice glasses”.

MdS

Hello V. Thank you for answering here.

The Lord’s words in John 8:58 answer a specific question of the Jews: “You are not yet 50 years old, and have you seen Abrahan?” They were not asking about what Abraham had seen. They were questioning the age of Jesus. How could Jesus have seen Abraham if he was less than fifty years old?

His answer to their question was, “Before Abraham was born, I [already] am.” And they tried to stone him.
Obviously, the Jews did not understand it as shorthand to mean what you say, or they would hardly have tried to kill him. After all, he said something far more serious in verse 24: “… if you do not believe that I am, you will die in your sins.”

Their response was, “Who are you then?” If they understood him to mean what you suggest, they didn’t think it was worth stoning him for.

In verse 58, on the other hand, they tried to stone him because he was claiming pre-existence to Abraham. That fits the grammatical construction of the sentence, it answers the question they asked, and it was enough (in their eyes) to justify their violent response.

Marg (November 25, 2012 at 5:13 pm)

Thank you for correcting my careless use of the term “earliest writers,” Vil. I should have stuck with my earlier, more cautious statement – which was based on Comments 3 and 4 of this (related) thread.

I presume this is in reply to my comment of November 24, 2012 at 5:50 pm addressed to you at “God and his Son: the Logic of the New Testament (Dale)”. I don’t understand why you reply here

[Marg] I can’t speak for others, V., but I agree with the TDNT (and at least 3 other lexicons/dictionaries) about what 1 Cor. 8:6 actually SAYS. It says that all things come FROM the one God, THROUGH (the agency of) the one Lord. And the creation is specifically cited.

I do not have a written copy of the TDNT, and it is not fully accessible online, so I cannot check your quotation (see your comment of November 21, 2012 at 11:26 at “God and his Son: the Logic of the New Testament”).

OTOH, I do not find entirely convincing the Unitarian explanation of 1 Corinthians 8:6 endorsed by Xavier (November 25, 2012 at 10:18 pm), whereby 1 Corinthians 8:6 when speaking of “one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live” would ONLY speak of the Church (see http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/1-corinthians-8-6).

The problem with Paul is that, unlike the Evangelist John, he did not have (anyway didn’t resort to) the notion of Logos (which –which– before the Incarnation, is an eternal attribute of God, while it is NOT –NOT yet– a person), so, I believe, he refers with a prolepsis (= “anticipation of the … circumstances that would make it applicable”) to the “what” of the pre-incarnated Jesus Christ.

No objections here: once again, the Logos, before the Incarnation, is an attribute of God, while it is NOT –NOT yet– a person.

In fact, Jesus himself makes it clear that the ONLY true God is the Father (John 17:3). And he is the “faithful and true witness” (Rev. 1:5).

Again, no objections here, BUT, after the Resurrection and the Ascension, the Eternal Father Yehowah made His Son Yehoshwah LORD, on a par with Himself, giving Yehoshwah equal Majesty, Power and Glory.

MdS

There is no mention in either the immediate or the remote context about the creation of all things in the beginning. Therefore it would be unusual for this verse to mention God’s original creation of Genesis 1:1, which it is not. Rather, it is speaking of the Church. God provided all things for the Church via Jesus Christ. The whole of 1 Corinthians is taken up with Church issues, and Paul starts 8:6 with “for us,” i.e., for Christians. The very next two verses speak about the fact that, for the Church, there are no laws against eating food sacrificed to idols. Verse 8 says, “But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.” This revelation was new for the Church. The Old Testament believers did not have this freedom. They had dozens of food laws. The verse is powerful indeed, and states clearly that Christians have one God who is the ultimate source of all things, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, who is the way by which God provided all things to the Church.
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/1-corinthians-8-6

On the subject of “proof-texts,” Dale, one passage that has not been adequately dealt with can be summed up in this comment from Anthony:

“God did not speak in a SON in the OT times, Heb.1. You are contradicting this statement.”

So I have been looking carefully at the words of Hebrews 1:1; and if I have misunderstood it, I expect to be corrected.

There are two parallel clauses:
Of old God spoke to the fathers by (en) the prophets
In these last days [God] spoke to us by (en) a son …

The subject in both clauses is God. The verb is spoke. The object is people (the fathers/us). The messengers are men (prophets/a son).

The verb has to do with oral speech, produced and understood by men. The frame of reference is clear: it has to do with MANKIND. That’s all.

Does this negate the idea of a pre-existent son, as intimated in verse 2?

Not really. God revealed himself long before there were any men to “speak” to. Notice Job 38:4-8.

Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth … when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God sang for joy?

Job wasn’t there, and neither were the fathers. There were no men to “speak” to. But there was an audience that could appreciate the expression of the mind of God as seen in creation.
This fits perfectly with verse 2 of Hebrews 1.

God has spoken to us in a son, whom he has made heir of all, through whom he made [past tense] the ages.

And now, at the COMPLETION of those ages, “he has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (ch. 9:26).

It also fits perfectly with the word, through which all things came into existence (John 1:2), and through whom the world was caused to exist (v. 10). The creation was an expression of the thoughts of God, brought about by the agency of the word, even though the world did not know him when the word became a man.

All of it is perfectly harmonious, it seems to me.