Skip to content

God and his Son: the logic of the New Testament

obanaBelow are links to my new screencast lecture, God and his Son: the logic of the New Testament.

It is based on a talk I gave in May 2012 in Atlanta, Georgia. An actual video of that talk has been posted at the 21st Century Reformation website. I wasn’t reading from a script, so the versions are a bit different.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

107 thoughts on “God and his Son: the logic of the New Testament”

  1. Pingback: God and his Son: the logic of the New Testament « Blogging theology

  2. Pingback: William Lane Craig in the Chronicle of Higher Education » trinities

  3. Mark
    How do we know what a writer was intending -other than by the words he used.?
    Words and logic are all we have to make sense of this world.!!
    Are you suggesting that we all fall for that ‘lets call it a mystery’ bolony – and ‘all go out to lunch’?

    The more one thinks about it, ‘tradition’ and human fear are the reason that traditional churches have managed to keep this trinity nonsense ‘afloat’ and as you know, people who ‘smelt the rat’ were rooted out and punished!
    Yours sincerely
    Abel

  4. I am sympathetic to your position and as of today remain agnostic on this matter. It seems to me that applying principals of reasoning to scripture does not work. If a writer for instance was fine using double negatives 2k years ago when in fact he meant it to be taken as a single negative, then we cannot hold him to today’s standards regarding the use of negatives. What matters is, what was the writer intending. I doubt that logic will help much with this endeavor.

  5. I haven’t put ANY questions aside, MdS.

    But remembering what a disciple really is leaves me free to listen with respect to those who have different views.

  6. @ Marg

    [#46, February 1, 2013 at 4:09 pm] That must mean something. He is a man – a true man – but he is not merely a man. That is all I am suggesting.

    [#49, February 2, 2013 at 7:58 am] But in the end, what makes me a disciple of Christ is not what I think about the Messiah’s existence (or non-existence) prior to his birth.

    This is a commendable attitude. Does it also mean that you have put to one side that question of the pre-existence as a person of the Logos?

    MdS

  7. Marg,
    You are spot on!!
    I have come to the conclusion that all we can do is to live our lives as God would have us live -with Christ as our exemplar! And of course be aware of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
    Greg comes over as a true Christian – quite a painful place to be amid all the confusion

    Blessings
    John

  8. Actually, John, I agree with much of what you say. Certainly, the language of Hebrews 1 has to do with an eternal KINGDOM, given by God to his Son. That explains the language.
    I’m not so sure about how much “surmising” the author did, but plenty has gone on ever since.

    Getting back to my original comments, John, they all had to do with the synoptics – NOT with Hebrews.
    They were meant to indicate that what is said by John explicitly (regarding the Word incarnate) is harmonious with the statements of Jesus recorded in the synoptics. There is no contradiction, so far as the overall message of the NT is concerned.

    But in the end, what makes me a disciple of Christ is not what I think about the Messiah’s existence (or non-existence) prior to his birth. It is obedience to his commands. And that will affect my attitude to others.
    Which makes me appreciate the comments Greg has made on that subject.

  9. Xavier
    Thanks for that!
    It contains some VERY good insights!
    As you will see from my reply to Marg, I am not convinced that the words of Psalms are addressed to Christ…except as a sort of typology.
    Every Blessing
    John

  10. Hi Marg
    I’m not entirely sure that you are understanding what I was trying to say.
    Probably my clumsy words!
    Sorry.
    I was saying that
    (i) An unknown man was inspired to write about Christ and his life and death
    (ii)He had available all the Hebrew scriptures and contemporary Christian writings
    (iii)He SURMISED what Christ’s arrival in heaven must be like
    (iv) Christ must have received a ROYAL WELCOME
    (v) Christ must have been seated as an honoured guest
    (vi) Because he was not God, he must have been ‘elevated’ – ‘higher than the angels’
    (vii)How does one say all of this?
    (viii) Psalms has a lot to say about royal weddings and enthronements – so the writer of Hebrews surmises that these are theTYPE of words which God must have used on ‘greeting’ the newly risen Christ.

    (ix) Davidic kings were crowned king, made Gods adoptive son and ordained as a priest – so it must have
    SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

    For this reason it is futile to try and gain some theological insights from Hebrews 1 vv 5-14

    Are you suggesting that these were the ACTUAL words used by God when the newly ascended Christ
    ascended to Heaven?
    Every Blessing
    John

  11. John, I have a higher opinion of the New Testament than you have. I don’t think we have to throw any of it in the garbage, just because Trinitarians (and others) abuse it.

    Instead, we can study it carefully enough to recognize that NO part of it teaches that Jesus is “God” – that is, numerically equal to the one God. That is not in Hebrews, nor anywhere else in the NT.

    Nevertheless, I believe the three passages so far suggested from the synoptics DO support the idea (stated quite clearly by John) that Jesus is in fact the Word of God incarnate.

    That must mean something. He is a man – a true man – but he is not merely a man. That is all I am suggesting.

  12. All
    Sorry to ‘butt -in’ out of sequence, but someone once remarked on this web-site that the Book of Hebrews contained a reference describing Christ as ‘God’.

    Hebrews 1 seems to be something of a ‘magnet’ to Trinitarians – but should this be the case?

    Hebrews was penned, by an unknown author some time in the second century.

    They say the standard of the Greek language contained therein is the best in the NT.

    Importantly, there are NO ‘new-revelations’ – ALL of the information contained therein was ALREADY IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.

    In chapter one, the writer SURMISES what Christ’s welcome into heaven was like.

    (i) The first four verses constitute an introduction – and incorporate the reference to the creation of the universe – probably drawn from Corinthians

    (ii) Verses 5 – 14 are said to prove that in his exalted state Christ is now ‘higher than the angels’
    The author draws on OT scriptures -mainly Psalms .
    The author surmises that Christ’s welcome in Heaven will look something like the Coronation
    ceremonies of the Davidic Kings in which the new king is-
    – made Gods adoptive Son.
    -crowned
    -ordained as a priest
    Given the anthropomorphic view of God at this time the author of Hebrews did the best he could. God
    is like the greatest king – only greater. Important guests are placed on his right hand etc.

    I find so many people taking these verses literally.

    Thus, where ‘God’ is referred to in verses 8 & 9 this is said to mean that Christ = God

    In verse 8 the word ‘god’ should be in lower case

    In verse 9 we have ‘God, your God’ – but note the comma. Both words are talking about YHWH

    Clearly the author of Hebrews is re-directing comments addressed to the Davidic King, to the risen Christ and surmising that ‘it must be like that’

    What do you think?

    Every Blessing
    John

  13. Marg,
    Not quite an answer to your question but you might be interested in this-
    The Catholic position is reflected in the Introduction to the Gospel of Matthew in the NAB Bible
    “… when the crowd sees the cure that testifies to the authority of Jesus, the Son of Man, to forgive sins (9,6) they glorify God who has given such authority to human beings'(9,8).
    The forgiveness of sins is now not the perogative of Jesus alone but of ‘human beings’, that is, of the disciples who constitute the community of Jesus, the church.
    The ecclesial character of this narrative section could hardly be more clearly indicated.”

    I’m sure that Jaco will give you a more meaningful answer.!!
    Blessings

    John

  14. Jaco – in comment 10 (January 9, 2013) I mentioned Matthew 11:27-29 as another saying of Jesus that one could expect ONLY from the Word incarnate.

    A third statement, similarly unique, is found in the story told in Matthew 9:1-6; Mark 2:7-10; and Luke 5:21-24.
    A paralytic is brought to Jesus, carried by four men. Jesus says to the man, “Your sins are forgiven.” The Jews object that he is blaspheming; only God can forgive sins. His answer is,

    … “Which is easier: to say, “Your sins have been forgiven you,” or to say, “Arise and walk”?
    “But that you may know that the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins” (then he said to the paralytic) “Rise up, take up your bed, and go to your house.”

    The paralytic did as he was told. The WORK was evidence that the WORDS were true.

    Did anyone else ever claim to have the authority to forgive sins?

  15. @ Abel [#38, January 16, 2013 at 11:43 pm]

    [1]… the writers of the NT scriptures had a very anthropomorphic view of God – God therefore has a ‘right hand’ at which honoured guests will be ‘seated’.

    [2] My particular problem with Trinitarians by the way, is that while we are told that God has elevated Christ to Lord and Messiah -Trinitarians have elevated him to God Almighty!

    [1]The writers of the OT scriptures had an even more anthropomorphic view of God, and the image of God inviting Hid Messiah to sit at His ‘right hand’ comes from the Psalms:

    A psalm of David. Here is the Lord’s [YHWH] proclamation to my lord [‘adown]: “Sit down at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool!” (Ps 110:1)

    [2] I have an even bigger problem with “trinitarians”: they affirm that Christ has been God Almighty from all eternity, and they throw in the bargain that the HS has been too …

    MdS

  16. Hi Villanovanus,
    As you will have noticed, the writers of the NT scriptures had a very anthropomorphic view of God –
    God therefore has a ‘right hand’ at which honoured guests will be ‘seated’.
    The accolades they surmised would be heaped on the resurrected Christ were those which a great King would accord to honoured guests.
    I have no idea what God looks like – I assume that he is an awesome being who lives in unapproachable light – but my finite mind cannot imagine more than that – and I don’t believe that the ‘inspired’ writers had any more information than me! Everything beyond that is speculation.
    My particular problem with Trinitarians by the way , is that while we are told that God has elevated Christ to Lord and Messiah -Trinitarians have elevated him to God Almighty!
    Very Best Wishes

    Abel

  17. @ Abel [#36, January 16, 2013 at 10:12 am]

    [1] Do you believe that the relationship between Father and Son is any different now (in Heaven) to what it was while he walked the Earth[?] Certainly Christ’s status has changed – but surely they are still the same ‘beings’ -before and after resurrection.

    [2] You are absolutely correct in saying that Paul attributes to the resurrected Son, the same expressions [Phil 2: 10-11] that Isaiah that Isaiah attributes to YHWH. [Isaiah 45:23] The question is what does this mean?

    [3] The language of the OT was hard-wired into their DNA and the words which immediately would have come to mind when contemplating biblical issues would have been OT words or phrases.

    The question is of course, were the inspired NT writers just writing what they ‘thought’ – or was each word put into their mind by God.

    [4] These are so many ‘problems’ with the scriptures that one would be very brave to assert that they are literally God’s word.

    [1] The amusing thing, here, is that, while you insist that we should NOT fall in the trappings of Greek philosophy, it is you who resort to the category of ‘being’ (Greek to ôn) to talk about the relative status of Jesus and YHWH God, the Father, BEFORE and AFTER the resurrection and ascension …

    … anyway, of course “the relationship between Father and Son” changed: many passages in the NT are perfectly clear (Matt 28:18; Acts 2:36; Phil 2: 9-11; etc.). God has bestowed upon His Son Jesus the same Dignity, Power and Glory as He has. He has made him co-regent, on a par with Himself, very much as a king could appoint his son to have his same power.

    [2] Why should we find this so difficult? The context makes it clear that, once again, the right reading is the plain reading: YHWH God made Jesus, the Incarnation of His Eternal Word, His Son, His Messiah, equal to Himself in Dignity, Power and Glory. This is the plain meaning of expressions like All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matt 28:18), God has made this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2:36), … at the name of Jesus every knee will bow … and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” (Phil 2: 10-11; cp. Isaiah 45:23)

    [3] Thank you for making my point: it would have been most improbable that Jews like the Apostles and the first disciples, who had a sacred terror of even pronouncing the name YHWH, would attribute to anyone who is not YHWH the expressions that the OT reserves ONLY for YHWH, unless they were fully aware of what they were doing …

    [4] Why can’t the plainest solution be THE solution?

    This, BTW, has nothing whatsoever to do with the “trinity”, it has to do ONLY with the “dogma” of the “immutability of God”. But what does “immutability of God” mean? Let’s see:

    “What is it to be immutable?” Two definitions of divine immutability receive careful attention. The first is that for God to be immutable is for God to have a constant character and to be faithful in divine promises; this is a definition of “weak immutability.” The second, “strong immutability,” is that for God to be immutable is for God to be wholly unchanging. [“Divine Immutability”, http://www.iep.utm.edu/div-immu/%5D

    If you read the article you will realize what an exorbitant claim “strong immutability” is.

    MdS

  18. Villanovanus
    Thanks for that!!
    Do you believe that the relationship between Father and Son is any different now (in Heaven) to what it was while he walked the Earth.
    Certainly Christ’s status has changed – but surely they are still the same ‘beings’ -before and after resurrection.
    You are absolutely correct in saying that Paul attributes to the resurrected Son, the same expressions that Isaiah that Isaiah attributes to YHWH. The question is what does this mean?

    All that the Apostles knew was derived from
    (i) Oral tradition
    (ii) Knowledge of the Hebrew Bible

    In many instances we have passages ‘plucked’ out of the OT and transplanted into the NT as if they were directly relevant or meaningful.
    The unknown author of Hebrews did just that!

    The language of the OT was hard-wired into their DNA and the words which immediately would have come to mind when contemplating biblical issues would have been OT words or phrases.

    Some Christians see these scriptures as ‘typology’
    Some are ‘literalists’ and will ‘chase their tails’ till Kingdom come.
    Jews are outraged

    The question is of course, were the inspired NT writers just writing what they ‘thought’ – or was each word put into their mind by God.

    These are so many ‘problems’ with the scriptures that one would be very brave to assert that they are literally God’s word.

    Best wishes
    Abel

  19. @ Abel [#34, January 15, 2013 at 11:55 pm]

    What exactly, of what I have written at #32 “[s]ounds like nonsense to [you]”?

    (BTW, I believe that my rejection of “trinitarianism” has no ambiguity, and anyway, so as to reassure you, I am most certainly NOT an ‘agent provocateur’)

    I have already clearly and fully agreed with Greg, by saying that “we should use as little philosophy (in particular, philosophy of Greek origin) as possible (ideally, none …)”.

    Nevertheless, there are (at least) three problems that, even if we ignore philosophy, simply looking at the Scripture, we cannot ignore:

    (1) Does Jesus divinity hang only on what we read in Luke 1:35 (the miracle of the virgin conception) OR John 1:1-18 (and, in particular John 1:14) says (or at least suggests) that there is more, and it cannot be dismissed as a “metaphor”?

    (2) Even if the modern notion of “person” (= self-conscious entity, endowed with reason, freedom and will) may not have been available 2000 years ago, nevertheless it is legitimate to ask about YHWH God, who is the “ancient of days” whether He is a personal being or not. More, even if Jesus was NOT a person BEFORE he was conceived (or, if you prefer, born), he certainly WAS a person. So the question of the relationship of the person YHWH, the Father Almighty, to the person Jesus is perfectly legitimate, and it is perfectly legitimate to try and answer it.

    (3) The NT says, repeatedly, that, after Jesus died, and was raised from the dead, he was “taken up” to Heaven, where he is “seated at the right of the Power”. So the question of the relationship in Heaven of YHWH, the Father Almighty, to the resurrected and ascended Jesus is perfectly legitimate, and it is perfectly legitimate to try and answer it.

    Do you have any objections to any of the a.m. points? Do you have any answer to any of the above questions?

    MdS

    P.S. I DO NOT “interpret the word ‘Lord’ in Isaiah 45 vv 24 and 25, as Christ”, BUT I insist that it is entirely obvious that Paul deliberately attributes to the resurrected and ascended Jesus Christ THE SAME EXPRESSIONS …

    … at the name of Jesus every knee will bow … and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” (Phil 2: 10-11)

    … that Isaiah …

    To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.” (Isaiah 45:23)

    … attributes to YHWH God.

  20. Villanovanus
    Sounds like nonsense to me!

    The sort of nonsense put out by Trinitarians when cornered.

    Are you some sort of ‘agent provocateur’?

    I think that Greg has put his finger on the problem. Greek philosophical thinking attempted to define God – but this is hopeless since we can no more understand the mind of God, than an artist can understand the mind of the artist!

    All we have to guide us is the clear language of some scriptures.

    If you wish ,for example, to interpret the word ‘Lord’ in Isaiah 45 vv 24 and 25, as Christ, you are free to do so – but most people don’t!

    Have a nice day!
    Abel

  21. @ Greg [#31, January 15, 2013 at 10:19 am]

    [1] Since the term “person” in the original creeds does not carry the same meaning that it does for us today, I would suggest that your distinction between “person” and “attributes” might merely be a matter of semantics. In other words, on a good day — i.e. when the Trinitarian heresy police were being generous — they might accept you as a brother in arms. And if they didn’t, they should; and vice versa. This obsession with using philosophical language to define God is, I think, one of chief causes of division in Christendom. Paul warned against this very thing (Colossians 2:8). The human mind is an amazing thing, but it’s pure vanity to think that we can define the infinite God. It’s like bacteria trying to comprehend and define a human being.

    [2] In addition to Deuteronomy 33:27 and Psalm 33:6, don’t forget Job 26:13: “By his Spirit the heavens are garnished; His hand hath pierced the swift serpent” (ASV). Spirit is, of course, the Holy Spirit, and hand easily refers to God’s right arm/hand, and here I would suggest even implies the defeat of Satan by Jesus Christ.

    [1] I agree with you that we should use as little philosophy (in particular, philosophy of Greek origin) as possible (ideally, none …). Nevertheless it is fundamental that we, today, affirm that YHWH God is a person (in the obvious sense of person = self-conscious entity, endowed with reason, freedom and will), otherwise we risk ending (literally) in a-theism. Likewise, it is fundamental that we, today, affirm that Jesus is a person (in the obvious sense of person = self-conscious entity, endowed with reason, freedom and will) otherwise we risk to deny even his humanity.

    BTW, the term “person” does NOT appear at all “in the original creeds”.

    [2] Thank you for quoting Job 26:13. You may also want to consider this:

    Have you an arm like God? Or can you thunder with a voice like His?” (Job 40:9)

    MdS

  22. @ Abel [#30, January 15, 2013 at 9:42 am]

    Do you believe that Philippians 2 proves that God changes?

    I do, and I will explain why.

    (1) Jesus is the Incarnation of God’s Eternal Word, which (which …) before the Incarnation is NOT a person (in the obvious sense of person = self-conscious entity, endowed with reason, freedom and will), and only becomes a person with the incarnation.
    (2) The entire passage Phil 2:5-11 has a distinct form of rhythmic prose, and it is considered by many scholars an Early Christian hymn, that Paul quoted. This hymn contains, in only 6 verses, the entire “career” of Jesus, his divinity, his incarnation, his humanity, his freely chosen humble status, his passion and death on the Cross, and finally his Resurrection, Ascension and Glory, “seated at the right of the Almighty”.
    (3) Phil 2:5-11 is not so much a “parallel with Genesis 1-3″, but rather Phil 2:9-11 is NOT a mere reference, BUT a deliberate and unmistakable elaboration on Isaiah 45:23-24: YHWH God proclaims the resurrected and ascended Jesus as Saviour on a par with Himself, and worthy to enjoy the supreme tribute of honor on a par with Himself. Compare Phil 2: 10-11, ” at the name of Jesus every knee will bow … and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord”, with Isaiah 45:23, “To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.”

    My point, viz. that God does indeed change, has nothing whatsoever to do with “trinitarianism”. On the contrary, AFTER the Resurrection and the Ascension, YHWH God attributes to Jesus what, BEFORE, He ONLY attributed to Himself.

    For a more extensive treatment, see my Journal @ community.beliefnet.com:

    “… Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:5-11) [http://community.beliefnet.com/miguel_de_servet/blog/2009/11/12/_jesus_christ_is_lord_to_the_glory_of_god_the_father_phil_2511]
    Is there a “Platonic influence” on Philippians 2:5-11? NO! [http://community.beliefnet.com/miguel_de_servet/blog/2009/11/12/is_there_a_platonic_influence_on_philippians_2511_no_]
    The essential difference between Strict Monotheism and JWs [http://community.beliefnet.com/miguel_de_servet/blog/2011/03/12/the_essential_difference_between_strict_monotheism_and_jws]

    MdS

  23. Response to MdS, post 28 January 15, 2013 at 4:13 am

    A few comments…

    [1] Since the term “person” in the original creeds does not carry the same meaning that it does for us today, I would suggest that your distinction between “person” and “attributes” might merely be a matter of semantics. In other words, on a good day — i.e. when the Trinitarian heresy police were being generous — they might accept you as a brother in arms. And if they didn’t, they should; and vice versa. This obsession with using philosophical language to define God is, I think, one of chief causes of division in Christendom. Paul warned against this very thing (Colossians 2:8). The human mind is an amazing thing, but it’s pure vanity to think that we can define the infinite God. It’s like bacteria trying to comprehend and define a human being.

    [2] In addition to Deuteronomy 33:27 and Psalm 33:6, don’t forget Job 26:13: “By his Spirit the heavens are garnished; His hand hath pierced the swift serpent” (ASV). Spirit is, of course, the Holy Spirit, and hand easily refers to God’s right arm/hand, and here I would suggest even implies the defeat of Satan by Jesus Christ.

  24. Villanovanus

    Do you believe that Philippians 2 proves that God changes?

    As I understand the first 11 verses-

    (i) in verses 6,7&8 “Christ ‘ is the subject of every verb

    (ii)In verse 9 “God’ ‘ is the subject of every verb.

    Paul was drawing a parallel with Genesis 1-3

    Genesis 2 states that man was created in the image of God (re-iterated many times in NT)
    The ‘first’ Adams’ great sin was to try to equate himself with God -Genesis 3v5 “ye shall be like Gods”

    The ‘second Adam (Christ) reversed what the first Adam did.
    Far from trying to snatch equality with God and disobeying his command, the verses speak of Christ humbling himself and becoming obedient even to the point of crucifixion. Christ emptied himself ( presemably of human ego).
    For this GOD has exalted him to “Lord and Messiah”

    This ‘model’ avoids all the ‘ gymnastics ‘associated with the trinitarian point of view. e.g. How did God exhalt himself, and what did Goid empty himself of , and why say ‘in the form of God’?
    The Trinitarians will answer these questions – but their answers are just….. gymnastics! Being polite!

    No need for God to ‘change’!

    Regards
    Abel

  25. N.B. Comment #27 [villanovanus, January 14, 2013 at 12:49 pm] was erroneously posted here, and has been properly reposted on “You’re another!” [villanovanus, #21, January 15, 2013 at 5:28 am].

  26. @ Abel

    [#26, January 14, 2013 at 12:02 pm] … is it not the case that

    God (the Father) exists as one person
    [1] His outworking – or interface with his creation- is his Holy Spirit (which is not a person)
    What the argument seems to be to my simple mind—-

    [2] UNITARIANS SEEM TO SAY: Christ is the incarnation of the Gods outworking a.k.a. Holy Spirit a.k.a. Word Wisdom

    [3] TRINITARIANS SEEM TO SAY: Christ is the incarnation of God -one person. His essential essence.

    I am NOT suggesting that a metaphor is involved here.

    [4] Just that Gods outworking or Holy Spirit entered Mary

    As opposed to “God’ becoming Christ through incarnation.

    Let me comment on your post, repeating here what I have already said several times throughout this forum/blog.

    [1] I do NOT think that God’s Word and Spirit are persons (as “trinitarians” do), NOR that they are a mere “manifestation”, or, as you say, “outworking” of God in His Creation. I affirm that they are the two essential attributes of God: structural attributes, so to speak. Does this imply that God is not simple? It does. But then I challenge “trinitarians” to show that their “co-equal, co-eternal, tri-personal god” is simple …

    [2] Once again, I would correct the expression “God’s outworking” with “the two essential, structural attributes of God”. And I would clearly distinguish between God’s Spirit/Pneuma/Ruwach on one side, and God’s Word/Logos/Dabar on the other side. I believe that the Scripture hints at this reality with (at least) these two verses:

    The eternal God is your refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms (Deut 33:27)

    By the word [Dabar] of the LORD the heavens were made, and all the host of them by the breath [Ruwach] of His mouth. (Psalm 33:6)

    [3] Jesus Christ shares, indeed, the “essential essence” of YHWH God, the Father Almighty, his Father, inasmuch as he is the Incarnation (NOT, generically, of God, BUT) of God’s Eternal Word. Jesus is NOT the incarnation of an “eternal pre-existent person”, BUT, through the Incarnation, God’s Word becomes a person in/as Jesus. Does this imply that God changes? It does. But then I challenge “trinitarians” (and also “unitarians”, for that matter) to explain otherwise (NOT ONLY John 1:14 and Phil 2:11, BUT MOST OF ALL) this verse:

    And when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all. (1 Cor 15:28)

    [4] Unfortunately the Apostles’ Creed does not explicitly refer to Jesus as the “Incarnated Word”, but, for the rest, it is perfectly accurate:

    He was conceived by [the power of] the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.

    MdS

  27. [Dale, #15, January 13, 2013 at 11:11 pm] Tertullian was sort of a crank, and ended up leaving the Catholic movement; his phrase [“tres personae una substantia”] did not prevail anywhere in or near his lifetime.

    It doesn’t help to dismiss Tertullian with such unscholarly epithets, and the reason why Tertullian “ended up leaving the Catholic movement” has got absolutely nothing to do with his unquestionable (albeit Subordinationist) trinitarianism.

    Not only Tertullian formulated the expression that was the virtual equivalent of the formula of the Cappadocian scoundrels (pace the quibble on the Greek hypostasis vs the Latin persona), but he developed it in his anti-modalist polemical work.

    (Things are never as easy as they seem, though, because, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Theodoret says he [Sabellius] spoke of one hypostasis and a threefold prosopa, whereas St. Basil says he willingly admitted three prosopa in one hypostasis. This is, so far as words go, exactly the famous formulation of Tertullian, “tres personae, una substantia” …, but Sabellius seems to have meant “three modes or characters of one person”. – see Monarchians > Modalists – http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10448a.htm)

    In fact it can be safely affirmed that ALL (Subordinationist) trinitarian theology of the third century was in response to Patripassianism and Sabellianism: Tertullian (ca. 216), Hippolytus of Rome (ca. 220), Origen (ca. 225), Novatian (ca.256), Pope Dionysius (ca. 262), Gregory the Wonderworker (ca. 265).

    But the origin can be traced even earlier. In fact it can be affirmed that the “trinity” (with Buzzard’s expression, “Christianity’s self-inflicted wound”) stems from the attempts to “cure” the “original sin” of treating God’s Logos as a “second god”: and it is Justin Marty that, along the lines of Philo, speaks of deuteros theos.

    MdS

    P.S. Does “tacit assent” apply on this blog? 😉

  28. Hi Villanovanus
    The definitions you mentioned keep on ‘drifting’ in my mind – but to use more ‘modern ‘ language is it not the case that

    God (the Father) exists as one person
    His outworking – or interface with his creation- is his Holy Spirit (which is not a person )
    What the argument seems to be to my simple mind—-

    UNITARIANS SEEM TO SAY
    Christ is the incarnation of the Gods outworking a.k.a. Holy Spirit a.k.a. Word Wisdom

    TRINITARIANS SEEM TO SAY
    Christ is the incarnation of God -one person. his essential essence.

    I am NOT suggesting that a metaphor is involved here.

    Just that Gods outworking or Holy Spirit entered Mary

    As opposed to “God’ becoming Christ through incarnation.

    Many Thanks
    Abel

  29. @ Abel [January 13, 2013 at 8:15 am]

    Once again, hypostasis is a Greek word, which, in its philosophical use, was virtually interchangeable with ousia, until it became expedient for the “neo-nicene” (mainly the Cappadocian rascals – the collective name that I use for Basil of Caesarea, his brother Gregory of Nyssa and their mutual friend Gregory of Nazianzus) to smooth all differences with the “neo-Arians” (or homoiousians). The proof of the interchangeability is in a document that “orthodox trinitarians” would wish had not survived, viz. the “anathema” appended to the ORIGINAL Nicene Creed (325 AD, NOT the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 AD) …

    But those who say … ‘He is of another substance’ [hypostasis] or ‘essence,’ [ousia] … they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

    … where it is explicitly affirmed that Jesus was “of the same ‘substance’ [hypostasis]” OR ” of the same ‘essence’ [ousia] as “God, the Father Almighty”.

    As a side note, may I add here that Aristotle very seldom used the word hypostasis, and, when he did, in the sense of “primary substance” (prôtê ousia – the concrete individual) which he distinguished from the “secondary substance” (deutera ousia – the “universal”, or class or species to which the individual belongs). Perhaps the root of the diversification introduced, for theological-metaphysical reasons) between hypostasis and ousia comes from here.

    OTOH, Plotinus taught that God existed in three hypostaseis, the “One”, the “Divine Mind” and the “Word-Soul”.

    The analogy with the (Subordinationist) “trinity” is evident.

    Best Wishes

    MdS

  30. Villanovanus
    Thanks for taking the time to respond.
    Maybe my understanding of terms is limited !?

    I thought that ‘ousia’ was the absolute essence of a being – while ‘hypostasis’ meant ‘the way that being manifests itself/Himself to the world ( universe in God’s case.)

    So I thought we were talking about how the manifestation becomes incarnate – as opposed to the ‘ousia’.?

    Is God’s manifestation not the Holy Spirit?

    And is it not reasonable to suppose that Gods Holy Spirit entered a human – to a greater degree than he has every done so -before or after then?

    Sorry for the ‘fumbling’ words!

    Best Wishes
    Abel

  31. @ Abel [January 13, 2013 at 12:14 am]

    In blog number 11 above [Xavier, January 9, 2013 at 5:03 pm] Dunn is reported to have described “Wisdom ‘ as God’s self-manifestation.

    [1] Is this the same as God’s ‘hypostasis’?

    Would one call this God’s Holy Spirit?

    …and can one connect this with the words spoken by the angel to Mary “the power of the on high shall come upon you”?

    Hypostasis is a word, which, until the Cappadocian rascals decided, in the 2nd half of the 4th century (with and after the Synod of Alexandria, 362 AD) that it would suit them to distinguish it from ousia, was used in a virtually interchangeable way with the latter.

    The real problem is that the Greek hypostasis doesn’t quite coincide with the Latin persona, and even less with the modern sense of the word “persona” (= “self conscious being, endowed with reason, freedom and will).

    The real problem is whether it is sufficient to consider the Word in John’s Prologue a mere “metaphor” for “God’s self-manifestation”, OR if the Word/Logos/Dabar in John’s Prologue, while NOT personal before the Incarnation, still means something quite specific, viz. an essential attribute of God, very much like the Spirit/Pneuma/Ruwach is the other essential attribute of God.

    MdS

  32. All

    In blog number 11 above Dunn is reported to have described “Wisdom ‘ as God’s self-manifestation.

    Is this the same as God’s ‘hypostasis’?

    Would one call this God’s Holy Spirit?

    …and can one connect this with with the words spoken by the angel to Mary “the power of the on high shall come upon you”?

    Yours sincerely
    Abel

  33. @ Xavier

    [Xavier – January 10, 2013 at 9:00 pm] What both John and Luke describe, the virgin birth, should be ESSENTIAL enough for us.

    [Villanovanus – January 10, 2013 at 11:38 pm] …it leaves unanswered the question IN WHAT SENSE God’s Word/Logos/Dabar, is an essential attribute of God.

    [Xavier – January 11, 2013 at 6:45 am] Yes because the Bible does not address such philosophical questions.

    Yet, if you put the Gospel of John (and, in particular, its Prologue) in the context of its probable time and place of composition (Anatolia, ca. 90 AD), it is not so unlikely that, while it was entirely in line with the OT, and in particular with the concept of dabar YHWH, it may also be a deliberate rebuttal of the confusion and conflation of the Word of God with the Gnostic and/or Philonian-Middle-Platonic logos.

    MdS

    P.S. Enjoy your trip to the Holy Land 🙂

  34. MdS

    …it leaves unanswered the question IN WHAT SENSE God’s Word/Logos/Dabar, is an essential attribute of God.

    Yes because the Bible does not address such philosophical questions.

    And I agree these scholars are not clear but we just said why.

    Anyways going to the Holy Land…see y’all in 2 weeks [I hope].

  35. @ Xavier [January 10, 2013 at 9:00 pm]

    What both John and Luke describe, the virgin birth, should be ESSENTIAL enough for us.

    While it is interesting that you read John 1:14 as a (not-so-obvious …) reference to the Virgin Conception / Virgin Birth, your answer (… the virgin birth, should be ESSENTIAL enough for us ) is not really an answer to MY question, because it leaves unanswered the question IN WHAT SENSE God’s Word/Logos/Dabar, is an essential attribute of God.

    Or, IOW, is Jesus the UNIQUE (“one-begotten”, monogenês) Son of God BECAUSE of the Virgin Conception / Virgin Birth, OR ALSO because, AT THE SAME TIME, there is something UNIQUE of God IN him: God’s Word/Logos/Dabar?

    As for Dunn, i can wait.

    OK, then. Here is what we read in the Conclusion of Dunn’s book Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?, that you invited me to read:

    A second point to be noted takes up the complementary issue of whether worship of Jesus constituted a denial of Christianity’s claim to be a monotheistic religion. As noted at the beginning of the Introduction, such a critique of Christian worship is made by the other great monotheistic faiths, Judaism and Islam. But it has become increasingly clear from the inquiry that the understanding of God as one, of the unity of God, is not so readily defined as such critiques generally assume. The unity or oneness of God is not a straightforward mathematical unity. Only a little acquaintance with mathematics, from ancient times until the present, will be sufficient to remind us that the concept of ‘number’ is more complex than at first seems likely, once we move on from merely counting apples and oranges or pennies and cents. We should recall, for example, that when Paul talks of the body of Christ, he insists that the body is one, the body is a unity, but he insists equally that the one body is made up of many diverse members. Oneness is not necessarily an entity singular in all the elements that make it one, that forms its oneness. Alternatively, a singular entity may be too big or complex (the cosmos) to be fully comprehended in its singularity. All that can be perceived are different aspects, the aspect that do not easily cohere into one (in fundamental physics no one has yet been able to produce a unified field theory); but the inadequacies of human conceptualization do not constitute a denial of the singularity of the entity. So too, the oneness of God should not be assumed to be a narrowly defined mathematical unity. From earliest days in Israel’s conceptuality of the oneness of God there was also recognized a diversity in the way God has been perceived or has made himself known. The one God made himself known in or through angelic form, as Spirit, as Wisdom, as Word, without detracting from his oneness, his transcendence, his being as the one and only God. So definitions of monotheism, of God’s oneness, should not be so tightly drawn as to exclude such Hebrew Bible/Old Testament and early Jewish reflection on the subject. And Christianity can make the case that its evaluation of Jesus begins with that reflection and develops from it, but does so without calling in question that monotheism whose complex reality such reflection was attempting to articulate, however inadequately, and however open to misinterpretation of the monotheism espoused. — i>Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?, by James D. G. Dunn, 2010, pp. 148-9 (http://books.google.com/books?id=-8xWzXiByKgC)

    Do YOU feel at ease with the above quote?

    I don’t … :/

    MdS

  36. MdS

    What both John and Luke describe, the virgin birth, should be ESSENTIAL enough for us.

    As for Dunn, i can wait. 😉

  37. @ Xavier [January 10, 2013 at 2:55 pm]

    Both John [1:14] and Luke [1:35] are describing the same miraculous event in different ways. One [John] is prose/metaphor the other [Luke] not.

    OK, fair enough. Now, can you please answer another question? Suppose that the Prologue to the Gospel of John [John 1:1-18] was, AT THE SAME TIME, “poetical prose” AND said something ESSENTIAL about God’s Logos/Dabar, viz. that it (IT …) is an essential attribute of God, that, somehow, “became incarnated” in/as Jesus of Nazareth. What would be your objection?

    If you read the book [Did the First Christians Worship Jesus] you will see that Dunn goes beyond just the “worship” language.

    This is a debate. You cannot expect me to postpone my reply until I’ve read the book. Can you provide (a) relevant quotation(s)?

    MdS

  38. MdS

    is Luke 1:35 analogical/metaphorical? YES OR NO?

    Both John and Luke are describing the same miraculous event in different ways. One is prose/metaphor the other not.

    the question of “whether worship is due to Jesus” doesn’t prove anything

    If you read the book you will see that Dunn goes beyond just the “worship” language.

  39. @ Xavier

    [January 10, 2013 at 8:45 am] [1] Maybe I should just say [instead of “Orthodox”] those who believe a preexistent person “took on” or as I heard in a recent Evangelical sermon, “wrapped himself in skin”.

    [2] And I agree with Dunn’s last sentence in that quote which is my point exactly.

    [3] Modalist [Dunn]? May I suggest you read his Did the First Christians Worship Jesus book.

    [1] … which, of course, applies equally well to the “orthodox trinitarians”, AND to Arians, AND to Subordinationists …

    [2] If the “last sentence” to which you refer is from my quotation of Dunn’s interview [One of my major concerns in [is?] that by treating the analogical/metaphorical language we use to speak of God in a clunky, literal and pedantic way, we undermine Christian monotheism. ], then pray tell, is Luke 1:35 analogical/metaphorical? YES OR NO? (No “third option” allowed …)

    [3] First, the substance of Dunn’s “trinitarianism” in the interview that I quoted from is UNQUESTIONABLY “Latin trinitarian” and/or Modalist.

    Second, the question of “whether worship is due to Jesus” doesn’t prove anything. As you know, it was hotly debated by two Unitarians like Fausto Socini and Ferenc Dávid …

    [ January 10, 2013 at 8:58 am] [4] … Dunn, like most other EMPLOYED Biblical scholar, wants to keep their job. Although it is clear from his body of work that they go in and out [sic!]of what their own institutional system would deem heresy.

    [5] For example, Colin Brown from Fuller accepted our invitation to a Biblical unitarian conference some years ago now. The first words out of his mouth at the podium were, “I am a trinitarian.” And then he went about to basically dismantle it. Not only in word but in writing [quotation from: “Trinity and Incarnation: In search of Contemporary Orthodoxy”, Ex Auditu (7), 1991]

    [4] If Dunn has elsewhere OPENLY entertained Unitarian (NOT “mysterian”…) positions, then this only proves that he is a hypocrite (like many “EMPLOYED Biblical scholars”, BTW …)

    [5] Yes, that is an unquestionable example of a hypocritical “EMPLOYED Biblical scholar” …

    … a common disease easily disguised with a smattering of “Latin Trinitarianism” 😉

    MdS

    P.S. If you want more evidence of how Colin Brown does indeed speak out of both sides of his mouth on the “trinity”, read John M. Frame’s review of Colin Brown’s Miracles and the Critical Mind, 1984, viii. (www.frame-poythress.org/review-of-colin-browns-miracles-and-the-critical-mind/) Specifically, section (5), scroll about 5/6 down.

  40. MdS

    PS: Dunn, like most other EMPLOYED Biblical scholar, wants to keep their job. Although it is clear from his body of work that they go in and out of what their own institutional system would deem heresy.

    For example, Colin Brown from Fuller accepted our invitation to a Biblical unitarian conference some years ago now. The first words out of his mouth at the podium were, “I am a trinitarian.” And then he went about to basically dismantle it. Not only in word but in writing

    It is a common but patent misreading of the opening of John’s Gospel to read it as if it said: ‘In the beginning was the Son, and the Son was with God and the Son was God’ (John 1:1). What has happened here is the substitution of Son for Word (Greek logos), and thereby the Son is made a member of the Godhead which existed from the beginning. But if we follow carefully the thought of John’s prologue, it is the Word that pre-existed eternally with God and is God.

    The title ‘Son of God’ is not in itself a designation of personal deity or an expression of metaphysical distinctions within the Godhead. Indeed to be a ‘Son of God’ one has to be a being who is not God’. “Trinity and Incarnation: In search of Contemporary Orthodoxy”, Ex Auditu (7), 1991.

  41. MdS

    I am not entirely sure what do you mean by the “Orthodox”…

    Maybe I should just say those who believe a preexistent person “took on” or as I heard in a recent Evangelical sermon, “wrapped himself in skin”. :/

    And I agree with Dunn’s last setence in that quote which is my point is exactly.

    Modalist? May I suggest you read his Did the First Christians Worship Jesus book.

  42. @ Xavier

    [January 9, 2013 at 12:49 pm] I believe the prologue is not supposed to be understood literally. This is the continued mistake of Orthodoxs. [sic]

    [January 9, 2013 at 5:03 pm] Dunn reflects the MAJORITY scholarly consensus regarding the METAPHORICAL nature of John 1.1-18: [quotation from: James D.G. Dunn The Christ and the Spirit, p 47, 1998]

    I am not entirely sure what do you mean by the “Orthodox”, but let’s assume you mean (NOT “Eastern Orthodox”, BUT) “those who share the traditional doctrine of the Church”. That would obviously include the acceptance of the doctrine of the “trinity”, either in the LT or in the ST variant.

    Again, I don’t know what you think is the position of James D.G. Dunn vis a vis the “trinity”, but here is what he certainly said himself in an in-depth interview on “Beyond Evangelical” (http://frankviola.org/2012/06/25/jamesdgdunn/bolding mine):

    I think all the problems in speaking of the divinity/deity of Christ arise from our inadequate efforts to conceptualize and speak of the mystery of the triune God. The problems are caused by our unwillingness to recognize the inadequacy of our language and our inevitable use of analogy and metaphor in speaking of God. The language becomes problematic when we insist in taking the language in a literal sense, that is, when we try to encapsulate the mystery of divine being into our all too human categories.

    ‘Person’ is the obvious example. You will not need reminding that the creeds use ‘person’ in a technical way, which is NOT the same as what we mean in our daily use of ‘person’. At the same time, we naturally think of Jesus as a person, but in our modern sense of person.

    The trouble comes when we transfer the sense of Jesus of Nazareth as person to the three persons of the Trinity. That way we destroy what the Fathers were trying to do when speaking of God as three persons. For a person as Jesus of Nazareth was/is a person means inevitably that we no longer think of God as Trinity but have become tri-theists, having a concept of God as three distinct individuals as you and I are distinct individuals. By failing to appreciate the mystery of God adequately we undermine Christian monotheism.

    My concern in the pre-existence issue is that we do the same. Pre-existence belongs only to God, because God alone is Creator, so God alone pre-exists creation. I have absolutely no difficulty in speaking of divine Wisdom and Logos as pre-existent – because Wisdom/Logos are ways of speaking of God in action, in creation, in revelation, in redemption. Jesus however, as John 1.14 puts it, is the Word become flesh.

    So one can speak of the pre-existent Logos, but one cannot so speak properly of Jesus as pre-existent, unless we mean that the incarnation pre-existed the incarnation. Incarnation is God become man; God is pre-existent, but is the man that God became? What do we lose if we retroject the incarnation to before creation? The metaphor of ‘generation’ becomes less clear, since ‘eternal generation’ is one of the places where our analogical imagery simply cannot be taken literally.

    More important, we undermine the very concept of ‘incarnation’, losing, indeed, something vital in the uniqueness of Jesus, the incarnate Word, as God’s revelation of himself in a particular historical time and place. The pre-existence of Jesus is rather like the Jesus = Yahweh claim – a too simplistic formulation which actually creates more theological problems than it is attempting to solve.

    One of my major concerns in that by treating the analogical/metaphorical language we use to speak of God in a clunky, literal and pedantic way, we undermine Christian monotheism.

    So, what is the “trinity according to Dunn”? A metaphor of metaphors? Why speak at all of “mystery of the triune God“, if not with the deliberate intention to obfuscate? Why would anybody need to extract from the Scripture a mystery of the triune God” that the Scripture NEITHER speaks of NOR alludes to?

    BTW (putting in interrogative form Dunn’s unclarified claim), “what were the Fathers trying to do when speaking of God as three persons“?

    BBTW, a phrase like “a person as Jesus of Nazareth was/is a person means inevitably that we no longer think of God as Trinity but have become tri-theists” leads any normally thinking person to suspect that Dunn doesn’t even think of Jesus as a proper person (“in our modern sense of person “), but as a mere “manifestation of God” (theophany), which would obviously be a (not so cryptic) form of docetism, and the denial of the very humanity of Jesus!!!

    BBBTW, with the phrase, one can speak of the pre-existent Logos, but one cannot so speak properly of Jesus as pre-existent, Dunn manifestly says very confused and confusing things about the Logos vs Jesus. EITHER the Logos is a real an pre-existent attribute of God (God and yet, somehow, distinct in God and from God), OR Dunn’s sentence is, like the one on the “mystery of the triune God“, sheer obfuscation.

    Ultimately, I suspect that Dunn is nothing but a modalist in disguise (like probably most LT are, anyway) and I seriously suspect that his “triune God”, is an “it” [:horrified and abominated expression:]

    IOW, Dunn would be (like most “mysterian trinitarians”), literally and properly, an a-theist [:horrified and abominated expression:]

    MdS

  43. Dunn reflects the MAJORITY scholarly consensus regarding the METAPHORICAL nature of John 1.1-18 [ITALICS mine]:

    “…in Jewish thought Wisdom is not a being independent of God but is God’s self manifestation. The point is that Christ is the incarnation of this Wisdom/Word. To speak of Christ as himself preexistent, coming down from heaven, and so forth, has to be seen as metaphorical; otherwise it leads inevitably to some kind of polytheism…

    …what a Wisdom/Word Christology claims is that Jesus is the person/individual whom God’s Word became. Even to speak of the incarnation of the Son of God can be misleading, unless the Son Christology of John is seen as it was probably intended, as an expression of the same Wisdom/Word Christology; otherwise, there is the danger of a too literal translation of Father-Son language once again into a form of polytheism—that very abandoning of the oneness of God of which Jews and Muslims accuse Christians. The Christ and the Spirit, p 47, 1998.

  44. Jaco – I think Matthew 11:27-29 is another saying of Jesus that one could expect ONLY from the Word incarnate. Verse 27 says:

    All things were given to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, nor does any know the Father except the Son, and to whomever the Son chooses to reveal him.

    That’s an enormous claim. Did anyone in the OT say anything even remotely like it?
    Then comes the promise:

    Come to me, all you who labour and are heavily burdened, and I will give you rest.

    Who else ever made a similar promise, and made THEMSELVES responsible to fulfill it?

    Only the Word, empowered with unlimited power from God, could make a promise like that.

    Conclusion: John and the synoptics harmonize perfectly.

  45. MdS

    I believe the prologue is not supposed to be understood literally. This is the continued mistake of Orthodoxs.

  46. @ Xavier [January 9, 2013 at 9:54 am]

    The prologue to John is understood [by any standard biblical commentary] to be using metaphorical/poetic language of the Jewish Wisdom type.

    I am not sure what you have in mind with the expression “standard biblical commentary”. This, for instance is what we read in NET © Note 1sn appended to John 1:14 – NET:

    This verse constitutes the most concise statement of the incarnation in the New Testament. John 1:1 makes it clear that the Logos was fully God, but 1:14 makes it clear that he was also fully human. A Docetic interpretation is completely ruled out.

    Ignoring all “trinitarian” overtones, we still have the Logos (a real attribute of God) that becomes a person in/as the God-man Jesus of Nazareth. Where is the problem with this?

    if you are capable to read mystery and miracle in Luke 1:35, why not in John 1:14?

    “Mystery and miracle” [in Luke 1:35] is one thing, poetic prose telling you about said “mystery/miracle” is another.

    What is this supposed to mean? That, like a Muslim you believe that the Virgin Conception of Jesus is ONLY a miracle, with no theological relevance?

    Actually, the Quran explicitly says:

    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]

    Of course, Islam refuses NOT ONLY the abomination of the “trinity”, but also the notion that Jesus is the (literal) Son of God. Nevertheless, beside the Virgin Conveption, Islam clearly affirms that Jesus is a “Word from Him“, even His Word.

    Or do you really believe Prudence and Wisdom are real Persons?

    [… patiently …]

    First, I do NOT believe that the Logos, before the incarnation in/as Jesus, is a “real person”.

    Second, and once again, … the Word/Logos (unlike “Prudence, Wisdom, Glory, Law etc, etc”) is the ONLY attribute of God of which it is said that it “became flesh” (sarx egeneto).

    Poetica language? Perhaps. But why should it not ALSO express a literal truth?

    MdS

  47. MdS

    “Understood”, by whom?

    By any standard biblical commentary.

    if you are capable to read mystery and miracle in Luke 1:35, why not in John 1:14?

    “Mystery and miracle” is one thing, poetic prose telling you about said “mystery/miracle” is another.

    Or do you really believe Prudence and Wisdom are real Persons?

  48. Xavier [January 9, 2013 at 8:38 am] The prologue to John is understood to be using metaphorical/poetic language of the Jewish Wisdom type.

    Luke is not.

    “Understood”, by whom? Anyway, this would be a rationalization, not a bona fide reading of the text.

    And, once again, if you are capable to read mystery and miracle in Luke 1:35, why not in John 1:14?

    MdS

  49. MdS

    Why not? Do you have any problem with…

    The prologue to John is understood to be using metaphorical/poetic language of the Jewish Wisdom type.

    Luke is not.

  50. Xavier [January 8, 2013 at 7:09 pm] … Not literally of course..?

    Why not? Do you have any problem with …

    The angel replied, 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. (Luke 1:35)

    …. a literal understanding of the above verse? If not, why would you have any problem with a literal understanding of John 1:14?

  51. MdS

    the Word…the ONLY attribute of God of which it is said that it “became flesh” (sarx egeneto)

    Not literally of course..?

  52. @ Xavier

    [Marg, January 7, 2013 at 11:50 pm] … on the basis of the evidence so far, no one can justify the conclusion that the pre-incarnate Word COULD NOT have been a person.

    [Xavier, January 8, 2013 at 7:08 am] Could make the same argument for the other personified qualities of God like Prudence, Wisdom, Glory, Law etc, etc

    I have already commented on Marg‘s abuse of the “argument from silence”.

    Nevertheless, it is fair to say the Word/Logos (unlike “Prudence, Wisdom, Glory, Law etc, etc”) is the ONLY attribute of God of which it is said that it “became flesh” (sarx egeneto).

    This is, scripturally speaking, an objective difference.

    Once again, for the umpteenth time, the problem is NOT whether “the Word became flesh” (it did, and in a unique way, in/as Jesus Christ), BUT whether there is any objective (viz. scriptural) reason to affirm that the “pre-incarnate Word” was personal.

    There isn’t.

    MdS

  53. Marge

    …on the basis of the evidence so far, no one can justify the conclusion that the pre-incarnate Word COULD NOT have been a person.

    Could make the same argument for the other personified qualities of God like Prdence,Wisdom, Glory, Law etc, etc.

    Endless circular debate this one.

  54. MdS

    managed to became immune to these “fatal” objections

    Immune? I’d say ignorant to the point of delusional. 😛

  55. [Marg January 7, 2013 at 11:50 pm] … on the basis of the evidence so far, no one can justify the conclusion that the pre-incarnate Word COULD NOT have been a person.

    True.

    But this is also a true and proper abuse of the “argument from silence”. The ONLY reason why there is this idea that God’s “pre-incarnate Word [WOULD] have been a person” is that it started creeping into Christianity very early, in fact, as early as this:

    I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, of the truth of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things. (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 223)

    From then on, things got from bad to worse …

    MdS

  56. Jaco, I had not thought of the possibility you raise here: “… If an uttered word is not accomplished or fulfilled, it perishes or passes away.”

    That MAY be the meaning of “shall not pass away.” I is certainly a possibility.

    However, I would like to correct your version of my argument. I have NEVER used the word “personal” in connection with the pre-incarnate Word. That is something that has not yet been ascertained, and perhaps cannot be ascertained. That remains to be seen.

    My argument is better stated like this:
    Premise 1: Jesus is the Word, made flesh.
    Premise 2: The Word (through which all creation came into existence) is infallible.
    Conclusion: Therefore ALL of Jesus’s words are infallible.

    All his words are infallible BECAUSE he is the Word incarnate. That is true of no other man.

    Granting the possibility that “pass away” simply means “unfulfilled,” the claim that his words shall NEVER pass away is nevertheless unlike anything that any prophet ever said.

    Also, the statements that follow that claim are unique. He could say of words that are found in the Torah, “You have heard … but I say to you.” Did ever another man say such a thing about something written in the Torah?

    Thank you for carrying on this discussion, Jaco. I appreciate a courteous exchange of views.

    But I want to make my own position clear. The words of Jesus in the synoptic gospels HARMONIZE with the fact that he is the Word incarnate.

    I have never said, nor CAN I say on the basis of the evidence so far, that the pre-incarnate Word was a person.

    On the other hand, on the basis of the evidence so far, no one can justify the conclusion that the pre-incarnate Word COULD NOT have been a person.

    If this passage has been adequately dealt with, I’d like to go on to Matthew 11:28.

  57. Xavier

    I fully agree, BUT not only Arians. Before them, Subordinationists (at least since Justin Martyr and even before) and, later, full-fledged “trinitarians” managed to became immune to these “fatal” objections … :/

    MdS

  58. MdS

    [2] Luke 1.35 is fatal for this interpretation then, since it denotes the “coming into existence” of the Son of God.

    [4] Again, fatal when you consider explicit references to the Son as the object of death [Rom 5.10] and resurrection from the DEAD [1Thess 1.9].

  59. @ Xavier [January 7, 2013 at 2:52 pm]

    So in historical Arianism there is no developed theology of “persons” that later came with trinitarianism?

    Correct.

    [1] Whereby in Arianism this preexistent “person” simply puts on a “human nature”, ala a costume or something? [2] If so, how would this view deal with the way NT writers describe the Son as having an “origin/coming into existence” at his birth [like most humans, Mat 1.1, 18-20; Luke 1.35] and not in some “preexistence past”? [3] Or the non-omniscient Son? [4] Or the simple fact that this immortal[?] Son died?

    Again without being dogmatic, here are my answers.

    [1] Essentially, yes.

    [2] By distinguishing between the “origin of the Son” as “first and most perfect creature”, and the “origin of the human life” as “incarnation” (Greek ensarkosis) of this “pre-existing Son”.

    [3] The “pre-existing Son”, according to Arians, is subordinated (and inferior) to THE God.

    [4] Presumably only the “human side” (the “flesh”) died.

    MdS

  60. MdS

    I believe that for Arianism, the “pre-existent person” “assumed a human nature” (“donned flesh”).

    So in historical Arianism there is no developed theology of “persons” that later came with trinitarianism?

    Whereby in Arianism this preexistent “person” simply puts on a “human nature”, ala a costume or something? If so, how would this view deal with the way NT writers describe the Son as having an “origin/coming into existence” at his birth [like most humans, Mat 1.1, 18-20; Luke 1.35] and not in some “preexistence past”? Or the non-omiscient Son? Or the simple fact that this immortal[?] Son died?

  61. @ Xavier [January 7, 2013 at 1:58 pm]

    I’m still trying to figure out what the Arian view is when it pertains to the personhood of, be it, a pre-existent “Word”, “angel”, “god” or whatEVER person.

    Did this “person” cease to exist and take on another ‘persona’ or did it retain both persons or what?

    Without being dogmatic, I believe that for Arianism, the “pre-existent person” “assumed a human nature” (“donned flesh”).

    As for the question of the “two persons” (later question of the “two natures”, even later of the “two wills”), historical Arianism was effectively dead, by then.

    MdS

  62. I’m still trying to figure out what the Arian view is when it pertains to the personhood of, be it, a pre-existent “Word”, “angel”, “god” or whatEVER person.

    Did this “person” cease to exist and take on another ‘persona’ or did it retain both persons or what? : /

    *HEADACHE*

  63. @ Jaco [January 7, 2013 at 12:34 pm]

    I’d classify your [Marg’s] argument as a slippery slope as the leaps required to re-classify Jesus as the personal pre-existent word of God from that text alone do not follow by necessity.

    Hear hear!

    MdS

  64. Hi Marg,

    I think you’re making more of the text than it deserves. I also think you’re pushing the text way beyond what it’s trying to say, missing the wood for the trees, so to speak. The endurance of someone’s words in no way re-categorises the person as being someone/something else. And each of my texts demonstrates precisely that. If an uttered word is not accomplished or fulfilled, it perishes or passes away. Not so with the Torah, nor with the Torah-made-flesh, Jesus Christ (Mt. 5:18).

    According to Deut. 18, the true prophet’s words will be fulfilled (won’t fail, or won’t pass or perish). This would be the hallmark of the Prophet-like-Moses Jesus Christ. This should be more than enough explanation for Jesus’ expression. Pushing it beyond the implications of this text is already unwarranted.

    As the one who spoke what his Father (the Origin of truth and prophecy) told him to speak (John chapters 5-7), Jesus’ words were precisely for that reason infallible (would never pass away or perish). He would always speak as the Father tells him to speak.

    Jesus’ use of hyperbole demonstrates this superbly. He also uses the identical hyperbole in Mt. 5:18. What is impossible (the passing away of heaven and earth) is more probable than the passing away or failing of his words. His words not passing away or failing necessitates coming to fulfilment and that confirms his role, not only in line with the classification of a true prophet, but also to be the Prophet-like-Moses (Deut. 18). Jesus uttered the words of the One whose words never return to Him unaccomplished (or passed away).

    Informally I’d classify your argument as a slippery slope as the leaps required to re-classify Jesus as the personal pre-existent word of God from that text alone do not follow by necessity.

    Formally your argument goes like this:

    Premise 1: IF Jesus is the personal pre-existent word of God, his words would be infallible. (This in itself is sound)
    Premise 2: Jesus’ words are infallible
    Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus is the personal pre-existent word of God.

    Fallacy: Affirming the consequent

    This line of argumentation by no means proves the personal pre-existence of Jesus.

  65. @ Xavier [January 7, 2013 at 10:44 am]

    The [I]SBE quote you cite has an angel as the subject of all 3 definitions.

    Not quite. The ISBE (ANGEL, II, 3, “The Angel of the Theophany” – http://www.internationalstandardbible.com/A/angel.html), in the relevant section, speaks specifically of “the angel of Yahweh” (mal’ak YHWH). And suggests 3 possible explanations of the expression. Explanations (2) and (3) CERTAINLY NO NOT refer to an “angel” in the sense of “spiritual creature”.

    Anyways, what is your point?

    My point, as it was you who brought up Exodus 3, is to understand which meaning do YOU attribute to the expression “angel of Yahweh” there … 🙂

    MdS

  66. MdS

    The SBE quote you cite has an angel as the subject of all 3 definitions.

    Anyways, what is your point? Or is it a matter of nit-picking everything I say now?

  67. @ Xavier [January 7, 2013 at 8:05 am]

    Yes, it is an angel.

    Does it mean that (unlike me), among the three options suggested by the ISBE, you prefer (1) [“an angel with a special commission”]? If not, what? (For instance, is it just stubbornness and/or obtuseness …?)

    MdS

  68. @ Xavier [January 6, 2013 at 5:19 pm]

    It is not the Hebrew word mal’ak that you have to consider, but the expression mal’ak YHWH, that “occurs 65 times and always in the singular” (see “Angel of the Lord” at Wikipedia).

    This is what the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says regarding Angel (II, 3 > The Angel of the Theophany):

    Who is [the] theophanic angel? To this many answers have been given, of which the following may be mentioned: (1) This angel is simply an angel with a special commission; (2) He may be a momentary descent of God into visibility; (3) He may be the Logos, a kind of temporary preincarnation of the second person of the Trinity. Each has its difficulties, but the last is certainly the most tempting to the mind. Yet it must be remembered that at best these are only conjectures that touch on a great mystery. It is certain that from the beginning God used angels in human form, with human voices, in order to communicate with man; and the appearances of the angel of the Lord, with his special redemptive relation to God’s people, show the working of that Divine mode of self-revelation which culminated in the coming of the Saviour, and are thus a fore-shadowing of, and a preparation for, the full revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Further than this, it is not safe to go.

    Although they are “conjectures that touch on a great mystery “, I simply deny (3) and affirm (2).

    ONLY in the sense of the “special redemptive relation to God’s people” which “culminated in the coming of the Saviour” can it be affirmed, AFAIAC, that the mal’ak YHWH is a ” TYPE of the one to come”.

    MdS

  69. Jaco, I agree that Jesus’ exact words are NOT necessary to establish a parallel. And the passages you quoted [Comment #26] definitely establish the fact that when a prophet spoke words from God, those words would be fulfilled.
    But that does not mean the same as “my words shall NEVER pass away.”

    I notice that the fulfillment of a purpose is noted in each case:

    2Ch 36:22 . … that the word of the LORD [spoken] by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished

    Isa 55:8-11 … my word … shall accomplish that which I please …

    Mt 5:18 – For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

    It is in the verses following this one that Jesus says, several times, “You have heard … but I say to you …”
    And if you look at vv. 38-39, you will see that the words of Moses in Exodus 21:24 (words that were meant to limit excessive vengeance on the part of someone who had been wronged) had already fulfilled their purpose and were being superseded by the one who would introduce a new covenant that would change men’s hearts.

    Nothing in the passages you quoted matches the words of Jesus, recorded identically by all three synoptic writers (Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33).

    Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

  70. MdS

    BTW, I know enough Hebrew to manage the Bible, with the help of a lexicon.

    Same here.

    Ex 3.2 “angel” [malak] means an ambassador, messenger or ANGEL.

    Acts 7.30 has anggelos means messenger/ANGEL.

    Where are these EVER translated as “manifestation”?

    But even if you’re right, what is your point [if any]?

  71. @ Xavier [January 6, 2013 at 7:38 am]

    … a human being can be as God [Ex 3.16; 7.1] yet obviously not God Himself.
    BTW you know Hebrew?

    In Ex 3:16, is obvious that Moses is meant to quote YHWH Himself to ” the elders of Israel”. In Ex 7:1, YHWH establishes a parallel between his direct relationship to Moses, who, in turn is to act as prophet to Israel, and the role of Moses, and his direct relationship with his brother Aaron, who, in turn, is to act as prophet to Pharaoh.

    BTW, I know enough Hebrew to manage the Bible, with the help of a lexicon.

    …does not refer to an angel in the sense of “spiritual creature of the Lord”, BUT to the manifestation of the Lord Himself.

    Acts 7.30 [apparently refers to an angel proper].

    Then the Greek aggelos would be just as misleading as the “angel” of the English translations. Once again, no other name is pronounced by the manifestation of the LORD to refer to Himself other than YHWH (Ex 3:15).

    What [is certainly simply false of Exodus 3:2,15]?

    That they would refer to “TYPES of the one to come, one who would be exalted high above all the others”, of course. Exodus 3:2,15 refer to the manifestation of the LORD YHWH Himself.

    MdS

  72. MdS

    Jeremiah did NOT “speak as YHWH God”, BUT on behalf of YHWH God.

    Fine. The point is that a human being can be as God [Ex 3.16; 7.1] yet obviously not God Himself.
    BTW you know Hebrew?

    …does not refer to an angel in the sense of “spiritual creature of the Lord”, BUT to the manifestation of the Lord Himself.

    Acts 7.30.

    This is certainly simply false of Exodus 3:2,15

    What?

  73. @ Xavier

    [January 5, 2013 at 9:37 am] [a] Prophets [Jer 32] and [b] angels [Ex 3] often speak as YHWH God.
    [c] And Jesus himself says that his cousin the Baptizer was “more than a prophet” [Mat 11.9].
    [d] Yet all of these were TYPES of the one to come, one who would be exalted high above all the others.

    [a] Jeremiah did NOT “speak as YHWH God”, BUT on behalf of YHWH God. The litmus test is expressions like the improperly translated “I, the Lord, affirm it”, which, in fact, in the original Hebrew, is something like “Oracle of the Lord”. [Jer 32:5]

    [b] The expression improperly translated in English “The angel of the Lord appeared to [Moses] in a flame of fire from within a bush” [Ex 3:2] does not refer to an angel in the sense of “spiritual creature of the Lord”, BUT to the manifestation of the Lord Himself. No other name is pronounced by the manifestation to refer to Himself other than YHWH (Ex 3:15).

    [c] Certainly Jesus was NOT suggesting that John the Baptist was qualitatively “higher” than any prophet, so much so that, immediately after, Jesus affirms that “the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he is”.

    [d] This is certainly simply false of Exodus 3:2,15

    [January 5, 2013 at 3:48 pm] [e] Does the Arian view teach “a continuity of personhood” or..?
    [f] And how do they explain the death of this preexistent Son [cp. Rom 1.4; 5.10; 1Thess 1.10]?

    [e] According to the Arian view there certainly was “a continuity of personhood” between the “son of god” created by God as the first and most perfect of His creatures and Jesus. That is why Arianism was rightly condemned as a heresy.

    [f] I would have to inquire further, but, presumably, not differently from full-fledged “trinitarians”, for who it is not, the Son of God who literally dies on the Cross, but ONLY his “human nature”. (Yuck!)

    MdS

  74. Marg,

    But did a prophet ever make such a claim? Can you give an example?

    Is using Jesus’ exact words verbatim necessary? Or would immutibility be enough, since that is precisely what Jesus’ words imply? In that case, we do have a host of various expressions attesting to the immutibility of God’s words, regardless of the ones uttering them – whether Jesus or any other prophet:

    Deut 18:18, 22 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

    2Ch 36:22 . Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD [spoken] by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and [put it] also in writing, saying…

    Isa 55:8-11 For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it.

    Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

    Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [dia] [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

    Heb 2:3, 4 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord (Jesus), and was confirmed unto us by them that heard [him]; God also bearing [them] witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

    Certainty in uttered words does not imply that the utterer should be anything else but just that: a spokesperson for God.

  75. MdS

    To speak of “history of Jesus” implies a continuity of personhood that is simply not there.

    Does the Arian view teach “a continuity of personhood” or..?

    And how do they explain the death of this preexistent Son [cp. Rom 1.4; 5.10; 1Thess 1.10]?

  76. @ Marg (January 4, 2013 at 11:04 pm)

    [a]Good. We agree that these passages [John 1:1; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16] can be read just as they are written, and they make sense.

    [b]This post is about the logic of the New Testament; so here is the logic:
    Premise 1 – The Word became flesh in/as the man, Jesus the Messiah.
    Premise 2 – The Word was the instrument through which all of creation came into being.
    Conclusion – The role of the Word in creation is part of the history of Jesus the Messiah.

    [c] Therefore we should EXPECT the creative role of the Word to be applied to Jesus Christ – not just in John 1:10, but also in 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:4 and Hebrews 1:11-12.

    [d] The same two premises validate the saying of Jesus, recorded in all three of the Synoptic gospels:

    “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will in no way pass away.” [Matt 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33; cp. Matt 5:18]

    Such a claim from a mere man – no matter how outstanding – would be nothing but a joke. But coming from the Word of God in flesh, it carries weight.

    [a] ONLY with the clarifications that I have provided. In particular that the way Paul refers to the role of Jesus Christ in cosmic creation is ONLY proleptical (=“an anticipation of the circumstances [the Incarnation] that would make [the reference to Jesus Christ] applicable”).

    [b] I prefer to stick to your previous one:

    “… the part played by the logos in creation is part of the resume of Jesus, in/as whom the Word became flesh”.

    To speak of “history of Jesus” implies a continuity of personhood that is simply not there.

    [c] Without going into details about Hebrews, the same a.m. limitations to 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:16 apply. As for John 1:10, for the umpteenth time, I read it as EXCLUSIVELY referred to the pre-incarnated logos which, indeed, ” was in the world “, through which, indeed, “the world was created” and the presence of which the world, indeed, did not recognize.

    [d] I agree.

    MdS

  77. Marg

    But did a prophet ever make such a claim? Can you give an example?

    Prophets [Jer 32] and angels [Ex 3] often speak as YHWH God.

    And Jesus himself says that his cousin the Baptizer was “more than a prophet” [Mat 11.9].

    Yet all of these were TYPES of the one to come, one who would be exalted high above all the others.

  78. Thanks to both of you. You have a point.
    But did a prophet ever make such a claim? Can you give an example?

    Also, the Lord’s words in Matthew 5:17-47 seem to go beyond anything that any prophet ever said, or COULD say. He begins by saying he came not to destroy, but to FULFILL the law and the prophets.
    And then he says, several times, “You have read … but I say to you …”
    Is there a prophet who spoke like that?

    What I am presently hearing in the clause “heaven and earth will pass away” is this:
    The creation that the pre-incarnate Word was instrumental in bringing into existence will pass away, but “my words will never pass away.”

    Another passage that seems to go beyond anything that prophets ever said is in Matthew 11:28 –

    Come to me, all you who are weary and heavily burdened, and I will give you rest.

    Notice the first person pronouns. Did any prophet (or any angel, for that matter) ever make HIMSELF the focus of a promise like this?

  79. Hi Marg

    Such a claim from a mere man – no matter how outstanding – would be nothing but a joke. But coming from the Word of God in flesh, it carries weight.

    Not necessarily. If the words uttered belong or originate with Someone whose will and words are infallible, then anyone/anything uttering these words needn’t be recategorised based solely on their uttering these words.

    Jaco

  80. Good. We agree that these passages can be read just as they are written, and they make sense.

    This post is about the logic of the New Testament; so here is the logic:
    Premise 1 – The Word became flesh in/as the man, Jesus the Messiah.
    Premise 2 – The Word was the instrument through which all of creation came into being.
    Conclusion – The role of the Word in creation is part of the history of Jesus the Messiah.

    Therefore we should EXPECT the creative role of the Word to be applied to Jesus Christ – not just in John 1:10, but also in 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Colossians 1:16 and Hebrews 1:4 and Hebrews 1:11-12.

    The same two premises validate the saying of Jesus, recorded in all three of the Synoptic gospels:

    Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will in no way pass away.

    Such a claim from a mere man – no matter how outstanding – would be nothing but a joke. But coming from the Word of God in flesh, it carries weight.

  81. @ Marg (January 3, 2013 at 2:26 pm)

    We can fix the misunderstanding by deleting the words “enough to dispense once for all, etc.”.

    Not really. In spite of all your shenanigans, it is amply evident that you have “no doubt” as to the opposite conclusion. If you do not mind (and even if you do …), I reserve the right of showing my bias in favor of the impersonal conclusion. Without being dogmatic about it … 😉

    If you ever said that there is no SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE of the Word’s personality …

    I did, left, right and center. 🙂

    And now I will repeat, with emphasis: “It may be that John is personifying the Word.”
    It certainly MAY be. That is a safe statement, and it’s nice of you to keep repeating it.

    Good. I will not miss any opportunity, then … 😉

    … I am glad we also agree that “… regardless of whether the pre-incarnate logos was personal or impersonal, the part played by the logos in creation is part of the resume of Jesus, in/as whom the Word became flesh.”

    Once again, while I agree that “the part played by the logos in creation is part of the resume of Jesus”, I OBVIOUSLY do NOT agree that the pre-incarnated logos is exactly “the same subject” as Jesus. An impersonal entity is NOT identical to a person. Once again, the keyword (verb) is “became” (egeneto)

    That saves us the trouble of trying to make 1 Corinthians 8:6 mean anything less than what it says.

    Once again, 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”).

    Nothing less, but also nothing more … 😉

    MdS

  82. Sorry I misunderstood you, MdS. Your words …

    … should be enough to dispense once and for with the idea of a “personal pre-incarnated word”.

    … imply that the pre-incarnated Word could NOT have been a person. I’m glad that isn’t what you meant. We can fix the misunderstanding by deleting the words “enough to dispense once for all, etc.”.

    If you ever said that there is no SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE of the Word’s personality, that changes things entirely. You may (or may not) be right.

    And now I will repeat, with emphasis: “It may be that John is personifying the Word.”
    It certainly MAY be. That is a safe statement, and it’s nice of you to keep repeating it.

    In the meantime, I am glad we also agree that

    … regardless of whether the pre-incarnate logos was personal or impersonal, the part played by the logos in creation is part of the resume of Jesus, in/as whom the Word became flesh.

    That saves us the trouble of trying to make 1 Corinthians 8:6 mean anything less than what it says.

  83. @ Marg (January 3, 2013 at 9:46 am)

    You have transformed into a heavy syllogistic argument what, in my original (parenthetical) sentence, was a comment on the use of the images used to the refer to the pre-incarnated logos (and also, as you rightly remark, to Jesus, in his life and even post-resurrection). The point, once again, is that those images do not imply that the word/life/light was personal before the Incarnation in/as Jesus.

    I have NEVER affirmed that “the pre-incarnate Word cannot be a person”. What I have repeatedly affirmed is that there is NO SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE for that. What I have repeatedly affirmed is that there is unquestionable scriptural evidence for the word/life/light becoming a person in/as Jesus of Nazareth (John 1:14).

    And may I remind you, for the umpteenth time, that it was you who affirmed that “It may be that John is personifying the Word in the first five verses of his gospel” (“Dale Tuggy interviewed by J. Dan Gill (Dale)”, Marg, #4 of December 20, 2012 at 9:21 am).

    MdS

  84. Marg

    Premise 1: Jesus (as/in whom the Word became flesh) is called “the Word” in Rev. 19:13. He called himself “the light …” (John 8:12), and “… the life” (John 11:25).
    Premise 2: Jesus is a person.
    Conclusion: There exists at least one person who is described with the images of Word, life, and light.

    Images are not persons. Jesus is what ALL those “images” became.

    Is it really so hard?

  85. Dale – I have just listened again to your “Crash course in logic,” and I thank you again. It allows me to use the language of logic in testing a comment that was made on the post “Dale Tuggy interviewed by J. Dan Gill”.
    The comment was:

    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”.

    That statement implies both a premise and a conclusion.
    Premise: The images of word, life and light are all used in connection with the pre-incarnate Word.
    Conclusion: The pre-incarnate Word cannot be a person.

    Given that the premise is true (John 1:4), does it follow that the conclusion is also true?
    Not without adding a condition – a second premise. It is true if and only if those same images are never used of a person.

    That leads to a counter argument.
    Premise 1: Jesus (as/in whom the Word became flesh) is called “the Word” in Rev. 19:13. He called himself “the light …” (John 8:12), and “… the life” (John 11:25).
    Premise 2: Jesus is a person.
    Conclusion: There exists at least one person who is described with the images of Word, life, and light.

    Therefore, the premise cited in the first argument does not justify the conclusion that the preincarnate Word cannot be a person. That argument is not valid.

  86. Dale
    (i)I’m not very computer-literate … is there any way I can copy your three part presentation (above) onto a DVD ?

    (ii) I think you are being very generous when you say that there are some verses in the scriptures in which Christ is referred to as ‘God”.
    Everything I have looked at in this regard. falls apart.!
    Much of the confusion (as you say) results from the definition of ‘Lord” also-
    (a) In 1 Tim 3v16 “God” was a later (Byzantine) insert
    (b) 2 Peter 1 v1&2 – v1 is at variance with 1v8,1v14 1v16 – and Christs explicit statements
    (c) 1 John 3v16 . the word “God’ is not in the Greek
    (d) Acts 7v59 the word “God ‘ is not in the Greek. Take a look at Zondervan Greek Interlinear.
    note that the English words “on, God” do not have any Greek words above them – just a blank!
    Some people will go to any lengths to carry on this nonsense!

    Blessings

    John

  87. Greg – I agree with what your conclusions about the one true God and his Son.

    Certainly, the Messiah had to be a true man. Hebrews 2 makes that perfectly plain. He “shared” in our “flesh and blood,” so that he could identify with us, die for our sins, free us from the bondage of death, and restore us to fellowship with God.

    But I kind of like the idea of the Word as an “interface” – ambiguous though that may be. It is an interesting idea, and it makes quite a bit of sense. I might not word it in quite the same way, but I can follow your reasoning, and I like it.

    Don’t stop reasoning. And don’t stop TESTING.

  88. Hi Greg,
    You make many valid points.!!
    If Christ were someone other than a human being, all of the suffering would mean nothing.!!
    A ‘super-human’ being could ‘tune-out’ and remain impervious to human suffering!
    One sees this sort of thing in childrens movies all the time!
    Blessings
    John

  89. Marg,

    I have watched these videos before. Very interesting, and instructive. It’s clear to me that the One True God is the Father of the Messiah, Yeshua of Nazareth. Yeshua is not himself the One True God. God is not a man (Numbers 23:19, I Samuel 15:29), but the Messiah is a man (Acts 17:31). I think the difficulty in defining the “Godhead” (for lack of a better word) has something to do with the fact that there is something rather than nothing — a universe filled with stuff that is not God. I think the Word of God is the interface between the transcendent and that which we perceive. There has to be some connection or point of contact between the “other” that is God in his essential being, and his creation, and I think that is to be found in the Word. The Word is God’s outreach to us, his attempt to come near to us. And the Word was made flesh — and this was the ultimate uniting of the uncreated and the created. But I believe that Yeshua was a genuine human being, not some kind of Greco-Roman God-Man who was born half-god and half-man. I think the New Testament makes it clear that it is of the utmost importance that Yeshua is a human being like all other human beings (Hebrews 2:17). He had to be like us to identify with us, and if was also the Lord God he could not identify with us. God is one, and the Messiah is someone other than that one God.

  90. One sentence in Part 3 caught my attention, and I went back to hear it again. Dale quotes1 Corinthians 8:6, stressing the contrast between the prepositions: “There is one God FROM whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord Jesus Christ THROUGH whom are all things and through whom we exist.” The contrast is clear.

    Then Dale asks, “Does this have to do with the original creation or with the original creation and the new creation that Paul talks about?”

    For the purposes of his lecture, it doesn’t really matter; but the two options are intriguing. Which is in view? The original creation [only], or the original creation AND the new creation?

    It seems to me that the context points toward the latter. If the original creation ALONE were in view, that would leave the future for the idols to claim some credit for.

    But Paul is contending that an idol is nothing at all. ALL THINGS – past, present AND future – are from the one God, through the one Lord. Idols have “no real existence”.

    That certainly harmonizes with the view held by early writers who believed in the kind of “trinity” that Dale defines at the end of the session:
    one true God, the Father;
    the Son of God; and
    the Spirit of God.

  91. Greg – it would be worth your while to listen to this “crash course” in logic. I just finished listening to it again, and thoroughly enjoyed it – again.

    I didn’t try to memorize all the equations, but the LOGIC is undeniable. And that is a real help in understanding what the NT says about God and his Son.

    Total time, for all three parts, is 45 minutes. And if you don’t want to listen to it all at once, you can listen to it in individual sessions, fifteen-minutes at a time.

  92. Pingback: God and his Son: the Logic of the New Testament – conference presentation (Dale) » trinities

  93. Hi SMW
    The (alleged )’hymn’ quoted is easy to understand.

    Paul was drawing parallels with Genesis.

    The first Adam – was made in the image of Almighty God – but his sin was to try to equate himself with God.
    Genesis 3v25 states “Ye shall be like Gods” (if you eat the fruit) and have eternal life.

    The SECOND ADAM made no such mistakes.- far from trying to snatch equality with God and disobeying Gods command the verses speak of Christ humbling himself and becoming obedient -even to the point of crucifixion.
    Christ ’emptied’ himself of his human ego
    For this GOD has elevated him to Lord and Messiah.

    Interestingly Paul uses the term “form of God’ – not God.
    This is where the ‘gymnastics ‘begin – if one cares to do so.

    Best Wishes

    John

  94. I have finally taken the time to listen to this. Thank you, Dale, for these clear (and free!!!) lectures on logic. I made notes.

    Gordon Fee was the only author you quoted that I am familiar with. Some of his writing is wonderful. But as you pointed out in your quotation from
    “Theophilus Lindsey”,

    …very rarely is there found candour enough in the human breast, for a man to recede from opinions, for the defence of which he has drawn his pen, and been highly applauded, however strong and demonstrative be the evidence to the contrary that is presented to him.

    Actually, I think it’s something we ALL – and not just professionals – should be constantly on guard against.

Comments are closed.