God and his Son: the logic of the New Testament

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.

@ 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

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.

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

John

Think this has been posted but here it goes again…

http://inthenameofwhowhat.blogspot.com/2010/11/hebrews-110-and-age-to-come-reload.html

@ Marg

This is just a reminder of my comment, #48 of January 8, 2013 at 7:00 (https://trinities.org/blog/archives/4054/comment-page-1#comment-97010) am addressed to you …

MdS

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?

@ 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

@ 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

@ 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.

@ 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

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.

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].

[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? 😉

@ 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

@ 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

@ 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 🙂

@ 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

@ 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

@ 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.

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.

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.

MdS

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

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?

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.

MdS

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

Not literally of course..?

CORRECTION: Prudence.

😛

MdS

managed to became immune to these “fatal” objections

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

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.

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].

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?

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*

Xavier

Really. Really. 🙂

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.

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?

MdS

Yes, it is an angel. :/

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.

@ 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

@ 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

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]?

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.

Jaco

You mean like when the prophets of the OT spoke?

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.