Kermit Zarley on “My Lord and my God.”

MS

I am not taking issue with Paul’s use of koine Greek – though I don’t know if he was an expert. I am taking issue with our and, in particular, my understanding of the Greek in this text.

Greg

MS – Perhaps a reading of Acts 10:37, 38 re His anointing?

MS –

With all due respect, my genuine effort is to not do anything except read the straight text in a given context. There is not a given context in Acts10:37, 38 so I take the primary text at face value – Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit. How do you think God could make that more clear?? The larger context of scripture fits this scenario perfectly in every respect. Jesus became the Messiah formally and the Messianic ministry began (note the following miracles…:-) ).

Does this make sense?

I agree re the two form statements are absolute parallels – that was my point earlier. Whatever the sense “form of slave” (essentially position with functional emphasis in larger context) must necessarily be “form of God” (essentially position with functional emphasis – even as the larger context of all of scripture repeatedly confirms this – Jesus most emphatically in John).

BTW – I am unclear if you maintain a Biblical Unitarian theology? I know Sean maintains Arian and Roman maintains trin.

MS

We share the exact same theo/christological model (essentially dynamic monarchianism if you maintain a virgin birth – adoptionist monarchianism if you do not. I would re-express my Pneumatology in strictly Biblical terms which does not include “arms” but I understand the figurative nature of the language.

I did not mean that “form of slave” and “form of God” are intrinsically synonymous – only t.hat the word “form” would – regardless of related prepositional phrase

re Dynamic Monarchianism and Adoptionism
Can you provide a list of scholars (vs Wiki and Encyclopeida Brit – which I believe is still in error – though I did have them edit out the heretical statement they made re monarchianism… I take a wee bit of pride in that!

re Virgin Birth
I acknowledge the virgin birth based on total Biblical authority. I question the virgin birth as genuine because it is solely seen in two texts – no mention in Mark… Kind of odd. Not in John. And, as far as I know, never once mentioned by Paul – indicating that he did not know about it… I may be wrong – but this just seems a little weird to omit one of the greatest events of human history from even one scant reference in the entire Pauline corpus…. Not in Peter or Hebrews either. In fact the Hebrews indicates that we don’t know the lineage of the Messiah…based on statements regarding Melchizedek.

I am wondering if this was part of the stories floating around about Jesus after the fact that was collated into the books that we know call the Gospels

Regardless, this does reflect early church belief.

I have seen a bit of what you are saying.

Frankly we have no idea what Theodotus said – no extant or even copies of autographa – but the fragment above makes sense as a system – though I am loss as to why he was born of a virgin – but later needed to be “adopted”…

No matter – this is not really relevant to me. What is really relelvant is “the MAN who told you the truth that He heard from God”. Now THAT is relevant!!!!! Oh yes, and that resurrection thing!!

MS – BTW – do we agree, based on clear scripture, that Jesus anointing occurred at His baptism??? Yes? I would like to see some progress here…:-)

Acknowledged. We have achieved agreement…:-)!!!

While I acknowledge the NT teaches the virgin birth (Mt, Lk), I have become uncertain that this was the earliest teaching… but it really does not matter to me one way or the other. What matters is His resurrection!!!!!!!!!!

I am good with all that!

Rivers

My recollection of Greek grammar is that the particple tense is seen in the context of the main verb in the sense – which in this instance is aorist – past tense… Yes?? Therefore, the reference is something that Jesus did in the past and was done with – evidently his life on earth and more specifically during His ministry.

re: exaltation
How does this relate to who was seen in His transfiguration??

re Morphe
I acknowledge the basal sense as being very uni-dimensional. It seems there must be a more conceptual sense in light of the manner Paul is using it here… Thanks for Phil3:21 – powerful vs! BTW – note that v20 shows that our citizenship is not as an American to take dominion over America for Jesus…:-)

?? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ???????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ???,

The phrase en morphe seems pretty tightly attached to hegesato… I personally would see them at the same time period – I can’t see that as any other than the natural reading which is a basic hermenutic for me (you know, “man” means “man”…:-)

Great questions – esp. the second!

I don’t have a problem with Jesus having both positions/functions – in the position/function of God he also was in the position/function of a slave.

As you can see – I am using morphe as best rendered by “position with strong emphasis on function” based on both the context and the nature of what a slave actually is – a position with a set of functions. I fully acknowledge that this is an unusual use of the term morphe. I don’t know if I have run into it at any time and I have not looked at it closely. The sense basic is that there is this sort of outward structure of God/Slave with an inner essence of position/function. At present, that is the only way I can make sense of the passage and context.

This ended after Jesus’ death/resurrection – hence the aorist tense.

Rivers

Good questions.

re Morphe
I am not keying on the function aspect – but the form of position. Function however is inherent and fills the meaning of position. A position with no function is like a balloon with no air (semi-reasonable analogy).

The basis for this conception is the context and particularly I am keying on the word “slave” and then “form of slave”. What does it mean to be in “the form of a slave”? If we understanding the sense of that phrase – we can work our way back to “form of God”. Yes? Does Jesus just “look” like a slave but isn’t really? It is apparent that Jesus is NOT a slave but He appears as a slave – yes? Just how does He appear as a slave? Well, what is a slave? A slave is a social position WITH a function. What is the whole context about? The context is about function – the function of how we treat one another…. Despite Jesus being the form of God (albeit not God), He took on the form of a slave (albeit not a slave), THEREFORE, you pathetic little Christian maggots (vs form of God) should at least be able to nice to one another….and at least talk to one another….. (OK, the maggot thing was a slight embellishment – but makes the point…:-) ). The whole context is the call to us based on the example of Jesus who was so high and debased himself so significantly – thus we also can at least make a little effort… Yes??

re dual nature
Because the dual form is taught – and the dual nature is not taught. I do not have any problem with the concept of a dual nature intrinsically – if it was formally, repeatedly and clearly taught. It isn’t anywhere – even once – remotely (except in the minds of men who are unable to grasp basic Biblical concepts).

… a Present Participle will sometimes appear with Aorist verbs in an historical narrative context

Presumably Rivers is referring to the Present Active Participle ??????? and to the successive Aorist Deponent Indicative ???????. What Rivers perhaps doesn’t know (or maybe it doesn’t jibe with his wish to make true his principle whereby “[a] Present Active Participle usually simply refers to something that is characteristic of a person at the time of writing”) is that when a PAP is coordinated with a Verb in its Aorist tense, it accords with that tense: very much like the English Gerund. So, this is the only grammatically correct translation of ?? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ???????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ???:

… who though he exists existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped … (Philippians 2:6)

… if you take “existing in the form of God” (Philippians 2:6) and “the form of a servant” (Philippians 2:7-8) as charactristic of Jesus Christ at the same period of time, then how do you explain that Jesus had two “forms” during time of his earthly ministry

The point of the whole Philippians 2:6-8 is NOT a matter of “same period of time”, BUT of the ????? ???? being fundamental (because of his incarnation and of his resurrection) as opposed to his ????? ?????? being temporary (limited to his successful earthly mission).

I will simply point out the most evident misunderstandings.

Present Participles are not always dependent upon Aorist verbs.

Correct. The principle of a PAP agreeing with the tense of the main (Indicative) verbe with which it is co-ordinated. So, if the PAP is coordinated with a Present, the PAP should be understood to be referring to the present, if it is coordinated with Perfect or Aorist, the PAP should be understood to be referring to the past. Oh, BTW, in English Present Participle is the same as Gerund, but it doesn’t mean that it expresses a present situation/tense (e.g. on arriving, the guests were greeted warmly; on arriving, the guests will be greeted warmly)

It makes perfectly good sense to interpret the language to mean that
Jesus Christ attained “the form of God” (Philippians 2:6) after he was
“exalted” (Philippians 2:9-11) following his “obedience unto death”
(Philippians 2:8).

No, it does not. See above. Precisely because “a PAP [???????] is coordinated with a Verb in its Aorist tense [???????], it accords with that tense”. Sorry, get over it: your “interpretation” is wrong, grammatically, conceptually, scripturally, theologically.

Greg seems to be perfectly aware of what you obviously are not. But you prefer to put your “exegetical” cart before text, language, grammar, everything … a sad case …

As for “go[ing] on reading it the way you want to read it”, that applies to Rivers with a vengeance …

The Prologue to the GoJ (John 1:1-18), and also 1 John 1:1-4 (which vistually identifies ????? and ???) present to us the ????? in a way similar to the Greek philosophy of the past and also contemporary (Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, Philo), but without depending on the Greek philosophical approach, in fact depending on the OT for the concept of the dabar (see Deut 33:27; Job 40:9; Psalm 33:6; Psalm 119:89; Isaiah 53:1 – cp. John 12:38). Please spare me the fastidious comment that Isaiah used the Hebrew word sh?muw`ah and the translation in the GoJ ako?. What matters is that, in both, we find God’s “arm”.

As Rivers may know, the Hebrew language does not accommodate for abstractions, so an “essential divine attribute” will be rendered in Hebrew by the concrete word “arm”.

Miguel,

It’s incorrect to say that “the Hebrew language does not accommodate abstractions.” There are many abstract concepts communicated throughout the Hebrew scriptures (e.g. love, good, evil). Every language known to humanity has the capacity to communicate both concrete and abstract things.

It’s also naive to suggest that the use of the Hebrew word for “arm” has anything to do with your theory about “essential divine attributes.” For example, the implication of Genesis 19:16 is that the angels (ALHYM) who delivered Lot and his family from Sodom had arms and hands with which to “seize the hands of Lot and his family.”

Thus, there is no reason to suggest that God’s “arm” must be interpreted as an intangible “essential divine attribute.” The reason there is anthropomorphic language in scripture is because Adam was made in the “image” (physical shape) of “God” (ALHYM) which was manifested as “male” heavenly visitors (Genesis 18:1-2).

Miquel,

It isn’t necessary to answer your question about “why angels have a physical shape.” It’s simply a matter of fact because we accept the historical testimony of scripture that such was the case when they appeared to the father of Israel (e.g. Genesis 18:1-2).

Yes, of course, the word “arm” can be used figuratively. I’m just suggesting that the physical appearance of the angels (ALHYM) who appeared throughout the history of Israel like “men” was probably the reason that human features and functions were attributed to God.

The Hebrew words translated “image” and “likeness” in Genesis 1:26 certainly don’t mean “reason, freedom, will” as you claim. You are just making that definition up without any usage whatsoever to substantiate it.

Greg,

With respect to the meaning of MORFH (“form”), I wouldn’t read too much into it. The majority of the evidence of how this term was used by the biblical writers (both LXX and NT) is that it simply means the visible, physical shape of something and how it appears to the eye.

Paul often used another word EIXON (“image”) that is similar, but would refer to a representation of the physical appearance of something. For example, the “image” of Caesar imprinted on a coin (Matthew 22:20-21).

Thus, I think it’s likely that Paul used MORFH in Philippians 2:6-8 because he was specifically contrasting the two physical appearances of Jesus before and after the resurrection (as in Philippians 3:21).

Miquel,

Paul explained what he meant in right in the context where it says “made in the likeness of humanity” and “found in the appearance of a man” and ‘becoming obedient to death” (Philippians 2:7-8). Paul also later referred to a distinction between his own “body of humility” and “the glorious body” of the risen Jesus (Philippians 3:21).

Miguel,

I answered your question. Please read Philippians 2:7-8 where “form of a slave” is elaborated as “the appearance of a man.” The contrast is between “the form of God” and “the form of a slave.”

If you take the time to look up passages that speak of God’s glorious appearance (e.g. Isaiah 6:1) and compare them to other passages that speak of how an human “servant” appeared (e.g. Isaiah 52:13-14) the difference will become apparent.

Miquel,

I’m point out the way Paul uses the different words in Philippians 2:7-8 to elaborate on what he means by “the form of a servant.” That is how context helps with interpretation.

There is no doubt that MORFH means “physical appearance” when it is used in scripture. This is evident in Mark 16:12, as well as numerous uses in the LXX. If you do the research, you’ll discover it for yourself as well.

Miguel,

I think you are struggling to distantiate yourself and to consider the exegetical evidence from other perspectives. You keep asserting your own views and simply ridiculing others who don’t agree with you.

A cavalier dismissal of evidence that is presented from alternative viewpoints is not sufficient. You need to demonstrate that you can provide some kind of substantial exegesis that favors your own views.

Miguel,

Ridiculing others and then restating your own opinions is not considered a substantial exegetical defense of your position. If you believe that John 1:14 means “an essential divine attribute turned into a human being” then present us with an exegesis of that particular text that demonstrates why your interpretation has any plausibility.

Miguel,

What do you see in the context of John 1:14 that would have anything related to the genealogical context of Matthew 1:18-23 and Luke 1:35? Where is there any indication that the context of John 1:14 is dealing with the historical time of the “birth” of Jesus Christ?

I think it’s a mistake to link the events in those three passages if you can’t demonstrate that the historical context of John 1:14 is the same as the other two texts.

Miguel,

You do need to demonstrate that the context of John 1:14 is the same as Mathew 1 and Luke 1 or else you entire interpretation of John 1:14 fails. A careless disregard for context isn’t going to help you convince anyone to take your interpretations seriously.

Miguel,

Please stop evading my request that you present evidence in the context of John 1:14 that is it referring to anything related to time of Jesus’ birth. If you can’t do that then there’s no reason for anyone to conclude that Luke 1:35 and Matthew 1:18-23 and John 1:14 are referring to the same events.

The reason I don’t find your views persuasive is because they don’t hold up to basic exegetical scrutiny. You can fantasize all day about “essential divine attributes changing into human beings” but that isn’t sufficient. All that matters is evidence. Evidence is established by sound exegesis.

Miguel,

Simply asserting that the Prologue is about the Genesis creation and the Incarnation is not sufficient. You need to be able to provide exegesis to substantiate your interpretation of the language. The reason we are all having this conversation is because not everyone shares your opinion about the intent of the Prologue.

Miguel,

Later in the context of the Prologue, the writer explained that what “came (EGENETO) through” Jesus Christ was “grace and truth” (John 1:17). This happened after Moses had already given the Law which led up to the baptism of John (Luke 16:16). Thus, what “came (EGENETO) through” the word (John 1:3) is not probably referring to the Genesis creation.

Moreover, it’s evident throughout the rest of the 4th Gospel that the writer identified “all things” with what God the Father gave to Jesus Christ to disclose and accomplish throughout his public ministry (John 4:25; John 5:20; John 13:3; John 14:16; John 15:15: John 16:15; John 17:10).

Miguel,

What your missing is that there are ZERO times that “all” (PANTA) explicitly refers the anything that happened during the time of Genesis. Thus, it shouldn’t even be considered an option in John 1:3 either.

Miguel,

The term PANTA (“all”) can refer to anything (depending upon the context). There’s no reason that “all things” must mean “the Genesis creation” in John 1:3. The writer didn’t even use the usual biblical Greek words for “create” (KTIZW) or “make” (POIEW) anywhere in the context.

If you think “all things” refers to the Genesis creation, then you need to provide evidence from evidence. Since “all things” is a general term that is always open to interpretation, I think it’s wise to consider how “all things” is used throughout the rest of the 4th Gospel in order to understand in what sense the writer himself may have been using it in John 1:3.

What is more critical is – what in God’s name does it mean to be “in the form of God”? What does God look like.

Rivers – Clearly the context shows that the “form of God” PRECEDED the “form of a servant”. That is the only natural reading…. So you have lost me a bit on the pre- / post- resurrection thing.

Rivers

Thanks for the input. I am not satisfied with how far either of us gotten here. I am satisfied there is nothing here re Jesus being a divine person or pre-incarnate or any other such silliness.

Here is my challenge regarding the pre-/post- resurrection thing. Here is the text in English

who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

Clearly the natural flow is that THOUGH He was in the form of God – He emptied Himself in some fashion and took on the Form of a Servant. Essentially the Form of God PRECEDED the Form of a Servant which made the act quite the big deal because he had this grand form – yet condescended to taking on a lowly form. Otherwise the meaningfulness is quite lost here.

Interestingly – in reading carefully – the text never says he emptied himself of the form of God – simply that he emptied himself… perhaps by taking on the form of a servant.

I continue to see that in appearance of a slave – meaning, in essence, having the position – hence the function of a slave – not as the core concept of form – but as the core concept of “the form of a slave”. Does that help a little??

Rivers

Here is the SBL text –

???? ???????????? 2:6-7a SBL Greek New Testament (SBLGNT)

6 ?? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ???????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ???, 7 ???? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?????,

I see that you want the PP uparkon to occur AFTER the not grasping of equality. Do I have that right?

The bottom line on the grammar issue is that we should actually refer to a secular Greek scholar. My memory serves me pretty well that the grammar I was taught essentially necessitates that the participle is bound by the main verb… I am completely open to reality though.

What I am loss is why you want the form of servant to be antecedent to the form of God (excepting your exegesis) since the entire and if I may kindly say patently obvious sense is that DESPITE have equality with God – he emptied Himself – DESPITE having the form of God, he took the form of a servant. I cannot imagine any other sense would be imagined and I don’t think anyone reads it any other way that I know of.

I would argue that Jesus Christ didn’t have “the form of God” until after his exaltation (Philippians 2:9-11) when he received his “glorified body” (Philippians 3:21) and had become “the radiance of God’s glory” (Hebrews 1:3). (…)

The term MORFH (translated “form”) that Paul used refers to the physical (visible) appearance of someone (e.g. Mark 16:12). Paul seems to be contrasting it with “the form (MORFH) of a servant, appearance of a man” in the following verses (Philippians 2:7-8).

This is the Greek …

?????? ?????? …, ????????? ???????? (Philippians 2:7)

… that Rivers is excerpting and “translating” as “the form (MORFH) of a servant, appearance of a man” …

Yes, definitely, Rivers “favor[s] translating some texts a certain way … because [he] ha[s] a different perspective” …

I quoted from the NASB translation …

Even before checking, I was sure that something as clumsy as “appearance of a man” couldn’t possibly be the NASB translation. Here it is, anyway:

… but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. (Philippians 2:7 – NASB)

“Not necessarily, there are “unitarians”, like the “owner of this blog”,
whose understanding of “unitarianism” is so … er … broad as to
include Subordinationism.”

This is precisely why I typically use “Socinian” to distinguish Unitarians who accept preexistence from those who do not, but I stopped doing that here because of the whining. Maybe I should just ignore the whining and go back to my preferred shorthand!

~Sean

“P.S. What sort of “complaints”, BTW?”

Rivers objected because he doesn’t subscribe to the views of Socinus, and he continued to object to the appellation even after I explained that I was using it merely as a form of shorthand for those who reject the proposed real personal preexistence of the one who came to be known as Jesus Christ. I even explained that I’m not technically an “Arian”, but that I am content with being so described as long as all are aware that I don’t subscribe to all the views of Arius, as far as they can be ascertained, but that I am “Arian” in the sense that I believe that the one who became Jesus was originally God’s first created being.

~Sean

“The only key opinion of his that seems (seems …) relatively clear to
me is that Jesus’ Sonship has essentially to do with ‘heritage’.”

And while you may disagree, I think that’s a non-starter in answering the puzzle we find at John 5. Just put yourself back in the 1st Century and imagine that you were in the crowd when Jesus called God his “own Father”. Would your immediate natural inference be that he was claiming that he would inherit all of God’s belongings?

Even if that’s an inference that a systemic theologian might make based on the entirety of the NT, I doubt that it’s the first thing that would have come to the mind of a 1st Century Jew. Rights of inheritance served a natural purpose in the context of a human family where the father would eventually die and wish to leave his offspring a means of life and sustenance, but no Jew expected God to pass away someday.

It’s an interesting proposal, and certainly as worthy of consideration as any other, but I think it necessarily has to take a back seat to something that’s ultimately a better fit, e.g. the agency paradigm.

~Sean

“We know that the “inheritance” issue was the motivation of the Jews
of the apostolic era because Jesus explicitly illustrated that the Jewish leaders wanted to kill him because they knew that “the son” was the “heir” who had the “inheritance” (Matthew 21:31-39). The only way Jesus could be God’s own “heir” was to have “God as his own Father” (John 5:18). That is why his claim to be “the son of God” is what got him the death sentence (John 19:7). Jesus also claimed to the be the son of God in John 10:33-36 and John 8:54 where the Jews wanted to stone him.”

First, again, you’re talking past me and not addressing the points I made. That’s an odd way to carry on a “conversation”.

Second, you’re ignoring what the Bible explicitly tells us about the reason Jesus’ opponents had him killed: Because Jesus’ claim to be “Son of God” was ipso facto a claim to be Messiah (Mark 14:61).

In Matthew 21, Jesus’ adversaries don’t want to kill him because he is “heir of God’s belongings” and therefore “equal with God”, but because the parable demonstrated that they (the adversaries) were NOT going to be heirs of the Kingdom, but that God would destroy them. As the very account you’ve referenced clearly says:

43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit [the people are heirs]. 44 Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.” 45 When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus’ parables, THEY KNEW HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THEM. 46 They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet.”

~Sean

According to Mark 14:61-62, “the Christ, the son of God” is to be the one who inherits the world.

This is the cited text:

61 But he was silent and did not answer. Again the high priest questioned him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 “I am,” said Jesus, “and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

(Mark 14:61-62; cp Ps 110:1, Dan 7:13)

There is no direct reference to any “inheritance” in the above.

To the question of Caiaphas (who was certainly using the expression “Son of the Blessed One” as equivalent to Messiah, Anointed King), Jesus unexpectedly answers proclaiming that he is NOT the awaited Messiah in the sense of “powerful conqueror who will restore Israel”, BUT in the sense of Daniel’s “son of man”.

1. In Mark 14:62, Jesus is alluding directly to Ps 110:1 and Dan 7:13. There is no need assume that it was an indirect reference, mediated by the author of the Gospel of Mark via Hebrews 1:2-4. It may help your theory, but it is … pleonastic.

2. Perhaps, in your hasty and superficial reading of Genesis 48, it has escaped you that both right and left are mentioned, with reference to Jacob and his grand-children, Joseph’s sons:

And Joseph took them both, Ephraim with his right hand toward Israel’s left hand, and Manasseh with his left hand toward Israel’s right hand, and brought them near him. (Genesis 48:13)

3. While the Lord’s “right hand” is most certainly the figure of His power (and I don’t need to remind you how I consider these anthorpomorphic images essential), there is not a speck of reference to “sitting at God’s right hand”, not to mention “heritage” in Exodus 15:6. Botched.

4. You are reading Jesus’ unmistakable reference to Daniel 7:13-14 the wrong way round. While Jesus referred to himself as the “son of man” more frequently that as “son of God” (80 instances vs less than 30), until the trial in front of Caiaphas, Jesus’ use of the expression had always been rather ambiguous. Not so in Mark 14:62 (and Matthew 26:64).

I don’t think Mark 14:61-62 should be isolated. It still fits with the rest of the evidence.

Not really. Once again: in Mark 14:62, Jesus is alluding directly to Ps 110:1 and Dan 7:13. There is no need assume that it was an indirect reference, mediated by the author of the Gospel of Mark via Hebrews 1:2-4.

It may help your theory, but it is … pleonastic.

“I presume that by ‘puzzle we find at John 5′, you refer, most of all, to
John 5:16-30, where the relationship between Father and Son is argued
for in detail by Jesus.”

John 5 is a case where the words “The smarter you are, the more you recognize how much you *don’t* know” should probably be kept in mind by over-confident theologians, some of whom are sure, probably without warrant, that they’ve unraveled the conundrum.

There is the question of whether John was merely stating a fact when he said that Jesus made himself equal with God, or whether John meant to simply represent the thought of Jesus’ adversaries. Rivers is sure the former is correct (Rivers is “sure” of everything he asserts), while I side with Adela Yarbro-Collins in suspecting that the later is probably correct.

There is the question that emerges in light of the historical observation (made by James McGrath, Margaret Davies, and others) that sonship didn’t connote equality in the ancient world. Someone might respond that the inequality of a son to his father in the ancient world was functional, not ontological, as all human sons were equal to their fathers in that they are all “fully human”. While true, that observation only has applicability if Jesus were a *literal* son of God, which clearly seems impossible, as I’ve explained in other posts (I understand that you disagree, and that’s fine).

There is the huge question of what exactly Jesus’ opponents thought he was claiming by calling God “my Father” and behaving in a manner that seemed to them (whether in earnest or via pretense) to go over the boundary of what was appropriate. Did they “hear” a claim of ontological equality, such as literal sons share with their fathers? Did they “hear” a claim of functional equality, e.g. a implicit claim to be the Messiah, who would be “equal with God” to whatever extent God as the principal chose to invest his agent with authority? Did they assume that Jesus was one of the bene-elohim gone mad, or did their minds float straight to pagan categories so that they thought Jesus was claiming to be a sort of Jewish Hercules?

My personal view is that J.C. O’Neill was on to something when he pointed out that focus is often put on the wrong part of the words “making himself equal with God” by most commentators. Jesus’ equality stemmed from his Messiahship, which was the equality that an agent has with his principal. It’s a limited functional equality, not an ontological equality. By calling God his “own Father” Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah in an indirect way, and by making such a claim while claiming to have the full authority of God, illegitimately in the minds of his opponents, Jesus was “making himself” God. In other words, the behavior that his opponents felt made him liable to death wasn’t because he was equal with God as his Messiah, but because he claimed this status for himself, unjustly in their minds.

Regarding Rivers’s “inheritance” view, I’ll simply repeat the detail that I don’t think you and he have taken into account adequately: While that’s an inference that a systemic theologian might make based on the NT, just as it’s a notion that could and did occur to some who wrote with the guidance of God’s holy spirit, it’s not an idea that would have occurred to Jesus’ followers or his enemies in a real historical situation in the ancient world that unfolded ‘in the moment’. Why? Again, because rights of inheritance as they applied to human father/son relationships wouldn’t be naturally thought to apply to a relationship where God is the Father and a man the Son for the simple reason that no Jew expected God to die, necessitating that he hand over his belongings to another for the good and perpetuation of the family.

~Sean

“I think Paul explained how the equality of a father and a son was
understood by the Jews in Galatians 4:1-3 and related it more
specifically to ‘heirship’ and not simply ‘sonship.’ Paul said ‘the
heir owns everything that belongs to his father.'”

First, Galatians 4 doesn’t say that “heirship” is a reason that Jesus is “equal with God”, much less *the* reason.

Second, it is a HUGE exegetical blunder to read implications that you think you see in Paul into John 5.

Third, you are merely talking past me, and not interacting with the point I made. Is that your intent?

Fourth, “Son of God” = “heir of God’s belongings” was not a usage that would have occurred to folks in the historical moment, because such a conceptual category of “Son of God” did not exist at the time the disputes between Jesus and his adversaries occurred. As Alan Richardson points out in his Introduction to Theology, there were four ways in which the idea of sonship of God applied in the Hebrew Bible, which represent the thought categories that were available to the people vis a vis the notion of a “Son of God” in a Jewish setting:

1. Angels (see Gen. 6.2; Job 1:6; 38:7)

2. The Israelite King (see 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7, cf also Ps. 89:26f.)

3. Righteous men (see , Ecclus. 4:10; Wisd. 2:18; Pss. Sol. 13:8;

17:30; 18:4; Luke 6:35; Matt. 27:43)

4. The Nation of Israel (Ex. 4:22; Hos. 11:1)

Thus, “heir of God’s belongings” was not something that would naturally occur to the people in the historical moment. That sort of inference was born from reflection after the fact, once the totality of who and what Jesus was became more and more clear in light of guidance from God’s holy spirit.

Finally, which of the Father’s belongings will the Son get to keep forever in light of 1 Cor 15:28?

~Sean

“I agree that “son of God” is a term that is applicable to many others
besides Jesus Christ. I cited Romans 8:19 which plainly refers to all
of the disciples of Jesus being revealed as “sons of God” when they are
“redeemed” and “adopted” at the resurrection.”

You continue to ignore the problem with which you’ve been presented, along with crucial questions that you’ve been asked. I guess we’re done here.

~Sean

“I think I’ve addressed all of your objections is specific detail. If
you don’t like the answers, then go on believing whatever you think is a
better option. I’m not obligated to give you the answers you want to
hear or to convince of you of anything.”

No, you haven’t. You haven’t addressed the historical problem at all, and you’ve ignored some questions completely, e.g. “What belongings will Jesus get to keep forever as heir in light of 1 Cor 15:28?”

Jesus’ adversaries reacted to Jesus ‘in the moment’, and “Son of God = heir to God’s belongings = equal with God” didn’t exist as a category at the time those disputes took place, and so it’s unlikely that such an inference could have been made. Even in the accounts you’ve referenced “heir = equal with God” is not a point of dispute. So, your interpretation of John 5 is quite unlikely.

Also, some of your assertions just don’t jive at all. For example, you said:

“I think Paul explained how the equality of a father and a son was understood by the Jews in Galatians 4:1-3 and related it more specifically to ‘heirship’ and not simply ‘sonship.’ Paul said ‘the heir owns everything that belongs to his father.'”

To which I replied:

“Galatians 4 doesn’t say that ‘heirship’ is a reason that Jesus is ‘equal with God’, much less *the* reason.”

And so you changed your tune and replied:

“The reason I cited Paul’s illustration in Galatians 4:1-5 is because it
shows that there was no difference between a ‘slave’ and a child who is
the ‘heir’ during the time before the child fulfilled the father’s
requirement for ‘adoption’ as a ‘son.’ For the disciples of Jesus, this
‘adoption’ as ‘heirs’ takes place when ‘redemption’ happens at the
resurrection (Romans 8:17-19).”

Shall I pull a “Rivers” and say that your “credibility” is in jeopardy?

~Sean

“allow me to comment, at this point, on your exchange with Rivers. If
you remove, as historically and exegetically problematic, the middle
term …’Son of God = [snip] equal with God’ …the above equation perfectly holds, for Jesus’ adversaries, as confirmed by the GoJ, not only John 5:18, but also (and even more strongly), John 10:33.”

I’m not sure if you’re saying that it would hold only for Jesus’ adversaries or if you mean that it’s just plain true that Jesus is “equal with God’ in light of these Johannine texts. However, as a general observation I would say that before we can affirm the sense in which Jesus’ adversaries meant to assert that he “made himself equal with God” (Jn 5) or “made himself God or a god” (Jn 10) we’d have to be certain about just how they thought Jesus supposedly made himself God’s equal.

1. Did they think that Jesus was presenting himself as one of the bene-elohim? If so, then I don’t think we can affirm that Jesus was equal with God as intended by their charge.

2. Did they think that Jesus was claiming to be some sort of Jewish Hercules? If so, then I don’t think we can affirm that Jesus was equal with God as intended by their charge.

3. Did they think that Jesus was claiming that to be God’s literal Son, which, in my understanding, would mean that God literally gave birth to him? If so, then I don’t think we can affirm that Jesus was equal with God as intended by their charge.

4. Did they think that Jesus was claiming to be God’s Messiah, who, as God’s agent, would have legal equality with God to whatever extent God granted him authority to act in His behalf? If so, then I think we can affirm that Jesus was equal with God as intended by their charge.

~Sean

“Besides, it is simply false (see your point no. 4) that claiming to be the Messiah would be, per se, a capital offense.”

Yet that is precisely what was said to be a blasphemous capital offense at Matthew 26:65. How so? Because Jesus’ adversaries were determined to construe Jesus’ Messianic claim to be a false one.

~Sean

“Sorry, that is a non sequitur. What was the evidence, for Jesus’ adversaries that Jesus’ Messianic claim was a false one?”

It’s pretty obvious that they were determined to take his Messianic claim to be a false one so as to ostensibly justify their evil design against Jesus. It wasn’t illegal to *be* the Messiah, and so they couldn’t kill him for that. But it would be illegal to make a false claim to be the Messiah, which could be considered grounds to put him to death. As I’ve pointed out, one clue that tells us what’s going on is the “making himself” part of the phrase “making himself equal with God” at John 5. In other words, they rejected Jesus’ claim and determined him to be a pretender.

“..It would have been illegal for Caiaphas to ask Jesus to accuse himself.”

According to some lawyers who’ve studied the case, Jesus’ adversaries broke a number of their good laws. As you’ve pointed out yourself in the past, it was a “Monkey Trial”.

~Sean

“Ultimately, though, for Caiaphas and the sanhedrin Jesus’ guilt was NOT his Messianic claim (allegedly false, according to Sean, who, though, cannot prove his point), BUT the ‘blasphemy’ of presenting himself as ‘the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven’….It is ‘pretty obvious’ …”

You’ve committed what I call the “snippet fallacy”, i.e. you look at two statements that are close together and assume that only they are related to the question at hand and reveal the whole truth, even though a more comprehensive reading reveals otherwise. So, a few observations:

1. We know the real reason they had Jesus executed had nothing to do with blasphemy. The real reason was:

“If we let Him go on like this, all men will believe in Him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” (John 11:48)

And

“For he knew that it was because of envy that they had handed Him over.”

2. The charge of blasphemy was the ostensible justification for fulfilling their evil design against Jesus, but he didn’t commit blasphemy either with his Messianic affirmation or with the Son of Man reference, uttered in the third person.

3. We know that it was Jesus’ Messiahship that they were going to use against him — that it was their ace in the whole — because (a) that’s the focal question that they asked, (b) that’s the only true charge that was presented to Pilot, and (c) had Jesus not uttered the Son of Man reference, they wouldn’t have let him go, but would have proceeded to have him killed for the very reason he was killed — his Messianic claim.

All you really needed to do to avoid the fallacious conclusion you’ve come to was simply reflect for a moment and ask yourself: What if Jesus hadn’t uttered the Son of Man reference? What if Jesus had merely affirmed that he was the Messiah and left it at that? Would Jesus’ adversaries then have said “Oh, ok, well have a nice day then, you’re free to go”? No, they didn’t need the Son of Man reference, because the only part of their trumped up charge that was true, the part that was sure to secure Jesus’ death was already given to them.

“We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that He Himself is Messiah, a King.” (Luke 23:2)

Crimen laesa majestas is what they needed; it’s the reason they led with the question “Are you the Messiah, the Son of God”; and it’s what Jesus gave them. The Son of Man part, if they even understood this third person reference, would been just a little extra icing on the cake.

~Sean

“you commit the peculiar double fallacy of affirming, on one side,
that ‘they took his Messianic clam to be a false one’, yet, on the
other side, of affirming that the real reason is the one expressed by
the chief priests and the Pharisees…”

There it is again, the ever pervasive ‘tit for tat’, which seems to be a defining feature of unitarian argumentation here. I point out how you’ve committed a fallacy, and, so, of course, you have to save face and pretend that I’ve committed one too, and a “double fallacy” no less. Yawn.

“1. Pilate took the ‘Messianic charge’ of the chief priests so little seriously that, as even you noticed, ‘he knew that it was because of envy that they had handed Him over’ (Matthew 27:18). Obviously, you didn’t draw the right consequence from your own quotation …”

Pilot knew that he was being forced to preside over a Monkey Trial, but he would never take potential crimen laesa majestas lightly, lest Caesar have his head on a platter.

“2. …However improper the charge was, it was not so much his claim to Messiahship that they refused, BUT the ‘type’ of Messiah that Jesus presented them with: not a ‘powerful conqueror that would restore Israel’ (and they had got used to living as an occupied country, anyway), but, essentially, a religious reformer, who exposed how wrong Israel was with God….”

Now you’re getting warmer, and that observation supports my position. Jesus’ adversaries had a very particular idea of what the Messiah would be like, and Jesus didn’t fit that bill. Moreover, he burst onto the scenes exposing them as hypocrites, whitewashed graves, sons of their father, the Devil, etc. These things converged to make it impossible for them to consider Jesus as anything other than a pretender, someone whose messianic claim was a false one.

“3. I believe you are completely wrong. By those references to Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13, Jesus called their bluff. It was like saying: ‘You do not really want to know whether I claim to be the Messiah, nay, whether I AM the Messiah. You refuse the type of Messiah that I am.'”

You can believe whatever you chose to believe, but that doesn’t change the facts. Jesus’ fate was sealed the moment he was arrested, and his adversaries would have secured his demise with or without the third person “Son of Man” reference.

“As for the rest, lese majesty, instigation against taxation etc. either you believe what the Gospels say about Pilate’s reluctance to execute Jesus or you don’t. I do …”

Pilate’s reluctance to execute Jesus is not in tension with my position. If you think it is, then perhaps you should have spent more time asking questions before expressing your typical over-eagerness to disagree with me about anything and everything you can.

~Sean

“Actually, it is a true and proper contradiction: according to you, for the high priests and Pharisees Jesus would have been a “false Messiah”, yet, for the very same high priests and Pharisees Jesus CANNOT have been a “false Messiah”, otherwise John 11:48 – that you quote – would have been irrelevant.”

In your absolute myopia you can’t even see that the “contradiction” you’ve highlighted is not with MY position, but with the Pharasees’s position! LOL

“1. Once again, Pilate took the charges that the high priests and Pharisees brought against Jesus as so irrelevant, that he tried in all possible ways to release him. He cannot have been too concerned about the consequences, can he? Read again, read better.”

You’d better “Read again, read better.” What did Pilot do *before* determining that the charge was trumped up? I made two points, both of which are indisputable:

A. Jesus opponents carefully crafted a three-pronged charge that was meant to bring the sword of Rome on Jesus’ neck. They probably crafted the charge even before they arrested him, which is why Jesus’ Messianic status was their focal question.

B. They included Jesus’ Messianic affirmation not only because it really happened, but precisely because *they sought* to have Jesus found guilty of crimen laesa majestas and thereby executed by Rome.

“2. Wrong again. Nothing in what Jesus said – including, in particular, his final dénouement at Matthew 26:64 would have been evidence that he was a ‘false Messiah’. At most, once again, it only confirms that the high priests
and Pharisees rejected him. So they resorted ( like in John 5:18, like in John 10:33) to the false charge of blasphemy.”

Read again; read better. The question isn’t whether anything Jesus said would have constituted *valid evidence* that he was a messianic pretender. The point is that (a) given their presuppositions about what the real Messiah should be like, and (b) given their evil hearts and haughty nature, and (c) given the fact that Jesus came bursting on the scene condemning them as “hypocrites” and “whitewashed graves” and “son’s of their father, the Devil” etc,. it was unavoidable that *they* could only conclude that he was a pretender. This is so obvious that I don’t intend on wasting any more time arguing about it. I don’t find the delight you do in argument without end, nor do I have any interest in your obsession with saving face. Your lack of humility is between you and God.

“3. What do you mean by “third person ‘Son of Man’ reference”? Are you
suggesting (or openly affirming) that, in Matthew 26:64, Jesus was not identfying himself with the Danielic “Son of Man”? If so, just shows how vast your misunderstanding is.”

I’m merely showing the reserve of one familiar with the history of the Son of Man debate. I’m happy to grant that the title was always a reference to Jesus himself. The only question is whether Jesus’ adversaries would have understood this in light of the way in which it was stated, i.e. in the third person. My position doesn’t require a definitive answer to this question, because, as I’ve said, Jesus’ fate was sealed the moment he was arrested. There was no way they were going to let him escape with his life, with or without the “Son of Man” reference.

“As for your desperate final defense on Pilate, of course ‘Pilate’s reluctance to execute Jesus’ IS ‘in tension with [Sean’s] position’. Actually, incompatible.”

Nope, not even a little. It’s in tension with your imaginary straw-man version of my position, but it’s not in tension with my actual position.

~Sean

“o, John 11:48 should prove (even for Sean …) that it is false to affirm that the Jews rejected Jesus on the basis of the assumption that he was a “false Messiah”: they refused him, and used “blasphemy” (John 5:18,10:33; Matthew 26:65) as an excuse.”

I think you’ve lost it, old boy. I’ll let you continue to argue with others from now on, as I don’t have the time or the desire to continue engage in the sort of dialogue that you find irresistible. I thought I saw promise that you were attempting to set aside your love of trollery lane, but I see that I was mistaken.

Take care,
~Sean

“Enjoy yourself. (Even without your permission, I will continue to expose your errors, non sequiturs and contradictions)”

The only thing you’ve exposed is your own ignorance and arrogance, but you’re so blind you can’t see it.

~Sean

“Sure, sure … maybe one day you will explain your ‘actual position’ …”

LOL. That reminds me of an episode of Taxi, where Danny Devito’s character said to Tony Danza’s character: “I wish you were smarter, just so you could understand how dumb you are.”

Of course, the difference is that in your case it’s not “dumbness” but willful ignorance born from extreme arrogance.

~Sean

Sean,
I’m doing the best I can to clarify a different perspective on the biblical testimony and to answer your questions and objections directly. Sometimes your perception of what I’m trying to explain isn’t accurate either. I appreciate your additional comments.

The “all things” in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 is talking about “all rule and authority” (15:24) being subjected to Jesus Christ and God. Jesus understood that “authority over all flesh” was his inheritance in glory (John 17:2; Matthew 18:18; Philippians 2:9-11). I don’t know where you are getting the word “belongings” out of 1 Corinthians 15:28.

It’s clear from Jesus’ parable in Matthew 21:31-39 that the Jews understood the implication of the “son” (Jesus Christ) having the right to the “inheritance” of God’s people and kingdom, and that his was the reason the Jews want to “kill” him. Thus, your remark about “no such category at the time” is simply a dismissal of the biblical evidence.

There is the question of whether John was merely stating a fact when he said that Jesus made himself equal with God, or whether John meant to simply represent the thought of Jesus’ adversaries.

I definitely share the latter POV. The former POV would ONLY make sense in a trinitarian framework, and I consider “trinitarianism” (with Buzzard), “Christianity’s Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound”. Actually, it would work also in a modalist framework, but attributing a modalist POV to Jesus is something that would imply, in my opinion, that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic, and I choose not to consider those options.

Jesus’ equality stemmed from his Messiahship, which was the equality that an agent has with his principal.

Nowadays, we would find it most bizarre if any agent, even a plenipotentiary, while “equal” to his principal, at least in a specified sense, resorted to calling his principal “Father”.

I know that the Davidic King was called God’s “Son”, and therefore, reversing the perspective, it makes sense that YHWH could be called the Davidic King’s “Father. But I find all this diminutive, for Jesus.

I still believe that Jesus’ Sonship (perhaps even unbeknown to Jesus, and only known to Mary), was much more literal that a mere “functional bond”. That is how I interpret Matthew 1:18-23, Luke 1:35, John 1:14, together, anyway.

“What other views is Arius known for, other than the one you explicitly mention?”

I’m not an authority on Arius’ beliefs, but he apparently had a unique soteriology (e.g. see “Early Arianism: A View of Salvation”, by Robert C. Gregg and Dennis E. Groh), and, as I recall, he felt that God was unknowable, but I can’t remember where I read that. I’m sure there are other things, which is why I simply offer the caveat that I don’t subscribe to all his views without reference to anything specific.

~Sean

Sean – BTW – instead of insulting us with the Socinian appellation – how about at least using the historical Dynamic Monarchism? I am pretty sure Rivers will be okay with that – but the standard phrase is Biblical Unitarian – that would certainly be most respectful.

Greg,

I agree. Biblical Unitarian is the more appropriate term to use today. I’ve never met any Socinians or read any of their writings. Thus, I think it’s misleading to refer to someone like me with that label.

Greg,
I think some Biblical Unitarians appeal to the “Socinians” because they feel it makes their Christology appear more credible as an historical option.

Arians probably feel the same way since Arius is purported to have lived prior to the widespread acceptance of the Trinity doctrine. Thus, it appeals to those who want to think that their Christology was somehow “closer” to the apostolic era.

Good question!

The reason is that this appellation makes us subservient to Socinius – as if he and his scene and ANYTHING to do with our theo/Christology. In fact Socinius was totally irrelevant to any work I have done. At least have the intellectual integrity to call my system by my own name… Gregorism…:-)

🙂

I am pretty sure there would be a Riverism, a Servetism and Greorism… without Faustus…

Do you know the historical development of Gregorism or Riversism?

“referring to a ‘Biblical Unitarian’ as Socinian may be historically
inaccurate and also too extensive, but why on earth would it be ‘insulting’?”

It’s not insulting, and, in fact, Greg is not really insulted. Here’s what’s happened:

Yesterday I pointed out that he had been treating me in an uncivil manner, and rather than imaging Christ by humbly apologizing, which his pride wouldn’t allow, he found my comments about Rivers and Socinianism and chose, for apologetic purposes, to feign indignation. He has thereby demonstrated that he is not an honest person.

~Sean

Hi Greg,

“A. Are you essentially Arian in your Theo/Christology (vs traditional trinitarian)?”

As long as we understand ‘Arian’ as a useful shorthand appellation for those who believe that the spirit being who became Jesus was God’s first heavenly creature, without respect to Arius’ other unique teachings, then yes, that would be an accurate description of my Christology.

“B. Are you really comfortable with considering a spirit being taking a
human form being considered a man just like Adam (Rom5:15, ICor15:21,
44) and just us (ITim2:5, Heb2:17) in contrast to God (Jn8:40), etc.? I
find the texts which designate Jesus as a man do not allow such
equivocation.”

Yes, I’m comfortable with it, and don’t find that it involves any obvious equivocation. Why? Because I don’t argue that Jesus remained a spirit being when he became a man. He gave up his heavenly mode of existence which was replaced with an earthly mode of existence. He was a spirit being who became a man, and once a man he was no longer a spirit being.

~Sean

“My problem – neither you, I nor Adam was a pre-incarnate spirit being
that took on some form of man in conjunction with retaining the unique
personhood/center of consciousness of a spirit being…. That is simply
NOT the man that is made in all points as we are.”

Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree then. I’m less concerned with philosophical objections than I am with the clear teaching of Scripture, and IMO the Bible is clear that Jesus was a man like me and you, but that prior to his human life he was a heavenly being. That’s good enough for me.

~Sean

“There is no philosophical objection – what you are teaching is NOT a man
in any sense – it is a spirit being in a man’s body. Your Jesus person
is still the same divine person – just in a human body. There is no man
that is a divine person in a human body – certainly Adam was not and
that who Paul aligns Jesus with.”

As I said, we’ll have to agree to disagree. The Bible teaches that Jesus was a man, and I take the Bible at its word. The Bible teaches that the one who became the man Jesus existed in heaven with God prior to his earthly existence, and I take the Bible at its word.

Take care,
~Sean

“The bottom line – when you have created a fundamental contradiction –
when you have created fundamental nonsense – then instead of degrading
the Word of God, the man of humility reviews his own conclusions which
are painfully obviously problematic instead of playing word games to do
so to make them “work” at any cost. The Word of God is wonderfully
coherent and consistent and it is simply a matter of spending the time
and effort to fully unlock the text.”

For the third and final time, we’ll have to agree to disagree, because (a) there is no contradiction or nonsense in what I’ve offered (you are mistaken), (b) the Bible does *clearly* teach that the one who became the man Jesus — not the Godman or the angel-man, but the *man* — existed in heaven prior to his earthly life, and (c) this beautifully embraceable conclusion is reached by those who humbly allow their beliefs to be molded by the testimony of Scripture, and is only avoided when one chooses instead to play the bias-shaped game of eisegetical twister.

Take care,
~Sean

Let me ask you something, are People who go to heaven REALLY spirit Creatures? Or are they just men inhabiting spirit bodies?
Yes, it is an Arbitrary definition, man means a human being, made of flesh, human DNA, With human limitations, both Sean and I agree With that, but the bible forces us to understand that Jesus had an existance prior to his birth as a human.
that does NOT make him not human at all, there is nothing in the scriptures that defines human beings as necessarily not having any pre-human existance, just like a spirit being can still be a spirit being if it has a pre-spirit existance.
This “rule” of what defines a human being, IS arbitrary. as Sean has pointed out.
Jesus DESCENDED from heaven, just as he will Ascend … this text and texts like these in both John and Paul shouldn’t be just ignored or taken as mere metaphore, just because it would mean Jesus doesn’t fit you’re arbitrary, non-biblical definition of what it means to be a man.

My first paragraph is simply a Call for consistancy, if you believe that after Death some People become spirit Creatures of some sort, does the fact that they were previously human exclude that?
Except Jesus was not made in all Points like his brethren, he was sinless, it was through him one can approach God and so on.
I know what a man is, we all do, but there is nothing in what a man is that precludes that person existing in another form prior to his birth, nothing at all, especially if the bible and the exegesis of the bible demands it.
A human being, is like you and me, but there if I pre-existed my birth in another form, I would still be actually human, just the same way if a human becomes an spirit creature, he is actually really a spirit creature.
I don’t believe in the hypostatic Union btw.

Do you know any man that was born of a Virgin?
Do you know any man that was raised to the right hand of God?
Do you know any man that was sinless?
Do you know any man whose Death served as a Ransom for mankind?
Do you know any man through which you could be reconciled to God?
I mean common, lets be serious.
These are not philosophical speculations, I hold my belief based on a solid exegesis of the text of John and Pual’s writings.
I’m NOT deverging form the standard meaning of the plainly stated Word …. you’re insisting on a definition of the Word which is simply not warrented.

There is nothing in what it means to be a man that requires having no pre-existence. If one believes in re-incarnation, for example, the re-incarnated person is still a human being.
John says Jesus came Down from heaven and will Return up just as he came Down …. I believe him.
You’re ENTIRE position is based on the absolutely arbitrary, and not supported in scripture, argument that to be a “man” excludes any pre-existence, and that pre-supposition demands that you ignore, or re-interperate all sorts of scriptures.
So far you still haven’t defended Your assertion that to be a man excludes any possibility of pre-existence.

No I haven’t ever met a man who was previously a dre-incarnate deity.
But how is that an argument? Almost everything about Jesus was unique to him and him alone …. It’s arbitrary that you pick one trait to be demanding that that Jesus is not human, because it would be uniquie to Jesus, but ignore the other ones.

As far as the last part, there is evidence that it is not literal.

(There’s more evidence for trinitarianism than there is for trickle Down economics though 😛 …. )

I’m glad we agree on economics at least :).

I don’t see why, say having no personhood prior to earth is fundemental to being a human, and not being able to die for the sins of mankind isn’t? Or being able to reconcile mankind to God isn’t?

A divine being is NOT a man, I agree, but a divine being can become a man, just the same way that a man can become a divine (or spirit) being.

I’ve never known a man who had died and been given a New body either, how do we know that person is really a man?
Jesus had human dna, hands, a brain, a spine, a liver, he was born of a woman, he is what all men are, and even more.
To be honest this debate is a little bit silly because it’s nothing more than semantics, what is it to be a man.

Yes I am familiar.
My point is if a man can become a spirit being, the reverse is also possible.

My point is that if a man, a saint, become a heavenly creature, a divine being, then I don’t see the probem with the reverse.

I think the question betrays a missunderstanding of my position, I don’t believe that Jesus had within him some incarnate deity. I believe that a divine being BECAME a human being.

So an analogy would be, for example, a larve becoming a butterfly, it’s not that a larve is hiding within the butterfly, it becomes that.

Jesus was conceived, but his life force, was (somehow) transformed into that conceived person.

The metaphysics may be difficult, but I believe I am forced to that position by scripture.

Jesus was virgin born, we agree (I think) on that, so we already start from the presupposition that we are talking about no ordinary man, a man certainly, but no man is conceived by a virgin.

When the text says Jesus is man – that means the PERSON is created at conception – just like ALL men!

Can you honestly say that “the text says” that Jesus is “created at conception” “just like ALL men”?

Greg,

experience doesn’t help. We have no direct experience of men either directly “formed from the soil of the ground” or born of a virgin, thanks to “the Holy Spirit coming upon [her], and the power of the Most High overshadowing [her]”.

I am most definitely NOT Arian. The ?????, before becoming flesh in/as Jesus is NOT a “person”, but an eternal attribute of God.

Greg,

we humans are creatures, because we are part of the uninterrupted chain of God’s creation.

But, as regards or relation with our parents, we a NOT “created” by them, we are generated. Likewise, as regards the genetic relation of Jesus to God, the Father Almighty, and his mother Mary, he was “God’s only Son” (??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????????), “conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary”.

BOTH Jesus and Adam were human person – NOT divine persons in a human body. A rather significant difference don’t you think??

Why do you ask? You know very well that I reject the notion of personal “pre-existence”. Nevertheless Jesus is the incarnation of God’s eternal ?????. AFAIAC, there is no other way of interpreting John 1:1,14.

Ok, so you don’t believe that a human being can go to heaven? Is there air in heaven? Is there gravity in heaven? Is there Sunlight in heaven? Is there water in heaven? If this New body has no relationship to the human body then in what way are we human?
It’s like Alvin Plantiga’s thought Experiment of a person in a Beatles Body, at that point how is the person still a human being?
Every man has the charachteristic of having both a human father and a human mother … so by definition Jesus is not a man …. Every man has the charachteristic of having sinned, Jesus has not sinned, Jesus is not a man … you see the problem With Your definition here?
Jesus is not WITH an incarnated deity … Jesus is a Deity that BECOMES a man through the Virgin birth …. there is no ghost in the machine …. You’re arguing here as if I believe in the hypostatic union … I DO NOT!!!! I don’t believe Jesus had 2 natures …. I belive Jesus was a person, living in heaven, and became a person living on Earth.
Those who go to heaven will have a heavnely body, before they had an earthly body. Jesus had a Heavenly body, while he was on Earth he had an earthly Body.
You’re exegeses breaks Down when Jesus makes it Clear that he descended from heaven, and Your definition of “man” breaks Down once you realize that Jesus was born of a Virgin.

Roman

Like it or not – all incarnational models necessarily have the PERSON as the pre-incarnate PERSON. No man is a pre-incarnate person – we are created (or, generated or conceived or wtf you want to call it – we are NOT divine persons). Therefore, there is huge gap between your Jesus and the man Christ Jesus.

BTW – is there any way you can answer my simple questions?

Here is a simple way to see the difference between your Jesus and the man Christ Jesus of scripture:

Can your Jesus fully, independently function WITHOUT an
incarnated deity (just like you and I and all men do)?

In other words, if the divine first created person left your Jesus (since no man is a divine person we need to eliminate that to get to what a real man is) – could the remaining man fully function like all men do.

Roman

You don’t understand your own Christology. Your own Christology teaches that the person/core consciousness of Jesus IS the divine, pre-incarnate person wrapped up neatly in some kind of human nature/body or wtf you want to call it. This is why He specifically talked about His pre-incarnate status in Jn6 and Jn8 (based on the horribly mutilated Arian exegisis of both of these passages). He could not have said these statements if he was not that divine, pre-incarnate person.

Greg

re: your virgin birth stmt

Huh?!? Virgin birth has NOTHING to do with a pre-incarnate person – this has to do with created/generated at conception – just like all men – regardless of how it is done.

That is a HUGE difference.

Yes, I understand your subtility that every man has had a sperm. Sorry – you are missing one – your great grand-father…:-)

Roman,

I would dispute two things about your definition of “man” here that I think undermines your argument.

First, Adam was a “man” and yet he did not have a father or a mother. Thus, I don’t think being “human” should be predicated only upon one’s genealogy.

Second, although Jesus “knew no sin”, he was subject to biological death (Hebrews 5:7) like Adam and thus was counted among sinners (Romans 5:12). This is why the writer of Hebrews pointed out that Jesus not only died for “the sins of the people”, but also “for himself” (Hebrews 5:1-3).

Roman,

there are so many issues with your comment, that it is difficult to point them all out. Let’s try.

1. It is not true that the new (resurrected) body “has no relationship to the human body”. In the only example we have (Jesus), Mary Magdalene, the disciples of Emmaus, the Apostles, were all able to recognize Jesus, although, manifestly, with some difficulty.

2. “Alvin Plantiga’s thought Experiment” is phoney, and only makes sense to body-soul dualists.

3. You should bring the “[e]very man has the characteristic of having both a human father and a human mother” to its logical consequence, and say
that, with those premises, the first man, Adam, was not a man. As least Jesus has a human mother … and God provided the functional equivalent
of a man’s DNA.

4. That “every man has the characteristic of having sinned” is NOT a necessity, BUT, due to humans’ weakness, something virtually inevitable. (Of course, I reject the BS doctrine of “original sin” …)

5. How (logically, philosophically, theologically, scripturally, materially) would the Virgin birth, by itself, manage to make “a Deity … BECOME a man”?

6. Why affirming that Jesus had (still has …) two natures [divine and human] would be any more problematic than affirming that “Jesus was a person [a Deity – said Roman], living in heaven, and became a person [a man – said Roman] living on Earth”?

7. So are you claiming that Jesus first “had a Heavenly body”, then, while on earth, “had an earthly body”, finally was resurrected in a “Heavenly body”? Seems an awful amount of fuss and bother, to me. Is that (partly) due to your understanding of kenosis?

8. Are you sure that you haven’t got enough imagination and elasticity as not to understand “descended from heaven” in your overwrought way?

1. That isn’t a metaphysical relation, only a phenomelogical relation.
2. My point exactly.
3 & 4. You still haven’t told me what that means “functional equivalent of a man’s DNA.” …. But as I told Rivers, my argument doesn’t hang on any arbitrary definition of what it is to be a “man,” frankly that doesn’t intereset me, or, if you’re honest, the New testament writers.
5. It doesn’t by itself …. that isn’t my argument.
6. Because transformation is normal and happens all the time, a child transforms into an adult, People holding two natures simply doesn’t happen, it also necessitates an arbitrary definition of nature.
7. Not really that much fuss and bother, it’s what the bible says, but yes the Kenosis described in Philippians 2:5-10 is relevant to the topic.
8. One can imagin all one wants, but the text says what it says, he descended just as he ascended …

1. Well, if you have a problem metaphysically With one, and not the other, then you’re being inconsistant, the point is the fact that mary could recognize Jesus doesn’t mean much, the question is whether or not Jesus raised into heaven, is a human being? If so in what way? Does he have a heart, lungs, do they breath? And so on and so forth.

3. Ok.

4. Because it’s just one of many examples, the point is Jesus was not an ordinary man.

5. How it Works is not explained in the bible, but that it is true is necessitated from the bible.

6. Metaphyisically I don’t know, the point is there is nothing that is incoherent or logically fallacious about a spirit being becoming a human being any more than vice versa.

7&8. John 3:13:
??? ?????? ?????????? ??? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ? ?? ??? ??????? ???????, ? ???? ??? ????????.

and no one has ascended into heaven, except the one who from heaven has descended, the son of man.

Extremely Clear, the descending FROM heaven that Jesus does is analagous to his ascending to heaven.

John 6 … 32 Then Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which[g] comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 They said to him, “Sir, give us this bread always.”

35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away; 38 for I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me.

He comes Down from heaven JUST LIKE MANNA ….
Just to name a few verses ….

1. Well if we talk about what the normal usage of the term “man” is, and how people would read the text when they read “anders” or “anthropos” they would understand it as a physical human body with human features …. pretty straight forward, no metaphysical theory necessary.

5. I am through the text of the bible, but the bible doesn’t give us the metaphysical or physiological process …. the bible also doesn’t give us a scientific theory of creation …. but we believe in creation because that’s what the bible says.

6. No, it’s an example of a transformation, but of course it’s not a perfect equivalence, it’s an illustration.

7&8. Bread DESCENDED from heaven, if Jesus came into existence at his birth and had no existence prior to that, then the metaphor of his descending from heaven like manna makes no sense.

1. Yes … But in what way is a spirit body still a human …. Listen, we need Equal scales here.

2. No, it isn’t essential, but that isn’t my argument, the reason I believe that Jesus was a spirit being prior to the Virgin birth is not because of the Virgin birth, you’re arguing against a strawman.

3. Can a ???? ??????????? become a ???? ????????
4. So what was it that ascended?
Manna was not a personal entity, but it didn’t become a personal entity and then ascend again as one.

1. Ok, so being a human being has nothing to do With having a human body?
2. Yes, he becomes a man through the Virgin birth, he comes a man at his birth, the reason I believe that is because it’s obvious that Jesus existed in a personal form prior to his birth, but it’s also obvious that he came Down and took on flesh, presumably at his birth ….. What is it that Your asking for? A metaphysical theory laid out in scripture?
WHy would you insist on that? There isn’t any metaphysical laying out of what Divine Sperm is …. So yes, Equal scales.
3. It is attested when Jesus becomes flesh ….
But lets get our arguments straight … is Your argument exegetical or metaphysical?
If it is exegetical, which text and why?
If it is metaphysical then let’s stick to that,, I’m sick of having you jump around from argument to argument, let’s stick to one and work it through.
4. Exactly, he ascended, just as he descended, he exists in heaven know after his earthy body died, and he existed prior to his earthly body’s birth.
5. So what’s the figure? Was manna an idea that took form on Earth in some bizzare way? Or did it actually come DOWN from heaven?

Miguel,

I think you make a some valid points in your reply to Roman here.

However, it makes no sense to claim that “God’s word (impersonal) became the man, Jesus (a human being).” That is certainly not what John 1:14 means in Greek.

An abstract “word” cannot turn into an human being. LOGOS always refers to a “spoken” saying or message when it is used in the 4th Gospel. God didn’t speak a “word” and then turn it into Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was a man (flesh) speaking the word (message) from God.

According to the apostles, the person who was speaking “the word (LOGOS) of life” was the human Jesus (1 John 1:1). He was the person came to dwell with the disciples (John 1:14) and the person John the baptizer was talking about (John 1:15).

1. So basically … no? I mean if one is simply a personal spirit being With no flesh and is still human, then there is nothing about having a human body has to do With being a human.
2 & 3. I’ve been doing that all over the place in different discussions here, With you and others, I’m not going to just rehash it for this discussion here.
4. That’s not what Jesus said, he says he will ascend just as he descended, HE descended, i.e. him as a person descended, and he ascends back to heaven the same way. That’s what the text says.
5. According to you nothing descended, it’s just that God put his spiritual sperm in Mary, that is’nt Jesus descending as he says he does.

1. Ok, but that we cannot simply affirm that that is a human being in a spiritual body at one moment, and the insist that a person who prexists his body is not a human being since we haven’t seen a human being who prexists his body before.
2&3&4. It’s eisegesis to insist that whe Jesus says “I” he doesn’t actually mean “I.” I take Jesus at his Word, when he says “I have come Down from heaven” and that he descended just as he ascends, I assume he means it.
Jesus didn’t ascend as a personified attribute of God that can function as Divine sperm, he ascended as a person.
5. That’s eisegesis, it’s you’re interpreting within a framework that the logos cannot be personal. Neither of those verses describe the mechanics or metaphysics of what happened, the only Place it gets Close is in John, where it describes the logos becoming flesh. The fact that you interperate that as being Divine sperm is not from the text, it’s an interpretation Place ON the text, which in term forces you to interperate “I” as not actually meaning “I.”

1. I’m not deviating, I’m pointing out the fact that the insistance on certain qualities for a definition of “human” are arbitrary and Ad Hoc, given that you’re perfectly ok With a definition of a human being that doesn’t include having a human body.
2. It is Eisegesis, you’re ASSUMING that the logos is unpersonal, dispite the fact that the only first Century jewish work we have that talks about the logos uses it in a personal way, and then taking that assumption to translate “I descended” as “not I, but rather a non personal attribute of God descended, well not descended but acted a Divine sperm.”
“I come from Spain” is not the same as saying “I have arrived from Spain” or “I came Down from Spain.” Or “I will go to France Just as I came from Spain.”
5. No, he doesn’t, it doesn’t talk about the metaphysics of the issue, he’s telling Mary what she needs to know.

1. So … Yes or not … is it the case that being human has nothing to do With being a human body?
2. You say that Philo’s and Justin Martyr’s concept of the logos as deuteros Theos is heretical and lead to the Trinity … but you just say it, giving no reason to believe it.
The fact thay you claim that doens’t take away from the fact that Philo’s concept is the only first Century Jewish context we have for that kind of Language, and if you want to do serious exegesis you have to include that context.
The way you use it is not really an analogy, since you claim that “son of God” is actually LITERAL … somehow, if you demand “Son of God” be taken literally, you first need a reason why we should take it as literal? Since we have reasons to not take it as literal (God is not a man, Son of God is used all over the Place in the Old testament not literally, Son of God was a royal title for both jews and Imperial Rome and so on).
Listen you can make claims all day long, but they are meaningless unless you argue for them.
5. Generally non personal attributes can’t dwell among People. We also have all the descending Language in the rest of John.
And no we don’t hear about the mechanism or metaphysics of the issue, nor should we be suprised at that.

1. I don’t know why you don’t want to give a straight answer,but whatever.
2. Why is it incompatible? It’s not as if the old testament and jewish literature insist that no other being but Yahweh can be properly called god or gods.
It wasn’t lost on me, but Genetic code is physical and found in sperm, but I don’t see any reason why we should take “son of God” in a literal sense.
5. So the dwelling among us was not a personal act? In the tabernacle a personal God dwealt among his People …. Not an attribute of God.

I couldn’t agree more, when you’re Christology demands that you abandon the Clear and obvious Readings of texts, and insist on inserting Words which don’t exist, it’s time to question Your Christology.

Rivers

You can add Heb 9:26, 28 totally obliterate any Christophanies (how come trins could not see this??????). What dark cloud covers their minds???

BTW – I like to think that dynamic monarchianism is the only genuine and meaningful incarnational, pre-existent Christology In fact, NONE of the other Christologies can possibly include pre-existence. I will let you play with how…:-)

NOTE1 There is NOTHING in the 4th Gospel that indicates a personal pre-incarnate Christ. People simply don’t get Jesus metaphorical language THE SAME WAY they did not get “tear this temple down in three days…” NOR “you must eat of my body….” (unless Roman and Sean want to start munching on wafers from some pedophile… hmmmm…yum!)

NOTE2 I am at a complete loss why grown men would so trash the basic and distort the standard meaning of words in this one instance. The classic King is wearing no clothes story. They would NEVER do so in any other instance – certainly not with their finances (not sure how they treat their women…). They simply turn a blind eye to plain, clear, formal text again and again – I am shocked to see such demeaning and deprecatory treatment of God and His Word. Whatever flavor of incarnationalist – they all do it… Bizarre – almost like a psychosis has taken hold of the minds. “Their consciences seared….”

Rivers

You do make a good point – the translators are often blatantly dishonest in their translations. When newbies come into the scene – as both you and I did (me at the age of 20 with NO background) – we are easily able to be mis-led. I can see giving significant grace to such people.

However, the men I encounter have not been newbies for a long time. I am so stunned – and, admittedly, severely frustrated – not just with the intellectual dishonesty but really with the grotesque degradation of the person – the man Christ Jesus – who actually did all the work for us – as us – that I perceive we are encountering those who have crept into the church having been marked out of old for this condemnation, who pervert the grace of God and DENY our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Yes, of course they use His name – just like the individuals referenced by Jude used the name of Jesus – but they are denying the person of Jesus and replacing Him with some kind of deity….

How pathetically sickening is this deception. I cannot think of a more devious plot of Satan….that those that use the name of Jesus but in essence degrade and deny Him and what He did for mankind… making a mockery of the Lord and His work all displayed before the world….:-(!!! Really it is simple logic to see this as I describe – there is no mystery and nothing is complex – it is all very simple and black-and white once you understand the fullness of the incarnationalist scene and watch their distortions and deceptions. If there was even an ounce of basis, I could be more gracious but there simply is no basis for these blatant distortions. Regardless, I submit to another perspective if you have it.

Rivers

You are quite the generous man – I am not so sure I can meet that bar. I frequently read in the Greek and find the translations generally pathetic in so many instances not just related to trin theology (though that is the worst). Failure to includes words – picking more obscure rather than less obscure readings – the list goes on and on and is obviously blatant.

Here is a classic from the NIV – below is the Greek. Slight difference? Massive difference in sense. The Greek clearly describes Jesus as a created entity just like His brethren. In contrast the NIV translation is almost devoid of meaning. This is where we get back to the dia/ek contrast – and how the former is so overtranslated again and again.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your generous spirit and am making some effort to assuage my grief at repeatedly encountering something seemingly in between essentially suicidal intellectual dishonestly – the killing of Jesus (again) of whom we are apart – gleeful, self-righteous nonchalance and mind-numbingly insolence against God, His Word and reality in general (which, as we know is objective…!).

Hebrews 2:11New International Version (NIV)

11 Both the one who makes people holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters.

???? ???????? 2:11SBL Greek New Testament (SBLGNT)

11 ? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ??????????? ?? ???? ??????· ??’ ?? ?????? ??? ???????????? ???????? ?????? ??????,

Well Sean I give you credit – you are quite the game player!!!

Geez you are good Sean – that took a LOT of insight to come up with that.

Interestingly – anyone from the outside would see that I don’t play games and toy with the Word of God – but retain the standard meaning of words. Any outsider could easily see an infinite difference between your efforts and mine. I am quite certain you can as well….

Sean –

Recommend you look in the mirror if you want to understand the spirit of my response to you. I have had a very positive interaction with an Arian before and we maintain quite a cordial relationship despite his failure in this area.

Frankly – I can do the same with you – if you choose to do so.

Greg

Sounds like a plan – your call.

HS and Power – Are they not just two expressions for the same reality? Why not?

That would be a possibility only if Luke intended the expression ?????? ????? ??????????? ??? ??, ??? ??????? ??????? ?????????? ??? (Luke 1:35) as a hendiadys. There are at least a couple of considerations that militate against this. First, it would require that Luke resorted here to a hendiadys, and it is far from obvious that Luke did (including an obvious candidate like Luke 21:15). Second, a hendiadys (“one through two”) consists of a sentence where ther are two nouns which really express the same, or variants of the same. Normally, though, a hendiadys involves just one verb, not two, whereas in Luke 1:35 we have two, ??????????? and ??????????.

I would recommend that Jesus had the form of God at His baptism when ALL authority was given to Him inc. forgiving sins, etc.

Obviously, that’s a possibility. I am reluctant to let go of the virgin conception / incarnation as a key moment for the bestowal of divinity upon Jesus (even if, maybe, that moment did not include the bestowal of “ALL authority “), because that would make the virgin conception a dubious legend, and the incarnation an imaginary event.

Greg

Scripture provides so many fundamental pictures of just two entities – the Father and the Son – that to go beyond that is silly.

There simply was no entity that could be called Son until Jesus was conceived/born.

Sean has elaborated on all the possible meanings of the expression “Son of God” in a Jewish setting (Angels, the Israelite King, Righteous men, the Nation of Israel). ALL of them are inadequate to describe Jesus as Son of God.

Rather than “post conception”, the passages you cite are post-resurrection. Let’s quickly look at them.

For there is one God and one intermediary between God and humanity, Christ Jesus, himself human, (1 Timothy 2:5)

This verse is unproblematic. The resurrected Jesus, though, is not presented as Son, even less as equal to God, but as “intermediary” [???????] between God and men.

… yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things [?????] and for whom we live, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things [?????] and through whom we live. (1 Corinthians 8:6)

In this verse, the main difficulty, IMO, is whether the “all things” referred to God, the Father (which I do not hesitate to consider as a reference to creation) are the same as the “all things” referred to Jesus Christ. IMO there are two possibilities: either Christ’s “all things” are the “new creation”, or they are still the “old creation”. With some hesitation, I still believe that the reference is to the “old creation” and therefore to Jesus Christ only proleptically, but really to the pre-incarnate ?????, “through which all things were created” (John 1:3).

Revelation 21 is all about the New Jerusalem, God Almighty and His Lamb. Unquestionably two distinct entities.

I would reject the notion that the Word (rather the Messiah Himself) is
in view [1 Corinthians 8:6] since that is not a proleptic use but actual use (Gen1). Rather
I understand that Jesus – the Messiah – is the cornerstone reference to
God’s entire creation. That is the whole point of our faith is it
not…:-)?

Here is a small sylllogism for you:

[P] Jesus did not have a personal pre-existence, before his conception/birth.
[C] Any reference to Jesus before his conception/birth cannot be literal, but only proleptic.

… Heb2:11 wherein Jesus is clearly created …

This seems like an Arian view. Here is the verse you cite:

For indeed he who makes holy [Jesus] and those being made holy [humans] all have the same origin, and so he is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters, … (Hebrews 2:11)

While Jesus and humans “all have the same origin” (God), and therefore “he is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters”, it doesn’t mean that they are literally brothers and sisters. We are God’s creatures and, if we folloe Jesus, can become adoptive children, he is God’s one-begotten: the ????????? (John 1:14,18

Greg,

whether Jesus was generated (or created), whether he was generated (or created) at conception or ??? ?????? ??? ?????? is NOT the first issue I was confronting. The issue I was confronting is whether the ????? “through which all things came into being” (????? ??’ ????? ???????) is a person (Jesus, somehow) OR an (impersonal) attribute of God.

P.S. It would be very simple if you responded to my “little syllogism” …

Greg,

as you agree that the second ????? in 1 Corinthians 8:6, in the phrase “through [???] whom are all things”, refers to the “old creation”, and you agree with my “little syllogism”, whereby “any reference to Jesus before his conception/birth cannot be literal, but only proleptic”, then I am baffled as to what you may mean when you say “I would reject the notion that the Word (rather the Messiah Himself) is in view since that is not a proleptic use but actual use”.

Whas “the Messiah Himself” in existence, as a person, at the “old creation”? YES or NO?

The Logos is a separate and very real phenomenon.

We agree that “the Logos is a … very real phenomenon”.

As for being “separate”, presumably from the Messiah, sorry for keeping on pressing you with my questions, but how do you understand the phrase, ? ????? ???? ??????? (John 1:14)? Who is the ?????? What does ???? refer to? How should ??????? be translated? Is there a relation between ? ????? and Jesus?

Yes – [1] the Logos is totally separate – [2] however the Messiah is ALL of the Logos – [3] but the Logos is not all of the Messiah.

Greg,

simple logic (you can visualize it in terms of Venn diagrams) requires [2] to mean that the Massiah includes the Logos, while [3] would mean that the Logos is included (as a subset, in logical terms) in the Messiah. So, even admitting that [2] and [3] are true, it is simply impossible, and therefore wrong, to affirm that [1] “the Logos is totally separate” from the Messiah.

It is you who, with your [2] and [3] made the situation you describe “amenable to set theory”.

Anyway, either that, or the abyss of mysticism, mystery, and, ultimately, nonsense.

No better than “trinitarians”, really …

Yes – the Logos is totally separate – however the Messiah is ALL of the Logos – but the Logos is not all of the Messiah.

It totally baffles me how you can compare the Logos with the Messiah (and in the above you unquestionably do), and then go on to affirm that “[t]he logos is essentially an abstraction”.

How can God’s word/logos/dabar (the very power by which “the heavens were made” – Ps 33:6) be referred to as an “abstraction”?

So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] for which I sent it. (Isaiah 55:11)

Seems totally real and concrete to me …

Greg,

inasmuch as my word is, first of all, the product of my thought (and elsewhere you seem to agree with that), inasmuch as my word, corresponding to my thought, “shall not return to me void, but it shall accomplish what I please” it most certainly is totally real and concrete.

I can work with that (see it is accomplishing what you please already…:-))!