In my recent paper on the Trinity (discussed by Dale and I here and here) I distinguish two ways a thing can meet sufficient conditions of personhood. One way is to behave, function, or perform in such a way as to meet those conditions. So if a robot or group, for example, became morally responsible or rational in virtue of function alone, it would thereby… Read More »Yet More Theories of the Trinity
A trinitarian facepalm for this, from a Bob Jones University Press grade school textbook (HT: Digg.) Not having seen the book, I can’t be sure what is going on here. Here are some options: The writer is terribly uninformed. The writer is feigning ignorance in a misguided attempt to instill delight and wonder into science. The writers is feigning ignorance in an attempt to multiply “mysteries”.… Read More »The Mystery of Electricity
“Incarnation” means initially that God’s love and power had been experienced in fullest measure in, through and as this man Jesus.
Check out this series of posts at the It’s In the Text blog reviewing The Son of God. In part, Charles Lee Irons, Danny André Dixon and Dustin R. Smith have written excellent essays, drawing their readers in by probing the very heart of ancient documents and dialogue with questions and propositions regarding the identity of Jesus of Nazareth. They have challenged, congratulated and clashed with each… Read More »review of The Son of God @ It’s In the Text
His views seem to have been those of present-day biblical unitarians.
No, the man Jesus is not the Genesis creator; his and our God is.
Marcellus’s theology is a key to understanding the post-Nicea controversies.
Andrew DeFord undertakes a refutation of the main argument of podcast 248.
Why did Eusebius have to submit his own creed at the famous council of Nicea in 325?
Thanks to Dr. James Anderson for his further reply to my reply to his initial answer to the Challenge to “Jesus is God” apologists. His new post does clarify his position for me. Perhaps later, I’ll reply more straightforwardly, but for now… story time! The story concerns premise 4 of the Challenge… The new kid at the high school seemed somehow different. “He seems… spiritual,” mused… Read More »a case of progressive revelation
At Dustin Martyr, theologian Dr. Dustin Smith gives a forceful critique of Bart Ehrman’s appeal to “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30) to show that the Gospel of John presents Jesus either as God himself, or as “equal to God” (where this doesn’t imply that he’s God himself). …this is disappointing… because even the most conservative scholars of Johannine literature don’t interpret John 10:30 as… Read More »Ehrman’s misreading of John 10:30
Last Christmas season I posted in a slightly Grinch-like way about catholic Incarnation theories, and about some Christians’ lack of critical thinking about them.
There’s an interesting human impulse observable here. The best analogy I can think of right now is posters like the one to the left. The ladies love them.
Why? There’s the sex appeal of the dude. And the cute baby. Everyone likes a cute baby.
But there’s something else, something affecting about a big, strong, tough manly man, stooping to gently cradle a teeny, vulnerable baby. He’s made himself so vulnerable. Of course, that adds to the “sexy” part. My point is, the affecting nature of the man’s condescension is a distinct element of the appeal.
Now imagine that God, big strong God, becomes an ignorant, weak, dependent little baby. There’s a similar, recognizable emotional tug there. What an amazing idea! Of course, it may be amazing in part because it’s contradictory. But I’ll not argue that here.
Instead, a bit of cross-cultural comparison. Christians aren’t the only ones who go in for the idea of a god who comes down from his mighty position, to be a cute, puny little baby.
The Ramayana is an epic poem, and a sort of scripture in Hinduism. Parts of it go back perhaps to the 400s BCE, though it comes in many versions, some of which are from the high middle ages. The clip below is from a wildly popular Indian television series from 1986 called Ramayan. If you’re interested in Hinduism, I recommend it, but it’s a real time commitment to watch the whole thing. I’ve edited some bits of it, to include the more theological parts, and to get it down to youtube length. It’s here, Ram or Rama, is supposed to be an avatar of the god Vishnu.
My point is notRead More »God the baby – Rama / Ram, avatar of Vishnu
In this recent piece in Books & Culture, I think Prof. Jacobs makes a lot of excellent points. Can this blog be an exception? (As this blog is, as well as this one.) I hope so! Specifically, I hope that the following factors can minimize the problems Jacobs discusses: posting at a decent pace (no Instapundit-like continuous flow) leaving the comments open occasional weeding out… Read More »Linkage: blogs an “enemy of thought”
“…earliest believers treated the risen/exalted Jesus as they did only because they felt required to do so by God.”
Last time I offered a definition of the concept of a trinitarian.
This time, I will try to define the concept of a unitarian.
Many definitions of this concept are unacceptably polemical. It is unacceptable to define a unitarian as an anti-trinitarian. This violates requirements 3 and 5 – it doesn’t tell us what a unitarian is, but only what a unitarian is against. And this is part of a common slashing rhetorical strategy which I have recently mentioned. For the same reasons we must reject defining the concept unitarian as one who “denies the Trinity” or “has heretical beliefs about the Trinity,” etc. Equally, it is unacceptable to define a unitarian as one who holds the correct or biblical view about Jesus and God. Whether or not that’s so, it’s trying to sneak an argument for a thesis into a pseudo-definition of that thesis.
One common definition is,
Definition 1: someone who believes in exactly one unipersonal God.
I think this is on the right track, but the term “unipersonal” is obscure, and so this definition violates requirement 6 (and possibly also 3).
I have been working with this definition of the concept:
Definition 2: someone who believes that the one God just is (is numerically identical to) the Father.
I now think that this isn’t quite right.
First the definition is arguably too narrow. Read More »Defining the concept of a unitarian
