++++++++++++++++++++++++
I believe it is the truth. Jesus, in my estimation is created like Adam. Where the first Adam failed, the second Adam succeeded. That is why the bible uses this terminology...
1 Cor 15:45
45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
(NKJ)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear brother,
I am limited in how much I can write today.
But that Jesus is a created man, I do agree with you.
It would be nice for our natural minds if it were that easy.
However, as you might expect, I could also show that the pre-existence of Christ simply cannot be denied. We have "the Spirit of Christ" mentioned by the Apostle Peter in connection with the Old Testament prophets.
So if I say Jesus is God mingled with man I know this is very mysterious. For Man is an item of creation. Yet God is fully uncreated.
So my Savior and Lord Jesus Christ is the Creator as well as the creature ! He is Wonderful.
But I will have to read over your last post again slowly. I respect your spirit and your attitude.
Originally posted by jaywillThis is an interesting analogy. If it is true, perhaps this is why blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin. One can do nothing to quench the source or reflection of God, however, one can choose to switch off the transmission of God to man that quickens us spiritually.
[b]checkbaiter and whodey,
The Holy Spirit is the final stage of the Triune God reaching to man. The Father is the Source of divine life. The Son is the expression of the divine life. And the Holy Spirit is the transmission of the divine life into man's being.
Originally posted by jaywillYes, there is no denying that Christ was a man. However, could it be he was more than a mere mortal in light of verses that suggest so? Is it to hard for God to come in the form of man? Is it impossible for God to do so?
[b]++++++++++++++++++++++++
I believe it is the truth. Jesus, in my estimation is created like Adam. Where the first Adam failed, the second Adam succeeded. That is why the bible uses this terminology...
1 Cor 15:45
45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
(NKJ)
+++++++++++++++++++ will have to read over your last post again slowly. I respect your spirit and your attitude.
I would make a comparison to a janitor who works at a hospital. Lets say he decided to serve his fellow man this way despite being a certified doctor. While being a janitor, he could only do the job of a janitor. Sure he is capable of more and has done more in the past, however, his task at hand is to clean toilets. Once the janitor has shown to have the certification of being a doctor, however, nothing can reverse his qualification even though he can be proven to be a janitor as well.
You see, checkbaiter, one of the problems is that John 1:1 is so clear that the Word was God.
Now John does not say that after the Word became flesh that the Word was God. He said that in the beginning the Word was God.
So as long as God was the Word was God.
Then we come to verse 14 that the Word became flesh. There is no dispute from me that flesh is an item of the creation of God. Flesh was not always. You agree, I'm sure. Flesh had a beginning. Flesh was CREATED. Man was CREATED.
So it simply is not that simple to say the Son is not God. And I have to believe that the Son today is the created Man as well as the uncreated God.
So many of us utter that Jesus Christ is the mingling of God and man. In Him God the uncreated and eternal Life is united and blended with man the created life, to be our Savior, our Lord, our only begotten Son, but also the Firstborn Son with many brothers, our Captain of salvation, our Head, our life and life supply, and many many other things.
God's economy is centered on Him.
www.godseconomy.org
Colossians does not say the One Third of the Fullness dwells in Christ. Colossians doesn't say that 33.33333% of the Fullness dwells in Christ.
Paul wrote that ALL of the fullness dwells in Christ (Col. 1:19; 2:9). You know the verses probably. So I don't have to reference them for you. But Paul utters this twice, that the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ bodily.
So what shall I do? I must take the whole revelation of the Bible.
Originally posted by jaywillSorry, but I have to come back with this....
You see, checkbaiter, one of the problems is that John 1:1 is so clear that the Word was God.
Now John does not say that after the Word became flesh that the Word was God. He said that in the beginning the Word was God.
So as long as God was the Word was God.
Then we come to verse 14 that the Word became flesh. There is no dispute from me that s in Christ bodily.
So what shall I do? I must take the whole revelation of the Bible.
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NIV)
1. It is imperative that the serious student of the Bible come to a basic understanding of logos, which is translated as “Word” in John 1:1. Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jesus Christ, so in most versions of John logos is capitalized and translated “Word” (some versions even write “Jesus Christ” in John 1:1). However, a study of the Greek word logos shows that it occurs more than 300 times in the New Testament, and in both the NIV and the KJV it is capitalized only 7 times (and even those versions disagree on exactly when to capitalize it). When a word that occurs more than 300 times is capitalized fewer than 10 times, it is obvious that when to capitalize and when not to capitalize is a translators’ decision based on their particular understanding of Scripture.
As it is used throughout Scripture, logos has a very wide range of meanings along two basic lines of thought. One is the mind and products of the mind like “reason,” (thus “logic” is related to logos) and the other is the expression of that reason as a “word,” “saying,” “command” etc. The Bible itself demonstrates the wide range of meaning logos has, and some of the ways it is translated in Scripture are: account, appearance, book, command, conversation, eloquence, flattery, grievance, heard, instruction, matter, message, ministry, news, proposal, question, reason, reasonable, reply, report, rule, rumor, said, say, saying, sentence, speaker, speaking, speech, stories, story, talk, talking, teaching, testimony, thing, things, this, truths, what, why, word and words.
Any good Greek lexicon will also show this wide range of meaning (the words in italics are translated from logos):
* speaking; words you say (Rom. 15:18, “what I have said and done&rdquo😉.
* a statement you make (Luke 20:20 - (NASB), “they might catch him in some statement).
* a question (Matt. 21:24, “I will also ask you one question&rdquo😉.
* preaching (1 Tim. 5:17, “especially those whose work is preaching and teaching).
* command (Gal. 5:14, “the entire law is summed up in a single command&rdquo😉.
* proverb; saying (John 4:37, “thus the saying, ‘One sows, and another reaps’&rdquo😉.
* message; instruction; proclamation (Luke 4:32, “his message had authority&rdquo😉.
* assertion; declaration; teaching (John 6:60, “this is a hard teaching&rdquo😉.
* the subject under discussion; matter (Acts 8:21, “you have no part or share in this ministry.” Acts 15:6 (NASB), “And the apostles... came together to look into this matter&rdquo😉.
* revelation from God (Matt. 15:6, “you nullify the Word of God &rdquo😉.
* God’s revelation spoken by His servants (Heb. 13:7, “leaders who spoke the Word of God&rdquo😉.
* a reckoning, an account (Matt. 12:36, “men will have to give account” on the day of judgment).
* an account or “matter” in a financial sense (Matt. 18:23, A king who wanted to settle “accounts” with his servants. Phil. 4:15, “the matter of giving and receiving&rdquo😉.
* a reason; motive (Acts 10:29 - NASB), “I ask for what reason you have sent for me&rdquo😉. [16]
The above list is not exhaustive, but it does show that logos has a very wide range of meaning. With all the definitions and ways logos can be translated, how can we decide which meaning of logos to choose for any one verse? How can it be determined what the logos in John 1:1 is? Any occurrence of logos has to be carefully studied in its context in order to get the proper meaning. We assert that the logos in John 1:1 cannot be Jesus. Please notice that “Jesus Christ” is not a lexical definition of logos. This verse does not say, “In the beginning was Jesus.” “The Word” is not synonymous with Jesus, or even “the Messiah.” The word logos in John 1:1 refers to God’s creative self-expression—His reason, purposes and plans, especially as they are brought into action. It refers to God’s self-expression, or communication, of Himself. This has come to pass through His creation (Rom. 1:19 and 20), and especially the heavens (Ps. 19). It has come through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture, the written Word. Most notably and finally, it has come into being through His Son (Heb. 1:1 and 2).
The renowned Trinitarian scholar, John Lightfoot, writes:
The word logos then, denoting both “reason” and “speech,” was a philosophical term adopted by Alexandrian Judaism before St. Paul wrote, to express the manifestation of the Unseen God in the creation and government of the World. It included all modes by which God makes Himself known to man. As His reason, it denoted His purpose or design; as His speech, it implied His revelation. Christian teachers, when they adopted this term, exalted and fixed its meaning by attaching to it two precise and definite ideas: (1) “The Word is a Divine Person,” (2) “The Word became incarnate in Jesus Christ.” It is obvious that these two propositions must have altered materially the significance of all the subordinate terms connected with the idea of the logos. [17]
It is important to note that it was “Christian teachers” who attached the idea of a “divine person” to the word logos. It is certainly true that when the word logos came to be understood as being Jesus Christ, the understanding of John 1:1 was altered substantially. Lightfoot correctly understands that the early meaning of logos concerned reason and speech, not “Jesus Christ.” Norton develops the concept of logos as “reason” and writes:
There is no word in English answering to the Greek word logos, as used here [in John 1:1]. It was employed to denote a mode of conception concerning the Deity, familiar at the time when St. John wrote and intimately blended with the philosophy of his age, but long since obsolete, and so foreign from our habits of thinking that it is not easy for us to conform our minds to its apprehension. The Greek word logos, in one of its primary senses, answered nearly to our word Reason. The logos of God was regarded, not in its strictest sense, as merely the Reason of God; but, under certain aspects, as the Wisdom, the Mind, the Intellect of God (p. 307).
Norton postulates that perhaps “the power of God” would be a good translation for logos (p. 323). Buzzard sets forth “plan,” “purpose” or “promise” as three acceptable translations. Broughton and Southgate say “thoughts, plan or purpose of God, particularly in action.” Many scholars identify logos with God’s wisdom and reason.
The logos is the expression of God, and is His communication of Himself, just as a “word” is an outward expression of a person’s thoughts. This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son, and thus it is perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the “Word.” Jesus is an outward expression of God’s reason, wisdom, purpose and plan. For the same reason, we call revelation “a word from God” and the Bible “the Word of God.”
If we understand that the logos is God’s expression—His plan, purposes, reason and wisdom, it is clear that they were indeed with Him “in the beginning.” Scripture says that God’s wisdom was “from the beginning” (Prov. 8:23). It was very common in Hebrew writing to personify a concept such as wisdom. No ancient Jew reading Proverbs would think that God’s wisdom was a separate person, even though it is portrayed as one in verses like Proverbs 8:29 and 30: “…when He marked out the foundations of the earth, I [wisdom] was the craftsman at His side.”
2. Most Jewish readers of the Gospel of John would have been familiar with the concept of God’s “word” being with God as He worked to bring His creation into existence. There is an obvious working of God’s power in Genesis 1 as He brings His plan into concretion by speaking things into being. The Targums are well known for describing the wisdom and action of God as His “word.” This is especially important to note because the Targums are the Aramaic translations and paraphrases of the Old Testament, and Aramaic was the spoken language of many Jews at the time of Christ. Remembering that a Targum is usually a paraphrase of what the Hebrew text says, note how the following examples attribute action to the word:
* And the word of the Lord was Joseph’s helper (Gen. 39:2).
* And Moses brought the people to meet the word of the Lord (Ex. 19:17).
* And the word of the Lord accepted the face of Job (Job 42:9).
* And the word of the Lord shall laugh them to scorn (Ps. 2:4).
* They believed in the name of His word (Ps. 106:12). [18]
The above examples demonstrate that the Jews were familiar with the idea of God’s Word referring to His wisdom and action. This is especially important to note because these Jews were fiercely monotheistic, and did not in any way believe in a “Triune God.” They were familiar with the idioms of their own language, and understood that the wisdom and power of God were being personified as “word.”
The Greek-speaking Jews were also familiar with God’s creative force being called “the word.” J. H. Bernard writes, “When we turn from Palestine to Alexandria [Egypt], from Hebrew sapiential [wisdom] literature to that which was written in Greek, we find this creative wisdom identified with the Divine logos, Hebraism and Hellenism thus coming into contact.” [19] One example of this is in the Apocryphal book known as the Wisdom of Solomon, which says, “O God of my fathers and Lord of mercy who hast made all things by thy word (logos), and by thy wisdom hast formed man…” (9:1). In this verse, the “word” and “wisdom” are seen as the creative force of God, but without being a “person.”
3. Continued...
3. The logos, that is, the plan, purpose and wisdom of God, “became flesh” (came into concretion or physical existence) in Jesus Christ. Jesus is the “image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15) and His chief emissary, representative and agent. Because Jesus perfectly obeyed the Father, he represents everything that God could communicate about Himself in a human person. As such, Jesus could say, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (John 14:9). The fact that the logos “became” flesh shows that it did not exist that way before. There is no pre-existence for Jesus in this verse other than his figurative “existence” as the plan, purpose or wisdom of God for the salvation of man. The same is true with the “word” in writing. It had no literal pre-existence as a “spirit-book” somewhere in eternity past, but it came into being as God gave the revelation to people and they wrote it down.
4. The last phrase in the verse, which most versions translate as “and the Word was God,” should not be translated that way. The Greek language uses the word “God” (Greek = theos) to refer to the Father as well as to other authorities. These include the Devil (2 Cor. 4:4), lesser gods (1 Cor. 8:5) and men with great authority (John 10:34 and 35; Acts 12:22). At the time the New Testament was written, Greek manuscripts were written in all capital letters. The upper and lower case letters were not blended as we do today. Thus, the distinction that we today make between “God” and “god” could not be made, and the context became the judge in determining to whom “THEOS” referred.
Although context is the final arbiter, it is almost always the case in the New Testament that when “God” refers to the Father, the definite article appears in the Greek text (this article can be seen only in the Greek text, it is never translated into English). Translators are normally very sensitive to this (see John 10:33). The difference between theos with and without the article occurs in John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with “the theos,” and the Word was “theos.” Since the definite article is missing from the second occurrence of “theos” (“God,&rdquo😉 the usual meaning would be “god” or “divine.” The New English Bible gets the sense of this phrase by translating it, “What God was, the Word was.” James Moffatt who was a professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis at Mansfield College in Oxford, England, and author of the well-known Moffatt Bible, translated the phrase, “the logos was divine.”
A very clear explanation of how to translate theos without the definite article can be found in Jesus As They Knew Him, by William Barclay, a professor at Trinity College in Glasgow:
In a case like this we cannot do other than go to the Greek, which is theos en ho logos. Ho is the definite article, the, and it can be seen that there is a definite article with logos, but not with theos. When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb “to be,” and when both have the definite article, then the one is fully intended to be identified with the other; but when one of them is without the article, it becomes more an adjective than a noun, and describes rather the class or sphere to which the other belongs.
An illustration from English will make this clear. If I say, “The preacher is the man,” I use the definite article before both preacher and man, and I thereby identify the preacher with some quite definite individual man whom I have in mind. But, if I say, “The preacher is man,” I have omitted the definite article before man, and what I mean is that the preacher must be classified as a man, he is in the sphere of manhood, he is a human being.
[In the last clause of John 1:1] John has no article before theos, God. The logos, therefore, is not identified as God or with God; the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos belongs. We would, therefore, have to say that this means that the logos belongs to the same sphere as God; without being identified with God, the logos has the same kind of life and being as God. Here the NEB [New English Bible] finds the perfect translation: “What God was, the Word was.” [20]
5. It is important to understand that the Bible was not written in a vacuum, but was recorded in the context of a culture and was understood by those who lived in that culture. Sometimes verses that seem superfluous or confusing to us were meaningful to the readers of the time because they were well aware of the culture and beliefs being propounded by those around them. In the first century, there were many competing beliefs in the world (and unfortunately, erroneous beliefs in Christendom) that were confusing believers about the identities of God and Christ. For centuries before Christ, and at the time the New Testament was written, the irrational beliefs about the gods of Greece had been handed down. This body of religious information was known by the word “muthos,” which we today call “myths” or “mythology.” This muthos, these myths, were often irrational, mystical and beyond understanding or explanation. The more familiar one is with the Greek myths, the better he will understand our emphasis on their irrationality. If one is unfamiliar with them, it would be valuable to read a little on the subject. Greek mythology is an important part of the cultural background of the New Testament.
The myths were often incomprehensible, but nevertheless, they had been widely accepted as the “revelation of the gods.” The pervasiveness of the muthos in the Greco-Roman world of the New Testament can be seen sticking up out of the New Testament like the tip of an iceberg above the water. When Paul and Barnabas healed a cripple in Lystra, the people assumed that the gods had come down in human form, and the priest of Zeus came to offer sacrifices to them. While Paul was in Athens, he became disturbed because of the large number of idols there that were statues to the various gods. In Ephesus, Paul’s teaching actually started a riot. When some of the locals realized that if his doctrine spread, “the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited, and the goddess herself, who is worshiped throughout the province of Asia and the world, will be robbed of her divine majesty” (Acts 19:27). There are many other examples that show that there was a muthos, i.e., a body of religious knowledge that was in large part incomprehensible to the human mind, firmly established in the minds of some of the common people in New Testament times.
Starting several centuries before Christ, certain Greek philosophers worked to replace the muthos with what they called the logos, a reasonable and rational explanation of reality. It is appropriate that, in the writing of the New Testament, God used the word logos, not muthos, to describe His wisdom, reason and plan. God has not come to us in mystical experiences and irrational beliefs that cannot be understood; rather, He reveals Himself in ways that can be rationally understood and persuasively argued. [For further study read Can we really know God?]
6. In addition to the cultural context that accepted the myths, at the time John was written, a belief system called Gnosticism was taking root in Christianity. Gnosticism had many ideas and words that are strange and confusing to us today, so, at the risk of oversimplifying, we will describe a few basic tenets of Gnosticism as simply as we can.
Gnosticism took many forms, but generally Gnostics taught that there was a supreme and unknowable Being, which they designated as the “Monad.” The Monad produced various gods, who in turn produced other gods (these gods were called by different names, in part because of their power or position). One of these gods, called the “Demiurge,” created the earth and then ruled over it as an angry, evil and jealous god. This evil god, Gnostics believed, was the god of the Old Testament, called Elohim. The Monad sent another god, “Christ,” to bring special gnosis (knowledge) to mankind and free them from the influence of the evil Elohim. Thus, a Gnostic Christian would agree that Elohim created the heavens and earth, but he would not agree that He was the supreme God. Most Gnostics would also state that Elohim and Christ were at cross-purposes with each other. This is why it was so important for John 1:1 to say that the logos was with God, which at first glance seems to be a totally unnecessary statement.
The opening of the Gospel of John is a wonderful expression of God’s love. God “wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). He authored the opening of John in such a way that it reveals the truth about Him and His plan for all of mankind and, at the same time, refutes Gnostic teaching. It says that from the beginning there was the logos (the reason, plan, power), which was with God. There was not another “god” existing with God, especially not a god opposed to God. Furthermore, God’s plan was like God; it was divine. God’s plan became flesh when God impregnated Mary.
cont...
7. There are elements of John 1:1 and other phrases in the introduction of John that not only refer back in time to God’s work in the original creation, but also foreshadow the work of Christ in the new administration and the new creation. Noted Bible commentator F.F. Bruce argues for this interpretation:
It is not by accident that the Gospel begins with the same phrase as the book of Genesis. In Genesis 1:1, ‘In the beginning’ introduces the story of the old creation; here it introduces the story of the new creation. In both works of creation the agent is the Word of God. [21]
The Racovian Catechism, one of the great doctrinal works of the Unitarian movement of the 14th and 15th centuries, states that the word “beginning” in John 1:1 refers to the beginning of the new dispensation and thus is similar to Mark 1:1, which starts, “The beginning of the Gospel about Jesus Christ.”
In the cited passage (John 1:1) wherein the Word is said to have been in the beginning, there is no reference to an antecedent eternity, without commencement; because mention is made here of a beginning, which is opposed to that eternity. But the word beginning, used absolutely, is to be understood of the subject matter under consideration. Thus, Daniel 8:1, “In the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared to me, even unto me Daniel, after that which appeared unto me AT THE FIRST.” John 15:27, “And ye also shall bear witness because ye have been with me FROM the beginning.” John 16:4, “These things I said not unto you AT the beginning because I was with you. And Acts 11:15, “And as I began to speak the Holy Spirit fell on them, as on us AT the beginning.” As then the matter of which John is treating is the Gospel, or the things transacted under the Gospel, nothing else ought to be understood here beside the beginning of the Gospel; a matter clearly known to the Christians whom he addressed, namely, the advent and preaching of John the Baptist, according to the testimony of all the evangelists [i.e., Matthew, Mark, Luke and John], each of whom begins his history with the coming and preaching of the Baptist. Mark indeed (Chapter 1:1) expressly states that this was the beginning of the Gospel. In like manner, John himself employs the word beginning, placed thus absolutely, in the introduction to his First Epistle, at which beginning he uses the same term (logos) Word, as if he meant to be his own interpreter [“That which is from the beginning…concerning the Word (logos) of life.” 1 John 1:1]. [22]
While we do not agree with the Catechism that the only meaning of beginning in John 1:1 is the beginning of the new creation, we certainly see how the word beginning is a double entendre. In the context of the new creation, then, “the Word” is the plan or purpose according to which God is restoring His creation.
8. To fully understand any passage of Scripture, it is imperative to study the context. To fully understand John 1:1, the rest of the chapter needs to be understood as well, and the rest of the chapter adds more understanding to John 1:1. We believe that these notes on John 1:1, read together with the rest of John 1 and our notes on John 1:3, John 1:10, John 1:14, John 1:15, and John 1:18 will help make the entire first chapter of John more understandable.
For the most exhaustive work we have on John 1:1, click here.
Broughton and Southgate, pp. 238-248
Buzzard, pp. 111-119
Morgridge, pp. 107-109
Norton, pp. 307-374
Robinson, Honest to God, p. 71
Snedeker, pp. 313-326
from...
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=85
Originally posted by checkbaiterI asked you but -
7. There are elements of John 1:1 and other phrases in the introduction of John that not only refer back in time to God’s work in the original creation, but also foreshadow the work of Christ in the new administration and the new creation. Noted Bible commentator F.F. Bruce argues for this interpretation:
It is not by accident that the Gospel begi ...[text shortened]... . 313-326
from...
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=85
Never mind about how long you have been studying the Bible.
I don't really need to know that.
Originally posted by checkbaiterI might just dip in here a bit, if no one minds, since I’m having a kind of “sick day” here. Just to offer a slightly different perspective on the question...
Sorry, but I have to come back with this....
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NIV)
1. It is imperative that the serious student of the Bible come to a basic understanding of logos, which is translated as “Word” in John 1:1. Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jes ...[text shortened]... “wisdom” are seen as the creative force of God, but without being a “person.”
3. Continued...
A few preliminaries, just to give my point of view vis-à-vis the argument, though not themselves for argument:
(1) I am not a sola scripturist. After all it was the continuing apostolic oral tradition (teaching/transmission) that both guided the early Christians in their Biblical hermeneutics (which seems not to be as rigid as some modern Biblicists are), and ultimately determined which texts would be included in the canon.
Sola scriptura was not part of church doctrine prior to the Reformation (when it became one of Luther’s “solas,” and thereafter permeated protestantism); nor did people have Bibles in their homes prior to the advent of the printing press, before which the Biblical texts really were multivolume; the notion of Biblical inerrancy and literalism arose within Protestantism after that time (i.e., post-16th century), and it is hard for me to imagine that all Christians up till that time got that one wrong.
Since inerrantists are not always literalists, etc., I will use the terms sola scripturist and Biblicist to refer to that latter-day Protestant position generally—with no put-down intended, only disagreement with the position.
(2) The stream that I tend to follow quite a bit (in recent times) is the Greek Orthodox, partly because they never lost usage of the Greek, and hence flesh out such things as Greek lexicons and grammars. Modern translators run the danger of using the Greek terms in ways that, while technically accurate, do not reflect the usages of the authors or the early church, especially if they reject the hermeneutics of the early exegetes.
(3) I think Nemesio is correct that the written tradition (i.e., the canonical texts that were collected into the Bible) does not lead inexorably to a conclusion of trinitarianism. Checkbaiter, hence, is also correct on that score.
However, my Christology (if I can say this now as an “outsider” ) has always been closer to jaywill’s. I think he is in error in his Biblicism, but he seems Christologically and soteriologically closer to the ancient Orthodox tradition than most on here.
____________________________________
Although context is the final arbiter, it is almost always the case in the New Testament that when “God” refers to the Father, the definite article appears in the Greek text (this article can be seen only in the Greek text, it is never translated into English). Translators are normally very sensitive to this (see John 10:33). The difference between theos with and without the article occurs in John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with “the theos,” and the Word was “theos.” Since the definite article is missing from the second occurrence of “theos” (“God,&rdquo😉 the usual meaning would be “god” or “divine.” The New English Bible gets the sense of this phrase by translating it, “What God was, the Word was.” James Moffatt who was a professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis at Mansfield College in Oxford, England, and author of the well-known Moffatt Bible, translated the phrase, “the logos was divine.”
First, the problem with “context is always the final arbiter” is that your context is my text, and vice versa. Context is most often argued from, not toward, a theological viewpoint. That said, as I noted above, I also use the early church oral tradition (as continued by Orthodoxy) as context as well.
Second, Moffat’s translation—“the logos was divine”—I think is a hedge. For one thing, “divine” seems generally used with an express or implied preposition, when “God” is in the genitive (tou theou) or dative (toi theoi) case, not nominative as it is in John 1:1. [Sometimes, the definite article in these instances is used as a preposition.]
Third, although the definite article is most often attached to theos in the texts, the definite article has a number of usages (it can also be implied even if not expressed, according to my grammar), including emphasis. In this instance, the most likely intent is to clarify the “subject” in a phrase where two terms are identified by both being in the nominative case.
kai theos eyn ho logos— Both theos and logos here are in the nominative case, which is generally used for the subject of a sentence or clause, here indicating, I think, a “being in identity.” The phrase could be read either way—“God was being the logos” or “the logos was being God”—without changing the sense of identity. (“Was being” is a bit clumsy, but better captures the verb tense.)
In terms of context, it should be noted that the previous clause the definite article is applied to theos—
kai ho logos eyn pros ton theon— pros is here in the accusative case. As such, although it indicates “with-ness,” it also indicates a movement, not stasis. Ton theon is literally “the God;” ton here may be a use of the definite article for emphasis (perhaps of the reverential type). Ton theon is in the accusative, which marks it as the object of the movement aspect of eyn pros.
There seems no reason to assume that the absence of the definite article in the following clause is indicative of some different meaning or usage of theos—it can likely be argued either way, depending, again, on what theological views one brings to the text. I think it is unlikely that the earliest Christian exegetes were led to a trinitraian concept because they did not understand their language. Hence, I tend to reject Moffatt’s “hedge.”
_________________________________________
A note on logos—
The absolute identification of theos, logos and pneuma predates Christianity in Greek thought, going back to the Stoics. The distinctions made by the Christians (including the author of the Gospel of John) were primarily these:
(1) Association of ho theos with the Judaic God (rather than nature, as with the stoics), whether that God is viewed monotheistically or panentheistically (with is a whole other matter).
(2) In a sense distinguishing theos as ho pater. Remember that the original version of the Nicene Creed does not contain the filioque (the words “and the Son” ) in the third article, and the orthodox do not include it to this day; hence ho pater is the “godhead” in Orthodoxy.
(3) Identifying Jesus as uniquely begotten (uniquely as opposed to exclusively)—which is the meaning of monogenete. Again, the Orthodox seem pretty consistent in having kept that understanding.
BTW, all the “came into being” phrases in John 1 use the verb ginomai (past tense: egeneto)—to become, to be born, to happen, to appear, to arise, to be produced. It is the same root that is translated as “beget.”
(4) Identifying logos as ho uios, “the son.”
Logos is a word rich in meaning—including “meaning.” Conventionally translated as “word,” it also means principle, pattern, reason, deliberation—as well as various terms of discourse. In Chinese Bibles it is translated as “Tao”—the way. An example might be to speak of the logos of the grain of wood in a particular kind of tree: a forester can tell by the grain what kind of tree the wood came from, but the grain of each individual tree is also unique.
Greek Orthodox bishop and theologian John D. Zizioulas writes: “The problem which the use of the term logos as ‘word’ for Christ created in the early church show how dangerous the application to Christology of the notion of ‘word’ as spoken or written can be. As a reaction against Sabelleianism and Arianism, the Fathers were forced to deny entirely any association of these two senses of logos and thus replace definitely the connotation of spoken or written word with that of the person exclusively.” (Being as Communion, p. 190.)
I think John, here, is using logos in the deeper philosophical (theological) sense, in which it is an active principle of theos (and here, the distinction between logos and pneuma is less sharp than sometimes seems to be assumed), identical in being (ousia) with ho pater, but a distinctive hypostasis. (Hypostasis is the original Greek term, translated into Latin as persona, and hence “person” in English; although this translation has been accepted by the Orthodox, that acceptance is not without some caveats, and there is a whole history of that, which Zizioulas treats extensively.)
_________________________________________
In sum—
The doctrine of the Tri-unity of God was not simply “given” to the early church in the Biblical texts. Nor was it “given” immediately in the oral tradition, but developed from the ongoing hermeneutical application of that tradition to the texts.
“Tradition” here should probably be thought of as “teaching” handed down and expanded (again, I think in more open way than is sometimes assumed—it was not “rigid” tradition, but a living stream of teaching or transmission). (See Acts 8:26-39.)
For Orthodoxy, salvation (from soterias: making whole or well, healing) is far more rooted in incarnation than it is in the more juridical soteriologies of “theologies of the cross.” In the archetypal “mingling” of the divine and human natures in Jesus as the Christ (ho Christos), all of humanity is healed. The longstanding view of Orthodoxy is that the nature of all humanity is “mingled” by reason of the incarnation.
(continued)
St. Gregory of Nyssa (3rd century): “The logos, in taking flesh, was mingled with humanity, and took our nature within himself, so that the human should be deified by this mingling with God; the stuff of our nature was entirely sanctified by Christ....”
Gregory again: “It is not in a part of [human] nature that the image is found, but nature in its totality is the image of God.”
Gregory again: “That God should have clothed himself in our nature is a fact that should not seem strange or extravagant to minds that do not form too paltry an idea of reality ... that God is all in all; that he clothes himself with the universe, and at the same time contains it and dwells in it.
“If then all is in him and he is in all, why blush for the faith that teaches us that one day God was born in the human condition, God who still today exists in humanity?
“Indeed, if the presence of God in us does not take the same form now as it did then, we can at least agree in recognizing that he is in us today no less than he was then.” (My bold.)
Justin Martyr (died 165 C.E.): “Christ is the first-born of God, his Logos, in whom all people share. That is what we have learned and what we bear witness to ... All who have lived in accordance with the Logos are Christians, even if they have been reckoned atheists, as among the Greeks Socrates, Heraclitus and the like.”
Orthodox theologian Olivier Clement’s commentary: “For the early church salvation is not at all reserved to the baptized ... The Word [logos] has never ceased and never will cease to be present to humanity in all cultures, all religions, and all irreligions. The incarnation and resurrection are not exclusive but inclusive of the manifold forms of his presence.” (Clement, The Roots of Christian Mysticism))
__________________________________________
Gregory of Nyssa’s understanding of the Trinity (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_of_Nyssa) –
Following Basil's lead, Gregory argues that the three Persons of the Trinity can be understood along the model of three members of a single class: thus, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three in the same way that Peter, Paul, and Timothy are three men. So why do we not say there are three Gods? Gregory answers that, normally, we can distinguish between different members of the same class by the fact that they have different shapes, sizes, and colours. Even if they are identical, they still occupy different points in space. But none of this is true of incorporeal beings like God. Even lesser spiritual beings can still be distinguished by their varying degrees of goodness, but this does not apply to God either. In fact, the only way to tell the three Persons apart is by their mutual relations — thus, the only difference between the Father and the Son is that the former is the Father of the latter, and the latter is the Son of the former. As Gregory puts it, it is impossible to think of one member of the Trinity without thinking of the others too: they are like a chain of three links, pulling each other along.
Originally posted by vistesdV., you are always welcome. I value your input even though I don't always agree, I ponder it as well as Jaywill and others. You said this...
St. Gregory of Nyssa (3rd century): “The logos, in taking flesh, was mingled with humanity, and took our nature within himself, so that the human should be deified by this mingling with God; the stuff of our nature was entirely sanctified by Christ....”
Gregory again: “It is not in a part of [human] nature that the image is found, but nature in out thinking of the others too: they are like a chain of three links, pulling each other along.
St. Gregory of Nyssa (3rd century): “The logos, in taking flesh, was mingled with humanity, and took our nature within himself, so that the human should be deified by this mingling with God; the stuff of our nature was entirely sanctified by Christ....”
But in Hebrews, I'm not sure if it is related, but it says God took part. Not all. That is, the geneology of Mary which dates back to Adam. The seed was planted by God ( Holy Spirit) Himself.
Heb 2:14
14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
(KJV)
Now the bible still says that Jesus grew in wisdom and stature. That is something to digest in itself. Thank you for your input, I'll have to consider what you are saying and study it further.
Originally posted by checkbaiterV., you are always welcome. I value your input even though I don't always agree, I ponder it as well as Jaywill and others.
V., you are always welcome. I value your input even though I don't always agree, I ponder it as well as Jaywill and others. You said this...
St. Gregory of Nyssa (3rd century): “The logos, in taking flesh, was mingled with humanity, and took our nature within himself, so that the human should be deified by this mingling with God; the stuff of our natu lf. Thank you for your input, I'll have to consider what you are saying and study it further.
Thanks, CB. The vice-versa is also true! Sometimes, when I’m studying a certain thing, it helps me to put myself in that position for argument’s sake. Hopefully, as long as I am clear about that, I will not be accused of hypocrisy. (I know I will not be so accused by you!)
Before I look at the scriptural points, I want to reiterate that I am not a sola scripturist, nor a Biblical literalist. (I seem to recall that you and I are not that far apart when it comes to such things as metaphor and allegory and such in the Bible, though you are more “conservative” about that than I am—and I am, in turn, even more “liberal” than the Orthodox—and we might disagree about particulars....) The reason I repeat myself is that I not too long ago cracked my brain in a very good debate with Epiphenehas regarding salvation, in which I allowed him to draw me into arguing on his scriptural “turf” anyway (good for him! It really was a good debate, taken to a respectful impasse). I just don’t want to do that again. 🙂 Also, as I conceded above, I think your position is perfectly defensible from a strictly scriptural point of view.
I want to add that, although at one time I took an opposite view, I’m no longer sure that Christianity, as such, can be separated from the Hellenistic influence that goes as deeply to the root as the written NT books, and possibly to the oral tradition that preceded those. As an analogy, I now suspect that is as impossible to do as it would be to slice away the Taoist influence on Buddhism that resulted in Zen.
__________________________________________
Now, the Hebrews text—
Hebrews 2:9 . . . but we do see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
10 It was fitting that God, for whom and through whom all things exist, in bringing many children to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
11 For the one who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one Father. For this reason Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters,
12 saying, "I will proclaim your name to my brothers and sisters, in the midst of the congregation I will praise you."
13 And again, "I will put my trust in him." And again, "Here am I and the children whom God has given me."
14 Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,
15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death.
16 For it is clear that he did not come to help angels, but the descendants of Abraham.
17 Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people.
18 Because he himself was tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested.
(NRSV, my bold)
As a whole, I think this passage could be read to support either yours or jaywill’s position. It also seems to be more in line with theologies of the cross; but sacrifice and suffering can also refer to the incarnation (especially sacrifice in it’s root sense of making holy). [I have not gone back to read the whole Epistle, but am willing to.]
However, 2:9 (and 2:17) I would conjecture identifies Jesus as the logos that became flesh. Also (again, I should probably go re-read the whole letter), I think Jesus is not being referred to as the strictly human person, but the pre-existing logos/Christ. I think that sometimes “low Christologies” result from over-emphasizing the human nature in the Christ, as opposed to the divine nature.
Jaywill once thought that I was artificially trying to separate them by emphasizing the divine nature, when I was really trying to keep the two natures “without separation but without confusion,” to paraphrase the paradoxical language of the Definition of Chalcedon. (I am likely not doing any better here...) That is why I like the term “mingling”. Nevertheless, the “without confusion” aspect means that one must determine, for example, when Jesus himself was speaking, which nature was at the fore, so to speak (e.g., in John 14:6).
Note: I think this also goes to your point about Jesus growing in wisdom and stature. (As one Episcopal priest friend of mine put it, the question is: “When did Jesus come to know that he knew what he knew?” ) I don’t think that defeats the incarnation, but—okay, pun intended—“fleshes it out”. What you have is not part and part, but fullness and fullness. If one fullness (i.e. the divine) does not permit the process of the other fullness (the human), then the incarnation is not complete. Also, of course, once there is the incarnation, there will be death...
Now, I think that 2:14 is saying that Jesus, here identified as the pre-existing logos, becomes incarnate, becomes blood and flesh (aimatos kai sarkos), in order to sanctify, not just soul and spirit, but also—blood and flesh! And, historically, I think this is what distinguishes Christianity from some other “more spirit-ual” religions. Arius was not a bad guy, but this is the basis for Athanasius’ attack on Arianism. Orthodox soteriology is inseparably tied up with sanctification—as opposed to Luther’s (and subsequent Protestantism’s) emphasis on justification.
____________________________________
Jaywill and I hardly ever agree on anything. But we have been close on Christology and the nature of “process soteriology” (although I would be a universalist, in the Orthodox understanding of that: an acceptable, but not a doctrinal position within Orthodoxy). Without the Nicean/Chalcedonian tradition, I think Christianity loses a good deal of its distinguishing oomph.
CB, do you recall our brief discussion about Lucifer/Satan? I think of it, because I was the one arguing that there is no scriptural basis for the conflation, while you were the one presenting the case from a sort of “tradition-based” position based on recognizing alternate names for the same thing (I forget the technical term you gave me for that). That is why I noted above that I think you and I are not that far apart in approach, though we differ in the details. I have no problem with “midrashic” readings into the text, generally as long as those are aimed at opening up possibilities, rather than foreclosing them. That same approach was used by the earliest Christian exegetes.
It was Nemesio who really hammered home to me the validity of early church tradition when he pointed out (I don’t attempt to recall his exact words) that Biblicist Protestants tend to allow for the guidance of the Holy Spirit on the fathers’ deciding the canonical texts, but not with regard to their ability to read and interpret those texts! Let alone carrying on the oral teachings. (I should note here that I grew up and spent most of my life as a sola scripturist Lutheran.)
The Protestant Reformation was strictly vis-à-vis what Luther and others saw as the errors of Rome. Orthodoxy, for historical reasons, had lost all influence in the West. It is only in recent decades that it has re-emerged as a force on the ecumenical scene. But even in 1054, the Latin West and the Greek East had lost the ability to communicate with one another due to, ironically, among other things, the language barrier.
And so, I present this in the spirit of Ex Oriente, lux!.
__________________________________________
We often argue hard on here (I do too). Let us not allow our positions to harden in the process, to the point where we each think that our own spiritual growth/understanding is now complete and immune from error. I have recanted positions that I once held; Epiphenehas, for example, has recanted positions he once held. Most of us have. I think we should argue hard, each in our own way, our own voice—as hard as we possibly can. Then go and reflect. Let us neither hold each other to the baggage we might have been carrying a few months (for some of us, years) ago, nor flinch from sparks of argument for the sake of a false humility.
The kitchen here is hot—as it should be.