I’m the one doing all the blabbing Bob, won’t you share your thoughts on that - please?
Randy - there has to be consistency. If the Reformers are your champions, you have to go all the way to double predestination. The Westminster Creed starts out with that, basically.
If they were so very wrong about that, yes, I think a current person can see the error. It was not WISDOM on their part.
And the fathers were all over the place.
Well, they did come together…that’s what the creeds are about…Let’s get together and define, what we believe…But let’s suppose…for the same of argument - they got it wrong…and someone here, has gotten it right. Well, I don’t think God will get super angry at us. God will be more interested, in how we “implement”…what God tried to communicate, for our salvation (whatever that means to you, and folks here)…but I hear the dead, calling me…
Come - get ready - we will be on shortly! 
I already told you my sympathies are with adoptionism, but that I am not confident that the NT always assumes such a simply human view of Jesus. But you are the one who has started two threads justifying denying Jesus’ deity. Do you feel no obligation to offer what you would put in place of what you argue to dismiss?
Just to clarify this position, Bob. from
Let me quote his definition. We can “ignore” his criticism:
Those who held it denied the preexistence of Christ and, therefore, His deity. Adoptionists taught that Jesus was tested by God; and after passing this test and upon His baptism, He was granted supernatural powers by God and adopted as the Son. As a reward for His great accomplishments and perfect character, Jesus was raised from the dead and adopted into the Godhead.
Do you agree with this definition? If not, where do you differ?
And Dave…I’m VERY interested, in hearing your position also.
Well, Bob. The problem is that - except for the resurrection…I can find many contemporary and historical figures…both Christian and non-Christian (i.e. Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Tibetan, Native American, Islamic Sufi, etc) - who also fit that bill. What - besides the resurrection - makes Jesus unique?
Randy, the part where I assumed a different definition is in assuming adoptionists saw Jesus as adopted to have the position of Messiah and of lordship, but not “into the Godhead.” I’m not even sure what the latter would mean. I would assume one is either God, or he is not, and that those categories could not change.
And asking what besides the resurrection (and thus being made both Lord and Christ) makes Jesus unique, seems to me to over minimize the pivotal significance given to Easter and the resurrection.
Forgive me Bob, I thought you were asking for a translation. I feel I have a grasp of the context that should guide a translation, and a reason for finding the current ones that I’m aware of not up to the mark because of their bias, but seeing the context and parsing out the Greek are two different things that are probably better left to scholars such as yourself who have studied it.
But you bring up a good point, as usual - is there an unbiased translator? Can someone translate the passage in question without knowing any theology? I don’t know. It’s certainly not like translating a ‘pick up some milk and eggs on your way home’ type of thing. :-).
As for ontology, I’ve got embarrassingly simple ideas. Jesus was a normal human, born as a baby. He had a human nature, lived and died as a human being. No dual nature, no pre-existence, had very human struggles and growth and experiences.
To go further into his understanding of his unique vocation before God and his mission etc. - not a subject for a trinity discussion?
Yes, that does seem like a limited reductionist claim concerning Jesus. Surely Paul would say more about Jesus’ unique identify than that he was another normal human. Should we worship such?
Dang it Bob, you know very well that I have pointed out those very things. I have posts dedicated to those things about Jesus.
You asked me about ontology - the being of Christ. I gave it to you.
And then there is everything else.
Dave, I find your eclectic ability to take both Wright and Channing seriously refreshing and bold. But orthodox traditions see Jesus’ “unique vocation” as centrally located in his being God incarnate. I affirm your willingness to dismiss such assumptions.
But asking what one puts in place of that whole eradicated construction doesn’t seem irrelevant to me, and I don’t know where you’ve already posted how you handle such a major change in traditional theology. If Jesus is fundamentally like any other normal man, what do you see him as able to accomplish or attain, and how?
Here’s what’s puzzling. Jesus is tested by God and passes the test…he is given the title of Christ and Messiah…and given the honor, to be resurrected…why wasn’t this honor given to Enoch, Elijah, Moses, Buddha, Elijah, or any of the saintly examples - around the time of Christ? While I’m waiting for Fear The Walking Dead, I’m trying to understand Jesus uniqueness - from a non-Trinity standpoint. And what made him so special, around the age of 12…That none of the others, around that age - possessed? I think it’s a bit easier, to understand the Walking Dead. Which I must now return to - via TV.
1 Like
You guys…
I think there is a different sense of “God” in which Jesus is God.
This comes out in John 1:1
The Logos was with the God… (Here “God” refers to the only true God. The article before it with no other modifiers indicate the one true God)
.And the Logos was God. When you read this don’t emphasize “was.” Emphasize “God.” This time there is no article before “God.” Also the word order is “God was the Logos”. This word order combined with the lack of the article indicates that “God” is a quality of the Logos. The same word order is used where it is written that God is love. The word order is “Love is the God,” meaning that “love” is a quality of God.
A quality of you is being human. You are man. Every human being is man (or mankind) regardless of sex. For every human being was begotten by man. In the sense of being of human essence every person is “man.”
Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. I am not referring to His having been begotten in the womb of Mary, but His having been begotten by God as God’s first act, before all ages. In the sense of being of divine essence, He is God,
I really don’t see the Logos=pre-incarnate Christ. It don’t see it specifically nor have I seen it defended in any serious way.
I know this cannot be ironed out exegetically, but I don’t see any mention of it elsewhere in scripture either.
Bob, you DO realize that I am posting things by you and other Ph.D’s, commenting on them and asking for conversation, right? I’ll post something by say CS Lewis, and I would hope you and others would converse by saying ‘I agree with that because’ or ‘I disagree with that because’ or ‘it’s interesting’.
It is not a conversation when all you do is poke. I post a lot - too much, do you think? If anyone thinks I’m outta control just say so, no big deal. I find lots of things interesting, and like to know why someone will take a non-logical, almost un-understandable position such as the Trinity or a number of other sacred cows. How did these things, not seen in scripture, become such sacred cows? What difference does it make if we see another more likely and scriptural argument and decide to follow it? Why does that raise a hornet’s nest? Those are questions I ask myself all the time. No doubt I should keep them to myself.
But in any case - you’re a big cheese here, a Ph.D, a pastor and more - I’m getting frustrated that you will poke and prod but not come out with whether you agree or not, and WHY. We could all learn from you, if you could put aside the Socratic thing. (As I see it)
You KNOW I have studied them, right? And after that I have felt no further obligation - they were so often wrong.
No, I don’t. Don’t you feel one to explain why you agree or disagree?
What agree/disagree thing do you find I’m awfully bashful about??? I may not be the best evaluator of your view, but I repeatedly said my own inclinations were consistently anti-trinitarian, and that I lean to a more liberal adoptionist view of an entirely human Jesus’ place and nature (and I’ve repeatedly detailed in the last two months how openly questioning the traditional formulation as Biblical got me demoted from this site’s board despite being a founder).
But seeing that many scholars most devoted to the relevant texts see Jesus as more than a “normal human,” the biggest quandary that is left for me is with what view of Jesus’ identity and accomplishment one will replace the view that Jesus possesses the divine being that makes him suitable for worship?
Since that’s the reason I have reservations, I asked you what your own alternative is. You are entitled to say I only want to poke holes in the evangelical consensus, and not offer what you’d replace it with. But I do find it interesting on an expressly evangelical site with a very trinitarian doctrinal statement, that you refreshingly offer why you reject a pivotal belief such as Jesus’ deity, but seem frustrated that others would find it interesting and relevant to hear what Christology you would constructively put in its’ place.
The contemplative tradition has stories…of folks achieving the end, of the contemplative goal…and being able to do most of the miracles - and more - that Christ did. Like is alluded to, in this Kung Fu TV show clip:
Or one can see from the article at Talks with a Sufi Shaykh…or the video at Tibetan Rainbow…or the lives, of the RC and EO saints.
The contemplative practice I follow is a hybrid of the EO Hesychasm and Tibetan Rainbow traditions…with ‘booster shots’ from God’s energies (as Eastern Catholics / Eastern Orthodox, label them)…primarily from the Sukyo Mahikari, Bruno Gröning, Johrei and Heartfulness traidtions.
This is as potent, as it gets. The only thing equally as potent is joining genuine Native Americans…for their all night, Ayahuasca and Peyote ceremonies. Which I can neither confirm - nor deny…whether I have ever taken part, or not.
From your posts, I have no doubt you have partaken often and heavily.
Alright, to get some intelligent discussion back and running Im going to try and enter into the convo with some of my recent progressions in the topic.
-
First off, throughout the time period around Jesus and prior to that - many religions adopted a ‘three-in-one’ god head. I believe it was of pagan mythology and slowly introduced itself into Christianity by Tertullian (potentially). That would have been around 300AD which was a fair bit after Jesus’ death - so from that alone Im a lot less likely to believe in the concept of the trinity.
-
Considering that the Greek and Hebrew for the concept of ‘Spirit’ is translated as ‘breath’, I find that the original belief that the Hebrews had was correct. They hold to saying the ‘Breath of God’ or ‘Holy Breath’ is a physical description of something that is spiritual. This is referring to Gods word or power or presence being in the physical world with us now. There was never any consideration of it being a separate entity. Don’t know why it has to be either - doesn’t add anything to Christianity IMO.
3.Next is the consideration whether Jesus is God or not. This is the only deciding factor for me whether or not to choose a trinity belief. That being said, I have written previously about this with no good discussion so far.
So - Jesus was tempted by sin/evil in the desert(Mat 4:1-11), however God cannot be tempted by sin/evil(James 1:13). So on that premise alone Jesus cannot be God. *If you debate this point, could you please not do some theological gymnastics with it and just use history and scripture to prove your point.
Jesus however can be perfect and without sin - if he is acting as what is called a ‘Shaliach.’ This is the concept of an agent who takes the attitudes and wishes of whomever employs him to carry out a task (apparently this was a common thing to occur throughout Hebraic history). If Jesus was the Messiah, he would have undertaken the responsibility of what God wanted him to do. I think this would better understand the concept of who God is and who we should be worshiping as our #1 priority. I’m much more likely to believe in this view since the Jews understood the Messiah’s function was as an agent. As a side note - now we can act as agents on Jesus’ behalf, taking on the same values as God by extension (if we decide to do so).
I am still in the baby stages in understanding all of this - so I’d like to work it out if you guys have some things to add.
Cheers