|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 3, 2012 6:03:11 GMT
Their use of the word 'god' was therefore highly qualified and cannot be read in the same way that we use it today. I am interested in this Sankari, but just what did they mean by attributing the word "god" to Jesus? Or are there diverse meanings due to the diversity of the writers who refer to Jesus by this term? Can you suggest any follow up literature? I have often seen claims that the word "theos" should be translated "a god" and not "God" or "Deity" but what do they mean by "a god"? It is something that is never explained. It has been explained many times as binitarianism, functional subordinationism, or simple polytheism (a charge which is recorded as having been directed towards early post-apostolic Christian leaders).
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jul 3, 2012 10:48:28 GMT
I am interested in this Sankari, but just what did they mean by attributing the word "god" to Jesus? Or are there diverse meanings due to the diversity of the writers who refer to Jesus by this term? The precise meaning changed depending on who was using the term, and the context in which they used it. For example, when the apologists described Jesus as 'god' they did not mean what they meant when they described the Father as 'God.' Justin Martyr is a case in point. He had no qualms about calling Jesus 'god', but took care to qualify this. When replying to Trypho the Jew (who had asked for proof that there was another called 'God'), Justin answered as follows: Here Jesus is described as 'God', 'another God and Lord', and 'an angel.' These titles are qualified by Justin's insistence that Jesus is nevertheless subject to 'the Maker of all things--above whom there is no other God... Him who made all things...' (i.e. the Father). In his First Apology Justin describes the Father as 'the most true God', and 'the true God, who made all things.' He never describes the Son in this way. Origen held similar views. His Christology provides some of the terms and definitions which Arius would later adopt. Look at the following exchange from Dialogue of Origen with Heraclides and his Fellow Bishops on the Father, the Son, and the Soul: Notice the idiosyncratic reference to 'two gods', which was by no means unique to Origen. McDowell ( Arius: A Theological Conservative Persecuted?, 1994) shows how this early Christological language was exploited by the Arians: Origen's own view was common to many of the early fathers, as Schmaus ( Dogma, Vol. 3, 'God and His Christ', 1971) has observed: The significance of Origen as an inspiration for Arianism via Arius' mentor Lucian cannot be overlooked. Like Origen, the Arians had no difficulty referring to Christ as 'god' in the sense of a divine being ontologically distinct from the Father. To their minds, this did not compromise monotheism. On one hand, Arius rejected Origen's belief in the 'eternal generation' of the Son. On the other hand, he appreciated the description of Christ as 'a second God', and endorsed Origen's teaching that the Father alone is autotheos ('God in himself'; that is, inherently God) while the son's divinity is merely derived from the Father's. Even Tertullian had confessed that the Son's existence had a beginning in time. In Chapter 3 of Against Hermogenes he brazenly stated: Now look at the 4th Century Deposition of Arius by Bishop Alexander of Alexandria: Had he lived in Alexander's day, Tertullian would have been condemned as a heretic! What specifically are you looking for? Theos is the usual Greek word for 'god', and most of the time that's exactly what it will mean. However, theos can also be found within broader contexts, signifying anything from divinely appointed human authorities (Psalm 45:6; Psalm 82:6; Isaiah 9:6) to minor deities (I Corinthians 8:5). There is no need to translate theos as 'a god' unless it is preceded by the definite article. Capitalisation must be determined by the context, since it did not exist in the original Koine Greek.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Jul 3, 2012 21:02:23 GMT
Or did he not tell them all this and just let their ideas about him "develop" in a way that just happens to look exactly like a Jewish preacher who came to be seen as the Messiah and then seen to have had a heavenly pre-existence and finally, after centuries of wrangling and various ecumenical councils, became the deity you now worship? Really? Well, according to your own website History vs The Da Vinci Code, Christians worshipped Jesus of Nazareth as a deity since, at least, the late First Century; long before any ecumenical council took place Yes. And? Did I say the process was such that there was no conception of any idea he was God incarnate before 325 AD? I said no such thing. It was underway, but far from complete. And while the idea that he was in some sense divine was, as I say, more or complete by the middle of the Second Century, the details of how he was divine and what this meant took centuries of wrangling, in councils, in writings and occasionally in the streets with sticks hitting other Christians in the head. Even if your Jesus didn't go into the fine theological details with his followers, it's very odd that the earliest Christian material, as Sankari has highlighted, seems oblivious to the idea that he was equal to Yahweh at all. Strange. Did he forget to mention this? Perhaps he was too busy saying all that stuff we'd expect of a Jewish apocalyptic preacher and so it slipped his mind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2012 21:44:43 GMT
By 95 A.D., Jesus was worshiped alongside Yahweh, his Father.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Jul 3, 2012 21:48:33 GMT
By 95 A.D., Jesus was worshiped alongside Yahweh, his Father. Really? Evidence for that? And as Sankari has noted, it's odd that this is found nowhere in the Pentecost speech reported in Acts. Did they forget to mention this rather important key point?
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 4, 2012 0:16:00 GMT
By 95 A.D., Jesus was worshiped alongside Yahweh, his Father. Are you thinking of Pliny's letter to Trajan?
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Jul 4, 2012 2:03:41 GMT
Sankari said:
Yep, seems to fit in with Jesus own description of YHWH in Jn 17:3, a book that has a high christology.
Thanks, I'll have a look at that.
OK so some early Christians did see Jesus as divine in the ontological sense. That is what you mean by this statement?
"eternal generation" Terminology that I never really understood and could find no scriptural support for. Does any exist?
OK. I have reasoned something like this via Proverbs 8 and John 1:1-3
I am looking for a detailed scholarly discussion of what the earliest Christians thought that the "Pre-incarnate", or if you like, the nature of the logos was composed of.
Did they think that he was some sort of exalted angelic being? Did he share the same nature as YHWH, but due to being brought into existence by YHWH was subordinate to him?
Was he considered as another lesser deity in a polytheistic sense?
Was there any concensus?
Wraggy said:
So what I am interested in is how the nature of the Logos was understood in the earliest Christianity. I would appreciate some direction if you can.
Yep, up with that.
I think that you meant "There is no need to translate theos as 'God' unless it is preceded by the definite article. Just a typo I suspect.
Although I have found the odd instances where it makes more sense to translate theos without the article as definite. Hebrews 3:4 being one example. I did have a Gramcord file on theos without the article but it is on my old computer and the hard drive is damaged. πᾶς γὰρ οἶκος κατασκευάζεται ὑπό τινος, ὁ δὲ πάντα κατασκευάσας θεός.
Thanks Mr.Sankari
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jul 4, 2012 5:30:21 GMT
OK so some early Christians did see Jesus as divine in the ontological sense. That is what you mean by this statement? Yes. No. Origen was the first to propose it, and his premise was predictably Platonic. The reasoning is based on God's impassibility, which necessitates the Son's eternal existence by virtue of the fact that the Father cannot experience a change of state. Hall ( Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church, 1999, p. 105) summarises Origen's argument as follows: The Nicene Creed describes Jesus as 'eternally begotten', but it does not explain what this is intended to mean. There may be an echo of Origen here, though it would be ironic since by this time he was widely regarded as a heretic and most of his works had been destroyed. The doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son has been criticised many times over the centuries, and remains a controversial teaching today. When you say 'earliest Christians', do you mean the 1st Century? As far as I'm aware, we don't really find any extra-Biblical documents which discuss the nature of the logos until the 2nd Century. Prior to that time we mostly have raw data, which is subject to a variety of interpretations. From the 2nd Century onward, some did. Justin Martyr falls into this category. From the 2nd Century onward, some did. Tertullian falls into this category. Technically not, but there is no doubt that some pre-Trinitarian Christologies were effectively polytheistic. Locally, yes. Universally, no. Even the Council of Nicaea failed in this regard. Again, I need to know what you mean by 'earliest Christianity.' You are quite right, thanks for the pickup. Yes, there are some odd exceptions. For example, Dixon ( The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John, Dallas Seminary, 1975) and Wallace ( Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1997) both argue that the theos of John 1:1 should be understood in a qualitative sense. In other words, it refers to the nature of the logos rather than the logos as the person of God. The NET Bible reflects this, translating John 1:1 as 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.' Wallace aims to preclude an Arian reading, since 'divine' rather than 'deity' may imply the logos (which he believes to be the pre-existent Jesus) is less than God. But the statement that God's word is divine does not suggest God's word is also a person, and the statement God's word was 'with Him' is no different to saying that we 'have an idea' when referring to our own thoughts. My pleasure.
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Jul 4, 2012 5:37:38 GMT
Sankari said in replay to Wraggy
O.K. 2nd Century is what I will be looking for.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jul 4, 2012 6:54:04 GMT
O.K. 2nd Century is what I will be looking for. I recommend the following: Christology in the Making actually looks at NT Christology, but it provides context for the developments of the 2nd Century.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jul 4, 2012 6:54:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Jul 4, 2012 7:50:49 GMT
Yes, there are some odd exceptions. For example, Dixon (The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John, Dallas Seminary, 1975) and Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1997) both argue that the theos of John 1:1 should be understood in a qualitative sense. In other words, it refers to the nature of the logos rather than the logos as the person of God.
The NET Bible reflects this, translating John 1:1 as 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.'
Wallace aims to preclude an Arian reading, since 'divine' rather than 'deity' may imply the logos (which he believes to be the pre-existent Jesus) is less than God.
But the statement that God's word is divine does not suggest God's word is also a person, and the statement God's word was 'with Him' is no different to saying that we 'have an idea' when referring to our own thoughts.I would have thought that texts in the 4th gospel itself may indicate that the author did mean to indicate that the λόγος was a person. Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Compare John 1:1 and John 17:4-5. ἐγώ σε ἐδόξασα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς τὸ ἔργον τελειώσας ὃ δέδωκας μοι ἵνα ποιήσω· καὶ νῦν δόξασον με σύ, πάτερ, παρὰ σεαυτῷ τῇ δοξῇ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί. And John 6:62 "What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!" I am a bit lost as to why the author of the 4th gospel would portray Jesus as praying to be glorified " with the glory that he had before the world came to be" if he was not a person. It does not make sense to me, at the moment anyway, to conceive of the pre-incarnate λόγος as simply a thought or plan of God. It is obvious that you have thought deeply about these issues so I don't for one minute think that this is the last word on this issue. P.S. I enjoy the Terrible Twins contribution to this forum. Cheers, Wraggy
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jul 4, 2012 11:46:30 GMT
I would have thought that texts in the 4th gospel itself may indicate that the author did mean to indicate that the λόγος was a person. None of the texts you mention refer back to John 1:1. They each have their own literary context and must be interpreted within that framework. I take the view that if John had wanted to say 'in the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God', he would have done so. Instead he says logos (not 'Jesus', or 'Christ', or even 'the Lord'). We all know what logos means. It's not a complicated word, and it certainly does not mean 'the divine, pre-existent Christ.' So why not just accept that when John says logos, he simply means logos? John 17:4-5 is written in the language of predestination and foreknowledge, not literal pre-existence. Jesus claimed ownership of the glory God intended for him long before his literal existence (he also said he had given that same glory to his disciples; a point rarely addressed in commentaries). This is consistent with John 17's wider context, containing several such predestination statements. Like God, Jesus speaks of things yet to occur as if they are in the past: - John 17:4, "'I glorified you on earth by completing the work you gave me to do'"
Yet Jesus' work was not finished until he said "It is completed" on the cross (John 19:30)
- John 17:11, "'I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world'"
Yet Jesus was still in the world; he had not yet ascended to the Father
- John 17:18, "'Just as you sent me into the world, so I sent them [the disciples] into the world'"
Yet Jesus had not yet sent his disciples into the world; this didn't happen until after his resurrection (John 20:21; Matthew 28:19-20)
Accordingly, G. H. Gilbert ( The Revelation of Jesus: A Study of the Primary Sources of Christianity, reprint, BiblioLife, 2009, p. 222), recognised that the 'pre-existence' of John 6:62; 8:58; 17:5 is merely 'ideal', not literal: But this topic really deserves a post of its own, so I'll follow up in a moment. I believe this is a reference to Daniel's vision of the 'Son of Man' (Daniel 7:13). Jesus claims to be that same apocalyptic 'Son of Man', but he does not claim literal pre-existence. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Jul 4, 2012 11:54:08 GMT
John's gospel must be understood within the context of Jewish ideas about typology, prophecy, prefiguration and predestination. To the mind of the 1st Century Jew, if God said something, it was good as done; a prophecy uttered was as good as fulfilled; a promise made was as good as kept. Thus, if God determines to create something at a future date, it can be described as existing already. Likewise, the subject of a typological reference can be said to have "existed" in the past via a figurative reference made before their literal existence (e.g. I Corinthians 10:4, 9, "For they were all drinking from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ ... Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents"). We find examples in the Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim 39b: Also in the apocryphal Assumption of Moses: Thus Dewick ( Primitive Christian Eschatology, reprint, Marton Press, 2007): Scripture also uses this predestination language to speak of events and people as occurring and existing before they literally did: - Jeremiah 1:5, "'Before I formed you in your mother's womb I chose you. Before you were born I set you apart. I appointed you to be a prophet to the nations.'"
- Ephesians 2:6, "and he raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus"
- Hebrews 7:9-10, "And it could be said that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid a tithe through Abraham. For he was still in his ancestor Abraham's loins when Melchizedek met him.
(See also I Peter 1:20, "He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was manifested in these last times for your sake"). In each passage we find a statement not to be taken literally; Jeremiah appointed a prophet before his birth; Paul informing his fellow Christians they already sit in heavenly places with Jesus; Levi paying tithes to Melchizedek before he is conceived in Sarah's womb. Reverend Sigmund Mowinckel was another who insisted that the Jewish conception of predestination and prefiguration must inform our understanding of passages appearing to speak of literal pre-existence: ( He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism, Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2005, p. 334). Jewish predestination/prefiguration language was understood by the earliest Christians, themselves Jews. The apostle Paul even coined a phrase to describe it; he said that God "...makes the dead alive and summons the things that do not yet exist as though they already do" (Romans 4:17).
|
|
|
Post by penguinfan on Jul 5, 2012 3:30:05 GMT
sankari:
No they don't. You will search the NT in vain for any passage where Jesus is unambiguously identified and worshipped as the God of Israel.
Do people usually worship what they don't consider to be a god?
|
|