New Testament Theology

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

This thread is a continuation of a discussion omar and I began on another thread. We began to digress from that thread’s topic so we agreed that it made sense to start a new thread. Below I have I copied and pasted the post wherein we began to discuss the topic of the this new thread:

omar wrote:
Hello felix, and everyone else,

— I contend that Jesus advocated not merely an act of compassion but a life of selfless compassion which is far more rare. During his last years, he modeled for us what a life of selfless compassion looks like.

O- A “life of selfless compassion”, is not what is advocated by Jesus. Such a thing is NOT the GOAL, but a means towards achieving the goal, which is salvation, and as such, the selfless action reveals itself to be a selfish one. Compassion is not it’s own reward, but a means to get your reward, which is Heaven.

—The Gospel of John envisions Christ as the way, the truth and the life. As “The Way” his life of selfless compassion is both the means and the goal. Salvation cannot be something other than Christ. Those points are crucial to a Christocentric theology which, I would contend, is the best, most philosophically sound way for a Christian to go. I would contrast a Christocentric theology with the typical pie- in- the- sky- when- you- die Christianity of popular understanding.

— The Gospel of John envisions Christ as the way, the truth and the life. As “The Way” his life of selfless compassion is both the means and the goal.
O- Which is fine but then we are without any necessity for his death. Is man capable of living life as He did? Is anyone but Him capable of a Righteous life? And if the value of a Righteous life is within itself and not in what it can purchase for you, then why did Paul feel that they, who follow the Way, should be pittied if all there is is this life and there is no resurrection? My point remains that based on the NT, we have to deduct that a Righteous life was a means to an end and not an end in itself. If this is contested then a lot of reinterpretation is needed to reconcilled scripture with this new hypothesis.

— Salvation cannot be something other than Christ.
O- Jesus insists that he is the way, the path towards God and salvation, which is a right-relationship with God. The messiah is not what salvation IS, but the means to attain salvation. Your statement however makes sense if Christ is equated with “God”, but I don’t think that this is an inevitable interpretation. Jesus suggested that the Father was IN HIM as he was IN THE FATHER, but never that he was God. As he was in the father the Church was in Him, and so through a process of grafting, the righteousness of One became the righteousness of many. Were we capable of a righteous life on our own then Jesus sacrifice would have been unnecessary, at least for those who lived, or repeated His life. His value would then be as a teacher, and his legacy, the “Way”, simply the know-how towards salvation, implying along the way the ability of his audience.
Paul is more pessimistic. The Way, for Paul is not a set of moral teachings. a moral life is not sufficient, in Paul’s view to attain Salvation nor possible, nor necessary. He begins from the premise that “no one is righteous”, creating the need for a new means to gaining salvation. Remember that everyone already possessed the Law, and Jesus life was only an affirmation of what was already available. The righteous life, based on the Law, was possible for Jesus, but apparently, according to Paul, not possible for the regular Joe. The salvation of those saved was not something which they earned or could’ve earned, but a Gift, and even if this was not always so, salvation was something achieved through the sacrifice of Jesus and not through a Christ-like life or a lawful life. Paul thoroughly eliminated the Law or works as a necessary condition for salvation, nor a capacity of normal men.
In all of this, what I see is that the righteous life is still seen as a means for something else. Jesus at the garden scene asks whether there is another way, which is to say another method or means toward what is the Goal. Had his life in itself been the Goal then he would not have made this request. He may have still reached Jerusalem and challenged the authorities, in his exceution of a righteous life, leading to a by-product of a crucifixion. As Jesus saw it, His death was not a mere by-product of the achieved goal but a continuation of the process to achieve the goal, which was not equal to the righteous life that he had already achieved.
When Jesus speaks his last words in Mark’s account, we again are given the idea that Jesus was in expectation of something else, that something was lacking, which again makes no sense if the righteous life was the goal itself and not a means towards a goal.

— Those points are crucial to a Christocentric theology which, I would contend, is the best, most philosophically sound way for a Christian to go. I would contrast a Christocentric theology with the typical pie- in- the- sky- when- you- die Christianity of popular understanding.
O- I am not sure I understand the distinction. Can you elaborate? What is “Christocentric theology” and how does it differ from popular Christianity? Secondly, though it might be “philosophically sound”, does it mean that this is how it was originally intended or just a possible interpretation? And third, if it is a more reasonable version, then why is it not the most popular? Why should we assume that the authors of the NT, especially Paul, did not hold the most popular version of Christianity but rather the most “philosophically sound”?

— I would go a step further, and depart from conventional Christianity by claiming that, according to the New Testament, heaven is not the goal. Most New Testament eschatology is focused on the parousia. When Christ did not return as expected by the earliest Jesus followers, the eschatology was recast. This is a topic I have raised several times and that I find interesting. It is a digression however, and it isn’t really relevant to our present discussion.
O- It is however a subject that I would be interesting in discusing. Please let me know if you want to start a separate thread on the subject. For my part, I hold that even then, a moral life was not the goal, nor heaven…it was in line with the original conception of the Messiah and the vision of a political/religious leader that would be needed to return Judah it’s independence and predominance.

  • Let’s be clear on our difference. I understand you to be saying that the life exemplified by Jesus is a means [a righteous life] to an end [salvation]. That’s true but I think the deeper meaning of the NT is that means and end are the same.
    O- Just so that we would be clear, are we using the entire NT to illustrate this depth?

— The deeper meaning of the New Testament, which I would argue is quite clearly spelled out there, is that Christ is the way of salvation and salvation itself. He is not only The Way he is also The Truth and The Life. The life that John talks about is Eternal Life.
Eternal Life =Salvation. Jesus=Christ=Life=Salvation.
O- One question: Did Jesus HAVE TO DIE?

— According to John, Jesus said “I and the Father are One”
O- And as he said that he was in his followers and his followers in him. In John 5, Jesus is clear that he is the Son, not The Father.

2

— The Gospel of John envisions Christ as the way, the truth and the life. As “The Way” his life of selfless compassion is both the means and the goal.
O- Which is fine but then we are without any necessity for his death. Is man capable of living life as He did? Is anyone but Him capable of a Righteous life? And if the value of a Righteous life is within itself and not in what it can purchase for you, then why did Paul feel that they, who follow the Way, should be pittied if all there is is this life and there is no resurrection? My point remains that based on the NT, we have to deduct that a Righteous life was a means to an end and not an end in itself. If this is contested then a lot of reinterpretation is needed to reconcilled scripture with this new hypothesis.

— Salvation cannot be something other than Christ.
O- Jesus insists that he is the way, the path towards God and salvation, which is a right-relationship with God. The messiah is not what salvation IS, but the means to attain salvation. Your statement however makes sense if Christ is equated with “God”, but I don’t think that this is an inevitable interpretation. Jesus suggested that the Father was IN HIM as he was IN THE FATHER, but never that he was God. As he was in the father the Church was in Him, and so through a process of grafting, the righteousness of One became the righteousness of many. Were we capable of a righteous life on our own then Jesus sacrifice would have been unnecessary, at least for those who lived, or repeated His life. His value would then be as a teacher, and his legacy, the “Way”, simply the know-how towards salvation, implying along the way the ability of his audience.
Paul is more pessimistic. The Way, for Paul is not a set of moral teachings. a moral life is not sufficient, in Paul’s view to attain Salvation nor possible, nor necessary. He begins from the premise that “no one is righteous”, creating the need for a new means to gaining salvation. Remember that everyone already possessed the Law, and Jesus life was only an affirmation of what was already available. The righteous life, based on the Law, was possible for Jesus, but apparently, according to Paul, not possible for the regular Joe. The salvation of those saved was not something which they earned or could’ve earned, but a Gift, and even if this was not always so, salvation was something achieved through the sacrifice of Jesus and not through a Christ-like life or a lawful life. Paul thoroughly eliminated the Law or works as a necessary condition for salvation, nor a capacity of normal men.
In all of this, what I see is that the righteous life is still seen as a means for something else. Jesus at the garden scene asks whether there is another way, which is to say another method or means toward what is the Goal. Had his life in itself been the Goal then he would not have made this request. He may have still reached Jerusalem and challenged the authorities, in his exceution of a righteous life, leading to a by-product of a crucifixion. As Jesus saw it, His death was not a mere by-product of the achieved goal but a continuation of the process to achieve the goal, which was not equal to the righteous life that he had already achieved.
When Jesus speaks his last words in Mark’s account, we again are given the idea that Jesus was in expectation of something else, that something was lacking, which again makes no sense if the righteous life was the goal itself and not a means towards a goal.

— Those points are crucial to a Christocentric theology which, I would contend, is the best, most philosophically sound way for a Christian to go. I would contrast a Christocentric theology with the typical pie- in- the- sky- when- you- die Christianity of popular understanding.
O- I am not sure I understand the distinction. Can you elaborate? What is “Christocentric theology” and how does it differ from popular Christianity? Secondly, though it might be “philosophically sound”, does it mean that this is how it was originally intended or just a possible interpretation? And third, if it is a more reasonable version, then why is it not the most popular? Why should we assume that the authors of the NT, especially Paul, did not hold the most popular version of Christianity but rather the most “philosophically sound”?

— I would go a step further, and depart from conventional Christianity by claiming that, according to the New Testament, heaven is not the goal. Most New Testament eschatology is focused on the parousia. When Christ did not return as expected by the earliest Jesus followers, the eschatology was recast. This is a topic I have raised several times and that I find interesting. It is a digression however, and it isn’t really relevant to our present discussion.
O- It is however a subject that I would be interesting in discusing. Please let me know if you want to start a separate thread on the subject. For my part, I hold that even then, a moral life was not the goal, nor heaven…it was in line with the original conception of the Messiah and the vision of a political/religious leader that would be needed to return Judah it’s independence and predominance.

3

— Also, to whom is the trinity not a crucial dogma? I think it is a crucial orthodox doctrine.
O- Why is it “crucial”? Certain protestant and latter versions of Christianity do not view it the same as the Catholics envisioned it originally. And there were a lot others, usually grouped as “gnostics”, and various other “heretics” that came down through the centuries. What does the Trinity add to religion? Is it’s value in explaining the religion’s cosmology or morality? Seems to me as a complicated add on? What did farmers and fisherman really need from such a concept? It BECAME crucial as Christiany attempted to become one at the time when Constantine was also trying to unify his empire. It was a curious scene, I would imagine, the day when a certain number of christian leaders enter a quorum and left heretics that same day because of what had BECOME crucial that day.

— Speaking historically, how many listeners did it inspire? It may have only been a handful initially.
O- A good number we might never have, but prior to his death, his following may have been of thousands, and it probably is corroborated by the actions the romans took against Jesus. Obviously, he was no small fry. Who or how many believed in his resurrection is a pickle. But why do you suppose that thousands may have followed him initially? I say for the same reasons that other self-proclaimed “messiahs”, meaning other “Christs” also were followed. The myth of the Christ was powerful and popular in a desperate time.

— Speaking Christologically, your question is answered metaphorically in John 12:
23And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.
O- “Should be”, as in “not yet” glorified. And “glorified” for what reason. Jesus reward was not his life- that in itself did not glorified him. What was the goal was the exaltation, glorification he received, that he earned through his blameless life. God raises the Son, exalts Him and receives from the Father the “promised Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:33); It is Jesus who brings to them this boom, this Holy Spirit, which I believe is the metaphor of Authority. Even now we see Jesus life, death and resurrection as a means to an end. Through His life he earns the reward. His followers by their belief in Him, receive a mission and an honor. The story so far is meant to explain the origin of their authority to forgive or refuse to forgive anyone’s sin, and this priviledge has consequences on the life of the community in which they live- that is, it is yet not the end of the journey for them. What is wanted is what Jesus previewd for them= release from the fear of death, release from the finality of death and provision for what comes after death or at Judgment Day…all of which make evolutionary sense, so that one can comprehend the populatity of this meme.

4

OK. The position I am calling Christocentric Theology [XT] accepts the Nicene Creed as normative. I’m calling those Xians who accept the Nicene Creed orthodox. This would include the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the mainstream Protestant Churches.

It’s possible. Due to historical uncertainty much remains mere speculation. To avoid that, I suggest we try to limit ourselves to the canonical text.

That’s a plausible reading. But remember, Jesus as the Christ is both The Way=means and the Life=the end, the goal. And what about verse 24?

5

Hello Felix:

— OK. The position I am calling Christocentric Theology [XT] accepts the Nicene Creed as normative. I’m calling those Xians who accept the Nicene Creed orthodox. This would include the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the mainstream Protestant Churches.
O- Very well, but I just need to point out that the nicene creed did not constitute a “crucial” element of Christian theology up to that point, but that it became crucial as Rome sought to become the only voice in Christendom…and Constantine was only to eager to oblige. The Bible does not bear the name and the mention of the three together occurs very sporadically. But the question here is not about the Trinity as much as it should be about the value of a moral life, meaning, was a moral life an end in itself or a means towards something else?

— That’s a plausible reading. But remember, Jesus as the Christ is both The Way=means and the Life=the end, the goal. And what about verse 24?
O- If the Christ=Eternal Life, then why did God have to “raise” the Christ (1 Corinthians 15:17)? In Hebrews we have a different formula which sees Jesus not as Eternal Life, but as a sacrificial lamb/priest (2:17). His glorification, then, made Eternal Life a possibility (2:15) for those who feared death and were held in slavery. There was no other way, but if there had been then Jesus death would have been unecessary. As Hebrews explains:
“7During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. 8Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him 10and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.”(Heb 5:).
As we see here, his life of self-denial was not without rewards. It was a necessary means towards an end and not an end in itself. He is the life because he became the source of life, he was “called by God”, not God Himself. What the formula suggests is that God and Jesus are not One in essense, but in purpose. God saw it fit to accept the sacrifice of one for the restitution for all who would believe in Him and set this lamb as the judge of who would be his. The source of the Eternal Life remains forever God, but because God has glorified Jesus, He makes Jesus the Judge, the gate keeper of that Life which Jesus has earned for himself and can give as a gift to those who believe in his name.

Again, at no point do I see the selfless life as the goal, nor does it equate with eternal life. Through Jesus the goal is reached, but Jesus is not the goal itself. Jesus is the source just as a gate-keeper is the source of our entry into a hall or not, but the gate-keeper is not not the Owner of the hall but one who has been granted authority to judge who enters and who is left out of the banquet hall. The apostles are further controls for entry into the banquet, given authority by the Christ who received authority from God. But while authority can always be delegated responsibility cannot be. The apostles remained One with Jesus in purpose, but not in essense, just as Jesus was not nor had to be one with God in essense.

This is how the theology could’ve gone. I realize that the Nicene Creed states a different position, but those it meant to keep out of the folds of the Church gathered their ideas from scripture. Hebrews, the Book I have used here, is among a number of Book which were used to back up their polemics against the idea of the Trinity. The meaning of the Christ is a variable that suffered change as time passed, as seen in the “heresies” and also during the controversies between Paul and the Council in Jerusalem.

6

Firstly, Omar kind of summed this up well in brief:

Without breaking into verse examination and interpritation, my answer on this is this:

Joshua of Galilee is on a mission to revive a lost value in the law that he sees, and also sees others are blind too largely. Selflessness, in all forms presented by Joshua, are a means to a societally functioning symbiance where he believes it is lost at his current time.

This said, however, we are not them and we have no use for this version in our daily lives.
In this, I can say that I take what Joshua is talking about and apply it for it’s own sake in concept.

The paradox is that I result in a net gain on this because doing this causes me to be happy in life, yet I apply it for it’s own sake because if I do not then it falls out of line with my life philosophy and ceases to function.
Which my life philosophy is: it is what it is because that is what everything has been to give you this; you are who you are exactly because of everything you have experienced.

So for me, they are nearly one in the same; it’s own sake and my net gain.

7

Hi Omar–To get this thing rolling, I’m going to answer you questions off the top of my head and go back and check my sources later. There are NT passages that I think are best explained in terms of the trinity. The Christocentric position that I am taking here is not about a moral life rather it is about the dispensation of divine life. According to the XT Christ came to dispense divine life to humanity.

According to John 10:17 and 18 Jesus said “The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again.”

You are citing the book of Hebrews. Hebrews 1:1-5 states that God spoke to us through Christ, that God appointed Christ the “heir of all things” and that through him God “he made the worlds.” It says that Christ is the "brightness of [God’s] glory, and the "express image of [God’s] person. It says that Christ upholds “all things by the word of his power” And that he is presently sitting “on the right hand of the Majesty on high.” It says that Christ was made “so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” Finally, it says “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?” The offspring is the same species as the parent. So if the parent is God, the offspring is as well right? The simplest conclusion one can reach based on these versus is that Christ is God.

If the Son is the means, then the Father is the goal. Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes onto the Father but by me.”

1 Timothy 3:16 says “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

Since God Himself was manifest in Jesus, Jesus’ essence must be God.

I have shown above that Hebrews supports the divinity of Christ. Christ is the reality of every positive thing according to the New Testament. Although the Trinity is ultimately a mystery, it is the best way to understand New Testament theology.

8

Yet it is not so evident in Jesus as it is in Paul. Tertius writes for Paul a quote:
“17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.”
O- Had the text left it at that then Christianity would be a quasi-eastern religion, concentrating on what one can do to escape tribulation that is life as it is. But hebrew religion and Christianity are monotheistic religions and this God is not just an idle “Mover” as it was for the aristotelians, but an active player, much in the character of an earthly king, so the text continues:
“19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d]says the Lord.”
O- This of course redefines an action of apparent selflessness or passivity, as one of covert aggression. The text gives us this example, which I consider a classic:
“20On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[e] 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
O- “Good”, so the text preaches, is the way through which one can “overcome evil”, not because of the peace of mind it generates, or what value good has in itself as opposed to evil, but because of the value that good has over evil in the eyes of the Avenger, the Judge, Who will do what we, according to what evolutionary theory predicts, would have done–that is to retaliate.

Now, I believe that Jesus too had a similar idea. The blasphemy he was accused of was not that he was the Christ, for many had committed that and would again, without repercussions, but because he did not perform corresponding political acts associated with the Christ. Jesus goes before the Sanhedrin, where he is asked if he is the Christ, and he says that it is as they say, but as, as an explanation (which reveals the presuppositions of each party), that “in the future” they would see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and comming on the clouds of heaven…ahh, this is what THEY all expected, a tale of power, of angels, battling and defeating the godless Romans. The disagreement came over (if these scriptures report of events and not simply rationalize events) only about the secondary requisite for the Christ, of having to suffer, in order to be resurrected and glorified three days after His death.

9

Hello Felix:

—To get this thing rolling, I’m going to answer you questions off the top of my head and go back and check my sources later. There are NT passages that I think are best explained in terms of the trinity.
O- I agree… while other NT passages are not. This was the poer of many heresies.

— The Christocentric position that I am taking here is not about a moral life rather it is about the dispensation of divine life. According to the XT Christ came to dispense divine life to humanity.
O- So, what about the root of our argument? What I see is that Jesus came to the world, not to dispense HIMSELF divine or eternal life, but to earn the right to judge who should have it or not, as he was glorified by his Father.

— According to John 10:17 and 18 Jesus said “The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again.”
O- I would appreciate it if you could spell out what this supports and how.

— The offspring is the same species as the parent. So if the parent is God, the offspring is as well right? The simplest conclusion one can reach based on these versus is that Christ is God.
O- God is not part of a “species”, nor can anything form a part of God’s specie. The offspring is in most cases the same species as the parent because the parent is much like the son, begotten himself. In the case of God, as God, He stands apart from Creation as the Uncreated Creator. But as you quoted from Hebrews (which should be remember that almost failed to make the canon) Jesus was “made”, that is that even as Son, higher than the angels themselves, God is yet higher than the Son, as Fathers are, and as angels are higher than men. Yet, beloe the Father stand a series of creatures, starting with the Son, through whom all is made and sustained and then angels and then men, in a hiearchy of value.
The formula you’ve used is flawed because we are all “children of God” and God is the Father of mankind. The expression that one is a “Son of God” does not equate to saying that that person IS God, anymore than saying “He” indicates the belief that God has a penis. The expression refers to the favor God shows for a person. Jesus calls himself “Son of Man”, just as God refers to Ezekiel during his revelation.
Jesus of course is refered to as God’s “only begotten Son”, but as any parent knows, we do not produce replicas of ourselves nor are our children ourselves. Same essense? This only supports a sharing of being, of “material”, divinity. The sons of angels too have something in common with their angelic fathers. But as far as Hebrews is concerned the real relation between Father and Son, what really made Jesus God’s Son was his actions. Had Jesus changed his mind about dying and succumbed to the fear of the chalis which he was to swallow, would he had been glorify nonetheless? If Jesus is God through the very origin of his generation what higher glorification could there be? But Hebrews makes the case that Jesus BECAME the Son.

— If the Son is the means, then the Father is the goal. Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes onto the Father but by me.”
O- That is fine. Now that implies that a moral life was not the goal. “Do not judge…” not because this is the goal, but that this helped one reached his goal, or the Father.

— 1 Timothy 3:16 says “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”
Since God Himself was manifest in Jesus, Jesus’ essence must be God.
O- “What” of God was manifested in Jesus? It was God’s character and Law, NOT His essense. Jesus is about to be stoned in John’s account (10:30-38) and what he pleads as evidence is not some essense but his works, his deeds. He and the Father are “one” in purpose, not in essense. Jesus asks to be judged by what he does, and that is all anyone can ever judge him by and should judge anyone else by. It is God’s will, God’s purpose and intent that become manifested in the flesh of Jesus Christ.

— I have shown above that Hebrews supports the divinity of Christ. Christ is the reality of every positive thing according to the New Testament. Although the Trinity is ultimately a mystery, it is the best way to understand New Testament theology.
O- I believe that Hebrews only makes a case for Jesus “divinity” just as it would make a case for the divinity of angels, but does not try, nor could’ve succeded in making a case that the Christ was or is the Father. He stands, according to Hebrews, and even 1 Timothy, as a mediator between God and Man. Between the Father and Man there stands the Son in-between, but man is no more the Son than the Son is the Father; and yet the Father grants to the Son as the Son grants to man. It is not a requirement that Christ be God anymore than for Man to be the Christ to receive authority and glory for the one above.

10

Omar

You brought up Hebrews so let’s look at that book. In the first chapter, the author of Hebrews states “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?” The author is making a distinction between the Son and angels. He asks a rhetorical question the answer to which would be “None”. None of the angles have a father-son relationship like this one to who the authorThus, according to Hebrews, the Son has a special relationship with the Father that none of the angels have. According to the Bible, angels are the highest beings next to God. They are higher than humans who, according to the psalmist, were “made a little lower than the angels.” A being higher than the angels would have to be God. Therefore, the son is God.

11

Welcome back Felix:

It is a nice exposition that infortunately falls short. I commend you for using Hebrews which is a weak text to support your view, in my opinion. Here is what I see:

1- In the first chapter, the author of Hebrews states “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?” The author is making a distinction between the Son and angels.
O- I already acknowledged this. The author narrates a story in which the Son is created a bit lower than the angels, but then glorified above them by God. That is all. What this supports is my view that Son and Father are distinct in essense, though one in purpose.

2- He asks a rhetorical question the answer to which would be “None”. None of the angles have a father-son relationship like this one to who the authorThus, according to Hebrews, the Son has a special relationship with the Father that none of the angels have.
O- Fair enough. The author is setting a hiearchy and giving Man a post, angels a post and the Son a post. By this listing what we see is that each creature, even the Son, is distinct from the Father. Some are above, others below one another but all under the Father, including the Son, who is made what he becomes by the fiat of the Father.

— According to the Bible, angels are the highest beings next to God.
O- According to Hebrews (part of the Bible) they are not. According to this part of the Bible, the Son was glorified and made higher (or “Superior”, on the NIV)than the angels.

— They are higher than humans who, according to the psalmist, were “made a little lower than the angels.” A being higher than the angels would have to be God. Therefore, the son is God.
O- And this is where you lost me. I can agree that the author supposes man to be lower than the angels and the angels lower than God, but not that there was no rank between God and the angels so that anything higher than an angel must be God by definition. This is not in the text. This is added onto it. What the text makes a case for is the superiority of angels over angels because of his special relation to the Father and NOT because Jesus is the Father. You have to remember that the case he is making is for the “Christ” for whom God the Father lays down everything at his feet, as he did with David, the precursor of the Christ and to whom he had promised the Christ.

So, Hebrews makes a case for the superiority of the Christ above angels, and also that Jesus was born lower than angels as well. Jesus is glorified by His Father and BECOMES greater than angels, but does not become, nor is Jesus, God the Father. He is the radiance of the Father but not the Father, just as the radiance of the Sun is not the Sun, and when we speak of the radiance of the Sun and the Sun we are speaking of two distinct things.

12

Omar my friend–

I hold that the Father and the Son are both God and therefore have one essence. I agree the Son is distinct from the Father. . In John 14:28, Jesus says “the Father is greater than I.” Yet they are both God It doesn’t follow from that statement that the Son is not God. I am not arguing that the Son is the Father. Traditional Trinitarian thinking, that I find myself defending here, disposed of that kind of thinking as heresy.

Hebrews chapter 1 verse 8 says “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” ‘He” here refers to “God” at the beginning of the first verse. God the father is implied. So God the Father is referring to the Son as “God”.

13

Hello Felix:

— I hold that the Father and the Son are both God and therefore have one essence. I agree the Son is distinct from the Father. . In John 14:28, Jesus says “the Father is greater than I.”
O- Why is the Father greater is sharing the same essense? And isn’t what is greater than I also NOT the SAME as myself?

— Yet they are both God.
O- I don’t see the reason for that conclusion from the text itself…

— It doesn’t follow from that statement that the Son is not God. I am not arguing that the Son is the Father.
O- No. You are arguing that the Father and the Son are both God, though it seems to me, by diregarding the statements such as the one you give where the Father and the Son are placed in a hiearchy. If the Father is of the same, equal essense of the Son, then how do you explain the unequal, “greater than” relation between the Father and the Son?

— Traditional Trinitarian thinking, that I find myself defending here, disposed of that kind of thinking as heresy.
O- My point is that “God” is the Father, that is, same person. “Father” is a synonym for “God”. When you are refering to God, you can use either “Father” or “God”. God is not greater than the Father.
“God” is not the same as “humanity”, an essense or nature that is shared like a human father with his son. The Father is the origin of all things through the Son. The origin of the Son is the Father but the origin of the Father is not the Son. In the Father there is the ability to generate the Son but in the Son there is NOT the same ability to generate the Father, therefore, something, non so che, IS in the Father that is NOT in the Son, which is why the Son confeses that the Father is greater than he.

So, as we stand, we could agree that they are distinct persons, and I add to that that their different abilities define different essensess, as between Creator and created, that cannot be closed by the Trinity.

As for your quote:
"Hebrews chapter 1 verse 8 says “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.” ‘He’ here refers to “God” at the beginning of the first verse. God the father is implied. So God the Father is referring to the Son as “God”.

In John 10 Jesus says: “I and the Father are one.”
For which he incurs the wrath of the jews present: “31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him,”
Jesus finds this reaction excessive to say the least. He asks: "but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
And this is where the story becomes interesting. They respond: "“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
Now this is no more and no less the claim a Christian would make, that Jesus claimed to be God. If the trinity was true, then Jesus ought to have submitted to the consequences of stating the truth, the christian truth that is. But he responds with an interpretation of what he had said that reaches a different conclusion from what the jews and the trinitarian Christians that followed had concluded. He asks: ""Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’[e]? 35If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?
So being called “god”, Jesus holds, refers to someone to whom the word of God came. Since He was set apart by God, it is therefore appropiate to call him “god”, and even “Son of God”. Of course “Son of God” claims much less political power than one who is called “God”. “Son of God” accentuates the prophetic aspect (Ezekiel) of the Christ and downplays “god” or it’s political aspect.
The man appointed by God (Exodus 7:1), glorified by God, BECOMES “God” to other men, but not a “God” to God or God Himself because God (Himself) does not “BECOME”, but is THAT I AM, without change into God or out, glorified, or sanctified, but Who glorifies and sanctifies and MAKES of creatures “gods” onto other creatures. The essense of God and one who is made a God to other men by the glorifying action of God, is certainly not the same essense.

14

Hi Omar–

I’m rushed here but I will respond quickly.

One may be a president, another a garbage collector, yet if both are human, they have the same human essence. Similarly Father and Son, if they are both God, are both God in essence.

Essence is not a matter of degrees. One is either of the same essence or one is not. What you are calling “ranking” and “hierarchy” is a matter of relationship between Father son and spirit. They each have unique functions. Neither seeks to usurp the function of the other.

No God the Father is God as the source. God the Son is God in manifestation. They are the same essence.

There is no reason to suppose that Jesus does not mean that he as the Son is one essence with the Father. It was on this point that Christians and Jews parted ways. The hostility depicted in this passage represents that parting. Jesus does not deny that he is the son of God or one essence with Father. And he points them to a passage in their own scripture where those to whom the word of God came were called “gods” Since that passage is in the the Hebrew scipture, they ahd no cause to stone him or those who called him the “Son of God” i.e. his followers.

15

Hello Felix:

— One may be a president, another a garbage collector, yet if both are human, they have the same human essence. Similarly Father and Son, if they are both God, are both God in essence.
O- Very well, except that part of the nature of God is being One. Two is that the uncreated Father, by definition, possesses a quality that is unknown to the created Son.

— Essence is not a matter of degrees.
O- It is not a given that the Son called the Father greater than he only because of a positional, or “functional”, relation. Secondly, the fact that One is uncreated and the other is created is not a matter of degree.

— No God the Father is God as the source. God the Son is God in manifestation. They are the same essence.
O- Not verifiable since one preceded the other and was created by the Other. We can conclude that the Father is the Creator and that the Son is the radiance of the Father, but not because of nature or essence instead of by the fiat of the Creator. Jesus may have been the manifestation of the Father but because the Father will it to be so and not because of Jesus inherent essence.

— There is no reason to suppose that Jesus does not mean that he as the Son is one essence with the Father.
O- There is. If Jesus is of divine essence, basically a state of God, then what would warrant a “reward” for him? Wouldn’t his obedience be all but expected from the Father since it is of His same essence? Instead it is Jesus human essence that warrants for him the honor that God conveys upon the fragile human who lives a righteous life. Job would be a better man that Jesus then.

— It was on this point that Christians and Jews parted ways. The hostility depicted in this passage represents that parting. Jesus does not deny that he is the son of God or one essence with Father.
O- First off, if the passage depicts much it is the situation of the author’s time. Secondly, if what Jesus was refering to was unique to himself then he wouldn’t have related about other creatures under God. Third, if that was his position then he could have simply taken the stoning for the Jews spoke, on that day, as you think, the presunted truth. Instead he claims that his honor is warranted as it was for others. Fourth, rather than unique, his self-name, “Son of God” alludes to a different nature between Father and Son, Creator and Creature. “Son of” means emmanating from. But while a son of man is begotten as his father was begotten by his own father, the Father of the Son was unbegotten. How then can they share the same essence.

16

Hi Omar—

Right and Jesus has stated that he is one with the father in the passage you cited. According to your interpretation, that is nothing but a misunderstanding. You maintain that Jesus meant to say “one purpose.” But he did not say that. What he said is something that would obviouly upset the Jews. Anyone acquainted with Hebrew scriptures would be aware of that.

You are claiming that the son is created. I am asserting that according to the NT the Son is uncreated and everything is created throught Him.

Nor have you disproved that this is the New Testament position.

You have not proved that either is created according to the NewTestament.

According to John1:1, Christ as the Word of God was present in eternity past with God and was God. According to traditional Christian theology, the universe, not Christ, was created by fiat out of nothing. There is nothing in the New Testament that contradicts this.

Christ, the Son became human with all the fragility of a normal human. Thus, it was a great accomplishment for him remain “obedient onto death.” That is why he was glorified in resurrection.

That is a plausible historical interpretation. If that is the case, the author was defending a trinitarian position that became a gospel in the Christian canon. But, be that as it may, what we are discussing here is the NT canon as we have received it.

Jesus is asserting that the Jews do not have a scriptural basis for persecuting him since people were referred to as “gods” in the Hebrew scriptures. That, incidently would be consistent with your hypothetical “situation of the author’s time.” The Gospel of John clearly shows Jesus proclaiming a unique status for himself as “the only begotten son.”

The Jews thought Jesus was blaspheming. Since, according to the New Testament, Jesus he is the Son of God, he was not blaspheming. They were wrong. If they understood the truth, they would know that there is no cause for stoning him. Therefore, Jesus need not accept being stoned to death

Fathers and sons are always of the same nature. So, as the Son of God, Christ must have the same nature as God. As the son of man, he has human nature. To accomplish redemption, Christ must have two natures. This is incomprehensible. Hence, it is referred as “a mystery”-- the mystery of the Incarnation. None the less, it crucial to the traditional Christian Faith and it is fully consistent with the teaching of the New Testament.

17

Hello Felix:

— Right and Jesus has stated that he is one with the father in the passage you cited.
O- Clarifying below that this meant that the Father was “in me, and I in the Father”. What he exhorts his critics to judge is not his essence but that he does what the Father does. The espression that the “Father is in me” is not a declaration of his essence but about the status he holds as emmisary of God, as God’s prophet and even “annointed”. Like a prophet, the words that he speaks are not his own but “Rather, it is the Father working through me who is doing his work.” As it is written, this could describe the formula of ANY prophet. His expressions were perhaps outlandish for some of his listeners but he was working within accepted jewish Law and theology-- that is, Jesus, not the trinitarians.
As the Father is in Jesus, so too will the Spirit that Jesus brings will be in those who believe in him; does that mean that those who believe in Jesus are made of the same stuff as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit? I simply don’t think that is the case, if what you take from the expression is a declaration of an essence in common. But what we see in Jesus declaration is that the words he speaks, the works he performs…these are not his own but the fruit of the Father, not because he is of one essence with the Father but because the Father is in him and works through him. The closest analogy here would be of a possession. As the devil claimed others, so has the Father claimed Jesus as His own. In a picture, holy men are portrayed with a halo. This represents not their essence but the radiance of the Holy Spirit. Same with Jesus.

— According to your interpretation, that is nothing but a misunderstanding. You maintain that Jesus meant to say “one purpose.”
O- You be the judge: He asks that they measure his words, his claim, by what he performs, by what he does and not by what he supposedly is made of, or his essence.

— But he did not say that.
O- Nor did he say that he was made of the same stuff as the Father as Athanasius would later decreed. But if you ask to be judged by your actions and your words then what can be judge from those is intention and purpose, not essence.

— What he said is something that would obviouly upset the Jews. Anyone acquainted with Hebrew scriptures would be aware of that.
O- In John we see many who after hearing what Jesus had to say simply saw him as a prophet. How is a prophet going to “obviously upset” a jew? But mind you that all prophets did upset some jews in their lifetime, not because of his divergence from scripture but from his convergence with it. Jesus did not upset people by disobeying the Law, but by living in it’s Spirit.

— You are claiming that the son is created. I am asserting that according to the NT the Son is uncreated and everything is created throught Him.
O- No one is denying that the NT states that everything was created through him, but that the NT does not say that there is a “trinity” or that the Word is uncreated. Check out Proverbs 8:22-31. But that is OT. Check out Hebrews 2:9. And in Hebrews 5:8 we see that there is no need for a theology of a trinity. The word is always there of having been “made”, and the words of John are consistent with Proverbs, but that only means that Jesus is a separate nature from the father as his nature is finite while the Father is infinite. To be “begotten” itself implies a time when one was not. It certainly does away with the idea that it is eternal. How then can the eternal be homogeneus with what is finite?

— Nor have you disproved that this is the New Testament position.
O- What I think is clear is that Jesus is thinking, or at least the author of John is thinking about fruits and not about essences. The Father is in the Son, the Son in the Father- this does not mean that the Son and the Father are equal in Nature. For one what is begotten is not eternal. Two, the same formula is repeated about the apostles (14:20), with who Jesus leaves the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, part of that Trinity, but which however, could not likewise serve as an argument to declare that the apostles are of the same nature as the Father and the Son, or even just the Son. In whom is the Son? In whom is the Father? In whom is the Holy Spirit? It is not nature that matters here but purpose, fruits. It is by these that you will know who is in the Father and in whom the Father is. This position is consistent with the NT. If it wasn’t then the heresy would not have been as potent.

— You have not proved that either is created according to the NewTestament.
O- I don’t need to since the Son is “begotten”, that much is clear, and what is “begotten” is also “generated”. While this is a quality of the Son it is not a quality of the Father.

— According to John1:1, Christ as the Word of God was present in eternity past with God and was God. According to traditional Christian theology, the universe, not Christ, was created by fiat out of nothing. There is nothing in the New Testament that contradicts this.
O- Yet, this little tibit is absent in the other gospels and is the latest composition. If the Word IS God then how can the eternal God ever be begotten? Besides we already have seen that the word “God” is not without application to other beings, Other than the Father, simply because of position of power that they possess (Moses to Pharaoh). But that is a metaphor and not a statement of essence…unless we conclude that Moses is eternal as well. And can you explain Proverbs above?

— Christ, the Son became human with all the fragility of a normal human. Thus, it was a great accomplishment for him remain “obedient onto death.” That is why he was glorified in resurrection.
O- Perhaps the coporal fragility but not a spiritual fragility of a human being. Greater than Jesus would then be Socrates.

— Jesus is asserting that the Jews do not have a scriptural basis for persecuting him since people were referred to as “gods” in the Hebrew scriptures. That, incidently would be consistent with your hypothetical “situation of the author’s time.” The Gospel of John clearly shows Jesus proclaiming a unique status for himself as “the only begotten son.”
O- But not as unique as the Unbegotten One.

— The Jews thought Jesus was blaspheming. Since, according to the New Testament, Jesus he is the Son of God, he was not blaspheming. They were wrong. If they understood the truth, they would know that there is no cause for stoning him. Therefore, Jesus need not accept being stoned to death
O- The reason for their case was in what was not present at the time in Jesus but which was supposed to be in the Christ, which is military power. It wasn’t that calling one self “Son of God” was a crime punishable by death, for others in judaism had claimed just such a title. It was synonymous with the King of Israel. As King, he was expected to carry political/military might, which in the figure of Jesus were absent. So the stoning was not brought about because Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, or “king of Israel” but that those around him did not see power in him to warrant the title.

— Fathers and sons are always of the same nature.
O- That mises the point. For one what really mattered to denote the Child was his purpose, his fruits.

18

Hi Omar—

You argue that according to John Jesus was a prophet. Yes Jesus was a prophet. But according to John, Jesus was much more than a prophet. John says that Jesus was in the beginning with God, and that all things came into being through him. About what other prophet or “holy man” does the New Testament or the Bible make that claim? None. So clearly, according to John, Jesus was more than a prophet or holy man.

Since the Jews here did not recognize his nature or his essence, Jesus points them to his works as evidence. He argues that, since the Son does the works that the Father sent him to do; if they were to consider his works without prejudice they would recognize that they are the works of God.

I addressed this above. John makes claims for Jesus as the Christ that go beyond what is ever claimed for any prophet in the New Testament or in the Old. According to John Jesus as the Christ is the Word of God, The Lamb of God, The Son of Man, The Fountain of Life, The Bread of Life, The Vine, The Way, the Truth and much more. These are not the claims of a mere prophet. This begins to get into the subject matter that I intended to discuss when I entitled this thread “Christocentric Theology.”

Like the Gospel of John, Hebrews tells the story of Christ’s preexistence in the Godhead, his incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection and glorification. In Hebrews 1:2 it states that the Christ as the Son, God “made the universe.” Then, in the incarnation he was “made a little inferior to the angels.” {Hebrews2:9} He had to become mortal to redeem humanity. Through crucifixion he “suffered death {Hebrews 2:9}. Then he was crowned with “glory and honor” via resurrection and ascension to the throne of God. That Christ is both uncreated and eternal and human and mortal is a paradox expounded in both The Gospel of John and The Epistle to the Hebrews

According to the New Testament, fruit is metaphorically related to nature or essence. Thus, Mathew 7:16 states “Ye shall know them by their fruits” and then asks “Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?” The nature of a thorn bush is not to produce grapes. The nature of a thistle is not to produce a fig. The fruit produced is a product of the essence of the plant. The use of “fruit” as a metaphor in the NT points to the organic relationship between the essence or nature of a being and its products.

Through Christ the apostles and indeed all believers are brought into an organic relationship with the Divine Trinity wherein they become “partakers of the divine nature” [2 Peter 1:4]. This is seen in John chapter 15 where Jesus says that he is the Vine and the believers are the branches. Thus, they partake of divine life in organic union with God. The fruit they bear as a result of this union will be divine like the source from whence it issues.

I have already pointed to the paradox expounded in the New Testament whereby Christ is both uncreated and begotten. The authors of the New Testament were not modernists who are averse to paradox. Furthermore, through his work Christ did not remain the “Only Begotten” as he was from eternity but became the “Firstborn” referred to in Hebrews 1:6. That is, by means of resurrection, he became the “Firstborn among many brothers" [Romans 8:29]

Unfortunately for your argument this “little tidbit” as you call it is in the New Testament. You contend that the New Testament does not contain trinitarian thinking. John 1:1 proves your wrong.

I don’t understand why you think that and you are in disagreement with New Testament Christology on this point.

According to New Testament theology, Father Son and Holy Spirit existed together from eternity. The uniqueness of God is unequalled. The persons of the Godhead are equal in terms of that uniqueness.

That is a historical hypothesis which is unsupported by the text in John 10 to which we are both referring.

I have already addressed that issue above. The fruit is the offspring of the plant that produces it. The relationship between plant and fruit is not only one of purpose but also organic, natural, and essential. Likewise, the relationship of Christ to God is the life relationship of Father and Son according to the New Testament.

19

Hello Felix:

— You argue that according to John Jesus was a prophet. Yes Jesus was a prophet. But according to John, Jesus was much more than a prophet. John says that Jesus was in the beginning with God, and that all things came into being through him. About what other prophet or “holy man” does the New Testament or the Bible make that claim? None. So clearly, according to John, Jesus was more than a prophet or holy man.
O- I was only noting what the jewish reaction to Jesus was. He is called “prophet”, “teacher”, “Christ”, but not “God”. I don’t believe that the NT makes a case or proves the notion that the “Christ” had to be essentially God. In Luke 13, Jesus moves ahead to reach Jerusalem, saying:“- for surely no prophet can die outside of Jerusalem”. But we can agree that John makes Jesus to be more than just your average prophet- my point is that if the Word is still a finite entity- begotten. Proverbs 8 bears this out (unless we have two architects of creation). Hebrews also points out that Jesus was “made”, though greater than angels still remains silent about whether this means that this must be God. 1 Corinthians 15 also explains the distinction between the Father and the Son. The Son is elevated by the Father. Everything is put at his feet except the Father. Everything the Son does he does not by the nature of his being, but by the will of his Father. This implies that the Son is sustained by the Father and would not be without the intervention of the Father. It is God that raises the Son to glory, not the Son’s essence.

— Since the Jews here did not recognize his nature or his essence, Jesus points them to his works as evidence. He argues that, since the Son does the works that the Father sent him to do; if they were to consider his works without prejudice they would recognize that they are the works of God.
O- But as evidence of what? That the Father was in him and working through him- that was perfectly possible to dicern from the extraordinary actions of the otherwise normal man.

— I addressed this above. John makes claims for Jesus as the Christ that go beyond what is ever claimed for any prophet in the New Testament or in the Old. According to John Jesus as the Christ is the Word of God, The Lamb of God, The Son of Man, The Fountain of Life, The Bread of Life, The Vine, The Way, the Truth and much more. These are not the claims of a mere prophet. This begins to get into the subject matter that I intended to discuss when I entitled this thread “Christocentric Theology.”
O- I’m glad that this is still interesting you. Now the issue we are discussing is whether Jesus is God, not whether Jesus is superior to prophets or angels. He can be both without being God. John makes the case that he is superior to any prophet? Fine. Hebrews that he is superior to angels? Alright. But from that to state that their meaning is that Jesus is essentially God is quite different and far. Jesus himself only states that before Abraham he was. From that you canno9t draw the conclusion that he meant “eternal”. Again I point to “begotten”.

— Like the Gospel of John, Hebrews tells the story of Christ’s preexistence in the Godhead, his incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection and glorification. In Hebrews 1:2 it states that the Christ as the Son, God “made the universe.” Then, in the incarnation he was “made a little inferior to the angels.” {Hebrews2:9} He had to become mortal to redeem humanity. Through crucifixion he “suffered death {Hebrews 2:9}. Then he was crowned with “glory and honor” via resurrection and ascension to the throne of God. That Christ is both uncreated and eternal and human and mortal is a paradox expounded in both The Gospel of John and The Epistle to the Hebrews
O- Hebrews states simply that through him He made the universe, but as we see in Proverbs, this did not entail that he was eternal- only that he was firstborn, first begotten, first creation. Through him all is made but he himself is made.

— According to the New Testament, fruit is metaphorically related to nature or essence. Thus, Mathew 7:16 states “Ye shall know them by their fruits” and then asks “Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?” The nature of a thorn bush is not to produce grapes. The nature of a thistle is not to produce a fig. The fruit produced is a product of the essence of the plant. The use of “fruit” as a metaphor in the NT points to the organic relationship between the essence or nature of a being and its products.
O- Hebrews states that both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family, but I doubt that he is making a case that “family” should be taken as literally as a family of plants. Certainly I don’t see that the two have to be made of the same stuff for the expression to hold true- only that the resemblance exist in action, as Jesus stated before. But I’ll say more on this later.

— Through Christ the apostles and indeed all believers are brought into an organic relationship with the Divine Trinity wherein they become “partakers of the divine nature” [2 Peter 1:4]. This is seen in John chapter 15 where Jesus says that he is the Vine and the believers are the branches. Thus, they partake of divine life in organic union with God. The fruit they bear as a result of this union will be divine like the source from whence it issues.
O- The same relation is made between Jesus and his apostles and between Jesus and God. Jesus is in them as Jesus is in the Father. If the apostle, by this, only “partake” of the divine nature, why can’t Jesus also not simply partake of God’s divine nature? While Jesus explains that he is the vine, he still does not claim that the vinme and the gardener are of one essence. Last I check the gardener was of a different nature and superior to the plant he tends.

— I have already pointed to the paradox expounded in the New Testament whereby Christ is both uncreated and begotten. The authors of the New Testament were not modernists who are averse to paradox.
O- Not for that should we assume that they were trinitarians either. But the trinity was an attempt to wrestle “God” from the hands of philosophers. But what Paul offered was not a trinity and he did not even address the issue of essence. The theology that is actually laid down could defend the view that you suppose for the apostles, but not for that “partake” does one conclude that God and apostles are of one essence.

— Furthermore, through his work Christ did not remain the “Only Begotten” as he was from eternity but became the “Firstborn” referred to in Hebrews 1:6. That is, by means of resurrection, he became the “Firstborn among many brothers" [Romans 8:29]
O- And are brothers not of one essence? Therefore Paul was God? See what I mean. All of these metaphors and analogies are not meant, I think, nor need to, make a case for the equal essnce between God and His creatures. That they “partake”? Yes, but as they are adopted by the Father, thus by the will of the father and not by the nature of the Son, or his brothers.

— Unfortunately for your argument this “little tidbit” as you call it is in the New Testament. You contend that the New Testament does not contain trinitarian thinking. John 1:1 proves your wrong.
O- My mention of the “little tibit” does not mean that I consider it proof of a trinitarian theology…perhaps it became interpreted as such, but not intended as such. Proverbs to me seems to provide John with it’s theological foundation.

— I don’t understand why you think that and you are in disagreement with New Testament Christology on this point.
O- Hebrews 5 notes that while Jesus was son that he “learned obedience”. If Jesus was naturally God, there was nothing he needed to learn. I think that the point he was making is that Jesus was by nature something great, exalted, higher than angels…but still in need of subtenance by the Father. How then can the Son be of the same nature as One who is without need in His Perfection?

— According to New Testament theology, Father Son and Holy Spirit existed together from eternity. The uniqueness of God is unequalled. The persons of the Godhead are equal in terms of that uniqueness.
O- You take “New Testament theology” as a given and not as that which we will find at the end of a discussion. But that is your choice. My belief is that NT theology does not do those things:

  • it does not allege that Father, Son and Holy Spirit existed together or that they are of the same essence. Hebrews states that through him all things were created, but not that he himself was not begotten, generated or created.
  • John’s prologue states that the Word was God, but as we see the term is applicable to those through whom God works- which is Jesus’ point.
20

Hi Omar–

I explained Hebrews 2:9 in my last post. But I’ll do it again. The verse states:

“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.”

This verse refers to Christ’s incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection. These three steps were necessary for the redemption of humanity. According to all the New Testament writers Christ must be incarnated to live a sinless life as a human being. That’s when he was “made a little lower than the angels.” John refers to the same fact this way “The Logos became flesh.” After that Christ must be be crucified, that is “the suffering of death.” Then he is resurrected. That is what is referred to by “crowned with glory and honor.” All three steps are required for redemption to be accomplished. All the New Testament writers affirm Christ’s incarnation and crucifixion and resurrection as facts while not denying his preexistence in eternity. The author of Hebrews has already affirmed this in Chapter 1 verse 8 where he states “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever…”

On the other hand, your position regarding the New Testament is by no means clear. You seem to be asserting that the authors portray Jesus an “ordinary prophet.” If so, how do explain their statements referring to Christ’s preexistence with God and his status as superior to the angels?