Toto

http://xkcd.com/900/



The mouseover text references 1 Cor 8:6

⁴ So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” ⁵ For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), ⁶ yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

What is Paul saying in 8:5? The original did not have scare quotes. Is Paul admitting that there are other god-like creatures?

biblos.com contains some comments that indicate difficulties:

jakejonesiv

1 Cor. 8:6 was one of the points of debate between the proto-orthodox and the Gnostics/Marionites in the second century CE. How it is interpreted depends on which assuptions are brought to the reading of it. We know that Marcion did not consider his Christ to be the Creator/Demiurge or an agent of him, yet his version of 1 Cor. 8:6 apparently contained this text. By emphasis on different parts of the same text, two different meanings are possible. It is impossible to determine who is "correct" because we are engaged in a theological debate, and the positions of both sides are coherent within their respective dogmatics.

The relationship of "The Lord Jesus Christ" to "God the Father" in 1 Cor. 8:6 is the same as that of the Lord of the individual Mystery Cults to Zeus Pater, i.e. a subordinate diety.

From AM 5.7 we learn that Marcion considered the Creator to be one of the "many gods" of 1 Cor. 8:5. Tertullian countered with the proto-orthodox arguments that identify the Creator with God the Father. But the "all things" are not the physical creation of the Demiurge, but the good things (i.e. spiritual) of God the Father; i.e. the mysteries of Marcionite/Pauline Christians being "in God the Father" and "in Christ" a concept not found in the Jewish scriptures. Tertullian countered that "all things" must necessarily include the creation of the Creator god. Certainly the Gnostic interpretation is at odds with the literalists. In any case, 1 Cor. 8:7 hints the Gnostic view is meant.

Jake

PhilosopherJay

Hi Jakejones,

I like the analogy of God the father and Lord Jesus Christ to Zeus and one of the subordinate Gods such as Apollo.

This is the view which became accepted and Christians generally now hold. However, I would argue that the text contradicts this view. Notice the formula:

"there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." This is the Trinity when it was just a duality.

There is one X (called Father) (which is source of things and giver of life) from whom all things came for whom we live
There is one Y (called Lord) (which is maker of things and giver of life) through whom all things came and through whom we live

Paul is distinguishing X and Y not as one being higher than the other, but as X and Y being source and maker.

The key here is understanding the distinction between "from whom" (source) and "through whom" (maker)

It is a little like the distinction that Aristotle makes between material cause (the material the object is made out of) and efficient cause (the person or force that made the object)

In the case of a wooden table, the material would be the pine tree and the efficient cause would be Joe, the carpenter. However, there is also the case where a woman makes a wig out of her own hair. In this case, the material cause of the wig would be Josephine's hair and the efficient cause would be Josephine, the wig-weaver. The only difference here is the task that Josephine is performing between a) supplier of hair and b) maker of hairpiece. One is not subordinate or superior to the other as both are needed to make the wig. One person is performing two tasks. There are not two people involved. We are only naming that person differently - "Josephine, the hair provider" (source) and "Josephine, the wig-weaver." (maker)

In the same way Paul is saying that "God. the father" is the source and "Jesus Christ, the Lord" is the maker of all things, including us. They are not two things, but one thing performing two tasks (providing the material and shaping the material for everything, including us).

One can also think of Martial's description of Rome as a giant Taberna.
The word "Taberna" meant any kind of shop. It included shops known as "libraria." A libraria could be a place where books were sold or a shop where books were made or both.

So if we were Romans and I noticed you had a copy of Livy's History Part I, and I was looking to buy a copy, I might ask you "Where did you buy that scroll" You might answer, "Bookseller Antonius Pompey's libraria." I start to examine it and I'm impressed by the beautiful quality of the scroll making. I want to have my book of poems published as such a good quality scroll. I ask you where was that book made. You might answer, "Rufus Marius' libraria." However, if it was also made at Antonius Pompey's libraria, as well as being sold there, you might say "In the same place, "the Bookmaster's libraria"

Paul is indicating that the only difference between God, the father and Lord Jesus Christ is in their function and title. They are one and the same entity. They are not two different characters.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin