Buster Daily

IonMic, please answer this simple question if you are around to respond. What do you say about the statement, "Jesus is God?"

IonMic

using the word god makes this statement ambiguious as god can clearly mean two things it can mean a) that the person who made this statement believes Jesus is god or b) That the person who made this statement believed jesus was akin to a god or was a God. I think the best way to illustrate this better on the authors behalf would be to differentiate when discussing God by calling him by another appropriate title such as heavenly father therebey allowing the word god not to have dual meanings of a god or the god. I believe jesus as child of god can and has become like a god himself.

I treat that sentence as a metaphor.

mikem

You never will, because there is no sense to be had of it if what you are looking for is a timeless metaphysical description. The Bible is like geological strata. For us, it all exists in the present, but looked at historically, at the beginning only one level of strata existed, and as time goes on it gets added to. The different strata reflect the different environments to which they historically belong.

The Bible is the same. In the New Testament, the earliest strata are the letters of Paul, followed by the gospel of Mark, then Matthew and Luke-Acts, and John. John represents the culmination up to the point he wrote, of reflection and argument about Jesus. On one interpretation Paul has an ADOPTIONIST view, that Jesus became the son of God by virtue of God raising him from the dead. To understand what Paul meant by "son of God", you need to look at how it was used by other Jews and also non Jews in the surrounding culture. It is clear that "son of GOD" was not equivelant to "God the Son".

In Mark's gospel, the adoption of Jesus is pushed back to his baptism, "Thou art my beloved son". In Matthew and Luke, this sonship is pushed back even further to Jesus conception. I'm sure you know the references, so I won't prolong this by citing them. John is a different kettle of fish altogether. My own view is that he was more concerned with identifyng Jesus with the LOGOS or the "Wisom of God". Wisdom is personified in the Old Testament in Proverbs 8 which speak of It as the beginning of God's works. This led to heated debate between Arians and Trinitarians as to whether Jesus (as the LOGOS), was created or eternal.

I don't think John was concerned to clarify this. His concern was to present Jesus in terms that made sense to an audience who understood Greek and whose world view was influenced by Greek ideas. "LOGOS" was a well known idea, and roughly referred to the notion that the universe was a product of intelligence and rationality. John chose to present Jesus in these terms, so as to show that Jesus was ultimately the meaning and source of the universe, God's agent in creation. (John 1:10). He was as close to being God as it was possible to get, and a proper object of religious devotion. His purpose was ultimately devotional and polemical, aimed at discrediting other groups of belivers - "gnostics" who had a different view of Jesus. He wanted to get people to accept that Jesus was the Wisdom of God MADE FLESH, and that the religion that taught that was therefore the true faith. Hence the exclusivity of Jesus as THE way, THE truth, and THE LIFE. This exclusivity is dramatised in John's gospel in those passages where Jesus confronts and debates "the Jews".

It was not John's purpose to provide a metaphysical map to describe the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

By the time we come to the 4th Century, there are different groups of Christians, with differing views as to who and what Jesus is, all claiming sriptural support, be that canonical, or other gospels like Thomas. They all had one thing in common though, and that was a belief that what the scriptures said, when rightly interpreted, gave timeless truth. They completely disregarded the historical process by which these scriptures had been produced, and the context, the arguments and contrary arguments that they were written to refute. They had the geological strata, if you like, but saw it as a whole rock, completely ignoring the rock's history.

Of course, the Councils of Nicea and Chalcedon themselves became part of the rock, another strata, and since then, believers have been trying to interpret all the other strata to make it "fit" the top one, instead of taking each level as complete in itself, and trying to understand it in it's own terms. The history of dogmatic theology at least until the last couple of hundred years, has assumed divine guidance in the formation of the rock, and so every part has to fit neatly. The layers have to reflect a logical progression, giving greater and greater insight into the truth. Of course, each layer was created by individuals and groups who were responding to the threat posed by other groups, and their response shared assumptions with the other groups that went unquestioned.

Of course, it is only a matter of historical accident that the rock we have now is the shape it is. It might well have been very different if Constantine had not adopted Christianity for example. The result might have been that the Catholic Church might have been unitarian, or even that Chrsitianity might have just continued as a group of warring sects and just died out.

Mikezrh

That's a very good summary, Mikem.

Fast - one way that I found helpful to think of the Trinity concept is in terms of relationships & roles. I'm a father, a husband, a son & a brother, etc., etc. I am still one person but I undertake different roles in each different type of relationship. I can apply this idea to my understanding of God, viz., he is a single entity that has more than one type of relationship with humans (as Son & as Holy Spirit) & has different roles in (or defined by) each of those relationships. And because God is a spirit, the martyrdom of Jesus only killed the earthly body inhabited by God; it didn't kill God. I don't personally believe any of it but it's the best approach I've found for understanding the concept of the Trinity. Does this help at all?

Mike

mikem

Thankyou. And welcome to the forum.

Clivedurdle

This is bringing back memories of a myriad sermons on these issues. John 3 16 is the classic Billy Graham et al text.

What is fascinating is the way xians are expected to accept all the positions together! Adoptionist, eternal, begotten, at resurrection, whatever.

The doctrine of the trinity can be seen as an invention to bring together these gods.

Is there an equivalent "meta doctrine" to bring together the different types of Jesus? Maybe IIDB should invent it and get the catholics to state it is true in fifty years time?

Amaleq13

This is the only part of your summary that I think has problems because it ignores the fact that Paul describes somebody in Heaven with God descending to take the form of man and regaining his former status with the resurrection.

If not God's Son, who was that Descending Entity?

I think a more accurate depiction of Paul's view is actually closer to John's than your sentence suggests and results in more of a circle than a line.

Buster Daily

Hrmm. I simply was asking if YOU thought Jesus is God was a true statement. I can speculate lots of meanings for the sentence for people of various persuasions.

LIKE a god or a god? Are you abandoning your monotheism?

I guess not. Thanks for taking the time to answer my direct query. You have chosen a defensible position in this regard. I will leave it to others to question your personal discernment between reality and metaphor.

fast

If it is the case that John 3:16 is not to be taken literally, then yes, this makes sense--you have brought clarity to where there was once not.

If it is the case that John 3:16 is meant to be taken literally, then it does not make sense.

I suspect that most Sunday goers take it literally--which tells me that if it is the case that John 3:16 is not to be taken literally, then we have a mighty number of confused Christian believers--beyond that of their belief; we would then have a case where the very source (the Bible) they look to for confirmation of the truth is misunderstood.

I think MikeM tried to make the case that it should not be taken literally. We need a clearer way to explain to believers that what is said in John 3:16 is not meant as it was written, for it is this verse that captures the essence of Christianity. It is what most Christian-Sunday goers believe as written—I think.

mikem

[You are referring to Phillippians 2:6 - 11 I think. Many scholars do think that this refers to a pre-existent Christ who became man and then ascended to heaven again. Assuming this is the correct interpretation, Christ does not regain his former status. He is given an even higher one. "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father"(verses 9 - 11). This is very close in thought to Romans 1:4, which appears to be adoptionist in outlook.

However, the whole passage is open to another interpretation, based on a comparison of Christ with Adam in verse 6 according to some scholars. This recalls Genesis 1:26,27 where God says Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness. Of course, this is not identical to the desription of "though he was in the form of God" of Phillipians 2:6, although there is a similarity. Upholders of the traditional interpretation would emphasise the difference. In defence of the comparison, one could argue that Christ is then deliberately contrasted with Adam in verse 6: though he was in the form of god, did not count equality with god athing to be grasped", which is precisely what Adam did try to do, following the serpent's advice about eating the fruit of the tree to become like God.

This interpretation, does not require that Christ was preexistent prior to his earthly existence. Additionally, it is commonly assumed that these verses form part of a hymn that Paul is quoting. This would strengthen the interpretation of a comparison with Adam, since Paul elsewhere compares Christ and Adam (Romans 5:12 - 18). If this interpretation is correct, then it makes a strong case for Paul being an adoptionist, at least as HJers have commonly understood adoptionism.

I am not myself sure whether I am convinced by the Adam-Christ interpretation of Phillippians, although I would like it to be the correct one, as it weakens the Mythicist case. Conversely, if Paul did believe in a preexistent Christ, I think that would lend strength to Doherty's thesis, since it would imply a "high christology" very early on in Christianity.