Chris Weimer

Yes, this is what pharoah said. I'm not sure why you go on from here?

Paul is the issue, not John.

I don't think that's a serious issue. The Latin speakers used the term dominus for Jesus, God, and slave-owners. Kurios works in the same way - it's a title of respect not exclusive to God and never has been. It's no different than saying "master" today. Sure both Jesus and God can be called master, but so are martial art teachers.

It wouldn't be the first time a Christian author abused the Hebrew scriptures...

But seriously, there's nothing there explicitly tying Jesus Christ as the same as God.

Paul is not John. John is not the issue here. John is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

RUmike

What's the big deal? The title restricts the discussion to Pauline theology but nothing in the OP itself made that clear at all. An extremely similar example of awkward Johannine theology is clearly relevant.

Helpmabob

Fair enough. Chistians might choose to ignore some of Paul's teachings as recorded in the Bible for a variety of reasons, such as they are out-of-date. Whether they are valid reasons is questionable. I find that not all parts of the bible are directly relevant at all times and in all circumstances, but my experience is that there is always something there to satisfy the deepest spiritual needs at any given time. That which I cannot understand the significance of one day might become highly relevant another, so long as I do not take the attitude that I skip certain passages because I have had difficulties comprehending them on previous occasions.

At the end of the day, what is most important to christians is not that they perfectly understand the mechanics of their salvation, but that they are assured of their salvation. Whether or not they pay heed to Paul' writings does not as far as I can see affect the assurance of salvation.

mikem

Pharoah's OP suggests that the notions of Jesus being both divine and yet subordinate to the Father do not belong together. Paul appeared to have no problem with that idea. I introduced John as a parallel example of a NT writer who regarded Jesus as both divine and subordinate to the Father to indicate that in the 1st/early 2nd century there was no conflict between the two notions. I am well aware that Pharoah did not mention John. However that does not proscribe me from introducing John as an example in my response any more than my point about Paul's use of Greek Kyrios proscribes you from referring to Latin as a parallel example. What's sauce for the goose....


.

I don't believe that Paul was calling Jesus "Lord" as a mere mark of respect. Paul was deliberately taking an OT passage, which in it's original context referred to the homage given to Yahweh, and applying it without reservation to the homage to be given to Jesus by all men. He says quite explicitly that it is God that has given him (Jesus) a name that is above every other name, and that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess Jesus as LORD. As you will know Chris, Paul was citing the Septuagint version of the OT, in which the translators substituted "KYRIOS" for "YAHWEH". What Paul is describing goes beyond doffing your cap to a social superior. What he is saying is that everyone will pay to Christ the homage that is due to God.

Romans 14:10-12 is an interesting comparison, in which Paul again cites Isaiah 45:23, and relates it to people standing before the judgement seat of Christ, in order to give account of themselves to - God.

What I see here is adoptionism. Whatever Paul thought about Jesus preexistence, it is clear that Paul beleived that post resurrection, Jesus is raised to the place of highest honour, and exercises prerogatives that only God himself can exercise - the receiving of homage, and the exercise of judgement. For Paul this is primarily a question fo function. If he speculated further as to the ontological status of Christ, he does not share those speculations in his letters. It was left to later thinkers to struggle with that question, and to attempt a synthesis using Greek, rather than Hebraic categories.

Clivedurdle

Has anyone worked out how Paul's thinking developed? It does read like he is responding off the cuff to various issues in various places - he has a vague game plan, but it is not that worked out.

But is Jesus equal to God or not?

jeffevnz

Yes and no, at the same time. Don't you get it??

Chris Weimer

No to Jesus being equal to God and yes to "or not"?

mikem

I agree with that. His main concern is with soteriology rather than Christology. He seems preoccupied with (a) how is salvation made available? and (b) if Jesus is the Messiah of Jewish hopes, why have his own people rejeted him?

The two questions are related. In Galatians Paul is concerned with emphasisng the primacy of faith over initiation rites for non Jews, and in Romans 9 - 11 he discusses the rejection of Jesus by the Jews in terms of God's wider plan, which appears to be that God offers salvation to the gentiles in order to provoke his own people to jealousy, and thus to accepting Jesus. (see Romans 11:1 - 11).

Depend on what you mean by equal. Paul was interested in Christ's function as Saviour. He ascribes functions to Jesus that belong to Yahweh. He elevates Jesus (or rather says that God elevates Jesus to a position of universal authority), and can speak in trinitarian terms of the "grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit".

I suppose you could say that Paul portrays Jesus as functionally equal to God, but not at this stage, ontologically so.

The mistake that some christians make is to try and argue for a one to one correspondence between christian theology as it later developed and what the Bible actually says. This of course goes hand in hand with a view of scripture that equates it with the "word of God". If God has spoken, then he will have spoken clearly, and there is no reason why anything he says should need developing.

If this view is rejected, then the question becomes whether later theological reflection is a coherent deveolpment of earlier writings, or a perversion. In other words, had Paul been present at Nicea, would he have said "Of course, it all makes sense now!" or would he have thrown up his hands in horror and cried "No, that 's not what I meant at all!!"

Clivedurdle

He would have stated very clearly who the bloody hell is this blasphemy of a human Jesus? Wasn't he dead before the first gospel was written?

The game of chinese whispers that we have here, played out over possibly two and a half thousand years, is fascinating!

Clivedurdle

Are we beginning to invent a new denomination (sect?) of xianity? Anti- nycene Paulist Gnostic Mythicist Xians? Maybe if we market MJ as another denomination it might get somewhere!

The Nycene Heresy?