Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chris Weimer · 01-23-2006, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

The thread won't open for me for some reason, I suspect lag on my end. However, I do remember that thread and see nothing there that argues for an adjectival use. Liddell-Scott would seem to agree with me as it shows very little support for θεος used in this manner. I don't have BDAG.

So I would disagree, it is an equality using a predicate nominative.

αθεος was an adjective, formed just like its counterpart θεος except with the prefix.

Quote:

I have heard it argued, convincingly, that that is an expression that merely speaks of agreement. Like I could say, Chris and I are one, instead of Chris and I agree.

Could be.

No Robots · 01-23-2006, 10:47 AM

If you are interested in a sustained argument that Christ is a man, try Constantin Brunner's Our Christ. Here he is on John 1:1 (you can read this passage in context here):

I am quite certain that the whole Logos preface was tacked on, for whether or not this Logos is still meant in a Jewish sense, whether or not it is close to the Logos of Philo, to the "image of God" (Q.r.d.h. I,505), to the "God-man" (De conf.ling. I,411), and is infinitely removed from later dogmatic speculation, it still does not in any way fit in with the Gospel of John, and naturally enough the latter makes no use of it. The Logos preface is by no means "the programme for the Gospel of John," for the Gospel's Christ still acts and is affected humanly enough, and weeps. Certainly he is a theologized Christ, but in this Gospel he is not a Logos-Christ. Neither John nor Paul are speculative mystics, but mystics they are, they come close to speculation, and they tore down the barriers with the result that the rankest pagan speculation could burst in. It would have been better for Christianity if it had stayed close to Jewish Christianity, i.e., to true Christianity or true Judaism, rather than getting so near to paganism.

Diogenes the Cynic · 01-23-2006, 11:20 AM

There is no consistent, unified view as to how the authors of the NT view Jesus. Mark sees him as pretty much human, "adopted" by God as a "son" (Messiah). John sees him as a divine mediator between God and man, Paul...well, who knows what paul thought.

Anyway, there is really no such thing as an official "scriptural view" of anything. Each book has to be taken on its own terms. The earliest Christian literature does not seem to view Jesus as a God. The later it gets, the more "divine" he becomes.

Incidentally, the phrase "Son of Man" (or "Son of Adam") does not connote divinity. Idiomatically, it's just a generic term for human beings. Semiotically in Mark it's a titular reference to the Messiah figure in Daniel, but even that figure is still human, not a God.

Also, "Son of God" is a signifier for kings (eg. the heir to the throne of David- the Anointed), not an indicator of literal descendancy from Yahweh.

View Poll Results: Scripture claims Jesus is..
..God Almighty.	0	0%
..a mere mortal man.	2	14.29%
..God and man at the same time.	5	35.71%
..a unique being (not man or God but something else).	5	35.71%
..all of thee above.	2	14.29%
..none of thee above. It claims he is fictional.	0	0%
Voters: 14. You may not vote on this poll

01-23-2006, 10:47 AM	#22
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	If you are interested in a sustained argument that Christ is a man, try Constantin Brunner's Our Christ. Here he is on John 1:1 (you can read this passage in context here): I am quite certain that the whole Logos preface was tacked on, for whether or not this Logos is still meant in a Jewish sense, whether or not it is close to the Logos of Philo, to the "image of God" (Q.r.d.h. I,505), to the "God-man" (De conf.ling. I,411), and is infinitely removed from later dogmatic speculation, it still does not in any way fit in with the Gospel of John, and naturally enough the latter makes no use of it. The Logos preface is by no means "the programme for the Gospel of John," for the Gospel's Christ still acts and is affected humanly enough, and weeps. Certainly he is a theologized Christ, but in this Gospel he is not a Logos-Christ. Neither John nor Paul are speculative mystics, but mystics they are, they come close to speculation, and they tore down the barriers with the result that the rankest pagan speculation could burst in. It would have been better for Christianity if it had stayed close to Jewish Christianity, i.e., to true Christianity or true Judaism, rather than getting so near to paganism.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-23-2006, 11:20 AM	#23
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	There is no consistent, unified view as to how the authors of the NT view Jesus. Mark sees him as pretty much human, "adopted" by God as a "son" (Messiah). John sees him as a divine mediator between God and man, Paul...well, who knows what paul thought. Anyway, there is really no such thing as an official "scriptural view" of anything. Each book has to be taken on its own terms. The earliest Christian literature does not seem to view Jesus as a God. The later it gets, the more "divine" he becomes. Incidentally, the phrase "Son of Man" (or "Son of Adam") does not connote divinity. Idiomatically, it's just a generic term for human beings. Semiotically in Mark it's a titular reference to the Messiah figure in Daniel, but even that figure is still human, not a God. Also, "Son of God" is a signifier for kings (eg. the heir to the throne of David- the Anointed), not an indicator of literal descendancy from Yahweh.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.