Pages

Friday, April 06, 2018

Did Jesus call himself God?

It is sometime said that while NT writers attribute deity to Jesus, Jesus never explicitly calls himself "God". 

i) People who say this would generally reject the deity of Christ even if Jesus explicitly called himself "God" in the Gospels. They'd say that was the narrator writing a script. Inventing a speech and putting that on Jesus' lips. Or they'd say that Roman emperors called themselves "god", so there's nothing that special about calling yourself "God" in the NT era. The designation could be used in a watered down or honorific sense. 

ii) Before Jesus begins making divine claims, it's necessary for him to lay the groundwork. Imagine, at the outset of his ministry, if he went around claiming to be the Deity. Most folks would either regard him as a blasphemer or madman. So he first needs to do things that will lend credibility to that claim. So often he says things that remind the observer of Yahweh, and that's backed up by doing things that remind the observer of Yahweh. By a later stage in his ministry, there's something "about" Jesus that now makes that comparison eerily and irresistibly plausible.

iii) From a tactical and psychological standpoint, implicit claims can be more effective than explicit claims. In the Gospels, Jesus says and does things that invite comparison with things Yahweh says and does. 

Instead of just coming out and saying, "I am Yahweh", he resorts to insinuations that leave it up to the listener to complete the thought. That's more effective because it draws the listener into the dialectic, forcing him to publicly recognize and affirm the implications of what Jesus said. 

That shifts the emphasis from what Jesus says to what the listener discerns. A tactic that involves and implicates the listener in the flow of argument, so that Jesus doesn't have to say that about himself because they say it about him, in response to broad hints and clues. Even hostile accusers draw that conclusion. It puts it on the listener, including the accuser, to articulate it. Even to accuse him of blasphemy, they must unwittingly cooperate with Jesus, play on his turf, by verbalizing and explicating the thrust of what he says and does. They confess that they caught the drift. 

So they complete the trajectory, the train of thought, that he initiated–which puts them at a psychological disadvantage if they then wish to extricate themselves from complicity in the conclusion. It's a tactic that throws his accusers off balance because they have to play his game. They have to enter the game and make a move or countermove. To engage Jesus they must take the bait. Accept that coercive dilemma. Now they're on the hook. 

If he said it all himself, they'd be able to maintain their distance, but to press the charge, they must finish his sentences (as it were). In the process, they become unintended evangelists. 

iv) In addition, it's more effective in winning converts. There's a cumulative impact to his words and deeds, where it gradually dawns on the observer that God is in their midst. Not just something they hear Jesus say about himself, but something they themselves perceive, as the evidence piles up. That's more powerful than just telling someone what to believe. 

28 comments:

  1. These present-day over-readings, on which Jesus in the gospels is often going around sneakily insinuating that he's God himself, are dashed against the rocks of the early history of Christian theology. What folks like Steve here imagine to be obvious to the reader - that Jesus is claiming to be the one God, the god of Israel - was not obvious to Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, etc. - all of whom explicitly hold the one God to be the Father - not the Trinity, not Jesus, and not the Logos. What not obvious right away to careful, smart, informed readers, is just not obvious in a text!

    We know that the "logos" theorists of the 100s and 200s held the logos to explicitly be "another god," "a second god" (or: a second 'god' - see the difference?), and less than the one God in (for various authors) power, knowledge, authority, divinity, and even (for theorists before Origen) less old than him, having come into existence. You still see these sorts of subordinationist, non-trinitarian views being prominent in the 4th c. with people like the church historian Eusebius, and many, many others. And this is leaving aside the many mainstream Christians who rejected logos speculations.

    Again, theologians aside, in the earliest extant baptismal creeds of the 2rd & 3rd c. - the one God Almighty is the Father himself - and there is no hint in them that Jesus (or the Logos) is the one God himself. What, how'd they miss that?

    Evidently, these folks did not get the memo, that in the NT Jesus is asserting that he is God Almighty himself. Thus, this is a paradigm case of reading one's preferred (later) theories into a text. It's not unlike 20th c. readers who felt sure they could detect that the Jesus of the gospels was a Communist. Or silly "historical Jesus" scholars who thought Jesus was essentially like a Cynic, and would surely favor universal, socialized health care.

    These over-readings war against known history.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction the church fathers recognised and reported the deity of Christ.

      Polycarp (AD 69–155) was the bishop at the church in Smyrna. Irenaeus tells us Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle. In his Letter to the Philippianshe says,

      Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth...and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead.

      Ignatius (AD 50–117) was the bishop at the church in Antioch and also a disciple of John the Apostle. He wrote a series of letters to various churches on his way to Rome, where he was to be martyred. He writes,

      Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath been blessed in greatness through the plentitude of God the Father; which hath been foreordained before the ages to be for ever unto abiding and unchangeable glory, united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God;even unto the church which is in Ephesus [of Asia], worthy of all felicitation: abundant greeting in Christ Jesus and in blameless joy.

      Being as you are imitators of God, once you took on new life through the blood of God you completed perfectly the task so natural to you.

      There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord.

      For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit.

      Consequently all magic and every kind of spell were dissolved, the ignorance so characteristic of wickedness vanished, and the ancient kingdom was abolished when God appeared in human form to bring the newness of eternal life.

      Delete
    2. Since early Christian theology isn't our authority, and the church was in it's theological infancy, it's of little consequence what Origen, Tertullian, etc thought, even if we grant your premise (they were uniformly unitarian).

      Delete
    3. And for further proof that the deity of Christ was not an invention of the Council of Nicea see this archaeological evidence:

      http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2018/04/archaeology-and-deity-of-christ.html?m=1

      Delete
    4. Alastair - Let's think here - not just cut and paste standard apologetic materials. I note that you switch to the vague phrase "deity of Christ" - which may or may not mean being God himself - which is what Steve asserts in the post here. But, laying aside serious issues about the authenticity of Ignatius's letters, let me comment on your proof texts, and explain why they don't clearly identify God and Jesus:

      "Polycarp ... Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal high priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth...and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead."

      Notice that the first bit, like the NT, says that the Father is Jesus's God, i.e. the God over him, even though Jesus is now "Lord." Thus, if he goes on to use "God" for Jesus just below, then he must be using that term in a lesser sense - just as with Hebrews 1:8-9. Finally, observe that the writer here is distinguishing between Jesus and God, whatever titles he gives them.

      "Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her which hath been blessed in greatness through the plentitude of God the Father; which hath been foreordained before the ages to be for ever unto abiding and unchangeable glory, united and elect in a true passion, by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God;even unto the church which is in Ephesus [of Asia], worthy of all felicitation: abundant greeting in Christ Jesus and in blameless joy."

      This seems to assume, like all of Paul's letters, the identity of the Father and the one God. That he goes on to call Jesus "our God" - you can take this as evidence of confusion, that he runs together Jesus with God, or you can charitably read this as using "God" for someone other than the one true God - a usage which is well known from the OT, and pointed out by Jesus in the NT. (John 10)

      "Being as you are imitators of God, once you took on new life through the blood of God you completed perfectly the task so natural to you.

      There is only one physician, who is both flesh and spirit, born and unborn, God in man, true life in death, both from Mary and from God, first subject to suffering and then beyond it, Jesus Christ our Lord."

      Note that "God" here is being used as a title of Jesus, and also ("from God") for God (aka, the Father), as in the NT. This passage would be - if genuine - an early two-natures theory - although it sounds like what some theologians call the "God in a bod" heresy - the Logos simply becoming the controller of a human body, taking the place of a soul. This seems insufficient for being human.

      "For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit."

      Same thing here - 2 uses of "God." For the one God and for his Son.

      "Consequently all magic and every kind of spell were dissolved, the ignorance so characteristic of wickedness vanished, and the ancient kingdom was abolished when God appeared in human form to bring the newness of eternal life."

      If this is really an uncorrupted 2nd c. text, which I doubt, then this "God" would be the "second God" mentioned by others, i.e. the Logos - not the one God, the Father.

      In sum, your 2nd c. proof texts would at most show this - some 2nd c. Christians called Jesus by the title "God." It doesn't follow, though, that they thought Jesus to be the one God - because they knew, as did OT and NT writers did, that God-terms can be used of others. They are, to be sure, far freer in doing this than is the NT, which is very reserved about applying God-terms to beings other than God. e.g. the phrase "our God" for Jesus doesn't occur in the NT. It is an interesting question why.

      Delete
    5. C.M. you change the subject. I was not basing a theological point on the views of those "fathers". Rather, my point was, what was not obvious to them about the NT probably is not obvious at all! If it were, it would have been obvious to them too.

      Delete
    6. "These present-day over-readings, on which Jesus in the gospels is often going around sneakily insinuating that he's God himself…"

      Jesus is often dialectically adroit in the Gospels. Opponents try to trap him, but they step into their own trap.

      "...are dashed against the rocks of the early history of Christian theology. What folks like Steve here imagine to be obvious to the reader - that Jesus is claiming to be the one God, the god of Israel - was not obvious to Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, etc. - all of whom explicitly hold the one God to be the Father - not the Trinity, not Jesus, and not the Logos. What not obvious right away to careful, smart, informed readers, is just not obvious in a text!"

      Merely appealing to ancient readers either proves too little or too much. There are lots of different ancient readers who offer divergent interpretations of the same texts, viz. Adoptionism, Apollinarianism, Arianism, Docetism, Ebionism, Gnosticism, Marcionism, Monarchianism, Monophysitism, Patripassianism, Sebellianism. So that's is a wash. Lots of ancient readings Dale rejects.

      "We know that the 'logos' theorists of the 100s and 200s held the logos to explicitly be 'another god,' 'a second god' (or: a second 'god' - see the difference?), and less than the one God in (for various authors) power, knowledge, authority, divinity, and even (for theorists before Origen) less old than him, having come into existence."

      How does that help Dale? The ante-Nicene Fathers he appeals to don't believe Jesus is just a human male.

      "You still see these sorts of subordinationist, non-trinitarian views being prominent in the 4th c. with people like the church historian Eusebius, and many, many others. And this is leaving aside the many mainstream Christians who rejected logos speculations."

      Yeah, there's diversity? So what? If that cuts against Nicene Christology, it equally cuts against humanitarian unitarianism.

      "Again, theologians aside, in the earliest extant baptismal creeds of the 2rd & 3rd c. - the one God Almighty is the Father himself - and there is no hint in them that Jesus (or the Logos) is the one God himself. What, how'd they miss that? Evidently, these folks did not get the memo, that in the NT Jesus is asserting that he is God Almighty himself. Thus, this is a paradigm case of reading one's preferred (later) theories into a text."

      There is no monolithic group that did or didn't get the memo. Early views of God and Jesus range along spectrum of disparate positions. Dale can't act as if humanitarian unitarianism was the original 2-3C position, until that was dislodged by the orthodox/Catholic party. It was very fluid in the first few centuries.

      But since I'm not Greek Orthodox, that's not my standard of comparison.

      "These over-readings war against known history."

      The known history doesn't select for any received reading, one way or the other. So how is that supposed to undercut my position without simultaneously undercutting your position–if consensus is your frame of reference?

      Delete
    7. "Jesus is often dialectically adroit in the Gospels. Opponents try to trap him, but they step into their own trap."

      Amen to this. This reflects the intelligence of the man himself. This is not, though, to the point - not relevant to my responses to your post here.

      "Merely appealing to ancient readers either proves too little or too much."

      What it proves, again, is that Jesus being God himself is not the clear point of any NT gospel - no, not even of John. If the hint-hunters were right, there would be just an avalanche of obvious implications that Jesus is God himself - but such are merely projected onto the texts.

      "[Dale] Again, theologians aside, in the earliest extant baptismal creeds of the 2rd & 3rd c. - the one God Almighty is the Father himself - and there is no hint in them that Jesus (or the Logos) is the one God himself. What, how'd they miss that? Evidently, these folks did not get the memo, that in the NT Jesus is asserting that he is God Almighty himself. Thus, this is a paradigm case of reading one's preferred (later) theories into a text."

      [Steve] There is no monolithic group that did or didn't get the memo. Early views of God and Jesus range along spectrum of disparate positions."

      I know that when a devastating objection impacts your view, it seems like a good time to attack competing views - but I'm not here to debate my view today, but only to point out the wild over-readings that are currently fashionable in the world of evangelical scholarship and apologetics.

      Steve, you're hung up on the popularity, latter 2nd c. on, of logos theories, which I reject (and which, at the time, many mainstream Christians rejected). Still, such theorists agree with me that the one God just is the Father alone. Second, such Christians don't ever "get" the currently fashionable hints, supposedly found in the NT, that Jesus is God himself. e.g. Mark 1, make straight the way for "the Lord" - aha - he's "identifying" Jesus with Yahweh. No - these ancient readers don't do that - at least, not the mainstream ones. e.g. Jesus walks on water - and YHWH is said to do that! e.g. The "one like a son of man" in Dan 7 "is a divine figure." e.g. Jesus saying "I am" is a claim that he's God himself. Paul "inserts Jesus into the Shema" in 1 Cor 8. Or the whole idea that in calling Jesus "Lord" the NT authors are saying that this man is YHWH himself. This last is just a crass mistake, ignoring the actual NT usage of "the Lord."

      There were probably a few patripassian types who, like "Oneness" folks today, simply collapsed together Jesus and God, that is, the Son and the Father - but the bulk of Christians in that time, whether logos theorists, monarchians, or just unsophisticated believers, habitually distinguished Jesus from the one God - and this, while having and carefully studying the four gospels. Again, this shows that there is no *obvious* implication in them that Jesus is God himself. Obvious implications are grasped immediately by most competent readers or hearers.

      Delete
    8. "Amen to this. This reflects the intelligence of the man himself. This is not, though, to the point - not relevant to my responses to your post here."

      You act as though I mention Christ's dialectical dexterity to prove his divinity–which misses the point. Try to keep track of your own argument. You accused me of attributing "sneakiness" to Jesus. In response to your allegation, I pointed out that Jesus is often dialectically adroit in how he handles opponents. You agree. Is that "sneaky"?

      "What it proves, again, is that Jesus being God himself is not the clear point of any NT gospel - no, not even of John. If the hint-hunters were right, there would be just an avalanche of obvious implications that Jesus is God himself - but such are merely projected onto the texts."

      No, it doesn't prove that because your appeal cuts both ways. If Jesus is clearly just human in the Gospels, then the logic of your appeal is that ancient readers would recognize that obvious fact. There should be an "avalanche" of humanitarian unitarians (your position) in the first few centuries of the Christian era. But instead there's a diversity of Christological interpretations, which range along a continuum.

      "I know that when a devastating objection impacts your view, it seems like a good time to attack competing views - but I'm not here to debate my view today, but only to point out the wild over-readings that are currently fashionable in the world of evangelical scholarship and apologetics."

      If it's devastating to my position, then it's equally devastating to your own position. You backed yourself into a dilemma. And it's your dilemma, not mine.

      "Steve, you're hung up on the popularity, later 2nd c. on, of logos theories, which I reject (and which, at the time, many mainstream Christians rejected)."

      Dale, try to keep track of your own argument. You're the one, not me, who interjected ante-Nicene logos-theorists into the discussion. I'm responding to you on your on terms. When I do that, you then to an about-face and accuse me of getting "hung up" on the popularity of these Christological paradigms, yet you were the one who initiated that frame of reference, not me.

      Delete
    9. "Still, such theorists agree with me that the one God just is the Father alone."

      But they disagree with you that Jesus is merely human. You have this arbitrary notion that their partial agreement with you supports your position while their partial disagreement with your position somehow doesn't undermine your position; conversely, that their partial disagreement with my position undermines my position while their partial agreement with my position somehow doesn't support my position. It's amusing to see how blind you are to your lopsided logic.

      "Second, such Christians don't ever 'get' the currently fashionable hints, supposedly found in the NT, that Jesus is God himself"…

      That's not a problem for me, since the church fathers, whether ante-Nicene, Nicene, or post-Nicene were never my hermeneutical touchstone.

      You, by contrast, selectively appeal to church fathers. I'm measuring you by your own yardstick. By that ruler, your own position doesn't measure up.

      "e.g. Mark 1, make straight the way for "the Lord" - aha - he's "identifying" Jesus with Yahweh. No - these ancient readers don't do that - at least, not the mainstream ones. e.g. Jesus walks on water - and YHWH is said to do that! e.g. The "one like a son of man" in Dan 7 "is a divine figure." e.g. Jesus saying "I am" is a claim that he's God himself. Paul "inserts Jesus into the Shema" in 1 Cor 8. Or the whole idea that in calling Jesus "Lord" the NT authors are saying that this man is YHWH himself. This last is just a crass mistake, ignoring the actual NT usage of "the Lord."

      Trinitarian scholars provided detailed exegetical arguments for those interpretations. Because you're impotent to refute their arguments directly, you try to take a shortcut by appealing to some church fathers who don't affirm the full deity of Christ.

      To begin with, that's a tacit admission of defeat on your part: you can't rebut Trinitarian interpretations directly, so you try to do an end-run around their irrefutable arguments by selective appeal to a few church fathers more to your liking, although even they don't subscribe to humanitarian unitarianism.

      "There were probably a few patripassian types who, like 'Oneness' folks today, simply collapsed together Jesus and God, that is, the Son and the Father - but the bulk of Christians in that time, whether logos theorists, monarchians, or just unsophisticated believers, habitually distinguished Jesus from the one God - and this, while having and carefully studying the four gospels. Again, this shows that there is no *obvious* implication in them that Jesus is God himself. Obvious implications are grasped immediately by most competent readers or hearers."

      That's your habitual bait-n-switch, where you act as though, if "most competent" readers classify Jesus as "another god" or "second god", that someone constitutes an endorsement of humanitarian unitarianism. But even if, for discussion purposes, we grant that they were the "most competent" readers, that leaves us with an intermediate position which falls in-between unitarianism and Trinitarianism. It's revealing to see your persistent inability to be intellectually honest and logically consistent with the sources you yourself adduce.

      Delete
  2. But more importantly, these over-readings war against the gospels. These authors, we should assume, are competent to state their message. They all clearly assert their central thesis about this man - you should know the refs - and it is that he really is God's Son, that is to say, God's Messiah - his anointed one, the Davidic King who will reign forever. And it would be quite a shock to make THAT one's clear thesis statement, if one really thought that ALSO, Jesus is God himself. Never mind if Jesus would have to careful in making that claim - John, writing in the 90s, would NOT have to be careful in making such an assertion (assuming he believed it) - and would have have encoded it sneakily into his narrative, but would have shouted it plainly. But what does he do? John 20:31

    It seems to me that recent evangelical scholars have badly over-reacted against theological "liberals" and other non-Christian scholars' claims in the 20th c. that Jesus is just another spiritual teacher. No - not that! But not God himself either. Rather, God's human Messiah - which is a big, big deal in the NT. He reigns now, exalted to God's right hand - and he must be worshiped, to the glory of God. Hardly "just a man" - but yes, a man! Now that evangelicals run free in their own ghettoized publishing houses, organizations, and institutions, they can just assert these over-readings endlessly and hardly challenged, and have in recent years been ever more creative in showing how, supposedly, a "high christology" is encoded in the NT. Never mind what that means, or whether it is equivalent to the claim that Jesus is God himself.

    But serious NT readers must continue on without them, declining the helps offered by their secret decoder rings. The downfall of texts is that they'll sit silently while we misread them. Their glory is, they generally remain unchanged, so that even after centuries of people confidently foisting later ideas on them, one can come along and "get" their actual message nonetheless, with some work and some help. Thank God for that! Of course, pride, laziness, fear, and party spirit are huge barriers here.. But with God, all things are possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If God commands that Jesus be worshipped, and if Jesus is not fully God, then you make God out to be one who commands idolatry--reducing your position to absurdity.

      Delete
    2. Tuggy and Carrier have taken the same route. They’re fighting back against those corrupt Christian scholarship monopolies that have just coasted by the last three hundred years without ever actually having to address counter arguments (for Carrier, that Jesus existed, for Tuggy, that the NT teaches his divinity).

      The truth is that Christian scholars have always addressed the Carriers and Tuggys. There’s just nothing new is either of them.

      They both have the same blinders too, they each just choose to fill in the resulting darkness with different colors.

      For Carrier, no NT or early Christian text can be clear enough on Jesus’ humanity, for Tuggy Jesus’ deity. Both create artificial first century contexts using later sources that they then map onto the NT, and both then wonder why no one else can see what they see.

      Delete
    3. No, "faith alchemist," in the last 120 years or so, mainstream theologians have practically acted as if unitarian Christians never existed, or were a rare anomaly. But, we were the rule before late 4th c. And various sorts of unitarians were important Christians and Christian thinkers from the Reformation until they self-imploded for interesting reasons in mid 19th c.

      As to my alleged blindness to perfectly clear "deity of Christ" texts - LOL! Ye olde denialist accusation, thank God, does not prevent people from actually thinking through the NT on the topics of God and his Son, and how they're related.

      Lumping me in with Carrier... that's a new one! Silly, though.

      Delete
    4. “No, "faith alchemist," in the last 120 years or so, mainstream theologians have practically acted as if unitarian Christians never existed, or were a rare anomaly.”

      Unitarians have always been on the fringe because the Bible won’t let them any closer. That’s why they’ve never made an impact. They either evolve from or devolve to liberal theologies that say nothing more than “Jesus was a good guy.”

      “But, we were the rule before late 4th c.”

      Right, because Tuggy’s horrible unitarian methodology allows him not only to reinterpret the Bible but ancient history too. To doubt even the authenticity of ancient authors who disagree with him (Ignatius). Well perhaps I decide that Origen’s work can’t be trusted because maybe later unitarian authors corrupted it.

      It’s just sloppy. And he wonders why I compare him with Carrier.

      “As to my alleged blindness to perfectly clear "deity of Christ" texts - LOL!”

      Tuggy thinks he’s cute and relatable. He’s not. Just a heretic.

      “Ye olde denialist accusation, thank God, does not prevent people from actually thinking through the NT on the topics of God and his Son, and how they're related.”

      Indeed! Too bad so many of them disagree with Tuggy, or are non-believers who agree with him (another great historical blight upon the unitarian heresy is how often it’s proponents arguments have been co-opted by anti-Christians (atheists, Muslims etc) to attack the faithful.

      “Lumping me in with Carrier... that's a new one! Silly, though.”

      New don’t mean wrong. Tuggy and Carrier both exhibit the same inability to think outside their imagined contexts. Tuggy’s not a wretched pervert like Carrier, but it terms of methodology, they’re two sides of the same coin.

      Delete
  3. Lets see. Jesus claimed to be able to forgive sins. Only God can do that. Jesus claimed that one day he would judge the whole of humanity. Only God can do that.

    He accepted human worship. Only God should that. Thomas called him God. Jesus did nothing to disavow him of that notion.

    I know Jews who say it is not in dispute he claimed to be God.

    The Sanhedren knew he was claiming to be God when he said at his trial they would see him riding the clouds of heaven. In Daniel 7 Yahweh rides the clouds of Heaven.

    When he said before Abraham was I AM he was telling the Jews it was him who appeared to Moses in the burning bush. And they took it as such.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew, we have to study our way past these misreadings.

      "Lets see. Jesus claimed to be able to forgive sins. Only God can do that. Jesus claimed that one day he would judge the whole of humanity. Only God can do that."

      So, your "only God can do that" claims go against scripture. As to forgiving sins: http://trinities.org/blog/only-god-can-forgive-sins-false/ As to judging, why on earth would it be beyond an omnipotent being to appoint a man to be his judge, to judge through a man?

      "He accepted human worship. Only God should that."
      It kind of amazes me that you should assert this, when in the NT God exalts Jesus, and seemingly this is why he must be worshiped, and the two are worshiped as two objects of worship and for different reasons, and that the glory given to Jesus goes to God too. (Phil 2, Rev 5)
      http://trinities.org/blog/hurtado-on-the-worship-of-jesus/
      In sum, in an Islamic context, people may assume this as obvious. But in a Christian one?!

      "Thomas called him God. Jesus did nothing to disavow him of that notion."
      That's one reading. But of course, in the OT and NT, beings other than God may be called "God." And I would argue that in that passage, Thomas is supposed to be giving a double confession, of the one Lord and of the one God, as in 1 Cor 8:4-6 - he's recognizing both his Lord Jesus and his God, who is "in" Jesus, working through him, having raised him.

      "I know Jews who say it is not in dispute he claimed to be God."
      Then as now, Jews would reject the Messiah are not the best authorities on the message of that Messiah and his apostles. Present-day Jews are all too happy to say this, wanting to emphasize the differences between Chr and Judaism, and assuming that the claim is absurd.

      "The Sanhedren knew he was claiming to be God when he said at his trial they would see him riding the clouds of heaven. In Daniel 7 Yahweh rides the clouds of Heaven."

      Uh, no - read Daniel 7, please. Notice that it contrasts the one like a son of man, who is brought into Yahweh's presence, and given wonderful things by him.

      "When he said before Abraham was I AM he was telling the Jews it was him who appeared to Moses in the burning bush. And they took it as such."

      Oy. Taking "the Jews" of John (i.e. Jesus's Jewish opponents there) as correctly getting his meaning is a big mistake! Read the whole book - see how they constantly blow it, and are corrected by him. For a more careful exegesis of that passage, this may help. http://trinities.org/blog/podcast-63-thomas-belsham-and-other-scholars-on-john-858/

      Delete
  4. "If God commands that Jesus be worshipped, and if Jesus is not fully God, then you make God out to be one who commands idolatry--reducing your position to absurdity."

    C.M., that is a non sequitur. I explain pretty thoroughly why the NT writers don't think that way here: http://trinities.org/blog/who-should-christians-worship/ The remarks of Dr. Larry Hurtado are also relevant here: http://trinities.org/blog/larry-hurtado-on-early-christians-worship-of-jesus/

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks to Steve for inspiring this post: http://trinities.org/blog/losing-patience-with-the-hint-hunters/

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tuggy said:

    “But, laying aside serious issues about the authenticity of Ignatius's letters,”

    This blatant well poisoning reminds me of Earl Doherty’s old stuff.

    He didn’t like Ignatius because he harpooned his celestial Jesus thesis. There are no “serious problems” with Ignatius, unless you’re a celestial Christ-mother or a unitarian, that is.

    “That he goes on to call Jesus "our God" - you can take this as evidence of confusion, that he runs together Jesus with God, or you can charitably read this as using "God" for someone other than the one true God - a usage which is well known from the OT, and pointed out by Jesus in the NT. (John 10)”

    “Charitable” is Tuggy’s code for “you can’t drive to the basket because if you score any points off the drive I consider them fouls.”

    Ok... so what? Bare minimum it tells us what Tuggy’s thinks of the text, not what the text says. Again I’m reminded of the Doherty and Carrier enthusiasts who love to point to texts like Heb 13:8 and day “Ha! How can this be said of a human man!” They assume their hermeneutic of incredulity is an argument for their reading. It’s not.

    “Note that "God" here is being used as a title of Jesus, and also ("from God") for God (aka, the Father), as in the NT. This passage would be - if genuine - an early two-natures theory - although it sounds like what some theologians call the "God in a bod" heresy - the Logos simply becoming the controller of a human body, taking the place of a soul. This seems insufficient for being human.”

    Tuggy’s going an awful long way for a mere “if genuine.” Anyone can see he realizes how devestating Ignatius is for his reading, how he deploys his “charitable” hermeneutic (although he’s not being very charitable to Ignatius here) to circumvent obvious appeals to Jesus’ deity. The text literally says “God in man.” Not a “title.” And “from God” is juxtaposed with “from Mary.” Ignatius wouldn’t have called it “two natures.” This is why Tuggy is like Catholics. They can’t let the church fathers be the church fathers.

    “In sum, your 2nd c. proof texts would at most show this - some 2nd c. Christians called Jesus by the title "God." It doesn't follow, though, that they thought Jesus to be the one God - because they knew, as did OT and NT writers did, that God-terms can be used of others. They are, to be sure, far freer in doing this than is the NT, which is very reserved about applying God-terms to beings other than God. e.g. the phrase "our God" for Jesus doesn't occur in the NT. It is an interesting question why.”

    This shows why Tuggy’s blustering here:

    http://trinities.org/blog/losing-patience-with-the-hint-hunters/

    is disingenuous insofar as it doesn’t matter how clear the text is. Like Carrier, Tuggy’s thinks he’s found a way to throw all possible texts noting Jesus’ deity (even reformulations of the Shema and an exclamation from Thomas that clearly testifies to Jesus’ deity) out by noting (as all Christian commentators have always known) that context dictates what “god” can mean. It can’t be much clearer when the one God that Israel is to alone worship is in view what the author means.

    The only difference between Tuggy and Carrier is Carrier thinks he’s found a context for NT authors to say things like “man” and “human” and “flesh” and blood” and “crucified” but what they actually mean is “kinda man” and “kinda human” and “kinda flesh” and “kinda blood” and “crucified in the lower heavens by demons.”

    “It kind of amazes me that you should assert this, when in the NT God exalts Jesus,”

    Yes. Because he’s YHWH incarnate.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "faith alchemist" - You ought to look into the Ignatius issue more. It used to be standard for Protestants to say that even the "middle rescension" of his letters is corrupted (as is the "longer rescension") or fake. Some specialists strongly argue for it today. But no, contrary to your taunting, I don't feel threatened by those letters if it is correct to accept them as real. One can hold unitarian views and call Jesus "God," "our God," etc. In fact, many have.

    That you think it is pathetic dodging to not read the favorite handful of texts as obviously saying that Jesus is God himself - this shows that you've not really thought it through, and that you're not aware of many ancient and modern readings. As to the thinking it through, this may help. http://trinities.org/blog/podcast-124-a-challenge-to-jesus-is-god-apologists/ Specifically, focus on 1-3. You need to read the NT in a way that is coherent - that is what means to read a text charitably.

    About throwing texts out - no, I don't do that. Rather, I try hard to read them in their context. If you want to see what I basically do with the favorite "Jesus is God" prooftexts, it is in this recent talk, where I interact with the work of evangelical scholar Murray Harris. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XBKJu8UmaY

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'd rather Dale focus on responding to others than to my observations below.

    //There were probably a few patripassian types who, like "Oneness" folks today, simply collapsed together Jesus and God, that is, the Son and the Father - ...//

    I was about to mention that. It's honest of Dale to concede the fact that there *were* some who did see the NT as teaching the absolute deity of Christ (though, incorrectly collapsing Father and Son).

    //Obvious implications are grasped immediately by most competent readers or hearers.//

    I don't see why full orbed Trinitarian theology must be patently obvious in Scripture if it were true.

    Later generations of Christians are always in a different situation than earlier generations of Christians. The later can often see higher, farther, clearer and more precisely than the earlier. Often because later Christians can stand on the shoulders of the earlier as well as learn from their mistakes. Sometimes theological/philosophical clarity and precision doesn't arise until a dispute breaks out within the church to bring up the deeper issues that weren't seen previously or were of concern. During such controversies, modes of thought, conceptual tools and theological/philosophical language develop to better understand the differences, possibilities and permutations. Once the the various opinions are precisely defined, it is the duty of professing Christians to line up with the position that is most Biblical. An example would be the nature and relationship of grace and works during the Pelagian (and later Semi-Pelagian) Controversy, or the nature of Justification during the Reformation [examples could be multiplied]. Regarding the former, the controversy started in Augustine's time, peaked and came to a head around the Second Council of Orange. Though "the church" technically settled the issue, the Canons of Orange were eventually lost and rediscovered sometime after the outbreak of the Protestant Reformation. So, the Catholic Counter-Reformation was eventually able to recognize and renounce the Semi-Pelagian tendencies of some (not all) of their theologians during the Middles Ages up to their time. Similarly, during the early church the concept of persons in relation to ontology wasn't fully understood. So, it took time to hammer out in what sense Jesus was and wasn't God, along with who or what the Holy Spirit is. It's one thing for some Apostolic fathers to have various subordinationist Christologies because they didn't have the tools of latter generations (e.g. 4th century Christians). It's excusable. But it's totally another thing for 21 century professing Christians to hold to Humanitarian Unitarianism. It was a small minority position in the early church and has remained so because of all the Scriptural reasons and evidence to believe in the personal preexistence of Christ, and His supra-human (even Divine) nature and origin. By now, all such evidence and reasons have been collected, argued, reargued, published and republished so ubiquitously that there should be no one who holds it. Just as some of the last remaining disciples of John the Baptist/Immerser (in Acts 19:1f.) were informed that the Messiah that the Immerser prophesied about was Jesus of Nazareth. When I read the arguments Humanitarian Unitarians use to explain away the evidence against their position I can't help but think that there's spiritual blindness involved because the case is so clearly against that position and against non-preexistence. The evidence is so overwhelming that even many other Unitarians are also against the position.

    CONT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. //...you should know the refs - and it is that he really is God's Son, that is to say, God's Messiah - his anointed one, the Davidic King who will reign forever.//

      I grant that the primary meaning of "Son of God" in reference to Jesus in the Synoptics refers to Jesus as the human Davidic messiah. But at times a secondary sense is likely also included to intimate His divinity. This is especially true in GJohn. While the consensus of modern scholars is that monogenes doesn't have connotations of begetting, it may originally have had such a connotation. If so, then that does teach a Divine Christology of some sort that at the very least surpasses Humanitarian Unitarianism. See for example The Johannine Use of Monogenes Reconsidered by J. V. Dahms
      https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B78fS_Vf9Y1iQ2xzMm9oY1BnN1U/view?usp=drive_web

      //...John, writing in the 90s, would NOT have to be careful in making such an assertion...//

      But John is fairly explicit, so is Paul despite the fact that some of his writings are among the earliest writings in the NT. Paul repeatedly applied OT passages regarding YHVH to Jesus, and often in ways that aren't either agentival OR a secondary fulfillment. Some of them are primarily, only or firstly fulfilled by Christ. One can just scan through my collection HERE. Regarding the Shaliach [i.e. agentival or sent representative] argument, Drew Lewis makes some good observations in his blogpost Here. Basically he points out that nowhere in the New Testament is the concept of a Shaliach appealed to or taught to explain why it is that YHVH passages are applied to Jesus. As real as the principle is, Unitarians eisegetically insert the application to those passages despite other indicators that Jesus really is (along with the Father) YHVH because He has many of the same attributes, prerogatives, honors and powers of Almighty God.

      But notice too that in John when the Jews identify Jesus as only a man (John 10:33), Jesus doesn't accept that description but rather gives a cryptic answer. One that I think better fits with a claim to absolute deity as I've argued HERE and HERE.

      //In sum, in an Islamic context, people may assume this as obvious. But in a Christian one?!//

      But the revelation of the New Testament was given in the context of 2nd Temple Judaism. Would THEY have interpreted the teaching of the New Testament as affirming Jesus' preexistence and Divinity along with forbidding the worship of a mere human being? As far as I understand it, even within intertestamental literature which described exalted humans (e.g. Enoch, Adam, Moses etc.) they were never worshipped as Almighty God was. Yet, Jesus is worshipped in the NT in clearly religious contexts that would naturally seem to be a 1st Commandment violation if Jesus were merely human [exalted as Enoch et al.].
      CONT.

      Delete
    2. //And I would argue that in that passage, Thomas is supposed to be giving a double confession, of the one Lord and of the one God, as in 1 Cor 8:4-6 - he's recognizing both his Lord Jesus and his God, who is "in" Jesus, working through him, having raised him.//

      "[W]ho is "in" Jesus, working through him, having raised him" seems to me to be so ad hoc that I'm tempted to chuckle. I suppose that's a slightly better answer some Unitarians given when they say Thomas is speaking to Jesus when he said "Lord" and then to the Father when he said "God". Sometimes assuming—without warrant—that Thomas paused and looked up and away from Jesus when saying "God". But of course the text specifically says that Thomas said the statement "to him" [i.e. to Jesus].

      Delete
  9. "I don't see why full orbed Trinitarian theology must be patently obvious in Scripture if it were true."

    Because, as the "Athanasian creed" asserts, a would-be Christian is damned unless she believes this. That is why it would have to be clear. But even if you, as you should, think that is mistaken, on the sort of wild exegesis exemplified in this post, the avalanche of hints - if those really are in the texts - should make it pretty obvious too. That Steve and similar folks think this is evidenced by their contempt, condescension, and accusations of denying the obvious when someone who acknowledges the authority of the texts disagrees with their catholic interpretations.

    A fallback position, held by some recent evangelicals is, no, obviously, one doesn't have to believe in the Trinity to be saved. BUT one can't, being informed of it, deny it, on pain of damnation. Problem with that is, it still isn't clear. (Also, there is no "it" - just a family of related but mostly mutually exclusive theories.) My experience is that once people are finally willing to see that in the NT the one God is the Father, they either are permanently immunized against any further trinitarian eisegesis, or they reject a Bible-centered methodology, choosing to base their trinitarian views on later traditions, or on the Bible as (mis)read in light of 4th c. and later catholic traditions. This latter is, in my view, unfortunate - but, God help them, some are just seduced by the prestige of catholic intellectual traditions - and perhaps, some have too much to lose, in terms of social life, career, money, etc.

    Annoyed, you're so enamored of the strength of your case. I think I've said before that you sound like a man who's really mostly heard one side of the case. Your cup overflows with quotes from these folks who read the gospels like esoteric books. I invite you to interact with my podcast 189.

    ""[W]ho is "in" Jesus, working through him, having raised him" seems to me to be so ad hoc that I'm tempted to chuckle."

    You should take GJohn more seriously than that. That God is "in" him and vice versa, and that the two are "one" in the sense of being about the same project, cooperating in hierarchical way, Jesus always obeying - these are plain teachings of the fourth gospel. Moreover, the book repeatedly distinguishes Jesus from God, and puts him under God, as God's servant and messenger (duh, like any Messiah would have to be). e.g. John 5:19, John 14:28. Some merrily project their confusion onto GJohn, saying that in one breath he identifies Jesus with God and also distinguishes Jesus from God. But that's uncharitable, so long as unconfused readings are plausible. And, they are!

    Jesus giving a cryptic answer in John 10? Hard to see what is cryptic about correcting their misunderstanding - not "God" but rather the lesser title "God's Son." That this latter is a lesser title is part of his brilliant argument rebutting the blasphemy charge, as I explain here: http://trinities.org/blog/jesuss-argument-in-john-10/

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dale, I appreciate whenever you respond to my comments. But I understand if you don't, since you're engaging multiple interlocutors. My impression is that—from a human perspective/measurement—you're a nice guy who's also very intelligent and serious about these issues. I enjoy your podcasts and especially your interviews. I interact with your comments because I often feel sorry for you [as I suspect you feel toward Trinitarians] for not seeing what seems to me to be clear truths. Some things being clearer than others [e.g. personal preexistence]. Sometimes I wish you'd become a Trinitarian Apostle Paul to Unitarians. Anyway....

    //Because, as the "Athanasian creed" asserts, a would-be Christian is damned unless she believes this.//

    I'm not bound by the Athanasian Creed, nor do I think Ecumenical Councils infallible. So, it's still logically possible for some kind of Trinitarianism to be true even if the NT doesn't fomally and explicitly teach it. I don't think a truly regenerate person must necessarily be a Trinitarian [in this life] such that only Trinitarians are regenerate. That's because no saved person has perfect theology, and we all grow in our understanding if we live beyond our conversion (cf. the thief on the cross). However, given enough amount of time coupled with access and familiarity with theological resources and options, those whom are truly regenerate will tend to gravitate toward theological positions that are truer than falser ones by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

    //A fallback position,......one doesn't have to believe in the Trinity to be saved. BUT one can't, being informed of it, deny it, on pain of damnation.//

    I personally wouldn't go that far. I think on pain of jeopardizing one's salvation. Or that it gives some reason to doubt one's salvation/regenerate status if the person is fully informed. Especially since Humanitarian Unitarianism [hereafter "HU"] involves idolatry [Exo. 20:2f.]. Moreover, John 8:24 (& v. 28) is very close to John 8:58 and is in the same discourse. Jesus says, "[U]nless you believe ego eimi, you will die in your sins". Yes, it could be translated "I am he" [i.e. the messiah]. However, I'm convinced that an objective reading of John 8:58 does strongly suggest Jesus is making a claim to absolute Deity and that the Jews interpreted it that way when they threatened to stone Him to death. It's no coincidence that the fourth Evangelist repeatedly records Jesus being in danger of being killed for claiming equality with God as in the case of John 5:18 when Jesus "breaks" the Sabbath by working on the Sabbath as the Father ostensibly alone may do. If there is a connection between John 8:24 and 8:58 as I suspect, then one imperils one soul in knowingly rejecting the absolute Deity of Christ.
    CONT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. //My experience is that once people are finally willing to see that in the NT the one God is the Father, they either are permanently immunized against any further trinitarian eisegesis//

      But that's a long way from the NT advocating HU. I don't know how that can be extracted from GMatt, GMark, GJohn, Paul, Hebrews, Peter and Revelation. For example, take the book of Hebrews alone. When it says, "...through whom also he created the world" [Heb. 1:2] is the natural reading that of an abstract impersonal or personal preexistence? When it says, "... and he upholds the universe by the word of his power" [Heb. 1:3] does it make sense that Jesus took on that role of sustaining the universe only after his physical birth or resurrection, rather than that at the beginning of creation? When the writer quotes Ps. 102 in Heb. 1:10ff. about YHVH's activity in creating the universe, along with YHVH's immutability and eternality and applying it to Jesus that Jesus' personal preexistence isn't at the very least implied? This can't be about the New Creation because the New Creation won't be rolled up and changed [vv. 11, 12], but the Old Creation will be when it's renovated/replaced by the New. So, the natural reading is that Jesus was personally preexistent at the beginning of the Old Creation. The writer likens the Son of God to Melchizedek by describing both of them as, in some sense, "having neither beginning of days nor end of life" [Heb. 7:3]. Wouldn't it have been sufficient—given HU—to point out the fact that Melchizedek's death wasn't recorded only implies an eternality that moves forward in time only, while excluding one that extends backwards? Why mention not having "beginning of days" if his point wasn't to imply personal preexistence? More could be said about Heb. 13:8; Heb. 10:5-7, 3:1-4, but I'll skip them.

      //I invite you to interact with my podcast 189. //

      I'll listen to it.

      //That God is "in" him and vice versa, and that the two are "one" in the sense of being about the same project, cooperating in hierarchical way, Jesus always obeying - these are plain teachings of the fourth gospel.//

      That's all true, but that's not in the context of John 20:28.

      //Moreover, the book repeatedly distinguishes Jesus from God, and puts him under God, as God's servant and messenger (duh, like any Messiah would have to be).//

      That's all consistent with both incarnational subordination [which all Evangelical hold] and the eternal functional subordination of the Son [AKA EFS, ESS, ERAS] which some Evangelicals hold and to which I'm inclined. But the same Gospel makes other statements that preclude HU. It also states that no one has ever seen God even though the OT says YHVH has been seen [e.g. Exo. 24:10; Gen. 18 & 19; Gen. 3:8]. Trinitarianism can make sense of the apparent contradiction by positing that God the Son was seen in the OT, even if God the Father wasn't. Also, John 1:1 says the Logos was Divine [implicitly teaching the equality of nature respecting the first mentioned God and the Logos, cf. John 5:18; 10:33; 8:58]. That they were pros ton theon, or "face to face" (so to speak) relationally from all eternity. To what purpose did the fourth Evangelist repeatedly point out that Jesus was constantly being interpreted as claiming to be Divine and equal with the Father if his view was that the Son was ontologically inferior to the Father? You point to subordinationist passages in John, but they are consistent with ontological equality and functional subordination. Naturally, sons are ontologically equal to their fathers while at the same time functionally subordinate. They are of the same kind/genus/species of being, and I've already linked to a paper defending a begetting connotation to monogenes.
      CONT.

      Delete
    2. //...not "God" but rather the lesser title "God's Son."//

      In GJohn there are multiple times when Jesus is interpreted and accused by the Jews of claiming to be God and/or equal to God to the point of them being ready to execute Him for blasphemy. In most cases Jesus never corrects them and says, (in effect) "I'm only ontologically a human" [i.e. HU]. Only in John 10 does Jesus defend Himself in a way that's cryptic such that they couldn't properly stone Him to death because His statement could go either way. Either a claim to absolute deity or not. Yet, even then Jesus could have settled the issue and given an answer that fits only with HU. But He didn't. Rather, as Daniel Waterland wrote:

      QUOTE
      From hence you [Waterland's theological opponent] endeavor to prove, that Christ is God in the subordinate Sense only; that is, as I have said, not properly or truly God. But I can see no manner of ground for this Inference from the Words before us. Our Blessed Lord had insinuated that He was really and truly God; but had not asserted it in plain and express Terms: Upon this bare innuendo, the Jews charge Him with direct Blasphemy: He to evade their Malice and to keep to the Truth, neither affirms, nor denies that He meant it in the Sense which they apprehended. However, his Discourse being in general Terms, and not explicite enough to found a charge of Blasphemy upon, He appeals to their Law, in order to show, that it is not always Blasphemy, to make one's Self God, or to apply the Title of God, even to mortal Men, and Men inferior to Himself, considered only as Man. This was answer sufficient to Them; who could not from his own Expressions clearly convict Him of meaning more, than that He was God in the improper Sense of the Word, as it had been used, Psal. 82.6. Nevertheless, He leaves the point of his Divinity undecided; or rather, still goes on to insinuate, in Words which they could not directly lay hold on, the very Thing which they charged Him with. This enraged them so much the more: and therefore they again sought to take Him, v. 39. But He escaped out of their Hand. This Interpretation may suffice to take of the force of your Argument. Yet, the Words may admit of other, and perhaps better Interpretations, consistent with the Principles which I here maintain.
      END QUOTE
      [As I've cited him in my blogpost HERE].

      This will be my last post for now since I've got other things I must attend to. But I will listen to your podcast 189. Thanks for the dialogue.

      Delete