tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post3259501613567760525..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Sons and servantsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38275394765414587552016-06-10T22:54:21.666-04:002016-06-10T22:54:21.666-04:00"We've not been given any reason to think..."We've not been given any reason to think that such a relationship implies sameness of essence/nature."<br /><br />The parable, like parables generally, operates on two levels. First the world of the story. In the story, the landlord and his son are related to each other in a way that his servants are not. And the parable pivots on that categorical contrast.<br /><br />Then there's what the parable corresponds to in real life. For the comparison to hold, you can't have God at one ontological level and Jesus at a fundamentally different, lower level. The relationship must be analogous to the parable. <br /><br />In the world of the parable, the landlord and his son are both human. And they share the deepest kind of human affinity. <br /><br />Of course, the landlord represents God the Father. Therefore, you can't promote the landlord to a divine figure, while keeping the son merely human, when you match the parabolic characters to their real-life counterparts. Rather, you need to be consistent in your treatment of both. Promote both or demote both. The original parity must be maintained. To say the landlord stands for a divine figure while his son stands for a merely human figure destroys the symmetry of the original. <br /><br />You've filtered Christ's messiahship through your unitarian sieve to screen out the divinity. Yet Christians are hardly ignoring the importance of Jesus' messiahship. But you can't strip his messiahship of divinity and pretend it retains the same importance. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-90944001532635609492016-06-10T15:47:01.284-04:002016-06-10T15:47:01.284-04:00Sorry, Steve, no interesting argument in the post....Sorry, Steve, no interesting argument in the post. "a father/son relationship is in a completely different league" A truism - I agree. But the three conclusions I flagged simply don't follow. We've not been given any reason to think that such a relationship implies sameness of essence/nature. <br /><br />It's remarkable how eager people pushing the "mere man" objection are to ignore the importance of messiahship - as if being the predestined, virgin-born, savior of the world, now raised and exalted to God's right hand, amounted to nothing. Ho-hum - mere man! It's all nothing, unless he "has a divine nature" too. Oy. Back to the sources. All four gospel authors seemed to think that Jesus's messiahship was a huge deal. Indeed, it is. That's the centerpiece claim of the apostolic preaching in Acts.Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04601885187182140821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-18364476091159074422016-06-10T15:21:57.202-04:002016-06-10T15:21:57.202-04:00I didn't use a one-sentence argument. The stat...I didn't use a one-sentence argument. The statement you quote is one component in a larger argument. <br /><br />You respond by *asserting* non sequiturs. Impressive! stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-83638631933423277502016-06-10T15:00:37.985-04:002016-06-10T15:00:37.985-04:00"If, however, Jesus is merely human, then tha..."If, however, Jesus is merely human, then that erases the categorical distinction between servant and son. Jesus is just another prophet. (Just) Another human being." <br /><br />Three non sequiturs in a row. Impressive!Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04601885187182140821noreply@blogger.com