Is Jesus Yahweh?

A related question demands brief treatment. To whom did the NT writers attribute the divine action described in the OT? To answer “the Lord God” (Yahweh Elohim=LXX kurios ho theos) is to beg the question, for the authors of the NT wrote of OT events in the light of their trinitarian understanding of God. A clear distinction must be drawn between what the OT meant to its authors and readers and how it was understood by the early Christians who lived after the advent of the Messiah and the coming of the Spirit. Certainly the person who projects the Trinitarian teaching of the NT back into the OT and reads the OT through the spectacles of the dynamic or Trinitarian monotheism of the NT is thinking anachronistically. On the other hand, it does not seem illegitimate to pose a question such as this: To whom was the author of Hebrews referring when he said (1:1), “At many times and in various ways God spoke in the past to our forefathers through the prophets”? That it was not the Holy Spirit in any ultimate sense is evident from the fact that in neither the OT nor the NT is the Spirit called “God” expressis verbis. And, in spite of the fact that the LXX equivalent of Yahweh, viz. kurios, is regularly applied to Jesus in the NT so that it becomes less a title than a proper name, it is not possible that ho theos in Heb 1:1 denotes Jesus Christ, for the same sentence (in Greek) contains “(the God who spoke…) in these last days has spoken to us in a Son (en huio).” Since the author is emphasizing the continuity of the two phrases of divine speech (ho theos lalesas…elelesen), this reference to a Son shows that ho theos was understood to be “God the Father.” Similarly, the differentiation made between ‘ho theos as the one who speaks in both eras and hios as his final means of speaking shows that in the author’s mind it was not the Triune God of Christian theology who spoke to the forefathers by the prophets. That is to say, for the author of Hebrews (as for all NT writers, one may suggest), “the God of our fathers,” Yahweh, was no other than “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (compare Acts 2:30 and 2:33; 3:13 and 3:18; 3:25 and 3:26; not also 5:30). It would be inappropriate for Elohim or Yahweh ever to refer to the Trinity in the OT when in the NT theos regularly refers to the Father alone and apparently never to the Trinity.

M. J. Harris, Jesus as God (Baker 1992), 47n112.

Harris is a fine NT scholar, and his monograph remains the standard in the field. However, this footnote is deeply confused. One problem is that he’s trying to cover too much ground in too little space.

i) On the one hand he admits that Yahweh/Elohim doesn’t single out God the Father with respect what OT writers intended.

ii) On the other hand he also admits that NT writers apply the Greek equivalent of “Yahweh” to Jesus.

But in that event they are including Jesus as the referent when the OT attributes actions or sayings to Yahweh.

iii) He sets up a false dichotomy: either Yahweh/Elohim designates God the Father or else it designates the Trinity. But that overlooks another option: the designation is neutral or indefinite. It refers to “God” without further specification.

iv) In the very same chapter that Harris cites, the author of Hebrews assigns an OT statement about God to Jesus (Heb 1:10-12/Ps 102:25-27). Therefore, the author doesn’t single out God the Father as the exclusive referent of OT ascriptions.

v) The author of Hebrews also attributes divine speech to the Holy Spirit in OT discourse (Heb 3:7-11/Ps 95:7-11; Heb 9:1-8/Exod 25-26; Heb 10:15-17/Jer 31:33-34). Therefore, the author doesn’t restrict the divine speaker to God the Father in OT discourse.

In both  (iv-v), the author includes Jesus and the Holy Spirit within the semantic domain of OT ascriptions to God.

vi) It’s true that in Heb 1 you have an interplay between the Father and the Son, where “God” is generally a synonym for God the Father–although 1:8 is a conspicuous exception.

At the same time he oversimplifies the contrast. It’s not just a contrast between to different persons or periods. Rather, there is also a contrast, in Heb 1-2, between God discarnate (i.e. Yahweh/Elohim in OT times) and God incarnate (i.e. the Son in NT times).

vii) Harris fails to distinguish between “God” as a common noun and “God” as a proper noun.

viii) His appeal to Acts suffers from three basic problems:

a) These are popular evangelistic homilies. They are not designed to explicate the Trinity in any detail.

b) There’s a polemical thrust to these speeches. Appeal is made to the God of patriarchal history to indict the religious establishment as covenant-breakers. That accounts for the emphasis on God as the “God of the fathers.” By spurning the Messiah, the religious establishment broke faith with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That’s the point.

c) In these very same speeches, Yahwist passages are assigned to Jesus (Acts 2:21,34,36/Ps 110:1; Joel 2:32).

This generation shall not pass

A cryin’ man prays for a peace in his land then raises his arm and closes his hand

To strike the face of the woman he wed children the number one prophet said

This generation shall not pass till all these things will be fulfilled and done

This generation shall not pass before that great day come

The man on the mountain said this last days would bring

Failing up hearts the downfall of kings

Hurt waits in wars and phantoms will spread children the number one prophet said

This generation shall not pass...

When the green leaves cover the big tree of life then understand that summer is nigh

Beware of the world it’s blind and it’s deaf children the number one prophet said

This generation shall not pass...

Back in 1971, the late great Marion Williams recorded this song. What does it mean?

The interpretation is three layers deep. The title and the refrain allude to Mt 24:34, in the KJV (“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled”). Then there’s whatever Henson Cargill had in mind when he incorporated that ancient oracle into his song. Then there’s whatever Williams had in mind when she sang it.

The song contains veiled allusions to the Sixties counterculture. The anti-war movement. The civil rights movement. The “war on poverty.”

The imagery is rather vague, intentionally so–I suspect–because Cargill wanted to do a protest song without, however, alienating his conservative country-western constituency.

It’s easy for me to read between the lines because I myself lived through that era. I also know a few things about Cargill, and a good deal more about Williams. Cf. Tony Heilbut, The Gospel Sound: Good News and Bad Times. 

But suppose I stumbled across this recording hundreds of years later? To know what it means, you need to know something about Cargill’s background, as well as Marian Williams, as well as when the song was composed, as well as when the song was recorded. Otherwise, it would be fairly opaque.

And the same considerations apply to ancient oracles, like Mt 24:34. From our distance, ancient oracles contain vagaries. The topical or literary allusions may often be lost on the modern reader.

"This generation"

http://jimhamilton.info/2011/06/15/be-on-guard-the-point-of-mark-13-with-some-thoughts-on-this-generation/

Understanding the Early Development of the House Churches in Rome, part 1

One of the most significant works on this topic is Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome , Edited by Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson (Grand Rapids, MI, Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company ©1998). I’m going to cite from this work for the next several posts.

William L. Lane [Wesleyan University (B.A.), Gordon Divinity School (B.D.), Westminster Theological Seminary (M.Th.), and Harvard Divinity School (Th.D.), who has written a commentary on Mark for the New International Commentary on the New Testament series and a two-volume commentary on Hebrews in the Word Biblical Commentary series]; contributed a paper to this work, entitled “Social Perspectives on Roman Christianity during the Formative Years from Nero to Nerva: Romans, Hebrews, 1 Clement.”

In this paper, he provides “a fresh evaluation of the evidence bearing on a Christian presence in Rome over the span of approximately 40 years, from the time of Paul’s letter to the Romans in 57 AD to the writing of 1 Clement.” In his introduction, Donfried summarizes this work:

OT honor-killings?

Years ago I posted a response to John Loftus. Among other things I dealt with his charge that the OT legislates honor-killings.

Since this section of my old post is frequently cited on the Internet, I’m going to excerpt this particular section as a stand-alone post for ready reference.

John Loftus:

If a virgin who was pledged to be married was raped, she was to be stoned along with her rapist (Deuteronomy 22:23-24).

Either Loftus is too ignorant of the law in question to know what it means or else he’s prevaricating.

This is a case of consensual sex, not rape. That is clear from the contrast between 22:23-24 and 25-27, which is a case of rape.

In the case of consensual sex between a woman who was already engaged to another man and a man who was not her fiancé, this was equivalent to adultery, and both parties were executed.

A rape victim was not executed. To the contrary, if you actually read other OT rape laws, such as the very next case law (e.g. 22:25-27), you will see that the rape victim was deemed to be innocent–in cases where rape could be presumed–whereas the rapist was executed.

Once again, this illustrates the fact that women had civil rights under the Mosaic Law. Far from an “honor killing,” it was the man, and not the woman, who was killed.

Why does Loftus misrepresent the law in question? Is he willfully ignorant or willfully dishonest?

i) In the final case, the rapist must compensate the rape victim by providing the ancient equivalent of alimony.

And that’s more than Loftus ever did for the stripper he dumped as soon as she became inconvenient. It’s quite understandable why promiscuous men like Loftus revile OT laws that hold men accountable for their sexual indiscretions.

ii) Finally, we need to read this law in concert with the parallel case law in Exod 22:17. Marriage was not obligatory in this situation.

That’s the nature of case law. A particular case law does not address every conceivable situation or attendant detail. You need to compare one case law with another.

For detailed exegesis, see John Currid, Deuteronomy (Evangelical Press 2006).

Survey of CEOs expects more economic improvement

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/06/14/most-ceos-expect-higher-sales-spending-and-more-hiring/

The Loftus Bird-Man Arrives

John Loftus once assured us that part of the proof there is no God is that bird-men do not exist.

I think this proves beyond all doubt that the non-existence of bird men proves the existence of God...

"Baptizing violence"

There is widespread agreement that the “baptism” of violence in the past justifies use of violence in the present. As Schmidt and Schröder observe, “There exists no more important resource for an ideology of violence than the representation of past violence.”50 This is especially true when that past violence is idealized within a religious framework. Hence, those who wish to reduce the future possibility of justifying moral atrocities religiously will reject the use of religious narratives to justify past moral atrocities.

http://randalrauser.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Rauser11.1.pdf

One of the oddities respecting this objection is the way Rauser uses “violence” as a synonym for “moral atrocities.” Is he claiming that violence per se is morally atrocious? Is violence intrinsically evil? Is there no distinction between licit and illicit forms of violence?

What about the use of violence to prevent a moral atrocity or “heinous, murderous actions”? Does that also set a bad precedent? Is Rauser a pacifist?

If not, why does he frame the issue in terms of “violence”? If so, then he has a tall order. 

"William Lane Craig, Richard Dawkins and the Empty Chair"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1ldYmg0lpE&feature=share

Why Obamacare is losing in the courts

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303714704576383443814815916.html

The New Pro-Life Surge

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/june/newprolife.html?start=1

Successful Time Management

http://www.businessinsider.com/leave-work-early-2011-5

The nonexistent early papacy

For several years now, for those of you who don’t know me, my name has been associated with a particular message, which, in a nutshell, can be found at this Beggars All link: This Bridge Should Be Illuminated.

The gist of this message is that, while Vatican I and much of what followed [see Adrian Fortescue] was involved with proving that the early church believed everything about the papacy that Vatican I defined, there was another strain of historical study that was coming to far different conclusions.

Summarizing, Vatican I said:

• Jesus directly and immediately instituted the papacy at Matthew 16:18
• That “that to this day and for ever [Peter] lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood.
• Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church.
• “If anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the Lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.”

Christ the Lord Himself instituted the “office” of the papacy. This is a historical declaration made right within the dogmatic statement of a council. In fact, it has always been the practice of Rome to claim this aspect of “history” as a part of their dogma.

On the other hand, this second strain of historical research that I have been writing about was finding many things that contradicted outright this “history” that had long been one of the building blocks of the papacy:

• Peter did not “found” the church at Rome; it’s possible, even likely, that he visited there and was martyred there, but his role there was extremely limited
• Because the geographic scope of ancient Rome was so large and diverse, the earliest “church” at Rome was really a network of house churches, each perhaps with its own elder or elders in charge.
• The “episcopacy” evolved over the first two centuries; by the end of the second century, a fairly stable governmental structure was in place. But this was not “of divine institution”.
• There was not a single “bishop” overseeing the “entire church” [the network of churches] in Rome until late in the second century.

This is the gist of the problem. The Vatican I/Adrian Fortescue “story” did not bear up under historical scrutiny.

But what’s happening now, in these “ecumenical” discussions I have been reporting on, is that Roman Catholic theologians and other theologians have “without dispute” accepted the current historical understanding [which does not mesh with the dogmatic Vatican I account] and are working to “develop” “theologies” that will support the papacy while allowing for the change of criteria for its “historical” foundations.

Over the next few days and weeks I’d like to take a little bit of time and explicate this second strain of historical research, and to explain exactly what it is that all of these individuals are agreeing on; it’s easy to see how this is a challenge to the Roman dogmas on the papacy, and why some theologians believe Vatican I needs to be “re-received” and reinterpreted.

The Adjustment Bureau

I recently watched The Adjustment Bureau. I like a lot of movies which are based on Philip K. Dick's scifi. But I didn't think too much of this movie. Well, I didn't think badly of it. I just mean I thought it was pretty good overall, and probably a cut above most scifi movies Hollywood churns out, but it's nowhere near as good as, say, Minority Report or Blade Runner.

Spoilers ahead, so please don't read the rest of this if you don't want to read spoilers.

Also, apologies since this is more rambling and disorganized than I'd normally like.

Musophobia

I’m going to do a running commentary on Randal Rauser’s tirade against hell:

http://randalrauser.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Must-Hitler-burn-forever1.pdf

Before commenting on the specifics, I’d like to make a general observation. For someone who waxes indignant over the “torments” of the damned, Rauser exhibits an unhealthy fascination with imagining the torments of the damned. It’s as if he’s an avid fan of slasher films. His outrage over hell would be a bit more convincing if his voyeuristic depiction of the damned didn’t give the lie to his pious protestations.

Is a double-dip recession coming?

Prospect of a Double-Dip Recession - WSJ.com

The State of Christianity Today

"Out of my study of the Bible, I have come to conclude that God does not know the future free actions of human beings. I understand that most Christians have not thought this, but it makes sense of the Bible and preserves God's love and character."

"Wow. Good stuff. While I disagree, I commend you for your bravery and honesty and sincere desire to honor God."

"My study of the Bible has caused me to conclude that the God of the Bible is identical to the Father, and no other personage. I realize this may earn me some backlash, but I am willing to take it because I cannot but serve God and submit to what I take his revelation to tell us.

"I respect you very much. This was bold and brave, refreshing and honest. While I definitely disagree with you, and think you are in error, I can respect where you're coming from and would not want you to sin against your conscience."

"I must announce that due to my sincere and lengthy study of the Scriptures, I am now a universalist. A God of love would never torment his children in hell forever. I understand this view is a minority in Church history, with hardly any spirit-lead Christians seeing it, but here I stand I can do no other."

"Right on! I'm not there (at least not yet), but I definitely appreciate your boldness and willingness to share this with us. Even though you are probably wrong, we are Christians brothers and I respect where you're at."

"Out of my study of the Bible and what we know from history and science (the second of God's books), I must announce that I believe that the Bible is not inerrant. It gives us a false picture of the world, one borne out of ANE or otherwise scientifically naive views of the cosmos. I know this will not win me many friends, but I believe this is the most rational and God honoring position to take."

"Good sir! I do not agree with you on this, but I do respect your willingness to stand for what you believe is true. I am sure other 'Christians' will kick you out of the faith and treat you in less than loving ways, but I respect your decision and stand with you on the gospel."

"I understand this may receive some backlash, but I am now a theistic evolutionist and do not believe in a literal Adam. I believe I can reconcile this with the Bible. I struggled to come to this position, but to be intellectually honest, I must affirm it. I still love Jesus.

"Whew! This is a breath of fresh air. Such honesty. Such courage. Such strength. I disagree with you, but I can understand your position and am thankful that we stand together on the gospel."

-------------

"I must announce a theological change I have undergone. Out of study of the Scriptures, I am now a Calvinist. I also see that Calvinism is well-represented in Church history, being held to by both very wise and very godly men. I realize some may not agree with my decision, but I must submit to God rather than men."

"What? Tell me this isn't so! You must be morally depraved to hold this view. Your God is no better than the devil. He's a moral monster. He's the author of sin, and he takes pleasure in the death of the wicked. If your God exists I would rather be in hell than live forever with that reprehensible being. You make man into a puppet. I do not support you in this change. We have nothing in common anymore. Can two walk together lest they be agreed? I will pray that God will bring you to see the error of your ways and that you will repent of your grave and sinful error."

Ecumenism at an impasse

A friend drew my attention to this site:

http://www.calvinistsandarminians.com/

I’ll do a running commentary:

I have seen friendships lost, organizations wrecked, and the name of Christ mocked because of fighting between Calvinists and Arminians.

i) Let’s begin by distinguishing between two different kinds of friendship. On the one hand there’s what I’d call unilateral friendship In a unilateral friendship, I befriend someone because I think he needs a friend. It’s not based on affection or rapport. I may even dislike him. Rather, it’s based on compassion or duty.

This is disinterested friendship. Friendship without reciprocity. Not what we do for each other, but solely what I can do for him. Not what I get out of it, but what I give.

That’s a very Christian type of friendship. In its finite, imperfect way, this exemplifies the mercy of God.

Of course, it’s possible that by befriending someone, he will response in kind. But that’s not the motivation.

ii) On the other hand there’s what I’d call bilateral friendship. These are people we spend time with because we like them, because we enjoy their companionship. It’s friendship based on mutual affinity, affection, respect, trust, concern, and loyalty.

Both parties give something and get something in return, not in a calculated sense, but because we enjoy doing things for people we like. And they, in turn, complete us in certain ways. Fill in things that are missing in our own life and heart.

Suppose someone tells me he hates the God I live for and long for. The God who saved me when I was still his enemy. The God who awakened me when I was lost in a dream. The God who’s kept me all these years. The God who’s guided me and guarded me every step of the way. Yet to him, my God is worse than Satan.

Can we still be friends? Well, I can be a friend to him, but he can’t be a friend to me.

A common love is a common bond. Conversely, if somebody despises the one thing that makes everything worthwhile, then there’s nothing to build on.

I’m just speaking for myself. Others may see it differently.

John Loftus vs. Thomas Talbott

Philosopher Thomas Talbott recently criticized John Loftus' "challenge" for theists, dubbed the Outsider Test for Faith. In one of Loftus' many responses to Talbott (he's milking the critique for all it's worth), he makes this silly little claim,

"Talbott, if you want people to respect the philosophical disciplines then please, do it better than you do. You're making the rest of us look bad."

Given most of Loftus' argument against Christianity, this is ridiculous. Consider this coming from the guy who thinks it is a serious challenge to Christianity that God didn't make him with wings so that he could fly and drop poop bombs on people from 1,000 feet in the sky. Oh, no, sorry, that wasn't it; it was so he couldn't fall to his death. Or recall Loftus' claim that he'd rather be a dog in his wife's house than a human in God's world, and that he isn't shows that God isn't good. Apparently, he's unhappy that God hasn't neutered him or made him flexible enough to clean those hard to reach areas. Yes, these are the kinds of arguments Talbott should be giving. The kind atheologians should be giving. These arguments don't make atheologians look bad.

Anywho, enough of picking of Loftus—though he makes it so tempting and easy. Here I'll (again) point out a problem with Loftus outsider test (an issue I've pointed out before and hasn't been rebutted). Loftus writes,

"For Talbott or anyone else to suggest that I might possibility be wrong about an external world then all I can say is "so what?" Probability is the only thing that matters. Until he gives me a reason to think I am probably wrong then I'm not changing anything I think. "

As I've pointed out before, this makes the OTF superfluous. For example, I, like Loftus, will not take the OT for Christianity (or, in his case, for the external world) merely because of the possibility that I might be wrong. Loftus needs to show me that I am probably wrong. But if he can show that Christianity is probably wrong, there's no need, use, or purpose for and to the OTF. It's just a stupid waste of time when Loftus could use that time showing us that Christianity is probably false. But, if Loftus says that the mere fact that my belief in Christianity is at least partly due to where I was raised, and that this shows that Christianity is probably false, then (and besides the fact that it doesn't show this) the same applies, mutantis mutandis, to his belief in an external world EW.

The upshot is: If on the one hand Loftus claims that he doesn't have to take the OTEW until it is shown that his belief in the EW is "probably" false, then the OT is superfluous since once it is shown that some X is probably false, there's no need to take the OTX. On the other hand, if Loftus claims that the "accident of birth" into some culture show that the beliefs of members of that culture are "probably" false and so an OT must be taken (even though it needn't be taken, for supposedly it's already been shown that the beliefs are probably false), then Loftus' belief in an external world is "probably" false and so he needs to take the OTEW. So if Loftus wants us to take his response to Talbott seriously, then he must admit that no Christian should take his OTF until he shows that our belief is "probably" false, or he must admit that his OTF leads to OTEW, OT moral beliefs, OT western logic, OT other minds, OT science, OT etc. And if so, then Loftus is way too busy taking tests to be lecturing us about the tests we need to take. Indeed, him not taking his tests shows me I shouldn't take the ones he wants me to take.

Which horn does Loftus want to be impaled on?

Sharia: coming to a neighborhood near you

http://shariahinamericancourts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Shariah-Law-and-American-State-Courts-1.3-05202011.pdf

"Abortion and Incurred Responsibility"

http://parablemania.ektopos.com/archives/2011/06/abortion-incurred.html

Revealing and being

Anti-Trinitarians cite some Johannine verses to disprove the Trinity. For instance:

And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent (Jn 17:3).

There are several things wrong with citing this verse to undermine the Trinity:

i) In this verse, “God” is used as a proper noun, not a common noun. It functions as a synonym for the “Father.”

ii) If this verse were contrasting the Father and the Son, it would hardly be followed by a verse like 17:5 (“And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed”).

iii) This verse doesn’t set up a contrast between the Father and the Son. Rather, it stands in contrast to passages like the following:

How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? (Jn 5:44).

So Jesus proclaimed, as he taught in the temple, “You know me, and you know where I come from? But I have not come of my own accord. He who sent me is true, and him you do not know” (Jn 7:28).

Jesus’ Jewish opponents prided themselves on following the “one true God.” But the point of Jn 17:3 is that you can’t have the sender unless you have the sent. If you reject the sent, you reject the sender, for the sent comes in the name of the sender.

So the contrast in Jn 17:3 is not between the Father and the Son, but between those who have both, and those who have neither.

It’s the same point John makes elsewhere when he says:

No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also (1 Jn 2:23).

Another anti-Trinitarian prooftext is:

You heard me say to you, “I am going away, and I will come to you.” If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I (Jn 14:28).

One way of understanding this is to take to mean that the Father is intrinsically greater than the Son. However, a problem with that interpretation is that it violates the Johannine principle of transitive revelation. In the prologue we read this programmatic statement:

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known (Jn 1:18).

This necessitates the essential symmetry between who does the revealing and what he reveals: like reveals like. (We have the same principle in 6:46.) 

And this stands in contrast to 1:17. Unlike the prophets, Jesus is what he says. God reveals God.

(Incidentally, the same logic extends to the revelatory role of the Holy Spirit in John.)

If, however, the Son were intrinsically inferior to the Father, then what’s inferior can’t fully reveal what’s superior. Like a bad imitation.

If the Father were inherently greater than the Son, then it wouldn’t be the case that seeing the Son is equivalent to seeing the Father (14:9), for in that event, Father and Son would be essentially unlike. If the Son is less than the Father, then whatever he reveals will be something less than the Father. His self-revelation will fall short of revealing the Father. 

An alternative interpretation is that the Father is greater than the Son insofar as he exercises greater authority within the economy of salvation.

On this view, he doesn’t exercise greater authority because he’s greater; rather, he’s greater because he exercises greater authority. To “send” another is (or can be) an act of authority.

Given the Trinitarian division of labor in the plan of redemption, the Father is greater than the Son. He takes on a greater role: the role of the sender.

But this doesn’t imply that he’s greater outside that particular assignment. In the economy of salvation, each divine party has a role to play. In theory that could be self-assigned, or one party could assign a role to another party.

Conversely, the entire arrangement could be by mutual consent. Within the arrangement, one party takes the initiative (e.g. “sending”), but that doesn’t mean one party takes the initiative in making the arrangement. 

To take a comparison, in NT ecclesiology an elder has authority appropriate to his office. But he’s not self-appointed. Given the office, he has authority–but his incumbency not a given. Rather, that's a result of a prior arrangement. 


The sent must return to the sender to complete the redemptive arc, where the inward upward motion complements the outward downward motion. So the Son goes forth, then comes back, to signify his successful mission. 

Politics of Guilt and Pity

http://chalcedon.edu/research/books/politics-of-guilt-and-pity-2/

"Beware the Believers"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUVstaOOplY&feature=channel_video_title

Evil, Mystery, and Defeat

http://analytictheologye4c5.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/evil-mystery-and-defeat/

"Paul's Christology of Divine Identity"

http://www.forananswer.org/Top_JW/Richard_Bauckham.pdf

Jack of all trades

Not only is Richard Carrier a probability theorist, he's also a NT textual critic!

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011/06/pauline-interpolations.html

Striking how often he appeals to what “most scholars” say without citing any comparative documentation. Where are the bibliographical references? Name, title, pagination?

The latter is surely authentic (it’s in 1 Cor. 11), not least since it's one of those things too strange to imagine any later Christian wanting to put it in. The context is that in the Middle East pious women were expected to wear head scarves (that wasn’t a modern invention)

Was Corinth in the “Middle East”? Is mainland Greece the Middle East?

Did only “Middle Eastern” women attend the church at Corinth? What about Greek women, Roman women, &c.?

What period evidence does he have about headscarves back then and there?

Wouldn’t we also expect dress codes to vary according to the social class of the woman in question?

Later Christians chucked that as being too liberal minded (Tertullian, for example, harrumphed at this notion and insisted women will remain subordinate in heaven, in fact in his eyes that's why their flesh had to be raised, to ensure their inferiority would be perpetuated).

I'm not a patrologist, but wasn’t Tertullian a Montanist? And wasn’t Montanism fairly egalitarian, what with leading prophetesses like Prisca and Maximilla?

Which means if experts can’t agree and all are wrong about many things (as must they be), then we can't trust their reconstructed text either (since it's a product of the same fallible opinions and meets with all the same disagreements)...

Doesn’t Carrier claim that Greek historians like Herodotus are more reliable than Luke? But if Carrier is that sceptical about the NT text, surely the text of Greek historians like Herodotus is far less well attested.

...except with varying shades of probability, none of which is enough to overcome any natural probabilities (so you can't use any NT passage to prove a miracle occurred, because textual corruption is always more probable).

What a bizarre comparison. I could understand, from his viewpoint, why he’d say a naturalistic alternative is always more probable than a miracle. But what sense does it make, even from his perspective, to say a textual corruption is always more probable than the urtext reporting a miracle?

Doesn’t he believe the Bible reports miracles? He doesn’t believe the reported miracles actually happened, but presumably he doesn’t deny that Scripture reports the occurrence of miracles. Surely he doesn’t chalk up all Biblically attested miracles to mistranscriptions.

He’s apparently confusing the probability of an actual miracle with the probability of a reported miracle (i.e. the probability of somebody reporting a miracle). And thereby reasons that if an actual miracle is always less probable than a naturalistic alternative, then a reported miracle is always less probable than a garbled report.

But that’s hardly a logical inference. He thinks Bible writers were superstitious. Or simply made things up whole cloth.

So how is it improbable for a Bible writer to say a miracle happened?  

Arianism redux

Dale Tuggy wrote the entry on the Trinity for the Stanford encylopedia. That's unfortunately inasmuch as Tuggy is an anti-Trinitarian. As he explains elsewhere:

This is all a lot to digest. But the main effect all this had on me was to drive me back to the New Testament, to see if what Clarke says about it is true. I found that all the New Testament authors very clearly distinguish between God, a.k.a. the Father, and Jesus. With a few exceptions, “God” refers to the Father, and generally in Paul, “the Lord” is Jesus. (This last can be confusing to us.) But what could hardly be clearer is that Father and Son there are different selves. Clarke also shows that for just about any favorite proof text supposedly showing that Jesus “is God,” in the immediate context, we find that the author seems to assume them to be two.

Now the standard answer to Clarke’s point that Father and Son are different selves is this: Sure, they are two persons, but that’s compatible with their being one God. But Clarke explodes this defense numerous times. A “god” in the Bible is always a self – not a substance, nature, or whatnot. Thus, if Father and Son were the same god, they’d also be the same self, which Clarke would explain, is unacceptable modalism, and just makes nonsense of the New Testament. Just to take one point, the Son can’t be the same person he mediates for – if he’s the mediator between God and man (which the NT says he is), then that precludes his being the same self as God.Further, if you think that “sharing a substance” (whatever that amounts to) makes them one god, you need to say why it is that two gods couldn’t share one substance – and Clarke bets that you can’t show this. Keep in mind that he agrees with the claim of Nicea (325) that Father and Son are homoousios – but he argues that we should accept just the original meaning, which is, essentially, that the two are similar, i.e. both divine. Indeed, that very document plainly assumes them to differ, and so to not be numerically identical. (So, not one self, and not one god – for in either case, they would have to be numerically identical.)

http://trinities.org/blog/archives/2739#more-2739

I agree with him that in a conflict between Scripture and catholic tradition, Scripture wins. However, Tuggy/Clarke's linguistic analysis is naive.

i) It fails to distinguish between ordinary language and technical language. Tuggy/Clarke act as if ordinary (Biblical) usage maps isometrically onto dogmatic/systematic/philosophical usage. I'm surprised Tuggy would make that elementary mistake.

We have to begin with concepts, not words. We then find suitable words to label the concepts.

ii) There's no reason to equate Yahweh with God the Father. That's highly anachronistic.

In most OT usage, Yahweh (as well as Elohim) is simply the name of the divine character in the story, just as the human characters (or angelic characters) are also given names. You can't write a narrative without naming some of the characters–especially major and/or recurring characters. The divine character has to be called something.

That's a basic feature of storytelling. It's hardly intended to draw ontological, intra-Trinitarian distinctions.

And it overlooks the way in which certain NT passages assign "Yahweh" passages to Christ.

iii) Tuggy/Clarke fail to distinguish between common nouns and proper nouns. In Pauline usage, "God" is generally a proper name for the Father, while "Lord" is generally a proper name for Christ.

The NT also uses "God" as a common noun when it isn't distinguishing the Trinitarian persons.

iv) I don't know if Tuggy has read any of the standard monographs on NT Christology, viz. Bauckham, Fee, Gathercole, Harris, Hurtado. 

To amplify one of my points, in a sacred historical narrative like much of the OT, the narrator will have a "God" character who plays the role of the divine agent. He's the primary protagonist, and the normative character in the story. A named individual who plays that part. That's the level at which "Yahweh" (or "Elohim") generally operates in the OT.

This would involve an individual characterization, whether or not the underlying theism is unitarian or Trinitarian. Rather, that's a narrative representation. As a rule, we'd expect a single character to play that role. The role of the divine actor or speaker. 

Other agents play other parts. Human, angelic, demonic, diabolical. Lesser protagonists or heroes, as well as antagonists, villains, and foils. The Devil is the main foil to God. That's how narrative theology works. 

These established characters may carry over into other genres (e.g. prophetic oracles, psalms).

But "Yahweh" doesn't stand for God the Father. That's a level-confusion. That's not the narrative function of "Yahweh" in the OT story. Rather, "Yahweh" is simply the divine character, in contrast to various creatures.

It is, of course, possible for the narrator to draw Trinitarian distinctions. Is the Angel of the Lord a Christophany?

However, it's not merely the use of "Yahweh" that differentiates one divine person from another.

Moreover, at the narrative level of tangible actors, these might as well be separate individuals. How they're ontologically related is not something the narrative action can explicate, for the narrative action operates at the level of discrete, concrete physical manifestations.

Trinitarian distinctions ultimately subsist behind-the-scene, outside time and space, whereas a narrative is set in time and space.