This is a traditional, pre-critical reading of the Old Testament. Modern critical scholarship moved on from these ideas a very long time ago.
I didn’t miss that. I just don’t see how it makes Jesus God (I could write a separate post on the angel of the theophany, but frankly I don’t have time). When God gives Jesus X, it’s very clear that Jesus didn’t have X before, and that Jesus is not God.
I couldn’t care less what “modern critical scholarship” thinks. I look at the material myself and come to my own conclusions.
That’s great, good for you.
Here’s some context:
Isaiah 45:18 - “I am the LORD (YHWH), and there is none else.”
Isaiah 45:21-22 - “there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me. 'Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other.”
Isaiah 45:23 - “to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance.”
It’s pretty clear that YHWH claims the knee bowing and tongue confessing lordship to himself.
Philippians 2:10-11 - “…at the name of Jesus [!?] every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
That’s a pretty powerful statement made by Paul the monotheist (and I’m not saying that sarcastically–Paul was certainly a monotheist).
Yeah that’s fine, I know the verses. Again, when God gives Jesus X, it’s very clear that Jesus didn’t have X before, and that Jesus is not God. Do you realize that in Isaiah 45 Yahweh is one person?
“Jesus didn’t have X before.” In the context of the Philippine hymn, it appears that he did.
And, as I’ve already implied earlier in the conversation, this idea was novel. I’m not suggesting that all of the OT authors “believed in the Trinity” (or some proto-Trinity). That Paul, the strict monotheist, would even hint at trinitarian concepts is remarkable.
It think, though, that this is probably about as far as we can go on the topic. We’re starting to argue in circles.
Does the Bible Really say that Jesus is God?
Mark 2:7-10 (NIV2011)
7 “Why does this fellow [Jesus] talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
8 Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, “Why are you thinking these things?
9 Which is easier: to say to this paralyzed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up, take your mat and walk’?
10 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.”
So God gave God something that God already had. Please understand that it’s this kind of reasoning which makes the Trinity look completely irrational to me.
If you think the idea of God sharing His name, titles, authority, and glory with someone else what novel, then please read some of the work on the angel of the theophany. You people just have to package this stuff more rationally. I realize that a historical defense of the Trinity has been “It’s irrational and illogical, and that proves it’s true”, but in the twenty first century that sounds as convincing as Flat Earthism and YEC.
The fact that you think he is hinting at “trinitarian concepts” shows you’re reading the text anachronistically.
I agree.
Statements like this are not conducive to good conversation. I don’t know why people like you do this (see what I did there?).
Yeah I don’t have a problem with the term “you people” being directed at me. I don’t see the issue. Might be a cultural thing. But if you don’t like it I’ll avoid it in future.
I’ll provide my next rebuttal once you post your full response.
I’m sorry, but if you think that Marcus Borg (of the Jesus Seminar) and James McGrath (a “progressive” Christian) are part of orthodox Christianity then you simply don’t understand orthodox Christianity.
The virgin birth isn’t rational at all. And Jesus giving us his flesh to eat and his blood to drink? That isn’t rational at all. After his claims about eating the flesh and drinking the blood of the son of man, he lost many disciples, according to John. But scholarship schmolarship, blah blah.
So what is the correct translation of the prologue to the Gospel of John?
Jonathan, will you soon post the second part of your reply or should I address the first one?
A ‘possible’ reference to Jesus being God is the notion that he will ‘come on the clouds’ (Mark 14:62), just as Yahweh does in Psalm 68 and Psalm 104.
People say that about Christians who believe evolution. But even if we say they’re not part of orthodox Christianity, that leaves a very large number of Christian scholars who agree with them on the point in question.
The virgin birth is rational; it’s a miracle. What wouldn’t be rational would be claiming Mary was “100% virgin and 100% not a virgin”. Jesus didn’t give us his literal flesh and blood to drink, so that’s irrelevant.
Like “Science schmience”, as our YEC friends would say?
As I mentioned several times, “and the Word was divine”. This is fully supported by the grammar, as a range of commentators acknowledge, and is even indicated by the grammar, as noted by several commentators and a standard lexicon. We also have textual evidence that this is how it would have been understood by a first century Jew. In Second Temple Judaism, the Word (logos), of God was commonly understood and described as God’s wisdom and creative power, and was personified without being identified as a real person or as God Himself. Consequently, Second Temple Period Jews could refer to the Word (logos), as having created all things, when what they meant was God created all things through His Word (speech).
Yes, I should be able to get to it today.
You appear not to understand the lexicon that you are quoting. This is giving definitions for the comparative, θεώτερος, not the noun, θεός. It says that IN POETRY θεώτερος can be contracted before a vowel to θεός. It still means θεώτερος, not θεός. It does not mean that everytime you see theos without an article before a vowel that it is used as an adjective. This is not poetry and it is not using synizesis to contract theoteros to theos in order to fit the meter or euphony of poetry.
No, the problem is you’re not used to reading a lexicon, and it seems you can’t read Greek, and you don’t understand what synizesis is (I wonder if someone sent you this “explanation” by private message). The only thing you said right was “It does not mean that everytime you see theos without an article before a vowel that it is used as an adjective”.
The lexicon entry I quoted starts by saying “III. as Adj.”. The “III” shows that this is the third in a list of primary meanings. The “Adj.” indicates that this particular meaning is adjectival. The entry then lists all the ways that θεός can be used as an adjective. Each different way is separated by a semi-colon.
Firstly, your claim that the reference to synizesis is speaking of θεώτερος being contracted in poetry to θεός makes no sense at all. Synizesis is the contraction of two vowel sounds which were originally two syllables, into one vowel sound. An example would be pronouncing the disyllabic vowel pair εώ, as the monosyllabic vowel ε͡ω. Synizesis does not contract θεώτερος to θεός. The only disyllabic vowel pair in θεώτερος is εώ.
If θεώτερος was contracted by synizesis, it would still be written θεώτερος, not as θεός, because synizesis is a change in the pronunciation of a word. It is not a change in the spelling of a word. In Greek, a word which is contracted with synizesis is spelled exactly the same way as it was when it was uncontracted. The only change you see is in texts which are marked with diacritics, where the synizesis is identified with a circumflex over the contracted vowels. So it would be look like this: θε͡ωτερος, spelled the same, with different diacritics.
Secondly, the part of the entry which says “even in nom. θεός before a vowel” is not speaking of synizesis, and it is definitely not speaking of an adjective. The actual adjectival form of θεός is θεῖος, not θεός. The point being made is that the noun θεός can be used adjectivally, and a typical case is when θεός is used in front of a vowel (again, please note this is not saying anything like synizesis).
One of the ways that this entry describes θεός as being used as an adjective, is when it is used in the genitive case. It provides an example of the genitive plural θεούς being used. Of course we already know that the noun can be used in the genitive case as an adjective meaning “divine”, because I already cited a lexicon saying this. Here it is again.
“δ. Almost as a substitute for the adj. divine IMg 6:1f; 15 (cp. Ath. 21, 4 οὐδὲν ἔχων θεοῦ [of Zeus]).” [1]
Now back to the lexicon entry in discussion. After pointing out the use of the genitive to expressing the adjectival sense “divine”, the very same entry goes on to say that this same meaning can be used “even in nom. θεός before a vowel”, in other words, this meaning which the genitive is used to express, can even be used by the nominative declension, θεός. Here is the entry.
θεούς h.Cer.325: even in nom. θεός before a vowel, E.Or.399 (cf. Pors. ad loc.), HF347;
In case there is any doubt, just look at the example the lexicon provides. It says “even in nom. θεός before a vowel, E.Or.399”. I am sure I don’t need to tell you that when it says “E.Or.399” it is citing the play “Orestes” by the Greek tragedian Euripides, at line 399. Let’s look at line 399.
δεινὴ γὰρ ἡ θεός, ἀλλʼ ὅμως ἰάσιμος.
As you can see very clearly there, the text uses θεός in front of a vowel (ἡ θεός, ἀλλʼ, which is very obviously not an instance of synizesis), and θεός here is a noun, not an adjective.
[1] William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 451.
But we can still point to a body of orthodox Christian beliefs, and not all the people you name share these beliefs. It’s wrong to imply that they do.
I’d like to see the prologue correctly translated. Why haven’t Christadelphinians published a translation of the Bible? At least the Jehovah’s Witnesses produced a translation. And Joseph Smith produced a translation of sorts for his LDS. Why don’t you publish an article on the right translation of the prologue in the Journal of Biblical Literature to set everybody straight, so that scholars can sneak a peek?
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.