Your Christology text suggestions, please
Comments
-
In the Jewish culture, Religious Leaders (including traveling Rabbi's) spent many years studying scripture. What is the difference between speaking with authority and sharing study results ?
"Study results" and "authority" are entirely different things and can't be compared in the manner you try to do there ...
One could have studied for a long time and share results of one's study either with authority or lacking authority. On the other hand, one oculd speak with athority having studied for many years or not having had any academic study training ... Peter certainly spoke with authority at the day of Pentecost ... and he had not had any theological seminary study of scriptures ...
-
@Wolfgang posted:
what or who is this "the Word" ? What word? A specific message or saying? God's ability to speak? or what? or is "the Word" a name or a title of someone? who would this someone be?
My impression has long been that we've always agreed that "the Word" is God's plan, vision, idea for humanity/creation; hence, it is not a person. Neither is it one specific message or saying, or God's ability to speak. "The Word" is God's vision or plan that took on flesh in Jesus - that is, Jesus embodied God's plan or idea for the humanity. (see my previous post in this thread for the definition of "embody" that I use)
In my words, Jesus is not the Word itself, but rather the embodiment of the Word, just as someone who is the embodiment of courage is not courage itself, but rather a human depiction or presentation of courage. (When we see that person's actions, we see what courage looks like.) Likewise, when we see and hear Jesus, we see and hear what God's vision for humanity/creation looks and sounds like.
-
My impression has long been that we've always agreed that "the Word" is God's plan, vision, idea for humanity/creation; hence, it is not a person. Neither is it one specific message or saying, or God's ability to speak. "The Word" is God's vision or plan that took on flesh in Jesus - that is, Jesus embodied God's plan or idea for the humanity. (see my previous post in this thread for the definition of "embody" that I use)
Indeed, we certainly agree that the "word" in John 1:1 is WORD (plan, idea, concept) and not a living being, a person etc. Where we seem to differ slightly is in what this "word" spoken of in John 1:1 was about ... For me, the context of v.14 with "the word became flesh" seems to narrow the content to that word, plan, concept relating to the Messiah which was fulfilled when "it became flesh" (cp. 1Pe 1:20 ... "foreknown" => "manifested"; existed in form of word in God's foreknowledge and plan, then was manifested by becoming flesh when Messiah was born) The specifics of v.14 seem to me pointing to what is expressed in different wording in 1Pe 1:20, as well as also in Gal 4:4.
Thus, I would understand "word" in John 1:1ff (including v.14) as the specific "word, plan, concept" of "Messiah and his mission as redeemer", rather than a more general "word, plan, idea" which God had for all humanity, all humans or how God wanted humanity to live.
In my words, Jesus is not the Word itself, but rather the embodiment of the Word, just as someone who is the embodiment of courage is not courage itself, but rather a human depiction or presentation of courage. (When we see that person's actions, we see what courage looks like.) Likewise, when we see and hear Jesus, we see and hear what God's vision for humanity/creation looks and sounds like.
Adam in the beginning already had God's word and instruction for how he (and thus humanity) was to live in complete harmony with God. In a
sense, already Adam "embodied" God's plan for humanity ... but in face of temptation, he fell short and abandoned God's plan in disobedience
when he transgressed God's word and instruction.
See above for my reasoning of understanding the expression "word became flesh" not in the sense of "flesh embodied the word". I would understand the "became" more in the sense of "being fufilled", "being realized", etc. Illustration in a total different context: "word became wood and stone" .... describing poetically that the word, plan, idea (concerning a house) in an architect's mind BECAME the actual building of wood and stone when the architect's plan was realized, fulfilled.
-
Bill,
I have made no secret of my Christological views over the years, and those views are unlikely to change as a result of our group's forthcoming study, but my primary objective is NOT to persuade people to my point of view.
I know I am not invited to participate in your thread, but in view of your words above. I am taking the liberty to remind all the silent readers of a little story: The Frog and the Scorpion
Frog lived on the grassy, wet river bank. He was an easy-going sort of chap and loved the lazy days. Spending most of his life watching the world go by, he really enjoyed his life on the river bank.
One day, as he was sitting in the glorious sunshine, Frog saw Scorpion sitting crying on his side of the bank. Being such a nice fellow, Frog decided to go and see what was wrong with Scorpion.
“I need to get to the other side of the river,” sniffed Scorpion, “as I cannotswim and the food I need is on theother side!”
“Well,” started Frog, “I could give you a life over but only if you promise not to sting me Scorpion.”
Scorpion thinks for a moment and assures Frog the he will not sting him as if he does, Frog will drown and they will both die.
Frog hops into the water and Scorpion clambers carefully onto his back to begin the journey to his much needed food.
As they get towards the halfway point of the journey, Frog is starting to feel uncomfortable. He turns around as Scorpion is raising his tail. He stings Frog!
“But Scorpion!” Frogcried out before dying, “now you will die as well, why did you sting me?”
“Sorry,” replied Scorpion, “it’s just how I am, it’s in my nature.”
Do you think Scorpion behaved ‘out of character’?
What a sad tale! CM
-
@C_M_ posted:
I know I am not invited to participate in your thread, but in view of your words above. I am taking the liberty to remind all the silent readers of a little story: The Frog and the Scorpion
CM, you are welcome to participate in this and every thread of your choosing; I have never posted or desired otherwise.
What I have said to you, both in public threads and by PM, is that I will not engage you in conventional CD dialogue until you provide a direct, non-evasive, and unambiguous answer to the question I first posed to you in THIS POST on September 26 of last year; such remains and will continue to remain the case.
-
I know I am not invited to participate in your thread, but in view of your words above. I am taking the liberty to remind all the silent readers of a little story: The Frog and the Scorpion
...
What a sad tale! CM
What exactly was the purpose of your posting this story to remind silent readers? Are you now the watchdog of these forums to remind (= warn??) others of "dangers"? Did you mean "to equate" @Bill_Coley with one of the characters in your story? If so which character and why? If not, how does this tale relate otherwise to the thread here in which you posted it, @C_M_ ??
@C_M_ , if you want to be the policeman here, then just flat out post in straight talk what you want to say. At least have that much honesty with your posts ... And yes, forum rules would permit you to state that "so and so's understanding of such and such topic appears to be heresy in light of "such and such church council dogmas", etc.
-
Wolfgang,
I will not discuss questions relating to Bill, with you, on the open forums. Why are you being so mischievous? You need to stop this nonsense! Bill is not a child. No one in these forums need to resort to childish behavior. Men, be men. Conduct yourselves properly. CM
-
Bill,
You said,
"CM, you are welcome to participate in this and every thread of your choosing; I have never posted or desired otherwise."
Then later you said,
"...I will not engage you in conventional CD dialogue until you provide a direct, non-evasive, and unambiguous answer to the question..."
How do you square these to things? Are you confused or misspoke? Who are you to create a rule and demands compliance? Are you a law unto yourself? You're "making a mountain out of a molehill".
If you truly "will not engage" me in "conventional CD dialogue" until I provide "a direct, non-evasive, and unambiguous answer to the question", why do you have to announce it? When is this anybody else's business? Are you putting on a show? Are you trying to convey that you were deeply hurt over something, when there were no real injury or pain? What is it with you lately? What message are you sending out to others? What's behind your so-called principle position?
I thought the new year would be different? Lighten up, enjoy the little story. CM
-
I thought the new year would be different? Lighten up, enjoy the little story. CM
how shall anyone enjoy the little story when one doesn't know what your point of posting it was???
-
As a man thinkers...CM
-
@C_M_ posted:
You said,
"CM, you are welcome to participate in this and every thread of your choosing; I have never posted or desired otherwise."
Then later you said,
"...I will not engage you in conventional CD dialogue until you provide a direct, non-evasive, and unambiguous answer to the question..."
How do you square these to things? Are you confused or misspoke?
No confusion. No misspeaking.
I square those two things by noting that whether you participate in this or any other thread is in no way dependent on whether I engage you in conventional CD dialogue in this or any other thread. As far as I'm concerned, you may post whatever you wish, in any thread you wish, at any time you wish. And yes, I have never posted or desired otherwise.
Who are you to create a rule and demands compliance? Are you a law unto yourself?
In my view, I have the right to decide whether, and if so, under what circumstances, I engage other CD posters; I believe you and all other CD posters have the same right. To that end, I have the right to impose conditions upon which I will engage you in conventional CD dialogue, conditions you are under NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER to satisfy.
Am I therefore a "law unto (myself)"? Only to extent that I decide whether I respond to others' posts... that is, basically the same way you and other CD posters are "laws unto yourselves." No CD poster, myself included, has any control over the posting decisions of any other poster.
You're "making a mountain out of a molehill".
I respect but disagree with your view.
If you truly "will not engage" me in "conventional CD dialogue" until I provide "a direct, non-evasive, and unambiguous answer to the question", why do you have to announce it?
I reminded you of the conditions under which I will resume conventional CD dialogue with you in response to your inaccurate assertion that you were "not invited to participate" in thread. I decided the best way to demonstrate the falsehood of your claim was to remind you of the truth of what I had actually posted.
When is this anybody else's business? Are you putting on a show?
No "show." In my view, the truth of what I had posted was as much "anybody else's business" as was your claim that you weren't invited to participate in this thread.
Are you trying to convey that you were deeply hurt over something, when there were no real injury or pain?
On multiple occasions I've made clear what I'm trying to convey: Your post on September 26 of last year in which you responded to my exegesis of Titus 2.13 with the words, "It's difficult having this discussion with a non-Christian" in my view violated the "criticize ideas, not people" expectation of the CD forums. In an effort to hold you accountable for your statement, on that same day I asked you to identify the "non-Christians" to whom your post referred. Because for me this was and remains a matter of principle, I implemented the aforementioned conventional dialogue practice, according to which I will resume said exchanges with you as soon as you provide a direct, non-evasive, and unambiguous response to my September 26 question. You are, OF COURSE, free not to respond to that question (or this post!) at all, ever.
Do my actions report real injury or pain? No. Real principle? Yes.
What is it with you lately? What message are you sending out to others? What's behind your so-called principle position?
I invite you to review my posts and PMs on this matter, CM. I think you'll discover that my view of this situation, my rationale for responding as I have, and the conditions I set before I will resume conventional CD dialogue with you have not changed, and are not reflective of something going on with me "lately." I'm sure you've discovered as I have that principles have a way of not changing over time. In this matter, mine haven't... and won't.
What's behind my principled position - not trying to be cute - are my principles. Just as your principles lead you to respond to situations as you do, so do my principles lead me to respond as I do.
BOTTOM LINE: My principles aren't going to change. My practice of not engaging you in conventional CD dialogue without a direct, non-evasive, and unambiguous answer to my September 26 question is not going to change. And it seems clear that your decision not to provide the answer I request is not going to change either. So my recommendation to both of us is to post in the threads of our choosing without raising the matter, to engage with other posters as productively as we can, and to welcome the interaction we find more than we object to the interaction we're refused.
-
Bill,
"That dog won't hunt "! CM
-
@Bill_Coley posted
In my view, the language of the prologue's opening verses makes clear that "the beginning" is in fact the beginning of time or creation:
1 In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He existed in the beginning with God. 3 God created everything through him, and nothing was created except through him. 4 The Word gave life to everything that was created, and his life brought light to everyone.
A point I forgot to mention and which shows up mainly in English translations in this section is the use of the male pronouns "he, him" for the noun "word", giving the impression as if the text is speaking about a male person, a male living being with "word". The argument then goes further by claiming that the Greek word logos is male gender and referring here to a male living being. Such idea is showing ignorance about language basics, specifically that nouns in Greek (and other related languages) have a grammatical gender which does not necessarily reflect or agree with a natural gender of that which the noun defines.
The Greek word logos is of male grammatical gender, but defines a THING, namely "word, speech, plan, etc." which naturally would be neuter gender. Thus, a correct translation of a text from one language to another language must recognize this point and adjust any pronouns in gender to the grammatical gender of the noun in the target language.
In French, the word for the Greek word logos is the word "parole", which is feminine grammatical gender. Thus, any pronouns in John 1:1ff which refer to "parole" (Gr. "logos", Engl. "word") are "she, her". In German, translations have the pronoun in neuter gender ("It"), because the noun for "word" is neuter grammatical gender.
Interpreting "word" in John 1:1ff as a reference to Jesus in connection with the use of the pronouns "he, him" for "word" (instead of correctly translating the pronouns referring to "word" "as "it") is a grave misinterpretation.
-
Bill,
This whole thing seems to be a "Much Ado About Nothing". A manufactured-principle inserted in the bowels of a molehill. A "nothing burger" of a position, an argument tantamount to shadow boxing. I am not use to a man carrying on so much nonsense, for so long. Remove your clouds from over the forums. You seem to bring too much tension to the place where truth-seeker should be at peace. Be the bigger man and do the bigger thing. CM
-
CM,
In both PMs and public thread posts, I believe I've provided all necessary information about this matter:
- I've identified our specific exchange of posts from September 2019 that is the source of my objections.
- I've explained the reasons I objected to the content of your post in that exchange.
- I've cited the principle that prompted me to require your direct, non-evasive, unambiguous answer to the question I posed in that September exchange, which means I've also reported the course of action you must take to end my practice of not engaging you in conventional CD dialogue.
There isn't anything else for me to say.
I respect that for you, this matter is "nonsense," "'Much Ado About Nothing,'" a "manufactured-principle inserted in the bowels of a molehill," a "'nothing burger' of a position," and an "argument tantamount to shadow boxing." I hope you will respect that for me it is none of those things.
If in fact this is as small a matter as you seem to believe it is, then I assume you will find it an equally small matter to provide the direct, non-evasive, unambiguous answer to the question I posed last September. If you do, this "manufactured-principle inserted in the bowels of a molehill" will end. If you don't - and you are under NO OBLIGATION to do so!! - the status quo will remain in effect.
Unless you raise aspects of this matter that deserve a reply and aren't addressed by the posts and PMs I've already created, this post will end my contributions to our exchange... unless, of course, you provide the requested answer to my September 2019 question, in which case the matter will end and I will resume conventional CD dialogue with you.
Given our obvious impasse over the September exchange, I believe our best course of action is to invest in and appreciate the robust presence each of us still has in the CD forums.
-
Bill,
Your assumptions that I and others values your "conventional CD dialogue" to agree with your false accusations is appalling and beyond me. I don't agree with the premise of your conclusive position. That is why I called it, and you rightly compiled them: "nonsense," "'Much Ado About Nothing,'" a "manufactured-principle inserted in the bowels of a molehill," a "'nothing burger' of a position," and an "argument tantamount to shadow boxing."
I guess the proverbial "let's agree to disagree" is applicable. Sorry, Bill, it looks like you will have to find comfort in your own self-importance. CM
PS. "I hope against hope", that you would do what you can, to bring less tension to these forums, where truth-seekers can be at peace. Be the bigger man and do the bigger thing. CM
-
@Wolfgang posted:
The Greek word logos is of male grammatical gender, but defines a THING, namely "word, speech, plan, etc." which naturally would be neuter gender. Thus, a correct translation of a text from one language to another language must recognize this point and adjust any pronouns in gender to the grammatical gender of the noun in the target language.
This is a helpful reminder, Wolfgang. Thanks.
I tried to make your point in my Sunday group's recent discussion of John's prologue by asking to whom each of the passages many pronouns refers. It's a useful exercise that I recommend to all interpreters of the text.
In the next few days I may post a summary of the group's assessment of the prologue. We had a passionate and energized exchange of ideas - the kind of discussion I think should typify Bible study in the Church.
-
@Bill_Coley posted
I tried to make your point in my Sunday group's recent discussion of John's prologue by asking to whom each of the passages many pronouns refers. It's a useful exercise that I recommend to all interpreters of the text.
What you mention here - endeavoring to correctly associate pronouns with the respective nouns - is yet another important key to understanding a passage correctly. My earlier point was more about grammatical gender of nouns and correctly translating associated pronouns.
Illustration: In Greek, the noun logos is masculine gender, even though logos is a thing. In German, the noun for translating logos is the word Wort which is neuter gender. In French, the noun for translating logos is the word parole which is feminine gender.
Now, in Greek, a pronoun referring to the noun logos would therefore be in masculine gender. When translating the Greek text into German, those masculine pronouns must be adjusted to neuter pronouns to grammatically agree with the German noun. When translating from Greek into French, the pronouns must be adjusted to feminine pronouns to grammatically agree with the French noun. Leaving the associated pronouns for logos in masculine gender when translating from Greek to German or to French would be a translation error and possibly give a totally false sense to a passage. Since pronouns agree in gender, number and case grammatically with the associated noun, it is often easier in these languages to identify correctly to which noun a pronoun belongs
Now, the English language is not as detailed and does not have such grammatical gender of nouns as Greek (or other languages), thus pronouns associated with nouns are chosen to the agree more with the natural gender of that which they define ...."dog" => "he" if a male dog, "she" if a female dog, "saying" => "it" because it is a thing, not a male er female being.
In John 1:1ff, the correct translation into English for masculine pronouns associated with logos would be "it" (and not "he, him") because logos only grammatically is masculine, but is not a reference to a male living being. The correct translation into German has "it" (grammatically agreeing with "Wort"), while the French has "she" (grammatically agreeing with "parole").
-
FWIW, today I posted the list of 291 texts from the book of Acts through the book of Revelation that our Sunday group will examine in its search for an answer to the question, Who was Jesus? Since I posted in this thread the link to the 150 texts and content of the Gospels passages we're examining, here's the link to the Downloads page of our website at which you can find both the list and the NLT version of all the passages:
I don't expect you to agree with my interpretation of any of these texts (though I bet Wolfgang will more often than not! 😀) but I hope you will consider it possible that our group is not conducting a cursory examination of Scripture on this question. We'll look at nearly 450 passages in the New Testament before we're done, then examine the Old Testament and historical records in a weekly study that will last 18 months to two years in total. You may disagree with my conclusions - and I celebrate your views and your right to them! - but I don't think you'll be able to say we're cherry picking texts.
[BTW, if you think I missed one or more relevant texts from Acts-Revelation, PLEASE let me know in a reply to this thread. My intention in creating the list was not to miss ANY relevant passage, but I may well have missed some, and will have no hesitation amending my list.]
-
Acts 1:1–11 ... I am waiting eagerly for other CD forum participants to share their reading and understanding of this first passage in Acts 1. What do these verses state or indicate concerning who or what Jesus is?
-
Here are a few considerations from my reading and observation of the texts in Acts 1
Acts 1:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
The writer of Acts speaks of "Jesus",
Acts 1:2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
This verse mentions that Jesus had given commandments unto the apostles "through the Holy Ghost". We note that the text does not say that the Holy Ghost gave commandments, but Jesus gave these commandments. Furthermore., he did so "through (by means of ?) the holy spirit" ... does this describe that he commended what he did according as God, his Father, inspired him to command ?
Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
Here, Jesus' suffering and death are mentioned and that Jesus showed himself to prove to the apostles that he actually had been raised from the dead. Also note, the text mentions that Jesus spoke about "the kingdom of God", not "my kingdom".
Further thoughts and observations anyone?
-
@Wolfgang posted:
Acts 1:1–11 ... I am waiting eagerly for other CD forum participants to share their reading and understanding of this first passage in Acts 1. What do these verses state or indicate concerning who or what Jesus is?
In my view, information about Jesus' identity is apparent in the Acts 1 passage as early as its second verse, which says Jesus "was taken up to heaven." Luke's use of the passive voice, reporting Jesus as the recipient of resurrection, not its cause, is consistent with the view of Jesus' role in his rise from the tomb found throughout the New Testament. (The passive voice is also found in Acts 1.9,11)
Other observations:
- The Holy Spirit is the inspiration/source of the instructions Jesus gives to his apostles. (Acts 1.2)
- The "Father," who in Jesus' earthly life was for him God, will send the Holy Spirit to the apostles. (Acts 1.4-5)
- The apostles STILL think of Jesus as the earthly messianic figure who will lead Israel to liberation and its former glory. (Acts 1.6)
- The white-robed men who ask the apostles why they are staring into heaven speak of Jesus as... Jesus, not as God or part of a Godhead, as one who was the recipient of resurrection. (Acts 1.11)
In my view, the message about Jesus' identity found in Acts 1.1-11 is consistent with the message on that subject found in the whole of the New Testament. [FWIW, it's a burdensome but rewarding challenge to review the 291 passages I've identified from the books of Acts-Revelation (available at the link in my previous post) in search of information about Jesus' identity. I contend that any faithful and objective review of those passages will produce the conclusion that Jesus was not God.]
-
@Bill_Coley posted
The Holy Spirit is the inspiration/source of the instructions Jesus gives to his apostles. (Acts 1,2)
Put in my words, I would say that God (Jesus' Father) was the source of the instructions, and holy spirit (that with which Jesus had been anointed at Jordan (cp. Acts 10,38) was that power and means by which God communicated the instructions to Jesus.
The "Father," who in Jesus' earthly life was for him God, will send the Holy Spirit to the apostles. (Acts 1,4-5)
Here, holy spirit is that power which the apostles were to receive only a few days after the time Jesus spoke to them; this promise was fulfilled at the day of Pentecost soon afterwards when they received God's gift holy spirit.
Notice that I try to usee the spelling "holy spirit" rather than "the Holy Spirit" in the above contexts, because the term doesn't seem to refer to the person of God HImself but rather to that power/gift which God gives and by which God communicates to people.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
