Comments on The Everpresent Wordsnatcher: Further Adventures of the Trinity

Vynette,Sorry for my delay in responding.We agree ...

2006-08-09T23:20:00.000-04:00

Vynette,

Sorry for my delay in responding.

We agree on quite a bit. I agree that Jesus enjoins us to much more than "passive belief", and that there are issues of timeless principle involved in the Christian faith ("now these three remain..."). I also believe that Christianity is fundamentally about particular events in history, "the mystery of the faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again." But I don't suppose we'll settle a lot by exchanging generalities.

Anyway, this is all outside the task at hand, which is simply trying to make sense of the Jesus-accounts. I'll leave the implications for faith and practice for another time.

Jefe,You said: "As I read the gospels, Jesus' mess...

2006-08-02T19:08:00.000-04:00

Jefe,

You said: "As I read the gospels, Jesus' message is primarily about himself and the kingdom he inaugurates.
His central question is, "Who do you say I am?", his central command, "Follow me."
Christianity, as I understand it, is not primarily about abstract "values"--it is about the Christ. Do you disagree?

Jefe, I agree on some points but disagree on others.

I agree that Jesus of Nazareth was 'anointed' to usher in the New Covenant or Kingdom of God. I do not agree that the message is primarily about himself. To me, the message is about the Kingdom and how we, by following in his footsteps, can gain citizenship of this Kingdom.

We agree that a 'spiritual' Kingdom of God has been in existence since the resurrection.
However, it is but a figure and shadow of the 'physical' Kingdom of God yet to be established on earth.

This earthly Kingdom can only be established by individual character in action. The living values that Jesus embodied can be energised and translated into action everywhere, all of the time.

By way of contrast, the doctrines built up around the personality of Jesus require only that we have a 'passive' belief. They shift the burden of our individual responsibility to work towards the Kingdom onto the 'shoulders' of God and Jesus.

These doctrines enjoin no action, they impose no responsibility, they distort our understanding of the Kingdom plan.

How, for instance, does the passive belief in the 'divinity' of Jesus bring about the Kingdom of God?

The values for which Jesus of Nazareth was crucified are universal and timeless. They were made explicit by a collision of wills which took place at a certain time (30 AD) and in a certain place (Jerusalem).

Jesus was a man who died for a principle. He was crucified by self-righteous ignorance and arrogance. The principle is the essential thing. Time, place and personalities are only incidental.

In my view, then, when Jesus said 'follow me', he was enjoining others to follow his example. To truly follow in his footsteps is a task requiring much, much more than a merely passive belief that he is the 'Christ'.

Vynette:Thanks for your comments. Glad to have you...

2006-08-02T02:06:00.000-04:00

Vynette:

Thanks for your comments. Glad to have you drop by.

Your first question--"whether the doctrine is actually based on the Bible"--is just what I was trying to address in the central section of this post. The New Testament includes some trinitarian theorizing, but, as you say, most of that happened in the later ecumenical councils. As I understand it, though, that theorizing is grounded in the kind of NT data I described here--not just in terms like "Son of God" and the epigrammatic statements in John. Take a look at Mark 2.1-12, or compare Matthew 4.10 and 28.17-18. Something unusual is going on.

Apropos of those last passages, the word "worship" does indeed denote an act of reverence that can be paid to all sorts of things. But that doesn't mean it's proper to worship just anything. Consider the verse you cited, when John worships the angel:

"At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, 'Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God!'" (Revelation 19.10).

But also, you're quite right that the NT makes distinctions between Jesus and God. Reconciling that distinctness with the other things we know about Jesus is the big trinitarian problem. So far, I don't know how to solve it.

But one thing is clear: Jesus isn't a "normal man". As you say, he is "annointed" (Messiah), and he has "plenipotentiary powers" beyond any prophet. And he seems to have a whole slough of attributes that no normal man would claim to have.

More broadly, I think the basic point on which we disagree is this: "They negate the values for which he lived and died by concentrating on the man instead of the message." As I read the gospels, Jesus' message is primarily about himself and the kingdom he inaugurates. His central question is, "Who do you say I am?", his central command, "Follow me." Christianity, as I understand it, is not primarily about abstract "values"--it is about the Christ. Do you disagree?

Eric,"But you're making a claim that strains my cr...

2006-08-01T22:54:00.000-04:00

Eric,

"But you're making a claim that strains my credulity beyond the breaking point when you say that Jews who grew up in first-century Palestine simply didn't understand the traditional way of thinking about that issue."

That's not what I'm claiming at all! Exactly the opposite in fact.

My fault entirely, however, for not properly qualifying my expression 'early church fathers'.

I was referring to those of the Graeco-Latin variety, certainly not to the apostles and writers of the New Testament.

Indeed, the whole thrust of my argument is that the major doctrines of the Christian churches are not based on the New Testament. Nor are they a reflection of Hebrew Christianity. Instead, they bear the image of early gentile theology.

Hope that clears things up.

I used the term 'ex-cathedra' merely to illustrate the simple principle of delegation of authority.

When the Pope speaks 'ex-cathedra', 'from the chair', he exercises the magisterium of his office, he speaks authoritatively.

As the 'anointed' of God, Jesus was required at times to exercise the magisterium of his office, to speak authoritatively.

A failure to recognise this gave rise to the 'trinity' and the various 'divinity' teachings.

As you say, lots of exegesis. However, my point briefly:

In Luke 4:17-19, it is recorded that Jesus found the place in Isaiah where it is written:
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to preach good tidings..."

Hence, when Jesus preached in his 'anointed' capacity - usually in public - he was speaking 'ex-cathedra'.

He was not speaking 'ex-cathedra', however, in the type of private conversation recorded in Luke 18:18-19. Here we find a man who is careful to draw a distinction between himself and God.

"Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God."

Your appeal to "ex cathedra" is confusing to me. ...

2006-08-01T13:40:00.000-04:00

Your appeal to "ex cathedra" is confusing to me. That's a concept that didn't get any ink until the ninth century or so, so you're going to have to do a lot of exegesis to convince me that Jesus sometimes spoke ex cathedra and sometimes not.

As for the early church fathers failing to understand Hebrew modes of thought, I find that difficult to swallow. Paul, Matthew, John, and Peter at least had grown up Jewish, which puts them in as good a position to understand "Hebrew" modes of thought as anybody in the first century. Matthew and John had three years of rabbinical instruction under their belts; Paul seems to have had significantly more than that in addition to being a voracious intellectual. Yes, it would be nice if we had a Christian rabbi among our first century authors, but we've got a good cross-section of native intellectual ability, personal background, and education. And just restricting ourselves to our first-century Jewish sources you can get an awful lot of trinitarian language.

Now, it may be that our first-century Jewish church fathers deliberately broke with what you call "Hebrew" modes of thought regarding the trinity, and what it means for God to be "echad." But you're making a claim that strains my credulity beyond the breaking point when you say that Jews who grew up in first-century Palestine simply didn't understand the traditional way of thinking about that issue.

Before discussing the finer points of the doctrine...

2006-07-31T17:14:00.000-04:00

Before discussing the finer points of the doctrine of the Trinity, would it not be more productive to establish just whether this doctrine is actually based on the Bible?

As I see it, early church fathers failed to understand Hebrew modes of thought and expression, especially the use of the term 'son of God' when applied to Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus, the disciples, and the writers of the New Testament were well aware that those to whom the word of God came were themselves regarded as 'gods' or 'exalted ones'.(Psalm 82:6)

Jesus, in reference to himself, endorsed this meaning in John 10:34-36.

The New Testament teaches that Jesus was 'anointed' as God's representative on earth and given plenipotentiary powers to speak and act in the Father's name. Notwithstanding the weight of scholarly opinion, nowhere does the New Testament claim that Jesus of Nazareth was any other than a normal man born by normal means.

John portrayed Jesus as the living 'personification' of the Word of God.

Phrases such as "I and the Father are one" are 'ex-cathedra' affirmations of the authority vested in him.

When not speaking 'ex cathedra', Jesus was careful to distinguish between himself and Almighty God e.g "of myself, I can do nothing."

The Greek word usually translated as 'worship' in the New Testament denoted an act of reverence whether paid to the 'creature' or the 'creator'.

So when the disciples 'worshipped' Jesus, or when John 'worshipped' the angel (Rev 19:10), it was not an indication that either were regarded as other than creatures.

Unfortunately, the doctrines of Trinity and Virgin Birth, and the various 'divinity' teachings, impose a barrier between Jesus and the rest of humanity.

They negate the values for which he lived and died by concentrating on the man instead of the message.

Well, that's my view anyway.

Hey jefe - Nice discussion! Have you seen what is ...

2006-07-27T14:38:00.000-04:00

Hey jefe -

Nice discussion! Have you seen what is going on here? I'm the blog's author, and I'd love to have your comments there. I may post a link to your discussion here.

I like your setup of 1-4. I've been puzzling about this for some time, and I believe that the best way out is just to deny 1. Worship only the LORD - right, among the available deities in the pantheon of the ancient near-east. That commant needn't imply, as so many seem to assume, that there's exactly one thing (period, one thing in existence) which is worship-worthy. To support this, take a look at Revelation 4 & 5. How many objects of worship? On the face of it, two. Only one, of course, can be numerically identical to Yahweh, and that is clearly the one who sits on the throne.

You're comment about monotheism being a verbal issue is, I think, a deep one. If a "god" is a worship-worthy thing, there are two. If it means various other things, or just being identical to Yahweh, there's one.

Isn't that a neat solution? No fancy metaphysics need (yet). What do you think?

Dale

PS - who are you?

Well, honestly it depends on the attribute. If yo...

2006-07-24T19:13:00.000-04:00

Well, honestly it depends on the attribute. If your brain controls the wind and waves but your right hand does not, that doesn't look very different from you ruling the wind and waves. On the other hand, if your right hand controls the wind and waves, it would get a lot easier to see that only a proper part of you controls the wind and waves. For one thing, we could (in principle) cut off your right hand, which we would have a harder time of in the case of your brain.

But now perhaps we have hit upon a way in which being worship-worthy is different from some of the LORD's (or Jesus') other attributes. My intuition is that if I attribute worship-worthiness to the whole then I attribute it to all the parts - which is not really my intuition about being master of the wind and waves. If Jesus shared this intuition, and if Jesus was concerned about blasphemy (which, since he was in most respects a good Jew, seems reasonable to me), then I would expect him to make the distinction if he thought only part of him was worship-worthy. This would be a particularly important distinction to make since, as you observe, it's not immediately apparent how you can tell the person who is entirely worship-worthy from the person who is only worship-worthy in one or more of his parts.

or to put it in the terms of the post, the point i...

2006-07-24T15:44:00.000-04:00

or to put it in the terms of the post, the point is that Jesus talks and acts like he has these controversial attributes like worship-worthiness--not like part of him does. the question people ask is "who is this?", not "what is he composed of?"

(assimilating that to your statement--"Jesus acts like he's God"--sounds question-begging to me. it presupposes a particular solution to what i see as the difficulty. do you see what i mean?)

but see, it's not immediately obvious to me what the difference is between acting like you're worship-worthy, and acting like part of you is worship-worthy. how would those look different? maybe it's easier with a different attribute: if i have a proper part which rules the wind and waves, how does that look different from me ruling the wind and waves?

Well I think one thing that's unsatisfying about i...

2006-07-24T13:29:00.000-04:00

Well I think one thing that's unsatisfying about it is that it's starting to feel like we're denying the basic evidence that got us into this problem in the first place. One of the reasons we're even talking about this is because Jesus acts like he's God. But I never get the impression that Jesus thinks of himself as part human and part God.