Oneness Theology

Finally realized that Oneness theology teaches there was no "Son of God" prior to the Incarnation. There is no "Second Person" in the Godhead. There is the Father. Period. And the Spirit in some way, shape or form. If the "Son of God" existed it was in the mind of God.

I used to think that about John 8:58 though I still don't think he is saying "I am God" in that statement. None of the early Church Fathers seems to have thought that; that is a result of our 'scientific' and 'literal' approach to Scripture, specifically the KJV. The early Church Fathers believed it was a claim about pre-existence.

Just putting that out there...

Christ - Oneness vs. Trinity

Sorry for the mad ramblings (and over generalizations) on this one, hashing out some of the deeper theology related to the 'person' of Christ. Deep into the Orthodox tradition reading the Church Fathers on the subject as well as more modern theologians such as Dumitru Staniloae and John Meyendorff. When reading the scholars of the Oneness tradition they pale in comparison to the deeper things of the Church.  Rather than entering the mystery, I have found that far too often they enter debate. 'Tradition' does not mean stale liturgy and high theological treatises, the teaching of men over the inspiration of the Spirit.

Even non-denominational churches and churches such as Oneness Pentecostals, though rooted firmly in the Bible, have 'traditions' which ultimately develop and rituals which are built around them. Wherever people are gathered there will be traditions and rituals.

Oneness theologians are strictly Bible only in their theology. While for some this may be seen as a weakness, for them it is a source of pride. As I spent many years in a Oneness church I learned, over time, the Bible only was not enough. Much of their theology came from either the pastor (or Bishop) or from 'inspiration' from the Holy Spirit. There were a lot of verbal and mental gymnastics required to make the theology stick. For as 'literal' as they claimed to be it was quite a leap to make the 'literal' meaning of the text say what it was they wanted it to say.

So as I progress on this journey, I am learning that the "Trinity", while certainly theologically dense and complex, once absorbed, becomes more readily experiential and provides a space through which the words of the Scripture enter and resonate more deeply. With the brain more settled I more easily enter the 'stream' toward the Divine.

"Nevertheless, Jesus' "I" - the ultimate subject - was not a human person, but the divine Logos, Second Person of the Trinity. It is not an expression or a manifestation of "natural" - divine, or created - existence, because the created, human existence of Jesus did not express itself in a human hypostasis, but rather in a divine one. It was assumed by the Son of God without ceasing to be fully human."

Oneness theology does not believe in a 'Son' prior to the Incarnation. The 'Son' had a beginning and that beginning was as a human being. God the Son has no meaning and is not revealed in Scripture. Through His humanity He has revealed Himself to be 'Jesus' and this name therefore is the name of God, i.e. the 'name' of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. No pre-existent Son, no Spirit as a third 'person' in the Godhead.

I get it. Kind of. Where I'm stuck is on the 'humanity' of Jesus. I tend to think of him as a 'person' in the sense of a specific, human identity. To say he 'assumed' this identity leads to a pre-existing human 'person' which he took over. That is not really an incarnation because it applies to a person, to a "man" in the sense of "us", already there for him to assume. 

However, when we try and contemplate what, exactly, was birthed in Mary we enter the mystery. What, or who, was that 'person' which was given flesh by the Holy Spirit? With no genealogy from mortal parents, what does it mean to say he was born as a human being? What is a human being? 

And, once we figure this out, can we see clearly which of the two theologies is real? Or are they both real and just a matter of how we look at it?

So, stepping back. What is our true nature? What did Christ 'become'? And if the divine Logos became a human being, what does that mean? As we are not the divine Logos what are we in essence?

If God the Son, i.e. the Logos, assumed human nature and yet remained the divine subject of this assumed nature, who are we? Are we too 'assuming' or borrowing or 'putting on' flesh as well?  Is it the human nature itself that is corrupt? Is 'sin' in this sense rooted in that very nature?

If this is the case is sin something external to our 'who-ness' and we simply give credence to this nature by our choices? And, going a step further, 'who' is doing the choosing? Who is the 'I' that is making the choice to bow to our tendency in our nature?

But if Jesus assumed this nature yet without sin, sin is not something fundamentally present within human nature. It is either external or it is directly connected to our 'persons' (i.e. the 'I'). It is not us; it is not human nature. What, then, is it?

Oneness doctrine does not believe in God the Son. The fullness of the divine then 'assumed' (do they say 'assumed'?) or 'became' flesh. The divine and the human were one in Jesus. But how? So God was God in heaven and Jesus was God on earth though in a human body (or being).

So even Oneness believers struggle with the explanation/understanding of what it means to say that God was in Christ, i.e. the dual nature. Trinitarians explain that it was the Second Person of the Trinity who assumed a body; Oneness believers believe - how seems not be understood - that the fullness of Deity took residence in Christ. Was his 'flesh' assumed? Was human nature 'assumed'? What does it mean when they say he was 'manifest' as a man?

But Do I Believe?

In all this pursuit of getting knowledge the question hit me: do I believe it?

Or am I just fascinated, thrilled and intoxicated by the fact that I understand?

East vs. West (especially the postmodern, neo-Protestant West)

"If one speaks of God it is always, for the Eastern Church, in the concrete...It is always the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Ghost." (Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 64)

Once again, I gravitate back to Lossky's works. In the church I attend I occasionally hear mention of the Trinity but it is almost a generic address. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are mentioned but there is no context. All focus is on Jesus. Father, Son, God, Lord and such terms are thrown into the mix of preaching, singing and praise and there is no clarity as to the significance of the terms. Maybe such a setting isn't really the place for this, I don't know. But it is one thing that has always troubled me and I struggled for years to make sense of it all, to find a way to filter these terms thrown about so loosely into a framework through which I could place my mind at ease and move beyond intellect into true worship.

I have finally been able to do so but in doing so I find myself at odds with the aversion to theology in neo-Protestant churches with theology and discussion on the Trinity primarily proof-texting, as if the Trinity is nothing short of obvious.

So I am re-reading Lossky's work and find some quotes that fit, though I'm not sure he was addressing this specifically.

"Likewise, the idea of beatitude has acquired in the West a silghtly intellectual emphasis, presenting itself in the guise of a vision of the essence of God. The personal relationship of man to the living God is no longer a relationship to the Trinity, but rather has as its object the person of Christ, who reveals to use the divine nature." (p. 64)

Now on the surface this seems like no big deal. In fact, I agree with this view of Christ. It is through him we come to know God but in so doing I have found the God we know is the Trinity. But Lossky brings up a good point and it is apparent in the recent arguments about Christ found throughout not just the church but the culture at large:

"Christian life and thought become christocentric, relying primarily on the humanity of the incarnate Word; one might almost that it is this which becomes their anchor of salvation." (pp. 64-5, bold mine)

This is exactly the state of the church today, especially the "evanglecical" variety (keeping in mind all churches are really evangelical in nature, it's just that "evangelical" has become something of a franchise or trademark). It is all about Jesus, the Trinity being spoken of "as a memory" (quoting Th. de Regnon in the footnote on p. 64).

"Indeed, in the doctrinal conditions peculiar to the West all properly theocentric speculation runs the risk of considering the nature before the persons and becoming a mysticism of 'the divine abyss'...; of becoming an impersonal apophaticism of the divine nothingness prior to the Trinity."

According to Lossky, there is no place in Eastern Orthodoxy for "a theology, much less a mysticism, of the divine essence" (p. 65).

"The goal of Orthodox spirituality [is] a participation in the divine life of the Holy Trinity..., possessing by grace all that the Holy Trinity possesses by nature." (p. 65)

As he says elsewhere, theology is not thinking about the Trinity but thinking in the Trinity.

So I'm torn. I appreciate the christocentric view as through coming to know Jesus more and more I've seen a change in my life, Jesus as example, imitation of Jesus. In this sense it is a personal relationship with Christ.

But I have also come to agree with the Trinitarian viewpoint over and above the other theologies (e.g. the Oneness Pentecostal background through which I spent my early years as a "new" Christian). In studying these other views it becomes much more clear as to how and why the Trinity developed as it did.

But as I repeat frequently, it is a hedge, a boundary, something we come to through experience; it is not where we begin. Where we begin is coming to know the cross of Christ and, more significantly, the risen Christ for without the risen Christ the cross becomes a theology of divine abuse.

Is theology a luxury?

I remember talking to my professor of Islam about theology, though Islam doesn't really have "theology" proper in the way Christianity does which is primarily claming to know about the nature of God. For the most part, perhaps a few mystics or Traditionalists aside, Islam doesn't spend much time positing about the nature of God. God is clear in the Qur'an about Who He is and what is expected. God isn't someone we get to know personally as much as He is someone who is recognized for who He is and, as such, what we need to do to obey His commands. This is present in Christianity but in Christianity "theology" delves into the nature of God due to the fact of the Incarnation and the "who" that is revealed in Jesus.

But I do remember talking to him about the diversity found within the Islamic tradition and how scholars throughout the ages have debated and argued about the very things the Western media portrays stereotypically as a given. I wondered why Muslims weren't fighting to have this information fluorish and why it seems most Muslims are unaware of this, instead taking what the Imam says as the only way (something Christians are obviously guilty of as well).

His response was quite to the point: for many, maybe even most, Muslims, they are busy struggling to live life. Belief tends to be simple in such cases. Theology takes time; time is a luxury.

It's pretty apparent I have plenty of time and, given the number of books and websites and common knowledge of much of Christian theology in America, it appears that many, many Americans have plenty of time as well.

My wife puts it more simply: how does this make you a better person?

I will say, however, that the study of theology, balanced by wife's simple brilliance, has helped me immensely. For primarily financial reasons I was unable to attend grad school for advanced study of religion/theology. Probably a good thing because at the time I was torn between Oneness Pentecostalism and Islam and my personal relationship with God was, well, not a relationship but an intellectual adventure. I was still on the outside looking in.

I now see the truth about theology: it is experiential. If it is not, it is just theory. Revelation must be applied.

Is Jesus God?

I've come to the conclusion that statement doesn't mean anything. Why? People, all people, have some notion of 'God'. However, the word 'God' is generic. It basically means deity or a 'higher power' or 'the big guy in the sky' or 'the Other'. So we all have some notion of God. It is formed in many ways, whether a childhood steeped in religion or learning about God from The Simpsons (a spot on caricature of all the stereotypes we tend to hold about God).

So we hear "Jesus is God" or ask whether or not Jesus is God. And we come to this statement/question with all of our beliefs about who or what God is and we say 'No.' We reject the notion. And, in my opinion, rightfully so. Though not as you may think.

Is he divine?

Again, what do we mean by divine? What exactly do we come with to the word 'divine'?

But this is the wrong approach, just as it is the wrong approach to indoctrinate people in the Christian tradition into the Trinity. We have no framework within which to comprehend these doctrines. No, the reality is that to come to terms with what these doctrines mean we must learn them, over time, walking in them, experiencing life through the Christian tradition, following the traditions of the Church, the teachings of the Bible and, yes, doctrine.

But the Trinity is a hedge, the end of the dialectic if you wish, the final say on all the other varieties of Christian response throughout the ages that seek to answer the question: who was Jesus?

Got an answer? There's a doctrine for you somewhere in Christian history. Oneness Pentecostals? Try Modalism. Jesus is not God but is the highest among God's creation? Try Arianism. Take your pick.

The Trinity is, by and large, the end result of all of this. Is this the 'core' of the Christian message? Is this what Jesus came to teach? Of course not. It is a framework through which to understand what he did teach.

Without a framework, what is the standard by which we measure our comprehension of his message? Are we, i.e. Man, the measure? Do we alone determine the validity of his message? If not us, who?

So is Jesus God? I would say we come to know who God is by coming to know who Jesus is. If we go through, say, Islam, we come to understand God in a different way. If we come to know God through our own interpretation, we see God differently. This may be obvious. But it is a critical point. The way we come to understand God is a determining factor of not only how we understand God but how we behave in the world.

And this means everything.

No Jesus, no Trinity?

If Jesus had never appeared on the scene would we have the Trinity doctrine? Just wondering...

Theology fatigue...

Wow does theology get heady, intellectual, tiresome. I still can't help, however, but feel that the Trinity is laced with Hellenist influence and philosophical conceptualism. Had it never left Jerusalem, I can't help but feel the idea would never have developed (but, then again, had it never left Jerusalem it would never have become a worldwide faith).

In studying the development of the Trinity and its course through the centuries and the various variants of it from Antioch to Alexandria with their variant 'heretical' views against which doctrine was formulated it feels as if it is defending an idea. I am still not convinced of it.

I can say, however, that much of modern day neo-Protestantism does not emphasis the Trinity. It may be given lip service but the focus is almost completely on Jesus. The Spirit is seen as the thing that makes you speak in tongues and the Father is in there somewhere but it is all about Jesus, as a modern day worship song says.

Somehow this just doesn't seem right, at least not in terms of how the ancient church worshipped. The ancient church stands on the Trinity.

"I'm coming back to the heart of worship

And it's all about You

It's all about You, Jesus..."

- Michael W. Smith, The Heart of Worship

All about Jesus.

It is?

What about the Father? The Spirit? The Trinity?

Sounds to me like Oneness theology. Seems to me that Modalism has run amuck in today's Church. In defending the deity of Christ, i.e. the Jesus is God camp, the emphasis of this proposition has led many today to comprehend it in Oneness fashion. Many lyrics in today's worship songs reflect these things.

Seems others hold a like view. A quick search of "bad theology" and "lyrics" popped up the following:

Oneness Pentecostalism's influence in modern worship songs seems to be a fact. I spent four years in a church holding this doctrine. I can sense it a mile away. Many churches, perhaps not overtly Oneness in nature, are, by default, actually espousing this view. By not emphasizing the Trinity, Oneness views become a default, what Lossky calls "the natural tendencies of the human mind" (The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 48).

And another example...

Is this just paranoia? Is a conspiracy?

Or is it the same problem the Councils had back in the day, the same tendency against which the Church has had to bulwark itself against, the natural tendency of the mind? Is today's religion, in its attempt to be more 'spiritual' and less 'religious' merely kowtowing to the spirit of man, becoming self-centered rather than God-centered? Is the growth of Christianity today one Grand Illusion?

Or is this just paranoia?

Ok, I admit that this can get out of hand, analyzed and overanalyzed to the nth degree. Here is an example of the heinous nature of music in the church, period:

Music is not worship according to this site. While I do agree to an extent that music has a hypnotic effect (I know about the trance inducing effect of music as a raver) and the feelings can be misunderstood as a spiritual encounter, the site goes a bit far toward the dead letter of things. It's a good piece, however, to read to be aware of tendencies of musical enjoyment. It's also a good piece to recognize the conspirational in overanalysis of just about anything.

And, finally, an interesting piece on the content of modern worship songs:

Let's turn our attention to Praise and Worship songs. They are in collections such as Songs for Praise and Worship published by Word and in the Maranatha! Music Praise Chorus Book. Except when specifically noted, these observations refer to the first of these collections, though most of what I say applies in either case.

Theologically, very many of these songs center on the attributes of God, and on the person of Christ, especially on Christ as King and as Lamb. These songs do not center on the person of the Holy Spirit, but they do include a few prayers to the Holy Spirit to come to us, and a few that offer hospitality to the Spirit in case the Spirit should come. Only three songs even mention all three persons of the Holy Trinity, and no songs focus upon the Holy Trinity itself. No songs even mention the Trinity, or the tri-unity, or the three-in-oneness of God. No songs do that; not even one song. Very few Praise & Worship songs praise God for the church, either, or for covenant, or for holy communion, and none do this for baptism, the sacrament that publicly recognizes our union with Christ and with the body of Christ.

What's absolutely characteristic of Praise and Worship songs is that they focus independently upon the person of God the Father, or of Jesus, or of an indeterminate person addressed simply as "You" without antecedent. They then praise the majesty, awesomeness, glory, holiness, faithfulness, love, or might of this divine person. The songs either praise this person or else they say they will praise this person. Often the hymns take the name of God or of Christ as synecdoche for the attributes I have mentioned, and in good biblical fashion praise God's name as God's alter ego.

What is striking about Praise and Worship songs is that they often detach God's attributes from God's acts. More than half the time it's not at all clear from inside a song why God is so praiseworthy or so worshipable. The Scriptures, as you know, typically give us reasons for praising and worshipping God. They tell us of God's mighty acts in creation and in the liberating exodus and in the resurrection of Christ, which is the new exodus. They tell us of the way God overturns corrupt social structures and elevates people we would never have guessed. They tell us of election, redemption, forgiveness, and culmination in Christ. They tell us why we sing.

But many–perhaps more than half–of Praise and Worship songs leave our praise detached from the mighty acts of God. It's apparently not necessary to remember them. Instead, "Let's just praise the Lord! Praise the Lord! Let's just lift our hearts to heaven and praise the Lord!" But detaching the mighty acts of God removes our context, as in the old Saturday Night Live sportcast: "And now for today's baseball scores: 2-1; 5-2; 6-2; 4-0."

- Plantinga, Cornelius, Jr. "Theological Particularities of Recent Hymnody," The Hymn, 52 (October 2001), p. 14

Lots of information out there, tough to get a handle on, difficult to process. Seems to me that there is no grand conspiracy but a battle against complaceny, against allowing our selves to be the measure of all things. We must always be on guard.

P.S. Is it any wonder theology is fatiguing...?

Theology proper...

In discovering the Church Fathers some years ago I came to understand how much of what passes for 'theology' today is nothing but proof-texting. By and large, it is something of a pop theology, pseudo-theologians stating a claim, tossing in a proof-text, philosophizing about it for a few pages and moving on. The shelves at bookstores are flooded with these books and many of these authors pump out books at incredible rates to feed an audience never satiated.

Perhaps this is too harsh and judgmental; most folks don't really care to dive that deeply into theology, a word that conjures up a feeling of headiness, intellectualism, irrelevance. And this is a legitimate critique as much theological talks can leave one bound in a state of elevated intellectualism that passes for 'spirituality' but is often the trapping of concepts and illusions. Been there, done that.

This is ironic, I suppose, in that I'm defending something against which I am arguing. However, the Church would not have survived 2,000 years had it not developed a dogma on which it could stand. But would this dogma have been different if every layperson had access to the Scriptures as do people today? In other words, if the Bible as we have it were available for all people in a variety of tongues would the doctrine of the Trinity been something different? Or are we just repeating history again with all of the doctrinal debates occurring today?

And yet the more deeply I dive into theology proper, digging back through the layers of those who were there in formulating the doctrine, the more I begin to see just how it is that it developed. And it makes sense (though I'm still not entirely on board).

I'm currently reading two of Vladimir Lossky's books, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church and Orthodox Theology. The first thing that comes to mind is that this is theology proper.

Here is a smattering of quotes from Orthodox Theology:

Theology...is a matter of opening our thought to a reality which goes beyond it. It is a matter of a new mode of thought where thought does not include, does not seize, but finds itself included and seized, mortified and vivified... (13-14)

Yet theological thought can also become a hindrance, and one must avoid indulging in it, abandoning oneself to the feverish illusion of concepts...One must avoid it becoming a flight before the necessary of "contraction" of prayer, to replace the mystery lived in silence with mental schemata easily handled, certainly, and whose use can intoxicate, but which are ultimately empty. (14-15)

Theology, then, is located in a relationship of revelation where the initiative belongs to God, while implying a human reponse, the free response of faith and love... (16)

Certainly, faith is present in all walks, in all sciences of the human spirit, but as supposition, as working hypothesis: here, the moment of faith remains burdened with an uncertainty which proof alone could clear Christian faith, on the contrary, is adherence to a presence which confers certitude, in such a way that certitude, here, is first. (16)

To think theologically is not to think of this revelation, but by means of it...Theology starts from a fact: revelation...The philosophy which speculates on God starts, on the contrary, from an idea. (18)

There are two things to consider in the above: one is the notion of prayer. Prayer, according to Lassky, is ultimately silence. It is the reciprocity of a relationship whereby the faithful seeks to leave all concepts behind and enter into relationship with a personal God transcendent to all we may think. It is this silence that is true 'gnosis', a gnosis, which, according to Lassky, is "illumination by grace which transforms our intelligence" (13).

The other idea of which Lassky speaks is to know God by apophasis, the negative way. We know God by what He is not. He is the Lover just out of our reach and it is vital for Him to remain such as if we were to know His nature we would be God. In this is the idea of deification of humanity found in the Eastern Church. it isn't that men become God by nature but that we continually participate in elevating our humanity toward the divine in our pursuit of our Beloved.

In The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, Lassky notes:

[In the apophatic way] God [does not] presents Himself as object, for it is no more a question of knowledge but of union. Negative theology is...a way towards mystical union with God, whose nature remains incomprehensible to us...This awareness of the incomprehensibility of the divine nature thus corresponds to an experience: to a meeting with the personal God of revelation. (28,34)

What a far cry this seems to much of the 'noise' of the Church today. I will say, however, that 'relationship' is greatly focused in modern churches. But I have found the theology wanting, often suspect, if not altogether absent. Theology is the backbone of any church, the substance that grounds the Church. Without this, we know not what we worship and risk worshipping a creation of our own making.

Quoting Evagrius:

The one who has purity in prayer is true theologian, and the one who is true theologian has purity in prayer.

But, Lassky notes:

...purity in prayer implies the state of silence. The hesychasts are the "silents": encounter and gift, gnosis is placed beyond the nous; it demands the surmounting and arrest of thought. (Orthodox Theology, 13)

Hesychast comes from the Greek hezychazo, translated as 'rest, peace or quiet' in the New Testament.

"And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands..." (1 Thessalonians 4:11)

According to Thayer's it means to cease being a busy body, to lead a quiet life, to cease from labor. So 'silence' is a fitting appropriation of the term. Jesus does instruct us in regards to prayer:

"But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees {what is done} in secret will reward you." (Matthew 6:6)

While public prayer may edify the hearers, the 'silent' prayer is the important prayer. It is silent in that we must listen for the Father as He already knows what we need before we even ask. This is the silence we must seek as it is in this silence that we lay aside all that may hinder the Spirit from moving in us to accomplish God's work through us.

Modern day theology and Orthodoxy...

By Orthodoxy, I am referring to Eastern Orthodoxy and not 'orthodoxy' as describing theological correctness.

I have dabbled in the writings of the Eastern Fathers before, even obtaining a volume of the Philokalia. I enjoyed what I read but don't think it was time to truly appreciate their writings. Coming from the emotionalism of Pentecostalism their writings, though intellectually stimulating, seemed dry. Yet in the course of this wandering I have stumbled back into Orthodoxy and, more specifically, the 'mystical' theology of Orthodoxy.

I have just picked up Olivier Clement's The Roots of Christian Mysticism and feel like I am at home. It feels as if I have bypassed the 'pop' theology of so much of modern neo-Protestantism and have found roots.

I seem to have narrowed down the problem to several things.

1) One is the dependence on the intellect, a safeguard I have always leaned upon at the expense of emotion/feeling. But too much intellect is a dry, arid wasteland.

2) Lack of or undisciplined (or misaligned) prayer.

These two are tied together in one of the first pages I opened to:

"Prayer and theology are inseparable. True theology is adoration offered by the intellect. The intellect clarifies the movement of prayer, but only prayer can give it the fervour of the Spirit. Theology is light, prayer is fire...But it is the intellect that must 'repose' in the heart, and theology must transcend it in love." (p. 183)

Transcending the intellect. Bringing it to a place where it can let go. This does not mean ignoring the intellect, dumbing it down or laying aside its abilities. No. For where the intellect is not satisfied, trouble arises. However, the intellect does not have the final say. It is when love enters that the place of the intellect is put into perspective. Pure intellect is cold; the intellect in the service of love is, as noted above, light, warmth, sustaining.

"When the intellect is filled with love towards God, it tears this world of death apart, it breaks away from images, passions, reasoning, in order to be no longer anything but gratitude and joy." (p. 184)

My problem, as always, comes down to philautia, self-centeredness. This results in a lack of gratitude and, by extension, joy.

And the fruit of this gratitude is prayer:

"When your intellect, an an ardent love for God, sets itself gradually to transcend, so to speak, created things and rejects all thinking...at the same time filling itself with gratitude and joy, then you may consider yourself approaching the borders of prayer." (p. 184, quoting Evagrius of Pontus)

If the intellect is laid aside, it is only to make room for gratitude and joy caused by the love for God. The more we love, the more we come to be grateful and joyful; the intellect sheds light on this (as I am doing now). But it comes after the fact.

"Prayer is the fruit of joy and gratitude..."(p. 182, quoting Evagrius of Pontus)

There is so much more in this little book that it has become a must-own in my library, the kind of book that is underlined, highlighted, creased and weathered over time due to use.

God died...

If Jesus is God, then God died on the cross. Depending on one's translation of Acts 20:28, God also had blood. So if Jesus is God then God died; if we say God did not die then it would seem Jesus is not God. The sophistry of theology to reckon this dilemma is something I have yet to accommodate.

I have no problem saying Jesus is Lord. According to Acts, this was bestowed upon him by God. Lord of lords. No problem. King of kings. No problem. Lord of my life. No problem. But just because, in English, the Book says that Jesus is Lord and, elsewhere, that God (or God the Father) is Lord, does that mean Jesus is God?

I'd venture that in the original languages, this would not be the case. A prime example is in Exodus 3:14. Exodus 3:14 says "I am" and John 8:58 says "I am" so Jesus must be calling himself "I am" (i.e. YHWH). But this is only in the English. In the original languages, even in the Latin Vulgate, this connection was not made so directly. The Church Fathers, reading/writing in Greek, did not make this connection, at least not so directly. For them the ego eimi in John 8:58 means pre-existence. Justin Martyr, one of the earliest writers to use specific proof-texts from the New Testament, and Irenaeus, do say that it was Jesus speaking to Moses from the burning bush in Exodus 3:14. But there is no connection between Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58.

It only works in the English. Was it intentional on the part of the King James crew? Divine intervention? In the original Greek, the 'am' is a verb and it is best translated and understood (as it was by Justin and Irenaeus) as "exist(ed)."

At most, Jesus is speaking of pre-existence. But he is not, in this sentence, referring to himself as YHWH. It's possible to argue that pre-existence makes him at least divine, if not God Himself, but the "I am" statement alone isn't it. Any use of this as 'proof' must be based on other reasoning.

There is no way, within a Trinitarian framework, to say that Jesus is God without qualifying that statement. When Muslims say that Allah is God they mean what they say, no qualifications. When Jews say that YHWH (or Ha-Shem or Adonai) is God, they mean what they say. But Christians...

If God died on the cross, taken literally, then that is not really God. God cannot change. God cannot die. Any God that dies is not God.

So either that little statement made by many Christians is wrong or quite a bit of verbal gymnastics is required when defining 'God' or defining what it means to die.

Not sure what made me think of that today...