Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology

[37818]

Christ the Logos - http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF...LogosClark.pdf

[37818]

Now, about post #259.

Indeed, Wisdom gets called "created" there. Still, that very passage adds bits that apparently want to show her "creation" was before Creation and time itself (1:4, "before all things... from everlasting"), in line with what Scripture had previously said about Wisdom (i.e. Prov. 8). Besides, this is God's very Wisdom we (and they) are talking about; He is and always was wise, just as we would affirm He is and always was Father.

You may think that for Jews, calling Wisdom "created" somehow made her a part of Creation instead of "a part" of God. Let me quote Mr. Bauckham on this little bit:

"Mediator" figures: Personified or unified divine aspects

The second category of mediator figures, aspects of God that are personified or unified, turns out to be, by the same criteria, very different. Both the Word and the Wisdom of God take part in Creation, ocassionally with very distinguishable roles[35], sometimes interchangeable[36]. The texts in question leave it very clear that they are not infringing the standard monotheistic insistence that God created without any kind of help[37]. II Enoch 33:4, echoing Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 40:13)[38], says that God had no advisor at Creation, but that his Wisdom was his advisor. The meaning is clearly that God had nobody to advise him. His Wisdom, who is no one, but an quality intrinsic to his own identity, advised him. In a similar way, his Wisdom is described as sitting on the great throne next to God, partaking in the exercise of his sovereignty by adopting the role of the king's counselor (I Enoch 84:2, 3; Wisdom 9:4, 10). Here the image that literature abstains from applying to any angelical servant of God is applied to Wisdom, without this going in detriment to the clear distinction between God and the rest of reality, precisely because this symbol serves to include Wisdom in the unique identity of the God who rules the Cosmos frmo his exalted one throne. Generally, the personifications of the Word of God and the Wisdom of God in literature are not parallel with the descriptions of exalted angels as servants of God. The personifications have been developed precisely from ideas of God's own Wisdom and Word, that is, aspects of God's own identity. They express God in different forms, his mind and his will, in relation to the world. They are not created beings, but they are not semi-divine entities taking an ambiguous place between God and the rest of reality. They belong to the one divine identity.

My conclusion that the Word and the Wisdom of God are intrinsic to the one divine identity, as is understood in Jewish Monotheism, does not decide the matter (which, in my opinion, must be secondary) of whether the personification of these figures in literature is merely a literary resource or if they are conceived as having some form of distinctive existence, in reality. I believe there exists a good argument for this last one, at least in some texts about Wisdom (for example, Wisdom 7.22-8.1), but this does not mean that Wisdom is conceived as a subordinate divine being intrinsic to the identity of the one God. It means that these Jewish writers conceived some form of real distinction within the one identity of the one God. If it is thus, they are not abandoning, or in any case compromising their Jewish Monotheism. Second Temple Jewish understanding about the divine unicity does not define him as unitarian and does not make distinctions within the divine identity to be inconceivable. Their perfectly clear distinction between God and external reality is made in other terms that, in this case, place the Wisdom of God unequivocally within the one divine identity.

---
Footnotes:
[35] Ps. 33:9; IV Ezra 6:38; II Bar. 56:3-4; II Enoch 33:4.
[36] Wisdom: Jer. 10:12, 51:15; Ps. 104:24; Prov. 3:19; 8:30; Sir. 24:3b, Wisdom 7:22; 8:4-6; cf. 1QH 9:7, 14, 20; Wisdom 9:2.
Word: Ps. 33:6; Sir. 42:15; Jub. 12:4; Sibiline Oracles 3:20; II Bar. 14:17; 21:4; 48:8; IV Ezra 6:38; T. Abr. A9:6; Wisdom 9:1.
[37] Isaiah 44:24; II Enoch 33:4, IV Ezra 3:4; Josephus C. Apocalypse 2.192.
[38] cf. Sir. 42:21; I Enoch 14:22; Wisdom 9:13, 17; 1QS 11:18, 19.

Source: Richard Bauckham, "God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the NT", p.30-31 (Spanish version)

A few things to note.
The Book of Wisdom and the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach, even given what is said in them to be true. They are not God-breathed holy scriptures.

Proverbs 8:22, wisdom says she is a possession of the LORD, indicating that spirit of wisdom is someone who is not the LORD God. Which if the spirit of wisdom is the preincarnate Logos would affirm having a nature other than being God (being both with God and was God).

And most important is the Logos identity as God the uncaused cause in that nothing that was made was made without Him (John 1:3). The Logos is the LORD God Creator. Through whom God the Father created all things.

(I don't know how you guys quote using a gray square that can have the title above it )

Just for reference I used above the BOX /BOX instruction. There also the CITE="" /CITE instruction of a citation and then there is now also a VERSE= /VERSE citation option.

|BOX| Your text here. |/BOX|
|CITE="Name of source here"|The citation from the source here|/CITE|
[VERSE=Bible Reference]Scripture verse here.|/VERSE|
| | |/ | = [  ] [/ ]

And again, I think that equating this "Wisdom of God/YHWH" character with the "spirit of wisdom" sometimes mentioned in Scripture (who more resembles a quality or gift than a person when it appears) is pretty much unwarranted, for the reasons I previously mentioned (post #254).

Finally, in your last two paragraphs, I don't see what is your point. You quote what is said of Wisdom and of Christ. Do you intend to show both descriptions as essentially different? Because to me they are easily recognisable parallels, even if there weren't any word choices linking both characters like the unusual "apaugasma". And that passage also calls Wisdom the "image" (eikon) of God's goodness, like Philo would also say (Wisdom as God's image/eikon)... and just like Jesus is called the "image" of God in Col 1:15. (Not to mention "firstborn" in that Colossians verse...)

Being the image of God's goodness and being the very image of God (Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:15) are two different things as I understand this.
Now regarding Christ being the "firstborn" (Colossians 1:15) this has to do with His incarnation and resurrection (Colossians 1:15; Romans 8:21-22; Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5; Romans 8:23, 29; 1 John 3:2).

[37818]

I know you are not a tritheist nor claim to be one, and I do not accuse you of being one. However, so far I am not convinced by your way of connecting and differentiating Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

For instance, in your post #258, I get the impression of Father and Spirit being the same entity without differentiation, except for the fact that you call them two of three Persons. This reminded me of Unitarianism. While in your previous one (#256) I got the impression that they are three entities, each with its own characterization, who only share the fact that they are all "uncaused" (therefore, eternal?). This reminded me of tritheism.

Again, I am not stating that you see it as either unitarianism nor tritheism. Instead, I personally find your explanations confusing, and sometimes leaning towards those.

We agree that there is one God and three Persons who are that God. Are the persons God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit without beginning? Yes. Do you not see to hold the view that the Son of God was eternally begotten is to argue that th eternal Son of God, without a beginning, nevertheless was caused?

[Bisto]

I know you are not a tritheist nor claim to be one, and I do not accuse you of being one. However, so far I am not convinced by your way of connecting and differentiating Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

For instance, in your post #258, I get the impression of Father and Spirit being the same entity without differentiation, except for the fact that you call them two of three Persons. This reminded me of Unitarianism. While in your previous one (#256) I got the impression that they are three entities, each with its own characterization, who only share the fact that they are all "uncaused" (therefore, eternal?). This reminded me of tritheism.

Again, I am not stating that you see it as either unitarianism nor tritheism. Instead, I personally find your explanations confusing, and sometimes leaning towards those.



Now, about post #259.

Indeed, Wisdom gets called "created" there. Still, that very passage adds bits that apparently want to show her "creation" was before Creation and time itself (1:4, "before all things... from everlasting"), in line with what Scripture had previously said about Wisdom (i.e. Prov. 8). Besides, this is God's very Wisdom we (and they) are talking about; He is and always was wise, just as we would affirm He is and always was Father.

You may think that for Jews, calling Wisdom "created" somehow made her a part of Creation instead of "a part" of God. Let me quote Mr. Bauckham on this little bit:

"Mediator" figures: Personified or unified divine aspects

The second category of mediator figures, aspects of God that are personified or unified, turns out to be, by the same criteria, very different. Both the Word and the Wisdom of God take part in Creation, ocassionally with very distinguishable roles[35], sometimes interchangeable[36]. The texts in question leave it very clear that they are not infringing the standard monotheistic insistence that God created without any kind of help[37]. II Enoch 33:4, echoing Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 40:13)[38], says that God had no advisor at Creation, but that his Wisdom was his advisor. The meaning is clearly that God had nobody to advise him. His Wisdom, who is no one, but an quality intrinsic to his own identity, advised him. In a similar way, his Wisdom is described as sitting on the great throne next to God, partaking in the exercise of his sovereignty by adopting the role of the king's counselor (I Enoch 84:2, 3; Wisdom 9:4, 10). Here the image that literature abstains from applying to any angelical servant of God is applied to Wisdom, without this going in detriment to the clear distinction between God and the rest of reality, precisely because this symbol serves to include Wisdom in the unique identity of the God who rules the Cosmos frmo his exalted one throne. Generally, the personifications of the Word of God and the Wisdom of God in literature are not parallel with the descriptions of exalted angels as servants of God. The personifications have been developed precisely from ideas of God's own Wisdom and Word, that is, aspects of God's own identity. They express God in different forms, his mind and his will, in relation to the world. They are not created beings, but they are not semi-divine entities taking an ambiguous place between God and the rest of reality. They belong to the one divine identity.

My conclusion that the Word and the Wisdom of God are intrinsic to the one divine identity, as is understood in Jewish Monotheism, does not decide the matter (which, in my opinion, must be secondary) of whether the personification of these figures in literature is merely a literary resource or if they are conceived as having some form of distinctive existence, in reality. I believe there exists a good argument for this last one, at least in some texts about Wisdom (for example, Wisdom 7.22-8.1), but this does not mean that Wisdom is conceived as a subordinate divine being intrinsic to the identity of the one God. It means that these Jewish writers conceived some form of real distinction within the one identity of the one God. If it is thus, they are not abandoning, or in any case compromising their Jewish Monotheism. Second Temple Jewish understanding about the divine unicity does not define him as unitarian and does not make distinctions within the divine identity to be inconceivable. Their perfectly clear distinction between God and external reality is made in other terms that, in this case, place the Wisdom of God unequivocally within the one divine identity.

---
Footnotes:
[35] Ps. 33:9; IV Ezra 6:38; II Bar. 56:3-4; II Enoch 33:4.
[36] Wisdom: Jer. 10:12, 51:15; Ps. 104:24; Prov. 3:19; 8:30; Sir. 24:3b, Wisdom 7:22; 8:4-6; cf. 1QH 9:7, 14, 20; Wisdom 9:2.
Word: Ps. 33:6; Sir. 42:15; Jub. 12:4; Sibiline Oracles 3:20; II Bar. 14:17; 21:4; 48:8; IV Ezra 6:38; T. Abr. A9:6; Wisdom 9:1.
[37] Isaiah 44:24; II Enoch 33:4, IV Ezra 3:4; Josephus C. Apocalypse 2.192.
[38] cf. Sir. 42:21; I Enoch 14:22; Wisdom 9:13, 17; 1QS 11:18, 19.

Source: Richard Bauckham, "God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the NT", p.30-31 (Spanish version)

(I don't know how you guys quote using a gray square that can have the title above it )

And again, I think that equating this "Wisdom of God/YHWH" character with the "spirit of wisdom" sometimes mentioned in Scripture (who more resembles a quality or gift than a person when it appears) is pretty much unwarranted, for the reasons I previously mentioned (post #254).

Finally, in your last two paragraphs, I don't see what is your point. You quote what is said of Wisdom and of Christ. Do you intend to show both descriptions as essentially different? Because to mee they are easily recognisable parallels, even if there weren't any word choices linking both characters like the unusual "apaugasma". And that passage also calls Wisdom the "image" (eikon) of God's goodness, like Philo would also say (Wisdom as God's image/eikon)... and just like Jesus is called the "image" of God in Col 1:15. (Not to mention "firstborn" in that Colossians verse...)

[37818]

Regarding wisdom as cited in the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach 1:4, 8-9, ". . . Wisdom hath been created before all things, . . . . . There is one wise and greatly to be feared, the Lord sitting upon his throne. He created her, and saw her, and numbered her, and poured her out upon all his works. . . ." At the very least this shows the Jews regarded the spirit of wisdom a creation of God.

Now again, ". . . For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness. . . ." -- Book of Wisdom.

In contrast the preincarnate Christ the Logos is the "true light" (John 1:9) which accounts for Him being "the brightness of glory" (Hebrews 1:3). Even as God is the only true God (John 17:3). And that God's Logos created all things (John 1:3). The trinity explanation is to be understood in this.

[37818]

God is not three Gods in my view. To assert my explanation is in any way tritheist is false accusation.

There is only one self existent Who Is God.
The uncaused cause is the Logos of God (John 1:3).
And God is Spirit (John 4:24). All three Persons who are God are the one self existent and spirit being God.

More later.

[Bisto]

The uncaused existence is the identity of God. Only uncaused existence is truely self existent. God's Hebrew Name can be translated as "Self-Existent." Uncaused cause is different from uncaused existence in that existence and cause are two different things. Uncaused cause is also two different things in and of itself. Uncaused being eternal and a cause always finite, limiting and temporal. Uncaused cause being both. The uncaused cause is one with the uncaused existence in that they are one uncaused existence to be uncaused. One uncaused essence. Uncaused essence, essence being a third entity making them three entities being one entity (John 4:24).

Yes, I remember you've said this. But I'm not really sure how these three concepts, on a broad level, are incompatible with the usual Christian proclamation. You speak of uncaused existence, uncaused cause and uncaused essence. I think God the Father is usually understood to be all of these, with the Son and the Spirit finding their source in the Father in their own special ways. I agree the Son works as the temporal cause of reality, but I still think he is caused (in an atemporal, "eternal light from an eternal source" way) by the Father. So it's Son and Spirit who share the Father's divine essence, rather than all three separately having a characteristic in common (what "uncaused" would be somehow, according to you) and then calling that characteristic their common essence (something that, as others have previously said, may remind one more of tritheism than triunity).

I expect you to consider the previous posts though. Do we still need to look up the Wisdom passages in detail to show the parallels with the Son? You could also just read JPH's article on this topic if you haven't already, and give your opinion on it.

[37818]

The uncaused existence is the identity of God. Only uncaused existence is truely self existent. God's Hebrew Name can be translated as "Self-Existent." Uncaused cause is different from uncaused existence in that existence and cause are two different things. Uncaused cause is also two different things in and of itself. Uncaused being eternal and a cause always finite, limiting and temporal. Uncaused cause being both. The uncaused cause is one with the uncaused existence in that they are one uncaused existence to be uncaused. One uncaused essence. Uncaused essence, essence being a third entity making them three entities being one entity (John 4:24).

[Bisto]

What do you understand the term "cause" to mean?
Where? ". . . Who(^{the Son}) being the brightness of [his] glory(^{the Father}), and the express image of his person(^{the Father}), and upholding all things by the word of his(^{the Son}) power, . . ." (John 1:3). ". . . when he(^{the Son}) had by himself(^{the Son}) purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty(^{the Father}) on high; . . ." -- Hebrews 1:3.

Noted: ". . . For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness. . . ." -- Book of Wisdom.
Holy Scripture presents them as such (Proverbs 30:4; Psalm 2:7; Matthew 28:19).
Adopted? Where did I make that claim? If I did, my view is sonship preceded the adoption. Which the adoption would be in His incarnation and resurrection.
A natural father and son relationship would be based in the former. Not the Creator (Father and Son) based on the creation (father and son).




Why are we children of God (1 John 3:2) yet to be adopted (Romans 8:23; Philippians 3:21)?

Cause... I don't think I ever stopped to attempt defining it before . What brings about an effect somehow (...). *Looks up in the dictionary for clarity*... More or less, the reason for something, the foundation of what stands (or is built) over it.


You just quoted two of the verses I was talking about. At some point before Jesus, the book Wisdom of Solomon spoke of the Wisdom of God as an "apaugasma" from Him, and later we see the author of Hebrews describing Jesus the same way. The Greek term itself is odd (AFAIK), so this would hardly be a coincidence. I don't intend we take it as absolute proof, obviously; it's just part of a cumulative case.



No, you did not claim Jesus was "adopted". I said that's the impression I get from a Son that is unbegotten, or in other words, a Father who is not the Source for the Son's being. I see them as essentially separated, like a father and his adopted child.

I further noted that in reality, relationships between father and adopted child are not somehow "lesser" because the moment of adoption is like a "begetting" of sorts, and this is how we became God's children. In a way, Jesus was also "adopted" at his Incarnation and/or Resurrection (I'm not sure which, I haven't studied that really), in the sense of receiving the honor of the adult son who takes further responsibility (like in the contemporary culture), I believe.

As you say, natural begetting is based on the Father/Son relationship. Neither one of us means this would say the Son started existing at some point in time, but rather, that the Father is the source of the Son and this way the Son perfectly reflects the Father, similarly to how we as human children resemble somewhat our natural parents because they are in a way our source (DNA and all that).



As for our future adoption, I can relate that to our coming Resurrection and therefore to Jesus' Resurrection as His official "adoption" understood in the sense mentioned above (He took the promised inheritance, it was part of His enthronement, etc.).

[Bisto]

Only if it contradicts some other truth regarding God and His Son.
This is conflating "only-begotten" with "begotten." And in Hebrews 1 "begotten" refers the the incarnation and resurrection (Hebrews 1:5; Acts 13:33).

There, I was talking about the Hebr. 1:3 vocabulary I mentioned in the previous paragraph: He is the radiance (brilliance, effulgence, brightness... "apaugasma") of the Father and the exact imprint of His character (or, express image of His person), which you quoted in your latest post. In that sense, the Son comes from, and finds his source in, the Father, as eternal light from an eternal light source. That "source talk" is what is meant when talking about the Father "eternally begetting" the Son. Like an eternal light-source begets light, from eternity and for ever.

And in your latest post you quote the Wisdom verse where Wisdom herself is called a brightness ("apaugasma") from God. She is also called Light often. What I speak of the Son being as light always "flowing forth" from the Father can just as readily be said of this Wisdom character being as light always "flowing forth" from YHWH.

Btw: I use different vocabulary sometimes because I have more than one English translation in mind, and none of them as a standard one; English is a second language for me, so I have not memorized any one version through use. I'm sorry for the mess this might carry!

Isaac was Abraham's son of the promise.

Yup. I'm simply saying "only begotten" is used of people's children, apparently their only children or who are unique in another sense (like Isaac as the son of the promise).

For no other reason than that is what is true.

In your model, it seems to me that the Father and the Son just are that way without any filial relationship in their essence.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you are asking.
God did not change in the incarnation. Rather how the Word/the Logos changed in the incarnation. That is a matter of fact. How the Logos was "with God" changed.

I am trying to understand what you mean when you speak of the Word being "with God" in the beginning as separating Him into temporal vs. eternal. While I agree with the overall idea that God generally interacts with the (temporal) world through the Son, I don't see your reason to make John 1:1 about that. As I see it, v.1-2 are about the Word and God before (or, apart from) creation, apart from temporality, outside of time; speaking only about who the Word is (in Himself, in eternity, etc.).

No. The Son always reveled the Father through out the OT. The term "father" was not explicitly cited. Genesis 1:26, Proverbs 30:4, Psalm 2:7 etc.

Okay. What I tried to point out with those instances where YHWH interacts with Someone who turns out to be Jesus is that there is clearly a fluidity between talking about YHWH and talking about God the Father.

(Btw, I personally go with the interpretation of Prov. 30:4 as an ironic, rhetorical question, but I don't think that matters much here.)

Not a problem if it understood the Son always had two natures. The incarnation change was just yet future.

I think Adrift et al pointed out already that the "natures" talk began as speaking of Jesus' deity and humanity, not eternality vs. temporality.

We agree that God is both eternal (outside time, immutable) and temporal in the sense that He always could (and sometimes would) interact with the world, and that this interaction was done through the Son (e.g. Angel of YHWH), but you do NOT mean that Jesus had a human nature before the Incarnation, or do you?

One way or the other, the spirit of wisdom and understanding are two of the spirits. Whether all 7 (7th as read in LXX) are the holy Spirit or the holy Spirit is one of the 7 (Hebrew reading). It is a matter of interpretation how this detail is to be understood.

I repeat that I think your claim that this "spirit of wisdom" here is the same as the prominent "Wisdom of YHWH" has little to no evidence going for it.

On the one hand, we see the Spirit sometimes empowers individuals in the OT and grants them gifts like wisdom, understanding, craftsmanship, strength, piety, etc., and may then be described as being or giving a "spirit of wisdom". On the other hand, we see the Wisdom of God is the one through whom YHWH created everything, and who claims to have very special mediator-type promises to man. She also stands as a teacher for fools to learn wisdom (lower w), sure. Truly YHWH gives wisdom (lower w), which I would relate to the "spirit of wisdom" when it is mentioned, but His Wisdom as a character/person has a role more similar to the one of the Son in the NT. I see a continuity in how both are described.

You might be right on this aspect if the issue. Yet those 7 spirits are called God's spirits (Revelation 5:6). It comes down to how best to understand this (John 4:24. Proverbs 8:22. Isaiah 11:2-3).

Okay. I have no issue with seeing those spirits mentioned in Isaiah 11 as roles to be played or gifts to be granted by the Spirit towards the Messiah, which is common elsewhere in the OT when the Spirit empowers people (e.g. Ex 31).

What ever the truth is on the matter - that is the position we should take. Bare in mind if the spirit of wisdom is the preincarnate Logos it would further show that the Logos was also a different entity than God YHWH (Proverbs 8:22). Not just in the incarnation becoming a man to then have two natures.

In the sense that the Son was the Father's agent within (temporal) creation from its beginning, then yes. If you mean that he was somehow human before
his Incarnation then I would disagree.

I believe Jesus taught this these two times. The first time identifying "the wisdom of God" speaking and the second that He said this of Himself.
I am sure that is going on.
I do hold that they are given with chronology of events (Luke 1:3). Omitting or adding details here and there between the accounts. Two overlapping chronological events can be broken up into separated chronologies.

Well, Matt 23 and Mark 12 have Jesus' accusation of Pharisees and scribes near the end of his ministry; Luke 11 has what appears to be the same speech around the middle. Even if they were two different speeches (and I tend to think they are the same, but still), we are still left with Him seeing no difference in saying Wisdom's words in one instance as His own in another. Most commentators I've seen understand this "Wisdom of God said" as referring to Himself.

Not yet. It does not fit what I have come to understand. Jesus as the Lamb and the LORD would possesses the spirit of wisdom in my view. I do not find Wisdom=Jesus interpretation necessary. Believing the related texts to be true.

I surely agree that Jesus would have the spirit of wisdom. But as I said, I see no reason to equate the spirit of wisdom (as gift/function of the Holy Spirit upon man, and Jesus in special) with the Wisdom of YHWH/Wisdom of God (as a special character in the OT and later Jewish thought).

OK.
I'm not persuaded that is the case regarding the Jews of Jesus' day. But I can still read them.

Well, they are writings that predate Jesus and the Apostles use some shared vocabulary in key phrases about Wisdom and Jesus. I'm not saying Jesus necessarily alluded to it as specifically, but that He played out her role instead. To my understanding, there are scholars who explicitly endorse this view about Jesus' self-understanding and life, and others who openly recognize the connections made in the Epistles.

OK. We should weight it against holy scripture on the matter.

...This way of replying between quotes is getting tiresome hahaha next time I might just make my points :p

[37818]

Now, it looks like there are assumptions in there that may or may not be able to be backed with data. "Causes are temporal and limited to what is caused", for example.

What do you understand the term "cause" to mean?

Again, the Son is described as an effulgence or radiance from the Father, i.e. Light from the Father. . . .

Where? ". . . Who(^{the Son}) being the brightness of [his] glory(^{the Father}), and the express image of his person(^{the Father}), and upholding all things by the word of his(^{the Son}) power, . . ." (John 1:3). ". . . when he(^{the Son}) had by himself(^{the Son}) purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty(^{the Father}) on high; . . ." -- Hebrews 1:3.

We see the Son, just as we see sunlight; we do not see the Father, except through the Son, just as we don't see the sun directly, but only through its light. The sun's presence in the world, just like the Son's temporal role in creation, must find its "cause" (or source, or reason of being, or causal/ontological beginning) in the sun far away, just like the Father's holy existence. In this analogy, I take the world enlightened by sunlight as parallel to temporal reality enlightened by the Son. Is there anything wrong with this analogy? If so, where is the problem, and why were these images used? Remember this is based on what the NT says of Jesus only, not Wisdom or anything else. (Though it's interesting to note Wisdom was called an effulgence from God somewhere.)

Noted: ". . . For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness. . . ." -- Book of Wisdom.

My point is that I don't see any reason in your model for them to be Father and Son. They just are.

Holy Scripture presents them as such (Proverbs 30:4; Psalm 2:7; Matthew 28:19).

Forgive the analogy I'm going to make, it may sound harsh from me: I think of your model as showing a father and his adopted son, . . .

Adopted? Where did I make that claim? If I did, my view is sonship preceded the adoption. Which the adoption would be in His incarnation and resurrection.

. . .it's just that they have been in this separate-yet-loving relationship from everlasting. The latter did not find his source in the former, it seems, but they just relate to one another that way, and father-son describes only their current-though-always-like-this relationship and an emotional, practical, functional union. Yet they're separate in their beings, in a way natural father and son are not.

A natural father and son relationship would be based in the former. Not the Creator (Father and Son) based on the creation (father and son).

<snip>

We agree Jesus is not adopted obviously; we got begotten and yet he did not, in your view. Why is he MORE of a Son than we could ever be, then?

Why are we children of God (1 John 3:2) yet to be adopted (Romans 8:23; Philippians 3:21)?

[Bisto]

There is uncaused existence. And only an uncaused existence is truly self existent. God's Name and identity is the "Self-Existent."

Existence and cause are to different things. Uncaused is eternal. Causes are temporal and limited to what is caused. An uncaused cause would have two characteristics, the two being uncaused, that is, eternal and a cause, that is, temporal. In this I identify the Logos (John 1:1-3, ". . . All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.").

The these two entities Uncaused existence and uncaused cause being understood to be one uncaused, one uncaused essence. Constituting a third characteristic and third entity. Spirit (John 4:24). This uncaused essence is what all three are in being the uncaused existence. Only the seconded entity has two opposite characteristics - of being both eternal and temporal.

Uncaused existence > 1) the Self Existent - YHWH.
Uncaused existence > 2) uncaused cause - the Logos.
Uncaused existence > 3) uncaused essence - The Holy Spirit.

There is only One uncaused existence - YHWH.
There are three entities - persons who are that one YHWH.

That is some what short explanation of my view of God.

Thanks .

Now, it looks like there are assumptions in there that may or may not be able to be backed with data. "Causes are temporal and limited to what is caused", for example.

Again, the Son is described as an effulgence or radiance from the Father, i.e. Light from the Father. We see the Son, just as we see sunlight; we do not see the Father, except through the Son, just as we don't see the sun directly, but only through its light. The sun's presence in the world, just like the Son's temporal role in creation, must find its "cause" (or source, or reason of being, or causal/ontological beginning) in the sun far away, just like the Father's holy existence. In this analogy, I take the world enlightened by sunlight as parallel to temporal reality enlightened by the Son. Is there anything wrong with this analogy? If so, where is the problem, and why were these images used? Remember this is based on what the NT says of Jesus only, not Wisdom or anything else. (Though it's interesting to note Wisdom was called an effulgence from God somewhere.)

Now the Father and Son aspect. God does not change. God's agent the Logos changes on behalf of God so God does not and need not change. God's agent of change was always an agent of change. Either the Son was always the Son and hence God always the Father or God changed from not being the Father to be the Father. Therefore God the Father and the Son of God always were the Father and the Son. Any temporal acts of the Father toward the Son always having occurred between them - and so this not a change with God.

My point is that I don't see any reason in your model for them to be Father and Son. They just are.

Forgive the analogy I'm going to make, it may sound harsh from me: I think of your model as showing a father and his adopted son, it's just that they have been in this separate-yet-loving relationship from everlasting. The latter did not find his source in the former, it seems, but they just relate to one another that way, and father-son describes only their current-though-always-like-this relationship and an emotional, practical, functional union. Yet they're separate in their beings, in a way natural father and son are not.

There is something about natural sonship that adopted sonship does lack; we all are adopted children of God, and our sonship is similar, but different from Jesus' sonship, and it's likely more than just "relating as son" from an earlier time. Adopted children are "begotten" when they are received (like us, as seen in John 1 and 1 John 5), and that brings the relationship "up", gives it a source, a moment at which father and son are united, based on how natural children are naturally begotten. Here, begetting talks of beginning a higher relationship; we find our beginning and cause in our natural parents. To me, it seems very odd that we adopted children get begotten (based on this familiar picture), while the One proper Son of the Father doesn't get something as familiar or more, according to you.

We agree Jesus is not adopted obviously; we got begotten and yet he did not, in your view. Why is he MORE of a Son than we could ever be, then?

[37818]

Yes, the Father sent the Son. I ask why are they Father and Son in your view? What I am getting at is, in your model, why/how do both share their Godhood? In what sense are they One? Why/how do they share their divine "essence"?

There is uncaused existence. And only an uncaused existence is truly self existent. God's Name and identity is the "Self-Existent."

Existence and cause are to different things. Uncaused is eternal. Causes are temporal and limited to what is caused. An uncaused cause would have two characteristics, the two being uncaused, that is, eternal and a cause, that is, temporal. In this I identify the Logos (John 1:1-3, ". . . All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.").

The these two entities Uncaused existence and uncaused cause being understood to be one uncaused, one uncaused essence. Constituting a third characteristic and third entity. Spirit (John 4:24). This uncaused essence is what all three are in being the uncaused existence. Only the seconded entity has two opposite characteristics - of being both eternal and temporal.

Uncaused existence > 1) the Self Existent - YHWH.
Uncaused existence > 2) uncaused cause - the Logos.
Uncaused existence > 3) uncaused essence - The Holy Spirit.

There is only One uncaused existence - YHWH.
There are three entities - persons who are that one YHWH.

That is some what short explanation of my view of God.

Now the Father and Son aspect. God does not change. God's agent the Logos changes on behalf of God so God does not and need not change. God's agent of change was always an agent of change. Either the Son was always the Son and hence God always the Father or God changed from not being the Father to be the Father. Therefore God the Father and the Son of God always were the Father and the Son. Any temporal acts of the Father toward the Son always having occurred between them - and so this not a change with God.

But Jesus gets called the radiance of the Father's glory. Doesn't light "flow forth" from a light source? If the light-source has been always on, then it follows that its Light has always been flowing forth from it, and this Light perfectly shows how the light-source is. Just like Jesus gets called the exact imprint of the Father's character, He says to see Him is to see the Father, He gets called the Light unto men and the world, etc. Why is this model wrong?

Only if it contradicts some other truth regarding God and His Son.

No need to home in on "only begotten" there. The concept being expressed is present elsewhere, like the Heb.1 words already brought up.

This is conflating "only-begotten" with "begotten." And in Hebrews 1 "begotten" refers the the incarnation and resurrection (Hebrews 1:5; Acts 13:33).

Indeed, most translations don't use "only begotten" for this word. But the word is used of "unique" children of their parents, apparently their only children, or if we go with Isaac's case, the one special child. Not just anything unique, but specifically children related to their parents.

Isaac was Abraham's son of the promise.

Put aside the chronological understanding of "beginning". You already know nobody is arguing the Son "began" in that sense. Does the Son find the source of His being in the Father? Is the Father the ontological source of the Son? Why do we say that the Son is the perfect expression of the Father's character and not the other way around?

For no other reason than that is what is true.

Are you saying that the "God" in "the Word was with God" is not only the Father, but instead the Godhead to the exclusion of the Word?

Maybe I'm not understanding what you are asking.

God did not change in the incarnation. Rather how the Word/the Logos changed in the incarnation. That is a matter of fact. How the Logos was "with God" changed.

Is that it? The Father did not uniquely reveal Himself until the time of Malachi?

No. The Son always reveled the Father through out the OT. The term "father" was not explicitly cited. Genesis 1:26, Proverbs 30:4, Psalm 2:7 etc.

I was talking about passages where YHWH relates to someone, and those passages are later understood as the Father relating to Jesus. YHWH and Eve's offspring, YHWH and the Angel of YHWH, YHWH and the Prophet like unto Moses He would send, YHWH and His suffering servant, YHWH and the Messiah He "begets", YHWH and the Lord to whom He gives rulership and priesthood, etc. All these, in light of Jesus, are understood as the Father talking about Jesus in different roles, and with YHWH being the Father in such instances. I and many others simply acknowledge YHWH and His Wisdom to be also in that list.

Not a problem if it understood the Son always had two natures. The incarnation change was just yet future.

This is what I undestand is your theory. You hold that the "seven spirits of God" in Zech. and Rev. are those that appear in Is. 11 (MT reading), making the Holy Spirit (Spirit of YHWH) one of seven spirits. (Btw, the LXX reading has the Spirit of YHWH and seven other spirits, but for the sake of argument I'll stick to the MT reading you implicitly favor.) You then link Wisdom and Understanding as the second and third "spirits of God", and then classify every reference to God's Wisdom as this spirit of God. Is that correct?

One way or the other, the spirit of wisdom and understanding are two of the spirits. Whether all 7 (7th as read in LXX) are the holy Spirit or the holy Spirit is one of the 7 (Hebrew reading). It is a matter of interpretation how this detail is to be understood.

To me, in light of the Trinity, the idea of putting the Holy Spirit as simply the first in a list of spirits seems unnatural; I feel the same with putting the Wisdom of God, whom Jewish thought understood to be a prominent character in God's relationship with His Creation, as another spirit in a list. Most commentators I've seen read this verse as talking about the Spirit of YHWH and the manifold ways in which He would empower the Messiah, with those being more like descriptions of what the Spirit would be to Him. I don't think that is the only possible way to read it either.

You might be right on this aspect if the issue. Yet those 7 spirits are called God's spirits (Revelation 5:6). It comes down to how best to understand this (John 4:24. Proverbs 8:22. Isaiah 11:2-3).

Now, I am trying to compare the evidence for your position on the identity of Wisdom, which would be what I just tried to summarize, with the evidence for the position I've been talking about on the identity of Wisdom, which is in line with Orthodoxy and from what I've seen is held by most of mainstream Christianity. And I believe that, comparing the two, I have little reason to believe your case is strong, while I see the alternative is much stronger.

What ever the truth is on the matter - that is the position we should take. Bare in mind if the spirit of wisdom is the preincarnate Logos it would further show that the Logos was also a different entity than God YHWH (Proverbs 8:22). Not just in the incarnation becoming a man to then have two natures.

I'm going to pick this this one:
Well Jesus told that at two different times. The Luke account is earlier than that of the Matthew account in Jesus' ministry. So did not the LORD possesses the spirit of wisdom? (Proverbs 8:22}. This argument you presented is good. And corresponds with 1 Corinthians 1:24. Wisdom spoke, and later Jesus speaks this of Himself (Matthew 2:23; Isaiah 11:1-2). Jesus being a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy.

Is "two different speeches" how you harmonize every difference in the overall point at which different evangelists report what are arguably the same speech, or two versions with stylistic differences? Or is it how you view these two only?

I believe Jesus taught this these two times. The first time identifying "the wisdom of God" speaking and the second that He said this of Himself.

Anyway, you do acknowledge that it is mostly understood that the evangelists report Jesus' life and deeds with enough freedom to structure the timing of some events, or the wording of speeches, etc. according to their literary purposes, right?

I am sure that is going on.

Do you view the Gospels this way or not?

I do hold that they are given with chronology of events (Luke 1:3). Omitting or adding details here and there between the accounts. Two overlapping chronological events can be broken up into separated chronologies.

If you do, then do you acknowledge that this is one piece of evidence for the Wisdom=Jesus view?

Not yet. It does not fit what I have come to understand. Jesus as the Lamb and the LORD would possesses the spirit of wisdom in my view. I do not find Wisdom=Jesus interpretation necessary. Believing the related texts to be true.

Okay. Give me time and I'll list them, perhaps quoting from JPH's site some parts (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.php), I believe that may be faster.

OK.

First off, this might be easier if you would just go read Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom of Solomon to see what Jews of Jesus' time were reading about Wisdom.

I don't intend to say we should regard these books as Holy Scripture; rather, we ought to simply acknowledge that these books reflect some Jewish thought of the time on this topic.

I'm not persuaded that is the case regarding the Jews of Jesus' day. But I can still read them.

Scholars quoted by JPH agree that characterization/personification of some of God's attributes (like His Wisdom or His Memra/Word) in Jesus' time was a way of speaking of the transcendent God's actions within the created order. It's more or less what you intend to describe as the Son's "temporal" role. I remember reading the same in Bauckham's "God Crucified". So for example, the Targums would say the people went out to meet the Memra of God at mount Sinai in Ex. 19.

So, as seen in books like Ben Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon (and a few other sources), they thought big of Wisdom's role at the time, and their description of it is very similar to the NT's description of the Son's role, down to the vocabulary used for both. It's not a big leap to conclude that Paul and the others chose their vocabulary based on what Jews thought of Wisdom at the time.

With that in mind, we can look at both OT references to Wisdom and Memra (and regard them as Scripture), and look at inter-testamental writings as references that NT writers were free to make for the sake of their (contemporary) readers, and compare both to NT descriptions of Jesus. Yes?

OK. We should weight it against holy scripture on the matter.

[Bisto]

Whoa.
My appology. No attacts were intended.

It's okay. I said it in case they were. Apology accepted for all intents and purposes

[37818]

You do not understand this do you? . . .

There is no need, purpose or use for personal attacks, friend.

Whoa.
My appology. No attacts were intended.