To have been or not to have been...
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 2:41 am
In this thread I'm inviting Greg to continue our discussion which began in the comments section of the dustinmartyr blog.
http://www.agreatcloud.com/forum/
I then gave you my objective for a discussion:Greg wrote:I typically add the text – “I alone created…” and they will grasp at something like “well, Jesus baptized… but…”
So before we go on – my real question is – what is the point or benefit? You already know my exegesis – I already know how you use text. Until you get “foreknowledge”/”notional pre-incarnate” (plainly taught IPet1:20, Rev13:8, Eph1:4, etc), until you get Jesus as referenced in creation rather than an agent in creation (ICor8:6, Col1:15), until you get the Logos as the Logos rather than some strange creature of God and lastly the “sent”/”coming from above” language as essentially meta-phoric, there is no further need to communicate as far as I can tell.
So I suppose to start things off, could you please give a brief description of what the Logos is and exactly how it relates to the man Jesus?TJ wrote:I am primarily interested in discussing what, in your view, the Logos actually is and then exploring the implications of that view. I have no interest in any type of high-intensity, frustrating debate. Rather, I’m genuinely interested in better understanding your Christology. For example, you seem to have a very defined view of what is/isn’t a man; I’m interested in knowing how the incarnation of the Logos does/doesn’t play a factor in that definition and then how that answer relates to God’s overall purpose (I can explain what I mean by this more in-depth).
Great question and very simple.So I suppose to start things off, could you please give a brief description of what the Logos is and exactly how it relates to the man Jesus?
I don't want to misuse words. Could you please clearly define what you believe the standard meaning of "man" is?Greg Logan wrote:I tend to avoid interacting with with those adhering to an Arian Christology – for a very simple reason. They refuse to stick to standard hermeneutic of words retaining their standard meaning. As an example, for an Arian “man” does not mean “man” – “man” essentially means a divine being in a human body – but we still get to call it “man” – even though it really isn’t
I think I get what you're saying, but I want to be sure. If Jesus can be both "the light and the carrier of the light", would it not be an equally valid interpretation to view him both as 'the word and the carrier of the word' (i.e. after he's come into existence)? In other words, do you believe that after Jesus is born he can rightly be called 'the Word of God'--not in the sense that he's the literal spoken word of God--but simply in that God's Word is manifested in him? (cf. Rev. 19:13)Greg Logan wrote:Then in v14 we see a great speaking of God - the Word was manifest as a man. God still had his word - but it was fully manifest in Jesus. Jesus is NOT the Word - Jesus IS the Word made flesh. I am uncertain whether there a prior parallel for this type of manifestation of the Word - though I suppose creation is the Word made manifest as well. Also, as we are supposed to be the light of the world even as Jesus is the light of the world - we are to be the Word of God[...]
[...]The last point - John is very interesting - essentially sort of poetic/metaphoric - as to how he sees Jesus manifesting these realities. As an example - Jesus is said to be the light and the carrier of the light[...]We see that God is the light - and Jesus is the lamp (Rev21:23) HOWEVER at other points Jesus is the light to the world... though he is not the actual light... God is, as John makes clear. To us Jesus is the light of the world - but when God is in view - Jesus is the lamp carrying the light... This provides us a hermeneutic to make sense of Jn1:1 - 18 and 1Jn1:1-5 and maintain consistency with all of scripture.
Look in the mirror...I don't want to misuse words. Could you please clearly define what you believe the standard meaning of "man" is?
You really have two questions here - and both are great. Is Jesus really BOTH the light and the carrier of the light? That does not really make sense - and I find, if nothing else, the Bible ultimately makes a great deal of sense.... Therefore, may I suggest that in the speaking of God - even as we are to be the light of the world - the reality is - as Jesus said - I can do NOTHING OF myself.... Likewise He is the Light of the World in light of Him being the perfect lamb in which the Light is shining. Likewise for your and I. That is my present understanding - and the only way the I see that all these texts reconcile.I think I get what you're saying, but I want to be sure. If Jesus can be both "the light and the carrier of the light", would it not be an equally valid interpretation to view him both as 'the word and the carrier of the word' (i.e. after he's come into existence)? In other words, do you believe that after Jesus is born he can rightly be called 'the Word of God'--not in the sense that he's the literal spoken word of God--but simply in that God's Word is manifested in him? (cf. Rev. 19:13)
A frightening proposition.Greg Logan wrote:Look in the mirror...I don't want to misuse words. Could you please clearly define what you believe the standard meaning of "man" is?
That seems reasonable.Greg Logan wrote:That is my present understanding - and the only way the I see that all these texts reconcile.
Thank you for your candor, I'm glad this discussion might be mutually beneficial.Greg Logan wrote:As to when we might say that Jesus was "the Word made flesh". That is another great question that I would never considered had you not asked. Upon reflection, I would definitely suggest at the time of his anointing.
That argument is purely one of human reasoning. I have no interest in it.TJ wrote: But in all seriousness, I'm guessing you believe that there's more to the meaning of "man" than the mere appearance of such. After all, all parties seem to agree that Jesus looked like a man.
Let's try this. How would you respond to an argument put to you that went something like this:
- 1. Every human born has a biological father.
2. Jesus was born with no biological father.
3. Therefore, Jesus is not a human.
Yes - no man is a divine person of any sort. A man is created by God directly or indirectly from the earth if you want to look at something Biblically derived. But I am not interested in that kind of "word game" that Paul condemned. A man is simply a man that we all know is a man. I simply use the standard word - based on a standard hermeneutic with no games because something does not fit a dearly held tradition based on a faulty exegesis that I love (e.g. the Jesus as Creator thing, etc.).TJ wrote: What differentiates that argument from the one below used to disprove the idea of Jesus having a pre-human existence?
I'm sincerely interested in knowing the exact definition of 'man'/'human' that you must have in view that both encompasses one coming from a virgin birth and yet excludes one coming from a heavenly pre-existence. And is this definition derived from human reason, the scriptures, or both?
- 1. No human could pre-exist in heaven.
2. Jesus pre-existed in heaven.
3. Therefore, Jesus is not a human.
Please note - that is a very preliminary viewpoint and not necessarily even important. Frankly, upon further reflection, I don't think it matters WHEN Jesus was the Word become flesh - rather simply that He was and is the Word became flesh. Again that gets into the word games Paul condemns. Our call is one of godliness and good works - and getting lost in these kind of word games does not lead to godliness and is a waste. The exception is that if there is some clear text to substantiate - or some very important meaning. My whole goal in Christology is to reclaim the man Christ Jesus and the amazing work that He accomplished from being replaced by some sort of divine being who is totally irrelevant to me or any man. What good is a resurrected deity?? I need a resurrected MAN!TJ wrote:Thank you for your candor, I'm glad this discussion might be mutually beneficial.Greg Logan wrote:As to when we might say that Jesus was "the Word made flesh". That is another great question that I would never considered had you not asked. Upon reflection, I would definitely suggest at the time of his anointing.
If I grant your position, it seems most reasonable to me that Jesus would only become 'the Word' at the time of his anointing. Given that, at what point did the man Jesus become God's Son? (cf. Hebrews 1:5) In your view, was it at his birth or at his anointing?
I take it from this that you mean also to say that no divine person could ever become an actual man, shedding himself of everything that makes him divine and being born a true flesh-and-blood human being, is that correct?Greg Logan wrote:...no man is a divine person of any sort.
It may also be said that something "we all know" about a man is his inherent sinful nature, is it not? Paul himself defines the common state of man this way:Greg Logan wrote:A man is simply a man that we all know is a man.
I would assume that you would not include the man Jesus in this otherwise all-encompassing statement about mankind. So how do you reconcile what Paul says with your emphasis on Jesus being what "we all know is a man" under the standard hermeneutic?Romans 3:9-12
[W]e have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.”
Thank you for that; I don't at all doubt your motivations. Again, it is not my intention to frustrate you by asking these questions; I'm sincerely interested in the Unitarian viewpoint, and your feedback is very helpful to that end.Greg Logan wrote:My whole goal in Christology is to reclaim the man Christ Jesus and the amazing work that He accomplished from being replaced by some sort of divine being who is totally irrelevant to me or any man. What good is a resurrected deity?? I need a resurrected MAN!