- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by vistesdVery interesting. I can only say who knows? You bring up some interesting historical theology. I am never too proud to admit when I am wrong, and I am not saying I am in my beliefs. But at the least, I keep the option open. My strongest inclination is still the one God concept.
St. Gregory of Nyssa (3rd century): “The logos, in taking flesh, was mingled with humanity, and took our nature within himself, so that the human should be deified by this mingling with God; the stuff of our nature was entirely sanctified by Christ....”
Gregory again: “It is not in a part of [human] nature that the image is found, but nature in out thinking of the others too: they are like a chain of three links, pulling each other along.
The strongest case for my position is probably Jesus Himself. His actions in the garden of Gethsemane, His pleading for this cup to be taken from Him, His growing in wisdom and stature, not knowing the day nor the hour when the Son of man returns, etc.
Then there is the Trinity itself which to me is illogical. At least the explanations I have heard over the years have been. God divested Himself of power? He limited Himself in knowledge?....That is a difficult pill to swallow.... I also still have an inexplicable feeling if you will, that there is one God and one Lord. I sense it in my spirit...
We are at an impasse once again, I think, maybe not....you "lean" to the Trinitarian concept but are undecided?...some day we will know for sure...be well my friend, I hope you are feeling better.
Late post...I just noticed your response....sorry..
Originally posted by checkbaiterI grew up, and remained in adulthood, a kind of “knee-jerk” trinitarian. Then, under the influence of Judaism as well as eastern religions, moved toward monism (or, minimally, panentheism). Then, lucifershammer, about a year or so ago, started to convince me that our language (subject-predicate) itself may drive us toward trinitarian formulations. Protestant theologian Paul Tillich spoke of a “pre-trinitarian” formula of God as “ground-of-being, power-of-being and being-itself" (or manifestation of being).
Very interesting. I can only say who knows? You bring up some interesting historical theology. I am never too proud to admit when I am wrong, and I am not saying I am in my beliefs. But at the least, I keep the option open. My strongest inclination is still the one God concept.
The strongest case for my position is probably Jesus Himself. His actions i riend, I hope you are feeling better.
Late post...I just noticed your response....sorry..
God divested Himself of power? He limited Himself in knowledge?....That is a difficult pill to swallow....
The real skandalon of Christianity, in my mind, is incarnation. As I have discovered Eastern Orthodox Christianity, I have been reminded of a Lutheran pastor and friend of mine who once declared himself to be a “radical incarnationalist.”
> Philippians 2:5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, 8 he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross. (NRSV)
To my mind, this kenosis (emptying) in incarnation is more uniquely radical than the notions of demi-gods or avatars in other religions. (I am not a total religious sincretist! 🙂 )
__________________________________
I meant to point out that, in the early church, there was also a prominent “binitarian” view, holding ho theos and to pneuma hagion (if I’ve got my Greek right) to be both God. I think you expressed that above.
An interesting thing is that so much of early church (say, the first 5 or 6 centuries) theology was driven by liturgics. As liturgical poetry expressed certain ideas, in different ways, people started to ask what the poetry meant. Then the fathers and the theologians were forced, as it were, to try to nail things down a bit more precisely. The East seems to have always been a bit more reluctant about such “nailing down”. Lucifershammer—in a bit of hyperbole on both ends—once described the Western attempt as trying to turn the mystery into mathematics, while the East let it be a beauty contest. Hyperbole aside, he had a point. I tend toward the East...
I’m sure you’ve noted the irony of my making a trinitarian argument here, given my Taoist/Zennist leanings. 🙂 My arguments should always be viewed as explorations...
Be well, my friend.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by vistesdYou cause me to say the same thing....."My arguments should always be viewed as explorations"...at my old age I keep forgetting these things....
I grew up, and remained in adulthood, a kind of “knee-jerk” trinitarian. Then, under the influence of Judaism as well as eastern religions, moved toward monism (or, minimally, panentheism). Then, lucifershammer, about a year or so ago, started to convince me that our language (subject-predicate) itself may drive us toward trinitarian formulations. Protest ...[text shortened]... t leanings. 🙂 My arguments should always be viewed as explorations...
Be well, my friend.
That is, in regards to the topic at hand, of course. There are biblical positions where I have committed myself, otherwise I would be a fool.
Funny you should mention Phillipians 2....rather than copy and paste let me point you here...
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=127
Originally posted by checkbaiterThanks for the citation. I am reading it (have saved it), and am copying some highlights. I’ll see if I can put together a proper response. For the moment, a few quick notes:
You cause me to say the same thing....."My arguments should always be viewed as explorations"...at my old age I keep forgetting these things....
That is, in regards to the topic at hand, of course. There are biblical positions where I have committed myself, otherwise I would be a fool.
Funny you should mention Phillipians 2....rather than copy and p ...[text shortened]... t you here...
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=127
(1) In the discussion of kenosis, the article speaks of the dual-nature as making of Christ an “aberration”. I would think that jaywill might argue that insisting on our own totally non-divine nature creates in us an aberration. Simply, we are under an illusion and don’t realize who we are. (The Zen Buddhist notions of our inherent “Buddha-nature”, while different, would have some similarity here.)
(2) I think that the assertion that all Christians from the 4th to the 19th century got it wrong is a bit hubristic. (And even before the 4th century, I would say, when the theology was developing.)
(3) I think perhaps the authors may have lost the paradoxical nature of the dual-nature claim, including the fact that the early fathers (like the rabbis, the Advaita Vedantists in Hinduism, etc.) deliberately use paradoxical language to emphasize (not explain) the divine mystery that is ultimately ineffable. This notion of ineffability is expressed in the strong tendency in the East toward “apophatic” theology (as most pointedly exampled in Pseudo-Dionysius).
Gregory of Nyssa again: “Every concept formed by the intellect in an attempt to comprehend and circumscribe the divine nature can succeed only in fashioning an idol, not in making God known.”
(4) Interesting that their understanding of morphe is more metaphorical than the line I am taking here. I suppose they view Jesus’ statement that “I and the Father are one” in the same manner. I will say that I don’t quite know what they mean by the “outward form” of God as something other than an incarnational expression of the inward “form”. And how should that be more amenable to human emulation without the presence of the inward form?
But I am working on it...
God alone is to be worshipped:
"You must worship no other gods, for the Lord, whose very name is Jealous, is a God who is jealous about his relationship with you" (Exodus 34:14).
"You must never have a foreign god; you must not bow down before a false god" (Psalm 81:9).
"Those who worship idols are disgraced—all who brag about their worthless gods—for every god must bow to him" (Psalm 97:7).
“Get out of here, Satan,” Jesus told him. “For the Scriptures say, ‘You must worship the Lord your God and serve only him'" (Matt. 4:10).
"Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said, “No, don’t worship me. I am a servant of God, just like you and your brothers and sisters who testify about their faith in Jesus. Worship only God. For the essence of prophecy is to give a clear witness for Jesus" (Rev. 19:10).
---------------------------
"Creation" is not to be worshipped:
"Those who bow down on the roofs to worship the starry host, those who bow down and swear by the LORD and who also swear by Molech" (Zeph. 1:5).
"But God turned away and gave them over to the worship of the heavenly bodies. This agrees with what is written in the book of the prophets: "'Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings forty years in the desert, O house of Israel?" (Acts 7:42).
"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen" (Rom. 1:25).
------------------------------
Idols are not to be worshipped:
"'Do not turn to idols or make gods of cast metal for yourselves. I am the LORD your God'" (Lev. 19:4).
"'Do not make idols or set up an image or a sacred stone for yourselves, and do not place a carved stone in your land to bow down before it. I am the LORD your God" (Lev. 26:1).
"For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD made the heavens" (1 Chr. 16:26).
"Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry" (1 Cor. 10:14).
"Dear children, keep yourselves from idols" (1 John 5:21).
--------------------------------
Images are not to be worshipped:
"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below" (Exodus 20:4).
"I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols" (Isaiah 42:8).
"But those who trust in idols, who say to images, 'You are our gods,' will be turned back in utter shame" (Isaiah 42:17).
"It is man's fuel for burning; some of it he takes and warms himself, he kindles a fire and bakes bread. But he also fashions a god and worships it; he makes an idol and bows down to it" (Isaiah 44:15).
"Listen to the cry of my people from a land far away: "Is the LORD not in Zion? Is her King no longer there? Why have they provoked me to anger with their images, with their worthless foreign idols?"" (Jer. 8:19).
"And exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles" (Rom 1:23).
"The first angel went and poured out his bowl on the land, and ugly and painful sores broke out on the people who had the mark of the beast and worshiped his image" (Rev. 16:2).
"But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur" (Rev. 19:20).
----------------------
Relics are not to be worshipped:
"He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. It was called Nehushtan" (2 Kings 18:4).
----------------------
Material things are not to be worshipped:
"What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?" (Matt. 16:26).
"But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?' (Luke 12:20).
"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill" (Acts 17:29).
"Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry" (Col. 3:5).
-------------------------
Saints are not to be worshipped:
"As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. But Peter made him get up. "Stand up," he said, "I am only a man myself"" (Acts 10:25-26).
------------------------
Angels are not to be worshipped:
"Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions" (Col. 2:18).
"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! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Rev. 19:10).
---------------------
God alone is to be worshipped:
"I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols" (Isaiah 42:8).
"For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this. How can I let myself be defamed? I will not yield my glory to another" (Isaiah 48:11).
YET Jesus Christ is worshipped:
"On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him" (Matt. 2:11).
"Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped Him, saying, 'It is true You are the Son of God'" (Matt. 14:33).
"And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped Him" (Matt. 8:2).
"And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, 'All hail.' And they came and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him" (Matt. 28:9).
"And when they saw Him (JESUS), they worshipped Him; but some doubted" (Matt 28:17).
"But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped Him" (Mark 5:6).
"And it came to pass, while He blessed them, He was parted from them, and carried up into heaven, and they worshipped Him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy" (Luke 24:52).
"And he said, 'Lord, I believe,' and he worshipped Him" (John 9:38).
"And again, when (The Father) brings in the First-begotten into the world, He says, 'And let all the angels of God worship Him'" (Heb 1:6).
(Note: compare Hebrews 1:6 with Psalm 148: "Praise the LORD! Praise the LORD from the heavens; praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels; praise him, all his hosts!" (148:1-2). )
""And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; Saying with a loud voice, 'Worthy is the Lamb (JESUS) that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing, And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard, I saying, 'Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto Him that sits on the throne, and unto the Lamb (JESUS) forever and ever. And the four beasts said, 'Amen.' And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped Him that lives forever and ever" (Rev. 5:12-14).
--------------------
(1) God alone is to be worshipped
(2) Jesus Christ is worshipped
(3) Therefore Jesus Christ is God
Originally posted by epiphinehasWhat a logic:
[b]YET Jesus Christ is worshipped:
"On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him" (Matt. 2:11).
"Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped Him, saying, 'It is true You are the Son of God'" (Matt. 14:33).
"And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped Him" (Matt. 8:2).
"A ...[text shortened]... s Christ is worshipped
(3) Therefore Jesus Christ is God[/b][/b]
(1) God alone is to be worshipped
(2) Satan is worshipped
(3) Therefore Satan is God
Compare:
---------------------
"But Thou (God - v. 24) are the same, and Thy years shall have no end" (Psalm 102:27).
...with...
"Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8).
-----------------------
"Then (Isaiah) said, 'Woe is me! for I am undone: because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for my eyes have seen the King, YHWH of Hosts'" (Isaiah 6:5).
...with...
"These things (Isaiah) said when he saw His (JESUS) glory, and spoke of Him"
(John 12:41).
-----------------------
"Sanctify YHWH of Hosts Himself...and He shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel"
(Isaiah 8:13-14).
...with...
"To you therefore which believe He (JESUS) is precious; but to them which be disobedient the same is made...a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence (Psalm 118:22; Luke 2:34; Rom. 9:33)" (1 Peter 2:7-8).
---------------------
"For I am YHWH your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Saviour" (Isaiah 43:3).
...with...
"But ye denied the Holy One and the Just (i.e., they rejected JESUS) ..." (Acts 3:14).
-------------------------
"I, even I, am YHWH; and beside Me there is no Saviour (Psalm 3:8; Isa. 45:21-22; Hosea 13:4; John 4:42) " (Isaiah 43:11).
...with...
"This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved (2 Pet. 3:18) " (Acts 4:11-12).
-------------------------
"Thus says YHWH the King of Israel, and his Redeemer YHWH of Hosts; I am the First, and I am the Last; and beside Me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6).
...with...
"I (JESUS) am Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last" (Rev. 1:11).
------------------------
"YHWH my God shall come, and all the saints with Thee" (Zech. 14:5).
...with...
"At the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all His saints" (1 Thess. 3:13).
-----------------------
"Which in His (JESUS) times He shall show Who is (referring to God) the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords ... " (1 Tim. 6:15).
...with...
""And He (JESUS) has on His vesture and on His thigh a Name written: KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS" (Rev. 19:16).
------------------------
Scriptural proof that Christ is God...
Originally posted by ahosyney(1) God alone is to be worshipped
What a logic:
[b](1) God alone is to be worshipped
(2) Satan is worshipped
(3) Therefore Satan is God[/b]
(2) Satan is worshipped
(3) Therefore Satan is God
Please, ahosney, be fair. The second premise (Jesus Christ is worshipped) obviously refers to the scriptures which I've cited.
Originally posted by epiphinehasIn some of the scripture you cited Pagans worshiped Jesus while he was a baby.
[b](1) God alone is to be worshipped
(2) Satan is worshipped
(3) Therefore Satan is God
Please, ahosney, be fair. The second premise (Jesus Christ is worshipped) obviously refers to the scriptures which I've cited.[/b]
So if you tell me that you follow some pagans in worshiping Jesus, I have no problem. It is up to you.
By the way , Joseph brother's worshiped him as well, but that didn't made him GOD.
EDIT: I have no problem with you or any one, to believe what ever you want, but the scriptures doesn't say Jesus is GOD, because Jesus himself never said he is GOD. And he declared that GOD is the father, and he worshiped him. So all what you say is like trying to prove that the sun has no light.
Originally posted by checkbaiter> Philippians 2:5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, 8 he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross. (NRSV)
You cause me to say the same thing....."My arguments should always be viewed as explorations"...at my old age I keep forgetting these things....
That is, in regards to the topic at hand, of course. There are biblical positions where I have committed myself, otherwise I would be a fool.
Funny you should mention Phillipians 2....rather than copy and p ...[text shortened]... t you here...
http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=127
The bold headings below refer to the article you cited.
________________________________________
Like the rest of us, Christ was fully human and had the outward form (morphe), of a human. However, because he always did the Father’s will and demonstrated godly behavior and obedience, he therefore had the outward “appearance” (morphe) of God also. Also, like the rest of us, his appearance (schema) regularly changed. Thus, in Philippians, 2:8 schema can be synonymous with morphe, or it can place an emphasis on the fact that the appearance Christ had as a human being was transitory in nature.
I could find only these references to morphe (or a variant) in the NT and the LXX:
Job 4:16
Dan. 3:19
Isa. 44:13
Phil. 2:6
Phil. 2:7
Mk. 16:12
Gal. 4:19
Rom. 2:20
2 Tim. 3:5
So, it is a rarely used word. Other words translated (I’m using NRSV here) as form are:
schema (figure, shape, appearance, character) eidos (kind, class, figure, nature), homoiosis (likeness or resemblance), tupos (type, pattern), and eikon (likeness, image).
I really do not see the synonymy of morphe and schema in Philippians 2:7. I would suggest that the term morphe in verses 6 and 7 refer to the kenotic movement of the incarnation, while schema in verse 7 refers to the resulting shape or character. (Note, “appearance” might be taken to diminish the fullness of the dual-nature—as in “mere” appearance.)
___________________________________________
2. After saying that Christ was in the form of God, Philippians 2:6 goes on to say that Christ “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” (NIV). This phrase is a powerful argument against the Trinity. If Jesus were God, then it would make no sense at all to say that he did not “grasp” at equality with God because no one grasps at equality with himself. It only makes sense to compliment someone for not seeking equality when he is not equal. Some Trinitarians say, “Well, he was not grasping for equality with the Father.” That is not what the verse says. It says Christ did not grasp at equality with God, which makes the verse nonsense if he were God.
The authors of the article follow NIV in translating harpagmos as “something to be grasped.” NRSV translates as “something to be exploited.” The NIV is a more literal translation—but “grasp” here does not necessarily mean to “grasp for” something that one does not have: it can also me to hold onto what one does already have.
In the Greek, 2:6 reads—
hos en morphe theou huparchon ouk harpagmon hegesato to einai isa theoi
who in form of God being (or belonging to, or existing in possession of: huparchon) not something-to-hold-by-force (or grasp or seize or hold onto: harpagmon) regarded (or thought or considered) the/that being (or existing or remaining) equal to (or same as) God.
I have followed several lexicons here. The Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon emphasizes the etymological idea of beginning (arche) in huparchon. Following that, I might translate:
“who, in [the] form of God beginning (or being found), regarded [it] not as something to cling to, that being-the-same-as God...”.
Young’s literal translation stresses the possession or property aspect of harpagmon with this rendering: “who, being in the form of God, thought {it} not robbery to be equal to God...”
NIV translates morphe as “very nature”, homoioma as “likeness”, and schema as appearance.
Not that any of the translations is necessarily free from theological bias.
_________________________________________
Biblical truth is not an “incomprehensible mystery.”
I would have to write a complete and lengthy essay on the Orthodox tradition to respond to this. Suffice it to say that what is revealed in the written tradition (the Biblical texts) is the nature of the mystery—not the removal or eradication of the mystery.
> 1 Corinthians 2:1 When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom. 2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 3 And I came to you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. 4 My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God. 6 Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. 7 But we speak God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory.
This wisdom spoken among the mature is the oral tradition/transmission that supplements and interprets the written tradition (scripture). Verse 7 reads, in part (directly from the Greek): “But we speak God’s wisdom in mystery (or “in secret”: en musterion), this having been hidden...”. This view goes to the earliest times of the post-apostolic church.
I think the following verses also, I think, point to the revealing—not the removal—of the mystery:
> Mark 4:11 And he said to them, "To you has been given the mystery (musterion) of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables...”
> Romans 16:25 Now to God who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages...
> Colossians 1:27 To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
> Colossians 2:2 I want their hearts to be encouraged and united in love, so that they may have all the riches of assured understanding and have the knowledge of God's mystery, that is, Christ himself, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
> 1 Timothy 3:9 they must hold fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.
> 1 Timothy 3:16 Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great: He was revealed in flesh, vindicated in spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory.
> 1 Corinthians 4:1 Think of us in this way, as servants of Christ and stewards of God's mysteries.
> Ephesians 3:1 This is the reason that I Paul am a prisoner for Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles-- 2 for surely you have already heard of the commission of God's grace that was given me for you, 3 and how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I wrote above in a few words, 4 a reading of which will enable you to perceive my understanding of the mystery of Christ. 5 In former generations this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit: 6 that is, the Gentiles have become fellow heirs, members of the same body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
> Ephesians 6:19 Pray also for me, so that when I speak, a message may be given to me to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel...
________________________________________
I have no doubt, of course, that these and similar passages can be honestly exegeted in such a way as to assert that what may have been mysterious, is no longer. And that does bring an impasse...
Originally posted by epiphinehasWhat the...! You and I arguing on the same side?! 😉
[b](1) God alone is to be worshipped
(2) Satan is worshipped
(3) Therefore Satan is God
Please, ahosney, be fair. The second premise (Jesus Christ is worshipped) obviously refers to the scriptures which I've cited.[/b]
I think from a logical point of view, however, ahosyney’s point is well-made.
The logical argument has to be that Jesus may be properly worshipped, according to his divine nature, because of that divine nature. (It is not Jesus’ human nature that can be properly worshipped.) Your exegesis goes to make that case from scripture. But I think the syllogism has to be something like:
(1) Only God may be properly worshipped.
(2) God became incarnate in/as Jesus.
(3) God’s divine nature may be properly worshipped in whatever form it assumes.
(4) Therefore, God’s divine nature may be properly worshipped in Jesus.
The fact that Jesus had already become the subject of worship before the Nicean/Chalcedonian formulations raised the question of whether (and in what way) such worship was proper. This is, again, the historical record that theology often followed liturgics. Could such liturgical formulae be properly retained? Orthodoxy (or what became Orthodoxy) answered “Yes”, and made the argument for the divine nature. But they did not argue that the divine nature was merely cast in the “appearance” of humanity—rather, they formulated the doctrine of two natures in one hypostasis. And that formulation came with a lot of argument, charges of heresy, etc. There were committed, honest Christians on all sides, as there are today.
So, even though liturgics may have driven the debate to refine “orthodox” understanding, liturgical form could not be a premise for the conclusion. Otherwise, it would result in question-begging: Jesus must be divine because the disciples worshipped him. Why did they worship him? Because he was divine...
____________________________________
Note: “worship” is a difficult word. The Greek proskuneo has the same root as prayer (proseuche), and would seem to include contemplative awareness as well as supplication. latreuo has the sense of to work or to serve. eusebeo, to carry out one’s religious obligations, to act piously, or stand in awe.
Originally posted by whodeyI don't think any one adressed this question. Why did Jesus tell his disciples not to reveal who he was which was the Son of God?
2. It is also apparent that Christ did not go around broadcasting to the world exactly who and what he was. In fact, he charged his disciples to tell no one. Why? Is not one of the consequences for not broadcasting to the world exactly who he was part of the reason for this discussion?
Just to wrap up what I’ve posted here, I want to reiterate that I agree with Nemesio and Checkbaiter that the written tradition does not clearly show that Jesus was divine. The phrase “son of God,” for example, apparently had a euphemistic usage among Jews that did not necessarily imply divinity.
The early church proponents of Jesus’ dual nature argued from both the written and the oral tradition, exegeting the former in light of the latter. None of them were sola scripturists. If anything, the oral tradition took precedence (in both time and stature) over the written tradition. Thus it was from the second century till the 16th.
The Greek East and the Latin West (Rome) split with the Great Schism in 1054. From the point of view of the East, it was Rome that departed from ecumenical (in the older sense of that word) tradition by asserting Papal supremacy and changing the words of the Nicene Creed (adding the filioque). Luther wanted to reform what he saw as Roman errors (of those two, only the former, not the latter).
Although there is likely some exaggeration in the claim, that the Orthodox East has maintained the earliest church beliefs and traditions is a claim that I think has merit. Orthodox scholars themselves admit the developmental movement of that tradition in the early centuries (the adoption of the Biblical canon was part of that movement). Generally, that is how oral tradition works. When oral tradition becomes written tradition (whether scriptural or creedal), there tends to be more doctrinal hardening; doctrinal historian Jaroslav Pelikan has noted that, to the extent that one could talk about an orthodoxy in the early centuries of the church, it was a more open orthodoxy.
An introductory work that I would commend to Protestants is Daniel B. Clendenin’s Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective. Clendenin is an evangelical Protestant as well as a scholar, and therefore his work may be more immediately accessible to those from his same perspective, than introductions by Orthodox writers might be.
After that, I would suggest Timothy (Kallistos) Ware’s The Orthodox Church and Christos Yannaras’ The Elements of Faith—both good introductions by Orthodox theologians.
Originally posted by vistesdWhy in your opinion was Christ seen as a blasphemer and subsequently killed if he was not seen as divine by claiming to be the Son of God? The options I can think of are:
Just to wrap up what I’ve posted here, I want to reiterate that I agree with Nemesio and Checkbaiter that the written tradition does not clearly show that Jesus was divine. The phrase “son of God,” for example, apparently had a euphemistic usage among Jews that did not necessarily imply divinity.
The early church proponents of Jesus’ dual nature argued f ...[text shortened]... Christos Yannaras’ The Elements of Faith—both good introductions by Orthodox theologians.
1) The people were ignorant of what the term "Son of God" ment and assumed he was claiming to be divine.
2) The religious leaders knew that he was not really claiming to be divine when he said he was the "Son of God" but decided to play on the ignorance of the people to get rid of him.
3) The Biblical texts are innacurate in terms of the charge of blasphemy as an excuse in crusifying Christ and was only put there by "Trinitarians" who wished to show that Christ was divine.
If there are other scenerios you can think of I would like to hear them.