Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [John_Lit] A Grammatico-theological Question

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 9/12/2000 10:22:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, baldeagl@airmail.net writes:
    Message 1 of 76 , Sep 13, 2000
      In a message dated 9/12/2000 10:22:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
      baldeagl@... writes:

      << To me, the most interesting part of that verse is the careful use of
      the prepositions EIS and DIA. The Greek is identical (almost) except
      for the prepositions Pauls uses:


      Paul's Greek here clearly shows QEOS as the originator and Jesus
      Christ as the agent *through* whom QEOS works. To me there cannot be
      a more clear distinction between the two. >>

      It may disappoint you to hear this, but it is perfectly orthodox trinitarian
      doctrine to insist on a 'clear distinction' between Father and Son. At the
      level of the persons, moreover, it is also orthodox to insist on some kind of
      subordination between Father and Son, which is suggested by their very names
      as persons. You are also right in implying that Paul almost always speaks of
      Jesus as one through whom God acts (and through whom we praise God for his
      action, etc.). One should, however, keep in mind that there are occasional
      lapses here in terms of Paul's use of prepositions: e.g., Rom 11:36; 1 Cor

      << And Paul's reference to the shema of Deuteronomy, IMHO, could not make
      it any clearer, for Paul, who called himself a Jew among Jews, was
      certainly a monotheist.>>

      So are trinitarian theologians, of course. If anyone understands God to
      somehow be multiplied when "God" is predicated of Jesus, they have not
      understood the doctrine properly.

      << Later in Corinthians, Paul speaks of the last times, and he states:
      "...then the Son himself will also be made subordinate to God, who
      made all things subject to him, and thus God will be all in all." 1
      Cor 15:28

      I'm not sure how this passage would be explained in light of the
      trinity, since he is clearly in his glorified state, yet Paul says he
      will be subordinate to God.>>

      The "glorified state" has nothing to do with the divinity of Jesus in
      Trinitarian thinking. It is something to be shared by the saved (who do not
      thereby become divine in the strict sense) and it pertains to the humanity of
      Jesus. The subordinationist character of this text is explained, in orthodox
      trinitarian thought, in terms of a certain order and subordination that is
      acknowledged to exist at the level of the persons -- the three subsistent
      relationships who exist in one identical divine nature.

      Leonard Maluf
    • Maluflen@aol.com
      In a message dated 9/18/2000 5:39:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, antonio.jerez@privat.utfors.se writes: [Responding to Leonard, who wrote:] Antonio, no
      Message 76 of 76 , Sep 18, 2000
        In a message dated 9/18/2000 5:39:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
        antonio.jerez@... writes:

        [Responding to Leonard, who wrote:]
        << > Antonio, no matter how highly elevated a creature is, no matter how
        > to God a creature comes, he is still infinitely -- yes, infinitely
        > to God. If this were the case for Jesus it would have been incumbent on
        > NT authors to make this point perfectly clear. Now there are texts in
        > they do not do so, and in fact many of them confound Jesus quite
        > and quite thoroughly with God. If it is true that Jesus is not God, either
        > these writers were terribly misled, or they are terribly misleading.

        The only problem is that Luke and the other synoptic writers did not
        have to contend with a 20th century highly orthodox chap from America
        who is so infatuated with trinitarianism that he has to force it on the texts
        at all price. Leonard, why don't you take a close look at Peter's speech
        in Acts 2:22-36 again and see if you find any support at all for your
        This is as close to Luke's and the early Jerusalem church's Christology as
        we will ever get, and Jesus is never called or likened to God. He is a MAN
        (v.22) SENT by God (v.22) to fullfill God's plan for humanity (v.23). God
        resurrected him (v24) and MADE him into LORD and MESSIAH (v. 36).

        How do you explain that somebody who is God (as you claim Jesus is) has
        to be made Lord and Messiah by God? >>

        Antonio, it seems you didn't read my post carefully enough (which makes me
        wonder how carefully you read the biblical texts that challenge your
        understanding). What I said was that "there are texts" in the NT in which
        Jesus is thoroughly confounded with God. This is quite compatible, logically,
        with the existence of other texts in which he is not (and was carefully
        formulated precisely so as to accommodate these). The Acts text you cite is
        clearly one such, and, in Chalcedonian terms, it could be said that it is
        simply talking about Jesus as man, under which formality he is of course
        thoroughly subordinated to, distinct from and inferior to God. My only point
        is that there are other texts in which the NT authors, or most of them,
        express a kind of fuzzy identity between Jesus and God. So the God-Man
        construct of the later patristic writers and church councils seems to me to
        do justice the whole of the biblical evidence about Jesus while you seem able
        to handle only one side of the paradox. Keep trying though! It is wonderful
        that you invest so much mental effort in the search.

        Leonard Maluf
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.