Wright's Victory of God

[TWells]

I'm about to dish out the 40 bucks for The Victory of God by NT Wright. Some of the reviews i've read state that one of his conclusions was that Jesus wasnt fully aware of his divinity. Im pretty skeptical of this as Wright has always seemed pretty orthodox, anyone out there read it and know what they may be refering to?

[Megane]

Today @ 02:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=142128#post142128)
TWells:

I'm about to dish out the 40 bucks for The Victory of God by NT Wright. Some of the reviews i've read state that one of his conclusions was that Jesus wasnt fully aware of his divinity. Im pretty skeptical of this as Wright has always seemed pretty orthodox, anyone out there read it and know what they may be refering to?


Yes, I do, and it is one of the few things on which I differ with Wright. It's just wierd. You have hundreds of pages of nicely done argumentation...and then boom! On the last page of the book before the conclusion, almost out of nowhere:

"Jesus did not, in other words, 'know that he was God' in the same way that one knows one is male or female, hungry or thirsty, or that one ate an orange an hour ago. His 'knowledge' was of a more risky, but perhaps more significant sort: like knowing one is loved. One cannot 'prove' it except by living by it. (p. 653)"

I'm still not exactly sure what he means here. But there it is. It's still well well worth it to buy the book though. Very well worth it.

[TWells]

Do you know if Wright has ever clarified this a little more in a article or any other books?

[JCA]

I read a discussion about this not too long ago.. if I can re-find the link, I will post it for you, as it was most interesting.

It had to do with the nature of Christ being fully Man, and that man, by nature, tends to question oneself.. not to the point of lack of faith, but in making our decisions.. we examine possibilities, tie them into our own moral understandings, and make a choice based upon our conclusions..

It is different to doubt oneself, than it is to question ones own motives.. if you get my drift..

The fact that Christ was Human, as well as Divine, did not subtract from the point that Christ had to live with human 'frailties'.. and there are times in the Bible where Christ expresses His uneasiness with peoples lack of understanding on this point - such as when He says that only the Father is righteous etc..

In fact, this is one of the reasons I come to the conclusion that Wright does.. but I think it was a conscious choice of Christ to play down His own Divinity, as He also knew that as Man, there was the possibility of making an incorrect moral choice. After all, what is the point of becoming fully man, if all you are going to do is 'divine acts', and can do nothing else? Why not just stay as God and intercede more in our lives?

In looking at it from that light, one can see how even as Divine as Christ was, He already knew that He was indeed man, and so had to experience the fallability, but show us it could be done - that we can indeed overcome our 'sins' and live righteous lives. In this respect, Christ had to shelve some of Gods characteristics (such as the inability to be contrary to ones nature) to take on mans. In doing so, Christ 'lost' full awareness of His Divinity..

IMHO, that just adds more to what Christ gave up to come to us and give us Salvation.. and how much more we owe Him :smile:


Now, it wasn't said whether or not this was Wrights thoughts on it, as I said, was just a discussion I read, and remember because a lot of it fits into my own World View. Thought I would share though.

In Love and Peace

JCA

[TWells]

Thanks both for replying.

I picked up VOG today and im about 50 or so pages into it. Ive skipped around some trying to find sections relevant to this. Has Wright stated what his view of the Trinity is now? Does this affect the Trinity or just how we view the incarnation and how Jesus experienced it?

Maybe I need to finish reading all of it first :) but Wright states that many of the things Christ did, such as the triumphal entry to Jerusalem, were symbolic, in that case it was of Yahweh's return to Zion, he stresses this alot. Is this related to his Christological conclusion, is he saying that in some way Jesus simply represented God or is it actually God doing it? Hope that makes sense.

Thanks for help.

[dizzle]

Eek!! that conclusion is utterly wrong IMHO

[Socrates]

Today @ 06:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=143500#post143500)
JCA:

It had to do with the nature of Christ being fully Man, and that man, by nature, tends to question oneself.. not to the point of lack of faith, but in making our decisions..

Who says? This might be an aspect of fallen humanity, but not a necessary condition of being human. Also, Thomas Morris distinguished being "merely human" and "fully human" in The Logic of God Incarnate.

An individual is fully human [in any case where] that individual has all essential human properties, all the properties composing basic human nature. An individual is merely human if he has all those properties plus some additional limitation properties, as well, properties such as that of lacking omnipotence, that of lacking omniscience, and so on.

The fact that Christ was Human, as well as Divine, did not subtract from the point that Christ had to live with human 'frailties'.. and there are times in the Bible where Christ expresses His uneasiness with peoples lack of understanding on this point -

The Incarnation did not take anything away from His divine nature but added human nature ("the Word became flesh"). This does not mean that He added fallen human nature, for He was without sin. Philippians 2:5-11 is one important passage, pointing out that Christ was by very nature God but humbled Himself taking on the form of a servant. The humbling was that voluntarily surrendered the independent exercise of His powers, e.g. omniscience, although He could immediately switch them on at will, e.g. to know what people were thinking. But he never surrendered such absolute attributes as his perfect goodness, truthfulness, mercy, etc.

Luke 18:19... such as when He says that only the Father is righteous etc.

No, He said "No one is good but God alone" (Luke 18:19). He wanted to turn flattery back on the questioner to make sure he realised the implications of his question. It was important since the flattery was a challenge to Jesus in their honor-shame society -- see Did Jesus Deny Being Good, and Therefore Being Divine? (http://www.tektonics.org/mark1018.html)

In fact, this is one of the reasons I come to the conclusion that Wright does.. but I think it was a conscious choice of Christ to play down His own Divinity, as He also knew that as Man, there was the possibility of making an incorrect moral choice. After all, what is the point of becoming fully man, if all you are going to do is 'divine acts', and can do nothing else? Why not just stay as God and intercede more in our lives?

For a very important reason -- The Book of Hebrews explains how Jesus took upon himself the nature of a man to save mankind (Hebrews 2:11–18). Seven centuries before this happened, the Prophet Isaiah spoke of Him as literally the ‘Kinsman-Redeemer,’ i.e. one who is related by blood to those he redeems (Isaiah 59:20, uses the same Hebrew word goel as used to describe Boaz in relation to Ruth).

Now, it wasn't said whether or not this was Wrights thoughts on it, as I said, was just a discussion I read, and remember because a lot of it fits into my own World View. Thought I would share though.

Wright is also suspect on the way he handles Paul, as Australian historian and theologian Dr Noel Weeks has pointed out. To interpret Paul, Wright relies more on Sanders' views on Judaism than the rest of the New Testament. So he reinterprets Paul away from substitutionary atonement, explained even more clearly in other parts of the NT. e.g. compare Romans 3:25 with 1 John 2:2.

[GrayPilgrim]

Another problem of with Wright became evident to me in a conversation this last week. (As an aside I want to do my doctoral dissertation on Leviticus 26 "The Covenant Blessings and Curses) I had just finsihed reading Galatians and and was mulling over the part where Paul says:

Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us- for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"-

Now what curse is this? Does Paul mean that Christ took the Mosaic covenatn curses upon himself on the cross? This is in fact Wright's understanding of the crucifixion, that he took these curses upon himself so that he could end the exile. The problem is then how does Christ's cross work prove efficacious for the Gentile? Well if one were to even furhter back to the first curse and understand the crosswork as taking the Adamic curse to himself then this tension is solved. Morevover this very understanding will in fact satisfy the leitmotif of Christ as the second Adam much better than if Christ only took the curses of Leviticus and Deuteronomy to himself while he was on the tree.

GP

[JCA]

Yesterday @ 10:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=143889#post143889)
Socrates:

Who says? This might be an aspect of fallen humanity, but not a necessary condition of being human. Also, Thomas Morris distinguished being "merely human" and "fully human" in The Logic of God Incarnate.

As I said, I was repeating a lot of what was said in the conversation I witnessed.. Wright wasn't even involved in it, just two people talking about it.

I also distinguish merely human and fully human - whatever that truly means. :teeth: Also, sorry, but everyone makes decisions based upon their questioning of themselves, the situation, and their own morality.. this IS a condition of being human; please explain how it is not.

And The Logic of God Incarnate was okay, but didn't strike me as being the whole truth of the matter. Because I cannot fly, I am merely human? I find saying that just because we lack some things we are merely human to be fallacy.. We are indeed fully human, and this 'merely' human stuff doesn't ring true, for myself, or others that I know.


The Incarnation did not take anything away from His divine nature but added human nature ("the Word became flesh"). This does not mean that He added fallen human nature, for He was without sin. Philippians 2:5-11 is one important passage, pointing out that Christ was by very nature God but humbled Himself taking on the form of a servant. The humbling was that voluntarily surrendered the independent exercise of His powers, e.g. omniscience, although He could immediately switch them on at will, e.g. to know what people were thinking. But he never surrendered such absolute attributes as his perfect goodness, truthfulness, mercy, etc.


So you say.. however, I disagree. :smile:

I never said Christ committed sin.. but you have no way of knowing in what way Christ was changed when He was/is in Human form. There are other passages too where Christ tells others that He is NOT all good like the father.. there are verses that both point to, and away from Christ being totally unable to commit sin. The difference is that Christ chose not to. That is part of being human. It is also the reason you get Trinitarians, Unitarians, and all other sorts of 'arians'.. because there is enough places where Christ tries to tell people that He and the Father are not exactly the same.. as to balance where says they are..

I agree with Christ voluntarily giving up some of His divine 'powers' to take on Human form and be like Man.. the fact that He could then switch them on and off, is only supposition on our part. It may very well just have been that the father worked through Christ at certain times, allowing that 'power' to be used.. just as God does with other men.. unless you do not believe in healing miracles etc.. Or, it could be that as a Human, Christ was indeed so in-tune with His Divine morality, thast He was showing us that we too can do such things IF we get in line with God.

As I said before, I have a problem with people attaching thigns to Christ to fit their views of the Trinity.. perfect goodness was NOT an 'attribute' of Christ that was not unchangable.. Christ was fully man in the sense that He had to make choices too.. it was his understanding of morality, and Gods will that allowed Him to remain pure.. just as we can if we do the same things.. I have already explained how it is no object lesson, or lesson at all, IF there was no possible temptation of Christ.. How does that show man how to overcome temptation if ONLY God can do it?


No, He said "No one is good but God alone" (Luke 18:19). He wanted to turn flattery back on the questioner to make sure he realised the implications of his question. It was important since the flattery was a challenge to Jesus in their honor-shame society -- see Did Jesus Deny Being Good, and Therefore Being Divine? (http://www.tektonics.org/mark1018.html)

Also, I never said Jesus denied being good (righteous).. I said He pointed out that His father was the "good" one, and by this He meant that only the Father is unchangable, only the Father remains 'fully good'.. Christ KNEW He was Human, and therefore capable of Sin.. these people where trying to pin Him down into saying that He could do NO wrong.. and Christ didn't want to say that, as He knew He was human.. and He even seems to get upset about them trying to do this.

The minute you give Christ the ability to use His divinity to overcome His human side, you remove the need for the Human side at all.. Once again, what lessons are there to learn from a Man, who can then use Divine abilities to overcome being Man??? I mean this in the sense of one being unable to commit sin etc. If you cannot commit sin, you are NOT Man!

This does not stop Christ from using His divine abilities, it just means that they became available once again as He as human, got more in touch with His own Divinity.. an example of this would be Christs baptism.. it is like a marker piont at which more of His own divine will becomes avaliable to His Human side - by virtue of the fact that His human side was follwing the Divine Will!

Sorry, but Christ kept His human side Human, and lived in such a way as to show us how we too can be like Him (in that respect), and find a path that we do not sin upon.. and the fact that Christ did this is what allowed His own Holy Spirit to work through/within Him.

Once again, it is just my opinion.. and I do not propose that I am 100% correct.. I'm just telling you how I see it, and how it has been revealed to me.


Wright is also suspect on the way he handles Paul, as Australian historian and theologian Dr Noel Weeks has pointed out. To interpret Paul, Wright relies more on Sanders' views on Judaism than the rest of the New Testament. So he reinterprets Paul away from substitutionary atonement, explained even more clearly in other parts of the NT. e.g. compare Romans 3:25 with 1 John 2:2.

And here in lies the rub :teeth: Aren't we all doing the same thing? Trying to find what sits true with us as individuals? Yes, I agree that Wright doesn't have it all right.. Dr. Weeks also has his own interpretations.. you do, I do.. we all do..

Hopefully though, we can agree to disagree, as once again, this isn't a Salvation stopper...

Thank you Socrates.. your answers and replies have been without condesention and in the spirit of sharing.. I much appreciate that.

In Love and Peace



I also share Dee Dee's 'eekness' when it comes to Christ JUST being Gods spokesperson.. too much is hinted at in the Bible as to Christs divinity Himself for Him to just have been a representative.. BUT, He was/is representative of God.. but that's not quite the same :teeth: IMHO.


Love an peace

JCA

[Jaltus]

I disagree that Christ said only the Father was good. He said only God is good, but He never denied that He Himself was good nor did He deny He was God.

Luke 18:18-19
18 A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
19 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good-- except God alone.


Matthew 19:16-17
16 Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
17 "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

[Socrates]

And when JCA can back up his opinions with Scripture, rather than his own speculations or confusions about what Scripture actually says, I'll listen.

[JCA]

Today @ 06:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=144922#post144922)
Jaltus:

I disagree that Christ said only the Father was good. He said only God is good, but He never denied that He Himself was good nor did He deny He was God.

Luke 18:18-19
18 A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
19 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good-- except God alone.


Matthew 19:16-17
16 Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
17 "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."


Nor did he ever say He was God either.. He said He and the Father are one.. that isn't the same thing either..

Also, so when, in Mat 5:16 Christ says the father is in Heaven.. He didn't mean God??

And by the reasoning of your logic, when this is said:

Mat 6:8
Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.

In conjunction with what is said above, only the Father knoweth all things.. does not Christ, being the same one God? Why is it not said plainly here?

So by saying God alone, Christ meant himself as God?? And it says that where exactly? Or is that just what you think was meant?

Also by that logic:

Mat 7:21
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

We do not do Christs will? Isn't He God? Why not say MY will?

And here, there is absolutely no distinction between the two entitities of course:

Mat 10:33
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Why not say "those who deny me, deny me in Heaven also"?

Ohh I get it.. God wanted to be obtuse!

Of course, this also means nothing:

Mat 3:16
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Hmm.. He saw His own Spirit descending upon Him.. so obviously He didn't have it before, right? Or He did, and this was simply for show??

And here:

Luk 2:49
And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

Unusual verbage.. why not just "go about MY business"?

And then there is always:

Joh 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Strange that God would tell us that none have seen Him, and yet we have seen Christ.. but we must not have, as He was/is God right??

Now... just to address the two scriptures posted:


Luke 18:18-19
18 A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
19 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good-- except God alone.


Matthew 19:16-17
16 Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
17 "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."


Who is God?

Joh 6:27
Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

Also, that Christ is OF God, but NOT God:

Joh 8:42
Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

Very clever that.. to not come of thyself, and yet come of thyself.. after all, He must have sent Himself.. Jeez some people really like to make it hard to understand..

Joh 8:54
Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:

Strange that if God honors Himself, it is nothing, and yet he honors Himself as He is God, right??

And how about:

Joh 10:36
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Once again, strange verbage.. why not "because I AM God"?

Looking at what the Bible DOES say, it says God and the Father are one.. and so the two verses quoted :

Luke 18:18-19
18 A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
19 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good-- except God alone.


Except God (The Father, as my scriptures point out) alone.. God the Father, not God the Son, or God the Christ.. but God (The Father) alone..

If you like, I can go on, but I feel it is only fair that I be given scripture that states catagorically that Jesus says "I am God.". not I and the Father are one, as that is explainable without Christ having to be God.. and does not directly indicate that He is God either..

But thank you Jaltus.

In Love and Peace

JCA

Edited for spelling..

[JCA]

Today @ 08:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=145002#post145002)
Socrates:

And when JCA can back up his opinions with Scripture, rather than his own speculations or confusions about what Scripture actually says, I'll listen.

Don't bother.. I thought you where different.. I just discovered by this post that what a lot of people say about you is true..

I don't care if you listen.. your opinionated self need not bother to condescend... plus, I'm tired of you running away when it gets down to you actually having to say something of real context - such as the other thread where I mention taxes.. Just in case you had forgotten: This Thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140132#post140132)

You wanted some verses.. here, just for you:

Mat 10:14
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

As you refuse to even listen.. you deserve nothing less.. and are nothing more.

Of course, I don't claim to be a disciple, or even always right.. not like some.. but the principle stands.

maybe when you can refute my point of view with actual scripture, and not someone elses opinion of it, then maybe I will have a change of heart.

In Love and Peace


JCA

[Arminian]

07-08-2003 @ 09:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=143912#post143912)
GrayPilgrim:

Another problem of with Wright became evident to me in a conversation this last week. (As an aside I want to do my doctoral dissertation on Leviticus 26 "The Covenant Blessings and Curses) I had just finsihed reading Galatians and and was mulling over the part where Paul says:



Now what curse is this? Does Paul mean that Christ took the Mosaic covenatn curses upon himself on the cross? This is in fact Wright's understanding of the crucifixion, that he took these curses upon himself so that he could end the exile. The problem is then how does Christ's cross work prove efficacious for the Gentile? Well if one were to even furhter back to the first curse and understand the crosswork as taking the Adamic curse to himself then this tension is solved. Morevover this very understanding will in fact satisfy the leitmotif of Christ as the second Adam much better than if Christ only took the curses of Leviticus and Deuteronomy to himself while he was on the tree.

GP


Wright says a number of strange things, but that's not one of them.

First of all, the context is what is mentioned just prior: "under the law." The Gentiles were not under the law, and the places where Paul uses the phrase refers to Jews (Rom. 6:14-15; 1 Cor. 9:20).

Now in reference to the "people of God," or "the Israel of God," references to the past would be Jewish, and references to the present would have no dividing line between the races.

So look at the verbs used in the context of what was said in Paul's argument for the identity of the people of God. 'we" were under the law's curse (3:10; 13) and had the law as a guardian (3:23-24). Paul wasn't speaking of Gentiles.

The reason to say that those under the law needed to be redeemed from a curse is because that's the exact opposite of what Paul's opposition is arguing. They are arguing that the Gentiles are cursed. Yes, they [the Jews] are part of Adam's curse (as Paul argues in Romans), but that's not the point he's making here. It's the same point being made in 4:1:

But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.


How dare Paul say those under the law need to be "redeemed" or "receive full rights as sons!" By saying such a thing Paul was making Jews equals with Gentiles!! He was saying that there was something they lacked! We know how much that infuriated Paul's opposition(!), whose argument was that the Gentiles were lacking (circumcision)!

But this is just a snapshot of the true exodus. As you mentioned before, it involves both Jews and Gentiles, because they were born under the first Adam. Now, however, there is not covering of sin under the law.

Morevover this very understanding will in fact satisfy the leitmotif of Christ as the second Adam much better if Christ only took the curses of Leviticus and Deuteronomy to himself while he was on the tree.

There is no implied "only" in Paul's comment, or Wright's. Rather, there is a focus regarding the claims of Paul's opposition.

The book is worth $80, but if you get it for less, that's great.

[Socrates]

Today @ 02:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=145157#post145157)
JCA:

Don't bother.. I thought you where different.. I just discovered by this post that what a lot of people say about you is true..

You mean those who elected me Member of the Month, pick me for Dean's List, give me pearls ... :yipee:

I don't care if you listen.. your opinionated self need not bother to condescend... plus, I'm tired of you running away ...

Sounds like you're parroting disgruntled infudgels who whinge when I stop wasting time with them :rant: -- since I'm one of the top ten posters here, obviously I have plenty of things to respond to. :jaltus:

when it gets down to you actually having to say something of real context -

You mean like my Dean's List posts? :rofl:

... such as the other thread where I mention taxes.. Just in case you had forgotten: This Thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140132#post140132)

I had forgotten, and I saw no point in it since I'd explained myself clearly. Everyone knows "hard cases make bad law".

You wanted some verses.. here, just for you:

Mat 10:14
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

Oh, so you're an Apostle now, despite your disdain for biblical authority. :troll:

As you refuse to even listen.. you deserve nothing less.. and are nothing more.

I'll listen to anyone with a sound biblical argument. You said so yourself (post#9) that was taking your post seriously and courteously.

maybe when you can refute my point of view with actual scripture,

Already done :saywhat:

... and not someone elses opinion of it, then maybe I will have a change of heart.

In Love and Peace

:egad:

[geebob]

"Jesus did not, in other words, 'know that he was God' in the same way that one knows one is male or female, hungry or thirsty, or that one ate an orange an hour ago. His 'knowledge' was of a more risky, but perhaps more significant sort: like knowing one is loved. One cannot 'prove' it except by living by it. (p. 653)"

I don't know what to make of that but I don't know that it is so scandelous. Wright believes that Jesus' knowledge of his identity of God was a more important sort of knowledge. He said in The challenge of Jesus that Jesus had the vocation of God.

And wright is still a trinitarian as he has said something to the effect that even if the trinity wasn't directly scriptural, scripture made a theory of the trinity necessary (and he was speaking of an old testament passage, one that is usually overlooked by those who argue Jesus' deity from the old testament).

[TWells]

Thanks geebob, do you know what scripture he's referring to?

[JCA]

Today @ 07:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=145347#post145347)
Socrates:

You mean those who elected me Member of the Month, pick me for Dean's List, give me pearls ... :yipee:

Obviously I don't, no :teeth:

Sounds like you're parroting disgruntled infudgels who whinge when I stop wasting time with them :rant: -- since I'm one of the top ten posters here, obviously I have plenty of things to respond to. :jaltus:

Ahh.. must be hard for you to keep craning the way you are.. why not rest your neck? :wink:

Nope, I made this observation myself several months ago.. and mentioned it then.. I said then that you condesceneded too much when it comes to talking and helping people.. just as I did of JP.. and just because you are one of the top ten posters, doesn't make you right.. geez what an ego.


You mean like my Dean's List posts? :rofl:

I've made the deans list too!!! Oh My!! My aren't you proud of that achievement.. :lol:


I had forgotten, and I saw no point in it since I'd explained myself clearly. Everyone knows "hard cases make bad law".


Nicw try at a dodge,. but no you didn't explain yourself.. there are questions there you have decided not to answer because they will make you have to make a point that goes against something you have said.. your full of it sometimes Socrates.. and that's one of the times. :bonk:

Also, it's not a hard case I proposed.. it is a very simple question.. you refuse to answer it, even as a simple question.


Oh, so you're an Apostle now, despite your disdain for biblical authority. :troll:


Quite funny that I knew you where going to be inane and make such a useless accusation, and thats why I addressed it by saying I not a disciple etc.. But of course, any way you can to take a person down right? They teach you to be that sad in Australia? Crane your neck, be proud of your learning so that you can lord it... all manner of things that you do to some people, JUST becasue they don't agree with what you post.

And that's what this is about.. I didn't sit down and say "Oh thank you mighty Socrates for your brillaint words, I will now go and worship you, as you have it all right, and everyone else has it all wrong.. YOU are indeed God!" :lol:

I disagreed with you.. you don't like that :teeth:


Good edifying, Soc.. :thumb:

Great job of helping people by showing them.. by leading by example.. :thumb:

Great delivery of the fruits of the spirit.. :thumb:


Shame you let it go to your head.


I'll listen to anyone with a sound biblical argument. You said so yourself (post#9) that was taking your post seriously and courteously.


Oh I have a sound biblical argument.. and it was working, until Jaltus posts something that isn't refuting what I said, just pointing something out, and you come up with your usual tactic that you use when it gets rough and people continue to disagree with you, and that is back out by claiming the other person isn't being scriptural.. do grow up. The scripture I have posted says what it says,and backs up what I say.. show that it doesn't.. or get off your neck..

And yes, as I said, for a while there you surprised me and where being courteous.. then you go and throw that out, and lost every shred of respect I had for you.

As I said, you don't want to listen.. you are just dust on my shoes..


Already done :saywhat:


Erm.. where exactly does your scriptures say that my theory is wrong?

You posted:

No, He said "No one is good but God alone" (Luke 18:19). He wanted to turn flattery back on the questioner to make sure he realised the implications of his question. It was important since the flattery was a challenge to Jesus in their honor-shame society -- see Did Jesus Deny Being Good, and Therefore Being Divine?

And that's not YOUR interpretation at all, right? God came down and told you this extra stuff about what Christ was thinking etc.. My, you are special aren't you.. and this refutes me how exactly?

Then you do what I said, which is to give me someone elses opinion.. when I had already stated before that there is no question of Christs divinity..

I have no problem with Christs Divinity, or concluding that as fully man He was capable of sin, just chose not to do it..

What else did you post:

For a very important reason -- The Book of Hebrews explains how Jesus took upon himself the nature of a man to save mankind (Hebrews 2:11–18). Seven centuries before this happened, the Prophet Isaiah spoke of Him as literally the ‘Kinsman-Redeemer,’ i.e. one who is related by blood to those he redeems (Isaiah 59:20, uses the same Hebrew word goel as used to describe Boaz in relation to Ruth).


And this refutes what I said how? I fully understand how Hebrews talks about Christ etc.. still doesn't say ANYWHERE that Christ IS God... care to show me the exact line of text where this is said???

:egad:

Oh I agree entirely..

:lol:


IN Love and Peace

JCA

[GrayPilgrim]

Today @ 04:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=145298#post145298)
Arminian:




Wright says a number of strange things, but that's not one of them.

First of all, the context is what is mentioned just prior: "under the law." The Gentiles were not under the law, and the places where Paul uses the phrase refers to Jews (Rom. 6:14-15; 1 Cor. 9:20).

Now in reference to the "people of God," or "the Israel of God," references to the past would be Jewish, and references to the present would have no dividing line between the races.

So look at the verbs used in the context of what was said in Paul's argument for the identity of the people of God. 'we" were under the law's curse (3:10; 13) and had the law as a guardian (3:23-24). Paul wasn't speaking of Gentiles.

The reason to say that those under the law needed to be redeemed from a curse is because that's the exact opposite of what Paul's opposition is arguing. They are arguing that the Gentiles are cursed. Yes, they [the Jews] are part of Adam's curse (as Paul argues in Romans), but that's not the point he's making here. It's the same point being made in 4:1:




How dare Paul say those under the law need to be "redeemed" or "receive full rights as sons!" By saying such a thing Paul was making Jews equals with Gentiles!! He was saying that there was something they lacked! We know how much that infuriated Paul's opposition(!), whose argument was that the Gentiles were lacking (circumcision)!

But this is just a snapshot of the true exodus. As you mentioned before, it involves both Jews and Gentiles, because they were born under the first Adam. Now, however, there is not covering of sin under the law.



There is no implied "only" in Paul's comment, or Wright's. Rather, there is a focus regarding the claims of Paul's opposition.

The book is worth $80, but if you get it for less, that's great.

Is that in his new book? Because that was the impression I got from JVG (It was actually one of Carson's students who keyed me to this over limiting of the crucifixion). I agree that the Jews needed to eb redeemed as well, it was the limiting that I find unsatisfactory though.

GP

[JCA]

Yesterday @ 06:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=144922#post144922)
Jaltus:

I disagree that Christ said only the Father was good. He said only God is good, but He never denied that He Himself was good nor did He deny He was God.

Luke 18:18-19
18 A certain ruler asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
19 "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good-- except God alone.


Matthew 19:16-17
16 Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
17 "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."


Jaltus, I apoligise if my previous response to yuor post seemd a little harsh.. it wasn't meant to be.. It ended up being more of a reply to Socrates than to you..

Also, I never denied that Christ was good, or that He said He was not good.. never entered my world view, not once.. I only stated that Christ had the ability due to being fully Man, to excersize His free will and be contrary to His nature... Yes, he COULD choose to do bad, BUT, that is not what Christ was about.. or what He was here to do for us.

However, I did want to ask you, seeing as you brought these up, how would you then address these 100 verses that point towards Christ and God being seperate?

100 NT scriptures showing that God and Jesus are different (http://www.heaven.net.nz/answers/answer08h.htm)

All of these seem to point at a difference between the two.. and so although Christ never said he was/is God, the Bible certainly has more points where he diferentiates himself from His Father (God)..

In fact, if you care to read more on my reasoning, you can find it here:
Heaven.Net.NZ (http://www.heaven.net.nz/answers/answer08.htm)

Also, as I have said many, many times before, I am not perfect.. I am human, and I too make mistakes and use my own judgment to make decisions, even if I do read/listen or study someone elses 'doctrine'.. I am prepared to face my judgment at any time for what I believe... and so please do not read everythign I say as a statement of absolute truth.. :smile:

Thanks..

I try and keep this in mind when talking to others, but it isn't easy when others have little idea what it means..

1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

If there are questions, I will gladly do my best to answer them for you.

Wasn't really expecting this thread to go this way, but seeing as it fits in with the topic, and why Wright would say such a thing (even if I don't think he has it all right), I see no reason not to take it to it's conclusion adn see where Wright may have been coming from.

Thanks again..

In Love and Peace :smile:

JCA

[Arminian]

Gray,

Is that in his new book? Because that was the impression I got from JVG (It was actually one of Carson's students who keyed me to this over limiting of the crucifixion). I agree that the Jews needed to eb redeemed as well, it was the limiting that I find unsatisfactory though.

I'm not sure what he is talking about. Wright was at Calvin Seminary last January and was joking about all the things he's been accused of. He made the point that if anyone (especially him) has a different understanding of a verse that is traditionally used as a proof-text for a particular doctrine, they will be accused of rejecting that very doctrine! It's just simplistic thinking on the part of many who are looking for something to complain about. (Wright is presently that seminary's favorite guest. The campus nearly shuts down every time he comes. Frankly, the way everyone was falling all over themselves and gushing in his presence was more than a little embarrassing.)

Now looking over this folder I see vague comments that are typical. Comments that he agrees with Sanders, as if to agree with Sanders on something (certainly not everything) is something evil. But no reason is given why that would be bad. The ignorant reader thinks they learned something, but really can't say what! That kind of student raises his/her hand on the first day of class and asks (in a condemning tone), "Dr. Moo, doesn't he agree with Sanders?" And I say, "Yes, on some things. So what's your point?" Silence follows.

Or how about the comment: "He's moving away from substitutionary atonement!"?? Those who are looking for demons will eat that up. But any thoughtful person asks the next question: "What do you mean?"

As for this book, Wright doesn't address Gal 3:13 in it, unless I missed it. As for the context of Paul's comment, if Wright did say that somewhere, he was correct, as many other commentators will agree.

[Sher]

After a post by JCA:

Socrates replied:

And when JCA can back up his opinions with Scripture, rather than his own speculations or confusions about what Scripture actually says, I'll listen.

Which sparked off by JCA :flaming: who ended his post with saying ...

JCA answering:

maybe when you can refute my point of view with actual scripture, and not someone elses opinion of it, then maybe I will have a change of heart.

Let's see, Soc's post ... :read:

Philippians 2:5-11
Luke 18:19
Hebrews 2:11–18
Isaiah 59:20
compare Romans 3:25 with 1 John 2:2

And JCA's posts ... :hrm: :huh:

.....................................





What scripturally backed point-of-view was that again, JCA?

:shersig: :sher:

Now come on you two ... buck-up and shake hands :smile:

[Arminian]

Gray,

Is that in his new book?

It starts on page 221. Looks like the typical comments that I would expect from any commentry (NP or non-NP) that was written after NP started.

[JCA]

Today @ 03:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=145716#post145716)
Sher:

After a post by JCA:



Which sparked off by JCA :flaming: who ended his post with saying ...



Let's see, Soc's post ... :read:

Philippians 2:5-11
Luke 18:19
Hebrews 2:11–18
Isaiah 59:20
compare Romans 3:25 with 1 John 2:2

And JCA's posts ... :hrm: :huh:

.....................................





What scripturally backed point-of-view was that again, JCA?

:shersig:

:sher:

I admit, my support from scripture came afterwards.. however, I addressed that to you in a PM..

Did you miss this post? Scriptural excerts (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=145150#post145150)

I mention:

Mat 5:16
Mat 6:8
Mat 7:21
Mat 10:33
Mat 3:16
Luk 2:49
Joh 1:18
Joh 6:27
Joh 8:42
Joh 8:54
Joh 10:36

And then, in a later post to Jaltus, give links to 100 NT verses that back-up the reasoning I made..

Did you miss them?


In Love and Peace

JCA

[geebob]

"Dr. Moo, doesn't he agree with Sanders (with a condemning tone)?" And I say, "Yes, on some things. So what's your point?" Silence follows.

:hrm:

Thanks geebob, do you know what scripture he's referring to?

He refers to texts such as Danial 7:9 and he points out that Rabbi Akiba said the thrones reffered to included one for God and one for David and Akiba's candidate for David's throne was not david himself but Bar Kochba. His point here was that the monotheism of first century Judaism was not a simple one and was not threatened by the messiah's claim to deity.

I don't know if this is it. I recall something similar to this and wright concluding that a trinitarian conception would be necessary in light of it.

This isn't a philosophically tight arguement mind you. It is instead, a historical arguement.

[Arminian]

:hrm:

:uhoh:

[JCA]

First, let me apologise to TWells... I didn't mean to hijack your thread, or turn it into a mega-discussion.. I'm sorry if I have for you.

I still feel that Wright was basing some of his thoughts in the things I have spoken about, and the scriptures I have given.. I do not comment on the right or wrong of what he says, only that I understand where he is coming from, as I have looked at the Trinity pretty heavily myself in trying to come to grips with it.

In fact, if you think about the WORD being made Christ.. and what the WORD was before Christ (them being two stages of the same being - much like a caterpillar into a butterfly), then it is not too far fetched to see Christ as Gods spokesperson.. which in a way, He most certainly was..

That was what I was trying to show and talk about in my initial posts.

From there, it seemed to turn into something more when answering Socrates.. when the post was made about not listening anymore until because I lacked scriptural support, and instead of just asking me to provide it, was put in a way that totally demeened everything I had said up until that point, I too became 'fully human' and reacted.. maybe not in the best way..

And so I apologise to others in the thread also if my last few posts seem a little 'tense' and defensive.. my intention is only to share.. to give and take of the truth that comes across this board.. and to learn where there is learning to be done.

I would hope that Socrates would find it in his heart NOT to ignore what I have posted, and to at least listen to what I am trying to say, even if he doesn't agree with it.. It is the same respect and curtesy he expects, and is given. If there is correction to be done in what I believe, then I would expect it to be done in the spirit of a Teacher.. if it cannot, then have respect enough for me not to try.

Once again, I apologise to all if my beliefs have offended anyone, or if my posts have been overly rude and overkill.


IN Love and Peace, and all sincerity..

JCA

[TWells]

First, let me apologise to TWells... I didn't mean to hijack your thread, or turn it into a mega-discussion.. I'm sorry if I have for you.

No reason to apologize, its given me food for thought. :cheers:

[GrayPilgrim]

Today @ 01:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=145668#post145668)
Arminian:

Gray,


As for this book, Wright doesn't address Gal 3:13 in it, unless I missed it. As for the context of Paul's comment, if Wright did say that somewhere, he was correct, as many other commentators will agree.

Let me clarify briefly. I did not mean to imply that Wright referred to this passage in particular. THis is how the conversation evolved.


GP reads Galatians
GP is cogitating
GP wonders, hmmm, does Paul's "Christ is accursed" refer to the covenant curses of Deut., since he quoted Deuteronmy?
GP talks to x.
x says that this overly narrow view fails to take in the Gentiles and the Edenic curse as well as the Gentiles, and x brings up this in relation to Wright

That is how this conversation developed and my previous post. I'll confess my one reading of JAVOG was less than thorough. I did what Dr. Nyquist used to refer as the "Trinity Shuffle". YOu know where one places a fan to the right side of the book and looks as the pages as they flip. Thus when you have to read 3000 pages in 3 weeks for all of your classes. I read the first half well, but then the second half proceeded in a somewhat similar manner as described above.:stupid:

[Arminian]

Gray,

GP reads Galatians

GP is cogitating

GP wonders, hmmm, does Paul's "Christ is accursed" refer to the covenant curses of Deut., since he quoted Deuteronmy?

GP talks to x.

x says that this overly narrow view fails to take in the Gentiles and the Edenic curse as well as the Gentiles, and x brings up this in relation to Wright


That is how this conversation developed and my previous post. I'll confess my one reading of JAVOG was less than thorough. I did what Dr. Nyquist used to refer as the "Trinity Shuffle". YOu know where one places a fan to the right side of the book and looks as the pages as they flip. Thus when you have to read 3000 pages in 3 weeks for all of your classes. I read the first half well, but then the second half proceeded in a somewhat similar manner as described above.

I understand, totally. Give my regards to Mr. X.

[Solly]

"Dr. Moo, doesn't he agree with Sanders (with a condemning tone)?" And I say, "Yes, on some things. So what's your point?" Silence follows.

Arminian, change your sig line to Moo again


slly5

[Socrates]

Yesterday @ 10:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=145958#post145958)
JCA:

From there, it seemed to turn into something more when answering Socrates.. when the post was made about not listening anymore until because I lacked scriptural support, and instead of just asking me to provide it, was put in a way that totally demeened everything I had said up until that point, I too became 'fully human' and reacted.. maybe not in the best way..

I didn't mean to, but on reflection I can see how it could have justifiably been taken that way, so apologies for that. I should have asked more diplomatically.

I would hope that Socrates would find it in his heart NOT to ignore what I have posted, and to at least listen to what I am trying to say, even if he doesn't agree with it..

OK then.

IN Love and Peace, and all sincerity.

I believe you. :cheers:

Soc.