Derail from Orthodox Anathema Service on Christology

[37818]

By the way, doesn't "Eternal Father" show up somewhere in Isaiah?

". . . For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. . . ." -- Isaiah 9:6.

[Bisto]

". . . For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. . . ." -- Isaiah 9:6.

Ah right. I remember someone translated that as "he shall be called that BY...". I guess it was the Jewish reading.

Anyhow, what do you think about Love? Was God Love before all ages? The man you quote says that Jesus's Sonship is pretty much an Incarnation-onwards-only phenomenon. In the beginning was the Word, who was with God and was himself God. So, did the Father not love the Word as his Son "in the beginning", before all ages? Did not the Word love God as a Father "in the beginning", before all ages? Is their filial relationship truly based on our filial relationships? Did their relationship change when the Word became flesh? Did God's relationship (and how we are best to understand it) change when He, eternal and sovereign, mercifully reached out to save us, finite and tiny?

[37818]

Ah right. I remember someone translated that as "he shall be called that BY...". I guess it was the Jewish reading.

". . . his name shall be called . . ." He is not the Father, but fully represents the Father (John 14:6, 9; 1 Timothy 2:5). He is God with the Father. And the Son with God.

Anyhow, what do you think about Love? Was God Love before all ages?

Yes and no. God is the metaphor for love (1 John 4:8, 16; 1 John 4:7-9). He is not the thing we call love. But in that He is the true source of love (1 Corinthians 13:4-8; Galatians 5:22-23).

The man you quote says that Jesus's Sonship is pretty much an Incarnation-onwards-only phenomenon.

Yes, and I do not agree with that limitation.

In the beginning was the Word, who was with God and was himself God. So, did the Father not love the Word as his Son "in the beginning", before all ages?

Of course He always loved the Father, and the Father loved Him.

Did not the Word love God as a Father "in the beginning", before all ages?

Absolutely.

Is their filial relationship truly based on our filial relationships?

No. It is the other way around (Genesis 1:26).

Did their relationship change when the Word became flesh?

I do not believe so.

Did God's relationship (and how we are best to understand it) change when He, eternal and sovereign, mercifully reached out to save us, finite and tiny?

God does not change (Malachi 3:6), so no. It is we who are finite and tiny. Not God's love (John 3:16). While I believe God's love is conditional, it is also without any merit on our part that we can obtain it (1 John 4:10).

The Word, the Logos was always a different person than God. Being "with God" John 1:1,2. Even as the Word, the Logos was also always the LORD God (John 1:1, "was God," Creator John 1:3, 10, Colossians 1:16, 17, Ephesians 3:9-19). The only thing which changed with the Word, the Logos, in the incarnation was how He was with God. Not that He was God, that did not change.

[Bisto]

". . . his name shall be called . . ." He is not the Father, but fully represents the Father (John 14:6, 9; 1 Timothy 2:5). He is God with the Father. And the Son with God.

Okay. Let's roll with the Christian translation.

I just fininshed reading the thread. Somewhere you said you agree with everything orthodox except the "begotten" part (and your "two natures before Incarnation" idea, but I believe we can treat both topics separately). Correct?

So, I wish to continue asking questions to see where is the issue, if that's alright with you. So far I don't think you ultimately disagree with the usual Christology that much, I get it's more a vocabulary thing and what you mean with it vs. what others mean (admittedly, most everyone else, it would seem).

Yes and no. God is the metaphor for love (1 John 4:8, 16; 1 John 4:7-9). He is not the thing we call love. But in that He is the true source of love (1 Corinthians 13:4-8; Galatians 5:22-23).

Okay, here is the thing. If the Son was unbegotten as you say, just like the Father was, then why are they Father and Son? Why isn't it more natural for them to be Brothers or something like that, if that is indeed the case?

You compare the "begotten before the ages" line with two straight lines that intersect "in infinity" and therefore they never intersect, but like others explained, said line rather attempts to say that the Father begets the Son outside time, in a logical, ontological way. The Son finds his being in the Father, reflects the Father, comes from the Father, is the proper offspring of the Father, the radiance of the Father's glory, the exact expression of the Father's character, etc. All these point to the idea that the Son in a very real sense finds his "beginning" in the Father. There is a fundamental difference of some kind between the Father and the Son, a real sense in which "the Father is greater than I", as Jesus said. How do you describe that difference? Why is it like that?

Yes, and I do not agree with that limitation.

Of course He always loved the Father, and the Father loved Him.

Absolutely.
No. It is the other way around (Genesis 1:26).

I do not believe so.
God does not change (Malachi 3:6), so no. It is we who are finite and tiny. Not God's love (John 3:16). While I believe God's love is conditional, it is also without any merit on our part that we can obtain it (1 John 4:10).

Okay, I guess we agree on those things then. (I'll leave my ideas on "conditional love" apart, since it's off-topic.)

The Word, the Logos was always a different person than God. Being "with God" John 1:1,2. Even as the Word, the Logos was also always the LORD God (John 1:1, "was God," Creator John 1:3, 10, Colossians 1:16, 17, Ephesians 3:9-19). The only thing which changed with the Word, the Logos, in the incarnation was how He was with God. Not that He was God, that did not change.

Okay, let's check John 1:1.
Usually, when talking about YHWH (the LORD God) we mean "God", deity, Creator, Lord, the Trinity as a whole, the One who is to be worshipped. Correct?
Consequently, any of the three Persons of the Trinity can be properly called YHWH (the LORD), God, deity, Creator, Lord, and be rightly worshipped as such. The three Persons are all fully divine. Correct?

So if we distinguish between the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and God as a whole (the "essence"), do you read John 1:1 as follows, or not?:
In the beginning was the Word (the Son), and the Word (the Son) was with God (the Father), and the Word (the Son) was God (deity, divine, a member of the Godhead, one in the Trinity, etc.).



Another thing: can you defend your rejection of Jesus being God's Wisdom? Chrawnus provided some very strong data in favor of it. How do you explain it?

You say that since in a very real sense Jesus is YHWH (true), then YHWH's Wisdom must be Jesus's wisdom, as opposed to the Father's Wisdom. Your point about Wisdom's gender has already been shown to be a non-issue in context. As for the rest, you would have that:

• Jesus used a mediator to create, that is, Wisdom, who helped Him (and the Father, and the Spirit) during creation (and one who must himself/herself somehow count as being a "part" of God, since elsewhere YHWH says he used no outside help to create),
• the same one who was begotten from YHWH (the Son here) before creation,
• the same one who served as mediator to man who dispenses life and favor from YHWH(Son),
• the same one who claimed to be the owner and dispenser of power, and appointer of rulers,
• the same one who inter-testamental Jews understood to be the radiance of YHWH(Son), and the perfect expression of His character, and one who ministers at a heavenly tabernacle in a priestly role,
• the same one who was equated with the Memra/Word/Logos of God/YHWH(Son), etc...
• and finally, the same one who the NT writers, even Jesus Himself, confusingly seemed to equate with Jesus (the Word/Logos of God). Many of Wisdom's OT roles are attributed to Him in the NT.

While the alternative, which you reject, is that Wisdom is another "title" for the Son Himself, who is the Wisdom of YHWH(Father). He performed all these things, as is said of Him in the OT, inter-testamental literature, and NT, a role he consciously fulfilled while He walked the earth, and which NT writers understood and acknowledged in no uncertain terms.

Doesn't it seem odd to you to reject the latter and accept the former? If you don't see it this way, then how do you explain the data?

[37818]

Okay. Let's roll with the Christian translation.

". . . For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele- joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom; . . ." -- Isaiah 9:6 (9:5} Jewish Publication Society 1917.

Scripture Verse: Isaiah 9:5 - Tanakh (Jewish Bible) The Judaica Press.

. . . For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace.". . .

© Copyright Original Source

I just fininshed reading the thread. Somewhere you said you agree with everything orthodox except the "begotten" part (and your "two natures before Incarnation" idea, but I believe we can treat both topics separately). Correct?

OK.

So, I wish to continue asking questions to see where is the issue, if that's alright with you. So far I don't think you ultimately disagree with the usual Christology that much, I get it's more a vocabulary thing and what you mean with it vs. what others mean (admittedly, most everyone else, it would seem).



Okay, here is the thing. If the Son was unbegotten as you say, just like the Father was, then why are they Father and Son? Why isn't it more natural for them to be Brothers or something like that, if that is indeed the case?

The relationship is eternal. And has no beginning and no end. He is the Uniquely Existant (translated as "Only-Begotten" John 1:14, 18 etc.)

You compare the "begotten before the ages" line with two straight lines that intersect "in infinity" and therefore they never intersect, but like others explained, said line rather attempts to say that the Father begets the Son outside time, in a logical, ontological way. The Son finds his being in the Father, reflects the Father, comes from the Father, is the proper offspring of the Father, the radiance of the Father's glory, the exact expression of the Father's character, etc.

Yes. And I was trying to find some common ground, a compromise, to allow this idea of unscriptural "begotten" interpretation in some way.

All these point to the idea that the Son in a very real sense finds his "beginning" in the Father.

Not true. Rather that God the Father as the Source without any "beginning" for them being the Father and the Son.

There is a fundamental difference of some kind between the Father and the Son, a real sense in which "the Father is greater than I", as Jesus said. How do you describe that difference? Why is it like that?

". . . Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. . .." -- John 13:16. Jesus was sent in the incarnation.

Okay, I guess we agree on those things then. (I'll leave my ideas on "conditional love" apart, since it's off-topic.)

Yes, and another issue (Psalm 5:5).

Okay, let's check John 1:1.
Usually, when talking about YHWH (the LORD God) we mean "God", deity, Creator, Lord, the Trinity as a whole, the One who is to be worshipped. Correct?

Yes. The three Persons are the One YHWH. YHWH is the Name and identity of God. The three Persons are not parts pf Gpd but are each the whole God without division. Not to conflate persons with deity. There is only One God.

Consequently, any of the three Persons of the Trinity can be properly called YHWH (the LORD), God, deity, Creator, Lord, and be rightly worshipped as such. The three Persons are all fully divine. Correct?

Absolutely.

So if we distinguish between the Father, the Son, the Spirit, and God as a whole (the "essence"), do you read John 1:1 as follows, or not?:
In the beginning was the Word (the Son), and the Word (the Son) was with God (the Father), and the Word (the Son) was God (deity, divine, a member of the Godhead, one in the Trinity, etc.).

One can. But note the text uses deity "with God" not the person "with the Father." As Father, Son and Holy Spirit they are the one YHWH. What is important in John 1:1 is that the Word was both "with God" (vs. 1, 2) and "was God" (v.1). Being both someone other than God and God too. The Word being both eternal being God and having a temporal relationship with God the Father. The relationship is both eternal and temporal. And it is the preincarnate Word, the Logos, identified as the Son (John 1:14, 18) who acted and appears for God in temporal ways. The Son as YHWH is God the uncaused cause (Genesis 1:1, 26; John 1:3, 10; Colossians 1:16, 17, Ephesians 3:9-15). Uncaused cause is both eternal and temporal. Uncaused is being eternal without beginning. All causes cause temporal effects. Hence all causes are temporal.

Another thing: can you defend your rejection of Jesus being God's Wisdom? Chrawnus provided some very strong data in favor of it. How do you explain it?

He is the LORD God of Proverbs 8:22. And wisdom and understanding are two (Proverbs 7:4) of the 7 spirits of God. The first being the Holy Spirit and the other 6 being wisdom and understanding, council and might, along with spirt of knowledge and fear of the LORD (Isaiah 11:2; Zechariah 4:10; Revelation 5:6).

You say that since in a very real sense Jesus is YHWH (true), then YHWH's Wisdom must be Jesus's wisdom, as opposed to the Father's Wisdom. Your point about Wisdom's gender has already been shown to be a non-issue in context.

The Hebrew for spirit is feminine. And that is the reason of that.

As for the rest, you would have that:
[list][*]Jesus used a mediator to create, that is, Wisdom, who helped Him (and the Father, and the Spirit) during creation (and one who must himself/herself somehow count as being a "part" of God, since elsewhere YHWH says he used no outside help to create),[list]

The Logos is the mediator who as YHWH is the Creator. Who possesses those 7 spirits. One of which is His Holy Spirit.

• the same one who was begotten from YHWH (the Son here) before creation,

Not true. There is no place in the word of God which teaches that false dogma. The Creator is YHWH (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16, 17). See Isaiah 6:5 and John 12:41 for example. See Acts 10:43, what Name do all the prophets use?

• the same one who served as mediator to man who dispenses life and favor from YHWH(Son),

He has always been the mediator before His incarnation (John 1:18; Ephesians 3:9).

• the same one who claimed to be the owner and dispenser of power, and appointer of rulers,

The Son is YHWH of the OT on behalf if the Father.

• the same one who inter-testamental Jews understood to be the radiance of YHWH(Son), and the perfect expression of His character, and one who ministers at a heavenly tabernacle in a priestly role,
• the same one who was equated with the Memra/Word/Logos of God/YHWH(Son), etc...
• and finally, the same one who the NT writers, even Jesus Himself, confusingly seemed to equate with Jesus (the Word/Logos of God). Many of Wisdom's OT roles are attributed to Him in the NT.

Cite them.

While the alternative, which you reject, is that Wisdom is another "title" for the Son Himself, who is the Wisdom of YHWH(Father). He performed all these things, as is said of Him in the OT, inter-testamental literature, and NT, a role he consciously fulfilled while He walked the earth, and which NT writers understood and acknowledged in no uncertain terms.

This needs to be dealt with, refer by reference. I believe I proved the correct answers. The preincarnate Son of God is YHWH of the OT (Proverbs 8:22). This is a separate issue too.

Doesn't it seem odd to you to reject the latter and accept the former? If you don't see it this way, then how do you explain the data?

Please see above. We can readdresses points separately as needed. There are more than just two issues here.

[Bisto]

". . . For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele- joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom; . . ." -- Isaiah 9:6 (9:5} Jewish Publication Society 1917.

Scripture Verse: Isaiah 9:5 - Tanakh (Jewish Bible) The Judaica Press.

. . . For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace.". . .

© Copyright Original Source

OK.

I like both but I'll skip it. After all, you do believe in the Father's Fatherhood and the Son's Sonship being eternal/everlasting.

The relationship is eternal. And has no beginning and no end...

Why is it like that then? Why did Jesus always treat the Father as his Father? Because he finds his Source in the Father? And why did the Father always treat the Word as his Son? Because he "flows forth" from Him? Isn't this what one means when talking of Jesus' eternal generation or "birth", so to call it?

He is the Uniquely Existant (translated as "Only-Begotten" John 1:14, 18 etc.)

I don't really think this translation bit is quite clear. From what I saw, NT usage of "monogenes" can be classified into two groups: (1) in John's writings it's used to speak about Jesus, and (2) outside of John's material (Luke and Hebrews), it's used of children who seem to be their parents' only children. (http://www.biblehub.com/greek/strongs_3439.htm)

With this, I don't think one could show that John wants "only begotten" to be understood differently when applied to Jesus from its use elsewhere. You could argue that, sure, but I don't see how you could prove it. For example, I'm not sure whether this might relate (if at all) to the fact that John uses "huios" (son) only of Jesus and never of believers.

Yes. And I was trying to find some common ground, a compromise, to allow this idea of unscriptural "begotten" interpretation in some way.
Not true. Rather that God the Father as the Source without any "beginning" for them being the Father and the Son.

Do you not think that is what one MEANS when talking about the Son finding His "beginning" in the Father -- that the Father is His source?

". . . Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. . .." -- John 13:16. Jesus was sent in the incarnation.

Why him and not the other way around? Why does the Son loyally submit to the Father?

As an aside, I've always thought that those theologians who see Jesus' "functional subordination" to the Father as some deterrent to His full deity and as something exclusive to His incarnation are making an argument a little, I don't know, odd. It's as if loyal submission like that of Jesus to the Father wasn't something good and honorable in itself, something divine, etc.

Yes, and another issue (Psalm 5:5).

All I can say is, great quote.

Yes. The three Persons are the One YHWH. YHWH is the Name and identity of God. The three Persons are not parts pf Gpd but are each the whole God without division. Not to conflate persons with deity. There is only One God.
Absolutely.

Okay.

One can. But note the text uses deity "with God" not the person "with the Father." As Father, Son and Holy Spirit they are the one YHWH. What is important in John 1:1 is that the Word was both "with God" (vs. 1, 2) and "was God" (v.1). Being both someone other than God and God too. The Word being both eternal being God and having a temporal relationship with God the Father. The relationship is both eternal and temporal. And it is the preincarnate Word, the Logos, identified as the Son (John 1:14, 18) who acted and appears for God in temporal ways. The Son as YHWH is God the uncaused cause (Genesis 1:1, 26; John 1:3, 10; Colossians 1:16, 17, Ephesians 3:9-15). Uncaused cause is both eternal and temporal. Uncaused is being eternal without beginning. All causes cause temporal effects. Hence all causes are temporal.

I agree that theologically it would be the Son's role to do theophanic duties in the OT. But like others said in this thread before, the assumption that every time YHWH is mentioned we must read the Son is itself unwarranted. In that model, is the Father uniquely referenced at all in the Bible apart from those times he is explicitly called "Father" in the NT? What do you make of OT texts where YHWH speaks to/about someone else who happens to be Jesus in the end?

He is the LORD God of Proverbs 8:22. And wisdom and understanding are two (Proverbs 7:4) of the 7 spirits of God. The first being the Holy Spirit and the other 6 being wisdom and understanding, council and might, along with spirt of knowledge and fear of the LORD (Isaiah 11:2; Zechariah 4:10; Revelation 5:6).
The Hebrew for spirit is feminine. And that is the reason of that.

Okay. Is that it? Because I don't really think any of this proves your position against the Jesus=Wisdom one.

The Logos is the mediator who as YHWH is the Creator. Who possesses those 7 spirits. One of which is His Holy Spirit.

Not true. There is no place in the word of God which teaches that false dogma. The Creator is YHWH (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16, 17). See Isaiah 6:5 and John 12:41 for example. See Acts 10:43, what Name do all the prophets use?
He has always been the mediator before His incarnation (John 1:18; Ephesians 3:9).
The Son is YHWH of the OT on behalf if the Father.
Cite them.
This needs to be dealt with, refer by reference. I believe I proved the correct answers. The preincarnate Son of God is YHWH of the OT (Proverbs 8:22). This is a separate issue too.
Please see above. We can readdresses points separately as needed. There are more than just two issues here.

I believe you misunderstood what I meant with those points. I wasn't talking about the Son there. I was talking about Wisdom, as I said "the same one who...".

• Wisdom serves as YHWH's agent of creation in the OT.
• Wisdom is spoken of as "begotten" from YHWH before creation.
• Wisdom claims to dispense/own power and rulership.
• Wisdom claims to give life and favor from YHWH to man.
• Wisdom was understood by inter-testamental Jews to be a radiance from YHWH, and the expression of YHWH, and one who ministers as a priest before YHWH, and the firstborn of YHWH.
• Wisdom was pretty much equated with the Memra, or Word, of YHWH (or in Greek, the Logos of God). Perhaps we should add that the Word of God itself is personified here and there in the OT and displays similar functions to those of Wisdom.
• Now that I remember, Wisdom also said she would pour out her spirit (Spirit?) from above.

Moving on to the NT:

• Jesus is said to be the Father's agent of creation, the Father's "only begotten" Son, the giver/appointer of all power and rulership, the giver of life and favor from the Father, the radiance of the Father, the expression of His character, our High Priest before the Father, the Firstborn of the Father, and the Word (Logos) of God. He also sends the Holy Spirit with the Father (and the Spirit also gets called the Spirit of Jesus/Christ/the Son).
• Jesus hangs out with the social outcasts and those lacking in wisdom, eating with them, etc., those same people whom Wisdom reached out to and claimed to have prepared meals for.
• Jesus speaks at times of having no place for Himself on earth, like Wisdom claimed when she came to Earth in wisdom literature.
• Among other things, Jesus claims to be greater than the wisest king ever. The connection there is simple.
• The little speech in Matt. 23:34-35 is spoken by Jesus to the scribes and Pharisees. In the parallel Luke 11:49-51, Jesus puts the same speech in the mouth of the Wisdom of God. Consider the implications: were both interchangeable to the eyes of the Evangelists? If Jesus got his quote from somewhere in Luke, why does he says it himself in Matthew? Is he referring to Himself in Luke, and Matthew is just making it clearer?
• Jesus gets called "Wisdom of God and Power of God" by Paul in 1 Cor. 1.
• Jesus gets called the Beginning of God's creation in Rev. 3 in a way that might remind you of Wisdom's role in Prov. 8.
• I think more points could be added. Chrawnus posted some links to Tektonics with these and more. Perhaps the least of which, for this particular topic, is that Jesus is commonly understood as being "begotten" of the Father.

So, how do you explain this data? Why should one give more weight to your case (Wisdom is NOT Jesus), rather than the opposite (Wisdom is Jesus)?

[37818]

The relationship is eternal. And has no beginning and no end...

Why is it like that then?

". . . Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou [art] God." -- Psalm 90:2.

"Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what [is] his name, and what [is] his son's name, if thou canst tell?" -- Proverbs 30:4.

"For I [am] the LORD, I change not; . . . " -- Malachi 3:6.

Why did Jesus always treat the Father as his Father? Because he finds his Source in the Father?

". . . I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. . . ." -- John 5:20.

And why did the Father always treat the Word as his Son?

Because it was always what was true. See above references. ". . . I and [my] Father are one. . . ." -- John 10:30. ". . . no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. . . ." -- John 14:6.

Because he "flows forth" from Him?

That concept is alien in the word of God regarding the Son of God.

Isn't this what one means when talking of Jesus' eternal generation or "birth", so to call it?

That is alien to God's word regarding the preincarnate Word (John 1:14; 1 John 4:9). The Greek translated "only-begotten" does not have that meaning.

I don't really think this translation bit is quite clear. From what I saw, NT usage of "monogenes" can be classified into two groups: (1) in John's writings it's used to speak about Jesus, and (2) outside of John's material (Luke and Hebrews), it's used of children who seem to be their parents' only children. (http://www.biblehub.com/greek/strongs_3439.htm)

The rendering in the sense of "only-begotten" in the Latin Vulgate "unigenitum" and English translation. Most other translations it is translated with the meaning of "unique."

With this, I don't think one could show that John wants "only begotten" to be understood differently when applied to Jesus from its use elsewhere. You could argue that, sure, but I don't see how you could prove it. For example, I'm not sure whether this might relate (if at all) to the fact that John uses "huios" (son) only of Jesus and never of believers.

The Greek John used is not at issue. The misinterpretation derived from it is. That Greek translated "only-begotten" does not mean "born."

Yes. And I was trying to find some common ground, a compromise, to allow this idea of unscriptural "begotten" interpretation in some way.
Not true. Rather that God the Father as the Source without any "beginning" for them being the Father and the Son.

Do you not think that is what one MEANS when talking about the Son finding His "beginning" in the Father -- that the Father is His source?

There is no "beginning" with God and the Son of God. Creation has a beginning (John 1:1, 3; Genesis 1:1).

". . . Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. . .." -- John 13:16. Jesus was sent in the incarnation.

Why him and not the other way around? Why does the Son loyally submit to the Father?

Being "with God" is being some one other than God. And being another entity. Now God as an entity is only one, without parts or division. God would have to have changed. The Word always could change and He the Word was also God, ". . . was God." He/the Word/the Son was the one who walked in the garden. ". . . they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden . . ." -- Genesis 3:8. The Father acts through and by reason of the Son. So this has always been. ". . . a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." -- Matthew 17:5. And later, ". . . Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?" -- John 14:9.

As an aside, I've always thought that those theologians who see Jesus' "functional subordination" to the Father as some deterrent to His full deity and as something exclusive to His incarnation are making an argument a little, I don't know, odd. It's as if loyal submission like that of Jesus to the Father wasn't something good and honorable in itself, something divine, etc.

As persons there is subordination. As God they are the one and the same God. Co-equal and co-eternal. Note this, ". . . but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.. . ." -- John 5:18. The unbelieving Jews of Jesus' day understood that much.

I agree that theologically it would be the Son's role to do theophanic duties in the OT. But like others said in this thread before, the assumption that every time YHWH is mentioned we must read the Son is itself unwarranted. In that model, is the Father uniquely referenced at all in the Bible apart from those times he is explicitly called "Father" in the NT?

Also in the OT, ". . . Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? . . ." -- Malachi 2:10.

What do you make of OT texts where YHWH speaks to/about someone else who happens to be Jesus in the end?

The Son of God is God's temporal agent. ". . . All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. . . ." -- John 1:3 (Provebs 30:4; Colossians 1:16-17). If there was no Son of God then there would be no creation, but then there would be only God and God would not be the Father. But they always were.

Okay. Is that it? Because I don't really think any of this proves your position against the Jesus=Wisdom one.

You do not understand this do you? If the eyes of the Lamb (Revelation 5:6; Zechariah 4:10) and two of those spirits of God are wisdom and understanding (Proverbs 7 & 8). Is the Lamb His eye the spirit of wisdom? (Matthew 2:23 - Isaiah 11:1-2). The Lamb also being the LORD (Zechariah 4:10).

I believe you misunderstood what I meant with those points. I wasn't talking about the Son there. I was talking about Wisdom, as I said "the same one who...".

• Wisdom serves as YHWH's agent of creation in the OT.
• Wisdom is spoken of as "begotten" from YHWH before creation.
• Wisdom claims to dispense/own power and rulership.
• Wisdom claims to give life and favor from YHWH to man.
• Wisdom was understood by inter-testamental Jews to be a radiance from YHWH, and the expression of YHWH, and one who ministers as a priest before YHWH, and the firstborn of YHWH.
• Wisdom was pretty much equated with the Memra, or Word, of YHWH (or in Greek, the Logos of God). Perhaps we should add that the Word of God itself is personified here and there in the OT and displays similar functions to those of Wisdom.
• Now that I remember, Wisdom also said she would pour out her spirit (Spirit?) from above.

Please give each supporting scripture reference. There is a difference between interpretation and explicit teaching of the word of God.

Moving on to the NT:

• Jesus is said to be the Father's agent of creation, the Father's "only begotten" Son, the giver/appointer of all power and rulership, the giver of life and favor from the Father, the radiance of the Father, the expression of His character, our High Priest before the Father, the Firstborn of the Father, and the Word (Logos) of God. He also sends the Holy Spirit with the Father (and the Spirit also gets called the Spirit of Jesus/Christ/the Son).
• Jesus hangs out with the social outcasts and those lacking in wisdom, eating with them, etc., those same people whom Wisdom reached out to and claimed to have prepared meals for.
• Jesus speaks at times of having no place for Himself on earth, like Wisdom claimed when she came to Earth in wisdom literature.
• Among other things, Jesus claims to be greater than the wisest king ever. The connection there is simple.
• The little speech in Matt. 23:34-35 is spoken by Jesus to the scribes and Pharisees. In the parallel Luke 11:49-51, Jesus puts the same speech in the mouth of the Wisdom of God. Consider the implications: were both interchangeable to the eyes of the Evangelists? If Jesus got his quote from somewhere in Luke, why does he says it himself in Matthew? Is he referring to Himself in Luke, and Matthew is just making it clearer?
• Jesus gets called "Wisdom of God and Power of God" by Paul in 1 Cor. 1.
• Jesus gets called the Beginning of God's creation in Rev. 3 in a way that might remind you of Wisdom's role in Prov. 8.
• I think more points could be added. Chrawnus posted some links to Tektonics with these and more. Perhaps the least of which, for this particular topic, is that Jesus is commonly understood as being "begotten" of the Father.

So, how do you explain this data? Why should one give more weight to your case (Wisdom is NOT Jesus), rather than the opposite (Wisdom is Jesus)?

I'm going to pick this this one:

• The little speech in Matt. 23:34-35 is spoken by Jesus to the scribes and Pharisees. In the parallel Luke 11:49-51, Jesus puts the same speech in the mouth of the Wisdom of God. Consider the implications: were both interchangeable to the eyes of the Evangelists? If Jesus got his quote from somewhere in Luke, why does he says it himself in Matthew? Is he referring to Himself in Luke, and Matthew is just making it clearer?

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

And this one:

• Jesus gets called the Beginning of God's creation in Rev. 3 in a way that might remind you of Wisdom's role in Prov. 8.

Revelation 3:14, ". . . saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; . . ." Jesus in His incarnation and resurrection is the beginning of the new heaven and earth to come. ". . . who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; . . ." -- Colossians 1:18. ". . . For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. . . . . . of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. . . ." -- Romans 8:22, 28.
This is how I understand this. Colossions 1:15 is regarding Christ's resurrection ". . . the firstborn of every creature: . . ." Which in His preexistence created. That ". . . that in all [things] he might have the preeminence." (v.18). Both as Creator and creature. i.e. incarnation and resurrection.

Now if you want me to comment on the rest. Please one thing at a time.

[Bisto]

". . . Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou [art] God." -- Psalm 90:2.

"Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what [is] his name, and what [is] his son's name, if thou canst tell?" -- Proverbs 30:4.

"For I [am] the LORD, I change not; . . . " -- Malachi 3:6.

All these quotes show that God is eternal.

". . . I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. . . ." -- John 5:20.
Because it was always what was true. See above references. ". . . I and [my] Father are one. . . ." -- John 10:30. ". . . no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. . . ." -- John 14:6.

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

That concept is alien in the word of God regarding the Son of God.
That is alien to God's word regarding the preincarnate Word (John 1:14; 1 John 4:9). The Greek translated "only-begotten" does not have that meaning.

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

The rendering in the sense of "only-begotten" in the Latin Vulgate "unigenitum" and English translation. Most other translations it is translated with the meaning of "unique."

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

The Greek John used is not at issue. The misinterpretation derived from it is. That Greek translated "only-begotten" does not mean "born."

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

There is no "beginning" with God and the Son of God. Creation has a beginning (John 1:1, 3; Genesis 1:1).

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

Being "with God" is being some one other than God. And being another entity. Now God as an entity is only one, without parts or division. God would have to have changed. The Word always could change and He the Word was also God, ". . . was God." He/the Word/the Son was the one who walked in the garden. ". . . they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden . . ." -- Genesis 3:8. The Father acts through and by reason of the Son. So this has always been. ". . . a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." -- Matthew 17:5. And later, ". . . Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?" -- John 14:9.

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

As persons there is subordination. As God they are the one and the same God. Co-equal and co-eternal. Note this, ". . . but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.. . ." -- John 5:18. The unbelieving Jews of Jesus' day understood that much.

Yes.

Also in the OT, ". . . Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? . . ." -- Malachi 2:10.

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

The Son of God is God's temporal agent. ". . . All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. . . ." -- John 1:3 (Provebs 30:4; Colossians 1:16-17). If there was no Son of God then there would be no creation, but then there would be only God and God would not be the Father. But they always were.

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

You do not understand this do you? If the eyes of the Lamb (Revelation 5:6; Zechariah 4:10) and two of those spirits of God are wisdom and understanding (Proverbs 7 & 8). Is the Lamb His eye the spirit of wisdom? (Matthew 2:23 - Isaiah 11:1-2). The Lamb also being the LORD (Zechariah 4:10).

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

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

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


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

Please give each supporting scripture reference. There is a difference between interpretation and explicit teaching of the word of God.

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

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

Anyway, you do acknowledge that it is mostly understood that the evangelists report Jesus' life and deeds with enough freedom to structure the timing of some events, or the wording of speeches, etc. according to their literary purposes, right? Do you view the Gospels this way or not?

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

And this one:

Revelation 3:14, ". . . saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; . . ." Jesus in His incarnation and resurrection is the beginning of the new heaven and earth to come. ". . . who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; . . ." -- Colossians 1:18. ". . . For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. . . . . . of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. . . ." -- Romans 8:22, 28.

Okay, agreed.

This is how I understand this. Colossions 1:15 is regarding Christ's resurrection ". . . the firstborn of every creature: . . ." Which in His preexistence created. That ". . . that in all [things] he might have the preeminence." (v.18). Both as Creator and creature. i.e. incarnation and resurrection.

OK.

Now if you want me to comment on the rest. Please one thing at a time.

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

First off, this might be easier if you would just go read Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom of Solomon to see what Jews of Jesus' time were reading about Wisdom. I don't intend to say we should regard these books as Holy Scripture; rather, we ought to simply acknowledge that these books reflect some Jewish thought of the time on this topic.

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

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

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

[37818]

You do not understand this do you? . . .

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

Whoa.
My appology. No attacts were intended.

[Bisto]

Whoa.
My appology. No attacts were intended.

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

[37818]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isaac was Abraham's son of the promise.

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

For no other reason than that is what is true.

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

Maybe I'm not understanding what you are asking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am sure that is going on.

Do you view the Gospels this way or not?

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

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

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

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

OK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bisto]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[37818]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

[Bisto]

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

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

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

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

Isaac was Abraham's son of the promise.

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

For no other reason than that is what is true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bisto]

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

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




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

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


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



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

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

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



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