[RD] Ask a Theologian V

[bhavv]

Even if it says christians and Jews are people of the book, this just means that they are people who follow a holy book. That's not to say that the Koran teaches to like those faiths, it most certainly does not teach much tolerance towards non Muslims.

 

[burleyman]

The two are pretty strongly connected. The idea of the Trinity likely wouldn't exist if it didn't provide a framework to explain the Incarnation. And Muslims do tend to object to the Trinity pretty strongly, believing it to be a denial of monotheism. In the Koran itself, it seems said:


Although what the Koran describes there is partialism rather than orthodox Triadology, but Muslims don't care for the Trinity regardless.

I've been told by several Muslims that they think that the Christian Trinity is God, Jesus and Mary. To be fair, this makes at least as much sense as the Christian version, and in practice (at least in the Catholic church) there doesn't seem to be much difference between 'veneration' of the Virgin and 'worship' of her. It's also much easier to make a statue of Mary than of the Holy Spirit.

What is the Holy Spirit, anyway? Can 'the breath of God' or 'the word of God' be separate from God? To what theological need or question is 'the Holy Spirit' a good or necessary answer?

 

[Plotinus]

Yes that is correct. The deification (I learned a new word!) of Jesus is the biggest reason why Muslims dislike Christianity, and they dislike Judaism for not having accepted Jesus as a prophet.

I think they are more concerned with the Christian belief in Jesus' crucifixion, which they consider to be unworthy of a prophet. Muslims don't believe that Jesus was crucified at all, which is a bit of a problem since that's pretty much the one thing we can be sure of about him.

Maybe. But Paul is the earliest Christian writer we have, and he definitely had some notion of the Incarnation (Philippians 2:5-7, off the top of my head. Colossians 1 also has a lot of material to that effect). But then that's not 100% clear from later parts of the New Testament. So perhaps it'd be more accurate to say that there was a time when some Christians did not believe Jesus is God. And as Eran noted, that's effectively how things are today.

The degree to which the first Christians did or did not believe that Jesus is God is still fairly hotly disputed in New Testament studies. Certainly Paul seems to have held what was in some respects a "high" christology involving the pre-existence of Jesus - although that's not quite the same thing as regarding him as God. (And the authorship of Colossians is disputed, so it's not safe to take that as evidence for his views, at least.) I agree though that it would be unsafe to assert that there was a time when Christians in general did not believe Jesus to be God. Certainly there have always been some Christians who didn't, but that's not the same thing.

Even if it says christians and Jews are people of the book, this just means that they are people who follow a holy book. That's not to say that the Koran teaches to like those faiths, it most certainly does not teach much tolerance towards non Muslims.

I think it does, but I'm no expert on the Koran.

I've been told by several Muslims that they think that the Christian Trinity is God, Jesus and Mary. To be fair, this makes at least as much sense as the Christian version, and in practice (at least in the Catholic church) there doesn't seem to be much difference between 'veneration' of the Virgin and 'worship' of her. It's also much easier to make a statue of Mary than of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I understand that this is a common misconception among Muslims.

What is the Holy Spirit, anyway? Can 'the breath of God' or 'the word of God' be separate from God? To what theological need or question is 'the Holy Spirit' a good or necessary answer?

The "word of God" is not the Holy Spirit but the Son, the Logos. Neither is "separate" from God. According to orthodox Trinitarianism, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all equally the one God. They are distinct from each other but not separate from each other.

Christian orthodoxy has two answers to your main question. The first is that the Holy Spirit is God active among his people. It is, for example, the Holy Spirit who infuses grace into believers, who acts upon them to bring them into union with God, and so on. It is, moreover, the Holy Spirit who speaks by the prophets. The second answer is that the Holy Spirit is the principle of love within the Godhead. Just as the Son is the rationality of God, including his self-knowledge, the Spirit is the love of God, including his self-love. This basic position goes back to Augustine and was also interestingly developed by Jonathan Edwards. Edwards argued that there must be a Trinity if God is omniscient, because his omniscience means that he has a perfect idea of himself. But if this idea is perfect (as it must be) then it is itself a divine person, namely the Son. And if the Father loves the Son (as, again, he must), this love itself is a further hypostasis, namely the Spirit. Each Person knows with the Son and loves with the Spirit, making them a single God.

There's another argument for the Trinity, which rests on a rather different view of the functions of the Persons, that was developed by Richard of St Victor and revived by Richard Swinburne. The argument is that if God is essentially loving, this love must necessarily be productive. So there must be at least two Persons of God, because the Father, to be truly loving, must necessarily beget the Son. (The creation of the universe isn't enough to fulfil this necessity, because creation is contingent - otherwise it would be co-eternal and co-necessary with God.) And furthermore, true love of another is itself necessarily productive, which means that the perfect mutual love of Father and Son must generate a third Person, the Holy Spirit. I find this argument less convincing than Edwards', which itself is somewhat dubious, even when expressed far less sketchily than I just did.

 

[Arakhor]

Interestingly, one of the main bones of contention between Eastern and Western Christianity is the matter of the filioque - whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or just from the Father alone. I doubt it makes any practical difference, but then I'm not a theologian.

 

[_random_]

I think they are more concerned with the Christian belief in Jesus' crucifixion, which they consider to be unworthy of a prophet. Muslims don't believe that Jesus was crucified at all, which is a bit of a problem since that's pretty much the one thing we can be sure of about him.

Do you know how Muslim scholars interested in historical Jesus research (such as Reza Aslan) tend to deal with this? I'm aware of the traditional explanation that Judas was actually crucified in Jesus' place without anyone noticing, but is that tradition still taken historically in those circles? Do you know much about Muslim reception of historical Jesus research in general? One of my professors mentioned that they tend to take it well, as the picture it creates is more consistent with a holy prophet than God incarnate, but I imagine the acceptance of the crucifixion would be a stumbling block for many.

The degree to which the first Christians did or did not believe that Jesus is God is still fairly hotly disputed in New Testament studies. Certainly Paul seems to have held what was in some respects a "high" christology involving the pre-existence of Jesus - although that's not quite the same thing as regarding him as God. (And the authorship of Colossians is disputed, so it's not safe to take that as evidence for his views, at least.) I agree though that it would be unsafe to assert that there was a time when Christians in general did not believe Jesus to be God. Certainly there have always been some Christians who didn't, but that's not the same thing.

Any recommended reading on early Christology, and of Paul's place within it?

Christian orthodoxy has two answers to your main question. The first is that the Holy Spirit is God active among his people. It is, for example, the Holy Spirit who infuses grace into believers, who acts upon them to bring them into union with God, and so on. It is, moreover, the Holy Spirit who speaks by the prophets. The second answer is that the Holy Spirit is the principle of love within the Godhead. Just as the Son is the rationality of God, including his self-knowledge, the Spirit is the love of God, including his self-love. This basic position goes back to Augustine and was also interestingly developed by Jonathan Edwards. Edwards argued that there must be a Trinity if God is omniscient, because his omniscience means that he has a perfect idea of himself. But if this idea is perfect (as it must be) then it is itself a divine person, namely the Son. And if the Father loves the Son (as, again, he must), this love itself is a further hypostasis, namely the Spirit. Each Person knows with the Son and loves with the Spirit, making them a single God.

There's another argument for the Trinity, which rests on a rather different view of the functions of the Persons, that was developed by Richard of St Victor and revived by Richard Swinburne. The argument is that if God is essentially loving, this love must necessarily be productive. So there must be at least two Persons of God, because the Father, to be truly loving, must necessarily beget the Son. (The creation of the universe isn't enough to fulfil this necessity, because creation is contingent - otherwise it would be co-eternal and co-necessary with God.) And furthermore, true love of another is itself necessarily productive, which means that the perfect mutual love of Father and Son must generate a third Person, the Holy Spirit. I find this argument less convincing than Edwards', which itself is somewhat dubious, even when expressed far less sketchily than I just did.

I rather like the Augustinian/Edwardsian thought as you've set it out. Where could I find more on that?

I've been told by several Muslims that they think that the Christian Trinity is God, Jesus and Mary. To be fair, this makes at least as much sense as the Christian version, and in practice (at least in the Catholic church) there doesn't seem to be much difference between 'veneration' of the Virgin and 'worship' of her. It's also much easier to make a statue of Mary than of the Holy Spirit.

Eh, that's an outsider's perspective, and an understandable one, but the distinction between worship and veneration is fairly clear in official Catholic practice. There is admittedly a lot of folk Catholicism that blurs the line.

In the Orthodox world, you have some controversial 20th century theologians who maybe blurred the line some more. Take Fr. Sergei Bulgakov:

A personal incarnation, a hominization of the Third Hypostasis, does not exist. Still, if there is no personal incarnation of the Third Hypostasis, no hominization in the same sense in which the Son of God became human, there can all the same be such a human, creaturely hypostasis, such a being which is the vessel of the fulfilment of the Holy Spirit. It completely surrenders its human hypostatic life, makes it transparent for the Holy Spirit, by bearing witness about itself: behold the handmaid of the Lord. Such a being, the Most Holy Virgin, is not a personal incarnation of the Holy Spirit, but she becomes His personal, animate receptacle, an absolutely spirit-born creature, the Pneumatophoric Human. For, if there is no hypostatic spirit-incarnation, there can be a hypostatic pneumatophoricity, by which the creaturely hypostasis in its creatureliness completely surrenders itself and as it were dissolves in the Holy Spirit. In this complete penetration by Him it becomes a different nature for its own self, i.e., divinized, a creature thoroughly blessed by grace, a “quickened ark of God,” a living “consecrated temple.” Such a pneumatophoric person radically differs from the Godman, for it is a creature, but it differs just as much from a creature in its creatureliness, for it has been elevated and made a partaker of divine life.

St. Maria Skobtsova was a close associate of Bulgakov and had some similar Mariological ideas. Neither has been accepted super-broadly as a theologian, but then there's never been an ecumenical council against them either. St. Maria was even canonized, more for her service to the poor and her heroism during the Holocaust, but that at least means she couldn't have been too heretical.

As an aside, Plot did you miss this? I saw you go through a few rounds of questions without addressing it, so I figured I'd ask again, just in case:

I saw a talk by Robert Jenson in which he talks about the modern Church having a self-same identity with the ancient Church. Since Jenson is a Lutheran, I was a bit curious about the claim. Do you know how Jenson justifies that in light of the obvious institutional discontinuity? What do you think are the strongest arguments a protestant could make on the matter?

 

[Agent327]

It's more like "oh, you're Jewish/Christian, well, at least you aren't a Hindu or Zoroastrian."

Actually, it isn't. Hindus and Zoroastrians are not 'people of the Book.'

Maybe. But Paul is the earliest Christian writer we have, and he definitely had some notion of the Incarnation (Philippians 2:5-7, off the top of my head. Colossians 1 also has a lot of material to that effect). But then that's not 100% clear from later parts of the New Testament. So perhaps it'd be more accurate to say that there was a time when some Christians did not believe Jesus is God. And as Eran noted, that's effectively how things are today.

Actually, definitely. Jesus did not go around preaching he was the Son of God. (To which Paul would be a poor witness, seeing as he never met with Jesus.) If you check your gospels, the disciples were of the mind that Jesus was the Maschiach - not quite the same thing.

And Eran pointed out that there are still Christians today that do not accept the Trinity.

Even if it says christians and Jews are people of the book, this just means that they are people who follow a holy book.

No, it does not. The Quran is based upon the Bible, not 'a holy book.'

That's not to say that the Koran teaches to like those faiths, it most certainly does not teach much tolerance towards non Muslims.

Tolerance is quite a different matter, but interesting that you should bring this up: Chrsitianity has been far less tolerant of religious minorities than Islam during most of history.

I think they are more concerned with the Christian belief in Jesus' crucifixion, which they consider to be unworthy of a prophet. Muslims don't believe that Jesus was crucified at all, which is a bit of a problem since that's pretty much the one thing we can be sure of about him.

I don't think the concept of historical facts has much relevance when it comes to religions - be they Christian, Muslim or otherwise.

 

[_random_]

Actually, definitely. Jesus did not go around preaching he was the Son of God. (To which Paul would be a poor witness, seeing as he never met with Jesus.) If you check your gospels, the disciples were of the mind that Jesus was the Maschiach - not quite the same thing.

The Gospels all clearly convey the opinion that Jesus is the Son of God. The Synoptics have a voice from heaven declaring as much during the Baptism, and then Peter affirms Jesus as both Messiah and Son of God. In Matthew, Jesus specifically agrees. And then John is... John. You don't have to go far to get some explicitly high Christology there, and John threw whatever wiggle room Mark left for adoptionalism is out the window (if John was familiar with Mark, as I suspect). Now whether this reflects Jesus' belief about himself or the earliest disciples' beliefs about him is up for debate. But the text we have give reason to suppose that high Christology was around basically from the get-go.

 

[Agent327]

The Gospels all clearly convey the opinion that Jesus is the Son of God.

Actually, they don't.

The Synoptics have a voice from heaven declaring as much during the Baptism, and then Peter affirms Jesus as both Messiah and Son of God.

No, they do not. There is a very clear gospel quote wherein Jesus asks his disciples en route 1) what the people think he is and 2) what they think he is. There is no mention of Jesus being the 'son of God'. so what the synoptics do at best, is show a development from 'Son of Man' (used mostly by Jesus when speaking of himself) to Son of God (as developed in christology). There is no doubt that traces of this are already present in notably the later gospels, but one should recognize that what Jesus originally taught (as far as we can tell) differs considerably from what Chrsitianity has come to accept as doctrine. Doctrines don't drop from the sky: they have to be developed (usually among counter-doctrines) and then accepted as official doctrine.

In Matthew, Jesus specifically agrees. And then John is... John. You don't have to go far to get some explicitly high Christology there, and John threw whatever wiggle room Mark left for adoptionalism is out the window (if John was familiar with Mark, as I suspect). Now whether this reflects Jesus' belief about himself or the earliest disciples' beliefs about him is up for debate.

Hardly. A concept like Jesus being The Son Of God would be entirely alien to the original disciples - not to be confused with the gospel writers, whose earliest record postdates Jesus life on Earth by some 50 years. And even then the story of the Annunciation makes no mention of Jesus being the son of God: an angel announces to Mary she will have a son, and that she should name him Jesus (Joshua).

But the text we have give reason to suppose that high Christology was around basically from the get-go.

As I just explained, this makes no sense. The original concept of what Jesus was rather conforms with the Judaic concept of the Mashiach. Jesus being the literal son of God is an entirely new concept, developed thereafter in Christianity. Jesus walked among his people, who did not think of him as the Son of God, but - as his brothers - as the son of Joseph and Mary. The whole concept of a christology (invoving Jesus alone among his brothers not being the son of Joseph and Mary) would be alien to the original following of Jesus. These were Jews, not Christians. Jesus himself was a Jew, not a Christian. Finally, the synoptics are not 'a' text, but a collection of different and often disagreeing texts, put down by different authors decades after the events they purport to describe. Furthermore, the purpose of these t4exts is not to be historically accurate, but to proselytize. (I.e. they deliver a religious truth, not necessarily a historical truth.) This means they are meant to convince of a religious doctrine - various doctrines, actually. Hence we find in one gospel things that are completely absent (or even contradicted) in another. What they certainly are not is a coherent gathering of a completed doctrine (such as christology). As Plotinus has repeatedly pointed out, they aren't very clear even on what Jesus actually did and taught. (For instance, they are not unequivocal about Jesus's attitude towards baptism, another rather central doctrine in Christianity.) Finally, they are the result of a theological development (or rather various developments) that have taken place after Jesus's execution, ultimately leading to Christianity as a religion separate from Judaism. One should be very careful not to simply read later Christian doctrines into the gospel texts - which seems to be what you are doing by ignoring examples that contradict your convinction.

 

[_random_]

Actually, they don't.



No, they do not. There is a very clear gospel quote wherein Jesus asks his disciples en route 1) what the people think he is and 2) what they think he is. There is no mention of Jesus being the 'son of God'. so what the synoptics do at best, is show a development from 'Son of Man' (used mostly by Jesus when speaking of himself) to Son of God (as developed in christology).

You're just incorrect.

And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, “Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased.”

Now when all the people were baptized, and when Jesus also had been baptized and was praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon him in bodily form, as a dove, and a voice came from heaven, “Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased.

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare′a Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli′jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

I'll admit that my recollection was faulty, and the Synoptics vary in their accounts of the Confession of Peter, with only Matthew using the phrase "Son of God." But it's there. There's also quite a few times in the Synoptics where Jesus calls God his Father. IIRC, Historical Jesus researchers tend to regard many of those statements as genuine. Interpret that however you like.

As I just explained, this makes no sense. The original concept of what Jesus was rather conforms with the Judaic concept of the Mashiach. Jesus being the literal son of God is an entirely new concept, developed thereafter in Christianity. Jesus walked among his people, who did not think of him as the Son of God, but - as his brothers - as the son of Joseph and Mary. The whole concept of a christology (invoving Jesus alone among his brothers not being the son of Joseph and Mary) would be alien to the original following of Jesus. These were Jews, not Christians. Jesus himself was a Jew, not a Christian. Finally, the synoptics are not 'a' text, but a collection of different and often disagreeing texts, put down by different authors decades after the events they purport to describe. Furthermore, the purpose of these t4exts is not to be historically accurate, but to proselytize. (I.e. they deliver a religious truth, not necessarily a historical truth.) This means they are meant to convince of a religious doctrine - various doctrines, actually. Hence we find in one gospel things that are completely absent (or even contradicted) in another. What they certainly are not is a coherent gathering of a completed doctrine (such as christology). As Plotinus has repeatedly pointed out, they aren't very clear even on what Jesus actually did and taught. (For instance, they are not unequivocal about Jesus's attitude towards baptism, another rather central doctrine in Christianity.) Finally, they are the result of a theological development (or rather various developments) that have taken place after Jesus's execution, ultimately leading to Christianity as a religion separate from Judaism. One should be very careful not to simply read later Christian doctrines into the gospel texts - which seems to be what you are doing by ignoring examples that contradict your convinction.

It seems I'm not being very clear. I'm not saying that the apostles or evangelists would agree with the Symbol of Chalcedon, or, for that matter, with Nestorianism or Miaphyitism or any other particular Christological doctrine developed centuries later. And I'm certainly not saying that they present a univocal picture of Jesus' person and ministry. I'm saying that from the earliest Christian texts we have, there's some notion of Jesus' divine origins. Supposing that Jesus was initially thought of as a more conventional Messiah is speculative. We have no documentation that this was ever the case, and I really can't think of much historical reason to suppose it was.

 

[Plotinus]

I don't have time to address all of this properly now, but I'll just point out that "son of God", in a biblical context, does not mean that the person in question is literally divine or pre-existent or anything like that. The term appears a number of times in the Old Testament to refer to people who are favoured by God (including, sometimes, the whole of Israel). So in a New Testament context, to call Jesus "son of God" is a fairly straightforward claim that he's beloved of God, without any funky metaphysics. It was later Christian writers who interpreted "son of God" as a reference to Jesus' divinity. (That's not to say that the doctrine of Jesus' divinity came about as a result of a misunderstanding of this title - rather, that doctrine developed at some point, perhaps early, and the title was later re-interpreted in light of that doctrine.)

There's certainly evidence, or possible evidence, for belief in Jesus' pre-existence and, perhaps more shakily, his divinity, in the New Testament - including in the earliest strata of the New Testament. But the use or otherwise of the title "son of God" isn't among that evidence.

 

[_random_]

That's fair. I became a bit more focused on the semantics of what agent was claiming than on actually explaining my point, and I apologize. I look forward to your commentary on my ceaseless rambling.

 

[Agent327]

You're just incorrect.

Your quotes don't prove me incorrect, but you since you are ignoring quotes to the contrary. That's simply logical fallacy.

And as Plotinus just pointed out the Christian concept of The son of God differs essentially from the Judaic concept of A son of God. Meaning any mention of Jesus as 'son of God' can't just be equalized to the Christian concept thereof. As I was implying when cautioning not to read later concepts into an earlier text.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Let just say we are all sons of God. The more God is revealed and manifested the better the offspring.

 

[ParkCungHee]

There's certainly evidence, or possible evidence, for belief in Jesus' pre-existence and, perhaps more shakily, his divinity, in the New Testament - including in the earliest strata of the New Testament. But the use or otherwise of the title "son of God" isn't among that evidence.

I would have thought Mark 1:1-14 settled it?

 

[Arakhor]

If "son of God" meant nothing more to the original Hebrews than "favoured of God", then Mark 1 would establish nothing else beyond that.

 

[ParkCungHee]

My copy doesn't have "favoured of god" appearing in the passage at all.

I was referring specifically to "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."

 

[Arakhor]

That's the first chapter of John, not Mark. That said, John isn't one of the Synoptic Gospels, but there may be a different rule for that.

 

[ParkCungHee]

That's the first chapter of John, not Mark.

Woops. F**k me.

 

[Agent327]

Let just say we are all sons of God.

In the biblical sense we are all children of God. (Although strictly speaking God seems to limit this to believers in Himself. Which is somewhat odd, as the Bible also tells us God created all mankind.)

 

[classical_hero]

Actually, definitely. Jesus did not go around preaching he was the Son of God. (To which Paul would be a poor witness, seeing as he never met with Jesus.) If you check your gospels, the disciples were of the mind that Jesus was the Maschiach - not quite the same thing.

And Eran pointed out that there are still Christians today that do not accept the Trinity.

That is just wrong, in fact one of the accusations against Jesus was the fact that he claimed he was the Son of God, a term the Jews knew has Messianic meaning and they considered this to be blasphemy since Jesus was a man.

John 8:58,59 clearly state that the Jesus stated that he existed before Abraham (Before Abraham was, I am (a clear reference to Exodus 3:14 where God gives his name to Moses)) and the Jews response in verse 59 is to stone him, which is the penalty for blasphemy.