(7 votes, average: 4.43 out of 5)
Loading...As you know, blog members at the Platinum level are allowed to publish posts on any topic of their choosing (related to blog interests!) to other Platinum members. After a month or so, the other Platinums vote on which one can appear on the blog at large. If you yourself are interested in getting in on that action — reading the posts of other Platinum members, and on occasion coming up with one of your own (it DOESN’T need to be highly scholarly or scholarly at all — it can be your own views or questoins about something blog-related!) — think about upping your membership to the Platinum level (Register – The Bart Ehrman Blog).
The most recent vote wenbt in favor of a post by Omar Robb, which gets into the world of Greek and early Christian thinking, especially as leading to the doctrine of the Trinity. Here it is. Feel free to comment and ask Omar any questions!
******************************
The road from the “Duo of Philo” to the “Trinity of Nicaea”
Omar Abur-Robb
omr-mhmd.yolasite.com
There is a clear relationship between the early Greek Christianity and the Greek metaphysical philosophy, and we will explore this here. But let us first show the genius of the Greek thinking process:
Let us take an object. This object can be divided into two objects. Then each one can be divided into two objects, and so forth. But this process of division cannot continue forever; otherwise all objects are just a combination of zeros. Therefore, there need to be an elementary object that cannot be divided. The Greek called this object: “the Atom”. We will call this object the “Greek Particle” to differentiate it from the physical atom that we now know.
This deduction is truly brilliant, and the difference between this conclusion and our current physical understanding is that it seems we have many different “elementary particles”, not just one. Electrons and quarks are considered (so far) elementary particles that cannot be divided into smaller parts.
In almost the same process of thinking, the Greek concluded that the Universe has been created by the “One”. They deduced this through the following:
Everything we are aware of has a cause for its existence: the book was caused (created) by an Author, the broken window was caused by a thrusting rock, etc. Each of these causes has also a cause, and each of these causes has a cause, and so forth. But this cannot continue forever. Therefore, there should be a cause that doesn’t have a cause. You could call this cause: the elementary cause, but the Greek called it: “The One” (Monad).
Therefore, the “One” is the ultimate cause for every existence in the universe. The Greek then theorized that: if the One doesn’t need a cause for existence, and he is the reason for the existence of others. Therefore, this “One” doesn’t need anyone and doesn’t need anything; he is all mighty with absolute perfection.
The Greek then started to study the properties of the “One”, but this was an extreme logical error: It is clear that the “One” (according to the Greek thinking) was outside the universe. In our current terminologies we could say that the universe is a closed system, and the “One” is an external entity to it. The rules, laws and axioms in a closed system might not be similar to the external system. Therefore, trying to analyze an external system by the laws of a closed system might end up with bizarre contradictions. This is exactly what happened when the Greek tried to analyze the properties of the “One” according the concepts and axioms of this universe.
The Greek have noticed that all things are changing, and all things are also temporal (i.e. not eternal). Therefore, the Greek linked the idea that all changes are temporal. This led to the idea that change is a property for all temporal objects, which means that the “Eternal” (i.e. the “One”) cannot change.
There was also a philosophical proof for this conclusion: if the One was all mighty and all perfect then this One cannot change, because change would either make the One more perfect, or less perfect, or it did nothing of the sort. If we took the first option then the One was not perfect before, which is not an accepted option. If we took the second option then the One is less perfect than before, and this also cannot be accepted. If we took the third option, then the change by itself is meaningless and cannot be expected from the One.
Therefore, the conclusion for the Greek philosophers that the One cannot change because the One is all mighty with absolute perfection.
But decisions are a sort of changes: if you make a decision today, then yesterday, you didn’t have that decision. Therefore, there has been a change within you between yesterday and today.
But the “One” cannot change. Therefore the “One” cannot have decisions. Therefore, the “One” cannot create the universe, because creating the universe requires a decision.
We will refer to this as the “Change Paradox” which is stated as: “The Eternal doesn’t need anyone and doesn’t need anything. Therefore, the Eternal is perfect. Therefore, the Eternal cannot change. Therefore, the Eternal couldn’t make decisions”.
This produced a bizarre contradiction between two conclusions (which we will call: Alpha and Beta):
- The Alpha conclusion: the “One” created the universe.
- The Beta conclusion: the “One” couldn’t create the universe, because he cannot change, therefore, he cannot make decisions.
There have been efforts from the Greek to resolve this contradiction. One of the given proposals is to assume “Intermediaries” between the “One” and the universe. These Intermediaries have been called: Gods or Demiurges.
However, this proposal contradicts with the Beta conclusion, because it assumes that the “One” has created these Intermediaries. But it seems that some philosophers were content with a model of few contradictions (i.e. the “One” had created few Gods whom they collaborated in creating and managing the universe) rather than a model with constant and endless contradictions (i.e. the “One” has created the universe and still managing it).
Later, some philosophers have proposed that the “One” didn’t decide to create the Intermediaries, but the Intermediaries have been created by the influence of the existence of the “One”. It is almost like the Sun didn’t decide to heat Earth, but Earth is heated by the Sun because of the Earth proximity to the Sun.
I need to clarify here that I am presenting these philosophical ideas in a “very simplistic format”. My interest here is not the “Who, What, and When”. My interest is to see the dynamics of things from a “high bird view” that would provide a clear sense to the philosophical ideas that influenced the Christian faith. It should be noted here that there were many intense arguments among the Greek philosophers concerning their metaphysical views.
Philo of Alexandria (20 BC- 50 AD) was a devoted Jew who also was professional in Greek philosophy. He made a lot of efforts to explain (align, merge) the Jewish metaphysics with the Greek philosophical ideas. The “Duo Model” was among these efforts. In this model, Philo recognized “Yahweh” (the God of Abraham) as the “One”. But, in order to keep his model within a good proximity to the Beta conclusion, he assumed that God created the “Word” (Logos), which refers to the knowledge and Intelligence, and this entity (the Word) created the Universe.
Now … there is a contradiction between this model and Beta as God has created an entity. Nonetheless, this model provided a proper compromise as it contains only one point of contradiction with Beta.
Although there are no explicit evidence, but it is highly likely that the first Greek Christians were very impressed with Philo’s model, but with minute modification: The God is still the same (i.e. the God of Abraham), whom the Christians named him “The Father”, and the “Word” is none other than Jesus himself. This can be clearly supported by the starting verse of John’s Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1.1-NIV).
It should be noted that many are preferring a different translation of this first verse of John: They argue that the original Greek verse is “En arche en ho logos, kai ho logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en ho logos” (Ref: Sigal). The first God in this text (ton theon) means “The God”, while the last God in the text (theos) means “God”. As the Greek language doesn’t have an indefinite article (a or an), therefore they argue whether the last God in the text should be translated as “The God” or “a God”. But reading this text as “a God” does fit exactly with Philo’s model: The One is the God and the Word is a God.
This Model of Philo has been altered by Justin Martyr (100-165AD), as Justin has added the Holy Spirit to this Duo Model.
[It should be noted here that there is no evidence that Justin took this trio model from Matthew’s Gospel (28:19). I am assuming here that this trio was first introduced by Justin. Therefore, I assume that the verse 28:19 in Mathew was probably added to the Gospel after Justin].
The Spirit was a major entity in Greek philosophy much before Justin: philosophers from old times had theorized that Humans are dual combination of Body (Matter) and Spirit (which literally means breath). Death happens when the Spirit leaves the Body. This wasn’t evident only in Greek philosophy, but it was also dominant in Hinduism and Buddhism.
As there was a clear identified entity in John Gospel which has been referred to as “the spirit of truth” (John 14:17), then it wasn’t surprising that Justin have added the Spirit in this duo model of Philo.
It is probable that the first Christians who were influenced by Justin model didn’t really think that Jesus himself was the creator of the universe. It seems to me that the intention was to recognize the three most important figures in the Christian faith: The One (i.e. the Father), the Word (i.e. the Son), and the Holy Spirit.
So, I would assume that Justin model was initially adopted metaphorically, but the highly defragmentation of Christianly at the first three centuries and the intense arguments that shaped this defragmentation led many churches to adopt the literal interpretation of this model. Therefore, there were many churches at the early fourth century who literally believed that Jesus was the Word that created the universe.
The “Trinitarian” Christians in the start of the fourth century could be classified into two groups:
1# The Christians who literally followed the model of Justin: They believed that Jesus is the Word of God, and he created the universe. But Jesus is not eternal, and he was created by God at some point. Therefore, Jesus was subordinate to God.
Arius (256-336 AD) was the famous advocate for this view.
2# There was another view that probably gained momentum from the mid of the third century: Jesus and God were equal entities. We could refer to this view as an effort to modify Philo’s Model in order to remove the point of contradiction in it. Their arguments were simple: Jesus is the Word of God and the Spirit of God. So, if Jesus was not eternal then there was a time when God was without word and without spirit!
Another argument for them is: God is “The Father”. But God cannot Change (Beta conclusion), therefore God was the Father from eternity. Therefore, Jesus was always the Son from eternity.
Alexander I (the Patriarch of Alexandria, died in 326 AD) was the famous advocate for this view.
These two famous advocates (Arius & Alexander) clashed at the early fourth century. This happened at the time when Constantine I adopted Christianity and wanted it to be the glue for the empire. He couldn’t allow this clash to hinder his plans, so he vigorously summoned a meeting for the highly influential priests in the empire in order to contain this clash. This was the “Council of Nicaea” in 325 AD.
I really don’t think that Arius had any chance to win the debate. Alexander was the Pope of a very influential church in the empire. Arius was just a Presbyter (senior member in the church). Major churches in the past three centuries formed an unofficial alliance against detected heretics. The first obvious action of this alliance is the unity of these churches against Paul of Samosata (the Bishop of Antioch) in 269 AD. Paul was a persistent advocate for Monarchianism; he believed that Jesus was just a man who was adopted by God. The major churches united in their effort to depose him, and it is really ironic that these churches requested the help of the Roman Pagan Emperor “Aurelian” for this purpose. It is wrong to think that the “Council of Nicaea” was the first Imperial-Christian council. The first council was held in 272AD, which was organized by Aurelian in order to decide the fate of Paul. The council concluded to depose Paul as the Bishop of Antioch.
Returning back to Arius and Alexander: The major churches in the empire had a stable unofficial alliance between them. According to “System Theory”: stable systems will resist any change that can disturb their stability. I could add more to this law: Stable but fragile systems will aggressively resist any change that can disturb their stability. Trinity was the common view at that time, but it was also fragile. By fragile I mean that this view cannot easily withstand logical scrutiny. If the council had favored Arius over Alexander, then there would have been a real risk of breaking the major churches in the empire.
I am not saying that there was a conspiracy to oppose Arius. Not at all. All of this happened instinctively within the group subconscious mind. I would assume that the Bishops in this council were embarrassed to oppose any view. But it was clear that the stakes were very high. So, my assumption here is that these Bishops were (instinctively) waiting for the right excuse to support Alexander.
The “Council of Nicaea” ended up supporting Alexander and dictating the view of the major churches at the time, which is the well-known Trinity doctrine.
Just a sidetrack here: there has been a serious clash between Cyril (the Pope of Alexandria) and Nestorius (the Pope of Constantinople) at the Council of Chalcedon in 451AD, and this council denounced Nestorius. So, here we have a “Pope vs Pope” rather than a “Pope vs Presbyter”. But still, I can apply the same previous dynamic understanding (Stable but fragile systems will aggressively resist any change that can disturb their stability): Nestorius had proposed a dramatic change in the doctrine. Therefore, it is expected for the major churches to unite against this change.
The rest is known history.
References:
Ayres, Lewis: Nicaea and Its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (2004), Oxford
Sigal, Gerald: The First Verse In John Everyone Needs To Understand, Jews for Judaism, https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/new-testament-refutations-trinity-doctrine-part-21
There are the following two notes:
1# It has been brought to my attention that the way I wrote this article could give the impression that the “Atom hypothesis” and the “One hypothesis” are the “Greek Views”. It should be clarified that these hypotheses were originated from the Greek, but they were also disputed among them. Therefore, these were not the dominant views for all the Geek Schools.
In the article, I used phrases such as “the Greek concluded” and “the Greek called it,” but these were merely summarizations. However, I did highlight the following paragraph in the article, and it might be useful to highlight it here as well:
{I need to clarify here that I am presenting these philosophical ideas in a “very simplistic format”. My interest here is not the “Who, What, and When”. My interest is to see the dynamics of things from a “high bird view” that would provide a clear sense to the philosophical ideas that influenced the Christian faith. It should be noted here that there were many intense arguments among the Greek philosophers concerning their metaphysical views}.
—–>>
—–>>
It might be useful here to highlight that Leucippus (born 510 BC) was probably the first to present the “Atom Hypothesis” and then it was expanded by his followers: Democritus (born 460BC), and Epicurus (born 341BC).
2# “Neurotheologian” added few comments with deep details, which interested readers can just use in google to search for more.
I disagree though with Neurotheologian regarding Philo’s model: Philo did name the “Logos” as the first-born son, but I think his model was just duo (God and logos) but with a door open for more. Nonetheless, even if Philo’s model wasn’t duo, then the Christians modified it to a duo model, therefore, we could still name the model as the “Duo of Philo”.
I hope that Neurotheologian and BartEhrman will not object to me copying and pasting their related comments from the platinum post to this post:
—–>>
Neurotheologian May 9, 2023 at 5:36 pm
The relationship between Greek concepts of God or the divine and the development of the concept of the Trinity is indeed interesting. I think the problem is that you may have conflated different Greek concepts of God, such as the platonic ineffable “one” developed by both the middle Platonists (such as Philo), and the Neoplatonists, especially Plotinus with the more easily analysable concept of the first mover or the unmoved mover of Aristotle, developed by Aquinas. Plato got his idea of unchangeability of “the one” from Parmenides and his idea of “the one” (as opposed to the two or the three or the four) from Pythagoras. The problem, that Plato and his subsequent followers had was the fact that a perfect God would have to be unchangeable, immovable, and already perfect, so that any act of creation or subsequent act of intervention, would be incompatible with an already complete and perfect deity. I like to call this, the philosophical problem of evil or imperfection (as opposed to the moral or natural problems of evil).
Neurotheologian May 9, 2023 at 5:41 pm
Philo tried to get around this problem of imperfection or incompleteness in a similar way to Plato himself in the Timeus – by postulating intermediaries. The logos was not a sole intermediary, but the Logos was rather the chief of a panoply of intermediaries. Philo used the metaphor ‘first born’ to attribute priority to this particular intermediary, which, of course the Johanine Christians subsequently picked up and applied to Jesus. Philo did not postulate a duo, but more of a multiplicity of intermediaries, of which the logos was the chief. Plotinus got around this “philosophical problem of evil or imperfection” by the concept of emanation, which you nicely illustrated by the idea of being warmed up by the nearness of the Sun. In Plotinus’s theology, the one emanated the nous and the nous emanated the world soul which divided into individual souls. Interestingly, the soul is also postulated as unchangeable and eternal, which creates a creates another problem of incompatibility with human evil, but that’s another discussion.
OmarRobb
Very interesting. I didn’t study this matter to this fine details, I just wanted to recognize (from a bird’s-eye) the road from the Greeks to Trinity. So, I do appreciate your contribution here. Thank you.
I did read more about Plotinus before; as his work was influential for the Muslim philosophers and it caused serious dispute among them whether this work is accepted from the theological perspective. I also recognize that he initiated the emanation model. Surprisingly, it seems that the work of Philo wasn’t of interest to these philosophers.
However, my understanding is that Philo did modify the existed model to the Duo model, so that he would have only one point of contradiction with the concept of “total perfection”. If he didn’t then his model is just a re-enforcement to the existed one, but with links to the Jewish theology.
So, if I understood your perspective here, then you are saying that Philo re-enforced the existed model (God and multiple intermediaries) with the Word as the “Chief of Staff “. Then the Johannine Christians modified it to the Duo model (God and Jesus), then later they added the third entity to it (i.e. the spirit).
Neurotheologian May 10, 2023 at 3:03 am
Yes, the prologue of John’s Gospel appears to pick up 3 Greek ideas about the Logos. 1. The fragment of Heraclitus’s writings about humans not understanding the Logos even after being shown it “his logos holds always but humans always prove unable to ever understand it, both before hearing it and when they have first heard it”. See John 1:5 & John 1:10 . 2. Heraclitus’s “all things come to be in accordance with this logos” . See John 1:3 . 3. Philo’s “The Logos is the first-born of God” See John 1:14 for example. However, John actually slips up when quoting Jesus as saying he was “*a* son of God” in John 10:36 . It seems to me that Jesus frequently described God as father of all of us eg in the beginning of the Lord’s Prayer. Jesus referred to God as “spirit” rather than physical stuff with location in space eg in John 3: 5-8 and John 4:24 . I think that, to him, receiving the Holy spirit was none other than receiving God.
Neurotheologian May 10, 2023 at 10:30 am
My question for Bart is where did the author of Colossians get his first born of creation Logos-like Christology? Was it written after the 4th Gospel? Did the author of the 4th Gospel get it from Colossians? Colossians 1:15-20
BDEhrman May 11, 2023 at 6:58 pm
I don’t think there’s evidence of literary dependence one way or the other, since they are sufficiently different as well as interestingly similar. Logos Christology must surely have spread in some deep thnking Christian circles at the end of the first century, and came to be interpreted, discussed, propagated by various theologially minded people; it fit very well with the views developing of Christ as a pre-existent being with God before becoming human.
All this was in Paul’s writings already;
1 Cor 8:6 “yet for us there is one God the Father from whom all things and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom all things and we through him”
1 Cor 2:10-11 “For the Spirit searches everything even the depths of God. For what person knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.”
2 Cor 3:17 “Now the Spirit is the Lord and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom.”
Romans 15:9-11 “that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy, as it is written … praise the Lord, all you gentiles, and let all the peoples praise him”
So Paul believes there is one God the father and one Lord Jesus, that the Lord is God and the Spirit is Lord. That Jesus plays the role of Philo’s Logos through whom all things come, and that no one knows the mind of God except the spirit.
So we have zero development in christology from Paul writing in the 50s to the Nicaea in 325.
Do you think that Paul was using a spiritual rhetoric style in describing Jesus, or do you think that Paul truly believed from the start that Jesus is the one who created the universe in six days, and Jesus is the one who created humans.
Paul knows what he preaches is hard to believe, that its seen as foolishness by others.
1 Cor 2:13-14 “This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness.”
The foolishness that Paul preaches is that Jesus is Lord.
(Lord of Joel)
Romans 10:9-13 “If you declare with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you will be saved … there is no difference between Jew and Gentile the same Lord is Lord of all and rich to all who call on him for, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ ”
(Lord of Isaiah)
Romans 14:10-11 “For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. It is written: As surely as I live says the Lord every knee will bow before me every tongue will acknowledge God.”
(Lord of Deuteronomy)
Romans 12:19 “take not revenge but give place to wrath, as written: ‘vengeance is mine I will repay’ says the Lord”
If you think that Paul didn’t present his thoughts explicitly because people would regard him foolish, then we should conclude that your interpretations to Paul’s verses are just speculations because (as you have concluded) Paul didn’t present his thoughts explicitly.
When there are multiple interpretations to a verse, then it is not logical to choose an interpretation that is contradictive to other verses in the document, unless the document itself is contradictive, but before making such a conclusion; our interpretation to any verse in the document should be in harmony with the other verses there.
For example, Lord can be used to refer to a God, or it can be used to refer to a Man. Our interpretation to this word needs to be in harmony with the other verses in the document.
I do understand your views regarding Paul’s beliefs. But looking at the writing of Paul in general, I don’t think that Paul believed that Jesus was a God, or equal to God, or Jesus was begotten from God from eternity, or that he is different than God but he and God are one, etc.
It seems to me he didn’t believe Jesus and God were level but that Jesus’ in status matched God’s in a partial way, the 2 deities sharing in rule over the world.
Paul certainly *was* explicit in his statements.
It doesn’t get any more explicit than
“to us … there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things”
In the 2,000 years since Paul wrote this no higher Christology has ever been given.
Calling Jesus “a god” would be a *lower* Christology than Paul has given here in 1 Cor 8:6.
Your verse (1 Corinthians 8:6), clearly imply that Jesus and God are not one, and that Jesus is not Yahweh. According to Romans 1:4, Jesus was not the son of God before the resurrection. Also, 1 Corinthians 15:21 can clearly be interpreted that Paul believed that Jesus was a Man. 1 Corinthians 15:24 and 15:28 can both be clearly interpreted that Paul regarded Jesus to be subordinate to God.
However, we have Philippians 2:6-11 and 1 Corinthians 8:6. So, we have three options here:
1$ To regard Romans 1:4 (and other similar verses) to be the reference and trying to see if the opposing verses can have logical interpretations accordingly.
2$ To regard Philippians 2:6-11 (and other similar verses) to be the reference and trying to see if the opposing verses can have logical interpretations accordingly.
3$ To conclude that the documents here are contradictive.
The idea here is that you cannot just sever the verse from the document and interpret it in a way that is not in harmony with the whole document.
—–>>
—–>>
I can go for the first option (because it is more in harmony with the background culture at the time of Paul), or the third option. But this is just my opinion.
However, I need to highlight here that “I think” that Paul was not the main figure in the Christian faith at the beginning, but he was the main figure of the Christian sect that win the day in 325AD.
Let us clarify this:
$ Christians can be divided into two: Pauline Christians and Non-Pauline Christians. The Nazareth are one of the Non-Paulines.
$ The Pauline Christians can be divided into two: Trio-Christians and Non-Trio-Christians. The Trio Christians are the one who followed Justin, while the Adoptionists can be regarded as one of the Non-Trios.
$ The Trio Christians can be divided into two: The Trinitarians and Non-Trinitarians. The Trinitarians are the one who won the day in 325AD, and Arianism are one of the Non-Trinitarians.
So, The Trinitarians, Non-Trinitarians. Trios and Non-Trios are all part of the Pauline Christians. So, the idea that “we have zero development in christology from Paul writing” is a bit of oversimplification.
Whether Romans 1:4 is a quote of earlier creed or not it’s clear Paul himself did not believe Jesus became son of god only at the resurrection. “when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman”. So we can’t interpret it that way when dealing with Paul’s theology.
If 1 Cor 8:6 is interpreted to mean Jesus and God are not one then it must necessarily also be interpreted that the one Lord is not God. Which is certainly not what Paul believe.
Romans 11:2-3 “Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah how he appealed to God against Israel – ‘Lord they have killed your prophets'”
Rather Paul believes that the Lord is God, that there is one Lord and one God, that Jesus is the one Lord through whom all things and the Father is the one God from whom all things. Paul is describing here a divine union between the Father and Son. Paul understands the Spirit (who is the spirit of God, the spirit of the Lord and the spirit of Christ and who searches everything even the very depths of God) as an integral part of that divine union.
So, we reached a point of disagreement here.
Romans 1:4 is from Paul, and nothing suggest that it is “a quote of earlier creed”, this is just your opinion.
Also, you have chosen to interpret the verses of Paul in special particular way that many can disagree with. Looking at the whole document (as the verses that I have highlighted), then many would conclude something different than your opinion.
Also, I don’t see your logic accurate {“it must necessarily also be interpreted”}. This is just your opinion, specially that Lord can be used for “God” or a “VIP Man”.
Also, Moses has been described as God in the OT (Exodus 7:1), and all believers are Gods (Psalm 82.6). What I mean here is that not just “lord” can be used for a “VIP Person”, but even the word “God” has been used in the OT to describe “Men”.
Its not my idea about Romans 1:4, its an old one:
https://ehrmanblog.org/exaltation-christology-in-an-early-creed-for-members/
The claim is that it contains earlier ideas that aren’t Paul’s.
Yes “lord” can mean different things in different contexts. But what matters is how Paul is using it. He says there is one Lord through whom all things – and that Jesus is this one Lord. There is no other Lord. Either Jesus is God or the one Lord through whom all things come is not God either.
Thank you for highlighting the reference for your opinion. However, this reference is arguing that Roman 1:4 “might” be a quote that Paul included in his letter. However, regardless whether it was a quote or not, it is still a verse by Paul and therefore, it is part of Paul’s teaching.
Now … you cannot just use your views to pick and choose the things you want and ignore the things that you don’t want. You need to have a methodology. So, there are some understanding contradictions in the verses, and the suggested methodology is to select some verses to be the reference and interpret the rest accordingly. Or to regard the whole document to be contradictive (option 1 and 3 in a previous comment).
Using “option 1” and highlighting that “Lord” can be used for a Man, then, I can interpret your verse to probably be a spiritual rhetoric style for Paul in describing Jesus (as I have mentioned before).
I do acknowledge your ability to interpret the verses of Paul the way you want, but I do disagree with you due to the logic that I have explained.
The lead up to Rom 1:4 is “the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy writings about his Son … “.
Coupled with Paul’s later claim in Rom 8 ” God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh”, and his claims in Phil 2 that “being in the form of God he emptied himself and took on the form of a servant in the likeness of man” and Gal 4 that “God sent his son born of a woman … ” there is only one ordinary, natural, disinterested way to interpret Paul’s view on this. And that is that Paul believed Jesus to be a pre-existed son sent into the world.
Yes “lord” can be used for a man, but “one Lord through whom all things” can only be used for the one divine being.
We hit a point of disagreement and we are repeating things without any new valuable data or new valuable logic. So, let me just summarize my view one more time.
I don’t think is logical to sever a verse from the document and interpret it in a way that isn’t in harmony with the other verses. You can find an interpretation that fit the whole verses, or you can acknowledge that this document has contradictions.
I presented a kind of resolution by using Roman 1:4 (and other verses) as discussed in my previous comments. I can add here that Jeremiah did exist before his birth (as per Jeremiah 1.5), but no one discussed Jeremiah’s divinity.
I am not saying that this logic is the “only one ordinary, natural, disinterested” logic, but it is the logic that is more convincing to me.
Therefore, I think Paul thought that Jesus was a privileged man, but I don’t think that Paul thought that Jesus was God, or equal to God, or Jesus and God are one, … etc.
I understand your interpretations, but I disagree with them and I don’t think they are valid due to the logic and data that I have presented.
Rightly put @brenmcg.
This is the key point for people to note. Most Creation-Flood Myth religions are in fact Trinitarian. And Jesus was rightfully reinstalled into that Trinitarian Framework by Paul and next the Gospel according to Mark. That framework is where Gospel begins. Jesus is an Avatar of the Third Member of the Trinity — the Divine Son of the Sky Father. The Avatar of Christ is the provider of the Salvation which is where the Gospel of Mark begins. The core teaching of Christianity is “Salvation” through Trinity. This is not a Greek Idea. It is fall back to the older religions that preceded Judaism. Jesus made the the Trinity Whole and the Trinity made Jesus Whole. This idea may have come from the Nabataeans and/or others from Petra and related spaces or further East and probably Parthian and/or Hindu in origin.
Even if one sets aside the Epistles of Paul, “the Grand Opening” to the Gospels for those who begin with Markian Priority is the Salvation through Trinity. Typology to the “Son” and Isha is further drawn by the text to make Jesus the “Divine Isha”. Comparative Theology is spread across Gospels but drives this home.
Thank you brenmcg for pointing out 1 Cor 8:6 which is a convincing Pauline statement of both pre-existence, pre-eminence and proactive involvement in creation even though it doesn’t go as far as John in equating Jesus with God and arguably not quite as far as the author of Colossians (Col 1:15-20)
Bart, this verse does seem to suggest Paul saw Jesus as more than just a pre-existing archangel……
I am not an expert in atomism but I have read some about it related to another topic and I would like to point out an issue.
It seems like you are conflating Pre-socratic, atomist thinking and the idea of the Monad and related. I believe these are contradictory views.
Atomist theory posited a universe that was fundamentally stochastic. There is no ‘cause’ and one could imagine it as as swirling vortices of atoms. This chaotic universe is created through voids, clinamen, and interaction of atoms in time and space. This is an attempt at a naturalistic understanding of the universe.
This seems in conflict with the basic ideas of Plato and the later Neoplatonists and terms of Forms and other ideas you refer to.
While I understand you are trying to simplify things here and not do a history of Greek philosophy, I think you at least need to disentangle these ideas because while some of these concepts clearly influenced Christian theology (Particularly derived from Plato) it is hard to me to see how the atomistic view could be related to what you describe here.
I didn’t imply that the Atomic hypothesis is a prerequisite for the Monad hypothesis. I started this article by highlighting the genius of the Greek thinking process and I used the Atomic hypothesis for this purpose because it is something that we can relate to by our scientific knowledge today. Then I used this thinking process to present the Monad hypothesis. Therefore, I wasn’t linking the Atomic hypothesis with the Monad Hypothesis, but I was linking the thinking process itself.
However, I did dig in the Greek philosophical world just enough to understand the dynamics of the Christians faith. However, your comment here does trigger an inquiry:
You are saying that the Greek regarded these both hypotheses to be contradicting to each other. Is this right? Have the Greek Monad Philosophers from before Plato to Philo and beyond explicitly rejected the Atomic hypothesis and explicitly accepted infinity to be the end of divisions?
—->>
—->>
I am asking this because my understanding (due to abbreviated general readings) that the ancient Muslim Philosophers (800AD+) translated the Greek books and they discussed and explained both hypotheses, and I didn’t sense that they discussed a possible contradiction between them. So, I am surprised that the Greek Monad Philosophers would not accept infinity for the “Monad Hypothesis” but they would accept it for the Atomic Hypothesis.
Is it possible that the Greek Monad Philosophers accepted the Atomic hypothesis (or at least accepted that divisions will not end in infinity) but rejected the Stochastic Hypothesis that was built on it? Or they all clearly rejected the Atomic hypothesis and clearly accepted that divisions will end in infinity?
I believe Parmenides and the early atomists, Leucippus and Democritus, could be said to have opposing views on this question. There might be some difficulty because some of this thought has to be reconstructed from others commentary on it. I think this entry on Democritus explains the difference. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democritus/
Thank you, Testcase,
I looked briefly at your reference and also at the following reference:
https://plato.stanford.edu/Archives/win2021/entries/atomism-ancient/#PlatPlat
It is not clear if Plato rejected the Atomic Hypothesis or not. It seems that this hypothesis was rejected by Aristotle, and I am not sure about his logic, and it does seem that there were some back and forth after him.
I don’t think that the Atomic Hypothesis led directly to the Stochastic Hypothesis, and the two could have been regarded separate. I am still saying that it is surprising that the Monad Philosophers would not accept infinity for the Monad Hypothesis, but they will accept it as an end for divisions.
Also, it seems to me that the Stochastic Philosophers were one step shorter for deducting the philosophical component of the 2nd law of thermodynamics: Chaos in the system will not transform into order without external work. Or in its’ formal definition: Entropy in the system will not decrease without external work. And the entropy here is the measure of the chaos in the system.
Question for This group and Bart — in the development of trinitarian doctrine does anyone comment on “ what” was going on “ before “ the enfleshment/ incarnation “ of the logos of the prologue of the 4th gospel?
Church fathers often talk about Christ as the one who was the God who “appeared” to important figures of the Hebrew Bible (Abraham, Moses, etc.). Other than that, asking what he was “doing” is pretty much like asking what “God” was doing. Running the world I suppose!
Salvation through Trinity is a key idea in most Creation and Flood Myth religions. The Trinity provides Salvation. We see this in Hinduism and its part of the “ablution ritual” of dipping in the Jordan. (or the Ganga). In Creation we see, both the Holy Spirit and the Creator God. The Religions just across the river worshipped also “the Son”. Jesus is that Third Member of the Celestial Trinity in Christianity. The first scene in Mark drives home this idea.(beyond Paul’s Trinity) — Mark 1 — 9-11
“At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”
The Soul is washed from Sin and is then readied for the EverLasting Life. Through the Trinity.
Matthew and Luke link Jesus to the Typology of the Son through “Lamb of God” Theology. The Gnostic Gospel also preaches the idea of the sempiternal Son.
Amusing- so the Eternal Word was out visiting. Christos Pantokrator- traveler beyond measure.