@Robert **”First of all, we don’t know if Paul thought of this divine figure as created or not, or neither, as Philo of Alexandria did. Nor do we know if Paul thought of this being as one among many (‘though I would presume not), or if any of the hypothetical many had the same capabilities. Stop with the ridiculous strawman reasoning.”**
Well we do know Paul though of this figure as unique – the entire section is part of god’s plan for his own the son. “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all” and “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.” and “we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship”. ie Phil 2 is about the one true Son who as part of god’s overall plan lowers himself so everyone else can receive adoption to sonship. Therefore god superexalted his own son and heir as part of his predetermined plan and gave him the name that is above every name.
When you insist on describing this as an angelic divine being instead of “god’s own son” you’re attempting to imply there may be other such angelic divine beings. But then Phil 2 loses all meaning – why does god superexalt some angelic being to be lord of all just because this angelic being humbled himself? Phil 2 only makes within Paul’s overall context of God’s plan for his own son.
@Robert **”So although I do think Paul is referring to a singular, unique figure, your impertinent argument that I have implied otherwise is also without any merit.”**
well in what sense do you think this figure is “unique”? Every human being is “unique” in some sense but there are still lots of humans. Do you mean there are no other angelic divine beings besides the one described in Phil 2? or the one in Phil 2 is “unique” in some sense but there are lots of others.
Lets look at what you’re implying in posts 65 and 66;
Stephen asks in post 65 “Robert, a question. Given Paul’s apocalytic views and his concept of divine figures, i.e., principalities and powers, etc”; your response in post 66 is “That would be my best guess, but it’s only a guess”
are you agreeing with this claim that Paul talks of many “divine figures” or do disagree and that Paul’s view of Jesus is that he is unique in this sense of a “divine being”? (“divine being” here meaning of course other than “God”).
Or Stephen’s post in 70 – “I think we can reasonably suppose that a good apocalyptic Jew like Paul is importing a bunch of his previous understanding into his Jesus belief. The Enochic material is full of this kind of thing, divine beings and such.”
Do you agree with this description or do you feel a need to correct this? that Paul’s is not like the enochian material full of divine beings and such; rather that Paul sees jesus in this sense as a unique “divine being”?
Or Stephen’s post in 70 – “I think we can reasonably suppose that a good apocalyptic Jew like Paul is importing a bunch of his previous understanding into his Jesus belief. The Enochic material is full of this kind of thing, divine beings and such.”
Do you agree with this description or do you feel a need to correct this? that Paul’s is not like the enochian material full of divine beings and such; rather that Paul sees jesus in this sense as a unique “divine being”?
Brenmcg, in context, what makes Christ, the pre-existent divine being, unique and significant is his willingness to sacrifice his divine prerogatives and humble himself in service to God. That is, after all, Paul’s actual point in Philippians 2.
Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus…
Presumably Satan also “existed in the form of God”, i.e., was a divine being, but unlike Christ, he DID “regard equality with God as something to be grasped”, hence his damnation.
@Robert **”I do think Paul thought there were many divine figures of various degrees of importance”**
So why were you objecting to me saying “Its an implication of your position, where jesus is just one of many divine angelic beings and that there is nothing unique in him being found in the form of god and equality with god being within his grasp.” ?
Do you agree or disagree with Stephen’s post 85 “Presumably Satan also “existed in the form of God”, i.e., was a divine being, but unlike Christ, he DID “regard equality with God as something to be grasped”, hence his damnation.”?
Post 74 **”Paul never speaks of Jesus pre-existing as Yahweh outside of time from all eternity. That is merely your post-Nicene perspective.”**
1 Cor 10:3-26
“all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ … We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did, and were destroyed by snakes … The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? … You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Or are we provoking the Lord to jealousy? … Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience, for the earth is the Lord’s and its fullness”
So Christ (who is the one Lord through whom all things) was the one tested in exodus by the Israelites. The spiritual food and drink the Israelites had in exodus is the same Paul’s brethren now have. And Paul’s justification for eating whatever you want is that ‘the earth is the lord’s and its fullness’. A quote from psalm 24 “The earth is the Lord’s and its fullness, the world, and all who live in it; for he founded it on the seas and established it on the waters.”
@Stephen **”Brenmcg, in context, what makes Christ, the pre-existent divine being, unique and significant is his willingness to sacrifice his divine prerogatives and humble himself in service to God. That is, after all, Paul’s actual point in Philippians 2.”**
No. In Phil 2 the opposite of grasping equality with God is humbling himself. “Who existing in the form of god did not consider being equal with God something to be grasped but emptied himself” – ie if he didn’t humble himself he would have had equality with God.
However according to Paul (Romans 14:9) he could not then have been “the Lord of both the dead and the living.”
According to Paul 2 Cor 8:9 “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.”
That’s Paul’s gospel.
Its the humbling himself for the sake of humanity that’s the moral lessen – not a supposed refusal to grasp at equality with god.
He is the son and heir in Paul. This notion of there being other divine beings who grasped at equality with god or refused to humble themselves is non existent in Paul.
**”Because, as I’ve explained to you many times now, I do think Paul saw the pre-existent divine being that humbled himself to have been unique in a few ways. Why don’t you get this?”**
Because that’s not what I’m saying. Of course he is unique in some ways – no one else humbled himself to be born as Jesus of nazareth and be crucified by Pontius Pilate. The question is whether he is unique in the sense of being found in the form of god and whether he is unique in his ability to be super-exalted and given the name which is above every name.
Nicaea says he is unique in that sense – you claim that he is not unique in that sense. That should hardly cause controversy.
**” The verses you cite also speak of the divine nature of these demonic forces: “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Or are we provoking the Lord to jealousy?”**
Well yes because two chapters previously he has already said “Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that ‘no idol in the world really exists’, and that ‘there is no God but one.’ Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as in fact there are many gods and many lords— yet for us there is one God,”
Paul knows there are no other gods so it doesn’t matter if you eat food sacrificed to them, but if someone else believes there are you shouldn’t lead them to sin by eating in front of them – however “the earth is the Lord’s and its fullness … “
Brenmcg, Robert is correct. You simply misread Paul. I would add that your larger problem is that your views are ahistorical. You want to divorce Paul from his intellectual milieu. Paul was a Second Temple Jewish apocalypticist even before his conversion. We know this because his ideas draw from the same well as others of this stripe, even folks who did not believe in Jesus. Look, I’m perfectly aware I’m wasting my time but there is a significant amount of scholarship on this issue. See the work of Alan Segal and Charles Gieschen, for example.
There already existed within Jewish apocalyptic thought concepts that the figure of Jesus could be applied to by early culturally literate Jewish believers (like Paul). If I may use a metaphor, Jesus was the wine poured into a cup that already existed. Thus the possibility of an early high Christology.
@Robert **”But the much more immediate issue, from my perspective, is to correct your misstatements regarding your false inferences about the supposed implications of my views.”**
Ok, and we’re having some trouble finding out exactly what those misstatements are supposed to be. I said “Its an implication of your position, where jesus is just one of many divine angelic beings and that there is nothing unique in him being found in the form of god and equality with god being within his grasp”. Which part of that do you not agree with? There being some things unique to Jesus isn’t relevant.
There’s nothing unique in Abraham Lincoln being an assassinated president, regardless of him personally having some unique things about his story.
**”If you understand the poem of Philippians 2 correctly, there is a necessary and intimate connection between the humbling kenosis and the subsequent exaltation. Dividing these two aspects is perhaps the biggest error of post-Nicene interpretations of Pauline thought. Do you really want to separate these two aspects of how the pre-existent and subsequently super-exalted figure is unique??”**
Well yes they’re linked. A king may make his son joint ruler when he has proved himself in battle. That doesn’t mean anyone who proves themselves in battle gets to be made joint ruler. Its a birthright of the son only. He gets this birthright after proving himself worthy. The birthright of Jesus in Phil 2 is the name of the Lord (everyone will bow to him and confess that he is Lord). This is how Phil 2 should be read correctly in the context of Paul’s own gospel.
**”As for the reality and import of other divine beings, one must find a way to understand the apparent contradictions of Paul’s various statements. The best way to integrate some of the most important aspects of this issue is to understand the profound dynamism of Paul’s thought as expressed in 2 Philippians and 1 Cor 15 within a Jewish apocalyptic framework, something which post-Nicene assumptions and interpretations inevitably fail to do.”**
Why is 1 Cor 15 the best way? That only mentions the human Jesus who dies and is resurrected – no mention of pre-existent Jesus found in the form of god. Better is to check where else Paul uses the phrase “every knee shall bow” – Romans 14. Everyone will stand before the judgement seat of God and bow before the lord. Or 2 Cor 5:10 “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ”.
Are there two judgement seats? one for God and one for Christ? or are they the same seat? Are there two Lords whom every knee will bow to? or are they the same Lord?
Here’s another apparent contradiction in Paul – Phil 1:23-24 “I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; 24 but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.” 1 Cor 15:22-23 “so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.”
So does Paul die and go straight away to be with christ or die and have to wait for his return? Or should we it along with Phil 2 as Paul being comfortable with the timelines of the present age being different from those of the kingdom of god?
@Stephen *””Robert is correct. You simply misread Paul. I would add that your larger problem is that your views are ahistorical. You want to divorce Paul from his intellectual milieu. Paul was a Second Temple Jewish apocalypticist even before his conversion. We know this because his ideas draw from the same well as others of this stripe, even folks who did not believe in Jesus.”**
So we know what Paul thought before his conversion, even though he didn’t write about it, because “his ideas draw from the same well as others of this stripe”? So because Matthew Mark Luke and John all drew their ideas from the same well therefore they all believed in the virgin birth. Does that work as a good argument? Or should we have to read Mark and John to find out exactly what they themselves believed?
Phil 3:18-19 “many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their stomach”
Does Paul believe their stomachs are divine? Do we really need to study the Jewish apocalypic milieu to understand what Paul means here? Maybe our post Nicene world view prevents us from understanding the hidden message of this verse?
Here’s what Paul actually believes – there is one Lord through whom all things. There is no other. Anyone who says any different about Paul is mistaken.
So we know what Paul thought before his conversion, even though he didn’t write about it, because “his ideas draw from the same well as others of this stripe”?
Read Gieschen and Segal.
So because Matthew Mark Luke and John all drew their ideas from the same well therefore they all believed in the virgin birth. Does that work as a good argument?
No, but who is making that argument besides you?
Or should we have to read Mark and John to find out exactly what they themselves believed?
I congratulate you on your newfound appreciation for the uniqueness of the individual writers in the NT. They are not saying the same thing. Each stands on their own. But be careful, friend, this the slipperiest of slopes. Before you know it you’ll be picking up on their differing Christologies and soteriologies.
@Robert **”I’ve explained several times why I think Paul did see him as playing a unique role in creation, playing a unique role in redemption, and playing a unique role in being super-exalted.”
Right but you’re not explaining if you think his ability to get super-exalted was unique to him as a son. Were there other angelic beings who may have been super-exalted had they humbled themselves?
And you’re not explaining in what sense he played a “unique role in creation”. Is it the same sense as Nicaea “by whom all things were made”?
**”All three roles in creation, redemption, and super-exaltation are very relevant to Paul’s dynamic view of Christ.”**
Right and all three roles exist in the Nicene creed – “by whom will things were made” “Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate”, “and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead”.
**”I think we’ve already see that this is pure eisegesis on your part, reflecting your post-Nicene perspective. Paul says nothing whatsoever about Jesus being super-exalted based on his birthright. On the contrary, he says he was super-exalted because he humbled himself (διό, therefore). Your analogy is exactly contrary to what Paul clearly says.”**
What has been agreed is that we should read Paul within the full Pauline corpus – Paul’s Jesus is the son and heir who receives the kingdom from his father. How else to interpret that but as a birthright? Why interpret Paul in any other way?
The “therefore” should be interpreted as being applied to verse 8 not to both verse 7 and 8.
verse 7 he gave up his divine status
verse 8 having lowered himself he was obedient to death even death on the cross.
So he gives up his divine prerogatives but god gives them back to him because of his obedience in the lower state.
**”Philippians 2 shows the dynamic view of how the divine being is subsequently exalted. 1 Cor 15 shows how the resurrected/exalted Christ is still part of a dynamic process until God will finally be all-in-all. Nicea denies this dynamic process.”**
How can you say Nicaea denies this dynamic process? “He is the lord through whom all things were made, he became incarnate and was made man, he was resurrected and ascended again in to heaven.”
**”Both of your proof texts are referring to the future judgement”**
The quote from Romans 14 is from Isaiah – Paul is saying that the Lord who spoke to Isaiah saying every knee will bow to him was jesus.
**”In Philippians, Paul is realizing that he may die before Christ returns”**
In Philippians Paul is expressing a desire to die and immediately be with christ – appearing to contradict his claim that the dead will be resurrected when christ returns.
@Stephen **”No, but who is making that argument besides you?”**
What’s the difference between these two arguments?:
1) Paul was a Second Temple Jewish apocalypticist even before his conversion. We know this because his ideas draw from the same well as others of this stripe.
2) So because Matthew Mark Luke and John all drew their ideas from the same well therefore they all believed in the virgin birth.
why does one work and the other doesn’t?
Are we not divorcing Mark from his intellectual milieu if we claim he doesn’t believe in the virgin birth?
Are we not divorcing Mark from his intellectual milieu if we claim he doesn’t believe in the virgin birth?
Nope. These doctrines developed over time. Where is there any mention of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth in Mark? Mark has no interest in Jesus’ biological birth because Mark thought Jesus was born like everybody else. Jesus was made divine, adopted by God as his Son, at his baptism. That makes best sense of the text. Why can’t you let Mark have his own say? Well we know why. You bring a pre-conceived faith position to the text, assuming a priori that all the evangelists are saying the same thing. Their real import will always dance just past your fingers, always escaping your grasp.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)