Adoptionism, also called dynamic monarchianism,[1] is an early Christian nontrinitarian theological doctrine, subsequently revived in various forms, which holds that Jesus was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism, his resurrection, or his ascension.[1] some seem to assert that this provesthe Trinity just smething was made up latter. It has been asserted thatthisis the christology of Mark.I will argue that while therewere adoptionist groups early this was not the view of the infant chich. Now was it the christology of Mark. I think the iitial reaction of Jesus' deciples to sta,emtslike 'befpre AbrahamwasI am" was to makeexcusesk to assiehe wasn't really saying he's God and so on, He rose from the dead thatmight goa log way toward makingpeople thin he' divine.No doubt there was some kind of adoptionist theology floatimgaroumd we can see it in Romans 1:
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. (NIV)
While I think there was an adoptionist element--not only heterodox but within the orthdoox---it was not to the exclusion of the dieity of Christ. We have been led astray aobut what the Jews really thought of Messiah. We assume moern views re the ame as ancient. Alred Edershiem discusses the view of Messiah foundin theearlist formof the Talmud. True this is from the second century he asserts it was oral tradition in the time of Christ and written down lattter.They probaby understood like the Jews of the Talmud, Messiah is premundne (existed before the world)satatthe righthandof God and was quasi divine bit was also adopted as sono God.
In the Book of Enoch (130 BC) The Messiah is designated with such names "the son of God" (it speaks of I and My Son) and "the just" "the elect" "son of man." He is presented as seated by the side of the Ancient of Days, face like a man but as lovely as an Angles, he is the 'son of man' and he has and with him dwells all rightousness. [2].
In The Sybilline Oracles (170BC) Messiah is "the King sent from Heaven" and "King Messiah." In the Psalms of Solomon (150 BC) "The King who reigns is of the house of David" He is actaully refered to in the Greek Kristos Kurios, Christ the Lord! (Ibid).[3]
Paul shows morethan an adoptionist view in Philipians 1,
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature[b] of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death— even death on a cross! 9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.(NIV)
the term avoce translated "natire" by the NIV v6 is th4e Greek term Morphe. NiV trnslator feltit is bet remedred nature but many disagree.
Greek from = Morphe google "It is the Greek morphe, for which English has no exact equivalent. Unlike "form" in English, morphe does not mean "shape." It is a philosophical term that means "the outward expression of an inner essence." We can derive an illustration of this definition from figure skating." [4]
Thayer's Lexicon "the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision external appearance"[5]
I find it hard to believe that it's so superficioal that Paul just says Jesus looked ike God so he shared equality. Anothr quotefroa sorce that upports nature; "Form (3444) (morphe) refers to the nature or character of something and emphasizes both the internal and external form. In other words morphe refers to the outward display of the inner reality or the essential form of something which never alters."[6]
1 Corinthians 8:6 New International Version 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
, "Paul states that Jesus is 'the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation…in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell' (Col 1:15-20). Each of these statements affirms the deity of the Lord Jesus."[7]
https://www.str.org/w/the-deity-of-christ-in-the-gospel-of-mark
[1]Williams, D. H. (2012) [2011]. "Adoptionism". The Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9780470670606.wbecc0008. ISBN 9781405157629.
[2]Alfred Edersheim,The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah,New York: Longmans Green and Company.1950,173
[3]Ibid.174,
[4]https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/1737/Morphe.htm
[5]Theyers
[6]https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=34103
[7]https://understandingthegospel.org/explore-the-gospel/jesus-christ/the-deity-of-christ-in-the-epistles/
35 comments:
There is nothing in Paul's writing that expresses the belief that Jesus was an eternally existent divine being (which was what John said).
Philippians 2:6-11
New International Version
6 Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
Read full chapter
Footnotes
Philippians 2:6 Or in the form of
Philippians 2:7 Or the form
About 1,830,000 results (0.30 seconds)
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.
Colossians 1:15-16 NIV - Bible.com
Bible.com
https://www.bible.com › bible › COL.1.15-16.NIV
Still nothing. Hear the words: "God exalted him to the highest place". That means he was placed (appointed, adopted) into that position. He wasn't there at the beginning of time.
He's being intentionally stupid, Joe.
Jesse, ad hominem is not convincing to thinking people. Show me where Paul himself expresses a genuine trinitarian belief (or at least some form of eternal divinity for Jesus). And not merely a modern-day re-interpretation of what Paul said, which is what Joe is relying on.
im-skeptical said...
Jesse, ad hominem is not convincing to thinking people. Show me where Paul himself expresses a genuine trinitarian belief (or at least some form of eternal divinity for Jesus). And not merely a modern-day re-interpretation of what Paul said, which is what Joe is relying on.
I quoteed Paul directly in two separate passages.
these are the words or Pau;/ You want Paul to only be taken seriously when saying things you want but when he says thigs you don't want you assert he didn't know anything.
"The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him."
In him him all thing were created. I explained statements Paul makes that sound like adoptionism. read the essay again.
And I quoted Paul: "God exalted him to the highest place". That IS adoptionism. It indicates that Jesus is not God (he is the image of God). It indicates that he wasn't always in the highest place. Your understanding of Paul's words is conditioned by the currently prevalent belief that is taught by the church, but that belief wasn't prevalent in the earliest days of Christianity.
God, the Logos, second person of Trinity, became Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus was born a present in a third world backwater but was razzed to a level of equality of God. Unless Philippians means because Jesus looked like God he was made equal with God it says he was equal and was in nature God then emptied himself and became a man. It's not adoptionism because it pertains to Jesus' position in society but not to the exclusion of deity.
You read it according to your belief. I read it according to what he said.
you are not giving an 0bjective account, your view is colored your ideology you are tryung to erase any connection to deity and he clearly says he's in very nature God.
Joe: I think the iitial reaction of Jesus' deciples to sta,emtslike 'befpre AbrahamwasI am" was to makeexcusesk to assiehe wasn't really saying he's God and so on, He rose from the dead thatmight goa log way toward makingpeople thin he' divine.
Why do you think Jesus actually said that? Just because it is in the Bible?
Far more likely those words were put in Jesus' mouth specifically to support the later, higher Christology of the John community.
Joe: We have been led astray aobut what the Jews really thought of Messiah. We assume moern views re the ame as ancient. Alred Edershiem discusses the view of Messiah foundin theearlist formof the Talmud. True this is from the second century he asserts it was oral tradition in the time of Christ and written down lattter.They probaby understood like the Jews of the Talmud, Messiah is premundne (existed before the world)satatthe righthandof God and was quasi divine bit was also adopted as sono God.
The Jewish view of the messiah was also an evolving one, and extrapolating back from the second century to Jesus' time is suspect. In Jesus time there was a significant faction who denied the resurrection of the righteous, remember. The idea that people would be resurrected - as opposed to the nation of Israel - was relatively recent, and had yet to gain full traction.
Joe: In the Book of Enoch (130 BC) The Messiah is designated with such names "the son of God" (it speaks of I and My Son) and "the just" "the elect" "son of man." He is presented as seated by the side of the Ancient of Days, face like a man but as lovely as an Angles, he is the 'son of man' and he has and with him dwells all rightousness. [2].
None of which is incompatible with adoptionism.
Joe: In The Sybilline Oracles (170BC) Messiah is "the King sent from Heaven" and "King Messiah."
You are using the supposed utterances of a Greek oracle?
Joe: In the Psalms of Solomon (150 BC) "The King who reigns is of the house of David" He is actaully refered to in the Greek Kristos Kurios, Christ the Lord! (Ibid).[3]
Again, works with adoptionism.
Joe: Paul shows morethan an adoptionist view in Philipians 1,
That can be understood to mean Jesus was perfectly righteous.
Joe: 1 Corinthians 8:6 New International Version 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
One God, and also one king, Jesus.
Pix
Mark believed David was the adopted son of God, as were the later kings of Judah. This was the standard Jewish belief.
2 Samuel 7:12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men,
The adoption of David by God is in Psalm 2.
Psalm 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying,
...
7 I will tell of the decree:
The Lord said to me, “You are my Son;
today I have begotten you.
Mark is clearly referencing that when he has similar words said by God in respect of Jesus:
Mark 1:11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son;[d] with you I am well pleased.”
Paul too:
Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
Also noteworthy is the fact that Mark notes Jesus' own family thought him mad. Later gospels edit that out of the narrative because really it does nt make sense if Jesus was divine from birth or indeed had been from the start of tume.
Mark 3:21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."
See also.
Acts 10:34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right. 36 You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. 37 You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.
Pix
"you are not giving an 0bjective account, your view is colored your ideology you are tryung to erase any connection to deity and he clearly says he's in very nature God."
You got it backwards. The older Christologies were declared to be heretical by the church when they created their more favored version. They have set the course for Christian theology, and disagreement has been stifled. For my part, I don't buy any of it. I don't have a preferred Christology according to my own ideology, because it's all a pack of lies to begin with. But I can look at historical evidence without having to try to make it mesh with my religious beliefs. That's something that you can't do.
Hey I'm reading these I'm reading Gary have a message volume on the resurrection what should I read after it
my view combines both, It is adoptionism and the adopted son is generic deity incarnate.
He was the incarnate logos who became a man and the man is adopted as son of God.
The Jewish view of the messiah was also an evolving one, and extrapolating back from the second century to Jesus' time is suspect. In Jesus time there was a significant faction who denied the resurrection of the righteous, remember. The idea that people would be resurrected - as opposed to the nation of Israel - was relatively recent, and had yet to gain full traction.
Ederseim knew more about it than you do
Philippians 1:6 6 Who, being in very nature God...
Daniel said...
Hey I'm reading these I'm reading Gary have a message volume on the resurrection what should I read after it
9:36 AM
You really need to read The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiahby Alfred Ederseim, It was written in the 19th century but is still in print. It's crucial information you really need to do apologetics. Most Christians don't know. Ederseim was a Jew he was trained to be a rabi being born into a wealthy Jewish family. I think in Austria. He became a Christian in college when he read the Talmud and realized the predictions of messiah matched Jesus. His parent's became Christians inadeptly. Alfred became a professor at both Oxford and Cambridge.
"He was the incarnate logos who became a man and the man is adopted as son of God."
- You adhere to John's Christology. But that is at odds with the adoptionism espoused by Paul and Mark, and the Shepherd of Hermas. In the earlier works, there was no concept of Jesus as the logos incarnate.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Adoptionism
"Philippians 1:6 6 Who, being in very nature God..."
- You keep saying that. Over and over. But what it doesn't tell you is WHEN that status is achieved.
John is early material. the John community was pre Pauline. I've quoted Paul three times making statements alluding to Christ's eternal nature. You are serotyping sources to support your views.
"Philippians 1:6 6 Who, being in very nature God..."
- You keep saying that. Over and over. But what it doesn't tell you is WHEN that status is achieved. Philippians was written in 62. what dp you men achieved? Paul held to that doctrine at the end of his life. It was probably standard before the 50s.
You got it backwards. The older Christologies were declared to be heretical by the church when they created their more favored version. They have set the course for Christian theology, and disagreement has been stifled. For my part, I don't buy any of it. I don't have a preferred Christology according to my own ideology, because it's all a pack of lies to begin with. But I can look at historical evidence without having to try to make it mesh with my religious beliefs. That's something that you can't do.
BS that is just another attempt to re write history, that's the ideology of the anti-doctrinal.
you are into revisionist history.
you no idea what the older doctrines were. You want to assume ideas latter declared orthodox were knew so you can assert a revisionist line. All you have to go y is Paul and implications in Gpet.
Learn some history. John was NOT pre-Pauline. The gospel of John was chronologically the last of the ones in the New Testament, and Paul came before any of them. And Nothing Paul said speaks of the eternal existence of Jesus. If you disagree, quote the passage. (hint: "Who, being in very nature God.." doesn't speak of eternal existence. It merely speaks of divinity, which, according to adoptionists, was granted to Jesus, but not before he was born.) Read the article I provided on adoptionism. I didn't make that up based on some ideology that you imagine I hold. It's what early Christians believed. It's a minority view today, because it was squashed by the church when they wanted to promote a different idea.
If you talk to someone you can't see and hear, you are nuts. If you believe in a god who claims to want the salvation of everyone, yet does nothing to make himself know to the general public like speaking audibly, you are living out a contradiction. There is no evidence for anything you say Joe The Bible says the earth is 6,000 years old and science disproved that long ago.
Anonymous said...
If you talk to someone you can't see and hear, you are nuts.
Do you know wo Helen Keller was? She went blind and def as a baby, she could not see or hear anyone she spoke to. Was she nuts?
If you believe in a god who claims to want the salvation of everyone, yet does nothing to make himself know to the general public like speaking audibly, you are living out a contradiction.
He inspired a whole book but you don't accept it. You refuse to accept faith it's you who refuses to have faith. You blame God because you don't wont the responsibility of faith.
There is no evidence for anything you say Joe The Bible says the earth is 6,000 years old and science disproved that long ago.
No there is no such passage. The figure 6000 is from Bishop Usher who combined the begats. That not a bible vrse.
Blogger im-skeptical said...
Learn some history. John was NOT pre-Pauline. The gospel of John was chronologically the last of the ones in the New Testament, and Paul came before any of them.
where did i say John was pre Pauline? I never said that. GosJohn is thought to be the latest gospel not the latest document in the NT. That is only what scholars think there is no fact to that, we don't know which was written first or last.
And Nothing Paul said speaks of the eternal existence of Jesus. If you disagree, quote the passage. (hint: "Who, being in very nature God.." doesn't speak of eternal existence.
No directly but part of God's nature is eternal existence. If he is in nature God he must be eternal. Why should we have to prove he's eternal? If he is in nature God then he is God.
It merely speaks of divinity, which, according to adoptionists, was granted to Jesus, but not before he was born.)
That is really stupid. nothing can ever contradict that. If it said "Jesus was not adopted" you would say he was adopted to be not adopted.
Read the article I provided on adoptionism. I didn't make that up based on some ideology that you imagine I hold. It's what early Christians believed. It's a minority view today, because it was squashed by the church when they wanted to promote a different idea.
It is what some people think they believed there is no ancient document that says "this is what early Christians believe."
ok I think I found what you tke to mean I think John was pre Pauline I said "...the John community was pre Pauline. I've quoted Paul three times making statements alluding to Christ's eternal nature. You are serotyping sources to support your views."
Notice I did not say John wrote before Paul I said Jhon community was Pre Pauline in terms of Paul's writing. Paul began writing in 50AD. The community that produced John probably predated that although their literature did not. Why do I say that? The elders endorsement, the Post script to the Gospel implies that the BD was an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry. I assume the community he founded would be among the most ancient of church communities.
"where did i say John was pre Pauline? I never said that."
- "John is early material. the John community was pre Pauline." - Joseph Hinman 10:08 PM
"That is only what scholars think there is no fact to that, we don't know which was written first or last."
- The dating of biblical documents is a best estimate based on all available evidence, which includes historical context. The chronological ordering has a higher confidence level than the estimated dates.
"No directly but part of God's nature is eternal existence."
- Nobody is saying that God himself does not have eternal existence. You are conflating two different theological concepts. Jesus was not always part of God's milieu, according to adoptionists. Just because you don't agree with that concept, it doesn't mean Christians didn't believe that.
"That is really stupid. nothing can ever contradict that. If it said "Jesus was not adopted" you would say he was adopted to be not adopted."
- Now THAT's stupid. I am describing a Christian belief to you. It's not what I believe. Your argument is with those early Christians, not with me. And if you wish to deny that they actually believed that, I would suggest that you do some research and learn some history.
"It is what some people think they believed there is no ancient document that says 'this is what early Christians believe.'"
- Why is it so hard for you to accept that Christian theology evolved? The Hebrews started out as polytheists and then became monotheists. (There is ample evidence in the OT to support that.) When Jesus came along, they didn't automatically assume he was divine, because that wouldn't be monotheism. Christians didn't either, at first. After all, he was a man. But Paul built a religion based on Jesus, and they had to elevate his status, so they declared him to be divine, and they then needed a way to make that fit with monotheism. They actually struggled with that problem for quite some time, until they eventually settled on the concept of the trinity (which allows you to have more than one God, and still call it one God). But that wasn't invented until many years down the road. In the meantime, there were differing beliefs, and disagreement among Christians. The church settled it by declaring any competing ideas to be heretical. Now, you believe what they finally settled on, as most Christians do. But it's absurd to claim that Christians all had the same belief right from the start.
Christ Divine from the Beginning.
Would it make any difference if Christ were not an eternally divine being?
Or are we just arguing about whether or not the bible claims he is?
Post a Comment