The Trinity revisited

I believe that is the correct understanding. "Judaism" was itself rather "hydra-headed" (sorry, couldn't resist (;->) in the late 2nd-Temple Period, with sects such as the Sadducees (who ran the Temple cultus and rejected much of what would be considered integral to later Judaism), the mystical, monastic Essenes, the Zealots, and of course the Pharisees (who wound up ultimately defining post-Temple Judaism). In this sense, Jewish followers of Jesus were a "contender" as well, and of course as a Messianic Jew I would contend that that was the direction in which Judaism was meant to go.

I think that was answered well by Rev. Clifton's post below.

For what it's worth, I think that in reference to God, the usual word for His Spirit is Ruakh, as in Genesis 1:2.

Well, it is written in the Talmud,

Rabbi Samuel ben Nahman said in Rabbi Jonathan's name: "When Moses was engaged in writing the Torah, he had to write the work of each day. When he came to the verse, AND GOD SAID; LET US MAKE MAN, etc., he said: 'Sovereign of the Universe! Why dost Thou furnish an excuse to heretics?' (for maintaining a plurality of deity). 'Write,' replied He; 'whoever wishes to err may err.'" (Genesis Rabbah, VIII.8)

(disclosure: I got this from a very interesting article on the Trinity from a Messianic Jewish perspective by British Messianic scholar Richard Harvey, available at http://tinyurl.com/bz4fm. Harvey quotes a number of Scriptural and Talmudic sources, and even a rather interesting quote from the Kabbalic Zohar. Harvey's essay is worth reading to get a fuller perspective of the issue at hand).

Nosbourne, can you clarify what you're referring to on this?

Thanks, and Peace,

Matt

 

Matt:

Two minor points, one a correction:

-I was wrong; the quote to which I earlier referred used "yachad" not "echad".

-According to one of my dictionaries, however, EITHER form of the word can be used to refer to the coming together into unity.

A MOST interesting observation on your part. Nevertheless, I stand by my original point that mainstream Judaism not only rejected (eventually) any physical God but that the multiple Godhead does not appear in the history of Jewish thought pre Jesus and is activly fought post Jesus.

Having said THAT, Judaism has not in general considered either Christians or Muslims to be pagans.

The rest of you good reverends:

I THINK I've reached the point where I can't really hope to understand the very subtle distinctions your theology makes. This probably due to two things:

-I don't have the scholarly background, and

-Judaism does not concern itself with the nature of God beyond some speculations and mystical mumbo-jumbo so I don't have the habits of mind to contemplate these things.

In short, I asked a question for whose answer I am insufficiently prepared.

I thank you all for your efforts.

 

Matt, actually ruach doesn't translate exactly that way if it's in fact the word I think it is. I'll look and see if we're talking about the same thing. It's been a while since I rooted around in the dusty cellars of early b'reshit. Last year, in fact, since we're rapidly approaching the High Holy Days.

I don't need to tell YOU about the two most common names, "adonai" (which is a circumlocution for a Name that I am stupidly, superstitiously not willing to spell out), and "elohim", the name to which I earlier alluded as takine a plural sounding form in early b'reshit. There's also "el" in its own right

Oddly, "elohim" ALSO means "Judges" as in the Judges of the local court of justice or bet din. And it means false gods. An all purpose word, I guess, like "aloha".

 

Nosbourne,

I want to just say that I have truly, truly appreciated the humility and level-headedness (and in your own words, intellectual integrity) with which you have communicated in this discourse. I can only hope that when justly corrected I can respond in as irenic a manner.

Shalom Alechem,

Mattithiah

 

Aquinas not Acquinas

 

Ditto.

BTW, what's the Hebrew word for "Ditto?"



marilynd

 

Tambien.

 

The problem with this analysis is that, according to a fairly broad consensus of Biblical scholars, we don't know who actually wrote the four canonical Gospels and, by extension, Acts. I believe I am right in envoking this consensus. Certainly, all my professors, all the monographs I've read over the years, and all of the reference sources I've ever used since I was an undergraduate agree on this point. I'm a little out of date on the literature on this point, but I read Bart Ehrman's two recent books this summer and listened to Timothy Luke Johnson's Teaching Company lectures on this, both of whom reinterated this point.

Ergo, we can't conclude anything about the authority of the Gospels from what the historical Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John might have known, n'est pas?

Regards,

marilynd

 

Gratias.

marilynd

 

I'm with you, Dr. Osborne. This stuff is so far over my head I'm getting altitude sickness. I'm humbled.

 

Hi Marilynd,

Frankly, I'm not sure how broad that "consensus" would really be, although I have to confess a fairly strong degree of respect for Luke Timothy Johnson, especially in his earlier brilliant response to the "Jesus Seminar" nonsense. I know that historical-critical scholarship had to scale back earlier assertions of very late authorship for the Gospels simply because of manuscript evidence which has come to light (the best example being the John fragment in the John Rylands University Library at the University of Manchester, dated to "not later than the first half of the 2nd century", e.g., quite close to when the Gospel was supposed to have been written, and that too in Egypt at some distance from what was supposed to have been it's place of composition in Ephesus).

Certainly from a patristic perspective, the evidence is not insignificant for traditional authorship. Papias, who knew the Apostle John, notes that Mark's Gospel was derived from Mark's association with Peter, and that Matthew's was written by him in Hebrew (which may actually refer to Jewish Aramaic in this context, writtern in Hebrew characters, though there is no genuine evidence for any other NT texts having Hebrew/Aramaic originals), and of course John. Certainly one would prefer such chronologically close testimony to that of scholars with an an axe to grind.

The argument for the traditional authorship of the Gospels is put succinctly but well here, and Gospel-specific arguments from the same writer (citing scholarly as well as historical sources) for Matthew,
Mark,
Luke, and
John.

Peace,

Matt

 

Not if we see the attributes as moral, spiritual, mental, relational, and physical.

 

Matt:

Thanks for the citations. I will look at them when I get a chance.

My statement regarding a broad consensus must be understood in light of my education. I was schooled in these matters by individuals who were, for the most part, non-denominational or non-confessional scholars and who, for the most part, had no vested interest in the specific facts except to establish them. One of my professors was a practicing Baptist minister. I'm sure there were moments when he would personally have rather not reached some of the conclusions that he did, but he was intellectually honest enough to draw the conclusions which he thought the evidence demanded.

I too have problems with Crossan and the others of the "Jesus Seminar." On the whole, I must say that I try to learn from individuals who do not have a defined agenda.

So, when I use the term "broad consensus" I should qualify it by stating that my experience is one of university training, not confessional seminaries. I'd be very surprised indeed if the consensus at the university level were not quite broad. I can't begin to know, however, what sort of consensus exists among confessional colleges and seminaries.

BTW, "having an agenda" can cut both ways.

Regards,

marilynd

 

You're welcome

I'm curious as to whether your alma mater was a secular school, or a university connected to a denomination, such as Drew or Baylor? Drew's Thomas Oden has written extensively on this whole area, in particular his critique of much of what is taught in the academy regarding these things. He's also one of the key scholars who has been attempting to encourage the re-emergence of historical exegesis (he's the editor of the Ancient Christian COmmentary on the Scriptures, presenting biblical commentary from patristic sources). A brief, enlightening interview with Oden is found here; his main book dealing with his own pilgrimage in this area is Requiem: A Lament in Three Movements.

That having been said, I'm not about to question the intellectual honesty of your Baptist professor mentioned above; while I don't think these issues unimportant, I'm certainly not going to judge someone's honesty or spiritual state on the basis of their position on this. That said, I do understand that the above-named Oden managed to make the pilgrimage back from the far side of historical-critical theology with his own intellectual honesty rather gloriously intact!

Though intellectual honesty is certainly found in both types of institutions, as is "having an agenda".

Peace,

Matt

 

My pleasure!

Very interesting, Bill. I suppose the central issue ultimately turns on properly undestanding the kenosis passage in Philippians 2:6-11:

2:6 Although from the beginning He had the nature of God He did not reckon His equality with God a treasure to be tightly grasped.

2:7Nay, He stripped Himself of His glory, and took on Him the nature of a bondservant by becoming a man like other men.

2:8And being recognized as truly human, He humbled Himself and even stooped to die; yes, to die on a cross.

2:9It is in consequence of this that God has also so highly exalted Him, and has conferred on Him the Name which is supreme above every other,

2:10in order that in the Name of JESUS every knee should bow, of beings in Heaven, of those on the earth, and of those in the underworld,

2:11and that every tongue should confess that JESUS CHRIST is LORD, to the glory of God the Father. (Weymouth NT)

Of course, the argument in the 5th century was a difficult one. Cyril either misunderstood or misrepresented Nestorius' actually understanding of the connection between Christ's Divine and human natures; He was evidently both divine and human (indeed, as Athanasius points out in On the Incarnation, He had to genuinely be both in otrder for the Atonement to work.), but the views attributed to Nestorius seemed to be an attempt to safeguard His Divine nature from being confused with his human nature. The irony, of course, is that the "Monophysites" who were condemned at Chalcedon (Syrian & Coptic Orthodox for the most part) were essentially overreacting to the Nestorians' errors.

The fact that a number of Protestant scholars seemed to be all over the map on this as well is something I wasn't quite aware of, but I suppose fit's in with my own understanding that there is a legitimate "margin of error" which can (IMO, of course) enable fellowship and mutual acknowledgement by Nestorian-Jacobite-Chalcedonian followers in spite of the differences, but which would recognize, say, Arians as being "beyond the pale".

While I agree that this can have even a profound effect on our understanding of soteriology, I also feel (and if I am understanding you correctly, you do as well) that there is room for more than one understanding, for discussion, on the meaning of this passage as well as similar passages such as Luke 2:40,52 and Hebrews 2:10. Personally, I would say that certainly these passages indicate some sort of existential [though not ultimately ontological] separation between the Christ's Divine nature (which is omniscient and thus doesn't "learn" and his human nature in which He was, among other things, our exemplar (e.g., the "stripping" described in v. 7 of the above passage). (corrections solicited on this: this is a passage on which I don't believe one's wisdom can ever be somehow without need of improvement! )

Not God "acting like" man; no room for Cerenthius here. But God the Word "Who became flesh and dwelt among us", He is all of these things.

I would say that Cyril's theology was not off, but his politics were. Indeed, in the process of discussions between RC's and EO's with the Church of the East (e.g., Nestorian remnants), it has been suggested that part of the problem may have been a misunderstanding between what Syriac words and concepts corresponded with what Greek terms. Ironic, nu?

Peace and HEALTH to you, Dr. Grover!

Matt

Bill [/B][/QUOTE]

 

Dr. Grover:

It is always a pleasure to read your responses. Your command of the primary sources in situ, as it were, and secondary sources is quite dazzling; an inspiration to us all.

marilynd

PS, And a similar impression is emerging about Matt, as well.