Who is Our Savior?

God, Christ, & The Holy Spirit
User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Who is Our Savior?

Post by Homer » Wed May 12, 2021 1:26 pm

From Merriam-Webster

Definition of deity
1 a: the rank or essential nature of a god : DIVINITY
b: capitalized : GOD sense 1, SUPREME BEING
2: a god (see GOD entry 1 sense 2) or goddess
the deities of ancient Greece
3: one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful
such established American deities as Daniel Boone, Kit Carson

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Who is Our Savior?

Post by darinhouston » Wed May 12, 2021 1:43 pm

Homer wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 1:26 pm
From Merriam-Webster

Definition of deity
1 a: the rank or essential nature of a god : DIVINITY
b: capitalized : GOD sense 1, SUPREME BEING
2: a god (see GOD entry 1 sense 2) or goddess
the deities of ancient Greece
3: one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful
such established American deities as Daniel Boone, Kit Carson
Homer, just wondering - did you notice the examples given of Daniel Boone and Kit Carson in this definition?

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Who is Our Savior?

Post by Homer » Wed May 12, 2021 4:37 pm

Yessiree, Commonsense posted a limited definition. We should not be using weasel words. Jesus is either part of a Trinity, Binity, or He is not. If He is a God (deity) in the biblical sense of the word, and not part of the Godhead, we have two who are God. If He is thought to be God in the same sense as Daniel Boone, then say so. Then He is simply an exalted man.

It seems at times we hardly have a basis for discussion.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Who is Our Savior?

Post by darinhouston » Wed May 12, 2021 8:53 pm

Homer wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 4:37 pm
Yessiree, Commonsense posted a limited definition. We should not be using weasel words. Jesus is either part of a Trinity, Binity, or He is not. If He is a God (deity) in the biblical sense of the word, and not part of the Godhead, we have two who are God. If He is thought to be God in the same sense as Daniel Boone, then say so. Then He is simply an exalted man.

It seems at times we hardly have a basis for discussion.
It seems unfair to require a specific stand along that spectrum when our position is not that Jesus was a mere ordinary man but simply that the Trinitarian position is wrong, and that Jesus is not clearly revealed to be a part of a co-eternal co-equal godhead or just Yahweh Himself as some believe. Between a mere man (which no one here believes to my knowledge) and Yahweh Himself, there is a great divide, but you're the one who says we can't know the ways of God (at least beyond revelation) and I agree -- I simply leave the mysteries where the text does - the Trinitarian is the one who creates fantastical theories to resolve mysteries but in doing so creates more mysteries and seeming contradictions than the text does (given its semantic range and highly contextual usage).

Our point is that the term theos (and "deity/divinity" is barely even used in the biblical texts) has such a wide usage and semantic range even within the biblical context that the passages involved don't prove the godhead or yahweh identity by use of the term. I was listening to a review of Dr. Mike Licona (in a somewhat scholarly debate) debate the issue of the deity of Christ (from the Trinitarian standpoint) and found it fascinating that he took the position only that Jesus was revealed in scripture as the admittedly vague and indeterminate "God-in-some-sense" (a term he coined in conceding that it couldn't be shown that he was clearly revealed as simply God Himself). Interestingly, in other debate forums (more lay debates) he doesn't go to that trouble since most don't hold him to that distinction (biblical scholars and philosophers would need let him get away with something like that).

So, bottom line - no one here contends Jesus could be said to be deity only in the "Daniel Boone" sense, but that definition does prove that even in common usage today, the term does include such a dramatic semantic range. So, use requires context and balance with other scripture - use of the term alone does not in any way prove that Jesus is "God" (as in prime mover Yahweh, uncreated Creator, co-equal/co-eternal person of an eternal godhead).

Basically, after coming to a belief that the traditional views are hard to square with what I see revealed in the text and often seem incoherent and irrational (particularly in light of their historical development), all I am trying to do is re-interpret the controversial passages by respecting the full possibility of their context and within the full rational semantic range and ancient and often eastern cultural milieu to understand the limits of what is revealed about Christ while keeping primary focus where he had it -- the Father as the One True God and the man Jesus as His special appointed and annointed Lord of all creation. Is it messy? Yes, for the reason you suggest - there are aspects we can't understand and perhaps that's why it's only revealed in part. But, I believe I"m being as true to revelation as possible. I'm not even trying to stay true to Tradition (particularly as corrupt as that clearly has been proven to be in this area).

On this point, it's akin to using the term "boss" in reference to someone and trying to prove that this person is CEO of a corporation -- denying that it proves this requires no more than pointing to all kinds of subordinate positions in the company who manage people and who are also called boss. It does not require that we take a stand whether that individual is head of janitorial services or executive director of personnel (or whatever).

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Who is Our Savior?

Post by Homer » Thu May 13, 2021 11:04 am

Darin,

Perhaps you do not know but from my past history of postings and discussions with Paidion I am not quit the classic trinitarian. Paidion thinks I am a modalist which I deny. As I understand modalism it is a belief that God presents Himself in three different ways, one at a time. My idea is that God is three persona simultaneously. I believe that was the position of Tertullian.

I could be wrong but I believe something like the trinity is the best explanation of the scriptural data. I think the Unitarians are far off the mark; there is too much scripture that becomes inexplicable in that system.

I don't expect a test requiring explanation of the trinity on judgement day.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Who is Our Savior?

Post by darinhouston » Thu May 13, 2021 1:57 pm

Homer wrote:
Thu May 13, 2021 11:04 am
Darin,

Perhaps you do not know but from my past history of postings and discussions with Paidion I am not quit the classic trinitarian. Paidion thinks I am a modalist which I deny. As I understand modalism it is a belief that God presents Himself in three different ways, one at a time. My idea is that God is three persona simultaneously. I believe that was the position of Tertullian.

I could be wrong but I believe something like the trinity is the best explanation of the scriptural data. I think the Unitarians are far off the mark; there is too much scripture that becomes inexplicable in that system.

I don't expect a test requiring explanation of the trinity on judgement day.
Perhaps a form of monarchianism? I think Tertullian opposed that view, but in any event it would be another historically non-Trinitarian heresy. I feel your pain.

You might find your view described in this detailed comparison of the main views. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/

An excerpt:
"While Sabellian one-self theories were rejected for the reasons above, these reasons don’t rule out all one-self Trinity theories, such as ones positing the Three as God’s modes in the sense of his eternally having certain intrinsic and essential features. Sometimes the Trinity doctrine is expounded by theologians as meaning just this, the creedal formulas being interpreted as asserting that God (non-contingently) acts as Creator, Redeemer, and Comforter, or describing “God as transcendent abyss, God as particular yet unbounded intelligence, and God as the immanent creative energy of being… three distinct ways of being God”, with the named modes being intrinsic and essential to God, and not mere ways that God appears (Ward 2002, 236; cf. Ward 2000, 90; Ward 2015)."

Post Reply

Return to “Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology”