Dunn's Christology

[Homer]

Darin,
You will probably find this interesting (if you haven't read it already).

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/kermitzar ... 0%28146%29.

[darinhouston]

Darin,
You will probably find this interesting (if you haven't read it already).

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/kermitzar ... 0%28146%29.

You're right - I do find it interesting and will look into it. His conclusions about the early church are hard to argue against and I'd like to read more of how he responds and how he squares much of this with his professed Trinitarianism. I am reluctant to agree with him that John isn't authentic or is of later date, however. I think there are emerging theories of what John was really doing in his gospel that don't require that. I think viewing what the early church believed about Christology is very important as most are dishonest or ignorant in dealing with what "sounds" like trinitarian statements from their writings but only when lifted from the context of their fuller writings - in some cases, subsequent paragraphs outright deny what people try to make them say in a citation on some notion of a godhead theory and so forth and are usually anachronistic attempts to recharacterize what they believed in light of modern understandings. But, the larger question about the early church is that it undermines the interpretive arguments of many that scripture must mean so and so because the church has always believed it until now (which cannot be further from the truth in this area). But even further is that it casts doubt on what the authors themselves believed and therefore what a number of these passages might have been meant to convey.

[dwight92070]

We have a higher authority than Dunn, i.e. the authors of the New Testament, and earlier, first-hand eye-witnesses of what actually happened when Jesus was on the earth.
Matthew 2:2,11 The magi said, "We have come to worship Him". "And they fell to the ground and worshiped Him."
Matthew 14:33 "And those who were in the boat (His disciples) worshiped Him, ..."
Matthew 28:9,17 "And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him." "When they saw Him, they worshiped Him, ..."
Luke 17:15-18 "Now one of them, when he saw that he had been healed, turned back, glorifying God with a loud voice, and he fell on his face at his feet, giving thanks to Him. And he was a Samaritan. Then Jesus answered and said, 'Were there not ten cleansed? But the nine - where are they? Were there not found those who returned to give glory to God, except this foreigner?'
John 9:38 "And he said, 'Lord, I believe.' And he worshiped Him."
John 20:28 "Thomas answered and said to Him (Jesus), 'my Lord and and my God.'"
Hebrews 1:6 "And when He (the Father) again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, 'And let all the angels of God worship Him (Jesus).'"
Revelations 5:13-14 "And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, 'To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb (Jesus), be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.' And the four living creatures kept saying, 'Amen.' And the elders fell down and worshiped."

So the highest authorities report eye witnesses, or they themselves are the witnesses, showing Jesus was worshiped at His birth, He was worshiped during His ministry, He was worshiped after He rose from the dead, and He was and still is worshiped in heaven - given the same worship that was given to God the Father.

Jeremiah 23:28-29 " ... let him who has My word speak My word in truth. What does straw have in common with grain?" declares the Lord. "Is not My word like fire?" declares the Lord, "and like a hammer which shatters a rock?"

Dunn's words are like straw, compared to the grain of God's word. God's word is like a fire and a hammer which shatters a rock.

[darinhouston]

Wow! I'll bet he never saw those verses before! What an idiot he must be. I mean -- they use the English word worship! So Jesus must be Jevohah, Yahweh, the eternal God Almighty - maybe even the Father Himself!

Seriously, no one sees Dunn as any sort of "authority." But, it will be revealed by fire whether it's precious stones or straw and not by your word. We all do the best we can at interpreting the word - no one I care about questions the authority of the word, but it's the interpretation of the word that takes human effort, reason, discernment and study --- and HUMILITY!

[darinhouston]

Seriously, Dwight, this thread was not meant to discuss the details of any particular point of theology - Homer posted what he thought would be an interesting contribution to the discussion -- namely, the thoughts of a particular and highly respected scholar who is a "mostly conservative trinitarian but who is honest enough to discuss points which don't fit the prevailing trinitarian narrative. It is his thoughts and rationale which is of interest in this post, and merely posting underlying scriptures that are in issue is not helpful. Homer was trying to be relational here - not didactic. Please exercise more discernment and avoid just more machine gun scriptural citations and pejoratives.

If you want to interact with the author's ideas - discuss why his conclusions are wrong - why his translation and interpretations or logic is flawed, that would be a welcome contribution. If you are content with a simplistic superficial reading of these texts in a given English translation, that's great - good for you - it's not enough for me or others and that's why we are struggling to understand and resolve seeming contradictions in various doctrines which emerge from various texts and apply reason to them. If you aren't interested in doing that, then maybe just hang back and watch.

[dwight92070]

Wow! I'll bet he never saw those verses before! What an idiot he must be. I mean -- they use the English word worship! So Jesus must be Jevohah, Yahweh, the eternal God Almighty - maybe even the Father Himself!

Seriously, no one sees Dunn as any sort of "authority." But, it will be revealed by fire whether it's precious stones or straw and not by your word. We all do the best we can at interpreting the word - no one I care about questions the authority of the word, but it's the interpretation of the word that takes human effort, reason, discernment and study --- and HUMILITY!

"Wow" is right! I quote the word, where it clearly teaches that Jesus is worshiped and you explode with SARCASM and MOCKING. You put words in my mouth as if I said that Dunn is an idiot and that he never saw those verses before. You MOCK my trust in the English word "worship" and my accurate conclusion that Jesus is Jehovah, Yahweh, the eternal God Almighty - even the Father Himself. I never said that Dunn is an idiot or even thought that, even though your sarcasm implies that. With your "and HUMILITY!", YOU IMPLY THAT I DON'T HAVE ANY, which means you think I'm proud. I quote scripture confidently because I trust them and believe in them. If that's pride, then I'm guilty. And yes, I do believe the English word "worship" is a correct translation. In fact, I have complete trust in the English word-for-word translations, with relatively few exceptions. Those translators are, I assume, Bible scholars, as you say Dunn is. I don't know Dunn from Adam, but he must have some authority to be called a Bible scholar. Yes, I read through the article and Dunn challenges the Deity of Jesus and His preexistence and the validity of worshiping Jesus throughout, so for you to say that this thread was not meant to discuss the details of any particular point of theology, is mistaken. Dunn discussed those points several times, but I'm supposed to just be quiet and not offer any rebuttal??? To label Dunn a conservative Trinitarian is to mislabel him. You told me to avoid more "machine gun scriptural citations and PERJORATIVES". What perjorative did I use? Oh, excuse me, I quoted God Himself, saying that Dunn's words were straw, compared to God's word, which is grain. Well, ALL of our words are straw, compared to God's words. How much more is that true, when our words disagree with the plain words of the Bible? You say I am content with a simplistic superficial reading of those texts in an English translation. You are mostly correct - I don't agree with "superficial". I do put human effort, reason, discernment, study, and by God's grace -HUMILITY, into my reading and use of the scripture. You say "merely posting underlying scriptures that are in issue is not helpful". Who made you the judge of what is helpful and what is not? When a list of scriptures clearly contradict a supposed Bible scholar, then that list is not only helpful, but it is necessary.

Basically, you have made SARCASTIC remarks about my methods of posting and MOCKED my trust in English versions. You put words in my mouth, ESSENTIALLY ACCUSING ME OF CALLING DUNN AN IDIOT, which I did not say or even think. You say (and have said it many times) that my method of "machine gun" listing of scriptures IS NOT HELPFUL and LACKS DISCERNMENT on my part. You conclude that IF I DON'T WANT TO INTERACT ON THIS FORUM USING YOUR APPROVED METHODS, THEN MAYBE I SHOULD "JUST HANG BACK AND WATCH". IN OTHER WORDS, DON'T PARTICIPATE AT ALL.

Darin, where is the fruit of the Spirit in what you have said? Backwoodsman told me that I should learn from you, saying that you are a good example of how a Christian should interact. Darin, I don't see words or behavior coming from you that I want to imitate. Backwoodsman, where is the appropriate warning for Darin using this kind of speech against me? Why is it that Darin can say these things, and you don't immediately stop him, but you certainly jump in and stop me. I might get banned for saying this, but if I do, let it be known that there is a HUGE DOUBLE-STANDARD HERE. Darin's language has been no less caustic than I have been accused of, but he has never been challenged publicly, as I have been more than once. Darin's cutting remarks and insults are disguised, using flowery, intellectual words, but they exist nonetheless.

[darinhouston]

Sarcasm is sometimes a useful tool. I stand by it in this instance.

[dwight92070]

Sarcasm - definition: 1. A sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2. A mode of satirical wit depending for it's effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an
individual
Sarcastic - definition: 1. Mean, marked by bitterness and a power or will to cut or sting. Sarcastic implies an intentional inflicting of pain by deriding,
taunting, or ridiculing
2. Implies scorn, mockery, or derision that is manifested by either verbal or facial expression

So you acknowledge using this type of language and even stand by it. All the more reason for the moderator to give you a public warning, because I thought the Bible Forum does not tolerate bitter, cutting, stinging, caustic remarks, designed to inflict pain, deride, taunt, ridicule, scorn or mock an individual.
If the moderator takes no action against your admitted behavior, then we will all know that there is no equal treatment of participants in the Bible Forum.

[darinhouston]

Sarcasm - definition: 1. A sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2. A mode of satirical wit depending for it's effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an
individual
Sarcastic - definition: 1. Mean, marked by bitterness and a power or will to cut or sting. Sarcastic implies an intentional inflicting of pain by deriding,
taunting, or ridiculing
2. Implies scorn, mockery, or derision that is manifested by either verbal or facial expression

So you acknowledge using this type of language and even stand by it. All the more reason for the moderator to give you a public warning, because I thought the Bible Forum does not tolerate bitter, cutting, stinging, caustic remarks, designed to inflict pain, deride, taunt, ridicule, scorn or mock an individual.
If the moderator takes no action against your admitted behavior, then we will all know that there is no equal treatment of participants in the Bible Forum.

Yes, and I choose this definition... though expanded slightly since that dictionary is a bit narrow in its semantic range.

2. A mode of satirical wit depending for it's effect on ... ironic language that is usually directed against an individual['s positions, actions or attitude]

This article may interest you... it's a time honored rhetorical tradition and can be quite appropriate and useful at times.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... f-sarcasm/

[dizerner]

It's hard to be patient and kind in debate... offenses and justifications seem to abound.