Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
This topic is about
The Problem With Christ
The Table - Group Book Reads
>
The Problem With Christ
message 51:
by
Robert
(new)
Aug 12, 2013 09:08PM
Agreed - on all counts. Without Faith and a willingness to obey, I never would have completed my book. It is in a totally different vein than yours, but would still fall in the "this was written to glorify and clarify God" category.
reply
|
flag
Thanks for the reply Chris.You wrote, I cannot prove it but I strongly suspect that it was the Constantinian synthesis of Church and State that is the critical factor here. It is not coincidental that the same Church/State that outlawed personal Bible reading started by issuing an authorized version--The Vulgate, and proceeded to declare it the only inspired version, giving it preeminence over the Greek text which it eventually outlawed.
Maybe this is where the Anabaptist in me is silenced. On one hand, I do think the conversion of the empire was a negative in many ways and led to a twisting of Christianity. On the other hand, I think Constantine is too often made a bogeyman in church history and that the good of this change is ignored.
I think Constantine's conversion could be seen as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy - it is a vindication of Jesus as now the one crucified by the empire has conquered the empire. The pagan gods fall to the background as Jesus is recognized as king. Of course, Christendom itself ended up failing as a project and now we live in a post-Christian west. But Christendom had a lot of good.
One example, from John Howard Yoder's book Christian Attitudes to War, Peace and Revolution - he goes over church history in a survey of the church's attitudes to war. He points out that during Christendom there was a final authority that nations could appeal to, the Pope. When this authority was lost with the rise of the modern nation-state we saw for the first time total, all-out war. I think Yoder's point (he was a pacifist) was not that Christendom was good, but in this case it was better than what came after.
I would also recommend Andrew Perriman, David Bentley Hart and Peter Leithart as they have all influenced my thinking in this regard.
As for the Vulgate - it was commissioned in 382 by Pope Damasus of Rome. Jerome translated it but I don't think it was forced as the only translation. I mean, during the Medieval era it was probably the only Bible version most Christians in the west knew of. But I don't see that as a top-down forced thing; it wasn't until the Council of Trent that it became official in this regard (or am I wrong?).
I'm not sold that basileu and christos are synonyms, as if they could be used interchangeably. Were other kings in the NT called "christos"? I mean, if they are interchangeable then there is not much unique about the title christos.
I get what you said about Caesar. But my question is, wouldn't Caesar (whichever one - Tiberius, Caligula, Domitian) upon hearing about "Jesus, King of the Jews" just smile and think of him as a subordinate king like ever other alleged king of the Jews? I guess it goes back to what we said above - king is not a universally understood term, there are different sorts of kings.
Perhaps an analogy is in order. Many of the finest automobiles are built at the Ferrari factory in Modolo, Italy. Just saying the name Ferrari denotes speed, handling, elegance, luxury, excitement, and romance in one terribly expensive package meant only for those up to the standards of ownership. Few know the name originated with the founder, Enzo Ferrari, and few care. They just know Ferrari is up on a pedestal. To me the same could be said for the word Christ and all that name represents.But what if the Jewish banker who financed Mr. Ferrari's venture felt slighted? He put up all the money and took the risk and was never mentioned. Maybe he even felt cheated and now was going to launch a campaign to have the car company named after it's proper benefactor. So from now on Ferrari will be known as Lipshitz. To me this is what we are doing with Christopher's suggestion we dump Christ in favor of "King".
David, msg.#52, You cover a lot of ground in your comment, which is legitimate because you were responding to mine :-). I will try to respond to your main points as I see them.As to the issue of Constantine: the only thing I can say with assurance is that the cementing of Christ as a name, was done on his watch. To what extent his influence was a factor is pure speculation on my part. That remains a work for a "real" scholar like Robert--not me. (That was a joke Robert;-)
To what extent his influence was positive or negative is outside the purview of my book though it would make a great discussion in its own right. I will only comment that I am a bit surprised that you seem to grant the legitimacy to the use of the word "conversion" to his behavior. Personally (yes, God is judge) I see no justification in his life for the application of this word to it.
As to the Vulgate, you are correct. I was making an anachronistic argument to support a hypothesis requiring our hypothetical "scholar" to investigate. I merely suggest that the later trajectory of this work MIGHT reveal signs of the origin of the problem noted in TPWC.
The only germane strong disagreement I have with you which I think I can substantiate, is on the synonymous nature of christos and basileu. I think Chapters two and three cover this and give adequate examples of this. The most obvious example (which may not be in the book) is the christos Cyrus.
Finally, That ANY Caesar would look on with derision on OUR king is to be expected. He surely would think that OUR king was lesser. He would think the same of the king of the khemer, but he could not consider him "subordinate" until he had actually been conquered.
As always, thank you for the thought you are investing in this topic. :-)
lol! I'd venture a guess that Chris elevates the word "king" much higher than Robert.
Robert, Msg. #53, I am sorry but either I am not grasping your analogy, or you are not grasping my argument. For purposes of this discussion it might help if we use the word "christos" when referring to what is in the N.T.--Christ is clearly NOT synonymous with this. I am open to suggestions for how christos should be rendered in English, but have yet to hear anything that fits the N.T usage. By 350 AD christos in any form seems to have disappeared from what we call western Christianity. It lingered for a while in the Greek speaking East, but even there, the title degenerated into a name with no vestige of its use as a title.
I suspect (can't prove) that this change was either caused, or allowed by a fundamental change in the nature of Christianity, and or its accommodation to the politics of the day.
The only argument I seem to be hearing up to this point is that because our king is different from others, we need to keep using the name Christ, where the Bible uses the title christos. Am I misunderstanding the objection? Please help me understand what is making you all uncomfortable.
Yes, Christopher, I agree we seem to be talking past each other. Let me finish the book and note your conclusions, then I'll have some final comments. Right now it appears you are launching a one man campaign that has little chance of getting the native's stirred up to back your contentions.
Chris,I try not to be too harsh or judgmental towards other people's understanding of Christian faith, ESPECIALLY those who lived centuries ago. That is not to say I adhere to an anything-goes sort of view. An example may help - it is easy for Christians today to point out how bad an idea, how anti-Jesus, the crusades were. I agree. But such comments can quick turn to arrogance, as if such people making the comments in 2013 would have had the guts or intelligence to make them in 1096. We are children of our culture and I suspect if we lived back then, most of us would have signed up, thinking it our Christian duty.
Same with Constantine - it seems to me he had a sincere Christian faith. Was he flawed? Was his faith flawed? Sure. Can God use flawed people? Yes. Am I going to say he is in hell and/or was never really a true Christian? No.
I am not sure we disagree on basileu and christos, I just don't get it. I am fine with saying it is a synonym, but a synonym is not a 1:1 correspondence. Two words can be synonyms but still carry slightly different emphases. That is what I am saying - both may mean "king" but there are layers of meaning, a depth, to christos that the other does not have.
I'd also be interested in a study of "the Christ" in the early church (100-500 AD). I am not convinced that the cementing came during Constantine's time. You said above that many early church writers still used the article, but that does not mean they understood "the Christ" as "the Jewish king". When I study the Christological debates in the 300s-400s it seems they saw "Jesus" as the man and "Christ" as the God. Perhaps to them "the Christ" = "God". So did "Christ" come upon Jesus in the womb, during baptism? Did "the Christ" overwhelm Jesus so that he was not really human? In such debates the emphasis is more on God as Christ as logos as divine and not much to do with Jewish king, fulfillment of Jewish hopes. They are solidly Greek thinking now.
What about the 100s and 200s? Did Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Origen see "Christ" as Jewish or as Greek?
Another book perhaps?
David, your research is fascinating too. I may have to get more involved in studying Christianity from the 2nd century on.
Research? Haha, is it false humility to say I am typing this from memory? I am reading a book now on the 400s though, so I guess not all is from memory. Lee, you motivated me to actually crack open a book. This is from JND Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines
"Little enough can be gleaned from the Apologists, Just apart, about Christology. Preoccupied with the Logos, they evince surprisingly little interest in the Gospel figure" (145)
"Irenaeus owed much more to the direct impact of St. Paul and St. John. In Christology his approach was conditioned negatively by his opposition to Gnosticism and Docetism, positively by his own tremendous vision of Christ as the second Adam, Who summed up in Himself the whole sequence of mankind, including the first Adam, thereby sanctifying it and inaugurating a new, redeemed race of men" (147)
Just those two quotes hint that the early church, influenced by Greek thought, emphasized talk on the Logos from John which itself is rooted in Greek terminology. Along with that, the Gnostics were even more influenced by Greek thought so they saw "the Christ" as a heavenly being who came upon Jesus. In combating this, perhaps the "orthodox" gave up too much in also coming to see "the Christ" as the God half of Jesus.
That's all the research I have time for :)
Christopher - I have finished your book and am glad I read it. Your excursion into Greek has served you well and you use it to unearth some etymological truisms worth pondering. In response to two of your questions: "yes, I believe you're being truthful", and "no, I don't think it matters." David touched on this, but I'll elaborate - you seem obsessed with Jesus as man and are most impressed by his teachings; many see Christ as God and are impressed by his miracle working and his ability to take our sin upon himself. With Jesus as man it is easy to place king in the picture and talk about pardoning and sovereignty like they're the pinnacle of our Lord. But I don't pray to a king, I don't worship a king, and I don't think a king could've initiated the miracle that transformed me from a miserable sinner to a saved soul. My allegiance to Christ is far above mere sovereignty.So then, if I am not a Christian what do you suggest I am, Christopher? And who are these evildoers that would dare use Christ over king? What is their agenda? What have they accomplished? And last, but surely not least, if by some freak occurrence you get your wish and have Christ transplanted with king throughout the Bible, are you positive you won't be the one who's wreaking the chaos? Some evildoers have only the best intentions and I'd feel better if you prayed about it now rather than ask for a pardon later.
Robert and David, I am on the road and probably won't have time for a full answer until tomorrow, but want to respond quickly to Robert.My brother I am almost brought to tears because I am clearly not communicating my heart to you, and seem to have done a poor job of communicating my head.
How have I communicated that Jesus manhood in ANY way contradicts or eclipses His nature as creator God? Need I site the hundreds of O.T refs to God as king? Need I cite 1 Sam. 8 to show the dangers of accepting others in His place.
You say "My allegiance to Christ is far above mere sovereignty." That confession is exactly what 1 John 5:1 predicates the new birth on. In spite of the fact that it evidences a lack of understanding of what sovereignty means in English. (You seem to imply that humanity is an essential part of what the word means, so of course it cannot apply to God.)In English sovereign mean ultimate authority, it does not make grammatical sense to speak of authority beyond that. It is like saying "more unique" see my post on RadicalFish on the subject. (no time to link).
Finally have you never sung the hymn "Come worship the king, all glorious above..." I for one do worship a king! Please reread the closing hymn at the very end of the book.
More later... you all are loved and apreciatied in the Beloved.
For the king,
Chris, more later...
Christopher - Oh, now you think I'm in with some other evildoers who want to strike king from referencing God or Jesus in the Bible. How did we get there? Let them both be known as king and all their other appelations as well. This all boils down to the simple fact I regard the Bible as inerrant and don't want it messed with over some obscure etymological research. Do your scholarship, have fun with intellectual pursuits, but don't get grandiose with your findings. And, to make you feel better, that immediately makes me a hypocrite. Because of some scientific findings I've stumbled upon, in my own book, I've proposed rejiggering parts of Genesis! Don't cry, laugh, life is preposterous, but we're saved by the grace of our king AND Christ.As for sovereignty I'll just quote you from your book "living use trumps a dead dictionary". Sovereignty once was a mighty word, but has fallen in stature. Current use has one state having sovereinty over another. Not the terminology I had in mind for my indescribable God.
Chris, while I think Robert can come down pretty hard, there is one thing that makes me take his side. It's your common referral to "our enemy" in the book, as if Satan has gleefully deceived us into calling Jesus by the meaningless name Christ (presumably in place of bowing before him as our king.)Is that really your intent, to portray this as a supernatural battle going on in translating the pages of the Bible?
Lee, While I do think that hiding any and all attributes of our Lord is part of the enemy's strategy, I think that the vocabulary here is a very minor and subtle piece of it. Bowing (submitting)to Jesus is the object--terminology is secondary.It very well may be that I have overstated the point to where it has become a distraction to the message I am trying to communicate and I should consider toning it down in any hypothetical future editions
In some regards I think the consternation my "simple" suggestion raises, is evidence that something "spiritual" is going on here. No one seems to be able to challenge the fact that christos was not used in the N.T. as a name. Why is it so offensive to suggest we use the term like it was used there? Why is the idea of translating christos so offensive if it makes no real difference?
I DO NOT BELIEVE IT IS EVIL TO USE THE WORD CHRIST. I believe it is misguided. I believe its innocent use does not allow us to see clearly what the N.T. teaches, or to feel its emotional impact. Try using king instead of Christ for a few days and see if it does not change your outlook.
Robert, It seems that there is something in you that wants to construe even my positive comments to you as an attack. I am sorry I keep coming across that way. In my last direct comment to you I tried to affirm that your confession expressed the heart attitude that assured me of your standing in the king. You did not seem to hear that. I sought to show the inconsistency of your words with what seems to be your heart attitude, by pointing out hymns that I am sure you sing.
In no way did I imply, nor do I understand, how you now seem to think that I lump you in with "evildoers." Nor, as stated above, do I think people who use Christ as a name for Jesus are evildoers.
Sigh...
Christopher - I DO NOT WANT TO USE KING FOR CHRIST and think it ludicrous to even suggest it. I'm a CHRTSTIAN not a kingon (variation of klingon, trekkies!) I didn't need a definition of Christ to attach meaning to the word in my youth. That word and it's meaning have been with me and changed with me throughout my life. It's a part of my soul and psyche. No evil in any way comes with it. I would think if you are a Christian you'd feel the same way.I'm beginning to sense you're inventing this tempest in a teapot just to sell books and thats REALLY beginning to get my evildoer antenae up.
The discussionChris - "you know, the word christos in Greek means king. Since our English Bibles translate all other Greek words into English, why not translate this one?"
Robert - "because it is ludicrous"
Chris - "But that's what it means. Its called translating."
Robert - "You just want to sell books. Instead of arguing with your point, I'll accuse you of bad motives."
Chris - "I think you're a wonderful Christian, you must be misunderstanding me. Sorry. I just think we should translate words, Christ is not a name, it is a title and the best title to use is king."
Robert - "Are you saying I am not a Christian? I am starting to think you are not really a believer, maybe you're an evildoer."
That's real funny David. Now let's get away from personalities and maybe get back to the Bible AS IT IS. Anyone tampering with the Word of God is immediately suspect even if they appear as harmless scholars just trying to follow their intellectual curiosities. In this same book "The Problem With Christ" the author takes a sidetrip to diminish the role of the antichrist in a softsell type of approach. Why does he bother with this sidetrip, it's not central to his theme? Do you personally know Christopher, David? The Bible warned us of masqueraders eroding its influence. But what would you care - you're too busy with do-gooder projects in third world nonchristian countries to bother with the stodgy old Scriptures except maybe to dredge up some 4th century history now and then.
Do you personally know Christopher, David?I don't personally know any of you. Though I hope you recognize the irony when your last three lines claim to personally know me, judging my life based on a few posts I write on Goodreads. You don't personally know me, though if the best insults you can come up with are you think I help people in other countries (that are probably more "Christian" than ours) and that I read a lot...well, I'll take that.
As for "tampering" with the word of God - do you suggest we just should all read it in Greek? Because every English translation is a translation and all translations are interpretations. Chris' whole point is that the "tampering" comes in not translating that one word. Instead of relying on scholars by just reading translations and not questioning, which is what most of us do when we just read the word "Christ" and keep going, Chris has done a study to see what the word really means. By refusing to translate only that one word, you are doing more tampering than anyone trying to discover what the word means.
Robert, I am going to do my best not to respond to personal attacks, but would like to clarify anything that is unclear in the book. Am I correct in thinking that you refer to my point concerning the Greek "antichristos" meaning "instead of the king" or "substitute king?" I was not diminishing, but clarifying a meaning that is often obscured by failure to translate. This is easily confirmed in any lexicon. Transliteration confuses the Greek "anti" meaning instead of, with the English "anti" meaning against. The context makes clear that antichrists are indeed against him. The translation gives some indication of their modus operandi.While I have never met David outside of Goodreads, I would be honored to meet him, and you as well. If the opportunity does not arise in this life let's make a date for in the next... assuming we share the favor (that's what "grace" means;-) of King Jesus.
David, I just realized I never addressed your question concerning the early Greek fathers. The only one I have had opportunity to study, (and that only in limited manner) is Origen. He clearly uses christos as king and uses it extensively in his apologetic against Celsus. I address this on my blog here: http://radicalfish.net/early-christia...I do not have ready access to the fathers in Greek, but based on what I see in English translation I am quite certain that they are using christos as a Royal title. It is not until the 4th-century that this rapidly and dramatically changes, along with attitudes toward warfare and political involvement.
Again, regardless of what prompted these changes, they occurred seemingly simultaneously and between Origen and Augustine who held conflicting views on a number of subjects.
Please note the leading quote in chapter three by pseudo-Clement. It is quite definitive.
Here is a great reference on the N.T. use of "anti:"http://www.teknia.com/greek-dictionar...
Please look it up. Note how this resource for Greek students suggests the English "anti" as a "simplified translation" for the Greek "anti" but how this is NEVER done in the actual examples shown!
But what would you care - you're too busy with do-gooder projects in third world nonchristian countries to bother with the stodgy old Scriptures except maybe to dredge up some 4th century history now and then Shortly after my last post, my daughter woke up from her nap. I was thinking of Robert's comment about me being "too busy" and it made me laugh; same with the talk about us not knowing each other.
Robert, it is worse than you think - my wife is a teacher so I care for our 2 year old every day. I cook most of our dinners, as well as breakfasts and lunches. My "other job" is campus ministry which I manage to do in the late afternoons and evenings (as well as reading/study during naps and early AM which is also when I tend to post here).
So if I am "too busy" it is too busy reading Curious George and Dr. Seuss, watching Dora, going to playgroups and cooking toddler appropriate meals. We're all busy, but I figured I'd come clean on what my own busy-ness entails...nothing as sexy as saving the third world just now.
Christopher, I want to commend you on the thought-provoking book you have written. Your detailed analysis of the Greek and the origin of the word Christ has been most enlightening.I have tried to read most of the comments so far, however, since I'm late to the discussion, I will begin by weighing in on some of the key questions in separate comments.
We all read, we all do our scholarship bit, and we're all busy. Fine; after that we vary considerably with respect to our relationship to the Bible. Rod is strictly literal, any variation form the precise text is verboten. I'm probably the next most conservative as I view the Bible as inerrant , but am not above explaining (not changing) Genesis to incorporate the latest scientific findings. Christopher seeks to actually change part of the Bible based on his research that would replace christos with king. David is only interested in that part of the Bible which deals with doing good works and Christ as pacifist - the rest is excess baggage. And Lee, he's limited to Jesus as compassion incarnate and only uses the Bible to dig up corroborating evidence to support that claim.I have an ugly suspicion, if the Rapture were tomorrow, that only Rod would be taken.
Robert wrote: "I have an ugly suspicion, if the Rapture were tomorrow, that only Rod would be taken. "
Well, that's discouraging. I was counting on the Rapture to snatch away all the militaristic Christians so we could get on with doing Jesus' work here on earth.
Are we up for a little change in topic? I've often proposed that Paul was what the Church would later call an Adoptionist, believing that Jesus became the Son of God later in life ... in fact, after he was resurrected, according to Paul. See pages 25-27 of Chris's book, and Romans 1:1-4. Why does Chris (or anyone) cop out and pretend Paul DIDN'T think this way, when it's so clearly stated? Is there any validity to Chris's argument that verse 3 already defines Jesus as the Son of God before death?
SHOULD "CHRIST" BE TRANSLATED "KING" IN OUR ENGLISH BIBLES?I think you have made an excellent case for arguing that whenever the article "the" appears in the Greek it should be carried over into the English.
However, at this point, I do not think that "King" should replace "Christ."
Why?
Why transliterate rather than translate? Often a great deal is lost in translation. Christ is not just a king, but the fulfill-er of all the prophecies of the Messiah. By transliterating (rather than translating) you force the reader to define the word 'Christ' and get all the nuances from the Old Testament that would be lost in translation.
That leads to a second question: Why use one translation messiah=>Christos, but not keep that up in subsequent translations to English?
That puzzled me at first. However, I realized that Yeshua's coming was the focal point of history. Since his biographers decided to write the New Testament in Greek, and as (I think, Christopher, you pointed this out) most early Christians read the Old Testament in Greek as well, they needed "Christos" as a word to define it using their Old Testament readings. Greek had become the main language of the new covenant, supplanting Hebrew. All subsequent uses of the word 'Christ' would be transliterations.
Another reason for not substituting "King" for "Christ," from my perspective has to do with introducing theology into translation.
You presented many fine arguments, but they were theological arguments. The reader ought to weigh those arguments, rather than have the decision made for him, by the translator. Now I know one cannot completely avoid introducing theology into translation, but the translator ought to avoid it as much as possible.
In summary, one of the reason your book is so valuable, has to do with meaning of the word "Christ" -- surname or title. Rather than change the translation, the Bible reader ought to read your book to understand what 'Christ' really means.
DID THE EARLY CHURCH AVOID THE WORD 'KING' BECAUSE OF CONTROVERSY?I agree with many of the contributors to the discussion, who pointed out that 'king' was not an objectionable term to Caesar. Furthermore, the Christ as Yahweh in the flesh, the incarnation of the Living God, would be a much bigger problem for Caesar than the term 'king,' since Caesar wanted to be revered as a god, along with the rest of the god-filled pantheon. Jews and Christians could not agree to that, and that's why both groups were targets of persecution prior to Constantine.
Lee wrote: "Robert wrote: "I have an ugly suspicion, if the Rapture were tomorrow, that only Rod would be taken. "
Well, that's discouraging. I was counting on the Rapture to snatch away all the militaristic..."
Lee, your post caused me to re-read Romans 1:1-4. Having read this passage many times, I have never taken it to mean that:
"an Adoptionist, believing that Jesus became the Son of God later in life"
rather it seemed pretty clear to me, in the context of Paul's other writings, as well as the rest of the New Testament, that Paul was claiming that the resurrection was the crowning and indisputable evidence that Christ had always been The Son of God, which I understand to mean "God in the Flesh."
It's interesting how different people can read the same passage and come away with rather different conclusions.
Well Peter, so far as I know, Paul hadn't read any of the rest of the New Testament ... with the exception of hypothetical earlier documents, such as Q or early Matthew or early John, which I don't think shed much light on the topic.I'm curious what other writings of Paul you found that dispute Adoptionism.
Lee wrote: "Well Peter, so far as I know, Paul hadn't read any of the rest of the New Testament ... with the exception of hypothetical earlier documents, such as Q or early Matthew or early John, which I don't..."Lee, I also don't think Paul necessarily read the rest of the New Testament. The written part most likely came after the testimony of the apostles (and also to replace the testimony of the apostles after they died), but I would argue that the written part records what Paul would have heard from the testimony of John and the other apostles in conversation. After all that was the point of the written record.
If Adoptionism is correct, then I would expect all of the New Testament teaching to support it and to articulate such a momentous doctrine clearly. From my reading, I don't find that.
Since the gospels tell us about Jesus' life, death and resurrection, they would be the place to look for evidence of Adoptionism, if is taught by the New Testament. From my reading they have the clearest evidence that Jesus is God Incarnate from the beginning and did not acquire it only after the resurrection. Key passages for me would be:
John 1:1-4; 14 The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
John 9:38 Jesus accepting worship before the resurrection
John 10:30 "I (Jesus) and the Father are one"
John 10:28 Jesus gives eternal life; claimed before he was resurrected
In Paul's letters:
Colossians 1:15-20 Reiterates what John said about Jesus being involved in creation
Colossians 2:9 The fullness of of deity dwells in him bodily(ESV). It doesn't put a time qualifier on it.
1 Timothy 2:5,6 There is one god and one mediator. Here it specifically refers to the Christ as a man.
On the other side of the ledger, I don't really see any support for the idea that Jesus only became the Son of God later in life. As I said, it's clear to me that the resurrection was the compelling and unmistakable certification that Jesus is Yahweh in the flesh, but I don't see any New Testament evidence for the kind of change in the Christ required by Adoptionism.
That's my best understanding of the Biblical data.
Hmmm. I doubt Paul wrote Colossians, and he surely didn't write any of the pastoral epistles. As for John, he, too, taught Adoptionism, though different than Paul ... In John' story, Jesus was anointed as Son of God at baptism.Given the differences in theological understanding between the gospels on other matters, I wouldn't expect congruence between Paul and the rest of the New Testament on this topic. This should hardly surprise us ... look at how many differences of opinion exist here on this board! Why wouldn't there be differences in the first century?
So my approach is to give Paul a mind of his own, and take seriously the words we do know he wrote.
Two different approaches yield two different results ... and ne'er the twain shall they meet, lol. I'm interested in the opinions of the rest...
I have an ugly suspicion, if the Rapture were tomorrow, that only Rod would be taken Robert doesn't believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone.
So tell me, what works do I need to do to earn my salvation. I mean, I confess my sinfulness and put my trust in Jesus Christ alone to save me, to cleanse me. Then you come along and tell me that is not good enough - apparently I also need to have the proper beliefs about the end-times or ethics or bible interpretation. No surprise that "the proper beliefs" or the right and correct beliefs happen to be the ones you hold. How does it feel to be one of the few who has the correct enough theology to earn God's love?
From what I read on here, I would be much more interested in a heaven that included Chris and Lee. But that's the thing about Jesus, he brings together all sorts of people who would not normally get along. He had a zealot and a tax collector among his disciples. I suspect Jesus wants us to learn to live with and love all the people that Jesus does. So as much as I'd like to limit God's love to those who I tend to like, I am confronted with a Christ who welcomed all the wrong sorts of people.
The question is - would you have been among the Pharisees condemning Jesus for his radical grace to outsiders? I have an "ugly suspicion" that when Paul demanded salvation by grace to all with no regard for circumcision, you would have been one accusing him of not taking the Bible seriously.
I should amend one statement - I am confronted by a Sovereign King and Lord who welcomed all the wrong sorts of people into his kingdom.
Quite a few comments since I last weighed in; not sure I can or should address them all. ;-)#76 Robert, I at least see, and to some extent agree with you analysis of the range of positions here. But I am curious as to how you derived mine. The others will find, and may already suspect that my view of scripture is closer to yours than theirs. However your statement that I wish to "change" scripture indicates either you misunderstand me, or I you. Are you actually holding to the inerrancy of English Bibles? What about the Jefferson Bible?
My battle is borne out of respect for the intent of the authors as expressed in the words they used. There one argument in favor of "Christ" which I cannot answer because it is based on an unprovable axiomatic difference. I am surprised Lee or David have not brought it up. That is the RC/orthodox position that the Church is more authoritative than scripture, and since the Church has decided to replace the title christos with the name Christ, that makes it an expression of God's will.
Equal in result are those who take a "low" view of scripture yet still try to respect it. They seem to see the accumulation of "errors" as the work of God through which He preserves His word, and makes it real for each generation. I will not presume to put words in my friends mouths and let them express their own positions.
Robert, please tell me you are not in the "KJV, if it was good enough for Jesus, its good enough for me," crowd!
#77. Lee, I found this book after I wrote mine, or I would have quoted it: http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Son-God-C...It could almost be a companion volume to mine, being its logical mirror image. (But it is shorter and more expensive;-) I maintian christos is a royal title and allude to "son of God" as such. Carson does the opposite.
While I am not an adoptionist because with Peter, I just don't see it; I will not be alarmed if in eternity I find it to be the reality.
Since ones view on this does not effect my thesis one way or the other, I will pass on further discussion on this question. The argument concerning verse three is not mine, and Carson deals with it better than I could.
#75,78. Peter, thank you. You are gracious, and I am glad you could join us. I look forward to experiencing what you so eloquently portrayed in QYWTF."Christ is not just a king, but the fulfill-er of all the prophecies of the Messiah." You are correct, no real king is "just" a king. They may be husband, father, friend, ugly, and or brave just, or like Cyrus, even foretold. That does not mean that those things are included in the title "king."
I chose my quote of you because it illustrates two common errors. First, you instinctively used Christ as a name. We can replace that word with Jesus and it still communicates just fine. Had you said "the christ" you would have significantly changed the meaning. You could have preserved it by saying "a christ" but then Robert would have accused you of heresy.
BTW-it is the ability to hear the authors when they say "a christ" which adds much to the N.T. teaching. Improper use the Greek article because of the treatment of christos as a name renders us deaf in this regard.
The second error is your application of the English Messiah, to it's Hebrew and Aramaic equivalent. As I show in chapter two, in the N.T, and most of the Old this means king. In English it means promised one.
A tongue in cheek rereading of your statement gives it as "King is not just a king, but the fulfill-er of all the prophecies of the king."
You are correct that we should not introduce theology into our translations. On the other hand we must also be careful not to remove it as well. The use of christos in the N.T. is at the heart of any N.T. theology. To render it as a name allows a consistent dismissal of whatever it was the ambassadors (apostolos, another transliterated word) were trying to say.
Your final comment is a good representation of where I was for most of the two years I was writing the book. It was my intention to get people to understand that "Christ means king." Sadly, I found that was not the case and had to dramatically revise the manuscript. Christ in English is a name, and we cannot (or at least I could not) overcome the gramatic and cultural weight attached to the English word. The very first step would be to ALWAYS use Christ as a title, using the article correctly. I could not do that, and more to the point it still did not communicate the ambassadors use of it.
Blessings on you all. I probably won't be able to check back in until Monday. Carry on...
David - Robert does believe in salvation by grace alone by faith alone. The key question is: "have our earthly pursuits become so self-congratulatory and overarching that they shove faith our of the picture?"In case you hadn't noticed, I wasn't with Rod in my hypothetical Rapture, so I must realize my belief program isn't as superlative as you seem to think I think it is. I get sidelined by scientific research and believe I can augment the Bible with a few little additions here and there. Is this an in your face insult to God? If so, how crucial to my salvation is that? Didn't Jesus flat out tell me to ditch my earthly interests, pick up my cross, and follow Him?
Do my shortcomings constitute a major insurrection or is there a factor built in for "oh, Robert's just a fragile human with an active mind, no harm intended, no harm taken." If this is the meaning of Grace, I'm all for it, all of us can join the Rapture (except Lee who loves tribulations, anyway). If not, then I better abandon Hawkings and revisit that dusty old cross sitting in the corner.
Christopher - I wish you'd quit going down blind alleys. You accuse me of not knowing your position (fine, that's valid), then state you've come to know mine (Ok, I've left plenty of clues), but then immediately attribute something absurd to me which I hadn't even hinted at.I use NKJV because it was given to me as a gift by someone dear who's devotion to the Lord is unquestioned. I regard it as the Word of God. Nowhere have I ever implied that any serious Biblical translation is inferior, and when reading them in other venues, regard them as the Word of God, also. Please constrain your controversy to subject material I've actually stated.
Repectfully, Christoper, this book discussion has become more lively and unearthed more subject matter than I thought possible at the beginning. Your excursion into Greek has inspired much thought, thank you for bringing the book to our attention.
Christopher wrote: "#75,78. Peter, thank you. You are gracious, and I am glad you could join us. I look forward to experiencing what you so eloquently portrayed in QYWTF."Christ is not just a king, but the fulfill-e..."
Christopher, thanks so much for your thoughtful reply. I especially liked your riposte:
"You are correct that we should not introduce theology into our translations. On the other hand we must also be careful not to remove it as well."
Well said!
I couldn't help believing that your point in the 4th paragraph was important. You said:
"BTW-it is the ability to hear the authors when they say "a christ" which adds much to the N.T. teaching. Improper use the Greek article because of the treatment of christos as a name renders us deaf in this regard."
I don't think I quite comprehended it. Could you amplify it a bit?
In any case, thanks for your response; it gives me quite a bit to chew on.
My review of the book posted today:http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2013/0...
It's been written for a few days, and I've since learned a bit more from the interesting discussion here. But I left it alone, as a "first response" review. Though I did finally decide on a full 5-star review.
Thanks for sharing, Chris, I enjoyed your research!
Lee - I would not be considered a proponent of Adoptionism. Earlier in this topic (msg. #22), I submitted Isaiah 42:1-4 as a reference to Jesus, Son of God, as the Elect which I wished Christopher to mull over. Now it appears this Biblical passage has relevance to the new topic you proposed. It doesn't appear to support an Adoptionist viewpoint.
#91. Peter, again you are both gracious and perceptive. The "4th paragraph" is important. To be honest I feel like a child who has just been given a bunch of toys and doesn't know what to play with first. A more accurate analogy is probably a husband on his honeymoon confronted with the awsome wonder and mystery waiting in the bed. A lifetime of exploration--Lord don't ever let it get old.A day does not seem to go by that I do not learn new ways the truth I am sharing impacts our outlook. My Greek is not near good enough to expound all the jewels I think I see. I do long for real experts to take up the challange and start digging. The use of the article is only a very obvious one that is untapped. If you will reread from the bottom of page 85 to 87 you will see a simple example.
Greek has no indirect article (such as a/an). When authors leave out the direct article it is often with the purpose of emphasizing the class or nature of the object. You can see the paradigm of this in the reference to "son" in Heb.1:1. There is no hint that the "son" is not Jesus, but the emphasis is on the nature, not the identity of the son.
We can actually see a good example of this and its effect in David's #84, and amplification in #85. His statement "I am confronted with a Christ..." is typical of statements we see in the N.T. If we leave out the article and treat christos as a name "Christ" we have no hope of seeing what was meant in #85. When David said "a Christ" he was in no way implying anyone but Jesus. He was emphasizing the characteristics of "a christos." had the pronoun not been included, we would just have another reference to Jesus, and never thought anything akin to what we see in #85.
I hope this makes sense. (BTW-my wife ordered the Kindle Halcyon Dislocation last night, I look forward to reading it. She got hooked on the intro in QYWTF :-)
#92. Lee, you humble me. OK, I confess, that is a hope and prayer--you come close to puffing up my ego with your gracious review.This morning I had a new thought prompted by your conclusion. Again, as noted above, this is all still new to me and I keep seeing new angles.
As I pondered the hesitancy of so many to adopt the clear meaning of king implicit in christos I am at a loss for an explanation. The differences between King Jesus, and Caesar, and Pharaohs was no less obvious to His ambassadors than it is to us, yet they had no problem with this. Why do we?
I wonder if it is because to use such terminology places all these entities on the same playing field and forces a choice among them. As long as He is a christ, He is not in direct conflict with Caesar, or Pharaoh, or Washington for that matter. He remains a "spiritual" leader.
Again, as I point out in the book, had 1st-3rd century Christians chosen that option, they would not have suffered as they did. Did they die in vain?
#90. Robert, based on your comment about my hypothesized desire to change the scripture, I stated my hope that you were not in the KJV only crowd. You seem to have confirmed my hope. I want to confirm that it is because of my respect for the scriptures as God-breathed, that I want to see them respected by proper translation.I should also say that I take your last paragraph in #90 as high praise, and almost more of a challenge to my humility than Lee's review. Thank you!
I really hate to be a thorn in this love-fest, but some of us are in wonder at the level of faith exhibited by the 1st to 3rd century Christians and wish our commitment to the Lord was that strong. Isn't it just like a modern day Christian to figure out how they could wiggle out of their martyrdom?
And, while we're still being skeptical here - many changes have been made to the Word of God to make it more readable and accessible to the masses. Hence, we have the Message Bible. I don't read it, but can see how it would appeal to those without advanced verbal skills so am all for it. But Christopher adcocates a change meant only for snobs which is not going to even resonate with the masses. Is this what God intended - I learned Greek just so I can exhibit my snobbery, and ruin your Bible?
Chris wrote - had 1st-3rd century Christians chosen that option, they would not have suffered as they did. Did they die in vain? Robert - some of us are in wonder at the level of faith exhibited by the 1st to 3rd century Christians and wish our commitment to the Lord was that strong. Isn't it just like a modern day Christian to figure out how they could wiggle out of their martyrdom?
Robert, it seems you interpreted Chris' statement to the exact opposite of what he wrote.
One of the primary reasons Christians faced persecution was that they were not patriotic enough. In a world that acclaimed Caesar as Lord, Christians refused to offer that title to any other than Jesus. Christians believed they were citizens of a different kingdom and refused to be complicit in the evils of Rome. One way this play out was they refused to serve in the legion because serving in the military required two things Christians could not do - worship idols and kill. Caesar said the kingdom of Rome advances by killing; Jesus said his kingdom advances by preaching the gospel and living as Jesus did. That living as Jesus did became real when Christians were killed for not being good Romans.
This certainly rubs us the wrong way in a country where "patriotic American" and "evangelical Christian" are often synonyms. What if we refused to buy into the various American dreams preached by whatever president/king? Not just presidents we don't like, but ones who many conservative Christians did like - what if when Bush said the response to 9/11 is "go shopping" we turned away from such consumerism? What if we, like the earliest Christians, refused to kill for our country? Then we might face persecution as they did.
Its funny to hear all the Christians cry about gay marriage, saying America has turned its back on God...if we turned our back on God it was long ago.
The point is, we can go along with the American dream when we relegate "Christ" to a spiritual realm. Heck, translate it Jesus is the President and the point might get across even better.
Robert, I am not qualified to guess at what you mean in #98. Could you please explain what you mean by saying I advocate changes meant for snobs? How does translating christos appeal to snobs. More to the point, why do you object to translating the word? If you do not object to translating it, what is your suggestion that we use to communicate Johns intent in 1 John 5:1. What does it mean to believe that Jesus is the christos?What does Rev.11:15 mean when it uses the Greek word christos? What English word fits in this blank?
The seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, which said: "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his _____, and he will reign for ever and ever."
What English noun preforms the action of the verb "reign?"
It seems to me that putting the transliteration of a Greek word, rather than an English translation would be the epitomy of snobbery. The only thing I can conceive of as more snobbish would be to not even transliterate at all, and use the Greek characters: Χριστός. What am I not understanding?
