One God Report

Fuller written summary to this episode, click here.

1. In this podcast we consider how to best understand what or who John meant by the word “word” in the phrase: “In the beginning was the W/word”. The Greek word for “word” is logos. We will often refer to the word, “word” using this Greek term, logos.

2. As with the phrase “in the beginning” the meaning of logos, “word” in John’s prologue is best understood and defined first and foremost by other uses of the same word in John’s Gospel. We shouldn’t ignore or dismiss how the author himself uses logos and go looking for its meaning in other extra-biblical literature.  Logos and in its various forms occur nearly 40 times in the Gospel of John, and in the vast majority of occurrences logos means: a word, a verbal expression, a statement, a teaching, a saying, something spoken.

3. Jesus is the Logos in John’s Prologue because through and in Jesus, God is speaking. Jesus said more than once “And the word (logos) that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me”. John 1:18 states that no one has seen God, but the unique son who is in the bosom of the Father has explained Him”. Likewise, the author of Hebrews says that in these last days God has spoken by a son”, and Revelation 19:13 says the name by which Jesus is called is “the Word of God”.

4. Rivers places a bit of a different emphasis on how Jesus is the logos, stating that in the Gospel of John, logos is primarily the verbal utterance or teaching of Jesus, that is, things that Jesus said during his public ministry, and that it is difficult to separate the verbal utterance from the speaker Jesus.

5. We address the question: “If Jesus is the Logos of John’s Prologue, why isn’t he called the Logos again in John’s Gospel outside of the Prologue?

6. We analyze how both deity of Christ theologians and One God believers who see John’s prologue as commentary on the Genesis creation have gone outside the Gospel of John to define what John’s logos means. Rivers outlines the steps that One God believers (so-called Biblical Unitarians) have taken in an attempt to make logos of John’s Gospel synonymous with personified wisdom of Proverbs 8 and other extra-biblical literature. It’s a fairly twisted path that Biblical Unitarians of this persuasion have had to take.

9. The same kind of thing happened with “deity of Christ” interpretations of John 1:1, but from a different direction. “Deity of Christ” interpretations of logos in John 1 adapted into Christianity non-biblical, Greek philosophical ideas of what or who logos was. To some Greek philosophers the logos was some kind of a secondary or intermediary divine being. 2nd century Gentile church fathers, influenced heavily by Greek philosophy, jumped on these Hellenistic concepts of logos, and imposed these ideas on to their interpretation of John 1 by stating that the logos was a pre-existent divine figure who then “took on flesh” as Jesus.

11.  The adaptions of the Greek logos ideas into Christianity in the centuries following Jesus did not originate in Jerusalem. The prophets say, “For out of Zion shall go the teaching, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.” Rather, these church fathers’ ideas about the logos originated and developed in places like Athens Greece, Alexandria Egypt, and Cappadocia and Constantinople in modern Turkey.

12. Contrary to claims that John’s definition of logos can be informed by Hellenized conceptions of the word, John have used logos as a polemic, that is, as a direct attack or contrast to Greek ideas.

Bill Schlegel with Rivers O Feden

We begin an exegesis of the Prologue to the Gospel of John (John 1:1-18). In this podcast we give more evidence for why the Prologue should be understood as an introduction to the ministry of Jesus the Messiah, and not as a direct reference to the Genesis creation.

Written notes for this podcast can be found here.

https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2020/06/in-beginning-was.html

In a previous podcast, episode #7, we saw that the phrase “In the beginning” of the Gospel of John 1:1 relates to the new beginning that God began with Jesus the Messiah. “In the beginning” of John 1:1, while being an intentional allusion to the Genesis creation, introduces a new beginning or new creation that begins with Jesus the Messiah.

In this podcast we will examine further the New Creation theme that runs through the Gospel of John, in John's language, recorded events, and especially in the sign miracles that John records. All are evidence that through Jesus the Messiah, God is bringing about the New Creation.

For the full text of this podcast see link below:

https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2020/05/more-new-creation-in-gospel-of-john-why.html

There are two places in Scripture, both in the book of John, to which people go to claim that Jesus raised himself from the dead. The claim is that if Jesus could raise himself from the dead, he must be God. Or, because Jesus is God, he could raise himself from the dead.

-

There are big problems with the interpretation that Jesus raised himself from the dead.  In this podcast I break the problems into two categories:

1. Biblical interpretation methodology (hermeneutics). The biggest problem from the perspective of biblical interpretation methodology is that the claim that Jesus raised himself from the dead contradicts a multitude of other Scriptures. The claim breaks one of the main rules of good biblical interpretation: “Interpret a less clear passage from the clear passage(s)”.

2. Theological problems – besides directly contradicting a multitude of other Scriptures, the claim that Jesus raised himself from the dead does not theologically align with the Bible. God doesn’t die and the dead don’t raise themselves to life.

This episode is a continuation of our two-part study on chapter 1 of the Book of Hebrews. In the first episode we examined Hebrews 1:1-7. In this episode we examine Hebrews 1:8-14. For full summary notes to this podcast, click here.

https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2020/04/hebrews-18-14-is-son-called-god-did.html

-

We note that the word “saying”, or “he says” which appears in English translations in Hebrews 1:8 is not in the Greek original text. The speaker of the words quoted from Psalm 45 is not God, but the Psalmist. Adding “he says” or “saying” to Hebrews 1:8 makes it sound, incorrectly, that God is calling the Son, “God”. But the speaker at this point is not God.

-

Hebrews 1:8-9 is a quote from Psalm 45, a marriage hymn of a king descended from David (perhaps Solomon?) to a what appears to be a foreign princess. The Davidic king has a God who has blessed him (45:2) and anointed him (45:7). The Davidic king is lauded for his strength and just rule (45:2-6). Part of the reason for lauding the king is to convince the princess that it will be worthwhile and a blessing to marry him.

-

Most English translations translate the word “God” in the first part of the quote from Psalm 45 in Hebrews 1:8, as:

But the “O” of “O God” is only interpretation. Grammatically it is possible, I think preferable, to translate Hebrews 1:8a as:

“Your throne is God forever and ever”,

or,

“God is your throne for ever and ever.”

That is, the word “God/Elohim” in the verse does not have to be understood as a vocative.

-

https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2020/04/hebrews-18-14-is-son-called-god-did.html

Part 1 of a two part series examining chapter 1 of the Book of Hebrews. In this episode we discuss Hebrews 1:1-7.  Part to looks at Hebrews 1:8-14.

For a summary text of this podcast, see this link:

https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2020/04/hebrews-11-7-is-jesus-creator-or-god-in.html

We suggest that an overall point that the author is making in Hebrews chapter 1 is not that Jesus is God, but rather that God has appointed the human being Jesus, as the representative of humanity, to be God’s vice-regent ruler, to “sit at God’s right hand.” This privilege was not granted to an angel or angels. This theme, that God has granted a human being to be at His right hand, fits the overall theme of the book of Hebrews that Messiah, Jesus, is greater than Moses, is a better high priest than Aaron, gives a better rest than Joshua, brings into effect and mediates a better covenant with a better sacrifice compared to what Israel experienced through the earlier covenant.

This episode of the One God Report podcast is the second part of our two-part interview with Christian philosopher, Dr. Dale Tuggy, examining the historical development of the Trinity in the centuries following Jesus. If you haven’t heard part 1, you may want to listen to that episode first in which Dr. Tuggy surveyed major historical and theological developments of the 100s and 200s AD.

-

We saw in the first episode that at least into the mid-AD 200s, none of the church fathers were Trinitarian in the sense that none of them believed in a tri-personal, co-equal, co-eternal god.

-

In the current episode, Dr. Tuggy has us look at major developments leading up to and including the Council of Nicea in AD 325.

-

Then we will hear about the three Cappadocian fathers (Cappadocian was a region in what is now central modern Turkey). The Cappadocian fathers laid the ground work for what led to the so-called 2nd Ecumenical Council, the Council of Constantinople of AD 381.

-

Before the AD 381 Council of Constantinople, even though some church fathers believed in a second, lesser god they called the Logos, they insisted on their monotheism by emphasizing the One True God, the Father.

-

However, after the 381 Constantinople Council, the title “God” began to be considered the Trinity, that is, one god in three persons. Dr. Tuggy explains that the first Christian Trinitarians - those who believed in three persons in one God - did not show up historically until the late AD 300s.

In other words, no Christian believed in a three-persons-in-one-God until some 350 years after Jesus lived on earth.

-

Dr. Dale Tuggy served as Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Fredonia for 18 years. His PhD is from Brown University. He has authored about two dozen peer-reviewed articles and book chapters relating to the Trinity and other topics in analytic theology and philosophy of religion; for instance, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the Trinity, and his book called What is the Trinity? Thinking about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Since 2013 he has hosted “The Trinities” podcast which explores theories about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. His podcast and articles can be found on the webpage  https://trinities.org

-

Additional articles, books, podcasts and videos relating to the development of Christian theology in the centuries following Jesus Christ can be found on the One God Report resource page http://www.onegodreport.com/evolution_of_trinitarian_doctrine

In Part 1 of this two part series, Dr. Dale Tuggy leads us through the development of Christian theology of the AD 100s and into the AD 200s. 

-

Dr. Dale Tuggy served as Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Fredonia for 18 years. His PhD is from Brown University. He has authored about two dozen peer-reviewed articles and book chapters relating to the Trinity and other topics in analytic theology and philosophy of religion; for instance, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the Trinity, and his book called What is the Trinity? Thinking about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Since 2013 he has hosted “The Trinities” podcast which explores theories about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. His podcast and articles can be found on the webpage  https://trinities.org

-

In Part 1, Dr. Tuggy describes some main features of Christian theology and Christology of the AD 2nd century (AD 100s), including the centralization of authority in bishops, development of Logos theories from Hellenistic views of creation, presenting Christ as a kind of pre-existent yet "second, lesser, derived god", that is, not the One God, the Father. This is the view of Justin Martyr. Then later, as promoted by the "church father" Origin, Christ was said to have been eternally generated. As much as Christ became "god", his humanity became less and less significant. 

-

Dr. Tuggy maintains that none of the  "church fathers" of the AD 100s and 200s were Trinitarians, that is, none believed that the One God was the Trinity. All of them still referred to the One God as the Father.

-

In Part 2, Dr. Tuggy will take us into the AD 4th century (AD 300s), including discussion about the Councils of Nicea (AD 325), the Cappadocia -Fathers, and the Council of Constantinople (AD 381)

-

Additional articles, books, podcasts and videos relating to the development of Christian theology in the centuries following Jesus Christ can be found on the One God Report resource page http://www.onegodreport.com/evolution_of_trinitarian_doctrine

Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28).

To Trinitarians and those who believe in the “deity of Christ”, this verse is slam-dunk evidence that Jesus is God.

But is it?

The Trinitarian "deity of Christ" interpretation fails to recognize the God that Thomas acknowledged in the resurrected Jesus, and fails to credit God the Father for raising Jesus from the dead.

Here are summary points:

Thomas’s statement in John 20:28 is touted as one of the chief evidences in the Bible for the “deity of Christ” and for the Trinity. But the “deity of Christ” interpretation gets it very wrong.

1.  The “deity of Christ” interpretation ignores the biblical, Hebraic cultural background of Thomas’s declaration. Pagans may have believed in a deity resurrected from the dead, but biblically thinking Jews believed that God does not die, nor does He rise from the dead. Rather, God raises humans from the dead.

-

2.  The “deity of Christ” interpretation ignores the reaction of all the other apostles to the resurrection of Jesus. The apostles never react to the resurrection of Jesus by declaring “Jesus is God”, but rather, “God raised Jesus from the dead”. The “deity of Christ” interpretation ignores tens of other clear biblical statements that “God (the Father) raised Jesus from the dead.”

-

3.  The “deity of Christ” interpretation directly contradicts the Gospel of John’s statement that “no one has ever seen God” (John 1:18). Our interpretation of Thomas’s declaration agrees that “no one has ever seen God.” The Father figuratively was “seen”, i.e., percieved in the totality of the life of Jesus, especially in his death and resurrection.

-

4.  The “deity of Christ” interpretation ignores the literary context of Thomas’s statement in the Gospel of John. Thomas initially doubted and eventually believed in the resurrection of Jesus, not the deity of Jesus. Further, not long before Thomas made his declaration, the resurrected Jesus declared “I ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” Jesus’s God and Father are the same God and Father as the apostles. And then, only two verses after Thomas’s declaration, John gave the reason he recorded the sign miracles that Jesus did. That purpose was not to show that Jesus is God. The “deity of Christ” interpretation doesn’t accept the author of the Gospel of John’s own purpose statement.

-

5.  The “deity of Christ” interpretation fails to understand the consistent biblical theme that the one God (Yehovah, the Father) is perceived, seen and made known in His acts among humankind. “To you it was shown, that you might know that Yehovah is God; there is none other than Him (Deut. 4:35. Isa. 43:10).

-

6.  The “deity of Christ” interpretation mis-identifies the God in Jesus.  This is a serious error, since it ignores and contradicts what Jesus told Thomas, fails to see the One God (the Father) at work in Jesus, and fails to give credit to the One God (the Father) for raising the dead.

-

Trinitarianism claims it was “God the Son” in Jesus. But Jesus said that it was God the Father, the only God, who was in him (John 8:40, 10:38, 14:9-10, 17:3).

Should we believe Trinitarianism or Jesus?

To see written notes for this episode, including additional biblical references, see here.