Dale Tuggy admits that he made a blunder on Jesus' pre-existence

 

In his recorded debate with Michael Brown (podcast 250 – Tuggy vs. Brown debate – audience Q&A - January 11, 2019), Dale Tuggy (03:30 and on) seems to have made a blunder when, in his opening statement, he referred to his presentation Clarifying Catholic Christologies where, among other, he considered the possibiliy that Jesus pre-existed. From there to affirming, as Justin Martyr did, that the Old Testament shows that "there was another God and Lord", "holding second place", it is an almost inevitable step.

Once Dale Tuggy had made that clumsy concession, it was almost inevitable that Michael Brown had room to roam freely, because (as I have repeatedly warned Dale Tuggy, but whe won't heed), if you want to keep affirming the One God of the Biblie, either you end up in "Biblical Unitarianism" (the modern name of the heresy of Theodotus the Tanner - as the quotations provided by Jenn amply confirms), or you settle (after going through the sequence, pre-existence => second god => eternal generation => Arian crisis => homoousios) for the fully fledged (co-equal, co-eternal, tri-personal) "Trinity" of the Cappadocian scoundrels.

There is another way, the way of the logos, essential attribute ("hand" - together with the other "hand", God's pneuma) of the One and Only God, the Father Almighty and of the incarnation of God's logos (John 1:1,14 - which is just presented in a different, more specific way in Luke 1:35). For some reason which I cannot fully explain, the Conciliar Fathers at Nicea (325 CE) chose not even to mention the logos in the Creed, even though (unlike the homoousios) it was fully scriptural. Not only, it was an integral part of the draft of creed that Eusebius of Caesarea had brought with himself at Nicea, but was discarded (see post Why wasn't the Logos included in the Nicene Creed?)

Post-Christendom? Narrative-historical hermeneutics? Mmm ...

Are they really good reasons? Read on ...

Browsing the web, I have recently found a blog by the curious name P.OST (P dot OST, ""How to tell the biblical story in a way that makes a difference", @ postost.net).

I don't think I even considered what it was about, in the beginning. Looking back at the list of  Comments, I now realize that I had a real "commenting binge" on it, with as many as 100 comments exchanged in little more than 10 days, mostly with the blog author, Andrew Perriman. My first comment was appended to the (rather old) post The message of the Bible in one sentence (8 years old - 2011 - I don't think I even read it) and it goes like this:

God promised to Abram that He “will make him the father of a multitude of nations” (Gen 17), not just one nation; then came Moses, and the Israelites thought that that promise was only for them; then came Jesus and infuriated the Jews because he said to them, “Before Abraham become [father of a multitude of nations I am [the Messiah]”; now we are waiting for God to bring about the original promise to Abraham: the Kingdom of God. (Miguel de Servet 29 January, 2019, @ postost.net)

 I didn't get any comment in reply.

The same day, I read (this time I did) the (more recent - 29 November, 2018) post In the beginning was the Word, etc. As it was about a subject I am particularly interested in (see my The Incarnation of God’s Logos (The Prologue of John’s Gospel); Why wasn't the Logos included in the Nicene Creed?;  Dale Tuggy's book on the Trinity), I posted my comment (see here), and Adrew Perriman very politely replied.

From then on it was a real flood of comments, on my part.

Why?

I suppose the main reason is that I felt that my position was deeply antithetic to what Andrew Perriman describes as narrative-historical method, and applies to what he calls post-Christendom theology (BTW, I suppose P.OST, the name of the blog, is some "subliminal shorthand" for post-Christendom). But Andrew Perriman's thought is so spread out over many posts and comments, that it took me a while just to figure it out. There are several labels that Andrew uses. I found of some relevance "evangelicalism" and  "emerging church".

In this post, Andrew Perriman has tried to give 10 good reasons to switch to a narrative-historical hermeneutic. To me, it is all words, words, words. But who am I to Judge. You'd bettere judge for yourselves.

Who and what restrains the mystery of iniquity?

The expression "mystery of iniquity" comes from the Second Letter to the Thessalonians, in a passage where Paul explains that the "Day of the Lord" will not arrive "unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition".

Here is the quotation of the entire passage, in a modern translation.

¹ Now regarding the arrival of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to be with him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, ² not to be easily shaken from your composure or disturbed by any kind of spirit or message or letter allegedly from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here. ³ Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not arrive until the rebellion comes and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction. ⁴ He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, and as a result he takes his seat in God’s temple, displaying himself as God. ⁵ Surely you recall that I used to tell you these things while I was still with you. ⁶ And so you know what holds him back [to katechon], so that he will be revealed in his own time. ⁷ For the hidden power of lawlessness is already at work. However, the one who holds him [it?] back [ho katechon] will do so until he is taken out of the way, ⁸ and then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will destroy by the breath of his mouth and wipe out by the manifestation of his arrival. ⁹ The arrival of the lawless one will be by Satan’s working with all kinds of miracles and signs and false wonders, ¹⁰ and with every kind of evil deception directed against those who are perishing, because they found no place in their hearts for the truth so as to be saved. ¹¹ Consequently God sends on them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false. (2 Thess 2:1-11 - NET Bible)

 What makes this passage particularly obscure and hard to understand, is not only the reference to the mysterious "man of lawlessness" and "hidden power of lawlessness" but, most of all, the reference to "what holds him back [to katechon]" and to "who holds him back [ho katechon]".

As a NET Bible note to the quoted text says:

16 tn This gives a puzzling contrast to the impersonal phrase in v. 6 (“the thing that restrains”). The restraint can be spoken of as a force or as a person. Some have taken this to mean the Roman Empire in particular or human government in general, since these are forces that can also be seen embodied in a person, the emperor or governing head. But apocalyptic texts like Revelation and Daniel portray human government of the end times as under Satanic control, not holding back his influence. Also the power to hold back Satanic forces can only come from God. So others understand this restraint to be some force from God: the preaching of the gospel or the working of the Holy Spirit through God’s people.

I fully agree with the conclusion of the a.m. note: the "thing that restrains" is not a human entity, like the Roman Empire or, today, the United Nation, or even the Vatican. It is most likely to be the power of God Himself, who "restrains" the power of evil, so that it is "already at work", but not in a fully manifest way, not until "the lawless one will be revealed".

The Messiah: Mashiach or Moshiach? Or Moshia?

 

According to what we read, the English word Messiah is the adaptation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Strong's H4899), usually transliterated mashiyach (or, more correctly māšîaḥ). The Hebrew word is a masculine noun, which is, in fact, a passive participle of the verb מָשַׁח (Strong's H4886) which means to rub (with oil), to anoint, and, by extension to consecrate. So the messiah is one who has been appointed to a high function, especially the King of Israel or the High Priest. When Israel was not independent, and stopped having a king, the word מָשִׁיחַ (māšîaḥ) became associated with the expected King of the house of David who would restore Israel to its greatness.  

In much Jewish literature in English, the word Messiah is replaced by Mashiach, so as not to confuse the latter with the former, which is considered irremediably corrupted by Christian use.

Often, we find Moshiach, instead of Mashiach. The difference is quickly dismissed as a difference in transliteration, or, maybe, as due to a difference in pronunciation by the Ashkenazi Jews. 

In an article  (where “mashiach” with an “a”) is used, it is expressly affirmed:

The word "mashiach" does not mean "savior" [color added].  The notion of an innocent, semi-divine (let alone fully divine) human being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in normal Jewish thought, though it seems to have been invented or adopted by Jewish apostates in the early Church.  Unfortunately, this Christian concept has become so deeply ingrained in the English word "messiah" that this English word should probably no longer be used to refer to the Jewish concept.  Thus, we prefer to use the less familiar word "mashiach" throughout this page. (Mashiach: TheMessiah @ mechon-mamre.org)

In another article (where “moshiach” with an “o”) is used we read this quite different statement:

According to tradition, the prophet Isaiah [Isaiah 60:22; Yeshayahu 60:22] was referring to the future arrival of the savior [color added] of the Jewish people -- Moshiach ben Dovid -- Moshiach, a descendant of King David, from the tribe of Yehudah. There are many similar references to his eventual arrival in the Jewish Bible and subsequent commentaries, and this is one of the most-discussed concepts in Torah literature. [Moshiach and the World Today @ aish.com]

Curiously enough, in Isaiah we find the word “messiah” (מָשִׁיחַ) used only once, and it is used for Cyrus (the Persian king who defeated the Babylonians and issued an edict allowing the Jews to go back to Jerusalem and rebuild the temple), who is called “the Lord’s anointed” (Isa 45:1).

On the other hand, in Isaiah we repeatedly find God referred to (or referring to himself) a “saviour” (or “deliverer” - Isa 43:3,11;45:15,21; 49:26; 60:16; 63:8). The word used is invariably מוֹשִׁיעַ,  (Hiphil Active Participle from יָשַׁע – Strong’s H3467, to save, deliver), transliterated môšî`a.

While the origin is very different, the aspect and the sound of the two words, מָשִׁיחַ (māšîaḥ, “anointed”, “consecrated”) and מוֹשִׁיעַ (môšî`a, “saviour”, “deliverer”), is very similar.

Perhaps too similar.

Perhaps, by denying that the word "mashiach" (or “moshiach”) has anything to do with "saviour", some Jews want not so much to deny that Jesus is Messiah ("anointed"), but that he is Saviour. A prerogative jealously kept exclusively for YHWH.

"Behold the Lamb of God"

"Adoration of the Mystic Lamb", Jan van Eyck, central panel, detail  (circa 1426–1432)

²⁹ The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. ³⁰ This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. ³¹ And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. ³² And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. ³³ And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. ³⁴ And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. ³⁵ Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; ³⁶ And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! (John 1:29-36 KJV)

The words that we read at the beginning of v. 35 ("Again the next day ...") emphasize that this is the third day since John the Baptist was introduced to us and, faced with the insistent questions of the "Jews", he declared to be only the "voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord", the voice of the forerunner and announcer of the Messiah. The second day John "sees Jesus coming unto him" and addressing his disciples, he said, "Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world", he who "baptizes in the Holy Spirit ... the Son of God". The following day, meeting Jesus again, turning to his disciples, he says again: "Behold the Lamb of God!" This insisted reference to Jesus, on the part of John the Baptist, as "the Lamb of God", who even "takes away the sin of the world" is not accidental. It is hard to think that John the Baptist does not refer (or at least the author of the Gospel does not attribute to him a reference) to the sacrificial role of Jesus. Isaiah 53 can be heard here, and in particular "... he was like a lamb led to the slaughterhouse ... he shall bear their iniquities" (Is 53:7,11). But how would John the Baptist, who repeatedly declares, regarding Jesus, "I did not know him" (Jn 1:31,33), recognize in him the "suffering servant" destined for the atoning sacrifice? It is possible to think that, once again, John the Baptist had in mind another poem on the "Suffering Servant", in which it is said, "I have put my spirit upon him" (Is 42:1, see also Is 61:1-2, which Jesus applies to himself in the synagogue of Nazareth - Lk 4:18-19). And indeed John says:

And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me: "Upon whom you shall see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizes with the Holy Spirit." (Jn 1:33)

It has also been suggested that, if the Greek text of the Gospel of John is, at least in part, the translation from an original Aramaic, then "lamb of God" could be the literal translation of talyâ d'alâhâ, in which talyâ can mean not only "lamb", but also "son" and "servant" ^#. In short, the expression may contain a "stratification" of multiple meanings. We could have here, on the part of John the Baptist (or of the author of the Gospel) a kind of play on words, which would allude not only to Jesus as "lamb of God" (spotless, that is the perfect sacrificial victim), but also as "son of God" (at least in the sense of his messianic dignity) and "servant of God", in the same sense in which Isaiah uses this expression (Is 42, 49, 50, 52-53), and likewise the Apostle Paul (Phil 2:7-8): the perfect, even slave-like obedience of the Son of God to God, the Father Almighty.

^# The Aramaic origin of the Fourth Gospel, C.F. Burney, 1922, p. 107. Before proposing the “Aramaic solution”, Burney suggests also that the expression "lamb of God" may harken back to Genesis 22, and, in particular to the phrase, “God will provide himself a lamb ...” (Gen 22:8)

In the beginning ...

Wenceslas Hollar: Chaos

Here is how the very beginning is presented in the Bible:

₁ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ₂ Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water. (Genesis 1:1-2 NET) 

So what do we learn from these often neglected verses? That however "without shape and empty" [the Hebrew words are tohu and bohu], and before God started putting some order into it by creating light and separating light from darkness, what was there was NOT some pre-existing chaotic "stuff" that God found there (as we read in Plato), BUT the very first step of God's creation.

Only starting with the creation of light, creation is subdivided in "days" and the result of each "day" is called "good".

Has creation retained some of that original aspect, "without shape and empty"? I believe it has. It shows, in particular, in the lack of order of natural catastrophes (which are NOT the result of the "original sin"). Why did God create the universe "without shape and empty" in the first place? Why these aspects are still present? Essentially because if everything was in perfect order, even freedom would be impossible.

Genesis 1:1-2, we may say, suggests that "God left significant work 'unfinished'". While we often perceive this as apparent "incompleteness" of creation as "indifference of nature", even "cruelty of nature", even, occasionally, catastrophes, I contend that God chose this way "for a good cause": freedom.

Is this too high a price for freedom? All I can say is that, without freedom, we would be robots, or, to use another image, mere actors constrained by an unchangeable script.

Other posts about Creation and Freedom:

• Catastrophic Stairway to Freedom
• Then whence cometh evil?

Is Jesus a myth?

What most people (scholars), participating in the historical vs mythical debate about Jesus, do not say is that, if one considers Jesus to be a historical person, then the gospels are by far the most ample account of his life. But there is a catch. The supernatural is hardly separable from the gospels, or rather, if one removes the supernatural from them, they become senseless. (#)

If, on the other hand, one opts for the myth hypothesis, there are, as far as I can see, two distinct ways to approach it:

1. Either resort to the "Christ myth theory", pure and simple. With it, of course, every claim about Jesus becomes possible.

2. Or resort to the same theory, with the further assumption that the Christ myth is not some sort of spontaneously concocted and gradually established myth: no, it is the fruit of a deliberate conspiracy. This, for instance, is the central thesis of American author Dorothy M. Murdock bka "Acharya S", especially in her book The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold (1999).

While option no.1 may seem more soberly "scholarly", I find option no.2 more credible, once one chooses to renounce the pure and simple "truth hypothesis" of the gospels, and realises that the historical Jesus, expunged from the supernatural, creates more problems than it solves. (Of course, unlike Acharya S, one does not need to believe that Jesus is nothing but an Egyptian Horus in Jewish sauce.)

(#) I know that Bart Ehrmann - see, in particular his How Jesus became God, 2014 - thinks he has a sound story, but I think all the problems he thinks to have sorted out are still there. See also the review of his book by Larry Hurtado.