The Denial of the Human Person of Christ - the Man Christ Jesus

[Macarius]

John 8 is certainly an interesting passage, but I think it has been beat into the ground at this point. We clearly think that the Ego Eimi is meant to allude to the Divine Name, especially given the tense-change in the middle of the passage. To rephrase your translation of "If you believe not that I am, you will die in your sins" it makes perfect sense - "If you believe not that I am God, you will die in your sins." You will point out that Ego Eimi is missing the O Wn and I will remind you that allusion is an acceptable literary technique for Biblical authors as they use it all the time and you will get frustrated that I'm using my tradition and I will point out that I made a reason-based response to you and we'll have to agree to disagree (because what else can we do).

You ask me for a commitment to start fresh. That is literally impossible. No one can start fresh. We all have pasts, experiences, and limited perspectives based on our finitude that make that kind of objectivity a mere fantasy.

If it makes you feel any better, though I don't generally advert. this, I am a convert. I chose Orthodoxy. And yes - my epistomology is traditionalist. I believe that rationalism is an empty epistomology and that revealed-truth provides a basis for knowledge. Further, I believe that Christ IS that revealed-truth (a-priori), and so I seek for any sign of what it was that Christ revealed. I see no reason to stop at the end of the NT in seeking that and so, though I count them for less than the Scriptures (as the Scriptures are more primary), I look a lot at the 2nd and 3rd generation Christians, their debates, and their views. That's actually my specialty, if I have one; I've enjoyed this debate mostly for the opportunity to dive into the 5th c. Christological debates in more depth. Given that our knowledge of the Scriptures (i.e. what books go into them) is itself tradition, I feel relatively confident that a non-traditional Christianity has no basis for its own starting point (generally sola-scriptura, which you seem to operate under, though I do not wish to put words into your mouth).

As you yourself said, the Holy Spirit inspires. I cannot only apply this to myself, though - in fact, knowing myself I ought not to - but rather I can recognize those who clearly had the Holy Spirit and learn from them. This further enforces the idea of tradition as the lives and writings of the saints take on increasing importance when we recognize that the Holy Spirit inspires the community (which is the "you" to whom those lines about the Holy Spirit being our teacher were written) not isolated individuals (which is a method of approaching Scripture we are specifically warned against in Scripture itself).

I agree that there's no point in just throwing proof texts at each other, but I also think it is critical to get the scope of the sheer number of references to Christ's divinity out there. You may disagree with each and every one of them - but you cannot possibly accuse us of ignorance of the Scriptures.

As for where I would like to start, I think the passage in Matthew we were dissecting was an excellent place. Does Matthew teach that we are to worship Christ? I say yes, and I say that, of the different types of worship mentioned in Scripture, the worship given to Christ is the same as that given to God. I have backed that up with several references from Matthew - from Christ's words in the Sermon on the Mount to His words that we should baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, to the actions of the Magi, to the fact that we are to place Christ above all things (i.e. our family and very lives), to root our spiritual life in Him, and that He is revered as "God with us."

You're free to pick the starting point, but I'm not being ignorant when it comes to the underlying word for worship. I know what it means, and I know that there is at least one sort of it that is due to God alone. I would start at the end of Matthew - Matt 28 - and ask how you understand the command to baptize in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit without it implying dedication-level worship (since baptism means immersion).

Once we look at Matthew, I'm content to go back to John, where I will make a similar post of all references I can find (in order that we may see the forest, not just myopically look at isolated verses), and then we can pick the best starting point for that. I will likely pick St. Thomas's comment to Christ, "My Lord and My God" as it doesn't require a genuis to realize that "Theos" is a title for "God" and that Thomas is worshipping Christ as God and that this is regarded as proper (Christ doesn't rebuke St. Thomas in the way that the angel of Revelations rebukes St. John).

Or we could start in John... I'm honestly flexible.

I do need to make one correction to the terminological scheme we were discussing before: ousia can also imply "genus" and physis can refer, instead, the components that make up a "genus" so that when we say Christ has two natures (two physis) we mean that He literally has everything making up the gensuses of God and man. This doesn't radically shift my analysis, but it does present a more historic understanding of the word.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Megaloskhemos]

Aner,

You never actually explained where my exegesis was wrong or why the position I presented was untenable either rationally, contextually, historically or traditionally. I know these things must seem obvious and self-evident to you, but they obviously aren't to me. I ask you again if you could just explain where I have gone wrong, i.e. where and how I have "entirely inappropriately used the most obvious of texts - and for some reason cannot grasp the obvious." Also could you explain logically why my usage was wrong. Give me a reason apart from the fact you don't agree. Please don't do this if it detracts from your discussion with Macarius, just keep it in mind.

"If you believe not that Jehovah, you will die in your sins"

For clarification I stated in my last post and in post 174 that this is not the primary syntactical meaning of that phrase in 8:24. However, it is implied, not though the grammar but though the combined earlier references "I am not from this world" (8:23), "I am the light of this world" (8:12), and the prologue of John. Read what Macarius states above.

Apart from that I'm going to sit on the sidelines unless I see something I can be helpful with.

 

[Aner]

Meg, Mac

Meg asks a fair question - one that Mac inferred as well above.

Perhaps I am missing something. Apparently you believe that the "Ego Eimi" itself is NOT synonomous with Jehovah (as I have understood - and translated the text accordingly). Rather, somehow you are assuming that the ego eimi is a standard subject verb with an IMPLIED (unexpressed) predicate nominative that is Jehovah.

Is that right??

If so, that is very different than my understanding of how that passage is typically handled - most religious people that I know actually translate the "Ego Eimi" as being Jehovah itself - you will see this capitalized. And, while on a most surperficial reading and knowledge of scripture (MOST superficial!), this might seem to make sense, it clearly is nonsense because of what happens linguistically when you actually insert the name that they are assuming is synonmous with "ego eimi".

However, I seem to hear that you guys are in fact NOT doing this. Is that correct??

And, if is correct, how in God's Name (shall we say... ) do you get the expressed predicate nominative being Jehovah in v24, v28 esp and even v58. I see utterly no basis for such a meaning to an unexpressed predicate nominative.

I am all ears.

Best,
Aner

 

[Aner]

Mac

Lots of good material in your post above. I am tossed between pursuing your epistomology a little more - esp. your contrast with the "rationalist" espistomology that you judge that I have (and find defective) and pursuing more clearly what a "prosopon" is - which was the starting point for the whole discussion.

I will think about it and get back to you - in the meantime - clarification of my inquiry above would be helpful.

Best,
Aner