If you don’t like humor, don’t click below – and if you are reading it on the RSS feature, don’t go any further.
Admittedly, we live in a world where people worry more about Star Trek Canon (and something called star Wars or something like that) than they do about the natures of things eternal – so, while I do not pretend to like contemporize Christianity, I found this slightly humorous.
No, Moslems don’t believe that Jesus was the Messiah.
Think of it like a movie. The Torah is the first one, and the New Testament the sequel. Then the Qu’ran comes out, and it retcons the last one like it never happened. There’s still Jesus, but he’s not the main character anymore, and the messiah hasn’t shown up yet.
Jews like the first movie but ignored the sequels. Christians think you need to watch the first two, but the third movie doesn’t count. The Moslems think the third one was the best, and Mormons liked the second one so much, they started writing fanfiction that doesn’t fit with ANY of the series canon.
This quote was was sent in by a reader.
Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. His interests include exploring the role of mimesis in human civilization, specifically in the study of religion and media, as well as science fiction and the way in which it has allowed mythology to be explored in light of scientific discoveries of the past century. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013) and a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013).
Website: → Unsettled Christianity
Connect
The Baha’i liked all three movies and all the spin-offs so much that it is all canon to them.
The Baha’i liked all three movies and all the spin-offs so much that it is all canon to them.
[...] How to Explain the Religions of Abraham to the Hollywood Generation | The Church of Jesus Christ thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/08/how-to-explain-the-religions-of-abraham-to-the-hollywood-generation – view page – cached Admittedly, we live in a world where people worry more about Star Trek Canon (and something called star Wars or something like that) than they do about the natures of things eternal – so, while I do not pretend to like contemporize Christianity, I found this slightly humorous. — From the page [...]
How to Explain the Religions of Abraham to the Hollywood Generation http://bit.ly/3YolLK
Classic!
Classic!
How to Explain the Religions of Abraham to the Hollywood Generation http://bit.ly/3YolLK (via @PolycarpTCOJC)
RT @khad: How to Explain the Religions of Abraham to the Hollywood Generation http://bit.ly/3YolLK (via @PolycarpTCOJC)
A Jew, a Christian, & a Muslim walk into a movie theater… RT @corthodoxy Brilliant! Abrahamic religion as a trilogy: http://bit.ly/dccsw
I don’t remember who tweeted this earlier today, but it is hilarious – Religion Explained for the Hollywood Gen. http://tinyurl.com/n8flox
You are wrong about Muslims not believing that Jesus is the Messiah. The Qur’an states very explicitly
“When the angel said, ‘O Mary! verily, God gives thee the glad tidings of a Word from Him; his name shall be the Messiah Jesus the son of Mary, regarded in this world and the next and of those whose place is nigh to God.”
(The Qur’an (E.H. Palmer tr), Sura 3 – Imran’s Family)
The problem here is that Christians themselves have forgotten what Messiah means. They think it means Savior when it fact it means Anointed One.
You are wrong about Muslims not believing that Jesus is the Messiah. The Qur’an states very explicitly
“When the angel said, ‘O Mary! verily, God gives thee the glad tidings of a Word from Him; his name shall be the Messiah Jesus the son of Mary, regarded in this world and the next and of those whose place is nigh to God.”
(The Qur’an (E.H. Palmer tr), Sura 3 – Imran’s Family)
The problem here is that Christians themselves have forgotten what Messiah means. They think it means Savior when it fact it means Anointed One.
No – Messiah does mean Anointed One – Jesus means Saviour, as in God will Save His People. Muslims believe that Christ is a prophet – Christians know that He is God in the Flesh. He is son of Mary according to the flesh, son of David, son of man, but He alone is God, son of God.
The Jews did not believe that the Messiah would be God or the Son of God. As for being a prophet, Peter himself calls Jesus a prophet ‘like unto Moses”
3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
(King James Bible, Acts)
The Jews did not believe that the Messiah would be God or the Son of God. As for being a prophet, Peter himself calls Jesus a prophet ‘like unto Moses”
3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
(King James Bible, Acts)
Susan – the Jews of the 2nd Temple Period expected something – but didn’t like what they got. We read John, and the times which Christ announced His deity – He was rejected. This was part of His rejection. Christ is a Prophet, indeed, but greater than Moses (Read Hebrews).
He is also God – Phil 2.5-9
I’m not arguing that Muslims believe the same things about Jesus that Christians believe, but Muslims believe a good deal more about Christ than Christians typically recognize. For instance they believe Jesus was born of a virgin, that He is the Messiah and the Word of God and that He will come again.
I’m not arguing that Muslims believe the same things about Jesus that Christians believe, but Muslims believe a good deal more about Christ than Christians typically recognize. For instance they believe Jesus was born of a virgin, that He is the Messiah and the Word of God and that He will come again.
But, they deny that He is God – so, no matter what truth they might believe, they are still in grave error.
” no matter what truth they might believe, they are still in grave error.”
From a Christian perspective.
” no matter what truth they might believe, they are still in grave error.”
From a Christian perspective.
And, frankly, that’s the only true perspective.
Incidentally, that seems a rather poor translation of Philipians you are using. My recollection is that it says “Though in the *form* of God” rather than “Though he *was* God”
Incidentally, that seems a rather poor translation of Philipians you are using. My recollection is that it says “Though in the *form* of God” rather than “Though he *was* God”
Considering that any translation is meant to explain the originals, we have to examine the author’s entire passage here. The NLT 1st edition actually gets the entire passage better. Though he was God, didn’t hold to His divinity – is the best translation of this first part. Thus, Christ is God.
Oh, this is the Living Bible. No, wonder, it isn’t even a translation, instead it represents a particular theological interpretation of the Bible. I’d rather have a translation that stated closer to the original Greek.
Oh, this is the Living Bible. No, wonder, it isn’t even a translation, instead it represents a particular theological interpretation of the Bible. I’d rather have a translation that stated closer to the original Greek.
No, Susan – it is the New Living Translation. While it came from the Living Bible, in name only, it is a dynamic equivalent translation, but in many places, quite literal. Wrong against. This does stay close to the Greek – as most English translation. What you want is a translation which fits your ability to deny the actual meaning of the passage.
Show me the Greek then and how it says Jesus was God instead of in the form of God.
Show me the Greek then and how it says Jesus was God instead of in the form of God.
Susan,
What exactly do you think ‘morphe of God’ means, mixed with, ‘didn’t think His divinity something to be held to’ means?
Or, try the NIV?
Had the nature of God, took on the nature of humanity. No man can say that, should say that. Instead, we know that Christ was God (John 1.1, and the ‘I AM’ statements in John) who took on the nature of a servant.
“ ‘morphe of God’ means, mixed with, ‘didn’t think His divinity something to be held to’ means?”
Morphe of God means ‘in the form of God” just like I’ve always heard the passage. And to say Jesus is divine is not the same as to say He is a diety.
Incidentally, I found this website describing the NLT:
It seems it still owes a good deal to the Living Bible”:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/nlt.html
“ ‘morphe of God’ means, mixed with, ‘didn’t think His divinity something to be held to’ means?”
Morphe of God means ‘in the form of God” just like I’ve always heard the passage. And to say Jesus is divine is not the same as to say He is a diety.
Incidentally, I found this website describing the NLT:
It seems it still owes a good deal to the Living Bible”:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/nlt.html
Sorry, Susan, wrong again. You keep saying ‘morphe’ but you deny everything else that goes along with it – including the whole of the NT. ‘Morphe of God’ reflects the form of the servant. God became man. Because you miss this, everything else is worthless.
The NLT, as I said, descended from the Living Bible, but that is about it. Have you read the NLT? I would doubt it as you are depending upon 30 year old information. Further, you never answered the NIV translation. One cannot have the nature of God, giving it up, and not be God.
I’d never heard of the NLT until you mentioned it here, but my atennas immediately went up when I realzied Phillipians was being mistranslated. As for whether one could have God’s nature and give it up without being God, it is an assumption on your part that this cannot be done. The Baha’i concept of Manifestation would match this perfectly, one doesn’t need incarnation which is unbiblical.
I’d never heard of the NLT until you mentioned it here, but my atennas immediately went up when I realzied Phillipians was being mistranslated. As for whether one could have God’s nature and give it up without being God, it is an assumption on your part that this cannot be done. The Baha’i concept of Manifestation would match this perfectly, one doesn’t need incarnation which is unbiblical.
The Baha’i are wrong, and clearly missing the meaning of the text. Literalism presents a problem for many who cannot understand the original languages.
Tell me, Susan, on what are you basing your idea that the NLT has somehow mistranslated it? Further, Incarnation is biblical (John 1.14, etc…) and essential to the correct faith, Christian.
Before the NLT came along it was always translated as the ‘form of God” and you just provided the Greek which confirms this is the correct translation. As for John 1:14 it says the Word was made flesh. As I’m sure you must know the conception of the Word as the first born of God is very Platonic conception. Usually the word ‘manifest’ is found in the NT in relationship to Jesus’ relationship to God, not incarnate.
1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you
(King James Bible, 1 Peter)
3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory
(King James Bible, 1 Timothy)
I can find more if you like.
Before the NLT came along it was always translated as the ‘form of God” and you just provided the Greek which confirms this is the correct translation. As for John 1:14 it says the Word was made flesh. As I’m sure you must know the conception of the Word as the first born of God is very Platonic conception. Usually the word ‘manifest’ is found in the NT in relationship to Jesus’ relationship to God, not incarnate.
1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you
(King James Bible, 1 Peter)
3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory
(King James Bible, 1 Timothy)
I can find more if you like.
Uh, Susan, the NLT1 came out in 1996, the NIV much earlier (1984) and did not have ‘form of God.’
Actually, Plato has nothing to do with the Word made Flesh, as this hearkens back to the Hebrew Wisdom as an attribute of God. While you may seek to understand this in the Platonic fashion, as Tertullian, said, ‘What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?’ What did John mean? He said that the Word was God and was tabernacled in flesh. Pretty easy.
You do know what ‘manifest’ means, right? Simply revealed, as the NLT has it. Considering what 1st Timothy 3.16 says, that God was revealed in the Flesh – Who? God. Yes, again, another sign of the deity of Christ.
Further, we have Romans 9.5 – clearly pointing out that Christ is indeed God.
Again, if you miss this, then nothing else matters.
I’ve never paid much attention to the NIV either. I prefer the New English Bible, but since I don’t have an online version of that I stick to the Standard Revised or the KJV.
As for the Word made flesh hearkening back to the Hebrew Wisdom rather than Platonic notions of the Logos, Philo of Alexandria had brought those two things together when he conceived of the Logos s as God’s thought, as His eternally generated first-born son.
Whatever Tertullian may have said Greek thought influenced Christianity from the beginning and that influence only grew over time. In fact the Trinity which I believe Tertullian himself first articulated was an attempt to explain Jesus relationship with God in terms that were intelligible in Greek philosophical terms.
As for the difference between manifestation and incarnation, the light of the sun is reflected, and therefore manifest in a clear mirror, but it cannot be incarnated in that mirror without destroying it.
I’ve never paid much attention to the NIV either. I prefer the New English Bible, but since I don’t have an online version of that I stick to the Standard Revised or the KJV.
As for the Word made flesh hearkening back to the Hebrew Wisdom rather than Platonic notions of the Logos, Philo of Alexandria had brought those two things together when he conceived of the Logos s as God’s thought, as His eternally generated first-born son.
Whatever Tertullian may have said Greek thought influenced Christianity from the beginning and that influence only grew over time. In fact the Trinity which I believe Tertullian himself first articulated was an attempt to explain Jesus relationship with God in terms that were intelligible in Greek philosophical terms.
As for the difference between manifestation and incarnation, the light of the sun is reflected, and therefore manifest in a clear mirror, but it cannot be incarnated in that mirror without destroying it.
But, Philo – contrary to later Christian development, does not have a place in the Bible. We can trace John’s Logos back through Hebrew Wisdom (including Sirach and Wisdom) much easier, much more biblically speaking, than we can Philo. Further, Philo would have written 20 years after the death of Christ, and only a few years before the the Gospel of John – making it rather difficult for John to mimic Philo.
Greek philosophy did, no doubt, help to influence segments of Christian thought – yet, not everyone holds to that production.
You are further wrong with your facts about Tertullian. He used biblical words to describe the nature of the Godhead against those what would dismiss the Son as a mere figment, a nickname, or a manifestation.
Considering that Paul wrote Timothy that God was manifested in the flesh (In Latin, it would be manifestatum est in carne, hence, Incarnation) you argument is faulty. God was Incarnated, in the flesh, Christ.
Just because Philo isn’t mentioned in the Bible does not mean he did not influence writers like John. He died twenty years after Christ but his writings would have naturally been earlier. It is Philo who connects the Greek Logos with the Hebrew Wisdom, without that it is not at all clear that is what he is doing. John’s Gospel is pretty late, written towards the very end of the first century. I think it is safe to say that John’s Gospel would have been written about fifty years after Philo wrote his works.
Most scholars would reject Paul’s authorship of Timothy, though I realzie that is not the position of inerrantists. Timothy is written in an entirely different style than the works which we know were penned by Paul. Also, Timothy describes a church organization which did not exist in the first century. It is most likely a second century work. But I would not agree that ‘manifest in the flesh’ is the same as incarnated. The sun is manifest in the mirror but not incarnated.
Just because Philo isn’t mentioned in the Bible does not mean he did not influence writers like John. He died twenty years after Christ but his writings would have naturally been earlier. It is Philo who connects the Greek Logos with the Hebrew Wisdom, without that it is not at all clear that is what he is doing. John’s Gospel is pretty late, written towards the very end of the first century. I think it is safe to say that John’s Gospel would have been written about fifty years after Philo wrote his works.
Most scholars would reject Paul’s authorship of Timothy, though I realzie that is not the position of inerrantists. Timothy is written in an entirely different style than the works which we know were penned by Paul. Also, Timothy describes a church organization which did not exist in the first century. It is most likely a second century work. But I would not agree that ‘manifest in the flesh’ is the same as incarnated. The sun is manifest in the mirror but not incarnated.
I wrote:
“It is Philo who connects the Greek Logos with the Hebrew Wisdom, without that it is not at all clear that is what he is doing.”
Let me clarify that. It is not clear what John is connecting the Logos to the Hebrew Sophia without reference to what Philo had previously written.
I wrote:
“It is Philo who connects the Greek Logos with the Hebrew Wisdom, without that it is not at all clear that is what he is doing.”
Let me clarify that. It is not clear what John is connecting the Logos to the Hebrew Sophia without reference to what Philo had previously written.
No, Susan, for later theologians, Philo serves a purpose, but we can better draw a line between John and the Wisdom tradition – not Philo’s Logos. John’s gospel is not all that late, as a matter of fact (Revelation is) – many scholars even date John earlier. Your ‘safety net’ depends upon the facts which you choose to believe.
Sorry, you are debating from another faulty standpoint. Further, after showing that the Bible clearly connects manifestation, God, Christ, and incarnation, you deny the biblical stance? Somehow, I see that no matter what, you have your preconceived notions and what the bible says, and if shown wrong, you simply ignore it based on what? Human logic?
1st Timothy 3.16 – which you brought up as your defense – has been shown to mean something completely different than what you had hoped. Now, you deny Pauline authorship and the actual reading of the words. That makes sense how?
Sounds like “this” Susan needs a bit of better conservative and biblical theology? Is this our American Irish Sue?
Fr. R.
Sounds like “this” Susan needs a bit of better conservative and biblical theology? Is this our American Irish Sue?
Fr. R.
No, Fr. Robert, absolutely not.
Whew, good…did not think so.
Whew, good…did not think so.
LOL. I studied church history under Heiko Oberman though he certainly bares no responsibility for my theology.
LOL. I studied church history under Heiko Oberman though he certainly bares no responsibility for my theology.
And there are many “scholars” who hold the Pauline authorship, but some now are enjoying the presence of their Lord!
Fr. R.
And there are many “scholars” who hold the Pauline authorship, but some now are enjoying the presence of their Lord!
Fr. R.
I have read Oberman, Lutheran yes? I am glad too, that he does not hold “your” theology!
Fr. R.
I have read Oberman, Lutheran yes? I am glad too, that he does not hold “your” theology!
Fr. R.
Actually, he is Dutch Reform but he wrote a famous biography of Luther.
And no, as a firm believer in Predestination he did not share my theology. But I doubt if he thought that Paul wrote the pastoral letters. I studied the letters of Paul with a Catholic priest who taught at the same university. He didn’t think Paul wrote Timothy either.
Actually, he is Dutch Reform but he wrote a famous biography of Luther.
And no, as a firm believer in Predestination he did not share my theology. But I doubt if he thought that Paul wrote the pastoral letters. I studied the letters of Paul with a Catholic priest who taught at the same university. He didn’t think Paul wrote Timothy either.
Susan, Church History is fine, but theological speaking, you are grave error. The Incarnation, as you should know from Church History, is the paramount theological concept, and he or she who misses it misses all of it.
We can match scholar of scholar – each resting on our own foundation, but in the end Susan, we are discussing Timothy because it is you who thought to use it as a defense. Before we sidetrack our discussion on Pauline authorship,we should really focus on the verse itself.
Oh yes, now I remember that bio of Luther, very good as I remember too? I have RC priest friends, I count Fr. Fritzmeyer as one. But they are a mess with their presuppositions! I am 59, so I have read much in the 20th century theology.
Fr. R.
Fair enough. I think I addressed the issue of the verse itself. It does not have to be understood in the way Christians have typically interpreted it since Nicea.
Fair enough. I think I addressed the issue of the verse itself. It does not have to be understood in the way Christians have typically interpreted it since Nicea.
Oh yes, now I remember that bio of Luther, very good as I remember too? I have RC priest friends, I count Fr. Fritzmeyer as one. But they are a mess with their presuppositions! I am 59, so I have read much in the 20th century theology.
Fr. R.
That is Fitsmeyer (not sure on the spelling?)
That is Fitsmeyer (not sure on the spelling?)
I’m using it in the graduate course I’m teaching on the Reformation right now.
I’m using it in the graduate course I’m teaching on the Reformation right now.
Sorry, I will let ya’s both roll and chat.
Sorry, I will let ya’s both roll and chat.
Amen, to that Joel…Incarnation always!
Fr. R.
PS..Got to run, back later maybe
Amen, to that Joel…Incarnation always!
Fr. R.
PS..Got to run, back later maybe
Actually, it was understand that way long before Nicea, and that is the only interpretation which is merited. You like literalism – and you have it: God was manifested in the incarnated.
No, no, Fr. Robert, please, join in.
How to explain Abrahamic religions in terms the Hollywood generation will understand: http://bit.ly/75FUU
RT @Moof: How to explain Abrahamic religions in terms the Hollywood generation will understand: http://bit.ly/75FUU
A man dies and goes to heaven, and is being given a tour of the place. Good people of all the many faiths God has called people to (Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Shamanist, etc.) are all around, chatting amiably with each other, except for one group.
The man is puzzled. “Who are those people over there, sitting behind that high stone wall?” he asks.
The guide smiles. “Oh, those are the Evangelical Christians. They think they're the only ones here.”
No – Messiah does mean Anointed One – Jesus means Saviour, as in God will Save His People. Muslims believe that Christ is a prophet – Christians know that He is God in the Flesh. He is son of Mary according to the flesh, son of David, son of man, but He alone is God, son of God.
Susan – the Jews of the 2nd Temple Period expected something – but didn’t like what they got. We read John, and the times which Christ announced His deity – He was rejected. This was part of His rejection. Christ is a Prophet, indeed, but greater than Moses (Read Hebrews).
He is also God – Phil 2.5-9
But, they deny that He is God – so, no matter what truth they might believe, they are still in grave error.
And, frankly, that’s the only true perspective.
Considering that any translation is meant to explain the originals, we have to examine the author’s entire passage here. The NLT 1st edition actually gets the entire passage better. Though he was God, didn’t hold to His divinity – is the best translation of this first part. Thus, Christ is God.
No, Susan – it is the New Living Translation. While it came from the Living Bible, in name only, it is a dynamic equivalent translation, but in many places, quite literal. Wrong against. This does stay close to the Greek – as most English translation. What you want is a translation which fits your ability to deny the actual meaning of the passage.
Susan,
What exactly do you think ‘morphe of God’ means, mixed with, ‘didn’t think His divinity something to be held to’ means?
Or, try the NIV?
Had the nature of God, took on the nature of humanity. No man can say that, should say that. Instead, we know that Christ was God (John 1.1, and the ‘I AM’ statements in John) who took on the nature of a servant.
Sorry, Susan, wrong again. You keep saying ‘morphe’ but you deny everything else that goes along with it – including the whole of the NT. ‘Morphe of God’ reflects the form of the servant. God became man. Because you miss this, everything else is worthless.
The NLT, as I said, descended from the Living Bible, but that is about it. Have you read the NLT? I would doubt it as you are depending upon 30 year old information. Further, you never answered the NIV translation. One cannot have the nature of God, giving it up, and not be God.
The Baha’i are wrong, and clearly missing the meaning of the text. Literalism presents a problem for many who cannot understand the original languages.
Tell me, Susan, on what are you basing your idea that the NLT has somehow mistranslated it? Further, Incarnation is biblical (John 1.14, etc…) and essential to the correct faith, Christian.
Uh, Susan, the NLT1 came out in 1996, the NIV much earlier (1984) and did not have ‘form of God.’
Actually, Plato has nothing to do with the Word made Flesh, as this hearkens back to the Hebrew Wisdom as an attribute of God. While you may seek to understand this in the Platonic fashion, as Tertullian, said, ‘What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem?’ What did John mean? He said that the Word was God and was tabernacled in flesh. Pretty easy.
You do know what ‘manifest’ means, right? Simply revealed, as the NLT has it. Considering what 1st Timothy 3.16 says, that God was revealed in the Flesh – Who? God. Yes, again, another sign of the deity of Christ.
Further, we have Romans 9.5 – clearly pointing out that Christ is indeed God.
Again, if you miss this, then nothing else matters.
But, Philo – contrary to later Christian development, does not have a place in the Bible. We can trace John’s Logos back through Hebrew Wisdom (including Sirach and Wisdom) much easier, much more biblically speaking, than we can Philo. Further, Philo would have written 20 years after the death of Christ, and only a few years before the the Gospel of John – making it rather difficult for John to mimic Philo.
Greek philosophy did, no doubt, help to influence segments of Christian thought – yet, not everyone holds to that production.
You are further wrong with your facts about Tertullian. He used biblical words to describe the nature of the Godhead against those what would dismiss the Son as a mere figment, a nickname, or a manifestation.
Considering that Paul wrote Timothy that God was manifested in the flesh (In Latin, it would be manifestatum est in carne, hence, Incarnation) you argument is faulty. God was Incarnated, in the flesh, Christ.
No, Susan, for later theologians, Philo serves a purpose, but we can better draw a line between John and the Wisdom tradition – not Philo’s Logos. John’s gospel is not all that late, as a matter of fact (Revelation is) – many scholars even date John earlier. Your ‘safety net’ depends upon the facts which you choose to believe.
Sorry, you are debating from another faulty standpoint. Further, after showing that the Bible clearly connects manifestation, God, Christ, and incarnation, you deny the biblical stance? Somehow, I see that no matter what, you have your preconceived notions and what the bible says, and if shown wrong, you simply ignore it based on what? Human logic?
1st Timothy 3.16 – which you brought up as your defense – has been shown to mean something completely different than what you had hoped. Now, you deny Pauline authorship and the actual reading of the words. That makes sense how?
No, Fr. Robert, absolutely not.
Susan, Church History is fine, but theological speaking, you are grave error. The Incarnation, as you should know from Church History, is the paramount theological concept, and he or she who misses it misses all of it.
We can match scholar of scholar – each resting on our own foundation, but in the end Susan, we are discussing Timothy because it is you who thought to use it as a defense. Before we sidetrack our discussion on Pauline authorship,we should really focus on the verse itself.
Actually, it was understand that way long before Nicea, and that is the only interpretation which is merited. You like literalism – and you have it: God was manifested in the incarnated.
No, no, Fr. Robert, please, join in.