8 Comments

  1. Ben Smith

    Hi Joel,

    Interesting series – I haven’t seen someone defend this kind of viewpoint before.

    Assuming you believe in a physical resurrection, what happened to the resurrected body of Jesus? Was it just ‘cast off’ when he ascended or does God still have a physical, yet exalted, body?

    Reply

  2. I find your conclusion utterly untenable. The statement, “The point of ἐγώ εἰμι is not Christ is identifying himself as the Messiah or a second part of a Trinity, but as the Absolute Deity Himself,” not only erroneously assumes that Trinitarianism posits a “second part of a Trinity” who is anything less than absolute deity, but it also suggests some kind of bifurcation in God (i.e., Trinitarianism rejects the idea that God has “parts”). Furthermore, it is only upon the basis of an assumed unitarianism (i.e., the belief that God is one person) that one can turn a blind eye to the fact that numerous texts within the Fourth Gospel testify that the Father was personally co-existent with the Son prior to Bethlehem.

    Reply

    1. Oh, good, carm…

      What have I done to deserve this Carm-a…

      When I wrote this, I was a oneness guy. I’m okay with the Trinity, because I recognize that Tradition comes first (before Scripture) and is every bit as valid as Scripture, if not more so.

      But, your reading of John is a bit… evangelical.

      Reply

  3. My reading of John is- exegetical. Glad to see that you concede your error (x2).

    Reply

    1. No, it is evangelical. Exegetical would take into account not Matthew and Luke (eisegetical) but the whole of John in relation to the context, which is not trinitarian.

      Evangelical eisegesis believes the starting point is the way they read Scripture, the false notion of sola scriptura – lie if there ever was one.

      I know the basis of my errors, do you about yours?

      Reply

  4. Your view of Scripture is decidedly unlike Jesus’. Moreover, certainly you are aware that King and Webster have refuted your appeal to a tradition. Lastly, the notion of a preexisting Son is not contested within John by the broadband of scholarship. Not even Dunn has had the audacity to suggest as much. One cannot read the text consistently and avoid it- and as Gathercole and Tilling have demonstrated- it is present in the Synoptics too.

    Reply

    1. Really? You actually believe Jesus was a sola Scriptura kinda guy? Bet you think he voted GOP too.

      The Idea of preexistence are a bit different among various cultures. Jews believed in ideal preexistence. I’m good with that. Further, I’m okay with a physical preexistence. I mean, these are mere human words talking about human concepts like theology.

      However, one thing that I’m not good with is anachronism, something you seem to be the embodiment of.

      Reply

    2. And as far as Simon and Chris, they are free to believe as they like based on their research. When I drink a beer with them next month, I’ll see if I can convince them of the error of their ways. I mean, if CARM is using them for support, it shouldn’t be too hard to get them to switch.

      Reply

Leave a Reply, Please!