Unit 2 Meaning of Jesus and Christology (THEO 2430)

1. Ransom Theory (aka Rescue Theory): >The idea is that when Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, they transferred allegiance to the devil, so the understanding between God and the devil is that the devil has power over them in this world, and God has lost his rights to humanity. >The devil has made them his. >Thus, God finds a way to pay a ransom through the incarnation. >>Sometimes, this is presented as a trick by saying that God is cleverer than Satan, and Satan thought he had a new member of his party when Jesus was born. However, Jesus was not just another human being but an incarnation of God, so Jesus breaks the spell of the ransom of the devil having rights over us. >God becoming human shifts this way of power from the devil back to God through the incarnation of Jesus as God. 2. Problems with Ransom Theory: a) The way God deals with getting humans back via paying off the devil is a ridiculous notion that is not discussed in the Bible. >The Bible does not speak of God owing the devil anything. b) God cannot be obliged, and God is the most powerful, so no one can put God under obligation. c) This idea came from the gnostic conception - in mythology, they had a pleroma of archons/entities that go to war, and one falls, so the archons fight to rescue the one that has fallen. >Furthermore, the fathers of the church are influenced by this idea, and they created this idea of Man from Heaven rescuing us humans via the incarnation (i.e., ransom theory).

Christology - Atonement Theories: 1. What is the Ransom Theory? 2. What are problems with the Ransom Theory?

1. Theosis (Deification) Theory: >Is similar to the ransom theory >The idea of the theosis (deification) theory is that it doesn't have mythology about Satan having rights over humans but says the following claim: >>God became a human being, so that human beings can become divine. >The idea is that the incarnation itself allows a new connection to God. >>Moreover, b/c Jesus has 2 natures, he is connecting human nature to the divine nature in a new way, which transforms us to participation into the divine. >>It is the incarnation that saves us in that God became a human, so that humans can become divine to redeem us and transform us as human beings. *This was a popular theory during the argument against Arius and part of the thinking of Chalcedon* The theosis (deification) theory includes the idea of recapitulation, which expresses that Jesus had to go through all of the human stages of life by which he transforms and redeems each stage of human life, redeeming human life. 2. Problem: >People may have not talked about the cross b/c the crucifixion was associated with the way to kill criminals, and they wouldn't want to associate Jesus as being a Messiah that was put on the cross as a criminal.

Christology - Atonement Theories: 1. What is the Theosis (Deification) Theory? 2. What are problems with the Theosis (Deification) Theory?

1. God is this honor-seeking God (either make satisfaction or go to Hell) - problematic b/c there is no love but just justice 2. Transactional concept - transaction has to happen for justice to occur >Someone has to make satisfaction so Jesus has to give up his life 3. It promotes a vision of a punitive God who is exacting debt and making a ledger in sky about who has done what

Christology - Atonement Theories: What are problems with the Satisfaction Theory?

1. Ransom 2. Theosis (Deification) 3. Satisfaction 4. Moral Exemplar

Christology - Atonement Theories: What are the 4 theories of atonement?

1. Finlan finds information in the New Testament that ties Jesus to salvation, but none of the information ties Jesus to salvation in an elaborate or clearcut way. 2. Finlan discusses the Acts of the Apostles. >When looking at early apostles going out and trying to bring people in the Jesus movement, the apostles say things like: "You are going to be saved in the name of Jesus and are receiving the Holy Spirit with power and signs." >When look at Acts, the book does not give any notion of the cross but mentions there is a new message to believe in the Messiah and repent of your sins, so that God will accept you. >It is only very late in this book that Paul says to keep watch because of the blood of the Son, so scholars say that the blood of the Messiah has something to do with salvation with Paul's sacrificial language. >>In the second temple period, there was an idea in Jewish faith that a righteous person who dies as a martyr is given special attention by God and connecting yourself through that martyr is a way of connecting yourself to God. >>The Messiah being killed is like a place that you can go to be reconciled with God >>This is not saying that Jesus is the sacrifice himself; rather, because Jesus was martyred, it opens up a new relationship with God. >>The fact that Jesus' death gives us access to the place of the sacrifice (aka "the mercy seat"); the fact that Jesus died opens up the way to God b/c God vindicates Jesus (i.e., holds him in high status) b/c he sacrifices life in fidelity to God as a martyr, not as "The Sacrifice." In the New Testament, one view of salvation is centered on Jesus' death as a martyr, and another view is focused on believing in the Messiah and repenting to be saved. *Thus, Finlan says there is not a clear cut notion that the cross is saving us.*

Christology - Atonement Theories: What does Finlan say about the New Testament's discussion on Jesus and salvation?

Atonement means sacrifice, so the atonement theories are about salvation.

Christology - Atonement Theories: What does atonement mean?

The Moral Exemplar Theory: >It is also known as the Moral Influence Theory >The theory doesn't focus on the cross but rather on God sending us his son to show us how to love and how to live a moral life. >The theory says we are trying to live life in conformity of understanding who Jesus is and incorporate Jesus' characteristics of love, mercy, justice, and fairness. >So, our character-building around Jesus as the moral exemplar is our salvation. >Over time, we will lose our anger and meanness towards others and conform to a more Jesus-like life.

Christology - Atonement Theories: What is the Moral Exemplar Theory?

Anselm created the satisfaction theory in his text called "Why the God-Man?". >This idea came much later, so people didn't have a stigma on talking about the crucifixion and connecting it to Jesus. People during this time questioned why Jesus had to die on the cross. >Anselm's theory became a crucial concept of why Jesus saved us and why we need a God-Man. >>Anselm explains these questions by focusing on the cross with the key concept of Jesus dying on the cross for our sins. >Anselm's argument structure: 1) God is lord, and we are serfs who are meant to obey and do God's will - it is about honor and the debt/what we owe. 2) To sin is to not pay God what you owe. >Anselm implies you owe God from the beginning when you are created. 3) When you sin, you stop paying and fall into debt. >"Satis" from Satisfaction = means how much is enough 4) Therefore, a satisfaction has to be made and we have to figure out what is enough to make up for original sin, and the debt, meaning we have dishonored God and God has the right to be angry. 5) We owed God to do his will and do the good thing since God brought us into being to do goodness, which is God's will. 6) If debt is caused by sin, we have to pay a satisfaction to get out of it, or God punishes us. >Anselm says we can't repent for sins, almsgive, pray, or fast via personal sacrifices because we should have been doing this from the beginning. >What we should have been doing can't make up for what we did. *Thus, Anselm is concerned about the justice of God.* >It is not just to God if you don't pay your debt of sin to God. 7) Anselm says the only option is punishment, so he tries to come up with a solution = the God-Man has to pay off the debt b/c he has the power of God. >Jesus owes God the good (i.e., full obedience to God) and unlike us, Jesus gives God the good and never falls into debt, so he doesn't have to make a satisfaction. >Anselm says Jesus isn't here b/c out of his graciousness, he decides to make a satisfaction for human beings. >Jesus can make a satisfaction, and we can't b/c Jesus didn't have a debt (i.e., sin) in the first place. 8) The only thing that Jesus has to make as a satisfaction is his divine-human existence, which is infinitely valuable, so Jesus gives up his life for everyone else. >*The point is that Jesus pays the debt of our sin and offers his life on the cross to make the infinitely valuable satisfaction (more valuable than all of our collective debt, so it overwhelms sin)* 9) The Father should reward the Son b/c he did a heroic deed that he didn't have to do (i.e., he gave up his life for us) 10) This is a changing of roles: the Father now owes the Son 11) If the Father owes the Son, the only thing the Father could give the Son is to give it to humanity. What he gives is the "treasury of merit." >The "treasury of merit" is the idea that there is an infinite gift in merit that we can draw upon that never ends and exceeds human sin. 12) Now that Jesus has made satisfaction and we have the treasury of merit to draw upon, when we perform sacraments, this treasury of merit is God dispensing grace to us in our journey to God. *Anselm says you have to have this system to set up justice, but you can't forget mercy.* Anselm's main point: In order to fulfill justice, Jesus has to offer his life on the cross as a satisfaction, which comes to us as grace and mercy. >Thus, this is called Good Friday theology b/c Jesus dies heroic death on cross as a way to sacrifice for humanity in order to make a satisfaction for God. >The reward Jesus receives is our reward (mercy and grace through sacraments).

Christology - Atonement Theories: What is the Satisfaction Theory?

1. The assertion that deity itself and humanity are permanently united in the one person of the incarnate Lord suggests an ultimate synthesis, a conjunction and continuity between things divine and things of this world. >Problem: This idea distorts Jesus' message of Jesus' ironical perception of disjunction between the things of God and the things of men, and the doctrine of the incarnation unified things which Jesus had kept in ironic contrast with each other. 2. The doctrine asserts that the divine and the human are indissolubly united in the person of the divine Word, with effect from the moment of Christ's conception. >Problem: This appears to assert that the union of God with man was miraculously accomplished by God independently of, b/c prior to, the struggles and suffering of Jesus' earthly life, which thus becomes peripheral. 3. If in Jesus the fullness of God himself is permanently incarnate, Jesus can be directly worshipped as God without risk of error or blasphemy. 4. If it is the case that in the incarnation God himself has permanently assumed human nature and can legitimately be depicted as God in human form, then eventually the ultimate mystery of deity will be conceived anthropomorphically, and the pagan notion of a deity as a superhuman person with gender will be restored.

Christology - Chalcedon Discussion Questions: Discuss the 4 reasons Don Cupitt rejects the idea of the incarnation and the Definition of Chalcedon.

Norris is saying that the language and phenomena to which we refer when we speak of Jesus can be described and understood by means of the same sort of language which we use about other human beings. >She is saying this Christian language isn't particular to Jesus in particular and can be used to describe other ordinary human people.

Christology - Chalcedon Discussion Questions: On p. 23, R.A. Norris makes this statement: "The Definition [of Chalcedon on p. 22] is not talking about Jesus; it is talking about Christian language about Jesus." What does Norris mean by this distinction?

Borg says Christians shouldn't feel compelled to hold themselves to a picture of a 5th-century Greek imperial world and their language. >Borg says you can read the gospels as metaphorical and historical and not hold to it as a primary understanding of Jesus or Christ. Cupitt says this in that Christians shouldn't have to hold themselves to Chalcedon's language on Jesus' nature.

Christology - Chalcedon: How is Borg similar to Don Cupitt's idea on Chalcedon's statement about Jesus' 2 natures in 1 person?

Don Cupitt has a negative perspective on Chalcedon's statement. Don Cupitt argues that Chalcedon's statement on the harmony between Jesus' humanity and divinity distorts Jesus' message. >Don Cupitt thinks the whole tenor of Gospels is saying the opposite of this. >Where Jesus is seen as an eschatological prophet or witty rabbi, what matters in Jesus' message is his juxtaposition to the world's order of things and the domination system. >>If we say Jesus is divine and human from the beginning, then Cupitt says that this makes Jesus' message of God not being happy with human reality lose its power. >>The kingdom of God message of it breaking in and interrupting the world's way of operating fades according to Cupitt. >>Furthermore, Cupitt is stressing that this formalized Christology can lend itself to the power structure of the status quo that Jesus is trying to combat. >>If we make Jesus an agent of salvation, then what Jesus talked about seems to be less important according to Cupitt. >>Cupitt says social justice and how you treat others in regards to the kingdom of God message matters, but this message gets washed out by the Chalcedon statement. Cupitt says that if you go along with the Chalcedon statement, then you are saying God's plan from the beginning was to send a divine man regardless of what happened to Jesus, which Cupitt says makes Jesus' life experiences on Earth not as important. Furthermore, Cupitt argues that saying Jesus is God leads to Christianity being overly focused on Jesus as the center of Christianity and less about the mystery of God. >Cupitt emphasizes this makes it appear that Jesus is the only way to think about God. If the Incarnation of God permanently assumes human nature, then Cupitt warns that this means God and human are the same, alluding to the idea that humanity is at the heart of all things and that God is perceived as male and gendered. Overall, Cupitt offers suggestions about how the Chalcedon statement has had effects on Christianity and emphasizes that there is no reason we have to hold ourselves to Chalcedon's statement on Jesus' nature.

Christology - Chalcedon: What is Don Cupitt's argument about Chalcedon's statement of Jesus' 2 natures in 1 person?

Norris defends Chalcedon's statement by saying we can treat Chalcedon's statement as second-order language via stepping back and analyzing the claim made. >Furthermore, Norris is arguing along the line of thought that we can say a lot in English but in order to say those things, we must have grammar; grammar is a second-order consideration of language. >We can say things and then step back to articulate language with grammar. >Language is a game that has rules, and those rules are like the grammar of it. Moreover, Norris says to think about Chalcedon's statement as grammatical rules to a language game about Jesus. >The first-order language is the talk about Jesus. >The second-order language is how they are talking about Jesus and the grammar that allows us to talk this way about Jesus. >Chalcedon is setting up the grammar, meaning we can only speak about Jesus as one person with two natures. Norris says that people are all trying to figure out what the grammar is in early debates, and Chalcedon articulates the grammar that Christians should use to speak about Jesus. Norris is emphasizing that we should worry less about what Chalcedon meant about nature and just understand the grammar rules of the language game about Jesus. >Rule 1 is that all language refers to Christ as an individual subject. >Rule 2 is that we must talk about Jesus as being fully human. >Rule 3 is that you can't say Jesus is just a human being but rather he is fully human and fully divine to acknowledge Jesus' divinity. >Rule 4 is that you can talk about Jesus in a human way and a divine way, but you don't mix these natures up. Norris questions how we are articulating the relationship of Jesus' divine and human natures. >Norris says it is harder for people to think about Jesus having both divine and human natures b/c we think in historical terms in that we think of reality and how things have happened as they have in history. >>Furthermore, Norris is emphasizing that it is difficult for us to do this as modern people b/c once we think about Jesus as a human, it is difficult to think about Jesus as always being divine. >>Norris says it is hard for us modern humans to account for change and divinity at the same time, making it difficult for modern people to hold onto Chalcedon. *Overall, Norris is making an attempt to update how we think about Chalcedon and is saying that we should understand and respect Chalcedon's statement as grammar rules to a game on how Christians talk about Jesus.*

Christology - Chalcedon: What is Norris's argument about Chalcedon's statement of Jesus' 2 natures in 1 person?

Sarah Coakley brings up the terms cataphatic and apophatic to defend Chalcedon's statement. >A cataphatic perspective makes positive statements about God (e.g., God is eternal, omniscient, the Father). >An apophatic perspective says that all the language about God ultimately fails because God is beyond our conceptualization, so nothing we say about God is ultimately true of Him. >>God is beyond our comprehension, so our language about God is not fully true. When we assert that Jesus is human and divine, Coakley says that we acknowledge that we don't know what we are saying about Jesus being human and divine because there is an apophatic dimension of God that we don't understand. Coakley argues that Chalcedon is trying to piece together the confusion about how to talk about God since we are trying to talk about something that is mysterious and apophatic; we can't fully grasp that concept of being Jesus fully human and fully divine. Coakley's argument is similar to Norris's in that we should think of Chalcedon like a pattern of thinking that creates boundaries. >There is a recognition that when Chalcedon sets a boundary, there is something beyond this boundary. Coakley says Christians have now set up a boundary-pattern in which they say this is the best way we should try to think about Jesus' nature, and Christians acknowledge that this isn't a fully comprehensive/definitive understanding of God. >This is similar to Norris's argument in that we should think more of Chalcedon's statement like grammar rules to a language game as a Christian. *Overall, Coakley is expressing that Chalcedon's statement is not the final word about Jesus but is rather a collection of patterns and boundaries set up for talking about Christ in which they acknowledge that it fails to encapsulate who Christ is* >Coakley's point is that you do not have to commit to this view of the world; the language is more open-ended than we think with some constraints, which include saying Jesus is one person with two natures, but the constraints aren't as burdensome as some think.

Christology - Chalcedon: What is Sarah Coakley's argument about Chalcedon's statement of Jesus' 2 natures in 1 person?

Apollinarius accepts that Logos is divine and the Logos/Sarx argument from Athanasius, but Apollinarius argues about the incarnation concept. Apollinarius agrees that the divine logos is eternally begotten from the Father, and the Logos goes through changes as a human, but Apollinarius says the Logos has a divine mind. >Apollinarius says that Jesus acts and looks like humans, but the soul and mind in the body of Jesus are divine. Apollinarius's argument follows along the idea that if one doesn't accept his position, then one is committed to a human Jesus with a human mind, but somehow divine Logos was in Jesus' body.

Christology - Councils and Creeds: What is Apollinarius's argument about the status of the Logos and how it relates to the person of Jesus and God?

Position: Logos cannot be God. Arius thinks: >God cannot change and doesn't learn/come to know anything. >God isn't created and is all-knowing/unchangeable/impassable >God doesn't get emotional So if we say Jesus is Logos and Jesus is God, then saying God learns/changes because Jesus changes/grows up/learns, and this connection to Arius is unacceptable since God doesn't learn/change. Because the Logos is tied to Jesus and Jesus is a human being, then Arius thinks that the Logos is a supercreature, who is kind of human and kind of divine but is not eternal. Arius says there was God the Father, and then God created the Son at some point, bringing the Son into existence/was made. >Arius says that God the Father sees that creation will go sideways, so God the Father makes the Son (Logos) before creation and Logos is next to God as the highest creature but is not God. >>Arius then says that Logos becomes human being as Jesus and rescues us from sin and death. >>Arius makes the distinction that the Logos wasn't always there with the Father and expresses that there was a time when the Son was not there. Arius's position is similar to how the Gospels present Jesus in that Jesus has powers to control weather, and perform healing miracles, but Jesus is like us in that he grows up, changes, experiences ignorance then knowledge, and has emotions/cries. >The fact that Jesus changes means that the Logos must be changeable according to Arius. Furthermore, Arius says we can't give Jesus the highest status of divinity because Jesus changes and makes clear there is only one God to conserve monotheism. However, Arius says that Jesus is like us in that he shares features of humanity and shares features of divinity but Jesus is neither human nor God.

Christology - Councils and Creeds: What is Arius's argument about the status of the Logos and how it relates to the person of Jesus and God? >Did Arius think Logos was God?

1. Athanasius argues against Arius in what one should emphasize in the Gospel. Athanasius says that God is the agent of our salvation >If God is the agent of salvation, then there is an incarnation of God for our salvation. >>God is the one who is acting as our salvation both in Hebrew days and through Christ. >>God becomes incarnate as a human being in the flesh. 2. Athanasius agrees with Arius on the point that God can't change. 3. However, Athanasius disagrees with Arius on the nature of the Logos. >When Logos becomes human, Athanasius says the Logos changes in the flesh as a human being. >Athanasius says the Logos is divine and makes the distinction that Logos can become changeable when the Logos becomes a human being. >However, God still can't change. >>God can be Logos and Logos can be God. >>When Logos takes on flesh, Logos does change b/c he is a human being through Jesus. 3. Athanasius says that Christians worship Jesus, so Jesus must be God. >Athanasius argues against Arius and says that if you baptize in the Son, then you would be participating in the supercreature instead of God, so that would be idolatrous. >Athansius says that you thus must claim that Jesus is divine and is capable of being worshipped. 4. Athanasius says the term is "homoousious" and not "homoiousios." >Athanazius is emphasizing that the Son is the same being as the Father. >This means that the Logos is divine and is God, not a creature. >There is always a Son, and there is always a Son who has a Father. Position: Athanasius takes the "Logos/Sarx" position in that 'Sarx' means flesh. *Athanasius's position wins and the word "homoousious" (i.e., the same being) is in the Creed when it says "of one substance with the Father."*

Christology - Councils and Creeds: What is Athanasius's argument about the status of the Logos and how it relates to the person of Jesus and God?

Cyril argues with Nestorius and says that the two-person concept doesn't make sense. Cyril says that if you follow Nestorius's argument, then you have two agencies (divine son logos and human) that aren't one. Cyril says Mary is Theotokos because she bore both God and a human in that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine (i.e., God) at the same time. Cyril's argument leads to the concept of one person Jesus of the Trinity with two natures, the hypostatic union. >The hypostatic union is the divine and human nature in a singular person, Jesus. Cyril says that Jesus is a divine person and is mediated through 100% humanity because he is incarnate as a human being.

Christology - Councils and Creeds: What is Cyril's argument about the status of the Logos and how it relates to the person of Jesus and God?

Gregory of Nazianzus argues against Apollinarius's view that Jesus had a divine mind. Gregory says that to the degree that Jesus was human, Jesus was liable to temptation and sin. >If Jesus was not liable to temptation and sin, then Jesus wasn't really human. To understand the incarnation, Gregory says you have to fully believe that God became fully human with all flaws and limitations in the sense that Jesus has to learn things as a human. If Jesus is divine and human, Gregory says we have to hold to humanity. Gregory concludes that Christ must have had a human soul and limitations.

Christology - Councils and Creeds: What is Gregory of Nazianzus's argument about the status of the Logos and how it relates to the person of Jesus and God?

Nestorius says Christians are wrong in calling Mary the "God-bearer" (i.e., Theotokos). Nestorius says that calling Mary "Theotokos" downplays the fact that Jesus was a human being. Nestorius think that Christians are in danger of making Jesus seem like God walking in a human body. Rather, Nestorius says that Mary is the "Christ-bearer" (i.e., Christotokos), which shows that Jesus is a human being and that Mary is a person upon which God's spirit descended in a unique way. Nestorius argues that Jesus has a human nature and Logos that unites through the Spirit to the human person Jesus.

Christology - Councils and Creeds: What is Nestorius's argument about the status of the Logos and how it relates to the person of Jesus and God?

1. No, Finlan says Christians do not need an atonement theory. 2. This is b/c... >In terms of the satisfaction theory that largely won, we don't have to have a complicated discussion on debt and owing to get saved by Jesus but rather we can belief that Jesus died on the cross for our sins to save us and follow Jesus' life as a moral model and lives together as Christians represent Jesus' true model to be saved.

Christology - Finlan, Atonement Discussion Questions: 1. Do Christians need an atonement theory? 2. Why or why not?

1. Distinguishing points: >The Word is Jesus, so it says that Jesus was with God and was God at the beginning of time. >Those who receive Jesus/God are able to become children of God. >The Word is Jesus/God, and it says that God became flesh in the form of human Jesus. >God the Father's son is Jesus, and it is only Jesus who people have physically seen. 2. Passage conveyances: >The passage is trying to convey that Jesus is God, and because Jesus is God, he was there at the beginning of time - concept of the Holy Trinity. >The passage is saying that Jesus is one of the 3 persons of God in the Holy Trinity. >The passage is saying that there is salvation in believing in Jesus ("becoming children of God"). >The passage is describing the incarnation in that God became flesh through Jesus. >The passage expresses that the only way people have seen God is through Jesus.

Christology - Incarnation Discussion Questions: On p. 3, there is a selection from the first chapter of the Gospel of John. 1. What are some of the distinguishing points of this passage? 2. What is it trying to convey about Jesus?

Casey says there are phases to the old story. First, there were Jewish people in the Jesus movement, and then non-Jewish people entered the religion (aka Gentiles) and brought with themselves pagan or non-Jewish ideas about the divine (e.g., Greco-Roman mythology like Hercules). >Gentiles brought the ideas that there are figures who are somewhat human and somewhat divine, and this transformed Jesus Jewish movement into another pagan Gentile religion. >When Gentiles came in, they brought in ideas that Jesus must be God, so we must worship him. Casey argues that High Christology emerges later, and if look at earliest sources, you get Low Christology b/c that's what happened and then see high Christology later as divine figure b/c people who joined Christian religion weren't Jews (Paul); they transferred pagan ideas of worshipping divine figures into practice of Christianity and transformed Jesus from rabbi/prophet into Messiah/Son of God. >Thus, the Gospels reflect transformation b/c written later and written from perspective of later movement that decided to worship Jesus as divine figure. The main point of the old story is that Jews would have found it impossible for Jesus to be worshipped.

Christology - Incarnation: Andrew Chester references Casey's argument about the old story "Jesus and followers in earliest part of Jesus movement were Jews and monotheists and it would be impossible for them to imagine Jesus as God so then how do explain it?". What does Casey say?

Chester's argument is that when we look at Jewish sources of second temple Judaism, we find accounts of mystical things of angels and find that separation between one God and transcendent creator isn't so distant in this world. >Chester thinks these angelic envoys connect us to God and thinks this world makes it possible for Jews to be Jewish and have high-status Jesus happening early on in which high-status Messiah who is almost pre-existent and angelic wouldn't have struck Jews as against religious monotheism. >This would lead to the set-up of eventually claiming Jesus as God. >Chester says high-status doesn't equal incarnation, but high-status claims happen earlier, and Jesus is a mediator between divine and human. >Chester says Jesus is resurrected, so that he is alive through God and is a mediator between people and God, which leads to the debates of incarnation. >>Chester disagrees that one should perceive the interruption as a claim for Jesus' divinity. >Chester doesn't think people started worshipping Jesus right away as God, but it happened over time. >Chester says the pattern is that the status of Jesus (exaltation of Jesus) would immediately put him into incredibly high status for Jews and mystically thought Jesus to be (as Paul did) high-status messiah that you can call Lord - the one in whom all things come into redemption >>However, Chester says the difference is that God is acting through Messiah not that the Messiah is God acting. >Chester says the devotional practices are hard to determine what is going on/what is meant and that they were not necessarily worshipping Jesus during his time.

Christology - Incarnation: What is Andrew Chester's argument about the incarnation and worshipping Jesus back then during Jesus' time?

Hurtado says that Casey's old story is not right, and that Jesus' status went up early due to Resurrection. >When Jesus' status went up, people used high Christology terms. Hurtado argues that the high status of Jesus meant the incarnation and worshipping Jesus as God very early on. Hurtado says all of the high Christology language should be read as Christians read it later about status claims of Jesus as divine. Hurtado says devotion to Jesus erupted early and quickly rather than gradually and late like Casey says. Hurtado believes that Jesus resurrected by God as Messiah, and that changed Jesus' status to meaning that Jesus is God (belief in incarnation). Hurtado then says that the language of Jesus being divine and human were the right move because it is coming off the early historical reality that they began worshipping Jesus once Jesus resurrected.

Christology - Incarnation: What is Larry Hurtado's argument about the incarnation and worshipping Jesus back then during Jesus' time?

Hooker says Paul makes a typological comparison that is not incarnational. To be in the form of God also means to made in the image of God (any human being) and makes contrast between new Adam and old Adam. Though in the form of God just like Adam, Jesus did not regard equality of God as something to be exploited (Jesus didn't try to be like God like Adam and Eve did in Genesis). Jews' lens: Contrasts failure of Adam and success of Jesus as human being who followed God's will and has the message of "Be like Messiah Jesus, not Adam" What supposed to get out of Paul's message: we should have mind of Messiah Jesus and be humble/obedient to God. >Hooker thinks Paul is only saying Jesus was the better human and the fallen human that we all inherit is Adam >>She doesn't think we have incarnation but do have idea of pre-existence.

Christology - Incarnation: What is Morna Hooker's argument about Paul's typology between true human Messiah and fallen human Adam?

John suggests there is incarnational ideas (Word is God and Word was with God and Word was in beginning). Hooker settles question by saying that John's prologue is Jewish midrash - midrash = take a passage of Scripture (only the Hebrew Bible) and imaginatively interpret it - do a re-write and come up with new way of expressing an old scriptural passage. John is referencing Genesis 1, meaning it was incredibly popular passage to do midrash on - to play around with this passage of God creating the Heavens and earth in the beginning Proverbs 8 is referencing Genesis 1; Proverbs is doing a midrash on Genesis - God and his wisdom created universe and personifies wisdom - saying wisdom speaking to God of delighting in creation and made me to be a part of this creation >This gives sense of God's wisdom and playfulness and joy in creating all things - a wisdom aspect of God >>In Jesus' day, Sophia was Greek word for Wisdom, a female gendered term >>God and female wisdom brings forth creation - not saying two Gods with one male and female >>This shows a love relationship with God (YHWH) and wisdom and from God's wisdom, all these things started happening. When turn to John, getting a rewrite of Proverbs and Genesis >Logos = means wisdom/reason, word, speech, account >Gospel writer uses word logos instead of Sophia but in way, it is the same thing >We are going to take Jesus significant and put it up there with wisdom like Proverbs did with creation story >Jesus' significance is such that he is wisdom of God there at beginning and bringing forth creation as you know it >>They are saying you are following the cosmic wisdom of God that's how important Jesus' teachings are Hooker says we misread John by turning it into doctrinal statements. >She says it is rather a midrash of tying wisdom of God and God's creation of the universe and how Jesus is significant.

Christology - Incarnation: What is Morna Hooker's argument about the "incarnational ideas" in the Gospel of John?

Morna Hooker argues that 'incarnation' is not the primary idea concerning Jesus in earliest Christianity. Morna Hooker wants to argue that part of the problem is that most of us read the New Testament through the later lens of what happened in the theological tradition, meaning that in the 2nd to 3rd centuries, Christians accepted idea that Jesus was the incarnation of God and read the New Testament as though it was saying this. >Hooker wants us to go behind the tradition and look at what the New Testament says. >>When we do this, she says the incarnation is not expressed in the New Testament. >Hooker argues that we are seeing incarnation ideas when it is not actually clear that the ideas are there. Hooker begins with Paul and argues that Paul has a theological problem. >Hooker argues that every Jew believes that God sent the Torah as a special covenant between Jews and God. >>God's law is eternal with God, and God had a Torah that he would express to his chosen people. >>The law is pre-existing --> God knew there would be a law before creating creation. >Paul is trying to claim that the Messiah is as important and if not more important than the Torah, implying that the Messiah is pre-existent. >Paul tries to solve this question of the relationship between the Messiah purpose of God and the Torah purpose of God by saying that God has 2 purposes in mind that come in chronological order. >>The Torah and Messiah are both there, but the Messiah trumps Torah. >>Paul says that the way in which Messiah pre-existed is that Jesus in a sense is part of God's purpose of Messiah coming to us. Hooker wants to be clear that Paul would not have thought that Christ is pre-existent in reality as if Jesus pre-existed next to God in Heaven but Paul thinks more in a sense that Christ was always going to come to us in this moment and time rather than Jesus there before time and sitting with God in Heaven waiting to come down to Earth. Hooker thinks later language about the Trinity is not there in Paul, but rather it is a later development to use this language. Paul says that when the time is right, the Messiah would come via God's plan. Hooker doesn't think Paul suggests an incarnational approach of God becoming human in reality, but rather the Messiah is within God, not God is the Messiah. >So monotheism Judaism is still held in that God is only worthy of worship but status of Messiah is incredibly high for Paul. >Resurrection transformed status of Jesus in minds of followers such that high language could be used (Son of God as metaphor). >Hooker says Paul isn't invested in Trinitarian scheme of existing before all time but rather God has a purpose of Messiah in mind from beginning and then Messiah came about. >Hooker argues Paul doesn't think Messiah is God.

Christology - Incarnation: What is Morna Hooker's argument about the incarnation?

1. Thinks the incarnation is hard for modern people to conceive b/c of modern people's concept of "person," which the ancient world did not possess. >The idea of a person without his nature, or of human nature existing except in a human person, is to us a contradiction in terms. 2. Thinks the "Jesus of history" is the best way forward b/c it makes some difference to say that when God chooses to exist within the terms of our environment, a man is what he becomes. >Manhood is the only mode of being in which God can do justice under such conditions to what he is. >Manhood implies limited knowledge and limited powers and makes it impossible to believe in one's own perfection. >>However good a man was, if he were truly sensitive to the facts of the human condition, he could never assert that he was sinless - he might be sinless, but he would not be sure that he was. >If God became truly Man, therefore we would not expect him to be infallible on all questions, we would not expect him to claim to be morally immaculate. >If we had good reason to think that God might have become Man, then we would also conclude that these characteristics were not indispensable to his expressing the essence of his nature. >Belief in the Incarnation demands not the Christ of the Fourth Gospel but the Jesus of history. 3. Baker is not arguing for kenosis.

Christology - Kenosis Discussion Questions: John Austin Baker thinks the incarnation (as articulated by Chalcedon) is hard for modern people to conceive. 1. Why? 2. Why does Baker think the "Jesus of history" (p. 59) is the best way forward? 3. Is Baker arguing for kenosis, or not?

Without Jesus' abilities of omnipotence and omniscience, Jesus would not be able to perform miracles, such as calming the storm in Luke 8:19-25. Also, it is important to note that Jesus lived his life in complete and continuous dependence on the Holy Spirit and that he lived a life of perfect submission to the Father. John's gospel gives the clearest portrait of Jesus as divine and Jesus' dependence on the Father and Spirit. There is no contradiction between the supernatural dimension of Jesus' earthly life and a kenotic account of the Incarnation. The kenotic account highlights the deep unity between Father, Son, and Spirit that endures throughout the Incarnation and emphasizes the way a truly human Jesus as the Son of God provides a model for us of how human life is to be lived. >B/c we too can live our lives in dependence upon the Father and in union with the Spirit and thus be united to Christ as well. The miracles Jesus performs do not separate Jesus from humanity b/c Jesus explicitly tells his disciples that if they have faith they will have access to the same miraculous power he himself has shown.

Christology - Kenosis Discussion Questions: Stephen Davis and C. Stephen Evans defend kenosis. How do they account for Jesus' miraculous deeds while holding to Jesus' full humanity?

1. Davis and Evans argue for kenosis - committed to kenosis 2. Argument for kenosis- >Davis and Evans say you need a kenosis, a way to figure out how God suspends attributes in the incarnation and lives as a human being, to understand Chalcedon. >The example of Jesus washing the disciples' feet represents how Jesus gives up his power and status and joins the human crowd. >Davis and Evans emphasize you should argue for kenosis because it is an attempt to highlight Jesus' humanity. >Davis and Evans allude to the idea that Jesus is not a superhero with superhuman powers that can be used in the moment but rather draws upon the power of the Father and the Spirit. >There is no contradiction between the supernatural dimension and the kenotic account as the kenotic account highlights deep unity between the Son of God and the Spirit. >>Davis and Evans are trying to say that Jesus' power to perform miracles and the ways in which Jesus knows information about strangers is not due to Jesus himself but due to Jesus receiving this through the power of the Father and Spirit; Jesus is articulating it with complete dependence upon the Father and Spirit. >>Jesus cannot perform these deeds on his own; he needs the Father and Spirit b/c he is human. >Davis and Evans argue that Jesus is in complete accord with the Father and Spirit in that his actions are done through them, and that Jesus has given up power as the divine Son b/c he is incarnate as a human being. >Davis and Evans argue that Jesus is limited by humanity in the same way we are limited by our humanity, and the ways he isn't limited is due to his accord with the Father and Spirit, which is something we don't allow ourselves to have but can have.

Christology - Kenosis: 1. Do Stephen Davis and Stephen Evans argue for or against kenosis? 2. What is Davis and Evans' argument regarding kenosis?

1. Balthazar argues for kenosis - committed to kenosis 2. Argument for kenosis- >Balthazar says that if we accept Chalcedon, then we have to accept that Jesus has a finite horizon of understanding the world. >Balthazar says that when scholars explain Jesus thought the world was ending, Jesus was right b/c he was part of eschatological history (i.e., God could end the world and rescue Israel). >Balthazar asserts that Jesus doesn't know what's going to happen, and people can read his message wrong if they think Jesus does. >Balthazar also says that Jesus lives in radical dependence upon the Father and accepts each day as it comes. >Balthazar thinks that kenosis involves Jesus the Son accomplishing the messianic purpose as an incarnate human being with a finite horizon. >Balthazar would agree with Davis and Evans by saying that one would have to do an interpretative move and attribute Jesus' supernatural performances and miracles to the Father's power. 3. Criticism: >Cupitt rejects Balthazar's ideas of kenosis b/c it shows God as an elite, and through the incarnation, God decides to humble himself. >Cupitt thinks we should get rid of this idea of kenosis and doesn't think we need Chalcedon in the first place

Christology - Kenosis: 1. Does Balthazar argue for or against kenosis? 2. What is Balthazar's argument regarding kenosis? 3. What is 1 criticism of Balthazar (Cupitt's opinion)?

1. John Austin Baker argues against kenosis - says you don't need to do kenosis (thinks this is a misguided theological issue) 2. Argument against kenosis- >Baker outlines why people who support kenosis want to do so in a metaphysical way. >>Baker expresses that people say Jesus is a divine person who is fully human, but the second person of the trinity gives up divine powers and capacities as if the divine person says he voluntarily gives up the ability to create, control, and be omniscient. >>Baker says there is a dilemma because the divine 2nd person of the Trinity is not really functioning as a divine person during the incarnation but rather is functioning as an identity marker. >Thus, Baker doesn't think you need to do kenosis and thinks this is a misguided theological issue. >Baker also outlines why people who support kenosis want to highlight Jesus' humanity. >>Baker fears that this attempt leads Christians to lose Jesus' humanity instead. >>Baker outlines says that one problem is that people overemphasize the idea that "the Word" exists as a human being and when people do this, people erase Jesus' human personality b/c they end up wanting to say that Jesus is God in the flesh and knows all things, such as knowing he's going to die on a cross and knowing Judas is going to betray him. >>Baker says you are left with a problem of what does it mean to say Jesus is fully divine as a human being if one has to hold to the concept of human nature being limited but respecting divine nature of Jesus. 3. Reason to criticize Baker: Baker assumes it would be easy theologically to explain that 1 of 3 persons of the Trinity gives up divine attributes voluntarily, but this is hard to argue b/c all three persons share divine attributes and have them fully and completely >Baker says that if say 3 persons can be broken apart to do certain acts, then this isn't right b/c you would then have 3 Gods so have to say 3 persons doing the same activity to show the nature of God. ** Baker says that you don't need kenosis and you can say that we don't understand the concept of Jesus maintaining divine identity. >Baker says we can accept Jesus is limited and finite and also assert Jesus is divine - we don't have to make a big problem out of it. >Baker says Jesus is divine and human in a way that is beyond our comprehension. >Baker says we don't have to assert more than the idea that God became a human being with flaws and that Jesus has love that is divinely inspired and dependent upon God - this picture allows Jesus' humanity to be respected without getting into metaphysical concepts (2nd person giving up powers voluntarily) >Baker also says that we don't have to go down the route of kenosis to explain Jesus' 2 natures. >Baker has a Sara Coakley or Norris-type position in that he says not to try to talk about Jesus in the right way via figuring out the metaphysical concept of kenosis.

Christology - Kenosis: 1. Does John Austin Baker argue for or against kenosis? 2. What is John Austin Baker's argument regarding kenosis? 3. What is one reason to criticize Baker?

1. It is hard to explain that Jesus lays aside his omniscience, but the Father/Spirit keeps omniscience when there is 3 persons in 1 God. 2. Baker says that you don't need kenosis and you can say that we don't understand the concept of Jesus maintaining divine identity. >Baker says we can accept Jesus is limited and finite and also assert Jesus is divine - we don't have to make a big problem out of it. >Baker says Jesus is divine and human in a way that is beyond our comprehension. >Baker says we don't have to assert more than the idea that God became a human being with flaws and that Jesus has love that is divinely inspired and dependent upon God - this picture allows Jesus' humanity to be respected without getting into metaphysical concepts (2nd person giving up powers voluntarily) >Baker also says that we don't have to go down the route of kenosis to explain Jesus' 2 natures. >Baker has a Sara Coakley or Norris-type position in that he says not to try to talk about Jesus in the right way via figuring out the metaphysical concept of kenosis.

Christology - Kenosis: 1. What is a problem with the kenotic position? 2. How does Baker respond to this problem?

1. Modern scholars view this not as a statement on metaphysics or incarnation but conclude Paul is doing an Adam-Christ typology >Adam was in the form of God but tried to become God >Jesus is in the form of God but did not exploit equality with God and instead became a servant to others >Take-home message: Be like Jesus, not Adam 2. Once Chalcedon is settled, it is easy for some scholars to find these verses and read them to confirm Chalcedon's message of 2 persons in 1 nature and kenosis. 3. Most scholars think this material predates Paul - suggests we aren't dealing with Chalcedonian incarnational language but an Adam-Jesus typology. 4. Main point: Be careful when reading modern scholars' arguments that hold to kenosis.

Christology - Kenosis: How do modern scholars view the Paul's passage of Philippians regarding the concept of kenosis?

1. Attempt to understand Chalcedon metaphysically >Notion of emptying oneself captured people's attention >Became a crucial lynchpin to understand Chalcedon b/c emptying may try to resolve tension between Jesus' divine nature and human nature 2. Attempt to highlight Jesus' humanity >By talking about the notion of emptying >>Second person of the Trinity empties self of divinity by being incarnate as Jesus so can understand Jesus in historical terms

Christology - Kenosis: What are modern scholars' 2 reasons to argue for kenosis?

a) What sinless means is harder to figure out, so we should assert that Jesus was loyal to the Father, such that goodness was in front of his life in all respects. >This allows Jesus to be an ordinary human but contrasts with us in that we don't always allow goodness at the front. b) Jesus is fully human, so he made a mistake in that he thought the world was going to end.

Christology - Kenosis: What does Baker say about the issues: a) "what does it mean to say Jesus is sinless?" and b) "what if Jesus made mistakes?"?

Borg says this is how he perceives incarnation (God incarnate in Jesus): >Incarnation is not that God sent a semi-divine figure from heavens to rescue us from sin but Jesus is a fully human person who opens himself up to God in such a way that God's presence fills him in a way that God is revealed through Jesus Jesus walking around thinking himself God would be problematic: >Jesus did not perceive himself to be divine >Son of God language is post-Christian affirmation >Borg doesn't think Jesus identified himself as God (divine) but Jesus thought of himself as a prophet who speaks for God and has some connection to God, meaning he has an authority to speak for God: >>If Jesus did think he was God in some way, he would say the spirit of God is in all creatures >Borg doesn't think Jesus was uniquely God >>Borg says that Jesus is God in post-Easter way: Jesus exemplifies God - claim Christian community makes Borg says what to do with John saying Jesus made statements about himself (e.g., light of the world) >Significance: not real statements from Jesus but statements from author of gospel writing about post-Easter affirmations from the Christian community

Meaning of Jesus - Divinity of Jesus Discussion Questions: 1. As Borg notes on p. 147, 'incarnation' means 'embodiment.' How does Borg conceive of the incarnation in relation to Jesus? 2. Why does Borg take this view?

Borg's method: Go early, then multiple attestation (Mark and Q) and then look to see what is there to judge question >Mark - messiah/son of God >>Thinks messiah claim is post-Easter claim but not 100% sure - rather thinks unlikely Jesus thought he was messiah >Would Jesus have called himself the "son of God"? >>Pg. 151 - shows complexity of "son of God" meaning >>What do titles have in common? -->Special/close relationship with God that is a metaphor pointing to parent-child relationship -->Phrase used in Hebrew bible in metaphorical way -->Not supposed to believe that every single king that comes is God's particular son (king so important that he is right up next to God) -->Israel - not all sons of God literally -->Angels - not all sons of God literally >>Then it is more likely that this phrase "son of God" would not have heard it as unique claim about Jesus but rather a high-status claim about Jesus he is so important as figure that we should perceive him to be next to God in some way ("son of God") >>Thinks Mark is using it in way to say "son of God" and "messiah" are high-status title - resurrected by God himself so therefore Jesus' status is high so way you recognize this is by calling him "son of God" *Side note: calling someone "son of God" phrase is more common than we thought in 2nd temple period* >Q - doesn't mention much Argument against Jesus being actual "son of God": >Problem - for long time, didn't have scholarship to understand this so seemed to be unique claim in gospels and more we discovered, this phrase isn't very unique in Jewish-thought world >Messiah language - not enough in Mark to give us reliable idea that Jesus thought himself as Messiah >Borg's argument against Jesus thinking himself divine: If Jesus thought himself divine, then it should make us suspicious of Jesus' mental state. >Criterion of reality as we know it: people who go around claiming to be God are usually mentally disturbed (or narcissistic cult leader) >Borg says better way to think about Jesus: Jesus was type of person who emptied himself of own ego and allowed spiritual presence to guide him in such a real way that he appeared to be charismatic person who was able to speak for God - leads to idea of incarnation argument

Meaning of Jesus - Divinity of Jesus Discussion Questions: 1. As Borg points out, the "son of God" phrase can have many meanings in the ancient Jewish religious tradition. What does Borg make of this designation in relation to Jesus? 2. Why does Borg argue this?

1. Borg vs. Wright: >Borg- says that the risen living Jesus Christ is not a second God but is one with God. While Borg is aware that some theologians emphasize that the trinity means more than this, Borg thinks it means at least this much. Moreover, Borg thinks God is known in 3 primary ways rather than 3 separate divine persons: God of Israel, Word and Wisdom of God in Jesus, and the abiding Spirit. >Wright- says that Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity. He believes there is one God in three persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. 2. No - they do not agree. Borg believes more in the concept of Oneness - something many Pentecostals believe; whereas, Wright believes in the trinitarian doctrine of the Trinity involving 3 persons and one God as opposed to just one God expressing Himself in 3 different ways.

Meaning of Jesus - Divinity of Jesus Discussion Questions: 1. Compare what Borg says about later creeds, trinitarian and christological doctrine, and Greek categories of thought on pp. 153-155 to what Wright says on pp. 162-163. 2. Are Borg and Wright agreeing?

1. Yes, Wright thinks that Jesus thought of himself as God in a weird, specific way. 2. Argument: There is a specific vision of God in Jewish culture, and this God is active God who makes covenants/agreements and keeps promises for people and disciplines people who then frees people (exile and return narrative) >Wright thinks narrative is dominant cultural narrative everyone believes in >Jesus believes in a specific God - the God of Israel >Jesus perceives himself to be the messiah of this God who is returning to his people but returning in unique way that he is actually going to allow the temple to be destroyed and be replaced by sacrificial death of Jesus himself (Jesus is eschatological prophet calling everyone to God is ending everything as they are and starting something new - return is Jesus' death and resurrection and be new focus of Israel) - Moment of death and resurrection is way God returns to Israel >Jesus could have thought himself to be God in a weird, particular way >>Jesus in a way believed what he had to do for Israel and world that only YHWH could do and be >>Didn't think Jesus was having this belief of universal wisdom/knowledge of world and second person of trinity that helped create the world >>The messiah identity that Jesus accepted got blurred into being the divine agent >Wright - the argument against Jesus thinking himself God as insanity >>Argue that it is anachronistic - we don't know if Jews back then would have called that insane >>We might be using our prejudices and projecting it upon Jewish culture's beliefs b/c we don't know what they thought in terms of sanity >>To think himself God would have been blasphemous - unlikely Jews would have worshipped anyone b/c they are Jews and believed God alone was God according to Torah *Wright is trying to be thinker of continuity: Where Church ended up on things of Jesus is what you can find in the beginning*

Meaning of Jesus - Divinity of Jesus Discussion Questions: 1. Does Wright think that Jesus thought of himself as God? 2. If so, how so? If not, how not?

Borg says that someone like himself can affirm the Creed but not think Jesus is divine at the same time. Borg says the Creed is a product of its time as it was written hundreds of years after Jesus in a different context. Borg emphasizes that the Creed was a Hellenized Greek version of Christianity that dominated in the early centuries, such that Borg says we can say the Creed without believing this is the only way to speak about Jesus. Borg argues the Creed should not be understood as doctrine that we have to assent to in order to be a Christian. The Creed is a culturally relative product of the ancient Church and is a historic marker of a communal commitment that Jesus was a certain way to them. Borg argues that Christianity isn't the only way to access God. Borg says that the Creed was a historic way of thinking about Jesus but has a place in the communal life together as Christianity. Borg thinks theologically that Jesus is God as a Christian. Borg doesn't like when Christians say out there that if a person doesn't understand Jesus as it was formulated in 451 Chalcedon and use this language, then the person is a heretical Christian going to Hell.

Meaning of Jesus - Divinity of Jesus: Borg vs. Wright- How does Borg interpret the Creed affirming Jesus as God?

a. Borg says that the incarnation should not be interpreted as God sending a semi-divine figure from the heavens to rescue us from sin, but rather that Jesus is a fully human person who opens himself up to God such that God's presence fills him in a way that God is revealed through Jesus. >Jesus did not perceive himself to be divine, and Jesus being called the actual "son of God" is a post-Christian affirmation. >Borg doesn't think Jesus identified himself as God (divine), but Jesus thought of himself as a prophet who speaks for God and has some connection to God, meaning he has an authority to speak for God. >If Jesus did think he was God in some way, he would say the spirit of God is in all creatures. >Borg doesn't think Jesus was uniquely God. b. Borg says the statements about Jesus saying he is God are metaphorical. >Additionally, these are not real statements from Jesus, but they are statements from the author of the gospel writing about post-Easter affirmations from the Christian community.

Meaning of Jesus - Divinity of Jesus: Borg vs. Wright- a. How does Borg perceive the incarnation (God incarnate in Jesus)? b. What does Borg say about the gospel of John's statements about Jesus saying he is God?

a. Borg says the title "son of God" was commonly given to different groups of individuals in the Bible. >The Hebrew Bible refers to Israel, the king of Israel, and angels/members of the divine council as the "son of God" or "sons of God" >In the Jewish tradition near the time of Jesus, other Jewish Spirit persons were sometimes called "son" of God. >Borg argues that these meanings are all similar in that they mean a close and intimate relationship with God, such as child's relationship with a parent. >Borg thus says it is more likely that this phrase "son of God" would have not been used to make a unique claim about Jesus but rather a high-status claim about Jesus. >>If people called Jesus the "son of God," others would have perceived Jesus as an important figure that should be perceived as next to God in some way. >When Mark is using the title "son of God" and "Messiah" to describe Jesus, it is because Jesus was resurrected by God himself, so Jesus' status is high, and the way you recognize Jesus' high status is to refer to him as "son of God." >Borg says Q doesn't mention this phrase much. b. Borg didn't think that Jesus was actually the "son of God." >For long time, didn't have scholarship to understand this title, so this seemed to be a unique claim in gospels. However, the more we discovered, this phrase isn't very unique in the Jewish-thought world. c. Borg didn't think that Jesus thought he was divine or the actual "son of God." >If Jesus thought he was divine, then Borg says it should make us suspicious of Jesus' mental state. >Criterion for reality as we know it: Borg says people who go around claiming to be God are usually mentally disturbed or highly narcissistic. >Borg says a better way to think about Jesus is the following: Jesus was the type of person who emptied himself of his own ego and allowed spiritual presence to guide him in such a real way that he appeared to be a charismatic person who was able to speak for God. >Jesus did not perceive himself to be divine, and Jesus being called the actual "son of God" is a post-Christian affirmation.

Meaning of Jesus - Divinity of Jesus: Borg vs. Wright- a. What did Borg think about Jesus being called the "son of God" by others? b. Did Borg think Jesus was the actual "son of God"? c. Did Borg think Jesus thought he was the "son of God" (aka, divine)?

a. Wright agrees with Borg in that the "son of God" language was used in the Hebrew Bible to refer to Israel, the king of Israel, and angels/divine members. >Wright further says that Mark's use of "son of God" is not unique and is shown in other literature, suggesting that other people that weren't even part of followers of Messiah Jesus were called "son of God"; it was a cultural expectation. >Once people thought Jesus was Messiah, then the "son of God" language followed it as denoting high-status designation. b. Wright does think Jesus thought he was the "son of God." >Wright emphasizes that Paul uses more high Christology than low Christology, meaning that Paul uses high-status terms like "son of God" and "first born of creation" to refer to Jesus rather than low-status terms like "prophet," "teacher," and "rabbi." >Wright says this shows that high Christology is being used very early by Paul, but Borg never said it wasn't used early. >Because some of the earliest texts like Paul have language of high-status Jesus, Wright says that means Jesus thought of himself as the "son of God," so followers continued this language. >Furthermore, Wright says there is a specific vision of God in Jewish culture, and this God is an active God who makes covenants/agreements and keeps promises for people and disciplines people who then frees people. >Wright thinks this "exile and return" narrative is the dominant cultural narrative everyone believes in. >Moreover, Jesus perceives himself to be the Messiah of this God who is returning to his people but returning in a unique way that the is actually going to allow the temple to be destroyed and be replaced by sacrificial death of Jesus himself. >Wright says that Jesus could have thought himself to be God in a weird, particular way. >>Wright says that Jesus in a way believed what he had to do for Israel and the world was what only YHWH could do and be. >>Wright says Jesus didn't have this belief of universal wisdom/knowledge of the world and a belief of being the second person of the Trinity that helped create the world. c. Wright argues that this is anachronistic in that we don't know if the Jews back then would have called this mindset insane. >Wrights says we might be using our prejudices and projecting it upon Jewish culture's beliefs b/c we don't know what they thought in terms of sanity. >>To think himself God would have been blasphemous. It is unlikely that Jews would have worshipped anyone b/c they are Jews and believed God alone was God according to Torah. >Wright is trying to be a thinker of continuity; where the Church ended up on things about Jesus is what you can find in the beginning.

Meaning of Jesus - Divinity of Jesus: Borg vs. Wright- a. What did Wright think about Jesus being called the "son of God" by others? b. Did Wright think Jesus thought he was the "son of God" (aka, divine) and the incarnation? c. What is Wright's argument against Jesus thinking himself as God makes him insane?

The satisfaction theory >Thomas Aquinas takes earlier theories and synthesizes them with Anselm's satisfaction theory structure to then modify it. >The satisfaction theory becomes the central focus with the notion that Jesus died on the cross for our sins to save us.

Which of the 4 atonement theories has largely won?