Mormonism and multiple godheads

This video presents some very serious consequences and implications of Mormonism's polytheistic theology.  It is very short and worth watching.  Consider sharing this information with any thinking Mormons that you might know:

Discussion on Psalm 102 at Theopologetics

If you are interested in Jewish thought as it relates to Christology, then this will be of interest to you. Over at the THEOPOLOGETICS BLOG, me, DAVID BARRON, and Chris (the blog's author) are discussing some fascinating (at least we think so!) aspects of Psalm 102. The reason this discussion is interesting is because of the author of Hebrews' quotation of Psalm 102:25-27. The discussion is very long, but is worth reading. Anyone can feel free to chime in if they like, as long as it is directly related to the discussion. You can check the whole thing out HERE.

Book Review: "Jesus and the God of Israel" by Richard Bauckham

In this fascinating book, Richard Bauckham articulates his view about Jesus and the "unique identity of God."  The book makes up a series of articles that serve as an expanded version of his 1999 work, God Crucified.  In it, Bauckham analyzes a plethora of Jewish background material in establishing who God is.  That is, he drifts from the traditional "Nicene" views of ontology and seeks to focus on identity.  In fact, Bauckham seemed at times to express some level of uneasiness with regards to Trinitarian views of divine ontology.  The reason being, according to Bauckham, the Jews were more concerned with who God is rather than what God is.

The author seeks to establish his case by appealing to a wide range of Jewish texts, both Scriptural and non-scriptural (though some might infer the inspiration of some apocryphal works).  To many who read this work, including me, the non-scriptural analyses might appear to be awkward at first, given that so many monotheistic and Christological works have neglected this important background information.  However, by the end of the book, the reader will likely understand how important these texts are in establishing how the early Christians would have viewed Christ in relation to God's identity.  That is, if we seek to view the Christological texts through the lens of the modern eye, we may very well miss some very important key elements.

Of course, these key elements are in relation to what Bauckham has repetitively inferred as "the unique identity of God."  As stated previous, where many Christological works focus on the ontological aspects of God and Christ, Bauckham builds his case in establishing who God is, as second Temple Jews would have understood him.  Some of these elements of the unique identity of God to which Bauckham focuses on includes:

1. God is the sole sovereign ruler of all things

2. God is the sole Creator of all things

3. God is the sole possessor of the name YHWH 

Though there are several sub-categories to these, Bauckham argues that these are aspects of God's identity which separate Him from all other reality.  In drawing his conclusion on these matters, Bauckham then goes to argue that since Christ possesses these divine attributes of identity, he is to be included in God's unique identity.

In drawing this conclusion, Bauckham is careful to supply qualifications in that Christ isn't added to God's identity, but is included.  Otherwise, he argues, the Jews would have had no basis for which to accept such a ditheistic view.  In supporting his view of the inclusion of Jesus into the unique divine identity, Bauckham offers his exegesis of fair share of Christological texts.  One of the most prominent in his discussion is the early Christian view of Psalm 110:1.  Again, while many Christological works may focus on ontological aspects of Christ, Bauckham argues for this text as a key element in including Jesus into the unique identity of God as the sovereign ruler who sits at God's right hand.  Other texts include 1 Corinthians 8:6, Philippians 2:10, Revelation 5, Hebrews 1, and more.

Jesus and the God of Israel also includes a fair share of interaction with the scholarly community who espouse different views than Bauckham.  These critics range from liberal scholarship to conservative.  One of the more prominent interactions to which Bauckham engages are those who advocate views concerning so-called intermediary divine figures; in particular, those from the Qumran texts.  In interacting with these scholars and texts, Bauckham argues that though there are some interesting implications, they still do not place themselves as a parallel with the Christian texts as they include Jesus in the unique identity of God.

For those looking for a scholarly and insightful work on Christology and Christian monotheism, this work is a goldmine.  Even if one finds disagreement in some of Bauckham's contentions as they relate to identity rather than ontology, the footnotes provide enough information and scholarly references for the student to do his own research and come to his own conclusions.  Arguably, this is an important landmark work on Christology that will serve as a standard for years to come in the scholarly community.  And personally, I could not recommend a better work on Christology and monotheism than what Bauckham has offered here.

 

 

 

Richard Bauckham on ontological, functional, and Trinitarian Christology

"The distinction commonly made between "functional" and "ontic" Christology has been, broadly, between early Christology in a Jewish context and patristic Christology which applied Greek philosophical categories of divine nature to Christ. Even when ontic Christology is seen to begin well within the confines of the New Testament, it is seen as the beginnings of the patristic attribution of divine nature to Christ. The assumption usually is that, whereas first-century Jewish monotheists could attribute divine "functions" to Jesus without difficulty since this would not infringe Jewish monotheism, they could not easily attribute divine "nature" to him without raising difficult issues for monotheism with which only later Trinitarian developments could cope (successfully or not). However, this is to misconstrue Jewish monotheism in Hellenistic terms as though it were primarily concerned with what divinity is-divine nature-rather than who YHWH, the unique God, is-divine identity. The whole category of divine identity and Jesus' inclusion in it has been fundamentally obscured by the alternative of "functional" and "ontic," understood to mean that either Christology speaks simply of what Jesus does or else it speaks of his divine nature. Once the category of divine identity replaces those of function and nature as the primary and comprehensive category for understanding both Jewish monotheism and early Christology, we can see that the New Testament's lack of concern with the divine nature of Christ is by no means an indication of a merely functional Christology. We can see that, throughout the New Testament texts, there is a clear and deliberate use of these characteristics of the unique divine identity to include Jesus in that identity. Once we have rid ourselves of the prejudice that high Christology must speak of Christ's divine nature, we can see the obvious fact that the Christology of divine identity common to the whole New Testament is the highest Christology of all. It identifies Jesus as intrinsic to who God is.

-Jesus and the God of Israel, p. 31

Question for Jehovah's Witnesses

Adnan Rashid vs. James White - Trinity and Shirk

This was a very interesting debate on a pretty unique proposition. "Shirk" is a word in Islam that conveys the highest form of idolatry and damns any violator to hell. I found it pretty interesting that James White sought to defend the belief that the Trinity doesn't violate the Koranic understanding of "Shirk." Of course, the Muslim disagrees. See for yourself. This was an excellent debate featuring clear presentations from both sides!

Question for Jehovah's Witnesses on Galatians 4:8