Competing Christologies in the NT?

[Difflugia]

A comment I recently wrote in another thread sent me down the rabbit hole of reading old posts on this site concerning the so-called "Christological hymn" or "kenosis hymn" of Philippians 2:5-11. I realized that the Philippians discussion has been done to death and with generally more heat than light, so that probably wouldn't lead to a fruitful discussion. I ran across, however, an old post that I never responded to, but that ultimately led to me changing my mind about some things:

I don't see Paul's Jesus as pre-existent. God's plan for Jesus was, but for Paul, Christ's power came after his death and upon his resurrection.

What do you make of Philippians 2? To my mind that is pretty clear that Christ Jesus initially had the form or nature of God, but humbled himself and took on the form/nature of a man.

In the spirit of another recent observation, I thought I'd take the opportunity to point out the importance of Mithrae's comment to me (which I took so much time to consider that I never responded to it) and rather than necro that thread, use it as a springboard for a new question.

What do different New Testament authors seem to think of the nature of Christ, particularly preexistence, incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection? Do any of those Christologies conflict? Was such conflict intentional (i.e. were any of the authors responding to each other)?

[theophile]

A comment I recently wrote in another thread sent me down the rabbit hole of reading old posts on this site concerning the so-called "Christological hymn" or "kenosis hymn" of Philippians 2:5-11. I realized that the Philippians discussion has been done to death and with generally more heat than light, so that probably wouldn't lead to a fruitful discussion. I ran across, however, an old post that I never responded to, but that ultimately led to me changing my mind about some things:

I don't see Paul's Jesus as pre-existent. God's plan for Jesus was, but for Paul, Christ's power came after his death and upon his resurrection.

What do you make of Philippians 2? To my mind that is pretty clear that Christ Jesus initially had the form or nature of God, but humbled himself and took on the form/nature of a man.

In the spirit of another recent observation, I thought I'd take the opportunity to point out the importance of Mithrae's comment to me (which I took so much time to consider that I never responded to it) and rather than necro that thread, use it as a springboard for a new question.

What do different New Testament authors seem to think of the nature of Christ, particularly preexistence, incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection? Do any of those Christologies conflict? Was such conflict intentional (i.e. were any of the authors responding to each other)?

I don't have anything meaningful to say about different Christologies at play in the NT (I tend to think there is a shared vision, but that's admittedly an unexamined view). But I do wonder what is meant in Philippians 2 by Jesus' nature and equality with God.

The framing reference is to Jesus' mindset and relationship with others. So one thought is that it is in these regards that Jesus is said to be the same as God. (They are equal because they share the same Spirit.)

I suggest this against the default view that God is a different order being (some super-Being out there), and that Jesus is originally the same and takes on a lesser form. It's tempting to read it that way but I think it may be misleading, and a false view of the nature of God to begin with.

[Difflugia]

But I do wonder what is meant in Philippians 2 by Jesus' nature and equality with God.

The framing reference is to Jesus' mindset and relationship with others. So one thought is that it is in these regards that Jesus is said to be the same as God. (They are equal because they share the same Spirit.)

I suggest this against the default view that God is a different order being (some super-Being out there), and that Jesus is originally the same and takes on a lesser form. It's tempting to read it that way but I think it may be misleading, and a false view of the nature of God to begin with.

There is definitely a lot in Philippians 2 to unpack and I'm still not entirely sure what it all means. First, most commentators think that verses 5-11 weren't written by Paul, but are part of another hymn or creed that he incorporated into his text. That means that there's already a possible conflict in how the pre-Pauline Church understood the words versus what Paul meant by them if he repurposed them. Given the context of verses 1-4, what you say could be the sense of how Paul was presenting the words. If Jesus could avoid taking advantage of the benefits of being God's chosen to be born as lowly as a human slave, then the members of the Church should at least be able to suppress their own egos and come together in fellowship to accomplish the purposes of God.

[We_Are_VENOM]

What do different New Testament authors seem to think of the nature of Christ, particularly preexistence, incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection? Do any of those Christologies conflict? Was such conflict intentional (i.e. were any of the authors responding to each other)?

Competing Christologies? Plural?

There is only one competing Christology of the NT...either you believe Jesus is God (Trinity), or you don't believe he is God (aka, he is the created Son of God).

That's it.

Lets not make it something that it isn't. Those are the only two views of the Deity of Christ in the NT.

Second, there aren't really that many authors of the NT anyway. Paul's writings almost DOMINATES entire NT with a few writers sprinkled in, here and there.

And even with that said, there aren't any competing views.

Again, this is sensationalism.

[Difflugia]

What do different New Testament authors seem to think of the nature of Christ, particularly preexistence, incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection? Do any of those Christologies conflict? Was such conflict intentional (i.e. were any of the authors responding to each other)?

Competing Christologies? Plural?

Yep.

There is only one competing Christology of the NT...either you believe Jesus is God (Trinity), or you don't believe he is God (aka, he is the created Son of God).

The way you've worded that, those aren't competing Christologies within the texts themselves, but are competing theological syntheses of the New Testament as a whole. Even so, there are more views than that just within Christian orthodoxy.

That's it.

Lets not make it something that it isn't. Those are the only two views of the Deity of Christ in the NT.

That's not true whether you're referring to authorial intent or modern interpretation. Again just within Christian orthodoxy, there are far more nuances to the nature of Christ than a binary take on trinitarianism.

Second, there aren't really that many authors of the NT anyway. Paul's writings almost DOMINATES entire NT with a few writers sprinkled in, here and there.

While Paul has written more New Testament books than any other individual author, the number of Pauline books is still an overall minority of the whole (at most ten, but probably fewer, of twenty-seven).

Here are the authors as I see them:

• Author of the Gospel of Matthew (anonymous, but I'll refer to as "Matthew" in quotes)
• "Mark"
• "Luke," author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles
• "John" the Evangelist
• Paul, who most scholars agree wrote at least Romans, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. I personally think he also probably wrote 1 Corinthians.
• From three to six authors that wrote 2 Corinthians, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, and the Pastorals
• The anonymous author of Hebrews
• James, who was clearly not any "James" described in the Gospels or Acts, but may have been the real "James, brother of the Lord" that Paul mentioned in Galatians.
• Judas, brother of James
• Author of 1 "Peter"
• Author of 2 "Peter"
• Author of 1-3 John
• John the Revelator

By my count, that's at least fifteen different New Testament authors, each of which had potentially different ideas about the nature of Christ.

And even with that said, there aren't any competing views.

Au contraire! At the very least, there's no sign of gJohn's pre-existent, hypostatic Jesus in the Synoptics. As far as the Synoptics go, I think that Mark 1:10 is evidence that gMark is Adoptionist and that gMatthew and gLuke have materially different soteriologies. Matthew's gospel presents a substitutionary atonement, while the Gospel of Luke portrays Christ as a mediary to forgiveness rather than being an offering or ransom.

That's just the Gospels.

Again, this is sensationalism.

I'm sure you intend that to be some sort of emotional, well-poisoning criticism, but what do you actually mean by it?

[We_Are_VENOM]

The way you've worded that, those aren't competing Christologies within the texts themselves, but are competing theological syntheses of the New Testament as a whole. Even so, there are more views than that just within Christian orthodoxy.

Such as?

That's not true whether you're referring to authorial intent or modern interpretation. Again just within Christian orthodoxy, there are far more nuances to the nature of Christ than a binary take on trinitarianism.

Such as?

While Paul has written more New Testament books than any other individual author, the number of Pauline books is still an overall minority of the whole (at most ten, but probably fewer, of twenty-seven).

Here are the authors as I see them:

• Author of the Gospel of Matthew (anonymous, but I'll refer to as "Matthew" in quotes)
• "Mark"
• "Luke," author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles
• "John" the Evangelist
• Paul, who most scholars agree wrote at least Romans, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. I personally think he also probably wrote 1 Corinthians.
• From three to six authors that wrote 2 Corinthians, 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, and the Pastorals
• The anonymous author of Hebrews
• James, who was clearly not any "James" described in the Gospels or Acts, but may have been the real "James, brother of the Lord" that Paul mentioned in Galatians.
• Judas, brother of James
• Author of 1 "Peter"
• Author of 2 "Peter"
• Author of 1-3 John
• John the Revelator

By my count, that's at least fifteen different New Testament authors, each of which had potentially different ideas about the nature of Christ.

Differences such as?

Au contraire! At the very least, there's no sign of gJohn's pre-existent, hypostatic Jesus in the Synoptics.

Well again, I will raise the same point here that I raised elsewhere...because your point, as glaring as it is, is a catch-22...for the simple fact that..

1. The synoptics often gets criticized for being too eerily similar to each other...and accusations of plagiarism is on the horizon from the skeptics. .

2. But then when considering the Gospel of John, which is eerily "different" than the synoptics, now all of a sudden John is criticized for being different than the synoptics.

So, damned when things are too similar, and damned when things are different.



Just can't win. Can't catch a break.

That being said, look...my grandmother will give you a vastly different account of my personality than my friends will give you.

If my grandmother wrote a book about my personality, the book may look entirely different than that of my friends (if they were to also write a book about my personality).

Yet, I am the same person, aren't I?

If it can work that way with me, then it can work that way with Jesus as it pertains to the different depictions of Jesus in the synoptics as compared to the Gospel of John.

And that is a good analogy, I just made it up...and yes, I believe that God caused me to think of that analogy.

As far as the Synoptics go, I think that Mark 1:10 is evidence that gMark is Adoptionist and that gMatthew and gLuke have materially different soteriologies. Matthew's gospel presents a substitutionary atonement, while the Gospel of Luke portrays Christ as a mediary to forgiveness rather than being an offering or ransom.

Generalizations are cool. But specifics are better.

I'm sure you intend that to be some sort of emotional, well-poisoning criticism, but what do you actually mean by it?

When I use the word "sensationalism", it is for lack of a better term.

I guess what I am trying to say is; a big fuss is being made out of nothing.

Kind of like a variation of splitting hairs.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/di ... 0important.

All in the same ballpark...in the same family. And I am beginning to see it more and more often on here...from a select few members on this forum who shall remain nameless.

[Difflugia]

Such as?

I wasn't looking to have a discussion about modern harmonizing approaches to Christology in this thread, but this book might help you. I'd be happy discussing modern approaches if you want to start a new thread.

By my count, that's at least fifteen different New Testament authors, each of which had potentially different ideas about the nature of Christ.

Differences such as?

Whether or not Jesus was preexistent, the nature of his divinity and its relationship to his humanity, whether or not he was divine at birth, was born to a virgin, the details and meaning of the baptism theophany in the Synoptics, the details of his messiahship, appearance in and fullfilment of prophecy, the meaning of his death and resurrection, the nature of his physical body before and after resurrection, and the nature of the parousia. "The nature of Christ" is a broad topic with various New Testament authors approaching the details in various ways.

Well again, I will raise the same point here that I raised elsewhere...because your point, as glaring as it is, is a catch-22...for the simple fact that..

1. The synoptics often gets criticized for being too eerily similar to each other...and accusations of plagiarism is on the horizon from the skeptics.

2. But then when considering the Gospel of John, which is eerily "different" than the synoptics, now all of a sudden John is criticized for being different than the synoptics.

So, damned when things are too similar, and damned when things are different.

This thread isn't about criticizing New Testament books or trying to establish what their views of Christ should be, but to establish what they are. If you want to argue the theological position that the various Christological views should be (or even can be) harmonized, I'd certainly criticize that, but criticizing an errant theological position is far different than criticizing the books or their authors themselves. In any case, you'd have to present and support a position in the first place.

Just can't win. Can't catch a break.

Maybe if you were to choose a defensible position, you'd win more often and catch more breaks.

That being said, look...my grandmother will give you a vastly different account of my personality than my friends will give you.

And to continue that analogy, the point of this thread would be to address the similarities and differences between what your grandmother and friends had to say about you.

If my grandmother wrote a book about my personality, the book may look entirely different than that of my friends (if they were to also write a book about my personality).

I expect so. And if your grandmother and friends were each to write a fantasy story in which a character based on you were a magical hero that was killed and brought back to life, I'm sure they would have different ideas about the various details, what they mean to the story, and what we as readers should understand from them.

Yet, I am the same person, aren't I?

Yes, whether or not who you really are as a person in history is reflected in the different stories they wrote.

If it can work that way with me, then it can work that way with Jesus as it pertains to the different depictions of Jesus in the synoptics as compared to the Gospel of John.

Exactly. Regardless of who Jesus really was, or if he even existed, we can independently compare and contrast the stories written about him by various authors from different Christian communities.

And that is a good analogy, I just made it up...and yes, I believe that God caused me to think of that analogy.

I didn't ask, but sure.

As far as the Synoptics go, I think that Mark 1:10 is evidence that gMark is Adoptionist and that gMatthew and gLuke have materially different soteriologies. Matthew's gospel presents a substitutionary atonement, while the Gospel of Luke portrays Christ as a mediary to forgiveness rather than being an offering or ransom.

Generalizations are cool. But specifics are better.

That's what I asked the debate question to discuss. Any thoughts on those specifics? If you don't have any of your own, you can offer your thoughts on the one I mentioned. If it's not clear what I meant, Mark 1:10 reads as the Spirit of God entering into Jesus, presumably marking the beginning of his Sonship and divine mission. Matthew 3:16 and Luke 3:22 changed the preposition such that the Spirit descended upon Jesus, apparently as an outward sign of Sonship already conferred at the incarnation.

When I use the word "sensationalism", it is for lack of a better term.

I guess what I am trying to say is; a big fuss is being made out of nothing.

There are lots of debate topics in these forums that I don't find interesting. My way of dealing with that is generally not to engage with them. Or is this a case of where you're actually interested, but are trying to look like you're not as a power play? Like you're negging me?

That's surprisingly sophisticated for someone like you! (See what I did there? )

Kind of like a variation of splitting hairs.

I would think that what those differences are and relative importance, even if characterized as "splitting hairs," would be a part of your overall position, which you haven't stated, and your defense of it, which you haven't offered.

All in the same ballpark...in the same family. And I am beginning to see it more and more often on here...from a select few members on this forum who shall remain nameless.

Then it should be refreshing that this particular discussion is about what biblical authors thought about Christ rather than what any particular forum members think about him.

[theophile]

All in the same ballpark...in the same family. And I am beginning to see it more and more often on here...from a select few members on this forum who shall remain nameless.

Then it should be refreshing that this particular discussion is about what biblical authors thought about Christ rather than what any particular forum members think about him.

As much as I appreciate it, I do think the scope of the discussion is a bit daunting given it involves every difference (and whether it is a difference that matters) in NT portrayals of Jesus. Not to mention the ambiguity of the terminology at play (like "Spirit", or "God" even...) and the need for precision to make any conclusions on the matter. Which is not to say there's no point trying, but only that it may be helpful to pinpoint a specific, most troubling difference and start from there if you have one in mind... (And even then, be ready to go down rabbit-holes!)

I personally tend towards VENOM's side, and don't see the differences as making much of a difference here (I said as much before -- I live in the fantasy of a unified field theory when it comes to biblical theology -- it is less a matter of authors responding to each other and presenting different, competing views as it is a multifaceted expression of the same, originating Word). That said, I'm also one to latch on to minor details and to make a big deal out of them -- I absolutely believe it is in the subtleties of biblical texts that the true meaning is revealed.

Hence my suggestion before on Philippians 2 (to pinpoint a troubling area), and Jesus' equality with God being in his mindset and relationship with others. It is not an equality of substance - like Jesus is the same class of being as God, as most people suppose, but more an equality of wisdom (and the power that it brings).

i.e., Even though Jesus had all the wisdom (and therefore power) of God, he didn't boast or use it to his own advantage. Rather, he sided with with the nothings of the world, and because of this is elevated above all else.

[Difflugia]

As much as I appreciate it, I do think the scope of the discussion is a bit daunting given it involves every difference (and whether it is a difference that matters) in NT portrayals of Jesus. Not to mention the ambiguity of the terminology at play (like "Spirit", or "God" even...) and the need for precision to make any conclusions on the matter. Which is not to say there's no point trying, but only that it may be helpful to pinpoint a specific, most troubling difference and start from there if you have one in mind... (And even then, be ready to go down rabbit-holes!)

What prompted the question was realizing that I had switched from thinking that Paul didn't believe in a preexistent Christ to thinking that he did. I'm still not positive, though.

I mentioned Mark's adoptionism and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit at the baptism rather than the divine incarnation as Matthew and Luke have it. There's also some question over whether Luke originally included the virgin birth or not.

Another area that I find interesting is just what exactly Paul's theology of Christ was. Paul focuses on the resurrection as the source of Christ's power and the means of salvation. For Paul, Jesus' interaction with Christians and Christianity began at the resurrection. Paul sees Christ as presently active in the Church moving into the future. This is different than the view of the Gospels that focus on an earthly ministry of Jesus that is on hiatus until the parousia.

I personally tend towards VENOM's side, and don't see the differences as making much of a difference here (I said as much before -- I live in the fantasy of a unified field theory when it comes to biblical theology -- it is less a matter of authors responding to each other and presenting different, competing views as it is a multifaceted expression of the same, originating Word). That said, I'm also one to latch on to minor details and to make a big deal out of them -- I absolutely believe it is in the subtleties of biblical texts that the true meaning is revealed.

There's a difference between unimportant and nonexistent. Mark, for example, wrote a gospel with a particular theology of Jesus. Matthew wrote a new one based on Mark's Gospel in which he intentionally changed Jesus. I'm not interested in whether those can be harmonized or how the differences affect modern theology, but in exploring what the differences may have meant to Matthew and Mark. I have no problem making a big deal out of subtleties, but I don't want the big deal to be whether or not the Bible's inerrant.

Hence my suggestion before on Philippians 2 (to pinpoint a troubling area), and Jesus' equality with God being in his mindset and relationship with others. It is not an equality of substance - like Jesus is the same class of being as God, as most people suppose, but more an equality of wisdom (and the power that it brings).

i.e., Even though Jesus had all the wisdom (and therefore power) of God, he didn't boast or use it to his own advantage. Rather, he sided with with the nothings of the world, and because of this is elevated above all else.

I was initially avoiding it because I did a quick site search to see its discussion history and pretty much every debate devolved almost instantly into arguments with Jehovah's Witnesses over whether or not it was trinitarian. I'm willing to see how far we can get, though.

I think your analysis is reasonable, but it's not weird enough to be Pauline. The concepts that Paul talks about have a strangeness in Greek that most translators don't allow through. I think his use of the "hymn" in Philippians 2 dovetails with 1 Corinthians 2 (itself difficult to translate) and his uses of terms like "aeon" and his contrast between "living" and "spiritual."

I personally think that Philippians 2 is the key to Paul's mythic and mystical Christ. I don't think that "the form of God" can refer to just a state of mind and I don't think that the word translated as "grasped" or "taken advantage of" can mean either of those things. I've been convinced by commentators that the "hymn" or whatever wasn't original with Paul, though, so it's possible that Paul repurposed a Christian saying to mean something somewhat different than originally intended. With those in mind, my analysis is this:

Paul is using the overall example to illustrate that as Jesus was in accord with plans of the Father, so too should Christians be in accord with each other. However Paul understood the incarnation, it was to a lower status leading to Jesus' crucifixion, and then to his exalted victory. Paul seems to have the idea that there is a normally unbridgeable gulf between the world "of life" (1 Co 2:14) or "of flesh" and the world of spirit. God and Christ normally exist in the world of spirit, where they are separated from the world that humanity inhabits. For God's plan of salvation to come to fruition, something had to bridge that gulf and Christ gave up his spiritual existence in order to gain that ability. That's what Philippians 2 is talking about. Christ "emptied himself" of the spiritual form that was like God's rather than making God wrest it from him. Christ then was crucified by the "rulers of this aeon" (1 Co 2:6), but they didn't know that that would allow God to exalt Christ to a dual nature that could bridge the gulf, as was his plan from "before the aeons." This allowed people to accept the spirit of Christ, which would then bridge the gap between life and the realm of God.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I wasn't looking to have a discussion about modern harmonizing approaches to Christology in this thread, but this book might help you. I'd be happy discussing modern approaches if you want to start a new thread.

Gotcha.

Whether or not Jesus was preexistent

Which ties into whether or not he is God, thus; the Trinity.

, the nature of his divinity and its relationship to his humanity

Hypostatic union, which ties into whether or not he is God. Thus; the Trinity.

, whether or not he was divine at birth, was born to a virgin, the details and meaning of the baptism theophany in the Synoptics, the details of his messiahship, appearance in and fullfilment of prophecy, the meaning of his death and resurrection, the nature of his physical body before and after resurrection, and the nature of the parousia. "The nature of Christ" is a broad topic with various New Testament authors approaching the details in various ways.

And opinions on all of those approaches are based upon ones belief in the Biblical validity of the Trinity.

Thus; the Trinity

This thread isn't about criticizing New Testament books or trying to establish what their views of Christ should be, but to establish what they are. If you want to argue the theological position that the various Christological views should be (or even can be) harmonized, I'd certainly criticize that, but criticizing an errant theological position is far different than criticizing the books or their authors themselves. In any case, you'd have to present and support a position in the first place.

I agree; a debate for another day.

However, what you had said needed a little bit of unpacking...so, I UNPACKED it.

Maybe if you were to choose a defensible position, you'd win more often and catch more breaks.

Thanks for sharing your unsolicited opinion.

I will share mines with you...which is as follows...

My opinion: I am winning right now.

And to continue that analogy, the point of this thread would be to address the similarities and differences between what your grandmother and friends had to say about you.

Sure...address away.

But when the addressing turns into critique/skepticism...then that's when things start to get...ugly.

I expect so. And if your grandmother and friends were each to write a fantasy story in which a character based on you were a magical hero that was killed and brought back to life, I'm sure they would have different ideas about the various details, what they mean to the story, and what we as readers should understand from them.

And im quite sure it can all be reconciled.

Yes, whether or not who you really are as a person in history is reflected in the different stories they wrote.

Sure, thats the way it normally works, isn't it?

Exactly. Regardless of who Jesus really was, or if he even existed

If? Why "if"?

I didn't ask, but sure.

I was in a charitable mood.

That's what I asked the debate question to discuss. Any thoughts on those specifics? If you don't have any of your own, you can offer your thoughts on the one I mentioned. If it's not clear what I meant, Mark 1:10 reads as the Spirit of God entering into Jesus, presumably marking the beginning of his Sonship and divine mission. Matthew 3:16 and Luke 3:22 changed the preposition such that the Spirit descended upon Jesus, apparently as an outward sign of Sonship already conferred at the incarnation.

Ahh yes. My original assessment was correct. This is indeed splitting hairs.

I read all 3 references to Jesus' baptism, with the slightest difference in Luke where the glory occurred while Jesus was praying (however seemingly still within the context of his baptism).

Everything else is pretty much the same thing.

That is EXACTLY what I was talking about...threads being made, all which amounts to a whole lot NOTHING.

Especially considering the fact that most folks on here don't even believe the mess in the first place..which makes it even more disturbing.

Smh.

There are lots of debate topics in these forums that I don't find interesting. My way of dealing with that is generally not to engage with them. Or is this a case of where you're actually interested, but are trying to look like you're not as a power play? Like you're negging me?

Lol but I dont respond to everything.

However, the ones I respond to, were hard too hard to resist..especially if false information is stapled to the splitting hairs of a thread.

That is like a giant piece of chocolate cake to a fat kid.

Hard to resist lol.

That's surprisingly sophisticated for someone like you! (See what I did there? )

My reading comprehension has failed me.

I would think that what those differences are and relative importance, even if characterized as "splitting hairs," would be a part of your overall position, which you haven't stated, and your defense of it, which you haven't offered.

Jesus is the Messiah. That is my position.

Then it should be refreshing that this particular discussion is about what biblical authors thought about Christ rather than what any particular forum members think about him.

I agree.