Talk:Deity of Jesus

From Theopedia

N. T. Wright quote

I personally find the quote by N. T. Wright a little disturbing -- it doesn't sound evangelical or Reformed to me. The subject of the article is the "deity of Christ," in which I understand the intent to supply biblical and theological evidence for truth of that doctrine. Wright's quote is not helpful in that regard -- certainly not so in an introductory paragraph. Gomarus 08:44, 14 Oct 2005 (EDT)

What I take Wright to be saying is that if we study left and right what Judaism thought "God" meant, or what Gnostics thought God meant or whoever else and then try and see if Jesus fits in to that idea then that's a wrong place to start. In contrast, we are to begin looking at who Jesus was - his life - what he said, did, etc... and fit our idea and definition of "God" in to that. Unless I'm reading it wrong I don't see how that's not helpful. It gives the reader a starting point because some books (and stuff on the internet) study Palestinian Judaism and say that Jesus couldn't have been God because he didn't fit the Jewish and OT perception of who God is. Maybe it shouldn't be at the beginning, but I found it to be a helpful starting point. Perhaps it also needs some commentary afterwards to ensure that it is clear. What do you all think? JordanBarrett 11:33, 14 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Here's the context of the quote -

"Western orthodoxy has for too long had an overly lofty, detached, high-and-dry, uncaring, uninvolved, and (as the feminist would say) kyriarchical view of god. It has always tended to approach the christological question by assuming this view of god and then fitting Jesus into it. Hardly surprising, the result was a docetic Jesus, which in turn generated the protest of the eighteenth century and historical scholarship since then, not least because of the social and cultural arrangements which the combination of semi-Deism and docetism generated and sustained. That combination remains powerful, not least in parts of my own communion, and it still needs a powerful challenge. My proposal is not that we understand what the word “god” means and manage somehow to fit Jesus into that. Instead, I suggest that we think historically about a young Jew, possessed of a desperately risky, indeed apparently crazy, vocation, riding into Jerusalem in tears, denouncing the Temple, and dying on a Roman cross—and that we somehow allow our meaning for the word “god” to be recentered around that point."

JordanBarrett 11:50, 14 Oct 2005 (EDT)

I may be over-reacting a little, Jordan. It still (at least) seems out of place here to me. He is talking about how we view God -- i.e. assuming Jesus is God (incarnate), let's let that help us understand God. This begs the question the article is supposed to be answering, "How do we know that Jesus is God?" Having said that, however, I will await comments from others rather than force any changes. Regards, Gomarus 12:17, 14 Oct 2005 (EDT)

It's not a big deal to me, honest. I see two major methods used to understand the deity of Christ - find out what "God" meant in Judaism and to the Church Fathers and how Jesus fits in to this, or see how Jesus presents himself as God and understand his deity from that standpoint. I found it helpful because Wright made this clear (to me at least), but if it's going to confuse others or seem out of place it's cool to remove it. In fact, I'll do so in just a second. JordanBarrett 12:28, 14 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Don't take me too seriously, Jordan. Kicking things around on the TALK pages is good. A lot of times I shoot from the hip. To me, proof of or argument for the deity of Christ is solely a matter of "what saith the Scriptures?" I may be interested in how the church fathers argued for the deity of Christ, but that is secondary at best. I agree that once I accept the fact that Jesus is God, it should certainly help my understanding of God. Onward and upward my good man. Gomarus 12:50, 14 Oct 2005 (EDT)

I didn't take you seriously. I appreciated your comment, and in fact agree that it could cause more confusion than clarity. I'm up for going back and forth on the TALK pages - I know I've had harder times on the Mormonism page, but that's a whole different issue for me. If you were arguing against what I actually wrote then I would have more to say, but this is just a quote. I can live without it.  :) JordanBarrett 13:20, 14 Oct 2005 (EDT)

Picture?

It's probably not... appropriate to have a portrait of Jesus under his "deity" article! :) -Aaronshaf 17:21, 2 February 2006 (EST)