So what actually defines a Christian?

[hedrick]

No, I was claiming that I knew the literal meaning of that ancient Greek word based on my knowledge of ancient Greek.

I checked both a lexicon that looks at meanings based on historical evidence, and a good commentary on John. There's actually a couple of plausible meanings based purely on syntax.

I'm summarizing the Anchor Bible treatment. Two translations have been suggested. While pros with the accusative typically implies motion, i.e. towards God, it can be used for "accompanies," which would be "with God," e.g. in John 17:5. However it could actually mean "towards God," e.g. vs 18, which means "into the Father's bosom." He thinks this option implies relationship. He ends up translating "in God's presence," in an attempt to capture the whole range of meanings.

Incidentally, this agrees with your posting.

 

[indopanda]

I checked both a lexicon that looks at meanings based on historical evidence, and a good commentary on John. There's actually a couple of plausible meanings based purely on syntax.

I'm summarizing the Anchor Bible treatment. Two translations have been suggested. While pros with the accusative typically implies motion, i.e. towards God, it can be used for "accompanies," which would be "with God," e.g. in John 17:5. However it could actually mean "towards God," e.g. vs 18, which means "into the Father's bosom." He thinks this option implies relationship. He ends up translating "in God's presence," in an attempt to capture the whole range of meanings.

Incidentally, this agrees with your posting.

Thank you for the clarification. Whether the meaning is towards God or with God or in God's presence, the implication is a distinction between the Logos and God. I agree with the Trinitarian understanding at least when it comes to this part of John 1:1. My point was merely that, as individuals 2000 years removed from the text, our understanding of the meaning of word itself is partially limited. Radagast would likely argue for very little limitation in our understanding, but I can't see how he could claim that there was absolutely no limitation whatsoever.

 

[hedrick]

Thank you for the clarification. Whether the meaning is towards God or with God or in God's presence, the implication is a distinction between the Logos and God. I agree with the Trinitarian understanding at least when it comes to this part of John 1:1. My point was merely that, as individuals 2000 years removed from the text, our understanding of the meaning of word itself is partially limited. Radagast would likely argue for very little limitation in our understanding, but I can't see how he could claim that there was absolutely no limitation whatsoever.

Yup. "with God" suggests a distinction between the Logos and God. The next phrase "was God" suggests identity. Hence Trinitarian theology, which maintains both distinction and identity.

I think we know what the words mean tolerably well. Current lexicons are based on usage in contemporary documents. What John actually meant is a different question, but I don't think any problems with that are due to uncertainties in word meaning. That doesn't mean that the critical terms have single, crisp meanings. The language of John 1:1 allows a range of understandings. But we're not going to get to a specific understanding by understanding the individual words better, nor is uncertainty about word meanings the issue.

What John meant is connected with the ancient Jewish tradition of personifying Wisdom and other qualities of God. Just how literally was the distinction meant? That requires looking into the whole range of early Jewish literature about Wisdom and the Logos. My reading is that no one meant that Wisdom was an actual separate entity. Whether they meant even the degree of distinction implied by the Trinity is a question that I don't think we can explore in this forum. But if you're going to try to describe things in terms of neo-Platonic ontology, I suspect the Trinity is about as close as you're going to get. Certainly a lot closer than the Arians.

If you're seriously interested in the background of the thought reflected in John, there's a huge literature on the subject. I'm currently reading Sinnott, Alice M. "The Personification of Wisdom." At one point, the interpretation of John leaned heavily on Philo's Logos, but recently it seems to be pointing to the larger Wisdom tradition of which Philo is just one reflection. But this forum is not an appropriate venue for serious discussion of NT Christology.

 

[indopanda]

Yup. "with God" suggests a distinction between the Logos and God. The next phrase "was God" suggests identity. Hence Trinitarian theology, which maintains both distinction and identity.

I think we know what the words mean tolerably well. Current lexicons are based on usage in contemporary documents. What John actually meant is a different question, but I don't think any problems with that are due to uncertainties in word meaning. That doesn't mean that the critical terms have single, crisp meanings. The language of John 1:1 allows a range of understandings. But we're not going to get to a specific understanding by understanding the individual words better, nor is uncertainty about word meanings the issue.

What John meant is connected with the ancient Jewish tradition of personifying Wisdom and other qualities of God. Just how literally was the distinction meant? That requires looking into the whole range of early Jewish literature about Wisdom and the Logos. My reading is that no one meant that Wisdom was an actual separate entity. Whether they meant even the degree of distinction implied by the Trinity is a question that I don't think we can explore in this forum. But if you're going to try to describe things in terms of neo-Platonic ontology, I suspect the Trinity is about as close as you're going to get. Certainly a lot closer than the Arians.

If you're seriously interested in the background of the thought reflected in John, there's a huge literature on the subject. I'm currently reading Sinnott, Alice M. "The Personification of Wisdom." At one point, the interpretation of John leaned heavily on Philo's Logos, but recently it seems to be pointing to the larger Wisdom tradition of which Philo is just one reflection. But this forum is not an appropriate venue for serious discussion of NT Christology.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. Perhaps as I investigate the topic more, my stance on the matter will change. At present I still see a clear distinction between Jesus/Logos and YHWH and don't personally see the need for a rescue device such as the Trinity to make sense of John 1:1. I assume if I continue to have these kinds of conversations with people it would be helpful acquire more knowledge on the topic. Based on some of the reactions I have received in this thread though, I wondering if it would be better to leave the matter alone and let people believe what they want to believe.

 

[indopanda]

I would like to thank everyone who has taken to the time to discuss with me in this thread. I feel like my question has been answers to my satisfaction and I definitely had learned some things about what currently defines a Christian based on your responses. I was under the impression that being a Christian meant believing in the bible, believing that Jesus is the son of YHWH and that YHWH sent him to die so that we might have life, following after Jesus, and loving our neighbor as ourselves.

I have now learned that part of the definition of Christianity involves belief is a certain metaphysical understand of YHWH and belief is a certain interpretation of the bible based on that metaphysical understanding. Furthermore, I have learned that the definition of Christianity also includes belief in the Nicene Creed. I find this all very fascinating, but if this is what truly defines Christianity as it is understood today, then I have to admit that I do not fit this definition of Christianity.

I have decided that is probably best to refer to myself as a follower of Jesus. Although one of the posters said I could not even do this since a follower of Jesus = Christian. My sense is that that equivalence may have been true during the time of the Apostles, but I don't believe it is true today. I certainly don't see or hear people refer to themselves in that way, so it clearly cannot be as formally defined as Christian is with terms and understandings not explicitly stated in the Bible.

Anyway. Thank you everyone. This has been informative.

 

[hedrick]

If you're interested in exploring the issue further, there are two areas involved, both historical:

• What did John mean by the Logos?
• What led Christians to develop the Trinity?

Unfortunately both are open to interpretations. The best summary I've seen of the background of the Logos is the section on John 1 in the commentary on John in the Logos series, by George R. Beasley-Murray. One reason for differences in interpretation is that there are both Jewish and Greek nuances, and John may have intended all of them. The Jewish background is the Wisdom tradition, visible in the female figure of Wisdom in Proverbs, but more explicit in literature between the OT and the 1st Cent. That personification of Wisdom was probably not meant as an actual separate being, but a way of talking about God's presence with his people.

John 1 was also intended to remind us of "In the beginning," i.e. Gen 1:1. Logos is also God's creative word, again, not an actual separate being but a way of speaking of God's activity and presence with us.

But there is a long history of Logos speculation in Greek and Hellenistic Jewish thought that gives some actual ontological existence to the Logos. Depending upon how far you take that, you can get something akin to the Arian view. I think it's a misreading of Judaism to see God's creative word as an actual separate divine being, but odd things happened in late Judaism, and there are scholars who would go that far.

For the broader Wisdom tradition, I recommend Alice Sinnott, "The Personification of Wisdom." I haven't found anything I can recommend on the Logos in particular. I'm sure it exists, but I don't have a reference.

 

[indopanda]

If you're interested in exploring the issue further, there are two areas involved, both historical:

• What did John mean by the Logos?
• What led Christians to develop the Trinity?

Unfortunately both are open to interpretations. The best summary I've seen of the background of the Logos is the section on John 1 in the commentary on John in the Logos series, by George R. Beasley-Murray. One reason for differences in interpretation is that there are both Jewish and Greek nuances, and John may have intended all of them. The Jewish background is the Wisdom tradition, visible in the female figure of Wisdom in Proverbs, but more explicit in literature between the OT and the 1st Cent. That personification of Wisdom was probably not meant as an actual separate being, but a way of talking about God's presence with his people.

John 1 was also intended to remind us of "In the beginning," i.e. Gen 1:1. Logos is also God's creative word, again, not an actual separate being but a way of speaking of God's activity and presence with us.

But there is a long history of Logos speculation in Greek and Hellenistic Jewish thought that gives some actual ontological existence to the Logos. Depending upon how far you take that, you can get something akin to the Arian view. I think it's a misreading of Judaism to see God's creative word as an actual separate divine being, but odd things happened in late Judaism, and there are scholars who would go that far.

For the broader Wisdom tradition, I recommend Alice Sinnott, "The Personification of Wisdom." I haven't found anything I can recommend on the Logos in particular. I'm sure it exists, but I don't have a reference.

Thanks for the additional information, though I don't know how deeply I plan on exploring this concept. It seems to be the case that people have invested a great deal of thought and scholarship into investigating the Jewish concept of Wisdom and the Greek concept of Logos. Whatever Wisdom/Logos was prior to the New Testament, it's clear that the man Jesus has largely replaced the role of Logos/Wisdom since his death and resurrection.

Since the Bible is vague as to the nature of Wisdom/Logos, you would need to wade into speculative Jewish cultural thought to flesh out your understanding and assume that Jewish speculative thought outside of the Bible was correct. The nature of Jesus is much clearer in the Bible since the apostles and Jesus himself devoted significant time to describing Jesus' nature and function. So it seems more fruitful to seek to understand Jesus' nature, since there is more clear biblical description to use.

 

[hedrick]

Since the Bible is vague as to the nature of Wisdom/Logos, you would need to wade into speculative Jewish cultural thought to flesh out your understanding and assume that Jewish speculative thought outside of the Bible was correct. The nature of Jesus is much clearer in the Bible since the apostles and Jesus himself devoted significant time to describing Jesus' nature and function. So it seems more fruitful to seek to understand Jesus' nature, since there is more clear biblical description to use.

The clarity may be misleading. John's ideas about Jesus are based on Wisdom / Logos. The other gospels aren't, but they have their own background in contemporary Jewish thought. If you read them without this background, you may think you understand something, but may in fact be misunderstanding it.

This background does not lead directly to the Trinity. But it leads even less to some of the anti-Trinitarian views such as Arianism. I don't think CF rules allow me to go much further.

 

[indopanda]

The clarity may be misleading. John's ideas about Jesus are based on Wisdom / Logos. The other gospels aren't, but they have their own background in contemporary Jewish thought. If you read them without this background, you may think you understand something, but may in fact be misunderstanding it.

This background does not lead directly to the Trinity. But it leads even less to some of the anti-Trinitarian views such as Arianism. I don't think CF rules allow me to go much further.

You raise a fair point. There are certainly aspects of scripture that are likely difficult or impossible to understand without knowing the Jewish cultural milieu in which they were written. However, since scripture is fairly clear that belief in Jesus is essential for salvation from sin and death, I would hope that YHWH would make scripture accessible enough for us to understand who Jesus is without an understanding for 1st century Jewish and Greek metaphysics.

Also, considering YHWH knew when Jesus would return, he must have realized that scripture would be needed to guide believers 2000 years after it was written. As such, I don't see why he would make understanding who Jesus was conditional upon understanding contemporary Jewish thought or Logos/Wisdom speculative metaphysics. There are occasions in the gospels where the authors will provide expository information for clarification, such as when it is explained that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection. Certainly a Jewish reader would know this fact about the Sadducees, but the author provides it for context for those who might not know the culture. So if a certain cultural understanding were needed to understand who Jesus was, I am sure YHWH would have provided it in scripture.

I would argue there is nothing in scripture that directly points to the Trinity, and this in my opinion is the strongest evidence that the Trinity is not an accurate way of understanding who Jesus is. Since it is crucially important to understand who Jesus is, I can't understand why YHWH would not provide a clear explanation of the Trinity in Scripture. Why wait for the understanding to be hashed out hundreds of years later? As has been pointed out in this thread, it's not like the Trinity was even a settled matter within the majority of Christianity until well after the fall of Rome. Could not Paul have taken a few paragraphs in Romans to clearly explain the Trinity, since it is apparently so fundamental to the definition of Christianity? Even the one verse in scripture that sort of sounds like the Trinity (John 5:7-8) was inserted centuries afterwards.

Since I don't know the Jewish cultural milieu well, I can't speak to how much certain anti-trinitarian positions would fit with ancient Jewish thought. One verse I find interesting is Psalm 45:7. I wonder how the Jews understood this verse. If they understood it to be Messianic, as the author of Hebrews does, then the Messiah is "God" and also has a "God". If they didn't view it as Messianic, then whoever the subject is both has a "God" and is "God." How did the Jews interpret this verse? Did they believe there was a "lesser God" who had a "God" above him who anointed him with the oil of gladness? Did they view this verse from a Trinitarian standpoint and think that God anointed another "person" within himself?

I understand the forum rules and realize you probably cannot continue this discussion further. If the forum rules allow for us to continue this conversation in private messages and you are interested, please message with your thoughts. Otherwise, feel free to comment within the spirit of the forum to whatever points you feel you can address. Thank you.

 

[hedrick]

You raise a fair point. There are certainly aspects of scripture that are likely difficult or impossible to understand without knowing the Jewish cultural milieu in which they were written. However, since scripture is fairly clear that belief in Jesus is essential for salvation from sin and death, I would hope that YHWH would make scripture accessible enough for us to understand who Jesus is without an understanding for 1st century Jewish and Greek metaphysics.

Of course.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So I always assumed the definition of a Christian was someone who believes in the God described in the Old and New Testament, believes in Jesus, is baptized and desires to follow Jesus' teaching through the power of the Holy Spirit. When I signed up for this site today and read through the terms of service, I realized I could not actually list myself as a Christian on this site since I do not believe that God is a Trinity and I am unclear what is actually meant by "the full, eternal deity of Christ." I ended up choosing the Unitarian designation since, from what I understand, Unitarian doesn't imply a specific doctrine aside from believing that God is One and not part of a Trinity.

The reason I'm starting this tread is that I am curious if this site just holds to a narrow definition of Christianity or if the actual definition of Christianity necessitates belief in the Trinity. If the definition of Christianity necessitates belief in the Trinity, by what rationale is that determination made? Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide.

The common view held by the majority of Christians is that a Christian is someone who has converted to the Christian religion; that religion being basically defined in the Historic Creeds. Thus anyone who rejects the faith as expressed in the Creeds is a heretic, from the Greek word that means "of another opinion", i.e. a person who is of another belief other than what is orthodox. Are heretics Christians? That is an open question. And arguments can be made for both yes and no.

Christian Forums only accepts orthodox Christians as Christians, and so that is the official and working position of the website.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[indopanda]

The common view held by the majority of Christians is that a Christian is someone who has converted to the Christian religion; that religion being basically defined in the Historic Creeds. Thus anyone who rejects the faith as expressed in the Creeds is a heretic, from the Greek word that means "of another opinion", i.e. a person who is of another belief other than what is orthodox. Are heretics Christians? That is an open question. And arguments can be made for both yes and no.

Christian Forums only accepts orthodox Christians as Christians, and so that is the official and working position of the website.

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks for the reply. I understand this forum's position and do not take issue with it. I started this thread to find out whether this forum's position mirrored the general opinion on what constituted a Christian or if it was a more narrow definition used to regulate this forum.

I think most of the posters in this thread have supported the stance that a heretic/non-orthodox position regarding the Nicene Creed/Trinity means you cannot be a Christian by definition. It was a good exercise for me, since I believed I could call myself a Christian even though my beliefs regarding YHWH are unitarian and not trinitarian. Based on what I have learned in this thread, I think it would be best if I did not refer to myself as a Christian. Though I believe the early Christians believed as I do, I acknowledge that Christianity has meant something else for hundreds of years now. It makes sense though, the meanings of words change over time.

It's unfortunate is some ways, but I accept it. Since I believe in the Bible and believe that Jesus is the son of YHWH who died to free those who believe and follow him from the bondage of sin, I think I'm okay calling myself a follower of Jesus. One of the previous posters said I couldn't even call myself that, but I did not find his argument convincing.