Language, Concepts, and Neurons (Llinas)

Rodolfo R. Llinas (author of I of the Vortex: From Neurons to Self) claims that language simpliciter, but particularly human language, "arose as an extension of premotor conditions, namely, those of the increasing complexities of intentionality as abstract thinking grew richer" (242). Llinas defines intentionality as "the premotor detail of the desired result of movement through which a particular emotional state is expressed: the choice of what to do before the doing of it" (228). Notice that intentionality, as opposed to being primarily mentalistic is associated with "a motor representation of what is happening inside our heads" (ibid).

Intentionality expressed in premotor activity adumbrates motor patterns (according to Llinas). He insists that language arose because premotor activity increasingly grew more complex while abstract cerebration became richer. Llinas thus provides the following account to explain the origins of abstract thinking: "Abstraction, or the collection of neural processes that generate abstraction, is a fundamental principle of nervous system function." In other words, abstraction is a natural feature of biological organisms that are equipped with neural machinery and nervous systems like we possess.

However we explain abstract thought, I believe it can be accounted for naturalistically. I have read most of Jerome M. Adler's book on the subject--as a colleague suggested I do--but it seems that anytime we're talking about linguistic phenomena, we're dealing with things that possibly yield to naturalistic explanations ex toto.

On the other hand, by "naturalistic explanations," I do not mean to exclude God (Jehovah). It just appears that a soul is unnecesary to explain speech and conceptual thought.

Judges 19:18

Since this issue has been raised in another thread on this blog.

From Keil-Delitzsch:

Behold, there came an old man from the field, who was of the mountains of Ephraim, and dwelt as a stranger in Gibeah, the inhabitants of which were Benjaminites (as is observed here, as a preliminary introduction to the account which follows). When he saw the traveller in the market-place of the town, he asked him whither he was going and whence he came; and when he had heard the particulars concerning his descent and his journey, he received him into his house. וֶאֶת־בֵּית י הֹלֵךְ אֲנִי (Jdg_19:18), “and I walk at the house of Jehovah, and no one receives me into his house” (Seb. Schm., etc.); not “I am going to the house of Jehovah” (Ros., Berth., etc.), for אֵת הָלַךְ does not signify to go to a place, for which the simple accusative is used either with or without ה local. It either means “to go through a place” (Deu_1:19, etc.), or “to go with a person,” or, when applied to things, “to go about with anything” (see Job_31:5, and Ges. Thes. p. 378). Moreover, in this instance the Levite was not going to the house of Jehovah (i.e., the tabernacle), but, as he expressly told the old man, from Bethlehem to the outermost sides of the mountains of Ephraim. The words in question explain the reason why he was staying in the market-place. Because he served at the house of Jehovah, no one in Gibeah would receive him into his house,

(Note: As Seb. Schmidt correctly observes, “the argument is taken from the indignity shown him: the Lord thinks me worthy to minister to Him, as a Levite, in His house, and there is not one of the people of the Lord who thinks me worthy to receive his hospitality.”)

although, as he adds in Jdg_19:19, he had everything with him that was requisite for his wants. “We have both straw and fodder for our asses, and bread and wine for me and thy maid, and for the young man with thy servants. No want of anything at all,” so as to cause him to be burdensome to his host. By the words “thy maid” and “thy servants” he means himself and his concubine, describing himself and his wife, according to the obsequious style of the East in olden times, as servants of the man from whom he was expecting a welcome.

From Cambridge Bible:

18. the farther side] See on Jdg 19:1.

the house of the Lord] The marg. is to be preferred; the last letter of bêthî = my house was taken as the initial of the divine name Yahweh. A converse mistake occurs in Jeremiah 6:11, where fury of Yahweh has become my fury in the LXX. There is nothing in the context to suggest that the Levite was going to Shiloh.

Footnote from NET Bible for Judges 19:18:

43 tn Heb “I went to Bethlehem in Judah, but [to] the house of the LORD I am going.” The Hebrew text has “house of the LORD,” which might refer to the shrine at Shiloh. The LXX reads “to my house.”

Kinkade on Michael the Archangel

His entire discussion is worth reading, but here's a snippet.

Antisemitism and the Gospel of John

A number of scholarly works have concluded that the
Gospel of John is woefully anti-Semitic because it
appears to employ the term "Jews" pejoratively with
frequency and also portrays a supposed conflict
between Jesus and the Jews of his time. While time
will not permit us to fully probe all of the pertinent
issues concerning this topic, I would like to use some
texts from John 4-5 as case samples to argue that the
Fourth Gospel is not an anti-Semitic work.

To the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well, Jesus
exclaimed:

"Ye worship ye know not what; we know what we worship,
for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour cometh and
now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the
Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh
such to worship Him. God is a Spirit, and they that
worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth"
(John 4:22-24 21st Century KJV).

Notice that Jesus shows a spiritual solidarity with
his fellow first-century Jewish brothers and sisters (Gal. 4:4-5)
since he insists, "we know what we worship."
However, Jesus does not merely affirm a spiritual kinship with
his contemporary "brothers" (Ps 133:1-3) but he also
makes a statement that appears to lack any element of
anti-Semitism. He declares that "salvation is
of the Jews." How could such a proposition be
construed as anti-Semitic?

Some readers of John's Gospel may, however, point to
the conflict recorded in chapter 5:15-18:

"The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus
who had made him whole. And therefore did the Jews
persecute Jesus and sought to slay Him, because He had
done these things on the Sabbath day. But Jesus
answered them, 'My Father worketh hitherto, and I
work.' Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him,
because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said
also that God was His Father, making Himself equal
with God."

When reading pasages of this nature, one must note
that certain Jews are being discussed. Such texts do
not serve as blanket judgments against all first-century Jews.
The Gospel of John makes this point quite clear. For instance,
Jesus treats "the Jews who believed him" (Jn 8:31-32)
much differently from those who try to kill him. The
important point to keep in mind is that we have a
religious agon depicted in John's Gospel, not a racial
or ethnic one. Jesus' disagreements with certain Jews
should not be wrongly interpreted through the lens of
modern-day prejudices. Peter Ensor, in fact, may be
right when he suggests that the "Jews" whom Jesus addresses
in Jn. 5:15-18 are possibly contemporary religious
leaders--if he is right, then Jesus clearly is not
denigrating all Jews.

See Jesus and His Works: Johannine Sayings in
Historical Perspective. Wissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, Reihe 2; 85.
Tubingen: JCB Mohr, 1996.

Augustine of Hippo on Creation and Time (Confessions 11.12.14)

Behold, I answer to him who asks, "What was God doing before He made heaven and earth?" I answer not, as a certain person is reported to have done facetiously (avoiding the pressure of the question), "He was preparing hell," says he, "for those who pry into mysteries." It is one thing to perceive, another to laugh—these things I answer not. For more willingly would I have answered, "I know not what I know not," than that I should make him a laughing-stock who asks deep things, and gain praise as one who answers false things. But I say that Thou, our God, art the Creator of every creature; and if by the term "heaven and earth" every creature is understood, I boldly say, "That before God made heaven and earth, He made not anything. For if He did, what did He make unless the creature?" And would that I knew whatever I desire to know to my advantage, as I know that no creature was made before any creature was made.

See http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110111.htm

Zerwick and John 17:3

Zerwick-Grosvenor (A Grammatical Analysis of the GNT, page 336) understands hINA + subjunctive (John 17:3) to be/function as an epexegetical infinitive that explains hAUTH (the demonstrative), which = "namely (that)."

Cf. sec. 410 of Zerwick's Biblical Greek.

I understand Zerwick-Grosvenor to be saying that we possibly do not have periphrasis for the (non-epexegetical) infinitive at 17:3; however, while Rogers and Rogers understand this verse to be epexegetical like Zerwick-Grosvenor, they seem to allow for the possibility that it could be periphrastic for an infinitive that is not explanatory.

As I read Zerwick and Grosvenor further, I guess we could have hINA + the subjunctive mood as periphrasis for the infinitive, but that only seems to tell the reader how the demonstrative is to be understood. I don't see how the epexegetical use of hINA explains anything but how we might construe the demonstrative hAUTH.

A Question Regarding John 17:3 (NWT)

Text: αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωὴ ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. (NA28)

γινώσκωσιν is Present Subjunctive Active 3rd person plural. KJV renders the verb (with ἵνα and σὲ) as "that they might know thee . . . "

The word "they" comes from the fact that the verb is third-person plural, whereas "might know" is because the verb is subjunctive. However, the 1984 NWT translated this construction, "their taking in knowledge of you" and 2013 has "their coming to know you . . . "

I sometimes wonder why the NWT does not explicitly render the subjunctive like KJV, Byington (I think) and others. On the other hand, some just translate "that they know you" without making the mood explicit (see Mounce and NET Bible).

I've also had the question about why we translate a third-person plural verb with a possessive pronoun "their" instead of employing "they." But I could be missing something linguistically or syntactically with the construction.

NRSV Preface on the Tetragrammaton and Use of "Jehovah"

I've noticed that there was once a time when translators, theologians, and preachers freely used the name "Jehovah." John Calvin, John Gill, and Charles H. Spurgeon along with many others all liberally employed the divine name. However, in the twentieth century, a movement began to cease writing or pronouncing "Jehovah." One instance is the NRSV Preface (by Bruce Metzger):

Careful readers will notice that here and there in the Old Testament the word Lord (or in certain cases God) is printed in capital letters. This represents the traditional manner in English versions of rendering the Divine Name, the "Tetragrammaton" (see the notes on Exodus 3.14, 15), following the precedent of the ancient Greek and Latin translators and the long established practice in the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures in the synagogue. While it is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced "Yahweh," this pronunciation was not indicated when the Masoretes added vowel sounds to the consonantal Hebrew text. To the four consonants YHWH of the Name, which had come to be regarded as too sacred to be pronounced, they attached vowel signs indicating that in its place should be read the Hebrew word Adonai meaning "Lord" (or Elohim meaning "God"). Ancient Greek translators employed the word Kyrios ("Lord") for the Name. The Vulgate likewise used the Latin word Dominus ("Lord"). The form "Jehovah" is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an entirely different word. Although the American Standard Version (1901) had used "Jehovah" to render the Tetragrammaton (the sound of Y being represented by J and the sound of W by V, as in Latin), for two reasons the Committees that produced the RSV and the NRSV returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version. (1) The word "Jehovah" does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew. (2) The use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom the true God had to be distinguished, began to be discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.

We may not know the actual pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton, but there must be some way to honor/glorify YHWH--the One who proclaims that he is YHWH, that is His name (Isaiah 42:8). How does omitting the name from our translations uplift and honr the Most High over all the earth?

William Loader and 1 John 5:20

"The Greek of [1 Jn] 5:20 has only the true (one) and
reads literally: we know that the Son of God has come
and has given us understanding 'so that we know the
true (one) and we are in the true (one),' in his Son
Jesus Christ. 'This (one) is the true God and eternal
life.' It is clear from this that 'the true (one)' is
God throughout. Christ is his Son. In the
final sentence this (one) most naturally refers still
to God, not to Christ, as some have suggested. It is
not unknown for Christ to be given God's name (Phil
2:9-11) or even to be called 'God' (Heb. 1:8-9; John
1:1), but that would run contrary to the theme here,
which is contrasting true and false understandings of
God for which Christ's revelation is the criterion"
(The Johannine Epistles. London: Epworth Press, 1992.
Page 79).

While I disagree with Loader's take on Jn. 1:1 and Heb. 1:8-9, what he writes about 1 Jn. 5:20 seems to represent the context faithfully and it dovetails with what others such as M. J. Harris., M. Zewick and J. Moulton have pointed out about this particular Christologically-significant Johannine passage.

John of Damascus and the Boundaries of Scripture (For Informational Purposes)

"But neither do we know, nor can we tell, what the
essence of God is, or how it is in all, or how the
Only-begotten Son and God, having emptied Himself,
became Man of virgin blood, made by another law
contrary to nature, or how He walked with dry feet
upon the waters. It is not within our capacity,
therefore, to say anything about God or even to think
of Him, beyond the things which have been divinely
revealed to us, whether by word or by manifestation,
by the divine oracles at once of the Old Testament and
of the New" (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith
1.2).

Dialogue On Sheol, the Soul and Politics (Originally An Email Message)

I have made a few corrections for ease of reading, but the message is fundamentally the same as it was sent to my colleague:

1) Jehovah's Witnesses view Sheol in the light of Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10, passages which speak of the dead knowing nothing and which portray Sheol as a locus of non-activity. Similar verses are found in Psalms and Job. I'm sure you're also familiar with the Jewish metaphor "sleep" for death. This imagery for death suggests that no activity occurs in Sheol. As for the account where prayers for the dead supposedly transpire (in Maccabees), it has been interpreted various ways. But the bottom line is that one does not necessarily have to construe the account as an instance of prayers for the dead. See the NAB footnotes on 2 Macc 12.

2) How do we know that physical organs are only capable of apprehending particulars? What incontrovertible proof do we have that intellects (of the Thomistic caliber) even obtain? I admit that an intellect qua a power of the soul is logically possible. However, I am not convinced that such a faculty is factually possible. So I guess my first line of attack would be to question the existence of the intellect, in the relevant sense we're discussing. Secondly, I would argue that what has been called "intellect" is really nothing more than a higher-order process of the brain: intellection is a biological phenomenon. The brain consequently makes it possible for us to have the facility for grasping what appear to be universals.

3) I have never participated in the election process because of my religious beliefs. We Witnesses think this world is beyond reform; it's incorrigible or irreformable. That which is crooked cannot be made straight (said Qoheleth). Therefore, politicians are inherently limited when it comes to positive reforms. No wonder Jesus fled when people tried to make him a king (John 6:15). He solemnly proclaimed that his kingdom was not of this world. These Johannine accounts regarding Jesus deeply influence my political stand. But from a pragmatic standpoint, it's difficult for me to vote Republican or Democrat since I disagree with a number of things each party advocates. Whether it's abortion, same-sex marriage or cutting social programs that help the poor--there are significant points of disagreement between me and Obama/Romney.

Ephesians 5:12 (Grammatical Breakdown and Comments)

Ephesians 5:12:

τὰ γὰρ κρυφῇ γινόμενα ὑπ' αὐτῶν αἰσχρόν ἐστιν καὶ λέγειν·

1)From the NET Bible: "tn The participle τὰ . . . γινόμενα (ta . . . ginomena) usually refers to 'things happening' or 'things which are,' but with the following genitive phrase ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν (Jup’ autwn), which indicates agency, the idea seems to be 'things being done.' This passive construction was translated as an active one to simplify the English style."

2) From Robertson's Word Pictures: "In secret (kruphēi). Old adverb, only here in N.T. Sin loves the dark.

Even to speak of (kai legein). And yet one must sometimes speak out, turn on the light, even if to do so is disgraceful (aischron, like 1 Co 11:6)."

3) κρυφῇ-"adv. in secret" (Grosvenor-Zerwick).

Parousia of Christ and His "Epiphany"

BDAG reveals that ἐπιφάνεια is used as a technical term for "a visible manifestation of a hidden divinity, either in the form of a personal appearance, or by some deed of power by which its presence is made known." But if you consult entry 1b (or its equivalent in the older BAGD), you will find out that Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich associates ἐπιφάνεια vis-à-vis the "manifestation" of Christ with a time of 'appearing in judgment.' You also discover the statement about 2 Thessalonians 2:8 under this lexical entry.

While this same reference work does state that παρουσία may denote Christ's Messianic Advent in glory when he comes to judge the world at the end of the age, it also indicates that there is some type of distinction between παρουσία and ἐπιφάνεια as revealed in 2 Thess. 2:8.

The ἐπιφάνεια seems to take place amid the παρουσία and it is actually connected with the divine meting out of judgment--παρουσία, however, does not seem confined to the judgment executed by Christ. It is an extended period of time in which Christ rewards his servants, but wages righteous warfare against his enemies.

Another Post Regarding the Trinity, Reason/Revelation and Aquinas (Summa Theologica)

#summatheologica

Acts 1:6-7: Knowing the Season

The Scriptures warn against predicting a day or an hour that Jesus is coming to execute judgment (Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32; Acts 1:6-7). However, nothing in the Bible prohibits the Christian from trying to discern the time or season that Christ might return (Romans 13:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:1-3). Even the apostle Peter wrote that the prophets who foretold the undeserved favor that was to be manifested in the first century CE kept inquiring about "the time and circumstances" that the "Spirit of Christ" in them was signifying.

Although it was revealed to them that certain truths about the Messiah were sealed for later times, they are commended for endeavoring to discern God's times and seasons. Why, even angels strive to peer into these things (1 Pet. 1:10-12 NIV). And it seems that God also expects us to know the season in which we are living.

Tertullian (De Carne Christi 6)

The whole section is worth reading, but here's a portion of it:

"But the Lord Himself at that very time appeared to Abraham among those angels without being born, and yet in the flesh without doubt, in virtue of the before-mentioned diversity of cause. You, however, cannot admit this, since you do not receive that Christ, who was even then rehearsing how to converse with, and liberate, and judge the human race, in the habit of a flesh which as yet was not born, because it did not yet mean to die until both its nativity and mortality were previously (by prophecy) announced. Let them, then, prove to us that those angels derived their flesh from the stars. If they do not prove it because it is not written, neither will the flesh of Christ get its origin therefrom, for which they borrowed the precedent of the angels" (Tertullian, De Carne Christi 6).

The Concept "Power" in Revelation

Here's a project I've been working on for months. I've tried to catalog all the uses of the word or concept "power" in Revelation, then I want to offer commentary on each verse from the aspect of how it contributes to the motif "power." I don't know if I'll ever finish this project, but it's been fun so far. Lots of editing remains.

A Commentary on the Concept of Power in Revelation (Apocalypse) of John

Rev 2:26--And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power (ἐξουσίαν) over the nations:

Rev 4:11--Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power (δύναμιν): for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Rev 5:12--Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power (τὴν δύναμιν), and riches, and wisdom, and strength (ἰσχὺν), and honour, and glory, and blessing.

Rev 5:13--And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power (τὸ κράτος), [be] unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

Rev 6:4--And there went out another horse [that was] red: and [power] was given to him (ἐδόθη αὐτῷ) that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.

Rev 6:8--And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them (καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἐξουσία) over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

Rev 7:12--Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might (ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ ἰσχὺς), [be] unto our God for ever and ever. Amen.

Rev 9:3--And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power (καὶ ἐδόθη αὐταῖς ἐξουσία ὡς ἔχουσιν ἐξουσίαν οἱ σκορπίοι τῆς γῆς).

Rev 9:10--And they had tails like unto scorpions, and there were stings in their tails: and their power [was] to hurt men five months (καὶ ἐν ταῖς οὐραῖς αὐτῶν ἡ ἐξουσία αὐτῶν ἀδικῆσαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους μῆνας πέντε).

Rev 9:19--For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails (ἡ γὰρ ἐξουσία τῶν ἵππων ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτῶν ἐστὶν καὶ ἐν ταῖς οὐραῖς αὐτῶν): for their tails [were] like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt.

Rev 11:3--And I will give [power] unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred [and] threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. [The word "power" should be omitted in this verse]

Rev 11:6--These have power (ἔχουσιν τὴν ἐξουσίαν) to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters (καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχουσιν ἐπὶ τῶν ὑδάτων) to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.

Rev 11:17--Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned (ὅτι εἴληφας τὴν δύναμίν σου τὴν μεγάλην καὶ ἐβασίλευσας).

Rev 12:10--And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ (ἡ σωτηρία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία τοῦ χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ): for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

Rev 13:2--And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as [the feet] of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

Rev 13:4--And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who [is] like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

Rev 13:5--And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty [and] two months.

Rev 13:7--And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

Rev 13:12--And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

Rev 13:14--And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by [the means of] those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

Rev 13:15--And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

Rev 14:18--And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.

Rev 15:8--And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God, and from his power; and no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled.

Rev 16:8--And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.

Rev 16:9--And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

Rev 17:12--And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

Rev 17:13--These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

Rev. 18:1--And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.

Rev. 19:1--And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God:

See Rev. 19:6-7

Rev. 20:6--Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

J. A. T. Robinson and John 1:1c

In the words of J.A.T Robinson:

"The New Testament says that Jesus was the Word of God, it says that God was in Christ, it says that Jesus is the Son of God, but it does not say that Jesus was God, simply like that" (Honest to God, page 70).

Paul Tillich has also observed that the traditional doctrine of the Incarnation can be regarded as "inadequate" since:

"'nature' in the Greek sense implies a static essence. Two such essences cannot be joined together to create one whole person" (See Daniel Day Williams' What Present-Day Theologians Are Thinking, page 133).

An Argument That Sheds Light on Identity and the Trinity

1) X and Y are the same object, if X has every property that Y has, and Y has every property that X has.
2) Christ has a metaphysical property that his Father does not have (his humanity).
3) Christ's Father has a metaphysical property that his Son does not have (the Father is innascible).
4) Therefore, Christ is not the same object (i.e., person) as his Father.

The argument is presented from the perspective of a Trinitarian. The doctrine of the Trinity claims that Christ and his Father are the same God, but they are not hypostatically identical, that is, Christ and his Father are not the same in a personal sense.

John 20:28 (Johannine Exegesis of God)

I've read part of this book, but not all of it. This post does not constitute an endorsement of the author's views, but I just find his approach to the issues somewhat different from other works I've read.