The Bible Archive

I finally remembered to both submit and link to the Christian Carnival. Enjoy.

How would you deal with the question: “When did the Son of God exist?” Notice that it’s not asking “when was the Word created” or “Is Jesus eternal?” The question is specifically asking about the Son of God and doing that assuming a whole bunch of things about what it means to be the Son of God.

I don’t know which blog(s) I’ve seen this on or it might have been Theologica but the Codex Sinaiticus is online. You have to love how technology makes things accessible to everyone. This might not help me much now since my greek is awful and approaching that of an infant but this is very nice.

In a recent discussion about the validity of Trinitarian theology there was some questions about the use of the term “Son of God” as applied to Jesus. Some have argued that (1) the Son of God can’t technically be part of the Godhead since the Son is the physical manifestation of the Word. The basic argument is that “Son of God” is temporal language (like Jesus) which can only come into proper usage when the Son is born (Luke 1:35-this one will be called the Son of God). Others argued that (2) “Son of God” is an ambiguous term completely interchangeable with “Jesus Christ” and “The Word of God”. Yet others argue that (3) the term “Son of God” has been imbued with new (and exegetically unsound) theological meaning by the New Testament writers.

Starting with their own presuppositions they each make some solid points but I would argue that contra (1) the term refers to something with intent that can only be realized with a preexistent Sonship; contra (2) the term has specific meaning; and contra (3) the terminology’s usage has been properly realized by the New Testament authors.

I figured I should write something about the recent discovery of the Gabriel Tablet as they’re calling it. New York Times asserts that this tablet might actually prove that Christianity isn’t unique with its resurrections claims. What I found interesting about that bit is that most informed Christians don’t make a point of arguing about the uniqueness of the death and resurrection but rather the historicity of the death and resurrection. Let me flesh that out a bit.

Some have blurred the lines with the notion of earthly war and the concept of Biblical principles. For example, some atheists and agnostics use the wars in the Bible to show that Christianity is just as cruel as any other belief system when empowered but I think those groups make a faulty conclusion just as much as Christians do who claim the side of justifying any given war.