Denise: List of resources that adequately treat Binitarism / two powers, and if you see any valid ar
Denise:
In other thread Alan Segal collection was suggested.
Have you come across a good resource (best if in L8) that explores Binitarism, Two powers in Heaven, etc.
If no resources how about sites, links, etc.
Lastly what you find intriguing, valid, plausible, worthy of further study, etc.
Something that baffles me is that John at Patmos saw a Being Rev 1:12 - 18, which seems to be a mix of the Ancient of Days, and the Son of Man. It does jibe with Bible witness that Jesus could be considered the New Temple of God where the fullness of Deity dwells bodily.
Also jibes with Zec 14:9
Zec 14:9 And Yahweh will be king over all the earth; on that day Yahweh will be one and his name one. (LEB)
Curiously enough that would satisfy both the Oneness of God, and basic trinitarian principles: distinction of Divine hypostasis as 1)eternal, 2) unchangeable, and 3) real.
Any thoughts?
Thanks ahead of time for the input.
Find more posts tagged with
Comments
You guys. Not being critical, but there's much to be said for opening up your Bible.
Now, that sounds insulting (I know you do), but one of Logos' sins (very few), is making things too easy ... the brain doesn't get enough exercise figuring things out. And if you believe the Holy Spirit delivered the text, then there must be good in what arrived. And good in what did not. Both are significant.
Ergo 1 John. Chap 2 but that's just memory. Hamilton, your joy in descriptive stuff is fine, just not my cup of tea. And Milkman, your searching around seems like it's from trying to help your flock, or acquaintances. Helps me too.
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
Try to connect the dots. It's actually fun for me. I agree with what you're saying Denise. there's something spiruitually satisifying to notice a pattern, and then research to see if your preliminary theory is correct!You guys. Not being critical, but there's much to be said for opening up your Bible.
Now, that sounds insulting (I know you do), but one of Logos' sins (very few), is making things too easy ... the brain doesn't get enough exercise figuring things out. And if you believe the Holy Spirit delivered the text, then there must be good in what arrived. And good in what did not. Both are significant.
Ergo 1 John. Chap 2 but that's just memory. Hamilton, your joy in descriptive stuff is fine, just not my cup of tea. And Milkman, your searching around seems like it's from trying to help your flock, or acquaintances. Helps me too.
John 3:17 (ESV)
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
You mean I have to read my Bible?! I thought brains like you were given to guys like me who lean on your A+ report cards. I was always better at sports than scholastics. I do however, have Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Library of Early Christology) on order from a book store.
True about Logos making it so much easier not only to research, study, play, but to buy as well [:$] - may bad.
Anyway, I've got to get going I hear my dusty Bible calling out my name. "Remember me?"
You guys. Not being critical, but there's much to be said for opening up your Bible.
Now, that sounds insulting (I know you do), but one of Logos' sins (very few), is making things too easy ... the brain doesn't get enough exercise figuring things out. And if you believe the Holy Spirit delivered the text, then there must be good in what arrived. And good in what did not. Both are significant.
Ergo 1 John. Chap 2 but that's just memory. Hamilton, your joy in descriptive stuff is fine, just not my cup of tea. And Milkman, your searching around seems like it's from trying to help your flock, or acquaintances. Helps me too.
I do however, have Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Library of Early Christology) on order from a book store.
We await your digging!
I was looking at it (from your post) and was impressed by the inability to see actual source material (vs PhD statements) on Two Powers 'before' the 2nd century. It's quite amazing, at best Enoch and rarely DSS, etc.
This quote was so appropo:
"My contention is that the scholarly amalgamation of sources that are far removed one from the other, both chronologically and at times also geographically ..."
https://www.academia.edu/2094990/Midrash_Theology_and_History_Two_Powers_in_Heaven_Revisited_2007_
"If myth is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes." B. Lincolm 1999.
The Shepherd of Hermes which came close to being included in the canon is often quoted in favor of the binitarist position. Wikipedia will lead you to denominations that currently hold the position. Perhaps, some members of the forum will chime in.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
If you have journals, you might have this in your Logos library.
Co-regency in Ancient Israel’s Divine Council as the Conceptual Backdrop to Ancient Jewish Binitarian Monotheism. Bulletin for Biblical Research 26, no. 2 (2016)
Hi MM, Denise also for she has given good advice.
Fully fulfilling the purpose of the forum:
There are interesting hits also using a quick collection on John:
Now remember I am more of a "let's explore together Bible, doctrine, key thrusts, etc." to get closer to truth and gain insight, than dogmatics.
So do not take the following wrong.
Some scientists noted that there is something wrong with the concept of "Ghosts" when studied from a global perspective.
If they were to exist (so they say), they should all be the same everywhere (conjecture).
What they actually find is that different cultures have their very particular types of ghosts, unique to their regions. So the questions pops up: is perception affected by cultural context?
I bring this up because with deft Denise has pointed to John, and his particular theology. Seems to be near the Binitarian envelope (more study required).
Could such explain the particular vision that he had?
In Revelation 1 John describes a Being that seems to be the intersection of the Ancient of Days, and the Son of Man.
There are options here:
If perception is culturally affected, could it be John's worldview at the time that prompted that particular vision.
Or... God is one, He is truth, and He manifested to John the way He really is.
Very interesting, much more research needed.
So how can men and women of God differentiate from the true manifestation of a theophany versus a misperception due to cultural influence (including denominational sub-culture)?
Did John (who had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit atop in the form as a tongue of fire), know that such was God's presence in the believer's life to properly perceive and interpret supernatural visions, encounters, etc. and due to that just mentions the Father and Jesus part of the equation?
Minds spark jumped, thanks Denise and other posters.
Thanks for the info MJ.
And there are resources that maybe have more detail in them.
E.g.