"identified with and even as the God of Israel." A pox on this confused and confusing neologism from Wright. "identified with" means "closely associated with." Who would deny that in the NT Jesus and his and our God are indeed very closely associated with one another? Socinus would be happy to agree. But "even as the God of Israel" means the idea that Jesus and God are one and the same, that Jesus just is God himself - which is a lamentable confusion. We do see it relatively early on, in the modalist monarchians who rejected the then-new logos theory understanding of the key texts. But trinitarian tradition is self-consciously rejecting modalism, on the face of it. Still, arguably, some trinitarians do think something like this, just with the modes all being eternal and essential to God. And yet, any Christian ought to deny that Jesus and God are one and the same, as any of us thinks that they have simultaneously differed from one another. Finally, let the wise reader note that none of the quotations here from the three scholars supports confusing together Jesus and God in this way.
Could it be that the Gentile Christian, i.g., Romans, had a different understanding of a person being declared divine? So, rather than Jesus being God in essence or being (a Platonic view) he is considered God or divine because of his benefactions.
I come from a background where most of my family are/were jehovah's witnesses. So I understand the initial plausibility of the view that Jesus didn't claim to be God, or the view it evolved over time. These days I think the view is completely bonkers. The cultural taboo was so strong against claiming to be God (or having the teacher you follow claim that) that don't see how Jewish converts to Christianity, including his disciples come to believe he is God unless Jesus makes that claim.
"identified with and even as the God of Israel." A pox on this confused and confusing neologism from Wright. "identified with" means "closely associated with." Who would deny that in the NT Jesus and his and our God are indeed very closely associated with one another? Socinus would be happy to agree. But "even as the God of Israel" means the idea that Jesus and God are one and the same, that Jesus just is God himself - which is a lamentable confusion. We do see it relatively early on, in the modalist monarchians who rejected the then-new logos theory understanding of the key texts. But trinitarian tradition is self-consciously rejecting modalism, on the face of it. Still, arguably, some trinitarians do think something like this, just with the modes all being eternal and essential to God. And yet, any Christian ought to deny that Jesus and God are one and the same, as any of us thinks that they have simultaneously differed from one another. Finally, let the wise reader note that none of the quotations here from the three scholars supports confusing together Jesus and God in this way.
Could it be that the Gentile Christian, i.g., Romans, had a different understanding of a person being declared divine? So, rather than Jesus being God in essence or being (a Platonic view) he is considered God or divine because of his benefactions.
I come from a background where most of my family are/were jehovah's witnesses. So I understand the initial plausibility of the view that Jesus didn't claim to be God, or the view it evolved over time. These days I think the view is completely bonkers. The cultural taboo was so strong against claiming to be God (or having the teacher you follow claim that) that don't see how Jewish converts to Christianity, including his disciples come to believe he is God unless Jesus makes that claim.