Look at 1 Cor 8:6 is being used.
When Paul writes: "one God , the Father and one Lord, Jesus Christ he is NOT saying that the Father alone is God in nature, and
Jesus is merely a non-divine lord.
Paul is doing something much stronger..... he is redefining monotheism christologically by splitting the Shema (Deut 6:4
which states, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one!" between the Father and Jesus.
A first-century Jew could not do that unless Jesus was included within the identity of the one God.
I see how it is being used - Paul is saying that although there are many gods and many "lords" - BUT TO US or FOR US there is but ONE God --- who is that one God? Paul tells us it is the Father.....there is but ONE God, the Father!
and there is ONE Lord --- who is that one Lord? Paul again tells us it is the Lord Jesus Christ - one Lord, Jesus Christ.
Now I see no differentiated nature mentioned . . . so that would have to read into the scripture!
No there is no reason for Paul to be redefining monotheism christologically! There is no reason for Paul to redefine the Shema of Deut. 6:4 or to redefine the Shema which Jesus said was the first and great commandment in Mark 12.
A first century Jew could not do what? Redefine the Shema????
No first century Jew WOULD WANT TO redefine the Shema!!!
2. “Not collapsed into one being” is a red flag phrase
The Bible never uses “being” language. That phrase comes from
later metaphysical debates, and here it is being used
defensively to rule out Jesus’ deity.
In Scripture:
- Jesus is distinct from the Father ✔
- Jesus shares in what only God is and does ✔
Correct, scripture never uses the word "being" in reference to God but a being is just something that has existence and we know that God exist so there is nothing untoward in calling God a being.
Denying His deity requires
explaining away:
- Creation through Him (John 1:3)
- Worship of Him (Rev 5:13–14)
- Divine titles (Isa 45 → Phil 2)
- Preexistence (John 1:1)
That author’s wording avoids those issues by redefining the terms upfront.
Creation was through the word - John 1:3 (him is being used because of the masculine tense of the noun "word" and it is also used in the sense of personification of God's word; just as 'wisdom' is a feminine noun requires a feminine pronoun 'she' is God's wisdom personified)
We can worship the Messiah as the Son of God but NOT as OUR GOD ---- that's when the worship becomes idolatry.
Yeah, Nebuchadnezzar was called king of kings in Daniel 2:37
You, O king, the king of kings, to whom , God of heaven the kingdom, the power, and the might and the glory. and King Artaxerxes was also called king of kings in Ezra 7:12
Artaxerxes, king of kings, to Ezra the priest the scribe of the Law of God of heaven, Peace. And of course - He shares the titles King of Kings and Lord of Lords with his Son. (1 Tim. 6:15 and Rev. 17:14)
So I guess God can and does share His titles with whomever He pleases - they are HIS titles after all.
Jesus did not preexist ---- the word, the
logos - God's word, God's spoken word was in the beginning - God's
logos, God's thoughts were with God in his foreknowledge and plans for mankind.
Jesus had a source, an origin, a beginning - Matthew 1:1 tells of his beginning through 'the book of the genealogy/generation of Jesus Christ' . . . the book of the genesis of Jesus Christ. God was not the son of David, the son of Abraham - God was not 'begat'. -----
