God is a Spirit...

[Valerie]

Daniel 3:25 is interesting, and I'm not confident that I know the right answer here. The Septuagint Greek differs from the Aramaic here. Since I cannot read Aramaic well enough to have an opinion, here are two opinions from sources I generally trust.

Net Notes

The phrase like that of a god is in Aramaic “like that of a son of the gods.” Many patristic writers understood this phrase in a christological sense (i.e., “the Son of God”). But it should be remembered that these are words spoken by a pagan who is seeking to explain things from his own polytheistic frame of reference; for him the phrase “like a son of the gods” is equivalent to “like a divine being.” Despite the king’s description though, the fourth person is likely an angel or theophany who had come to deliver the three men.

This agrees with the older but still respected Keil and Delitzsch:

The fourth whom Nebuchadnezzar saw in the furnace was like in his appearance, i.e., as commanding veneration, to a son of the gods, i.e., to one of the race of the gods. In Daniel 3:28 the same personage is called an angel of God, Nebuchadnezzar there following the religious conceptions of the Jews, in consequence of the conversation which no doubt he had with the three who were saved. Here, on the other hand, he speaks in the spirit and meaning of the Babylonian doctrine of the gods, according to the theogonic representation of the συζυγία of the gods peculiar to all Oriental religions, whose existence among the Babylonians the female divinity Mylitta associated with Bel places beyond a doubt; cf. Hgst. Beitr. i. p. 159, and Häv., Kran., and Klief. in loc.

The Septuagint is complicated here because there are actually two complete Greek texts for Daniel, and they are significantly different. You can see a good English translation of both texts side by side here. The translation on the right says "and the appearance of the fourth is like a divine son" (καὶ ἡ ὅρασις τοῦ τετάρτου ὁμοία υἱῷ Θεοῦ), which could also be translated "like a son of a god" or "like a son of God".

The translation on the left says "and the appearance of the fourth is the likeness of a divine angel". I don't have the Greek text that it corresponds to handy, but there may be other legitimate translations for that.

So ... this is one of those texts where I wouldn't wager my faith on any one of these interpretations. I'd look for applications that are not dependent on which one is right. And the range of possible readings is one more reason that I'm convinced my understanding of God is incomplete.

Interesting information boot- I suppose I lean towards the teachers I've always been under who comment that it seems to be a pre-incarnate Son of God- I don't know if later writings or translations then offer other possibilities. St. Hippolytus was 2nd/3rd century and G. Salmon suggests that Hippolytus was the leader of the Greek-speaking Christians of Rome. Of course they didn't have other translations then- however- I'm curious- do you think that Jesus would have explained these Theophanies to His Apostles when He was with them? I realize this would be an opinion but when you read writings of the early Church writers/fathers- I don't get the impression that they are guessing at when these appearances in the OT are the pre-incarnate Christ- it is as if they know, not guess. There are times when they distinguish 'opinions' from that in other areas-

But back to the OP- if these pre-incarnate appearances of Jesus were the case for example when from what I have read like when He appeared with 2 other angels at the oak of Mamre when speaking with Abraham before the destruction of Sodom & Gommorah - a careful reading of Genesis 18 reveals a visible "Lord" as one of the 3 men is called- and He also ate food as lesterb brought up in the beginning about Jesus- so even in His pre-incarnate body, which Gen 18 conveys Him & the other 2 angels appeared like men, we know that the Lord spoken of here is not God the Father, but God the Son- who ate, who slept, etc-

I realize you are okay with your understanding being imcomplete because you're not sure who's teaching you believe the most. For me, I do believe the early Church writers because I think that Jesus opened up the Scriptures to the Apostles about His pre-incarnate life- because when know He was with the Father from the beginning- and these teachings are what preserved the Faith & they would use when coming up against heresy- for example- this subject is one of the ways people know that the teachings of the Jehovah Witnesses is considered heresy-their Christology-

[Valerie]

Daniel 3:25 is interesting, and I'm not confident that I know the right answer here. The Septuagint Greek differs from the Aramaic here. Since I cannot read Aramaic well enough to have an opinion, here are two opinions from sources I generally trust.

Net Notes

The phrase like that of a god is in Aramaic “like that of a son of the gods.” Many patristic writers understood this phrase in a christological sense (i.e., “the Son of God”). But it should be remembered that these are words spoken by a pagan who is seeking to explain things from his own polytheistic frame of reference; for him the phrase “like a son of the gods” is equivalent to “like a divine being.” Despite the king’s description though, the fourth person is likely an angel or theophany who had come to deliver the three men.

This agrees with the older but still respected Keil and Delitzsch:

The fourth whom Nebuchadnezzar saw in the furnace was like in his appearance, i.e., as commanding veneration, to a son of the gods, i.e., to one of the race of the gods. In Daniel 3:28 the same personage is called an angel of God, Nebuchadnezzar there following the religious conceptions of the Jews, in consequence of the conversation which no doubt he had with the three who were saved. Here, on the other hand, he speaks in the spirit and meaning of the Babylonian doctrine of the gods, according to the theogonic representation of the συζυγία of the gods peculiar to all Oriental religions, whose existence among the Babylonians the female divinity Mylitta associated with Bel places beyond a doubt; cf. Hgst. Beitr. i. p. 159, and Häv., Kran., and Klief. in loc.

The Septuagint is complicated here because there are actually two complete Greek texts for Daniel, and they are significantly different. You can see a good English translation of both texts side by side here. The translation on the right says "and the appearance of the fourth is like a divine son" (καὶ ἡ ὅρασις τοῦ τετάρτου ὁμοία υἱῷ Θεοῦ), which could also be translated "like a son of a god" or "like a son of God".

The translation on the left says "and the appearance of the fourth is the likeness of a divine angel". I don't have the Greek text that it corresponds to handy, but there may be other legitimate translations for that.

So ... this is one of those texts where I wouldn't wager my faith on any one of these interpretations. I'd look for applications that are not dependent on which one is right. And the range of possible readings is one more reason that I'm convinced my understanding of God is incomplete.

Interesting information boot- I suppose I lean towards the teachers I've always been under who comment that it seems to be a pre-incarnate Son of God- I don't know if later writings or translations then offer other possibilities. St. Hippolytus was 2nd/3rd century and G. Salmon suggests that Hippolytus was the leader of the Greek-speaking Christians of Rome. Of course they didn't have other translations then- however- I'm curious- do you think that Jesus would have explained these Theophanies to His Apostles when He was with them? I realize this would be an opinion but when you read writings of the early Church writers/fathers- I don't get the impression that they are guessing at when these appearances in the OT are the pre-incarnate Christ- it is as if they know, not guess. There are times when they distinguish 'opinions' from that in other areas-

But back to the OP- if these pre-incarnate appearances of Jesus were the case for example when from what I have read like when He appeared with 2 other angels at the oak of Mamre when speaking with Abraham before the destruction of Sodom & Gommorah - a careful reading of Genesis 18 reveals a visible "Lord" as one of the 3 men is called- and He also ate food as lesterb brought up in the beginning about Jesus- so even in His pre-incarnate body, which Gen 18 conveys Him & the other 2 angels appeared like men, we know that the Lord spoken of here is not God the Father, but God the Son- who ate, who slept, etc-

I realize you are okay with your understanding being incomplete because you're not sure who's teaching you believe the most. For me, I do believe the early Church writers because I think that Jesus opened up the Scriptures to the Apostles about His pre-incarnate life- because when know He was with the Father from the beginning- and these teachings are what preserved the Faith & they would use when coming up against heresy- for example- this subject is one of the ways people know that the teachings of the Jehovah Witnesses is considered heresy-their Christology-
As far as Lesterb's comment about Jesus being more than a 30 year sacrifice (here) He has been called "the Eternal Son" - so there really doesn't seem to be a 30 year limit to Him-

[silentreader]

Daniel 3:25 is interesting, and I'm not confident that I know the right answer here. The Septuagint Greek differs from the Aramaic here. Since I cannot read Aramaic well enough to have an opinion, here are two opinions from sources I generally trust.

Net Notes



This agrees with the older but still respected Keil and Delitzsch:



The Septuagint is complicated here because there are actually two complete Greek texts for Daniel, and they are significantly different. You can see a good English translation of both texts side by side here. The translation on the right says "and the appearance of the fourth is like a divine son" (καὶ ἡ ὅρασις τοῦ τετάρτου ὁμοία υἱῷ Θεοῦ), which could also be translated "like a son of a god" or "like a son of God".

The translation on the left says "and the appearance of the fourth is the likeness of a divine angel". I don't have the Greek text that it corresponds to handy, but there may be other legitimate translations for that.

So ... this is one of those texts where I wouldn't wager my faith on any one of these interpretations. I'd look for applications that are not dependent on which one is right. And the range of possible readings is one more reason that I'm convinced my understanding of God is incomplete.

Interesting information boot- I suppose I lean towards the teachers I've always been under who comment that it seems to be a pre-incarnate Son of God- I don't know if later writings or translations then offer other possibilities. St. Hippolytus was 2nd/3rd century and G. Salmon suggests that Hippolytus was the leader of the Greek-speaking Christians of Rome. Of course they didn't have other translations then- however- I'm curious- do you think that Jesus would have explained these Theophanies to His Apostles when He was with them? I realize this would be an opinion but when you read writings of the early Church writers/fathers- I don't get the impression that they are guessing at when these appearances in the OT are the pre-incarnate Christ- it is as if they know, not guess. There are times when they distinguish 'opinions' from that in other areas-

But back to the OP- if these pre-incarnate appearances of Jesus were the case for example when from what I have read like when He appeared with 2 other angels at the oak of Mamre when speaking with Abraham before the destruction of Sodom & Gommorah - a careful reading of Genesis 18 reveals a visible "Lord" as one of the 3 men is called- and He also ate food as lesterb brought up in the beginning about Jesus- so even in His pre-incarnate body, which Gen 18 conveys Him & the other 2 angels appeared like men, we know that the Lord spoken of here is not God the Father, but God the Son- who ate, who slept, etc-

I realize you are okay with your understanding being incomplete because you're not sure who's teaching you believe the most. For me, I do believe the early Church writers because I think that Jesus opened up the Scriptures to the Apostles about His pre-incarnate life- because when know He was with the Father from the beginning- and these teachings are what preserved the Faith & they would use when coming up against heresy- for example- this subject is one of the ways people know that the teachings of the Jehovah Witnesses is considered heresy-their Christology-
As far as Lesterb's comment about Jesus being more than a 30 year sacrifice (here) He has been called "the Eternal Son" - so there really doesn't seem to be a 30 year limit to Him-

Same old, same old.

[Bootstrap]

Interesting information boot- I suppose I lean towards the teachers I've always been under who comment that it seems to be a pre-incarnate Son of God- I don't know if later writings or translations then offer other possibilities. St. Hippolytus was 2nd/3rd century and G. Salmon suggests that Hippolytus was the leader of the Greek-speaking Christians of Rome. Of course they didn't have other translations then- however- I'm curious- do you think that Jesus would have explained these Theophanies to His Apostles when He was with them? I realize this would be an opinion but when you read writings of the early Church writers/fathers- I don't get the impression that they are guessing at when these appearances in the OT are the pre-incarnate Christ- it is as if they know, not guess. There are times when they distinguish 'opinions' from that in other areas-

Which of the two versions of the Septuagint are you thinking of here? Two significantly different Greek texts existed at the time. Do you think the early church considered them more authoritative than the Hebrew text? When you say "Septuagint", I think you usually mean one particular translation of one of the versions of the Septuagint into English in the Orthodox Study Bible, and it's basically the same as saying that you trust the Orthodox Study Bible and its footnotes. And I do think the Orthodox Study Bible is guessing about a lot of these things, Orthodox Christians cook with water just like the rest of us. Does the Orthodox Study Bible mention the two Greek texts of the Septuagint, how they differ, the Aramaic reading, and the range of possible translations? If not, why not?

Let's be clear: the writings of the early church are all over the map on this question, including strange notions like adoptionism, which is found in the Shepherd of Hermas - according to this doctrine, Jesus was a man of virtue until he was filled with the Holy Spirit and adopted as God's son. The earliest writings don't agree about the exact relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but they didn't really fight about it either.

In the first few hundred years, significantly different theologies about Christology lived together peacefully until later church councils tried to establish a common theology. For instance, Paul of Samosata was the Bishop of Antioch, and he believed in adoptionism. He was challenged and heard in three separate church councils before he was finally deposed in 269 AD. But systematic theology really wasn't a priority for the early church, and it wasn't until these later councils that this kind of belief was condemned.

[Bootstrap]

this subject is one of the ways people know that the teachings of the Jehovah Witnesses is considered heresy-their Christology-

Sure.

For me, the New Testament is the standard, not the writings of the early church, and the writings of the ante-Nicene church are all over the map on Christology. But these writings do not contradict what scripture says about Jesus, the Father, or the Holy Spirit, they provide different attempts to explain all the things that are not clearly spelled out.

I'm inclined to say I don't know more than what the New Testament tells me with any certainty. I'm inclined to avoid theological arguments about these things.

[Valerie]

this subject is one of the ways people know that the teachings of the Jehovah Witnesses is considered heresy-their Christology-

Sure.

For me, the New Testament is the standard, not the writings of the early church, and the writings of the ante-Nicene church are all over the map on Christology. But these writings do not contradict what scripture says about Jesus, the Father, or the Holy Spirit, they provide different attempts to explain all the things that are not clearly spelled out.

I'm inclined to say I don't know more than what the New Testament tells me with any certainty. I'm inclined to avoid theological arguments about these things.

Well- I guess we will have to agree to disagree. You say the early church writers/fathers were all over the map but with the canonization of the New Testament and the Reformation- if Christianity was ever all over the map in understandings, it is now- Sola Scriptura did not bring on the unity- yes it sounds like 'same old same old' but I think we are much more all over the map today- then they were then- I trust the early Church on these matters-when I read the OT now I have complete peace about the interpretations and it makes so much more sense than it used to. I know Menno believed in celestial flesh which I am not quite sure what that was about- as a Mennonite is one supposed to hold to that teaching or believe that he was incorrect?

Anyway- I don't feel like I need to wonder about this any longer and am at peace.

[Valerie]

[quote="Bootstrap"]
Let's be clear: the writings of the early church are all over the map on this question, including strange notions like adoptionism, which is found in the Shepherd of Hermas - according to this doctrine, Jesus was a man of virtue until he was filled with the Holy Spirit and adopted as God's son. The earliest writings don't agree about the exact relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but they didn't really fight about it either.

That is probably why the Shepherd of Hermas was not considered canonical-

[Bootstrap]

I trust the early Church on these matters-when I read the OT now I have complete peace about the interpretations and it makes so much more sense than it used to.

Do you mean that you trust the footnotes in the Orthodox Study Bible, or do you mean something different? I really have no idea what you mean when you use phrases like "the early Church" or "the Septuagint". How do you go about deciding what the early Church taught on a given topic? How do you go about deciding what the Septuagint says (I assume you do not read Greek, the language in which it is written, and that you don't have access to the various versions of the Septuagint in Greek).

You know, I really don't think Christians need to be scholars. But to be an expert on the early Church or the Septuagint, you really do need some degree of scholarship. With all the things people claim about the early Church, how can a normal everyday human every know who is right?

[Bootstrap]

That is probably why the Shepherd of Hermas was not considered canonical-

Not in the final canon, which was determined after the Ante-Nicene Fathers. But Codex Sinaiticus has it, and so does Codex Claromontanus, so it was part of some versions of the Scriptures in the early Church.

Most Orthodox teaching is basically what John of Chrysostom taught, much later than that. The Constantinian Church is not the same thing as early Christianity.

But we're probably going in circles again ...

[Valerie]

I trust the early Church on these matters-when I read the OT now I have complete peace about the interpretations and it makes so much more sense than it used to.

Do you mean that you trust the footnotes in the Orthodox Study Bible, or do you mean something different? I really have no idea what you mean when you use phrases like "the early Church" or "the Septuagint". How do you go about deciding what the early Church taught on a given topic? How do you go about deciding what the Septuagint says (I assume you do not read Greek, the language in which it is written, and that you don't have access to the various versions of the Septuagint in Greek).

You know, I really don't think Christians need to be scholars. But to be an expert on the early Church or the Septuagint, you really do need some degree of scholarship. With all the things people claim about the early Church, how can a normal everyday human every know who is right?

Well the topic was about Jesus-if we go back & read what Lesterb was asking- I think the writings I have read (and that includes the quotes in David Bercot's Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs- that the Church that existed at the time have pretty good explanations at who Christ was as the Pre-Incarnate Son-
Did you read Genesis 18? So I think when they do talk about this, the various Bishops in the Church that were under the earliest bishops who were under the Apostles- seem to agree from most statements I have read about the Pre-incarnate Son- Christ in the OT-
It seems pretty clear when you go back through the OT in light of this- and I don't think that Jesus kept this a mystery either- some things, as He said, 'they were not ready to bear them now' (John 16:12) but I don't think, since He knew, that explaining who He was before His incarnation- He kept them in the dark about- and He gave them the Holy Spirit to guide into Truth- and to be able to recognize heresy (which Galatians reminds us is a 'work of the flesh')