Jesus is an angel, the Greatest Angel, who incarnated into human flesh. God's firstborn Son, the prized heavenly red heifer, was sent down to the world to atone for the sins of the world and to rescue the saints from the Devil.

@OneGodOneLord if that's what you think Jn. 10:33 is communicating, then you differ from other Arian types. Other Arians suggest that Jn. 10:33 is not speaking about Christ as an angel, but as human. For the sake of argument: If this is communicating that Christ is an angel (it is not) then you have to borrow from a Trinitarian paradigm to make it work. Is Jesus an angel on earth? Or did he empty Himself? Remember how Arians interpret kenoticism. Arians interpret the incarnation as Christ completely emptying himself of all divine characteristics.

@WilliamJordan, If Jesus is referring to himself as a god or a son of God it doesn't have to involve him simultaneously having multiple natures. He may be referring to himself as a god by identity instead of by nature. The fullness of his divine identity manifested in his exaltation after death. When we are referred to as sons of God we are so by identity but it's not until we are resurrected does the fullness of that identity become manifest.

@Austin You need to be careful to define your terms. What you mean by "a god," or "a son of God" does not have the same implications as Arianism. For an Arian interpreting these words as a reference to his divine attributes (or even his identity), it absolutely does require dual natures. Because the Arian understanding of the kenotic emptying requires the loss of all past knowledge that Christ (in his pre-incarnate state) had, even of his identity. You are trying to answer the Arian dilemma from an non-Arian perspective.

Please try to talk to me as a person and not as a member of a class you have already defined in your head. Nothing you said is relevant to my position. I'm just trying to figure out how to best represent what the Bible actually says and not in terms of historical arianism or trinitarianism.

@Austin As long as you understand that the OP (whose question this is) is approaching this question from an Arian perspective and not necessarily with the same agenda as you. Isn't that right, @OneGodOneLord?

@WilliamJordan, Let me get this straight for you. I am a Unitarian Paulician, and hold that there is one uncreated God, the Father, and one first created god, the Son Jesus Christ. As the first created god, Michael, called Jesus Christ in his incarnation, was the Light of the world created on Day 1 of the Genesis creation week, and the rest of the angels were created in Day 2 through Christ/Michael. As a divine god, a son of God, he emptied his divine nature by giving it up and allowing God his Father to incarnate him into human flesh, totally dissolving his immortality for mortality.

See what I mean, @Austin? OneGodOneLord is reading this theology into every nook and cranny, despite the fact that Jn. 1:1 predates Day 1. Jubilees 2 places the creation of the angelic hosts in Day 1. But John says the Word was prior to Day 1, as it is a direct allusions to Gen. 1. And then when @OneGodOneLord says, that Christ totally "dissolving his immortality," this includes identity. That means, Jn. 10:33 cannot be understood as a reference to Christ (on earth) as an angel or a demi-god, which is what he was originally trying to argue.

@OneGodOneLord Nothing like a good ole self refuation. How do you not see, that if Christ "totally dissolving his immortality for mortality," then when Christ says the words in Jn. 10:33, he could not have possibly have been speaking from the vantage point of "immortality" (aka "a god," "an angel," etc.)? Your only way around this is to suggest that the incarnate Christ has dual natures: A human and a divine one, and can thereby refer to Himself as "a god," as you so suppose Him of doing in Jn. 10:33.

Jordan, their elect spirits were gods, not their flesh. The flesh returns to dust, but the spirit will gain immortal spiritual flesh of the gods.

WilliamJordan, I'm not convinced that @OneGodOneLord would identify himself as an Arian and then sign up for everything you think that includes. I think how he's conceiving of spirit is not fully dissimilar to how I'm think of identity. There's a consistent thing about as you transform from one nature to the next. Whatever that is can be conservatively designated by a certain identity, and it may be appropriate to refer to that which we are identifying that is the same from nature to nature as your spirit or soul depending how we're defining things.

@Austin You don't need to be convinced of what "I think." He identifies as an Arian. There is no need to try to downplay his theology into a game of "what I might think." He is on record as saying, "The greatest Arian document is the Bible itself." Why do you find it necessary to reinterpret his theology, when it comes straight from his mouth? I study Arianism so I am able to pick up on his language easily. The language he's using to describe the kenosis as a "dissolution" or "dissolving," is borrowed from the Watchtower: Michael totally dissolves himself in the incarnation.

Yeah... that hasn't come up on this board. So I'll take your word for it. But still, I just know people who claim to believe in the trinity or claim to be Arians who have beliefs that contradict the historical trinity doctrine or those of Arius. For example, I don't think Arius believed Christ was the archangel Michael. In general, it's good to work through what individuals actually believe instead of holding them to some rigorous standard doctrine to which they may not fully adhere. Even common language may have different meanings based on the individual's use of the terms.

@Austin Follow the comments: hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/100027/…

@Austin I agree with the sentiments you have. But you should not assume we are all so quick to throw out a label. Some of us are actually more attuned and aware, and are not so quick to throw a label out. Instead, you SHOULD listen to the person and interact with what they say. But that said, you need to reflect and ask: Are you allowing OneGodOneLord to accurately represent himself without throwing your own personal spin onto his theology? That is, are you practicing what you preach?

@Austin I say that, but do want to add: I am not calling him an Arian for the sake of calling him an Arian. He called himself an Arian. It does not matter whether Arius believed Jesus was Michael. Not all Arians believe Jesus is Michael. The defining factor is not whether Jesus is Michael. There are Trinitarian reformers that believe Jesus is Michael. What defines someone as an "Arian" proper, is: Was the pre-existent Christ the first created thing God created? The answer provided to this unique question will determine whether one is Arian or not. Not all Unitarians are Arian.

@Austin I do think you are right to say that some people are quick to throw labels out that do not necessarily reflect that persons theology. There are times where I find myself getting into tit for tats even with other folks, simply because they throw labels out without any warrant. And I hope you hear that message resonate when you go back and read over the post I linked to (above) on the Sahidic Coptic. Reread the article with a close ear to what I'm saying: I am interacting with people mislabeling scribes. And then read the comments left in the comment section by OneGodOneLord.

@WilliamJordan I personally like to point out that you could say that the average "layman" of the jews might have been in error... but then later you have the High Priest right before the passion of Christ accusing Him as well and tearing his vestments. Personally the argument that the crowd was "in error" is extremely condescending because it implies that the average everyday Joses, Judah, and Jonathans were so ignorant of their own laws. It's like claiming you need powertools to make the pyramids... ancient people were smart and knew their own religious laws! :)

Yeah, I don't think, the OP's understanding of Arius is much more than as a historical antitrinitarian ally. It's obvious from the comment section that his historical understanding of Arianism didn't match yours. And I'm pretty sure the guy's not actually a JW, but just some type of Unitarian as he's confessed elsewhere. Overall its a pet peeve of mine when answers respond in terms of labels never brought up by the OP's question, trying to more broadly own the JWs or own the Arians beyond simply just responding sufficiently to answer the specific questions asked - limits your responses appeal.

@Austin That is because you are putting your own doctored spin on another persons theology. You are not practicing what you preach. Let the man speak for himself without you trying to add words to his mouth. I'd like to point out: OneGodOneLord has never "corrected" me on his beliefs. You are trying to downplay his beliefs instead of interacting with them. The only thing that makes someone "Arian," is: The unique belief that Christ is the first thing ever created by God. Everything else is white noise. Are you suggesting that OneGodOneLord does not believe this distinctive?

@Wyrsa Hopefully you noticed something that I was hinting at: Many of the people that promote the idea that Jesus is "a god" in Jn. 10:33 are the same individuals that suggest that the Jews were lying in 5:18. I am simply suggesting that both contexts are communicating the same thought throughout the entire gospel narrative of John (Jn. 5:18, 10:33, and 19:7). If someone is going to suggest that Jesus is lying in 5:18, why not in 10:33 instead of opting for a translation that is easily debunked?

@Wyrsa It is much more convincing to suggest that Christ was doing in 10:33 what people accuse the Jews of lying about in 5:18, "making Himself equal with God." I'd also like to point out the language used in Jn. 19:7 corresponds with Jn. 10:33, and no one would dare accuse the Jews of lying in 19:7 when they say, "you make yourself the Son of God" ("you make yourself [equal with] God," Jn. 10:33). The language in 19:7 ("you make yourself") is an immediate allusion to 10:33.

@WilliamJordan actually he has corrected you, saying "Let me get this straight for you. I am a Unitarian Paulician." That's how he self-identifies. If your mere definition of Arian was all you attributed to Arianism I wouldn't have commented, but you judged his and my beliefs against your understanding of Arian kenosis and total dissolution causing him to again correct you that his view was that the divine spirit was not dissolved. Which is not borrowing from Trinitarian's 100% God 100% man, but instead he asserts god spirit, man flesh. So no. I'm not the one misrepresenting his view.

@Austin I did not categorize your beliefs, at all. I was addressing OneGodOneLord, and never addressed you, because this question was not asked by you. Being a "Unitarian Paulician" is a misgnomer, and can be interpreted to mean anything. This label that he himself has created says nothing about a Christological stance. Your version of Unitarianism is not his version of Unitarianism. Unitarianism is a very broad category and consists of Modalists, Socinians, Arians, Muslims, etc.

@WilliamJordan another thread? It should be a chat room right? Regardless, I did notice that detail you brought up. I prefer other methods but it is also effective.

@Austin I did not say he was "intentionally" borrowing from a Trinitarian paradigm, but that his position forces him into borrowing from the Trinitarian paradigm: Because he asserts that Christ is 100% angel and 100% man ("a god," Jn. 10:33), or retained (in the incarnation) some divine properties, which is contrary to his kenosis theory of Phil. 2. You can't argue that Christ remained an angel on earth with his view of kenosis in Phil. 2, without agreeing with Trinitarians about the kenosis of Phil. 2.

@Wyrsa He asked a question (unrelated to this one) on SX, and he and I were going back and forth through the comment section related to that question.

@WilliamJordan, I never said his view is mine, and you're still misrepresenting his view. He said, spirit god, man flesh. He never said 100% god and 100% man.

@WilliamJordan your too focused on categorizing instead of understanding.

@Austin I understand what he's saying quite fine. In fact, he and I just finished a conversation less than 12 hrs ago where he defends the very thing you say he's not. Talk about "misunderstanding."

@Austin He does believe Jesus is a god on earth in the sense that he retained some divine element in the incarnation, hence, is how he is interpreting Jn. 10:33, as a reference to Jesus as "an angel." His approach to Jn. 10:33 is from the vantage point that Jesus is an angel of the Lord. This requires a two-nature theology. You don't need to take my word for it: He's not hard to reach. You can ask him. But when you ask him, also ask him about the kenosis of Phil. 2 and what, when, how Christ emptied himself. His response will not mesh well with your mischaracterization of his theology.

@Austin Moreover, I would love to know exactly what you think OneGodOneLord means by, "Unitarian Paulician." This is vocabulary he uses. And by that, you suggest that he means something contrary to what I have been saying. I want you to tell me how you arrived at that conclusion. What does he mean by "Unitarian Paulician"? And how do you interpret this to mean something to the contrary?

@WilliamJordan, you did judge my belief saying I was speaking from a non-Arian position regarding his arian position. But my position meets your definition of mere airanism. So you mischaracterized me and you judge his "Arian" position on topics that are not "mere" Arianism. Then you misrepresented his two natured theology as 100% a god and 100% a man in John 10:33. Obviously, HIS kenosis theory doesn't contradict HIS understanding of Phil 2, just your understanding of his theory.

His theory is pretty simple if you just take his word for it. Divine Spirit, human flesh. Immortality dissolved. With regards to Christ forgetting it's only a temporary condition based on his human developmental biology. The memories are all there, but his infant brain can't comprehend them. Christ remembers as time goes on or so he says. Again, if you just stuck to mere Arianism and didn't mischaracterize me, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

@Austin What did I say was the unique belief that distinguished Arianism from all other Christologies? And how does your position meet that criteria?

@WilliamJordan, you tell me how my position doesn't meet that criterion since you're confident that I'm non-Arian.

@Austin I have repeated myself three times. If your position meets the criteria (as you suggest it does) then let's hear it from the horses mouth. This should not be trivial. I want to hear you classify yourself as an Arian. That will tell me if you know what "Arianism" (proper), is.

@WilliamJordan, you must have had a reason for confidently asserting that I'm non-arian. So please fill me in on how I'm not. I already told you my position meets your mere definition. So maybe you can tell me how you were so confident that it doesn't. Or perhaps you were judging my position based on all the white noise you referred to.

@Austin Again: I have repeated myself three times. If your position meets the criteria (as you suggest it does) then let's hear it from the horses mouth. This should not be trivial. I want to hear you classify yourself as an Arian. That will tell me if you know what "Arianism" (proper), is.

@Austin I think you see what I'm getting at. I don't think you know what you believe, exactly. But you could always prove me wrong.

Now this is the third time I told you that my position meets your mere definition straight from the horse's mouth. I already answered you. Do you remember how you defined what it is to be an Arian? If you forgot, you can just scroll up. So again, on what basis did you claim that I was non-Arian or that my position was non-Arian before I discussed anything related to your all-signal no-noise definition?

@Austin How did I classify what an Arian was? Remind me.

I don't believe for a second, you're too lazy to scroll up and reread your definition. This is what I mean. You don't take people's words at face value. Explain to me why you doubt that i meet your mere defintion.

@Austin Unfortunately we do not share the same sentiments, because: I do believe you're too lazy. I should not have to define your beliefs for you. If you are "Arian" as I described above, then you should have no issue repeating back to me your beliefs (so I know you are not misrepresenting my words). You seem to be more interested in wasting keystrokes than to simply answer explicitly. Save yourself a few keystrokes. Because I can play this game all night.

@WilliamJordan, well I guess we're at an impass. I won't do your homework of giving you your definition again. You won't admit that you judged me as non-Arian based on my views inconsistent with your understanding of Arian kenoticism which has nothing to do with your clear statement about the only thing that makes someone an Arian.

@Austin I should point out: You didn't give a definition at all. How then, can you say that you won't give me my definition "again," when you didn't give it to me at all? You kept pointing to "my definition," but cannot repeat "my definition" back to me to ensure you are understanding "my definition." If you cannot articulate to me your beliefs, there is no way to safely say you are understanding me correctly.

@Austin I never judged you based on an understanding of "Arian kenoticism." I judged your misrepresentation of OneGodOneLord's view of kenoticism. You are trying to downplay what he believes about kenoticism (which is not the traditional Arian understanding, as I pointed out above).

@Austin See my comment above from Feb 4 @ 3:44, which was a reply to OneGodOneLord.

@Austin If you followed OneGodOneLord's discussion with me on other forums: You would know that his view of kenoticism involves a "stripping" of the Divine Name that takes place at the crucifixion. But the issue, is: That is not what Phil. 2 says. In Phil. 2, the kenosis occurs as Christ transfers from one "form" to another "form." The question which OneGodOneLord will not answer, is: What is involved in this transition from one "form" to the other? What exactly is Christ "emptying" Himself of, and when does that occur? OneGodOneLord thinks it involves divesting Himself of the Divine Name

@Austin And according to OneGodOneLord, Christ is bearer of the Divine Name only because He is an angel. But if Phil. 2 is describing Christ as being divested of the Divine Name, then when he transitions to "the form of a slave," he no longer possesses the Divine Name. Meaning, he would no longer be an angel.

@Austin And the other problem that I pointed out to him, was: If Christ is divested of the Divine Name at the crucifixion, only to retain it again in the exaltation, then there is a problem: Christ's exaltation was at the crucifixion.

Look none of what you just said has anything to do with your mere definition of Arianism. Which proves my point that this whole thing started when you called my perspective non-Arian without evidence, but his position Arian even though it's not the traditional Arian understanding, simply because I didn't use traditional Arian explanations for things other than what specifically defines your basic definition of Arianism. Your arbitrary categorizing is not helpful.

You don't need me to repeat your definition to know that you judged my views as non-Arian by criteria other than your mere definition of Arianism since again it is your definition. If you were intellectually honest you'd acknowledge this because it's obviously true. Prove me wrong and explain how anything I have confessed is inconsistent with your basic definition of Arianism. The fact is zero of it is.

@Austin That was never the point. When I called your interpretation "non-Arian," I was suggesting that it is not the standard/routine Arian interpretation, just like I was stating to OneGodOneLord. I never used that to state you were not Arian. I simply stated: Any such understanding that you tried to impose onto OneGodOneLord was not normatively Arian. And it's not. My comment was never intended to judge you as an "Arian" proper, or a "non-Arian" proper. But that is exactly why I was wanting your to repeat back to me "my definition": Because I recognized you misrepresented MY words.

@Austin And that is exactly why I called you lazy.

That was never the point. When I called your interpretation "non-Arian," I was suggesting that it is not the standard/routine Arian interpretation, just like I was stating to OneGodOneLord. Exactly, so based on your definition it was false to call my perspective non-Arian, instead of what you define as non-standard Arian. And what you referred to as "the Arian dilemma" isn't actually "the Arian dilemma" by any sort of definitional necessity, but is really just a dilemma for your labeled standard Arian, which is quite goofy since as you just acknowledged neither of us is standard Arian.

Again your obsession with over-eager labeling and categorizing is proving not helpful in communicating truth.

@Austin You are exaggerating this "over-eager labeling," to the point you misconstrue my words. If you simply stopped and asked for clarification then that would have been the most responsible thing you have done in this entire time. Instead, you cannot even repeat back to me "my definition," because you have simply misunderstood exactly what I was saying.

@Austin What I referred to as "the Arian dilemma," is indeed the Arian dilemma on the basis of their standard/routine interpretation of kenosis. It is the most broadly attested understanding offered by Arian interpreters. But this form of kenosis is not what defines an Arian. Because again, there are even Dutch, and German reformers (Trinitarian, none the less) that hold to this same view of kenosis.

@Austin The issue, is: Not all Arians believe Jn. 10:33 is a reference to Jesus as an angel. Some do, others do not. Those that interpret Jn. 10:33 as a reference to Christ's divine status/nature, are the ones who ultimately run into an issue in light of this view of kenosis as outlined in Phil. 2:6-7. The simple question remains: When Christ transitions from the μορφῇ Θεοῦ (which OneGodOneLord interprets as, "the form of a god") to the ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων (Phil. 2:7), did he remain in the μορφῇ Θεοῦ?

@Austin It is in this μορφῇ Θεοῦ ("in the form of a god," according to OneGodOneLord) that Christ is bearer of the Divine Name. When he transitions from μορφῇ Θεοῦ to ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων, did he continue existing "in the form of a god" (and bearer of the Divine Name), or not?

@Austin In fact, I would even argue that OneGodOneLord's understanding of Christ as the first creature directly made by God is outside the bounds of standard Arian interpretation. OneGodOneLord conflates Christ's existence with the events as they are recorded in Gen. 1:1-3: He is the light that God brings into existence on Day 1 of creation. He still believes Christ is the first creature directly made by God (and thus, still an Arian), but this is not how Arians interpret Christ's pre-existence. The norm is to understand Christ's existence to a time anterior to Gen. 1:1 (i.e., Prov. 8).

@Austin So I can safely say his interpretation is "non-Arian," simply on the grounds that it does not reflect the standard Arian interpretation. But that should not be mistaken to mean he's not Arian. He is Arian, but has a view that exists outside the norm. By OneGodOneLord's reasoning, John 1:1 serves as a rebuttal. Because the text places Christ's pre-existence to a time anterior to Gen. 1:1, not within Gen. 1. And the vast majority of Arian interpreters would agree with this statement.

@Austin It also may be of some benefit to you to brush up on your prefixes (i.e., "non-"). This way, just in case there is a next time, you can save yourself a few keystrokes. Next time when someone tells you that you are misrepresenting them, you might just take some of your own advice: Take them at their word. And if you are uncertain, then you can do the responsible thing: Ask for clarification rather than assume something that was not intended. If someone defines terms (in the way I did), it is probably not likely that they would immediately contradict what they had just said.