@peacefulpete
Firstly, while you claim that "an emanation is by definition a sharer
in divine essence," this conflates the concept of emanation as found in
Neoplatonism with the Christian understanding of divine essence. Emanation in
Neoplatonism implies a hierarchy of being where successive emanations are
progressively less divine and less perfect than their source. This stands in
stark contrast to the Christian understanding of Christ as fully God and fully
human, consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father. Philippians 2:6
does not describe Christ as an emanation or a lesser divine being but as one
who, though existing in the "morphē of God",
humbled Himself willingly. The humility described is not ontological
diminishment but a voluntary act of self-emptying (kenosis) to assume
human nature. This is entirely distinct from Neoplatonic emanationism, which
presupposes an involuntary and impersonal diffusion of divine essence.
Your appeal to Philo’s Logos as evidence for a transition from an
“anthropomorphized emanation to being” misses the theological and literary
context of both Philo and the New Testament. Philo’s Logos is a conceptual
tool, an intermediary through which God interacts with the material world.
While Philo ascribes many titles to the Logos (e.g., Son of God, High Priest,
and Image of God), he does not describe it as a distinct, personal being in the
sense of the Christian understanding of Christ. Instead, Philo’s Logos is a
metaphorical and philosophical construct rather than a concrete, incarnate
figure. In contrast, the New Testament presents Christ as a real person who
took on human nature while retaining His divine essence, as explicitly affirmed
in Philippians 2 and other passages such as John 1:1-14 and Colossians 1:15-20.
The assertion that early Christians “walked the line” between seeing Christ
as an anthropomorphized emanation and as a real being is inconsistent with the
evidence from the earliest Christian writings. Paul, writing only a few decades
after Christ’s death and resurrection, explicitly affirms both the preexistence
and incarnation of Christ (e.g., Philippians 2:6-11, Galatians 4:4, Romans
8:3). These affirmations are grounded not in speculative Hellenistic philosophy
but in the Old Testament’s portrayal of God’s Wisdom and Word as active in
creation and revelation, now fully realized in the person of Christ. The early
Christian proclamation (kerygma) was centered on the historical
reality of Jesus of Nazareth, His death, resurrection, and exaltation, as
evidenced by Paul’s letters and the oral traditions they reflect.
Your claim that the Gospel of Mark represents a "dramatization of a
Christian message of separation from Judaism" is speculative and lacks
textual support. Mark’s Gospel is deeply rooted in Jewish Scripture and
portrays Jesus as the fulfillment of Jewish messianic hopes, not as a figure
opposed to Judaism. The narrative assumes the historicity of Jesus as a real
person who performed miracles, taught, and ultimately suffered and died. Far
from being a mere literary construct, Mark reflects the historical conviction
of the earliest Christians that Jesus was the Messiah who had come in the
flesh, as affirmed in writings such as 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 and 1 John 4:2.
Finally, your suggestion that the image of Jesus as a historical figure
developed over time through successive embellishments does not align with the
robust historical evidence for the early and widespread belief in Jesus’ life,
death, and resurrection. The earliest Christian writings, including Paul’s
letters and the Gospels, present a coherent and consistent portrayal of Jesus
as a historical person who is also the divine Son of God. This belief was not
the product of later generations but was foundational to the Christian movement
from its inception.
