Trinitarian confusion at Romans 9:5

[cjab]

You should reformulate this, it's not a good example and it's certainly not analogous to the interpretation you are proposing, unless you take Jennifer as the crown jewels, which the sentence does not allow. But to remove all doubt we would write, "Awaiting the appearing of our beloved princess Jennifer and the crown jewels of the late matriarch."

I agree just because the matriarch was deceased. Here we have a living God who is greater than Christ himself. So that is why we have the order we have.

The identity of the Father and Son has not been lost to time.

When did Jesus refer to himself as God? Are we to obey the ECFs who taught contrary to Jesus or to Jesus? Did Jesus tell us to listen to his words, or the words of the ECFs?

Matt 7:24Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.

Effectively, you are telling us to forsake Christ for the ECFs. That is your message, and the message of the ECFs and the scholastics.

Can you name one of the ancient Greek fathers who read the passage that way? Because what I see consistently is them referring to Christ as "great God." The attributive usage of the genitive case is common in the GNT, and particularly lends itself to Hebrew thought.

By the time of Clement of Alexandria (a persecuting wolf), my suspicion is that church doctrine had become fatally corrupted by its insistence that the Word was a begotten "God in heaven" per the Greek model (which the Jewish model knew nothing of). This was done to "draw men away" to follow them (Act 20:29). However I need to look at Clement more. I have just gotten some of his books.

What are you doing when you follow the ECFs, but succumbing to the temptation to follow men?

Don't forget that Paul dated the corruption of the church to his leaving. At the time of Christ, there was no-one referring to him as God. Rather he was "man" or son of God (see numerous places in Acts).

 

[cjab]

By the time of Clement of Alexandria ,,,,

Sorry meant Cyril

 

[cjab]

Sorry meant Cyril

Indeed this whole issue of Christ the man being God came to prominence in the dispute with the Arians, in which the "orthodox" formula "The Word (i.e. God of God) took the flesh of the virgin Mary and became a man" (ergo. Jesus is himself God) became pre-eminent as a statement of orthodoxy, with Mary being likely first labelled as the bearer of God by Athanasius (Against the Arians, Discourse III). From then on, Cyril championed θεοτόκος as a declaration of orthodoxy: hence his dispute with Nestorius who refused to use θεοτόκος.

The stupidity in this "orthodox" reasoning lies in the failure to grasp that the Word was anarthrous θεός when the Word was with ὁ πατὴρ in heaven. Divested of the Father's presence, except through the agency of the Holy Spirit, the Word wasn't anarthrous θεός except in the OT sense, which is a derogated sense of θεός, i.e. as son of ὁ Πατὴρ ὁ Θεὸς.

Gregory Thaumaturgus

Gregory Thaumaturgus or Gregory the Miracle-Worker (Ancient Greek: Γρηγόριος ὁ Θαυματουργός, Grēgórios ho Thaumatourgós; Latin: Gregorius Thaumaturgus; c. 213 – 270), also known as Gregory of Neocaesarea, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Thaumaturgus...

purebibleforum.com

As none of the mothers of the θεόί were θεοτόκοί, then why was Mary?

 

[cjab]

θεοτόκος

Dionysius the Great, Patriarch of Alexandria from 28 December 248 was possibly the first to use θεοτόκος even before Athanasius, but that the work attributed to Gregory Thaumaturgus as quoted by Stephen Avery, i.e. the First Homily ("On the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary") which also invokes θεοτόκος is likely spurious, as are all the rest of the homilies:

Schaff, says:

466 [This very homily has been cited to prove the antiquity of the festival of the Annunciation, observed, in the West, March 25. But even Pellicia objects that this is a spurious work. The feast of the Nativity was introduced into the East by Chrysostom after the records at Rome had been inspected, and the time of the taxing at Bethlehem had been found. See his Sermon (a.d. 386), beautifully translated by Dr. Jarvis in his Introduction, etc., p. 541. Compare Tertullian, vol. iii. p. 164, and Justin, vol. i. p. 174, this series. Now, as the selection of the 25th of March is clearly based on this, we may say no more of that day. Possibly some Sunday was associated with the Annunciation. The four Sundays preceding Christmas are all observed by the Nestorians in commemoration of the Annunciation.]

Also,

The “Pellicia” referenced is Alexius Aurelius Pelliccia/Pellicia (spelling was more fluid in those days), an 18th century patristics scholar. It was the scholarly consensus of that day that this is spurious writing, and nothing has changed to make us think that this work is authentic.

Also Livius did (at page 47 – “The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries”) admits that “These homilies are of doubtful genuineness.” (referring to the four homilies on the annunciation). .... Livius also tried to remind the reader of this lack of authenticity through the use of the fairly obscure indicator “Int. Opp." (not the real author of the quotation.)

Misquoting Gregory the Wonderworker

In a previous series (link to series index), we documented Steve Ray (and others) misquoting Athanasius (i.e. citing a spurious, or (at best) dubious, work as t

www.aomin.org

 

[The Real John Milton]

Hinduism is a different, pagan conception, because they are gods independently of each other. In monotheism, there is only one "power of God". If the power is exercised through the Word, then the Word must also be God (sufficent properties to be deemed God) unless the Word itself is inanimate. Clearly it isn't, nor anything associated with God (who is life).

No, they believe Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are the same God in different forms. Hinduism may be said to be the original Sabellianism. You are espousing paganism I fear.

 

[cjab]

No, they believe Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are the same God in different forms. Hinduism may be said to be the original Sabellianism. You are espousing paganism I fear.

No, you've not tried to understand. I said "one power of God." How is that paganism? Nothing resembling it.

 

[cjab]

Dionysius the Great, Patriarch of Alexandria from 28 December 248 was possibly the first to use θεοτόκος ....

In fact it was Origen (we are told but cannot prove), whilst the early literature is littered with spurious references to theokotos as a pre-emptive attempt to rebut adoptionism.

The true history of theokotos is probably summed up here: https://catalogueofstelisabethconve...2/the-earliest-known-prayer-to-mother-of.html

Here is a completely fraudulent reference to the theokotos, allegedly by Hieromartyr Dionysius the Areopagite, Bishop of Athens (contemporary of Paul the Apostle), but actually 6th century.

"When the holy Apostle Paul preached at the place on the Hill of Ares (Acts 17:16-34), Dionysius accepted his salvific proclamation and became a Christian. For three years Saint Dionysius remained a companion of the holy Apostle Paul in preaching the Word of God. Later on, the Apostle Paul selected him as bishop of the city of Athens. And in the year 57 Saint Dionysius was present at the repose of the Most Holy Theotokos......"

Hieromartyr Dionysius the Areopagite, Bishop of Athens

Saint Dionysius lived originally in the city of Athens. He was raised there and received a classical Greek education. He then went to Egypt, where he studied astronomy at the city of Heliopolis. It was in Heliopolis, along with his friend Apollophonos where he witnessed the solar eclipse that…

www.oca.org

The controversy between Paul of Samosata and Dionysius of Alexandria, a student of Origen, touched on this issue: Paul of Samosota wrote in 260,

"Mary did not bear the Word, for Mary did not exist before the ages. Mary is not older than the Word; what she bore was a man equal to us, but superior in all things as a result of the Holy Spirit."

Linwood Urban, A Short History of Christian Thought (1995), 76

According to Adoptionists and Paul of Samosota in particular, Mary was not the Theotokos, the Bearer and Mother of God, for Jesus became the Son of God when God adopted him. However these adoptionists disagreed about when God adopted Jesus.

Conclusion: if the ECFs needed God the Word and the theokotos in order to rebut adoptionism, they weren't the brightest of sparks, were they? Why are they worth bothering with?

 

[The Real John Milton]

No, you've not tried to understand. I said "one power of God." How is that paganism? Nothing resembling it.

Not sure where you are getting the idea that monotheism is multiple (or poly) God persons /Gods exercising “one power of God.” The polytheism lies in the multiple persons, not in the apparent one power. Anytime you have more than one person who is God, you have poly(more than one)theism or Gods. Just as anytime you have more than one human being, you have multiple humans.That’s how the bible defines “poly” from “mono.”

 

[cjab]

Not sure where you are getting the idea that monotheism is multiple (or poly) God persons /Gods exercising “one power of God.” The polytheism lies in the multiple persons, not in the apparent one power.

We've been through this countless times. The Word is not a "God person" but mandates being indistinguishable from God as an abstraction, or as a concept. This arises because the Word exercises the power of the Father. You seem to be taking your doctrine from the Trinitarians on this board. I have never accepted the Word as a "God person" but only in the form of God (at least in heaven), which somehow involves "life in himself" involving a dependency on the Father. John 5:26. That is why the Word could become a real man, apart from God his Father.

Anytime you have more than one person who is God, you have poly(more than one)theism or Gods. Just as anytime you have more than one human being, you have multiple humans.That’s how the bible defines “poly” from “mono.”

 

[cjab]

Not sure where you are getting the idea that monotheism is multiple (or poly) God persons /Gods exercising “one power of God.” The polytheism lies in the multiple persons, not in the apparent one power. Anytime you have more than one person who is God, you have poly(more than one)theism or Gods. Just as anytime you have more than one human being, you have multiple humans.That’s how the bible defines “poly” from “mono.”

You need to explain what it means to believe in Jesus as ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ and not merely ομοία υιώ θεού, because to my mind, I can't see the difference in your doctrine.

 

[brianrw]

We've been through this countless times. The Word is not a "God person" but mandates being indistinguishable from God as an abstraction, or as a concept.

This is very convoluted--a lot of words with little sense behind it, so I don't think others in here are getting a clear view of just what you are saying.

The concept of the Word (Memrah) related in early orthodox Christianity is distinctly Jewish; you have this confused with the Logos of Greek philosophy and that position has largely fallen by the wayside as antiquated. To make a long explanation short, the Word of God in Jewish theology was specifically used to describe the theophany or appearances of God to man. For example, in the Targums (lesson paraphrases of the Bible written in Aramaic) it is the Word who (as God) appeared to Moses:

And the Word of the Lord said unto Moses: "I am He who said unto the world, 'Be!' And it was; and who in the future shall say to it, 'Be!' And it shall be." And He said: "Thus thou shalt say to the children of Israel: 'I Am hath sent me unto you.'" (Jerusalem Targum on Exodus 3:14)​

Again,

And the Lord was revealed in His Word unto Abraham, to Izhak, and to Jakob, as the God of Heaven; but the Name of the Word of the Lord was not known to them. (Jerusalem Targum on Exodus 6:13)​

These concepts are reflected in John 1, John 8:42 and 58, John 10:30, Colossians 1, Philippians 2, Hebrews 1. It is very well articulated in Irenaeus' Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching. It can be demonstrated in Against Heresies also, but because he is arguing against the positions of the heresiarchs it is a more difficult read.

You can look for yourself and search for "the Word" in them yourself: http://targum.info/targumic-texts/pentateuchal-targumim/.

The Word is God, by virtue of his being one with the Father.

While in exile on Patmos, John had already addressed that the name of Jesus was the Word of God (Revelation 19:13). After John returned from exile on Patmos around 96, he encountered the teachings of the heresiarch Cerinthus. Cerinthus denied that the world was made by the Father, but that it was created by a power far removed and ignorant from him. He claimed that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph and Mary, and that the Christ descended on Jesus at baptism and left him at the crucifixion. He denied that Jesus was the word. These points are all addressed in John's gospel, which was the only gospel specifically written to refute a heretical position.

 

[John Milton]

It's hard to create any "foolproof" rule in any language because there will always be ambiguity, and even if it is an established usage of grammar, somewhere it will be broken.

Absolutely.

English has a nearly identical convention using the article and we naturally include ways to remove ambiguity where it may be present. So I believe we need to approach the passage here with a similar mindset.

The biggest problems that I have with Sharp's rule are that it does not reckon with all instances of TSKS constructions and that it assumes the article's main purpose is to allow the reader to determine the number of individuals being referred to. These problems obscure the actual function of the article, and the rule is hard pressed to explain the article when it is repeated when a single individual is in view like in John 20:28 or Rev. 4:11.

Noting the trend of objections in the passages, it seems that the grammatical tendencies of the Greek grammar or consistently ignored by certain individuals when the appellation of θεός appears to be applied to Christ, and all are predicated on the supposition that Paul would not call Christ "God." And that would be not just one sentence involving a single construction, but multiple sentences involving different constructions. I strongly suspect in the several passages, had κύριος been found instead, we would not even be having this debate.

But if you suppose, for instance, that the purpose of the article is to inform the reader whether the author is viewing the individuals/groups/things individually or collectively, there is ambiguity in passages like Tit. 2:13. The testimony of the ECFs concerning their understanding of the passage isn't proof of the validity of the rule. It only demonstrates that the grammatical and syntactical features of the language allowed them to reach the same conclusion about the author's meaning without informing us how they reached that conclusion. If the term "God" does distinguish the Father from Jesus, the single article uniting them might indicate that the coming glory is of them collectively (τῆς δόξης τοῦ μεγάλου θεοῦ καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ). Such would imply that the glory which Jesus possesses is on the level of God himself. This is especially true when the remainder of the passage speaks clearly of Jesus doing things that are otherwise attributed to God ὃς ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ἵνα λυτρώσηται ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἀνομίας καὶ καθαρίσῃ ἑαυτῷ λαὸν περιούσιον.

So, I find we can view the situation in one of three ways:

1. Paul didn't write carefully and accidentally created an ambiguity in several places where he could be seen as calling Christ θεός
2. Paul knew the appropriate rules, and for whatever reason chose to ignore them.
3. Paul had no qualms about using θεός in reference to Christ because he makes no distinction about their nature.

I find the first extremely difficult to believe, because Paul removes all ambiguity everywhere else when discerning Father and Son else except (some contend) where he could specifically be seen as applying θεός to Christ. Some might also argue on the basis of inspiration, that nothing should be viewed as "accidental" but I'm sticking purely to style. I don't believe anyone writes a sentence to be read any one of three to six ways (Titus 2:13 vs. Romans 9:5), but that it's the rejection of the plainest reading that results in those variant clusters. This is the result of contrarian arguments--they are against a reading, but can't agree on the alternative. I believe Paul chose (or made) his words carefully.

The second is not at all impossible (it does happen in the GNT), but then we should find a plausible explanation for why Paul felt the need to break the rules. One might argue that Paul felt the distinction between God and Jesus was so obvious that a second article was not necessary. But then his comments in Colossians 1:15-18, 2:9 and Philippians 2:5-11 (and the first chapter of Hebrews, if we ascribe the authorship to Paul), as well as many of the cross references applied to the Lord God in the OT being applied to Christ in the NT, suggest that is not the case. It is particularly hard to evade the force of the contrast of ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων . . . ἴσα θεῷ (Philippians 2:6) with ἀλλ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων (2:7) and καί σχήματι εὑρεθείς ὥς ἄνθρωπος (2:8). It is equally hard to ignore the parallelism between Colossians 1:15-18, John 1:1-3, and Hebrews 1.

I find the third option consistent with Paul's statements addressed above, and it is the most natural way in which the grammar would be read, and it is the manner in which the passage was read by the Greeks. Seeing as how in all the examples above, Paul removes all ambiguity with the usage or omission of the article, but doesn't when θεός is applied to Christ, IMHO Paul deliberately placed the article as he did because he very much intended to refer to Christ as "great God." I believe this is grounded also in Isaiah 9:6, where it is prophesied that Christ would be called "mighty God" (אֵל גִּבּוֹר), where μέγας is one of the Greek words used to translate the Hebrew גִּבּוֹר in the GOT. This certainly is also the simplest solution.

Or, as I've suggested, Sharp's rule has nothing to do with it, but the application of the rule leads to a similar conclusion by chance. But my disagreement with the rule does not mean the discussion isn't worth having. From what I've seen, I think my suggestion has better explanatory power, fewer problems, and less complexity.

Sure!

John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople (4th century)

And Paul said: "from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed forever, Amen." And again: "No fornicator or covetous one has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God." And still again: "through the appearance of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ." And John calls him by the same name of God when he says: "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God; and the Word was God." (On the Incomprehensible Nature of God, 5.2)​

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (5th century)

For anyone who wants can easily learn from the scriptures that Paul often calls the Son "God." For he says, "awaiting the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:13). And also, "from whom, according to the flesh, [came] Christ, who is over all, God" (Romans 9:5). And "in the kingdom of Christ and God" (Ephesians 5:5). And there are countless other texts like these. (Commentary on 1 Corinthians 8:6; Greek: PG 82, col. 289)​

​

Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria (5th century)

​

For this reason, the blessed Paul called him Christ and God, speaking as follows, "For know this and understand that no fornicator, or unclean person, or coveteous one who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God." Consequently, all the others, as I said, may be anointed ones, and very reasonably, because of having been anointed, but Christ alone is true God, the Emmanuel. (Letter 1, 18)​

​

I seem to remember there being others, but these are the two I remember.

Thank you for this. You are much more knowledgeable of the writings of the ECFs than I. I was hoping for a discussion of the passage in a bit more depth, something that shows us a little better how they understood the details of the passage. But I know that such expositions are unusual and tend to be late if they occur at all. In no way, however, do I mean to imply that I am anything less than extremely thankful for the information you have provided.

 

[John Milton]

These points are all addressed in John's gospel, which was the only gospel specifically written to refute a heretical position.

How did you reach this conclusion?

 

[cjab]

The Word is God, by virtue of his being one with the Father.

This is, in fact, what I have been saying all along, such that as considered independently of the (power of the) Father, the Word as God is an abstraction of the term "God" imputing form of God and ability to wield the power of God; and crucially, an ability to become human in the full sense of the term by voluntary forfeiture of such attributes.

NB: you should also note that this denies legitimacy to the term "God the Word" just because The Word is subordinate to the Father (cf. creation is of the Father, through the Word), where the Father is, by biblical authority, the only one described as the "power of God."

 

[brianrw]

How did you reach this conclusion?

One good source would Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11.1 (Cf. 3.3.4).

This is, in fact, what I have been saying all along, such that as considered independently of the (power of the) Father, the Word as God is an abstraction of the term "God" imputing form of God and ability to wield the power of God; and crucially, an ability to become human in the full sense of the term by voluntary forfeiture of such attributes.

Jesus says he is one with, not independent from the Father. Nothing to my recollection indicates that Christ forfeited attributes, only that he dwelt as a man among us. In Colossians 2:9 Paul that "in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead (θεότης) bodily," and also we read how he was transfigured in the presence of the disciples. We're delving again into theology, and I'm still not sure I'm grasping just what your position is. As I noted above from Philippians 2, ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος and καί σχήματι εὑρεθείς ὥς ἄνθρωπος are very clear that Christ came to us as a man, but not that he underwent a complete change of nature. John also writes, Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν.

 

[John Milton]

One good source would Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11.1 (Cf. 3.3.4).

Thanks again. I'll have to add that to my reading list. I don't believe I've read it before, but I've seen that quote concerning John and Cerinthus before.

 

[cjab]

One good source would Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11.1 (Cf. 3.3.4).


Jesus says he is one with, not independent from the Father.

I never he said he was independent of his Father; but in his flesh he was separated from the Father by reason of jurisdiction (heaven->earth) and by reason of his divestment of the Father's glory.

Given your insistence on calling Jesus, God, rather than the son of God, even in the jurisdiction of creation, it is important to understand how he could conceivably bear this appellative, except in that abstractive and limited sense consistent with his humanity that he himself identified in John 10:34-36.

Nothing to my recollection indicates that Christ forfeited attributes, only that he dwelt as a man among us.

You quoted ἐκένωσεν yourself (below).

In Colossians 2:9 Paul that "in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead (θεότης) bodily," and also we read how he was transfigured in the presence of the disciples.

Paul is talking about the ascended Christ in Col 2:9.

We're delving again into theology, and I'm still not sure I'm grasping just what your position is. As I noted above from Philippians 2, ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος and καί σχήματι εὑρεθείς ὥς ἄνθρωπος are very clear that Christ came to us as a man, but not that he underwent a complete change of nature. John also writes, Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν.

The reference of this is to your continuing penchant for calling the man "God." We don't need this equation to label Christ as divine (from heaven). We are told this by Christ himself over and again.

Taking the form of a servant indicates he retained his substantial identity, but he had to divest himself of his Father's glory to become a man (John 17:5). Without the glory of the Father (i.e. God), it is difficult to see why he should be called "God." It is after all extremely illogical to call anyone "God" (in the heavenly sense of being possessed of the Father's glory) if they are not invested with the glory of God. I think this might explain the apostolic reluctance to label Jesus "God", along with not sowing gratuitous confusion amongst minds far less sophisticated than your own.

After all, the average Joe would be very confused if he was confronted with two Gods in the NT.

 

[The Real John Milton]

You need to explain what it means to believe in Jesus as ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ and not merely ομοία υιώ θεού, because to my mind, I can't see the difference in your doctrine.

ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (the son of God) is an appositive. Therefore ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ is another way of saying ὁ Χριστὸς (the Christ). ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ doesn't mean "God the Son" or "God" or some other meaning derived from pagan fantasy, but it means "the Anointed of God," "Messiah," "the prophet who was to come" (the one mentioned by Moses in Deuteronomy ).

 

[cjab]

ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (the son of God) is an appositive. Therefore ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ is another way of saying ὁ Χριστὸς (the Christ). ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ doesn't mean "God the Son" or "God" or some other meaning derived from pagan fantasy, but it means "the Anointed of God," "Messiah," "the prophet who was to come" (the one mentioned by Moses in Deuteronomy ).

What I'm asking is, what is so unique about Christ that he warrants ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ in your socinian theology? Predestination doesn't supply the answer, as all believers are predestined.

Why wasn't John the Baptist the Messiah?

Luk 7:28 "I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”

How is it that the kingdom of God is ruled over by a man who in your estimation, is but a man born of women?

Why did John say the below of Jesus?

Luk 3:16 John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

It's not good enough to impugn other's theology when you own theology regarding ὁ Χριστὸς is incoherent.

 

[The Real John Milton]

What I'm asking is, what is so unique about Christ that he warrants ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ in your socinian theology? Predestination doesn't supply the answer, as all believers are predestined.

Why wasn't John the Baptist the Messiah?

Luk 7:28 "I tell you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.”

How is it that the kingdom of God is ruled over by a man who in your estimation, is but a man born of women?

Why did John say the below of Jesus?

Luk 3:16 John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one who is more powerful than I will come, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

It's not good enough to impugn other's theology when you own theology regarding ὁ Χριστὸς is incoherent.

For starters, he was the only man who did not sin; he was the perfect image of God — which the first Adam failed to live up to when he ate from the tree.