Here are links to three interesting posts related to New Testament Christology. In each case, the evidence\u00a0suggests that the New Testament authors in question did not identify Jesus as identical to, part of, or \u201cincluded in the divine identity\u201d of\u00a0the one God of Jewish monotheism.<\/p>\n
First, Andrew Perriman<\/a> made the case that Hebrews does not depict Jesus as \u201cthe builder of the house\u201d and thus God in Hebrews 3:3-4.<\/p>\n Second, Chris Tilling<\/a> quoted N. T. Wright on the language in Romans 1:4, which suggests that Jesus was \u201cappointed son of God with power\u201d through the resurrection. Wright makes the case that the word used must indicate a mere revealing of a status Jesus already had. And in one sense, this may be correct. Paul uses the Aramaic word\u00a0abba<\/em>, indicating his familiarity with Jesus\u2019 use of the word. And so Paul could not be suggesting that Jesus\u00a0was appointed as son of God for the first time through the resurrection. But we must also take seriously the\u00a0language Paul uses elsewhere, indicating\u00a0that,\u00a0after the crucifixion, God \u201csuper-exalted\u201d Jesus and bestowed upon him the divine name (Philippians 2:6-11). And so it is best to understand Romans 1:4 to be indicating that Jesus, one who had a\u00a0relationship of obedient sonship to God even earlier, is appointed to an exalted status, much like one might expect in a case of human sonship when the heir comes of age. And so the language in Romans 1:4, whether it is a traditional creedal statement or not, fits the exaltationist\u00a0Christology that Paul articulates elsewhere.<\/p>\n Third, here is Dale Tuggy<\/a> explaining why he does not think that the\u00a0Gospel of John depicts Jesus as God (read more on his blog<\/a>):<\/p>\n