What is Reddit's opinion of Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence (Library of Early Christology)?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

The answer is absolutely! My personal favorites are Genesis 1 ("Let us make," coupled with the very Word of God being spoken, which invokes our memory of John 1, revealing that Christ is the Word made flesh. That's not "reverse engineering." That's the Revelation of God Himself!), Exodus 3 (most occasions when "the angel of the Lord" appears) and Daniel 3, but really, Christ is everywhere in the OT! If you're especially academically inclined, I recommend this book https://www.amazon.com/Angelomorphic-Christology-Antecedents-Evidence-Library/dp/1481307940

OK, so there's a lot wrong here. Let's start with this:

> Paul, our earliest and most reliable source, makes very clear that Jesus was not Yahweh, that he was a being created by Yahweh, separate from him and speaking for him, merely the functional equivalent of an archangel upon whom Yahweh bestowed his authority.

It is by no means clear that this is correct. Paul's Christology is hotly debated, and there are many scholars who would contest what Carrier says here. For example, see Charles Gieschen's book Angelomorphic Christology, where it is argued that Paul viewed Jesus as a sort of theophany or manifestation of YHWH, inspired by traditions about the "Angel of the Lord" from Hebrew scripture. In particular, Gieschen specifically denies that Paul viewed Jesus as a created being, saying that he instead "identifies Christ within the mystery of the one God of Israel.

> Even John 1:1, often claimed as asserting Jesus “is” God, actually only asserts the common Jewish theological view... [that] in the beginning was only God, then God started separating out of himself beings he created and assigned powers to (the angels), and the first of these was the Logos.

This is very much not what the author of John thinks about Jesus. In John 20:28, Jesus is explicitly called "Ο Θεος" ("O Theos"), a term reserved exclusively (by Jews, at least) for God in the fullest sense. John does not think that Jesus was an angel, or a created being, or anything like that; he thinks that Jesus is God. So if Carrier wants to advance this interpretation of John 1, he first has to show that it wasn't written by the same author as the rest of John, since if it was, it scuttles his entire argument (as we know John doesn't believe what Carrier is claiming).

> Meaning, after God then created Jesus out of himself and made him a separate Logos, and tasked him with carrying out the creation and governance of the world on God’s behalf, Jesus was no longer God.

Again, this is absolutely not what John thinks about Jesus. For John, Jesus is God in the fullest sense.

https://www.amazon.com/Angelomorphic-Christology-Antecedents-Evidence-Library/dp/1481307940