/ Subject > Re: Is Jesus Like God? #10 / 16Nov02 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /
/ Forum TOL General Theology > Anti-Triunitarian proof texts /
.
>> tx: Really? I fail to see what the problem is. I am talking
>> about historical realities that were present to, and
>> relevant to, the author of John and his earliest readers.
.
> On Nov13 smilax wrote: <snip>
> Oh, so Greek mythology is reality now?
.
textman say: It was an important part of the world of the
Roman Empire, in whose major cities the Faith didst first
sprout and grow. Eventually the Faith ousted the old gods,
but that was centuries after the NT docs were written ...
.
Say, you're not very bright over there, are you, smilax?
.
>> The post-NT development of trinitarian doctrine came
>> afterward, so of course it could have no bearing on
>> John's own thinking.
.
> See Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom of Solomon, Philo,
> 1 Enoch, the Targums, and other bits of
> intertestamental wisdom literature.
.
What exactly am I supposed to be looking for? I certainly
agree that Philo is especially relevant to the study of
John's Gospel. Wisdom, Mt and "Hebrews" too, of course;
but I'm not so sure about the others.
.
>> Well now that's very interesting, smilax. But we are
>> studying John here, not Isaiah. Now I am not opposed to
>> introducing non-Johannine materials to this investigation
>> ... as long as it is more directly *relevant* to Jn.
.
> Sure. The Son of God is God.
.
This is inspired smilaxian literature, is it? :)
.
>> In practical terms it means increasing the spiritual
>> aspects of our lives, while also decreasing
>> the more animalish aspects of our lives, etc.
.
> Are angels divine?
.
I should hope so. Are dispensers of obscurity divine?
.
>> So what is the meaning of this 'double' business?
.
> This is called making wild, unsubstantiated claims
> without evidence to dodge the question.
.
You oughtta know!!! Here's the master of drivel and
obscurity accusing an honest bible-scholar of not knowing
his own business. Just bloody lovely, that is!
.
>> Ah ha! And poor Thomas has been hammered upon by pious
>> Christians ever since! 'Thomas the Doubter!' 'Thomas the
>> Disbeliever!' 'Thomas the Apostle Without Faith!' <snip>
.
> Umm? I do not "hammer" upon him,
> and I fail to see the relevance.
.
Why am I not surprised to hear that? :)
.
>> 'Christ' gets knocked up to 'Lord'
.
> Let's throw out all the references to the
> Lord Jesus Christ now.
.
That's fundy logic for you! doh!
.
>> And not only does he NOT breathe on Thomas, but he turns
>> around and immediately adds insult to injury by blessing
>> future generations of believers who weren't even close
>> to being born yet!
.
> The problem is that I do not see Him correcting Thomas.
> Christ had no problem with calling Peter 'Satan'.
> So what's your point?
.
The point is that John himself corrects Thomas just a
few lines later; as I pointed out to the reader.
.
> Luke xi, 27-28: "And it came to pass, as he spake these
> things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice,
> and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee,
> and the paps which thou hast sucked.
.
"the paps which thou hast sucked" ? ... hahahaha+etc. Good
one, smilax. This bible-byte is both pointless & amusing!
.
> But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word
> of God, and keep it." Does this mean Mary was not blessed?
.
Could you possibly be any more irrelevant? This has nothing
*whatsoever* to do with John's teachings (ie. because Lk-Acts
was written AFTER Jn) ... But to answer your query *anyway*;
obviously Mary was not unblessed, because the author of Luke-
Acts has *already* blessed her in the opening chapters of Lk!
Sheesh; talk about not paying attention to the texts!
.
>> Firstly, John does not say that Jesus is God.
.
> You have a very big list to answer up there. The church
> fathers, who spoke better Greek than you, thought that
> John meant Jesus was God. Why?
.
The only list I answer to is the NT documents themselves.
But you are certainly right to suggest that the early saints
and fathers and apologists knew their Greek *much* better than
the ignorant one! However, my disagreement with the glorious
theologians does not hinge upon any language as such. Rather,
it hinges on their theology (specifically, how biblical and/
or unbiblical it is); and also on their manner of reading,
interpreting, and handling of, the Greek scriptures.
.
As to why the scribes and pharisees thought that John was
teaching trinitarianism: Well, the truth is more that they
*knew* he was not teaching the trinity as such, but rather
that the developing theology was supposedly "founded upon"
scripture, AND was not inconsistent or incompatible with
scripture. Naturally, we have good reason to doubt this
latter claim!
.
>> John the Baptizer is here identifying Jesus (ie. "this
>> man") as the "chosen one", by which he means, presumably,
>> the Anointed One. No unsightly trinitarianism here.
.
> Why not? Isaiah ix, 6 states Messiah is God.
.
John is not quoting Isaiah, smilax. Get with the program!
.
>> If your conclusion that Jesus is 'God the Son' is based
>> purely and solely on biblical evidence, then it seems
>> natural to conclude that there is textual support for
>> this name or title within the NT.
.
> Uh, no. I have no idea how you got this conclusion.
.
I got it from your 5-point theological calculus which shows
how the title 'God the Son' is derived from John's verses.
Seems simple enough to me; wrong, of course, but a relatively
straight-forward line of reasoning. Given that the early
believers were at least as intelligent as today's highly-
confused Christians, it seems reasonable to suppose that
they could follow the same logical chain to its inevitable
conclusion that Jesus is God the Son. Therefore, there ought
to be textual evidence of this title within the NT ...
.
But only *IF* their way of thinking was similar to yours;
which strikes me as *very* exceedingly unlikely!
.
>> If you are unwilling to admit that a necessary distinction
>> exists, then could you please explain why the bible is so
>> silent about this 'god the son' thingy of yours?
.
> It's not silent. You just aren't paying attention.
.
Paying attention (to the Word) is what prophets do best! :D
.
- one who re-illuminates the word - texttman ;>
.
P.S. "Now by this we know that God resides in us: by
the Spirit he has given us." -- 1John 3:24 / NETbible
x
+
More Smilaxian Blues
.
/ Subject > Re: Is Jesus Like God? #11 / 19Nov02 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /
/ Forum TOL General Theology > Anti-Triunitarian proof texts /
.
"But Jesus shouted out, "The one who believes in me does
NOT believe in me, but in the One who sent me! And the one
who sees me, sees the One who sent me. I have come as a
light into the world, so that everyone who believes in
me should not in darkness remain." -- John 12:44-46 / PV
.
>> txt: <snip> It would appear that your translation wishes
>> the reader to conclude that the 'true God' reference has
>> Jesus for its subject. However, since this is inconsistent
>> with the Johannine literature as a whole, it is safe to
>> conclude that the Father is the intended subject here.
.
> On Nov16 smilax wrote: Uh-huh. And you are imposing
> Unitarianism upon the text. Good job.
.
textman say: I'm afraid that I can't take *all* the credit;
since it is the words and phrases that John uses that express
his inherited monotheism (as also his original theological
thinking in general). If you don't like what John is teaching
believers here, smilax, you should just say so; instead of
pretending that he's teaching something else.
.
>> In this version the words are a literal rendition (from
>> the NGE interlinear NT), but I have added the parentheses
>> to show more clearly that the 'true one' IS the 'true god'!
.
> So you admit you are adding to Scripture
> to fit your theology.
.
No actually, I'm merely making John's intended meaning
more accessible to ordinary bible-readers. Surely you
would not want to object to something like that?!
.
> <snip> Thus the fact that they [ie. the scribes and
> pharisees] said Jesus was God
.
There you go misreading the text again. That's not what John
5:18 is saying: "Because of this, therefore, the Jews were
seeking more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the
Sabbath, but also he was saying the very God to be his own
father, thus making himself equal to the God!" -- Jn5:18/PV
.
[Note to students of John's Gospel -> Whenever the author
says 'the Jews' did this, or 'the Jews' did that, the reader
should remember that the author does not mean for this to be
taken literally. The phrase is simply a short-hand label or
pointer indicating something else. Think of 'the Jews' as a
code-word, and substitute the phrase 'scribes and pharisees'.
Now this does not work in *all* cases, of course, but you'll
be surprised by how effectively this technique takes all the
mystery out of John's mysterious and nebulous 'Jews', and thus
renders John's message both intelligible & non-anti-Semitic.]
.
In other words, John's gospel contains not only his own
teachings, but those of his enemies as well; and it would not
do for believers to ever confuse these two! Thus John is here
telling us that the reason why the scribes and pharisees "were
seeking more to kill" Jesus was because THEY considered him
a sinner (ie. a Sabbath-breaker), just as THEY *distorted* his
teachings, claiming that he was thus "making himself equal
to the God". Will you now willingly follow in their footsteps?
.
> should have us wonder what, contextually speaking,
> made them think that.
.
Well, duh! The answer is as obvious as your reasoning is
warped: the scribes and pharisees think like fundies! That's
WHY fundies are indeed the post-modern descendents of these
very same over-literal NT scribes and pharisees. Check it out.
.
> Do you worship Jesus, or not?
.
So Jesus says to her, "Believe me, woman, that an hour
comes when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will
you worship the Father. For you worship that which you do not
know; while we worship that which we know (because salvation
is from the Jews). But an hour is coming, and now is, when
*THE TRUE WORSHIPERS* will worship the Father in spirit and
truth. For indeed the Father is seeking such ones to worship
Him. God is spirit, and so it is *necessary* for the ones
who worship Him to worship Him in spirit and truth."
-- John 4:21-24 / Prophet Version
.
So then I do NOT worship Jesus as God, but rather I worship
the One True God (ie. 'my Father and your Father') in SPIRIT
and in TRUTH ... as the Son of God (Jesus Christ) commands!
.
>> <snip> Eventually the Faith ousted the old gods, but that
>> was centuries after the NT docs were written ... <snip>
.
> What about Wisdom Christology? What about Sirach, Philo, and
> Enoch? You are completely ignoring this lineage and looking
> at paganism as the source of the term "Son of God." Which is
> more likely to continue useful information: Jewish writings,
> or Greek mythology?
.
The only true answer to that (very poor) question is: Both!
Obviously both, since John is writing in Greek to Greek-
speaking believers (and potential believers). As for the
wisdom tradition, this, like the prophetic tradition, is older
and larger than any recognized set of scriptures. Thus the
biblical wisdom traditions have their deepest roots in the
dim pre-history of Egypt. Which is also where (significantly)
the prophets and monotheism first appeared to history.
.
Accordingly, both traditions are necessarily intertwined at
many levels; but the best image for the wisdom tradition is
Lady Wisdom, or Sophia. Now Sophia is curiously different
from most "deities" in that her most ardent devotees are
philosophers (who may or may not be particularly "religious").
All this makes for a most curious love-triangle whereby the
prophets and philosophers are both trying to win the same
girl. Now Sophia loves them both (slightly); but those two
can't stand each other, naturally. Consider Soren's way-over-
the-top attitude toward Hegel!
.
> Jesus is the wisdom of God. As a hypostasized attribute of
> God, He has the essence of God and, in fact, is God. <snip>
.
Jesus is the 'wisdom of God' because he is the 'word of life'.
The Universal Logos, in other words, contains and unifies and
transcends both the prophetic and wisdom traditions. Thus the
Word bears fruit in many ways; in the bible, in religion (and
sacred texts in general), *and* in philosophy (which term
means 'love of wisdom'). Accordingly, it is more consistent
with scripture to say that the Wisdom of God is the source,
and the goal, and the way, of all authentic human becoming.
.
>> Are dispensers of obscurity divine?
.
> Depends. Jesus taught in parables, of course, so
> to prevent people from learning the truth. <snip>
.
Not so much to prevent them from learning the truth, as
to prevent them from drawing all the wrong conclusions!
.
>> <snip> That's fundy logic for you! :doh:
.
> And that's Ariomaniac dodging of the issue for you. Is Jesus
> Lord, or not? Was Thomas wrong to call Him Lord, or not?
.
Of course Jesus is Lord. No King but Jesus, Jack! Was Thomas
wrong to call Him Lord? Technically no; but you're missing
the point: It's not so much what he said as it is the way
he said it. That's what John objects to about Matthew's
portrait of Jesus. John's Jesus would never bless Peter
for his confession, but would rather bless the believers
who haven't seen, yet still believe.
.
>> The point is that John himself corrects Thomas just
>> a few lines later; as I pointed out to the reader.
.
> No, you claimed he did without demonstrating it.
.
What's to demonstrate? Read the end of chapter twenty, and
there you'll find John saying: "But these are recorded so
that you may believe that Jesus is the Anointed One, the
Son of God; and that by believing you may have life in
his name" (John 20:31). That's clear enough, isn't it?
.
>> Could you possibly be any more irrelevant? This has nothing
>> *whatsoever* to do with John's teachings (ie. because Luke-
>> Acts was written AFTER Jn) ... But to answer your query
>> *anyway*; obviously Mary was not unblessed, because the
>> author of Luke-Acts has *already* blessed her in the
>> opening chapters of Lk! Sheesh; talk about not paying
>> attention to the texts!
.
> You're confused. I'm simply demonstrating your argument from
> silence regarding Thomas does not mean Christ did not give
> him a "blessing" for his exclamation is ridiculous.
.
Is it not perfectly obvious that Jesus did not bless, praise,
or breathe upon him? You are the one who is inserting these
things into the narrative-silence; and thus perverting the
meaning of the text. John is silent about these things
because they never happened. That's the whole point of this
final episode! John is NOT glorifying the twelve, the early
apostles, or any other person or confession or creed.
.
>> <snip> However, my disagreement with the glorious
>> theologians does not hinge upon any language as such.
>> Rather, it hinges on their theology (specifically, how
>> biblical and/or unbiblical it is); and also on their
>> manner of reading, interpreting, and handling of,
>> the Greek scriptures.
.
> Very good. Now tell me how to interpret John1:1. If you pull
> out the old argument that we have been mistranslating it,
> and that it simply means Jesus is divine, explain why they,
> who knew their Greek much better, decided he meant that.
.
No doubt because the change from 'theios' to 'theos' happened
early in the second century. That would explain the uniformity
among the textual witnesses, and also among the theologians.
.
>> As to why the scribes and pharisees thought that John was
>> teaching trinitarianism: Well, the truth is more that they
>> *knew* he was not teaching the trinity as such, but rather
>> that the developing theology was supposedly "founded upon"
>> scripture, AND was not inconsistent or incompatible with
>> scripture. Naturally, we have good reason to doubt this
>> latter claim!
.
> Why exactly would they want to elevate Jesus to God
> in the first place?
.
Idolization is a natural drive within most human beings. It
has always been so; since long before the dim beginnings of
recorded history. This is why both the OT and the NT keep
hammering away upon this point. The scriptures know human
nature much better, it seems, than all these "modern" and
"enlightened" Christians who know themselves to be, of course,
far far above such a trivial sin as idolatry. Right. But not
above the trivial sin of vanity, eh? :)
.
>> John is not quoting Isaiah, smilax. Get with the program!
.
> Who cares? Scripture interprets Scripture,
.
Indeed it does! But the question is HOW is scripture best
used to interpret scripture ... Shall we do like smilax, and
say what John means by importing arbitrary definitions from
obscure non-Johannine sources? OR will we trust John enough
to let him define his own terms according to his own thinking
as this is expressed in his gospel and in 1John. That is the
only proper scriptural context when it comes to the matter of
defining terms like 'Son of Man', 'Christ', 'Son of God', 'One
God', and so on. If we do not do this with the most extreme
methodological rigor and consistency, then there is *zero*
possibility of correctly understanding the word of God in
the fullness of its depth and complexity and meaning.
.
Thus the spiritual truths of the spiritual word cannot be
found by reading exclusively on the purely literal level (as
the parables clearly demonstrate). Neither can it be found
among the calcula-TORZ, who come to absolute truth by counting
up their sacred 'beans', and by comparing them this way and
that, one such colored bean with the other thus colored bean,
and so forth. Such has always been the way of the scribes and
pharisees. Need we point out AGAIN that all such-like methods
are utterly incapable of doing justice to the texts?!
.
> and Messiah is God!
.
"Who is the liar but the person who denies
that Jesus is the Anointed One?" -- 1John 2:22 / PV
.
>> I got it from your 5-point theological calculus which shows
>> how the title 'God the Son' is derived from John's verses.
>> Seems simple enough to me; wrong, of course, but a
>> relatively straight-forward line of reasoning. Given that
>> the early believers were at least as intelligent as today's
>> highly-confused Christians, it seems reasonable to suppose
>> that they could follow the same logical chain to its
>> inevitable conclusion that Jesus is God the Son. Therefore,
>> there ought to be textual evidence of this title within NT
.
> Makes sense until the last statement.
> You have a huge logical gap there.
.
Well, let's see. The early believers have just reasoned their
way to the Smilaxian-Conclusion, and are prepared to celebrate,
when suddenly they realize there is no writer of Greek among
them to preserve their tremendous revelation by setting their
thinking down in Greek characters upon papyrus. So they go
see John and tell him all about it, and he's convinced, so
he writes it down somewhere in his writings. Logical gap
indeed! I'll give you a logical-gap, you swino! Grrrrrr
.
- the one who should be muzzled now - teextman ;>
.
P.S. So what shall we say about John's One-True-God, the
God of Light, Love, and Life? Shall we say that this Father
is theologically inadequate, and thus is incompatible with
the Faith? That the God our beloved evangelist testifies
to is incomplete, and therefore inherently inferior to
the more glorious episcopal Trinity?!
x
Goto LikeGod #12