+
To AVmetro: Regarding John 5:18 & 10:33 ->
These claims are coming from Jesus' enemies!
Not from Jesus. And not from John either. I find
that fact rather significant; ie. as expressing
views that are NOT a part of John's teachings.
.
To smilax and Gavin: I will be dealing with the
text at length, shortly. Patience will be rewarded,
for all good things come to those who wait . . .
x
+
Double, Double, Toil & Trouble!
.
/ Subject > Re: Is Jesus Like God? [#7] / 13Nov02 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /
/ Forum TOL General Theology > Anti-Triunitarian proof texts /
.
> On Nov10 AVmetro wrote: <snip> I may as well add that if
> John wanted to merely say that Jesus was "divine" he would
> have used the Greek word 'theios' instead of 'theos'
.
textman replies: Hey there AV. Did it ever occur to you that
perhaps John DID use 'theios' in the original autograph, but
while en-route to fossilization via canonization didst get
tampered with by some overly pious scribe who noticed the
"typo", and like a goodly servant didst "correct" the "error"
by dropping that iota (perhaps the single most important iota
in the entire world!)? hmmmm? I bet you never stopped to
consider just how unlikely it really is that *that* particular
iota could possibly have survived intact the loving attentions
of so many pious (but ignorant) scribes who feel themselves
to be more inspired than the original author!
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
>> textman wrote: <snip> many countless scribes and pharisees
.
> On Nov11 smilax replied: Too bad Trinitarianism and
> legalism are not the same, eh?
.
textman answers: Too bad all these post-modern scribes and
pharisees have a bucketful of excuses with which to fool them-
selves into thinking that they are NOT scribes and pharisees!
.
>> <snip> huge pile of extra-biblical theological speculations
.
> And in the next breath...
.
>> Oh yes, in the ancient world 'son of god' meant something
>> quite different from 'the logical equivalent of God'. Many
>> great heroes were popularly known as sons of God. Alexander
>> the Great was known as a son of god. So was mighty Hercules
>> (a half-man, half-god hybrid, very much like unto the
>> bishops Trinitarian-Son-of-God). So were the Roman
>> Emperors, etc, etc.
.
> Things that make you go, "Hmm."
.
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. The post-NT
development of trinitarian doctrine came afterward, so of
course it could have no bearing on John's own thinking. This
is what I'm getting at here. What is John saying to us in
his gospel? The Trinitarians *claim* that their interpretation
is entirely consistent with what John teaches in the Gospel,
but when we actually compare John's verses with trinitarian
doctrines we find many discrepancies!
.
> On the other hand, the Bible says "Son of God" is a
> Messianic title, (II Samuel vii, 14, for example,)
> and the Messiah is God, (Isaiah ix, 6.)
.
For a child has been born to us,
a son has been given to us.
He shoulders responsibility, and is called:
Extraordinary Strategist, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. -- Isaiah 9:6/NETbible
.
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.
.
>> The hero could thus have a divine nature, but there was no
>> mistaking that this was a real man, and not a god in the
>> form of a man.
.
> Question: what does it mean to have a divine nature?
.
Good question, smilax. I will attempt to answer in terms that
are consistent with Jn. Demigods aside (who are divine by
birth), people tend to think of this divine nature as some-
thing that is added to human nature. 4X: It's like putting on
a T-shirt; the shirt is not properly a part of us (ie. not
living flesh), but it is something we wear and get used to.
But being divine, or "divine-being", in human beings is not
normally a supernatural addition; rather, it is something
more or less potential (or actual) within the bounds of human
nature. So if we recall that in Genesis (a book very relevant
to John's Prologue) human beings are made in the "image"
of God, we can say that becoming divine is a process of
increasing this 'image' within us. For Christians this means
growing into Christ. In practical terms it means increasing
the spiritual aspects of our lives, while also decreasing
the more animalish aspects of our lives, etc.
.
>> The reader can easily see that we are already well past the
>> point of compromising the Lord's humanity. Jesus is much
>> MORE than "merely" a divine man in trinitarian theology;
>> and he inevitably becomes just another god posing as a man.
>> A little trick that many of the old gods have known about,
>> we should say. But look again at what Jesus tells Mary to
>> pass along to "my brothers" (remember that this is the
>> Risen Teacher saying this): "I am ascending to my Father
>> and your Father, to my God and your God."
.
> Let's see you weasel out of this: John xx, 28: "And
> Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."
.
Haha. Very good, smilax. Actually, I am more than happy to
discuss the meaning and significance of the end of John's
gospel. Let us begin by placing the verse within its proper
context. We are here fast approaching the end of the gospel.
[For our purposes the gospel ends at 20:31, such that chapter
21 does not have the same authority or inspiration as the
previous chapters by virtue of the fact that it was not
written by John, but is merely yet another unfortunate
canonical encrustation.] Let us begin at the point where
Thomas makes his final appearance:
.
> Now Thomas, one of the twelve,
> the one being called the Double,
.
Now here is an interesting thing! Thomas appears in the other
three gospels, but John is the only one who gives him the
curious title 'Didymus', which means 'twin' or 'double' in
Greek. And, as if to emphasize the point, John identifies
Thomas as such exactly twice: the first time in 11:16 ->
So Thomas, called the Double, said to his fellow disciples,
"Let us go too, so that we may die with him." And the last
time here in 20:24.
.
So what is the meaning of this 'double' business? The old and
well-worn traditional answer translates the title as 'Twin'
and suggests that Thomas had a twin brother, and that is why
"they" called him the twin. Now I have seen some bonehead
exegesis in my years, but that one really takes the cake! I
mean, *obviously* there is no twin brother. And *obviously*
"they" do NOT call him 'Didymus', but rather refer to him as
Thomas (see other gospels and Jn14:5, and also the rest of
chapter twenty, for examples).
.
So then the conclusion is evident: the scribes and pharisees
haven't got the first clue what John is up to here, and so they
make up this lame twin-brother nonsense so as to dismiss the
entire matter as utterly irrelevant. Well! If there's one thing
I know about prophetic literature, it's that whenever the
scribes and pharisees say it's irrelevant, you can be *damn*
sure that it IS relevant! The question is: How is it relevant?
Or perhaps we should ask: Who is Thomas "the double" of?
.
> was not with them when Jesus came. Therefore the other
> disciples were saying to him, "We have seen the Lord!" But
> he said to them, "Unless I see the marks from the nails in
> his hands, and put my finger into the wounds from the nails,
> and put my hand into his side, I will never believe!"
> -- John 20:24-25
.
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!' Oh yes, poor
Thomas is an easy target for Christians looking to work off
some aggression. But consider this: What has Thomas done that
is any different from what the other apostles did?
.
> Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, "Peace to
> you!" When he had said this, he showed them his hands and
> his side. *THEN* the disciples rejoiced when they saw the
> Lord. -- John 20:19-20
.
Do you see the connection? Thomas is simply asking for the
SAME courtesy that the other apostles have already received!
.
> Eight days later his disciples were again inside the house,
> and Thomas was with them. And although the doors were shut,
> Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace to you!"
> -- John 20:26
.
Again, just as he did on the previous appearance (Jn20:19).
It would seem, then, that Thomas is indeed in the midst of
some very strange doublings.
.
> Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my
> hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Do not
> become faithless, but believe." Thomas answered and said to
> him, "My Lord and my God!" -- Jn 20:27-28
.
So most commentaries see this declaration as the climax of the
gospel whereby we have now come full circle from 1:1. John's
main point all along was to show that Jesus IS God, and now
there is nothing left but to bring the gospel to a swift
conclusion. But wait! We are over-looking something. Again!!
Thomas is the Double, remember? So what does this scene remind
you of, eh? You can bet your booties that a little byte of
Matthew is at the back of John's mind; as he writes these
lines he's thinking about:
.
> He said to them, "And who do you say that I am?" Simon
> Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living
> God." And Jesus answered him, "You are blessed, Simon son
> of Jonah ... -- Matthew 16:15-17 / NETbible
.
But something about this smells not quite right to our much
beloved evangelist (perhaps named 'John'), and so he intends
to set things straight. First he has Thomas (ie. Simon bar
Jonah's double) echo Peter's answer. And not just echo it, but
surpass it on both sides! 'Christ' gets knocked up to 'Lord'
(ie. 'the lord of me'), and 'Son of God' gets knocked up to
'God' (ie. 'the god of me'). You see how this works? Now we
can expect Jesus to praise Thomas, bless Thomas, AND breathe
the Spirit upon him in a measure *DOUBLE* that of Peter's ...
.
But NO! Jesus instead *reprimands* him:
.
> Jesus said to him, "Have you believed
> because you have seen me?
.
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!
.
> Blessed are the people who have not seen
> and yet have believed." -- John 20:29
.
And that's the last we see of Jesus. End of Story! I think
the point is very clearly made that Thomas' confession is NOT
acceptable. And if you could not keep up with John's obscure
literary shenanigans, and thus missed the point entirely,
he at once closes the gospel by plainly stating what these
blessed believers should believe, and why:
.
> Now Jesus performed many other miraculous signs in the
> presence of his disciples that are not recorded in this
> book. But these are recorded so that you may believe that
> Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing
> you may have life in his name. -- John 20:30-31 / NETbible
.
>> And how important it is to pay attention to the little
>> words that John uses! Read the Gospel of John. Notice, if
>> you will, how often John emphasizes that Jesus is FROM God.
>> Yes. And what do the trinitarians do with this unseemly
>> literary mannerism? They automatically assume that 'from
>> God' is the exact linguistic and theological equivalent of
>> 'of God'. That is, when John says 'from God' he *really*
>> means to say 'of God'!
.
> No? Actually, we got that idea from the title "Son of God."
.
Which you understand to mean "God the Son" according
to the logic set forth by you in a previous post:
.
> John xx, 17: "Jesus saith unto her ..."
> 1. Therefore, the Father is the God of Jesus.
> John i, 1: "In the beginning was the Word, and
> the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
> 2. Therefore, Jesus is God. For further clarity: John i,34:
> "And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God."
> 3. Jesus is the Son of God. Combine 2 and 3 to get:
> 4. Jesus is God the Son.
> Now substitute 4 back into 1, and you get,
> 5. The Father is the God of God the Son.
.
Well now, that is a most interesting line of reasoning you
have there, smilax. But I perceive a few problems lurking in
the bushes. Firstly, John does not say that Jesus is God. He
says that "a god is the Word" or "divine is the Word". This
divine Word is then linked to Jesus, who is later identified
as a prophet, as the Anointed One, as the Son of God, and so
on. Line 2 is thus a weak point in your chain of logic.
.
Another problem concerns Jn 1:34. For example, the NETbible
renders it thus: "I have both seen and testified that this
man is the Chosen One of God." 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. If anything this verse works in our
favor, and against the trinitarian understanding of John's
gospel.
.
A further problem exists in line four. 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. So I
have a question or two for you: Are there any bible-bytes from
the NT that identify Jesus as 'God the Son'? Yes or no? If
'no', then will you admit that the reason for this lack of
textual support is that there exists a significant difference
between what is meant by 'son of god' and 'god the son'?
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? If it's so
*very* crucial to our salvation and identity as Christians
and all, I mean.
.
Anyway, now that we have put your theological calculus in
jeopardy, I suppose it is incumbent upon us to provide some
such similar arrangement so that you may return the favor
at your leisure. Well, I'm not so sure how all this adds up
exactly, but I suppose it would run somewhat as follows:
.
1. For the author of the Gospel According to John, Jesus
Christ is NOT an entity like unto the trinitarian 'God the
Son', but rather a very singular, very concrete, being;
whom we may call the Logos-prophet.
.
2. 'the anointed one' (aka messiah & Christ) means something
like unto 'the chosen prophet'.
.
3. the 'Son of God' refers to the firstborn of God (ie. the
Father), who is the Cosmic Arranger that John identifies as
the universal Logos or Word.
.
4. Jesus is the living Word! This Jesus of Nazareth is
effective as Savior, as Mediator, as the bestower of the
Spirit of Truth, because his person, his entire being, is the
union of the universal and the particular, the union of the
One and the Many, the union of matter and spirit, of past and
future, of nature and supra-nature, of humanity and divinity,
of truth and life.
.
5. Therefore: Jesus is the sole and unique 'divine-man', the
one and only Logos-prophet (who is the prophet of the Word)!
.
- one 2excited 2sleep now! - textman ;><
.
P.S. Who da one? U da one? ... No, mon. Me no da one!
x
+
WARNING: P52 Fallout Ahead!
.
/ Subject > Re: Is Jesus Like God? #8 / 14Nov02 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /
/ Forum TOL General Theology > Anti-Triunitarian proof texts /
.
>> textman wrote: <snip> I bet you never stopped to consider
>> just how unlikely it really is that *that* particular iota
>> could possibly have survived intact the loving attentions
>> of so many pious (but ignorant) scribes who feel themselves
>> to be more inspired than the original author!
.
> On Nov13 AVmetro replied: You're joking right?
.
textman say: I'm joking not at all. I mean, gee-wiz AV, it's
not like there's any shortage of similar such-like people even
today who'd like to "correct" the texts according to some
arbitrary standard of irrational piety. 4X: Some folks judge
one translation "superior" to all others solely on the basis
of how many 'Lord's and 'Son of God's they can count up on
their little fundy-calculators. The one with the most lords
and sons of gods is *OBVIOUSLY* the best and most inspired
version. There are people today, even here on TOL, who imagine
that this way of thinking is blessed and approved by God!
So what are you saying? That such people did not exist in
biblical times? Seems to me you're the one who must be joking.
.
> You mean to seriously tell me that out of the 5300 +
> manuscripts that read 'theos', you are going to take
> the Muslim stance of scriptural corruption?
.
Absolutely! I follow the facts *wherever* they may lead.
And I'll tell you something else too: If Muslim philosophers
and thinkers are more willing to take History seriously than
Christians are, then I wish them all the best blessings
that this meager cyber-prophet can bestow!
.
> And on what basis can you stake this claim other
> than pure speculation?
.
How about on the basis of the physical evidence? P52, for
example, which suggests that the autograph of John's gospel
was fairly riddled with minor typos (eg. spelling errors)
owing to fact that the writer was writing quickly (under the
haste of fiery inspiration), and had to hurry to keep up with
the swift flow of thoughts and words. But perhaps you don't
understand such things; what it's like for the evangelist when
he must run quickly to keep the spirit in sight. There's no
time to worry about typos. The scribes will clean up all such
trivial mistakes when they begin to make the copies.
.
Which is exactly what happened, AV!
.
And if that's not enough for you, I will also point out the
rather apparent literary-fact that John's Gospel is the most
edited and abused book in the entire Holy Bible! Additions
(4X: chapter 21), changes (4X: the famous chapter 5&6 switch),
and a *TON* of these little "touch-ups" (far too numerous to
mention), oh my, they're everywhere! Only a complete ignoramus
could possibly be unaware of all this.
.
And how do you explain the presence of a lukan parable (the
woman caught in adultery) in the text of John? The scribes and
pharisees can't explain it. And the reason they can't explain
it is because they won't accept the obvious conclusion that
Jn was one of Luke's sources! They don't want the facts. They
don't want to know the truth. Because the truth is unpleasant.
Because the truth hurts the false teachers and anti-christs!
.
Oh yes, the text of Jn went through *many* copiers and editors
before Constantine more or less forced a halt to the rampant
ongoing changes being introduced into the sacred books. And
this was already more than two centuries after John had
finished his task! And you wonder why there are significant
differences and variations in the earliest textual witnesses?
It's because the early Christian scribes and pharisees didn't
respect the text enough to just leave it the hell alone!
.
And so today they've gone to the opposite extreme whereby they
are unable to "tamper" with the canonical format in any way,
shape, or form! Not even to fix the most obvious errors; not
even if these basic editorial necessities would help the
average bible-reader a thousandfold. What? You want to
do WUT? Make the New Testament more intelligible?
More rational? More readable?!?
.
... NEVER!!!
.
> ... Back later with a quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia.
.
Oy vey!
.
- the almost semi-rational one - textman ;>
.
P.S. "Who is the liar but the person who denies
that Jesus is the Anointed One?" -- 1John 2:22 / PV
x
+
Casting Off the Yoke of the Pharisees
.
/ Subject > Re: Is Jesus Like God? #9 / 15Nov02 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /
/ Forum TOL General Theology > Anti-Triunitarian proof texts /
.
"Thus we are writing these things so that our
joy may be complete." -- 1John 1:4 / NETbible
.
> On Nov12 smilax wrote: John's teaching: I John v, 20: "And
> we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an
> understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are
> in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is
> the true God, and eternal life."
.
textman say: 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. Your version imposes
the translators theology upon the text despite the fact that
it violates the spirit of the text! This is the version that
so many revere? A version wherein the translators immense
contempt and disrespect for the text is so utterly, and so
brazenly, apparent (as in these very verses just quoted)?!
... Right. So let us instead look to a translation that
attempts to give a more accurate rendition of the Greek text:
.
"And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given
us understanding that we may know the True One. And we
are in the True One (even in the Son of Him, Jesus Christ).
This One is the true God and eternal life." -- 1John 5:20 / PV
.
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'! By the son
of the true god (ie. Jesus Christ, who is "the word of life"
1Jn1:1) we KNOW and are IN the one true god, who is the Father.
For we "proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the
Father" (1:2). And not just eternal life. The Father is also
the god of light (1:5) and the god of love (4:8). Therefore
the one true god of light, love, and life is the Father. But
trinitarian believers would have us believe that John is wrong!
That the word of God is lying about who is and who isn’t God!
These *good* Christians know BETTER than what the scriptures
clearly and plainly proclaim . . .
.
"Little children, keep yourselves from idols." -- 1John 5:21
.
There are a *lot* of people who would do well to tattoo that
last statement on their hands! Christians don't seem to under-
stand how easy it is to make idols. Material idols are not
the only kind of idols around. You can make an idol out of
anything! A concept (especially a theological concept) can
very easily become an idol (eg. trinity). So can a doctrine or
dogma, or even the entire sanctimonious paradigm! A church can
become an idol. As can her leaders. Teachers and scholars and
preachers can also become idols (especially the better ones).
Even the Bible can be idolized. Even our good Lord can be made
into an idol, into a symbol of spiritual-death and corruption.
The history of the churches shows very clearly that the symbol
of the cross has gone to both extremes; as a source of life
and strength and success, but also as the banner of torture,
ignorance, and death. Idols are what you make of them; they
have no inner substance (because they are not real). Only
truth endures. Only love is real. And concepts that distort
the truth of the Word are worse than a sham.
.
I also find it almost amusing that all of these many "free-
thinking" fundies, who imagine themselves entirely liberated
from bondage to the idolatry of priestcraft (and thus bible-
believing Christians), should, upon gaining their hard-won
freedom, at once swallow the spawn of the bishops hook, line,
and sinker! Yes, it ought to be apparent to everyone by now
that trinitarian-theology is *grossly* incapable of doing
justice to the NT; we have just seen that it cannot even READ
the Gospel of John correctly. And why is that, you ask? ...
*Because* it is BEYOND the collective comprehension of the
scribes and pharisees!
.
Because of all this, therefore, I hearby formally renounce
AND denounce this alleged Holy-Trinity entity of the scribes
and pharisees as an empty sham (well worthy of the futile
efforts of uninspired episcopal muffinheads; those 'false
teachers' and 'anti-christs', as John calls them) and as a
false idol (ie. extra-biblical and contra-biblical).
.
And I do also declare that the One True God is the God of
Jesus Christ (being the God that the New Testament testifies
and witnesses to), who is the heavenly Father, the God of
light, love, and life!
.
Therefore: our God is one; one person, one being, one god,
that's it! The Jews and Muslims were right all along. It is
the bishops who led us all astray with their co-equal and co-
eternal Trinity (a conceptual idol if ever there was one).
All of which leaves the average believer with a rather nasty
problem on their hands. Either you place your trust in the
bishops, OR your place your trust in the word of God. (Those
who think that they can do both are only fooling themselves.)
.
But before you decide, consider first what the inspired
evangelist called John says:
.
"Who is the liar but the person who denies that
Jesus is the Anointed One?" -- 1John 2:22/PV
.
Now I do affirm and believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the
anointed one (ie. the chosen prophet); but for the priests
and bishops (and most believers too) this 'Christ' is but an
empty name: Mr J.Christ! And if it means anything at all, it
means nothing more mysterious than 'God the Son'. But this
affirmation that Jesus is God the Son is ultimately nothing
other than a denial of Jesus' essential humanity, and his true
status as the Messiah. In other words, Jesus is *not* the
chosen prophet (and indeed not a prophet at all) BECAUSE he
is God the Son!
.
And in so making this claim that Jesus is God the Son, the
bishops reveal themselves to be the enemies of Christ; indeed
those very scribes and pharisees who accused Jesus of making
himself equal with God!
.
"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!" -- John 5:18 / PV
.
So what will it be? You decide: the truth, or the LIE?
.
- one who asks difficult questions - texxtman ;>
.
PS. Best rock bands of the 20th century: Alan Parsons Project,
Yes, and Klaatu. Congrats boys. You all did a great job!
x
Goto LikeGod #10