+
/ Subject > Re: Is Jesus Like God? [#20] / 15March03 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /
.
>>>> textman previously wrote: More Translating the Word
.
>>> On Nov8 freeontheinside wrote: Textman
.
>> textman answers: yo <snipsome>
.
> On Nov10 AKH ([email protected]) replied: Hi textman!
.
 textman say: Hi ho (which rhymes with 'yo')
.
> (Exactally how does one translate "yo" outside of
> the confines of 'Rocky theology'?)
.
 Why would anyone even want to go outside of the confines
of Rocky-theology? ... Sheesh, some people.
.
> The discussion was going along as such, until...
.
>>> I have another question pertaining to why the need
>>> to have Jesus at all. Jesus to a fundie plays an
>>> important role in the fact that He is the one that
>>> takes away the sin of Adam.
.
>> This "sin of Adam" is often taken by over-literal readers
>> to be an actual material reality that infuses or co-exists
>> with the flesh. Now I won't deny that there are plenty
>> of bible-bytes that more or less encourage this sort of
>> nonsense, but to my way of thinking, a silly notion IS a
>> silly notion, and the fact that scripture approves it does
>> in no way lessen the silliness. Bad ideas must be flushed
>> out of our thinking whether we like it or not, *because* we
>> have a methodological obligation NOT to dictate the shapes
>> and forms of reality from out of theological imperatives!
.
> My,my,my, once again textman has been a busy little...ooops!
> I know you 'gentlemen' or *whatever* are talking here, but
> I couldn't help but break in on the conversation and ask
> you, what exactly do you mean by the previous statements?
> That thinking doesn't seem the least bit *rational*.
.
 Wut? You don't think it rational to rid our thoughts of
errors, bad ideas, and all manner of mistakes and sloppy
thinking? Funny thing that; since it seems perfectly
rational to me (even without dragging in any methodological
considerations). The truth is that once we commit ourselves
to allowing the scriptures to speak for themselves (rather
than imposing our will and thoughts upon the texts), then
we are necessarily committed to any and all procedures,
techniques, and methods that may help us to *avoid* the
errors of 'those who have gone before'.
.
>>> Curious what you see of the fall of man?
>>> Do you see this as universal or not?
.
>> The story has universal value in that it symbolizes and
>> represents the ongoing story of human life. But it cannot
>> be taken as a scientific or realistic report of an actual
>> long-ago event. The meaning is symbolic (and true within
>> these limits), not literal, because we now know (as the
>> inspired authors didn't) that the story of humankind is
>> much more of an ascent than a fall: out of the animal
>> kingdom, and up into the kingdom of the spirit. That's
>> the true story. That's the story to get excited about!
.
> Ok, texty, that just *blew my mind*. Are you
> saying you believe man is getting better?!
.
 "Better" in *some* ways, sure. For example, our knowledge of
the universe has certainly expanded more than a million-fold
in the last century alone. That's an improvement of no
insignificant value, I think. Now if we could just improve our
hearts as well as our minds *then* we might have some small
reason to boast! Otherwise Hegel's observation that 'most
men are bad' still stands.
.
> That is so much fantasy and rubbish produced by the secular
> humanists psuedo spiritualist wackos who rage against God
> and His creation!
.
 I have nothing to say to this; chiefly because this statement
has only dubious value (at best).
.
> You state we now "know" that the story of humankind is one
> of ascent rather than decent.
.
 That is correct, ann.
.
> Look out your back door, read the news, listen to the radio!
.
 Yeah, lots of noise and stuff. The usual flak. So what?
.
> You got your head in a hole or something?
.
 No. But I do have a hole *in* my head. Exactly seven of
them, in fact. :)
.
> You really think this is better?
.
 Better than life at the level of stone-age culture and
civilization, you mean? Absolutely! Hey, "I want my MTV!"
... Hi, Kyle. Hi, Avril. kiss kiss  :)
.
> Let me put in a point of reference for you so you can
> label me into one of your little groups.
.
 To what purpose?
.
> I come into faith from a biological and geological
> frame of reference.
.
 You mean that you're an earth scientist? One of those
who *used* to be called a 'natural philosopher'?
.
> I WAS an avid, even rabid, evolutionist before I began
> to study the FACTS. Of which here are some for you: The
> Evolution of Species by means of Increasing Numbers of
> chromosomes (or) THE PRESERVATION OF COMPLEX LIFE FORMS
> IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE (by Kent Hovind)
>        NUMBER OF CHROMOSOMES
> Fern         480
> White ash    138
> Carp         100
> Goldfish      94
> sweet potatoe 90 (that must be where you fit in <smile>)
> Turkey        82 (that must be where I fit in!)
> <snip remainder of list>
> -POSSUM, REDWOOD TREE, AND KINDEY BEAN: "OUR ANCESTORS"-
> A Spoof on Evolutionary Theory
.
> The theory of evolution teaches that living things are
> becoming more complex as time progresses. Because the
> chromosomes in living matter are one of the most complex
> bits of matter in the known universe, it would seem
> logical to assume that organisms with the least number of
> chromosomes were the first ones to evolve and those with
> the most chromosomes are the end result of millions of
> years of evolution experimenting to increase complexity
> in living organisms.
.
 You say that evolution is working to increase complexity in
life? That does seem a sensible idea in general. However it
does not strike me as an entirely *scientific* statement. In
fact, it seems awfully teleological in nature for a supposedly
scientific hypothesis. Are you *sure* you've got this right?
.
> From the chart, it is "obvious' that we all started off as
> penicillium with only 2 chromosomes, and that we slowly
> evolved into fruit flies. After "millions of years" we
> turned into tomatoes (or house flies) and so on, until we
> reached the human stage with 46 chromosomes. One of our
> ancestors must have been one of the identical triplets -
> opossums, redwood trees, and kidney beans - with 22
> chromosomes each. If we are allowed to "continue evolving"
> we may someday be tobacco plants and mabye even become carp
> with 100, or maybe even the ultimate life form, a fern with
> 480 chromosomes! DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT!
.
 I don't believe it! I don't believe your silly caricature
accurately represents the best thinking of today’s top
biologists. And I certainly am not about to throw the whole
idea of evolution overboard on the strength of some silly
chart. Get a grip, girl. This is exactly why we don't allow
females to practice philosophy in enlightened countries (ie.
because the ladies seem unable to think in straight lines!)!
.
> God made this world and all life forms ... Taken from; Kent
> Hovind's "Creation Science Evangelism Seminar Notebook"
.
 Actually, the idea that God created the world has no solid
evidence to back it up, and so requires faith just to say it.
.
> Scripture does not indicate that *creation* = evolution.
.
 The scriptures were written prior to the New Age (which only
began in earnest with the so-called Enlightenment), so it
would be very pointless indeed to seek in the scriptures for
ideas and concepts that did not (and could not) exist in that
highly muddle-headed pre-scientific era.
.
> Evolution teaches that we came from a rock.
> Well, don't be dumb as a rock sweetie!
.
 Actually, *science* teaches us that we are all children of
the stars. Since the atoms that compose our bodies were first
forged in the solar furnaces, we can all rightly claim to be
the offspring of the Aten (ie. 'Sol', the Sun).
.
 Praise Yati! :D
.
>> tx: <snip> You do not have to be an expert in theology
>> to think clearly about what the scriptures proclaim, or
>> about what they don't proclaim. All it requires is paying
>> attention to the text!
.
> Please texty, pay attention to the TEXT. Elohim brought out
> of nothingness all that is through His word. I think you
> will find the answer to "is God a trinity?" in His creation.
.
 Oh yeah?
.
> Get your cute little nose out of your book and *look around*.
.
 I'm looking, but I still don't see any Trinity in creation.
Except for the one inside our very skulls. So does our
tri-partite brain prove the reality of the Trinity? Hardly!
.
 [snip remainder]
.
       - the one with a cute BIG nose – textmann ;>
.
P.S. "If you will not believe, surely you shall
         not be established!" -- Isaiah 7:9
x

+
/ Subject > Re: Is Jesus Like God? [#21] / 16March03 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /
/ Forum TOL General Theology > Anti-Triunitarian proof texts /
.
         I speak as to sensible people;
        Judge for yourselves what I say.
              (1Corinthians 10:15)
.
>> textman previously wrote: <snip> There is only one God for
>> the author of the Gospel According to John (and 1John), and
>> that god is the one true god, the Father, who is THE GOD!
>> Obviously there is some mistake here in the text; some
>> error that needs to be corrected. Most English versions
>> offer a solution by resorting to rhetorical trickery, and
>> rendering the phrase as 'and the Word was God' which is
>> dubbed intelligible according to trinitarian theology. But
>> since John is a monotheist, it is extremely unlikely that
>> he would refer to *anybody* else as being 'God'!
.
> On Dec1 AVmetro replied: And herein lies your great error.
> John is not referring to *two* 'gods' but two that are
> ontologically ONE God. You have a great deal more to
> "correct" if you think Jn1 is the *only* "anti-
> monotheistic" passage.
.
 textman replies: But AV, I *don't* think that Jn1:1 is an
anti-monotheistic passage. On the contrary, it is - or rather,
should be - every bit as monotheistic as everything else in
the Johannine literature; and also with the other New Testament
documents; and also with prophetic literature in general. One
might even say that the bulk of the scriptures would *favor*
John's monotheism, and therefore a trinitarian interpretation
would (by logical necessity) do violence to the spirit of the
text ... Thus it is your "two that are ontologically ONE God"
that does violence to the letter and spirit of the texts.
.
>> Moreover, this trinitarian switcheroo (which the scribes
>> and pharisees never acknowledge or explain or justify) does
>> violence to the text. It is *NOT* necessary or warranted;
>> and it is NOT justified by bogus claims that this is what
>> the author intended to say. John put the word 'logos' at
>> the end of verse one for two very good reasons: (1) he is
>> emphasizing the fact that he is saying something about
>> the logos. And (2) he is connecting this logos with the
>> declaration that immediately follows:
.
> Are you saying the Pharisees *never* believed that
> Jesus was staking divine claims?
.
 Of course I'm saying no such thing since they did clearly
believe (and with *some* justification apparently) that he
was making extravagant claims. However, this does not mean
that their collective fundy-reasoning is correct; especially
in light of Jesus' denials of just this sort of baseless
thinking. Moreover, I don't see how this question arises
from the text you're responding to, which concerns the
translation of the last clause of Jn1:1.
.
>> "THIS ONE WAS IN THE BEGINNING WITH THE GOD." -- Jn1:2
>> So the problem clearly resides in the second word of the
>> troublesome phrase: 'and - was the Word'. Obviously the
>> missing term in this statement ought to be a descriptive
>> adjective of some sort; some Greek term that resembles
>> 'theos'. In fact, there is one like this: 'theios'. If
>> we use this term we get: "And divine was the Word."
>> So now we have two options:
>> "AND THE WORD WAS GOD" or "AND DIVINE WAS THE WORD"
.
> And the 5000+ manuscripts support ... which?
.
 I'd say that most of the early Greek witnesses are forever
stuck somewhere between; since they certainly do NOT support
the editorial habit of arbitrarily shuffling words in order
to "improve" it just so. But most modern English versions
support the one that favors non-biblical theology AND does
violence to the letter and spirit of John's Gospel!
.
>> How do we decide which of these is right? By determining
>> which one better expresses the thoughts and intentions
>> of the author. And also by determining which of the two
>> alternatives does the least violence to the text. And
>> by deciding which of the two readings better solves the
>> awkward problem posed by the raw (and slightly altered)
>> Greek text. Remember that by pulling their little literary
>> switch, the translators are implicitly acknowledging that
>> the text needs correction, that there is something wrong
>> with the text as it is. Why else would they "improve" the
>> meaning by moving key terms around? If John had wanted to
>> say 'and the Word was God', what prevented him from doing
>> so? Was John unable to place the words in the correct order
>> for himself? Wut? Was he not inspired enough maybe?
.
> This a little more than assertive.
.
 Does this imply some flaw in my reasoning?
.
> It also carries in your own presuppositions and
> misrepresents what Trinitarians believe.
.
 Since there is no representation of trinitarian beliefs in
this passage, I fail to see how I could misrepresent them
when I am talking only about the actions of the translators.
.
> Read the article provided by the link to see several of
> your presuppositions handled.
.
 So then you are well able to say that my reasoning and
conclusions are all wrong, it's just that you can't quite
show us *where* my errors are, or *how* my conclusions are
faulty. That's about the size of it, right AV?
.
>> You can see now why all the little websites and commentaries
>> of the scribes and pharisees never explicitly mention that
>> they had to move a few words around in order to get the
>> English version just so. No. They are in too much of a
>> hurry to show how John only *seems* to be a monotheist, but
>> is in reality a faithful trinitarian like unto the masses.
>> They are hoping that ignorant bible-readers will never
>> notice their literary sleight-of-hand, their little trick
>> with smoke and mirrors, because once anyone notices it (ie.
>> notices that something's amiss), then many questions may
>> be asked that are exceedingly embarrassing (not to mention
>> difficult to answer)!
.
> This is quite a misrepresentation of scholars AND
> Trinitarianism. Monotheism is *precisely* what we expect
> and desire. Are we to say that the Holy Spirit is not
> "God" because it is stated to be "with" God? No. They
> are ontologically united. Ditto on Jesus Christ.
.
 This line of reasoning, it seems to me, can only lead (more
or less directly) to the Trinity. If the HS is regarded as an
independent person who is also somehow "equal" to both the
Heavenly Father and the Eternal Son (who are also deemed
equal), then it makes sense to adjust the Godhead in just this
way, since a Binary-Deity is more "off-balance" than a Triune-
Deity! It's true. Many of the world's religions are quite
fond of sorting gods and things into groups of three. It's an
old and strong "universal human quality" that stems from, and
reflects, the three-layered structure of the human brain,
which (in turn) expresses itself within the context of our
daily lives in three different processes or "modes of life"
-> instinct, emotion, awareness.
.
 Are you still with me? The theological ramifications of all
this are surely VERY relevant to all bible-students who may be
wondering if there may be a kind of "latent trinitarianism"
built into the texts, and thus reflecting the triune nature
of human beings. If this were so, then there *might* be some
validity to the argument that while the NT documents are not
*explicitly* trinitarian, they do *imply* it, and may even
logically require it ... Therefore the Trinity is true!
Father, Son & Holy Spirit: three gods for the price of one!
How convenient is that? :)
.
 But now I must dissent, for it seems to me that the New
Testament documents do NOT contain any latent or hidden
trinitarianisms. Certainly there is some (late) talk of
Father, Son, and Spirit (in a clear order of descent, we
should note), but to jump from this merely listing type of
behavior to the conclusion that God is 'one god in three
persons' is an extremely radical logical *and* theological
leap. A 'leap of faith', maybe? Perhaps. But it is a leap
that leaves the scriptures far *far* behind.
.
 For example, the Holy Spirit may or may not be a person, but
to treat Her as Lord and God equal to the Father and the Son,
while at the same time subordinate to both Father and Son is
both irrational and contrary to scripture. The same goes for
the Son. The Logos cannot be both less than *and* equal to
the Father. Jesus' testimony in the scriptures is clear. The
Son cannot be both a prophet (or even THE prophet) and that
prophet's God at one and the same time.
.
 "The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in
himself; the one who does not believe God has made him a liar,
because he has not believed in the testimony that God has
testified concerning his Son" (1Jn5:10). What the NT means
by 'son of god' is just this: Son of God. What Trinitarians
mean by 'son of god' is just this: God the Son. Notice any
difference here? You should! For the difference is the
difference between truth and idolatry. "And the Spirit is the
one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth" (1Jn5:6).
.
 Do not forget that the concept of the Trinity (three co-equal
and co-eternal divine persons) took *centuries* to develop
before it was finally installed in a creed that was universally
imposed upon all believers. It took time for Jesus to be
elevated to full godhood. It took time, and a lot of rampant,
irrational piety, for the majority of believers to accept that
'god the son' was a valid understanding of 'son of god'.
.
 And it took even longer for the Holy Spirit to attain that
exalted plateau. And rightly so, for this whole way of dealing
with the Spirit is, it seems to me, fundamentally wrong-headed,
and perhaps even more than a little bit absurd. You ask "Are
we to say that the Holy Spirit is not God because it is stated
to be 'with' God?" I would say that the Spirit is divine
because it is *of* God. The Spirit is sent by the Father and
his Word to be with us, to be 'the power of God with us'.
.
 But this does not mean that the Spirit is a static and
disconnected entity that can be radically distinguished from
God. Rather, the Spirit is an active force, a still small
voice in the night, a living reality within us, within the
larger context of our lives, our world, and our history.
.
         - the semi-disconnected one - textman ;>>
.
P.S. "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the
spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false
prophets have gone out into the world" (1Jn.4:1/NETbible).
x

+
/ Topic > Re: Is Jesus Like God? [#22] / 20March03 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /
/ TOL Forum > General Theology > Re: Is Jesus Like God? [#21] /
.
          A Half-Baked Refutation of Trinity
.

 "But you are not to be called 'Rabbi', for you have one
Teacher, and you are all brothers and sisters. And call no one
your father on earth, for you have one Father, the one who is
in Heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher', for you have
one teacher, the Anointed One." -- Mt.23:8-10/Prophet Version

.
> On March18 St_Michael_1966 sayeth: The Divinity of Christ
> Christ's divinity is shown over and over again in the NT.
.
 textman rudely interrupts: Stop right there, saint Michael!
Now this is a most curious opening because according to my
investigations, the supposedly 20 (or 30 (depending on who
you ask :)) or so NT verses that "clearly" (ie. more or less:)
proclaim the divinity of our good Lord and Teacher, Jesus
Christ, can actually be boiled down to a mere handful (ie.
about a half-dozen).
.
 Those who are eager to dispute this established literary
factum of the Greek scriptures really ought to investigate the
matter *thoroughly* before giving vent to much melodramatic
protestations! Having said that, we may turn our attention
(ever so briefly, alas) to the meaning and significance of
this divine handful. And also bear in mind that this question
ought *ALWAYS* to be addressed *before* any examination of
the verses in question begins. Michael here (properly) addresses
this issue at the start by (very IMproperly) DENYING that
there are, in fact, only about a half-dozen in all.
.
 Now Michael here *does* manage to latch onto a good portion
of these ever-so-controversial verses, and therefore we can
rightly conclude that he cannot be ENTIRELY off-track. hahaha
Sorry, saint m :) But what interests me is that you left out
some pretty good ones (eg. Jn.1:1 and Rom.9:5). One can only
wonder at this curious omission; ie. in light of your
inclusion of copious non-biblical Christian literature ... ?
.
 Anyway, as eye was trying to say, the raw fact that there
are only about six such verses actually says a lot, in and of
itself. Considering the importance of the matter (for Faith
and doctrine etc) we should wonder why there are not, oh, about
a thousand or so such statements within the pages of the New
Testament. This is what reasonably can be expected given the
all but universal nature of the "knowledge" that it must be so
that Jesus is God. But the NT *nowhere* puts the matter *that*
bluntly; and this too is contrary to expectations!
.
 But there is no great mystery here really, for the reason why
there are not thousands of such declarations is simply that
the idea itself only achieved written expression in the first
half of the second century. And this *ALSO* must be considered
a significant historical and literary fact. You see, the thing
about the scribes and pharisees, and all the many MANY fundies
who follow eagerly after them, is that they just LOVE to
ignore and despise and reject and shit-upon these "minor"
and "trivial" and "meaningless" tiny-little-DETAILS. Oh yes
they do! And if you don't believeth the cyber-prophet, then
I'd advize-yaz to check it out for yourselves. 
.
 Hey, did we go off track AGAIN? You see, dear reader, how
complicated this issue can get; and we haven't even begun to
look at the divine-verses themselves! Sheesh. It's really no
wonder that the scribes and pharisees have had their way with
the People of God for so many many centuries. Enslaving them
really (when you come right down to it), with their carefully
crafted lies and illusions.
.

 "But woe to you experts in the law and you Pharisees,
hypocrites! You keep locking people out of the kingdom of
heaven! For you neither enter nor permit those trying to enter
to go in. Woe to you experts in the law and you Pharisees,
hypocrites! You cross land and sea to make one convert, and
when you get one, you make him twice as much a child of hell
as yourselves! Woe to you blind guides, who say, 'Whoever
swears by the temple, it is nothing. But whoever swears by
the gold of the temple is bound by the oath.' Blind fools! ...
<snip remainder> -- Mt. 23:13-17 / NETbible>

.
 Oh, don't get me started, U! [timeout for steam-venting] 
.
 Anyway, the point is that given the reality of the social and
literary and historical development of the idea that Jesus is
God (ie. that 'son of god' means 'god the son'), it could
perhaps be sensibly argued that even *one* clear statement of
the Lord's divinity is enough to establish the fact of it for-
evermore. But this possibility could exist ONLY if there is no
question as to its authenticity (by which I mean that it came
directly from an inspired NT author, and NOT from some later
scribe or editor).
.
 So okay, when we turn (finally) to our short-list of divinity-
proclaimers, we find that half of them (the FIRST half, of
course) all come from John's gospel! There's also one from
Hebrews, and one from Romans. Now we have already dismissed
Rom.9:5 on the basis that the original verse has been altered
by way of a scribal addition of foreign (ie. non-Pauline)
material. We have also already disposed of several others on
the basis of faulty interpretations that fail to take into
account the reality and significance of BAD GRAMMAR! We have
also already dealt with the alleged evidence in John's gospel
(see the earlier articles in this thread for details), and
concluded that the entire prophetic gospel of John offers very
little or no evidence for Trinity OR the 'equality' of Christ.
.
 So where does that leave us? With one maybe two verses that
may or may not be authentic, that may or may not be the result
of bad grammar, that may or may not be misunderstood and/or
misinterpreted. In other words, these Trinitarians make a great
noise in their impressive show, but once the critical-curtain
comes down they are finally left holding an empty bag as far as
the NT goes. For the NT is remarkably consistent and insistent
that the prophet from Nazareth is the Anointed One.
.
 That is what the NT proclaims. That is the meaning of the
Good News of salvation through faith and love. But what is
this so-called "Anointed One" exactly? The scriptures tell
us; the NT authors interpret it as meaning 'Lord' and 'Son
of God'. And both these titles suggest a movement toward
divinity, such that a man becomes a man-plus, a man with
more-than-man, a divine-man or a super-prophet, if you will.
.
 And all of this is perfectly legitimate biblical theology for
it is, as it were, an unfolding of the meaning of the concept
contained in this 'Anointed One'. For the One who is Anointed
is the one who is anointed and/or baptized with the Holy
Spirit. Thus the man who has the divine spirit of the One-God
IS the MAN-divine or 'god-with-us'. So fine. Jesus is like God.
This is the thinking of the vast majority of the NT authors;
although they express it in various ways (of course).
.
 *THEN* along comes John to confuse the issue, and upset the
theological applecart, by making VERY *extremely* extravagant
claims, and turning the meaning of Messiah completely upside
down, such that Jesus is not so much a MAN-divine as a DIVINE-
man. What this means is that instead of a situation where
humanity puts on divinity, we now have a situation where
divinity puts on humanity. Thus Jesus is not just a man
transformed by spirit, but actually a divine-eternal-cosmic-
entity, divesting himself of his divine attributes, his 'glory'
(as John puts it), in order to manifest, incarnate, reveal,
BECOME human-being so as to reveal the existence and nature
of the one true God, who is the Big Cosmic Daddy, whose
nature is spirit and truth and love ...
.
 So this is what John means by Jesus being like unto God. That
the 'son of god' is not merely "poetically" or "metaphorically"
applicable to Jesus Christ, but rather that it means that Jesus
is literally and actually *the Son of the God* (ie. a divine
being, an only-begotten son, but yet not equal to THE God) who
is *thereby* like unto the one true God. Not by adoption, but
by generation, is this Jesus the logos-man.
.
  But is all this bizarre twisting-about behavior *really* an
improvement over the more traditional (and sensible!) concept
of Messiah as 'the MAN-divine'? For now we have gone a *long*
way toward making Jesus so alien, so super-human that he
becomes un-human, a mere appearance of humanity, a god
posing as a human; like Zeus is said to have done on previous
occasions. It is an awfully BIG risk for any Christian author
to take, for it puts the Faith itself in grave danger!
.
 Maybe he should have left well enough alone, for it is only a
small theological step from here to full blown Trinitarianism.
But it is a step that John himself does NOT take! And that is
why John is willing to take such foolish risks. Why? Because
he feels the ultimate payoff will be worth it. How so? Well,
it all hinges on the fact that Jesus brings humanity and
divinity together; and this only happens because this radical
unity is possible through the Word, in spirit and in truth.
.
 In other words, John has taken the man-spirit and added a new
element such that we now have an entirely new creature, the
logos-man-spirit. Spirit and Logos. Logos and Spirit. These
are not two separate and distinct powers, or beings, or
entities, or emanations, or manifestations, or what-nots.
They are essentially the same thing. This is the secret: that
divinity and humanity are, at the core, the same thing!
.
 Thus Jesus is NOT a super-man from another planet. He is
not an alien freak having nothing in common with us. Rather,
he IS us. He is IN us. A part of our essential nature. The
true meaning of humanity. In spirit, in truth, and in love,
wherever and however these things manifest and express
themselves in and through the concrete business of our daily
lives, *there* is the Lord. For *there* is unity with God
through Jesus Christ the Word. *There* is salvation and
forgiveness and harmony and life eternal. *There* is the
meaning and goal and fulfillment of the Faith. For *there*
alone is true and authentic Being realized!
.
 Wowzers! 
.
 So then the issue is NOT the *divinity* of Christ, but rather
the alleged *equality*; for it is this latter idea upon which
is built the concept of the Trinity. But is this distinction
necessary and/or important? It is; in so many ways. For
example, in order for the Messiah to function effectively and
realistically as mediator between God and Man, he would have
to be, you know, somewhere *between* God and Man. Hence
the original understanding of Jesus as the MAN-divine. Now John
flips things around so that Jesus is the DIVINE-man, but he
does not violate the integrity of the Messiah's nature and
function. Jesus is still the Mediator and Teacher between
God and Man. Unity manifests as harmony, not equality!
.
 In this way, the monotheism of the scriptures as a whole is
preserved intact, albeit slightly more complicated. And in this
way also, the humanity of Christ is somewhat compromised, but
not fatally wounded. However, and this is the crucial point,
the Trinity does away with ALL of this by reducing the meaning
of Anointed, Messiah, Mediator, Prophet, etc etc, to trivial
insignificance in the face of the glorious majesty of Trinity
(a three-headed God that mediates itself)! Moreover even, the
entire theological achievements of the inspired authors of the
Greek-scriptures are reduced at a stroke to dust and ashes.
.
 Then again, what the hell do I know? I'm just a poor ignorant
old man who was dropped on his head once too often. Tell you
what. Forget I said it. Just forget the whole damn thing, and
go back to the simple-questions and simple-answers that the
scribes and pharisees have been feeding you since, gosh I
don't know, since all eternity maybe!?!?
.
       - the almost over-whelmed one - textman ;>
.
P.S.  ... to be continued ... you better believe it, baby!
X