Goto LikeGod #16
textman
*
+
Three on the Rocks
.
/ Subject > Re: Is Jesus Like God? [#12] / 20Nov02 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /
/ Forum TOL General Theology > Anti-Triunitarian proof texts /
.
>>> On Nov16 smilax wrote: Uh-huh. And you are imposing
>>> Unitarianism upon the text. Good job. <snip>
.
>> tx: 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).
.
> On Nov19 smilax replies: Monotheism does not equal
> Unitarianism.
.
textman say: Oops, you lost me there, smilax. Is John
teaching monotheism or unitarianism? Perhaps you had best
define both these terms for us before we proceed any further.
.
>> 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.
.
> [smilax elects NOT to comment!]
.
>> <snip> 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?!
.
> I will object when simplicity means changing doctrines.
> <snip remainder . . . for now>
.
Oh, I dare say that making the NT more readable will have
*many* positive benefits; including allowing the average
bible-reader to better distinguish between a theology that
is truly scripture-driven, and all theology that is too
artificial, too abstract, and (ultimately) too unbiblical.
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> On Nov19 JCAtheist wrote: <snip> We can only really guess at
> the connection of Christ to God - other than being the Son;
> if it was for us to know it would be spelled out a lot
> better, wouldn't you think? IMHO -- Love and Peace
.
tx: Hey JCA. Actually, it *IS* spelled out a lot better. A
very *very* lot better, IMHO. It's all right there in 1John
and John's Gospel. That's one of the reasons why John wrote
his gospel: in order to spell out this connection clearly and
plainly! It is not John's fault if today's believers approach
the word with a skull-full of pious-mush and theological
rubbish that effectively blinds them to what John is saying!
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> On Nov19 o2bwise wrote: <snip> How heavily do character of
> God understandings weight with respect to salvation?
.
tx: According to John's Gospel, our salvation hinges on *both*
knowledge and belief; or, to put it another way, on truth and
on faith. Our faith in God (as the One True God), and in Jesus
as the Anointed One. That's the easy part. We carry our faith
lightly in our hearts. But knowledge? Oy Vey! That's the hard
part, alright; for our minds love to play little tricks on us,
making idols and illusions seem like absolute truth.
.
And what does salvation consist of, anyway? A great many
things, apparently! But one thing that often gets overlooked by
the scribes and pharisees is that salvation must necessarily
involve freedom from idolatry in general, and freedom from
slavery to idols! Thus our salvation can be well-measured by
our devotion, not to creeds, or churches, or concepts, or
doctrines, or theologies, or traditions, or etc, but to TRUTH!
Not just this or that particular truth - for this is the error
of narrow minds - but rather the BIG Truth in all its forms,
in all of its countless concrete particulars. Truth can never
be contained in creeds or formulas or books. Truth abides,
yet grows. Truth develops, yet continues ...
.
Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him: "If
you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and
you will know the truth, and the truth will release you."
"We are the seed of Abraham," they answered to him, "and
have never been anyone's slaves! How can you say, 'You
will become free'?"
And Jesus answered them: "I tell you the solemn truth,
everyone who practices sin is a slave of sin. The slave
does not remain in the household forever, but the son
abides. So if the Son sets you free, you will be really
free." -- John 8:31-36 / Prophet Version
.
In other words, salvation also consists of freedom;
a freedom gained through knowledge, belief, and faith
in Jesus of Nazareth, the "word of life" (1Jn1:1).
.
> How significant compared to understanding His nature? <snip>
.
Perhaps these things ought not to be so arbitrarily separated,
for this is precisely what John is teaching us. The nature
of the One True God, says the prophetic-evangelist, is this:
life, love, light, and spirit. Frankly, I can't fathom the
thinking of these supposedly bible-believing Christians who
imagine that John is somehow in error about all this. If we
cannot trust John to give us the straight scoop about who and
what God is, why should we then turn around and embrace the
spawn of the bishops (ie. the Trinity), as if these pharisees
were somehow more inspired than the evangelist himself?!
.
Can you fully appreciate the implications of all this? Those
believers who affirm the Trinity in the face of John's very-
contrary teachings are basically saying that the early bishops
and fathers of the church are necesarily more knowing than the
word of God itself?! Where is the logic in that, eh? Somebody
please explain to me exactly HOW that works, huh?
.
- the almost completely contrary one - textman ;>
.
P.S. "It is certain my Conviction gains infinitely,
the moment another soul will believe in it." -- Novalis
x
+
Do Our Beliefs Really Matter?
.
/ Subject > Re: Is Jesus Like God? [#13] / 22Nov02 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /
.
"Our knowledge of the scriptures and the history of the
Faith determines the quality of our personal faith." -- anon
.
> On Nov20 RK ([email protected]) wrote:
> Textman, I'm no theologian,
.
textman say: Hi, Richard. That's a plus, not a minus! :D
.
> maybe you'd call me a fundy - I don't go in for labels.
.
Labels are just names, and not good or bad in themselves.
Besides, a large part of theology involves this very process
of naming things. If we name things poorly or wrongly, then
our whole thinking gets thoroughly messed up. Thus naming
things *rightly* is one of theology's most crucial tasks!
.
> I find your comments very interesting and have no doubt that
> many of the things we have come to accept about God (or even
> Jesus ;)) will not be anything like how they are in heaven.
.
Quite right. Puny finite creatures of highly questionable
intelligence (such as human beings) have scant right or
reason to lay claim to any absolute or final knowledge
about things that are (by their very nature) beyond
verification in this world.
.
> I have one question for you ...
.
Looks like more than just one to me, Richard. :(
.
> How does your understanding of Jesus in relation to
> God change the way you relate to him, and to God?
.
Well, instead of worshipping Jesus as God, I am now able to
approach the Father in a more natural I-Thou relationship,
because God is now a unique individual person (who is also
the center and goal of all things). As for Jesus, by taking the
affirmation that he is the Anointed One seriously, we are able
to put aside the remote and untouchable Cosmic Pantocrator
whom one can approach only on one's knees (ie. in abject
poverty and shame). Instead, Jesus now becomes our brother,
our teacher, our friend, our guide and comrade. So perhaps
Christians don't quite realize that conceiving of Jesus as
God seriously hampers his desire to be within us (and live
within us) as we truly and actually are. This is important
because a dishonest relationship with Jesus is worse than
no relationship at all!
.
> Do you still worship him? pray to him?
.
I now worship the Father as the One True God, in spirit and
in truth; as the Lord commands. But my prayer life has not
been seriously affected by this recovery of the biblical God.
The 'Our Father' and the 23rd Psalm still resonate as they
always did, so I'd say that theological breakthroughs need
not unduly disrupt our customary practice of the Faith.
.
> In what way does your relationship differ from the way
> in which an ignorant fundy relates to Jesus?
.
In many, and very important, ways, I should think. Ignorant
fundies conceive of Faith as an exercise in emotional piety,
such that their chief concern is to continually magnify and
glorify and idolize Jesus. So now that they have made Jesus
into the very God, they cannot push him any higher; and they
could not possibly ever settle for less than full and absolute
divinity. Jesus is thus effectively deprived of his human
nature such that it is impossible to approach him on a natural
and human level (eg. without copious cringing and groveling).
.
> In short - what difference does this all make -
> is it all a lot of words?
.
Insights, revelations, and discoveries (or in this case,
recoveries) can all be transmitted and communicated by
words, but they cannot remain there, or they will die. In order
to live, these truths (about the Father and the Son) must
be welcomed, accepted, and believed; not by churches and
institutions, but by ordinary individual believers who love
the truth. For those who love the truth are the very ones
that the One True God seeks!
.
So it does make a difference *what* we believe about God and
Jesus. But it is the practical consequences that especially
concern me. 4X: The discovery that the trinitarian doctrines
are incompatible with John's Gospel raises the possibility
that the entire contents of the NT are being systematically
distorted by this foreign imposition. If we can disentangle
ourselves from the vast conceptual scheme of the bishops, it
may well be the case that there are yet some buried treasures
lurking in the texts just waiting to be recovered. A paradigm
shift within biblical studies also becomes a real possibility.
.
Another matter of equal (or perhaps even greater) importance
is that the recovery of biblical monotheism opens the door to
mutual understanding between Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
Our faith-brothers all worship and acknowledge the same one
God, and that essential agreement could be the solid foundation
that encourages movement towards respect, equality, and perhaps
unity. And why not? For monotheism is not the only thing that
these great religions have in common.
.
All three faiths also recognize and acknowledge the reality
of the prophets, and their importance to the spiritual journey
of humankind. Of course, Christianity (as it is currently
constituted) has long since lost all real contact with the
prophets (hence the inevitability of corruption), but this is
not necessarily a permanent disability. The prophetic faith of
the early believers CAN be recovered; but only if believers
love the truth *more* than they love their grand and glorious
conceptual idols!
.
> (Really, I do want to know, I'm not having a dig.)
.
I believe you already! :)
.
- the almost expansive one - textman ;><
.
P.S. "If we receive the witness of men, the testimony of God
is greater still, because this is the testimony of God that
he has testified concerning his Son. The one believing in the
Son of God has the witness within. But the one who believes
not in God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed
in the testimony that God has testified concerning his Son."
-- 1John 5:9-10 / Prophet Version
x
+
How Translating Necessarily Involves Judgment
.
/ Subject > Re: Is Jesus Like God? [#14] / 26Nov02 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /
/ Forum TOL General Theology > Anti-Triunitarian proof texts /
.
> On Nov20 AVmetro wrote: Sorry I was away for so long...
.
textman say: Hi, AV. Don't be sorry. Be repentant! :)
.
> Textman - The way you insist that John was "mishhandled" by
> scribes and *changed* (you cited Jn1 as a prime 'example'),
> how am I to know what is correct and what is not?
.
Authenticity should be judged by various relevant factors,
of course; but chief among these ought to be a good sense of
what is consistent with John's theology and literary style.
Consider, for example, the problem with John 1:34, where
there are two very different alternatives. The majority of
the textual witnesses prefer a reading such as the following:
"And I myself have seen and have testified that this is
the Son of God" (NRSV).
.
Now the term 'Son of God' is a common Johannine expression,
to be sure, but it is unlikely that he would put this phrase
into the Baptist's mouth (eg. because the Baptist is not a
Christian). It is thus more natural and consistent to go with
a reading more like this: "I have both seen and testified that
this man is the Chosen One of God” (NETbible). This rendition
is far more likely to be the original reading because scribes
(eg. those inspired by notions of harmonization) would usually
be more motivated to upgrade the Baptist's confession than to
downgrade it.
.
So no one could be offended by the use of 'Son of God' as a
title for Jesus (hence it's popularity among translators), but
'God's Chosen One' could easily be found offensive (and hence
unacceptable) by those scribes and pharisees who understand
'chosen one' as containing an implicit threat to Jesus'
supposed virgin birth. Please notice that John makes no
mention of such an event (although the text of Mt is surely
on his desk before him); and in this case his silence cannot
logically be taken as implying assent or agreement with
Matthew's fanciful and overly-miraculous conception story.
.
Therefore, while it is generally acknowledged that the more
difficult reading is normally the more likely to be original,
in this verse (and in *many* others too) the translators, when
faced with a choice that could go either way (according the
external textual evidence), will exercise their goodly pious
judgment, and almost always make the WRONG call! And why is
that, you ask? Because the hermeneutics of the translators
is entirely lacking for even the most basic respect for the
integrity of the texts. In other words, they do not care what
JOHN might have said, or intended to say; rather, they look
for any and every opportunity to make the text say what THEY
want it to say. This is why we have translations such as the
Message Bible that are very popular, and also very *gross*
beyond all measure!
.
> The spurious passages you cited are spurious because there
> is good evidence of just that. Sparse appearance amongst
> manuscripts etc. Jn1:1 is not in this class.
.
Right. But popularity among the early textual witnesses (ie.
quality by the numbers) is no guarantee that one has found
the best rendition either. Consider John 1:18 . . .
.
No one has ever seen God. The only One, himself God, who is
in the presence of the Father, has made God known. -- NETbible
.
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,[1] ,[2]
who is at the Father's side, has made him known. -- NIV
1 - 1:18 Or the Only Begotten
2 - 1:18 Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten) Son
.
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who
is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. -- NASB
.
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.KJV
.
No one has ever seen God; the only God,[1] who is at the
Father's side,[2] he has made him known. -- ESV
1 - Or the only One, who is God; some manuscripts the only Son
2 - Greek in the bosom of the Father
.
No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son [e], who is
close to the Father's heart, who has made him known. -- NRSV
e - Other ancient authorities read 'It is an only Son, God'
or 'It is the only Son'
.
Now this example is especially relevant for two reasons:
(1) the sheer variety of readings itself creates serious
problems for students of John, since the meaning of the
verse fluctuates wildly from one version to the next! And
(2) this verse is especially significant (ie. dangerous) to
our understanding that John is a strict monotheist who would
never refer to Jesus as 'God the Son', 'only God', 'the one
and only God', or anything like that. Clearly, something is
very amiss here!
.
Of the six versions above, FIVE declare that only God has
seen God! The NIV is particularly confusing (even exceedingly
mystifying) for those believers who know and love John's
teachings. But despite the confusion, the only obvious
conclusion one can draw from 1:18 is that Jesus is God. Only
the much maligned KJV swims against the stream, and avoids
the offense against John's monotheism.
.
Well now I certainly wasn't expecting that; and you can knock
me over with a feather too! Could it be that the inferior
erasmian bible (ie. KJV) is closer to John's actual thinking
than the supposedly superior modern versions? Oddly enough,
I believe that in this case, the KJV is indeed the best
rendition among those above. But I think that we can perhaps
even improve on it somewhat: "No one has ever seen God; but
the one unique Son, the one being in the heart of the Father,
that one has explained Him" (John 1:18 / Prophet Version).
.
> You insist that the Trinity is *pagan* while all the while
> ignoring the fact that a 'god' having 'a son' is about as
> Greek/Roman and pagan as you can get! Hercules, anyone?
.
Actually, AV, I never said that the Trinity is "pagan", and
I would never so describe it because it was the bishops,
apologists, and other Church Fathers who discovered and
developed this concept; and one could not accurately describe
any of these men as pagans owing to the obvious fact that
they are Christians. It might be that some other poster
used that word, which you later assumed came from me ... ?
.
> You insist that Jesus' title as 'Son of God' delineates Him
> from being God, while at the same time not providing an
> answer as to why the Jews took this to be an actual claim
> to being God. Even blasphemy. See Jn5:18; Jn10:30; Mt26:63-
> 65; Jn19:7 (Where is this law in the OT?) etc..etc..
.
Maybe they just assumed that the title was inherently
blasphemous in that it seems to involve an implicit threat to
God's oneness. That in itself would be enough to justify a
rejection of the title. But we should remember that the 'Son
of God' title came afterwards. In his lifetime, Jesus much
preferred the more mysterious and less offensive 'Son of
Man'. He didn't even like 'Messiah' because it could very
easily lead to misunderstanding (eg. an earthly warrior-
king), and he would very probably have rejected 'Son of God'
for the same reason.
.
As for Jn19:7, see Lev 24:16: "... and one who misuses the
name of the LORD must surely be put to death. The whole
congregation must surely stone him, whether the foreigner
or the native citizen; when he misuses the Name, he must
be put to death." -- NETbible
.
> Jn8:58. If I can ever get around to finding it, I can show
> you where the Jewish rabbis considered 'ego eimi' i.e. 'I
> AM' to be a divine title. <snip remainder>
.
Right. 'I AM' is another name of Yahweh. Apparently John
wishes us to understand that Yahweh and the Logos are the
same person, and that is why Jesus can say 'I AM': "He was
in the world, and the world was created by him, but the
world did not recognize him." -- Jn.1:10/NETbible
.
- the also unrecognized one - textman ;>>
.
P.S. "God has intentionally said much in a glass darkly,
because it is not given to all to know the mysteries ...
Much is hidden from the faithful so that they will inquire
the more zealously into Scripture, and strive to achieve
clearer revelation." -- from 'Key to Sacred Scripture' by
Matthias Flacius Illyricus (1520-75)
x
Prayer for modera-TOR Needed Now!
.
/ Re: How Translating Necessarily Involves Judgment /
/ Forum TOL General Theology: Anti-Triunitarian proof texts /
.
>>> AVmetro said: Textman - The way you insist that John was
>>> "mishandled" by scribes and *changed* (you cited Jn1 as
>>> a prime 'example'), how am I to know what is correct
>>> and what is not?
.
>> textman replied: Authenticity should be judged by various
>> relevant factors, of course; but chief among these ought
>> to be a good sense of what is consistent with John's
>> theology and literary style.
.
> On Nov26 the all-wise modera-TOR called AVmetro didst say:
> "John's theology and literary style" are precisely what is
> in question here. And I doubt that it will be settled as
> everything considered to be non-genuine is supported with
> little more than assertion at best.
.
On 28Nov02 textman replies: I am truly shocked and saddened
by your negative attitude, AV! Your skepticism is so extreme
that it merges with outright cynicism and disbelief. Why
should you doubt that solutions to various textual obscurities
and mysteries cannot be found? I do not think like that. I
know that problems can be solved, and answers found, because
I have found a few answers of my own over the years, and even
solved a few problems and mysteries that have vexed countless
scholars both past and present. If others are not happy with
my answers because of some lack of "hard evidence", that is
a weakness on that end, not over here. To my way of thinking,
your approach is both illogical and counter-productive.
.
And why is that, you ask? Because History *necessarily* goes
beyond the physical evidence, AV! If you cannot accept this
basic fact of life, then there is no hope for you at all.
Oh say it ain't so! :(
.
- the excessively slow and tardy one - ttextman ;>
.
P.S. More later. Please stand by . . .
x
Goto LikeGod #16