+
On the Urgent Need to Speak Plainly
.
/ Subject > Re: Is Jesus Like God? #4 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /
/ Forum > TheologyOnline: Philosophy ~ Religion / 02Nov02 /
.
>> textman previously wrote: Where in the scriptures do you
>> find the words "Jesus is God incarnate"? If you cannot
>> produce the chapter and verse, then we can surely assume
>> that this is only your *interpretation*! <snip>
.
> On Oct30 ds ([email protected]) replied: "they shall call his
> name Emmanual, which being interpreted is, GOD WITH US"
> --MATTHEW 1:23
.
textman answers: More matthean encrustations here apparently.
Just what are you saying here, ds? Are you not aware that our
Lord's name was (and still is) 'Joshua'? I think Providence
made that historical fact abundantly clear by way of that weird
bone-box they found. Are you suggesting that it's all a ruse?
That all the disciples went about calling him 'Emmanuel'? Who
indeed but Matthew calls him that?
.
> "...if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die
> in your sins." --JESUS CHRIST, JOHN 8:24
.
ye who?
.
> God is the only Saviour. "I, even I, am the LORD;
> and beside me there is no saviour." Isaiah 43:11 ...
> God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. II Peter 1:1
.
God saves believers through his Word. No contradiction
here. No problem here. No Trinity here.
.
> Gen1:1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
> Unto the Son he saith ... Thou, LORD, in the beginning hast
> laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the
> works of thine hands. Hebrews 1:10
.
You could also say that God created the heavens and the earth
by way of His Mighty Word, the Universal Logos, who is the Son
of God, whom we know by way of the Lord Jesus Christ. I'm not
seeing any Trinity here either, ds.
.
> God is the first and the last. "I the LORD, the first, and
> with the last; I am he" Isaiah 41:4. Jesus is the first and
> the last. Jesus said, "Fear not; I am the first and the
> last" Revelation 1:17.
.
These two verses tell us that Jesus is Lord (ie. the Word is
the firstborn), not that Jesus is (or is equal to) God in any
absolute sense. Sorry, no Trinity here.
.
> Textman it's simple either the Bible is a big hoax and the
> above scriptures lie or Jesus was God as the Bible claims.
.
You say that the Bible claims that Jesus was God, but none
of the verses you've provided above actually makes that
claim, ds. What gives? Or rather, where’s the beef?
.
> This is not doctrine, it is the truth or it is a lie.
> If you don't believe it, Jesus is of no effect to you,
> ye are yet in your sins.
.
ye is me?!? Okay, ds, I'll tell you what, you show me where in
the bible it says that Jesus is God, or equal to God, and I'll
believe it. Go ahead; make my day! :) In the meantime, let us
now consider your declaration that if I don't believe that
Jesus is God then he (ie. JC) is of no effect to me. Let us
first ask the Word for a clue. Yo Logos, wutz the Word, man?
.
... "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Anointed One has
been born of God. And everyone who loves the one who has given
birth [ie. God the Father] also loves the one who is born of
Him [ie. Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God]" (1John 5:1/PV).
.
Well! We are certainly NOT being told any lies here. The text
plainly states that *everyone* who believes that Jesus is the
Christ, the Messiah, the Anointed One, has been "born of God".
Good news indeed! And not the slightest trace of any nebulous
entity called 'trinity' in sight. Oh, wait a minute, my mistake.
I just realized that for the vast majority of pomo Christians
these words, these ideas, concepts, ideals, all mean the same
thing: Jesus=God, Christ=God, Messiah=God, Annointed One
=God, Lord=God, AND Son=God. Well, that certainly simplifies
everything now doesn't it? Problem solved! . . . duh
.
> About the trinity doctrine if it matters that much to you
.
It certainly seems to matter much to you, ds, else why
be so adamant that the 'Jesus was God' idea is biblical?
.
> read "For there are three that bear record in heaven,
> the FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: and THESE
> THREE ARE ONE." --1 John 5:7-8
.
The three bears who are one! :D So then you automatically
assume that 'these three are one' has exactly the same
linguistic and theological meaning as 'these three are one
god'? Is that right? I can see how you might want to jump to
that conclusion, but it rather strikes me as being just a tad
premature. After all, if we want to start tossing concepts
around willy-nilly, we can end up with some pretty bizarre
notions. These three are one being. These three are one person.
These three are one mind. These three are one undifferentiated
substance. These three are one functional unit appearing to us
in three distinct modes. I mean, where do you want to start?
Where do you want to stop? Shouldn't we at least start with
what the inspired author meant?
.
btw: What version are you using? According to the Greek texts,
the verses should read somewhat as follows: "Because there are
three giving testimony, the spirit and the water and the blood,
and the three are for the one" (1Jn5:7-8/PV). WOW! Talk about
losing something in the translation! If there's no Trinity in
the Greek text, the translators will just slip it into the
English version, nice and subtle-like, and hopefully no
one will ever notice this "improvement" . . . Right
.
But these verses do show us that the NT doesn't deal with the
Spirit in quite the same way that it treats the Father and Son;
that is, the texts don't force us to consider the Spirit after
the manner of a person. The Spirit is usually presented (we
might say) as a diffuse and mysterious force. It is more like
an active agency or elemental-force that is in the world but
not of it. Sort of like what we mean by saying that the 'hand
of God' took a part in some event. In that sense it is similar
to what is meant by 'Providence'. Yet all in all, I think I
like John's definition most of all: "... because the spirit
is the truth" (1Jn5:6). But in any case, there is no suggestion
that Father, Son, and Spirit are on equal terms as far as their
level of divinity goes. If anything, the Greek scriptures
clearly suggest that the Son is subordinate to the Father, and
that the Spirit is subordinate to both. Thus the NT proclaims
the Lord Jesus Christ as the son OF god. It does NOT say
that the son IS god, nor is *equal* to God. These ideas are
inserted into the texts after the fact (eg. during translation
and/or transmission and/or interpretation).
.
> Not so sure where Jesus fits in with that read John 1:14
> (... the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us ...)
.
Right. Jesus is the Son of God because the Word was in him
to such a degree that we might rightly say that Jesus was the
incarnation, manifestation, and/or personification of the
Word of God. This Logos is the firstborn, it is universal and
creative, and it is larger than Jesus and the Bible. In John's
Prologue the NT comes the closest it ever gets to asserting
the possibility of equality between Father and Son by way of
John's description of the Logos: "In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine"
(the Gospel of John 1:1 / Prophet Version).
.
Now most translations change this to read 'the Word was God'
because it thereby better accords with trinitarian theology by
immediately establishing the unity and equality of Father and
Son in terms of deity. But this intention is projected into the
text by the translators, and does not come from John. John is
here talking about the Logos in such a way as to suggest that
the Word is a divine person in close relation to God. There is
no question of equality, or latent trinitarianism, here. Thus
the 'the Word was God' reading is doubly wrong in that it
effectively obscures John's clear perception of God as the
Father, and it also confuses the issue by suggesting that
there is more than one god, or that the Father and the Word
are somehow the same undifferentiated deity-unit.
.
And this brings us right back to John 10:30 where we find this
bold declaration: "I and the Father are one." Now if we wed
this verse to the 'the Word was God' rendition of 1:1, it makes
it rather hard to avoid the conclusion that John means to say
"I and the Father are one and the same God". But this is *NOT*
what John is suggesting here, and this plain literary fact must
therefore count as more evidence of the correctness of the 'the
Word was divine' translation. It's a subtle distinction, to be
sure, but ever so important to make if we wish to understand
what the inspired author is getting at.
.
So what does John mean when he has Jesus say that "I and the
Father are one"? If not 'one god' or 'one person' or 'being'
or 'essence', then just what IS John saying? This is a fair
question, and one that is best answered by the prophetic gospel
in question. As we approach the conclusion of the gospel (which
originally ended with the last verse of chapter twenty), Jesus
is having a nice chat with the disciples, and then they make a
curious observation:
.
His disciples said, “Look, now you are speaking plainly and
not in obscure figures of speech! Now we know that you know
everything and do not need anyone to ask you anything. Because
of this we believe that you have come from God” (16:29-30/NET).
.
Did you catch that? The author is *again* stressing the vital
role of knowledge! The disciples believe that Jesus comes from
God BECAUSE they NOW know that he knows everything. And
how do they know that? Because Jesus is now *speaking
plainly* to them! . . . All I can say about all this is: WOWZERS!
.
Anyway, Jesus replies briefly to them, and then looks up
and addresses the Father in a long prayer that is of immense
importance to any proper understanding of John's thinking. He
begins the prayer by telling the Father to glorify him, and in
the midst of this brief opening he says: "Now this is eternal
life: that they *KNOW* you, the *ONLY*TRUE* God, and Jesus,
the one who has been anointed, whom you sent" (17:3/PV).
Here in a nutshell is the entire core message of John's testimony!
Why should we believe? To live, says John. And how do we gain
life? By knowing and loving the only true god, the god of the
Anointed One (who was sent by the Heavenly Father). Now
ask yourself if any of this is at all consistent with the concept
of a god who comes in three co-equal and co-eternal parts!
Let me speak plainly to the reader: There is no Trinity
lurking in verse 17:3 because there is no such notion
*anywhere* in this gospel.
.
Then Jesus prays for the disciples: "... I have given them the
words you have given me (17:8) ... Holy Father, keep them safe
by your name that you have given me, so that they may be one
just as we are one (17:11) ... I have given them your word
(17:14) ... Set them apart in the truth; your word is truth.
Just as you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the
world" (17:17-18). Are we beginning to see the connections
here? Are we beginning to gain an inkling of what John means
by 'one'? No? Then look at what Jesus says when he begins to
pray for believers: "I am not praying only on their behalf,
but also on behalf of those who believe in me through their
testimony, (17:20/NETbible)
.
Jesus is praying for *all* believers of the post-apostolic
generations, including those in John's own church, who come
to believe on the strength of the testimony of the written
gospels. John is very much aware of Mk & Mt!
.
"that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are
in me and I am in you. I pray that they may be in us,
.
Here then is our answer to the question of what John means by
saying that Jesus and God are "one". Jesus is one with God in
the sense of being in Him. In the same way, all believers are
one by virtue of being in Jesus (or rather by having Jesus
within them). And because God is in Jesus, we too are one with
God. Thus believers are one with other believers, are one with
the apostles, evangelists, and prophets, are one with the
Anointed One, and (because of all that) are also one with
God! Clearly none of this involves dragging in the unbiblical
notion of the trinity, which can only get in the way and
prevent us from hearing what the author is saying.
.
"so that the world may believe that you sent me" (17:21).
.
Might I here suggest to the reader that this last clause
is actually the chief point of this gospel?
.
17:22 "The glory you gave to me I have given to them,
that they may be one just as we are one
.
Believers are one IN THE SAME WAY that Jesus and God are one!
.
17:23 "I in them and you in me,
.
Here is your Trinity, folks!
.
"that they may be completely one,
.
God is in Jesus who is in Believers. This is the only trinity
that believers require, for herein lies our completion. If
Jesus is in us, then we are complete. We are one with God's
people, one with the Lord, and (through him) one with God. So
what need have we for anything more? What does the doctrine
of the trinity add that is missing here? Is John therefore a
heretic because he is NOT a trinitarian? What does the trinity
dogma do except to prove John a liar or a fool, or both, and
thus destroy this three-way unity [Believers <--> Jesus <-->
God] which is the very source and meaning of our lives?!
.
"so that the world may know that you sent me,
.
See what I mean about this being John's #1 idea?
.
"and you have loved them just as you have loved me."
.
God's love for Jesus is the same as His love for us! Here
then is that equality that was missing from the equation.
Anyway, the end of this prayer is also very illuminating:
.
"Righteous Father, even if the world does not know you, I
know you, and these men know that you sent me. I made known
your name to them, and I will continue to make it known, so
that the love you have loved me with may be in them, and I
may be in them” (17:25-26/NETbible).
.
Jesus thus ends his prayer by promising that that he will
*continue* to bring believers to the knowledge of God! A rather
significant verse this is when you hold it up against the *many*
ideological structures and systems (each already perfect and
complete, of course) that claim to have all the answers; a
verse that also convicts those who hate knowledge, for unbelief
is precisely the absence of any knowledge of the Word.
.
So then I hope I have made my point that the gospel of John
does NOT offer support to the post-biblical development of the
Trinitarian dogma. John *does* teach that Jesus is the Son
of God, but he does NOT teach that Jesus IS God. That is a
notion that readers project into the text, with or without
the assistance of various translations and versions that
deliberately distort and obscure what John is really saying!
.
But before we leave you, let us turn to one final objection
to our proposal that the NT does not teach a triune god. This
objection is purely non-biblical since it is based on a line
of theological reasoning that proceeds (more or less) as
follows: If Jesus/Logos was the firstborn (as both the OT & NT
testify), then there must have been a time when the Son was
not. But if the Son was not, then the Father was not either,
for the Father cannot be father without son, just as the Son
cannot be son without father. ... Are you following this?
.
Before God gave birth to the firstborn he was logically and
necessarily incomplete, and thus somehow in need (ie. because
God requires the actual, not potential, presence of the Son in
order to be the Father). But this needy God cannot be the real
God because God is the one of whom we cannot conceive anything
greater. And we certainly CAN conceive of a God who is greater
than this needy God; 4X, we can conceive of a God who is NOT
needy, etc. Therefore our needy, incomplete, and son-less
deity is *most*certainly* NOT the only true god. ... HA!
.
Now I can't say that I care very much for statements that
purport to know God's condition or thinking prior to the Big
Bang, but I have no major problems with the idea that at some
point in time God was (or even still is) "in need" of something
outside of himself, since this is just another way of saying
that our God is the 'God-in-Process', which in turn is just
another way of saying that our God is the Living God. There-
fore if God can be correctly called 'the living god' (as
the scriptures testify), then this implies that it is not
necessarily irrational or contradictory to attribute to God
some of the characteristics of all living things: change,
growth, development, needs, wants, passion, intention,
thought, will, action, personality, and so forth. Yes, our
God is indeed a passionate God! Who really would want a God
who wasn't passionate? Certainly not this worthless slave.
.
So I do not imagine that this epistle will convince anyone
who is already committed to the notion of a triune god, but I
sincerely hope that the honest bible-reader will graciously
give to John, at the very least, the benefit of the doubt,
so as to be very wary of importing into the text ideas
that are not properly his own. To indulge oneself in this
wanton importing of foreign ideas, concepts, meanings, and
perceptions, is to declare that the reader is necessarily
more inspired than the author. Talk about Dissin' the Word!
.
- one who brings forth treasures - textman ;>
.
P.S. "Man's thought and man's doubt can never cease, and he
could not think at all did he not live in the truth, the
light of God." -- from "Concerning My Philosophical Work"
by Benedetto Croce, in 'Philosophy - Poetry - History: An
Anthology of Essays by Benedetto Croce', London: Oxford
University Press, 1966.
x
+
More Translating the Word
.
/ Subject > Re: Is Jesus Like God? #5 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /
/ Forum > TheologyOnline: Philosophy ~ Religion / 09Nov02 /
.
> On Nov8 freeontheinside wrote: Textman
.
textman answers: yo
.
> I am curious what greek text you are using to get your basis
> upon John 1:1. It is ironic to me that you would use another
> translation to make a point and look down upon how fundies
> have chosen to translate the Bible.
.
Not at all. My position is that *all* the popular English
translations are *necessarily* flawed (in *widely* varying
degrees) because they are undertaken either in bad faith (ie.
with theological imperatives firmly in place), or in ignorance,
or both. Thus the Greek text I generally refer to is the one
available in the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament.
The English version of John 1:1 given here runs as follows:
"In (the) beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and God was the Word."
.
Now most English versions at once change this to read 'and the
Word was God', claiming that this highly unwarranted literary
switcheroo is a "linguistic necessity" occasioned by the move
from ancient Greek to modern English. Which it is NOT, of
course, because in the Greek scriptures the word order is
*also* very significant to the matter of translation and
interpretation. Therefore the change to 'the Word was God'
hides something that the author is trying to say. It hides the
fact that 'God was the Word' contradicts 'the Word was with
God', since how can God be with himself? It just doesn't wash
out, you see. It thus becomes "a problem" that needs to be
"solved" by resorting to a simple textual manipulation that
just happens to coincide with trinitarian theology!
.
But John is a subtle thinker, and NOT a trinitarian, and I
have every reason to believe that a better literal rendition
should be 'and a god was the Word'. But since this version is
rather difficult from both the trinitarian and monotheistic
perspectives, it might be best to rephrase into something like
'and divine was the Word' or 'and god-like was the Word'.
Either one of these is very likely a better translation of
what John intends to say than the theologically misleading
'and the Word was God'.
.
> The case in point is when you used the prophet version to
> make the point that this passage is so badly misrepresented
> by the Bible.
.
By the popular English versions of the scriptures, yes.
.
> The GNT does not translate this verse with the word divine.
> It uses the same word for God (Theos) throughout.
.
Yes, but the term is more flexible in the Greek than the
English versions allow for; especially so within the context
of John's very dramatic literary style. This is an important
point that translators conveniently (and often) overlook.
.
> I wonder do the people that translated the prophet version
> of the Bible have the agenda to do away with the divinity of
> Christ as you apparently do.
.
Since I am the people that translated the prophet version, I
can easily assure you that we have no such agenda; certainly
not in the sense of a pre-planned operation that *must* be
brought to completion. In fact, I am NOT denying divinity to
Christ. Rather, I am denying that the scriptures necessarily
teach a trinitarian understanding of what this divinity is
and implies.
.
And I would furthermore point to the Gospel of John as a
textual demonstration of this. Look how significant that first
verse is! If we read it through the translators spectacles
then the entire gospel gets funneled through this literary
distortion. But if we take that first verse as establishing
the divine nature and character of the Logos, as distinct from
equality and unity within one triune godhead, then the entire
flavor of the gospel changes dramatically! Check it out.
.
> 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!
.
> 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!
.
> It also seems hard for me to think that
> Jesus was nothing more than the divine Logos.
.
"nothing more", you say? Surely you jest. The spirit and life
of Jesus lives within believers by virtue of the fact that he
is the Logos. This is what it means (ultimately) to call him
the Anointed One, Son of Man, Christ, Lord, Son of God, etc.
Jesus lives, and Jesus saves, by virtue of the fact that the
Logos is universal, is *available* to all men and women, and
indeed enlightens *all* conscious and rational human creatures
to *some* extent. The mere fact of someone being able to talk
is a sure sign of the active presence of some small and puny
spark of the "Inner Light" (as the Quakers call it). "nothing
more" indeed! I don't think you fully appreciate the meaning
and significance of what John is teaching believers here.
.
> His claims were much more than that.
.
I *TRY* to make a clear distinction between HIS claims, and
the claims of his more literary followers who came afterward!
.
> He claimed to be God as was already pointed out to you if
> you would just have allowed your eyes to be opened to it.
.
Open to what? No one has yet shown me any bible-byte that
proves this claim without importing extravagant notions that
are not justified by the actual words used. By the way, what
does this mean?:
.
Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned and said to him in
Aramaic, "Rabboni" (which means Teacher). Jesus replied, "Do
not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father. Go to
my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and
your Father, to my God and your God.'" - John20:16-17/NETbible
.
> I certainly do not claim to be an expert in Theology,
.
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!
.
> and there are things that I do not like about the
> Fundamentalists but to go to the extreme opposite
> is wrong as well in my opinion.
.
Really? Well, let's see. As I look at the People of God around
the globe, I see that Christians basically come in three
flavors. There are your priestly types (Cats and the like) who
practice the idolatry of priestcraft. Then there are your fundy
types who practice bibliolatry. And finally there are a minority
(hardly worth mentioning) of small churches, a mixed bag of
nuts, each of whom has fastened upon some particular foolish-
ness or other. So there you go. Idolatry, sloppy thinking,
and general foolishness constitute the chief characteristics
of the Faith as it is practiced today!
.
So do I really mind going to the extreme opposite
of nonsense and quackery? ... *NOT AT ALL*
.
- the radically retro-reactionary one - textman ;>
.
P.S. Where there is no room for error, there is likewise no
room for the Spirit of Truth to move about and breathe freely,
no room for the Son-Light to enter into tightly bound-up boxes
so as to enlighten both mind and heart, no room to accommodate
new ideas, developments, and discoveries, no room for new
insights to blossom, or challenges to frustrate our energies,
no room to grow, no room to live . . .
x
+
Trinity-Son or Logos-Son?
.
/ Subject > Re: Is Jesus Like God? #6 / 10Nov02 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
/ and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /
/ Forum TOL General Theology > Anti-Triunitarian proof texts /
.
>>> cirisme wrote (on Nov2): <snip> Well, duh.
>>> The Trinity is three distinct beings.
.
>> On Nov2 Violet Day answered: Then I think we can agree
>> that Jesus is NOT the Father. And in fact was addressing
>> a completely separate individual. Therefore, I can only
>> conclude that Jesus is not God, but the Son of God.
.
textman observes: Herein lies the source of much confusion,
I think. Believers today, after being subjected to 19 centuries
of theological development and elaboration and indoctrination
regarding the awesome matter of the Holy Trinity, naturally
equate 'Son of God' with 'God' such that the former term
logically (and inevitably) implies both unity and equality in
the sense of 'three-equal-and-eternal-persons=one-god-
whereby-each-1of3-is-fully-god-etc'.
.
So then we can properly speak of there being three gods in
the sense that there are three divine persons ... as long as
we bear in mind that these three divinities must always come
together to form the one true god ... who is NOT *a* person,
but rather a community of persons! Hey, this is the glory and
mystery of the Trinity folks. I'm not making any of this stuff
up. The many countless scribes and pharisees have implanted
these notions so deeply within the minds of believers that it
is all but impossible for anyone to appreciate that someone
sitting on the back end of that long trinitarian development
(such as the author of John) might not be so skewed in his
thinking, since he had the good grace to be entirely ignorant
of that huge pile of extra-biblical theological speculations.
.
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.
.
So if some hero or king is thus a son of god (by virtue
of his achievements or accomplishments or by some innate
excellence), then he can properly be referred to as being 'a
god' (and thus get carried away by vanity), but none of this
really compromised his humanity in any serious way. 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.
All of which info is very relevant to John 20:17, I dare say!
.
> "It is significant that nowhere in the teaching of Jesus did
> He ever speak of God to His disciples as "our Father" or
> "our God." Throughout His ministry He consistently spoke of
> the Father as "the Father" or "My Father", but never as "our
> Father". (The "Our Father" of the so-called "Lord's Prayer"
> is not an exception to this inasmuch as there Jesus is
> instructing His disciples on how they should corporately
> address God in prayer.) Here [in Jn20:17], in keeping with
> His established pattern of speech, He avoided the obviously
> shorter form of expression ("our") and chose to remain
> with the longer form ("My" and "your"). I suggest that His
> concern here was to maintain the distinction between the
> sense in which He is God's Son by nature and by right and
> the sense in which His disciples are God's sons by grace
> and adoption." -- Robert Reymond, 'Jesus, Divine Messiah:
> The New Testament Witness', page 210-11
.
In other words, Reymond is suggesting that sonship is two
radically different things depending on whether we are talking
about Jesus or human beings. 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."
.
Now Reymond wants us to think that Jesus is speaking this
way in order to "maintain the distinction" (as he puts it). Yet
Jesus himself, in the previous breath, deliberately blurs
this very distinction by referring to the disciples as his
'brothers'! What is that if not a highly intimate expression
of unity with human beings? Therefore we must conclude that
Reymond's interpretation of Jn20:17 is wrong. I think Jesus
is speaking this way so that John can emphasize the fact that
Jesus' Father IS "your Father", and that *this* Father (ie.
his and our Father) IS God, being his God, who is *also* "your
God"! This is the natural sense of the words that John uses
in 20:16-17, and this is the meaning that is consistent with
the whole of John's teachings in this gospel. Do not be misled
into thinking that John is actually saying something else!
.
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'!
That is the LIE that the scribes and pharisees use to cover
their weasel-tracks, and make it seem as if John is one of
their own sort. Yeah, right. Like I haven't been made to eat
more than enough baloney already yet! :(
.
- the almost over-stuffed one - textman ;>
.
P.S. "Harmonization of scrupture is not necessarily rightly
dividing the word of truth!" -- Romans1311 (09Nov02)
x
Goto LikeGod #7