Is Jesus Like God?
CONTENTS:
Is
Jesus Like God? / Re: Jesus IS God!
On
How to Spank a Fundy
On
the Urgent Need to Speak Plainly
More
Translating the Word
Trinity-Son or Logos-Son?
Double,
Double, Toil & Trouble!
WARNING:
P52 Fallout Ahead!
Casting
Off the Yoke of the Pharisees
The
Smilaxian Blues / More Smilaxian Blues
Three
on
the Rocks / Do Our Beliefs Really Matter?
How
Translating Necessarily Involves Judgment
Prayer
for modera-TOR Needed Now!
The
Key to the New Testament (+1)
A
Desperate Appeal for Sound Judgment
Borrowed
Wisdom Found Wanting!
Re:
Is Jesus Like God? [#20 & 21]
A
Half-Baked Refutation of Trinity
Is Jesus Like God?
[Or:
How Annie Gets a Severe Spanking!]
/
Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.apologetics, alt.bible.prophecy /
/ Forum > TheologyOnline: Philosophy ~ Religion
/ Date > 22 Oct 2002 /
"My goal is that their hearts, having been knit together in love, may be encouraged, and that they may have all the riches of full assurance in their understanding of the knowledge of the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this so that no one will deceive you through arguments that sound reasonable." -- Colossians 2:2-4Dear Cyber-Saints, thanks to a very nice (and very pretty) Fundy-Lady on TV (who just happens to have the same initials as the one-who-shines, btw), I've been lately looking into the New Testament epistle called Colossians. So let us call this lady Annie, and let us suppose that her level of critical awareness holds rock-steady at absolute zero. Now Annie (like most uncritical fundies) holds the absurd opinion that each and every single word in the Bible is inspired; which I take to mean that each and every word (regardless of its actual historical genesis) is *equally* inspired. Why? Because they *all* come directly from God (ie. the actual authors, writers, copiers and editors are merely mindless secretaries in no way resembling human beings). Logically then, no verse or page or chapter or book can be considered any more valuable or revelatory or "better" than any other. The scriptures are thus uniformly and consistently divine, free of all error and all hint of error, thereby conferring inerrancy and infallibility upon the whole of the text (and all its parts), because the Bible is One etc etc.
.
That's the general idea anyway; in practice, however, the fundies routinely treat (for example) the New Testament as vastly superior to the Old Testament. How they justify this blatant contradiction within the narrow confines of their dark and rigid minds, I'm sure I have no idea. But it's obvious that they are drawn especially to those verses that seem to support their pious theological preconceptions. For example, it is clear that Annie (who considers herself an inspired exegete) "knows" that Jesus is God because the New Testament teaches us that very fact: "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form ..." (Col.2:9/NIV). Now this does not necessarily mean that Jesus is God, or even equal to God (ie. the author of Colossians - definitely NOT Paul - nowhere makes such absurd fundyfied claims), yet the fundies (in the darkness of their ignorance and unknowing) take it to mean exactly that, and nothing else. But we shall not argue against this interpretation here, since it seems quite plain to us that for the author of Colossians (as for the New Testament in general) God is the Father, period.
.
Now since the author of Colossians is clearly not a fundy (Tyndale (in 16C) was the first true fundy), we are perfectly justified in our scornful skepticism of the silly hermeneutics surrounding this epistle. Thus a key verse in Colossians (from the fundy perspective) is 1:15 -> "He [ie. Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation" (NIV). But this is a very curious verse in that the first clause is taken (by many) to be a clear affirmation of Christ's divinity, while the second clause is taken (by us) as a clear denial of that same claim that Jesus IS God. Nor is it at all irrelevant that the early churches later on specifically denied this idea that Jesus is the "first-born" (chiefly because it hampered the bishops affirmation that Jesus is God). So I guess that the early churches (like the fundies today) know better than the clear statements of the sacred texts. So much for their hypocritical claim that every word is equally inspired of God. Maybe some words are more equal than others; (especially those that fundies suppose support their pious delusions).
.
Thus Annie's fundyfied version of the text reads: "He is the exact likeness of the invisible God ...". Now one can easily see that 'exact likeness' is far more congenial to the pious stupidities of scribal-christianity than the vague and nebulous term 'image'. Among the early Greek churches there was quite a big stink over this very question of 'likeness'. Just what does 'likeness' mean, exactly? Does it mean that Jesus was "merely" like (ie. similar) unto God? Or does it mean that Jesus and God share the same divine essence and nature? ... I'm sure I don't need to tell the reader how that controversy turned out, since its results are well summed up in the word 'exact' which is used to qualify the 'likeness' to the end of clearly denying that Jesus was merely "like" unto God. Technically, however, 'image' is the better translation of the Greek term actually used by the inspired author.
.
Thus the fundies are not only not above dismissing those texts that are offensive to their arrogant and self-serving piety, but they are also not above deliberately distorting the inspired text in favor of their supposedly even more inspired interpretations. In other words, the essence of this popular post-modern Christianity is nothing other than illusion, distortion, and a grossly hypocritical contempt for this very same Word of God that they otherwise worship and idolize! Therefore these thoughtless believers are like a plague upon the Faith; and it is these people that the author of Colossians refers to when he says that we should: "Be careful not to allow anyone to captivate you through an empty, deceitful philosophy that is according to human traditions and the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8 / NETbible).
P.S. "Got a nervous kind of feeling
. Got a painful yellow headache
. Every picture in every magazine's turned real
. Every face looks out and screams at me too real
. [from 'Swelling Itching Brain' by Devo]
"I will also appoint him my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth" (Ps 89:27 / NIV).
> On 22oct CATHY921 wrote: The question "Is Jesus LIKE God?" is misleading!
.
textman replies: Hi, cathy. In what way is it misleading? It is, after all, just a simple question.
And a simple question requires a simple answer . . .
.
> C: Jesus Christ is God and always will be! He WAS God when He came to earth in a body - God incarnate!
.
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*!
.
> C: HE shall judge the world -- that's what the Holy Bible says, and you'd better believe it!
.
I do believe it. My question to you is this: Is Jesus incapable of judging the world if he is
not on equal terms with God Almighty? And if not, why not?
.
> C: "Thy Word is forever settled in Heaven"..!
.
Right. 'Thy Word' being here the Eternal Logos.
.
> C: "Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Christ is Lord".
> (Better sooner than later, dear reader) ...
.
Is "Christ is Lord" the functional equivalent of "Christ is God"? Does 'Lord' necessarily and logically imply 'God'? Why?
.
> C: Christ shall reign King of Kings and Lord of Lords!!
.
Jesus does not have to be God in order to be King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He only has to be the "first-born". In this way Jesus remains *fully* human while yet retaining an aspect of the divine. But the idea that Christ is 'God incarnate' does away with the idea that Jesus was a normal man. To say, as the early bishops did, that Christ was both God and Man *equally* is sheer nonsense, since there is *NO* equality between God and Man, but rather a huge gulf that hides God from our sight completely, such that only the eyes of faith can ever so dimly see the features of God in Jesus.
.
To the ancient Greeks, it was no big deal to say that some famous person or hero was a 'Son of God' (in the sense of demi-god, half-human and half-divine). And it was inevitable that Jesus would be seen this way. Once this step was taken, the pressure of mounting piety would eventually elevate the demi-god to full divine status. Thus was Jesus' original insight of God as Father transformed into a theological-god that was three gods in one god. 1=3? 3=1? Oh yes; and never mind the obvious contradictions! It was said to be a mystery, and we, poor sods that we are, are just too Stupid & Sinful to understand it.
.
Right!
.
... Show me where in the Bible the word 'trinity' can be found, and *THEN* we'll have some basis for claiming that this is a biblical doctrine. Otherwise I'll just stick to biblical teachings that can actually be found within the sacred texts, rather than those allegedly biblical doctrines that are placed therein by mindlessly pious interpreters who obviously know better than the inspired authors themselves, since they alone know what God *really* meant to say! Please Lord, save the Faith from pious fundies who, in their colossal arrogance, think that they *KNOW* the mind of God ...
On How to Spank a Fundy
/ Subject
> Re: Is Jesus Like God? #3 / Forum > TheologyOnline: Philosophy ~ Religion
/ 30 Oct 2002 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.apologetics, alt.bible.prophecy /
"Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; They will seek me diligently, but will not find me.
Because they hated knowledge, And did not choose the fear of the LORD.
They would not accept my counsel, They spurned all my reproof" (Proverbs 1:28-30).
.
>> textman previously wrote: Is Jesus Like God? <snip>
.
> On 23Oct the rabid and demented fundy who dares to call himself 'scholar' wrote:
> Hebrews 1:2-3 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also
> he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things
> by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high ...
.
textman replies: A few things to note here. Firstly, 'these last days' were two thousand years ago! Accordingly, believers should not be tempted to put a literal spin on such sayings. Secondly, note that God made the worlds (why the plural here?) by way of the Son, an idea that is later used in John's prologue to the gospel. Thirdly, 'brightness of his glory' suggests light, which in turn suggests truth; while the 'image of his person' suggests that Jesus reflects the substantial essence of the Heavenly Father (ie. his loving personality), and should not be taken as support of the idea that Jesus is the incarnation or manifestation of the Father. That the Son is a unique person distinct from the High Majesty is made plain in two ways: (1) 'the word of his power' rather than 'the power of his word' suggests that the Son is God's creative word. (2) 'sat down on the right hand' shows that the Son is both with God, but also subordinate to God. All in all then, we seem to be perfectly justified in understanding this passage from Hebrews in terms of our Johannine-based Logos christology. In other words, there is nothing here that can be taken as support for fundy extremism.
.
> scholar: Jesus is the express image of God the Father's person.
.
Right. Provided, of course, that we do not understand by 'image' something like 'clone' or 'duplicate' or 'copy'.
Jesus can be his own person while still imaging the Father.
.
> John 14:9-10 "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?
> he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;
.
Right. Jesus is the mediator between God and humanity. Through him the nature and person of God
are revealed to the eyes of faith ... but ONLY to the eyes of faith!
.
> and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?
.
In other words, without faith you cannot see that God and Jesus are connected in various ways (ie. will, intention, purpose, etc); but this should not be misunderstood to mean that they are a unity (ie. in the sense of being a single unit). For example, the saying that "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) can easily be taken (by careless readers) to mean that God and Jesus are a single unit, that therefore they are the SAME person and being, although appearing to us in different modes. In this line of thought, Jesus IS the Father, is the direct incarnation and manifestation of God! But believers should not be persuaded by such seemingly sensible reasoning (that so well flatters pious emotions), but rather they should ask themselves what the inspired author meant by these words, not what some brain-damaged fundy supposes them to mean. In other words, the full and true meaning of any verse from John must be understood within the context of the prophetic gospel as a whole, and without succumbing to the temptation to import notions and ideas that are utterly alien to John's own manner of thinking.
.
> the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."
.
The source of the power of the divine Logos is God the Father.
.
> scholar: Definition of fundamentalist: A fundamentalist believes in these fundamental doctrines
> of the Christian faith: The infallibillity and literal truth of the Bible as God's inspired Word.
.
So then fundies DO believe that the Holy Bible is perfect and infallible because they are unable to distinguish between the Eternal Logos and the scriptures. For them the Logos is a *material* reality, whereas the scriptures proclaim the Word as a *spiritual* reality. In other words, the scriptures nowhere require us to hold this absurd belief in the inerrancy and infallibility of the scriptures; but the fundies would have us believe that our salvation depends upon our holding this recently invented belief, and indeed that we cannot even claim to be Christians unless we affirm this gross bibliolatry!
.
> [This can only apply to the real Bible, since the market is flooded with fake modern Bible versions
> that have had the words changed. The real Bible in English is the King James Version.]
.
A version that ALSO changes words without justification. 4X: the change from 'Jacob' to 'James', which was accomplished chiefly in order to please the King of England; and the change from 'slave' to 'servant' (in the same verse, Jm1:1) which was done so as to avoid giving offense to the ignorant (who do not know that the Christian meaning of 'slave' is 'prophet').
.
> The Virgin Birth and complete Deity of Jesus Christ.
.
The virgin birth notion comes from Matthew's gospel, where the author went to great pains to show that Jesus was the fulfillment of the scriptures. Thus in Mt.1:22-23 he says: "This all happened so that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet would be fulfilled: 'Look! The virgin will conceive and bear a son' ...". But when we turn to the prophet just referred to, here is what he actually says: "For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, the young lady over there is about to conceive, and will give birth to a son" (Isaiah 7:14). In other words, the entire virgin birth doctrine is based on a bad translation of the original Hebrew verse. Thus Matthew was wrong to invent (on the basis of a faulty translation) this fictitious story of the virgin birth, and therefore believers are IN NO WAY bound to uphold it (not even on pain of eternal damnation)! As to the "complete Deity of Jesus Christ", this idea is even less biblically based than the virgin birth fantasy.
.
> The physical ressurection of Christ and all dead.
.
I affirm the former, but the latter leaves much to be desired.
.
> The atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world, that Jesus did when He was crucified.
.
Jesus did not come to die, he came to reveal the Father ("to witness to the truth", as John puts it). This is an important point because there are now many believers who seem to think that the Lord's death is more important than his life! I am not one of these, for the simple reason that the God of Jesus Christ is in no way consistent with the blood-thirsty cosmic monster who demands human sacrifice for some absurd abstract entity called "the sins of the world"! The early believers can be forgiven for inventing the disgusting doctrine of the Atonement (for the crucifixion was a great embarrassment unto them), but post-modern believers don't have that excuse.
.
> The Second Coming of Christ in bodily form.
.
I have no problem with this doctrine (ie. it is irrelevant to our salvation).
.
> Fundamentalists are the real Bible believing Christians.
.
No they aren't. Fundies don't believe in the bible as much as they believe in their own interpretations of it; which interpretations they believe to be infallible and inerrant (according to the depth of their vanity). This is because the fundies are unable to distinguish between the raw text and its interpretation, between the spirit of the Word and the letter thereof, between fantasy and reality, between history and story, and so forth. As further proof that fundies do not believe the Bible, consider that the scriptures proclaim the reality and necessity of the prophets (even in the NT yet), while the fundies (being entirely contrary to scripture) blatantly deny it, even as they dare to claim that their denial is justified by the scriptures! Now look here. We have to be clear in our thinking about these matters. The essence of the Faith does not reside in creeds and doctrines, nor in the magical thinking of priestcraft, nor in the blind acceptance of everything that the scriptures proclaim. No indeed:
.
"It seems to me a most mournful hypothesis, that of quackery giving birth to any faith even in savage men. Quackery gives birth to nothing; gives death to all things. We shall not see into the true heart of anything, if we look merely at the quackeries of it; if we do not reject the quackeries altogether; as mere diseases, corruptions, with which our and all men's sole duty is to have done with them, to sweep them out of our thoughts, as out of our practice. Man everywhere is the born enemy of lies." -- Thomas Carlyle, 'On Heroes and Hero-Worship', p.5-6.
.
The first thing, then, the chief thing - as the Lord has said - is to have faith in God. And one does not even have to be a Christian to accomplish this. Jews and Muslims are able to do this, and even some Hindus and Buddhists. Thus the vast majority of the world's population are believers to that extent; and that is all well and good in the eyes of the Father of Lights. What distinguishes Christian believers from all the others is our knowledge that God is best revealed in and through Jesus Christ. He is the way, the truth, and the life. In being disciples of the Lord of lords, believers strive to obey his righteous commands, and so become more and more like him. But this is not a matter of doctrines, dogmas, and beliefs; for how does the claim that Jesus is God-Incarnate help us to become more like him? Does it not instead place such a deep and wide gulf between the Lord and us that it becomes impossible to even approach him? Indeed it does. But look at the Salvation Army. They do not stress doctrines and dogmas. They do not seek to separate the sheep from the goats on the basis of what people think or believe. Rather, their first priority is always to help people in need. And in thus acting out of their faith, they show us all what the practice of religion truly means.
.
> scholar: To be a Christian you must be a believer. Ephesians 2:8-9: "For by grace are ye saved through
> faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."
.
Few believers (or even unbelievers) are as boastful and arrogant as these post-modern scribes.
.
> Mark 16:15-16 "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that
> believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." If you don't believe the
> Gospel, then you will be cast into hell to suffer forever.
.
I certainly do not believe this fundy-gospel (which is a modern invention). But you, sir, must be a very reckless and arrogant baboon indeed to speak in such a way to the Lord's most favorite cyber-prophet. I must therefore consider you more than qualified to speak on behalf of the ignorant idolaters (of whom you are so obviously one). Well, I've got some 'good news' for you, pal: God is NOT a Fundy! Never was. Never will be. You should read more of the Hebrew scriptures (Tanakh) where you will soon discover just exactly what God thinks of "those who hate knowledge" (ie. fundies). For example:
.
"Yet let no one contend, and let none accuse, for with you is my contention, O priest. You shall stumble by day, the prophet also shall stumble with you by night; and I will destroy your mother. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children. The more they increased, the more they sinned against me; I will change their glory into shame. They feed on the sin of my people; they are greedy for their iniquity." -- Hosea 4:4-8 / RSV
P.S. *Spanking!* ... Yes; it's a very GOOD thing.
>> 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 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
.
"he" 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.
.
> Gen1:1 In 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 either.
.
> 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,
> and 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 / Prophet Version).
.
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
.
> ds: 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 early Greek texts, the verses you cite 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" (1Jn 5:7-8 / 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 the LIE hidden within 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 he *equal* to God. These ideas are inserted into the texts after the fact (eg. during translation and/or transmission and/or interpretation).
.
> ds: 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 divine was the Word" (Gospel of John 1:1 / PV).
.
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 just 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 say, "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 / NETbible). 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! ...
.
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 / Prophet Version). 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 (ie. John is very much aware of the gospels of Mark and Matthew).
.
"... 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 biblical 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 bad 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 merely 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 ...
.
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. Therefore 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!
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.
More Translating the
Word
/ Subject
> Re: Is Jesus Like God? #5 / Forum > TheologyOnline: Philosophy ~ Religion
/ 9 Nov 2002 /
/ Newsgroups
> alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy
/
> 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 might be 'and a god was the Word'. But since this translation 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 greek 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 make 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 historical 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.
.
> freeontheinside: 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 in the texts. 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.'" -- Gospel of John 20:16-17 / 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 (catholics and the like) who practice the idolatry of priestcraft. Then there are your fundy types who practice bibliolatry (by deifying the scriptures). 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 foolishness 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!*
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 . . .
] 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-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 smelly 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 John
> 20:17], 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!
P.S. "Harmonization of scrupture is not necessarily rightly dividing the word of truth!" -- Romans1311 (09Nov02)
