Borrowed Wisdom Found Wanting!

/ Subject > Re: Is Jesus Like God? [#19] / Date > 5 Dec 2002 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.apologetics, alt.bible.prophecy /

"But because I am telling you the truth, you do not believe me.
Who among you can prove me guilty of any sin?
If I am telling you the truth, why don’t you believe me?
The one who belongs to God listens and responds to God’s words.
You don’t listen and respond, because you don’t belong to God."
-- John 8:45-47 / NETbible

>>> textman previously wrote: WARNING: P52 Fallout Ahead!
>>> <snip> Absolutely! I follow the facts *wherever* they may lead.
.
>> On Nov15 scholar replied: OK, Textman, follow these facts wherever they may lead:
.
 After declining to do so for a rather short while, textman finally relents and changes his mind about scholar's challenge, and thus accordingly sayeth: Okay scholar, dazzle me with your borrowed wisdom! ~:D
.
> Article by Robert Stewart, posted on alt.religion.christian.baptist under the title, 'Greek New Testament':
> When sharing Bible readings with Christian friends, you may have noticed that certain verses appear to
> be missing (or in dispute) indicated by the introduction of a hyphen or brackets at such places as Matt
> 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44,46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; 24:12; 40; John 5:4;
> Acts 8:37; Rom 16:24; etc.
.
 Yeah, okay. I'm with you so far.
.
> Then again there are those strange comments casting doubt over the readings of Mark 16:9-20
.
 No one is "casting doubt" on Mark, scholar (I mean Robert). Scholars (I mean REAL bible scholars) are merely pointing out a not so unique feature about the gospel, namely an added ending; which many NT books have; eg. John, Hebrews, etc. These little additions and changes to the texts (of which there are *MANY*) are a part of the history of the text as copies of copies were handed down generation after generation, with each making its own "relatively minor" changes to the common scriptures.
.
> and John 7:53 - 8:11
.
 Another curious feature about the NT, namely a displaced passage/sheet probably of accidental origins. Again nothing to get excited about. None but a twisted mind could understand any of this as "casting doubt". That's just the way the text is, scholar. If you don't like the richness and complexity and mystery that is woven throughout the scriptures to confuse and confound the ignorant and half-hearted, then I strongly suggest you get off-line and leave the real bible studying to those who are prepared to accept the bible as it really is, "warts and all" as they say. And yes, God did deliberately sow confusion and ambiguity into the texts in order to test believers who dare to read the Word of God with an arrogant heart, to see if they have enough wits about them to even notice what's going behind the bare letters and words!
.
> and talk of "ancient" and "late" manuscripts.
.
 Would you prefer second century papyrus fragments, and all the copies of them that came afterward?
.
> For most Christians, this is all a bit above their heads,
.
 Well then perhaps the lazy swine would do well to get their heads out of their a-holes and thus raise and rouse themselves enough to investigate the thoroughly fascinating world of manuscripts and textual criticism and bible scholarship and whatnot. If that's not TOO much trouble! Grrrrr
.
> and we tend to leave it all in the more than capable hands of those who know about such things. <snipsome>
.
 Right. The scribes and pharisees. Good choice ... NOT!
.
> RS: In approaching the NIV, I read in the Preface that the Greek text used was "an eclectic one".
> The word "eclectic" had me looking for my Dictionary. I found that the word "eclectic" means "chosen
> from various sources". That reminds me. In the local shop we had a "Pick 'n' Mix" counter where the
> children could pick their various favorite sweets, toffees, and candies from a wide selection. They put
> them all in one bag and were weighed together as one purchase. The word "eclectic" means Pick 'n' Mix.
.
 No, what it means, you silly goose, is that earlier sources are BETTER than later sources, *because* they are far more likely (in general) to be closer to the original autographs than more recent documents (ie. less tampered with). This is not a difficult concept to grasp (even for fundies); and this disparaging attitude of yours -> "eclectic" means "Pick 'n' Mix" <- suggests that you can't take biblical scholarship seriously.
.
> I wrote to the International Bible Society to enquire about the "eclectic" text of the NIV. Ralph Earle
> advised me that the Greek text of the NIV was basically that found in the United Bible Societies /
> Nestle-Aland printed Greek New Testament text. I subsequently discovered that this modern UBS /
> Nestle-Aland "eclectic" text forms the basis for most of the modern translations of the New Testament.
.
 Most people who inquire into the matter will discover that the NIV has many flaws; eg. when compared with more strictly literal translations. But this is not because of the quality of the Greek texts used, but because of the goal or purpose of the translation. That is, the NIV was basically designed to be *readable*. It was NOT deliberately designed to be "evil" or whatever. Thus the NIV is such a popular version chiefly because it succeeds in being readable, which is to say, accessible to modern readers of newspapers and novels (and other assorted trash).
.
 So the question is: Is too much authenticity sacrificed for readability? I think so; and so do you, right, scholar? But I object to the NIV because making the scriptures more readable (in most modern translations) means imposing upon the texts a uniform rhetorical style, such that the bible now resembles a rather large (and poorly edited) novel, an epic prose drama in the grand manner, with a beginning, a middle, and an end. Just so. Unfortunately, this "smooth prose" style is often quite artificial, and tends to obliterate the unique tones and styles of the individual inspired authors. One consequence of this, alas, is that it makes it very hard for many readers to see, 4X, that the author of 1Peter is quite a different person from the one who wrote 2Peter.
.
 Another consequence is that it tends to kill the spirit behind, between, and beneath the letter. Now don't get me wrong; it IS a good idea to make the scriptures more accessible and readable to modern readers expectations, and so forth, it's just that the NIV, like many other versions, went about it the wrong way. That is, the problem is not the text itself, but the awful and horrendous FORMAT that the bible-makers insist on keeping the Word locked into. People have to get over this absurd notion that the canonical format (like the book titles, various additions, and other irregularities) are themselves inspired!
.
> My investigations revealed that the joint UBS/Nestle-Aland Editorial Committee was presided over by the
> renowned Jesuit named Carlo Maria Martini, Cardinal Archbishop of Milan (the largest Roman Catholic
> diocese in the world), President of the Council of European Bishops, former Rector of the Pontifical Biblical
> Institute, "Rector Magnificus" of the Gregorian University, and regarded by many as "the Pope in Waiting".
.
 Ah so. There was a high powered Cat involved, eh? I'm already suspicious alright. But now you're disparaging the UBS/Nestle-Aland Greek text because of the shortcomings of the Catholic Church? Get serious, pal!
.
> RS: <snip> Paul made his missionary base in Antioch and it was from Antioch that Paul made his missionary
> tours to establish churches in Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica, Corinth, Ephesus, and other cities and towns
> throughout Asia Minor and Greece. History records that it was to Antioch (not Jerusalem or Rome) that
> these Greek speaking churches naturally gravitated. No wonder Antioch was called the "Mother of all the
> Gentile churches".
.
 These statements are sheer nonsense! This is NOT true history at all. This is a rosy Lukan vision/fantasy of the first century that has no real contact with historical realities. Paul did not make his base in Antioch! What an absurd notion. Paul and Silvanus were only too glad to leave Antioch (and Jerusalem) behind them! Where do you think Paul's "in-house" enemies came from? They didn't come all the way from Palestine, bud. Yes, they came from Antioch. "Mother of all the Gentile churches" indeed. What a gross and appalling LIE that is!
.
> RS: <snip> It can be safely said that the original hand-written autographs of John, 1 & 2 Corinthians,
> Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon,
> 1 & 2 Peter, 1 & 2 & 3 John, and the Revelation were held in Asia Minor and Greece.
.
 Here's some more gross and stupid lies demonstrating that the author is NOT a bible scholar, AND that his sources are historical imbeciles! Look here, the 27 NT books come from many and various regions all around the Mediterranean Basin:
1 - Aegean: 1&2Thessalonians, Philemon, Philippians,
  1&2Corinthians, Galatians, Romans / Ephesians&Colossians
2 - Antioch: Mark & Matthew
3 - Egypt: Hebrews; John; 1&2&3John; James&Jude&2Peter
4 - Rome: Luke-Acts; 1&2Timothy, Titus
5 - Misc: 1Peter from NE Asia Minor; Rev from Patmos island
.
 Bearing in mind that the chronological sequence of the documents is not at all apparent in the above scheme, the reader will find (if he considers it well) that my arrangement of the books is far more sensible, historical, and practical than the confused and disorderly MESS offered by Mr Stewart.
.
> RS: <snip a TON of rubbish> It was not long before sharp-eyed scholars noticed that the text of the
> printed Greek New Testament of Erasmus, and his Latin translation, were substantially different from
> the text of the Roman Catholic Bible, the Latin Vulgate.
.
 Right. Different sources + different translators = *VERY* different versions. It really isn't that hard to understand. Come on all you fundies: concentrate! Must I beat the truth into thy thick noggins with this here canoe paddle?
.
> RS: <snip ANOTHER ton of rubbish> Conclusion: The King James Version Bible (the one with the old
> English in it) is an accurate translation of the real original unaltered scriptures; both old and new
> Testaments. They were copied and recopied word for word and handed down through the centuries.
> -- Robert Stewart
.
 Well, scholar (and Robert), you both couldn't possibly be more wrong. In fact, this conclusion of yours only demonstrates the full depths of your ignorance about the KJV. A friend recently explained this matter quite nicely, so I'll give him the last say in this dialogue:
.
] On Nov15, in TOL: Alleged NT Discrepancies?, Jaltus wrote: The KJV is based upon the text of Erasmus,
] who put together 2 poor manuscripts of the MT which were missing the last 6 verses of Revelation, so
] he translated them from Latin into Greek and his translation matched NO COPY EVER FOUND. The KJV
] is in fact based upon his mistranslation of the last 6 verses of Revelation, which is quite humorously
] ironic when you read those last 6 verses. You are right that there is nothing better than the original,
] but the original is not what you are using [KJV].

P.S.  "And the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty;" (2Cor3:17 / YLT)

/ Subject > Re: Is Jesus Like God? [#20] / Date > 15 March 2003 /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.apologetics, alt.bible.prophecy /
.
>>>> textman previously wrote: More Translating the Word
.
>>> On Nov8 freeontheinside wrote: Textman
.
>> textman answers: yo <snipsome>
.
> On Nov10 AKH replied: Hi textman!
.
 textman say: Hi ho (which rhymes with 'yo')
.
> (Exactally how does one translate "yo" outside of the confines of 'Rocky theology'?)
.
 Why would anyone even want to go outside of the confines of Rocky-theology? ... Sheesh, some people.
.
> The discussion was going along as such, until...
.
>>> free: 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.
.
>> tx: 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!
.
> AKH: My, my, my, once again textman has been a busy little...ooops! I know you 'gentlemen' or
> *whatever* are talking here, but I couldn't help but break in on the conversation and ask you, what
> exactly do you mean by the previous statements? That thinking doesn't seem the least bit *rational*.
.
 textman answers: Wut? You don't think it rational to rid our thoughts of errors, bad ideas, and all manner of mistakes and sloppy thinking? Funny thing that; since it seems perfectly rational to me (even without dragging in any methodological considerations). The truth is that once we commit ourselves to allowing the scriptures to speak for themselves (rather than imposing our will and thoughts upon the texts), then we are necessarily committed to any and all procedures, techniques, and methods that may help us to *avoid* the errors of 'those who have gone before'.
.
>>> freeontheinside say: Curious what you see of the fall of man? Do you see this as universal or not?
.
>> tx: 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!
.
> AKH say: Ok, texty, that just *blew my mind*. Are you saying you believe man is getting better?!
.
 "Better" in *some* ways, sure. For example, our knowledge of the universe has certainly expanded more than a million-fold in the last century alone. That's an improvement of no insignificant value, I think. Now if we could just improve our hearts as well as our minds *then* we might have some small reason to boast! Otherwise Hegel's observation that 'most men are bad' still stands.
.
> AKH: That is so much fantasy and rubbish produced by the secular humanists psuedo spiritualist
> wackos who rage against God and His creation!
.
 I have nothing to say to this; chiefly because this statement has only dubious value (at best).
.
> You state we now "know" that the story of humankind is one of ascent rather than decent.
.
 That is correct, akh.
.
> Look out your back door, read the news, listen to the radio!
.
 Yeah, lots of noise and stuff. The usual flak. So what?
.
> AKH: You got your head in a hole or something?
.
 No. But I do have a hole *in* my head. Exactly seven of them, in fact. :)
.
> You really think this is better?
.
 Better than life at the level of stone-age culture and civilization, you mean? Absolutely!
Hey, "I want my MTV!" . . . Hi, Kyle. Hi, Avril. kiss kiss  :)
.
> Let me put in a point of reference for you so you can label me into one of your little groups.
.
 To what purpose?
.
> I come into faith from a biological and geological frame of reference.
.
 You mean that you're an earth scientist? One of those who *used* to be called a 'natural philosopher'?
.
> I WAS an avid, even rabid, evolutionist before I began to study the FACTS. Of which here are
> some for you: The Evolution of Species by means of Increasing Numbers of chromosomes (or)
> THE PRESERVATION OF COMPLEX LIFE FORMS IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE (by Kent Hovind)
> species   ---   NUMBER OF CHROMOSOMES
> Fern    ---     480
> White ash  ---   138
> Carp    ---     100
> Goldfish   ---   94
> sweet potatoe  ---  90 (that must be where you fit in <smile>)
> Turkey   ---     82 (that must be where I fit in!)  <snip remainder of list>
> - POSSUM, REDWOOD TREE, AND KINDEY BEAN: "OUR ANCESTORS"-  A Spoof on Evolutionary Theory
.
> The theory of evolution teaches that living things are becoming more complex as time progresses.
> Because the chromosomes in living matter are one of the most complex bits of matter in the known
> universe, it would seem logical to assume that organisms with the least number of chromosomes
> were the first ones to evolve and those with the most chromosomes are the end result of millions
> of years of evolution experimenting to increase complexity in living organisms.
.
 You say that evolution is working to increase complexity in life? That does seem a sensible idea in general. However it does not strike me as an entirely *scientific* statement. In fact, it seems awfully teleological in nature for a supposedly scientific hypothesis. Are you *sure* you've got this right?
.
> AKH: From the chart, it is "obvious' that we all started off as penicillium with only 2 chromosomes, and
> that we slowly evolved into fruit flies. After "millions of years" we turned into tomatoes (or house flies)
> and so on, until we reached the human stage with 46 chromosomes. One of our ancestors must have
> been one of the identical triplets - opossums, redwood trees, and kidney beans - with 22 chromosomes
> each. If we are allowed to "continue evolving" we may someday be tobacco plants and mabye even
> become carp with 100, or maybe even the ultimate life form, a fern with 480 chromosomes!
> DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT!
.
 I don't believe it! I don't believe your silly caricature accurately represents the best thinking of today’s top biologists. And I certainly am not about to throw the whole idea of evolution overboard on the strength of some silly chart. Get a grip, girl. This is exactly why we don't allow females to practice philosophy in enlightened countries (ie. because the ladies seem unable to think in straight lines!)!
.
> God made this world and all life forms ... Taken from; Kent Hovind's:
> "Creation Science Evangelism Seminar Notebook"
.
 Actually, the idea that God created the world has no solid evidence to back it up, and so requires faith just to say it.
.
> Scripture does not indicate that *creation* = evolution.
.
 The scriptures were written prior to the New Age (which only began in earnest with the so-called Enlightenment), so it would be very pointless indeed to seek in the scriptures for ideas and concepts that did not (and could not) exist in that highly muddle-headed pre-scientific era.
.
> Evolution teaches that we came from a rock. Well, don't be dumb as a rock sweetie!
.
 Actually, *science* teaches us that we are all children of the stars. Since the atoms that compose our bodies were first forged in the solar furnaces, we can all rightly claim to be the offspring of the Aten (ie. 'Sol', the Sun).
 Praise Yati! 
.
>> tx: <snip> You do not have to be an expert in theology to think clearly about what the scriptures
>> proclaim, or about what they don't proclaim. All it requires is paying attention to the text!
.
> AKH: Please texty, pay attention to the TEXT. Elohim brought out of nothingness all that is
> through His word. I think you will find the answer to "is God a trinity?" in His creation.
.
 Oh yeah?
.
> Get your cute little nose out of your book and *look around*.
.
 I'm looking, but I still don't see any Trinity in creation. Except for the one inside our very skulls.
So does our tri-partite brain prove the reality of the divine Trinity? ... Hardly!
.
 [snip remainder]

P.S. "If you will not believe, surely you shall not be established!" -- Isaiah 7:9

/ Re: Is Jesus Like God? [#21] / 16March03 / TOL General Theology > Anti-Triunitarian proof texts /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /

I speak as to sensible people; Judge for yourselves what I say. -- 1Cor.10:15

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

P.S. "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1Jn.4:1/NETbible).

A Half-Baked Refutation of Trinity

/ Re: Is Jesus Like God? [#22] / 20March03 / TOL > General Theology > Anti-Triunitarian proof texts /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /

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

> On March18 St_Michael_1966 sayeth: The Divinity of Christ.
> Christ's divinity is shown over and over again in the NT.
.
 textman rudely interrupts: Stop right there, saint Michael! Now this is a most curious opening because according to my investigations, the supposedly 20 (or 30 (depending on who you ask :)) or so NT verses that "clearly" (ie. more or less:) proclaim the divinity of our good Lord and Teacher, Jesus Christ, can actually be boiled down to a mere handful (ie. about a half-dozen). Those who are eager to dispute this established literary factum of the Greek scriptures really ought to investigate the matter *thoroughly* before giving vent to much melodramatic protestations! Having said that, we may turn our attention (ever so briefly, alas) to the meaning and significance of this divine handful. And also bear in mind that this question ought *ALWAYS* to be addressed *before* any examination of the verses in question begins. Michael here (properly) addresses this issue at the start by (very IMproperly) DENYING that there are, in fact, only about a half-dozen in all.
.
 Now Michael here *does* manage to latch onto a good portion of these ever-so-controversial verses, and therefore we can rightly conclude that he cannot be ENTIRELY off-track. hahaha Sorry, saint m :) But what interests me is that you left out some pretty good ones (eg. Jn.1:1 and Rom.9:5). One can only wonder at this curious omission; ie. in light of your inclusion of copious non-biblical Christian literature ... ? Anyway, as eye was trying to say, the raw fact that there are only about six such verses actually says a lot, in and of itself. Considering the importance of the matter (for Faith and doctrine etc) we should wonder why there are not, oh, about a thousand or so such statements within the pages of the New Testament. This is what reasonably can be expected given the all but universal nature of the "knowledge" that it must be so that Jesus is God. But the NT *nowhere* puts the matter *that* bluntly; and this too is contrary to expectations! But there is no great mystery here really, for the reason why there are not thousands of such declarations is simply that the idea itself only achieved written expression in the first half of the second century. And this *ALSO* must be considered a significant historical and literary fact. You see, the thing about the scribes and pharisees, and all the many MANY fundies who follow eagerly after them, is that they just LOVE to ignore and despise and reject and shit-upon these "minor" and "trivial" and "meaningless" tiny-little-DETAILS. Oh yes they do! And if you don't believeth the cyber-prophet, then I'd advize-yaz to check it out for yourselves.
.
 Hey, did we go off track AGAIN? You see, dear reader, how complicated this issue can get; and we haven't even begun to look at the divine-verses themselves! Sheesh. It's really no wonder that the scribes and pharisees have had their way with the People of God for so many many centuries. Enslaving them really (when you come right down to it), with their carefully crafted lies and illusions.
.
 "But woe to you experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You keep locking people out of the kingdom of heaven! For you neither enter nor permit those trying to enter to go in. Woe to you experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You cross land and sea to make one convert, and when you get one, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves! Woe to you blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing. But whoever swears by the gold of the temple is bound by the oath.' Blind fools! <snip> -- Mt. 23:13-17 / NETbible
.
 Oh, don't get me started, U! [timeout for steam-venting] 
.
 Anyway, the point is that given the reality of the social and literary and historical development of the idea that Jesus is God (ie. that 'son of god' means 'god the son'), it could perhaps be sensibly argued that even *one* clear statement of the Lord's divinity is enough to establish the fact of it forevermore. But this possibility could exist ONLY if there is no question as to its authenticity (by which I mean that it came directly from an inspired NT author, and NOT from some later scribe or editor).
.
 So okay, when we turn (finally) to our short-list of divinity-proclaimers, we find that half of them (the FIRST half, of course) all come from John's gospel! There's also one from Hebrews, and one from Romans. Now we have already dismissed Rom.9:5 on the basis that the original verse has been altered by way of a scribal addition of foreign (ie. non-Pauline) material. We have also already disposed of several others on the basis of faulty interpretations that fail to take into account the reality and significance of BAD GRAMMAR! We have also already dealt with the alleged evidence in John's gospel (see the earlier articles in this thread for details), and concluded that the entire prophetic gospel of John offers very little or no evidence for Trinity OR the 'equality' of Christ.
.
 So where does that leave us? With one maybe two verses that may or may not be authentic, that may or may not be the result of bad grammar, that may or may not be misunderstood and/or misinterpreted. In other words, these Trinitarians make a great noise in their impressive show, but once the critical-curtain comes down they are finally left holding an empty bag as far as the NT goes. For the NT is remarkably consistent and insistent that the prophet from Nazareth is the Anointed One. That is what the NT proclaims. That is the meaning of the Good News of salvation through faith and love. But what is this so-called "Anointed One" exactly? The scriptures tell us; the NT authors interpret it as meaning 'Lord' and 'Son of God'. And both these titles suggest a movement toward divinity, such that a man becomes a man-plus, a man with more-than-man, a divine-man or a super-prophet, if you will.
.
 And all of this is perfectly legitimate biblical theology for it is, as it were, an unfolding of the meaning of the concept contained in this 'Anointed One'. For the One who is Anointed is the one who is anointed and/or baptized with the Holy Spirit. Thus the man who has the divine spirit of the One-God IS the MAN-divine or 'god-with-us'. So fine. Jesus is like God. This is the thinking of the vast majority of the NT authors; although they express it in various ways (of course). THEN along comes John to confuse the issue, and upset the theological applecart, by making VERY *extremely* extravagant claims, and turning the meaning of Messiah completely upside down, such that Jesus is not so much a MAN-divine as a DIVINE-man. What this means is that instead of a situation where humanity puts on divinity, we now have a situation where divinity puts on humanity. Thus Jesus is not just a man transformed by spirit, but actually a divine-eternal-cosmic-entity, divesting himself of his divine attributes, his 'glory' (as John puts it), in order to manifest, incarnate, reveal, BECOME human-being so as to reveal the existence and nature of the one true God, who is the Big Cosmic Daddy, whose nature is spirit and truth and love ...
.
 So this is what John means by Jesus being like unto God. That the 'son of god' is not merely "poetically" or "metaphorically" applicable to Jesus Christ, but rather that it means that Jesus is literally and actually *the Son of the God* (ie. a divine being, an only-begotten son, but yet not equal to THE God) who is *thereby* like unto the one true God. Not by adoption, but by generation, is this Jesus the logos-man. But is all this bizarre twisting-about behavior *really* an improvement over the more traditional (and sensible!) concept of Messiah as 'the MAN-divine'? For now we have gone a *long* way toward making Jesus so alien, so super-human that he becomes un-human, a mere appearance of humanity, a god posing as a human; like Zeus is said to have done on previous occasions. It is an awfully BIG risk for any Christian author to take, for it puts the Faith itself in grave danger!
.
 Maybe he should have left well enough alone, for it is only a small theological step from here to full blown Trinitarianism. But it is a step that John himself does NOT take! And that is why John is willing to take such foolish risks. Why? Because he feels the ultimate payoff will be worth it. How so? Well, it all hinges on the fact that Jesus brings humanity and divinity together; and this only happens because this radical unity is possible through the Word, in spirit and in truth. In other words, John has taken the man-spirit and added a new element such that we now have an entirely new creature, the logos-man-spirit. Spirit and Logos. Logos and Spirit. These are not two separate and distinct powers, or beings, or entities, or emanations, or manifestations, or what-nots. They are essentially the same thing. This is the secret: that divinity and humanity are, at the core, the same thing! Thus Jesus is NOT a super-man from another planet. He is not an alien freak having nothing in common with us. Rather, he IS us. He is IN us. A part of our essential nature. The true meaning of humanity. In spirit, in truth, and in love, wherever and however these things manifest and express themselves in and through the concrete business of our daily lives, *there* is the Lord. For *there* is unity with God through Jesus Christ the Word. *There* is salvation and forgiveness and harmony and life eternal. *There* is the meaning and goal and fulfillment of the Faith. For *there* alone is true and authentic Being realized!
.
 Wowzers!
.
 So then the issue is NOT the *divinity* of Christ, but rather the alleged *equality*; for it is this latter idea upon which is built the concept of the Trinity. But is this distinction necessary and/or important? It is; in so many ways. For example, in order for the Messiah to function effectively and realistically as mediator between God and Man, he would have to be, you know, somewhere *between* God and Man. Hence the original understanding of Jesus as the MAN-divine. Now John flips things around so that Jesus is the DIVINE-man, but he does not violate the integrity of the Messiah's nature and function. Jesus is still the Mediator and Teacher between God and Man. Unity manifests as *harmony*, not equality!
.
 In this way, the monotheism of the scriptures as a whole is preserved intact, albeit slightly more complicated. And in this way also, the humanity of Christ is somewhat compromised, but not fatally wounded. However, and this is the crucial point, the Trinity does away with ALL of this by reducing the meaning of Anointed, Messiah, Mediator, Prophet, etc etc, to trivial insignificance in the face of the glorious majesty of Trinity (a three-headed God that mediates itself)! Moreover even, the entire theological achievements of the inspired authors of the Greek-scriptures are reduced at a stroke to dust and ashes. Then again, what the hell do I know? I'm just a poor ignorant old man who was dropped on his head once too often. Tell you what. Forget I said it. Just forget the whole damn thing, and go back to the simple-questions and simple-answers that the scribes and pharisees have been feeding you since, gosh I don't know, since all eternity maybe!?!?

P.S.  ... to be continued ... you better believe it, baby!