To AVmetro: Regarding John 5:18 & 10:33 -> These claims are coming from Jesus' enemies! Not from Jesus himself (the only inerrant authority). And not from John either. I find that fact rather significant; ie. as expressing views that are NOT a part of John's teachings.
.
To smilax and Gavin: I will be dealing with that text at length, shortly. Patience will be rewarded, for all good things come to those who wait.

Double, Double, Toil & Trouble!

/ Subject > Re: Is Jesus Like God? [#7]  / 13 Nov 2002 / Forum TOL General Theology > Anti-Triunitarian proof texts /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /

> On Nov10 AVmetro wrote: <snip> I may as well add that if John wanted to merely say that Jesus
> was "divine" he would have used the Greek word 'theios' instead of 'theos'
.
 textman replies: Hey there AV. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps John DID use 'theios' in the original autograph, but while en-route to fossilization via canonization didst get tampered with by some overly pious scribe who noticed the "typo", and like a goodly servant didst "correct" the "error" by dropping that iota (perhaps the single most important iota in the entire world!)? hmmmm? I bet you never stopped to consider just how unlikely it really is that *that* particular iota could possibly have survived intact the loving attentions of so many pious (but ignorant) scribes who feel themselves to be more inspired than the original author!

>> textman wrote: <snip> many countless scribes and pharisees
.
> On Nov11 smilax replied: Too bad Trinitarianism and legalism are not the same, eh?
.
 textman answers: Too bad all these post-modern scribes and pharisees have a bucketful of excuses with which to fool themselves into thinking that they are NOT scribes and pharisees!
.
>> <snip> huge pile of extra-biblical theological speculations
.
> And in the next breath...
.
>> tx: 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.
.
> smilax: Things that make you go, "Hmm."
.
 tx: Really? I fail to see what the problem is. I am talking about historical realities that were present to, and relevant to, the author of John and his earliest readers. The post-NT development of trinitarian doctrine came afterward, so of course it could have no bearing on John's own thinking. This is what I'm getting at here. What is John saying to us in his gospel? The Trinitarians *claim* that their interpretation is entirely consistent with what John teaches in the Gospel, but when we actually compare John's verses with trinitarian doctrines we find many discrepancies!
.
> On the other hand, the Bible says "Son of God" is a Messianic title, (II Samuel vii, 14, for example,)
.
Just so.
.
> and the Messiah is God, (Isaiah ix, 6.)
.
"For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us. He shoulders responsibility, and is called:
Extraordinary Strategist, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." -- Isaiah 9:6 / NETbible
.
 Well now that's very interesting, smilax. But we are studying John here, not Isaiah. Now I am not opposed to introducing non-Johannine materials to this investigation ... as long as it is more directly *relevant* to Jn.
.
>> tx: 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.
.
> smilax: Question: what does it mean to have a divine nature?
.
 Good question, smilax. I will attempt to answer in terms that are consistent with Jn. Demigods aside (who are divine by birth), people tend to think of this divine nature as something that is added to human nature. 4X: It's like putting on a T-shirt; the shirt is not properly a part of us (ie. not living flesh), but it is something we wear and get used to. But being divine, or "divine-being", in human beings is not normally a supernatural addition; rather, it is something more or less potential (or actual) within the bounds of human nature. So if we recall that in Genesis (a book very relevant to John's Prologue) human beings are made in the "image" of God, we can say that becoming divine is a process of increasing this 'image' within us. For Christians this means growing into Christ. In practical terms it means increasing the spiritual aspects of our lives, while also decreasing the more animalish aspects of our lives, etc.
.
>> tx: 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."
.
> smilax: Let's see you weasel out of this: John xx, 28:
> "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God."
.
 Haha. Very good, smilax. Actually, I am more than happy to discuss the meaning and significance of the end of John's gospel. Let us begin by placing the verse within its proper context. We are here fast approaching the end of the gospel. [For our purposes the gospel ends at 20:31, such that chapter 21 does not have the same authority or inspiration as the previous chapters by virtue of the fact that it was not written by John, but is merely yet another unfortunate canonical encrustation.] Let us begin at the point where Thomas makes his final appearance: "Now Thomas, one of the twelve, the one being called the Double,"
.
 Now here is an interesting thing! Thomas appears in the other three gospels, but John is the only one who gives him the curious title 'Didymus', which means 'twin' or 'double' in Greek. And, as if to emphasize the point, John identifies Thomas as such exactly twice: the first time in 11:16 -> So Thomas, called the Double, said to his fellow disciples, "Let us go too, so that we may die with him." And the last time here in 20:24. So what is the meaning of this 'double' business? The old and well-worn traditional answer translates the title as 'Twin' and suggests that Thomas had a twin brother, and that is why "they" called him the twin.
.
 Now I have seen some bonehead exegesis in my years, but that one really takes the cake! I mean, *obviously* there is no twin brother. And *obviously* "they" do NOT call him 'Didymus', but rather refer to him as Thomas (see other gospels and Jn14:5, and also the rest of chapter twenty, for examples). So then the conclusion is evident: the scribes and pharisees haven't got the first clue what John is up to here, and so they make up this lame twin-brother nonsense so as to dismiss the entire matter as utterly irrelevant. Well! If there's one thing I know about prophetic literature, it's that whenever the scribes and pharisees say it's irrelevant, you can be *damn* sure that it IS relevant! The question is: How is it relevant? Or perhaps we should ask: Who is Thomas the "double" of?
.
"was not with them when Jesus came. Therefore the other disciples were saying to him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the marks from the nails in his hands, and put my finger into the wounds from the nails, and put my hand into his side, I will never believe!" (John 20:24-25). Ah ha! And poor Thomas has been hammered upon by pious Christians ever since! 'Thomas the Doubter!' 'Thomas the Disbeliever!' 'Thomas the Apostle Without Faith!' Oh yes, poor Thomas is an easy target for Christians looking to work off some aggression. But consider this: What has Thomas done that is any different from what the other apostles did? "Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, 'Peace to you!'  When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. *THEN* the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord" (Jn 20:19-20). Do you see the connection? Thomas is simply asking for the SAME courtesy that the other apostles have already received!
.
 Eight days later his disciples were again inside the house, and Thomas was with them. And although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace to you!" (John 20:26).  Again, just as he did on the previous appearance (Jn20:19). It would seem, then, that Thomas is indeed in the midst of some very strange doublings. Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Do not become faithless, but believe." Thomas answered and said to him, "My Lord and my God!" (Jn 20:27-28). So most commentaries see this declaration as the climax of the gospel whereby we have now come full circle from 1:1. John's main point all along was to show that Jesus IS God, and now there is nothing left but to bring the gospel to a swift conclusion ...
.
 But wait! We are over-looking something. Again! Thomas is the Double, remember? So what does this scene remind you of, eh? You can bet your booties that a little bible-byte from Matthew is at the back of John's mind; as he writes these lines he's thinking about this: He said to them, "And who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered him, "You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah" (Mt 16:15-17/NETbible). But something about all this smells not quite right to our much beloved evangelist (perhaps named 'John'), and so he intends to set the record straight. First he has Thomas (ie. Simon bar Jonah's 'double') echo Peter's answer. And not just echo it, but surpass it on both sides! 'Christ' gets knocked up to 'Lord' (ie. 'the lord of me'), and 'Son of God' gets knocked up to 'God' (ie. 'the god of me'). You see how this works? Now we can expect Jesus to praise Thomas, to bless Thomas, AND to breathe the Spirit upon him in a measure DOUBLE to that of Peter's ...
.
 But NO! Jesus instead *reprimands* him: Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me?" And not only does he NOT breathe on Thomas, but he turns around and immediately adds insult to injury by blessing future generations of believers who weren't even close to being born yet: "Blessed are the people who have not seen and yet have believed" (John 20:29). And that's the last we see of Jesus. End of Story! I think the point is very clearly made that Thomas' confession is NOT acceptable. And if you could not keep up with John's obscure literary shenanigans, and thus missed the point entirely, he at once closes the gospel by plainly stating what these blessed future believers should believe, and why: Now Jesus performed many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples that are not recorded in this book. But these are recorded so that you may believe [Peter's confession] that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God [ie. the divine Logos], and that by believing you may have life in his name (John 20:30-31/NETbible).
.
>> 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'!
.
> smilax: No? Actually, we got that idea from the title "Son of God."
.
 Which you understand to mean "God the Son" according to the logic set forth by you in a previous post:
.
] smilax previously wrote: John xx, 17: "Jesus saith unto her ..." 1. Therefore, the Father is the God of
] Jesus. John i, 1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
] 2. Therefore, Jesus is God. For further clarity: John i,34: "And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son
] of God." 3. Jesus is the Son of God. Combine 2 and 3 to get: 4. Jesus is God the Son. Now substitute 4
] back into 1, and you get, 5. The Father is the God of God the Son.
.
 Well now, that is a most interesting line of reasoning you have there, smilax. But I perceive a few problems lurking in the bushes. Firstly, John does not say that Jesus is God. He says that "a god is the Word" or "divine is the Word". This divine Word is then linked to Jesus, who is later identified as the Anointed One (who is a kind of super-prophet), as the Son of God (in contrast to Mark's 'Son of Man'), and so on. Line 2 is thus a weak point in your chain of logic. Another problem concerns Jn 1:34. For example, the NETbible renders it thus: "I have both seen and testified that this man is the Chosen One of God." John the Baptizer is here identifying Jesus (ie. "this man") as the "chosen one", by which he means, presumably, the Anointed One. No unsightly trinitarianism here. If anything this verse works in our favor, and against the trinitarian understanding of John's gospel.
.
 A further problem exists in line four. If your conclusion that Jesus is 'God the Son' is based purely and solely on biblical evidence, then it seems natural to conclude that there is textual support for this name or title within the NT. So I have a question or two for you: Are there any bible-bytes from the NT that identify Jesus as 'God the Son'? Yes or no? If 'no', then will you admit that the reason for this lack of textual support is that there exists a significant difference between what is meant by 'son of god' and 'god the son'? If you are unwilling to admit that a necessary distinction exists, then could you please explain why the bible is so silent about this 'god the son' thingy of yours? If it's so *very* crucial to our salvation and identity as Christians and all, I mean.
.
 Anyway, now that we have put your theological calculus in jeopardy, I suppose it is incumbent upon us to provide some such similar arrangement so that you may return the favor at your leisure. Well, I'm not so sure how all this adds up exactly, but I suppose it would run somewhat as follows:
.
 1. For the author of the Gospel According to John, Jesus Christ is NOT an entity like unto the trinitarian 'God the Son', but is rather a very singular, very concrete, being; whom we may call the Logos-prophet.
.
 2. 'the anointed one' (aka messiah & Christ) means something like unto 'the chosen super-prophet'.
.
 3. the 'Son of God' refers to the firstborn of God (ie. the Heavenly Father), who is the Cosmic Arranger that John identifies as the universal Logos (or divine Word).
.
 4. Jesus is the living Word! This Jesus of Nazareth is effective as Savior, as Mediator, as the bestower of the Spirit of Truth, because his person, his entire being, is the union of the universal and the particular, the union of the One and the Many, the union of matter and spirit, of past and future, of nature and supra-nature, of humanity and divinity, of truth and life.
.
 5. Therefore: Jesus is the sole and unique 'divine-man', the one and only Logos-prophet (who is the prophet of the Word)!

/ Subject > Re: Is Jesus Like God? #8 / 14 Nov 2002 / Forum TOL General Theology > Anti-Triunitarian proof texts /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /
.
>> textman wrote: <snip> I bet you never stopped to consider just how unlikely it really is that *that*
>> particular iota could possibly have survived intact the loving attentions of so many pious (but ignorant)
>> scribes who feel themselves to be more inspired than the original author!
.
> On Nov13 AVmetro replied: You're joking right?
.
 textman say: I'm joking not at all. I mean, gee-wiz AV, it's not like there's any shortage of similar such-like people even today who'd like to "correct" the texts according to some arbitrary standard of irrational piety. 4X: Some folks judge one translation "superior" to all others solely on the basis of how many 'Lord's and 'Son of God's they can count up on their little fundy-calculators. The one with the most lords and sons of gods is *OBVIOUSLY* the best and most inspired version. There are people today, even here on TOL, who imagine that this way of thinking is blessed and approved by God! So what are you saying? That such people did not exist in biblical times? Seems to me you're the one who must be joking.
.
> AVmetro: You mean to seriously tell me that out of the 5300+ manuscripts that read 'theos',
> you are going to take the Muslim stance of scriptural corruption?
.
 Absolutely! I follow the facts *wherever* they may lead. And I'll tell you something else too: If Muslim philosophers and thinkers are more willing to take History seriously than Christians are, then I wish them all the best blessings that this meager cyber-prophet can bestow!
.
> AVmetro: And on what basis can you stake this claim other than pure speculation?
.
 How about on the basis of the physical evidence, dude? Papyrus fragment P52, for example, which suggests that the autograph of John's gospel was fairly riddled with minor typos (eg. spelling errors) owing to fact that the writer was writing quickly (under the haste of fiery inspiration), and had to hurry to keep up with the swift flow of thoughts and words. But perhaps you don't understand about such things; what it's like for the evangelist when he must run quickly to keep the spirit in sight. There's no time to worry about typos. The scribes will clean up all such trivial mistakes when they begin to make the copies. Which is exactly what happened, AV!
.
 And if that's not enough for you, I will also point out the rather apparent literary-fact that John's Gospel is the most edited and abused book in the entire Holy Bible! Additions (4X: chapter 21), changes (4X: the famous chapter 5&6 switch), and a *TON* of these little "touch-ups" (far too numerous to mention), oh my, they're everywhere! Only a complete ignoramus could possibly be unaware of all this. And how do you explain the presence of a lukan parable (the woman caught in adultery) within the text of John? The scribes and pharisees can't explain it. And the reason they can't explain it is because they won't accept the obvious conclusion that Jn was one of Luke's sources! They don't want the facts. They don't want to know the truth. Because the truth is unpleasant. Because the truth hurts the false teachers and anti-christs!
.
 Oh yes, the text of Jn went through *many* copiers and editors before Constantine more or less forced a halt to the rampant ongoing changes being introduced into the sacred books. And this was already more than two centuries after John had finished his task! And you wonder why there are significant differences and variations in the earliest textual witnesses? It's because the early Christian scribes and pharisees didn't respect the text enough to just leave it the hell alone! And so today they've gone to the opposite extreme whereby they are unable to "tamper" with the canonical format in any way, shape, or form! Not even to fix the most obvious errors; not even if these basic editorial necessities would help the average bible-reader a thousandfold. What? You want to do WUT? Make the New Testament more intelligible? More rational? More readable?!? . . . NEVER!!!
.
> ... Back later with a quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia.
.
 Oy vey!

P.S. "Who is the liar but the person who denies that Jesus is the Anointed One?" -- 1John 2:22 / PV

/ Re: Is Jesus Like God? #9 / 15 Nov 2002 / Forum TOL General Theology > Anti-Triunitarian proof texts /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /

> On Nov12 smilax wrote: John's teaching: I John v, 20: "And we know that the Son of God is come,
> and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is
> true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life."
.
 textman say: It would appear that your translation wishes the reader to conclude that the 'true God' reference has Jesus for its subject. However, since this is inconsistent with the Johannine literature as a whole, it is safe to conclude that the Father is the intended subject here. Your version imposes the translators theology upon the text despite the fact that it violates the spirit of the text! This is the version that so many revere? A version wherein the translators immense contempt and disrespect for the text is so utterly, and so brazenly, apparent (as in these very verses just quoted)?! ... Right. So let us instead look to a translation that attempts to give a more accurate rendition of the Greek text:
.
 "And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding that we may know the True One. And we are in the True One (even in the Son of Him, Jesus Christ). This One is the true God and eternal life." -- 1John 5:20 / Prophet Version
.
 In this version the words are a literal rendition (from the NGE interlinear NT), but I have added the parentheses to show more clearly that the 'true one' IS the 'true god'! By the son of the true god (ie. Jesus Christ, who is "the word of life" 1Jn1:1) we KNOW and are IN the one true god, who is the Father. For we "proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father" (1:2). And not just eternal life. The Father is also the god of light (1:5) and the god of love (4:8). Therefore the one true god of light, love, and life is the Father. But trinitarian believers would have us believe that John is wrong! That the word of God is lying about who is and who isn’t God! These *good* Christians know BETTER than what the scriptures clearly and plainly proclaim . . .
.
 "Little children, keep yourselves from idols." -- 1John 5:21
.
 There are a *lot* of people who would do well to tattoo that last statement on their hands! Christians don't seem to understand how easy it is to make idols. Material idols are not the only kind of idols around. You can make an idol out of anything! A concept (especially a theological concept) can very easily become an idol (eg. trinity). So can a doctrine or dogma, or even the entire sanctimonious paradigm! A church can become an idol. As can her leaders. Teachers and scholars and preachers can also become idols (especially the better ones). Even the Bible can be idolized. Even our good Lord can be made into an idol, into a symbol of spiritual-death and corruption. The history of the churches shows very clearly that the symbol of the cross has gone to both extremes; as a source of life and strength and success, but also as the banner of torture, ignorance, and death. Idols are what you make of them; they have no inner substance (because they are not real). Only truth endures. Only love is real. And concepts that distort the truth of the Word are worse than a sham.
.
 I also find it almost amusing that all of these many "free-thinking" fundies, who imagine themselves entirely liberated from bondage to the idolatry of priestcraft (and thus bible-believing Christians), should, upon gaining their hard-won freedom, at once swallow the spawn of the bishops hook, line, and sinker! Yes, it ought to be apparent to everyone by now that trinitarian-theology is *grossly* incapable of doing justice to the NT; we have just seen that it cannot even READ the Gospel of John correctly. And why is that, you ask? ... *Because* it is BEYOND the collective comprehension of the scribes and pharisees! Because of all this, therefore, I hearby formally renounce AND denounce this alleged Holy-Trinity entity of the scribes and pharisees as an empty sham (well worthy of the futile efforts of uninspired episcopal muffinheads; those 'false teachers' and 'anti-christs', as John calls them) and as a false idol (ie. extra-biblical and contra-biblical).
.
 And I do also declare that the One True God is the God of Jesus Christ (being the God that the New Testament testifies and witnesses to), who is the heavenly Father, the God of light, love, and life! Therefore: our God is one; one person, one being, one god, that's it! The Jews and Muslims were right all along. It is the bishops who led us all astray with their co-equal and co-eternal Trinity (a conceptual idol if ever there was one). All of which leaves the average believer with a rather nasty problem on their hands. Either you place your trust in the bishops, OR your place your trust in the word of God. (Those who think that they can do both are only fooling themselves.) But before you decide, consider first what the inspired evangelist called John says:
.
 "Who is the liar but the person who denies that Jesus is the Anointed One?" -- 1John 2:22 / PV
.
 Now I do affirm and believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the anointed one (ie. the chosen prophet); but for the priests and bishops (and most believers too) this 'Christ' is but an empty name: Mr J.Christ! And if it means anything at all, it means nothing more mysterious than 'God the Son'. But this affirmation that Jesus is God the Son is ultimately nothing other than a denial of Jesus' essential humanity, and his true status as the Messiah. In other words, Jesus is *not* the chosen prophet (and indeed not a prophet at all) BECAUSE he is God the Son! And in so making this claim that Jesus is God the Son, the bishops reveal themselves to be the enemies of Christ; indeed those very scribes and pharisees who accused Jesus of making himself equal with God!
.
 "Because of this, therefore, the Jews were seeking more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but also he was saying the very God to be his own father, thus making himself equal to the God!" -- John 5:18 / PV
.
 So what will it be? You decide: the truth, or the LIE?

PS. Best rock bands of the 20th century: Alan Parsons Project, Yes, and Klaatu.
Congrats boys. You all did a great job!

The Smilaxian Blues

/ Re: Is Jesus Like God? #10 / 16 Nov 2002 / Forum TOL General Theology > Anti-Triunitarian proof texts /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /
.
>> textman previously wrote: Really? I fail to see what the problem is. I am talking about historical
>> realities that were present to, and relevant to, the author of John and his earliest readers.
.
> On Nov13 smilax wrote: <snip> Oh, so Greek mythology is reality now?
.
 textman say: It was an important part of the world of the Roman Empire, in whose major cities the Faith didst first sprout and grow. Eventually the Faith ousted the old gods, but that was centuries after the NT docs were written ...
.
>> tx: The post-NT development of trinitarian doctrine came afterward, so of course it could have
>> no bearing on John's own thinking.
.
> smilax: See Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom of Solomon, Philo, 1 Enoch, the Targums, and other bits of
> intertestamental wisdom literature.
.
 What exactly am I supposed to be looking for? I certainly agree that Philo is especially relevant to the study of John's Gospel. Wisdom, Mt and "Hebrews" too, of course; but I'm not so sure about the others.
.
>> tx: Well now that's very interesting, smilax. But we are studying John here, not Isaiah. Now I am
>> not opposed to introducing non-Johannine materials to this investigation ... as long as it is more
>> directly *relevant* to Jn.
.
> Sure. The Son of God is God.
.
 This is inspired smilaxian literature, is it? :)
.
>> tx: In practical terms it means increasing the spiritual aspects of our lives, while also
>> decreasing the more animalish aspects of our lives, etc.
.
> smilax: Are angels divine?
.
 I should hope so. Are dispensers of obscurity divine?
.
>> tx: So what is the meaning of this 'double' business?
.
> smilax: This is called making wild, unsubstantiated claims without evidence to dodge the question.
.
 Well, you oughtta know! Here's the master of drivel and obscurity accusing an honest bible-scholar of not knowing his own business. Just bloody lovely, that is!
.
>> tx: Ah ha! And poor Thomas has been hammered upon by pious Christians ever since! 'Thomas
>> the Doubter!' 'Thomas the Disbeliever!' 'Thomas the Apostle Without Faith!' <snip>
.
> smilax: Umm? I do not "hammer" upon him, and I fail to see the relevance.
.
 Why am I not surprised to hear that? :)
.
>> tx: 'Christ' gets knocked up to 'Lord'
.
> smilax: Let's throw out all the references to the Lord Jesus Christ now.
.
 That's fundy logic for you! doh!
.
>> tx: And not only does he NOT breathe on Thomas, but he turns around and immediately adds insult
>> to injury by blessing future generations of believers who weren't even close to being born yet!
.
> smilax: The problem is that I do not see Him correcting Thomas. Christ had no problem with calling
> Peter 'Satan'. So what's your point?
.
 The point is that John himself corrects Thomas just a few lines later; as I pointed out to the reader (ie. in the previous post).
.
> smilax: Luke xi, 27-28: "And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the
> company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the
> paps which thou hast sucked.
.
 "the paps which thou hast sucked" ? ... hahahaha+etc. Good one, smilax. This bible-byte is both pointless & amusing!
.
> But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it."
> Does this mean Mary was not blessed?
.
 Could you possibly be any more irrelevant? This has nothing *whatsoever* to do with John's teachings (ie. because Lk-Acts was written AFTER Jn) ... But to answer your query *anyway*; obviously Mary was not unblessed, because the author of Luke-Acts has *already* blessed her in the opening chapters of Lk! Sheesh; talk about not paying attention to the texts!
.
>> tx: Firstly, John does not say that Jesus is God.
.
> smilax: You have a very big list to answer up there. The church fathers, who spoke better Greek
> than you, thought that John meant Jesus was God. Why?
.
 The only 'list' I answer to is the NT documents themselves. But you are certainly right to suggest that the early saints and fathers and apologists knew their Greek *much* better than the ignorant one! However, my disagreement with the glorious theologians does not hinge upon any language as such. Rather, it hinges on their theology (specifically, how biblical and/or unbiblical it is); and also on their manner of reading, interpreting, and handling of, the Greek scriptures. As to why the scribes and pharisees thought that John was teaching trinitarianism: Well, the truth is more that they *knew* he was not teaching the trinity as such, but rather that the developing theology was supposedly "founded upon" scripture, AND was not inconsistent or incompatible with scripture. Naturally, we have good reason to doubt this latter claim!
.
>> tx: John the Baptizer is here identifying Jesus (ie. "this man") as the "chosen one", by which he
>> means, presumably, the Anointed One. No unsightly trinitarianism here.
.
> smilax: Why not? Isaiah ix, 6 states Messiah is God.
.
 John is not quoting Isaiah, smilax. Get with the program!
.
>> tx: If your conclusion that Jesus is 'God the Son' is based purely and solely on biblical evidence,
>> then it seems natural to conclude that there is textual support for this name or title within the NT.
.
> Uh, no. I have no idea how you got this conclusion.
.
 I got it from your 5-point theological calculus which shows how the title 'God the Son' is derived from John's verses. Seems simple enough to me; wrong, of course, but a relatively straight-forward line of reasoning. Given that the early believers were at least as intelligent as today's highly-confused Christians, it seems reasonable to suppose that they could follow the same logical chain to its inevitable conclusion that Jesus is God the Son. Therefore, there ought to be textual evidence of this title within the NT ... But only *IF* their way of thinking was similar to yours; which strikes me as exceedingly unlikely!
.
>> tx: If you are unwilling to admit that a necessary distinction exists, then could you please explain
>> why the bible is so silent about this 'god the son' thingy of yours?
.
> smilax: It's not silent. You just aren't paying attention.
.
 Paying attention (to the Word) is what prophets do best! :D

P.S. "Now by this we know that God resides in us: by the Spirit he has given us." -- 1John 3:24 / NETbible

More Smilaxian Blues

/ Re: Is Jesus Like God? #11 / 19 Nov 2002 / Forum TOL General Theology > Anti-Triunitarian proof texts /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /

 "But Jesus shouted out, "The one who believes in me does NOT believe in me, but in the One who sent me!
And the one who sees me, sees the One who sent me. I have come as a light into the world, so that everyone
who believes in me should not in darkness remain." -- John 12:44-46 / PV

>> textman previously wrote: <snip> It would appear that your translation wishes the reader
>> to conclude that the 'true God' reference has Jesus for its subject. However, since this is
>> inconsistent with the Johannine literature as a whole, it is safe to conclude that the Father
>> is the intended subject here.
.
> On Nov16 smilax wrote: Uh-huh. And you are imposing Unitarianism upon the text. Good job.
.
 textman say: I'm afraid that I can't take *all* the credit; since it is the words and phrases that John uses that express his inherited monotheism (as also his original theological thinking in general). If you don't like what John is teaching believers here, smilax, you should just say so; instead of pretending that he's actually teaching something else.
.
>> tx: In this version the words are a literal rendition (from the NGE interlinear NT), but I have
>> added the parentheses to show more clearly that the 'true one' IS the 'true god'!
.
> smilax: So you admit you are adding to Scripture to fit your theology.
.
 No actually, I'm merely making John's intended meaning more accessible to ordinary bible-readers. Surely you would not want to object to something like that?!
.
> smilax: <snip> Thus the fact that they [ie. the scribes and pharisees] said Jesus was God
.
 There you go misreading the text again. That's not what John 5:18 is saying: "Because of this, therefore, the Jews were seeking more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but also he was saying the very God to be his own father, thus making himself equal to the God!" -- John 5:18 / Prophet Version
.
 [Note to students of John's Gospel -> Whenever the author says 'the Jews' did this, or 'the Jews' did that, the reader should remember that the author does not mean for this to be taken literally. The phrase is simply a short-hand label or pointer indicating something else. Think of 'the Jews' as a code-word, and substitute the phrase 'scribes and pharisees'. Now this does not work in *all* cases, of course, but you'll be surprised by how effectively this technique takes all the mystery out of John's mysterious and nebulous 'Jews', and thus renders John's message both intelligible & non-anti-Semitic.]
.
 In other words, John's gospel contains not only his own teachings, but those of his enemies as well; and it would not do for believers to ever confuse these two! Thus John is here telling us that the reason why the scribes and pharisees "were seeking more to kill" Jesus was because THEY considered him a sinner (ie. a Sabbath-breaker), just as THEY *distorted* his teachings, claiming that he was thus "making himself equal to the God".
.
 Will you now willingly follow in their footsteps?
.
> smilax: should have us wonder what, contextually speaking, made them think that.
.
 Well, duh! The answer is as obvious as your reasoning is warped: the scribes and pharisees think like fundies! That's WHY fundies are indeed the post-modern descendents of these very same over-literal NT scribes and pharisees. Check it out.
.
> smilax: Do you worship Jesus, or not?
.
 So Jesus says to her, "Believe me, woman, that an hour comes when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. For you worship that which you do not know; while we worship that which we know (because salvation is from the Jews). But an hour is coming, and now is, when *THE TRUE WORSHIPERS* will worship the Father in spirit and truth. For indeed the Father is seeking such ones to worship Him. God is spirit, and so it is *necessary* for the ones who worship Him to worship Him in spirit and truth." -- John 4:21-24 / Prophet Version
.
 So then I do NOT worship Jesus as God, but rather I worship the One True God (ie. 'my Father and your Father') in SPIRIT and in TRUTH ... just as the Son of God (Jesus Christ) commands!
.
>> tx: <snip> Eventually the Faith ousted the old gods, but that was centuries after the NT
>> documents were written ...
.
> smilax: What about Wisdom Christology? What about Sirach, Philo, and Enoch? You are completely
> ignoring this lineage and looking at paganism as the source of the term "Son of God." Which is
> more likely to continue useful information: Jewish writings, or Greek mythology?
.
 The only true answer to that (very poor) question is: Both! Obviously both, since John is writing in Greek to Greek-speaking believers (and potential believers). As for the wisdom tradition, this, like the prophetic tradition, is older and larger than any recognized set of scriptures. Thus the biblical wisdom traditions have their deepest roots in the dim pre-history of Egypt. Which is also where (significantly) the prophets and monotheism first appeared to history. Accordingly, both traditions are necessarily intertwined at many levels (eg. Philo was a life-long student of Greek philosophy); but the best image for the wisdom tradition is Lady Wisdom, or Sophia. Now Sophia is curiously different from most "deities" in that her most ardent devotees are philosophers (who may or may not be particularly "religious"). All this makes for a most curious love-triangle whereby the prophets and philosophers are both trying to win the same girl. Now Sophia loves them both (slightly); but those two can't stand each other, naturally. Consider Soren K's way-over-the-top attitude toward Hegel!
.
> smilax: Jesus is the wisdom of God. As a hypostasized attribute of God, He has the essence
> of God and, in fact, is God.
.
 Jesus is the 'wisdom of God' because he is the 'word of life'. The Universal Logos, in other words, contains and unifies and transcends both the prophetic and wisdom traditions. Thus the Word bears fruit in many ways; in the bible, in religion (and sacred texts in general), *and* in philosophy (which term means 'love of wisdom'). Accordingly, it is more consistent with scripture to say that the Wisdom of God is the source, and the goal, and the way, of all authentic human becoming.
.
>> tx: Are dispensers of obscurity divine?
.
> smilax: <snip> Depends. Jesus taught in parables, of course, so to prevent people
> from learning the truth ...
.
 Not so much to prevent them from learning the truth, as to prevent them from drawing all the wrong conclusions!
.
>> tx: <snip> That's fundy logic for you! 
.
> smilax: And that's Ariomaniac dodging of the issue for you. Is Jesus Lord, or not?
> Was Thomas wrong to call Him Lord, or not?
.
 Of course Jesus is Lord. No King but Jesus, Jack! Was Thomas wrong to call Him Lord? Technically no; but you're missing the point: It's not so much what he said as it is the way he said it. That's what John objects to about Matthew's portrait of Jesus. John's Jesus would never bless Peter for his confession, but would rather bless the believers who haven't seen, yet still believe.
.
>> tx: The point is that John himself corrects Thomas just a few lines later; as I pointed out to the reader.
.
> No, you claimed he did without demonstrating it.
.
 What's to demonstrate? Read the end of chapter twenty, and there you'll find John saying: "But these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Anointed One, the Son of God; and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). That's clear enough, isn't it?
.
>> tx: Could you possibly be any more irrelevant? This has nothing *whatsoever* to do with John's
>> teachings (ie. because Luke-Acts was written AFTER Jn) ... But to answer your query *anyway*;
>> obviously Mary was not unblessed, because the author of Luke-Acts has *already* blessed her
>> in the opening chapters of Lk! Sheesh; talk about not paying attention to the texts!
.
> smilax: You're confused. I'm simply demonstrating your argument from silence regarding Thomas does
> not mean Christ did not give him a "blessing" for his exclamation is ridiculous.
.
 Is it not perfectly obvious that Jesus did not bless, praise, or breathe upon him? You are the one who is inserting these things into the narrative-silence; and thus perverting the meaning of the text. John is silent about these things because they never happened. That's the whole point of this final episode! John is NOT glorifying the twelve, the early apostles, or any other person or confession or creed.
.
>> tx: <snip> However, my disagreement with the glorious theologians does not hinge upon any language
>> as such. Rather, it hinges on their theology (specifically, how biblical and/or unbiblical it is); and also
>> on their manner of reading, interpreting, and handling of, the Greek scriptures.
.
> smilax: Very good. Now tell me how to interpret John1:1. If you pull out the old argument that
> we have been mistranslating it, and that it simply means Jesus is divine, explain why they, who
> knew their Greek much better, decided he meant that.
.
 No doubt because the change from 'theios' to 'theos' happened early in the second century. That would explain the uniformity among the textual witnesses, and also among the theologians.
.
>> tx: As to why the scribes and pharisees thought that John was teaching trinitarianism: Well, the truth is
>> more that they *knew* he was not teaching the trinity as such, but rather that the developing theology
>> was supposedly "founded upon" scripture, AND was not inconsistent or incompatible with scripture.
>> Naturally, we have good reason to doubt this latter claim!
.
> smilax: Why exactly would they want to elevate Jesus to God in the first place?
.
 Idolization is a natural drive within most human beings. It has always been so; since long before the dim beginnings of recorded history. This is why both the OT and the NT keep hammering away upon this point. The scriptures know human nature much better, it seems, than all these "modern" and "enlightened" Christians who know themselves to be, of course, far far above such a trivial sin as idolatry. Right. But not above the trivial sin of vanity, eh? :)
.
>> tx: John is not quoting Isaiah, smilax. Get with the program!
.
> smilax: Who cares? Scripture interprets Scripture,
.
 Indeed it does! But the question is HOW is scripture best used to interpret scripture ... Shall we do like smilax, and say what John means by importing arbitrary definitions from obscure non-Johannine sources? OR will we trust John enough to let him define his own terms according to his own thinking as this is expressed in his gospel and in 1John. That is the only proper scriptural context when it comes to the matter of defining terms like 'Son of Man', 'Christ', 'Son of God', 'One God', and so on. If we do not do this with the most extreme methodological rigor and consistency, then there is *zero* possibility of correctly understanding the word of God in the fullness of its depth and complexity and meaning.
.
 Thus the spiritual truths of the spiritual word cannot be found by reading exclusively on the purely literal level (as the parables clearly demonstrate). Neither can it be found among the calcula-TORZ, who come to absolute truth by counting up their sacred 'beans', and by comparing them this way and that, one such colored bean with the other thus colored bean, and so forth. Such has always been the way of the scribes and pharisees. Need we point out AGAIN that all such-like methods are utterly incapable of doing justice to the texts?!
.
> smilax: and Messiah is God!
.
 "Who is the liar but the person who denies that Jesus is the Anointed One?" -- 1John 2:22 / PV
.
>> tx: I got it from your 5-point theological calculus which shows how the title 'God the Son' is derived
>> from John's verses. Seems simple enough to me; wrong, of course, but a relatively straight-forward
>> line of reasoning. Given that the early believers were at least as intelligent as today's highly-confused
>> Christians, it seems reasonable to suppose that they could follow the same logical chain to its
>> inevitable conclusion that Jesus is God the Son. Therefore, there ought to be textual evidence of
>> this title within NT ...
.
> smilax: Makes sense until the last statement. You have a huge logical gap there.
.
 Well, let's see. The early believers have just reasoned their way to the Smilaxian-Conclusion, and are prepared to celebrate, when suddenly they realize there is no writer of Greek among them to preserve their tremendous revelation by setting their thinking down in Greek characters upon papyrus. So they go see John and tell him all about it, and he's convinced, so he writes down the phrase 'God the Son' somewhere in his writings. Logical gap indeed! I'll give you a logical-gap, you swino! Grrrrrr

P.S. So what shall we say about John's One-True-God, the God of Light, Love, and Life? Shall we say that this Heavenly Father is theologically *inadequate*, and thus is incompatible with the Faith? That the God our beloved evangelist testifies to is incomplete, and therefore inherently inferior to the more glorious episcopal Trinity?!