Three on the Rocks

/ Re: Is Jesus Like God? [#12] / 20 Nov 2002 / Forum TOL General Theology > Anti-Triunitarian proof texts /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /

>>> On Nov16 smilax wrote: Uh-huh. And you are imposing Unitarianism upon the text. Good job. <snip>
.
>> tx: I'm afraid that I can't take *all* the credit; since it is the words and phrases that John uses
>> that express his inherited monotheism (as also his original theological thinking in general).
.
> On Nov19 smilax replies: Monotheism does not equal Unitarianism.
.
 textman say: Oops, you lost me there, smilax. Is John teaching monotheism or unitarianism? Perhaps you had best define both these terms for us before we proceed any further.
.
>> tx: If you don't like what John is teaching believers here, smilax, you should just say so;
>> instead of pretending that he's teaching something else.
.
> [smilax elects NOT to comment!]
.
>> tx: <snip> No actually, I'm merely making John's intended meaning more accessible to ordinary
>> bible-readers. Surely you would not want to object to something like that?!
.
> I will object when simplicity means changing doctrines. <snip remainder . . . for now>
.
 Oh, I dare say that making the NT more readable will have *many* positive benefits; including allowing the average bible-reader to better distinguish between a theology that is truly scripture-driven, and all theology that is too artificial, too abstract, and (ultimately) too unbiblical.
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> On Nov19 JCAtheist wrote: <snip> We can only really guess at the connection of Christ to God
> - other than being the Son; if it was for us to know it would be spelled out a lot better, wouldn't
> you think? IMHO -- Love and Peace
.
 tx: Hey JCA. Actually, it *IS* spelled out a lot better. A very *very* lot better, IMHO. It's all right there in 1John and John's Gospel. That's one of the reasons why John wrote his gospel: in order to spell out this connection clearly and plainly! It is not John's fault if today's believers approach the word with a skull-full of pious-mush and theological rubbish that effectively blinds them to what John is saying!
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.
> On Nov19 o2bwise wrote: <snip> How heavily do character of God understandings weight
> with respect to salvation?
.
 tx: According to John's Gospel, our salvation hinges on *both* knowledge and belief; or, to put it another way, on truth and on faith. Our faith in God (as the One True God), and in Jesus as the Anointed One. That's the easy part. We carry our faith lightly in our hearts. But knowledge? Oy Vey! That's the hard part, alright; for our minds love to play little tricks on us, making idols and illusions seem like absolute truth.
.
 And what does salvation consist of, anyway? A great many things, apparently! But one thing that often gets overlooked by the scribes and pharisees is that salvation must necessarily involve freedom from idolatry in general, and freedom from slavery to idols! Thus our salvation can be well-measured by our devotion, not to creeds, or churches, or concepts, or doctrines, or theologies, or traditions, or etc, but to TRUTH! Not just this or that particular truth - for this is the error of narrow minds - but rather the BIG Truth in all its forms, in all of its countless concrete particulars. Truth can never be contained in creeds or formulas or books. Truth abides, yet grows. Truth develops, yet continues ...
.
 Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him: "If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will release you."  "We are the seed of Abraham," they answered to him, "and have never been anyone's slaves! How can you say, 'You will become free'?" And Jesus answered them: "I tell you the solemn truth, everyone who practices sin is a slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the household forever, but the son abides. So if the Son sets you free, you will be really free." -- John 8:31-36 / Prophet Version
.
 In other words, salvation also consists of freedom; a freedom gained through knowledge, belief, and faith in Jesus of Nazareth, the "word of life" (1Jn1:1).
.
> How significant compared to understanding His nature? <snip>
.
 Perhaps these things ought not to be so arbitrarily separated, for this is precisely what John is teaching us. The nature of the One True God, says the prophetic-evangelist, is this: life, love, light, and spirit. Frankly, I can't fathom the thinking of these supposedly bible-believing Christians who imagine that John is somehow in error about all this. If we cannot trust John to give us the straight scoop about who and what God is, why should we then turn around and embrace the spawn of the bishops (ie. the Trinity), as if these pharisees were somehow more inspired than the evangelist himself?!
.
 Can you fully appreciate the implications of all this? Those believers who affirm the Trinity in the face of John's very-contrary teachings are basically saying that the early bishops and fathers of the church are necesarily more knowing than the word of God itself?! Where is the logic in that, eh? Somebody please explain to me exactly HOW that works, huh?

P.S. "It is certain my Conviction gains infinitely, the moment another soul will believe in it." -- Novalis

Do Our Beliefs Really Matter?

/ Re: Is Jesus Like God? [#13] / 22 Nov 2002 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.apologetics, alt.bible.prophecy /
.
 "Our knowledge of the scriptures and the history of the Faith determines the quality of our personal faith." -- anon
.
> On Nov20 RK wrote: Textman, I'm no theologian,
.
 textman say: Hi, Richard. That's a plus, not a minus! :D
.
> maybe you'd call me a fundy - I don't go in for labels.
.
 Labels are just names, and not good or bad in themselves. Besides, a large part of theology involves this very process of naming things. If we name things poorly or wrongly, then our whole thinking gets thoroughly messed up. Thus naming things *rightly* is one of theology's most crucial tasks!
.
> RK: I find your comments very interesting and have no doubt that many of the things we have come
> to accept about God (or even Jesus ;)) will not be anything like how they are in heaven.
.
 Quite right. Puny finite creatures of highly questionable intelligence (such as human beings) have scant right or reason to lay claim to any absolute or final knowledge about things that are (by their very nature) beyond verification in this world.
.
> RK: I have one question for you ...
.
 Looks like more than just one to me, Richard. :)
.
> How does your understanding of Jesus in relation to God change the way you relate to him, and to God?
.
 Well, instead of worshipping Jesus as God, I am now able to approach the Father in a more natural I-Thou relationship, because God is now a unique individual person (who is also the center and goal of all things). As for Jesus, by taking the affirmation that he is the Anointed One seriously, we are able to put aside the remote and untouchable Cosmic Pantocrator whom one can approach only on one's knees (ie. in abject poverty and shame). Instead, Jesus now becomes our brother, our teacher, our friend, our guide and comrade. So perhaps Christians don't quite realize that conceiving of Jesus as God seriously hampers his desire to be within us (and live within us) as we truly and actually are. This is important because a dishonest relationship with Jesus is worse than no relationship at all!
.
> RK: Do you still worship him? pray to him?
.
 I now worship the Father as the One True God, in spirit and in truth; as the Lord commands. But my prayer life has not been seriously affected by this recovery of the biblical God. The 'Our Father' and the 23rd Psalm still resonate as they always did, so I'd say that theological breakthroughs need not unduly disrupt our customary practice of the Faith.
.
> In what way does your relationship differ from the way in which an ignorant fundy relates to Jesus?
.
 In many, and very important, ways, I should think. Ignorant fundies conceive of Faith as an exercise in emotional piety, such that their chief concern is to continually magnify and glorify and idolize Jesus. So now that they have made Jesus into the very God, they cannot push him any higher; and they could not possibly ever settle for less than full and absolute divinity. Jesus is thus effectively deprived of his human nature such that it is impossible to approach him on a natural and human level (eg. without copious cringing and groveling).
.
> In short - what difference does this all make - is it all a lot of words?
.
 Insights, revelations, and discoveries (or in this case, recoveries) can all be transmitted and communicated by words, but they cannot remain there, or they will die. In order to live, these truths (about the Father and the Son) must be welcomed, accepted, and believed; not by churches and institutions, but by ordinary individual believers who love the truth. For those who love the truth are the very ones that the One True God seeks! So it does make a difference *what* we believe about God and Jesus. But it is the practical consequences that especially concern me. 4X: The discovery that the trinitarian doctrines are incompatible with John's Gospel raises the possibility that the entire contents of the NT are being systematically distorted by this foreign imposition. If we can disentangle ourselves from the vast conceptual scheme of the bishops, it may well be the case that there are yet some buried treasures lurking in the texts just waiting to be recovered. A paradigm shift within biblical studies also becomes a real possibility.
.
 Another matter of equal (or perhaps even greater) importance is that the recovery of biblical monotheism opens the door to mutual understanding between Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Our faith-brothers all worship and acknowledge the same one God, and that essential agreement could be the solid foundation that encourages movement towards respect, equality, and perhaps unity. And why not? For monotheism is not the only thing that these great religions have in common. All three faiths also recognize and acknowledge the reality of the prophets, and their importance to the spiritual journey of humankind. Of course, Christianity (as it is currently constituted) has long since lost all real contact with the prophets (hence the inevitability of corruption), but this is not necessarily a permanent disability. The prophetic faith of the early believers CAN be recovered; but only if believers love the truth *more* than they love their grand and glorious conceptual idols!
.
> (Really, I do want to know, I'm not having a dig.)
.
 I believe you already! :)

P.S. "If we receive the witness of men, the testimony of God is greater still, because this is the testimony of God that he has testified concerning his Son. The one believing in the Son of God has the witness within. But the one who believes not in God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has testified concerning his Son." -- 1John 5:9-10 / Prophet Version

How Translating Necessarily Involves Judgment

/ Re: Is Jesus Like God? [#14] / 26 Nov 2002 / Forum TOL General Theology > Anti-Triunitarian proof texts /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /

> On Nov20 AVmetro wrote: Sorry I was away for so long...
.
 textman say: Hi, AV. Don't be sorry. Be repentant! :)
.
> Textman - The way you insist that John was "mishandled" by scribes and *changed* (you cited
> Jn1 as a prime 'example'), how am I to know what is correct and what is not?
.
 Authenticity should be judged by various relevant factors, of course; but chief among these ought to be a good sense of what is consistent with John's theology and literary style. Consider, for example, the problem with John 1:34, where there are two very different alternatives. The majority of the textual witnesses prefer a reading such as the following: "And I myself have seen and have testified that this is the Son of God" (NRSV). Now the term 'Son of God' is a common Johannine expression, to be sure, but it is unlikely that he would put this phrase into John the Baptist's mouth (eg. because the Baptist is not a Christian). It is thus more natural and consistent to go with a reading more like this: "I have both seen and testified that this man is the Chosen One of God" (NETbible). This rendition is far more likely to be the original reading because scribes (eg. those inspired by notions of harmonization) would usually be more motivated to upgrade the Baptist's confession than to downgrade it.
.
 So no one could be offended by the use of 'Son of God' as a title for Jesus (hence it's popularity among translators), but 'God's Chosen One' could easily be found offensive (and hence unacceptable) by those scribes and pharisees who understand 'chosen one' as containing an implicit threat to Jesus' supposed virgin birth. Please notice that John makes no mention of such an event (although the text of Mt is surely on his desk before him); and in this case his silence cannot logically be taken as implying assent or agreement with Matthew's fanciful and overly-miraculous conception story.
.
 Therefore, while it is generally acknowledged that the more difficult reading is normally the more likely to be original, in this verse (and in *many* others too) the translators, when faced with a choice that could go either way (according the external textual evidence), will exercise their goodly pious judgment, and almost always make the WRONG call! And why is that, you ask? Because the hermeneutics of the translators is entirely lacking for even the most basic respect for the integrity of the texts. In other words, they do not care what JOHN might have said, or intended to say; rather, they look for any and every opportunity to make the text say what THEY want it to say. This is why we have translations such as the Message Bible that are very popular, and also very *gross* beyond all measure!
.
> AVmetro: The spurious passages you cited are spurious because there is good evidence of just that.
> Sparse appearance amongst manuscripts etc. Jn1:1 is not in this class.
.
 Right. But popularity among the early textual witnesses (ie. quality by the numbers) is no guarantee that one has found the best rendition either. Consider John 1:18 . . .
.
 No one has ever seen God. The only One, himself God, who is in the presence of the Father, has made God known. -- NETbible
.
 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,[1] ,[2] who is at the Father's side, has made him known.
-- NIV 1 - 1:18 Or the Only Begotten  /  2 - 1:18 Some manuscripts but the only (or only begotten) Son
.
 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him. -- NASB
.
 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. -- KJV
.
 No one has ever seen God; the only God,[1] who is at the Father's side,[2] he has made him known. -- ESV
1 - Or the only One, who is God; some manuscripts the only Son  /  2 - Greek in the bosom of the Father
.
 No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son [e], who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known. -- NRSV  /  e - Other ancient authorities read 'It is an only Son, God' or 'It is the only Son'
.
 Now this example is especially relevant for two reasons: (1) the sheer variety of readings itself creates serious problems for students of John, since the meaning of the verse fluctuates wildly from one version to the next! And (2) this verse is especially significant (ie. dangerous) to our understanding that John is a strict monotheist who would never refer to Jesus as 'God the Son', 'only God', 'the one and only God', or anything like that. Clearly, something is very amiss here!
.
 Of the six versions above, FIVE declare that only God has seen God! The NIV is particularly confusing (even exceedingly mystifying) for those believers who know and love John's teachings. But despite the confusion, the only obvious conclusion one can draw from 1:18 is that Jesus is God. Only the much maligned KJV swims against the stream, and avoids the offense against John's monotheism. Well now, I certainly wasn't expecting that; and you can knock me over with a feather too! Could it be that the inferior erasmian bible (ie. KJV) is closer to John's actual thinking than the supposedly superior modern versions? Oddly enough, I believe that in this case, the KJV is indeed the best rendition among those above. But I think that we can perhaps even improve on it somewhat: "No one has ever seen God; but the one unique Son, the one being in the heart of the Father, that one has explained Him" (John 1:18 / Prophet Version).
.
> You insist that the Trinity is *pagan* while all the while ignoring the fact that a 'god' having
> 'a son' is about as Greek/Roman and pagan as you can get! Hercules, anyone?
.
 Actually, AV, I never said that the Trinity is "pagan", and I would never so describe it because it was the bishops, apologists, and other Church Fathers who discovered and developed this concept; and one could not accurately describe any of these men as pagans owing to the obvious fact that they are Christians. It might be that some other poster used that word, which you later assumed came from me ... ?
.
> You insist that Jesus' title as 'Son of God' delineates Him from being God, while at the same time not
> providing an answer as to why the Jews took this to be an actual claim to being God. Even blasphemy.
> See Jn5:18; Jn10:30; Mt26:63-65; Jn19:7 (Where is this law in the OT?) etc..etc..
.
 Maybe they just assumed that the title was inherently blasphemous in that it seems to involve an implicit threat to God's oneness. That in itself would be enough to justify a rejection of the title. But we should remember that the 'Son of God' title came afterwards. In his lifetime, Jesus much preferred the more mysterious and less offensive 'Son of Man'. He didn't even like 'Messiah' because it could very easily lead to misunderstanding (eg. an earthly warrior-king), and he would very probably have rejected 'Son of God' for the same reason.
.
 As for Jn19:7, see Lev 24:16: "... and one who misuses the name of the LORD must surely be put to death. The whole congregation must surely stone him, whether the foreigner or the native citizen; when he misuses the Name, he must be put to death." -- NETbible
.
> Jn8:58. If I can ever get around to finding it, I can show you where the Jewish rabbis
> considered 'ego eimi' i.e. 'I AM' to be a divine title. <snip remainder>
.
 Right. 'I AM' is another name of Yahweh. Apparently John wishes us to understand that Yahweh and the Logos are the same person, and that is why Jesus can say 'I AM': "He was in the world, and the world was created by him, but the world did not recognize him." -- John 1:10 / NETbible

P.S. "God has intentionally said much in a glass darkly, because it is not given to all to know the mysteries ... Much is hidden from the faithful so that they will inquire the more zealously into Scripture, and strive to achieve clearer revelation." -- from 'Key to Sacred Scripture' by Matthias Flacius Illyricus (1520-75)

Prayer for modera-TOR Needed Now!

/ Re: How Translating Necessarily Involves Judgment / Forum TOL General Theology: Anti-Triunitarian proof texts /
.
] AVmetro said: Textman - The way you insist that John was "mishandled" by scribes and *changed*
] (you cited Jn1 as a prime 'example'), how am I to know what is correct and what is not?
.
>> textman replied: Authenticity should be judged by various relevant factors, of course; but chief among
>> these ought to be a good sense of what is consistent with John's theology and literary style.
.
> On Nov26 the all-wise modera-TOR called AVmetro didst say: "John's theology and literary style"
> are precisely what is in question here. And I doubt that it will be settled as everything considered
> to be non-genuine is supported with little more than assertion at best.
.
 On 28Nov02 textman replies: I am truly shocked and saddened by your negative attitude, AV! Your skepticism is so extreme that it merges with outright cynicism and disbelief. Why should you doubt that solutions to various textual obscurities and mysteries cannot be found? I do not think like that. I know that problems can be solved, and answers found, because I have found a few answers of my own over the years, and even solved a few problems and mysteries that have vexed countless scholars both past and present. If others are not happy with my answers because of some lack of "hard evidence", that is a weakness on that end, not over here. To my way of thinking, your approach is both illogical and counter-productive. And why is that, you ask? Because History *necessarily* goes beyond the physical evidence, AV! If you cannot accept this basic fact of life, then there is no hope for you at all. Oh say it ain't so! :(

P.S. More later. Please stand by . . .

/ Re: Is Jesus Like God? [#16] / 29Nov02 / Forum TOL General Theology > Anti-Triunitarian proof texts /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.apologetics, alt.bible.prophecy, alt.philosophy /

The Key to the New Testament
[or: The Last Word is Logos]

"Come, let’s consider your options,” says the LORD -- Isaiah 1:18a / NETbible
 
"A meaning, an intention always goes above and beyond what is actually captured
in language, in words that reach others. An insatiable yearning for the right
word - that is what constitutes the genuine life and nature of language."
-- Hans-Georg Gadamer

 Over the many centuries of the Faith's long history there has been an endless procession of believers who have stepped forth claiming to have found the magic key that unlocks all the mysteries of the sacred scriptures. In the Middle Ages a humble Dominican friar named Thomas Aquinas didst wed the Faith with the grandly systematic philosophy of Aristotle to achieve a new synthesis, and a new direction for the Church, that has strongly persisted, even unto the very day. Yet only a few centuries later, many believers turned to rival theological systems, offered by such mighty heroes of the Faith as Luther and Calvin and Wesley and Fox, etc. And again even today many believers (perhaps even the vast majority) find their way through the scriptures by way of these guides (or keys), either indirectly (through the modified forms of the scribes and pharisees) or directly (by drinking the waters straight from the source). And along with these popular keys there have been many others, famous or infamous or lost in some forgotten backwash of the historical tides. The result for our day is that every church, every preacher, every teacher or commentator or exegete, subtly claims to be in firm possession of the "interpretive-keys" that unlock the meaning of the texts.
.
 The resulting hermeneutical chaos from so many competing systems and visions and understandings and whatnot has only encouraged many believers to reject all such absolute or final claims, and so rely on their own wits and judgment. Many others put their faith in charismatic preachers, others in talented and distinguished bible-scholars of exceptional merit, others in whatever authority happens to take their fancy at the moment. Of course, all of this abundant proliferation of "keys", of many and various points-of-view, of highly authoritative interpretations, has left the average bible student surrounded on all sides by an infinite sea of bright and shiny keys, and clinging (as to a life preserver) to their own special key, which is the only one (of course) that truly and correctly reveals the divine meaning and intent of the Word of God! In a world burning in the flames of unbelief and disbelief and lack of faith, the individual believer of more reasonable disposition may conclude that there is no magic key to the scriptures after all. Look at the historical evidence. Look at the many claims from the past that are not only obviously wrong (and wrong-headed), but also foolish from beginning to end. Such an abundance of silliness can only mean that there is no magic key. That there is only some interpretations are better than others but I'm not exactly sure why or wherefore so please don't ask about that thx.
.
 Problems, problems! Such problems for believers these days :( Confusion. Skepticism. Antagonism. Apathy. Cynicism and corruption and spiritual dissolution. Disbelief and loss of faith. And all resulting in a generalized state of hermeneutical anarchy! That's what it is. That's what it all finally comes down to. How can everybody have the right key, when all the keys contradict each other? The only rational response is to reject ALL these so-called keys; which is to say to reject all claims to absolute and final and perfect interpretations. Away with them, I say! And why not, eh? Not one of them can really demonstrate the alleged superiority of their particular "key". Not one of them can explain ALL the questions and mysteries that the entire library of sacred books raises. No indeed; not by a long shot! And this is because the Bible is just too darn big for them. Too big for their fancy schemes and systems to contain (and tame). Too rich and diverse and chaotic to submit humbly to the endless demands of emotional piety and/or theological imperatives.
.
 So then there are subjective keys (eg. individual taste or judgment) and objective keys (scholarship, philosophy, theology). There are keys that are external to the believer, and held by those trusted ones of long and great tradition. And there are keys that are internal to the believer, and held within the heart, or mind, or both. But the keys are everywhere. There's no escaping or denying them. No matter how hard you try to push them away, they always come back when you sleep, as if they truly belonged there always and forevermore. Yes, every believer has their own special key, tailor-made just for them, slightly different from all other keys. Many keys are static and frozen in time, but some keys are dynamic and seem to grow stronger with age. Some keys are better than others, yes. But who has the best key? How are we to judge among all these keys; their relative merits and deficiencies, their strengths and weaknesses, their pros and cons? And herein lies the problem; for there is no technique, no tried and true method of comparing up all the many and various interpretations, systems, perspectives, and approaches toward the Bible that have manifested themselves at one time or another over the past two thousand years.
.
 It would seem, then, that the best that any sensible bible-reader can do is to sample a wide variety of "readings", and favor those approaches that seem more reasonable overall (more true to the spirit of the texts, as it were). But subjective whims and illogical traditions should not be allowed to interfere overmuch in this matter of judging among the keys. If we are to have any hope of judging rightly, we have to be careful and rigorous in our methods. We have to allow reason, common-sense, and philosophical logic to infuse our judgments, and guide our readings and comparisons. Nothing less than this will be consistent enough to survive the ruthless criticism required to mark this or that key as definitely and objectively better than all other keys. If our methods are sound, then our judgments will also be sound. And if our judgments are sound, it is only because our methods are rational and realistic, historical and philosophical. So let us by all means put our methods to the test at every opportunity so as to make progress in our understanding, and advance toward the discovery of that one special key that will open the word of God to our semi-blinded eyes. Why semi-blinded, you ask? Well, let me put it this way:
.
 "For any single individual to work himself out of the life under tutelage which has become almost his nature is very difficult. He has come to be fond of this state, and he is for the present really incapable of making use of his reason, for no one has ever let him try it out. Statutes and formulas, those mechanical tools of the rational employment or rather misemployment of his natural gifts, are the fetters of an everlasting tutelage. Whoever throws them off makes only an uncertain leap over the narrowest ditch because he is not accustomed to that kind of free motion. Therefore, there are only few who have succeeded by their own exercise of mind both in freeing themselves from incompetence and in achieving a steady pace." -- from 'What is Enlightenment?' by I.Kant
.
 But let us suppose *anyway* that there is a key to the NT that is better than all other keys, and is available to many (though never to all) believers. What would this mystical and mysterious key look like? There is an old patristic notion that the best interpreter of scripture is scripture itself. Now this is a good idea that has yielded much good fruit over the centuries, but it cannot of itself function as a key, but only as a general hermeneutical principle (at best). The best key would therefore have to be some verse(s) from the NT; a verse that is relatively simple to understand, yet rich in depth of meaning and potential significance. Such a verse would necessarily require more authority than any other verse, and would have to be able to act as a measuring rod by which to size up the merits and strengths (and even the errors and faults) of *ALL* that the scriptures do declare, proclaim, infer, deduce, suggest, and teach. But is there really such a multi-talented verse (or verses) in the NT? Oddly enough, there are several bible-bytes that can function as generalized practical and/or theological tools (eg. 2P.1:5-8). But I think that the best one of them all is the three deceptively simple lines of John 1:1. If there is any one verse in the entire vast collection of all the world's sacred scriptures that you would want to translate, interpret, and understand correctly, this is the one! To get Jn1:1 right side up in your head and heart is to have a tremendous advantage over the scribes and pharisees (and all those billions of poor believers who follow trustingly after them). To know Jn1:1 in spirit and truth is to hold a very useful tool (ie. a "key") with which to access, measure, and compare any and all other verses, whether they be scripture or not, especially those that follow in the rest of John's gospel.
.
 "IN THE BEGINNING WAS THE WORD."
.
 Some entity that the author elsewhere identifies as 'the word of life' is here declared to be as eternal as creation, as old as time and space. In the same way, the beginnings of the Faith are bound up in the opening words of the first NT document to be written. Paul and Silvanus wrote of history, of remembrance of persecution and suffering and flight; and they also wrote of "a word of God" (1Th.2:13f). In putting the gospel into written form, those two good prophets made the Faith into a historical force that would forever change and direct the minds and hearts of countless believers. And all Christian literature that came afterward would be stamped by the awareness of their achievement: the Christian epistle as a vehicle of the gospel. 'In the beginning of Christian thought and reflection was the written word born of persecution, suffering, pain, doubt, anger, darkness, hostility, and fear; but also with love and joy and faith.'
.
 "AND THE WORD WAS WITH THE GOD."
.
 This "Logos" entity is some kind of impressive cosmic-type being who likes to hang with the one true God. Therefore it is safe to assume that this Logos person is not actually a part of the God, not a different form or mode of the God, but more like a very close friend and intimate companion who stays with you. Of course, "the God" is John's favorite reference to the deity; it is synonymous with "the Father", such that the two terms 'God' and 'Father' refer to the same being. The God is thus a unique individual person (the One True God), just as the Logos is a unique individual person (see John 1:2).
.
 "AND GOD WAS THE WORD."
.
 Huh? Uh oh. Wait a minute. That's not right. John doesn't recognize two separate and distinct entities, one of whom he refers to as 'the god' and the other as 'god'!?! How confusing is that? And since John is most definitely NOT one to sow ambiguity and confusion - especially not in these most crucial opening verses! - the only logical conclusion is that this clause was somehow tampered with early on (perhaps mid-second century or so). The ambiguity, in other words, was and/or is artificially created, and is *NOT* a legitimate part of the sacred text. Thus there is an error in this obviously awkward last clause that is VERY easily overlooked and underestimated by the legions of bible-scholars and translators when they produce their famous English version, you know the one: "and the Word was God."
.
 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'! 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:
.
 "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"
.
 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?
.
 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)!
.
 So in conclusion I would now like to offer to all true believers what is (perhaps) the best key to the Gospel of John; and thus to the rest of the NT as well. Therefore I solemnly swear on the family jewels that this is the best English version of what the original autograph actually and historically proclaimed:
.
 "In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with the God; and divine was the Word.
   This One was in the beginning with the God."  -- John 1:1-2 / Prophet Version

P.S. "The possibility that the other person may be right is the soul of hermeneutics." -- Hans-Georg Gadamer, 1989

/ Re: The Key to the New Testament / #17 / 30 Nov 2002 / TOL General Theology > Anti-Triunitarian proof texts /
/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy and alt.religion.apologetics and alt.bible.prophecy /

> On Nov29 o2bwise wrote: Thanks bro. Hey textman, It appears our view on the matter are identical
> or close to identical. Thanks for your last post though I did wince with your suggestion that the Greek
> manuscript with respect to John 1:1 is contrived.
.
 textman replies: Hi o2. I much prefer the term 'adjusted' to your 'contrived'. There is a subtle, but significant, difference between these two words. So perhaps there is no need for wincing after all? :)
.
> o2bwise: Isn't theos without the article compatible with "divine" as a rendering?
.
 Perhaps it is somewhat compatible, maybe. But actually, I'm more convinced now than ever before that the 'dropped iota' is the correct solution to the Greek text's linguistically (and theologically) awkward last clause. Historically (and theologically) it makes the most sense. Indeed, when we consider the liberties that the scribes (both past & present) take and have taken with the text (eg. so-called "free" or paraphrase versions) it becomes *very* difficult to conceive how the dropped iota could ever have remained in place and survived the beating that John's gospel had suffered for so many decades (ie. prior to the textual-blessings of the good pagan emperor Constantine) at the hands of endless scribes and pharisees intent only on glorifying God by adjusting the text ever so slightly in favor of ... WHATEVER!
.
 Let me put the matter another way. Comparing translations can be a practice that yields many surprises, and sometimes one particular version shows something that can't be found in any other version. Consider, then, the following bible-byte from the Chicago Bible (An American Translation):
.
 "In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine. It was he that was with God in the beginning. ... No one has ever seen God; it is the divine Only Son, who leans upon his Father's breast, that has made him known." -- John 1:1-2,18
.
 Interesting rendition, yes? Now I can't exactly give the American Translation my unqualified endorsement, but it does seem to me that these Chicago translators had a lot more on the ball than the translators of all these more popular, and supposedly superior, versions!
.
> o2bwise: Thanks man. While many of these posts are simply too long for me at the present time,
> I did read your last one and appreciated it. God Bless, Tony (o2)
.
 thx o2. There's no need to hurry after my epistles; they're built to last! :) And if you think that the average length of my posts is way too long, be advised that most people will doubtless agree with you. As for myself, however, a five page long post is hardly more than a footnote by comparison with the sum total of all my writings on the website; which contains over 10MegaBytes worth of yummy prophetic literature; all of which is entirely FOC for true believers. WOW! Who says there's no free lunch, eh?

> On Nov28 AVmetro wrote: I never said that I believe "[that solutions to] textual obscurities and
> mysteries cannot be found". I merely stated that in order to prove that a certain text is spurious
> merely by accessing what is and is not John's style is the very thing we are in disagreement over now.
.
 textman agrees: Right. But this is a question of *method*, AV. Which is to say, it is basically a hermeneutical problem, and MUST therefore be approached from that angle (ie. if you wish to get out of the quicksand, I mean).
.
> I can't find any evidence from manuscripts to support this allegation, and must therefore turn to the
> consistency of John's gospel. However, I cannot simply do this in a short moment as we both disagree
> as to what his "style" was.
.
 I think we can at least agree to the main elements of John's style, if not the specific teachings involved. John's style is simple and straight-forward. His command of the Greek language is not nearly as sure and elaborate as that of the author of Lk-Acts. It is not as subtle and rich in depth as the style of the prophet Jacob (ie. in Jm). But it is forceful and commanding because John has no tolerance for confusion and obscurity. His teachings are clear and consistent because this is not just his literary style, but also his purpose in writing the gospel, his hermeneutical intention and promise: to be as direct and as sensible as possible in all his teachings.
.
 Another aspect of John's style is his clear awareness of the literary traditions of his day (ie. second half of the first century), both Christian and non-Christian. In this regard we have already mentioned the relevance of Philo, and books such as Genesis, Isaiah, Mark, and (most especially) Matthew. So his knowledge of important writings is very impressive; and diverse as well. Consider, for example, the way John's love of the prophets is presented in the following pericope:
.
 Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses wrote about in the law, and the prophets also wrote about - Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." Nathanael replied, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Philip replied, "Come and see." Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and exclaimed, "Look, a true Israelite in whom there is no deceit!" Nathanael asked him, "How do you know me?" Jesus replied, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you." Nathanael answered him, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel!" Jesus said to him, "Because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe? You will see greater things than these." -- John 1:45-50 / NETbible
.
And how does this passage relate to the OT prophets? Well ...
.
 The LORD replied, "Is it right for you to be angry about this?" Then Jonah went out to the east side of the city and made a shelter to sit under as he waited to see if anything would happen to the city. And the LORD God arranged for a leafy plant to grow there, and soon it spread its broad leaves over Jonah's head, shading him from the sun. This eased some of his discomfort, and Jonah was very grateful for the plant. But God also prepared a worm! The next morning at dawn the worm ate through the stem of the plant, so that it soon died and withered away. And as the sun grew hot, God sent a scorching east wind to blow on Jonah. The sun beat down on his head until he grew faint and wished to die. "Death is certainly better than this!" he exclaimed. Then God said to Jonah, "Is it right for you to be angry because the plant died?" "Yes," Jonah retorted, "even angry enough to die!" -- Jonah 4:4-9 / New Living Translation
.
 Is there a connection there? A faint hint of a trace of a connection? Yes? No? Maybe? ... I'm so confused! Anyway, for my part I think that John has largely accomplished what he set out to do. The chief problems come not from the text, but from the reader who is locked into a master-slave relationship with the Bible (where the Word of God is thus made into the slave of pious and infallible reader-believers!)
.
> AVmetro: It's also a little harder to demonstrate my case when every passage I turn to in order
> to support my conclusions are allegedly "added in" after the death of the Apostle John.
.
 Well, this is just the point where we MUST come to some reasonable consensus! My position is that *ALL* the verses in Jn that *seem* to support a trinitarian interpretation of the gospel can be shown to be either foreign additions to the original autograph or views (ie. specifically erroneous and non-Johannine views) that John sets down in order to CONTRAST them with his own teachings (eg. 5:18 & 20:28). You are very right to suppose that without the assistance of these corrupted and misinterpreted verses you cannot make your case! That is precisely the truth I want you to publicly acknowledge: that John's teachings are incompatible with trinitarian doctrines and interpretations!!!
.
 But you are also very wrong to say that these changes and additions to the text are "alleged". There is nothing "alleged" about the obvious distortion that has befallen verse 1:18! *Anybody* can compare the many and various available versions of this verse and see that there is a great deal of confusion here. I have explained verse 1:18 as the result of the same sort of (inauthentic) pious scribal "improvement" that occurred in the last clause of 1:1, and thus solved the textual-problems that those verses pose. But you *prefer* NOT to explain why the text is corrupt. You *prefer* to accept the corruption as genuine; even though it is clearly contrary to John's teachings! Who, then, is at fault here, AV? Who is denying the truth of things in favor of mystical, metaphysical ideologies? Who, in short, is the one lacking in methodological respect for the inspired texts?
.
> AVmetro: If you would like me to support my beliefs from books other than John, just say so.
.
 I would NOT! If we cannot agree to what John (who is, for the most part, clear in his teachings) is telling us here in 1Jn&Jn, then it is highly unlikely that we would agree as to what is being said in other, far more difficult and obscure, books (eg. Hebrews and Isaiah). No, first we must come to some understanding/agreement as to where John stands, THEN we can look to other authors and compare their thinking with John's.
.
> Would that make things easier in regards to distinguishing between what is and what is not *spurious*?
.
Most certainly NOT! When Luther and the other early Reformers developed the hermeneutical principle of using scripture to interpret scripture, what they meant was that in those (supposedly rare) cases when the plain or literal meaning is obscure or awkward or seemingly wrong, then other passages dealing with the same topic may be used to illuminate the hidden meaning. In other words, using scripture to interpret scripture means using clear and precise texts to enlighten texts that are dark or obscure in their intended meaning. I have no problem with this hermeneutical principle, AV. In fact, I use it often myself. BUT in the case of John this principle does not, in fact, apply ... outside the range of 1Jn&Jn that is. I simply mean that it is not necessary (or even wise) to use external texts because John is more than capable of saying for himself what he means! If not for the sad and unnecessary confusion created by bad translations and horrendous interpretations, I am certain that the vast majority of bible-readers would, like me, have no problems understanding John. And the reason why 1Jn&Jn are so readable and intelligible is that the author *deliberately and consciously* set out to proclaim the gospel *clearly and plainly* so that all believers may know and believe, and thus come to faith and life.
.
>> textman previously wrote: <snip> I have found a few answers of my own over the years, and even
>> solved a few problems and mysteries that have vexed countless scholars both past and present ...
.
> AVmetro: Examples of such would be....? Just curious.
.
 Well golly, AV, my website is just chock full of such prophetic goodies. Dost thou require a link thereto mayhap? Verily, I say unto thee: Get thee hence at once, forsooth: https://cybrwurm.tripod.com/index.htm
.
 But if you are not so adventurous as to clicketh thyself away, I will tell you an example here and now: One of my earliest discoveries was that 1&2Thessalonians is composed of four (ie.4) separate and distinct letters that were produced by the cooperative and collaborative efforts of both Paulos and Silvanus. These plain literary facts, when acknowledged and accepted by truth-loving bible-students, puts them light-years ahead of the scribes and pharisees in terms of being better-situated to understand not only 1&2Th, but also how the genesis of the Christian epistle actually came about as a historical process of interaction between the two prophets and the very Greek world around them ... That's just one example, AV; there are many others, of course. :D
.
>> tx: And why is that, you ask? Because History *necessarily* goes beyond the physical evidence, AV!
>> If you cannot accept this basic fact of life, then there is no hope for you at all. Oh say it ain't so!
.
> Of course it ain't so, textman! <snip remainder>
.
 So then you agree that history goes beyond the raw facts, but you are NOT prepared to admit that the facts show that the text of John has been significantly altered in the centuries prior to Constantine?!? How the heck does that work exactly? So how shall we discern truth from error? How shall we find and distinguish between what is authentic (eg. to the spirit of the sacred texts) and what is inauthentic? How, in short, can we be sure that we (as finite and limited individuals, and as larger integrated churches and/or communities, and as members of the timeless (but still very *historical*) Body of Christ) are reading and understanding correctly? And in a manner most likely to be acceptable and pleasing, not to the world and its peoples, but to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and to the One True God?
.
 These are not easy questions for those who do not rest content with a trivial and superficial faith! No sir. But they must be taken seriously by believers if the Faith is to survive and thrive in the 21st century global village. That's a fact. But look at how other Christians deal with these weighty matters: Many bible-readers (and not necessarily excluding non-believers), whenever they take up this or that historically particular (or physical form) of the Word of God, at once trust implicitly that their own understanding is quite sufficient unto whatever biblical passage that their eyes may fall to. After all, there's them there words right there on the page in black and white, complete with the ugliest font every devised by sadistic publishers. The reader knows the words, knows they lock together to form readable and coherent sentences that hang frozen and timeless in the glorious realm of the reader's perfect understanding!
.
 Oh yes, it's all so simple and straight-forward. Only a fool could doubt that the reader is the absolute and infallible master of the word in every conceivable way. The WINONA RYDER method of bible study! Which proceeds in the certain knowledge that hermeneutics is the exclusive pursuit of fools and madmen! That's what it is, alright. [Now you must please excuse the extremely queasy one whilst he steps into the john in order to express his gutmost-feelings about the *vast* majority of bible-readers! ... Baarrrffffiinnggg now. Chunks yet. Yuch!]
.
   
.
 [Later] On the other hand, many other believers read the bible casually, or devoutly, or even for no particular reason at all, and yet are content to leave all (or most) of the "absolute judgments" and "great theological conclusions" to their most trusted scribes and pharisees; who are taught about the scriptures by professionals, by golly, and already know all about the sacred scriptures. So there! Still others have sense enough NOT to rely on their own subjective whims and fancies, not to rely on obscure traditions or the doubtful wisdom of those committed to priestcraft. They seek a sensible accounting of the scriptures (and I for one affirm their right to be satisfied in this natural impulse), and want to be secure in their own understanding; at least as regards the most basic essentials of biblical literature and their teachings. And so they eagerly turn to the massive and impressive secondary literature, the monstrous and snarling writings of biblical scholarship generated by many very dedicated bible-scholars (like unto the scribes and pharisees).
.
 In thus taking cognizance of the thinking of the exegetes and commentators and translators and textual-critics and etc etc, they eventually, inevitably, and unavoidably become enmeshed and entangled and entombed in the vast conceptual system that is the biblical paradigm which the scribes and pharisees have built and rebuilt and refined for themselves over the course of thousands of years of ceaseless toil and labor, all for the greater glory of God, and surely you would not want to be so crude and barbaric as to cast any doubt on ALL of that, now would you, no, of course not! What is wrong with all this? Is it not the case that all of this gross and unnecessary hermeneutical chaos is the logical result of the reader's confusion of truth and method? Yes, perhaps it is! Perhaps a more sensible approach to the sacred texts is one that proceeds rationally from authentic and legitimate methods (well-grounded in history and philosophy) to established truths that can be relied upon to correctly and fruitfully guide our whole understanding of the Bible, AND all of the commentaries, reflections, and critiques, that thus flow forth from those deep sources.
.
 Think it over ...

P.S. "I have at all times written my writings with my whole heart and soul;
I do not know what purely intellectual problems are." -- F. Nietzsche (19C German prophet-philosopher)