godspell said
bren, I know you like to split hairs, but that’s cutting it a bit fine, wouldn’t you say? If there’s only one true God, then there’s only one God, period. But Judaism certainly thought humans could attain to a sort of second hand godliness, and Christianity took that idea and ran with it. But ‘John’ goes further and says Jesus is an extension of God, an earthly avatar, never truly human at all, which isn’t what the earlier evangelists thought, and most certainly not Jesus himself.
Yes John says there is only one god. But doesn’t say there is only one who is god.
Judaism certainly did not think humans could attain to a sort of second hand godliness.
John’s Jesus is son of god in a universe where there is only one god. Exactly the same the other three evangelists and Paul as well.
All five agree that Jesus is Lord and that the Lord is God.
tompicard said
bcmreghow do you explain the author of the gospel of John stating so explicitly in Jn 1:18
“No one has seen God at any time.” ?
rather than “no one has seen the Father at any time” or even “no one has seen God at any time prior to Jesus’ birth” ?
if John is the disciple of Jesus, I assume he was not blind, then he saw Jesus, was he lying?
No, John believed he say the word of god made flesh, not god. He believe the word was with god in the beginning and the word was god in the beginning.
Just as when one sees a ray from the Sun one sees the ray and not the Sun, though the ray was with the Sun and was the Sun in the beginning.
The beginning of John’s gospel is about Platonism.
From my upcoming book:
In Platonism, there is the World of Becoming.
The living universe, creator-god, has a tappable rationality called the Logos, a principle so fundamental that it is deemed Natural Law. From the Logos, ideas and eternal patterns are formed. The Logos holds thoughts in the Receptacle as opposed to the thoughts being fleeting because if they were fleeting thoughts, they would not take shape for the Material World.
There is the logical ordering of the Greek Zeus and the logical ordering of the Roman Jupiter.
Afterwards, with the Gospel of John, there became the logical ordering of the Christian God.
The Logos may emanate from the creator-god which is the living universe. It is not a separate god. Jesus articulates messages and salvation from god to human beings? Jesus is an emanation from god to human beings? Jesus is an emanation of the thoughts of God about human beings? God’s thoughts were with God before the birth of Jesus and before that?
A creator-god would exist before the evolution of human beings, even before the creation of our Solar System.
Argument 1: In the beginning was Word or Thought Pictures?
Argument 2: A baby sees parents and home before it develops speech.
Argument 3: Did the fundamental forces, Electromagnetism, Gravity, Strong Nuclear Forces, Weak Nuclear Forces need Word or Thought? Probably not.
Logos is NOT Lord and God.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
glad you recognize
bcmreg .. the word of god made flesh, NOT GOD
I will not debate exactly what John meant by ‘word of God’, but fwiw I can observe that
“the word(s) of ** you do not have permission to see this link **” OK (hope you agree)?
I don’t understand the analogy with the sun,
if you choose think john could have said “no one has seen the Sun at any time” but he [John] probably/likely would have meant “People have seen rays of the Sun but not then sun at any time”, that is your choice
It is very odd thing for him to write the former if he meant the latter
you must think he [John] has a really really strange method of writing
honestly “no one has seen God to any time ” is extremely clear in meaning
much much clearer than “The Word became flesh, and lived among us”
at least to me
Steefen said
Argument 3: Did the fundamental forces, Electromagnetism, Gravity, Strong Nuclear Forces, Weak Nuclear Forces need Word or Thought? Probably not.
Why probably not. We know that all of these are only approximations and that all of them are the product of human thought.
tompicard said
** you do not have permission to see this link **glad you recognize
bcmreg .. the word of god made flesh, NOT GOD
I will not debate exactly what John meant by ‘word of God’, but fwiw I can observe that
“the word(s) of ** you do not have permission to see this link **” OK (hope you agree)?
Sure, but I hope you would agree that if an author wrote the “the word of brenmcg was with brenmcg and was brenmcg” that that author would have a paradoxical belief in the word of brenmcg was both with brenmcg and was brenmcg?
I don’t understand the analogy with the sun,
if you choose think john could have said “no one has seen the Sun at any time” but he [John] probably/likely would have meant “People have seen rays of the Sun but not then sun at any time”, that is your choice
It is very odd thing for him to write the former if he meant the latter
you must think he [John] has a really really strange method of writing
The strangeness of the writing is there from John 1:1. “the word was with God and the word was God”.
What is it supposed to mean? Any claim to the belief of the author of John’s gospel must contain paradoxical statements.
honestly “no one has seen God to any time ” is extremely clear in meaning
much much clearer than “The Word became flesh, and lived among us”
at least to me
Sure, some parts of John’s gospel are clear and some aren’t.
But orthodoxy must be paradoxical. Arianism is not paradoxical and therefore cant be orthodox.
To a certain extent, John is writing poetry, and poetry is allowed to be paradoxical, ambiguous, fluid, indeterminate.
My problem with John is when he stops being those things, and just goes all in on the Jew hate. Nothing terribly poetic about that.
Never mind if his Christ is God. He isn’t Jesus. And Jesus is what I read a gospel for. I read John for the Pericope Adulterae. Which I was relieved to learn John didn’t put in there. And don’t even think about starting that debate back up again, bren. Good night. 😉
Jesus says in ** you do not have permission to see this link ** the father is the only/one true god. He does not say “only the father is God”.
A:
father is not the only one numerically identical to God.
B:
Father is not numerically identical to God
C:
Only the father is numerically identical to God
How many ways can one spin John 17:3 to fit a trinitarian reading ? I don’t read Greek, is the Greek “spinable” ?
IMO, you NOT should try to re-interpret the very very clear and obvious meaning of a statement such as
“No one has seen God at any time”
in order to conform to a personal interpretation of a non obvious and very very esoteric statement such as
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
better if you want to try and understand the author, try to put aside your personal preferences, and interpret the esoteric statement in a way that conforms with the clear obvious statement.
if you personally prefer paradoxes, or prefer your biases to trying to understand the author, you may follow the opposite course
godspell said
To a certain extent, John is writing poetry, and poetry is allowed to be paradoxical, ambiguous, fluid, indeterminate.My problem with John is when he stops being those things, and just goes all in on the Jew hate. Nothing terribly poetic about that.
Never mind if his Christ is God. He isn’t Jesus. And Jesus is what I read a gospel for. I read John for the Pericope Adulterae. Which I was relieved to learn John didn’t put in there. And don’t even think about starting that debate back up again, bren. Good night. 😉
In John 18:14 he tells us that Ca′iaphas was the one who had given counsel to “the Jews” that it was good that one man should die for the people.
But the reference is just to a meeting (Ch 11) of Caiaphas at the sanhedrin which included just the chief priests and pharisees – not all Jews. John should not be accused of hating Jews when his use of the term “the Jews” clearly doesnt refer to all Jews.
Also John has Jesus, in Ch 4, not chastise the Samaritan woman who has had 5 husbands but the one she has now is not her husband. Quite in keeping with the pericope adulterae.
I think you’ve misjudged John and should re-evaluate.
Riad Multoni said
Jesus says in ** you do not have permission to see this link ** the father is the only/one true god. He does not say “only the father is God”.
A:
father is not the only one numerically identical to God.
B:
Father is not numerically identical to God
C:
Only the father is numerically identical to God
How many ways can one spin John 17:3 to fit a trinitarian reading ? I don’t read Greek, is the Greek “spinable” ?
Matthew in 24:37 tells us “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”
This expresses the knowledge possessed by the Father to the exclusion of everyone else.
The word for word translation from the Greek is “no one knows that hour if not the father alone.”
Had John wanted to express that “only the father is God” he would have said something like
“no one is God if not the Father alone”.
What is actually expressed in John 17:3 is that there is only one true God, and that the father is this God. However John has already told us that the Word is also this one true God.
tompicard said
IMO, you NOT should try to re-interpret the very very clear and obvious meaning of a statement such as“No one has seen God at any time”
in order to conform to a personal interpretation of a non obvious and very very esoteric statement such as
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
better if you want to try and understand the author, try to put aside your personal preferences, and interpret the esoteric statement in a way that conforms with the clear obvious statement.
if you personally prefer paradoxes, or prefer your biases to trying to understand the author, you may follow the opposite course
yes sure when John claims to have seen Jesus he does not claim to have seen God. “No one has seen God at any time … ” is indeed clear and obvious.
However John does claim that Jesus is the Word and does claim that in the beginning the Word was God.
Any understanding of John has to include this seeming paradox.
Another wrinkle–if Jesus is the Word of God, and was in heaven, hasn’t he seen God? And the phrase ‘at any time’ indicates John isn’t talking only about people alive at the time of writing. He’s talking about every human being who has ever lived. So he is clearly only talking about mortals (who in the Old Testament can’t view God directly and survive). Further evidence he does not think Jesus was in any true sense a man. Creating a basis for the later heresy of Docetism. Not that he cares.
But if there’s one thing that comes across from Jesus in the synoptics, it’s his humanity–even though the authors never met him, they were using stories told by people who had, and they responded to that–they wanted to convey both his divinity (however you define or explain it) and his humanity, which has always been the central tension in how Christians view Jesus, so much so that it became a heresy to say he wasn’t wholly human and wholly divine at the same time.
To me, this absolutely destroys the notion that the author of John had seen Jesus at any time. He could not have known that man and not felt his humanity, and even if he wanted to deny it, it would still come through in his writing. It doesn’t.
“no one is God if not the Father alone”.
What is actually expressed in ** you do not have permission to see this link ** is that there is only one true God, and that the father is this God. However John has already told us that the Word is also this one true God.
are you saying that the word is ONLY one true god or the word is one true god, but not ONLY the one true god?
father = only 1 true god.
word = only 1 true god
only 1 true god = father and word which are two different things. so john thought that only 1 true god = two different things and still said “father is the ONLY one true god, but NOT ALONE” ?
confused smiley
Riad Multoni said
are you saying that the word is ONLY one true god or the word is one true god, but not ONLY the one true god?
father = only 1 true god.
word = only 1 true god
only 1 true god = father and word which are two different things. so john thought that only 1 true god = two different things and still said “father is the ONLY one true god, but NOT ALONE” ?
confused smiley
In John 17:3 “only” and “true” are adjectives applied to God not to the Father. The father is said to be this God as had the Word previously.
John might have said “that they may know you, the big old red one true God.”
John would then be saying the both the father and the Word were this big old red one true God.
In ** you do not have permission to see this link ** “only” and “true” are adjectives applied to God not to the Father. The father is said to be this God as had the Word previously.
is the father identical to “the only true god” ?
so if you were to identify god, would you say that god is exactly alike the father ?
regarding whether it is the case that Jesus “is” God, consider the wisdom expressed by Bill Clinton:
It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the—if he—if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement. … Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. L. . . , that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert