John 10:15

by LittleToe 38 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Narkissos

  Auldsoul,

  I would not dare to say that such a weak meaning as "harmony of intent" is absolutely impossible -- you might find good examples of similar phrases with a weak sense in other literature. What is certain otoh is that such a weak meaning does not suit the Gospel of John, as the network of texts quoted above clearly shows.

  Side remark: it is worth noting that what Trinitarian orthodoxy has left out from the proto-Gnostic theology of John (namely, that the divine oneness ultimately applies to the elect) is precisely what the WT picks up to say: "See, it must be a weak meaning because the same expression also applies to the believers which cannot be God." Iow, they have correctly pointed out the flaw of orthodoxy but they "correct" it the wrong way (downward instead of upward), making a 50 % mistake into a 100 % one.
• 

  LittleToe

  Auldsoul:
  I completely concur with your comments about "oneness of purpose". I only included it for completeness and a starting point that we are all familiar with.

  Daystar:
  Don't even get me started on Daath.
• 

  LittleToe

  Didier:That would be the crux of my argument, also. But then they have no concept of Theosis.

  mdb:
  Don't take it too personally, it's only a web-board
• 

  jst2laws

  AuldSoul,

  Oddly, the Kingdom Interlinear Translation (basically Wescott and Hort's text) translates the Greek in John 10:30 as follows: I and the Father one (thing) we are.

  So now they have "thing-ified" God too? I'll go along with Narkissos' explanation of "thing" as long as it mean 'not a person'. Maybe it's a hint that the early Christians writer did not think of God as a literal person (male/female) in the sky. If mdb isn't locked into a strict trinity concept perhaps he will agree. LT, I'll get back to you soon. Justin
• 

  jst2laws

  Hello Midget

  I often link "knowing" with a high degree of "certainty". Could that be an important purpose and message of these mystical experiences? Not so much knowing absolutely everything there is to know about the nature of God, the Son and everything, as we now are anyways, but to possess that high degree of certainty of their actually being?

  Good point. I'm not sure we have to be "certain" about anything but it would be nice to be "certain" of God's "actual being". On the otherhand, I'm not "certain' of my own 'actual being'. Even in Quantum physics (the science that gives us modern chemistry, micro-biology, electronics) every function of quantum mechanics must incorporate Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Since Newtonian Physics (the physics we were taught in school) has had to yield to "relativity" and "uncertainty" I'm personally not 'certain' of anything. However, the mystics seem to have a consistent experience and are also very confident in what they 'know' from their experience. In fact the early Christian Mystics claimed to "know" God strictly by experience, not factual knowledge. Naturally, these strange Christians needed eradication since their "knowledge" couldn't be codified, dogmatized or legitimized. So, burn them, BURN THEM on the stake. LittleToe, Did you cover the angle Didier implied that:

  GJohn the absolute-mystical knowledge (gnôsis, from ginôskô) of the Father which the Son enjoys as Revealer is ultimately shared by all who know the Son

  Could Jesus have been referring to "absolute-mystical knowledge (gnôsis, from ginôskô)" as far as true Christians EXPERIENCING GOD as mystics have known Him? Justin
• 

  mdb

  If mdb isn't locked into a strict trinity concept perhaps he will agree

  Not very likely. There is too much biblical evidence that the Spirit is a person and not a force. I don't think this thread was to discuss the "trinity" doctrine, but the Spirit has all the attributes of a person.

  There are 3 primary attributes of personality: mind, emotions, and will. A force does not have these attributes.

  The Spirit has…

  A mind : 1 Cor 2:10; Isaiah 11:2; Eph 1:17; Rom 8:27

  Emotions : Eph 4:30

  A will : 1 Cor 12:11; Acts 16:6

  The Holy Spirit...

  Teaches: John14:26

  Testifies: John 15:26

  Guides: Rom 8:14; John 16:13

  Commisions to service: Acts 13:4

  Commands: Acts 8:29; 13:2; 16:6

  Intercedes: Rom 8:26 **Jesus intercedes (same Greek word - entynchan o ) for believers: Heb 7:25; Rom 8:34)

  Convicts men of sin: John 16:7,8

  Bears witness: 1 John 5:6

  Hears & speaks: John 16:13

  The Holy Spirit can be…

  Grieved: Eph 4:30

  Blasphemed: Matt 12:32; Mark 3:29,30

  Lied to: Acts 5:3

  Obeyed: Acts 13:2,10

  Sent: John 14:26; 16:7

  He is contrasted w/ unclean spirits:

  Mark 3:29,30

  Lack of a name argument: Spiritual beings are not always “named” in scripture. Unclean spirits are rarely named and JW’s will acknowledge their persons (not active forces). The Holy Spirit is a designation of character.
• 

  daystar

  mdb

  I'm not addressing anything else you have to say, but something jumped out at me:

  There are 3 primary attributes of personality: mind, emotions, and will. A force does not have these attributes.

  You sound very certain.

  The three attributes you subscribe to personality are pretty standard. The intellect, the heart, and the will (more or less) are pillars upon the Qabalistic Tree of Life. However, one might also ascribe these same attributes to forces we normally don't assume are sentient.

  From where does your certainty derive authority?
• 

  jst2laws

  mdb,

  I like your comments, as they often have depth. While many here may disagree with you I hope you will not take offense and keep commenting.

  Regarding your list, many (if not all) of those attributes could be attributed to something as inanimate a computer, the US constitution, a court of law, an institution, or cold hard facts.

  For example, circumstantial evidence can be thought of as having the ability to "testify", "convict", "teach", "guide", "bear witness", "intercede" and a catastrophe can be said to 'commission to service', 'command', or the Spirit of America could demand 'obedience', could be 'grieved', 'lied to', 'betrayed' and so on.

  Isn't it possible that, when talking of either God, the spirit or heaven itself we are not talking about literal, physical or personalized 'things'? I know it is easier to imagine God as a person, just as it was, and still is, easier for many to relate to God while gazing on a statue representing Jesus. But when we anthropomorphically personalize God we run into problems such as explaining John 10. Maybe it would be worth a moment to try and grasp the 'experience' instead of codifying the nature of God.

  To me, knowing God is the experiencing of him, the sense of presence rather than a technical and absolute description of his being.

  What do you think?

  Justin
• 

  mdb

  Daystar, Give me a legitimate example of a force (such as water, wind, or fire) that has the attributes of personality.

  I am certain of what I know is true. The issue here isn't if you think there might be a different number of primary attributes to a personality (1,2,3 or more), but whether the Spirit is a person or a force (if that's what you're getting at).

  You'll have to forgive me, I'm not "certain" of what your question is or the intent of it.
• 

  daystar

  mdb

  My point is that there are peoples who do attribute personality traits to forces. I'm just bringing up an alternate viewpoint. It's really not important to the subject at hand. Please do carry on.