Narkissos
Doesn't it seem to you to be a miracle that the Gospel of John made it past the censors when the New Testament canon was finalized? The Gospel almost seems to have a Gnostic flavor to it.
Regarding the holy Trinity
by kristiano1122 44 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Narkissos
Navigator,
A miracle or the result of negotiation. The first known commentators of John's Gospel were Gnostics (Herakleon, Basilides, Valentinus). The early Catholic church could dismiss the Gnostic teachers as heretics, but the text was too popular in large sections of the Church to be discarded. On the other hand it suffered a lot of "orthodox" emendations, such as the references to "resurrection in the last day" reintroducing futuristic eschatology against the main thrust of the Gospel, the sacramental part on "eating my flesh and drinking my blood" in chapter 6, or the second conclusion (chapter 21) which coordinates the authority of the beloved disciple with that of Peter.
What always seems ironic to me (perhaps a sort of miracle) is that most orthodox Christians praise the unique quality of the Fourth Gospel and call it the "spiritual Gospel," without realising that what they most enjoy in it is, precisely, the light of Gnosticism.
-
Hellrider
Greendawn:
Hellrider, isn't the overall picture of the God and Jesus relationship anti trinitarian? As yadda says there are just a handful of verses that could indicate trinity, but there are a lot more that indicate a subordinate Jesus, eg He says "conquer and I will grant you to sit on my throne just as I conquered and sat on my Father's throne."
Actually, I think no single verse by itself could indicate trinity. And yes, Jesus refers to god as his Father in heaven, he says that he has been "given" all the authority, that all his might and power has been "given" to him by the Father. Someone said that "give the Bible to a hundred people who have never read the Bible before, and ask them then if Jesus is Gods son, or part of God. 99 of a 100 would say he`s the son". I have no problem with all of this. But then there are questions arising, partly from single verses, partly from verses seen in relation to eachother. What does "only begotten"? Does it mean firstborn, or exalted/chosen? When Jesus refers to his Father in heaven, is he then talking as Jesus the man, or Jesus the divine being? Jesus clearly speaks as both thruout the NT (the Jesus shaking with fear in Getsemane and sweating blood before his execution, is not the godly or angelic Jesus, it is Jesus the man), the only question is, when is he doing what? This confusion has lead to all sorts of views. The early trinitarians took the subordinationist position, and who would blame them for that? But then again, that view leads to other problems. The changing understanding of the Bible and christianity took centuries, and for good reasons. Every new understanding, which in it`s own context was very rational, eventually lead to new problems, which required new solutions, new thought. Also, the "reading the Bible literary"-view, leads to all sorts of problems. Wasn`t the idea of the JWs to read the Bible as literally as possible? So they dismissed the trinity, dismissed the soul, etc. And look where that took them, they even had to make their own Bible-"translation", to avoid the verses which in their doctrine caused problems.
-
gumby
On the other hand, some NT texts are mutually exclusive in both what they affirm and what they deny. They build against each other. The Judeo-Christian human Jesus insists that you do what he says and fulfill the Law perfectly instead of calling him Lord. The Pauline heavenly Christ can only save you through faith/hope in him without relying on the works of the Law. The Johannine Divine Son urges you to enter eternal life right now through faith/knowledge instead of working or waiting for salvation.
This comment to me sums up the bible and explains WHY the diversity of opinions concerning it.
Well put Narkmeister!
Gumby
-
LittleToe
Which would be why I love the Gospel of John. I'm in heaven this very moment
-
gumby
I'm in heaven this very moment
You eatin them funny cookies again?
Just as a side note, I remember even when I was a dub how I loved the Gospels and didn't much care for the rest of the bible as far as it moving me. I appreciated the letters (epistles) when I exited, but was always the fondest even then of the gospels. Peter and Paul sucked, Jesus ruled!
Gumby
-
Hellrider
Peter and Paul sucked, Jesus ruled
Affirmative on that one. Paul is boring. Acts is even worse.
Revelation is cool..
-
greendawn
Hellrider, I hope you don't think that I identify with the JWs by being anti trinitarian, it's just that the biblical position is overwhelmingly subordinationist even to the point that I can't understand why trinitarians bother to claim that the apostolic Church was trinitarian.
As I said earlier unlike the JWs I don't ascribe to them sinister motives for formulating this doctrine, but they will certainly find no joy in Saint Paul who was in very clear terms a subordinationist.
Long after Jesus's return to heaven Paul writes about "the God (ie God the Father) of our Lord Jesus...", Ephesians 1:17, and Jesus himself not once but FOUR times in one verse calls Him "my God" Revelation 3:12 -
Leolaia
greendawn...It is a bit misleading to treat subordinationism as inherently incompatible with trinitarianism. The Nicene ontological trinity already accommodates subordination in role, and while it does preclude subordination in substance or time (i.e. the Father and Son are co-eternal and co-equal in substance), earlier economical trinitarian approaches do indeed assume a subordinationist view of Jesus (not in substance, but in derivation, time, and role), and/or a ranking between the members of the trinity. Tertullian is a good exemplar of this point of view:
"The Son is not other than the Father by separation from him but by difference of function, nor by division but by distinction: for the Father and Son are not identical but distinct in degree. For the Father is the whole substance, while the Son is derivative and a portion of the whole. He himself confesses, 'The Father is greater than I am.' And in the psalm it is sung that he has been subordinated by the Father 'a little on this side of the angels.' So the Father is other than the Son, as being greater, as he who begets is other than the begotten, the sender than the sent, the creator than the agent of creation" (Adversus Praxean, 9).
"Let this assertion be taken as applying also to the third degree of the Godhead, since I regard the Spirit as having come from no other source, but from the Father, through the Son...Thus the connection of Father and Son, of Son and Paraclete makes three who cohere in a dependent series... Everything that proceeds from anything must needs be another thing, but it is not therefore separate. When there is one other, there are two; when there is a third, there are three. The Spirit makes the third from God and the Son, as the fruit from the shoot is the third from the tree, the canal from the river is the third from the source, the point of focus of a ray third from the sun. But none of those is divorced from the origin from which it derives its own qualities. Thus the trinity derives from the Father by continuous and connected steps" (Adversus Praxean, 2, 8, 25).
"When something is 'from someone,' and so is his, it can be something of the same quality as its source and possessor. Therefore the Spirit of God is God and God's Word is God, as coming from God, but it is not identical with God from whom he is. That which is God is God, as a concrete existent will not be God himself, but God in the sense of being the substance of God himself, as a concrete existent, as a portion of the whole; much less will the power of the Highest, . . . a mere attribute, be identical with the Highest" (Adversus Praxean, 26).
-
Hellrider
Greendawn:
Hellrider, I hope you don't think that I identify with the JWs by being anti trinitarian,
Of course not! I know that there are a lot of ex-JWs who still hold onto one or several of the WTS-doctrines. There`s nothing wrong in that. I`m no expert either, I`ve only been on this forum for a few months, and before that, I hadn`t read the Bible in any depth since back in the days at KH (well, I can`t say I read it in any depth then either, ha ha). It`s just that the more I learn (on this forum, and by reading articles, the occasional book, etc), the more I lean towards the traditional view of the Bible. For example, catholicism appeals to me, for some reason, I`m not sure why. That said, I`m not going to go get baptised anytime soon..
the biblical position is overwhelmingly subordinationist even to the point that I can't understand why trinitarians bother to claim that the apostolic Church was trinitarian.
Back in to the 2nd century, some of the church fathers expressed themselves in what today would be called "trinitarian terms", as in "the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit". That said, early trinitarianism wasn`t what it is today. It was subordinationist in its approach. Origen saw the Son and the Father as in eternal relationship to eachother (the Son was NOT created, according to Origen), and he saw both the Son and the holy Ghost as "entities" that "flowed" from the Father, and had done so in all eternity. This is in a way, trinitarianism. So trinitarianism wasn`t something they just came up with at that meeting in Nicea.