All of this parsing of Scripture, take time to do good for others and this earth. Let the practical side of your Faith show itself.
Feed a hungry Family today.
Would a definite article prove that Jesus is God?
by solafide 164 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Narkissos
Earnest,
I'm not aware of any textual clue to this rather common hypothesis (I'm not being "original" here!): afaik it rests entirely on "internal" evidence as shown by literary analysis, the most obvious of which being the existence of two separate conclusions (20:30f; 21:24f), both of them dealing objectively (i.e. from a "third person" perspective) with the "writing" of the "book" or the "testimony" of the beloved "disciple," either addressing the "audience" in 2nd person plural or including the writer in it with 1st person plural. A new appearance of Jesus is quite surprising after the 1st conclusion, and its ideological content (correcting the relationship between "Peter" and "the beloved disciple," acknowledging the "shepherding" role of the former and pleading for the latter to be accepted as subsisting besides "Peter"'s leadership) seems quite related to the acceptance of the book in the (still informal) "canon" of the great (early "catholic") church.
Btw, this is only the tip of the iceberg as far as the literary development of the Fourth Gospel is concerned. Earlier conclusions of former stages of the book can be seen as early as in the end of chapter 12. See the commentaries (e.g. R.E. Brown) for better perspective.
Otherwise you are quite right on the Alexandrine connection -- which is common to a number of themes in the work (especially the logos in the Prologue), its earliest Egyptian material attestation (also due to climatic reasons, i.e. conservation of papyrii) and the background of several Johannine-friendly Gnostic teachers even in Rome (e.g. Valentinus) -- although it is far from exclusive (Samaria and Asia Minor are other likely contexts for different stages of Johannism).
solafide,
I disagree with your syntaxical analysis of 20:17: the one article actually determines the four (2x2) nouns and none of them is to be regarded as functionally anarthrous. Plus, as I have already remarked, the article is a normal part of the possessive construction (just as its absence is a normal part of the quatitative predicate construction in 1:1). Iow it is theologically irrelevant in both cases.
Btw, if you are interested in studying NT Greek I would strongly recommend that you do not limit yourself to the confrontation of grammar "rules" (which are only inferred from the extensive study of a corpus in the first place) with individual verses or phrases, but that you practice cursory reading -- and the Fourth Gospel is probably the best place to start as its syntax and style are very simple. You'll "feel" the language better after a few pages and be less tempted to jump to conclusions.
Which leads me directly to your (rather aggressive) comment: no, "John" didn't "call me up". I just read the text a number of times, and tried to forget about the anachronistic dilemma "either Trinity or (neo-)Arianism" to hear what it actually says. I'm not asking anybody to follow my (provisional) conclusions but pointing to what seems to me the best method to reaching theirs.
A constant fact in the Fourth Gospel is that it insists on extending the "Father/Son" relationship to the disciples of the first and further "generations" (cf. "those who have not seen" in 20:28ff). For example: "I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." (17:20ff). Ironically neo-Arians such as JWs use the second half of the equation as a ground to argue for a weak sense of the first half. But Trinitarians who argue for a strong sense in the first half (Jesus is God) must plead for a weak sense in the second, thereby destroying the equation. I just read it as I feel it is written: strong sense throughout. And thus the text "works".
Other details of what you wrote:
The Council of Nicea used Scripture to substantiate this doctrine. Therefore, if they did so correctly with Scripture, then it is a 1st century doctrine. You'd have to show how they didn't do so correctly for your statement to be true.
Arians and neo-Arians also "used Scripture". You can "prove" an impressing number of conflicting theories using Scripture. You may also come to different conclusions just reading it (in context, in a cursory way), but I would submit it restricts the gamut of possibilities.
God excludes believers from God. He is uncreated, and we are created. He is omniscient, we have finite pee brains, etc. John never blurrs these lines between God and believers.
That's definitely not the picture I get from the Fourth Gospel.
When one discusses the Trinity, it is helpful to look at passages which would substantiate Jesus and the Spirit being God. Many of the other things you bring up are related yet seperate discussions.
Maybe, but I don't care so much about the Trinity per se (although I must admit I like it better as an anachronistic synthesis than the Arian one), and this topic was primarily about a text and its theology, not a later dogmatic synthesis made up of a patchwork of unrelated texts and a lot of "unscriptural" reasoning in between.
The funny thing is that by turning every discussion on scripture into a "Trinity" debate, Trinitarians and JWs (for instance) agree on the principle of "using" the text rather than reading it.
-
PSacramento
DD,
Yes I know those passages from Revelation very well, they do seem at odds with what John wrote that Jesus said, I Have not come to condem, but to save".
Or the many more passages that reference Jesus's and God's love and Grace.
Of course if one choose to focus on one thing over the other that is certainly one's perogative.
-
solafide
Narkissos,
Cursory reading has lead many unbelievers to come to conclusions such as God's complete soverienty, the deity of Christ (being God), and the Trinity. So I can just as easily use your same arguemnt for why we shouldn't just follow Greek grammar rules about why we shouldn't just use "cursory reading". And of course you agree with me when you say "You may also come to different conclusions just reading it (in context, in a cursory way), but I would submit it restricts the gamut of possibilities." Fruther, it's important to look at Greek grammar rules because koine Greek, as you probably know, is one of the most objective and straight forward languages, and especially way more then English.
If the definite article applies to everything listed after in verse 17, then fine. To me it was confusing why verse 28 has two articles and verse 17 only has one, which isn't placed in front of God. On top of this being good to know, the entire passage still perfectly coincides with Trinitarian theology.
And you seem to be emphasizing chapter 17 as the crux of John's gospel. There is a lot more to it then saying that the saints will be one with God as God is one with God. Once we consider the whole of John, and the whole of Scripture, we see that being one with God for a saint can be in some way identical to how Christ and the Father are one, and in some ways impossible. For example, the saints will be glorified and forever made unable to sin like Christ and forever get to increasingly know Christ, but do not become omniscient or eternal like Christ. All this has to be considered when coming to conclusions from John 17, or 10.
Therefore, it's not nessecarily a weak or strong emphasis of the first half (or second), but both/and. It's a matter of looking what sense it's both weak and strong in both halves by looking at the whole of John and Scripture.
Going back to your statement "You may also come to different conclusions just reading it (in context, in a cursory way), but I would submit it restricts the gamut of possibilities", this is something I agree with you on. However I would add that one needs to understand Greek grammar rules and have also learn a richer understanding of Greek words to limite possibilities even more! And like I've stated, many, after doing all this have come to the conclusions of the Trinity, the Deity of Christ (as God), and the complete soverignty of God (even by non-Christians at times), so you're only begging the question when I ask you "did John call you", because many would do all this and still disagree with YOU. For example you are only left to say "That's definitely not the picture I get from the Fourth Gospel."
I don't limit my conclusions to "the Fourth Gospel", but to the whole of Scripture since it is all God's special revelation to us. And how do you not come to the conclusion that God is eternal and that we are not in John, when it begins with "en arche"?! "En" is imperfect and without derivation of a beginning, and "arche" has a beginning at a point in time, hence the world in which finite believers are created in.
How are you using the word "anachronistic"? That it came about through a traditional or historical belief? If this is so, then I'm going to have a hard time believing you because Tertullian first cointed the term "Trinity" hundereds of years before the Council of Nicea.
And the doctrine of the Trinity is "a later dogmatic synthesis made up of a patchwork of unrelated texts and a lot of "unscriptural" reasoning in between."? One could have that opinion about any doctrine!!! That's actually fundamentally how we get doctrine, namely, "patching" verses and contexts together! Wow. And it's your assertion that these are "unscriptural" with regards to the Trinity. I'm affraid you'll have to start with a Biblical example to convince a Bible student of this, not just offer your blank assertion.
"agree on the principle of "using" the text rather than reading it." Again, like I've pointed out, both are needed, and for reasons according to your own logic. And I find that JW's are more prone to be "Bible readers" not Bible students, hence why Jesus doesn't get to be God in 1 Cor 11:3 when the Father is said to be greater then Christ, yet it's never considered that this can't be referring to an ontilogical sense since man isn't said to be ontologically superior to woman!!!
-
Deputy Dog
PS
You only see what you want to see.
John 3:17
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
-
solafide
Spike,
This is why one has to consult the whole of John and of Scripture, not just a single passage for these matters. In Scripture we always see an economy within the Godhead. The Father wills what comes to pass, the Son carries it out, and the Spirit empowers. Just like a husband and a wife. Wives are to submit to their husbands yet husbands are not ontilogially superior in nature to their wives, such as in 1 Cor 11:3.
Notice, the Father does not confer "honor" to the Son, but all must honor the Son JUST AS they honor the Father. You can't really honor someone to the exact degree unless you can also worship them the same. And in John 2 Jesus says He will raise His own body, because the verb "He will raise" is a frist person active. So it's not just a work of the Father, but is Trinitarian.
Basically, Jesus doesn't back down from being charged as being "equal to the God (toe Theo)." If you want interpret this as not being fully equal but partially equal then fine. Next I would point you to what else John reveals about Christ. The Logos is eternal, hence John 1:1 "en arche" and all things ever were created by the Logos with not exception (1:3). John also says that Isaiah saw Jesus' glory in 12:41, as referenced back to Isaiah 6 when Isaiah saw Yahweh's glory. I could point out more but those are 3 points against JW's charges against the Deity of Christ. I consider all of this when I come to conclusions about John 5. Do you?
And if the Jews are charging Jesus for being equal with the God, then they would want to know why He has this authority to make these claims and do these things. What better authority then to explain to the Hebrew mindset that demands the testimony of 2 to ensure authority and the He does what is in step with what the Father would want, which is what Jesus explain later in the passage. If Jesus just sat around and said, "hey guys, I'm God, OK. I am" that wouldn't convince the Jew. What He actually says would. This shows Jesus' great love and patience with the unbelieving Jews. None of this cancels the Trinitarian view but perfectly harmonizes with it.
And just because Jesus is referred to as the Son, or the Son of God only proves His Deity all the more. It is a Messianic title, hence John 1:49 "Then Nathanael declared, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel."
And Yahweh is the King of Israel in Zephaniah 3:15 "The LORD, the King of Israel, is with you".
-
Spike Tassel
I disagree, solafide and leave this Topic, having already stated my position.
-
Deputy Dog
solafide
You bring up a great point about John 5.
Spike
How do you honor the Father? Do you honor Him as God?
-
Narkissos
solafide,
You totally missed my point about "grammar rules" -- I could put it more clearly and less nicely, but I'd rather let you go back and read again what I actually wrote. If that can help I am quite fond of grammar, but I would be cautious to make a grammatical argument about a text in a language I have not practiced enough (and here "I" mean you). :)
I quoted a passage from chapter 17 but I could have quoted others as well (chapter 14 would perhaps make my point even better, except for the consecutive "generations" of disciples). I meant it as an example, not a "prooftext".
More generally your interest and considerations are dogmatical, not exegetical. Nothing wrong with that per se. I for one just try not to mix the two, meaning I try to forget about later doctrinal syntheses and even the "rest of scripture" as much as possible when I'm reading or discussing a particular NT text, passage or book. Then I can compare. And while there are obvious similarities between John's theology and later Trinitarian doctrine I submit there are differences as well, some of which I tried to point out. This is not a problem for confessional exegetes who can confess the Nicene creed in church but not force it on the older texts they work to understand and explain.
-
babel on
Designs, i think you are the only one that gets it, the rest of you, are you sure the advance participle does not nullify the true word of (a god).......How many Gods do you have, is there 5 gods.....10....20........how many saviors........for Gods sake who do we look to..........call me pagan