by Legendary U.2.K. 89 Replies latest watchtower bible
LINKS TO TEXT OF ORIGEN'S COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN (BOOK 2)
Newway:
Maybe I'm missing your point, but it seems to me that you need to take all of Origens statements together. What do you think he meant by:
Now there are many who are sincerely concerned about religion, and who fall here into great perplexity. They are afraid that they may be proclaiming two Gods, and their fear drives them into doctrines which are false and wicked. Either they deny that the Son has a distinct nature of His own besides that of the Father, and make Him whom they call the Son to be God all but the name, or they deny the divinity of the Son, giving Him a separate existence of His own, and making His sphere of essence fall outside that of the Father, so that they are separable from each other.
Facial hair poll: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=33229&site=3
LittleToe: Thanks for your post. If you read the article on the semachiah web site, you will notice that Origen has been quoted on the basis of his understanding of Koine Greek as a native speaker. So, his 'testimony' has been used because of his authoritative analysis of the structure of John 1:1c as an expert in the Koine Greek language. His actual theological arguments are not the key in themselves, but they do help to show the difference in understanding of the two 'gods'. If you read carefully you will see that in his discussion he mentions the "god" with the article and the "god" without. In his explanation it is evident that a definite article in John 1:1c was not even implied - modern translators have argued that there is an implicit definite article. His analysis of the text of John 1:1c shows that the Logos as "god" is relative to "the god" who is "God over all". He thus shows the difference between the two 'gods', and even mentions other 'gods' that come after the Logos. If one understands the way John used 'god' in reference to Jesus Christ, as pointed out by Origen, then there is no compromise to polytheism.
Kind regards.
(Edited due to missiing word)
Edited by - NewWay on 2 August 2002 15:6:13
Although the writings of the "Church Fathers" should not be allowed to interfere with clear and self-explanatory teachings from the Bible, in areas where interpretation is needed, such writings can help in establishing what early Christians believed. Late first century Christian writer Athenagoras reveals in what way the "Holy Spirit" was viewed:
"The Holy Spirit Himself also, which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun." - Athenagoras' A Plea For The Christians (Chapter 10)
"For, we acknowledge a God, and a Son his Logos, and a Holy Spirit, united in essence, - the Father, the Son, the Spirit, because the Son is the Intelligence, Reason, Wisdom of the Father, and the Spirit an effluence, as light from fire." - Athenagoras' A Plea For The Christians (Chapter 24)
While we could argue about what the word from which 'effluence' is translated means, it is clear from both short illustrations that Athenagoras understood the Holy Spirit to be a radiation from the Father. Light is a product of the sun and fire, but never the sun or fire itself.
Now, since I don't have the Greek manuscripts from which Athenagoras' writings have been translated, then I and other readers are a the mercy of Rev. B. P. Pratten who translated his work. So, for instance, when the Rev. translates from the Greek 'himself' (with reference to the Holy Spirit), there is no way of knowing if this is a legitimate translation. In fact, the Greek word for 'spirit' (Greek = 'pneuma') is a 'neuter' or 'it' word. So one wonders whether the Rev. has actually interpreted a neuter pronoun to mean 'himself'.
A similar situation exists with regard to the promised 'comforter' (Greek = 'parakletos') of John 14:15-17 and John 16:7-11. The 'gender' of the Greek word for 'comforter' (in some Bible versions called 'advocate') is masculine. That of course does not mean that the word cannot be applied to females. Koine Greek, along with modern languages like German, have three genders and in many cases words are given what appear to be - at least to many native English-speaking people - an arbitary gender. Just because a word has a masculine gender, that does not prove that it refers to a male person or even a person at all. For instance, the Hebrew word for earth ('arets') is 'feminine' by gender, and although a literal translation of Genesis 1:2 begins: "now-the-earth she-was formless" (Hebrew = "w'harets hay'thah chohuw"), this does not make the earth a female person. In the above cited scriptures from John, many English translations use the pronouns 'he' and 'him' with reference to the 'comforter', but as has been shown this is based upon a literal translation. At the end of the day, one's translation of this passage of Scripture will reflect one's existing view of who/what the 'Holy Spirit' is.
So an unbiased examination of the 'Holy Spirit' has got to be based on what the Scriptures tell us as a whole. The 'Holy Spirit' has been described as 'saying' things, but then again blood (which is not a person) has been said in Scripture to 'cry out'. Thus, there are arguments both ways with regard to such scriptures. However, the majority of references to the 'Holy Spirit' or 'God's Spirit' speak of 'it' as being 'distributed among', 'poured out on', and 'filling' people. so it is no wonder that many people come to the conclusion that the 'Holy Spirit' is an energising power of God rather than an actual person. This certainly fits Athenagoras' illustration of 'it' being like light that emanates from fire.
I should like to make a comment on the expression, "God is a mystery". This appears to be used by at least some trinitarians as a conversation stopper. It is also viewed by some who have contrary views - and I don't mean to offend anyone - as "a cop out". I think Tertullian's words directed to those who were trying to uphold their own view of God is quite apt. He said (and I'm paraphrasing here): "Then one can imagine God to be anything one wishes, on the basis that anything is possible with God". Again, with this train of thought, he says: "God could have made man with wings, but just because He could does not mean that he actually did." For many people the "God is a mystery" strategy holds no water whatsoever. In fact there seems to be a condescending aspect to it in that the problem is deemed to be with the questioner's comprehending the trinity, not with whether or not the trinity is well-founded on careful examination of Scripture. It should be noted that many of those who do not accept the trinity doctrine refuse to be psychologically bullied (e.g. "Well every Christian scholar I know believes it") into believing a doctrine that emerged out of an era when political expediency was more important than the true nature of 'God', his 'Son', and the 'Holy Spirit'.
I'm afraid I treat the established 'orthodox' churches and their doctrines with the same degree of sober examination as I did the WTS.
Blood crying out: No specific words are attributed to it, it was in the form of bearing witness. This was not the case with the Holy Spirit, where specific sayings are recorded.
Athenagorus: He consistantly calls the Holy Spirit a "He", doesn't he.
Also, what do you think Origen was implying by the term Autotheos?
Just to qualify something - I'm not trying to be antagonistic, and neither have I any interest in convincing you of the Trinity doctrine. The Holy Spirit is the teacher. I'm just interested in your viewpoint and how you support it.
I haven't finished reading that site, as I haven't had time, but I shall peruse it further
Every blessing.
who cares
Jesus, like many others was gradually deified after his death. As those who selected the bible canon were trinitarians, they selected the books that best supported their viewpoint, although those books were written prior to the concept of the trinity being introduced. Hence all the ambiguity. There's no point arguing the point because the available material is confusing and contradictory.
LittleToe:
1. Blood crying out: This was used as an illustration of how non-personal things can be spoken of figuratively as though they were person (i.e. personification). Another instance of this is where Jesus spoke of "wisdom crying out for her children". I don't feel that the absence of specific words attributed negates the point of comparison I was making. I also believe that the language and the way it was used could well have incorporated expressions whereby the Spirit of God as a power could be spoken of in figurative terms as 'speaking' since it was under the influence of God's Spirit that the Bible writers wrote what they did. But we could argue over this point and never agree. That is why I said that it is at times a good idea to look beyond those passages of scripture which are in dispute and try to establish a 'bird's eye' view of the subject by looking at what the Scriptures say on any particular subject as a whole.Edited by - NewWay on 2 August 2002 16:50:6
It is impossible to make a correct decision when one does not have all the facts. Last time I checked, no one on this board was around in AD 32 to interview Jesus.
However, to make ignorant blanket statements such as Anybody Who believe that Christ is God, is a fool. is moronic and wrong.
FOOLS HATE KNOWLEDGE
*Whack!* [Pistol whips Legend again]
Yes CD, I'm not happy with the "he has a demon" type approach to religious disagreements!
