by slimboyfat 118 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
You really don’t get simpler than that,....
The problem is you assume it was supposed to be simple. The Jews had very sophisticated conceptions of deity. I recently tried to illustrate that in another of your many anti-Trinity threads. This is what I meant about the WT 'dumbing down" the concepts of Christ as Son of God and Logos. It has broad appeal to those inclined toward simplicity, but it doesn't reflect the whole spectrum of ideas present in the OT and NT.
The author of the Gospel of John likely changed the chronology of Jesus' crucifixion for theological and symbolic reasons rather than historical ones.
"John" wasn't trying to confuse an audience that obviously already knew the story of Jesus. What he was doing was trying to deepen the significance by playing off of tropes and symbols.
For example, the so-called "Kelvin Star Trek" films introduced an alternate "reality" for Star Trek that reveals itself subtly, in small steps in the story, making fans who are watching feel a great sense of familiarity until a main character, the mother of Spock, dies while his home planet is destroyed--something that can't happen for Star Trek to be "Star Trek."
The Gospel of John is a similar type of work. It is not attempting to be another retelling of the Jesus story every Christian knows. This author claims to be (or know) the apostle who witnessed everything and everybody, and seems quite old. He's come to understand things from a spiritual perspective--and it's this perspective, telling readers what the "Jesus experience" means, is what he does or is trying to do--as opposed to what happened.
This is similar to Matthew. Matthew wrote what Jesus "meant" for a Jewish Christian audience, as the "New Moses." So John does the same thing, writing the story as if Jesus were the Divine "Word" in control of everything from beginning to end, a physical man with a divine meaning, not merely Jesus the Christ.
Jesus first miracle was not turning water into wine at a wedding, for instance. And Jesus could indeed be recognized (though in John, the disciples don't know who he is) after his resurrection, but these two things are obviously tied together. Think. Since the author is not being literal, he's saying "what" about his subject? Especially since he's beginning and ending his Gospel about Jesus like this...the Gospel about the Word of God.
And when the bishops closed the Christian canon of the New Testament, they purposefully placed John as the last Gospel and the Revelation to John, a book of signs, last. Why? There is a significant reason.
It all has to do with why John moved Jesus's death around. It's symbolic. The author teaches in signs and symbols. From the first "sign" at the wedding at Cana to this moment and beyond, the author sees Jesus providentially in control of his life, and the author teaches us this, even if he has to change the days, times and literal events surrounding Jesus's life to do so.
He's not playing with the events of Jesus's life. On the contrary, the author is using them to teach his audience what he knows about God.
@slimboyfat
The claim that “the Bible teaches that Jesus’ Father is the only true God (John 17:3) and that Jesus is the Son of God, the firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15)” in order to deny the divinity of Christ may sound superficially straightforward, but it is ultimately based on a selective and distorted reading of Scripture, one that ignores both the context and the profound Christological affirmations present throughout the New Testament. This argument hinges on an Arian misunderstanding of what it means for Christ to be called “Son” and “firstborn,” and on a tendentious reading of John 17:3 that tears it from the fabric of Johannine theology and Christian tradition. This simply reductionist prooftexting.
Let us begin with John 17:3, which is often misused as a prooftext to deny the deity of Christ. The phrase “the only true God” applied to the Father in this passage is not, in itself, controversial. Trinitarian theology has always maintained that the Father is the only true God—but it does not say that only the Father is God to the exclusion of the Son and the Spirit. What the verse actually says is this: “This is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.” It is telling that eternal life consists in knowing both the Father and the Son. The Greek word kai (“and”) in this construction does not imply ontological separation or exclusion, but conjunction and unity of purpose. In several cases in the Johannine corpus, kai functions almost appositively—namely or that is—as in John 15:8 or 18:35. Even taken in its usual conjunctive sense, the phrase implies that eternal life is found in knowing both the Father and the Son—not the Father instead of the Son.
Furthermore, the context of John's Gospel reveals the deep unity of the Son and the Father. In John 5:23, Jesus says that “all must honor the Son just as they honor the Father.” The term just as (kathōs) here is critical: the same honor due to the Father is due to the Son. Yet this would be blasphemy if the Son were not divine, as worship is due to God alone (cf. Isaiah 42:8). Jesus also explicitly identifies Himself with the divine name in John 8:58 (“Before Abraham was, I AM”), invoking the ego eimi formula that echoes Exodus 3:14. The Jewish leaders understood this claim and attempted to stone Him for blasphemy—not because He claimed to be merely “God’s Son” in a metaphorical or adoptive sense, but because He made Himself “equal with God” (John 5:18).
Now, turning to Colossians 1:15, the phrase “firstborn of all creation” (prōtotokos pasēs ktiseōs) has been misread by Arians since the fourth century as if it meant “first created.” But this is not what the term means. Prōtotokos does not imply that Christ is part of creation—it signifies supremacy and preeminence over creation. In Jewish thought, the “firstborn” was the heir, the one possessing authority and primacy, not necessarily the first temporally. That Paul did not mean Christ was created is made clear by the very next verses: “For in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth… all things were created through him and for him” (Col 1:16). The Son is not part of creation—He is its Creator. Paul’s theology here is unmistakably affirming the Son’s divinity, echoing John 1:3: “All things were made through Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made.” If Christ is on the side of the Creator, and not among those things that were created, He is eternal and divine.
To claim that “you really don’t get simpler than that” is a rhetorical sleight of hand that appeals to a surface-level literalism rather than a theological synthesis of the whole of Scripture. Simplicity, in the Arian sense, is not a virtue if it comes at the cost of ignoring the totality of biblical revelation. The very notion that the early Christians saw Christ only as a creature is historically false. The pre-Nicene Church Fathers such as Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian—all writing well before Nicaea—frequently refer to Jesus as God, Lord, and Creator. These were not Hellenistic fabrications or philosophical corruptions of simple faith; they were the organic development of apostolic teaching as the Church reflected on the full identity of Christ.
Trinitarianism does not deny that the Father is the “only true God,” but it insists that this is said in relation to the Son and the Spirit within the eternal communion of the one divine essence. The Father is the principle without principle, the unbegotten source (fons divinitatis), while the Son is eternally begotten of the Father (ex Patre natus ante omnia saecula) and the Holy Spirit proceeds from both. These are not three gods, but one God in three persons, each fully and equally divine, yet distinct in relation.
Therefore, the biblical texts cited do not support an Arian Christology. Rather, when read in harmony with the broader witness of Scripture and the living tradition of the Church, they affirm the mystery of the Trinity: one God in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, co-eternal, consubstantial, and undivided. To deny this is not to uphold biblical simplicity, but to impoverish the faith by flattening the richness of divine revelation into a man-made reductionism.
The Bible teaches that Jesus’ Father is the only true God (John 17.3) and that Jesus is the Son of God, the firstborn of all creation. (Col 1.15) You really don’t get simpler than that, which is the reason why most ordinary Christians perceive Jesus and God in those terms, despite what the later Trinitarian creeds say.
As a Jew, I have to agree that while the Hebrew Bible does not teach the Trinity, the New Testament, while not explicitly expressing the creed, does set the stage for the doctrine of the Trinity or at least the divinity of Jesus Christ.
It's not where the doctrine originated, as the creeds and doctrines of Trinitarian support grew during the same period that the New Testament canon was still being shaped, but it is hard to counter many of the outright texts in Christian Scripture and the works of the Church Fathers where Jesus is addressed as God.
This is the basic reason Jews do not believe Jesus of Nazareth is not the Messiah--not that he failed to fulfill all his work (a second coming or a messianic priest could indeed do these things missed, if any), not that he died (Simon Bar Kokhba and the Rebbe, both messianic figures, died too), not even the stories of his resurrection (that would be evidence of divine approval, no?).
The main reason Jews don't accept Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah is that we would have to worship him as God, because that is the claim--and we don't believe people can be God or God can be people.
The point is, Christians do. And that means the Trinity is and has been a certain and central belief of Christianity from the beginning--otherwise, why the stumbling block? I mean, a messianic figure that rises after dying on the third day sounds cool. Right? (But I have to break the first of the Ten Commandments if I follow Jesus according to Judaism...eh...)
Don't worry Christians. Jews generally accept the Trinity as technically a theological form of monotheism--meaning we do not view Christian worship as heathen or Pagan. (It's just not a form we Jews are allowed to engage in.) But, it has always been what makes a Christian Christian.
Kaleb, certainly John in its final reordered and redacted form fits the description you just gave. I'm coming at this from a textual/redactional critical perspective. You probably know there are those who hold to an Ur-John priority. I'm not entirely convinced but it certainly is a possibility. Much of the assumption otherwise is rooted in the historical Jesus premise, in which a man gradually became mystically understood. The opposite direction in which a mystical template predates a historization is also possible. In which case the spiritual concepts that distinguish John might in fact predate the Synoptics.
My speculations are just fun hypotheticals. You have to admit that if the earliest crucifixion traditions intended Jesus to be like Jonah, (3 days and 3 nights) John's having him killed on Preparation makes more sense. I know John has been assumed to be the last and most 'spiritual', and in its final form, that is almost certainly the case. The final redactor/editor of John certainly knew the Synoptics. It is however not impossible, in this particular detail, John preserves an older telling of the Passion story. Doing a little googling I found a few articles suggesting as much.
SB-When Jesus three componenets of personhood were joined, he was a live. When his spirit (God) separated from his body, he was dead. (Same as anybody else).
To ask my previous question another way then...once separated, God the Father remained alive and resurrected the dead God the Son?
Peacefulpete:
It is however not impossible, in this particular detail, John preserves an older telling of the Passion story. Doing a little googling I found a few articles suggesting as much.
I'm not, as you know, a Christian, nor was I "Googling" around to find my conclusions. There are a lot of ideas and thus one can go on forever and never end.
I was merely explaining why Jesus died on Nisan 14 in one gospel as opposed to the others. I wasn't responding or inventing my replies for sport.
Postscript to my last post:
I was called away before adding this for Peacefulpete...
I do believe, however, you are on the right track in searching.
Judaism itself is not about claiming to have the truth but about the search and the process. As in mathematics, often finding out how to work the correct formula or method to find the answer is more important than knowing or claiming you have the answer.
Otherwise how will you ever learn to think for yourself.
"The pre-Nicene Church Fathers such as Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian—all writing well before Nicaea—frequently refer to Jesus as God, Lord, and Creator. " - Where? Where does Tetullian or Justin Martyr call Christ explicitly "creator"
How do you know they mean "God" and not "a god"? Justin Martyr says "allon theon" which can only mean "another god"
Who is NOT the maker of all things [Justin: "BESIDES the Maker of all things"]
I can list where they Both (actually all except one) explicitly call him "Wisdom" But not "creator"
"To claim that “you really don’t get simpler than that” is a rhetorical sleight of hand that appeals to a surface-level literalism rather than a theological synthesis of the whole of Scripture." - or its you being dishonest as always, Which we all know you are...
"surface-level literalism" - you mean like you selectively do, trying to say israel isn't a nation?
Christ is seperated from "the only true God" in this instance and ironically never called such anywhere in the NT..
If Jesus is comparing his Father to false Gods... where are they in the context of this prayer? and why not include the other 2 "members" of the "only true God"?
you should read Eusabus before and after Nicaea - you are so deluded its unreal.
I have and Hart has a point... there was a change in rhetoric (probably to avoid being declared a "heretic" because you know that equalled death - something you omit to mention when no one (apparently) pushes back against a common belief.)
anyway - you are not worth answering, So I wont engage further unless you can respect others.
peacefulpete:
"The problem is you assume it was supposed to be simple. The Jews had very sophisticated conceptions of deity."
Not really, a 5 year old could comprehend what the thought of deity was to them.. its not really that hard..
