Dear Leolaia:
Thank you for such a content-intensive and downright fascinating reply! This is grand, and I will ruminate on it and absorb it. I would very much like to read the article by Philip Harner. You may email it to Eric who can then forward it to me. I will PM you and give you my private email in case you wish to send it directly.
I've been poring over various editions of the Greek New Testament, as well as photographic facsimiles of the codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus, and have found that the variant readings do indeed often have much bearing on important doctrinal issues, such as this one. Yet conservative scholars generally deny this reality and sweep the matter under the rug, claiming that most variants are inconsequential. True, a great many variants are inconsequential, but many are consequential. (This is not news to you, I know, but it is to me. Until I began to learn Koine Greek I naively trusted the pronouncements I had read on this matter for the most part.)
You've made some powerful points here, and I plan to share them with a good friend named James Coram who is the editor of the small Arian/Universalist journal Unsearchable Riches. If he does reply, I'll post it. He's written a short booklet laying forth the rather refined and elegant understanding of Arianism espoused by Unsearchable Riches. He even manages to include Modalism and Theosis in the discussion. His understanding of Arianism and approach to Arianism is quite above that of the various Bible Student organizations.You may wish to read it and comment here, or in private, If so, that would be quite marvelous for me to read. Here is the link: http://www.concordant.org/expopdf/index.html The title of the PDF is One God and One Lord.
You wrote: "As Narkissos has once put it, this is an inclusive sense of God that was deliberately abandoned in later orthodox Christologies but which was elaborated in later gnosticism, which regarded the Father, the Revealer of the Father, and all true sons of the Father as divine beings who will eventually return to oneness in the Pleroma (the "fullness" of deity), who all comprise God. On this, and other grounds, the more mystical Fourth Gospel is often regarded as proto-gnostic, as anticipating ideas found in later middle gnosticism."
The Eastern Orthodox have a clear and compelling understanding of Apotheosis, which grows out of their very strong emphasis on the Trinity, on God the Father as the Fountainhead of Divinity. Many times Apotheosis/Theosis is timidly stated in their official publications for fear of alienating non-Orthodox who are unable to understand. Their position is obviously an echo of the Gnostic position, except of course in the matter of deified human nature, deified flesh. (You already know that I'm Gnostic.)
Thank you again Leolaia!
Martin
FireNBandits
JoinedPosts by FireNBandits
-
40
The NWT of John 1:1; Some Questions For Leolaia and Narkissos
by FireNBandits into get right to the point, acts 12:22 and 28:6 both contain an anarthrous occurence of "theos" or a derivative, depending on one's textual base.
in both instances these verses are rightfully rendered "a god" and not "god.
" why, then, the mainstream christian problem with the same anarthrous construction in john 1:1 being translated in the nwt as "the word was a god"?
-
-
FireNBandits
-
30
The Scientific Reasonableness Of Noah's Ark Demonstrated
by FireNBandits infinally, someone in holland (where floods weigh heavily on the collective subconscious) has built a 1/5 scale model of noah's ark.
this proves that noah built the original ark.
if noah hadn't built the original ark, how could someone build a 1/5 scale model of it?
-
-
FireNBandits
Their beer? Forget their beer Dave, have you ever smoked a Canadian cigarette?
-
40
The NWT of John 1:1; Some Questions For Leolaia and Narkissos
by FireNBandits into get right to the point, acts 12:22 and 28:6 both contain an anarthrous occurence of "theos" or a derivative, depending on one's textual base.
in both instances these verses are rightfully rendered "a god" and not "god.
" why, then, the mainstream christian problem with the same anarthrous construction in john 1:1 being translated in the nwt as "the word was a god"?
-
-
FireNBandits
I also have a thorough understanding of the Christology of Ephesus and Chalcedon, but do not find much help in their non-biblical language and concepts.
-
30
The Scientific Reasonableness Of Noah's Ark Demonstrated
by FireNBandits infinally, someone in holland (where floods weigh heavily on the collective subconscious) has built a 1/5 scale model of noah's ark.
this proves that noah built the original ark.
if noah hadn't built the original ark, how could someone build a 1/5 scale model of it?
-
-
FireNBandits
Satanus, you must become a Scientologist! Their mythos is very kewl and totally space age! If a tad pricey.
Observador, thanks! I hope I made some "other" types of folks THINK. I know, that's worse than masturbating to a you-know-what, but still one might actually begin to think and one never knows where thinking will take one . -
30
The Scientific Reasonableness Of Noah's Ark Demonstrated
by FireNBandits infinally, someone in holland (where floods weigh heavily on the collective subconscious) has built a 1/5 scale model of noah's ark.
this proves that noah built the original ark.
if noah hadn't built the original ark, how could someone build a 1/5 scale model of it?
-
-
FireNBandits
Satanus, you must become a Scientologist! Their mythos is very kewl and totally space age! If a tad pricey.
Observador, thanks! I hope I made some "other" types of folks THINK. I know, that's worse than masturbating to a you-know-what, but still one might actually begin to think and one never knows where thinking will take one . -
17
A SCIENTIFIC COMMENTARY ON GENESIS 1
by FireNBandits init's worhy of note that john 1:1 is also anarthrous, "in beginning.
" this is because the bible doesn't tell us about the beginning or it would say "the" beginning.
an infinite series of beginnings being alluded to.. .
-
-
FireNBandits
Hey Hortensia and AlanF! Thanks for taking the time to read my mythic mental meanderings. Thank you especially Hortensia.
-
6
Heard any good anecdotes a JW?
by tioga joe ini got a chuckle out of one of the past messages that related the story of a person in desperate need praying to god for help just as a jw knocked on the door.
i had heard that one myself, too.. so it got me to thinking about "jw anecdotes" we all have heard.
one i heard from my visiting witness was during a "study" on how we must obey god's word even when man's word says not to.
-
-
FireNBandits
Kudra, too true. Happily, after being stunned and shunned I leapt into life with both feet. -Martin
-
20
Is there anything wrong with listening to anything the jw's say????s
by Lotus65 ini was reading some of the articles my mom brought home and gave to me and i was wondering do the jw's have any good ideas on a good way to live your life.
i mean do they know anything about how to live and what to do when you have problems.
i was wondering because i want to know if i can follow any of the info in questions young people ask book or are they wrong and every aspect and should i just never read it again.
-
-
FireNBandits
My late step-father was a veritable FOUNT of good and sage advice. Alas, he was a gibbering alcoholic slob and never took his own advice. I would think there are better places to find "good advice" than from thoroughly evil men such as the GB.
-
20
Is there anything wrong with listening to anything the jw's say????s
by Lotus65 ini was reading some of the articles my mom brought home and gave to me and i was wondering do the jw's have any good ideas on a good way to live your life.
i mean do they know anything about how to live and what to do when you have problems.
i was wondering because i want to know if i can follow any of the info in questions young people ask book or are they wrong and every aspect and should i just never read it again.
-
-
FireNBandits
My late step-father was a veritable FOUNT of good and sage advice. Alas, he was a gibbering alcoholic slob and never took his own advice. I would think there are better places to find "good advice" than from thoroughly evil men such as the GB.
-
40
The NWT of John 1:1; Some Questions For Leolaia and Narkissos
by FireNBandits into get right to the point, acts 12:22 and 28:6 both contain an anarthrous occurence of "theos" or a derivative, depending on one's textual base.
in both instances these verses are rightfully rendered "a god" and not "god.
" why, then, the mainstream christian problem with the same anarthrous construction in john 1:1 being translated in the nwt as "the word was a god"?
-
-
FireNBandits
To get right to the point, Acts 12:22 and 28:6 both contain an anarthrous occurence of "Theos" or a derivative, depending on one's textual base. In both instances these verses are rightfully rendered "a god" and not "God." Why, then, the mainstream Christian problem with the same anarthrous construction in John 1:1 being translated in the NWT as "the Word was a god"? The problem seems to be a theological one, not a linguistic one. Not even a contextual problem, especially if the variant reading of John 1:18 "the only begotten God" is correct.
Also, "Paul" refers to the Adversary as "ho theos (THE God) of this aeon" in 2 Corinthians 4:4, yet no one seems to see this as indicative of any sort of problem with the traditional understanding of "ho theos" in John 1:1 or John 20:28. Not that it implies "ho theos" of John 1:1 is the same "ho theos" of 2 Cor 4:4, but rather a problem with the insistance on the part of trinitarians that "ho theos" is applied exclusively to God the Father. Obviously that is not so. Which to my mind makes the exact translation of John 1:1 less certain. Also, it blunts the edge of John 20:28 as "proof" of the "Deity of Christ" since both Satan and Christ are referred to as "ho theos."
However, my understanding of Koine is that of a beginner, so I am asking for input and insight from Leolaia and Narkissos if they would like to weigh in on this issue. Others are welcome too, as long as no one threatens to sic their god on me or anyone else for questioning holy tradition. I have no interest in creeds, since I have the Nicene, Apostles, and Athanasian creeds all memorized (Please don't ask why). I have no interest in "truth by consensus" i.e., appealing to the catholicity of trinitarianism as proof or evidence of its veracity. I'm interested in the facts of the matter linguistically, contextually, and textually, in the NT. I'm unable to find much in the way of solid support for the "Deity of Christ" in the Absolute manner that mainstream Christians use that term. "Theos" is obviously a relative term, one that is applied to God, the Logos, Satan, and even humans. Nor do I find much support for the creedal language of "one God subsisting in three Persons." The NT seems quite clearly and plainly "Arian" to me, with the caveat that the Logos is not "ex nihilo" but "ek theou." ("Theou" by implication in Romans 11:36) -Saint Martin the Inquirer