Arguing Over Nothing?

[teachmevp]

I asked you to leave me alone, Roy, you are a tread destroyer,

I would like to reason with people that were in the way, not

Trinity that used to be in the way and went back to Trinity.

If pawtucket wants to give me the boot, cool; but you are

going to leave me alone, Roy.

[Twinky]

@teachmevp: not meaning to be difficult, but is English your first language?

[teachmevp]

I can't speak English very well, but I try.

[Jbarrax]

Teachmevp

I think if you do some research and give a little more weight to the information CMAN is trying to share, you'll find that your concept of a "harmony" of the four gospels is a false premise.

Most Biblical scholars aknowledge that John doesn't fit. Matthew, Mark, and Luke are therefore referred to as "the synoptic gospels" because they obviously share a common viewpoint. John is so different in tone it can't be considered to be harmonious with the others. And it's not just so-called Trinitarian dogma that separates John from the other four canonical gospels.

• John uses the phrase Son of God repeatedly, a term rarely seen in the others.

• John includes the story of the raising of Lazarus from the dead. According to John, Lazarus became so famous that the Pharisees planned to kill him with Jesus. I find it odd that such a significant event isn't even mentioned by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. I'm not saying it didn't happen...

• The other three focus on the Transfiguration on the Mount, which, by the way, presents Moses and Elijah alongside Jesus putting him in the company of the great prophets of old. John makes no reference to it. The fact that Peter refers in his epistle to Transfiguration as a defining experience lends added support to the fact that it happened. Yet nowhere else in the canonical NT is Lazarus mentioned.

It is widely believed that the principle difference between John and the Synoptic Gospels is that John was written specifically as a gospel to the Gentiles and therefore downplays Jesus--excuse me; Yeshua's--Judean heritage. By ignoring the Transfiguration, ( as well as the story of his birth in The City of David, his sermons about keeping the Law, etc) John presents Jesus as a singular miraculous creation dropped into the world straight from heaven; not as a man born and raised as a Jewish rabbi, the promised Messiah of whom Moses and Elijah prophesied.

Now the key question is; what do any of those differences have to do with the Trinity? I don't see any connection. Perhaps you can illumninate us.

Edited August 21, 2010 by Jbarrax

[teachmevp]

They harmonize just fine, it took me over 20 years to do it though,

The Author of Life Everlasting threads, starting on page 21 or 22,

you can see how John fits great, but one has to read what I wrote.

All those story flow great in the harmonized gospels, and in context

build up.

[cman]

20 years is not much, but it is something

would twice that make a difference from another source

or 1000 times as much?

there is not anything that can't contribute some clearing

the approach can be changed to see more

as well as seeing others and their handling of the matter

including Roy

if something is rubbing you wrong

you can ignore it or search it out to see more perfectly,

your own qualities and shifts in perspective

Edited August 21, 2010 by cman

[socks]

Thanks - it's difficult for me dropping in at mid point and not knowing any background so I appreciate your patience. ( I once spent a year working on a specific topic and it's biblical history - tithing - and when I gave the presentaiton of it to some local folks, it only lasted a 1/2 hour and was fairly simple in outline form. One of the people that attended told me good naturedly afterwards - "So what did you do with the other 11 months?" I managed to come up with a good retort - I said "I thought about what it meant - have fun!" ) Time is....our friend.

I do not believe in the term "Trinity", lock stock and barrel. I do not believe in a 3 fold God of 3 persons, distinct and co-equal yet "one".

That Jesus Christ "Is" God, I don't believe that. Nor that He existed in a distinct, co-equal "person" of God since the "beginning" or eternity or whatever.

The doctrine of the Trinity is IMO (and this is how I view it while not believing it's premise) an attempt at a philisophical abstract rendering of the qualities of God's existence and the activities that represent His intents. Not a particularly good one, I'd add but still a verbal rendering of something that is close to impossible to render in words. We have words to work with though and they do tend to go round and round when grappling with any attempt to grasp "God" and articulate Him in whole. I don't think the specifics of it, and Jesus actually literally "being" God is true however.

I do think His followers were taken wholly by being with Him, hearing and seeing Him and as they aged and became more aware of what was truly happening in their own lives continued to their last day on earth with the passion we read about both in the bible and afterwards. That first generation of "believers" burned bright, some longer than others but left their mark. The next generation and on continued and in the development struggled with knowing and understanding, no different than we. It's no surprise to me that there have been wide divergences in what's come down through time, now, to us. But I do believe in Jesus Christ, Messiah and savior, risen Lord and at the right hand of God, our intercessor and Way. And like the song says - I know the Messiah, He will come again.

I tread lightly when I am in the presence of the thoughts of God however and when dealing with what I would call holy and sacred matters, and certainly His hature and being is one of those. Understandably I'm a little ham-fisted and tongue tied in this life when dealing with such things but I consider it a duty of man to try. In some ways it's easier done than said. And others have said it better than I, in their inspiration.

JB's got the goods on John, IMO. And the history of the word "logos" is a factor in this discussion and the "why" of it appearing so uniquely in John, as it does.

Your translation of "logos" as wisdom is certainly one of the meanings logos has. At that point we're talking about what those verses mean, not if they should be there. I get that approach. Calls to "scratch it out" however don't work for me personally - if it's there it's there. We do well to tread lightly in the things of God, even when they're only the things that others hold sacred before Him. Those things are invested with the faith of their believers and deserve respect if offered with humility and love and all the more if in service to others to promote Life.

-

The Apocryphal writings and books - I don't see a lot of added value in most of those either - generally speaking they may be actual letters written, the recorded comments of people - that's fine. The epistles to/etc. writings don't add to the doctrinal picture, from what I've seen and many of the "B List" writings never passed muster on knowing their history. They may be "real", maybe not. There are no doubt 1000's of such letters and writs throughout history that would a certain significance for their day and the people involved. Dunno.

[teachmevp]

Thanks socks, here is how I have it wrote, John 1:1-1:14;

Then Satan left Yeshua; and lo, angels come, and ministered to him.

Wisdom was in the beginning, and that very wisdom was with Yahweh,

and Yahweh was that wisdom. Wisdom was in the beginning with Yahweh.

Everything came to be by Yahweh's hand; and without Yahweh not even one

thing that was created came to be. The life is in Yahweh, that life is the light

of men; and this light shines in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not.

starting at verse 15, John testified of Yeshua, and cried, and said, "This is he, of whom I said

That is up to verse five, that is as far as I would go with it, maybe we can start here, and reason it out, thanks.

The six temptations happen, and then John starts, Then Satan left Yeshua; and lo, angels come, and ministered to him.

Before the temptations John has already come.

Edited August 21, 2010 by teachmevp

[Gen-2]

This is just a stray thought I had about a year ago. It came to me as I and some others were working on problems related to Classical and Quantum Physics and some mulling over of "space-time" concerns we had. I thought I'd share it in a wildly simple form here (no equations).

When Christ ascended into heaven and was seated at the right-hand of God,... it is assumed that Christ inhabits eternity from that point on - as does God.

The question arose then: "So does that mean Christ would see no particular barrier between past, present and future?"

If that was the case - then one would have no trouble with having Christ being able to be at God's right-hand in every given point in time: past, present, and future. An Odd thought.

Only in our limited perspective of linear time - do we see his being there - a problem. Our Physical Universe may or may not allow for time-travel, but,... can we say the same of the 'place' called "eternity" that God inhabits? And does that extend to Christ? ...after he is seated at God's right-hand?

[Steve Lortz]

This is just a stray thought I had about a year ago. It came to me as I and some others were working on problems related to Classical and Quantum Physics and some mulling over of "space-time" concerns we had. I thought I'd share it in a wildly simple form here (no equations).

When Christ ascended into heaven and was seated at the right-hand of God,... it is assumed that Christ inhabits eternity from that point on - as does God.

The question arose then: "So does that mean Christ would see no particular barrier between past, present and future?"

If that was the case - then one would have no trouble with having Christ being able to be at God's right-hand in every given point in time: past, present, and future. An Odd thought.

Only in our limited perspective of linear time - do we see his being there - a problem. Our Physical Universe may or may not allow for time-travel, but,... can we say the same of the 'place' called "eternity" that God inhabits? And does that extend to Christ? ...after he is seated at God's right-hand?

It's good to read you again, Gen-2! One of the things that makes John's writings interesting is their view of time, or maybe "sequence" would be better. The text seems to alternate between narrative passages set in the writer's past, and expository passages set in the writer's present. If a person never read John, he or she could well conclude that the "new birth" occurs at the resurrection, an event that is still future for everybody except Jesus. John is one of the main voices indicating that we are already "born again".

When a person gets beyond the dispensationalist "plan of the ages", one sees we are living in a time that is difficult to conceive in categoric terms. We are still living in what Paul calls "this present evil age" (Galatians 1:4), even though the resurrection, a feature of the age to come, began with the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Some people call this an "overlap" of the ages, but I think that's too simplistic. Some say we are living in the tension of "already/not yet". Some of these things may lay behind John's odd sense of timing.

Love,

Steve

Edited August 21, 2010 by Steve Lortz

[TrustAndObey]

Wisdom was in the beginning, and that very wisdom was with Yahweh,

and Yahweh was that wisdom. Wisdom was in the beginning with Yahweh.

Everything came to be by Yahweh's hand; and without Yahweh not even one

thing that was created came to be. The life is in Yahweh, that life is the light

of men; and this light shines in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not.

starting at verse 15, John testified of Yeshua, and cried, and said, "This is he, of whom I said

I'm sure "logos" could be translated as wisdom, even though it does comprise much more than just wisdom itself, including plans, thoughts, and intents of the heart. But if you take the the third phrase of John 1 as "and Yahweh was that wisdom", then you would be in pretty thin company since most do not believe Colwell's rule to apply, which the way you have translated Yahweh, as a definitive noun rather than as a qualitative(or indefinite) noun, is the result. Most believe the predicate nominative of that phrase to be qualitative.

[year2027]

God first

thanks everybody

I been told by teachmevp that I am not wanted on this tread I kill treads but never done anything wrong

like cman said "seeing others and their handling of the matter including Roy" because i could see something

like socks saids "The Apocryphal writings and books - I don't see a lot of added value" I respect socks for saying that because I will find verse within 80 or so been put in the bible because first had more books

"If that was the case - then one would have no trouble with having Christ being able to be at God's right-hand in every given point in time: past, present, and future. An Odd thought." i been seeing for few years now Gen-2

Yes Steve I like Gen-2 too to live in the present while living in the past while living in the future is something my friend

lets say TrustAndObey you take to "Colwell's rule to apply" and not to apply otherwise one way it does and another it does not

with love and a holy kiss Roy

[Jbarrax]

This is just a stray thought I had about a year ago. It came to me as I and some others were working on problems related to Classical and Quantum Physics and some mulling over of "space-time" concerns we had. I thought I'd share it in a wildly simple form here (no equations).

When Christ ascended into heaven and was seated at the right-hand of God,... it is assumed that Christ inhabits eternity from that point on - as does God.

The question arose then: "So does that mean Christ would see no particular barrier between past, present and future?"

If that was the case - then one would have no trouble with having Christ being able to be at God's right-hand in every given point in time: past, present, and future. An Odd thought.

Only in our limited perspective of linear time - do we see his being there - a problem. Our Physical Universe may or may not allow for time-travel, but,... can we say the same of the 'place' called "eternity" that God inhabits? And does that extend to Christ? ...after he is seated at God's right-hand?

Hi Gen-2.

I had a friend who worked as a research engineer who posited the same idea about...8 years or so ago. The concept is that time is linear and Jesus of Nazareth was born as a man inside the linear time stream. But Heaven is outside the time stream since God invented time and exists beyond time. (From him and through him and unto him are all things).

So when Jesus the man was taken up into heaven and seated at the right hand of God he was lifted outside of the linear time stream and became essentially eternal. So he could, in a sense, exist before he was born. It's a temporal paradox, but it explains how John could say that he came down from heaven and how Jesus could say "before Abraham was, I am (or whatever the quote is).

It also supports a Unitarian interpretation of Colossians 1:16 which asserts that all things were made by him (en him according to the Greek) and for (unto)him.

[teachmevp]

Thanks TrustandObey, this Colwell's rule I never heard of, thanks for helping my understanding about all that noun stuff, that is way over my head,

I like to learn; I used the word wisdom as wisdom, I don't remember the greek word for wisdom, I think it starts with a S? Logos, that meaning of that

word is nothing but a pain, with that word logos, trinity has done so much crazy things with that logos word? The first five verses would fit, but from

Verse 6-14, is trying to show more to the story, but that more of the story, contradicts the story that was told before the gospel of John comes into

the picture? The gospel of John starts telling the story after the six temptations.

[TrustAndObey]

I used the word wisdom as wisdom, I don't remember the greek word for wisdom, I think it starts with a S?

That would be a noun of the second declension like logos, sophos.

The first five verses would fit, but from Verse 6-14, is trying to show more to the story, but that more of the story, contradicts the story that was told before the gospel of John comes into the picture?

I believe that is all up to interpretation. Just as the qualitative interpretation of John 1:1 and John 1:14. It can fit, although I wouldn't go so far as to say that every sentence in the 4 typical gospels can be harmonized, but these verses.. Easily..

Just because most scholars say the phrase in John 1:1(& 14) is qualitative does not precipitate the meaning to any specific understanding of who is God. It can easily be interpreted to speak of the Trinitarian, Unitarian, or Oneness view(s) since it just means that the logos (Which is the subject irregardless of Colwell's rule) has the qualities of God and is not making any definitive statement about the logos actually being a person much less anyone specific[definite](Which would happen if trying to apply the converse of Colwell's rule).

[teachmevp]

Israel is all about monotheism, the belief in one god, and one god only, that is historical fact.

To add another god to Israel's Yahweh, read about what happen to Israel for doing that, no,

the Trinity is behind this first 14 versus of John. I can see the first five versus being used to

make a point, but that point is not about Yeshua as being Yahweh, but once logos is used, it is

better to chuck the first 14 versus of John, because to understand John, is to understand John in

context with the other gospels. How cool it was of Yahweh to tell this story like this, four gospels

to tell one story, plus the first chapter of Acts. To say monotheism is wrong, is to say Israel's history is wrong?

I really think I have been arguing over nothing, when it comes to the first 14 versus of John, those

versus have nothing to do with the story line all ready established leading up to the six temptations

of Yeshua by Satan. Monotheism was a racial point of view in Israel's history, monotheism must be a racial

point of view today, I will stay the monotheism point of view on how and where the gospel of John starts to

tell it's story.

Edited August 22, 2010 by teachmevp

[cman]

And still they looked for Christ.

John points out what to look for.

[socks]

Another comment on how you're doing this - it''s up to you how you choose to work with the material in the bible. I disagree with your approach. You would not do it that way with any other finished literary work, simply remove the parts that to you as the reader don't make sense to you in the storyline, plot development, character development, etc. Well, you could but it would be obvious that you'd end up with a different work than the original, literally a different book.

If the Bible contains important, essential information for you to know, is it the wisest path to take to arbitrarily remove parts that you assume had to be added because they don't fit with what you think should be there? If there's a historical path to follow based on variant texts that can show sections coming and going there's a basis to examine the validity of the content - that's a reasonable approach where you can at the least establish what should or most likely be there.

For an example, look at Thomas Jefferson. You wrote earlier that it's "important for the story to tell the story about Yeshua being raised from among the dead", and to not take that out, as opposed to removing verses in John 1 that you assume were added to tell a "Trinity" story.

Jefferson complied his own bible, the "Jefferson Bible", based on his own assumption that the life record of Jesus Christ had been reconstructed to make him the "son of God", and to deify Him. He believed in a Jesus Christ and what he considered the teachings of Jesus. He had the highest regard for the morality and ethics he felt were contained in those teachings. He denied that any miracles or "spiritual" events ever took place.

So he simply removed them and compiled a story line of his own making. Doing that he completely removed the resurrection of Jesus and ended it with his burial and his followers leaving it at that. He believed the resurrection (and therefore the events of the first part of Acts) simply didn't happen so he left them out.

His reading of the bible led him to believe that the moral and ethical teachings and lessons were the story - the rest he considered legends, myths and outright forgeries to create another "Jesus", a false one.

He compiled a "harmony" of the gospels based on an idea similar to yours - he determined what fit and what didn't and rewrote the story to accomodate what he felt was true. His effort was so effective that even still today many Christian's claim Jefferson as one of their own - yet he removed the single most essential reality of Christian faith from this bible - the resurrection.

I admire Jefferson. I've read all of his writings, political and personal that have been collected and published, some many times and have read biographies, commentaries to his works, annalysis and histories. IMO Jefferson was one of the most significant thinkers and writers in history. I believe he had his reasons for what he believed - his life experience with religion and the church wasn't altogether that different than that of others. He was clearly a man of deep thoughts, convictions and compassion. I think I understand what he did with the bible, but I don't think it's correct.

[teachmevp]

Thanks socks for hanging with me on this, great stuff your pointing out, my

approach to this is the monotheism that the history of Israel established. I never

knew Jefferson did all that stuff with the bible, he left the resurrection out of

his work, that would be wrong to put ones belief into the bible. I try to stick

to that monotheism of Israel as a guide, I changed back some words, where the

meanings of the words were changed, to back up the Trinity. My approach is

that either the monotheism of Israel is true, or the Trinity is true, which one,

we cannot have both?

Edited August 22, 2010 by teachmevp

[George Aar]

Thanks socks for hanging with me on this, great stuff your pointing out, my

approach to this is the monotheism that the history of Israel established. I never

knew Jefferson did all that stuff with the bible, he left the resurrection out of

his work, that would be wrong to put ones belief into the bible. I try to stick

to that monotheism of Israel as a guide, I changed back some words, where the

meanings of the words were changed, to back up the Trinity. My approach is

that either the monotheism of Israel is true, or the Trinity is true, which one,

we cannot have both?

In "Logic 101" this would be deemed a "false dilemma" IIRC. There's likely many more options than simply the two you're presenting, not the least of which being that BOTH ideas are false.

BTW, my favorite arguments generally are about nothing. From my vantage point now, I can't think of anything more trivial and ultimately meaningless than religious tenets. It's right up there with arguing about U.F.O.s or Bigfoot or 911 "Truthers" maybe...

[teachmevp]

Thanks George Aar, I tried to use the harmonized gospels, John starts to tell the

story after the six temptations, but some believe that the gospels cannot be harmonized.

Who would have ever thought that people that used to be in the way, would go back to

the Trinity, what a trip. Thanks for your insight.

[cman]

If you think that John 1:1 thru whatever promotes "the Trinity".

Then that is your privilege. Many do not think that way here.

It does not mean that others do the same with those scriptures.

And if one chooses a Trinity belief.

You have no say in the matter.

No one has the right to dictate another person's belief.

Introduce your own as best you can if you want.

Anyone can learn from any writings but not be tied to it.

[teachmevp]

You are right, i have no say in the matter; but if I find myself in the day

of Yahweh after the gathering together, I will say to myself, wow, that

spirit teaching was right?

[cman]

I'll clarify, and rephrase.

Just because someone keeps John 1 as scripture does not mean they believe in the Trinity.

You are saying that if John 1 is scripture to them, then they believe it's about the Trinity.

This is not true, any who see it different then you, have as much say as you for themselves.

[George Aar]

You are right, i have no say in the matter; but if I find myself in the day

of Yahweh after the gathering together, I will say to myself, wow, that

spirit teaching was right?

I'm a rank unbeliever, so I guess I have no "skin" in this game, but doesn't it seem like the God that you've concocted (and to be fair, I did the same thing in my buhleever daze) comes across as some sort of nitpicky, anal-retentive, fault-finding dweeb?

I mean, give us a book that is open to widely divergent interpretations, offer no real definitive source outside of that book, and then get all ....y if we don't get the meaning JUST right? Somehow, I'd have thought the creator of the universe to maybe be a slighty bit more magnanimous than all that. But, whuddu I know?