A New View of the Trinity

by Eugene Shubert 63 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia
    So we cannot now say that we are misunderstood since this is precisely the point you are trying to make. This is not about ?only? as you state. It is about AND or two people, two Beings, two entities being discussed in the texts.

    Again, I explained to you in clear terms why I brought up Jude 4 --- it was precisely because of the use of "only". I don't think I can go on much longer explaining the same thing to you. Jude 4c is not about "two Beings" unless you follow your KJV and the textus receptus.

    As you know Master and Lord which I emphasized are separated by this AND. Who is to say that this version is not more precise in this case than some other that Trinitarians prefer? If you prefer to use something like the NASB then we find the AND in another part of the text but still designating two Beings or Entities like this

    1) I already explained in my last post why the KJV text should not be preferred. The 2 Peter text, as well as Jude 1, clearly show that Master refers to Jesus Christ as does Lord. 2) The AND in "another part of the text" is irrelevant to the argument I was making about the use of "only" in Jude 4.

    John is only concerned with the creation of the world of mankind. So to answer your question: And yet doesn't John 1:1 say that the Son was God "in the beginning," before his creation. No, John is not concerned about past events.

    And what is your evidence? John 1:1 describes a relationship between the Word and God, with the Word being also God, that existed "in the beginning," already as such before the creation in v. 3. If John meant that the Word became God after his creation, why wasn?t this mentioned after v. 3 and not v.1? There?s nothing about ?man? in v.1 ? it?s all about the Word and God and their mutual relationship and Godship. As for v.1 describing the relationship between the Word and God before creation, I have only to refer you to Proverbs 8 and Philo?s reconception of it which all authorities agree was at the root of John?s Logos theology here, and both clearly describe a situation BEFORE creation (cf. ?before the oldest of [Yahweh?s] works, from everlasting ? from the beginning, before the earth came into being,? Prov. 8:22-23).

    Leolaia

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Leolaia,

    I have a hard time finding something really "anti-Gnostic" in the Johannine literature. Anti-docetic perhaps, but against the shallowest kind of docetism only (as in the flesh and/or blood and/or water motives, or the resurrection stories, all of which remain highly symbolic). Yes there is a theological concentration on Jesus (in the "I am" sayings for instance), but mostly if not only as the Revealer of the real condition of the disciples who ARE from God, children of God, not of this world and so forth... I feel the Gospel, right to the last additions, try to combine the Christian label, as is increasingly controlled by the "Great Church" and its creed, with the proto-Gnostic core of its faith, which it can't renounce. To me, the First epistle reflects the time when the combination is bursting out, and still the writer doesn't feel like choosing his side.

  • JosephMalik
    JosephMalik

    I have only to refer you to Proverbs 8 and Philo?s reconception of it which all authorities agree was at the root of John?s Logos theology here,

    Leolaia,

    I know what you really said and as shown your reliance on the ?other? argument misses the point entirely. Your dependence on ?authorities? the majority of which are Trinitarian impresses me about as much as Watchtower witnesses dependence upon their literature for truth. Do not expect me to bother with all the cut and paste that you and others provide. It may look impressive to some but it does not prove your point nor demonstrate that you personally understand the texts in question. The views that I expressed are my own and are not dependent on such ?authorities.? The context in John?s first chapter speaks for itself. This is all I need to support the comments I made.

    Joseph

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Narkissos.....Of course, Gnosticism may encompass many things such as dualism, a theory of salvation based on realizing secret knowledge, a theory of the origin of evil and creation (based on dualism), docetism (again based on dualism for how could such perfection reside in such poverty?), and so forth. John certainly accepts dualism which runs throughout the gospel with contrasting themes of light and darkness, life and death, etc. Yet this dualism was not entirely foreign to the Synoptic Jesus, who adapts the Two Ways material (e.g. the narrow gate versus the broad and spacious path) otherwise known from Qumrun, the Didache, and Barnabas -- adopting a sort of moral dualism but not an entire existential theory of dualism. John even isn't entirely free of docetism; the pre-incarnate Word "made flesh" (Jn. 1:14) could be understood as "clothed in flesh" and the resurrection appearance to Thomas may have been a later addition to clarify Jesus' body as real.

    What is most striking about John is its rejection of Gnostic soteriology. Jn. 3:16 sums up the divergence between the two: it is BELIEF in Jesus and not KNOWLEDGE of his words that saves. If you look at where the wording between John and Thomas at where John departs from the more original versions of the sayings in Thomas, it becomes clear that John is reformulating them to change this emphasis. For example, GThom 1 states: "Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death." John has changed this to: "Whoever keeps my words will not taste death in eternity" (Jn 8:52). For Thomas, not Jesus' words themselves but their interpretation gives life, that is, the finding of hidden truth. For John, salvation lies in following Jesus' commandments which is what "keeping my words" means (cf. Jn. 14:13, 21; 15:10). Thomas says: "Because you have drunk, you have been intoxicated from the bubbling spring which I have measured out. He who will drink from my mouth will become like me. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him" (GThom 13, 108). For Thomas, Jesus' words are a bubbling spring that impart divinity and secret knowledge to the initiates. For John, the "bubbling spring" is the "water of life" that Jesus offers to anyone who professes belief in him: "Whoever drinks from the water that I shall give him, will not thirst in eternity, but the water that I shall give him will become in him a spring of bubbling water unto eternal life. If anyone thirsts, let him come to me, and let him drink who believes in me" (Jn 4:14, 7:37-38).

    In Gnostic belief, it is crucial to know that one's origin lies before the beginning of earthly existence. We thus find the following beautitude in Thomas: "Blessed is he who came into being before he came into being" (GThom 19). John consciously restricts this claim to divine origin to Jesus and avoids applying it as Thomas does to all believers (Jn. 8:58). There are a number of sayings that John and Thomas use that have closely similar terminology about coming from returning to the kingdom, the light, or the Father. In each instance, John restructs these statements to Jesus where Thomas brings them as general statements about the believer. For instance, Thomas says: "Blessed are the solitary and elect, for you will find the kingdom. For you are from it, and to it you will return. If they say to you, 'Where did you come from?' say to them, "We came from the light, the place where the light came into being" (GThom 49, 50). For Thomas, all believers come from heaven, live incarnated on earth, and then return to the kingdom. John restricts heavenly origin to Jesus alone and even denies knowledge of heavenly origin to believers in striking contrast to Thomas: "I have come out from the Father and I have come into the world. I am again leaving the world and return to the Father....because I know whence I came and where I am going, but you do not know whence I came and where I am going" (Jn. 16:28, 8:14). When the disciples confess that "we believe (pisteuein) that you came from God" in Jn 16:30, they are expressing their faith where they have no real knowledge, a faith that was to be tested in Jesus' coming passion (Jn. 16:31-32).

    Jesus expresses the same thought in John 3:6, 8: "What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit....the wind/spirit [pneuma] blows where it wills, but you do not know whence it comes and where it goes." Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 115-117) has adapted an older form of this theological maxim, which ascribes knowledge of origin to the spirit: "If some want me to err according to the flesh, but the spirit does not err because it is from God, because it knows whence it comes and where it goes" (IgPhil 7:1). There is further evidence that John has adapted older Gnostic material in this respect. In John 3:11, Jesus oddly expresses his knowledge quite unexpectedly in the plural: "Truly, truly, I say to you, We speak what we know and we give witness to what we have seen." The plural suggests that the saying originally applied to the community of believers, here applied to Jesus with the original phrasing left intact. This saying is otherwise attested in the Johannine community in 1 John 1:3: "What we have seen and what we have heard, we also proclaim to you."

    Similarly, there is the theme of seeking and finding, the traditional saying "seek and you shall find". In Gnostic literature, one seeks knowledge and one finds hidden wisdom. In John, one seeks Jesus and finds Jesus. Jesus asks: "What do you seek?" (John 1:38) Then Andrew comes to his brother Simon and says, "We have found the Messiah" (v. 41). When Judas arrives with soldiers to arrest Jesus, Jesus asks three times: "Who do you seek?" And after the discovery of the empty tomb, Jesus asks Mary Magdalene, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom do you seek?" (20:15). The person of Jesus is the key to salvation. In one of the "I am" statements, Jesus says: "In my Father's house there are many rooms....I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me" (Jn. 14:2, 6) This sounds like a direct refutation of the statement in the Apocryphon of James: "No one will enter the kingdom of heaven at my bidding" (2:34). In John 14, believers are fully dependent on Jesus in their quest to the kingdom. The Gnostic interest in visionary experiences is also rejected (Jn. 14:8-9). John 14 does not reject the vision in order to request the finding of true knowledge through self-recognition.....rather John points to Jesus as the living presence of the Father. Thus faith in Jesus is identical with finding eternal life.

    Finally, any conception of the Creator as a personification of evil or of the creation as inherently evil (the latter theme is found in early Gnostic writings, such as inferiority and sinfulness of women as child-bearing "creators") is flatly rejected in Jn 1:3 where the pre-incarnate Word himself is made the creator.

    Leolaia

  • Loris
    Loris

    I haven't read every post yet. I will go back and do that after I post this. Sorry for the length. Greetings Joseph. Nice to 'see' you again. I am very grateful for your help in the past in my transition from WT land. I enjoy reading your posts. The following is an essay that I wrote some time ago as I was trying to make sense of John 1:1. I call it The Promise In the beginning the promise was spoken, "I shall put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; it will bruise your head and you will strike its heel." Genesis 3:15 NJB

    The disruption of the order of things on earth would be corrected. The rebellion of Satan would be neutralized. God had spoken; Jehovah-Jireh (Jehovah will see to it). "'Blessed be Yahweh,' [Solomon] said, 'who has granted rest to his people Israel, keeping all his promises. Of all the promises of good that he made through his servant Moses, not one has failed.'" 1 Kings 8:56 NJB

    The promise was made to Abraham. The promise of a seed, the promise that through that seed a great nation would arise, kings would be born, all nations would bless themselves. And furthermore Abraham's offspring would be given land; the very land he dwelled in as an alien. Gen 17:2, Gen 22:17, Gen 26:3-5

    Each time the promise was given, first to Abraham then to Isaac, the inference was that a seed from them would arise to bless all the peoples of the earth.

    Abraham's offspring were given the land. "Faithful to his sacred promise, given to his servant Abraham, he led out his people with rejoicing, his chosen ones with shouts of joy. He gave them the territories of nations, they reaped the fruit of other peoples labours." Psalm 105:42-44

    In time Zechariah, father to John the baptizer, could prophesy, "Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, for he has visited his people, he has set them free, .......... and show faithful love to our ancestors, and so keep in mind his holy covenant. This was the oath he swore to our father Abraham." Luke 1:68,72,73

    What Jehovah promises he carries out. His word is his bond. What he says comes to pass.

    The Hebrew word dabar according to Strongs #1697 is a word; by imp. a matter (as spoken of) or thing; adv. a cause. Jehovah causes to become. What he says becomes reality.

    In the beginning- "And God proceeded to say: 'Let light come to be.' Then there came to be light." Gen 1:3 Each time it is reported in Genesis that Jehovah says this or that would be done, it came to pass. At his word there came to be light, waters, dry land, day & night, vegetation, animals and finally man.

    Jehovah promised, gave his word, that Abraham's seed would come and the nations would be blessed. The promise was at long last flesh and his name was called Jesus. "The word [of God] became flesh, he lived among us, we saw his glory, the glory that he has from the Father as [the] only son of the Father, full of grace and truth." John 1:14 NJB

    In the style of the Genesis account, And God proceeded to say, "Let the Messiah come to be." And there came to be the Messiah.

    In the beginning the word was spoken and throughout the ages the word continued to be in the heart and mind of God, not forgotten. In fact it could be said that since the thing spoken in the beginning was such a sure thing and it was of such importance to him, that God was the word. Just as it can be said that, "God is love." and that "..God is light" 1 John 4:8, 1 John 1:5

    Benjamin Wilson wrote The Emphatic Diaglott, an interlinear Greek to English translation. I personally feel that it is one of the best. He trusted the International Bible Students Association Watchtower Bible and Tract Society to publish it in 1942. Probably he hoped that it would become widely distributed. Foolish man. (Sorry I digress.)

    Using Mr Wilson's translation I present for your thoughtful consideration John 1:1. (he left 'logos' untranslated, I used 'word' in its place)

    "In the beginning was the [word], and the [word] was with God, and God was the [word]. This was in the beginning with God. Through it everything was done; and without it not even one thing was done, which has been done. In it was life; and life was the light of men. And the light shone in the darkness and the darkness apprehended it not."

    John 1:14 reads "And the word became flesh, and dwelt among us, - and we beheld his glory, a glory as of an only-begotten from a father, - full of favor and truth."

    Two simple things are different in this translation. The capital 'W' is not there and the Greek particle 'autos' is translated 'it' instead of 'him.' There is no justification for the 'W' or the 'him' except preconceived opinion and belief. An enormous amount of misunderstandings and arguments have been caused by those two small differences!

    Mr Wilson translates 1 John 1:1,2 in this way, "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands felt, concerning the word of life; - and the life was made manifest, (made visible NJB) and what we have seen, we also testify, and declare to you the aionian (eternal NJB) life, which was with the father, and was manifest to us; ..." Nobody capitalizes Life as though it is a person.

    Back to John 1:1: "and God was the word." - past tense. God was the word, the word became flesh. The manifestation of the promise of God was the man, Jesus, the promised Messiah. His life course was a perfect reflection of the Father so that he could declare that, "He that has seen me has seen the Father." John 14:9

    When the rider on the white horse shepherds the nations with a rod of iron in the book of Revelation chapter 19 we are told that he has a name written that only he knows "and he is arrayed with an outer garment sprinkled with blood, and the name he is called is The Word of God." ( 'is' present tense) Here we are definitely told that The Word is a name of a person. What the King of kings declares is the same as if it were declared by the Father. By his word, things happen. He has that authority given to him by the Father.

    Loris

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Leolaia...

    I agree on much of what you (and Bultmann) write but would like to express some nuances.

    First, it is impossible to draw a clear line between faith (or belief) and knowledge in the Gospel of John. Bultmann himself, though interpreting John as "anti-Gnostic" (but mistakenly taking a later form of developed Gnosticism as his reference), acknowledges that (TDNT VI 226f). I would rather say that in the fourth Gospel, taken as a whole, pistis and gnôsis are treated as equivalents. John 6:69; 7:17//16:27-30; 8:31f; 14:1,7; 17:8,21,23; see also 1 John 4:16. In other words, in John pistis is not what it is in Paul, or Mark, but a form of knowledge.

    About the dualism I would add that it is much more radical in John than most (ecclesiastical) exegetes would have us believe. In 8:44 the Devil is his own origin. From the very beginning he is not "from God". This is very different from common Jewish demonology. The same can be said of darkness in the Prologue.

    About the divine origin of the elect, I think it appears in many texts. Their relationship to the Son is not the cause for their being so, just a revelation of what they are. In 1:12 "faith in his name" is mentioned quite incidentally for these "children of God" who are what they are for receiving the pre-incarnate Logos or Light; They did belong to the Father and the Father gave them to the Son (6:39; 10:29; 11:52; 17:2,6-9,14,24). I could perhaps sum up the Johannine logic as follows: they are not children of God because they believe in the Son, they believe in the Son because they are children of God.

    As for the Q parallel in Mt 11:25//, to me it means that proto-Gnostic Christianity is not limited to John. In fact the literary parallels of the Gospel of Thomas are more with the Synoptic than with John.

    Sorry I have to go now, but we may come back to this subject later (I like it!).

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Narkissos....thanks again for another interesting post. I don't think I disagree substantially with you. The examples you gave (such as the origin of the Devil) are plausible instances of latent gnosticism in the Fourth Gospel. And yes, the difference between pistis and gnosis is not truly diachotomous. Yet what I come away with from looking at the evidence is that the author of John was "de-gnosticizing" the Thomas-like sayings he inherited and interpreting them in a manner closer to Pauline Christinity (esp. the Pauline kerygma of salvation in Jesus' death and resurrection) than other eastern gnostic groups that leaned more towards the gnosticism of the Apocryphon of James or later more fully-realized works. The shift away from Jesus' secret wisdom to Jesus himself as the key to salvation, I believe, is a real and palpable one. That said, this still leaves the Johannine corpus probably within the limits of gnosticism, much more so than we see in the genuine Pauline epistles. I think the Johannine writings give us a good glimpse into the character of "catholic" Christianity in Asia Minor at the end of the 1st century, where a different body of Jesus tradition than Q was in vogue and where the process of interpretation of this gnostic corpus negotiated this conception of Jesus with that already established by Paul in churches such as Laodicea and Philippi. It is interesting that the sub-Pauline epistle to the Ephesians originated around the same time, and became attached to the same city where tradition placed (confusedly) John the Presbyter and John the Theologian. Ephesians especially has gnostic coloring and bears many interesting literary connections with John which could be discussed in another post. Finally, I am aware that Thomas contains both of what could be called Johannine and Synoptic sayings and I'm also not convinced that the Johannine community made no use of the Synoptic Q sayings since there are occasional parallels in John .... and if the Apocalypse of John is somehow tied to the Johannine community (which seems plausible considering its Asia Minor provenance and use by Papias of Hierapolis), it would attest some additional Q sayings as well as other extracanonical Jesus sayings from the oral tradition.

    Leolaia

  • greatteacher
    greatteacher

    you guys are crazy. i suggest a high school biology textbook.

  • RubaDub
    RubaDub

    I guess noone liked my idea earlier in this thread about the Trinity being composed of 4 instead of 3.

    ***** Rub a Dub

  • Loris
    Loris

    But RubaDub that would be a Quadinity. Doesn't role off the tounge quite as well as Trinity so I don't see a future for it.

    Good try though to stop the beating of the same old dead horse.

    Loris

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit