John 1:1

[URAVIP2ME]

God breathed God's breath into humanity's nostrils. In other words, God gave part of God's Self to us -- life.
"Create" indicates manipulating things outside oneself. "Begat" indicates that part of oneself is used to birth something. God begat Jesus. God did not "create" Jesus.

Life always existed because God always existed.
Life does Not come from non-life.
Yes, God 'begat', so to speak, Jesus in the sense that Jesus is firstborn in the heavens -Col. 1 v 15, and 'begat' so to speak, because God resurrected Jesus back to life - Col. 1 v 18 Jesus being 'firstborn' from the dead. - Acts 2 v 31

If God did not create Jesus, then why did gospel writer John write at Revelation [3 v 14; 1 v 5 ] that God created Jesus as his first or beginning creation ?________

 

[sojourner]

Since the apostle John is the writer of Revelation and the apostle John is the writer of the gospel according to John, then that means one author/writer.

Wrong.



On both counts.

John's gospel account was written while Jesus was alive on earth.

Three strikes...


You're out.

 

[sojourner]

Life always existed because God always existed.
Life does Not come from non-life.

I believe I already said that:

(God is life)

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Wrong.
On both counts.
Three strikes...
You're out.

Yes, John did write Revelation according to Revelation 1 vs 1 B, 4 A, 19.
Who do you think is the 'John' of those verses ?

Thank you picking up on while Jesus was on earth.
Should have read written about Jesus while Jesus was alive on earth.
Revelation was written before John wrote his gospel account.
Again thanks for noticing that. -Proverbs 27 v 17

 

[Shermana]

God breathed God's breath into humanity's nostrils. In other words, God gave part of God's Self to us -- life.

"Create" indicates manipulating things outside oneself. "Begat" indicates that part of oneself is used to birth something. God begat Jesus. God did not "create" Jesus.

Okay, well you go by your extra-scriptural extrapolation, and I'll go by my scriptural-based one. God is not Life. He is the MAKER of life. He may be Alive but he is not "Life itself". You're welcome to your quasi-Pantheist style view of such but it's simply not Biblically concrete. And I believe I asked the difference between begetting and creating, repeating yourself is not a sufficient answer. So with that said, Jesus being the life does not equate to Jesus being God, and this proves you can make up any philosophical concept you want to support your not-in-scripture doctrine. Besides, when Jesus says "I am the life", it's not exactly clear what that means specifically.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Besides, when Jesus says "I am the life", it's not exactly clear what that means specifically.

If you are referring to John 11 v 25 then isn't that in connection to the resurrection ?
'life' through Jesus' name according to John 20 v 31 B; Acts 24 v 15
Wouldn't that be 'everlasting life' by being resurrected [ Rev. 1 v 18 ] to either heaven for some [ Rev 20 v 6], and for the majority of mankind [ John 3 v 13] resurrected back to life on earth during Jesus 1000-year reign over earth or earthly subjects of God's kingdom.
-Psalm 72 v 8

 

[sojourner]

Yes, John did write Revelation according to Revelation 1 vs 1 B, 4 A, 19.
Who do you think is the 'John' of those verses ?

John of Patmos -- not John the apostle.

Sorry, you're simply mistaken here.

 

[sojourner]

Okay, well you go by your extra-scriptural extrapolation, and I'll go by my scriptural-based one. God is not Life. He is the MAKER of life. He may be Alive but he is not "Life itself". You're welcome to your quasi-Pantheist style view of such but it's simply not Biblically concrete. And I believe I asked the difference between begetting and creating, repeating yourself is not a sufficient answer. So with that said, Jesus being the life does not equate to Jesus being God, and this proves you can make up any philosophical concept you want to support your not-in-scripture doctrine. Besides, when Jesus says "I am the life", it's not exactly clear what that means specifically.

Yours is as extrapolated and speculative as mine.

 

[Shermana]

Yours is as extrapolated and speculative as mine.

Not so much. Mine is based on the fact that the Bible simply does not say "God is Life" anywhere, so all I'm doing is extrapolating a view on why that concept doesn't exist anywhere in the Scripture or Jewish literature. So if my view is speculative, it's a speculation on the reason for a negative.

(I.e. I am simply defending why a concept doesn't exist whereas you are defending a reading into something that's not there.)

 

[Shermana]

John of Patmos -- not John the apostle.

Sorry, you're simply mistaken here.

If only it was so clear cut that we knew which John wrote what John.

 

[sojourner]

Not so much. Mine is based on the fact that the Bible simply does not say "God is Life" anywhere, so all I'm doing is extrapolating a view on why that concept doesn't exist anywhere in the Scripture or Jewish literature. So if my view is speculative, it's a speculation on the reason for a negative.

(I.e. I am simply defending why a concept doesn't exist whereas you are defending a reading into something that's not there.)

Yes, indeed, so much. You're a literalist, so you operate with that agenda. Nothing can ever be implied. It all has to be absolutely explicit. Which is a rather one-dimensional way of looking at the texts.

 

[Shermana]

Interesting that you correlate being a literalist to not accepting Trinitarian ideas that aren't explicitly implied in the text based on pure speculative extrapolation.

So by this logic, to not be a literalist means you can apply any logic you want to make your doctrine fit whether its in the text or not. Thanks for your input. And of course, it's an agenda to not accept Trinitarian concepts that aren't in the text, and I assume you don't have an agenda with your "non-literalist" approach of forcing whatever "implication" you so desire? Of course not! Heck, even literalists can make something implied that's not explicitly in there, that explains half of the Orthodox teachings! (Did I say half? More like 90%) The very notion of Sola Scriptura was invented to counter this view. So in this case, you're very wrong, the historical "Literalist" agenda has been to insert whatever meanings they want into the text. Liberal Christians do this as well. It's just that MY version of Litearlism is more along the Sola Scriptura lines. I see no reason why that's a bad thing. But it's definitely an impediment to Trinitarian ideology. And especially since I base much of my readings on Midrash and Apocrypha and non-canonical texts like Philo and Justin Martyr's quotations on the subject, I have quite a lot more than just the sola scriptura to work with.

Now if this view is one-dimensional, oh well. I'd rather have a one-dimensional view than a forced four dimensional view where anything goes just because you say so. I fail to see what's so bad about a view "one dimensional" in this aspect. So in order to not be one dimensional, we must accept any and all interpretations based on any implications? And of course, your view doesn't involve any one-dimensional readings? Isn't it one dimensional of you to reject my own interpretation of Jesus? I could just as easily say that MY view of Jesus is the 4 dimensional one and that yours is the shallow one-dimensional side that allows no extrapolative implications. Heck, your view that "Jesus is Life" I could call one dimensional since you're denying my own implications of what it means to "Be life". How is your view NOT one dimensional in this regard?

I guess we all have our own definition of literalist. But I appreciate you demonstrating your view that literalist = not accepting Trinitarian implications that aren't in the scripture. I say just the opposite, since most Literalists indeed base much of their doctrines on these "implications". So I'm assuming you don't believe the Nicean creed writers were literalists? Or is it only literalist when someone's implication of the expliclity clashes with yours?

So indeed, not so much at all. I'm simply giving a rationale for why something's not there, and you're giving a rationale for something read into the text that's not there. Yours is infinitely more speculative.

 

[sojourner]

It's just that MY version of Litearlism is more along the Sola Scriptura lines. I see no reason why that's a bad thing.

I see. You base your interpretations on a heresy that came along 1500 years after the fact. very well, then.

It certainly explains a lot of why you think the way you do. And it explains perfectly your diatribe following in the rest of the post above.

The problem I find with your posts is that you leave no room for interpretation (other than your own). The texts are multivalent (but I'd be willing to bet you'd disagree with that statement). The whole "The bible says" thing is useless, since there is so much more to understanding, doctrine, and theology other than "what the bible says." For starters, there is also "what the bible implies," which you tend to totally discount. So be it. But it doesn't make everyone else "just wrong."

 

[Shermana]

II see. You base your interpretations on a heresy that came along 1500 years after the fact. very well, then.

No, and if you had responded to the rest of the quote, you'd see that I said "more along the lines of" rather than that. I see why you don't want to respond to the rest. It seems you intentionally ignored the part where I said I also go by Philo, Pseudipigrapah and other works. All I implied was that I only go by what's in the text, using other works to help define the context. Now as for the actual Sola Scriptura philosophy, even the Orthodox pretty much have historically used the same logic as I do, going by the texts themselves but using outsource sources to justify their interpretation. It's just that their interpretation may differ from mine as to what it "implies".

It certainly explains a lot of why you think the way you do. And it explains perfectly your diatribe following in the rest of the post above.

Your response perfectly explains why you don't want to address any of my other points and why you want to mischaracterize my response. In a way, I think this is a violation of the rule that requires no snipping posts out of context, since your response clearly takes what I said out of context by conflating what I said to being TOTALLY Sola Scriptura, even after I point out that I go by extra canonical texts. Your desparation to dismiss what I said involves not even keeping in line with what I said. This certainly explains why YOU think you the way you do.

The problem I find with your posts is that you leave no room for interpretation (other than your own)

Funny, I say the same about you.

. The texts are multivalent (but I'd be willing to bet you'd disagree with that statement). The whole "The bible says" thing is useless, since there is so much more to understanding, doctrine, and theology other than "what the bible says." For starters, there is also "what the bible implies," which you tend to totally discount. So be it. But it doesn't make everyone else "just wrong.

Well why don't you actually respond to what I said instead of completely taking what I said out of context and ignoring the key part where I said "I also go by other texts like the Midrash and Apocrypha" and then try again.

What I can see about you is that you often snip things I say out of context, and then you ignore and dismiss the key points.

So what we can see here is that you're not even remotely interested in responding to what I actually said, but you want to make up your own interpretation of what I said, even if it involves snipping out crucial parts that completely go against your characterization, i.e. you are bent on creating a strawman. Which is how Trinitarians work, cherry picking parts of a phrase, ignoring the rest of the context, and then making up an interpretation based on their own implications, even if it ignores a complete dismissal of what I said.

So if you need me to go over my own quote for you line by line to show just how completely wrong you are in your assessment and to demonstrate why you're really gasping and straws to build your strawmen, I'll definitely be able to tell by the next reply.

And also for "What the Bible implies", ahd you bothered to read what I actually said, you'd see that I said that anyone can make the Bible "imply" anything they want by your logic, but it seems that you are bent on saying "What the Bible implies" is "What Sojourner thinks the Bible implies".

Now as for making everyone else wrog, we're having a debate about the Trinity, if you want to leave room for the idea that "Everyone could be right", stick to the DIRS. I'm trying to say that what you think is an implication is not necessarily really implied. I understand it might be different to try thinking "Hmmm, Sojourner's view is not necessarily what it is implying", but if you're going to accuse me of the same thing while not even reading what I said and focusing on one little snippet that's totally out of context, you may want to examine your own view as well.

With that, I repeat my contention, the Bible never says that God Himself IS Life. All it says is that He Creates Life. BEING Life, personified and embodied is a completely self-serving interpretation for Trinitarians, and it seems you won't even consider the possibility that you're wrong because it involves one of your precious Trinitarian proof texts going down in flames. All you do is accuse me of not accepting other views as if that's supposed to hide your own.

 

[sojourner]

the Trinity is a perfectly acceptable doctrine based upon sound theological development of scriptural and other Traditional sources. John 1:1 has been shown to be adequate to the task. If you don't want to buy it, that's fine. Nobody's forcing you. the texts are multivalent enough to support several constructs. As it is designed to be.

 

[Shermana]

the Trinity is a perfectly acceptable doctrine based upon sound theological development of scriptural and other Traditional sources. John 1:1 has been shown to be adequate to the task. If you don't want to buy it, that's fine. Nobody's forcing you. the texts are multivalent enough to support several constructs. As it is designed to be.

Okay, and likewise it's been shown that John 1:1c should in fact read as "a god". This is a debate thread. Nobody's forcing you to accept this definition. But if you're going to argue against my claims, you should expect there to be counter arguments. I personally don't think the texts are "Multivalent", I think the authors intended them to be interpreted in one way and only one way, and I don't buy into this liberal "anything goes" mentality. So I disagree that it's "Designed" to be multivalent. And with that, as I've demonstrated on other threads, the Trinity is only supportable based on a series of grammatical distortions and Theological concepts that ignore earlier constructions and go by revisionist mentalities. There's a difference between "up to interpretation" and "interpret however you want". I don't think ANY Church Father has ever said that the text was open to multiple VALID interpretations. You want to talk about heresies after 1500?

The fact that you call it a "Development" however I'll take as an admission that it's not what was originally intended. As for being "Sound", that's completely debatable, and I think on the other Trinity threads, me and others have demonstrated that it's not really that sound and is instead based on vague and loose wordplay and dubious interpretations that even Trinitarian scholars reject and argue about.

So if you want to believe in something that's a development rather than what was originally intended and bears no (Undisputed) evidence prior to the mid 2nd century, that's great. Have at it, no one's stopping ya.

But for the sake of this DEBATE THREAD, I've effectively shown that John 1:1c most likely doesn't mean what most Trinitarians think it means, and I've shown that even the most Prominent Trinitarian scholars have disagreed with the usage of that verse and other verses.

 

[kjw47]

I believe giants wear pink, frilly underpants. That belief does not necessarily have to be true. What you "believe" about the Trinity is your business, but to pass such judgment on others is contraindicated by Jesus, whom you insist we must listen to.

I present factual statements--if a statement = fact then it = truth--Jesus bore witness to truth-- did he not tell the pharisees they were serpents, sons of vipers? Why?-- a statement of fact. I am not judging i am presenting fact.

 

[sojourner]

I present factual statements--if a statement = fact then it = truth--Jesus bore witness to truth-- did he not tell the pharisees they were serpents, sons of vipers? Why?-- a statement of fact. I am not judging i am presenting fact.

Obviously, the Pharisees were not serpents, for serpents cannot be Jews -- nor can they speak (except for the one in the Garden, which is only a metaphor, in any case), nor can they understand human beings.

Therefore, You are not presenting fact. The Pharisees were not serpents. Jesus may (or may not) have called them "serpents," but they were not, in fact, serpents.

Fact: you are not presenting facts here.

 

[sojourner]

But for the sake of this DEBATE THREAD, I've effectively shown that John 1:1c most likely doesn't mean what most Trinitarians think it means, and I've shown that even the most Prominent Trinitarian scholars have disagreed with the usage of that verse and other verses.

I'm sure that, in your own mind, you've done that. But "Dr. O" effectively wiped the floor with you on that point.

 

[kjw47]

Obviously, the Pharisees were not serpents, for serpents cannot be Jews -- nor can they speak (except for the one in the Garden, which is only a metaphor, in any case), nor can they understand human beings.

Therefore, You are not presenting fact. The Pharisees were not serpents. Jesus may (or may not) have called them "serpents," but they were not, in fact, serpents.

Fact: you are not presenting facts here.

The term serpent( as satan is called the original serpent) obvuiously means they are liars and slanderers--Jesus wasnt calling them actual serpents and you know that. You can nit pick all you want--a fact is a fact.