spin

It should be clear to anyone who has read Jn 17:21-22 that Jn 10:30 does not provide support for the idea of the trinity.

Jn 10:30,

I and the father are one.

Jn 17:21a, talking of those who believe in Jesus,

That they all may be one...

Jn 17:22,

And the glory which you gave me and I have given them, that they may be one, just as we are one.

(All words of Jesus)

It should be clear that the meaning of Jn 10:30 needs to consider these other verses and we cannot assume with later fathers that this verse indicates a trinitarian view, for if it did how could we meaningfully read "they may be one, just as we are one"?

It should be obvious that "to be one" in John deals with single accord, that believers will be of a single accord, just as we (Jesus and god) are.

Was Cyprian the first to make this error or did an earlier adventurer stumble onto the error?


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Spin,

I will conjecture that you are talking about the passage where Cyprian refererence to John 10:30 and 1 John 5:7.

http://www.romancatholicism.org/jans...ian-church.htm
The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” (St. John 10:30) and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” (I St. John 5:7) And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God’s law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.

Spin, could you show me in this passage "Trinity" or "Three Persons in the Godhead" ? Or three eternal consciousnesses ?

You have projected and spun a lot of your own baggage on the Cyprian referencing of these two verses.

e-catena does not have a Cyprian reference for John 17:22.

Shalom,
Steven

Chili

Hello spin, I don't know about Cyprian but the difference between that "they may be one" just "as we are one" is that they are not one in the same way as Jesus and his father were one.

They may have been one in the spirit as Catholic because the same spirit of God the father is with them, but it is not until this same spirit is in them that they are one just as Jesus and his father were one (there is a line on this someplace).

The descend of the spirit into the believer dissolves the trinity which is about the time that Jesus first said that "the father and I are one."

The trinity doesn't exist in heaven where all is one. It exists only in humans while they are estranged from the father. This will be the same father and the same mother with the only difference that their/our dowry will be different.

spin

Great reading skills there, praxeus. You're only a century out of it.

Ground control to praxeus, there's something wrong, your circuit's dead. Can you hear me, praxeus?

That's not strange. Without better knowledge one might be able to make a binarian/trinitarian reference out of 10:30, but one can't make much out of 17:21-22, so no, Cyprian had no use for 17:22. But it is strange that you thought he might have.

What I said was that 17:21-22 shows that 10:30 provides no support for the notion of the trinity. I merely then asked whether Cyprian was the first to evince a misinterpretation regarding the significance of 10:30, a misinterpretation that reflect the thinking in the trinitarian error.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin I merely then asked whether Cyprian was the first to evince a misinterpretation regarding the significance of 10:30, a misinterpretation that reflect the thinking in the trinitarian error.

Your still not making a lot of sense.

Perhaps you are wondering about an ontological interp of John 10:30 rather than an agreement interp. That precedes Cyprian for sure, right or wrong.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.viii.html
Tertullian
"I am in the Father; "and is always with God, according to what is written, "And the Word was with God; "and never separate from the Father, or other than the Father, since "I and the Father are one."This will be the prolation, taught by the truth, the guardian of the Unity, wherein we declare that the Son is a prolation from the Father, without being separated from Him. For God sent forth the Word, as the Paraclete also declares, just as the root puts forth the tree, and the fountain the river, and the sun the ray.

Roger Pearse's site goes into this more.

Or perhaps you are talking about connecting John 10:30 with 1 John 5:7.
Our first record of that is Cyprian.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

That seems to be a problem of yours. So I didn't press the S key hard enough. It is simple enough for you.

What do you mean by these two terms "ontological interp" and "agreement interp". I understand each of the single words, but the combinations need explanation, thanks.

Yep. That's a good example of the sort of misinterpretation of Jn 10:30 and it's prior to Cyprian. I should have though of Tertullian, as he seems to have invented the notion "trinity". Good.


spin

Amaleq13

I understood Steven to be suggesting that the error is not Cyprian's but should be assigned to anyone reading a trinitarian doctrine into Cyprian.

primitivefuture

Wouldn't it be fair to see what a Christian has to say about it? I mean, perhaps they can provide a descent explanation.

Peace.

Decypher

What exactly Jesus was saying I don't know. However, couldn't the believer have some kind of identity with God? I think some forms of Christianity have been very "mystical".

Steven Avery

Right .. with two caveats.

I was only looking at that section. Perhaps in other sections there is more towards what we would call Trinitarianism. I've seen a bit in Cyprian in that direction. That section is a little unusual but can fit a range of Messiahology.

Second.. there is a big difference between anything even "Trinitarian" from Tertullian or Cyprian than would developed later .. Athanasian Creed and such. At most it is a nascent Trinitarianism.

Shalom,
Steven