dzim77

Yes, in the eyes of the Jews, to whom he was making the statement. And in the eyes of the author of the book. Doesn't this constitute a claim to divinity? Doesn't reading the text in context mean to understand what the author was intending to state within the cultural context?

I see that you are asserting that the Jews misunderstood Jesus, that he wasn't really making a claim to divinity. I disagree... as I said in my previous post that the immediately following context supports this (as well as the context of the whole book of John).

My question is, if Jesus wasn't claiming divinity then what, exactly, was Jesus saying?



First of all, this is not the case I was making in the previous two posts. The case I was making is that Jesus' statement in John 10:30 is a claim to divinity which supports the doctrine of trinity.

But, to answer your question.... Jesus' oneness with the Father is a oneness of essence. They are both God in essence and divine substance.

As followers of Jesus, our oneness with Jesus is a oneness of Union. We are united with Jesus in spirit. We are not divine in essence, but we are united with Christ in spirit. The Bible describes this Union as being 'children of God', 'the bride of Christ', etc... Jesus' prayer in John 17 then is that the unity of his followers would reflect the kind of unity he shares with his Father, and also that Jesus' followers would experience this spiritual Union with Jesus and his Father.

This, of course, cannot be seen by reading only John 10 and 17... it is necessary to take into consideration the context of the whole gospel of John to reach this understanding.


If you feel that I am misquoting, let me know and I will stop, but earlier in this thread you said....

The Jews wanted to kill Jesus because he was putting himself on the same level as God by claiming to be one with the Father - as you keenly oberved earlier. (even calling God his 'Father' is a no-no). Of course they didn't understand Jesus to be talking about the idea of "Trinity", but they knew he was claiming to be equal with God.

The idea of being the unique Son of God is ... well, unique It's a new idea by Jesus in the way he claimed it. The book of John expounds on this concept with beauty. This is what the Trinity serves to explain... that Jesus is the unique Son of God means that he is in essence God... he is one in essence and being with the Father yet he is a distinct person from the Father.

In light of the book of John, how would you explain Jesus claim to be the unique Son of God apart from the trinitarian explanation?

You are now accusing me of decontextualising...

First off let me say that I really like what you are doing in this thread. You are using the context of the book of John to interpret and clarify the meaning of certain verses in the book. You are using John 17 to clarify and interpret what Jesus meant in John 10 when he said "I and my Father are one." That's cool. But why should we have to limit the context to John 17? Why should we not include the whole book of John as context? Why should we not examine John's view Jesus' divinity/non-divinity, John's view of the relationship between Jesus and the Father, John's view of the Holy Spirit and bring that contextual understanding to bear on our interpretation of John 10:30?

Otherwise, you are using context (John 17), but you are strictly limiting what context we can use - seeimingly in order to justify a certain interpretation. I propose that if you limit your context to John 17, then John 10:30 does not appear to support the doctrine of Trinity. However, if you allow the whole book of John as context, and even the surrounding verses of John 10:30 as context, then the verse indeed supports the doctrine of Trinity.

Now in order to contextualise, let's look at the rest of the passage in John 10:

Here's a list of what this passage claims about Jesus...

*He calls God his 'Father'
*He gives his sheep eternal life
*His sheep shall never perish
*No one can snatch his sheep out of his hand
*His Father has given his sheep to Jesus
*Jesus and the Father are one
*He does miracles in his Father's name
*The Jews wanted to kill Jesus for claiming to be God
*The Father set him apart as his very own and sent him into the world
*He is God's Son
*The Father is in him, and he is in the Father
*Many believed in Jesus

My position is that: in light of the surrounding context, John 10:30 is a claim to the divinity of Jesus. Furthermore, in light of the context of the book of John, John 10:30 is a claim to 'special' oneness of Jesus and the Father - oneness in essence with the Father.

spin

Jesus talked of being in accord. Do I need to find other words for the idea?

Either he is saying that he was of one accord with god as the followers would be, or he wasn't.

THis is not answerikng my question. You are just bullshitting. This has nothing at all to do with the linguistic problem posed to you. You are just introducing a joker into the pack, so you can say whatever you want.

[QUOTE=dzim77This, of course, cannot be seen by reading only John 10 and 17... it is necessary to take into consideration the context of the whole gospel of John to reach this understanding.[/quote]
Of course, you have to forget the significance of what is being actually said.

No, you are not relating to the text.

Of course you don't understand Jesus to be talking about the idea of "Trinity". You are still doinng post hoc manipulation of the text. You will not let go of your bias and read the text for what it says.

All sorts of ideas are unique. The idea of the mediator which appears in Hebrews is unique, but it certainly contradicts the notion of the trinity. It is a unique relationship with god though.

The book of John takes the concept of the logos which is just a sex change from sophia (Hebrew XKMH) and ties that into the fray. You are confusing the poetic communication of John based on Wisdom with your post hoc necessities.

We know what trinity serves to explain, what Arianism serves to explain, what all the other attempts at covering all the discordant threads in the attempts to understand the texts.

Why do assume that it was a unique whole in the original intention of the one writer? When works are reworked in different generations that get the conflicting ideas of those different generations. Do you think the same people who wrote the genealogies of Jesus also nullified their significance by immediately saying that Jesus wasn't of the line of Joseph?

Yup. You go off and talk about other things after injecting the idea that Jesus must have been referring to himself as god. The religion has had nearly two millennia of apologetics evolution to justify its current dogma. This has certainly mystified the issue for believers, who now have to disentangle themselves from that mystification to have a hope of reading the text for what it says. When someone else has joined the dots you see their drawing not the dots for themselves.

You start with the language and that is reflected in the comparison between the two statements using the same language. This should lead you to understand that the text says nothing about the sort of oneness you are talking about, as it is the same that the followers will have. This in itself does not allow you to comment on any divinity. Your realising that should tell you that you are doing something wrong.

You need to be able to relate this view regarding divinity to the texts, both Jn 10:30 and 17:22.

You may believe the notion of the trinity but you need to show that it is relevant to the core of the text, rather than to assume it.

You can propose whatever you like, but you must touch first base before going onto second.

He is a Jew, isn't he?

This is a distortion of the text. Whoever believes in him with have eternal life etc. He is not made the agent in the act.

This is no help.

No help.

Yup, that's right, "his father".

Just as his followers are one.

Well, this representative of god must do something. Elijah did'em. Elisha did'em. Any representative of god worth his salt did'em. Even Peter. Now none of them were in the trinity.

That is false. They wanted to kill him for blasphemy. He didn't claim he was god, nor even a god in the strict sense of the term. He claimed to be of one accord with god.

That's because he is being transformed into Wisdom by John. That tells you nothing about your claim of trinity.

All Jews called god their father, so they were his sons.

Jn 14:20

Heh, that's impressive evidence. Many believed, we are told, in Simon Magus.

Sorry, but you don't seem to have anything at all up your sleave.

When you show that you can read the text for what it says, then you might start understanding hat it says.


spin

dzim77

Quote:
Originally Posted by dzim77
Why should we not examine John's view Jesus' divinity/non-divinity, John's view of the relationship between Jesus and the Father, John's view of the Holy Spirit and bring that contextual understanding to bear on our interpretation of John 10:30?

Spin,

All I'm suggesting is that we take into consideration who Jesus is and the nature of Jesus' relationship with the Father,as presented to us in the book of John, when determining the meaning of a particular verse in the book of John. This is not 'throwing a joker into the deck' or 'changing the subject' or 'post hoc manipulation'. It is understanding John's view of Jesus and his relationship with the Father and bringing that understanding to bear when interpreting a particular verse.

John 10:30 invovles Jesus. It involves the Father. It involves Jesus' relationship with the Father... so Yes, the understanding of these elements as is consistent throughout the book of John is very relevant here. (first base as you would say). The same applies to John 17.

I'll scratch that part about John's view of the Holy Spirit.

John 10:30 has more than one possible meaning, so does John 17:21-23. So, we should examine the context in order to determine which meaning is most likely correct. I'm not ruling out your interpretation, I'm suggesting that, given the context of John, there is more to the verse what you are saying. I believe that this verse adds weight to the doctrine of Trinity.



here are a few of the possibilities that are relevant here:

1. John 10 and 17 are referring to a oneness of 'accord' in each and every use of the term 'one'. (the kind of accord that can exist between two human beings).

2. John 10 and 17 are referring to a oneness of accord in one or more, but not all uses of the word 'one'... for example... Jesus is praying that the oneness of his followers would be so great that it would reflect or represent to the world, the oneness in essence of Jesus and His Father.... also, that Jesus is praying that his followers would experience a oneness in Union with himself and the Father (just as a man becomes one with his wife in marriage).

3. Jesus is saying he is one in accord with the Father AND that he is one in essence... the two are not mutually exclusive.

Since, then, there is more than one possible meaning, and each possibility is viable, we must look further into the context of John to determine the most likely meaning of the passage. (this is all I'm suggesting)


Not true. There could be a deeper, more comprehensive, or perahaps totally different connotation of the word 'one' in each case. He could be saying he was one in accord AND essence with the Father. (which would be consistent with John's view of the relationship as portrayed throughout the book).



I said that *the Jews* didn't understand Jesus to be talking about 'trinity', but they knew he was claiming equality with God. Jesus could very well have been intending to refer to a trinitarian relationship.



Now you're referring to poetic communication?? Either way, John identifies Jesus Christ as the Word (logos) - who was with God, was God, came from heaven to become flesh and dwell among us.


I prefer to stick to the topic at hand here... these are big sidetracks.

If you are going to compare John 17 to John 10, in order to examine John's use of the concept of oneness (which your thread is based on). Then you are opening up the book of John as context. If you are going to throw out sections of John that would cause us to come to a different conclusion about John 10:30, then this thread is pointless.


Instead of accusing me of bias and assuming you have no bias or agenda of your own, let's talk about what the text says. Please

I'm only suggesting we consider the context of the book of John instead of limiting our context to a few verses.

I think I covered this by explaining that there are more than one possible meaning to both texts (John 10 and John 17)



Jews did not refer to God as thier Father the way Jesus did. In fact, in John 5 they wanted to stone Jesus for this. (I'm sure you already know this)


Looks pretty plain to me. You claim it's a distortion, what was that you said about a joker in the deck?

Ok, maybe not much help...these were just included for the sake of being more comprehensive.


So you say... but let's look at all these statements together (in context) and see if that sheds light on this particular statement... instead of isolating the statements and picking them apart one by one as you have done here.


Agreed. But again, let's look at this statement along with the context of everything Jesus is saying about himself.

No, the text plainly says they wanted to kill him for claiming to be God. (talk about distorting the text!)

Also, following your method of comparing John 17 to John 10, let's look at some other texts in which the Jews tried to kill Jesus... in each case, Jesus claims divinity - in John 5, he claims equality with God, in John 8, he claims to pre-exist Abraham and refers to himself as "I AM". This would shed light on why the Jews wanted to kill Jesus in John 10 (other than the fact that it plainly says he was claiming to be God).

Following your method, let's see what else John has to say about Jesus being sent into the world by the Father in order to shed light on this verse...

The Word was with God, was God, became flesh, made his dwelling amoung us, is the One and Only, came from the Father, is Jesus Christ, is God the One and Only who is at the Father's side.

So, here John establishes his view of Jesus - that he is God and that he was sent from the Father to give light to the world.

Now, doesn't this aid us in our understanding of John 10?

Again, the idea of God's one and only Son whom he sent into the world.

one more:
Here Jesus specifies that he has come down from heaven to do the will of the Father. Doesn't sound like he's just another Jew refering to God as his "father".

John presents us with a Jesus who was with God in the beginning, who is God, who has come from heaven in the flesh. Again, doesn't this shed light on the meaning of John 10?



Then why did they want to stone him in John 5?


Again, I like that you are using John to interpret John. But, again, there is more than one possible meaning here. Jesus' relationship to the Father can be reflected in the relationship between Jesus and his followers without being the same in essence. This is the same issue as the John 10:30 issue.


True. Again,this is to be taken together with the full context of what John is saying about Jesus.


Allow me to put your method into practice by analyzing your statements on this thread....

When comparing these two quotes, it is obvious from spin's use of the word accord, that in order to be in accord with God, one must be a god. Therefore, Jesus is claiming to be god. Right?

Well, the problem is that in your first use of the word 'accord' you were referring to the kind of accord that one man can have with another man. (nothing divine about that). But in your second use of 'accord' you are referring to the Jewish connotation of 'accord' - that only one equal with God can be in accord with God. So the same word can be used with different connotations depending on the context.

It's frustrating when phrases are taken out of context and isolated from the entire flow of thought, in order to produce a certain interpretation, isn't it?

I stand by the position that John 10:30 is a claim to divinity... in *at least* the way the Jews understood it to be -that he was claiming equality with God. Given the context of John, I believe Jesus is saying more than that... Yes, he is one in accord with the Father... but he is more than that, he is one in essence with the Father... they are both God in essence.

Why can we interpret the oneness of Jesus and the Father to be different than the oneness that Jesus prays for his followers? Because of what the whole rest of the book of John claims about who Jesus is and his relationship with the Father... which is completely different than the nature of Jesus' followers and the kind of relationship they have with the Father.

In either case, this verse, taken in context, supports the trinity.

spin

First base is dealing with the language and that involves dealing with other relevant uses of the same terminology ("to be one") to be sure of our understanding.

You still haven't dealt at all with the significance of the world believing and being one, so as to give evidence for your post hoc belief about the trinity.


Given the relationship between the first and second reference to being one in Jn 17:22, we can scratch the special pleading.

All you need to do is justify such a dual meaning from the use of language. What we normally do is understand what the text literally says, until proven to indicate something else.

Try communicating like this. No-one will understand you. And you have no reason to believe that the text could have such a dual significance, except for your post hoc trinititarian retrojection.

You don't know. You have no evidence. You are guessing.

Yes, the beginning of John is poetry. (That helps to show that it was tacked onto the beginning.)

Slightly confused from the translation. The grammar of the Greek suggests that it should read not "was god", but "was divine".

If you think it is a sidetrack to question your assumptions, then you have a funny idea about what sidetracks really are. You assumed that the text was written from a single source. I asked you to justify it and I gave you a few reasons why you needed to. Forget the reasons. Justify your assumption that the text was written by one person. I have merely been talking about the significnace of language.

And it certainly is linguistic context.

I don't need to throw anything out. You need to justify your assumption of unified point of view.

Can you start from scratch and justify your act of retrojecting your current beliefs into the text?

I started with linguistic evidence. You have shown a total unwillingness to talk about it and to change the topic at any opportunity you can get. You still haven't dealt with the first base yet. You've merely said that maybe the use of being one in the first part of 17:22 may be different from that in the second half, an unsupported conjecture.

You have just made a few conjectures.

The writer is giving the Jewish analysis of the comments attributed to Jesus in Jn 5. The Jews saw him as making special claims.

Your claim was: He gives his sheep eternal life

You have inserted Jesus as the agent in the comment and therefore manipulated the significance.

This is just a circularity. You can't support what you want to conclude using your conclusion about it.

First, you show your claim is correct in the specific instance, ie that Jesus being one with the father means anything more than the people of the world being one -- the writer using the same language.

No distortion of the text.

Your initial claim:

*The Jews wanted to kill Jesus for claiming to be God

My response:

That is false. They wanted to kill him for blasphemy. He didn't claim he was god, nor even a god in the strict sense of the term. He claimed to be of one accord with god.

This is still correct. The Jews might have wanted to kill him for his blasphemy, which they interpreted as making himself out as a god, but Jesus does not claim to be in any tangible sense a god. He just quizzically says "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods'?"


Actually he talks of god being his father. You confuse the Jews' analysis with what Jesus claimed.

Perhaps you might like to make a case for the significance of the verse rather than assume it. Was Jesus not provocatively referring to god, citing the LXX translation of god's Hebrew name?

Assuming what you haven't shown again.

You don't seem to understand my method, which was to show the significance of the same Greek terminology.

Breezing along, but I have pulled this "was god" up earlier.

This doesn't parse.

The word was with god at the beginning. Yup. The word was divine. Yup. That god and the word were the same. Naaa.

(We are dealing with the logos poem and you need to assume coherence of authorship between it and the rest of John to jump to your conclusions.)

No.

THat has no reflection on the issue.

He is clearly distinguishing himself from the father as a separate entity. This is a simple contradiction of the trinitarian error.

All it shows is your willingness to misunderstand the texts you are using. It has little to do with the linguistic analysis of my first post.

Blasphemy. He is making his sonship different from that of the Jews, ie he is playing hard and fast with Jewish beliefs.

Then you can't use it to justify anything until you can establish what it means, can you?

If we take all your statements together we have a bunch of erroneous ideas, not single ones.

You don't understand the methodology. Where is your close linguistic analysis?




Because you won't understand the logic of the Jews presented in the text as separate from what Jesus said, I can understand your confusion.

If you don't get the notion of how the Jews are portrayed in there thinking, this doesn't get us very far.

YOu need to learn methodology, instead of just copying what you don't seem to understand.

Why do you confuse the Jews' reading of the implications with what Jesus actually said? It is normal for the writer to represent people misunderstanding Jesus.

YOu need to get over your beliefs and get on with evidence.

So, you have no case. YOu just rehash the old dogma as though you have shown it.

Yes, I knew you believed that. I knew you would believe it no matter what. The difference between believing and demonstrating is quite wide.


spin

dzim77

Now you're asking me to justify a unified view of John before I proceed?


so... Why didn't you justify a unified view of John, or anything of the sort, before comparing these two passages?


Anyways, I thought this thread was interesting and something maybe going in a 'new direction' by looking at the book of John and it's concepts and train of thought -as is- in order to gain a better understanding of particular verses in the book.

Now you are asking me to justify a unified view of John, claiming that John 1 was 'tacked on', seemingly claiming that every verse that supports a divine Jesus was -by definition- distorted. I understand, but I'd prefer not to go down that path.

I've stated my case in the previous post. And I have to say that the discussion was enlightening for me... to consider and contemplate the idea in John that Jesus desires his followers be in one accord with the Father and Son, even to the extent that Jesus is in one accord with the Father... very cool.

On a complete side note, I think that the idea of trinity is accurate and true to the Bible. I think it is a great 'tool' to use to understand the nature of God as presented to us in scripture. But I also think that when we see God as He is (on judgement day and after) that we will realize how this 'tool' of the doctirne of trinity was so insufficient and incomplete and we will gain a much more complete and fuller understanding of God's nature when we stand in his presence and see him as He truly is... but I digress.

So, thanks for the discussion, spin. Know that you are in my prayers.

-DZ

spin

When dealing with ancient texts that you don't know much about, you cannot make assumptions such as the coherence of a single text. When you will not acknowledge the point through the simple examples I gave (about the use of genealogies which were later nullified), more of your underlying assumptions need to be revealed before going on.

I was looking at linguistic manifestations. Not unified authorship. How language is used, not who wrote each verse to see if the theological content was the same. You continually tried to change the subject -- I think because the subject was not clear to you.

When you look at the meaning of phrases, you look at similar usage. This is standard practice.

The path that I wanted to go down was dealing with language. It's very hard to show the language when you keep changing subject. To try to get you back on track, I tried to show you the difficulties of the path you wanted to go down.

Sadly, you have no case which reflected on the language.

Well, something came out of it for you.

This is your problem. You couldn't approach the issue without already having decided.

Literature tells you about what people thought.

"Digress" is a euphemism.

Haven't you got better things to do with your time? ...I guess not.


spin