Steven Avery

Hi Hatsoff,

With the modern flexibility, and glasses on tight,
the Trinity can be seen most anywhere.

A solid short discussion of he Barnabas sections is at -

for his renown - Jim Hamilton
http://jimhamilton.wordpress.com/200...e-of-barnabas/
The OT in Light of Progressive Revelation: The Epistle of Barnabas

...I wonder if what we have in Barnabas 5:5 and 6:12 doesn’t fall nicely in line with early Christian “wisdom Christology”—“wisdom” pointing to God’s work in creation (cf. Prov 8:22–31), and “wisdom Christology” pointing to the consistent teaching of the NT that God created through the Son (see, e.g., John 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2).

John 1:3
All things were made by him;
and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Colossians 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven,
and that are in earth, visible and invisible,
whether they be thrones, or dominions,
or principalities, or powers:
all things were created by him, and for him:

Hebrews 1:2
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,
whom he hath appointed heir of all things,
by whom also he made the worlds;

=======

When you try to have a good understanding and discussion of wisdom Christology you really open up a lot of venues. This sounds like a good read.

Wisdom Christology and the Partings of the Ways Between Judaism and Christianity. Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H. T.

You will find wisdom Christology in the center of some lot of the writing of NPP (New Perspective on Paul) which emphasizes the continuity of 1st century Judaism to Messianic faith. While the Trinitarian apologists like JPH will seek to synthesize wisdom Christology with the later Creeds, claiming compatibility. There is a blogosphere discussion that went on this summer as well. Those who emphasize the "Heavenly Council" will also be in the mix.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Chili

They do seem to have everything just backwards but already is a sign that they have something to shout about.

hatsoff

You're right, it is at least a hop skip and a jump from "Jesus is ancient" to "Jesus is the same as God the Father." It's just that I tend to accept the implicit inference. It's difficult for me to imagine people who believe God discussed creation with Jesus beforehand, yet reject Jesus as a divine being. If there was a later development to Trinitarian doctrine which was not present at the turn of the second century, I'd guess it was the paradoxical concept of one God in three persons. But even that seems to have its roots very early. Look, for example, at the mid-2nd century Gnostic literature, which seems to grab at such paradoxes and run with them.

In the end, though, like I said above, it's just not conclusive. The literature is too ancient, too incomplete. And of course that's really too bad...

judge

Ok this seems to make sense, if being one with god made one a god, I suppose

spin

I took the idea for the Jews in the passage as demeaning god by putting oneself on the same level with god to be in agreement with him. Only a god can be in accord with a god. Mere people accept a god's announcements.


spin

judge

OK yes, that seems to be the best take on it.. thanks

dzim77

So according to your own conclusion, we see that in John 10, Jesus was claiming divinity. Is that correct?

If we look more closely into this passage we can see how the oneness of Jesus the Son and God the Father is different than the oneness of which Jesus prays for his followers to attain in John 17....

Here Jesus is explaining to the crowd that he is not blaspheming by claiming to be divine, because he IS the unique, one and only Son of God who was set apart to be sent into the world (as further evidenced by his miracles). He is making a distinction between the status that he shares with the Father and the status of those 'to whom the word of God came' share with the Father.

I think that with this understanding of the context, the passage indeed lends weight to the doctrine of Trinity.

spin

No. I talked about accord. Some Jews made the conclusion that Jesus was comparing himself with god.

Oh, special pleading, eh? Same language, but different meaning. Then the change in topic:

Hey, the text claims he was special, but that says nothing trinitarian. Using the notion of sonship separates the provider of the seed from the seed.

I think this is just sad post hoc rationization.


spin

dzim77

I see your point. "some Jews" "thought" he was comparing himself with God. But from what you said here... it sounds that you took his statements to be a claim to divinity, which would appear to be the plain meaining of the text.

(bolding mine)

He's putting himself on the 'level' of God. He has a special 'agreement' or 'accord' with God. He is the unique Son of God, sent into the world by the Father. He and the Father are one. I'd say this adds up to a claim to divinity.

Are you suggesting that it is ok for you to use the immediate context in John 10 when you wish, but that when I use the context it is a 'change in topic'? In the quote above, you used Jesus' immediately following statements to justify your explanation. In fact, your premise in this whole thread is to compare the idea of 'oneness' in the book of John by looking at John 10 and John 17. We are using the book of John as context, examing his using of certain ideas ('oneness') in order to show that the Trinity is not found in John 10. I think it is perfectly reasonable to use the context of John 10:30 to show that the verse is a viable support to the doctrine of Trinity. Specifically, that Jesus not only claimed oneness with the Father but that he claimed a special, unique status with the Father - different from any of Jesus' followers - in the same discussion.


The text supports the idea that Jesus is divine. He is the unique Son of God. Making him equal with God. It also has Jesus claiming a certain 'special' oneness with the Father. A stand-alone proof of the Trinity, it is not. But I believe it adds much weight to the doctrine when viewed along with the other 'trinitarian' passages in the NT.

1. God is one
2. God the Father is God
3. Jesus the Son is God
4. The Holy Spirit is God
5. Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct persons

This is the trinity in a nutshell... John 10 adds weight to point 3 and arguably to points 1 and 2

spin

In the eyes of the Jews.

I'd say you're ahead of your horses.

No.

I have no problem with that.

Let me however repeat, as the same language is used about the oneness of Jesus with god and about that between the followers of Jesus, you go on to say that despite the same langauge they mean different things.

So? How are you arguing that the notion of being one in the two cases is different??

No, it doesn't. Your wayward reading does. It is not based on the text.

He's a unique son of god. How does that make him equal with god. The Jews had one father, god. They were sons of god. They were not equal with god. What are you on about?

You seem to be abusing the term "oneness" here. How is this oneness any different from the oneness mentioned by Jesus regarding his followers?

Certainly. When you already know what a text says you can always justify that reading.

We already knew that.

Of course one can make Jn 10:30 support the trinity. When you decontextualise statements, you can get them to say whatever you can twist them to mean. Jn 10:30 is a prime example. You are merely distorting the text and misrepresenting it, when you decontextualise it and try to make it mean what it clearly doesn't.


spin