FathomFFI

I understand what you are saying, but my understanding is that he was not speaking like a materialist, but from his beliefs in regards to a spiritual perspective.

ashurbanipal

Morton Smith, in his book "Jesus the Magician (or via: amazon.co.uk)", points out that the ceremony of Jesus' baptism in the Jordan is strikingly similar to a formula written in the Greek Magical Papyri for becoming the son of a god.

Within the practice of ceremonial magic is the practice of invokation, in which the magician, using various techniques, strives to elevate his or her consciousness to the level of the deity being invoked. Regardless of what you may think of the effectiveness or reality of such techniques, it has always seemed more natural to me to assume that Jesus' various pronouncements about being identified in some way with the Father should be taken in this way. In other words, as a man claiming to have raised his consciousness to the level of a particular deity.

In short, I agree with your assessment--it seems the most reasonable way to take the verses.

skepticalbip

I think that the quote is pretty much is analogous to the Hindu concept of "one in all, all in one". Especially considering the follow-up quote in John 10:34.

No Robots

Absolutely. Reality can be understood as a unity of matter or as a unity of mind. It is the priority of the latter that Christ continually asserts.

FathomFFI

That is my understanding as well.

Toto

Having a main god and lesser gods is characteristic of polytheism, not monotheism. Pslam 86 shows God in a council of Gods - which shows that the Hebrews were not always as monotheistic as they liked to think.

But this issue is usually only important to religious groups for whom monotheism is a big issue - Jehovah's Witnesses in particular, and the mainstream Christians who argue against them.

judge

I think he was just telling them they really had no idea about god. He was stirring them. Subtler higher truths about life are often misunderstood by religious people becasue they get so tied up in their religiosity and doctrines that they miss it.

FathomFFI

Agreed.

It isn't very difficult at all to present an argument of polytheism among Jewish beliefs by using their very own scriptures.

The first use of the word "God" in Gen 1.1 comes from the Hebrew of "'elohiym" and carries the following definition:

"plural of ''elowahh'; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God."

Further evidence is from Gen 1.26, where God is regarded as speaking of himself in the plural.

There are many more.

Solitary Man

This is actually untrue. The earliest translators translated the Greek into Latin, Syriac, and Coptic, all of which we've had access to for a long time. Moreover, Koine Greek didn't really go extinct so much as it evolved into Byzantine and modern Greek.

Actully, it was the finds of Oxyrhynchus and other Egyptian papyri caches written in Greek that has most helped our understanding of the common (Koine) Greek with which the New Testament was written. You wrote "verses 16th century" - that should be versus, and really, I'd ditch the comparison to the KJV as well.

Always cite your sources. Your words are essentially worthless without detailed citations. If I were you, I'd go back through your essay and add in citations wherever needed.

Christianity isn't monolithic. You may need to be a little more formal and present Christian scholars who claim this.

This doesn't ring true to my ears, so evidence for this is best as well.

If you're writing for a scholarly audience, this is not only already known, but also insulting to include.

Actually, they had no capitalization at all. And it's different than grammar.

See above.

+r in referring. You might want to reword this whole section.

Have you checked into what how the ancient Christians resolved this? Or modern theologians?

Try to avoid false dichotomy.

I don't think this is logically consequent.

This is also not true. The son of a human and a god would not be a god. It would be something in-between. The minotaur was born of a human woman, yet he was clearly not human. It was half-man, half-bull. According to some Christian theology, Jesus is half-man, half-god (demigod), however, since that would conflict with monotheism, they equate him as both all God and also all human.

One more statement - Paul also claims that God is the Father; in fact, most around the Mediterranean did so. It's hardly a literal claim for a God the Father. Juppiter is literally "day-father". Zeus is often called Ζευς �*ατηρ. Christians to this day pray "Our Father..." I believe you are mistaken entirely about what Jesus was claiming here.

You're using interpolation incorrectly.

thentian

I think you need to say something about the immediately preceding verses where J talks about how God is looking after his sheep, and how J himslef looks after his sheep in the same manner. This is (IMHO) the way in which J claims to be one in purpose with the Father.

A typical christian rebuttal will be that the jews would not have wanted to stone J if that was all he was saying, but in my opinion the text clearly shows that the jews mistakenly interpret J as saying he is a god, followed by J clarifying the matter. I would agree with you that this text is no support for a christian claim that J here says he is God or The Son Of God (capitalized to differentiate it from a claim that he is a son of God, like the jews themselves).

A scholarly paper should also contain something about who has discussed the matter at hand before, at least if there are any heavyweight contributors. I think mormons go on about this passage, and what about the Arian view?

Cheers!