|
Post by heretic on May 21, 2006 9:51:15 GMT -5
... for one to be a Christian? I was reading some other boards a few days ago and one poster had replied to another that although they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, since they didn't believe in the Trinity they 'obviously' couldn't be a Christian. Aside from the fact that I was horrified that someone would declare this judgement on another believer, do you think they were correct in their belief?
|
|
|
Post by gkchesterton on May 24, 2006 21:26:20 GMT -5
If you change that to a, "belief on the trinity," then yes. I think it’s incredibly important to at least have a position. Compare Jesus' anger in Revelation with those that are neither hot nor cold. I think we get more of a pass with God believing in something rather than throwing in the towel. That being said the trinity is a critical issue. Most non-Arian theology is dependent in one form or another on its existence. To a follower of Athanasius' theology the trinity is an expression of the inseperatablness of God and love. He, the thing, has the persons within himself which make love possible outside of the confines of time. The Arian response is that God can become what is needed for whatever moment is His universe. Yahweh, the one who becomes, can assume the mantel of Father. He is Father because he has chosen to be so. Arian's tend to therefore be more dynamic in there vision of God. He can decide to express qualities perfectly whereas in a trinitarian universe He just *is*. God is Love vs. God means or becomes Love. The understanding of redemption also changes. Jesus in a trinitarian world performs a service that no one else could. He is the redeeming god. Only through the ultimate sacrifice can man be saved. Only god can save man. Grace must be external. There is no ability for man to achieve his salvation. In an Arian view Christ is an intermediate being. He is a model for all men to follow. Men can, in and of themselves, respond to the call of grace and be adopted as God's sons. If Jesus had failed (an impossible theory even in an Arian world view since God would have foreseen the failure) another *could* have been chosen with the same result. All that was needed was a perfect man and perfect obedience. So yes...it is very important. This is only a brief summary. I highly suggest: Arius: Heresy and Tradition www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802849695/sr=8-1/qid=1148523477/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-4268456-3191808?%5Fencoding=UTF8The world view presented by Archbishop Williams is favorable to Arianism. Mind, Williams has an ax to grind. He is arguing against (very, very, very, subtly) against a Roman Catholic view of tradition. He's arguing for a dynamic make-your-own tradition behind the scenes versus a static unveiled tradition. I'll also kindly disagree with the idea of judgement. Christianity is judgemental. It supposes a universe where God will destroy the "wicked". It allows for formal punishment of those who er (as exemplified in the very terms shun/excommunicated). Any religion that propses an absolute truth *has* to do this. We should be kind and happy for any progress anyone makes, but there is only one right path in the end.
|
|
|
Post by heretic on May 27, 2006 15:29:56 GMT -5
Thanks for your reply gkchesterton. now I have questions!!
Do you think the Arian belief could be how the seemingly ruthless, unforgiving God of the Old Testament can be justified?
Maybe I misunderstand but, to me, these seem to be two sides of the same coin. In both views the grace is applied from outside and the person has to respond. Even though the Trinitarian view says that man can't achieve his salvation, he still has to 'work out his salvation'
Also are you saying that because Jesus is only an example, Arians don't (in general) put faith in Christ's ransom sacrifice? (I think that is the crux of my initial question).
I hold a view that if you're not certain about Jesus' nature, it's safer not to believe in him as God because at least you won't be guilty of worshipping a false god if it turns out that he isn't God after all, whereas if he IS God, you still believe in his sacrifice and put your faith in him and are saved.
|
|
|
Post by gkchesterton on May 27, 2006 20:25:37 GMT -5
Neither Arians nor Trinitarians believe that the Old Testment God was ruthless. Most of that comes from a distinct modern understanding of mercy. Yes children died, but under the law they died quickly and for understandable reasons. Command and control did not exist like it exists today. You couldn't manage a group of young men when pointed sticks in the middle of an arid hilly landscape. You killed them before they killed you.
God in the Old Testment spends an incredible amount of time issuing instructions that limit bloodshed and killing. The Isrealites are not to be imperialists, instead they have fixed borders. They are to have rule of law rather than tyranny. David is restricted from building the temple for his *just* warfare. Legal aliens were given protections that were to be unheard of until the Persian and Roman systems gained accendance. Women were granted protection in law. Men could be killed for adultry (unheard of!). The prophets in many cases acted to veto secular wars.
People did die, but that isn't terribly suprising nor is it ruthless. I can't think of a passage where a people (yes even when young maidens get distributed) where God acted in a ruthless manner.
As for grace, the short answer is that the two systems aren't at all the same. One implies that man can live something close to a perfect life without God (which the Witness oddly would object too) and the other proposes that this is impossible. One makes missionary work nice but not required (again oddly counter to the Witness position) the other does not. That being said I'll agree that being an Arian, without belief in a church authority, is safer.
|
|
|
Post by skeptictank on Jun 1, 2006 13:57:49 GMT -5
I'm sorry if this is slightly off topic. It does relate to the divinity of Jesus Christ.
In John 1:1, it is written that "in the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word truly was god". In discussing this verse with a friend of mine who happens to be a Jehovas Witness, I find Christ's divinity appearing more controversial than I otherwise think. His contention is that, while some translations of the bible render this verse "the word was a god", and others render the previous quotation. He says that, according to what he has been taught, the literal meaning of the verse is simply that the word was divine, or heavenly. If you could provide your personal insight into this verse I would really appreciate it. I've consulted the catholic information center, and they've explained the grammatical rules that this statement follows, and rather eloquently showed me why the verse is rendered as it is. My only problem with their explaination is that the word dios appears to be used differently in it's first usage. In trying to compare the greek online text with the english translation of this verse, I see that the word for "theos" is first spelled with a "v" instead of an "s", and the second usage is spelled with an s.
If anyone could shed some light on this for me I'd appreciate it.
|
|
|
Post by onpatmos on Jun 1, 2006 18:55:14 GMT -5
Hi skeptictank and welcome to the forums. (interesting name… ;D Also, I notice that you are the 100th person to register – congratulations!) I’ll give a try at answering your post: “My only problem with their explaination is that the word dios appears to be used differently in it's first usage. In trying to compare the greek online text with the english translation of this verse, I see that the word for "theos" is first spelled with a "v" instead of an "s", and the second usage is spelled with an s.” The reason for this is that Greek is an inflected language. That means it uses different endings for basic roots of words to show things like person, place, gender, it’s use in the sentence, etc. As J.W. Wenham says in “The Elements of New Testament Greek : “Nouns, pronouns, adjectives, verbs and some adverbs are capable of undergoing certain changes in form. The part of the word which contains the basic idea is known as the stem. The stem remains unchanged but modifications of this basic idea are introduced by means of changes of form, which are known as inflections…Nouns, pronouns and (in Greek) adjectives may have inflections for number, gender and case…” In other words, in English we might have two sentences that use the word “house” – The house fell to the ground. The man saw the house. In the first, house is the subject and in the second, house is the object. In English we tell that by word order, in Greek those words would have different endings to show that’s what they were in the sentence, and in fact the reader would depend on those endings to make sense out of the sentence. It is explained well here: www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/inflect.htmThat’s what’s going on with the two occurrences of “theos” in John 1:1; in the first occurrence it would be transliterated theon, and in the second occurrence theos, as you point out. Here is an article that says that in the first instance, “theon” shows that it is in the accusative case, and in the second, “theos” is nominative case: www.forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htmAlso , “ If you could provide your personal insight into this verse I would really appreciate it.” I’ve read the different explanations of how that verse should be rendered. There was a time when, by reading an explanation and agreeing to it, I thought I knew what I was talking about. But then I came to this understanding – I am not schooled in Greek, and I am not qualified to translate that verse. Even the ability to read the original Greek without helps does not mean that a person is qualified to authoritatively say how it should be translated into English. And even if a person was willing to take a stand authoritatively based on their own learning – there would still be someone who disagreed with him. All of this lead me to question my own ability to analyze the arguments I was reading for and against the NWT rendering. I do know this, though; there are a lot of people who disagree with the NWT on that verse. Also, have the people who argue for the NWTs rendering, using the the reasonig provided in the NWT, really taken the time to objectively consider what the opposing view has to say on it? Kind of reminds me of the country preacher I heard of who took all the Bible translations out of his library and stacked them up in two piles in front of his congregation – those that agreed with the NWT on John 1:1, and those that didn’t. What do you think those two piles looked like? Having said all this, I would say if you want to see the arguments over that verse, type “John 1:1” (in quotation marks) , and “Jehovah’s” into a search engine and read away. I've already linked to one above. An article that seemed really good to me, that takes a view opposing the NWT rendering, was Kenneth Guindon’s on it www.aggelia.be/identity.PDFAlso, Jeff Schwehm has an article on it here: www.catholicxjw.com/Wordwasgod.htmlAnd remember this, also (and as you suggest in your other post) - that even if that verse is appropriately translated "The word was divine", that still does not disprove the Trinity or Deity of Christ. (The NWT, in it's "appendix", cites a translation that has it that way - Smith & Goodspeeds. ) An insight on that verse that I never expected came from a short footnote on another verse in the New American Bible. It is not a grammatical argument at all. It’s the footnote on John 20:28: John 20:28 Thomas answered and said to him, "My Lord and my God!" (17) (17) My Lord and my God: this forms a literary inclusion with the first verse of the gospel: "and the Word was God." You can see it here: www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john20.htmA lot of people say that the last chapter of John (by the sea of Tiberias), chapter 21, is kind on an epilog. That would leave the incident in the upper room, with Thomas, at the end of chapter 20 as the conclusion, or climax, of the Gospel. When I read the NAB footnote on John 20:28, it really jumped out at me in a way that I had never thought of before. The Gospel starts off with a statement about Jesus, and if you accept the theory, "ends up" with a reiteration of that statement, in narrative form. That, to me, was one of the most powerful indications of what the meaning of John 1:1 actually is. I hope some of this helps. I see your profile and I'd like to say that I really admire this level of interest in these things from a young person. Welcome again, and I hope to be seeing more of you around!
|
|
|
Post by gkchesterton on Jun 1, 2006 22:40:01 GMT -5
A lot of people say that the last chapter of John (by the sea of Tiberias), chapter 21, is kind on an epilog. That would leave the incident in the upper room, with Thomas, at the end of chapter 20 as the conclusion, or climax, of the Gospel. When I read the NAB footnote on John 20:28, it really jumped out at me in a way that I had never thought of before. The Gospel starts off with a statement about Jesus, and if you accept the theory, "ends up" with a reiteration of that statement, in narrative form. That, to me, was one of the most powerful indications of what the meaning of John 1:1 actually is. I never thought of it that way. As I said I do love the NAB foot notes, even if I prefer now to read the RSV.
|
|
|
Post by skeptictank on Jun 10, 2006 15:01:48 GMT -5
To quote you gkchesterton-
"I'll also kindly disagree with the idea of judgement. Christianity is judgemental. It supposes a universe where God will destroy the "wicked". It allows for formal punishment of those who er (as exemplified in the very terms shun/excommunicated). Any religion that propses an absolute truth *has* to do this. We should be kind and happy for any progress anyone makes, but there is only one right path in the end. "
I must kindly reciprocate your disagreement. The bible hardly teaches excommunication, or punishment of those who are incorrect, as you seem to be saying.
Jhn 9:41 "Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. "
If their hearts are in the right place, then who are we to judge them for imperfection? God will judge them in his righteousness. As for now, it is only for us to judge ourselves, and if we find our brothers and sisters in error, then as christians we should serve our god by guiding them in his love and wisdom.
Skeptictank
|
|
|
Post by skeptictank on Jun 10, 2006 15:23:00 GMT -5
Onpatmos- I can't thank you enough for your help. I'll have to look into those resources when I get the chance. I think you'll be seeing me more. It took me a while to get back to this sight, because I decided to take on an involved debate on a Jehova's witness forum. I've noticed that one of the things that make discussions of the trinity difficult, is that people like to change the subject, or at least, change the context of the argument. If you just continue on their point, then they continue on theirs and you go off on opposite directions. If you respond, you get off on a tangent, and even when you prove your point, people just get angry and ignore you. I'd also like to point out, since I'm on the subject, that on the Jehovah's witness site I was on (and I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same on other such forums) there is a rule against promoting trinitarian views. Naturally after a few days of doing this, I was penalized. I think it's interesting that they have rules to protect their particular beliefs rather than trusting their perspective enough to leave it to discussion. If any such rule exists in the opposite on this site, please let me know. Skeptictank Hi skeptictank and welcome to the forums. (interesting name… ;D Also, I notice that you are the 100th person to register – congratulations!) I’ll give a try at answering your post: “My only problem with their explaination is that the word dios appears to be used differently in it's first usage. In trying to compare the greek online text with the english translation of this verse, I see that the word for "theos" is first spelled with a "v" instead of an "s", and the second usage is spelled with an s.” The reason for this is that Greek is an inflected language. That means it uses different endings for basic roots of words to show things like person, place, gender, it’s use in the sentence, etc. As J.W. Wenham says in “The Elements of New Testament Greek : “Nouns, pronouns, adjectives, verbs and some adverbs are capable of undergoing certain changes in form. The part of the word which contains the basic idea is known as the stem. The stem remains unchanged but modifications of this basic idea are introduced by means of changes of form, which are known as inflections…Nouns, pronouns and (in Greek) adjectives may have inflections for number, gender and case…” In other words, in English we might have two sentences that use the word “house” – The house fell to the ground. The man saw the house. In the first, house is the subject and in the second, house is the object. In English we tell that by word order, in Greek those words would have different endings to show that’s what they were in the sentence, and in fact the reader would depend on those endings to make sense out of the sentence. It is explained well here: www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/inflect.htmThat’s what’s going on with the two occurrences of “theos” in John 1:1; in the first occurrence it would be transliterated theon, and in the second occurrence theos, as you point out. Here is an article that says that in the first instance, “theon” shows that it is in the accusative case, and in the second, “theos” is nominative case: www.forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htmAlso , “ If you could provide your personal insight into this verse I would really appreciate it.” I’ve read the different explanations of how that verse should be rendered. There was a time when, by reading an explanation and agreeing to it, I thought I knew what I was talking about. But then I came to this understanding – I am not schooled in Greek, and I am not qualified to translate that verse. Even the ability to read the original Greek without helps does not mean that a person is qualified to authoritatively say how it should be translated into English. And even if a person was willing to take a stand authoritatively based on their own learning – there would still be someone who disagreed with him. All of this lead me to question my own ability to analyze the arguments I was reading for and against the NWT rendering. I do know this, though; there are a lot of people who disagree with the NWT on that verse. Also, have the people who argue for the NWTs rendering, using the the reasonig provided in the NWT, really taken the time to objectively consider what the opposing view has to say on it? Kind of reminds me of the country preacher I heard of who took all the Bible translations out of his library and stacked them up in two piles in front of his congregation – those that agreed with the NWT on John 1:1, and those that didn’t. What do you think those two piles looked like? Having said all this, I would say if you want to see the arguments over that verse, type “John 1:1” (in quotation marks) , and “Jehovah’s” into a search engine and read away. I've already linked to one above. An article that seemed really good to me, that takes a view opposing the NWT rendering, was Kenneth Guindon’s on it www.aggelia.be/identity.PDFAlso, Jeff Schwehm has an article on it here: www.catholicxjw.com/Wordwasgod.htmlAnd remember this, also (and as you suggest in your other post) - that even if that verse is appropriately translated "The word was divine", that still does not disprove the Trinity or Deity of Christ. (The NWT, in it's "appendix", cites a translation that has it that way - Smith & Goodspeeds. ) An insight on that verse that I never expected came from a short footnote on another verse in the New American Bible. It is not a grammatical argument at all. It’s the footnote on John 20:28: John 20:28 Thomas answered and said to him, "My Lord and my God!" (17) (17) My Lord and my God: this forms a literary inclusion with the first verse of the gospel: "and the Word was God." You can see it here: www.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/john20.htmA lot of people say that the last chapter of John (by the sea of Tiberias), chapter 21, is kind on an epilog. That would leave the incident in the upper room, with Thomas, at the end of chapter 20 as the conclusion, or climax, of the Gospel. When I read the NAB footnote on John 20:28, it really jumped out at me in a way that I had never thought of before. The Gospel starts off with a statement about Jesus, and if you accept the theory, "ends up" with a reiteration of that statement, in narrative form. That, to me, was one of the most powerful indications of what the meaning of John 1:1 actually is. I hope some of this helps. I see your profile and I'd like to say that I really admire this level of interest in these things from a young person. Welcome again, and I hope to be seeing more of you around!
|
|
|
Post by gkchesterton on Jun 10, 2006 19:37:47 GMT -5
Jhn 9:41 "Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. " If their hearts are in the right place, then who are we to judge them for imperfection? God will judge them in his righteousness. As for now, it is only for us to judge ourselves, and if we find our brothers and sisters in error, then as christians we should serve our god by guiding them in his love and wisdom. Skeptictank Many of the Pharisaic sect had their hearts in the right place too but got leveled. There's also a difference between ignorance and willed ignorance (or better indifference). Excommunication is still practiced frequently today by the Roman Catholic Church (abortion for example incurs automatic excommunication). It was also practiced by every major Christian group up until about a hundred years ago when it began falling out of favor. It was practiced because there is clear allowance for it from the instructions in the letters of John and in the first Letter to the Corinthians. The nature of it changed from time to time (withholding communion, burning at the stake, expulsion from the community, etc.), but it has been a clear and consistent Christian practice. There is a tendency to treat Jesus a teddy bear. CS Lewis points out this problem when Lucy is talking to Mr. Beaver about Aslan, to quote, "he's not a tame Lion". The Revelation of John is filled with woe for the unbeliever. Jesus in Mark repeats gory images of the damned. Paul warns that believers are not free from punishment. Paul (1 Cor 5:12), John (2 John 7-11), and Peter (2 Peter 2) give instructions, albeit brief, for the punishment of the "wrong-doer". The early Christian tribunals in Northern Africa, a bastion of Christian thought that included the followers of Athanasius, in the second through the fourth centuries practiced a "one-stike" policy for what the Catholics call the Sacrament of Reconciliation (usually practiced with brutal public displays of repentance). The scripture you quote is hardly reassuring. Jesus point out that *if* you were blind you would be free from sin. He does this to point out that the Pharisees were worthy of punishment not that they were free from it. To bring this back on topic, Athanasius and Arius both get formally expelled in a sad sort of back and forth that happened over the course of decades. How can we not ignore the development of the trinity and at the same time ignore the anathemas that were given against those who held to non-trinitarian belief? Arius, after all, died in exile in the desert while under both ecclesiastical and secular penalty. I fully expect in the future to be expelled as a Jehovah's Witness. I object to this not on the principle that the practice is wrong, but that given the weight of evidence, the Governing Body lacks the authority to do so. It is a fundamentally different argument. This is one of the many places I and other former JW's strongly disagree. If the Witnesses are right then they may expel under the same authority that the Pope claims for himself as a "binder". If you're Catholic I recommend the very good article here: www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
|
|
|
Post by gkchesterton on Jun 10, 2006 19:40:58 GMT -5
I should note briefly that I believe excommunication should be practiced with the hope of repentance and that I agree with Hans Balthasars (from the summaries; I can't read a tenth of what the man wrote) view that we should hope hell is empty (as opposed to the view of "Universal Salvation").
|
|
|
Post by skeptictank on Jun 10, 2006 21:36:56 GMT -5
I don't know if you understood me correctly, or if I mis-spoke, but all I was getting at was that WE as people should not judge others, because it is not our job to do so. We are imperfect and to assume that we are right and someone else is wrong, would be a contradiction of our imperfection.
Skeptictank
|
|
|
Post by skeptictank on Jun 10, 2006 21:46:14 GMT -5
"Many of the Pharisaic sect had their hearts in the right place too but got leveled." I'd wonder what led you to this conclusion. Christ said, in Jhn 9:41 that their "sin remaineth" becasue they say that they "see". This speaks of willfull and knowing sin. " There's also a difference between ignorance and willed ignorance (or better indifference)" Precisely and the fact that someone doesn't agree with catholic doctrine does not make them indifferent. One could argue that (if christ taught in favor of the trinity) to reject the trinity doctrine would not be in accordance with christ's teaching, thus rendering them by definition, not christians, but that doesn't mean that they don't believe that they are christians, and as paul said, "Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." "Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:" "Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith. " I think at this point I've gone a bit over board. All I was really getting at is that, though god is judge, that does not make us rightfull judges. I would very much like to know what the church's official policy is on this. I'm not catholic, but I'd still be interested to see what the church has to say about this. Skeptic tank 1Cr 5:9 I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 1Cr 5:10 I {did} not at all {mean} with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. 1Cr 5:11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one. 1Cr 5:12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within {the church?} 1Cr 5:13 But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES. 1Cr 6:2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent {to} {constitute} the smallest law courts? Jhn 9:41 "Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. " If their hearts are in the right place, then who are we to judge them for imperfection? God will judge them in his righteousness. As for now, it is only for us to judge ourselves, and if we find our brothers and sisters in error, then as christians we should serve our god by guiding them in his love and wisdom. Skeptictank Many of the Pharisaic sect had their hearts in the right place too but got leveled. There's also a difference between ignorance and willed ignorance (or better indifference). Excommunication is still practiced frequently today by the Roman Catholic Church (abortion for example incurs automatic excommunication). It was also practiced by every major Christian group up until about a hundred years ago when it began falling out of favor. It was practiced because there is clear allowance for it from the instructions in the letters of John and in the first Letter to the Corinthians. The nature of it changed from time to time (withholding communion, burning at the stake, expulsion from the community, etc.), but it has been a clear and consistent Christian practice. There is a tendency to treat Jesus a teddy bear. CS Lewis points out this problem when Lucy is talking to Mr. Beaver about Aslan, to quote, "he's not a tame Lion". The Revelation of John is filled with woe for the unbeliever. Jesus in Mark repeats gory images of the damned. Paul warns that believers are not free from punishment. Paul (1 Cor 5:12), John (2 John 7-11), and Peter (2 Peter 2) give instructions, albeit brief, for the punishment of the "wrong-doer". The early Christian tribunals in Northern Africa, a bastion of Christian thought that included the followers of Athanasius, in the second through the fourth centuries practiced a "one-stike" policy for what the Catholics call the Sacrament of Reconciliation (usually practiced with brutal public displays of repentance). The scripture you quote is hardly reassuring. Jesus point out that *if* you were blind you would be free from sin. He does this to point out that the Pharisees were worthy of punishment not that they were free from it. To bring this back on topic, Athanasius and Arius both get formally expelled in a sad sort of back and forth that happened over the course of decades. How can we not ignore the development of the trinity and at the same time ignore the anathemas that were given against those who held to non-trinitarian belief? Arius, after all, died in exile in the desert while under both ecclesiastical and secular penalty. I fully expect in the future to be expelled as a Jehovah's Witness. I object to this not on the principle that the practice is wrong, but that given the weight of evidence, the Governing Body lacks the authority to do so. It is a fundamentally different argument. This is one of the many places I and other former JW's strongly disagree. If the Witnesses are right then they may expel under the same authority that the Pope claims for himself as a "binder". If you're Catholic I recommend the very good article here: www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm
|
|
|
Post by heretic on Jun 18, 2006 16:58:44 GMT -5
Well, I go away to sit my NT Greek exams and look what happens! Welcome Skeptictank (love that name!) I'll just add to what onpatmos said - the Greek writers liked to move their words around to give extra emphasis on a point, which is why the latter part of John 1:1 reads the opposite way around in Greek: kai theos en ho logos. It could have been written: a) kai ho logos en ho theos (and the Word was the God [father]) or b) kai ho logos en theos (and the Word was a god) D.B. Wallace writes that John chose the one we have to emphasise both that Jesus is not the Father as would be implied by alternative a, BUT he has all the divine attributes that God has. Alternative b could have been used to fully support the Arian view, but it wasn't, instead John used his structure to 'prove' something more. GK "To bring this back on topic, Athanasius and Arius both get formally expelled in a sad sort of back and forth that happened over the course of decades. How can we not ignore the development of the trinity and at the same time ignore the anathemas that were given against those who held to non-trinitarian belief? Arius, after all, died in exile in the desert while under both ecclesiastical and secular penalty." I think the changes of Trinitarian doctrine in the early church is what bothers me - what if they got the wrong guy? How can we differentiate between this early flip-flopping of doctrine and the kind that sometimes happens in the WTS?
|
|
|
Post by gkchesterton on Jun 18, 2006 19:05:13 GMT -5
Well, I go away to sit my NT Greek exams and look what happens! Good luck! Right, which leads me to the Arian camp. I would note that their is what could be considered a clear trinitarian development from the begining. However, its not enough to convince me yet. What I'm looking for is any community that was consistantly Arian through the last two millenia. A single group, I'm finding that difficult.
|
|