You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
1
MI7BZ3EW on scored.co
1 year ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)
So we ignore John 17 for an interpretation on what "one" means? The Bible is easy to understand if we just ignore the Bible, after all.
We have this word in English -- "united" -- that literally comes from the Latin word "unus" which means "one" in English. And we even have a definition of "one" meaning "united."
It's awfully hard to go from "united" to "they are made of the same stuff yet they are separate persons." I mean, if I had two distinct things, and I said "they are one" that is different than saying "they are the same thing". Is there anywhere in John where the author states "these two things are the same thing" (ίδιο)? Why didn't he use it in John 10?
And then we have John 1:1: "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος." We translated that last phrase "And the Word was God" But how do we know that "Θεὸς" is "God" versus just "a god"? Many translators identify that phrase as "the Word was a God", which makes more sense because having something be "with" itself is just plain weird.
What if the phrase "Θεὸς ἦν X" in Greek means "X was divine". What then? "The Word was with God, and the Word was divine". These are all translations that many people agree could be plausible.
But hey, the official interpretation of the doctrine of the Trinity is "nobody can understand this" so it's not supposed to make sense, I guess?
Heaven forbid we go with Paul's model that there are two divine beings, one of whom is the Lord Jesus, and the other who is God the Father. Combined with Jesus' statements that he has a God and that God is also our God. That just makes more sense when we throw away the baggage that the Greeks and jews brought claiming that there must be only one God.
This point was heavily debated until someone said we should start killing people who disagree with the doctrine of the Trinity. Then suddenly, everyone just agreed. I guess that's how God reveals himself: whoever starts killing the heretics wins.
We have this word in English -- "united" -- that literally comes from the Latin word "unus" which means "one" in English. And we even have a definition of "one" meaning "united."
It's awfully hard to go from "united" to "they are made of the same stuff yet they are separate persons." I mean, if I had two distinct things, and I said "they are one" that is different than saying "they are the same thing". Is there anywhere in John where the author states "these two things are the same thing" (ίδιο)? Why didn't he use it in John 10?
And then we have John 1:1: "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος." We translated that last phrase "And the Word was God" But how do we know that "Θεὸς" is "God" versus just "a god"? Many translators identify that phrase as "the Word was a God", which makes more sense because having something be "with" itself is just plain weird.
What if the phrase "Θεὸς ἦν X" in Greek means "X was divine". What then? "The Word was with God, and the Word was divine". These are all translations that many people agree could be plausible.
But hey, the official interpretation of the doctrine of the Trinity is "nobody can understand this" so it's not supposed to make sense, I guess?
Heaven forbid we go with Paul's model that there are two divine beings, one of whom is the Lord Jesus, and the other who is God the Father. Combined with Jesus' statements that he has a God and that God is also our God. That just makes more sense when we throw away the baggage that the Greeks and jews brought claiming that there must be only one God.
This point was heavily debated until someone said we should start killing people who disagree with the doctrine of the Trinity. Then suddenly, everyone just agreed. I guess that's how God reveals himself: whoever starts killing the heretics wins.