tirsdag 1. mai 2012

Nr. 297: How often confessed Jesus' friends and disciples of the Triune God?

Nr. 297:

How often confessed Jesus' friends and disciples of the Triune God?

Of Fred Vidar Hjortland

Jesus was, is and will never be the only true God. Lucifer wanted to be God, Father and became Satan! The fundamental idea of ​​the Trinity is occult, profane, and basically this is not a Judeo \ Christian doctrine, but a pagan \ occult learning to believe in three equal gods. For the Jews, Jesus and the early Christian belief in one God, their faith, understanding and learning. Shema (or Shems Jisrael) is the Hebrew creed. The name comes from the first words in the core verse, which is from 5 Genesis 6:4, which reads: "Shema Jisrael, Adonaj Eloiheino, Adonaj Echad." In Norwegian it is usually translated to: "Hear O Israel; The Lord is our God! Lord is one! "This creed should and should all believers to profess. Even Jesus, the Son of God and the Jewish Messiah and our Savior and Lord joined the this and acknowledged this creed. He is not in our open session or added this creed anything, but made it to her and taught others the! Trinity doctrine is essentially a continuation of Lucifer's rebellion against God the Father to be like him and take his place!

If Jesus really came to the world with the message that God is a Trinity, then it is natural to think that someone must have both heard and eventually come to believe in this message. He preached not out of thin air! And who are better candidates to have undergone such a conviction process than just Jesus' closest friends and disciples? They listened daily to Jesus' teaching and preaching and believed his words. If they owned a true and saving faith in a triune God, who else would do that? Or put another way: If we find an explicit treenighetstro of Jesus' friends and disciples, as we can with a high degree of probability to assume that Jesus really taught such a belief in God. But if we find no such faith in his disciples, we can with the same degree of probability to assume that Jesus never taught such a doctrine! What we therefore must do in this chapter is to consider what kind of indirect testimony of the disciples 'belief in God gives to Jesus' faith in God! What will you find as compared to that when you sit down with the four gospels? Personally I can not find a single Trinitarian statement anywhere! No disciple or friend ever said to Jesus: On your word, we believe now that God consists of three equal persons! Or: Before we thought that the one true God was one, but now we think that the one true God is three! Never sometimes these or similar confessions attributed to Jesus' friends and disciples!

This simple fact is a strong indication that Jesus never preached any treenighetstro!

What we see everywhere in the Gospels is that Jesus' friends and disciples confess Jesus as the Messiah - and nothing more! How is Peter's confession (Matt. 16:16), so the confession of Nathanael (John 1:49), so Martha's confession (Jn 11:27), so is the Samaritan woman's faith (John 4:1-42) and so is the belief is strengthened Walkers Emmaus (Lk. 24:13-35). Confession of Jesus as Messiah seems to be a general pattern in all four Gospels. Such confession testimony of Jesus as the Messiah fit like hand in glove with what we have previously seen that Jesus never preached any doctrine of the Trinity, never said about himself that he was God, never spoke of God's spirit as a divine person, and so Jesus' friends and disciples have never heard him preach such doctrines, and therefore of course they never started to believe in something! It, however, they heard him say, that the Father is the one and only God (Jn 5:44 + 17:3), and that the Father is both their God and his own God (Jn 20:17). And they have heard, and that they believe in! Their belief in God is and will remain so in the Jewish character. They confess Shema when they visit the temple and synagogues - as they always have done and so as their Master and great role model did it. They have not come to believe in another God. What is new is only that they have understood and believed that Jesus is the promised Messiah! Everywhere we see that it is Jesus as the Messiah in the case of the Gospels. It is Jesus as the Messiah proclaims the angels to the shepherds in the field, and that is Jesus Christ the Apostle John concludes his Gospel with the whole! Jesus never talked to anyone about that he was God or that there was a trinity. However, he tried to lead people to believe that he was the Messiah (see eg. The story of the Samaritan woman in John 4 and the story of Emmaus Walkers in Luke 24). And when people came to this realization, when Jesus was happy! He praised them and did not expect anything more. To Peter he said, and that it was God himself who had shown him the truth (Matthew 16:16-17). The picture that clearly emerges among us, in short, that Jesus never tried to change the disciples' Jewish belief in God, and that the disciples never confessed anything other than a Jewish belief in God! For the disciples, Jesus was always the promised Messiah, never a divine person in a mysterious trinity! But what about John 20:28, it will be some ask. Thomas does not break radically with the confession generally confession pattern we see elsewhere in the Gospels? Personally I do not think so. Although it may look like at first glance, I believe there are good reasons to assume that neither Thomas moved outside the sphere of the gospel messiah confessions. Strong evidence suggests that not even he had been part of any new faith in God!

In the following I will present two models that understand each of which takes away all the difficulties connected with this verse. I think understanding both models are good, and I do not know which of them I preferred. What I do believe is that no matter which of these two models, one goes for, are both better than the usual Trinitarian way to understand this verse! The first model is simply out that when Thomas exclaimed "My Lord and my God", it is not these words addressed to Jesus, but the Father. Some may immediately clean wrinkle on the forehead of such an explanation, but there are actually several factors that suggest that this may be a good and proper understanding. Firstly, bear the stamp of the episode that Thomas was greatly surprised. He was initially very skeptical and refused to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead before he could see the nail marks in his hands and stick his finger in his sårsiden. Such was his mood. Then suddenly one day in which Jesus is alive right in front of him! Most of us can live well imagine how he felt totally surprised and in a way "struck by lightning!" In such a surprise situation, it is very common that people come with some sort of outbreak, a eksklamasjon. And in a religious culture, such a eksklamasjon often contain words that have to do with God. This is something we are including know from our own Norwegian heritage. Many Europeans will, for instance. could say "My God!" or "Oh God!" when they are greatly surprised. I remember well how even my grandmother used those terms. In the oriental culture was and is like a religious-like eruptions as usual. Very recently (October 2011) I heard such. on the news how people in Turkey saying the word "Allah" when they are full of joy and surprise found again surviving relatives after the earthquake. For an observer without knowledge of Turkish and Islamic culture, it could certainly look as though they called their relatives for Allah! But it was obviously not what they did. Their one word eksklamasjon was clearly nothing more than a condensed thanksgiving and praise to God. That there was something similar happened to Thomas, in my opinion is not only possible but indeed very likely! Here are some interesting statements and factors that support such an assumption. First, some words of an old connoisseur of oriental culture: It is clear from John 20:5 that Thomas doubted Jesus' resurrection, without any respect to his divinity, and that he, when he saw Jesus and nail marks, came to believe in the resurrection. In this surprising situation, he came up, he exclaimed: "My Lord and God", in line with the fixed habit of both Jews, Arabs and almost all other Asian nations have to come with the onset of their God's name when they become powerful surprised by anything. (Roy, Rammohun, Raja, Final Appeal to the Christian Public, in Defence of the "precepts of Jesus," Calcutta, India, 1823, p.594) The learned Jewish philosopher and author H.A. Wolfson sees in keeping with the Oriental custom of "outbreaks in their God's name" for the possibility that it was precisely what happened in the case of Thomas: This outbreak of Thomas may have been directed towards God and not Jesus. (The Philosophy of the Early Church Fathers, p.181) At the famous Orthodox bishop and church father Theodor admit and openly confess that Thomas' words were a "forundringseksklamasjon directed against God" - without being accused of heresy or misinterpretation of any - speak for themselves, and strong language! All of his time realized that this was a good and natural interpretation. They knew very well in fact, based on the knowledge they had of their own oriental culture, that this was something that very likely could have happened when Thomas surprisingly met the risen. Theodor believed in the Trinity, but was still not tempted to take Thomas' words for the benefit of this doctrine. For him, it was apparently quite clear that these words had a different and more natural explanation: Although some modern trinitarer want us to believe that such outbreaks only surprise is a modern phenomenon and not something that was used in ancient times, this is not correct. Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia (350-428 AD) was the example. "An early Christian theologian and most eminent representative of the so-called antiokenske school .... he was highly respected and took part in several synods, and had a reputation as orthodox as it never was questioned. This respected Bishop of Mopsuestia was a very early Trinita and a friend of John Chrysostom and of Kyrill from Alexandria. " (Encyclopedia Britannica, 14th ed., Vol 22, p.58). This highly respected early trinitrate kelp wrote 1600 years ago that Thomas' statement in John 20:28 was "a surprise outburst directed at God." (Meyer's Commentary on the New Testament, (John), 1983, Hendrickson Publ., Vol.3, p.535). Another interesting fact that supports this understanding, is something we find in the Greek grammar. In Norwegian we say "gentleman" Whether we're talking about someone or to some, but this is not Greek. Here, the words have different endings depending on what function they have in the sentence (Case forms). In the example, the nominative. word gentleman named "kyrios" but in vokativ (charges) will have a different form, namely the "Kyrie". There are, for example. this form of address to use in the Norwegian Church liturgy when one says "Kyrie eleison" (Lord have mercy). This grammatical pattern is followed very consistently all throughout the New Testament. In all the 119 cases where someone is charged with that gentleman, it is vokativformen Kyrie used! (Rev. 4:11 does not break this pattern. All indications are that in the critical text here has to do with something else, a apposisjon. Otherwise, the Received Text Kyrie here too, so that the total number of instances is 120). Especially interesting is to see that the pattern followed until consistent in John's Gospel, for it tells us something about this particular author's writing habits. In all the 33 cases where the word Lord is used in direct charge to anyone in this gospel, it vokativformen Kyrie used! (See John 4:11, 15, 19, 49, 5:7, 6:34, 68; 8:11, 9:36, 38; 11:3, 12, 21, 27, 32, 34, 39, 12 : 21, 38, 13:6, 9, 25, 36, 37, 14:5, 8, 22, 8:15 p.m., 9:15 p.m., 16, 17, 20, 21). In John 14:5 we have a particularly interesting case. Here, namely, Thomas opposite Jesus and charges him with the word master. Which case the form is then used? Well, as usual and as expected, vokativformen Kyrie! The Greek grammar are followed - even in the face of Jesus! If it is then that Thomas speaks directly to Jesus at 8:28 p.m., we should naturally expect to find the form Kyrie here. But we do not! Thomas' words are not in vokativ, but in the nominative! This is very interesting! Could it be that the apostle here has deliberately chosen a different case shape just to highlight that Thomas says there is no direct charge to Jesus! Is not this the most plausible explanation? What else can explain this particular use case? Why the hell would not follow John the Greek grammar here - as he does everywhere else - if it really is about a direct indictment? Some try to say that the statement still is a direct indictment even if the words appear in the nominative, and call it an "attractive lens nominative." Although it must be admitted that such grammatical irregularities actually occurring in the NT, particularly in connection with the word God, so we never see the word Lord is used in the "attractive lens nominative" anywhere! Even Stephen, when he appeals to the glorious and heavenly Jesus as Lord (Acts 7:59), speaks only to him in vokativformen - not in the nominative! On this basis, it appears highly unlikely that kyrios is used as a form of address in this one case, in John 20:28! Here is an interesting statement from Edwin Abbott that provide good support to our assessment that the Kyrie was the normal case and the supreme form that was used in direct charges:

The Egyptian Papyri using Kyrie everywhere, but never, as far as testimony goes, she kyrios in vokativ importance. A large amount of testimony from all the existing Greek manuscripts shows therefore that if the intention had been vokativ indictment, Kyrie would have been used. This is also confirmed by the early Latin versions have "Dominus." 1) (Edwin Abbott, Johan Nine Grammar, 94 sec., 2049) 1) "Dominus" is nominative. Vokativformen (form of address) in Latin is "dominant". The important early Latin versions (Vetus Latina) uses words not in the form of address Joh.20: 28 PS - We should not disregard the possibility that the aforementioned Bishop Theodore arrived at his views on the importance of Thomas' words, just because he could his Greek grammar! In line with the fact that Thomas' words do not look like any charges for Jesus, according to normal Greek grammar, we see neither his statements as a whole as a prosecution statement! What I have in mind here is the fact that when someone starts a prosecution by saying either "lord" or "God" in the Bible, then these people always something more to say that they want to say! It can be about many different things, such as. questions, requests, confessions, or otherwise. The point is that they always say something more than just these address words or opening words! So it is in all cases in John's Gospel where Jesus is addressed as master. Here are a few examples: John 4:15 - O Lord, give me this water John 4:19 - Lord, I see that you are a prophet John 6:34 - Lord, give us always this bread John 6:68 - O Lord, to whom shall we go? John 11:27 - Lord .... I think that you are the Christ, the Son of God In the case of Thomas' words, he could in accordance with this completed pattern eg. still have something like this after the opening words: My Lord and my God, you have stood up and has come to us! Or: My Lord and my God, I believe you ..... But something like a natural next message we find that is not. Thomas says only the beginning of words and nothing more! His statement, like not a prosecution statement. However, it has all the characteristics of a short eksklamasjonsuttrykk. Another thing that indicates that it is correct to understand Thomas 'words as a short eksklamasjon directed to God the Father is Jesus' reaction to his statement. When Peter confessed Jesus as the Messiah, he received the praise of Jesus and an assurance that it was God himself who had given him that light in his mind. Should not it Thomas, more than anyone else, received praise and a similar assurance that it was God who had revealed this to him, if he is here really made a confession that stated the deepest truth about Jesus - that he was God! Should not Thomas received praise not just to have known no other of the disciples had known? Should not Jesus have been based on Thomas stunning confession and confirmed and elaborated on the truth about his own divinity for the rest of the disciples? Should not Jesus have said something similar to Thomas of: "Blessed are you, Thomas. Finally, you have realized who I am: This is the profession I have always waited for. I'm really your God." But all these things are absent in Jesus' reaction to what Thomas says! We find no praise, no talk of God's mighty revelation and no elaboration of their own deity! All Thomas learns is contrary to a mild rebuke! Jesus rebukes Thomas actually to have had such an unbelieving heart that he has not been able to believe in the resurrection until he saw Jesus (see v.29). Jesus seems to be completely unaware that Thomas just said something very important about who he is! The response he gives, shows that he does not ascribe Thomas' words, no special weight or significance beyond the fact that they show that Thomas now believe in the resurrection. This response pattern fits like hand in glove with the Thomas' words were a takksigelsesutbrudd directed to God the Father, that is a short praise to God that Jesus was now alive in front of him. Jesus subdued response with no allusions to their own divine right, however not at the Thomas here suddenly to have confessed Jesus as God! Such a ground-breaking confession, it is impossible to imagine that Jesus must have remained silent and passive! As far as I can judge the matter, therefore Jesus 'response to Thomas' words constitute a very strong indication that Jesus was not announced as God this day. Another thing you can reflect on, the disciples' faith testimony after this event. Changed it up? Thomas opened the door to a great truth about Jesus, like all the other disciples immediately accepted and began to confess? Did Peter immediately following the footsteps of Thomas? He stood up at Pentecost and proclaimed that Jesus was God? Read Acts 2:14-41 and judge for yourself! Here's some of what Peter said this special day:

Israel, hear these words! Jesus of Nazareth was a man of God pointed out to you by miracles and wonders and signs which God allowed him to do among you. All this you know to. He was extradited to you, as God had decided in advance and known to, and by wicked hands you nailed him to the cross and killed him. But God raised him and freed him from death factories. Death was not strong enough to hold him tight. (V.22-24) A chosen man blessed and endowed by God! How is Peter Christ Testimony. Not one word that Jesus is God! Peter does not seem to have had any impetus from the incident with Thomas at first to confess Jesus as God. And so it is general throughout the early Christian church history. Jesus never preached or acquaintance whom God in Acts. There is therefore no evidence that the apostles taught something radically new that day! There is no evidence that Thomas said was a watershed in their faith! Again, we get thus an indication that there is a good and reasonable understanding to read words that Thomas briefly takksigelsesutbrudd directed to God the Father - and nothing else! Let me also how two well-respected Bible translations render John 20:28. Note that Thomas is said here is not to answer any questions. This agrees well with the one that Jesus did not ask any questions for him! The fact that the verse can be translated as, is also helping to point in the direction of Thomas' words are no charges to Jesus. New English Bible: Thomas said, "My Lord and my God!" Phillips Modern English Bible: "My Lord and my God!" cried Thomas. As a final point I want to draw readers' attention to two interesting verses in John 20 that frames the 28th verse. In verse 17, Jesus recently said to Mary Magdalene, that she should go to the disciples and tell them that he would soon go up to him who was both his disciples and God. This was a crystal clear message to the disciples - including Thomas - who was their God and the one true God. How credible is it to say that Thomas - in direct violation of this teaching of Jesus - a few days later to get an idea that someone other than the Father was his God? In verse 31 sums John - after the incident with Thomas - the purpose of the whole of the gospel he has written. If it was such that Thomas confessed Jesus as God and that this was one of the very core of Christian faith, would not then expect that John would summarize his gospel by saying something that he had written his gospel so that men might believe that Jesus was God? But that does not John! It, however, he says, is that he wrote the gospel "that ye might believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God." Again, we face clear evidence that Thomas has never accused Jesus as God. I round out the review of this understanding the model with a quote from the Norwegian Christian leader Ola Tulluan. The word Lord and the word God is in the nominative in John 20:28. Tulluan focus here on the nominative of the word God (theos - as opposed to the form of address thee): Is theos understand vokativt, or the whole phrase simply a more or less fixed exclamation expressing astonishment and praise at the same time? Is this last right, do not say anything about the cry which had Thomas's view of Jesus as God. This puts it just his astonishment at the miracle of the resurrection is at the same time his praise of the Almighty God who has made this miracle possible. This interpretation is said to originate from Theodore of Mopsuestia and Faustus Socinus, but have not found many followers. (Ola Tulluan, One True God - Monotheism and the first commandment in the missiological perspective, Academic Library of Bible and Mission, Fjellhaug, 1998, s.57) The last Tulluan saying here that this view has not found many supporters, worried about not noteworthy. Truth and the majority has in no way been synonymous sizes throughout church history! What I do think is particularly interesting in his opinion, is his clear description of how all difficulties disappear like dew before the sun when Thomas' words are understood as a eksklamasjon directed to God the Father! Understanding this model, we have a simple and - as I see it - well substantiated and credible "solution" to the words we find in John 20:28. If we understand the words so, it seems all the pieces fall into place.

I spoke initially about two interesting models for understanding Joh.20: 28 The second model opens up the understanding that Thomas could possibly be called Jesus Lord and God, but that the words then, had a subordinate and relative importance. The fact that someone is described as God / god in a relative sense - without any regard to side position with the Almighty God - is actually a well documented biblical phenomenon. According to Jesus himself was, for example. all right that the judges in ancient Israel were called gods in a relative importance (see John 10:34-35 / Psalm 82). Not only judges, but also kings could be called God (see Psalm 45). And Moses was called God in relation to Pharaoh (2 Gen 7:1). Abraham (1.Mos.23: 6) and King Nebudkanesar (Ez 31:11) were also called gods. Nothing before or after this incident, Thomas suggests that he confessed Jesus as God in the absolute sense! The disciples do not go over that day to believe that Jesus was God. In the book of Acts - that immediately after the confession of Thomas - Jesus taught consistently that the risen Christ, not God. I am therefore convinced that no friend or disciple ever confessed Jesus as true God. The apostle Thomas may thus possibly have used the word God about Jesus in a relative sense - a practice the Old Testament provides many examples and a practice Jesus himself endorses. But this does not use true god - only great power and majesty. This is however in line with the basic meaning of the Hebrew word El. The word means just power, power and majesty. Even the mighty things in nature can be described by this word (Psalm 36:7 - mighty (El) mountains, Psalm 80:11 - mighty (El) cedars). Some theologians suggest that we actually might have been more correct if we had translated the word with thickness, or something similar, instead of God. When would the one true God was the Mighty, and other selected tools would be powerful in a subordinate and secondary importance. The statements below some point in this direction: The Hebrew "ælohim" denotes not only the name of the living and true God, 1.Mos.1: 1, etc. The word is used in a variety of other contexts to describe the personalities of power and authority in accordance with the word because meaning: power, strength, force. On this last method is used similarly to the Greek Theoi, gods. (Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1987, b.3, p 236) The Hebrew word for "gods" (elohim) could refer to many exalted beings beside Yahweh, though this meant some challenges in terms of monotheism. (Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel: Issues & Commentary, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, c2002, "The Feast of Dedication" (John 10:22-42), p.163) If we remember that the root as the Hebrew word "El" is derived from the meaning "strength or power", we will not be so gaping perplexed when we see the word used about people in the Old Testament. It is after all an element of strength and power associated with human authority. It is the context the words El or Elohim is in determining what value these words will have. We make a mistake if we give these words a fixed value when our survey material certainly does not. (Frye, The Father Son Relationship, pp.25.26, cited in Patrick Navas, Divine Truth or Human Tradition, Authorhouse, 2007, p.227-228) The early Christians used the word god beings with varying degrees of sovereignty and power, and not like now, only in an absolute sense. .... There is also, as I see it, a relative expression, an expression that describes someone who has control. (Mary SB Dana, Letters Addressed two relatives and friends, in reply to arguments in support of the doctrine of the trinity, Boston / London, 1846, letter No. 2) One finds a wide use of the words for "God" in Jewish angelology. Both Elim and elohim are eg. extensively used as a term of mighty angels in 4Q400-407 (Dead Sea Scrolls). Neither here forligger there any intention to violate the unity of God, or uniqueness. (PM Casey, monotheism, Worship and Christological development in the Pauline Churches, in: The Jewish Roots of Christological monotheism. Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus, ed. Newman, Davila, Lewis Brill , Leiden-Boston-Köln, 1999, p.216-217) Other heavenly beings than the Lord is often referred to as Elohim in the Dead Sea Scrolls. (Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God - Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature, William B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan / Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2008, p.61) We must therefore conclude that from Filons perspective and from the perspective of the Jewish community he belonged, it was his description of Moses as theos (God) is not something that affected or threatened monotheism. (PM Casey, monotheism, Worship and Christological development in the Pauline Churches, in: The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism. Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus, ed. Newman, Davila, Lewis, Brill, Leiden-Boston-Köln, 1999, p.216) In light of the rest of John's Gospel can not mean that Thomas's confession of the risen Jesus is the one God. The term has already been used by Jesus himself in the context in which he clearly distinguishes between the Father and the Son. (17:3). In addition, Jesus in a revelation to Mary Magdalene after the resurrection commanded her to go to the disciples and tell them that he step up "to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God" (20:17). It is highly unlikely that John intends to get readers to believe that the Father and the Son at one time or another have merged into one, or that the person called Jesus "my God" in some ways has become the Risen Lord. (Marianne Thompson, The God of the Gospel of John, p.235) The scriptures describe the word "God" necessarily the Most High, but is often used of humans and angels. Moses is called God: Gen 7:1 2. Judges in Israel are called gods, Psalms 82:6. Those who came to the word of God, are called gods: John 10:35. Paul says that there are many both in heaven and on earth that are called gods, 1 Cor 8:5. Thus we see that the word "God" is sometimes used in a secondary importance. When the word is used to denote the Supreme, are often other words associated with it to describe his divine perfections, or character traits. He is called the invisible God, the Almighty God, the only wise God, the only true God, the Most High God, Yahweh God - titles that never once given to Christ anywhere in the Bible. About the word "God" alone always called the Most High, would require additional descriptions have been superfluous. If Jesus had been God never called so many times in Scripture, this would not have been any evidence that he was the Most High, just as the fact that Moses is called God is no evidence that he is the Most High! (Charles Morgridge, The True Believers Defence, Boston, 1837, p.115) Thomas used the word "God" in the sense it is used of kings and judges (who are seen as God's representatives) and, above all, the Messiah. (CG Kuehnoel (Trinitarian theologian), cited by WG Eliot in: Discourses on the Doctrines of Christianity, Boston, 1886, p.79) Thomas saw the risen Jesus who was chosen to be "God" in the coming age, who would take over for Satan, this age "God". But Thomas' words "Lord" and "God" is nothing other than the messianic titles in line with the divine titles given to the angel of the Lord and for God's representatives in the Old Testament. The former as doubting apostle did not suddenly believe in the Nicene or the Athanasian Creed and look at their Lord as "very God of very God." John's Gospel must not be manipulated to match the much later speculation from the Greek theologians. (Sidney A. Hatch, Th.M. from Dallas Theological Seminary) We must here round this short and fragmentary overview of the language background material. But hopefully enough has been said to show that the New Testament writers spoke of Jesus in a cultural setting where the terminology that we would have considered appropriate only in relation to a being who is truly divine, was used of angels, and even if people . In the first century world, one could argue that some people were in a particularly close relationship to the celestial sphere, one might ascribe to them a degree of ontological equality with God's nature, we could honor them with such titles as "God's Son," " Lord "- yes, even" god ". And all this could be done without having any intention to ascribe to those honored in this way, the same divine status as the most high God. (GH booby, Jesus as "theos" in the New Testament, The John Rydland Bulletin, vol.50, 1967/8) As we see, also for understanding the second matter. Thomas could actually be called Jesus God in a subordinate and relative importance without having had the intention to confess the true God, number two next to God the Father. Such use of the word God is quite alien to us in our modern culture, but in biblical times was such a use of the word a real possibility. The word had revealed a different denomination at the time. All the pieces fall into place so we also follow this understanding the model. As mentioned before, I find it hard to choose between the two comprehension models. What I do know for sure myself, is that both these two models provide better and more likely answer to what kind of meaning Thomas put in his word than a trinity interpretation does. We have - as I see it - not a strange event that a person once confessed Jesus as true God in the Gospels. All the Apostles - Thomas included - believed in the God of Israel! Jesus was their Messiah - not your God! John 1:1 is also a Bible verse that is often brought up and taken as evidence that Jesus announced that God. We must therefore link a few comments also this verse. Initially it may be mentioned that more skilled interpreters believe that there is a lot of uncertainty about the logos really describe a person living in this verse. They can see for themselves that the verse also is a description of God's idea or plan that is first realized in and with Jesus in verse 14 This I will not go any further into. In the subsequent discussion, I will just assume that the word logos in John 1:1 is really a name or some sort of description of Jesus in his preeksistens.

John 1:1 begins by saying that the Logos was once with God. Then it is said in 1:1 c: kai theos an ho logos (word for word: and a god was the word). Does this mean that these words that Jesus (the Logos) is one true God on equal terms with the God he once was with? Firstly, such a thought seems confusing and very difficult to reconcile with the clear monotheism that would otherwise be served in this Gospel (5:44, 17:3, 20:17). Secondly, it is not so certain that it is correct to translate this phrase with "and the word was God" (God with a capital letter)! Below I'll list the two tables with alternative ways to translate, and to every table I link a number of comments. I think this will help readers to see that it is very important information in the fact that the word theos here in 1:1 c occurs without the specific article (anarthrous). First, some translations that choose to render theos to "a god": Name translation: Wording: John Crellius, (Latin form of German), 1631 The Word of Speech was a God Jeremiah Felbinger, Das Neue Testament, 1660 und di Rede war a Gott Reijnier Rooleeuw, 1694 and the Word was a good T. Kenrick, An Expositon of the Historical Writings of the New Testament, B.2, 1807 and the Word was [a] good The New Testament in an Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcomer's New Translation: With a Corrected Text, London, 1808 and the word was a good Thomas Belsham, The New Testament in an Improved Version, 1808 The Word was a good Abner Knee Land, The New Testament - being the only English of the Greek and English New Testament, 1823 and the Word was a God John Samuel Thompson, The Mono Tess Aaron: Or the Gospel History, According to the Four Evangelists, Baltimore, 1828 and the Logos was a good Herman Heinfeter, A Literal Translation of the Gospel According to St. John Wed Definite Rules of Translation, 1854 for a Good Command was the two Become The emphatic Diaglott, inter-linear reading, by Benjamin Wilson, 1864 and a good was the word Robert Young, Concise Commentary on the Holy Bible, s.54, 1865, and a good (ie a Divine Being) was the Word Leicester Ambrose Sawyer, The Final Theology, b.1, Introduction to the New Testament, Historic, Theo Logic and Critical, pp. 353, 1879 and the Logos was a good Anthony Nicholas Jannaris Ph.D., (Classical Greek), Zietschrift fur die Neuterstamentliche Wissenchaft und die Kirche Kuknde Alteren Volz, p.13-25, 1901 and was a good George William Horner, The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the Southern Dialect, 1911 and (a) God was the word Oskar Holtzmann, Das Neue Testament, 1926 und Gott a war where Gedanke Rittenlmeyer, 1938 selbst a Gott war das Wort James L. Tomanek, The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958 and the Word was a God Das Evangelium nach Johannes, by Siegfried Schulz, Gottingen, Germany, 1975 a Gott (oder, Gott von Art) war das Wort Das Evangelium nach Johannes, John Schneider, 1979 und Gott war das a Wort Jurgen Becker, Das Evangelium nach Johannes Wirzburg, Germany, 1979 und Gott war das a Logos Othodox Greek / Arabic translation, 1983 and the word was a good The 21st Century Translation and the [Marshal] [Word] was a good Schulz, 1987 a Gott (oder: Gott von Art) war das Wort The Greek language has no indefinite article. Indefinite The heat of a noun is communicated by typing it without the specific article. She means so logos "word", while logos means "word". In Acts 28:6 Paul is said to be "a god". In Greek, it says here only Theon (a form of the word of God without the specific article). In John 6:70 it is said that "one of you is a devil." In Greek, it says here "diabolos" (devil without a word for that particular article). We conclude how often must add the indefinite article in Norwegian in order to render the meaning of a noun without the definite article in Greek. This is the linguistic background of the translators in the table above, find it appropriate to translate "theos an ho logos" with "a god was the word" or "the word was a god." Here are some other interesting comments to this way of putting on: Accordingly, theos an ho logos, from a purely grammatical account, rendered "the Word was a god." (Murray J. Harris, Jesus As Good, 1992, p.60) The verb that precedes a story loosely predicate, would probably mean that the Logos was "a god" or a divine being of some kind. Logos would belong to the general category of "theos", but is a being separate from "ho theos". (Dr. Phillip B. Harn, Heidelberg College) As commentators have pointed out so often does not share the English word "God" the proper meaning of the Greek word theos. Without the specific article means theos "a god", or used as a predicate, it may simply mean "divine", "more than human" (Jones 1913, Skemp, 1973, Grube 1980: 150-1). (Norman Russell, The Doctrine of deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition, Oxford Early Christian Studies, Oxford University Press, 2004/2005, p.35) Direct from the Greek could be translated as: the Word was God. ("William Barclay-Ever Yours," edited by C.L.Rawlings, Dunbar, 1985, p.205) If the translation was about to translate word for word, would a possible translation of theos an ho logos is "the Word was God." As a word for word translation is here nothing to put my finger on. (CH Dodd, Technical Papers for The Bible Translator, Vol .28, No. 1, 1977) The interpretation of John 1:1 will depend on whether one considers the writer to believe in one God or more than one God. We believe that John has been able to say that the Word was a "god", for the GT is even the angels called this. Yes, as a Jew would have believed in John, "more than one God." He would have believed in superhuman beings, the angels that surround God in the heavenly court (see Psalm 8:5, 82:1, 138:1). But he would only worship the one true God. The word was not the one true God (ho theos), but the word was, as John informs us, "in" this God. The rendering "a god" are both grammatically correct and in accordance with an open-minded reading of the context where the word is seen as separate from God (ho theos). (Rev. JW Wenham, The Elements of New Testament Greek, footnote 2, page 35, Cambridge University Press, 1987 reprint)

So far, to translate theos without the article "a god". As we know, this is a completely legitimate and grammatically correct way to put on. As Wenham points out, such a translation also be made good sense for a monotheistic Jew in Jesus' time. In the ancient Israelite culture was in fact possible to call both men and angels for the gods in a relative and subordinate importance, as we have seen above. Such translation and such an understanding of the word "god", thus conveys an understanding of the Logos as a powerful or divine being of some kind, but not as a being on par with the Almighty God! Other translators chose to render the indefinite "theos" with a predicative or adjektivisk description eg. "Divine, the divine species, of the same nature as God" or other related expressions. Such expressions have also a meaning that is close to "a god". If we for example. describes a person as "a devil" or "diabolical", so do these two terms almost the same. Here are some examples of Bibles and translators who have chosen this representation as follows: Name translation: Wording: Harwood, 1768 and was himself a divine person The New Testament, by Curt Stage, 1907. Das Wort war selbst gottlichen Wesens The New Testament, by Rudolf Boehm, 1910. yes selbst goettlichen Wesens Das Neue Testament, Ludwig Thimme, 1919 Gott von Art war das Wort Baumgarten et al., 1920 Gott (von Art) War in which Logos Let the Bible Centenaire, Maurice Goguel, 1928 and the Word was a divine being Robert Harvey, (DD), 1931 and the Logos was divine (a divine being) Ernest Findlay Scott, 1932 and the Word was of divine nature William Temple, Archbishop of York, 1933 and the Word was divine Smith and Goodspeed, 1935 and the Word was divine The Moffatt translation of the Bible, 1935 the Logos was Divine Goodspeed, 1939 the Word was divine Ervin Edward Stringfellow, 1943 and the Word was divine (NT) Sounds Brown, 1945 Word was deity of the species Das Neue Testament, Ludwig Thimme, 1946 and of a divine kind was the Word The New Testament, Friedrich Pfaefflin, 1949 Und war von goettlicher Wucht Albrecht, 1957 gottlichen Wesen hats das Wort Hugh J. Schonfield, 1958 the Word was divine Smit, 1960 the world the word was a divine being John L. McKenzie, 1965 the word was a divine being William Barclay, New Testament, 1969 the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God Moffatt, 1972 the Logos was divine Translator's New Testament, 1973 the Word was with God and shared historical nature Philip B. Harnes, 1973 the Word had the same nature as God MaximillianZervich / Mary Grosvenor, 1974 The Word was divine Barclay, 1976 the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God Fritz Rien Ecker, 1976 the word had the same nature as God John Schneider, Berlin, 1978 and Godlike black was the Logos Haenchen, 1980 Gott (von Art) War in which Logos Schonfield, 1985 the Word was divine Scholar's Version, 1993 The Divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was Madsen, 1994 The Word was a divine being International English Bible, 2001, footnotes FTN.: Or deity or divine, which is a better translation since the Greek definite article is absent before the word The Complete Bible - An American Translation, The Word was divine Here are some interesting comments to this way of putting on: Finally, John says that "the Word was God." There is no doubt that this is a difficult term for us to understand. It is difficult because the Greek language, which John used when he wrote, had another way of saying things than is usual in English (or Norwegian - my coming.). When the Greek language uses a noun, it has almost always that particular article before the noun. The Greek word for God is "theos" and that particular article is "she". When, therefore, talking about God, they say not only God, but "ho theos". When the Greek does not have that particular article before a noun, the noun is more the nature of an adjective: it describes the character, the quality of the person. John did not say that word was "ho theos", it would have been the same as saying that the Word was identical with God. He says that the Word was "theos" - without that particular article - and that means that the Word was, that we can express it, of the same character, quality, service and being as God. When John said that "the Word was God", he said that Jesus was not identical with God. He said that Jesus is so perfect like God in the mind, heart and being that in him we see a perfect way how God is. (W. Barclay, The Icily Study Bible, The Gospel of John, b.1)

It's not that he (John) identifies him (Jesus) with the Godhead (ho theos). On the contrary, he clearly distinguishes between the Son and the Father and let him appear to be inferior in dignity (the Father is greater than me). When he says that Christ is "God" (theos), he means the divine kind or nature. (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 1910 ed., Vol.1, p.690) ("God" in John 1:1 c) is not necessarily the specific article (only theos not ho theos) because it describes the nature of the Word, it does not identify his person. It would be pure sabellianisme if you said that "the Word was ho theos." (Trinitarian Bishop Westcott, cited by CFD Moule in: An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek (Cambridge University Press, 1953), p.116) John 1:1 does not describe the identity, but the character of the Logos. (D.A. Fennema, John 1:18: 'God the Only Son' New Testament Studies 31 (1985), p.130) When all is said and done, is thus rendering "the Word was God" exactly what the Greek text says. "The Word was divine" is a possible meaningful representation of this Greek term. "Word was God" is almost certainly ruled out by the way John puts it on. Such a translation does not correspond to "the Word was divine" because it narrows without reason meaning in the original Greek phrase from a quality or category (god / divine) to an individual (God). (Jason BeDuhn, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion, Northern Arizona University, 2/10/2001) As Carl has said, we have discussed this scripture passage before, and my own preferred translation is neither "the Word was divine" or "the word was a god" or "the Word was God." I would suggest "the word was like God" because I think the statement is intended to describe the nature of the personified Logos similar nature to God the Father. You may think otherwise, but we are likely to agree that the statement does not identify ho ho logos as Father, ho theos - so the translation "the Word was God" can lead us to believe. The way I see it, "the Word was God" either linguistic or theological right. (Iver Larsen, Danish language expert and Bible translator, greek B-4 July 2006) Given John's background in the Christian community and this Community roots in Judaism, it is inconceivable that he means to say that there is more than one God. ... A more natural interpretation of this text will be that we have two creatures in God, and another which is theos. But this other is in such a relationship with God that God appears as the absolute as the other is defined up to and in relation to. They are produced not two equal gods. (William Loader, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel - Structures and Issues, Peter Lang Publishing, p.155, under the heading: "The Word was a God") In Greek there is a distinction here between "with God" and "God." In the first case, the specific article used, and then the word a special reporter. In the second case, there is no definite article, and it's hard to believe that this omission is not of importance. Such a design provides a adjektivisk quality at the second instance of "Theos" (God) so that the term can mean "the Word was divine." (Translator's NT, 1973, footnote) It would be impossible to talk about Jesus without going into the words of John's Gospel: "the Word was God." Greek that underlies this expression is: theos an ho logos. This does not: the Word was God. In Greek, the "she" that particular article. If two things constitute one and the same thing, will be in Greek use the definite article in front of both. If the meaning of this phrase had been that the Word was God, then it would have looked like this: ho theos an ho logos. There is nothing strange connected with this. We do the same in English. When a noun does not have the specific article, it acts as an adjective - both in Greek and in English! If I say: John is the man (the man) when I identify John with a special copy of the human race. But if I leave out the specific article, and just say, John is a man (man), when I identify him, I classify him. I say: John is human, he belongs to the human category. So the Greek really means here is that "the Word was God", but "The word belongs to the same category as God, it belongs to the same kind of life and are one with God. (William Barclay, Who is Jesus, Tidings, Nashville, Tennessee, USA, 1975, s.35-36) Jn 1:1 should strictly be translated "the Word was with God (= the Father), and the Word was a divine being." (John L. McKenzie, SJ, Dictionary of the Bible, p.317)

There is only one true God, but those who abuse the language are called gods, are many. For this reason, in this case indicates that the font that is the true God is meant by using the article (ho theos), and when the word is used in an incorrect opinion, it stands without the article. (The famous Jewish philosopher Filon of Alexandria, who lived together with Jesus and the apostles, On Dreams, 1.39) Filon shows that the differentiated use of ho theos and theos in John 1:1 must have been a conscious use of the author's side and was of great importance for the Greek-speaking reader. Yes, not only that, Filon shows that John may have boldly called Logos for "God / god" but this has affected his monotheistic faith. (James Dunn, Christology in the Making, 2.ed., SCM Press Ltd., 1996, p.241) Filon often use the term ho theos of the Bible personal God, theos is with him - as in the Greek writers in general - a predicate with a wide range applications for rest, not a word that is only limited to denote the Supreme God alone. (Norman Russell, The Doctrine of deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition, Oxford Early Christian Studies, Oxford University Press, 2006, p.59) Furthermore, we notice John's use of the specific article in these sentences. His use of the article is not careless or accidental, he is no stranger to the finer details of the Greek language. Sometimes he uses the article, other times he leaves it. He always has the article in front of the Logos, but only occasionally in front of theos. He uses the article as theos refers to him as the uncreated cause of all things, but omits it when the Logos is called theos. .... Many of those who take their religion seriously wonder greatly about this. In his fear of proclaiming two gods, they are driven into false and evil doctrines. ..... To such people we must say that God is on the one hand, autotheos (God himself), that the Saviour himself says in his prayer to the Father: "That they may know you, the one true God", while everyone else outside of this autotheos have been made to theos in a participation in His divinity, and therefore should not be called ho theos, but theos. Thus was creation's firstborn, who was the first to come forward at God's side, part of the Divinity. He was a being of higher rank than the other gods beside him, who all have ho theos as his God, as it is written: "God of gods, Lord, have spoken and called the earth." It was through service to the first-born that they were gods, for he passed from God richly so that they could be theos, he conveyed it to them by their own abundance. The true God is thus ho theos, and those formed later are gods, a kind of images of this prototype. Pictured above all images of God the Logos, who was in the beginning and that was with God. He will forever be theos. This is not something he has from himself, but something that arises from this that he is with the Father. And he will only continue to be theos, if this was something we should consider, through an uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father. (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, 2) One does well to note that even Origen used the absence of the article in John 1:1 as evidence the basis for Christ's subordination to God. (Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, New York: Oxford University Press, 1993, p 179) We see that there are strong constraints in the direction of translation Joh1: 1c either with "the Word was a god" or "the Word was divine" (or something akin to this). Eminent theologians and language experts say that in fact it is directly wrong to translate it with "the Word was God" (God with a capital letter). The word was in fact not the God he was with! In both cases involves the translation described the ways that the word has certain similarities with God, perhaps the same spiritual nature as God, but not that word is identical with theos or she is like God in power and majesty. I think that both Filon and Origen described the significance of theos without the article in a good and proper manner. If we understand John 1:1 so that these two - and many modern theologians with them - John 1:1 does not represent any challenge or difficulty in relation to believing that the Father, and only he is the one true God. In this chapter we have looked into the question of how often Jesus' friends and disciples confessed the Triune God. The answer to this question seems clear: Never! Not once do we hear someone take a Trinitarian confession. In addition, we may - after having worked a bit with John 20:28 and John 1:1 - also add that no disciple or friend ever confessed Jesus as true God in any of the Gospels. Many theologians have admitted that it really relates to, and we should lend an ear to some of these. Not least interesting is to hear the confession of the church father Athanasius, champion of orthodoxy and defender in front of someone: Athanasius admits that Christ gave to recognize his divinity for the Jews, and he tries to explain this by suggesting that the world is not yet able to withstand such a doctrine. And he adds: "I dare say not even the blessed disciples had a clear understanding of his divinity before the Holy Spirit came upon them at Pentecost" (Major Serm. the FID. Montf. Coll. Vol II, p 39 ). This statement has far-reaching importance, and it shows clearly that, according to Athanasius, it was not Christ's deity known to the apostles after his death. Theodor talking along the same lines: "Prior to his suffering and death appeared not Christ as God, neither to the Jews in general or of his apostles" (Opera Vol Ill, p 15 Ed. Hal.). Chrysostomus often suggests that Christ gave only a partial indication of his divinity to his disciples. On one occasion he says that Christ "did not immediately revealed his divinity, he was presumed to be a prophet, Christ (the Messiah), simply a man, but in the end - from his deeds and his words - they knew who he was "(Opera, Vol VIII, p.20). Chrysostomus says that Mary, the mother of Jesus, not even knew about the secret that he was the Most High God (Opera, Vol III, p 289). (Dr. Jared Sparks, (President of Harvard University from 1849 Thurs 1853), An inquiry into the comparative moral tendency of Trinitarian and Unitarian Doctrines, in a series of letters to the reef. Dr. Miller, of Princeton, Boston 1823, p .155-156)

It is not possible to deny that not only the word "Trinity", but also the idea of ​​a trinity, is absent in the apostolic faith testimony. (Emil Brunner (former professor of systematic and practical theology at the University of Zurich), The Christian Doctrine of God, Dogmatics, vol.1, The Westminster Press, 1949, p.205) To begin with, was not the Trinitarian Christian faith. ..... It was not in the apostolic times, nor in the post-apostolic times, as we see it evidenced in the New Testament and other early Christian documents. (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings, 1922, Vol 12, p 461) It is impossible to imagine that Jesus and his apostles preached a doctrine of the Trinity or as much as suggested that Jesus was Almighty God. .... The writings of the Christians in the first two centuries did not learn anything like that, but maintained entirely consistent that the Father, and him alone, was the Almighty God. (Boer, A Short History of the Early Church, 1976, Eerdmans Publ., Pp 109-111) In short, it is proved that the people trained by the prophets, the Savior and the apostles had no conception of a trinity. On the other hand, we find that the Bible almost every page proclaims in clear terms that God is one, and that it again and again states that this was the belief of all true believers. (Professor Sparks, In His book "Inquiry", cited in Mary SB Dana, Letters Addressed two relatives and friends, in reply to arguments in support of the doctrine of the trinity, Boston / London, 1846, letter 21) Their (ie, the first Christians) God was the God of Jews, the God who had created the earth and led the Jews through the Red Sea when they fled Egypt. (Owen Chadwick, (professor of modern history at Cambridge, England), History of the Christian civilization, Aschehoug 1995/1997, p.12)

There is no clear proof that Jesus' apostles believed in this doctrine (ie the Trinity). (H. G. Wells, Outline of History, p 421) In Acts ... we can see that the first Christians still had a thoroughly Jewish conception of God. (Karen Armstrong, History of God - in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Gyldendal, 2.utg., 2002, s.123) Regarding the apostles' preaching, so we never hear them talking about a trinity. We have a detailed presentation of their preaching, recorded by Luke in Acts, but here we are looking in vain for places where they teach about Jesus' divinity or the existence of a trinity. Nor can we conclude from some of their listeners are saying or doing the apostles understood to mean that they wanted to spread these teachings. (Dr. Sparks, in historical book "Inquiry", as quoted in: Mary SB Dana, Letters, Boston / London, 1846, letter No. 21) We can boldly summarize this chapter by saying that Jesus' disciples and friends never portrayed as a band of bold treenighetsbekjennere! Quite the contrary. None of them ever confess that God is triune! This tells us quite clearly - albeit indirectly - that their Master never passed such a doctrine to them!

Related links: http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.com/2012/01/trinity-defended.html http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2012/01/nr-197-trinity-in-unity.html http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2012/01/nr-196-jesus-is-not-god-almighty.html http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2012/01/nr-195-holy-spirit-unnamed-person.html

Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar