Posted on 08/14/2010 12:20:34 AM PDT by Cronos
In the Old Testament tradition, any representative of God is referred to as god (elohim), i.e. angels, but also Moses (cf Ex 7:1). See also Psa. 82:1, 6, Psa 97:7, or John 10:33-34, for example.
Given that Thomas just realized he was looking at the risen Jesus (who is said to have been raised by God), as Jesus predicted, one can see why Thomas would believe God was appearing to him through Jesus.
Contextually, there is much more evidence to support cyc's position. Yours is a singular exception which can easily be understood, as noted above, in context of the OT tradition (with which Thomas would have been familiar).
Finally, John 20:28 could have been altered, as so many have been, for doctrinal purposes (see 1 Tim 3:16 for example). We really can't be sure what the first century original John 20:28 said since the oldest copy of John 20 is a third century (c. 250 AD) manuscript (P5), the result of about 150 years of freelance handcopying.
Therefore Thomas was either recognizing the resurrection of Jesus by God or making a sudden emotional exclamation, perhaps both.
Matthew 28:17 suggests that even that lacked complete consensus.
I've never seen any commentary suggesting John 20:28 has been altered, either by intent or carelessness, but 1 Tim. 3:16 certainly has.
As a footnote to 1 Tim. 3:16 says at a USCCB (UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS) web page,
“7 [16] Who: the reference is to Christ, who is himself “the mystery of our devotion.” Some predominantly Western manuscripts read “which,” harmonizing the gender of the pronoun with that of the Greek word for mystery; many later (eighth/ninth century on), predominantly Byzantine manuscripts read “God,” possibly for theological reasons.”
www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1timothy/1timothy3.htm
Note that well....” many later (eighth/ninth century on), predominantly Byzantine manuscripts read “God,” possibly for theological reasons.”
Were they doubting that Jesus was the Son of God or doubting that they were in fact seeing him here on the mountain? Not clear to me which one but I favor the latter.
I said is 'could have been'. But, then, there is no commentary on the addition of the Father, Son, Holy Ghost in Matthew 28:19 either, except that, unlike the case of John 20:28, there is indirect evidence that at least a variant version did exist because the verse is quoted by Eusebius (later 3rd century) no less than 17 times without the tirnitarian formula.
Predictably, he quotes Matthew 28:19 five more times after the first Nicene Council (which established the triniatiran dogma) and in all five cases he includes the triniatrian formula. I guess he suddenly must have found the other version/s.
The fact that there are numerous other add-on trinitarian verses known in the New Testament certainly opens a realistic possibility that John 20:28 could be another example of one given it's strongly suggestive tirnitarian character.
Note that well....” many later (eighth/ninth century on), predominantly Byzantine manuscripts read “God,” possibly for theological reasons.”
Well, certainly, because the source of the fraudulent entry is none other than the 5th century Codex Alexandrinus, the official Bible of the Greek Orthodox Church, against which these manuscripts were made. The fraud involves only changing the capital omicron O to capital theta by placing a short horzontal line through it, Θ.
The reason KJV verse reads "God" isntead of "He" is because Textus Receptus, which is the basis for the Engllish translation, was obtained through unreliable 13th century Byzantine manuscripts.
This is a perfect example how a fraudulent entry in one manuscript ends up poisoning all manuscripts and translations derived from it.
Just look at how many different versions of the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) we have (mostly 1st century AD work by Jewish scribes); then there are two version of Syriac Old Testament, one based on the Greek Septuagint (Syr-Hexpla), and the other based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Peshitta).
Needless to say, there are variants of the variants on top of that, all hand copied freelance style and translated in a like manner.
Apostle Paul must have been very cynical when he wrote "God is not the author of confusion," (I Corinthians 14:33)
It doesn't say that some have seen him. Rather it says "when they saw him." They, they all.
One of my thematic complaints, you may have noticed if there was anything in my rants worth noticing, is the non-Catholic non-Orthodox somewhat contemptuous view of reason (as it seems to me, at least.) I think one of the reasons Justin Martyr and Augustine loom large in our legend is that they were both "philosophers" before they converted and they both experienced their relationship with Christ not as ending their philosophical occupation but as "Baptizing" it.
Reason, we think, rightly used leads inevitably to the conclusion that there is a God, and only one of Him. But without revelation (which implies grace) reason won't be able to know Him, though it can lead to some imperfect knowledge about Him.
I think the Philosophers around the Mediterranean did remarkably well in some ways, while they remained disastrously wrong in others. And in Asia, I think Buddhism, most of whose schools reject anything like a personal God who bestows grace, also achieved wonderful things. I think it is especially remarkable that the Mahayana school developed that idea that compassion - what I call "suffering love" is a virtue above "enlightenment."
BUT there is a transformation required when you have the revelation that God is personal (or "Meta-personal"), that He stands outside creation as a sculptor stands outside his statue, AND that, while ontologically utterly distinct from creation, yet he manages to enter it fully by what Paul describes as a kind of emptying. (At least that's how we Trinitarians think of it.)
[Pause for breath, coffee, etc.]
In talking about such a Being, from the very beginning almost all our language has to be changed. I may "cause" wrinkles in the sheets and weird dents in my pillow, but the sheets and pillow and the very stuff they are made of, down to the sub-atomic particles were not caused by MOI! I am, at best, a kind of parasitic cause. and that kind of cause is all we know by experience.
Yet it is not meaningless to say that God "causes" Creation and everything in it. And so on with words like "Father", "Love", "Justice", "Happiness", and (I maintain) even "one." Everything we say about God has a "sorta kinda" implied. And not only that, but, while I think I know about fatherhood from being one and observing many, I discover over time that MY fatherhood is the "sorta kinda" fatherhood, while His is the REAL one, of which mine is a pale imitation.
So with the terms of philosophy in your quote, and their "unprecedented" character.
As to the faith of Christians resting on the Trinity: Please note that the faith of Christians does not rest on each individual Christian being able to give a halfway coherent account of the Trinity. It is lousy Trinitarian theology to say that God is like a shamrock or a three-trunked tree. But if the person saying it thinks "The Father is God, so the Son, and so the Holy Spirit; yet there is [incomprehensibly] one God," we think she will not go too far astray, at least not on account of the thinking.
Of course, is she wants to start teaching, or carried the metaphor too far, THEN there may be problems.
So "modalism" while wrong, is certainly pardonable in someone who says, "There is one God, who made me for Himself and who directs me toward himself, who saved me and is with me, who is so subtly united with me that my very desire to know God, to obey Him, to pray to Him is His and not mine." To that I would say "Close enough, especially if you remember to heed and to thank Him."
To me it's an "of COURSE!" that our faith would rest on something incomprehensible. I'll need help seeing how that could be a problem. Merely to SEE God, before the Incarnation, was usually lethal. To comprehend him? Get outta TOWN! My brain would explode if I comprehended His toenail (if He had one.)(Which, come to think of it, we maintain He did.) Incomprehensibility of the reality of God is par for the course.
What we hope for in the Trinitarian and Christological Dogmata is a kind of "method of discourse" to keep us from saying or thinking things about Him which will be grossly wrong. In our opinion, FWIW and for example, it would be grossly wrong to say, "God so loved the world that He told some inferior to go die to save it," or "Jesus was only pretending to be a man."
These dogmata are like clues (in the sense of guide strings) which we carry with us into the mystery and which help us return with a something to say which will not totally mess up ourselves or our hearers.
Enough of that. Moving along ...
I hope my response to the credulity remark can be inferred from the above. If not, let me know.
God/Man
My objection as to the word "part". This is a fine example of the problem of talking about mysteries. We don't know as much about what's right to say as we do about what's wrong to say. We would say, admitting at the outset that we can't understand it, that Jesus is FULLY God and FULLY man. The natures are not mixed, not even like sugar and water in a simple syrup. He is entirely each.
And we say that because (again -- this is always implied,I, at any rate am not qualified for or even desirous of laying down the law here -- IMHO) in our view if one takes as a premise the idea of "part" one ends up with a disastrous conclusion.
“end of man’???.....where does that expression come from?
Like I know?
;-)
All I mean is 'what man is "for"', 'why we were made'.
I mean the basic questions: "Who is he?" "Why is he here?" "Where did he come from?" "How did he get here?" "What does he want?" "How many angels can swim in the head of a beer?"
(No. Wait. not the last one.)
"The end of man", I guess, is the classification of the answers to the "'Why' questions."
You wanna impress the chicks? Go around saying "the 'heneka hou'" which means "the 'that for the sake of which'". Good luck with that.
Why did God make us -- as far as we're concerned?" Answer: For eternal happiness in knowing and loving Him ever better for ever and ever. That kind of thing.
Wow! That was long winded! If you read it, I hope it was somehow useful. May God bless you today and always.
Doesn't this sort of objection necessitate a kind of theological agnosticism -- or require a faith in 'sacred tradition'? We can criticize any text and derogate any authority this way, can't we?
It is not for nothing that Genesis describes God as creating by "saying." What does God speak but the Word through whom (δι' αυτου) all things were made?
I see your editor is off today. Please, call him back, do whatever it takes to get him back on the job, he’s really, really needed! Trust me on this.
It's not without a precedent, is it? I gave you several examples of just such alterations in #74.
Whether “they” meant “all” or not is not of great importance to me or worth further discussion so I won’t concern myself with the question.
By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. - Psalms 33:6
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. – Psalms 19:1-3
God's Name is I AM.
LOL!
Stupid editor never let’s me have ANY fun.
Some disagree...
|
Jesus Christ is God’s Son, spiritually and physically. He calls Him Father, He prays to Him.
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.