Christian: Why is Christ what He is in John? (Jesus Christ, gospel)

[No*s]

We often debate, harangue, and argue over John 1.1. Frankly, it almost always centers around the phrase "the Word was God." In this way, we isolate the text a). from its historical context and b). from the context of the book. In so doing, we are able to make it say, quite literally, anything we want it to. I think we can all agree that this is not how it should be.

Now, I propose we look at this in light of St. Athanasius' On The Incarnation. I propose that there is a reason in the text for regarding Jesus as God, and that no reasonable or historical reason for regarding him as an angel can be supplied. For the sake of this argument, I ask people to substantiate their assumptions using historical material. The whole "It says to me..." business isn't what I'm wanting. St. John wasn't a modern Christian, and he most certainly didn't share the more recent assumptions. So, to put it another way, if the interpretation isn't historical, then it's almost certainly wrong.

Why would John teach the Trinity? Well, he didn't. He taught the existence of one God, the divinity of Jesus, and likely the Holy Spirit. The Trinity is the formalized form of this doctrine that arose in response to Arianism. Arius taught something, and the bishops said, "Hey! That's not right!" and narrowed the definition to disallow the newcomer.

OK. We need to look at how the Apostle John portrays salvation to find our reason for the Trinity. The first thing I'll call attention to is the parable of the Vine and the branches in chapter 15. Jesus asserts, "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser...I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing..." (15.1,5). He is quite blatantly saying that they can become a part of Him, just as branches on a vine are part of the vine.

Next, I point to Jesus' duologue with the Samaritan woman. He informs Her, concerning Himself, "Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life" (4.14). I don't think I need to establish that Christ is that Water. Compare this with the vine analogy above. When someone drinks the Water of Life (Christ), they become a fountain from which Christ flows. Again, they aren't the water but a fountain, just as they aren't the vine but branches. Still, the individual becomes an extension of Christ.

Next, I appeal to Christ's teachings on the Eucharist in John 6. Jesus teaches that the one "who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in Him" (6.56) and goes further to say that there is no eternal life without eating His flesh and drinking His blood (6.53). Here, again, we have Christ teaching that somehow we may participate in Him, and He can participate in us. This is the great mystery of godliness.

In fact, Christ assumed this to be true in His discussion with the Pharisees in Jn. 10 (no wonder they wanted to stone Him either...they certainly wouldn't share that assumption). He said in defense of calling Himself the Son of God, "Is it not written in your law, `I said, ``You are gods''?' If He called them gods to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, `You are blaspheming.' because I said, `I am the Son of God?'" (10.34-36). All that theology in the preceding verses is assumed here, and the assumption basically goes: those to whom the Word comes become gods. How is it that the Word could possibly share allow others to indwell God if He wasn't God? Further, in all the others Christ talked about us dwelling in Him, and yet here, the men to whom the Word came and caused the Scripture are called Gods. It is one thing to say we are little christs. It is another to say we are little gods. If the connection holds true, then Jesus and God are one and the same.

Another thing this argument does is corroborate the view of John 1 that Jesus is a person in the Godhead, indeed God, and that He became man. It doesn't allow for Him to be a lesser deity, and all this is supplied and proven without appealing to arcane Greek arguments or Scriptures.

However, the next question is: Was this taught in the Early Church? All the Fathers I cite may be found at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2 unless otherwise specified.

St. Irenaeus Against Heresies Book III Chapter 18 Paragraph 7 (about 150 AD):

Therefore, as I have already said, He caused man (human nature) to cleave to and to become, one with God. For unless man had overcome the enemy of man, the enemy would not have been legitimately vanquished. And again: unless it had been God who had freely given salvation, we could never have possessed it securely. And unless man had been joined to God, he could never have become a partaker of incorruptibility. For it was incumbent upon the Mediator between God and men, by His relationship to both, to bring both to friendship and concord, and present man to God, while He revealed God to man. For, in what way could we be partaken of the adoption of sons, unless we had received from Him through the Son that fellowship which refers to Himself, unless His Word, having been made flesh, had entered into communion with us? Wherefore also He passed through every stage of life, restoring to all communion with God.

St. Ignatius Ephesians 7.2 (107 AD), found at: http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/ignephes.html:

There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord.

While this doesn't state bluntly what I've said before, coupled with a few other quotes from the same man, the theology is self-apparent.

Magnesians http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/ignmagne.html

For as one who has been thought worthy of the most honourable of all names, in those bonds which I bear about, I commend the Churches, in which I pray for a union both of the flesh and spirit of Jesus Christ, the constant source of our life, and of faith and love, to which nothing is to be preferred, but especially of Jesus and the Father, in whom, if we endure all the assaults of the prince of this world, and escape them, we shall enjoy God.

Smyrneans 7 http://www.philthompson.net/pages/library/ignsmyrn.html

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect, that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that you should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion of Christ has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved. But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.

Clement of Alexandria, An Exhortation Against the Greeks Chapter 1 (early third century):

But if thou dost not believe the prophets, but supposest both the men and the fire a myth, the Lord Himself shall speak to thee, who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but humbled Himself,870He, the merciful God, exerting Himself to save man. And now the Word Himself clearly speaks to thee, shaming thy unbelief; yea, I say, the Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man may become God.

Lastly, I close with St. Athanasius' On The Incarnation (fourth century) http://www.philthompson.net/pages/li...carnation.html:

He, indeed, assumed humanity that we might become God. He manifested Himself by means of a body in order that we might perceive the Mind of the unseen Father. He endured shame from men that we might inherit immortality. He Himself was unhurt by this, for He is impassable and incorruptible; but by His own impassability He kept and healed the suffering men on whose account He thus endured. In short, such and so many are the Savior's achievements that follow from His Incarnation, that to try to number them is like gazing at the open sea and trying to count the waves.

Indeed, St. Gregory of Nyssa had such an experience as "perceiving" the Father. He saw, first, great radiant light...and then darkness. He thus sensed and became aware of God's workings, but he explained God's transcendence still (do not mistake St. Athanasius as saying we can comprehend God as we would each other...He is beyond us).

With the above quotes from the Church Fathers I have demonstrated that the same theology found in the book of John is found in Fathers in the second, third, and fourth centuries. I have demonstrated, in fact, with Ignatius, that one of John's students taught this. I have restricted this to discussions of theosis. If I hadn't, I could have shown the Deity of Christ clearly taught in the first century using either biblical or extra-biblical sources.

Rules:

1). All biblical quotes must be from John unless an Old Testament quote is neccessary to explain the interpretation.
2). Explain what purpose the nature of the Son serves in John NOT any other subject unless directly relevant.
3). One must demonstrate this theology in the Church Fathers (and document) to show it was really present.

[Scott1]

Hmmm.... quiet.

Hehe.... nice job No*s

[No*s]

Thanks .

I noticed it's quiet also. I figure if anyone can speak authoritatively on Greek, they can do the far easier task of putting the book in a historical context. I'll wait some more .

[SK2005]

Very well said No*s.

[No*s]

Thankee

[SK2005]

ewes welcome...

[HelpMe]

sorry if this is somehow outside of your rules..

Originally Posted by No*s

If I hadn't, I could have shown the Deity of Christ clearly taught in the first century using either biblical or extra-biblical sources.

1-have i seen your best efforts at this?

2-can you show me church fathers of the same time denying that they were theoi?*


you know...before the word became exclusive to the almighty.(acts14:11)

[No*s]

Originally Posted by HelpMe

sorry if this is somehow outside of your rules..

1-have i seen your best efforts at this?

2-can you show me church fathers of the same time denying that they were theoi?*


you know...before the word became exclusive to the almighty.(acts14:11)

HelpMe...is this your best? Are you unable to make a case for your own interpretation by the standards I laid down? It's pretty easy to make quick snipes. It's not as easy to show the errors in my quotes (using context to demonstrate word definitions) or build your own case by the standards laid down.

I have a strange feeling that you don't understand the argument I made, because it is built in the dichotomy between people being called "gods" and the One Who makes them a god "God." A man being a "god" is certainly not almighty there.

[HelpMe]

so i have seen your best?

Originally Posted by No*s

Are you unable to make a case for your own interpretation by the standards I laid down?

A man being a "god" is certainly not almighty there.

1-i didn't think i was making a case, sorry. sorry, but this thread(and your rules) seriously doesn't(don't) spark any interest whatsoever to myself given that i believe in hebrew/aramaic primacy and the concept that the 'bible' is more important than other people's interpretations of it.(but you alread knew that...right?)

2-thank you.

[No*s]

<