In verse 1 I again notice the distinction between Jesus Christ and God, which leads me to suspect that this is an altogether different writer than the one who wrote the gospel. I see the same thing in Paul's letters, where he most often refers to God the father and Our Lord Jesus Christ, or something like that.
It strikes me that the Diety of Christ has caused unending turmoil and trouble for the Church, from the days of the wars between the orthodox (Romans) and the more numerical Arians who christianized most of Europe.
Dogmas do that IMHO; they divide the church and hide the true gospel which is addressed to mankind.
"he sent his angel to make it known to his servant John": isn't he still doing that? Doesn't Revelation continue? Doesn't Creation continue? The worship of the Bible, like the Diety of Christ is an obstacle and hindrance to the kingdom of God, as I understand it.
Well I could go on. Doesn't Rev provide the most fruitful field from which to preach?
9 comments:
Certainly as one of those papist devils -- i.e., Quaker Triunitarians out there I'm finding the possibility that Revelation will not substantiate a doctrine of incarnation interesting. This may be fun.
I have no problem with encarnation, David: "God was in Christ reconciling the world...."
The problem comes from claiming the encarnation of Jesus as something unique.
God was in Christ... Yes, yes. God is in you, and me, his brothers.
About Triunitarians: were you trying to say Trinitarians? Or do you know something about your word that I don't?
"doing theology" is fun!!
Tri-unitarian is an affectation. I picked it up after reading Karl Barth -- who I don't think used teh term directly but speaks of the godhead as a Triunity.
Hi Larry,
the other priest devil (the catholic :-) says ... I don't see a contradiction between Jesus being God and references to the father as different from Jesus. The idea of the trinity allows for a distinction between, and relationship between, the father, Jesus, and the holy spirit, yet sees all as one, I think.
Hello Crystal.
I think the phrase in question is He loves us and has washed away our sins with his blood, and made us a Kingdom of Priests to serve his God and Father which implies the Father is also Jesus Christ's God. That may either counter Trinitarian doctrine -- or at least have some curious implications for it.
To me it helps to see the doctrine of the Trinity as poetry.
All true theology is poetry--not "mere" poetry, but necessarily poetry because you can't say the larger truths any other way.
Sometimes you can dissect a poem and better see the truths within it. But if you don't do this with reverence for the elusiveness of such truths, you end up with a theological stuffed moose. Which will neither breathe nor get off the pot, in this metaphorical stew I'm dishing out here.
The original meaning was close to "3 roles", three "characters" played by one actor. It isn't necessary to take God apart in this way, neither is it necessarily the only valid way, but this way was given to certain people for their edification, and is now available to anyone it helps.
One way I've seen the trinity explained in a relational way ... the three persons relationship to us and to each other. A good example of the catholic take on the trinity is here - an article by a prof of theology at Fordham U.
I agree with forrest on "persona" -- though I have been told kind of approach leads to a heresy called "modalism". But I don't think we need to be burning heretics here.
Crystal -- just read the article at the link (at 6AM and before my morning coffee no less). Look good. Even agrees with forrest a bit -- by talking about imagery and poetry as ways of understanding the doctrine.
Post a Comment