Discussion with Cable about the Trinity

Cable said:

This advice reminds me of the World financial system in a general sort of way. In large part it is so complex not because it is honestly trying to get something wonderful done. It is complex so that folks can be fleeced.
What did Philo know of our Lord Jesus who is the Christ? It appears little or nothing.
Philo had a strong influence and Christ had what? The Gospel of John is about Christ.

I can see now why Paul determined to know noting but Christ, and Him crucified. It is that simple.

Click to expand...

That is totally backwards. It isn't PHILO that wrote the Gospel of John. However, it is very obvious that Philo INFLUENCED the author of the Gospel of John. The fact you are so totally twisting what is said shows a .. certain lack of flexibility in intellectual curiosity. I am also pointing out that the GOJ is written in such a way that there are very strong multiple interpretations , based on your primary assumptions.

There are a number of biblical scholars who insist that the GOJ had been modified a number of times to meet different theological agenda's. I am not sure if that is entirely true, but I do know that you can totally support different concepts, depending on your primary assumptions going in, including the trinity,and including Arianism. which are mutually exclusive to each other.

RAMOSS said:

That is totally backwards. It isn't PHILO that wrote the Gospel of John. However, it is very obvious that Philo INFLUENCED the author of the Gospel of John. The fact you are so totally twisting what is said shows a .. certain lack of flexibility in intellectual curiosity. I am also pointing out that the GOJ is written in such a way that there are very strong multiple interpretations , based on your primary assumptions.

There are a number of biblical scholars who insist that the GOJ had been modified a number of times to meet different theological agenda's. I am not sure if that is entirely true, but I do know that you can totally support different concepts, depending on your primary assumptions going in, including the trinity,and including Arianism. which are mutually exclusive to each other.

Click to expand...

I can see yours are RG's points. I can. They just seem to me to be the most unlikely road.
I don't think Christ intended for this to be difficult at all.
This sums it up if we have ears to hear:

8Philip saith to him, ‘Sir, shew to us the Father, and it is enough for us;’ 9Jesus saith to him, ‘So long time am I with you, and thou hast not known me, Philip?"

Cable said:

I can see yours are RG's points. I can. They just seem to me to be the most unlikely road.
I don't think Christ intended for this to be difficult at all.
This sums it up if we have ears to hear:

8Philip saith to him, ‘Sir, shew to us the Father, and it is enough for us;’ 9Jesus saith to him, ‘So long time am I with you, and thou hast not known me, Philip?"

Click to expand...

Actually, one point I am making is NOT Rg's point at all. One thing I stated is 'you can come to different conclusions about the GOJ depending on what assumptions you put into it'. He stated that John 1:1 makes the trinity impossible. My point disagrees with him on that. I am saying if you assume the trinity is not true, you can find support there is not trinity in John 1:1, and if that particular case, if you look at the GOJ with the concepts of Philo in place, indeed, you can not come to the conclusion of the Trinity. HOWEVER, since I stated that 'you get out of it what you bring into it', if you do not look at Philo of Alexandria, but rather the Dogma of the mainstream Christian church, you can find the trinity there. My point, in specific, is that with the amount of symbolism that in inherent in the GOJ, and the fact it does not state directly it's points, you take out of the GOJ what ever you bring into it. It is acting as an ink blot test.

Although, I have to admit , the case for it being the 'Wisdom of God' is stronger than it being the trinity, based on the fact some of the key phrases that are repeated throughout the work replicate the essays of Philo a bit more.

ludin said:

No there is no indication at all that he is using the magisterial plural. more so when you look at first chapter of John and the fact that it says without Christ nothing was made that was made. Then "We" and "Us" is referring back to the Christ and the Holy Spirit.

The plural Hebrew verbs "make" [na'aseh], "go down" [nerdah], and "confuse" [novlah], and the implied plural pronoun "us" [mimmennu] are unambiguous. God is speaking to or about someone else.

yes there are plural verbs in Hebrew. again you have no idea what you are talking about.

Click to expand...

The plural we are talking about was in Genesis not John ...

Male and female "He made them" the plural only exists in his speaking, indicating it's a magestarial plural, whereas he's actually doing it in the singular, and the narrator narrates him in the singular.

BTW if you're going to bring other scriptures in to exegete Genesis 1, I suggest also bringing in Proverbs 8 ... which is actually much more likely to be relevant.

I know there are plural verbs in Hebrew ... stop making strawman, I never said there were not ... I said singular verbs were used for the actions.

Hebrew Streams: The Genesis Plurals

pretty much shoots your royal we down the tubes.
it also rules out God talking to the heavenly hosts as they had nothing to do with creation.

it wasn't grammatically impossible.

Click to expand...

Did you read the link?

It doesn't support a trinitarian interpretation at all.

It's argument against the royal "we" is just that elohim is never used With plural verbs ... no it isn't, that's also my point, the plurality comes sometimes when Yahweh is announcing an action.

It fits perfectly With the royal we.

It also can fit With the Proverbs 8 interpretation or the talking to his angels interpretation.

The only interpretation it doesn't fit With is the trinitarian once, since the actual action itself is ALWAYS done in the singular.

you still haven't posted anything that gives you authority to make these types of statements. please give us what PhD you have in biblical theology.
if you can't then you are doing nothing but posting your opinion as fact which is well useless.

the logos used in John refers to Christ this has been established time and time again. also that statement is nothing more than confirmation bias.
RAMMOS like you has 0 authority in this field but like you spouts his opinion as fact. neither of which carry any weight to the discussion.

I have a feeling you are both JW's or associated to the same heresy of the Arians. you both spout the same distortions of scripture.

Click to expand...

Arguments from authority are not arguments ....

Neither are quickly googled links that you haven't read nor do you even know where they come from .

Cable said:

This advice reminds me of the World financial system in a general sort of way. In large part it is so complex not because it is honestly trying to get something wonderful done. It is complex so that folks can be fleeced.
What did Philo know of our Lord Jesus who is the Christ? It appears little or nothing.
Philo had a strong influence and Christ had what? The Gospel of John is about Christ.

I can see now why Paul determined to know noting but Christ, and Him crucified. It is that simple.

Click to expand...

No no no ... John wrote in the Language that dispora Jews would understand ... Dispora Jews would understand philo's Language, when they read the prelude of John the FIRST THING that would come to their mind was ... "oh I've heard something like this before, in Philo, in the wisdom of Solomon, in sirach, in proverbs ..." So Yeah, it is relevant, just as much as knowing Josephus is relevant to knowing the backgrounds of the gospels and acts.

I can see yours are RG's points. I can. They just seem to me to be the most unlikely road.
I don't think Christ intended for this to be difficult at all.
This sums it up if we have ears to hear:

8Philip saith to him, ‘Sir, shew to us the Father, and it is enough for us;’ 9Jesus saith to him, ‘So long time am I with you, and thou hast not known me, Philip?"

Click to expand...

No he didn't ... and it isn't difficult .... The bible is quite Clear ... Jesus' God is Our God ... The father is greater than him ...

What IS difficult is trying to force the Trinity on the scripture when the Trinity isn't there at all ... InFact it's incompatible With the Trinity.

RAMOSS said:

I would say Read the entire Gospel of John. There is the theme that the wisdom of God is sent as an intermediary between God and Man, and Jesus is 'the one sent'. I am not saying that it is entirely Philo's concepts, but to me, it looks like Philo had a strong influence on the author of the Gospel of John.

Another point I want to make is when you have a work with a lot of symbolism, and things are not as plainly said as they might be, different interpretations will be plain from the text depending on the different initial assumptions for that text.

Click to expand...

Not only Philo but I also think the much older Jewish wisdom literature, the wisdom of Solomon, sirach, and proverbs all have ideas that match up With both John's and Philo's Logos theology.

That being said, from a biblical criticism standpoint, I'm sympathetic to the view that the prologue and the epilogue are patched onto the front and back of the Johanian material after it was written, obviously that doesn't change anything for me as far as it's inspiration and spiritual authority, but that's just from a historical standpoint, so it wouldn't suprise me if the prologues theme is detached from the narrative material's theme, but I also understand the argument that puts the proloque With the narrative from the begining.

I think when it comes to symbolic texts. you exegete it the same way you would any other, you figure out the purpose of the writer.

I just find it Incredible that anyone would assume that a Jew, writing to other Jews, using the exact same Language as a near contemporary famous Jewish philosopher, using the exact same type of ideology, would not thing his Readers would make any Connection ... it's absolutely rediculous.

If I Write a text today talking about class struggle, historical materialism the proletariate against the bourgeosie, and the means of Production and how we need to overthrow the class system and then I send that text to a bunch of Marxists, what kind of person wouldn't think that Karl Marx was not at all relevant to exegeting that text?

The assumptions we should have are the ones we can establish John had.