Magdalenbrother
June 21st 2004, 12:37 AM
Biblical statement A:
X is alive (Z)
Biblical statement B:
X is dead (-Z)
Typical Trinitarian exegesis: if X is very important for the church in its devotion and practice, it will say that X is both Z and -Z, both dead and alive, as in my example.
Typical Arian exegesis: the controlling principle of exegesis is what we know for sure about man: he cannot be both alive and dead. Not literally alive and dead. One of the terms must be understood metaphorically. This is a rational exegesis (based on Scripture).
Let us take a specific example to illustrate the argument:
Biblical statement A: God is spirit ("John" 4:24)
Biblical statement B: The Word became flesh ("John" 1:14)
Typical Trinitarian exegesis: both statements are literally true. Jesus is God and man. The reason for disregarding the obvious contradiction is that the Church, in its practice, has always considered Jesus as divine(at least this is what Athanasius, Arius's opponent, claimed). Group thinking overrules the principles of rational exegesis.
Arian exegesis: we know from the whole of scripture and its rational interpretation that God is simple (=indivisible, non composed, with no parts), immutable and incorporeal. This is summed up nicely in Jesus' statement that "God is spirit". This core of essential truths is non-negotiable. Therefore it is from this set of incontrovertible principles that the rest of Scripture should be elucidated.
"The Word became flesh" and the other verses that seem to imply that Jesus is God are not interpreted literally. Sonship is explained metaphorically and with good reason since there are numerous passages in the Bible where God is described as begetting and as having sons but it is clear from the context that his offspring is not consubstantial with himself.
An example? Job 38:28-29
Who hath begotten the drops of dew?
Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?
Deut 32:18
You neglected the Rock who begot you, And forgot the God who gave you birth.
Isa 1:2
I have begotten and raised up sons and they have rebelled against me.
The failure of Trinitarian hermeneutics (the science that tells you how to interpret a text) lies here: Trinitarians cannot give a rational explanation for taking the passages about Jesus' divine sonship literally and metaphysically.
The only explanation is that most believers have always believed that Jesus is God, which is not true at all (at least in the first century AD).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friendly Message: this is a thread open to everybody, whether Trinitarian (in the sense of the Nicean creed) or non Trinitarian. No matter how weird, abstruse, iconoclastic, labyrinthine or silly your comment may be, I welcome it as part of our discussion to find out the living truth about God and his Son. I only hope that for the sake of a lucid and disinterested discussion, you will refrain from offensive remarks and will observe the rules of elementary courtesy, striving to consider your interlocutor as just as intelligent and high-minded as yourself. Amen !
X is alive (Z)
Biblical statement B:
X is dead (-Z)
Typical Trinitarian exegesis: if X is very important for the church in its devotion and practice, it will say that X is both Z and -Z, both dead and alive, as in my example.
Typical Arian exegesis: the controlling principle of exegesis is what we know for sure about man: he cannot be both alive and dead. Not literally alive and dead. One of the terms must be understood metaphorically. This is a rational exegesis (based on Scripture).
Let us take a specific example to illustrate the argument:
Biblical statement A: God is spirit ("John" 4:24)
Biblical statement B: The Word became flesh ("John" 1:14)
Typical Trinitarian exegesis: both statements are literally true. Jesus is God and man. The reason for disregarding the obvious contradiction is that the Church, in its practice, has always considered Jesus as divine(at least this is what Athanasius, Arius's opponent, claimed). Group thinking overrules the principles of rational exegesis.
Arian exegesis: we know from the whole of scripture and its rational interpretation that God is simple (=indivisible, non composed, with no parts), immutable and incorporeal. This is summed up nicely in Jesus' statement that "God is spirit". This core of essential truths is non-negotiable. Therefore it is from this set of incontrovertible principles that the rest of Scripture should be elucidated.
"The Word became flesh" and the other verses that seem to imply that Jesus is God are not interpreted literally. Sonship is explained metaphorically and with good reason since there are numerous passages in the Bible where God is described as begetting and as having sons but it is clear from the context that his offspring is not consubstantial with himself.
An example? Job 38:28-29
Who hath begotten the drops of dew?
Out of whose womb came the ice? and the hoary frost of heaven, who hath gendered it?
Deut 32:18
You neglected the Rock who begot you, And forgot the God who gave you birth.
Isa 1:2
I have begotten and raised up sons and they have rebelled against me.
The failure of Trinitarian hermeneutics (the science that tells you how to interpret a text) lies here: Trinitarians cannot give a rational explanation for taking the passages about Jesus' divine sonship literally and metaphysically.
The only explanation is that most believers have always believed that Jesus is God, which is not true at all (at least in the first century AD).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friendly Message: this is a thread open to everybody, whether Trinitarian (in the sense of the Nicean creed) or non Trinitarian. No matter how weird, abstruse, iconoclastic, labyrinthine or silly your comment may be, I welcome it as part of our discussion to find out the living truth about God and his Son. I only hope that for the sake of a lucid and disinterested discussion, you will refrain from offensive remarks and will observe the rules of elementary courtesy, striving to consider your interlocutor as just as intelligent and high-minded as yourself. Amen !