Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Equality w/in Trinity? (was Re: Deity of Christ, H.S. etc. Message-ID: Date: 6 Apr 91 07:49:20 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA Lines: 69 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article cadence!stevep@uunet.uu.net (Steve Peterson) writes: >When saying this did Jesus mean that they formed some sort of Trinity? Some >Trinitarians say that he did. But at John 17:21, 22, Jesus prayed regarding >his followers: "That they may all be one," and he added, "that they may be one >even as we are one." He used the same Greek word (hen) for "one" in all these >instances. Steve, If you're enough of a scholar to know the Greek word, you should be enough of a scholar to know that Jesus didn't use Greek words at all. He almost certainly spoke Aramaic. (He undoubtedly knew Hebrew -- knew in the Earthly, human way, I mean -- and may have used that in preaching. There is a vanishingly small chance that he might have used Latin, the language of the ruling conquerors. Greek is Right Out.) Since I don't know Aramaic, I don't know whether there are different words for "one" in it. I don't even know if there are different words for "one" in Greek. I do know that there are *not* different words for "one" in English. There are similar words, and there are circumlocutions, but there is no single word that means the same thing. Consider, then, Jesus' prayer that the disciples should be one. What does that mean? Loving each other, only? I can't see that this is the case; it means that they should make no difference among themselves. As St. Paul put it: "Honor one another above yourselves. . .Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position." [Romans 12:10, 16] Note if you please the "one another." This is a reflexive relation, equal on both sides. Paul emphasizes this by specifically rejecting the concept of social superiority/inferiority, "be willing to associate with people of low position." Now, if in fact as you say the relationship of "being one" between Jesus and the Father is precisely analogous to the relationship of "being one" that Jesus commanded and Paul explicated, then it is in fact a reflexive relationship of equals. The Son *is* then "socially" equal to the Father. You have, then, two choices: either there is someone who is not God, but who is God's "social equal" -- a position I reject as blasphemous -- or else Jesus was God. Yet He clearly is not "the same as" the Father. >From this, and from many other things, we can conclude that Father and Son are indeed two aspects of the one God. Hallelu Yah! Further, if you are going to take as evidence the use of the same word in different contexts, what of the word "Lord" used to describe YHWH continually throughout the Old Testament, and Jesus continually throughout (e.g.) Acts? >But they do come to share a oneness of purpose with the Father and the Son, the >same sort of oneness that unites Jehovah and Jesus. The following is not intended as an insult to Jehovah's Witnesses, but since I'm talking about this I simply have to ask, for I've wondered for a long time: Why *do* the JW's insist on spelling YHWH as "Jehovah"? The Roach