Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

John 12:41 (from Patrick Navas)

Expand Messages
  • Patrick Navas
    Hello Everyone,   In case there is any interest, I recently finished a paper on John 12:41 (attached)--a verse regarded by Trinitarian apologists to be one of
    Message 1 of 17 , Sep 12, 2009
    Hello Everyone,
     
    In case there is any interest, I recently finished a paper on John 12:41 (attached)--a verse regarded by Trinitarian apologists to be one of the strongest evidences for the "deity" of Christ in the New Testament. Rob Bowman uses the argument in his book Putting Jesus in His Place. I'm going to send the paper to Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries.
     
    Best wishes to all,
     
    Patrick Navas
     
    If, for some reason, you can't open the attachment, email me and I will send it to you personally...
  • eliadefollower
    Patrick, You seem to have made an excellent argument here. HOwever, I trust that you are aware that this argument will make you an outcast in many Christian
    Message 2 of 17 , Sep 13, 2009
      Patrick,

      You seem to have made an excellent argument here. HOwever, I trust that you are aware that this argument will make you an outcast in many Christian circles.

      Now if you want to go even further outside of traditional understandings, then you do as I am in the process of doing and suggest a complete paradigm shift for Christian theology. Even though I can find more then adequate support for the shift I am working to present, many do not even want to consider such a thought.

      Bill


      --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Navas <patrick_navas@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hello Everyone,
      >  
      > In case there is any interest, I recently finished a paper on John 12:41 (attached)--a verse regarded by Trinitarian apologists to be one of the strongest evidences for the "deity" of Christ in the New Testament. Rob Bowman uses the argument in his book Putting Jesus in His Place. I'm going to send the paper to Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries.
      >  
      > Best wishes to all,
      >  
      > Patrick Navas
      >  
      > If, for some reason, you can't open the attachment, email me and I will send it to you personally...
      > patrick_navas@...
      >
    • Patrick Navas
      Thanks for your feedback Bill. Of course I m aware that my beliefs put me outside the mainstream or so-called orthodox religious establishments. But I have
      Message 3 of 17 , Sep 13, 2009
        Thanks for your feedback Bill. Of course I'm aware that my beliefs put me outside the "mainstream" or so-called "orthodox" religious establishments. But I have no problem being an "outcast" from these institutions as long as I am not an outcast from God and Jesus. Since I confess with my mouht that Jesus is Lord and believe in my heart that God raised him from the dead, I'm not too worried about what the traditionalists say.
         
        Thanks for reading the article.
         
        Check out my book on the Trinity if you're interested...
         
         
        Best wishes,
         
        Patrick Navas

        --- On Sun, 9/13/09, eliadefollower <eliadefollower@...> wrote:

        From: eliadefollower <eliadefollower@...>
        Subject: [biblicalapologetics] Re: John 12:41 (from Patrick Navas)
        To: biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Sunday, September 13, 2009, 4:48 PM

         
        Patrick,

        You seem to have made an excellent argument here. HOwever, I trust that you are aware that this argument will make you an outcast in many Christian circles.

        Now if you want to go even further outside of traditional understandings, then you do as I am in the process of doing and suggest a complete paradigm shift for Christian theology. Even though I can find more then adequate support for the shift I am working to present, many do not even want to consider such a thought.

        Bill

        --- In biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com, Patrick Navas <patrick_navas@ ...> wrote:
        >
        > Hello Everyone,
        >  
        > In case there is any interest, I recently finished a paper on John 12:41 (attached)-- a verse regarded by Trinitarian apologists to be one of the strongest evidences for the "deity" of Christ in the New Testament. Rob Bowman uses the argument in his book Putting Jesus in His Place. I'm going to send the paper to Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries.
        >  
        > Best wishes to all,
        >  
        > Patrick Navas
        >  
        > If, for some reason, you can't open the attachment, email me and I will send it to you personally.. .
        > patrick_navas@ ...
        >

      • eliadefollower
        Patrick, I have obtained a copy of Dahood s Psalm s II from the Anchor Bible series, and it seems to suggest in regards to Psalm 82 that scripture recognizes
        Message 4 of 17 , Sep 16, 2009
          Patrick,

          I have obtained a copy of Dahood's "Psalm's II" from the Anchor Bible series, and it seems to suggest in regards to Psalm 82 that scripture recognizes that a divine council once existed. This could have further implications for rejecting the Trinity, as a divine council existent at the time of creation could explain the plurals used.

          Now I admit that there are multiple other implications but that is one that you might wish to consider if you revise your work. I personally find that it supports my contention that the proper approach to theology must take into account the implications of the Copenhagen Convention of quantum physics. But then I feel that any theology that does not deal seriously with the findings of modern science is deficient. Merely stating that the findings of science do not apply to theology while using them seems to me to be a cop out and a major inconsistency.

          Bill

          --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Navas <patrick_navas@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hello Everyone,
          >  
          > In case there is any interest, I recently finished a paper on John 12:41 (attached)--a verse regarded by Trinitarian apologists to be one of the strongest evidences for the "deity" of Christ in the New Testament. Rob Bowman uses the argument in his book Putting Jesus in His Place. I'm going to send the paper to Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries.
          >  
          > Best wishes to all,
          >  
          > Patrick Navas
          >  
          > If, for some reason, you can't open the attachment, email me and I will send it to you personally...
          > patrick_navas@...
          >
        • Paul Leonard
          OK, I am curious. How does: the Copenhagen Convention of quantum physics. Apply to Theology????? ... I personally find that it supports my contention that the
          Message 5 of 17 , Sep 16, 2009
            OK, I am curious. How does: the Copenhagen Convention of quantum physics. Apply to Theology?????

            --- On Wed, 9/16/09, eliadefollower <eliadefollower@...> wrote:

            I personally find that it supports my contention that the proper approach to theology must take into account the implications of the Copenhagen Convention of quantum physics. But then I feel that any theology that does not deal seriously with the findings of modern science is deficient. Merely stating that the findings of science do not apply to theology while using them seems to me to be a cop out and a major inconsistency.

            Bill

          • William
            Paul. It is my contention that all truth is one, be it scientific truth or theological truth. Both positions start with assumptions that are unproven and in
            Message 6 of 17 , Sep 17, 2009
              Paul.

              It is my contention that all truth is one, be it scientific truth or theological truth. Both positions start with assumptions that are unproven and in ultimate reality unprovable. Some might seem to better fit the evidence then others, but they are still assumptions. I try to keep my assumptions to a bare minimum, and thus eek to use the same set for both my understanding of science and theology. To do so, I must evaluate my assumptions as fully as possible.

              Now when I have evaluated the two alternatives in quantum theory, that of the MultiWorlds Interpretation (MWI) and the Copenhagen Convention (CC) I find that I differ with Tipler ("The Physics of Immortality" and "The Pysics of Christianity") in that I find that the MWI does not fit with biblical understandings. The Bible, especially in the OT, but also in the NT seems to imply that the person continues to exist even after physical death. The CC allows for this possibility to be actual, while the MWI has a problem with the actual person continuing to exist.

              Now at this point let me digress in an all too brief explanation of these two positions and the logic leading to them. In a classic example of the problem inherent in quantum physics, let us suppose that a cat is placed in a box containing a cylinder of poisonous gas which will kill the cat instantly and a single radioactive particle. Now the gas will be released if the radioactive particle decays. After a time interval equal to the halflife of the particle, that is the time in which half of the particles in any given group will have decayed, is the cat physically dead or alive? Simple probability gives an equal chance.

              The MWI understanding is that the universe split at that instant into two almost identical versions, one in which the particle decayed and the cat died and one where it did not decay and the cat is alive. The CC on the other hand argues that it is the observation of a mind that determines which event occurred, and probability merely measures the likelyhood of what will be observed.

              Now implications of the CC include that mind must be independent of matter for this observation to be effective. This likewise will imply that space and time are likewise independent. However, it also logically recognizes that independence does not imply lack ov interdependence. Just as mind may influence energy/matter, so energy/matter may influence mind. Likewise, absolute space and absolute time affect and are affected by each other, energy/matter and mind. Further support for this comes from Einstein's Theory of Relativity as well as multiple neurological studies as well as consciousness studies.

              Theological implications here include that God virtually must exist, He could be a particular form of mind, that humanity, and indead all life, exists independently of the physical, althoug interdependent with the physical, and that certain, if not most, scientific physicla laws must apply where applicable to God, including relativity. Should relativity apply to God, then it could dictate the nature of Sin, and whether or not God is capable of Sin. In other words, theology might be fully compatible with science and correcting of science. However, when we choose to do this, we must choose our scientific position carefully, as there are, according to the Bible, just two paths, those of life and death, just as there are only two choices in quantum physics, the MWI and the CC. Should we support the wrong one, as I believe the MWI is, we support death.

              Bill

              --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Paul Leonard <anotherpaul2001@...> wrote:
              >
              > OK, I am curious. How does: the Copenhagen Convention of quantum physics. Apply to Theology?????
              >
              > --- On Wed, 9/16/09, eliadefollower <eliadefollower@...> wrote:
              > I personally find that it supports my contention that the proper approach to theology must take into account the implications of the Copenhagen Convention of quantum physics. But then I feel that any theology that does not deal seriously with the findings of modern science is deficient. Merely stating that the findings of science do not apply to theology while using them seems to me to be a cop out and a major inconsistency.
              >
              >
              >
              > Bill
              >
            • tcmadd2@aol.com
              Bill, Both scripture, (Genesis 1:1) and science, (Big Bang Theory), indicate that the Creator transcends all space, time, matter, and energy, This means that
              Message 7 of 17 , Sep 17, 2009
                Bill,
                 
                Both scripture, (Genesis 1:1) and science, (Big Bang Theory), indicate that the Creator transcends all space, time, matter, and energy,  This means that there must be a non-material form of existence. Since God is a spirit, ie, non-material, why would he have to be subject to general relativity or quantum physics?
                 
                Tom M.
                 
                In a message dated 9/17/2009 7:32:19 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, eliadefollower@... writes:
                 

                Paul.

                It is my contention that all truth is one, be it scientific truth or theological truth. Both positions start with assumptions that are unproven and in ultimate reality unprovable. Some might seem to better fit the evidence then others, but they are still assumptions. I try to keep my assumptions to a bare minimum, and thus eek to use the same set for both my understanding of science and theology. To do so, I must evaluate my assumptions as fully as possible.

                Now when I have evaluated the two alternatives in quantum theory, that of the MultiWorlds Interpretation (MWI) and the Copenhagen Convention (CC) I find that I differ with Tipler ("The Physics of Immortality" and "The Pysics of Christianity" ) in that I find that the MWI does not fit with biblical understandings. The Bible, especially in the OT, but also in the NT seems to imply that the person continues to exist even after physical death. The CC allows for this possibility to be actual, while the MWI has a problem with the actual person continuing to exist.

                Now at this point let me digress in an all too brief explanation of these two positions and the logic leading to them. In a classic example of the problem inherent in quantum physics, let us suppose that a cat is placed in a box containing a cylinder of poisonous gas which will kill the cat instantly and a single radioactive particle. Now the gas will be released if the radioactive particle decays. After a time interval equal to the halflife of the particle, that is the time in which half of the particles in any given group will have decayed, is the cat physically dead or alive? Simple probability gives an equal chance.

                The MWI understanding is that the universe split at that instant into two almost identical versions, one in which the particle decayed and the cat died and one where it did not decay and the cat is alive. The CC on the other hand argues that it is the observation of a mind that determines which event occurred, and probability merely measures the likelyhood of what will be observed.

                Now implications of the CC include that mind must be independent of matter for this observation to be effective. This likewise will imply that space and time are likewise independent. However, it also logically recognizes that independence does not imply lack ov interdependence. Just as mind may influence energy/matter, so energy/matter may influence mind. Likewise, absolute space and absolute time affect and are affected by each other, energy/matter and mind. Further support for this comes from Einstein's Theory of Relativity as well as multiple neurological studies as well as consciousness studies.

                Theological implications here include that God virtually must exist, He could be a particular form of mind, that humanity, and indead all life, exists independently of the physical, althoug interdependent with the physical, and that certain, if not most, scientific physicla laws must apply where applicable to God, including relativity. Should relativity apply to God, then it could dictate the nature of Sin, and whether or not God is capable of Sin. In other words, theology might be fully compatible with science and correcting of science. However, when we choose to do this, we must choose our scientific position carefully, as there are, according to the Bible, just two paths, those of life and death, just as there are only two choices in quantum physics, the MWI and the CC. Should we support the wrong one, as I believe the MWI is, we support death.

                Bill

                --- In biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com, Paul Leonard <anotherpaul2001@ ...> wrote:
                >
                > OK, I am curious. How does: the Copenhagen Convention of quantum physics. Apply to Theology???? ?
                >
                > --- On Wed, 9/16/09, eliadefollower <eliadefollower@ ...> wrote:
                > I personally find that it supports my contention that the proper approach to theology must take into account the implications of the Copenhagen Convention of quantum physics. But then I feel that any theology that does not deal seriously with the findings of modern science is deficient. Merely stating that the findings of science do not apply to theology while using them seems to me to be a cop out and a major inconsistency.
                >
                >
                >
                > Bill
                >

              • William
                Tom, You ask a very reasonable question to my mind. The available scientific evidence is that humans are a mixture of the physcial and the nonphysical, and
                Message 8 of 17 , Sep 18, 2009
                  Tom,

                  You ask a very reasonable question to my mind. The available scientific evidence is that humans are a mixture of the physcial and the nonphysical, and that the nonphysical aspects of humans may act independently of space, time and matter/energy, and in fact may influence matter/energy, while ignoring space and time. However, teh evidence is equally present that space, time and matter.energy influence the non-physical aspects of humans.

                  Now if we assume that humanity is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:25), does this not imply that the non-physical aspects of humanity are similar to the non-physical aspect of God? Further, since psychiatry recognizes that it as humanity believes itself independent of some aspects of relativity (possibly not consciously but still actively)that all the problems attributed to Sin begin and continue for the duration of our lives.

                  I have found that it is when we take off the blinders that cause us to think that the Nicene fathers were all wise and knowing in regards to theology, and instead recongize that they were products of roughly 250 years of government approved anti-semitism and strongly encouraged to distance themselves further from Judaism, that we can begin to make true theological progress. The evidence is very strong that earliest Christianity was not like what evolved following 70 AD when anti-semitism became official Roman policy. When we abandon the assumption that God must be independent of physical laws, and likewise posit that the Copenhagen Convention makes sense based on the available data, that much of theology may be explained in a way that does not make God arbitary in His treatment of humanity as is suggested and then denied by traditional theology.

                  Bill

                  --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, tcmadd2@... wrote:
                  >
                  > Bill,
                  >
                  > Both scripture, (Genesis 1:1) and science, (Big Bang Theory), indicate
                  > that the Creator transcends all space, time, matter, and energy, This means
                  > that there must be a non-material form of existence. Since God is a spirit,
                  > ie, non-material, why would he have to be subject to general relativity or
                  > quantum physics?
                  >
                  > Tom M.
                  >
                  >
                  > In a message dated 9/17/2009 7:32:19 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
                  > eliadefollower@... writes:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Paul.
                  >
                  > It is my contention that all truth is one, be it scientific truth or
                  > theological truth. Both positions start with assumptions that are unproven and
                  > in ultimate reality unprovable. Some might seem to better fit the evidence
                  > then others, but they are still assumptions. I try to keep my assumptions to
                  > a bare minimum, and thus eek to use the same set for both my understanding
                  > of science and theology. To do so, I must evaluate my assumptions as fully
                  > as possible.
                  >
                  > Now when I have evaluated the two alternatives in quantum theory, that of
                  > the MultiWorlds Interpretation (MWI) and the Copenhagen Convention (CC) I
                  > find that I differ with Tipler ("The Physics of Immortality" and "The Pysics
                  > of Christianity"Now when I have evaluated the two alternatives in quantum
                  > theory, that of the MultiWorlds Interpretation (MWI) and the Copenhagen
                  > Convention (CC) I find that I differ with Tipler ("The Physics of Immortality"
                  > and "The Pysics of Christianity"<WBR>) in that I find that the MWI does
                  > not fit with biblical understandings. The Bib
                  >
                  > Now at this point let me digress in an all too brief explanation of these
                  > two positions and the logic leading to them. In a classic example of the
                  > problem inherent in quantum physics, let us suppose that a cat is placed in a
                  > box containing a cylinder of poisonous gas which will kill the cat
                  > instantly and a single radioactive particle. Now the gas will be released if the
                  > radioactive particle decays. After a time interval equal to the halflife of
                  > the particle, that is the time in which half of the particles in any given
                  > group will have decayed, is the cat physically dead or alive? Simple
                  > probability gives an equal chance.
                  >
                  > The MWI understanding is that the universe split at that instant into two
                  > almost identical versions, one in which the particle decayed and the cat
                  > died and one where it did not decay and the cat is alive. The CC on the other
                  > hand argues that it is the observation of a mind that determines which
                  > event occurred, and probability merely measures the likelyhood of what will be
                  > observed.
                  >
                  > Now implications of the CC include that mind must be independent of matter
                  > for this observation to be effective. This likewise will imply that space
                  > and time are likewise independent. However, it also logically recognizes
                  > that independence does not imply lack ov interdependence. Just as mind may
                  > influence energy/matter, so energy/matter may influence mind. Likewise,
                  > absolute space and absolute time affect and are affected by each other,
                  > energy/matter and mind. Further support for this comes from Einstein's Theory of
                  > Relativity as well as multiple neurological studies as well as consciousness
                  > studies.
                  >
                  > Theological implications here include that God virtually must exist, He
                  > could be a particular form of mind, that humanity, and indead all life,
                  > exists independently of the physical, althoug interdependent with the physical,
                  > and that certain, if not most, scientific physicla laws must apply where
                  > applicable to God, including relativity. Should relativity apply to God, then
                  > it could dictate the nature of Sin, and whether or not God is capable of
                  > Sin. In other words, theology might be fully compatible with science and
                  > correcting of science. However, when we choose to do this, we must choose our
                  > scientific position carefully, as there are, according to the Bible, just
                  > two paths, those of life and death, just as there are only two choices in
                  > quantum physics, the MWI and the CC. Should we support the wrong one, as I
                  > believe the MWI is, we support death.
                  >
                  > Bill
                  >
                  > --- In _biblicalapologeticsbiblicalapolobib_
                  > (mailto:biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com) , Paul Leonard <anotherpaul2001@ano> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > OK, I am curious. How does: the Copenhagen Convention of quantum
                  > physics. Apply to Theology????
                  > >
                  > > --- On Wed, 9/16/09, eliadefollower <eliadefollower@eli> wrote:
                  > > I personally find that it supports my contention that the proper
                  > approach to theology must take into account the implications of the Copenhagen
                  > Convention of quantum physics. But then I feel that any theology that does not
                  > deal seriously with the findings of modern science is deficient. Merely
                  > stating that the findings of science do not apply to theology while using
                  > them seems to me to be a cop out and a major inconsistency.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Bill
                  > >
                  >
                • Rob
                  Patrick, I have written a brief paper defending my view of John 12:41; you can find it in our Files section:
                  Message 9 of 17 , Sep 18, 2009
                    Patrick,

                    I have written a brief paper defending my view of John 12:41; you can find it in our Files section:

                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biblicalapologetics/files/

                    In my paper, I don't offer a point-by-point or paragraph-by-paragraph response to your paper, but I do summarize your main exegetical objections and respond to them.

                    In Christ's service,
                    Rob Bowman



                    --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Navas <patrick_navas@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Hello Everyone,
                    >  
                    > In case there is any interest, I recently finished a paper on John 12:41 (attached)--a verse regarded by Trinitarian apologists to be one of the strongest evidences for the "deity" of Christ in the New Testament. Rob Bowman uses the argument in his book Putting Jesus in His Place. I'm going to send the paper to Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries.
                    >  
                    > Best wishes to all,
                    >  
                    > Patrick Navas
                    >  
                    > If, for some reason, you can't open the attachment, email me and I will send it to you personally...
                    > patrick_navas@...
                    >
                  • tcmadd2@aol.com
                    Bill, A few more questions: 1. You said, Now if we assume that humanity is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:25), does this not imply that the
                    Message 10 of 17 , Sep 18, 2009
                      Bill,
                       
                      A few more questions:
                       
                      1. You said, "Now if we assume that humanity is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:25), does this not imply that the non-physical aspects of humanity are similar to the non-physical aspect of God? Further, since psychiatry recognizes that it as humanity believes itself independent of some aspects of relativity (possibly not consciously but still actively)that all the problems attributed to Sin begin and continue for the duration of our lives."
                       
                      I must confess that I do not see what the theory of relativity has to do with sin.  Please explain.
                       
                      2. Why do you believe that the Many Worlds hypothesis and the Copenhagen interpretation are the only options in Quantum Physics. I am aware of others, such as Naive Realism. I know a few physicists who ascribe to that position.
                       
                      Tom M.
                       

                       
                       
                      In a message dated 9/18/2009 7:46:43 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, eliadefollower@... writes:
                       

                      Tom,

                      You ask a very reasonable question to my mind. The available scientific evidence is that humans are a mixture of the physcial and the nonphysical, and that the nonphysical aspects of humans may act independently of space, time and matter/energy, and in fact may influence matter/energy, while ignoring space and time. However, teh evidence is equally present that space, time and matter.energy influence the non-physical aspects of humans.

                      Now if we assume that humanity is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:25), does this not imply that the non-physical aspects of humanity are similar to the non-physical aspect of God? Further, since psychiatry recognizes that it as humanity believes itself independent of some aspects of relativity (possibly not consciously but still actively)that all the problems attributed to Sin begin and continue for the duration of our lives.

                      I have found that it is when we take off the blinders that cause us to think that the Nicene fathers were all wise and knowing in regards to theology, and instead recongize that they were products of roughly 250 years of government approved anti-semitism and strongly encouraged to distance themselves further from Judaism, that we can begin to make true theological progress. The evidence is very strong that earliest Christianity was not like what evolved following 70 AD when anti-semitism became official Roman policy. When we abandon the assumption that God must be independent of physical laws, and likewise posit that the Copenhagen Convention makes sense based on the available data, that much of theology may be explained in a way that does not make God arbitary in His treatment of humanity as is suggested and then denied by traditional theology.

                      Bill

                      --- In biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com, tcmadd2@... wrote:
                      >
                      > Bill,
                      >
                      > Both scripture, (Genesis 1:1) and science, (Big Bang Theory), indicate
                      > that the Creator transcends all space, time, matter, and energy, This means
                      > that there must be a non-material form of existence. Since God is a spirit,
                      > ie, non-material, why would he have to be subject to general relativity or
                      > quantum physics?
                      >
                      > Tom M.
                      >
                      >
                      > In a message dated 9/17/2009 7:32:19 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
                      > eliadefollower@ ... writes:
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Paul.
                      >
                      > It is my contention that all truth is one, be it scientific truth or
                      > theological truth. Both positions start with assumptions that are unproven and
                      > in ultimate reality unprovable. Some might seem to better fit the evidence
                      > then others, but they are still assumptions. I try to keep my assumptions to
                      > a bare minimum, and thus eek to use the same set for both my understanding
                      > of science and theology. To do so, I must evaluate my assumptions as fully
                      > as possible.
                      >
                      > Now when I have evaluated the two alternatives in quantum theory, that of
                      > the MultiWorlds Interpretation (MWI) and the Copenhagen Convention (CC) I
                      > find that I differ with Tipler ("The Physics of Immortality" and "The Pysics
                      > of Christianity" Now when I have evaluated the two alternatives in quantum
                      > theory, that of the MultiWorlds Interpretation (MWI) and the Copenhagen
                      > Convention (CC) I find that I differ with Tipler ("The Physics of Immortality"
                      > and "The Pysics of Christianity" <WBR>) in that I find that the MWI does
                      > not fit with biblical understandings. The Bib
                      >
                      > Now at this point let me digress in an all too brief explanation of these
                      > two positions and the logic leading to them. In a classic example of the
                      > problem inherent in quantum physics, let us suppose that a cat is placed in a
                      > box containing a cylinder of poisonous gas which will kill the cat
                      > instantly and a single radioactive particle. Now the gas will be released if the
                      > radioactive particle decays. After a time interval equal to the halflife of
                      > the particle, that is the time in which half of the particles in any given
                      > group will have decayed, is the cat physically dead or alive? Simple
                      > probability gives an equal chance.
                      >
                      > The MWI understanding is that the universe split at that instant into two
                      > almost identical versions, one in which the particle decayed and the cat
                      > died and one where it did not decay and the cat is alive. The CC on the other
                      > hand argues that it is the observation of a mind that determines which
                      > event occurred, and probability merely measures the likelyhood of what will be
                      > observed.
                      >
                      > Now implications of the CC include that mind must be independent of matter
                      > for this observation to be effective. This likewise will imply that space
                      > and time are likewise independent. However, it also logically recognizes
                      > that independence does not imply lack ov interdependence. Just as mind may
                      > influence energy/matter, so energy/matter may influence mind. Likewise,
                      > absolute space and absolute time affect and are affected by each other,
                      > energy/matter and mind. Further support for this comes from Einstein's Theory of
                      > Relativity as well as multiple neurological studies as well as consciousness
                      > studies.
                      >
                      > Theological implications here include that God virtually must exist, He
                      > could be a particular form of mind, that humanity, and indead all life,
                      > exists independently of the physical, althoug interdependent with the physical,
                      > and that certain, if not most, scientific physicla laws must apply where
                      > applicable to God, including relativity. Should relativity apply to God, then
                      > it could dictate the nature of Sin, and whether or not God is capable of
                      > Sin. In other words, theology might be fully compatible with science and
                      > correcting of science. However, when we choose to do this, we must choose our
                      > scientific position carefully, as there are, according to the Bible, just
                      > two paths, those of life and death, just as there are only two choices in
                      > quantum physics, the MWI and the CC. Should we support the wrong one, as I
                      > believe the MWI is, we support death.
                      >
                      > Bill
                      >
                      > --- In _biblicalapologetic sbiblicalapolobi b_
                      > (mailto:biblicalapologetics @yahoogroups. com) , Paul Leonard <anotherpaul2001@ ano> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > OK, I am curious. How does: the Copenhagen Convention of quantum
                      > physics. Apply to Theology????
                      > >
                      > > --- On Wed, 9/16/09, eliadefollower <eliadefollower@ eli> wrote:
                      > > I personally find that it supports my contention that the proper
                      > approach to theology must take into account the implications of the Copenhagen
                      > Convention of quantum physics. But then I feel that any theology that does not
                      > deal seriously with the findings of modern science is deficient. Merely
                      > stating that the findings of science do not apply to theology while using
                      > them seems to me to be a cop out and a major inconsistency.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Bill
                      > >
                      >

                    • Patrick Navas
                      Robert Bowman wrote: In my paper, I don t offer a point-by-point or paragraph-by- paragraph response to your paper, but I do summarize your main exegetical
                      Message 11 of 17 , Sep 19, 2009

                        Robert Bowman wrote:

                        In my paper, I don't offer a point-by-point or paragraph-by- paragraph response to your paper, but I do summarize your main exegetical objections and respond to them.

                        Unfortunately, not only did Bowman not summarize my main exegetical objection to the common Trinitarian view of John 12:41, he ignored most of them and did not correctly represent the points that he did attempt to respond to.

                        In a paper entitled “Why John 12:41 Does Not Support the Doctrine of the Trinity,” Patrick Navas takes issue with the view that in John 12:41 Jesus is identified with the “Lord” whose glory Isaiah saw in his vision in Isaiah 6. According to Navas, the “glory” of Jesus that Isaiah saw was his future exaltation as the resurrected Messiah, not his preexistent glory as the Lord Jehovah.

                         

                         

                        Robert Bowman is correct that I take “issue with the view that in John 12:41 Jesus is identified with the “Lord” [Jehovah] whose glory Isaiah saw in his vision in Isaiah 6”—a “view” that is, as I indicate in my paper, a theological inference/argument that Trinitarian apologists have often made, not something the text actually says. But Bowman is wrong when he says, “According to Navas, the ‘glory’ of Jesus that Isaiah saw was his future exaltation as the resurrected Messiah, not his preexistent glory as the Lord Jehovah.”

                         

                        Nowhere in my paper do I attempt to limit the “glory” of the Messiah that Isaiah “saw” to Jesus’ post-resurrection state. I believe the said “glory” can and does include Jesus’ post-resurrection glory, but I also believe and specifically say that the “glory” Isaiah saw was clearly manifested in Jesus' earthly life through the signs and miracles that God worked through him. In fact, that was one of the major points of my paper, a point that Bowman evidently did not pay attention to. Bowman is wrong already because he isn’t even accurately representing what I actually said.

                         

                        As Navas correctly notes, John cites two texts from Isaiah in this passage: Isaiah 53:1, which is part of the “Suffering Servant” pericope (Is. 52:13-53:12), and Isaiah 6:10, which is part of Isaiah’s “vision call” pericope (6:1-13). Navas rejects the view that John’s words “Isaiah…saw his glory” (John 12:41) refer to the beginning of the latter pericope, in which Isaiah says, “I saw the Lord…His glory fills the whole earth” (Is. 6:1, 3). In his view, the “glory” of Jesus that Isaiah saw refers in general to the messianic prophecies of Isaiah that look forward to his death, resurrection, and exaltation.

                         

                        Here Bowman is more accurate when he notes that, in my view, the “glory of Jesus Isaiah saw refers “in general to the messianic prophecies of Isaiah that look forward to his death, resurrection, and exaltation,” but, again, he ignores one of the most important points in that I also believe and specifically argue that Isaiah saw the Messiah’s glory in his earthly life and activities, and particularly in the Messiah’s miracle working which did not elicit faith on the part of some people because of their foretold blindness and hardness of heart.

                         

                        Navas, emphasizing that Isaiah routinely distinguishes the future Messiah from the Lord Jehovah by speaking of the Messiah as being “the servant of Jehovah,” as having rest on him “the Spirit of Jehovah,” and so forth, concludes that John cannot mean that Isaiah identified the Messiah (Jesus) as Jehovah God.

                         

                        This is a preliminary point that needs to be recognized. If the Messiah is the “servant of Jehovah” than he is not “Jehovah” but the “servant of Jehovah.” The same common-sense point applies to Peter as “son of Jonah.” We know from this that Peter is not “Jonah” but the “son of Jonah.” Just as Abraham is described as the friend of God, we automatically know that Abraham is not “God” since he is the “friend of God.” How could Abraham, after all, be “God” if he is spoken of explicitly as God’s “friend..” We would, in fact, never even think of identifying Abraham with or as “Jehovah” because it is already clearly established that they are distinct from one another. The same is true of the Messiah who is never identified as “Jehovah” in Isaiah’s writings but as Jehovah’s servant.

                         

                        The Link between Isaiah 6:10 and 53:1

                         

                        A key issue here is why John links Isaiah 53:1 and 6:10 in the way that he does. The immediate answer is that both texts speak of unbelief:

                         

                        In this case Bowman gives the impression that he is presenting a new insight or something that was not already understood and expressed in my paper. That is precisely the point. Both Isaiah 53:1 and 6:10 speak of the unbelief of the people. That is why John quotes both texts because that is exactly what takes place in John ch 12.

                         

                        And he said, “Go, and say to this people: ‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’ Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed” (Is. 6:9-10).

                         

                        Who has believed what they heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? (Is. 53:1)

                         

                        Jesus, in the Synoptic Gospels, understood Isaiah 6:9-10 to have some application or fulfillment in the unbelieving response of people to his message (Matt. 13:14-15; Mark 4:12). John draws the same application with reference to the unbelieving response to Jesus’ miracles. It is clear, then, that John understands both passages—Isaiah 6 and Isaiah 53—to be relevant to the point he is making. Arguing about which passage is “primary” for John’s point is useless.

                         

                        Again, Bowman’s comments make me wonder if he even read my paper. I myself explicitly said that both passages are relevant to the point John is making. Yet Bowman makes this point as if he was pointing out something new and as if I hadn’t already pointed the fact out. Then Bowman says, “Arguing about which passage is ‘primary’ for John’s point is useless”—again, as if Bowman was correcting me and as if I was the one who tried to argue this, when, as I clearly pointed out in my paper, it was in fact Trinitarian James White who “asserts that the Isaiah 6 passage is ‘the primary reference’ we should look to for our understanding of John 12:41.” So Bowman, in this case, only strengthens the point I made originally against his fellow Trinitarian brother, James White. I do, however, point out that—in contradiction to White—both texts (Isaiah 53:1 and Isaiah 6:10) are relevant to understanding John 12:41 but that there are in fact “more connections and similar themes to be found between John 12 and Isaiah 52/53 than with the similar language-elements (‘saw’ and ‘glory’) between John 12:41 and Isaiah 6:1-5.” Then as evidence I wrote:

                        “As mentioned, in Isaiah chapter 6, no clear reference to the Messiah is ever made; only a vision of Jehovah God exalted in his temple-house filled with Jehovah’s “glory.” In fact, nowhere in Isaiah’s vision of Jehovah in the temple scene does the prophet go on to clearly “speak about” the Messiah.

                        In Isaiah chapter 53, however, immediately after the statement “Who has believed what he has heard from us? And to whom has the arm of Jehovah been revealed?, the prophet goes on specifically to “speak about” the Messiah from verse 2 all the way through verse 12, quite explicitly and in great detail.. The entire chapter is, in fact, about the suffering “servant,” the foretold Messiah, who would “come up like a twig” and “like a root out of waterless land.” According to the prophet, the servant would be “despised and rejected by men,” “wounded for our transgressions,” “crushed for our iniquities,” pouring out “his soul to the very death.” Yet, after being victorious over death, he would “divide the spoil with the strong,” “bring a righteous standing to many,” and make “intercession for the transgressors.” This demonstrates that the one who “spoke about” such things— Isaiah—was among the prophets mentioned by the apostle Peter who, long ago, “foretold the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow” (1 Peter 1:11), and, particularly in Isaiah 52-53, “saw his glory and spoke of him” (John 12:41).

                        In support of this conclusion, D.A. Carson observed that, in John chapter 12, the apostle “may well be thinking of the Suffering Servant who was exalted…what makes it very likely is the dozen or so overtones of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 found within John 12 that show the Evangelist had the Servant Song in mind when he composed this chapter.”[1]

                         

                         What should not be missed is that John understands these passages to refer to the people’s lack of faith in Jesus: “Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled…” (John 12:37-38a).

                         

                        That is precisely what I said in my paper, so I’m not sure why Bowman points things out like this as if I had not. Perhaps Bowman simply copied-and-pasted points made in his previous writings without paying careful attention to what I actually said.

                         

                        The linkage between the two passages in Isaiah is not limited to their common reference to unbelief. There are other links that pertain specifically to the “glory” that John says Isaiah saw. Notice the following two lines:

                         

                        In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple (Is. 6:1).

                         

                        Behold, my servant shall act wisely; he shall be high and lifted up, and shall be exalted (Is. 52:13).

                         

                        Each of these two verses is the first line in its respective pericope (6:1-13; 52:13-53:12). The locution “high and lifted up” (Hebrew, räm wüniSSä´ or yärûm wüniSSä´) occurs only in three places in Isaiah: these two texts and in Isaiah’s later description of the Lord Jehovah as “the One who is high and lifted up, who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy” (Is. 57:15). This text in its reference to God’s name as “Holy” obviously also alludes to Isaiah 6, where the seraphim cry, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!” (Is. 6:3).

                         

                        It seems likely, then, that John linked Isaiah 6:10 and 53:1 because in addition to speaking of the people’s response of unbelief, both pericopes begin with a description of one “high and lifted up.” In Isaiah 6 the one “high and lifted up” is identified as “the Lord,” “the Lord of hosts” (Is. 6:1, 3); in Isaiah 53 the one “high and lifted up” is identified as the suffering Servant of the Lord (53:12).

                         

                        Precisely. Isaiah 6 speaks of “Jehovah of hosts” as the one who is “high and lifted up.” Isaiah 53 is not speaking about Jehovah but the suffering servant of Jehovah who is also “high and lifted up”—but Jehovah and Jehovah’s servant are still two distinct individuals. And the Messiah is, clearly, one who has this high and lifted up status because Jehovah exalted him to that status (Phil. 2). The same cannot be said of Jehovah who has his status becuase he is God not becuase someone else exalted him to that status.

                         

                        John sees both of these texts as applicable to the failure of the people to believe in the Lord Jesus (John 12:37-38), and he sees both texts as supporting his claim that Isaiah saw Christ’s glory (John 12:41). It should be noted in this regard that also in both texts we find explicit references to the “glory” of the individual. Isaiah 6:3 states that “the whole earth is full of his glory”; in addition, in the Septuagint, Isaiah 6:1 says that the temple where the Lord was seated “was full of his glory.” The Suffering Servant pericope also refers to the Servant’s glory: “As many shall be amazed at thee, so shall thy face be without glory from men, and thy glory [shall not be honoured] by the sons of men” (Is. 52:14 LXX). This humility, in which people will not recognize the Servant’s glory, will be followed by his exaltation, in which he will be “glorified exceedingly” (Is. 52:13 LXX).

                         

                        The description of the suffering and then exalted Servant as “high and lifted up,” in the context of the book of Isaiah, indicates at a minimum that the Servant would have the same exalted status as the Lord God himself, while still distinguishing the Servant from the Lord.

                         

                        Scripturally, there is no problem with the servant of Jehovah having an exalted status at the very right hand of Jehovah. But the servant is not Jehovah since he is at the right hand of Jehovah who is a distinct figure from Jehovah, in every case.

                         

                        That John understood the description of the Lord in Isaiah 6 as also applicable to Jesus may be paradoxical but is consistent with John’s penchant for the same paradox: Jesus was both with God and was God (John 1:1); he was both God and the Son of God (John 20:28, 31).

                         

                        Neither Isaiah nor John have a “penchant” for Jesus being distinct from “God” yet still “God” at the same time. No such paradox is articulated or alluded to by either writer. John 1:1 does not even speak about “Jesus” as “God” but speaks about “the word (ho logos)” that was “with God” in the beginning and was “God” or “a god” (theos not ho theos). There is nothing “paradoxical” about John 1:1. In John 20:28 Thomas calls Jesus his “Lord” and his “God” yet there is nothing paradoxical in this. Moses is said to be “God” to pharaoh. Is Moses paradoxically distinct from Almighty God and yet Almighty God himself? Or does Scripture extend the usage of the term “God” to others besides the Almighty based on the authority that God has given to those who represent him?

                         

                        “His Glory”: Preexistent Glory, Ascended Glory, or Both?

                         

                        When John says that Isaiah “saw his glory,” is he referring to Christ’s preexistent glory, his ascended glory, or both? Navas clearly takes the view that Isaiah saw, prophetically, Christ’s ascended glory.

                         

                        Wrong. The question is, how does Bowman get that I “clearly” take the view that John was referring to Isaiah foreseeing Christ’s post-resurrection, “ascended glory” when I specifically say: "Evidently, Isaiah said “these things”—the ‘things’ regarding the peoples’ blindness, hardness of heart, lack of perception, and unbelief—because Isaiah “saw” the “glory” of the Messiah, which was, namely, the same “glory” that would, due to blindness and hardness of heart, “not be honored by the sons of men” (52:14, LXX); again, the very occurrence described in John 12:37-40. In other words, as the apostle John reports, though Jesus “had done so many signs before them”—a clear demonstration of his messianic “glory,” and the “glory” of God that the Messiah ‘reflects’ (Heb. 1:3)—the people still did not believe nor honor him as the Messiah sent by God; and all of this was foreseen by Isaiah and foretold in his writings. As it was pointed out in the article Isaiah in the Gospel of John by C. H. Williams: “…those who rejected Jesus have failed to see the revelation of ‘the arm of the Lord’ in his signs. John 12:37-38 therefore emphasizes that most people did not believe in Jesus despite the one aspect of his ministry that was most likely to produce faith, his visible manifestations of power.”[2]

                         

                        That is, in the above statement, I clearly articulate the point that Isaiah foresaw the glory of the Messiah that would be manifested prior to the Messiah’s resurrection through the many signs the Messiah had performed before the people who still did not believe in him. Did Bowman even read my paper?

                         

                        On the other hand, Navas not only rejects the idea that Isaiah saw Christ’s preexistent divine glory, Navas isn’t even clear as to whether Christ, the Son, existed before his human life as Jesus of Nazareth.

                         

                        If we examine what John has to say on this subject, we find that he clearly would answer “both” to the question posed above. John’s first reference to Christ’s glory comes in his famous statement, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). John’s statement “we have seen his glory” obviously closely parallels his later statement that Isaiah “saw his glory” (John 12:41). According to John, the glory of Christ that they saw was the glory he had as the only Son of the Father. This statement, in context, refers to the Son’s native, preexistent divine glory that he had as the Son prior to becoming flesh.

                         

                        Bowman simply asserts that the “glory” seen by the apostles in John 1:14 was the glory of the Son’s “preexistent divine glory that he had as the Son prior to becoming flesh.” Nothing in the text says that. In fact, the "glory" that John said that he and the other witnesses had “seen” was clearly the glory that they had seen and experienced based on their firsthand witness of the man Jesus, while he was on the earth. Nothing John said indicates that they saw Jesus’ "preexistent divine glory." John is clearly testifying to the glory the apostles witnessed in Jesus’ earthly life. They did not “see” Jesus’ preexistent divine glory since the only experience they ever had with Jesus was in their earthly interactions and experiences with him. Bowman is wrong again (as John 2:11 itself clearly shows, a text that Bowman goes on to quote below).

                         

                        Yet it is also the glory that the disciples themselves saw—presumably in reference to their encounters with him after his resurrection.

                         

                        John says that in his first miracle at Cana, Jesus “manifested his glory” (John 2:11). Again, in the context of John’s remarks in John 12 about Isaiah, it was Jesus’ miracles, his “signs,” to which the people failed to respond in faith. This was a glory that Jesus already had, although, because he was living in a humble state, that glory was not immediately apparent but had to be “manifested” through the things that Jesus did. Thus, “his glory” in John is not exclusively a post-resurrection, ascended glory, but is a glory that he already had, that still belonged to him while he was walking around on the earth, and that could be manifested during his earthly ministry through his miracles as “signs.”

                         

                        Again, that is precisely the point I make in the paper--that the Messiah’s glory was clearly made manifest through his “signs,” yet Bowman makes this point as if he were refuting a position I had actually taken. I never said or implied that the “glory” Isaiah saw referred “exclusively” to Jesus’ post-resurrection glory. Why did Bowman say that when I explicitly argued the opposite in my paper?

                         

                        Shortly before his death, Jesus said in prayer to the Father, “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed” (John 17:5). Despite efforts to argue otherwise from some opponents of orthodox Christology, Jesus is here plainly claiming to have existed alongside the Father with divine glory even before the world existed. Jesus’ glory, then, is a glory that he always had, but one that was veiled in his humble life in the flesh. This glory is also, of course, his ascended glory, the glory that he would fully experience after completing his sufferings and then rising from the dead.

                         

                        Nothing in the text says that the glory Jesus had before the world was a “glory” he “always had” (an eternal glory without beginning). The text only states that Jesus had glory with the Father “before the world was.”

                         

                        There is no reason, then, to force a choice between relating John’s comments to Isaiah 6 or Isaiah 52:13-15.

                         

                        I never tried to do that.

                         

                        Both passages sound several of the same notes and both together support what John is saying. John’s wording, “he saw his glory,” especially echoes the words of Isaiah 6:1 in the Septuagint, “I saw the Lord…and the house was full of his glory.” But the full import of Jesus’ statement draws together both Isaiah’s call-vision account and his introductory words in the Suffering Servant prophecy. Jesus is the preexistent glorious Lord and the Suffering Servant of the Lord.

                         

                        Nothing in John 12:41 says or implies that Jesus is the “preexistent glorious Lord [Jehovah]” and, at the same time, “the suffering servant of the Lord [Jehovah].” Jesus is the servant of Jehovah and, therefore, not Jehovah, just as Peter is the son of Jonah, not Jonah himself, and just as Abraham is the friend of God, not God.

                         

                        He possessed divine glory, came in humility as a flesh-and-blood man who suffered and died for us, thereby revealing his divine glory as being full of grace and truth, and then returning to his glorious state alongside the Father. Those who rejected Jesus were not only rejecting the Lord’s suffering servant, they were rejecting the Lord himself, just as some of the people had done in Isaiah’s day.

                         

                        Bowman is correct that those who rejected Jesus were not only rejecting Jehovah’s suffering servant but were rejecting Jehovah himself. But that does not make Jesus and Jehovah the same being. In the same way that rejecting or receiving the apostles would constitute a rejection of the Messiah who sent them forth, not because the apostles and the Messiah are the same being but because they were the Messiah’s authorized representatives. Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever receive the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.” (John 13:20). Jesus is not God, but the one sent by God. But to reject Jesus is to reject God because Jesus is the one God sent forth (John 17:3). Likewise, to reject Jesus’ apostles is to reject both Jesus and God not because the apostles are Jesus or God but because they were the ones sent for by Jesus who was himself sent by God.

                         

                        Two Explicit Quotes—and one Clear Echo

                         

                        John not only quotes two statements explicitly from Isaiah, he also clearly, unmistakably echoes another Old Testament text that should not be missed:

                         

                        But the glory of the Lord appeared at the tent of meeting to all the people of Israel. And the Lord said to Moses, “How long will this people despise me? And how long will they not believe in me, in spite of all the signs that I have done among them?” (Num. 14:10b-11)

                         

                        Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him (John 12:37).

                         

                        The connections between this passage and Isaiah 6 are as clear and obvious as the connections between this passage and John 12. In both Numbers 14 and Isaiah 6, the Lord appears in his “glory” and remarks on the fact that his people blindly refuse to believe in him. In both Numbers 14 and John 12, the people fail to believe in the Lord (Jehovah/Jesus) despite the “signs” (miracles) that he did in their presence. John’s wording in 12:37 is remarkably similar to Numbers 14:11, and given the contextual parallels and close association of both texts with Isaiah 6, it is implausible to deny the connection. John is saying about the Lord Jesus precisely what the Lord Jehovah says about himself in Numbers: the Jewish people as a whole refused to believe in him, despite the miraculous “signs” that he performed in front of their eyes. In a sense, these unbelieving people also “saw his glory,” in that they could see the outward display of his glory manifested in the miraculous signs, yet they refused to believe in him.

                         

                        I have no problem seeing a “connection” or similarity between Numbers 14:10-11 and John 12:37. The events described are very similar. In the first the glory of Jehovah God appeared before the people of Israel and the people did not believe in Jehovah God in spite of the signs he did before them. In John 12:37 the glory of Jesus, Jehovah’s Messiah, was manifested in his signs and miracle-working; yet, as in the case of Numbers 14, the people still did not believe in the Messiah in spite of the signs he performed. But none of this similarity has anything to do with Jesus being Jehovah himself or a second member of a Trinity. In fact, the Scriptures clearly and explicitly teach that Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah, was (not God but) “a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst…” (Acts 2:22). This text clearly portrays Jesus as “a man” (not God or a ‘God-man’) “attested by God” with signs and wonders that “God did through him.” Clearly, in the apostles’ portrayal of things, Jesus is not God but a man through whom God did powerful wonders and signs. The fact that the ancient Israelites did not believe in Jehovah even when he had performed signs before them and the latter Israelites did not believe in Jehovah’s Messiah in spite of the signs that Jehovah did through him does not make Jehovah and the Messiah identical, as Bowman tries to suggest by the comparison between the two events, particularly when the apostles explicitly explain to us that the signs Jesus performed were signs he performed as a man that God worked through, not as “God” himself.

                         

                        John 12:37-41 does not explicitly call Jesus God (though other Johannine texts do, John 1:1, 18; 20:28), but it certainly treats him as equivalent to God.

                         

                        Actually, John 1:1 does not explicitly call "Jesus" “God” but calls “the word” “God” or “a god.” John 1:18, according to the most ancient manuscripts, calls Jesus “an only-begotten/unique god” who is “in the bosom of the Father.” The Almighty God is not “an only-begotten god” who dwells in someone else’s bosom. And if John 12:41 “certainly” treats Jesus as equivalent to God then why do so many evangelical commentators cited in my paper explicitly deny this? When something is “certain” it cannot be denied because it is clear and obvious to all. Yet Evangelical scholars themselves, who believe the same way as Bowman, expressly deny what Bowman attempts to present as “certain.” Bowman is wrong. The text does not certainly bear the meaning that Trinitarians attempt to derive from it. It is a theological inference at best, and, even when established, does not lend itself to Trinitartian theology naturally bot to Modalism, as I point out in my paper.

                         

                        The Lord Jesus does miraculous “signs” for the Jewish people just as the Lord Jehovah had done miraculous “signs” for the Israelites. He possesses divine “glory” just as Jehovah does in the Old Testament, a glory that Isaiah saw. He deserves to be honored by responses of faith, just as Jehovah deserves. In this short passage in John, we find that Jesus shares attributes of God (“glory”), that he performs the works or deeds of God (his “signs”), and that Jesus deserves the same honors that are due to God (“believe” or “have faith”).

                         

                        The disciples of Jesus possess “glory” and are to be “glorified” but they are not God or members of a “Godhead.” The disciples themselves performed miraculous deeds (Elijah the prophet of Israel even raised the dead), yet they were not God or members of a “Godhead.”  The faithful people of Israel “believed” in God and Moses. This is similar to how Jesus said, “believe in God; believe also in me.” But Moses was not God and neither does Jesus have to be “God” simply because Christians believe and have faith in him as the one sent by God (John 17:3).  In Exodus 14:31, “Israel saw the great power that Jehovah used against the Egyptians, so the people feared Jehovah, and they believed in Jehovah and in his servant Moses.” (Ex. 14:31). Is Moses therefore part of the Godhead because the people believed in him and Jehovah? Or was it perfectly appropriate for the people to have believed in Moses because Moses was the one God had chosen to work through?

                         

                        We find John quoting from one Old Testament author and echoing another in affirming of Jesus what the Old Testament affirmed about Jehovah—with no cautionary explanations that would qualify Jesus as inferior to God.

                         

                        That is okay because Jesus already explicitly speaks of himself as inferior to Jehovah—“the Father is greater than I”  (John 14:28).

                         

                        Read in its rich biblical context, then, John 12:37-41 provides remarkable confirmation and support for John’s testimony that Jesus Christ is himself our divine Lord and God (John 1:1, 18; 20:28).

                         

                        Of course Bowman fails to even represent my arguments correctly. But he is very skilled at giving the appearance that he has presented a real refutation. He has not. In fact, most of my points on John 12:41 were actually ignored and the one or two points that he did address were factually misrepresented.

                         

                        Some major points Bowman simply glosses over are as follows. The first is an example of a respected evangelical professor explicilty contradicting the common, Trinitarian view:

                         

                        “The first passage cited is Isa. 53:1 LXX (cf. Rom. 10:16). In the original context, reference is made to the Servant of the Lord, who was rejected by the people but exalted by God (cf. Isa. 52:13-15). In John, the verse is applied to Jesus the Messiah, who is that promised Servant, and to the rejection of his message and signs (‘arm of the Lord’) by the Jews…In the wake of two Isaianic quotes in 12:38 and 12:40, the evangelist concludes that ‘Isaiah saw Jesus’ glory’ (cf. 8:56). In light of the preceding quotation of Isa. 6:10, some say that the background for the present statement is the call narrative in Isaiah 6. Yet though autou (his) probably refers to Jesus, John does not actually say that Isaiah saw Jesus, but that he saw Jesus’ glory. Hence, it is not necessary to conclude that the evangelist believed that Isaiah saw ‘the pre-existent Christ’ (Schnackenburg 1990: 2.416; cf. Talbert 1992: 180; D. B. Smith 1999: 244) or that he saw Jesus ‘in some pre-incarnate fashion’ (Carson 1991: 449). Rather, Isaiah foresaw that God was pleased with a suffering Servant who would be ‘raised and lifted up and highly exalted’ (52:13), yet who was ‘pierced for our transgressions’ and ‘bore the sins of many’ (53:5, 12)…Hence, Isaiah knew that God’s glory would be revealed through a suffering Messiah—something deemed impossible by the crowds (John 12:34). Like Abraham, Isaiah saw Jesus’ ‘day’ (cf. John 8:56, 58).”[3]

                         

                        6. Indeed it is possible, and quite likely, that the Gospel writer said Isaiah “saw” the Messiah’s glory in a similar sense that Jesus said “Abraham rejoiced to see [the Messiah’s] day, he saw it and was glad” (John 8:56). That is, there doesn’t seem to be any one text in Genesis where Abraham is explicitly portrayed as “seeing” the Messiah’s “day” [4]; so Jesus’ statement probably embraces the overall sense in which Abraham looked forward—with the ‘eyes’ of faith—to the “day” of the Messiah with appropriate joy and gladness, based on God’s promises to him. In the same basic sense, in John 12:41, John very well may have meant that Isaiah prophetically “saw” the future “glory” of the Messiah—as the Messiah is portrayed in Isaiah, yet, not only in one specific text, but throughout the prophetic writings overall (Isaiah 4:2[5]; 9:6-7; 11:1-10; 16:5; 32:1; 33:17[6]; 42:1-4; 49:1-6; 52:13, 14; 53:1-12; 61:1-3).

                        That is to say, Isaiah did not have to literally “see,” with physical eyes, the Messiah’s “glory” in order to match what John said about him in John 12:41, just as Abraham did not have to literally “see,” with physical eyes, the “day” of the Messiah in order to make what Jesus said about Abraham true (John 8:56). Scripturally speaking, men like Abraham and Isaiah could often “see” in advance—through the prophetic gift, and with the ‘eyes’ of faith—the glories of future events associated with God’s purposes based on God’s revelation to them.[7]

                         

                        7. If John is identifying Jesus directly and ‘ontologically’ as ‘Jehovah’ in John 12:41, no resulting, automatic ‘Trinitarian’ concept emerges. In fact, if taken in this way, the common Trinitarian argument is more conducive to the concept of “Modalism,” which says that Jesus Christ is God the Father, only in another ‘mode.’ Hebrews chapter 1, for example, makes clear that Jehovah, the God of the ‘prophets’—a reference that includes Isaiah—was God the Father, since He was the same ‘God’ who once spoke in the ‘prophets’ but in these ‘last days’ has spoken in his ‘Son.’ Thus, to identify Jesus as the one Isaiah saw on the throne—as “Jehovah of hosts”—would be to identify Jesus as God the Father; since, again, this was the ‘God (ho theos)’ who spoke at one time through prophets like Isaiah but who, in the Christian era, spoke through the ‘Son,’ a concept that Trinitarian theology does not and cannot accept.

                         

                        8. Much like other Trinitarian “proof-texts,” John 12:41 does not explicitly say “Jesus is Jehovah” or anything that resembles such. As is so often the case, the Trinitarian conclusion is based on an uncertain and highly-debatable interpretation, not an explicit statement of faith with a meaning that cannot be denied. If the text was not debatable or ambiguous in the interest of Trinitarian doctrine, then there would be no real dispute, no viable interpretative options, and no Evangelical scholars presenting sound, alternative explanations.[8] What we find after close scrutiny, however, is the opposite. For example, in their handbook on translation, Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida commented: “Because he saw Jesus’ [Gk: ‘his’] glory could mean that Isaiah saw in his own day the pre-incarnate glory which Jesus had.” This is, of course, in line with the traditional Trinitarian, apologetic claim. Yet the translators go on to say: “However, it is better to understand this clause as referring to Isaiah’s prophetic vision of the glory that Jesus would have as the result of his death and resurrection. One may translate, therefore, ‘he saw ahead of time the glory that Jesus would have later’ or ‘…how wonderful Jesus would be.’” [9] (emphasis added)

                        In agreement, another commentator observed: “Even the coming of the death and resurrection of Jesus will not be enough for all to believe and this was foreseen by God. As John points out, Isaiah himself had a basic understanding of this astounding unfaith. Isaiah experienced unbelieving rejection in his own ministry, but even more he saw Jesus’ glory [death/resurrection] and spoke about him.”[10]

                         

                                    We can conclude, therefore, that the interpretive connection Trinitarian apologists so frequently attempt to make between the words “Isaiah said these things because he saw [Jesus’] glory…” and Isaiah’s vision of Jehovah God in the temple is neither certain nor necessary. There is, by far, more evidence supporting a connection between John’s statement and the descriptions of Jehovah’s “servant” (the Messiah) occurring in Isaiah 52:10-53:12

                        (Message over 64 KB, truncated)

                      • Rob
                        Patrick, Thanks for your response. You pointed out some deficiencies in my paper and I am working on revising and improving it substantially. Can you provide
                        Message 12 of 17 , Sep 20, 2009
                          Patrick,

                          Thanks for your response. You pointed out some deficiencies in my paper and I am working on revising and improving it substantially.

                          Can you provide me with a copy of Greg Stafford's response to James White on John 12?

                          In Christ's service,
                          Rob Bowman
                        • Paul Leonard
                          Hi, I believe the point you refer to below is very critical. Isiah had no knowledge of a Trinity. Isaiah, and any reader of the verses, would know that the
                          Message 13 of 17 , Sep 20, 2009
                            Hi,

                            I believe the point you refer to below is very critical.

                            Isiah had no knowledge of a Trinity. Isaiah, and any reader of the verses, would know that the "servant" was not Jehovah. Even if, like in the case of Daniel, Isaiah did not understand the words he recorded, Jehovah who inspired those words certainly did. The Messiah was NOT Jehovah, but Jehovah's servant. The Creator of language certainly knows how to convey an accurate concept through the use of language.

                            --- On Sat, 9/19/09, Patrick Navas <patrick_navas@...> wrote:

                              Rob: Navas, emphasizing that Isaiah routinely distinguishes the future Messiah from the Lord Jehovah by speaking of the Messiah as being “the servant of Jehovah,” as having rest on him “the Spirit of Jehovah,” and so forth, concludes that John cannot mean that Isaiah identified the Messiah (Jesus) as Jehovah God.

                             Patrick: This is a preliminary point that needs to be recognized. If the Messiah is the “servant of Jehovah” than he is not “Jehovah” but the “servant of Jehovah.” The same common-sense point applies to Peter as “son of Jonah.” We know from this that Peter is not “Jonah” but the “son of Jonah.” Just as Abraham is described as the friend of God, we automatically know that Abraham is not “God” since he is the “friend of God.” How could Abraham, after all, be “God” if he is spoken of explicitly as God’s “friend..” We would, in fact, never even think of identifying Abraham with or as “Jehovah” because it is already clearly established that they are distinct from one another. The same is true of the Messiah who is never identified as “Jehovah” in Isaiah’s writings but as Jehovah’s servant.

                          • William
                            Tom, Questions are always good. You asked about what the Theory of Relativity has to do with Sin. The Theory of Relativity includes the con=cept of a
                            Message 14 of 17 , Sep 23, 2009
                              Tom,

                              Questions are always good.

                              You asked about what the Theory of Relativity has to do with Sin. The Theory of Relativity includes the con=cept of a space-time continum. This is overly simply put that any given object viewed from different positions maintains its position relative to other objects. Thus they are part of the same continum. Now what humanity does, evidentially at approximately 7 months of age, is to remove themselves from the space-time continum by creating something that can only be viewed from one perspective, and then maintian for the rest of their lives that it is real. This thing that is created is our self-image, that only the individual can preceive. This false belief fits, with varying degrees of success, with the true space-time continum and we consider it to be "normal".

                              However, from a psychiatric viewpoint it is clearly recognized as a form of mental illness, which all humans suffer from. In most cases it is mild enough that it does not interfere with daily activity, but it does at times create sufficient problems that require treatment. This problem is present in virtually all, if not all, treated mental disorders, and fits perfectly with the biblical definition of Sin, even if not with the thneological definition.

                              Now regarding the different versions of quantum theory that you referred to, are these truly different versions or are they variations on one of the two basic understandings. Please bear in mind that all religions may be reduced to just two, when the basic principles are looked at, ignoring the fluff that states that mine is correct in all details and no other is. God is either independent of creation (theism) or God is part of what we call creation (pantheism and panentheism). There is no true third option. Atheism is not because it still leaves us with only creation, and thus is a specific variation on pantheism. Thus I would ask you to spell out what true third option there is for quantum theory beyound the Copenhagen Convention or the MWI. Having studied the field, I am not aware of any that is not a variation on one of these two, and that includes Naive Realism.

                              Bill

                              --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, tcmadd2@... wrote:
                              >
                              > Bill,
                              >
                              > A few more questions:
                              >
                              > 1. You said, "Now if we assume that humanity is created in the image of God
                              > (Genesis 1:25), does this not imply that the non-physical aspects of
                              > humanity are similar to the non-physical aspect of God? Further, since
                              > psychiatry recognizes that it as humanity believes itself independent of some
                              > aspects of relativity (possibly not consciously but still actively)that all the
                              > problems attributed to Sin begin and continue for the duration of our lives."
                              >
                              > I must confess that I do not see what the theory of relativity has to do
                              > with sin. Please explain.
                              >
                              > 2. Why do you believe that the Many Worlds hypothesis and the Copenhagen
                              > interpretation are the only options in Quantum Physics. I am aware of
                              > others, such as Naive Realism. I know a few physicists who ascribe to that
                              > position.
                              >
                              > Tom M.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > In a message dated 9/18/2009 7:46:43 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
                              > eliadefollower@... writes:
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Tom,
                              >
                              > You ask a very reasonable question to my mind. The available scientific
                              > evidence is that humans are a mixture of the physcial and the nonphysical,
                              > and that the nonphysical aspects of humans may act independently of space,
                              > time and matter/energy, and in fact may influence matter/energy, while
                              > ignoring space and time. However, teh evidence is equally present that space,
                              > time and matter.energy influence the non-physical aspects of humans.
                              >
                              > Now if we assume that humanity is created in the image of God (Genesis
                              > 1:25), does this not imply that the non-physical aspects of humanity are
                              > similar to the non-physical aspect of God? Further, since psychiatry recognizes
                              > that it as humanity believes itself independent of some aspects of
                              > relativity (possibly not consciously but still actively)that all the problems
                              > attributed to Sin begin and continue for the duration of our lives.
                              >
                              > I have found that it is when we take off the blinders that cause us to
                              > think that the Nicene fathers were all wise and knowing in regards to
                              > theology, and instead recongize that they were products of roughly 250 years of
                              > government approved anti-semitism and strongly encouraged to distance
                              > themselves further from Judaism, that we can begin to make true theological
                              > progress. The evidence is very strong that earliest Christianity was not like what
                              > evolved following 70 AD when anti-semitism became official Roman policy.
                              > When we abandon the assumption that God must be independent of physical
                              > laws, and likewise posit that the Copenhagen Convention makes sense based on
                              > the available data, that much of theology may be explained in a way that does
                              > not make God arbitary in His treatment of humanity as is suggested and
                              > then denied by traditional theology.
                              >
                              > Bill
                              >
                              > --- In _biblicalapologeticsbiblicalapolobib_
                              > (mailto:biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com) , tcmadd2@ wrote:
                              > >
                              > > Bill,
                              > >
                              > > Both scripture, (Genesis 1:1) and science, (Big Bang Theory), indicate
                              > > that the Creator transcends all space, time, matter, and energy, This
                              > means
                              > > that there must be a non-material form of existence. Since God is a
                              > spirit,
                              > > ie, non-material, why would he have to be subject to general relativity
                              > or
                              > > quantum physics?
                              > >
                              > > Tom M.
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > In a message dated 9/17/2009 7:32:19 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
                              > > eliadefollower@ eliadefoll
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Paul.
                              > >
                              > > It is my contention that all truth is one, be it scientific truth or
                              > > theological truth. Both positions start with assumptions that are
                              > unproven and
                              > > in ultimate reality unprovable. Some might seem to better fit the
                              > evidence
                              > > then others, but they are still assumptions. I try to keep my
                              > assumptions to
                              > > a bare minimum, and thus eek to use the same set for both my
                              > understanding
                              > > of science and theology. To do so, I must evaluate my assumptions as
                              > fully
                              > > as possible.
                              > >
                              > > Now when I have evaluated the two alternatives in quantum theory, that
                              > of
                              > > the MultiWorlds Interpretation (MWI) and the Copenhagen Convention (CC)
                              > I
                              > > find that I differ with Tipler ("The Physics of Immortality" and "The
                              > Pysics
                              > > of Christianity" of Christianity"<WBR>Now when I have evaluated the two
                              > al
                              > > theory, that of the MultiWorlds Interpretation (MWI) and the Copenhagen
                              > > Convention (CC) I find that I differ with Tipler ("The Physics of
                              > Immortality"
                              > > and "The Pysics of Christianity"<WBR>) in that I find that the MWI does
                              > > not fit with biblical understandings. The Bib
                              > >
                              > > Now at this point let me digress in an all too brief explanation of
                              > these
                              > > two positions and the logic leading to them. In a classic example of the
                              > > problem inherent in quantum physics, let us suppose that a cat is placed
                              > in a
                              > > box containing a cylinder of poisonous gas which will kill the cat
                              > > instantly and a single radioactive particle. Now the gas will be
                              > released if the
                              > > radioactive particle decays. After a time interval equal to the halflife
                              > of
                              > > the particle, that is the time in which half of the particles in any
                              > given
                              > > group will have decayed, is the cat physically dead or alive? Simple
                              > > probability gives an equal chance.
                              > >
                              > > The MWI understanding is that the universe split at that instant into
                              > two
                              > > almost identical versions, one in which the particle decayed and the cat
                              > > died and one where it did not decay and the cat is alive. The CC on the
                              > other
                              > > hand argues that it is the observation of a mind that determines which
                              > > event occurred, and probability merely measures the likelyhood of what
                              > will be
                              > > observed.
                              > >
                              > > Now implications of the CC include that mind must be independent of
                              > matter
                              > > for this observation to be effective. This likewise will imply that
                              > space
                              > > and time are likewise independent. However, it also logically recognizes
                              > > that independence does not imply lack ov interdependence. Just as mind
                              > may
                              > > influence energy/matter, so energy/matter may influence mind. Likewise,
                              > > absolute space and absolute time affect and are affected by each other,
                              > > energy/matter and mind. Further support for this comes from Einstein's
                              > Theory of
                              > > Relativity as well as multiple neurological studies as well as
                              > consciousness
                              > > studies.
                              > >
                              > > Theological implications here include that God virtually must exist, He
                              > > could be a particular form of mind, that humanity, and indead all life,
                              > > exists independently of the physical, althoug interdependent with the
                              > physical,
                              > > and that certain, if not most, scientific physicla laws must apply where
                              > > applicable to God, including relativity. Should relativity apply to God,
                              > then
                              > > it could dictate the nature of Sin, and whether or not God is capable of
                              > > Sin. In other words, theology might be fully compatible with science and
                              > > correcting of science. However, when we choose to do this, we must
                              > choose our
                              > > scientific position carefully, as there are, according to the Bible,
                              > just
                              > > two paths, those of life and death, just as there are only two choices
                              > in
                              > > quantum physics, the MWI and the CC. Should we support the wrong one, as
                              > I
                              > > believe the MWI is, we support death.
                              > >
                              > > Bill
                              > >
                              > > --- In _biblicalapologetic --- In _bib --
                              > > (mailto:_biblicalapologeticsbiblicalapolobib_
                              > (mailto:biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com) ) , Paul Leonard <anotherpaul2001@ano> wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > > OK, I am curious. How does: the Copenhagen Convention of quantum
                              > > physics. Apply to Theology????
                              > > >
                              > > > --- On Wed, 9/16/09, eliadefollower <eliadefollower@eli> wrote:
                              > > > I personally find that it supports my contention that the proper
                              > > approach to theology must take into account the implications of the
                              > Copenhagen
                              > > Convention of quantum physics. But then I feel that any theology that
                              > does not
                              > > deal seriously with the findings of modern science is deficient. Merely
                              > > stating that the findings of science do not apply to theology while
                              > using
                              > > them seems to me to be a cop out and a major inconsistency.
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > >
                              > > > Bill
                              > > >
                              > >
                              >
                            • Rob
                              Bill, You wrote:
                              Message 15 of 17 , Sep 23, 2009
                                Bill,

                                You wrote:

                                << You asked about what the Theory of Relativity has to do with Sin. The Theory of Relativity includes the con=cept of a space-time continum. This is overly simply put that any given object viewed from different positions maintains its position relative to other objects. Thus they are part of the same continum. Now what humanity does, evidentially at approximately 7 months of age, is to remove themselves from the space-time continum by creating something that can only be viewed from one perspective, and then maintian for the rest of their lives that it is real. This thing that is created is our self-image, that only the individual can preceive. This false belief fits, with varying degrees of success, with the true space-time continum and we consider it to be "normal". However, from a psychiatric viewpoint it is clearly recognized as a form of mental illness, which all humans suffer from. In most cases it is mild enough that it does not interfere with daily activity, but it does at times create sufficient problems that require treatment. This problem is present in virtually all, if not all, treated mental disorders, and fits perfectly with the biblical definition of Sin, even if not with the thneological definition. >>

                                Your explanation of sin as a mental disorder of belief in the reality of one's self has nothing to do with either the theory of relativity, psychiatry, or the biblical teaching about sin! Nor is your explanation of relativity correct (even allowing that you presented it as an oversimplification).

                                The theories (there are basically two of them) of relativity have to do with the nature and interrelationships of space, time, light, and motion. They have nothing to do with psychological states of mind or beliefs.

                                The belief in the reality of one's self is not a mental disorder or mental illness. No recognized textbook or reference work on psychiatry categorizes belief in the reality of one's self as a mental disorder. Indeed, some mental disorders have as characteristic symptoms a lack of a well-formed concept or awareness of one's self. For example, one of the symptoms often associated with borderline personality disorder is a lack of confidence in one's own reality as a self.

                                The biblical view of sin in no way challenges the belief in the reality of one's self. The biblical worldview, unlike the worldviews of pantheistic forms of Hinduism or Buddhism, unambiguously affirms the reality of the individual self as a distinct being. The "I" of human beings' first-person predication ("I am Moses," etc.) is assumed throughout the Bible to be real. That you and I are distinct persons, distinct beings, with individuality and an abiding self, is basic to the biblical worldview. Sin is not belief in the reality of one's self but the virtual *deification* of oneself, the arrogant belief that life is or should be whatever I decree it to be, that I am free to ignore what the Creator reveals is the purpose and values that should govern my life. "Sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4), that is, the disregard for the law of God ("the transgression of the law," KJV).

                                You wrote:

                                << Now regarding the different versions of quantum theory that you referred to, are these truly different versions or are they variations on one of the two basic understandings. Please bear in mind that all religions may be reduced to just two, when the basic principles are looked at, ignoring the fluff that states that mine is correct in all details and no other is. God is either independent of creation (theism) or God is part of what we call creation (pantheism and panentheism). There is no true third option. Atheism is not because it still leaves us with only creation, and thus is a specific variation on pantheism. >>

                                I'm curious whether you advocate theism or pantheism.

                                In Christ's service,
                                Rob Bowman
                              • William
                                Rob, To deal with teh easiest question first, I strongly support monotheism over pantheism. Now as for the concept of the self being at the root of mental
                                Message 16 of 17 , Sep 24, 2009
                                  Rob,

                                  To deal with teh easiest question first, I strongly support monotheism over pantheism.

                                  Now as for the concept of the self being at the root of mental problems, which you wish to argue and state that I am incorrect, how many psychiatry texts do you wish me to cite and quote from? And should I begin with Suttie's "The Origin of Love and Hate" from back in the 1930's or do you wish me to stay with more recent works. Perhaps you are aware of the works of Dr. M. Scott Peck, and his opinion on the matter. Or perhaps you prefer Dr. Alexander Lowen's work, which is still sometimes used as a textbook.

                                  Now if you wish to discuss relativity, I will have to go get my copy of a book called "Relativity" by someone named A. Einstein to be certain that I get it correcly. Now I acknowledge that the original work dealt basically with the material world, but its implications extend far beyound the mere physical also.

                                  Further, should you wish to argue the exact meaning of the Bible, we can rapidly expand this debate to cover some points that could be difficult to explain from a traditional viewpoint such as you seem to wish to defend. However, to do so would rapidly get outside of realms that are usually considered within the scope of bible studies, although when their relevance is revealed, I find many PhD's to agree that they are relevant. The biggest problem is a lack of knowledge in the expanded realm. If you do not wish to do this though, then we must simply agree to disagree in regards to what exactly is implied in 1 John regarding lawlessness. We may ultimately end at the same point, but the process of getting there would be different.

                                  Bill

                                  --- In biblicalapologetics@yahoogroups.com, "Rob" <faithhasitsreasons@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Bill,
                                  >
                                  > You wrote:
                                  >
                                  > << You asked about what the Theory of Relativity has to do with Sin. The Theory of Relativity includes the con=cept of a space-time continum. This is overly simply put that any given object viewed from different positions maintains its position relative to other objects. Thus they are part of the same continum. Now what humanity does, evidentially at approximately 7 months of age, is to remove themselves from the space-time continum by creating something that can only be viewed from one perspective, and then maintian for the rest of their lives that it is real. This thing that is created is our self-image, that only the individual can preceive. This false belief fits, with varying degrees of success, with the true space-time continum and we consider it to be "normal". However, from a psychiatric viewpoint it is clearly recognized as a form of mental illness, which all humans suffer from. In most cases it is mild enough that it does not interfere with daily activity, but it does at times create sufficient problems that require treatment. This problem is present in virtually all, if not all, treated mental disorders, and fits perfectly with the biblical definition of Sin, even if not with the thneological definition. >>
                                  >
                                  > Your explanation of sin as a mental disorder of belief in the reality of one's self has nothing to do with either the theory of relativity, psychiatry, or the biblical teaching about sin! Nor is your explanation of relativity correct (even allowing that you presented it as an oversimplification).
                                  >
                                  > The theories (there are basically two of them) of relativity have to do with the nature and interrelationships of space, time, light, and motion. They have nothing to do with psychological states of mind or beliefs.
                                  >
                                  > The belief in the reality of one's self is not a mental disorder or mental illness. No recognized textbook or reference work on psychiatry categorizes belief in the reality of one's self as a mental disorder. Indeed, some mental disorders have as characteristic symptoms a lack of a well-formed concept or awareness of one's self. For example, one of the symptoms often associated with borderline personality disorder is a lack of confidence in one's own reality as a self.
                                  >
                                  > The biblical view of sin in no way challenges the belief in the reality of one's self. The biblical worldview, unlike the worldviews of pantheistic forms of Hinduism or Buddhism, unambiguously affirms the reality of the individual self as a distinct being. The "I" of human beings' first-person predication ("I am Moses," etc.) is assumed throughout the Bible to be real. That you and I are distinct persons, distinct beings, with individuality and an abiding self, is basic to the biblical worldview. Sin is not belief in the reality of one's self but the virtual *deification* of oneself, the arrogant belief that life is or should be whatever I decree it to be, that I am free to ignore what the Creator reveals is the purpose and values that should govern my life. "Sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4), that is, the disregard for the law of God ("the transgression of the law," KJV).
                                  >
                                  > You wrote:
                                  >
                                  > << Now regarding the different versions of quantum theory that you referred to, are these truly different versions or are they variations on one of the two basic understandings. Please bear in mind that all religions may be reduced to just two, when the basic principles are looked at, ignoring the fluff that states that mine is correct in all details and no other is. God is either independent of creation (theism) or God is part of what we call creation (pantheism and panentheism). There is no true third option. Atheism is not because it still leaves us with only creation, and thus is a specific variation on pantheism. >>
                                  >
                                  > I'm curious whether you advocate theism or pantheism.
                                  >
                                  > In Christ's service,
                                  > Rob Bowman
                                  >
                                • R.hero
                                  Jesus as God is the theme in John s Gospel. His Deity is many times asserted. Jn.1:1-3,14.33-34,49; 3:13-20;5:23,26;6:51,62;8:58;13:33;20:28,31 John 1 1In the
                                  Message 17 of 17 , Oct 8 11:46 AM
                                    Jesus as God is the theme in John's Gospel. His Deity is many times asserted.

                                    Jn.1:1-3,14.33-34,49; 3:13-20;5:23,26;6:51,62;8:58;13:33;20:28,31

                                    John 1
                                    1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
                                    2The same was in the beginning with God.
                                    3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
                                    John 3:
                                    13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
                                    14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
                                    15That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
                                    16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
                                    17For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
                                    18He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
                                    19And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
                                    20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
                                    John 5
                                    23That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

                                    John 5
                                    26For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
                                    John 61
                                    51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
                                    John 6
                                    62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

                                    John 8
                                    58Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
                                    John 13
                                    33Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.

                                    John 20
                                    28And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

                                    John 20
                                    31But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

                                    In John's Gospel Jesus Deity is witnessed by:
                                    1.The Father Jn5:32-37,8:18
                                    2. The Son 8:14; 18:37
                                    3. The Holy Spirit 15:26;16:13-15
                                    4.The written word 1:45;5:39-46
                                    5.Works 5;17,36;10:25;14:11;15:24
                                    6.John the Baptist 1:7;5:32-35
                                    7. Disciples 15:27;19:35;21:24
                                    Therefore it is resonable to assume Jn12:41 does refer to Jesus as Jehovah as well.
                                    Having two separate Jehovahs is also clear from Gen.19:24

                                    24Then the LORD(Heb.Jehovah) rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire FROM the LORD(Heb.Jehovah) out of heaven;
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.