Competing emphasis.

[Elijah John]

Bible literalists deny there are any contradictions in the Bible, they claim it is perfect. Even when contradictions are presented, they

a) engage in linguistic, verbal and theological gymnastics in order to deny what they consider the "apparent" contradiction.

b) simply deny the obvious contradiction with arguments that pretty much amount to little more than "is not"..... "that's not what it says" but often fail to tell us what the passage in question does say.

c) launch personal attacks against the person who presents the contradiction as "lacking understanding" or being "of the flesh" and therefore cannot understand the deeper truths of God, since they are "spiritually discerned".

d) appeal to the original Greek or Hebrew, and insist there is no contradiction in the original languages.

e) occasionally admit to a contradiction, but point out that the contradiction is not "significant".

But I wonder, can we get some Fundamentalists here to admit that there is an actual contradiction of emphasis between the Gospel of John vs the Synoptic Gospels?

In the Synoptics Jesus always glorifies the Father, and teaches his disciples to do the same.

By contrast,

In the Gospel of John, Jesus grasps for the glory that he "shared with the Father",

If this is not a contradiciton of emphsis, what is it?

And isn't this a major contradiciton, in effect, two completely different Jesus Christs?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 10 by shnarkle]

Only theolgical and philosophical gymnastics sees "Christ" in the Shema. "God" and "LORD" (YHVH) in the Shema are one in the same. I'm not convicned that even Paul equated LORD YHVH with "Christ".

Though I do admit, (and this is a point I have been trying to make here on these boards) that functionally Paul seems to consider "Christ" his God. Even while paying lip service to the Father.

Paul puts the name of Jesus above all. Even, presumably, above YHVH Himself.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 10 by shnarkle]

Only theolgical and philosophical gymnastics sees "Christ" in the Shema. "God" and "LORD" (YHVH) in the Shema are one in the same. I'm not convicned that even Paul equated LORD YHVH with "Christ".

Though I do admit, (and this is a point I have been trying to make here on these boards) that functionally Paul seems to consider "Christ" his God. Even while paying lip service to the Father.

Paul puts the name of Jesus above all. Even, presumably, above YHVH Himself.

I think you're on to something there with your idea of the functionality of Christ. Christ is the image of God so if one wants to look at or to God, they can't look anywhere else except at Christ.

I don't see Paul viewing Christ as God though because he explicitly states that the father is God, and by limiting God to the origin of being, he negates the possiblity of God's existence being found anywhere oher than in Christ. It isn't that Paul puts Christ at a level above God, but as the only mediator to God.

The fact is that the terms God and Lord aren't equivalent. The Shema could never be articulated as "Hear O Israel, the Gods, your lord are one Gods. I don't know why it isn't articulated as "Hear O Israel, the Lord your Gods are one Lord". Elohim is in the plural so "one" doesn't look like it is necessarily referring to numeration.

The gospel writers have Jesus say essentially the same thing when he says, "I and the Father are one", so I'm not the one doing the gymnastics here, the writers of these texts are the one's flipping our understanding of who or what God is around.

[brianbbs67]

Elohim is God of hosts, that's why its plural. El is a generic term like God. Although God does seem to refer to Himself in the plural at times.