(September 9, 2013 at 3:01 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I know you're kidding but John does seem to be written for a specific audience: the Trinitarian audience.
If you read the Synoptic Gospels only, you'd have no clue that Jesus was supposed to be "one with his father". Search Matthew, Mark or Luke in vein for any support for the modern Trinity concept.
The Synoptic Jesus was clearly a lesser being, utterly subservient to and separate from his father-god. This includes rebuking a compliment "Why do you call me 'good'? There is none good but God." It includes claiming to not be as knowledgeable "no man knows the day, not even the son, but the father only" and having a separate will "not my will but thy will be done". Throughout the Synoptics, Jesus and his dad speak to each other in second person and of each other in third.
John was clearly a later Gospel, probably much later than the 1st century, written to advance a story consistent with orthodox theology.
There's a lot I wouldn't argue with here. Developing an over-clever Trinity concept was probably unhelpful, if probably unavoidable.
The conception of the Early Church was not of some obviously divine individual who wandered around with a far off expression in his eyes and a permanent halo around his head. (Actually that would be quite useful. Finding dropped coins at night, that sort of thing.)
There is a tension between God's transcendence and his action in the world. In the Jewish story, God communicates through such things as the Pillar of Cloud/Fire, the Burning Bush and the Torah. Jesus was seen as another in that line- God's presence in the world, on this occasion in human form. As a human, there were restrictions (could be killed, didn't contain all knowledge).
Geza Vermes (Jewish ex-Xian) deals best with the “Why do you call me good?” thing. He compares it to the “Call no man father” passage (Matthew 23). The focus on both of these is not the object (Jesus, father) but on God. In the same way as he's saying, 'Your understanding of the word father is utterly inadequate compared to God's fatherliness', he's saying 'Your understanding of the word good is utterly inadequate compared to God's goodness'.
Finally, the Synoptics don't hammer the 'Jesus as God' issue, because they're deliberately doing a long run up story. There are references (Bad tenants who kill the son, “No one knows the Father except the Son”, use of Daniel in Jesus' trial). However, might I gently suggest that the lack of references indicates the Synoptic writers were being careful to avoid reading back into their accounts the Christology they were developing? That they were concerned more with accuracy than theology?
