The only reason i'm making the distinction is because its important not to conflate the High Christology of John with the beleifs of the other Gospel writers. Reading Johns beliefs back on to the synoptics, its possible to make it work, but it distorts the theology of the earlier texts greatly. Reading the Gospels independantly is v. important for discovering what they are trying to say. each has a specific theological agenda, and its good to let each author speak from themselves, and not simply blend them all in.
Sea/Fire. Not the point i was making. Elijah does these acts by God's intercession. God responds to the request of one he has annointed to preach to Isreal, and uses God's power to assist the proclaimation of that prophet. Elijah had no control over the fire.
In Mark's story, it is not clear by what authority Jesus does this or other miracles. John even still retains this Father centric passage in 5:30
Quote:
|
"I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.
|
So, while power over sea and water is divine, it is not clear that Jesus possess this power personally, or at the bequest of God the Creator (Father). If Jesus personally can control forces of chaos...perhaps its a signal of divinity. If Jesus can request God's control over forces of chaos, he is one who is close to God's heart.
This is not to say i'm not trinitarian. I've used this explination before:
Quote:
|
it is a means of reflecting on three ways in which God has made God's self known in the world. God has created, God has redeemed, God has come to dwell in our hearts. Or i could say God is the Parent, God is the Christ, God is the Spirit.
|
I guess my trinitarianism is more unitarian that most: i don't tend to think of them as separate persons or entities...it is simply a means of thinking about the various ways in which God is revealed to us.
A post script on John and the synoptics...its important if you're going to trace who the historical Jesus is. If you're soley interested in the Christ of faith...then you can simply lump John in. But i believe that faith must be true to Jesus' original message, not just the later traditions. And John doesn't have a lot to say about the historical Jesus. His material is collected late, highly edited, and displays a great deal of Church redaction. Simply, it is challenging to trust that text as a witness, even moreso than the other Gospels.
PPS: John displays a lack of knowledge of geography and facts, that makes it highly unlikely to be written by a Disciple. The traditional beleif while good intentioned, is with out scholarly support.