fraser@uunet.uu.net (Fraser Orr) (02/08/91)
In article <Jan.16.04.07.31.1991.8643@aramis.rutgers.edu>, edc!fraser@uunet.uu.net (Fraser Orr) writes: > In article <Jan.9.02.37.06.1991.2522@athos.rutgers.edu>, ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes: >I did not intend to be arrogant and I apologize if I offended you. I have >found that most people who set out to argue against the Bible or Jesus are not >very familiar with the NT. Before I go any further I would like to make it clear that I am not arguing against the Bible or Jesus. I believe the Bible is the word of God and treat it as my only rule for christian doctrine. Furthermore Jesus Christ is my saviour and Lord, I most certainly don't argue against him. On the contrary, it is my desire to have an accurate understanding of both. It says in Ephesians that Christ is the cornerstone of Christianity, so if you don't know who Jesus is, your understanding of Christianity is very limited. It is only because of this fact that I am prepared to go against all tradition in the Christian church and say I believe the Bible teaches that God is God, and Jesus Christ is not God, but the Son of God, and the only hope for mankind. Having said that I do not plan to write a detailed exegesis of why I believe this to be so, I will confine myself to the subject of the original article Jn 1:1. Since someone brought up the interesting subject of Jn 10:30, I will also mention that at the end. >> and so it says that at his birth the Word became flesh. It does not say >> that Jesus Christ and the Word were the same thing. > >It does not have to say that Christ is the Word in order for us to understand >this. Now, you have already agreed that the John ch. 1 says that the Word >is God and the Word is Flesh. Now, if you believe that > >Word = God and Word = Flesh, >then you must concded that God = Flesh As I said above I do not believe that Word=Flesh. I believe that the Word became flesh as it clearly states in v14 of this chapter. If I may use an example. A childless couple might dream of having a baby. They might plan for it, they might imagine it, but all their planning and trying are not the baby. Sometime later their plans and dreams come to fruition and they have a child, the dream you might say has become flesh, the flesh of that little baby. This is the great truth here in v14 of Jn 1. From the beginning of time God had planned to send a saviour for his people, first predicted immediately after the fall in Gen 3:15, reiterated all throughout the old testament, finally that great plan of salvation became flesh in the birth of Jesus at Nazareth. The child was the manifestation of all that planning. This planning was written down in the OT amongst other places, and that is why it is called the Word, the message, the plan. This is a great truth that takes a long time to sink into the brain. If any of you have a real desire to understand this subject, I suggest you give this careful and deep consideration, rather than immediately shooting from the hip. I come from a trinitarian background. I understand, perhaps better than most the trinitarian argument on this subject since I have put it so many times. But the truth conveyed in this verse is so great and so majestic that I find it sad when I hear it used rather vaguely and wrongly as a "proof text" for an erroneous doctrine. The same truths are taught regarding the Word as the light of the world. The promise of God of a saviour was the only light the world could have, and that light was manifested in the flesh in the Lord Jesus Christ, so he also was the light of the world. >Furthermore, we are told that Jesus forgave sins. This one of the reasons >that he was tried for heresy. We are further told that only God can >forgive sins. Your statement that "Only God can forgive sins" is based on the statement of the religious leaders who hated Jesus at this time. I do not accept their judgement on the matter, perhaps the man Jesus had divine authority from the Father to forgive sins. >Elizabeth [Vince Mulhern writes...] > Jesus said, "I and the Father are One." On more than one occasion, >the people He was talking to were convinced enough that HE HIMSELF WAS >CLAIMING TO BE GOD that they tried to kill Him then & there. You'd >think He might have cleared it all up by saying, I'm sorry...that's not >what I meant. I'm just a man, but PLEASE understand that God wants me >to tell you such and such..." Nope. He called Himself "I AM"... This is that rather interesting verse in Jn 10:30. A little research into the translation here will clear up the difficulty here. If Jesus had meant the thing that he is reported to have meant, then with Jesus and God both being in the masculine gender, the word 'one' would also be in the masculine. This is not the case in any any Greek manuscript I know of. In every case it the in the neuter gender (heis is the masculine hen is the neuter). This indicates that he did not mean one in person, but one in some other way, perhaps from the context you might deduce he meant one in purpose. Let me just reiterate that point. When people say that Jn 10:30 means that Jesus claimed that he and his Father were one person or substance they are wrong. An interesting parallel can be found in 1Cor 3:7-8 where Paul claims he and Apollos are one (again in the neuter gender), one in the purpose of seeing the Corinthians fully matured as Christians. Finally on this subject of Jesus claiming to be the "I AM", I would like to say that this whole subject is flimsy in the extreme. It is based first of all on an erroneous translation of the Hebrew in Ex 3:14, followed by a ridiculous assumption on the part of just about every theologian ever to have lived followed by very careless handling of the NT. Rather than going into details of the Hebrew let me just give an overview. The statement in Ex 3:14 where Moses asks God's name would be better translated "I will become, what I will become". This is probably a better translation from a purely linguistic point of view, and contextually it fits much better. Secondly, based on this verse people have said that God's name is "I AM". People then went on to say that the Hebrew word conventionally translated "the LORD", or Jehovah was the same as the Hebrew word for "I AM". This is simply not true. The Hebrew word used for "the LORD" is yahweh, the Hebrew for "I AM" is 'ehyeh, or in root form hayah. Perhaps I am just stupid, but I do not see the similarity between the two words. Following on, people compound this error by seeing a claim to divinity every time Jesus says "I am", "I am the light of the world, I am the true door" etc. It takes an unreasonable jump in logic to say that this is a claim to divinity and not just a simple statement. There is one difficult passage that people get confused with though and that is at the end of Jn 8, where Jesus says "before Abraham was, I am". This again is simply an assertion that he was the Christ that was to come. He was given in the form of a promise many years before the birth of Abraham. This is further illustrated by the context, primarily the following context in Jn 9, where a blind man is healed. This healing is the positive proof from the OT that Jesus was the Christ, because only the Messiah could heal a man born blind. >Jesus is Lord >Vince Mulhern I know this is a controversial subject, but as Peter said, is it not better to obey God than men? God Bless, ==Fraser Orr <fraser@edc.uucp> +44 506 416778x206 UseNet: {uunet,sun}!atexnet!fraser JANet: fraser%edc@cs.hw.ac.uk
math1h3@jetson.uh.edu (02/12/91)
In article <Feb.8.04.22.30.1991.16075@athos.rutgers.edu>, edc!fraser@uunet.uu.net (Fraser Orr) writes: > In article <Jan.16.04.07.31.1991.8643@aramis.rutgers.edu>, edc!fraser@uunet.uu.net (Fraser Orr) writes: On the question of Christ's divinity: Elizabeth Tallant wrote: >>Furthermore, we are told that Jesus forgave sins. This one of the reasons >>that he was tried for heresy. We are further told that only God can >>forgive sins. > > Your statement that "Only God can forgive sins" is based on the > statement of the religious leaders who hated Jesus at this time. I do > not accept their judgement on the matter, perhaps the man Jesus had > divine authority from the Father to forgive sins. Take a look at Psalm 49:7: "No man can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for him -- the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough-- that he should live on forever and not see decay." Also take a look at Romans 9:5: "Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen". Yes, some translate the end of this 'God who is over all be forever praised,' but this passage clearly intends to contrasts Christ's 'human ancestry' with his divinity. Why call his ancestry human, if there is nothing special about that? Furthermore look at Romans 10:9-13, which begins with 'That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord", and believe in you heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.' It ends with 'for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved." '. This quotes Joel 2:32. Joel used the name Yahweh here, so Paul clearly identified Jesus with Yahweh. It is interesting to note that Romans 10:9 says that God raised Jesus, but in John 2:19 Jesus said: "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." So if Jesus is not God, how could he raise himself from the dead? David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran "Tis good, Lord, to be here, Thy glory fills the night; Thy face and garments, like the sun, Shine with unborrowed light. "'Tis good, Lord, to be here, Thy beauty to behold Where Moses and Elijah stand, Thy messengers of old. "Fulfiller of the past, Promise of things to be, We hail Thy body glorified And our redemption see. "Before we taste of death, We see Thy kingdom come; We fain would hold the vision bright And make this hill our home. " 'Tis good, Lord, to be here. Yet we may not remain; But since Thou bidst us leave the mount, Come with us to the plain." --"Tis Good, Lord, to be Here" --Joseph A. Robinson, 1888 from "The Lutheran Hymnal" #135 Have a blessed Transfiguration Sunday! My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.