[soc.religion.christian] Jn 1:1 - Who was Jesus

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.