LVRON@saturn.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) (01/03/91)
In article <Dec.25.00.55.51.1990.4387@athos.rutgers.edu>, you write... >djo@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes: >> IT IS LOGICALLY INFEASIBLE TO ACCEPT JESUS AS "JUST A TEACHER." >> First, all we know about Him is what the Gospels say.... [The Gospels] >> have him claiming, repeatedly, to be the Savior, the Son of God, the >> Son of Man, etc. >And there are problems with reading these as claims to divinity. >I don't recall that the term "savior" appears in any of the Gospels. Then you forgot the Christmas story. "Unto you is born this day in Bethlehem a saviour, which is Christ the Lord." [...] >"Son of Man" is a code phrase for the messiah, and the term "Christ" is >greek for "messiah". Although there were various views on the nature of >the messianic role, the messiah (literally "the anointed one," which in >itself implies a human *called into* service) was not a divinity. Jesus >probably saw himself as the messiah, which suggests that he did not >believe himself to be divine. The term "belief," if it applies, also suggests Christ would not be divine. If he is God in the flesh, he doesn't need to "believe" it. He knows it. >This issue is more complex than I have time to do justice to, but in >summary, the Gospels do not unambiguously claim that Jesus was divine. But Jesus does o affirm his one-ness with the Father; o receive worship; o claim the ability to command angels; etc. etc. If these are not aspects held in combination uniquely by divinity, I would be beholden to see other examples. The way around this argument is to recognize that these were only claims, not evidence. Of course, folks who make such claims without evidence are charlatans, and do not qualify as "great moral teachers." [...] >Based upon the evidence of the Gospels, it is fairly certain that Jesus >was crucified. But all scientific study of death indicates that once >somebody dies, they don't come back to life. Perhaps Jesus died on >the cross, perhaps he didn't; this is something that must be decided >(if possible) using the limited historical evidence available. But no >historian, thinking the way historians customarily think, would even >consider the possibility that Jesus died and came back to life. This brings up an interesting question, IMPO. Do historians, thinking the way they customarily do, see Christ as important in any way? If so, why? My line of thinking is, without the resurrection Christianity has nothing to offer. Happy holidays. RG [It's my impression that historians (when operating professionally, i.e. not as a matter of personal faith) do not believe that the NT story can be dealt with using the tools of history. History can deal with the development of the Church. Obviously Christ is important to history because of the importance of the Christian Church. But Jesus' resurrection and the NT witness as a whole are not events that historians can deal with. They are claimed to be in effect super- historical, i.e. not to follow the normal laws of history. So either a historian has to reject it on principle, or simply refuse to deal with it and say "I can talk about the history of the Church, but the Resurrection is a matter of faith, not history". I'm not terribly interested in duplicating here the discussion on historical testability of Christian that went on recently in talk.religion.misc. There are plenty of Christians who believe there is good evidence for Christianity. But I think by and large professional historians adopt the view I just described, and that's what you asked. --clh]
ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) (01/09/91)
Whoever says that the Bible does not establish the divinity of Jesus has not been reading the Bible. In the first chapter of the Gospel of John, the Word, who is actually Jesus Christ, is identified not just as Savior, Son, or whatever, but as God Himself. "In the beginning was the Word" - the Word has always existed "...and the Word was with God..." - the Word is a part of God "...and THE WORD WAS GOD." - self-explanitory "Through him all things were made, without him nothing was made that has been made." - the Word created everything. Without the Word, nothing would exist. The whole universe would fly into nothingness. "AND THE WORD BECAME FLESH AND DWELT AMONG US." - God, who has always existed and created all things, put himself in a human form that we know and love so well - Jesus Christ.
fraser@uunet.uu.net (Fraser Orr) (01/16/91)
In article <Jan.9.02.37.06.1991.2522@athos.rutgers.edu>, ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes: |> Whoever says that the Bible does not establish the divinity of Jesus has |> not been reading the Bible. In the first chapter of the Gospel of John, |> the Word, who is actually Jesus Christ, is identified not just as Savior, Son, |> or whatever, but as God Himself. |> |> "In the beginning was the Word" - the Word has always existed |> "...and the Word was with God..." - the Word is a part of God |> "...and THE WORD WAS GOD." - self-explanitory I find it very irritating when someone arogantly claims "Whoever says that the Bible does not establish the divinity of Jesus has not been reading the Bible." I read the Bible, and this verse says not that Jesus was God, on the contrary it ways the Word was God. "Ah but," I hear all my trinitarian friends saying, "it says in verse 14 that Jesus is the word." Again, when I read the Bible it says "and the word became flesh and dwelt amongst us". Now it is extremeely clear from the context that the flesh in this verse refers to the Lord Jesus Christ, 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. In verse 1, the word "Word" is of course logos in Greek. This does not refer to a simple gramatical unit, but to a message, a logical, reasoned communication. This logos is the Word of God both written and spoken. It was in the beginning, it was with God in the beginning, and it was God, because it conveyed God in whole. It was the Word that framed the world (Heb 11:3, Gen 1:3ff), It is the same word given in the scriptures. Now, starting from Gen 3:15 and the events following the fall God has been promising to send a saviour for his people. All these promises were fulfilled in the comming of the Lord. In this way, the promises of God, the word, were made flesh being fulfilled in the flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ. This beautiful fourteenth verse declares to all who are willing to here that God had fully provided for mankind, just as he promised, in the man, the Lord Jesus Christ. I am not trying to establish that Jesus Christ was not God, although this is what I believe the Bible teaches. What I am trying to say is that this verse, so often used as a clear statement of the divinity of Jesus, most certainly does not clearly state this. Reading what the verse actually says yields a much more profitable interpretation. ==Fraser Orr <fraser@edc.uucp> +44 506 416778x206 UseNet: {uunet,sun}!atexnet!fraser JANet: fraser%edc@cs.hw.ac.uk
ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) (01/23/91)
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: > |> > |> "In the beginning was the Word" - the Word has always existed > |> "...and the Word was with God..." - the Word is a part of God > |> "...and THE WORD WAS GOD." - self-explanitory > > I find it very irritating when someone arogantly claims "Whoever > says that the Bible does not establish the divinity of Jesus has not > been reading the Bible." 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. > 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 Now, you go on to say that it does not say that Jesus Christ is the Word. However, if you take the chapter in whole, you will find that it does. It says that the Word is the "light of the world." Jesus told us that he is the "light of the world." Therefore, as above, Word = Light of world, Jesus = Light of world => Word = Jesus => Jesus = God 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. AGain, Jesus = forgave sins, God = only one who can forgive sins => Jesus = God Elizabeth
vm0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Vincent Paul Mulhern) (01/23/91)
>I find it very irritating when someone arogantly claims "Whoever >says that the Bible does not establish the divinity of Jesus has not >been reading the Bible." I read the Bible, and this verse says not that >Jesus was God, on the contrary it ways the Word was God. "Ah but," I >hear all my trinitarian friends saying, "it says in verse 14 that Jesus >is the word." Again, when I read the Bible it says "and the word became >flesh and dwelt amongst us". Now it is extremeely clear from the >context that the flesh in this verse refers to the Lord Jesus Christ, >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. 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"... Jesus is Lord Vince Mulhern