From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: Did Jesus Claim to be God (Finally?)
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 01:58:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug10.230219.4894@tc.fluke.COM>, emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:

> Back from vacation...

Welcome back John.

> A side point here if I may.  Whether one willing to give the Messiah
> the title of God or not, one who accepts the Biblical testimony of
> Jesus will see that this testimony places one accountable to Him: to 
> follow Him, to love Him above all else, to live one's life for Him, to 
> live one's life by faith in *Him*, to remain true to Him and not deny
> His name, to confess Him before men, to trust Him, to obey Him, to
> fellowship with Him, to belong to Him.
> 
> Tim closes his response with the following:
> 
> >Yes, he was the MESSIAH sent to judge us all, of course we are
> >accountable to him according to Matthew.
> 
> Agreed my friend.  You see also that He is to be our Lord and also
> of heaven and earth.

But you've missed my point. The fact that the gospels say we are accountable 
to him does not in any way imply that he is God. They believed he was the
messiah, and that as the messiah he was returning to Earth at the coming
of the Kingdom to judge the living and the dead (the last judgement before
Yahweh was one of the messianic roles). So the stress on our accountability
to Jesus is not an indication of any supposed divinity.
> 
> >> Who can change the heart but God alone?  Who can take away sins but God
> >> alone?  
> >
> >Try THE MESSIAH
> 
> Yes.  Jesus changes hearts and takes away sin.  Only Jesus and His Father
> are able to do this according to the testimony of the Bible!

That's right, the Lord Yahweh and his messiah. Again, there is no indication
of divinity here.

> >> One must also consider the Book of Revelation written by the apostle John.  
> >> Although this was a latter writing, it was written in response to an 
> >>IMMEDIATE revelation in which John, while in prison on the island of Patmos,
> >>beheld the risen Savior and recorded immediately the words spoken to him:
> >
> >WHOAH there John! Was it really? Says who? 
> 
> Most scholars date the Book of Revelation toward the end of the first
> century.  The argument of the later NT writings, brought out in this
> thread, was that the longer elapsed time from the witnessed events of
> Jesus' life and the actual writing made them less reliable.  However,
> this is not so in this case.  Internal evidence shows the letter to be 
> written in response to the vision John saw while in prison:

This is assuming (i) that the book really was written as the result of a
vision (this was a standard topos in the jewish apocalyptic genre), (ii)
that the vision was genuine (visions are and always have been a dime a
dozen in religions throughout the world) and (iii) that the vision was
revealed by the divine Jesus. I would say that Revelation was a standard
jewish eschatological work which conforms to all the conventions of the
apocalyptic genre. It's purpose was to make a number of theological
and eschatological points and doesn't represent any real vision at all.
You'd say that it was a revelation of Jesus to John. So what you are saying 
is:'  Jesus is divine because he said so to John in a vision.' To which I
reply 'I don't believe you. Let's stick to documentary facts.'

[Zillions of 'Revelations' quotes deleted]

> Concerning the worship of
> the Lord Jesus, Tim writes:
> 
> >Really? Come on John, it was *me* who pointed this out to *you* last time
> >you tried this argument. And does 'proskuneo' mean to 'worship as a god'?
> >No it doesn't. It means to simply bow down before. I cited many references
> >to the Septuagint where this verb is used in reference to people bowing
> >to angels, kings and prophets; are they gods as well? 
> 
> However, in this book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, John tries to
> bow down (proskuneo) before the angel with him, and the angel rebukes
> him saying:
> 
> Rev 22:9 "Do not do it!  I am a fellow servant with you and your 
> brothers the prophets and all who keep the words of this book.  Worship 
> (proskuneo) God.!"

Leaving aside the date and credibility of Revelation for a moment; this 
passage has the angel saying 'What are you bowing to me for you idiot?!
Bow down to God, there he is, over there.' To bow before an angel while
being shown a vision of God would be like bowing to a client king while
in the presence of the Roman Emperor: very rude and very stupid.
The fact that John thought it appropriate to bow before an angel shows
that 'proskuneo' does NOT have the same connotations as 'worship', which
I have already demonstrated by my reference to the Septuagint (unless, of
course, the evangelist was in the habit of worshipping beings other than
God ;-))

[Zillions more Revelations quotes expunged]

> >> Of John the Baptist who came to prepare the way for Jesus, Matthew cites
> >> the prophet Isaiah:
> >> 
> >> Matthew 3:3 This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: "A
> >> voice of one calling in the desert, `Prepare the way for the Lord, make
> >> straight paths for him.'" (NIV)
> >> 
> >> This comes from chapter 40 verse 3 of Isaiah.  For surely John came to
> >> prepare the way for Jesus.  Yet when referring to Isaiah, we see that
> >> this Scripture is speaking of the YHWH, the divine name of God:
> >> 
> >> Isaiah 40:3 A voice of calling in the desert: prepare the way for the
> >> LORD (YHWH); make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God."
> >> (NIV)
> >
> >Indeed, and this passage was considered a MESSIANIC prophecy in 
> >Yeshua's day.							       
> 
> And the One, here, is referred to as LORD, the divine name YHWH that
> Israel called God.

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. The coming kingship (or kingdom)
of Yahweh was to be preceeded by the coming messiah. The two ideas originally
seem to have been quite separate, but eventually fused in the concept that
the messiah would usher in the kingship of Yahweh. So prophecies about one
(such as Isaiah 40) came to be treated like prophecies about the other, since
the two were so inextricably linked. Thus, to people of Yeshua's day, Isaiah
40 was a prophecy of both the coming of Yahweh *and* of the messiah.

John the Baptist seems to have been a nabi' who proclaimed the coming of
Yahweh's kingshi, and Yeshua (Jesus) became associated with him. The gospels
take John and turn him into a prophet who proclaims *Jesus'* coming; in Mark
(the earliest gospel) all John does is baptise Jesus who is but one of a crowd
of others, but by the time John's gospel is written, all of the Baptist's 
earlier role has been erased and he becomes simply the proclaimer of Jesus.

It is clear that John had his own followers, his own message and that these
survived his death. (Acts makes it clear that there were disciples of John
in Greece when Paul and co. got there, and it is interesting that there were
rumours that John had risen from the dead after his execution, just as there
were about Jesus after he was executed. In fact the two men's careers are
almost identical, though the Jesus sect later absorbed the John sect.)
The writers of Matthew and Luke seem to have used sources about John preserved
by his followers, and turned them to their own ends. Thus John's use of 
Isaiah 40 to proclaim the coming of Yahweh's kingdom is turned into a reference
to the coming of Jesus AS MESSIAH to usher in that kingdom.  
 
> >> Isaiah 40:9 You who bring good tidings to Zion, go up on a high mountain.
> >> You who bring good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up your voice with a shout,
> >> lift it up, do not be afraid; say to the towns of Judah, "Here is your
> >> God!" (NIV)
> >> 
> >> Isaiah is describing this event as God coming to the towns of Judah!
> >
> >Yes, the coming of the Kingship of Yahweh, his direct rule on Earth. This
> >has nothing to do with Jesus.
> 
> This is a continuation of the same passage that Matthew attributes to
> Jesus (Isaiah 40:3).  The passage goes on to say "Here is your God".
> Not "Here is God's kingship" but God himself!

The coming of Yahweh's direct rule on earth ('basilias' kingship) *was* the 
coming of Yahweh himself,
and this is what Isaiah 40 is all about. You can believe that this refers to 
Jesus if you like, but I, several million jews and quite a few million others
will disagree with you.

> >> Matthew 22:41-45 41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked
> >> them, 42 "What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" "The son of
> >> David," they replied.  43 He said to them, "How is it then that David,
> >> speaking by the Spirit, calls him `Lord'? For he says, 44 "`The Lord said
> >> to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your
> >> feet." ' 45 If then David calls him `Lord,' how can he be his son?" (NIV)
> >> 
> >> This comes from Pslam 110 where Jesus says David is calling him Lord.
> >> More than just a descendant of his, David saw Jesus as his Lord and
> >> also the everlasting priest.
> >
> >Well, that's one way of interpreting this controversial passage. 
> >Another is to say that Jesus was arguing that the Messiah was 
> >*not* going to be the descendant of David. Now that opens up
> >some interesting possibilitiesI
> 
> The point is Jesus was saying that David was calling Him Lord.

The point is that Jesus was saying that David was caling the *messiah*
'lord'. Whether or not Yeshua thought that he was the messiah is a vexed
question, and this text is one indication that he did not think so (even
though his followers certainly did, or at least, they came to). 
 
> >> Matthew also goes on to quote from the prophet Isaiah concerning Jesus:
> >> 
> >> Matthew 4:15-16 15 "Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali, the way to the
> >> sea, along the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles-- 16 the people living in
> >> darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow
> >> of death a light has dawned." (NIV)
> >
> >That this refers to Jesus is entirely the opinion of you and the author of
> >Matthew's Gospel
> 
> Exactly.  That's the point.  Matthew's opinion of Jesus was that he was
> that *great* light that Isaiah spoke about.

And the fact that he was refered to as 'a great light' makes him God incarnate?
 
> >> Perhaps this answers the mystery of why the religious rulers had Jesus
> >> crucified.  What was there charge against Him?  It was that of blasphemy:

> >It was *not* blasphemy to claim to be the messiah (how could it have been?!)
> 
> But the Scripture says it was blasphemy for which He was put to death:
> 
> Matthew 26:65-66 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He 
> has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have 
>            ^^^^^^^^^
> heard the blasphemy.  66 What do you think?" "He is worthy of death," they
>           ^^^^^^^^^                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> answered. (NIV)
> 
> It is very clear that it was because of blasphemy that He was crucified.

The gospels *say* that it was blasphemy to say you were the messiah, and they 
*say* that it was because of this blasphemy that Jesus was crucified. They are
quite wrong on the first count and are almost certainly wrong on the second.
We know what constituted blasphemy amongst the jews in the first century, and 
claiming to be the messiah was *not* (how could it be? *Someone* had to be
the messiah, so how could you execute everyone who did. Besides, we have
independant evidence of people who claimed to be the messiah and were 
questioned by the Sanhedrin about this claim and then allowed to go free)
It is much more likely that the gospels try to make it seem that Jesus
was executed for a jewish religious crime, because the fact that he was 
actually executed for a Roman political crime was bad for their PR. 
 
> >> Matthew 28:19-20 19 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, 
> >> baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the 
> >> Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. 
> >> And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (NIV)
> >
> >This implies his divinity? How? (Take off your trinitarian spectacles
> >before answering).
> 
> It is interesting that Jesus didn't say to baptize in the name of the
> Father only, but also of the Son.  Also notice that Jesus is *the* Son,
> not *a* Son.  He says *the* Father and *the* Son.  God is a relationship:
> the Father and the Son.  

He tells them to baptise in the name of Yahweh, his messiah (THE son) and 
(literally) 'the sacred breath'. There is no implication of divinity here.
Cheers,
Tim O'Neill
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc