From: Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill)
Subject: Re: JESUS IS GOD (Was: Yeshua the Man...)
Organization: University of Tasmania (Australia)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:00:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.140117.15570@ucl.ac.uk>, ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar) writes:
 
> In article <1993Jan6.035437.18062@newsroom.utas.edu.au> Tim.ONeill@utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes
> 
> >I was forced to conclude that there were no clear 
> >references to his supposed divinity in the synoptic gospels
> 
> This reflects your lack of training, Tim. It has nothing to do with the synoptics.  Let me give you one example you would never spot:

By all means Vijay, though I must say that the difficulty we are having
in reading your post may reflect  your lack of training regarding carriage
returns. I'm also intrigued to know how you know what training I have
or haven't had. For all you know I could be a lecturer in Theology. If
you disagree with my opinions and conclusions, then that's fair enough,
but avoid the temptation to get all superior with me, okay old sport?
  
> The High Priest questions Jesus: "Are you the Messiah?".
> "I am" comes the reply and the High Priest tears his clothes (Mk 14:61f). 
> 
> This is a reaction to hearing the Divine Name YHWH which also means "I am" 
> (Source: Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 56a).  So here Jesus claims to be Messiah 
> and God at the same time.

Please Vijay, you're making me laugh! Let's see now, Annas asks Jesus if he is 
the annointed one of God and Jesus replies 'I am: and ye shall see the Son of 
Man sitting on the right hand of power. . . etc etc' Are you seriously trying to
tell me that simply because Jesus used the first person present form of the
Aramaic verb 'to be', he was claiming to be God??!! *This* is the best you can
come up with as regards evidence for his alleged divinity from the synoptic 
gospels? Excuse me, but I am less than impressed. (But I suppose that's just my
miserable lack of training, isn't that right Vijay old son)
   
> (Incidentally there is a thought that even by this time the name was considered 
> to be so sacred that it was passed only from High Priest to High Priest. The fact that 
> Jesus pronounced it correctly should have been enough proof to testify to his 
> Messiahship)

Well ,you're piling a supposition on a supposition here. First you're assuming
Jesus was using Hebrew rather than conversational Aramaic (we'll never know,
since the gospel account is in Koine Greek), then you're assuming that he was 
claiming to be Yahweh and finally you're assuming that the pronunciation was
secret and that he got it right. Once again, I'm less than overwhelmed.
 
> >Perhaps I should end by giving Jesus the last word, or at least, I would
> >if we could figure out what his last words were. John's gospel tells
> >us it was a triumphant 'It is accomplished!'. Luke settles for a resigned
> >'Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.', but it is Mark's Gospel
> >which gives the account which is closest to the event and which has a 
> >chilling feel of authenticity:'Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?!' My God,
> >My God, Why have you forsaken me?! Now that sounds like the cry of 
> >a simple faith-healer and preacher who got caught up in events too big for
> >him.
 
> Again, lack of training.  This is the opening line to Psalm 22. 

Again, presumptive arrogance. Of course it is the opening to
Psalm 22. My point is the fact that Luke and John quietly edit it
out of their accounts shows that they, at least, were not as confident
as you that it was something other than a cry of despair.

>Jesus was 
>identifying himself as the subject of this prophecy which predicts his crucifixion

Well, it may predict his crucifixion if you look at it with your magic Spectacles
of Extreme Faith on, but to me it looks like a poem about someone in severe distress
who is asking God to help him against his enemies. Where there lions, dogs
and 'bulls of Bashan' on Cavalry? Most biblical scholars accept that the disciples
were more than a little bit distressed by Jesus' execution, so they turned to the
OT to find how this could have happened to the man they believed to be the 
Messiah. Psalm 22 and the Suffering Servant passages in Isaiah provided them
with some material to use in their argument that Jesus' death was actually part
of God's plan. It is also likely that the accounts of the crucifixion were actually
written with one eye on Psalm 22. 

>- a quick study:
> 
> THEY HAVE PIERCED MY HANDS AND FEET (22:16)
> Guess how this was fulfilled ?
Guess how this was mistranslated? The Hebrew actually reads
'Like a lion, my hands and feet' Nothing there about piercing at all.
This was conveniently twisted to make it *look* like a prediction of
the execution of Jesus.
 
> ALL MY BONES ARE OUT OF JOINT (22:14)
> This describes a man hanging limp from his cross
Does it really? Or is it a figurative expression for extreme distress?
Okay, let's take it literally. What do you make of 22:12 then?
Are you telling me that some bulls came up from Bashan and bit
Jesus while he hung on the cross?
 
> I CAN COUNT ALL MY BONES (22:17)
> This describes the skeletal figure of Jesus
Why was he skeletal? He'd been eating pretty well before he was
arrested. He'd just enjoyed a passover seder. Or could this be 
another poetic and figurative expression of someone in dire
straits which was written hundreds of years before Jesus and
has nothing to do with him.
 
> I'll leave it as an exercise for you to read the whole of this Psalm and see that it 
>clearly depicts a man tortured in both body and soul, mocked by his onlookers, 
>dying and praying for deliverance, which eventually came three days later.

I've read the whole psalm, and it has always struck me that any interpretation
of it as a prediction of Jesus' execution is extremely forced. *The Interpreters
Dictionary of the Bible* states flatly that it cannot be seen in this way at all,
and that it was clearly used by the gospel writers when they wrote their
accounts of the crucifixion. This can be demonstrated by the fact that their
accounts use mistranslations (such as verse 16) which are to be found in the
first century Septuagint but not in the original Hebrew. Their use of this Psalm 
accounts for any similarities quite adequately.

But then again, what would I know, I haven't  had enough training :-)
(For 'training' read 'brainwashing' perhaps?)

Tim O'Neill
Tasmanian Devil