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: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 00:55:12 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.000627.19537@tc.fluke.COM>, emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug14.015852.27413@newsroom.utas.edu.au> Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
> >In article <1992Aug10.230219.4894@tc.fluke.COM>, emery@tc.fluke.COM (John Emery) writes:

> >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.
> 
> I guess it's all the way you look at it

Possibly, but I'm asking you for HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, not questionable stuff
that's 'all in the way you look at it'.

> >> 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 who can take away my sin I would only qualify as God.

That's due to 20 centuries of christian cultural programing. If we look at what 
JEWISH people believed in the 1st century however (this is called putting an
ancient text into its historical context) we find that this description also 
fitted the non-divine messiah quite neatly.
 
> >> 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.
> 
> I would be interested in specific historic evidence that has allowed
> you to come to this conclusion.

I would be interested in what evidence *you* have that we can take this example
of a well-worn religious genre at face value as a genuine account of a genuine
vision. You are the one making the highly dubious claim, perhaps you should
provide a shred or two of evidence.

> >[Zillions of 'Revelations' quotes deleted]
> 
> That's because there are many passages that declare the diety of Christ.

No, that's because they are irrelevant to an argument about references to 
Jesus' divinity in early texts because they come from a late text. Let's 
stick to the topic. (And it's 'DEITY' John, not 'diety')
 
> >> 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.'
> 
> Exactly.  Please read on and see who is being worshipped:

[Context of Revelations quote deleted]

OK, my mistake, I should have looked at the passage in context. It doesn't
make any difference to the fact (repeated now for the FOURTH time) that
'proskuneo' does NOT mean 'to worship as a God', it means 'to bow down before'
and it is used about angels, kings and many other people as well as about Jesus (t(
('the Lamb') as messiah *and* God. Have I got that through this time?

> >And the fact that he was refered to as 'a great light' makes him God 
> >incarnate?
> 
> Yes.

Really? Says who?

 
> >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. 
> 
> That's a nice theory.  But the gospel writers recorded the words of
> the Sanhedrin that declared Jesus was claiming to be someone that
> constitued blasphemy.  I have chosen to accept this testimony at face
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> value for which it was intended.  
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well, as I have tried to tell you many times now, you cannot understand ancient
books if you try to read English translations at face value. You have to put 
them in their historical contexts, look at their likely biases, find their sources
of information, check their assertions with independant data and so on.
What I have written above is not simply 'a nice theory', it is a likely hypothesis
based on the fact that the gospels don't fit the historical evidence. If you
want to discuss history with me John, that's fine. But if you simply going to 
say, 'Well that's all very nice, but I prefer my erroneous face-value 
interpretations' then we might as well end our little chat here.

> And this confirms the other accounts 
> within the gospel writings where Jesus was accused of blasphemy.

Yes, of course it does, because two of the first three gosples used the third as
their major source. What else would you expect?  
 
> >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.

> I will continue to share more internal evidence of the early NT writings
> that show Jesus is diety in another post.  Until then...

Look forward to seeing it, but remember, we're are discussing history here.
Incidently, is anyone else reading this thread, or should John and I take this 
to E-Mail?
Tim O'Neill
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:14980 alt.atheism:15989