From: hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LdS ignoring the example of the Bereans
Date: 7 Nov 92 07:06:03 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

klt@b23a.b23a.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer X8127) writes:

>	Aside from the Gosple of John, where can support be found
>	for the correct doctrine that the Promised One of Isreal was
>	also the God of Isreal?  That Jesus was the promised deliverer
>	of Isreal was well established by the other books. However,
>	the essential message of Christiainity is that Jesus as Christ, is
>	also God.  That message is not in the OT, and not in the major
>	portions of the orthodox NT. 

>	In my opinion, it is because of the vision that John saw in the
>	Apocalypse that convinced him that the Man that he personally knew
>	was also God. And for that reason, he wrote a Gosple that is of
>	different form from the other Gosples.  

I'm not sure whether this is intended to be a new subject or a
followup on the previous one.  I'm taking it in the context of the
previous one, which was about how long it took to establish the NT
canon.  Thus observing the critical role of John isn't a problem,
since John is one of the books whose canonical status was never in
question.

But if you look at passages cited in discussions about the divinity of
Christ, you'll find a number of others as well:

  - Paul's letters, explicitly in passages like Col 1:15ff and
	2 Cor 4:6, and more implicitly in passages like 2 Cor 5:18-19, 
	which portray Christ's actions as God's
  - Various passages from the Gospels showing Jesus doing things
	that are inappropriate to a normal human being, e.g.
	forgiving sins.  Not to mention the Virgin Birth.
	(While I am personally very wary of using the Virgin
	Birth as evidence for the Incarnation,  I think it's
	reasonable to think that Matthew intends it to show 
	something akin to the divinity of Christ.)

As far as I know, the only other major source cited in these
discussions is Heb.  While Rev may be interesting in understanding
John, Rev isn't cited all that commonly in doctrinal discussions.
(For example, I believe Calvin never cited Rev.)  So I stand by my
original statement that Biblical evidence for all major doctrines is
found the Gospels and Paul's letters.  Certainly Heb is important as
well, and it's not in that group.  But I don't know of any doctrines
that are established solely out of Heb.

Note the list of books about which there were debates: Heb, 1 & 2
Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, Rev.  I don't think I've ever seen 2 & 3
John, Jude, or Rev used in any serious way in doctrinal discussions.
I only recall 1 Peter being cited because of the somewhat enigmatic
reference to Christ's preaching to the imprisoned spirits.  So Heb
would the main book in this list that tends to be cited.

We've had discussions about the Biblical basis for the Incarnation in
the past.  Part of the question is what you think the doctrine means.
I maintain that it's not a simple equation of Jesus and God.  Rather,
Jesus is the *incarnation of* God, the visible likeness of the
invisible God (Col 1:15).  I think you'll find that every one of the
NT traditions shows some sign of giving Jesus a special status, and
that this status is somewhat different than the common Jewish idea of
the Messiah.  The various traditions in the NT use different language.
If you require a specific statement that Jesus was God, John probably
comes closest to your requirements, and you may not see much in the
other books.  But I don't think "Jesus is God" is the best way of
saying what the Incarnation means, and in the 1st Cent. Jewish context
that language would have been almost unthinkable.  With a proper
understanding of what the Incarnation actually means, I think all of
the Gospels and letters have things in them that are relevant.

By the way, I find this posting somewhat ironic.  A common
non-Christian claim is that Jesus was just an ordinary rabbi, and Paul
turned into into a Hellenistic mystery figure.  I find it interesting
to see someone say that the primary Christian claim of Jesus as the
incarnation of God isn't present in Paul at all.