From: tensmekl@infonode.ingr.com (Kermit Tensmeyer)
Subject: Re: LdS ignoring the example of the Bereans
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville, AL.
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 16:46:41 GMT

In article <Nov.7.02.06.03.1992.7031@geneva.rutgers.edu> hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>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. 
>
>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.

  I'm sorry for not being clearer. It is both a followup to this
  and our previous topic. (and yes I'm _still_ working on the Logos
  stuff, _real_ work is getting real pressing.)

 That this books are now canon, is _not_ under contention. I think I've
 conceded the point on when cannon was established.

 _I_ think John's role and his doctrine _is_ a critical.

 I think the Gosple of John _is_ different _because_ of his vision.

 I think it _is_ cannonical and I think that John is delivering a 
 message intended for specific listeners. He uses _key_ phrases to
 imply special meanings. I'm not sure that we understand all the 
 special meanings, (even in the LDS church)

>
>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

   That God would act for and in behalf his Promised Messanger is something
   that would be expected from an OT.

>  - Various passages from the Gospels showing Jesus doing things
>	that are inappropriate to a normal human being, e.g.
>	forgiving sins.  
	
	Matthew's distortion not withstanding. The miracles and the
	the literary style of the synoptic gosples are to remind us
	of the OT prophets.  The intent is to prove that Jesus
	is the Promised One (or Messiah, or Christ) depending on the
	language.  According to Isaiah the Messiah ben-Judah was
	predicted to be able to forgive all men their sins.
>
>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.

 I think that the correct use of NT scripture allows the use of all the
 books to establish christian doctrine.

>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.  

  What do _you_ think that the OT prophecies of the Messiah were?
  If Jesus is both God the Son and Messiah ben-Judah, what indications
  would there need to be in-order that Jesus fufilled the prohecies?

>            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.


  Agreed.  It would have been a hard thing for people to write. I don't
  doubt that the Apostles understood the reality especially after
  the resurrection, I think that they came to a fuller understanding
  later. Certaintly Paul had no major interactions with the mortal Jesus.

>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.

  I'd say that that Paul isn't real explict about it. I don't think
  that it was a doctrine expressed to the Bereans.

  The people in the Book of Mormon had major portions of the OT taken
  with them, and when the reality of Christ and his life were revealed
  to them, they were suprised. so either they just didn't see it, or
  it wasn't there. Since Nephi claims that Isaiah was easy for him to
  read, and Nephi's childeren didn't comprehend Isaiah as easlily,
  I'd venture a guess, that the OT requires some more context that
  we don't commonly have.

-- 
         Kermit Tensmeyer                         | Intergraph Corporation
   klt@kt8127.b23a.ingr.com                       | Deep in Dixie
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc