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: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 03:12:14 GMT

In article <MIB.92Jul27140205@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Jul26.045219.21460@newsroom.utas.edu.au> Tim.ONeill@english.utas.edu.au (Tim O'Neill) writes:
> 
>    I am more than aware of this. I'm asking for indications of this
>    from the synoptics and Paul. Statements like "I am God" or "I
>    am Yahweh incarnate" would obviously do very nicely, but I
>    am more than prepared less explicit and direct claims also. 
>    My point is that there are none, explicit or otherwise.
> 
> A very good example is Philippians 2:6-8:

Phil 2:6 has already been covered twice on this thread Michael, so I
won't weary eveyone by going over it again. When correctly translated
it actually shows that jesus was *less* than Yahweh in Paul's opinion.
Please E-Mail me if you'd like a fuller explanation.

> As well, the consistent reference to Jesus as "Lord" through out the
> the Pauline letters suggests an identification with Jewish use of the
> term: which was reserved for God.  (Some examples are "with all those
> in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their
> Lord and ours" (1 Cor. 1:2), "And God raised the Lord and will also
> raise us by his power" (1 Cor 6:14)).

This has also been covered on this thread, but it was a very long time
ago. The greek word 'kurios' (lord) is used in the gosples and the Septuagint
to translate the hebrew 'adonai', which certainly does refer to Yahweh.
'Kurios' is also used to translate the Aramaic title *'mar* which also means
'Lord' or 'master' and was used in Palestine to refer to a pre-eminent
teacher. It makes sense that Yeshua's followers would have called him 'mar
and that Paul would have translated this into greek as 'kurios'. This does
not imply divinity.
 
> The Synoptics use a number of suggestive titles, with two being most
> prominent: "Son of God" and "Son of Man".  Son of God is frequently
> used in a sense specific to Jesus.  For example, at his baptism (Matt.
> 3:17) he is called God's Son, in a way not normally seen, nor
> applicable to people in general.

Again, this has been covered already. 'Son of God' is a phrase with a 
variety of meanings, one of which was 'messiah'. There is no indication
that it ever meant 'God' or 'God Incarnate'. The topos of the
'bath qol' or 'heavenly voice' which expressed approval of a servant
of God can be found in contemporary jewish material. See, for example,
the annointing of Simon bar Kokba as messiah by Akiba, where the
'bath qol' also addressed him as God's son.  


>The Son of Man was an eschatological
> figure of judgement and completion of humanity, carrying divine
> authority and power.

This figure seems to have been seen as a representation of the messiah.
That Jesus was refered to by this title is simply an indication of
belief in his messianic status, not divinity.
 
> The attribution of divine character to Jesus (forgiveness of sins,
> natural Sonship from God, pre-existence) seemed to conflict with the
> demands of strict monotheism.  In the later parts of the NT (John,
> Revelation, Hebrews, for example) we see this Christology becoming
> much more mature. 

No, we see it slowly appearing and evolving in a largely
non-jewish, grco-roman context: a context which was rife
with gods who came to earth and dead humans who became gods.

> The doctrines of the Trinity (Nicea) and
> Incarnation (Chalcedon) amount to affirming both monotheism and the
> divinity of Christ.

Or they amount to fiddling with contradictory concepts so as to
solve a theological crisis.
 
>    This has been covered three times already. The claim to be able to heal 
>    through the forgiveness of sins was not unique to Jesus in 1st century
>    Palestine, and the synoptics implication that it was is simply incorrect.
> 
> I think you misunderstand the implication.  The synoptics *claim* that
> forgiveness of sins was restricted to God, and then claim that Jesus
> did it, making him a possessor of some divine character.  Now, even if
> the synoptics are wrong on the point of people's expectations, it is
> clear that they are wrong precisely in order to suggest a belief in
> the divinity of Christ.

No they don't. Look at the story again. Jesus says that the paralytic's 
sins are forgiven. The scribes object and claim only Yahweh can forgive
sins. Jesus rebukes them as says 'but to show you the Son of Man can
forgive sins'and he turns to the sick man and tells him to get up and
walk. What Jesus is doing is showing them that someone other than Yahweh
can forgive sins, the Son of Man (ie messiah) can do so, and in doing so
he is showing that he is the messiah (which is the whole point of this
story).
Tim O'Neill