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: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 04:52:19 GMT

In article <Jul.24.01.17.34.1992.705@geneva.rutgers.edu>, hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
> 
> I'm concerned that your search in the Bible is based on an
> oversimplified view of Christian theology.  Christian theology does
> not make a simple identification between Jesus and God.  Thus you
> shouldn't expect to find Jesus saying "I'm God".  If Jesus is simply
> identical to God, he would be invisible, immortal, etc.  But we don't
> believe that.  Rather, we believe that Jesus is the *incarnation of*
> God.  

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.

> In fact I think you do.  You seem to be mostly interested in the
> Synoptics.  This is a position I understand, though of course your
> request for the earliest sources should really lead you to Paul.  

I am interested in both.

> So what do we find in Mark?  We find that he forgives sins.  The crowd
> reacts to this as an implicit claim to a status equal to God (Mk 2:7)

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.
 
> Several passages seem to envision Christians who follow Jesus.
> Consider passages like Mk 8:35, where people lose their life for his
> sake, and 9:35ff, where people do things in his name.  This doesn't
> seem like a kind of honor that you would give a teacher.  

If you believed that teacher was also the messiah, the holy annointed one
of Yahweh who had come to usher in the last days, the great judgement
and the kingship of God, then yes, you would give him that honour and a
lot more.

> The parable
> of the wicked tenants (Mk 12:1) implicitly speaks of him as God's
> heir. 

It's an analogy, son of God=messiah=(figuratively) Yahweh's heir. Does 
being Yahweh's heir make him Yahweh? This story is about the coming
of the messiah.

 >I realize that the term "son of God" could be used of any godly
> person, but I think the implications of this parable go beyond that.

Indeed, it's not talking about any holy person, it's talking about the
msessiah. There are no implications of divinity in the Heir character
 at all

> I suspect I could find more examples if I took longer.  What is clear
> is that the claims are implicit, in contrast to John.  But they're
> still there.

Really? Where?
 
> In my view Mark and John simply use different ways of explaining the
> same thing.  John has long reflective sections, where we're given
> explicit theology.  Mark tends to go for narrative, and lets us draw
> conclusions from it.

Why are all of the ways in which Mark, Luke and Matt. express who Jesus
was/is expressions of messianic status? Why are none of them expressions
of divine status? Isn't that rather odd?
  
>Mark, John, Paul, I Peter, Hebrews, Rev, etc, each
> speaks of Jesus using different images and terminology.  But for all
> of them he is a person with unique authority, who represents God's
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> intervention into our history.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sounds like a good description of the messiah to me. You still haven't
said anything which neccesitates that Jesus was God Incarnate. 

 I think that's what the later
> doctrines are trying to say as well.  None of them says that Jesus is
> simply God wearing a human body.  That idea is a heresy.  There's more
> "indirectness" in the identification between Jesus and God than many
> people realize.  Orthodox theology is well aware that Jesus was fully
> human.  I would suggest that a lot of the problem here is due to an
> oversimplification of what it means to say that Christ is both a human
> being and God.

I disagree, though I think the idea that Jesus was 'fully human' is often used 
as a smokescreen to obscure the less-than-Godlike aspects of Jesus'
presentation in the Gospels (such as when Jesus expresses irrational anger,
ignorance or is less than infallible)
Tim O'Neill
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc