From: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: There are two years left!
Date: 10 Sep 92 05:15:33 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

hartigan@ac.dal.ca writes:

>In article <Sep.7.20.10.23.1992.7388@athos.rutgers.edu>, hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:

>> the Logos.  As a human, he is subject to the normal human limitations.

>Right. Like being able to raise the dead, walk on water, calm storms, etc.
>I understand now. It's all so clear...:)

Note that the early church (and even some current Christians) are
reported to have done similar acts.  They are not because of any
metaphysical difference between Jesus and other humans, but because
God's power worked through him.  He had a special role, and thus a
more direct access to God's power, but it is God's power, which is
separate from Jesus' nature as a human being.  Christians do not
regard Jesus as superman, i.e. someone who as a human being has extra
powers.  Such views have been suggested, but are considered heretical.

>Besides, doesn't the Nicene creed state that Jesus is of the same
>substance as the Father?  

No, it says that the Son is of the same substance as the Father.  As I
commented before, "son" is used in several different ways.  Here it's
talking about the eternal Logos, not Jesus as a human being.

>And...if he was "subject to the normal human limitations" (presumably
>including limited knowledge) why should we believe his claims? I know
>this is a bit circular, but I think that's because your claim is a bit
>off....

I assume you mean his claims to having a special role as redeemer, not
his claims to be human.  In early Christian preaching, the
resurrection was considered to be an act of God endorsing Jesus.
However I don't think there is, strictly speaking, a proof.  You have
to look at his message, at the claimed act of redemption, and see if
it looks to you like a power beyond humanity acting in history.  I
realize many people don't think it does.

>This is something I've always wondered about, actually (the Trinity). 

Then it's important to realize that the Trinity is not about the
relationship between Jesus and God.  The Trinity is about the unity of
God.  When it speaks of the Son, it is the eternal Logos that is
involved.  The doctrine that speaks of God becoming man is the
Incarnation.  The critical document there is the formula of Chalcedon.
It attempts to strike a delicate balance, maintaining on the one hand
that in Jesus, God himself is present, but that the presence is in a
fashion that does not compromise Jesus' humanity.  I'm not entirely
happy with the results.  I don't think Greek metaphysics were the
ideal tool to use to describe this.  But the basic points that they
were trying to make are clear enough.  One of them is that in Jesus,
there are two things that we must keep conceptually separate: a human
being, and God's presence.  God's presence is somehow through Jesus'
humanity.  It does not turn Jesus into something else, whether
superman or demigod.

It's unfortunate that Christians insist on saying "Jesus is God".
There's nothing wrong with that statement when made in the proper
context.  But to people on the outside, it's very misleading.  It
suggests that we are completely identifying two rather different
things: a human being and God.  We do believe that God was present in
and through Jesus, so that Jesus' acts are God's acts, and Jesus
reveals God's nature to us.  But Christian theology keeps his humanity
and God's identication with him carefully separate.  Confusing
Christ's humanity and divinity is one of the classic heresies.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc