From: rhw@NSS.CS.UCL.AC.UK (Roland H.Watson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: posting an article
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:39:00 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Originator: Mughal@Romeo.Caltech.Edu (Asim Mughal -Moderator)



Dear Mr. Asim Mughal,

  I read a couple of weeks ago an article by H. Siddiqui pertaining to an aspect
of the Christianity/Islam debate, namely, the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

  I have written a critique reply of his article to be distributed on soc.
religion.islam. However, I have discovered that my site is only able to receive
news articles and is not able to post them. Therefore, as one of the moderators
of s.r.i., I am asking if you would be so kind as to distribute the article 
below for me. If possible, I would like a worldwide distribution for it.

Thank you for your cooperation.


Regards,


Roland Watson.



Article Starts Here:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> From chaser.co.uk!pyrltd!uknet!mcsun!uunet!wupost!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!data.nas.nasa.gov!mustang.mst6.lanl.gov!nntp-server.caltech.edu!iago.caltech.edu!mughal Mon Aug 17 14:57:58 GMT 1992
> 
> 
> [Postmarked: 5 Aug '92] 

H. Siddiqui asks the following question:

> 
> Does the Bible explicitly or implicitly state that Jesus was co-equal with
> Yehwah (God)?

I shall proceed on the reference to the Bible above, i.e. what does the Bible
say concerning the person of Jesus. Therefore, any opinions regarding the
trustworthiness of the Bible and its relation to the original gospel preached
by Jesus and his followers are suspended.

May I quote John 5:17-18 as regards the equality of Jesus with God:

"But Jesus answered them, my Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore, the
 Jews sought the more to kill Him, because he not only had broken the sabbath,
but said also that God was His Father, making Himself EQUAL with God."

> Yehwah (God)? Most Christians believe in such a mention within the Biblen
> by putting undue emphasis on the use of terms "Son of Man" and
> "Son of God" to refer to Jesus. If one reads the Bible carefully, one
> can easily notice that the use of such terms is not unique for Jesus.
> For example, the prophet Ezekiel is mentioned as 'Son of Man' in OT
> in several places in the Book of Ezekiel (see chapters beginning from
> 2 to 7). In chapter 2:1, it reads, "And he proceeded to say to me:
> "Son of man, stand up upon your feet that I may speak with you."
> Did the Jews ever consider Ezekiel to be God? No. Why then should
> the christians understand differently as to the meaning of the term
> when it comes to Jesus?
> 

I have never heard or read of anyone in my eight years of studying the Christian
faith who proposed that the term "son of man" indicated the deity of Christ. 
Rather the opposite is true, the term speaks of the humanity of Christ just as 
the term "Son of God" speaks of his divinity. So, this argument must be rejected
as having no relevance to the debate.

> Similarly, the term "Son of God" has also been used quite
> extensively in the Bible. In Matthew 5:9, the peace-makers are called
> Sons of God (Happy are the peace makers, since they are called sons of
> God.). In John 8:41, the Jews claimed that their father is God. In

The Jews did indeed claim God as their Father but only in a corporate sense. As
the above quotation of John 5:18 demonstrated, no individual Jew would claim God
was his personal Father without risking the death penalty.

> God.). In John 8:41, the Jews claimed that their father is God. In
> Romans 8:14, it states, "For all who are led by God's spirit, these
> are God's sons." In Romans 8:16, it states, "The spirit itself bears
> witness with our spirit that we are God's children." In John 1:12,
> it reads, "However, as many as did receive him, to them he gave
> authority to become God's children." In none of these verses, the
> phrase 'son of God' was taken literally by the Jews. Why should the

The Bible clearly teaches that Christians are God's ADOPTED children. They were
once the children of Satan but by God's grace they were saved and brought into
His family. They have no natural birthright. You quote Romans 8:14 and Romans 
8:16 above, but you lose some context by failing to quote the middle verse 15:

  "For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have 
   received the Spirit of ADOPTION, whereby we cry, Abba, Father."

We shall see that Jesus of Nazareth is God's begotten Son - not adopted.

I am not concerned about how 1st century Jews interpreted the phrase
"son of God", some of them did not even believe in the resurrection or in
angels. They are not my authority in this matter - the scriptures are.

> phrase 'son of God' was taken literally by the Jews. Why should the
> Christians take this phrase literally when it comes to Jesus?

Can you expand on what you mean by "literally"? If you mean physically begotten
through the normal biological means, I agree. But Christ is primarily the Son of
God through the eternal begetting of the Father within the Godhead from all 
eternity - an event outside of space and time and a concept beyond our very 
limited minds.

> The semitic usage would never have allowed for the literal sense,

I am interested in the Biblical usage.

> even though such an expression would be interpreted literally in the
> Hellenistic (pagan) world of Jesus's later-day followers. No doubt,

I personally am not a literalistic pseudo-Hellenist, like all serious students
of scripture, one should seek to apply hermeneutical methods which apply precise
analytical techniques to scripture developed over the centuries.

> here is where the confusion arose. But if Jesus or his original
> disciples ever used the phrase 'son of God' to refer to Jesus, they
> must have meant only 'servant of God.' For example, in Matthew 12:18
> and Acts 3:13, we find that some Bible versions read 'Son' with
> reference to Jesus, while others translate 'servant'.
> 

The word "son" has several Greek counterparts. The Greek word "paidos" used 
above does indeed mean child or servant, which of the two meanings to use can 
normally be adduced from the context of the verse. 

Your implication that "son of God" means "servant of God" is incomplete. The 
other Greek word for "son" - "yios", rarely if ever means "servant".

  Moreover, if Jesus of Nazareth was only claiming to be one figurative son 
amongst many, then why did he call Himself the "only" Son of God? For example,

  John 3:16
  "For God so loved the world, that He gave his ONLY begotten Son, that 
   whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

  John 1:18
  "No man hath seen God at any time; the ONLY begotten Son, who is in the bosom
   of the Father, he hath declared Him."

  John 20:31
  "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, THE
   Son of God ..."

  These sample verses would indicate that Jesus of Nazareth was claiming a form
  of sonship which was unique and higher than what was generally conceived and
  given to members of the human race.

> The Pauline Christians also believe that the phrase 'Messiah' refers to

  I object to the use of the adjective "Pauline" for it implies that the early
church experienced schism at the Apostolic level which is not borne out by the
scriptures.

  Any potential for schism was resolved at church councils such as the council
of Jerusalem in Acts chapter 15. On the Apostolic unity of the church read
I Corinthians 1:10-17 and chapter 3.

> The Pauline Christians also believe that the phrase 'Messiah' refers to
> something like God. And since Jesus appears to be called the Messiah
> (although a critical reading of the NT would show that Jesus actually
> denied being the Messiah whom the Jews were expecting; e.g., Luke 9:21)
> as such he is divine. If that be the case, how about the Isaiah 45:1
> where Cyrus, the Medo-Persian King, was called "Messiah" (Christos)?
> If Cyrus was considered nothing more than a mortal man by Jews, why
> should Jesus be attributed divinity?
> 

I have never heard or read of anyone who proposed that the term "messiah" 
indicated the deity of Christ. 

The general word "messiah" of itself does not imply the bearer's divinity, each
individual person who has been invested with that title has to be individually 
assessed.

This argument must be rejected as having no relevance to the debate.

> A believing Christian might suggest that Jesus's not having a mortal
> father makes him divine. Is that a fact? Adam did not have a mortal
> father (not even a mortal mother), did that make him divine? No.
> If Jesus were to be God, then why should not Adam be considered a
> superior-God (since he did not have both parents, as against Jesus
> who had a mortal mother)? How about King Melchizedek about whom
> Saul (Paul) of Tarsus, the self-appointed disciple of Jesus, writes
> in Hebrews (7:3), "In being fatherless, motherless, without genealogy,
> having neither a beginning of days nor an end of life, but having been
> made like the *Son of God*, he remains a priest perpetually." Now if
> Jesus were to claim Godhood, then we have a stronger claimant in
> Melchizedek (thru' the writings of Paul). Don't you agree? Should
> we interpret this sentence literally? If we were to, then Paul is
> nothing but a liar (even according to Christianity's own dogmas).
> Why then should the Christians selectively apply literal meanings
> to certain verses in the Bible, while the same cannot be applied
> to others.
> 

I have never heard or read of anyone who proposed that the lack of a mortal 
father indicated the deity of that person. 

  Argument for divinity is based on the relation to the divine Father and not a
human father.

This argument must be rejected as having no relevance to the debate.

> My conclusion is that Jesus never claimed divinity. His prime
> message was : "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord."

Trinitarian Christian Theology teaches that God is not just a mathematical unity
but an organic (three persons) yet indivisible (insoluble communion) unity.

> (Mark 12:29). Jesus also is reported to have said -,
> "I do nothing of myself." (John 14:28)
> "My Father is greater than I." (John 14:2)
> "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels
> which are in heaven, neither the son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32)

Christ is here admitting to a form of subordination and ignorance. Simple logic
may run as follows - God knows everything, Jesus does not know everything 
therefore Jesus is not God. This line of logic is true but makes an assumption
which I shall show is not necessary.

Let us first put some context on the two verses quoted from the gospel of John.
The gospel of John is the gospel which primarily proclaims the divinity of of jesus of Nazareth. Therefore, we are not surprised to find the very first verse
of the gospel says:

  John 1:1
  "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
   God."

There is no doubt about the Apostle's intentions there and this continues up to
to the penultimate chapter when Thomas says of Christ:

  John 20:28
  "My Lord and my God"

If anyone is interested in why the Greek demands the phrase "and the Word was 
God" rather than "and the Word was a god" and also why Thomas' nominative 
statement is vocative, I shall happily send a separate post on request. But that
would be digressing from the main argument too much.

With John's intention in mind, why does he then produce those two verses?
> "I do nothing of myself." (John 14:28)
> "My Father is greater than I." (John 14:2)

It seems out of character with the general goal of the gospel to include these
verses. We have at least three possibilities:

  1. The Apostle John is inconsistent in his method of argument.
     This seems unlikely.

  2. The original gospel composed by John did not contain any of the verses
     proclaiming the divinity of Jesus.
     There are little or no variant readings to support this.

  3. John intentionally wrote these verses fully aware that Christ is God
     but had a different meaning to them to what you think they mean.
     This is the most reasonable approach.

So what do theologians think John meant by these two verses which appear to 
contradict John's "divinity" verses? It is all expressed in the doctrine of the
Condescension of Christ. Verses 5 to 8 of Phillipians chapter 2 express this 
doctrine:

  Phillipians 2:5-8
  "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, Who, being in the 
   FORM of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. But made Himself
   of no reputation, and took upon Him the FORM of a servant, and was made in
   the likeness of men; and, being found in fashion as a man, He HUMBLED Himself
   and became OBEDIENT unto death, even the death of the cross."

To be precise, Christ is God Incarnate which is not the same as God Absolute.
This is why the assumption of the line of logic above is unwarranted. If God 
Absolute suddenly appeared before us, we would cease to exist. If God Incarnate
appeared before us, we would survive because God Incarnate is God Absolute 
presented as a shielded flesh and blood interface to man. God Incarnate is God 
entering into a union with perfect human nature. At this limited interface of 
flesh and blood, suspension (but not abrogation) of God's incommunicable 
attributes occurs. I know this because the words "made Himself of no reputation"
means "emptied Himself".

Furthermore, in terms of the inter-Trinitarian covenant of grace, God the Son
agreed to enter into this enfleshment to actively and passively fulfil God's 
broken law as a perfect servant on behalf of God's elect. In this office of 
mediator He was in a position of subordination because He was to obey the very 
laws He had given to Moses on Mt. Sinai, which explains why He said

> "My Father is greater than I." (John 14:2)

And answers to the word OBEDIENT in the Phillipians quote. Also, in this limited
interface of flesh and blood, omniscience is suspended, i.e. He had all 
knowledge in His possession but as part of His servant role He chose not to use
it. Only what was relevant to His servant task was communicated to Him by the 
Father through the Spirit, which explains why He did not know the time of
His second coming and why He said 

> "I do nothing of myself." (John 14:28)

And answers to the word HUMBLED above. It is not unusual to regard God as making
Himself (by His own choice) inaccessible to certain knowledge. Does not God say
that He will remember the sins of His people no more? At the very least this 
means He has willed not to use this knowledge.

How does one express such a deep doctrine simply in a few sentences? You may 
charge me with demeaning God's majesty by associating with creation in such a
way. But it is the fact that God gives up none of His incommunicable attributes
which is the deciding factor in this matter. Moreover, does not God "humble" 
Himself whenever He communicates in any form to His creation (even the holiest
angel), be it in the form of sound waves (a voice), electrical activity in the 
brain (a thought), or in this case an ordered combination of biochemicals (a 
body). If you reject the human body as a means of communication, you must 
exclude all forms and God becomes eternally divorced from His creation. In fact,
there would be no creation because it would imply involvement and handling of 
inferior created material. 

Even if I could not explain these verses and put it down to a mystery which God
has chosen not to enlarge upon, I still have a large Biblical testimony to the 
Divinity of Jesus Christ (and I would be able to demonstrate this from any 
version of the Bible - except the JW's doctored version).

Let me use an simple analogy. Imagine you are in the presence of an invisible 
person whom you may occasionally hear but you never see his face and its 
expressions which convey so much information about a person.

  Now suppose the person dons a face mask which you can see and which adequately
represents the invisible expressions of that person. Now you "see" that person
via the mask which may smile, frown, etc. You will never see the person but now
you can know so much more and commune with him in a more fruitful way.

  That invisible person is God and the mask is the human nature of Jesus of 
Nazareth.

> Again, I would like to reiterate, based on the arguments I have
> put forward, that the terms 'son' and 'Father', should not be
> taken literally, in the above context. Jesus was a mortal man,
> a prophet of God. - H. Siddiqui.
> 
> 

I strongly recommend that in any theological proposition that affects more than
one religion, all parties should be consulted for their view on the matter. In
this way, any potential bias and prejudices on all sides will be minimised.


Regards,

Roland H. Watson.