From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Did Jesus Claim to be God (Finally?)
Date: 27 Jul 92 19:02:05 GMT
	<Jul.24.01.17.34.1992.705@geneva.rutgers.edu>
	<1992Jul26.045219.21460@newsroom.utas.edu.au>
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA

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:

[Christ Jesus], though he was in the form of God,
  did not regard equality with God
  as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
  taking the form of a slave,
  being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
  he humbled himself
  and became obedient to the point of death--
  even death on a cross.

Verse six is quite clear.  Jesus was "in the form of God" and
possessed "equality with God".  But, despite that, Christ acts like a
human, and even *becomes* a human, to the fullest extent of humanity.

And so, Jesus was "in the form of God" and at the same time "born in
human likeness".  But clearly Christ Jesus is considered to exist
prior to his birth: he emptied himself to be born, and had to exist in
order to do that.

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)).

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

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

   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.

--
Michael I. Bushnell             |		Benedictus qui venit
+1 617 625 4518 (H)            -+-                       in
+1 617 253 8568 (W)             |                      Nomine
mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu              |                      Domini
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc