Posted by Helen on: 09.03.2006 /
Vynette is a new participant on the Off The Map blogs from Australia. (Her own blog is The Race Is Run). Her comments on our doable evangelism blog have shown that her beliefs about Jesus are different. This has led to her being asked a number of questions.
Let’s post whatever questions we have for Vynette here in this blog entry. These questions have been asked so far:
Mike O: How about you define Christianity?
Pam Sardar: in the the book of John, Jesus says “I and the Father are One.”
How does that work for you?
Do you set Jesus apart from Moses and the prophets? Why follow him over them? Did he lead a sinless life? Is that what sets him apart?
Comment by: vynette
1 09/3/06 8:32 AM | Comment Link |Helen,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to keep the conversation going.
Mike O: How about you define Christianity?
Here is my view then:
According to the Bible story, humanity was faced with no other end than the grave because of the sin of Adam and Eve.
This grave (sheol, hell) was a place of eternal rest and perpetual peace where all earthly cares ended.
“For the living know that they shall die, but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten.” (Eccles 9:5)
A hope and an expectancy grew amongst the Israelite people that, some day, one would arise who would save them from their sins and show them the way to eternal life. The Hebrews had very definite ideas about this man and these were recorded in the books of the Old Covenant.
Many Christians are unaware of what exactly the Hebrews did expect and this lack of perspective has facilitated the building up of erroneous doctrines.
The New Testament writers record the fulfilment of this ‘messianic’ hope in Jesus of Nazareth.
To usher in the New Covenant and restore our worth in the eyes of God, however, the sins that caused the original ‘fall’ of man had to be purged.
Scripture defines them as:
exchanging the truth of God for a lie (Romans 1:25)
worshipping and serving the creature rather than the Creator (Romans 1:25)
disobedience to the commands of the Creator - “as through one man’s disobedience, the many became sinners” (Romans 5:19).
Jesus of Nazareth redeemed us in the eyes of God and negated these ‘original’ sins by:
(a) insisting on Truth and exposing and rejecting lies, manipulation, deception and hypocrisy.
(b) worshipping and serving the Creator rather than the creature
(c) learning obedience through his sufferings (Hebrews 5:8) and through this obedience the many were made righteous. (Romans 5:19)
Thus, the ’spiritual’ Kingdom of God came into existence and the ‘way, the truth and the life’ were available to all.
Jesus of Nazareth lived and died for truth, as is evident by his statement to Pilate:
“To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.” (John 18:38)
It is encumbent on all who would be his followers to live by the same ‘redeeming’ values - according to the standard of righteousness set for all time by Jesus. Because these values are timeless and universal, they are all-embracing, applicable everywhere, all of the time.
When Jesus said ‘the Kingdom of God is within you” he meant that through every invididual emulating his example and living by the ‘redeemer’ values, the ‘physical’ Kingdom of God on earth can become a reality.
Pam: I’ll respond to your questions in another post - this one is already way too long.
Comment by: Helen
2 09/3/06 8:39 AM | Comment Link |Neat. So…is this right: you believe Jesus is the foretold Messiah who saved us from our sins? Do you believe he’s now on a throne in heaven, reigning as king (a man who lives eternally, chosen by God to be king)?
Comment by: vynette
3 09/3/06 3:29 PM | Comment Link |Pam: in the the book of John, Jesus says “I and the Father are One.”
How does that work for you?
Jesus himself expands upon what he meant when he said “I and the Father are one” in John 10:30:
“Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that THEY MAY BE ONE EVEN AS WE ARE…
Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that believeth on me through their word,
THAT THEY MAY ALL BE ONE, even as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee that they also MAY BE IN US.
And the glory which thous hast given me, I have given unto them, that they may be one as we are one.
I in them and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one…” (John 17:11, 20, 21-23, 26)
Jesus is speaking of an affinity of spirit - of love - binding his disciples, his believers, himself and the Father into one bondage. If the interpretation is made on the basis that Jesus IS the Father, then there is as much authority for saying the same thing of the disciples, and the believers for all were to be perfected into one.
Pam and Helen: After four months and sixty or so posts on The Race is Run, I’ve only completed one of a three part exposition on the major doctrines. When that series is complete, my plan is to put up a whole series on ‘Messianic expectations in Israel’. As you can see, it might take till ‘Kingdom come’ before I finally get there so I’ll try and condense some of my material into a few brief comments in response to your questions.
Cheers - I’ll be back.
Comment by: Helen
4 09/3/06 3:36 PM | Comment Link |Thanks Vynette!
Interesting point that if Jesus being one with the Father means Jesus is God, then Jesus’ prayer was that we’d all be God, because he prayed we’d all be one.
Comment by: Helen
5 09/3/06 3:43 PM | Comment Link |A general comment…
These doctrinal discussions about exactly who Jesus is fascinate me because I just can’t imagine Jesus saying to someone “To hell with you because you followed me and revered me and believed God made me King over the whole universe, but you were only willing to say I’m the Son of God, not God!!”
Or “To hell with you, because you followed me and revered me and believed God the Father made me King over the universe - but you said I was actually God, when in fact I’m only the Son of God!”
I think he’s much more likely to say “To hell with you, because you didn’t welcome strangers, feed the hungry, clothe the naked or visit the sick and in prison”. After all, that is what Jesus said, according to the Bible.
Comment by: vynette
6 09/3/06 11:09 PM | Comment Link |Pam and Helen:
I’ve always followed a blog policy of never talking about my personal beliefs. I’ve kept it formal and restricted myself to adducing evidence from scripture to support my arguments. This situation, however, is more informal, like sitting around a table somewhere and discussing our beliefs and offering opinions.
So here goes:
Jesus of Nazareth is the ‘Christ’, the ‘anointed’ of God. Even though there are other ‘messiahs’ in the Bible, Jesus was the longed-for Messiah of the Hebrew people who would save them from their sins and show them the way to eternal life. Only a man whose principles are fixed, whose will is determined and whose views are long could have endured what he did and achieved what he did. And all out of love for his fellow humans.
Pam, even though Moses and the prophets were also ‘gods’ and ’sons of God’ in the sense that Jesus used the words, they were not ‘anointed’ for the specific purpose of setting a standard of righteousness for us to live by. So, we follow him, ‘the way, the truth and the life’.
Helen, as for Jesus ’sitting on the right hand of the father’ I believe that he reigns in ’spiritual’ form over the ’spiritual’ Kingdom of God that has been in existence since the resurrection.
We are told over and over again that the ‘word of the Lord’ shall never fail. Yet we cannot overlook the fact that the promises made to King David and to Mary have not yet been fulfilled.
The throne of David was always an earthly throne. We have actually been assured that Jesus will one day return take up his rightful place as an ‘earthly’ king on this ‘earthly’ throne. This is just one of the reasons why I believe he is ruling in ’spiritual’ form until that day comes.
There is obviously much more I could say on this particular subject but, as I said previously, I really need to lay out a systematic, and lengthy, groundwork before adducing scriptural evidence in support of my beliefs.
Cheerio
Comment by: Mike O
7 09/5/06 11:26 AM | Comment Link |One of the more interesting comments you made was actually in the other blog, where you said that Jesus was not divine. I’m not trying to start anything, but this seemed to be the impetus for this string.
Do you have any scriptural references which indicate that Jesus was not God? The ones you mentioned here don’t say he wasn’t divine, but rather if he wasn’t divine, these passages still hold.
And this may not be an answerable question, but what was the original motivation behind investigation whether or not Jesus was really divine as commonly held?
Comment by: vynette
8 09/5/06 3:31 PM | Comment Link |Mike,
On ‘divinity’
Monotheism was a practice peculiar to the Israelites of Old Testament times - “YHVH our god is one god.” (Deut 6:4).
The ‘unchangeability’ of YHVH is stressed throughout the Old Testament:
God is not a man that he should lie, neither the SON OF MAN* that he should repent (Num 23:19)
I am God and not man (Hosea 11:9)
God is not a man that he should repent (1 Sam 15:29)
For I YHVH change not (Malachi 3:6)
*Note that the term ’son of man’ was a title assumed by Jesus.
The New Testament is emphatic that God has never been seen by the human eye:
No man has seen the father at any time (John 1:18, 6:46)
Whom no man hath seen or can see (1 Tim 6:16)
No man hath beheld God at any time (1 John 4:12)
(God is) eternal, immortal, invisible (1 Tim 1:17)
“Every best gift cometh down from above, from the Father of lights with whom there is no change nor shadow of turning” (James 1:17)
These texts were all written after Jesus’ death. Taken singly or collectively, they completely refute the suggestion that God suddenly took on the form of a man.
When the scripture writers testify that they have ’seen’ God, they are writing in a ’spiritual’ strain. Thus it is possible to ’see’ God by doing good (3 John 1:11), or by being pure in heart (Matthew 5:8).
As to your question about original motivation:
Even at a relatively early age, I found it difficult to accept the doctrines of the church in which I was raised. Being a baptised Roman Catholic I never actually saw a Bible until I was into my late teens. I think the defining moment for me was when I first read Jesus’ statement to Pilate - that he was born to bear witness to the truth. This resonated deeply with me and a generalised wish to know the truth about Jesus was then born in me. So, one thing led to another and…here I am.
Cheerio
Comment by: Helen
9 09/5/06 5:10 PM | Comment Link |Vynette, how do you interpret John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
I was taught this verse proves Jesus is God.
Comment by: vynette
10 09/5/06 5:37 PM | Comment Link |Helen,
Aside from the long-standing scholarly debates about whether the text should read ‘the Word was God’ or ‘the Word was divine’, for the churches to use John 1:1 as a proof of the ‘divinity’ of Jesus is to overlook the similar words in 1 John 1:1 where the ‘Word’ is identified as the Word of Eternal Life.
It is the ‘Word of Eternal Life’ that existed from the beginning, not Jesus. The implications are self-evident. John saw Jesus is the personification of God’s ‘Word of Eternal Life’ that existed from the beginning, just as Solomon was the personification of God’s ‘Wisdom’ that existed from the beginning. (Proverbs 8)
John gives the spiritual presentation of Jesus that the other gospels lack and, unfortunately, it is from a banal interpretation of these spiritual words that the church doctrines of ‘divinity’, trinity, and ‘pre-existence’ came into being.
Cheers
Comment by: Helen
11 09/5/06 5:53 PM | Comment Link |Thanks for sharing your understanding of that verse, Vynette.
Comment by: Mike O
12 09/6/06 10:01 AM | Comment Link |I’m eager to post here, but haven’t had the time to get my verses together. But when I do, one thing I want to be sensitive to is to not try to argue my point and get you (Vynette) to change your mind. That won’t be my goal. My goal will just be to present support for Jesus being both God and man, not merely a man appointed by God. Although I would like to hear your thoughts on what I come up with.
More to come, but it could be a while. I have church stuff starting up tonight that I need to get ready for. Maybe tomorrow.
Thanks!
Comment by: Helen
13 09/8/06 9:12 AM | Comment Link |I don’t have a question right now: these are just some comments based on Vynette’s blog entry today: The Beastly Blogger
It’s about the insults she’s received as she’s posted what she believes in various online discussions. Here’s an excerpt:
Wow - I’m impressed ;). I’ve annoyed people but my ‘insult collection’ is nothing compared to Vynette’s!
What fascinates me is - she’s only doing the same thing that those who insult her are doing: proclaiming what she believes is true.
When they do it I expect they consider themselves to be carrying out God’s will. When she does the same thing they (evidently) throw their worst insults at her.
That seems very unfair, to me. Not to mention unkind.
Vynette didn’t mention this, but they’ve overlooked the fact that a well-read follower of Jesus who gets insulted will count themselves blessed, according to Jesus’ words here (Matt 5:11-12):
Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Basically, my advice is: don’t insult followers of Jesus who know this passage. It will be counterproductive: it will only encourage them to do more of whatever it is that led you to insult them, while counting themselves ‘blessed’!
Comment by: Mike O
14 09/8/06 11:58 AM | Comment Link |I hope that doesn’t happen here. I don’t agree with her views, but I’m glade that this is a place we can have a civil exchange of ideas.
Comment by: Helen
15 09/8/06 12:13 PM | Comment Link |Mike wrote;
So am I, Mike!
Comment by: vynette
16 09/8/06 4:59 PM | Comment Link |I’m so accustomed to being ‘abused’ that I don’t know how to respond when the opposite occurs! So, all I can say is thanks and…me too!
Comment by: Eliza
17 09/8/06 11:45 PM | Comment Link |I’ve enjoyed this discussion, and the prior one on Doable Evangelism - came to it late, still catching up after having been away.
Vynette, your interpretations of scripture come closer to the understanding I take from my own unguided reading than anything else I’ve seen - with the quite major difference that I’m an atheist. I feel like I’m reading for internal clues and consistency to come to something that seems cohesive to me, rather than reading to support something I believe is true, or that fits with any orthodoxy I’ve been taught. I hope you don’t find that having an atheist agree with you is akin to some of the insults you’ve received in the past…that’s certainly not my intent!
Comment by: Eliza
18 09/9/06 12:13 AM | Comment Link |Helen - your comments in #5 above really struck me. I think you’ve put your finger on something really important.
Some additional thoughts triggered for me by your comments -
As an outside observer, commenting on Christianity in general (not necessarily anything I’ve read/heard here), it seems to me that Christians often seem to worship Jesus as God, or at least worship him over and above the rest of the trinity. (That’s an outsider’s perspective, so may be baseless of course!)
Instead of hearing “Love thy God (which I interpret as God the Father) and love thy neighbor,” I seem to hear “Love Jesus.” I don’t think that’s what he was asking for, or not the only thing (by any means).
I see pictures of Jesus - strong but gentle, radiant, inspiring, often (in modern images) quite good-looking - appealing in the role of savior, but uncomfortably (imo) close to an idol. (Someone will have to tell me, why are pictures of Jesus not considered “a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above”? Or do some Cs consider them as such?)
I hear people arguing about details of orthodoxy and orthopraxy which sound pretty nit-picking to an outsider - and I wonder whether the forest isn’t sometimes being lost, while the trees are examined in great detail and high hopes placed on this branch or that.
Just some of my late-night thoughts; sorry to hijack the thread of questions for Vynette!
Comment by: Helen
19 09/9/06 6:30 AM | Comment Link |Eliza wrote:
Yes; even insiders sometimes feel uncomfortable at how it must look to outsiders when they endlessly argue back and forth over this or that point of doctrine.
Most Christians are conscious of having a hierarchy of belief in which they consider some of their beliefs essential and some not.
For many Christians “Jesus is God” is at the core of their essential beliefs.
So, by disagreeing with that, Vynette is striking at the heart of their beliefs. This doesn’t justify being nasty to her, imo, but it does perhaps explain the vehemence of their responses.
Comment by: Eliza
20 09/9/06 2:43 PM | Comment Link |Helen said:
Can you (anyone) please remind me what scripture outside of John points to this?
As far as I can tell, Jesus does not claim to be God in the other 3 gospels, and Paul seems to refer to Christ and God as separate entities, with Jesus the son of God and the conduit to God, but subordinate to God. I haven’t read back through his letters to see whether are counterexamples, but these examples come to mind (all ESV):
Romans 8:34 …Christ Jesus is the one who died - more than that, who was raised - who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. [Interceding for us with God - the ultimate decisionmaker]
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
Galatians 4:14 and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.
Ephesians 2:18-21 For through him we both have access in one spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.
Also, while most Christian denominations are trinitarian, aren’t there several which aren’t? (So now I’m guessing that those denominations aren’t considered valid by the rest - ?)
All of which above leads me to question why it’s so shocking to Cs to hear someone discuss Jesus as Vynette has. Though clearly, as you say Helen, if someone’s core belief is questioned the response will be more vigorous than if a “peripheral” belief is questioned.
When I’d looked into “what defines a Christian” some time back, including asking on the DB (and reading), it seemed the single “required” feature was belief in the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. (Whether or not the meant Jesus was God, or “merely” the Son of God, natural or chosen from among men). Belief in divine conception in a virginal mother closely followed as the second most important required belief; that would speak to Jesus as the divine Son of God, but not as God himself. I didn’t find mention of “Jesus is God” as a required belief for defining a Christian, but can understand that people may feel this is true and necessary without having spelled it out.
Comment by: Mike O
21 09/9/06 3:24 PM | Comment Link |I’ve been doing some study on this since Vynette first posted. Not sure when I’ll get a chance to put it out here, but I reallyw ant to. As always, not to argue, just to show where the belief that Jesus is God can be based in scripture.
Eliza said: Can you (anyone) please remind me what scripture outside of John points to this?
and Vynette alluded to someting about the way John writes, too. But this is a curious quesiton to me … even if John was the only gospel that supported it, why would we exclude that one from consideration? Will we discard whatever other references we find as well? I’m just afraid people will use the scriptures that support their theory and ignore the ones that don’t. Or twist the ones that don’t support to make them support you.
Comment by: Eliza
22 09/9/06 4:42 PM | Comment Link |Mike O, I really like to read whatever you find, to expand my horizons.
I’m sure my view of this will be different from Vynette’s and any C’s. My “concern” about relying solely on John comes from my view of the Bible as a collection of eclectic writings, rather than an inspired confluent text.
First: Mark was the earliest-authored gospel, and John the last (I believe this is widely accepted). In Mark, Jesus is acknowledged as the Son of God (becomes divine, etc) at his baptism by John the Baptist. In Matthew and Luke, he is the Son of God beginning at his divine conception. In John, he is the Word, having been present with God before the creation. (Paul doesn’t mention divine conception, virgin birth, or much about Jesus’ life - for Paul, as far as I can tell, Jesus was born of a woman, lived as a man, was raised up by God and became divine as of that godly intervention.) John’s depiction of Jesus as the Word and as God is markedly different from the depiction in the other 3 gospels, and imo one should consider the possibility that John reflects the growth of a legend rather than the eyewitness testimony of a self-claimed beloved disciple, who interestingly isn’t mentioned as such anywhere else in the Bible. Another possibility is that John was trying to date Jesus to earlier than Abraham, to lay earlier claim to divine connection than the Jews. (The Gospel of Phillip does describe one follower as being loved more, or differently, than the others. I won’t go any farther into that heretical idea here.)
Second, John is quite different in details from the other 3 gospels, including the timing of the cleansing of the temple, and the duration of Jesus’s ministry on earth. (Here are 8 other differences - there are others, including the story of Lazarus.)
Third, the first written documentation listing Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the only 4 legitimate gospels (out of many in circulation in the first 2 centuries A.D.) came from Irenaeus in 170 A.D. (Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367 A.D., is the earliest author known to list the NT canon as it currently stands.)
Fourth, my understanding is that people who know alot about Jewish culture, the Romans, and the Middle East in the 1st century comment that if Jesus had really made the claims that the Gospel of John claims he did, he would have been summarily and severely punished. (I’ve read this in several books, which I don’t have on hand now. I believe the comments were that the Jewish religious leaders would have executed him, and it would have been by a method other than crucifixion.)
Seems to me that it would be reasonable to use the “trust but verify” approach for any claim stemming only from one source. I just don’t see why one would accept something without probing the source material, including how it got where it is, and who decided, and why something really important might only be in one part, which is so different from the rest. You could misled, otherwise - and for theists, it would seem to me the topic is of such crucial importance that one should be careful of letting anyone else (current or past) make those determinations about what’s true.
Comment by: Helen
23 09/9/06 4:57 PM | Comment Link |Eliza wrote:
It’s interesting to hear that Christians said “belief in the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus” without also spelling out “Jesus is God”. It’s probably because “Jesus is God” is so central and core and inherent to them that they overlooked the necessity of saying it in a context where not everyone has been taught what they have been taught.
Eliza, the NT Wright approach is that “Jesus is God” is backed into. It’s sort of like saying, “we know a doctor was promised and the one who came looked like, acted like, was as gracious as, and had the skills of Eliza, so, even though we didn’t expect the doctor who came to be Eliza, and she didn’t say “Hey, I’m Eliza - I want you all to know that!” we are sure, based on all the evidence, that it was her”. And that conclusion might have taken a bit of time to arrive at, so, in the first reports about the doctor’s visit, no-one would have been saying “Eliza came”. But later, once everyone compared notes and decided it really was Eliza, they would start naming the doctor.
To some extent traditional conservative Christians back into “Jesus is God” also, since, as you noticed, there is not an abundance of Bible verses saying “Jesus is God”.
Here are some links I collected years ago, to traditional Christian arguments defending the belief that Jesus is God:
The Doctrine of the Trinity
The Trinity (IIIf)
The NT Witness: Summary–The Deity of Jesus Christ
How do Jehovah’s
Witnesses’ teachings about Christ compare with Scriptures?
The I Am
Who Is Jehovah?
Who is Jesus?
Jesus being God is what necessitates the doctrine of the trinity - that’s why some of these pages say they are about the trinity.
The Nicene Creed - a historic creed of the church - was developed in response to groups who said Jesus wasn’t God. It makes the strong statement that he is.
Interestingly, an earlier widely-used creed, referred to as the Apostles’ Creed, doesn’t actually say Jesus is God. Was this because it was assumed, like those respondents who talked about required belief, evidently assumed it?
Some Christians define orthodox belief as agreeing with what these two creeds say. I think one of the biggest active Christian discussion boards out there, Christian Forums, uses that definition - if I recall correctly.
Comment by: Rachel
24 09/9/06 4:59 PM | Comment Link |My understanding is that under Roman occupation the Jewish leaders did not have the authority to put Jesus to death. Only the Romans could administer the death penalty. According to the gospel texts, many of the Jewish leaders did consider Jesus to have committed blasphemy (a religious offense) and to be worthy of death. But they had to convince the occupational authority that Jesus had committed a crime punishable by death in the eyes of Rome (a civil offense).
Comment by: vynette
25 09/9/06 7:46 PM | Comment Link |Eliza, thank you for your observations. You brought up the topic of atheism in your comment so let me offer some observations in return.
In New Testament terms, belief in Jesus as the ‘Christ’, meant belief in the particular nature of his ‘messiahship’. To believe in his ‘messiahship’ is also to believe in the values and principles for which he lived and died.
As one believes, so one lives. What I am going the long way round in trying to say is that it does not matter what one believes or doesn’t believe. Whether one self-describes as ‘atheist’, Christian, Jew, Muslim etc.
God is not so paltry or petty, as Helen has already pointed out.
One of the criteria for Hebrew ‘messiahship’ was the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth. Jesus was described as this ‘King of Israel’.
For the New Testament writers, the Kingdom could only be established by universal emulation of the values and principles for which Jesus lived and died.
Belief is nothing, character in action is everything. This is actually the thrust of John’s Gospel, about which there has been much discussion here.
Comment by: vynette
26 09/9/06 7:58 PM | Comment Link |Following on from my previous comment, allow me to make some further observations.
The issues for which Jesus of Nazareth was crucified are universal and living. They were made explicit by a collision of wills which took place at a certain time (30 AD) and in a certain place (Jerusalem). Jesus was a man who died for a principle. He was crucified by self-righteous ignorance and arrogance. The principle is the essential thing. Time, place and personalities are only incidental.
The New Testament is constructed around the figure of a central sufferer.
In tragedy on the classical pattern, the downfall of the hero is always brought about by a flaw in himself. The fatal flaw in the downfall of Jesus was not one that existed in himself, but the one already existing, and which he brought to consciousness, in others.
Put bluntly, Jesus proved to the priests and lawmakers that they were hypocrites. Instead of analysing their own attitudes, his oppenents attributed to him their discomfort of mind, which was actually brought about by their increased knowledge of themselves.
In this way, Jesus brought about the situation whereby it was necessary for the priests and lawmakers to kill him or, alternatively, suffer the condemnation of their own virtue.
Let us consider for one moment that the New Testament is nothing more than an attempt to write a dramatic tragedy.
The writers of the New Testament imposed order on their material according to their various purposes. The account which is most like that of a drama is found in the Gospel of John. He portrays Jesus as God’s Word of Eternal Life made flesh and subordinates all incidental material.
Within the limits imposed by factual accuracy, it is in Jerusalem that he brings all the main characters onto the stage at the time essential for dramatic impact and development.
In the particular events and in the climax which John presents, the dramatist (as we are presently considering him), sees the outworking of universal principles - truth versus the lie, objective attitudes versus subjective attitudes, personal integrity versus institutional formalism, and so on.
Instead of localising Jesus to the stage of the Jerusalem of 30AD,
he places him on the stage of eternity as a symbol of Everyman by identifying him with issues of principle.
Comment by: Eliza
27 09/10/06 12:24 AM | Comment Link |vynette - very interesting - thanks, I know that I will try to read John again with a different perspective!
Comment by: Eliza
28 09/10/06 1:13 AM | Comment Link |Helen, thanks for those links. I’ve only had time to look at the first one. It’s an index, the first link in which is to The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity, a detailed outline with citations by Robert Bowman. He makes a good case that “there is only one God” is supported textually, then says
He then gives more details about the grammatical format of those 4 plural pronoun occurrences, using “possibly” and “probably” regarding the meaning and usage, in discussing each. In including #2 as an important argument, he (imo) violates his own “first principle” of Biblical interpretation, that implicit meanings should never trump explicit meanings given elsewhere. (And I can’t help but point out that his statement that “nontrinitarian interpretation cannot account for” plural pronoun usage by God is arguing from his conclusion! Unitarian interpretation would presumably not account for the plural self-references, but trinitarianism does not necessarily follow. But I digress.)
Next he tries to support the claim that Jesus Christ is God. Most of his examples are from John, no surprise. Under “Explicit statements” he says:
Titus 2:13-14 (ESV) reads: waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us… But the problem he doesn’t mention is that it’s widely thought (by “over two thirds” of scholars, according to Wikipedia’s page on the Epistle to Titus) not to have been written by Paul (even though it carries Paul’s name). (For me, that’s a problem; unknown author = questionable basis for authority.)
Bowman gives Romans 9:5 (”…Christ who is God over all…”) after opening with the disclaimer “While grammatically this is not the only possible interpretation…”.
He also gives 2 Peter 1:1 (”…righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ”). For several reasons, 2 Peter may have been written as late as the 3rd century, which would mean it was by an unknown author rather than by Peter, again a real blow against its authority imo.
He also gives 1 John 5:20 (”…in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life”). My understanding is that the author is thought to be the same as the author of the Gospel of John, so that doesn’t address my concern with John as the sole source. (Bowman does not cite 1 John 5:7-8 as included in older translations; those versions included the Comma Johanneum, a phrase explicitly describing the trinity. Since this clause is not present in any text before the 4th century, it is now widely thought to have been a late addition to the text, and almost all modern translations leave it out. It’s too bad it’s been discredited; it could have helped the pro-trinitarian apologists considerably!)
Bowman includes other citations which strike me as quite weak. For example, to support Jesus being omnipresent (thus sharing characteristics with God), he cites Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am among them. But that’s prefaced by a conditional phrase, so it’s not a statement of omni-presence.
His outline of citations supporting Jesus as God is followed by an outline of claims otherwise, with his rebuttals. That counterclaim list is longer than the claims list, and imo more convincing. *Sigh* I’ll look at some of the other links you gave later (& will plan not to post book reports on them ;) ). Thanks again!
Comment by: Helen
29 09/10/06 3:01 AM | Comment Link |Eliza,
I’m glad this topic came up when it did because now you’ll go into the class knowing that “Jesus is God” is a core and essential belief, whether it’s assumed or explicitly taught.
Feel free to contine posting your responses here to what you read regarding the belief “Jesus is God” if you would like to. I think it’s good for Christians to see how convincing someone who doesn’t already believe Jesus is God finds such articles.
Yes, many Christians are aware enough that that’s a late addition not to use it to support belief in the trinity. Here’s the Wikipedia entry about it
Logically - when manuscripts vary it makes more sense to me that a direct affirmation of some key doctrine not present in all copies is more likely to indicate a late addition than a late removal; because it’s more likely that a well-meaning person added a comment/note/clarification that ended up as part of the text than that someone removed a key doctrine and no-one noticed it was missing, so the text remained without it.
Now you’ve started reading you’ve probably come across some of the following - and may have responded to some of it above already - but for the sake of clarity:
1) One line of argument for “Jesus is God” is to find verses which say he has the attributes only God has - therefore he must be God. Here’s a specific article using that approach:
Trinity Explained
As well as looking at whether Jesus has God’s unique attributes, Christians also look at Jesus’ life as described in the Bible and argue such things as - he let people worship him, which implies he’s God since he would have stopped them from doing so otherwise, since it breaks the commandment “Worship God and serve him only”.
2) Another line of argument is to show that Old Testament prophecy about the coming Messiah, who the NT (clearly) equates with Jesus, indicates the Messiah will be God. The following article begins with that approach
Jesus is God
Comment by: Helen
30 09/10/06 3:03 AM | Comment Link |Vynette wrote:
Vynette, in view of this, I’m curious: why do you focus on belief in your blog and in online discussions? Why not focus on character? Why not take the attitude “So what if people believe Jesus is God, as long as they are working on character in action?”
Is it because you believe it’s impossible for someone to work on character in action unless they reject the belief “Jesus is God?”
I’m just trying to understand where you’re coming from.
Comment by: vynette
31 09/10/06 7:26 AM | Comment Link |Helen, you asked:
“Is it because you believe it’s impossible for someone to work on character in action unless they reject the belief “Jesus is God?”
No, Helen, the reason is that doctrinal beliefs impose an artificial barrier between Jesus of Nazareth and the rest of us. Not only do they misrepresent the values he stood for, falsify the issues that brought him into collision with the priests and conceal the motives of those who caused him to be crucified, but also they obscure the fact that the same issues are just as much alive and vital today as they were in 30AD.
Many, many Christians, therefore, believe that ‘belief’ is the chief requirement of a follower of Jesus.
In my view, before we can determine and define just what our duties are, and where our allegiances should lie, we must have a clear understanding of our relationships, both to Jesus and to God.
After I have measured every single doctrine against the yardstick of Scripture, then I will focus on the values and principles embodied by Jesus and how, by emulation, we can work towards the Kingdom - character in action.
I also had a look at that article you mentioned in your last comment ‘Jesus is God’. For any who may be interested, I have already addressed some of those points on my own blog and intend to address the remainder in the future.
Cheerio
Comment by: Helen
32 09/10/06 7:48 AM | Comment Link |Thanks Vynette. I understand that our beliefs are generally connected to our values.
I respect the order you want to lay things out in on your blog.
But I assume that for yourself, you’ve already figured out what values and principles you believe followers of Jesus should have.
So could you give me a sneak preview of those, here?
Comment by: vynette
33 09/10/06 3:23 PM | Comment Link |Helen, just a few thoughts then.
In my view, it is encumbent on all who would be followers of Jesus to live according to the values he embodied. I call them the three ‘C’s of Christians:
Champion the disenfranchised and disadvantaged;
Challenge any and all authority on their behalf if necessary;
Confront the perpetrators of manipulation, injustice, cruelty, distortion and lies wherever and whenever they may be found.
Helen, seeing we are talking more personally in this thread, let me give you a concrete example.
My friends have been involved in issues ranging from confronting a local authority over alienation of local parkland all the way up to appearing in the High Court of Australia to challenge the Federal Government on voting legislation that disadvantaged the less powerful in society.
No issue should be too small, too large, too intimidating or too lengthy.
For instance, one of my friends has been attempting for fourteen long years to bring charges of official corruption against very senior members of the Queensland Executive. Of course, this has been vigorously resisted, not only by the perpetrators but by others compromised through their own silence and inaction.
I must add that one should expect no reward, no recognition, no visible results, and certainly no personal justification for doing what is, after all, only our duty.
I guess I could sum this all up by saying we are expected to put the self-centred ‘earthly’ person to death and raise up a new unselfish ’spiritual’ person.
I hope this answers your questions.
Comment by: Helen
34 09/10/06 4:37 PM | Comment Link |Yes, that did answer my questions, thanks.
I really like this:
I also see those things as at the heart of what Jesus did - and as very important to God as depicted in the Old Testament, who cared about widows and orphans.
Comment by: JohnO
35 09/10/06 8:11 PM | Comment Link |Helen,
In your comment (the 5th on the thread) you wrote:
Or “To hell with you, because you followed me and revered me and believed God the Father made me King over the universe - but you said I was actually God, when in fact I’m only the Son of God!”
I think this is a plausible outcome for one reason. IF Jesus is NOT God, then to worship him as God is idolatry. Israel was punished for their idolatry. God has not changed his stance on idolatry since then. It is repugnant to him.
But I whole-heartedly agree with your third statement.
Comment by: Helen
36 09/11/06 2:49 AM | Comment Link |Hi John,
You raise a good point about idolatry.
But I think melting down jewelry and making a snake or calf and then worshiping that as God is somewhat different from worshiping Jesus as God, who God made King and at whose baptism God said “This is my beloved Son in whom I’m well pleased!”
If everything the Bible says is true, yet it has been misinterpreted about its teachings about Jesus to say he’s God instead of the Son of God, I think its plausible that the ramifications of that misinterpretation are less offensive to God than the ramifications of people creating wood, clay, stone, or metal objects and then worshiping them instead of God.
But - I don’t actually know whether they are, of course. I’m just speculating.
Comment by: Mike O
37 09/11/06 3:34 AM | Comment Link |Boy, this is hard to keep up with. And I am amazed at the depth that people are going with this topic of “Is Jesus God.” What’s also interesting to me is how people can look at the same material and come to such vastly different conclusions. When I look at scripture and my own study, it is so clear to me that Jesus was God and man, not just a man it’s not even funny. In the interest of brevity (and this will be plenty long, I’m sure) I won’t spend a lot of time trying to be careful of people’s feelings. I have a lot to cover so please read what follows as if it had been written respectfully. I respectfully disagree with quite a bit of the stance taken here.
There is a lot of opinionizing here, and assiging of motives (discrediting John, for example) and the case that Jesus was not God is built upon those assigned motives, and then assigning them to the historical document (the Bible) to make the outcome fit. I’m not a scholar and I’m not smart enough to address every evidence shown here by Vynette and others. I concede that Vynette has spent wayyyy more time on this than I have and can address everything I’m about to say. But here goes.
I believe the Bible is true, and the doctrines found in John as well as elsewhere are sound. I want to go back to what the Bible says and strip away all the opinionization that has been applied.
Back in comment #8 Vynette herself uses John in her attempt to refute the suggestion that God took on the form of man. In particular, she cites No man has seen the father at any time (John 1:18, 6:46) among others. But John (the gospel we’re not supposed to be using) also says
John 8:38 - I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence
John 14:6-10 - Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
My point is not to refute each and every verse Vynette cited, but rather to say that God did come in the flesh and the Bible supports that.
Also, it has been mentioned in this thread that Jesus never said he was God, but he says it here in John. He also said it when he was crucified
Luke 22:70-71 - They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied, “You are right in saying I am.” Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.”
First notice that this passage is not from John. Secondly notice that it uses the Phrase “Son of God,” which Vynette says does not mean that he was God. I disagree. If Jesus were merely claiming to be like Moses, or another prophet (the Jews had always had prophets from time to time) they would not have been trying to crucify him for blasphemy when he said that. It’s clear that the intent here is that they were asking him if he was God, and he said he was.
I need to go to work, so I’ll write more a little later. This has been really good for me!
Comment by: Helen
38 09/11/06 4:17 AM | Comment Link |Thanks for your comments, Mike.
In this discussion two rather different objections to John’s gospel affirming Jesus is God have been raised.
Eliza is questioning whether John’s gospel can be regarded as a reliable source of what Jesus actually said.
Vynette hasn’t questioned the reliability of John’s gospel; her objection is that Johns’ gospel is being misinterpreted by those who think it supports the teaching “Jesus is God”.
Eliza’s question is valid, certainly. But it’s probably best to have the discussion about the reliability of the Bible elsewhere, in order to keep this particular discussion focused on responses to Vynette’s beliefs and the ramifications of them.
So Mike, go ahead and assume the Bible is reliable, for purposes of this discussion.
Yes, I agree it’s interesting - especially since, like I was just mentioning, Vynette and you apparently are starting at the same place i.e. the Bible is the Word of God - in other words, a perfectly reliable source of truth.
(Vynette please correct me if I have misconstrued your beliefs about the Bible)
Comment by: Mike O
39 09/11/06 8:26 AM | Comment Link |I just took a peek here from work … I admit that much support for “Jesus is God” comes from John. Vynette, can you please summarize again why you think John get’s misinterpreted?
Also to Eliza, John is widely accepted to have been written around 90ad, approximately 60 years after the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, and well within the eyewitness period. This would suggest that reliability would be the same as the other gospels, which were written even earlier. By that, I mean that it would have been easily refuted by his contemporaries of the time if John were saying Jesus said he was God when he really never said that. That leads me to believe it is accurate. My assumption is that he wrote the same truth from a different angle, or was trying to bring out things the other gospels didn’t cover as well.
Vynette, you’ve studied this more and may know better about this, but weren’t Matthew, Mark and Luke written from a more physical perspective and chronological history of events, and John took a decidedly more spiritual angle, maybe sacrificing chronology for topical flow? That wouldn’t make it any less truth, just a different perspective on things.
Much like one person describing a car accident from the perspective of how fast he was going, who hit whome where and at what angles, and another person focusing on the states of mind of the drivers — A was drunk or depressed, B was a mother of 3, etc. Both accounts, although containing completely different details are, in fact, cohesive.
Comment by: Helen
40 09/11/06 9:53 AM | Comment Link |Mike, for your reference, in comment #10 Vynette explains how she understands John 1:1.
Comment by: Eliza
41 09/11/06 2:28 PM | Comment Link |Mike O, what do you think about the apparent references to Jesus as subordinate to God from the Pauline letters (see my comment #20 above)? Apologist Bowman (linked in #28 above) listed some of these (all? I didn’t check) and others at the end of his piece on Jesus is God, then tries to refute them.
Certainly, people can report and write up very different perspectives of the same events, and one author could write about spiritual aspects with less focus on the physical aspects.
But regarding the author of the Gospel of John: the other 3 gospels are clear that John the son of Zebedee was a fisherman. I think Acts refers to John as unlettered (illiterate, or at least not well educated; don’t have the citation in front of me). But the Gospel of John is lyrical, & those who can read ancient Greek say it’s the work of a highly educated person (whereas Mark, for example, is apparently rougher in structure and grammar). Also, there are apparently geographical errors in John, leading some to suspect that the author did not live in Galilee (don’t have the details in front of me right now). Either and both of these issue raise question as to whether the author was really the apostle John (& further questions, for some, as to whether the author really was an eyewitness).
From Wikipedia’s page on the authorship of the Johannine works: “According to some scholars[citation needed], the first persons to use the Gospel of John were Gnostics in the early to mid second century, referring to commentary made on John by the Gnostics Ptolemy and Heracleon, as quoted by Irenaeus and Origen. The first certain witness to Johannine theology among the Fathers of the Church is in Ignatius of Antioch, whose Letter to the Philippians is founded on John 3:8 and alludes to John 10:7-9 and 14:6. This would indicate that the Gospel was known in Antioch before Ignatius’ death (probably 107).” and
“On the one hand, several Church fathers of the 2nd century never quoted John, and on the other, the earliest extant written commentary on any book of the New Testament was that written on John by Heracleon, a disciple of the gnostic Valentinus. Texts of the Nag Hammadi library show that many of the Gospel of John’s earliest readers responded to the text “in surprising and imaginative ways” (Pagels 2003 p 115 —117). ” and
“The recent discovery of Rylands Library Papyrus P52, typically dated to around 100-175 , suggests, according to Christian apologists, that the text of the Gospel of John spread rapidly through Egypt….Rome was the home to the only early rejection of the fourth Gospel. The adversaries of Montanism were responsible. Irenaeus says that these persons tried to suppress the teaching about the Holy Spirit in order to put down Montanism, and as a result denied the authorship of the Gospel and its authority. ”
There wouldn’t have been many eyewitnesses left after 60 years, given the life expectancy in those days. Most probably would have been illiterate. My understanding is that there was no expectation that writings would be factual or carry the name of the true author in those times, not like there is now. So, someone who “objected” to the Gospel of John would have to have been an elderly literate who was anachronistically concerned with journalistic accuracy and who had a podium from which his writings/opinions would have been heard. And, as above, it sounds like the Gospel of John was popular - at least in Egypt, where there wouldn’t have been eyewitnesses, and also with the Gnostics (not apparently sticklers for “true facts”, from the plethora of tales that arose in the gnostic literature) - thus giving the Gospel of John a popular appeal, wider circulation, and more extant copies than other writings of the time.
Comment by: vynette
42 09/11/06 3:14 PM | Comment Link |Helen, you have not misconstrued my position on scripture. In fact, I’ll take this opportunity to make my position quite clear.
We are told by the prophet Isaiah to “seek ye out of the book of YHVH and read.” (34:16). Just as the truthful, guileless words of Jesus were sharper than a two-edged sword searching the secrets thoughts of man, so too does Scripture “slay with words” the doctrines of mystery supposedly based upon it. (Hosea 6:5)
I interpret Scripture by Scripture, not by the teachings or traditions of the churches. Where similar texts occur, the meaning in one case determines the meaning in the other. No scripture is of private (or special) interpretation (2 Pet. 1:20). Only by this method of interpretation can a perfect and just weighing of the evidence be assured.(Deut. 25:15)
Every scripture inspired by God is profitable for teaching (2 Tim 3:16). There is no necessity to depart from scripture for teaching.
Unfortunately, a position has now arisen where people have rejected ‘religion’ and, in not perceiving that ecclesiastical teachings are not based on scripture, have rejected the Bible and Jesus of Nazareth also.
Personally, this is a great grief to me and one of my prime motivators.
Comment by: vynette
43 09/11/06 3:37 PM | Comment Link |“Vynette, can you please summarize again why you think John get’s misinterpreted?”
Mike,
I’ve already said much about John’s gospel but I’ll just quickly summarise.
John seems to have been the only one capable of seeing beyond the superficial meaning of Jesus’ words and grasping their spiritual significance.
Whether written by John the disciple or not, this gospel gives a spiritual presentation of Jesus which is lacking in the other gospels. For this reason, the gospel is not interpretable by its ‘letter’ but by its ’spirit’.
Nothwithstanding all debates about authorship, one very good reason for supposing that the person who wrote the gospel of John also wrote the Johannine epistles and Revelation, is that all can be interpreted by reference to the others. This indicates a single mind at work.
The perspective afforded by time and hindsight allowed John to grasp that the events that occurred in Jerusalem could be viewed with a breadth and depth which had implications for all humanity, for all time.
They could be viewed as a collision of fundamental human values unlimited by time and space. Therefore, we see Jesus portrayed as representative of the eternal values of God and the priests portrayed as representative of the eternal values of God’s opposition - God as the Father of Truth, Satan as the Father of Lies.
Truth and love are major themes in John’s gospel. His view of the supreme importance of bearing witness to that truth is encapsulated in Chapter 18:37. His theme of ‘love’, of ‘oneness’, of an affinity of spirit binding Jesus, the Father, the disciples and believers into one bondage, finds it ultimate expression in Chapter 17.
Mike, I hope this is useful for you.
Cheerio
Comment by: Mike O
44 09/12/06 5:51 AM | Comment Link |Eliza, I do not believe the passages you cite in #20 mean that Jesus is subordinate to God. If Jesus was subordinate to God, those passages could probably be interpreted as you see them. If Jesus was not subordinate to God, but rather was God, who lowered himself to human form in the person of Jesus (Phil 2:6-8), these verses still hold. God, as a man.
As to the validity of the Johannine writings, I’ve heard enough over the years to convince me that they are every bit as authoritative as the other gospels. I suppose ultimately it comes down to which scholars are you going to listen to. For me, the reasonableness checks I do lead me to believe that for a man to be thrown in boiling oil for his beliefs, they obviously were very volitile teachings, and I find it unreasonable to assume his writings weren’t inspired. Where are the writings of the same time refuting what he wrote? Serious question … are there writings out there that say something to the effect of “I was there, I saw Jesus live and die, and here is why Christianity (as we call it today) is a fraud.”
Also, Acts 5:29-42 is a historical account (corroborated extra-biblically I think … I could be wrong) of what should have happened if Christianity wasn’t really all we claim it to be.
Interestingly, this also happens to be one passage that supports (doesn’t prove … supports) the idea of the trinity. All three are mentioned as seperate identities of God in one statement (Acts 5:30-32) and provides an evidence that Jesus was God (Acts 5:31) because it says that Jesus gives repentance and forgiveness for the sins of Israel. That’s God’s job, but Jesus is doing it.
If I remember right, I think Vynette said something about this, that Jesus was exalted to God after his resurrection, but that he was not God prior to his crucifixion. Is that right, Vynette? I concede that this passage in Acts 5 supports that Jesus was God after his resurrection, but doesn’t prove or say that he was God prior to his crucifixion. Neither does it say he wasn’t God prior to his crucifixion. The exalting mentioned here, if Jesus was God lowering himself to the status of a man, could then exalt that person of the trinity. That’s how I understand it.
Comment by: Mike O
45 09/12/06 6:27 AM | Comment Link |Here are a list of passages I think prove that Jesus was God in the flesh, and not just a man. Of course, I base this on the assumption that all scripture is inspired and it’s authority is established.
John 1:1-18 - I know Vynette has an explanation for this … I’m just giving my view of it here. I respectfully disagree. The fact that 1 John 1:1 uses the phrase “the word” in one context does not demand that all other uses of that phrase mean the same thing. It is clear that “the word” in John 1 is a person. And even if “Jesus was the personification of the word” as Vynette suggests, it still says He was in the beginning and was God. In verses 6-9, John switches to using the analogy of light. Verses 10-12 are also clearly describing the same person. And verse 14 actually says “The word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. The word was in the beginning (John 1:1). The word was God (John 1:1). The word became flesh (John 1:14). The light was in the world (John 1:10). The light came to his own, who did not receive him (John 1:11, John 4:44,Matthew 13:57, Mark 6:4, ) The light gives gives the right to become children of God to all who believe in his name (John 1:12-13, John 20:31, http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=jesus%20name&version1=31&searchtype=all&spanbegin=51&spanend=73)The word lived among us (John 1:10). The word was Jesus (John 1:17, John 1:26-30) I just don’t see how you can, or why you would, parse this continuous passage to mean anything other than “God became flesh in the person of Jesus.”
More to come …
Comment by: Mike O
46 09/12/06 6:48 AM | Comment Link |Continuing on with passages from John …
John 14:16-20 - The point here is that Jesus says when speaking of the Holy spirit, “But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.” Jesus says that the Holy Spirit lives (present tense) with them, and that he IS the holy spirit, and this is before his crucifixion. The whole phraseology of this passage, too, is support for the concept of the trinity. In one statement, Jesus refers to himself and the Holy Spirit as seperate entities (John 14:16) and as the same entity (14:17-19). The spirit lives with them presently, Jesus will come to them later (after his death), the world will not see Jesus but the disciples will (as the Holy Spirit), and his “because I live” phrase is obviously intended in an ongoing, future tense. Otherwise it would be a stupid thing to say. “You’re alive today because I’m alive today you will live tomorrow.” That’s dumb. Rather, “Because I will continue to live, you will continue to live through me (Holy SPirit).”
John 14:23 - Jesus says he and God the Father will “come to him and make OUR home with him.” Difficult for a mere man to do.
John 16:7-16 - More on the the relationship between Jesus, the Holy SPirit and God the Father. In v7 Jesus says HE will send the Counselor. Why doesn’t he say GOD will send the counselor? In v9 Jesus says the Counselor will convict the world of sin because they did not believe in JESUS. Why doesn’t he say they should believe in GOD if Jesus is a mere man? In v14, Jesus says the Counselor will bring glory to JESUS. Why doesn’t the mere man say the Counselor will bring glory to God? If Jesus is God, this passage makes perfect sense. If he’s a mere man, it gets really sticky.
John 18:36-37 - Jesus refers to HIS kingdom is not of this world, but from another place. He calls himself a king, and that that is the reason he came. Jesus the man was no king. He is God.
More to come from other books of the bible …
Comment by: Mike O
47 09/12/06 7:30 AM | Comment Link |From other books of the bible ….
Isaiah 9:6 - For unto us a child is born (Jesus) … and HE shall be called “Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”
Luke 22:70-71 - Jesus calls himself the Son of God, for which they wanted to kill him for blasphemy. It’s not blasphemy to call yourself a prophet. He was calling himself God.
Hebrews 11:22-26 - Moses (Old testament) regarded disgrace for the sake of CHRIST of greater value than the treasures of Egypt. Christ wasn’t born in the fless until thousands of years later.
1 John 2:1-2 - Jesus is alive, with God, speaking to the father on behalf of people. Jesus’ crucifixion was long ago by this point.
Acts 1:1-10 - Jesus was witnessed alive after his crucifixion, and ascended into heaven and JESUS will return. A tall order for a mere man to fulfill.
Romans 1:1-7 - Paul, a servant of JESUS CHRIST. Why isn’t he a servant of GOD if Jesus was just a man? It’s clear from this passage that Paul considered Jesus more than a man. Grace and peace come through JESUS AND GOD and disciples are said to “belong to JESUS CHRIST.” Interesting wording if Jesus was just a man.
1 Corinthians 1:1-3 - Paul says that those who call on the name of JESUS are called to be holy.
1 Corinthians 16:23-24 - May the Grace of the lord Jesus be with you.
Virtually every (maybe not every, but virtually every) letter in the new testament starts and ends with a salutation in the name of Christ. If Jesus was God, these verses make perfect sense. If he was just a man, it’s hard to explain all the references to Jesus, the man, rather than God.
Comment by: Mike O
48 09/12/06 7:34 AM | Comment Link |Last post on this thought … Vynette, your position assumes that Jesus was not divine, and you have scriptures that support that position. I assume that Jesus is divine, and I have scriptures that support my position.
Also, I believe I have shown passages that actually say “Jesus is God” that need to be somehow explained away for your position to be valid. Are there passages I am not aware of that actually say, “Jesus was not God?” Obviously it won’t be that clear, but everything I’ve seen so far also supports the ideas of the trinity and that God himself became a man (not ‘chose’ a man), the man Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Is there anything that says God did not become a man?
Comment by: Mike O
49 09/12/06 10:30 AM | Comment Link |One thing that is difficult to grasp, I think, is that Jesus WAS a man. I agree. But I don’t agree that he was JUST a man. I think that’s why Vynette and I can read the same passages and come to different conclusions … Jesus was, historically, a man.
Comment by: Eliza
50 09/12/06 1:38 PM | Comment Link |Fully human, and fully divine. Thanks for all of your research and commentary, Mike O.
More questions for vynette:
(1) Do you consider your views to fit with “liberation theology”? (I’m not meaning to label you, & apologize if you’ve already addressed this.)
(2) Do find that your views on the Pauline letters differ from other Christians’ views?
Thanks for this interesting discussion!
Comment by: vynette
51 09/12/06 2:26 PM | Comment Link |Mike,
You said: “If I remember right, I think Vynette said something about this, that Jesus was exalted to God after his resurrection, but that he was not God prior to his crucifixion. Is that right, Vynette?”
No, Mike, my position is that Jesus was a man before and after the resurrection.
To address adequately all the issues you raise in your comments would probably take good-sized book length reply. I have just started a Trinity series on my own blog where these issues will be discussed.
But I will attempt to address this question of yours now: “Is there anything that says God did not become a man?”
The ‘unchangeability’ of YHVH is stressed throughout the Old Testament:
“God is not a man that he should lie, neither the SON OF MAN that he should repent.” (Num 23:19)
“I am God and not man.” (Hosea 11:9)
“God is not a man that he should repent.” (1 Sam 15:29)
“For I YHVH change not.” (Malachi 3:6)
The ‘unchangeability’ of YHVH is also stressed in the New Testament:
“Every best gift cometh down from above, from the Father of lights with whom there is no change nor shadow of turning.” (James 1:17)
“The God of our Fathers has glorified his servant Jesus.” (Acts 3:13)
“I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” (Mark 12:26, Matt. 22:32)
“So serve I the God of our fathers.” (Acts. 24:14)
“The God of our fathers has appointed thee to know his will.” (Acts 22:14)
Those who heard these words spoken would never have misinterpreted their meaning: any suggestion that Jesus was ‘divine’ would have been regarded by the Hebrews as the most monstrous idolatry.
The New Testament is emphatic that God has never been seen by the human eye:
“No man has seen God at any time” (John 1:18, 6:46)
“Whom no man has seen or can see.” (1 Tim 6:16)
“No man hath beheld God at any time.” (1 John 4:12)
“(God is) eternal, immortal, invisible.” (1 Tim 1:17)
These texts were all written after Jesus’ death and resurrection. Taken singly or collectively, don’t they refute the suggestion that God suddenly took on the form of a man?
Cheerio Mike
Comment by: vynette
52 09/13/06 6:33 PM | Comment Link |Eliza
The logical extension of ‘Liberation Theology, as I understand it, tends towards a sort of Marxist ‘class struggle’. It therefore militates against personal freedom, promotes endless division, and mandates forcible redistribution of wealth. Love of fellow-man cannot be coerced - it can only be encouraged. In my opinion, no matter how tough the prospect…
As to your question about the Pauline letters, I’m not exactly sure what you are asking. If you mean, do I place them in a different category to the rest of the NT, the answer is no. That some of his exhortations against self-righteousness have been taken out of context and made to serve doctrines such as ‘justification by faith alone’ is hardly Paul’s fault.
Comment by: Mike O
53 09/14/06 5:06 AM | Comment Link |Thanks, Vynette. I didn’t mean to put words into your mouth … I must have assumed you thought that. Sorry.
Perhaps I’ll take a look at your trinity series …
Regarding this: The “unchangeability’ of YHVH is stressed throughout the Old Testament: I agree. Apparently we differ on how that plays itself out.
Regarding this: Those who heard these words spoken would never have misinterpreted their meaning: any suggestion that Jesus was “divine’ would have been regarded by the Hebrews as the most monstrous idolatry. and the verses you cite preceding that, I agree. That’s why they crucified him … and his followers that believed him. Again, apparently we differ how God’s unchangeability played itself out.
Regarding this: These texts were all written after Jesus’ death and resurrection. Taken singly or collectively, don’t they refute the suggestion that God suddenly took on the form of a man? and the verses you cite preceding it: No, I don’t believe so. When God took the form of a man, he was still God. Jesus obviously talked to him, so there was some aspect of God that was not man, and for that, these verses still hold. If God set aside his God-ness in it’s entirety and became only a man, or if God never became a man at all as you believe, then perhaps these verses could be interpreted in this way. But the trinitarian view of God still holds water, these verses included.
Again I respectfully disagree with your findings, but I appreciate the awesome discussion! Thank you!
I’m happy to continue on your trinitarian blog.
Comment by: vynette
54 09/23/06 10:19 PM | Comment Link |Dear Helen,
I see there has been no activity here for quite some time so I would like to thank you for giving all of us the opportunity to participate in a great conversation!
Thanks Helen, thanks one and all.
Cheers
Vynette
Comment by: Helen
55 09/24/06 9:15 AM | Comment Link |Vynette, you’re welcome!
Comment by: Meg
56 11/3/06 12:00 AM | Comment Link |hEY Vynette, I’m Australian too! ANd hEY all you other groovy CatE people I’m really looking forward to meeting at the thing tomorrow!! In a conversation thread at church rater, I made a comment (below) bringing up the idea of different cultural paradigms concerning Jesus and Christianity. They were pretty engrossed in a parallel universe - or a discussion about another element of the topic - but I’m kind of keen to hear people’s thoughts and responses to my culture question.
Here’s the post referred to above!:
Regarding the conversation about liking Jesus, it’s really interesting for me, as an Aussie, to read the comments of those of you who say people tend to like Jesus, and just have a problem with Christians. This perspective seems to come out of communities much less post-Christian than those I grew up in, in Australia and England. There, Jesus simply isn’t on people’s radars, and they would think you were kind of ridiculous if he were on yours. Maybe that’s what you mean by liking Jesus? Apathy, rather than attraction? I’d be interested to know the cultural contexts from which you all are expressing these thoughts.