Jesus is not God....part 2

[farhan]

Expanding on Salt's thoughts......

The root word M-S-H (to rub) gives rise to the word Messiah (one who is rubbed). Jewish prophet kings had a tradition of rubbing holly oil to their successor. Since there were prophecies of a messiah in OT, that makes Jesus eligible of being a Jewish prophet king.

The concept then crossed the Mediterranean, & became christos (chosen one). Jews had too many messiahs in their history, gentiles had none, so Jesus became their only christ. And then came the councils that made the official doctrine based on this Only Chosen Son.

Some other Messiahs in the bible

Le. 4:3 “‘If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, he
must bring to the LORD a young bull without defect as a sin
offering for the sin he has committed.

Le. 8:10 Then Moses took the anointing oil and anointed the
tabernacle and everything in it, and so consecrated them.

Is. 45:1 “This is what the LORD says to his anointed, to Cyrus,
whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him
and to strip kings of their armour, to open doors before him
so that gates will not be shut:

----

A few months back I was thinking about the I AM verses, & then I thought of doing something creative. Arabic (& most possibly other Semitic languages too) don’t have the AM auxiliary, infact they don’t use any form of be at all. So translate I AM back to Semitic & retranslate in English, it becomes I (be).

There is no possibility that in Ex3:14, God would have said I am who I am, what he could have said would be I (be) who I (be), or simply I who I….. Similarly John 8:58, the sentence should be, Before Abraham (be), I (be), most probably...., before Abraham was I was. AM doesn’t exist in Semitic languages. Somehow, this non-existant am auxiliary became the corner stone of christian theology.

Apart from that, for the sake of argument if we agree with this interpretation, than in proverbs 8:23-27, Solomon says


I was appointed [Or fashioned] from eternity, from the
beginning, before the world began.

When there were no oceans, I was given birth, when there
were no springs abounding with water;

before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I
was given birth,

before he made the earth or its fields or any of the dust of the
world.

I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he
marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,

when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the
fountains of the deep,

when he gave the sea its boundary so that the waters would
not overstep his command, and when he marked out the
foundations of the earth.

Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight
day after day, rejoicing always in his presence,
rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind.


Now imagine, if Jesus is God for being present before Abraham, what does this make Solomon , the co-architect of heavens & earth.

Similarly Job 38:4-21, its God asking “Surely you know, for you were already born!”

Its ver clear that these verses talk about life before birth, just like Jn 8:58

----

Same is the case with a lot of other words that were a common noun in Hebrew, but became a proper noun in Greek. Semitic languages have too many uses for the words father/son.

In Jn. 8:41 Jews call themselves the son of God, in 8:44, Jesus calls them sons of Demon,

Ex 4:22, Israel is the son of God, 2nd Samuel, 8:13-14 Solomon is the son of God, Psalms 2:7 another begotten son of God.

Even in NT itself, Luke 3:88, Adam is the son of God

Nobody consiers all of them to be the son of God

Now an interesting verse,

Lk. 4:41 Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, “You
are the Son of God!” But he rebuked them and would not
allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Christ.
[Or Messiah]

Why would he rebuke them if he was the son of God

----

Rv:1:8 ….I am the alpha & the omega….RSV says…… “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.”

----

We have a discussion on the previous pages regarding Jesus accepting worship. Now firstly we will have to see what this word worship means in English, & then we will have to see what these people actually did with Jesus. Worship in English obviously means worship (we all know that). In a semitic world, we have got one word sajad that means prostratebend/kneel down , another one ‘abd that means slavehood or servitude . Both of these were in accordance with the “law of prophets”. I don’t know if such a word as worship exists in Arabic.

----

10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
10:30 I and my Father are one.
(King James Bible, John)

Jesus is talking about the deeds that he does and that he does them in God's name. In fact he is saying that the Father is greater than all, and in another passage Jesus specifically says that the Father is greater than him.

Not only that, John 17:20-21 says

I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in 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, so that the world may believe that thou has sent me.”

If "I and my father are one" means trinity, than 17:20 would lead us to pantheism. Son , in all of these verses means one who is a sincere, devoted, die-hard follower of somebody.

As for Jews claiming jesus claimed divinity.....

Jn. 10:33 “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews,
“but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be
God.”
Jn. 10:34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, `I have
said you are gods’?
Jn. 10:35 If he called them `gods’, to whom the word of God came —
and the Scripture cannot be broken —
Jn. 10:36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very
own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of
blasphemy because I said, `I am God’s Son’?

Now Ps. 82:6 ...."the scripture" says “I said, `You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.’

So again , Jesus is saying some thing in acordance to the law, that somehow got changed during translation.

----

And now, his most important teachings……

Matthew 5:17-19, “ Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the [way of] the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.For, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”


Luke 3:8, “And Jesus answered him, ‘It is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.’ ”

If we agree God had a son, or was going to have a son…..logically speaking this should have been the second commandment…..more or less a part of Shema yisrael. After all the most important reality of universe after “God is one” would have been “God has a son”. He should have been very very specific about this.

Peace....

[mee]

correct translation harmonizes the whole of the bible ,


In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.


(John 1:18) No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom [position] with the Father is the one that has explained him.

(Philippians 2:6) who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.


(Isaiah 9:6) For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.


at last an accurate translation of JOHN 1;1 , the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION is one of many good translations , but many many bibles are clouded by manmade traditions , not the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION

IT IS GOOD

when the bible is translated correctly it harmonizes thoughout . nice one

[Operacast]

O.K., I guess it's time for me to drop the other foot. Look, while there's a great deal of worthwhile scholarship of two or so generations past that does seem conscientious and reasonably unbiased, more recently there have been one or two sweeping pronouncements from the Jesus Seminar, a project that has certainly built its work on the foundations of that good scholarship, that have struck me as a bit hasty.

My chief concern has been with the pronouncements of one or two scholars there like Mr. Miller (whose work I have much respected in the past, BTW) who now assert that Jesus can now be assumed to have made no claim to the slightest degree of divine extraction at all. No problem with that on its face, of course, if that assertion is presented as part of an overall take on the relative reliability of the various Gospel strata as a whole that this Seminar started out scrutinizing and if that assertion is consistent enough with the Seminar's scholarship in other respects.

But it isn't: On the one hand, the Seminar has followed the extrapolations of previous scholarship in scrupulously isolating the Q passages in Luke, the Gospel of Thomas and the Vaticanus/Sinaiticus version of Mark as the most immediate sources on Jesus's own remarks closest to his own time; but on the other, aren't they discounting remarks right in those top closest sources they themselves have concurred in isolating as most trustworthy, if they go on to assert that there is no reliable source on which to base an assumption that Jesus claimed the slightest degree of divine extraction?

Now, it's plainly allowable to doubt that Jesus made such claims! Anyone can suggest that, sure! But scholars, it strikes me, should maintain some consistency in the way they view their primary materials, no? If they build up enormous amounts of material (and this Seminar has) that presuppose enormous worth in certain strata as opposed to other strata, then shouldn't they explain how come one discrete set of claims common to all their choices for the very earliest strata just happens to be bogus? Or at the least, shouldn't they endeavour to explain how come all three earliest strata appear to coalesce in presenting Jesus as claiming such a thing as divine or partly divine extraction? Yet, SFAIK, they've done no such thing, letting their rather bald claim of Jesus's ultimate silence on this whole subject stand on its own with none of the careful textual analysis behind that claim that used to be typical of their other work. At the same time, there is a clear coincidence here, and no one at the Seminar seems to address it.

So I've attempted to present here the key passages asserting divine or part-divine extraction in these three earliest strata -- passages that seem to contradict the scholars' newest claim -- in as neutral a way as possible to reasonably intelligent readers here. The issue here is not whether or not Jesus is or is not Son of God or is or is not of divine or part-divine extraction. The issue here is simply whether or not Jesus ever made such a claim for himself in the first place. If there is one such claim each in each of these three strata, doesn't that coincidence have to be explained, doesn't that coincidence have to be addressed at least, before dismissing the likelihood of Jesus's ever having made such a claim altogether? I'm surprised that no one in the Seminar has yet adressed that. What's the point of spending tons of man-hours poring over Q, Thomas and Mark if a key point on which all three agree is so glibly dismissed?

Moreover, we're not dealing with the same remark that has resurfaced like some bad penny in all three strata. We're dealing with three separate remarks, each independent of the other, that all point to the same conclusion re Jesus's .................. delusion(?) ........

I'm willing to dismiss the knottiness of Luke(Q):10:21-22 and Thomas:61, thus reducing these remarks from five to three. But if we're left with just one remark in each stratum that points clearly to the conclusion that Jesus saw himself in partly divine terms, then the consonance of all three in the assumption implied behind just that one remark each, and a different remark in each stratum that therefore suggests no dependency in any given stratum on any other, then isn't it incumbent on scholars at this Seminar to explain how come the three earliest strata independently present Jesus as laboring under the same ............ delusion(?) .......... or ........... truth(?)..........

This is why others' readings here of, specifically, Mark:14:61-62; Luke(Q):22:28-30; and Thomas:99 seem so intriguing to me. I want to know if just these three alone seem as relatively straightforward to others as they seem to me. Perhaps, they don't. But if they do, then we do have all three early sources concurring in Jesus's apparent self-image of semi-divinity at least, and concurring in three different passages -- and independent passages to boot.

If even these three passages don't seem uniformly clear to others, then I've given the Seminar a bad rap. Fine. But if they do seem uniformly clear after all, should I assume then that these Seminar scholars don't bother to give close enough attention to their very own textual research? A worrying conclusion.

Seriously,

Operacast

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by Operacast

A worrying conclusion.

Seriously,

Operacast

I pray that you figure it out.

[Operacast]

Originally Posted by pattimax

I pray that you figure it out.

Thanks for saying so. Actually, it occured to me that, since I first submitted these passages a few pages back, it might be difficult for readers here to keep in mind and keep track of the many verse numbers I'm dealing with here!:-); so I'm once more enclosing the pertinent verses here, but with a difference. I'm also enclosing their context as well.

I'm also enclosing, after that, certain data related to the Jesus Seminar's ongoing work today.

First, I give the full texts and contexts of the three seemingly more clear (IMO) passages, and then I get to the two more ambiguous passages last:

First off, Luke(Q):22:28-30. Here are the lead-in sentences, followed by the key passage and subsequent verses:



[LEAD-IN SENTENCES] Position in the Coming Kingdom
22.24 A dispute also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.
22.25 And he said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors.
22.26 But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.
22.27 For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves.

[KEY PASSAGE] 22.28 " You are those who have continued with me in my trials;
22.29 and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom,
22.30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

[FOLLOWED UP BY] Simon Peter's Denial Predicted
22.31 " Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat,
22.32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."
22.33 And he said to him, "Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death."
22.34 He said, "I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you three times deny that you know me."



The Gospel of Thomas is structured like the Analects of Confucius: that is, individual anecdotes strung together without a narrative context before and after. So here is Thomas:99:



99) The disciples said to Him, "Your brothers and Your mother are standing outside." He said to them, "Those here who do the will of My Father are My brothers and My mother. It is they who will enter the Kingdom of My Father."



And now, Mark:14:61-62. Here are the lead-in sentences, followed by the key passage and subsequent verses:



[LEAD-IN SENTENCES] 14.55Now the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none.
14.56For many bore false witness against him, and their witness did not agree. 14.57And some stood up and bore false witness against him, saying,
14.58 "We heard him say, 'I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.'"
14.59Yet not even so did their testimony agree.
14.60And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, "Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?"

[KEY PASSAGE] 14.61But he was silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"
14.62And Jesus said, "I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."

[FOLLOWED UP BY] 14.63And the high priest tore his garments, and said, "Why do we still need witnesses?
14.64You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death.



And now, here are the same for the two seemingly more ambiguous passages (IMO). First, Luke(Q):10:21-22:



[LEAD-IN SENTENCES] The Return of the Seventy
10.17 The seventy returned with joy, saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!"
10.18 And he said to them, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.
10.19 Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall hurt you.
10.20 Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you; but rejoice that your names are written in heaven."

[KEY PASSAGE] Jesus' Thanks to the Father
10.21 In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, "I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will.
10.22 All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

[FOLLOWED UP BY] The Blessedness of the Disciples
10.23 Then turning to the disciples he said privately, "Blessed are the eyes which see what you see!
10.24 For I tell you that many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it."



And finally, Thomas:61:



61) Jesus said, "Two will rest on a bed: the one will die, and other will live." Salome said to him, "Who are You, man, that You, as though from the One, have come up on my couch and eaten from my table?" Jesus said to her, "I am He who exists from the Undivided. I was given some of the things of my Father." <Salome said,> "I am Your disciple." <Jesus said to her,> "Therefore I say, if he is <undivided>, he will be filled with light, but if he is divided, he will be filled with darkness."



The overriding question is, Do any of these passages seemingly contradict Jesus Seminar conclusions like those of Seminar scholar Robert Miller at

The Jesus Seminar and The Public by Robert J. Miller

? These conclusions are purportedly based on careful study of the Luke(Q) stratum throughout Luke, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Vaticanus/Sinaiticus version of Mark, and they run as follows:



"A survey of the Seminar’s results comes up with the following partial list of negative findings:

• Jesus did not claim to be the messiah or to be divine.
• Jesus did not demand that people “believe in” him or worship him.
• Jesus did not intend to establish a church or found a new religion.
• Jesus did not believe that his death would be a sacrifice for sins.
• There is no historical evidence that Jesus had no human father.
• There is no historical evidence that Jesus’ corpse came back to life."



I call your attention to the last half of the first item:



• Jesus did not claim to be the messiah or to be divine.[emphasis mine]



and to the fifth item:



• There is no historical evidence that Jesus had no human father.



Do the Gospel passages I've cited above, particular the first three, put these two Miller assertions in question?

I've also found other slightly differently worded conclusions on this question from other sources also reflecting the Seminar's conclusions for now. At:

Excerpt from The Jesus Seminar and Its Critics by Robert J. Miller

Robert Miller states:



"Belief in the divinity of Jesus arose among the first generation of Christians and was given its official formulation by the Church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries. For many Christians this belief is the essence of Christianity and the standard of orthodoxy. Since this way of understanding Jesus is so fundamental for so many Christians, it is crucial that we set it in proper perspective by recognizing that it is not a historical description of Jesus, but an affirmation of belief in his supernatural origin and divine mission. It can be neither demonstrated nor disproven by any historical evidence. In this respect, the Seminar's findings can neither affirm nor deny this belief. What historical research can establish is whether the statements in the gospels in which Jesus claims this status and role were actually spoken by him, or were developed by early Christians and attributed to him after his death. The Seminar concluded in every case that these statements originated with the early Church." [emphasis mine]

"The Jesus Seminar (and virtually all New Testament scholars who are not fundamentalists) maintains that early Christians made Jesus into the spokesman for their own beliefs about him. So, for example, all the statements in the Gospel of John that presuppose belief in Jesus' supernatural origin (for example, the "I am" statements) are colored black" [the Seminar adopts a color code in which various shades of color from red to black denote decreasing levels of certainty as to Jesus's "authorship" of individual remarks, black meaning "least likely of all"]"."



One wishes Miller would go on from here to address other Gospels as well, but he doesn't. Now it's no surprise that the non-Synoptic John is viewed as a very late text by the Seminar and hence -- relatively -- untrustworthy. That's no news. I already described that in a previous post.

However, it's Miller's silence on additional such passages in other Gospel strata -- such as the strata judged earliest of all by the Seminar -- that frustrates and puzzles me. Once and for all, how do the Seminar scholars account for the coincidence that Jesus also makes such claims in all three early strata as well? It's odd that the Jesus Seminar's own web page facilitates no way of contacting them or engaging in an online dialogue (that I can see). One would think they would welcome that (Jesus Seminar Forum - Home Page). You're all welcome to Google this further and see if I'm wrong here on their being effectively incommunicado (sp.?). I very much hope I am wrong on that.

As I've stated already, this issue does not concern the vaildity of the claim for Jesus's "Son"ship of God; instead, it concerns whether or not Jesus ever made such a claim for himself. So what are the criteria for dismissing his having claimed that for himself when the Seminar's chosen strata, as the most valuable, all coalesce in quoting him as having made precisely such a claim in three different independently attested reflections on who and what he is? If the criteria for estimating those three strata as uniquely valuable are somehow flawed after all, then say so and say why!

(BTW, further research on my part has told me that in fact the Seminar's order of priority, re trustworthiness and immediacy of chronological proximity, is Luke(Q) at the top, Thomas, and then Mark in the Vaticanus/Sinaiticus version.)

Again, any of you are welcome to Google these vexing questions even further, of course.

My two cents,

Operacast

[Bruce Michael]

Originally Posted by Operacast

• Jesus did not claim to be the messiah or to be divine.[emphasis mine]



and to the fifth item:



• There is no historical evidence that Jesus had no human father.

Hi Operacast,
Christ Jesus didn't write any books and according to John much of what he did and said was unrecorded.

Christianity is not based on the Gospels or any books really. Foundationally it is based on Christ. Do you think Constantine was converted by books?

Many people will come to Christianity directly without reading the Bible at all. They will have a direct experience of Christ. Books are books and Living Spirit is what it is.

Textual criticism is all very well and necessary but for the priest in training it is not really a help- more of a distraction.

When you enter a Church or Chapel, ask yourself "Do I really feel the presence of Christ here?". That is the premier question.

For me, a deep study of all the pre Christian religions affords the greatest proofs of the Christian faith.

God Blesss,
Br.Bruce

[bob x]

The Pharisaic notion of the Messiah was that he was the highest-ranking human, the "king of kings" who in the age-to-come ('Ulam ha-Ba) will reign over all kings (including David) as well as over all lesser humans, in strict obedience to the will of God. In the Mark passage, in particular, Jesus speaks of himself in these terms: the term "son of man" (or more literally, ben-adam could be rendered "son of clay"; giving the character in Genesis the name Adam "Clay" is a kind of pun) means human being *especially* as contrasted with God (compare "Put not your trust in princes, nor in *the son of man* in whom there is no hope").

[Ahanu]

I have been doing a little homework on this and have a quick question.

In the creed that Athanasius came up with, he used a term to describe Jesus's relationship with God: he was homoousion, 'of one substance' with the Father.

Is this term based on scripture?

Homoousian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (redirected)

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Ahanu

I have been doing a little homework on this and have a quick question.

In the creed that Athanasius came up with, he used a term to describe Jesus's relationship with God: he was homoousion, 'of one substance' with the Father.

Is this term based on scripture?

Homoousian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (redirected)

John 3...(for starters).

[Ahanu]

John 3...(for starters).

You mean John 3:16? Explain.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Ahanu

You mean John 3:16? Explain.

Actually Ahanu, I should have said John 1. Sorry.

[mens_sana]

Originally Posted by Ahanu

I have been doing a little homework on this and have a quick question.

In the creed that Athanasius came up with, he used a term to describe Jesus's relationship with God: he was homoousion, 'of one substance' with the Father.

Is this term based on scripture?

Homoousian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (redirected)

Ask yourself if the "Trinity" is found in Scripture. Be careful. Try to use only the text. Look at only what the text(s) say.

Now, with texts in hand, do they tell us that there are three "persons" of the same "substance"? Or is this idea a later theological development by the church, an "explanation" that avoided the charge of polytheism? Note, for the idea to be based in scripture, one should be able to find the concepts of "essence" or "substance" in the texts, in other words, something more concrete that "God is One," because Christ and the HS are being "added" to that One.

[Operacast]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Hi Operacast,
<SNIP>

For me, a deep study of all the pre Christian religions affords the greatest proofs of the Christian faith.

Now that really intrigues me. Could you please describe some of your study of the pre-Christian religions that facilitated these new perspectives?

Many thanks,

Operacast

[mee]

Originally Posted by Bruce Michael

Hi ask yourself "Do I really feel the presence of Christ here?". That is the premier question.


God Blesss,
Br.Bruce

Or even do you see the signs of christs presence or porousia.

its all happening no matter where we are.

[Ahanu]

Actually Ahanu, I should have said John 1. Sorry.

Thanks (Titus 2:13).

But the greek term homoousion is not even in the bible! Well, from what I have understood.

In the Nicene Creed, the key word used to describe Christ’s relation to God—homoousion, meaning, “of the same substance”—had been considered heretical a century earlier. Some earlier orthodox theologians argued that the term was not found in the Bible and that it blurred the distinctions between the Father and the Son.

Did You Know? - Christian History & Biography - ChristianityTodayLibrary.com

As Schaff rightly points out with reference to the term itself, "The word...was not an invention of the council of Nicea, still less of Constantine, but had previously arisen in theological language, and occurs even in Origen [185-254] and among the Gnostics...."11 Constantine is not the source or origin of the term, and the council did not adopt the term at his command.

Council of Nicea

It is interesting that homoousion is not in the bible.