On the Lord's Supper
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Family Bible Fellowship Forum Index -> Misc. Essays by Participants
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
STEVE7150



Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Posts: 894

PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

were done as an exercise of Jesus' authority, such would not necessitate that the power and authority were innate (=divine) as opposed to delegated (humanly stewarded).

2) To be picky, Lazarus was not raised in the synoptics, but only in John.

3) In Matthew, Jesus emphasizes that the Son of Man has power to forgive sins, and the people marvel that such power has been given to men [9:6-8]. As such, forgiving sins fails as a proof of divinity.

4) The verb used for "worship" in the synoptics, proskuneo, means "to bow down." In the Septuagint, it is used


Hi Emmet, Glad to see you resurrected this thread Wink Everything Jesus has was freely given to him by his Father but he is the unique Son of God. "Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Luke 1.35
"All POWER is GIVEN unto me in heaven and in earth." Matt 28.18
The prophets of the OT were sometimes delegated power to do a specific task but Jesus said he was given ALL POWER.
All power makes him divine IMO.
"Proskuneo" is used elsewhere in the NT to speak of worshipping the Father . In Hebrews 1.6 "Let all the angels of God worship him" (Jesus)
And in Rev 22.8-9 John says "I fell down to worship (proskuneo) before the feet of the angel" but he tells me , be careful do not do that "WORSHIP GOD."
Same word as in Hebrews 1.6 and the context in Hebrews 1 is to show Jesus's superiority to prophets, angels and Moses.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kaufmannphillips



Joined: 06 Jun 2006
Posts: 229
Location: SW Washington

PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:53 am    Post subject: reply to steve7150 Reply with quote

Hi, Steve,

Thank you for your timely reply!

Quote:
Everything Jesus has was freely given to him by his Father but he is the unique Son of God. "Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Luke 1.35
"All POWER is GIVEN unto me in heaven and in earth." Matt 28.18
The prophets of the OT were sometimes delegated power to do a specific task but Jesus said he was given ALL POWER.
All power makes him divine IMO.


And yet the power was given, not innate. Since it was given, it need not be understood as proof of his divinity. It may simply be stewarded power.

Also, for what it is worth, the relative Greek term (exousia) might otherwise be translated "authority." In this sense, Jesus would have been given carte blanche to accomplish his Father's will. Although this connotes extreme honor and trust, it does not necessarily connote divinity itself. Rather, this could be seen as a cosmic extension of humanity's designed function to exercise dominion (a la Genesis 1). In any case, given authority is stewarded and not innate.

As for the epithet "Son of God," this was a simple messianic title, found in the Hebrew bible for the all-too-human king of Israel (q.v., II Samuel 7:14). Though the virgin birth may be understood as highlighting this title, it does not of itself demonstrate ontological divinity. Notice also that Luke himself styles Adam as "the [son] of God" (3:23-38 ). As such, Luke's language may be referring to God's direct and special role in Jesus' creation, paralleling that of Adam. So in a number of respects, it is unnecessary to construe the epithet "son of God" as indicative of divinity.


Quote:
"Proskuneo" is used elsewhere in the NT to speak of worshipping the Father . In Hebrews 1.6 "Let all the angels of God worship him" (Jesus)
And in Rev 22.8-9 John says "I fell down to worship (proskuneo) before the feet of the angel" but he tells me , be careful do not do that "WORSHIP GOD."
Same word as in Hebrews 1.6 and the context in Hebrews 1 is to show Jesus's superiority to prophets, angels and Moses.


Proskuneo is also used in the Septuagint to speak of worshipping God. But the root meaning of the word is not limited to divine worship, and that is what is important to our discussion. When Jesus of Nazareth accepts the proskuning of people, it does not follow as a matter of necessity that he is accepting divine honor, or that the people who are proskuning are intending to offer him divine honor.

As for Hebrews 1:6, the writer of Hebrews may conceive of Jesus as God, but we have no real way of gauging who the writer of Hebrews is, or why we should trust his or her commentary. And in any case, we were looking at Jesus in the synoptics.


Quote:
And in Rev 22.8-9 John says "I fell down to worship (proskuneo) before the feet of the angel" but he tells me , be careful do not do that "WORSHIP GOD."


Yes, an interesting passage, and indicative of a shift in piety in the early church. It may be worth noting that this is not the first time that John has to be corrected for such behavior (q.v., Revelation 19:10). But Peter also is portrayed as refusing like honor, even though it was clearly accepted in the time prior to Jesus (Acts 10:25-26). Perhaps this became a point of sensitivity as the early Christians encountered more Gentiles, who might more easily misunderstand the honorific behavior as worship. But in any case, the Revelation is not one of the synoptics, and it significantly postdates the events described in the gospels and the behavior of Jesus himself.

Shalom,
Emmet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
kaufmannphillips



Joined: 06 Jun 2006
Posts: 229
Location: SW Washington

PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:35 am    Post subject: reply to mdh Reply with quote

Hello, Mike,

Thank you for your kind response. Please pardon my taking so long in getting back to you Sad .


Quote:
You did not like my example of Abraham because it was not a symbolic action. But my point was that sometimes God asks us to do things which might seem out of character, or even contrary to His previous directions. ... I also think of some of the symbolic actions God asked of the prophets in the part of the Bible that both you and I share (can I say the OT?). Was not Isaiah ask to propecy naked? (Isa. 20) (Was not nudity considered an abomination in Noah's day?)


Nudity appears to have been a point of social difficulty, but I am not aware of an explicit command against public nudity.

For my part, when God is portrayed as acting or speaking in a way that seems out of character, I am inclined to suspect the source. I am not convinced that all of the prophetic activities or oracles recorded in the Hebrew bible are trustworthy, and acceptance of these records is not essential to the covenant.

In the case of the binding of Isaac, God asks something peculiar of Abraham, and it is possible that the entire narrative has more to do with legend or misunderstood faith crisis than actual divine revelation. But in any case, the point of the narrative is not to legitimate God's initial request, but rather to form a precedent for sidestepping the notion of human sacrifice. If Jesus had introduced the problematic imagery as a foil for correcting the disciples, or if he had finished up by redirecting them to another practice instead, then we might have a closer parallel to the Genesis narrative.


Quote:
As you know, the first time this meal was celebrated was at a Passover meal.


This is actually a matter of debate. The chronology is difficult to ascertain, but it is possible that the meal was not a seder, though still falling within the eight days of the spring festivities. It is interesting to note that the eucharistic narrative does not take advantage of the symbolism of the lamb, which might seem to be the most natural candidate for sacrificial imagery at the seder table.


Quote:
We are told to remember. Remember that a body was broken and blood was shed, a (new) covenant was being made between God and His people, mediated by Jesus. A covenant that offered freedom (from bondage to sin this time). We do not drink blood and we do not eat flesh. But we remember the price that the mediator paid so that we might live. Isn't that what we were told to do? (Lk 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24,26) We are told to do this until He returns (1 Cor. 11:26).


It is interesting to note that neither Matthew nor Mark mention the injunction to repeat and remember the ritual, particularly since both I Corinthans and Luke bear other evidence of theological development beyond the versions in Matthew and Mark. Close comparison of the narratives shows that Matthew and Mark both use language that is closer to a non-corporeal sense, while I Corinthians and Luke both make a more pointed reference to Jesus' blood. To wit, both Matthew and Mark refer to "my blood of the covenant," while the others refer to "the new covenant in my blood." The first "blood of the covenant" does not have to be understood as Jesus' own blood, while the other phrase tacks it down more clearly. It seems to me that Matthew and Mark are indicative of an earlier stage in the development of eucharistic tradition, and it is interesting to note that their eucharist is a covenant between Jesus and his close disciples, with no explicit provision for future celebration.


Thank you again for your kind posting, Mike. It is too rare a pleasure Very Happy .

Shalom,
Emmet


P.S.: edited once to fix a few minor points...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
STEVE7150



Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Posts: 894

PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As for the epithet "Son of God," this was a simple messianic title, found in the Hebrew bible for the all-too-human king of Israel (q.v., II Samuel 7:14). Though the virgin birth may be understood as highlighting this title, it does not of itself demonstrate ontological divinity. Notice also that Luke himself styles Adam as "the [son] of God" (3:23-38 ). As such, Luke's language may be referring to God's direct and special role in Jesus' creation, paralleling that of Adam. So in a number of respects, it is unnecessary to construe the epithet "son of God" as indicative of divinity.

Emmet, I'm sure you would agree that Jesus's relationship with the Father is unlike any other. "All things have been delivered to me by MY Father , and no one knows the Son except the Father ,nor does anyone know the Father except the Son , and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal him." Matt 11.27
As you know Jesus always uses the phrase "My Father" as opposed to "Our Father" when he includes himself which indicates his relationship is unique and different from anyone elses relationship to God. We never read about any other person using this type of language including Moses. By using this language Jesus is highlighting that the nature of his relationship with his Father is much higher and intimate then any prophet or human ever had with God. In fact Paul said in his writings that Jesus has the same nature as God and is the exact image of God and is made from the same substance as God. It's true that all of Jesus's authority and or power was given or delivered to him by God yet Paul taught that Jesus created "all things" so Jesus isn't a created thing outside of God and if he is the same substance as God as Paul says, then he can not be anything but divine IMO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kaufmannphillips



Joined: 06 Jun 2006
Posts: 229
Location: SW Washington

PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:13 pm    Post subject: reply to steve7150 Reply with quote

Hi, Steve,

Thank you once again for your timely response!

Quote:
Emmet, I'm sure you would agree that Jesus's relationship with the Father is unlike any other. "All things have been delivered to me by MY Father , and no one knows the Son except the Father ,nor does anyone know the Father except the Son , and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal him." Matt 11.27


This is an interesting passage which you have quoted from Matthew. Some critics may suggest that this is a fragment of Johannine tradition that has migrated into the Matthean gospel, and I would not consider such to be impossible, given the flavor of the verse. We have some precedent for floating material, in that the well-known pericope of the woman taken in adultery is found not only as an addition to some manuscripts of John, but also as an addition to at least one manuscript of Luke.

But the verse still falls short of a claim to divinity, no matter how special a relationship it declares.


Quote:
As you know Jesus always uses the phrase "My Father" as opposed to "Our Father" when he includes himself which indicates his relationship is unique and different from anyone elses relationship to God. We never read about any other person using this type of language including Moses. By using this language Jesus is highlighting that the nature of his relationship with his Father is much higher and intimate then any prophet or human ever had with God.


Which still falls short of a claim to divinity, in light of messianic precedent which I have previously mentioned. The synoptic Jesus may reflect a highly exalted concept of messiahship and its filial role, but there remains a difference between this and outright equivalence with God himself.

Incidentally, it is interesting to note that in Mark Jesus never once uses the phrase "my Father." So the occurrences of even such language in Matthew and Luke may be indicative of a later stage in theological development, rather than a fully historical memory.


Quote:
In fact Paul said in his writings that Jesus has the same nature as God and is the exact image of God and is made from the same substance as God. It's true that all of Jesus's authority and or power was given or delivered to him by God yet Paul taught that Jesus created "all things" so Jesus isn't a created thing outside of God and if he is the same substance as God as Paul says, then he can not be anything but divine IMO.


Once again, here, you repair to a source outside of the synoptics. I have neglected this thread for so long, though, that I can hardly fault you if you have forgotten that this line of discussion grew out of my contrasting the portrayals of Jesus in Paul and John with those in the synoptics.

It is challenging (but perhaps not utterly impossible) to sustain a unitarian interpretation of John (not that I want to embark upon that particular effort in this thread). As for Paul, he is a notoriously difficult writer to interpret, and as someone who never met Jesus outside of his personal mystical experience, his perspectives are of relatively little interest to me when it comes to understanding the historical Jesus.

Thank you again for your posting, Steve!

Shalom,
Emmet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
STEVE7150



Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Posts: 894

PostPosted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Emmet, OK let's continue our search for the divinity of Jesus in the synoptics.
"So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet saying, Behold the virgin shall be with child and bear a Son and they shall call his name Immanuel, which is translated , God with us." Matt 1.22-23
Matthews seems to understand Jesus's name as the fulfillment of the "God with us" prophecy of Isa 8.8
"God with us" sounds like divinity to me Emett.
And "God with us" sounds very similar to what Jesus says at the end of Matthew "and lo I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS even to the end of the age." Matt 28.20
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kaufmannphillips



Joined: 06 Jun 2006
Posts: 229
Location: SW Washington

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:49 am    Post subject: reply to steve7150 Reply with quote

Hello, Steve,

Thank you for your response!

Regarding Matthew 1:22f. = In both Hebrew and Greek, the "be" verb can be implicit. As such, the rendering "God with us" could otherwise be rendered "God is with us" [cf. NRSV]. It is worth noting that Matthew says the child's being named "Jesus" is a fulfillment of the "Immanuel" prophecy. "Jesus" means "Yahweh saves," and so the meaning "God is with us" (i.e., God is on our side) fits both the context of the Immanuel prophecy in Isaiah 7 and the thrust of Matthew 1.

Shalom,
Emmet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Family Bible Fellowship Forum Index -> Misc. Essays by Participants All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

BlueSilver_C 1.00 Theme was programmed by DEVPPL JavaScript Forum
Images were made by DEVPPL Flash Games