Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XTalk] Re: Christology

Expand Messages
  • Antonio Jerez
    John, an additional little comment on you message:  ... This thing about John making explicit what the other gospel writers merely hinted at makes give me
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 26, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      John,
      an additional little comment on you message:�

      >I would place John late, but suggest he makes things
      > explicit which others merely hint at. Maybe at a certain remove in time
      > he does not need to watch his words so carefully.

      This thing about John making explicit what the other gospel
      writers merely hinted at makes give me slightly negative shivers. That is
      beacause I have heard this argument so many times among modern christians
      who don't want the different gospel writers to sound different
      chords. I am not saying that you are one of them, but I just wan't
      to make it clear that you will have to put forth substantive arguments
      to explain to me things like where Paul hints at Jesus being God. And
      where does Matthew do it?
      And why doesn't John have to watch his words as carefully as Paul
      or Matthew? Who was less of a threat to John than to the others?

      Best wishes

      Antonio Jerez

      Lycos email has now 300 Megabytes of free storage... Get it now at mail.lycos.co.uk

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Antonio Jerez
        ... John, I think you are missing the point. I am not arguing with you over weather Jesus was belived to be divine by Paul, Mark, Matthew and others. I
      Message 2 of 2 , Jan 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment


        John Staton wrote:

        > Who said anything about Constantine and the bishops? At no time have I
        > ever equated Paul's view with that of Constantine, but I do think he
        > drops a very big hint re- divinity in Philippians 2: 10-11. Also I never
        > suggested Hebrews was genuine. It doesn't even bear Paul's name. I am
        > also prepared to leave the Pastorals out of account for the sake of this
        > discussion. However, I see no good reason to deny Colossians to Paul,
        > and 1: 15-20 would seem to be relevant in this context.

        John,
        I think you are missing the point. I am not arguing with you over
        weather Jesus was belived to be divine by Paul, Mark, Matthew and
        others. I think they all thought so. But neither of them believed his
        was the incarnation of the high god Jahwe or equal in real terms to
        the High God. I still claim without hestitation that without understanding
        the jewish concept of different gods and different levels of divinity
        you only make a mess of the christology in the NT. Which of course is
        what the bishops in the 4th century and onwards did. And most
        christians today still happily do.
        The passage in Colossians still don't prop up your claim (if you are
        claiming that Jesus is God and equal to the Father. The passage
        seems to be based on the old jewish wisdom christology again.
        Jesus as wisdom is the firstborn of creation. I don't think any jew
        at that time would claim that Jahwe was firstborn. Jesus is still the
        little god with a small "g", just as Jesus is the little god with a small
        "g" in John as the logos.

        And contra Rikk Watts repeated claims that Mark in some mysterious
        way is implying that Jesus is actually Jawhe in new clothes I think
        this also makes a mess of Mark's christology. I can't see how Mark
        giving Jesus titles like Son of God and Son of Man in any way paves
        the way for Mark's less than explicit claim that Jesus is actually Jahwe.
        On the contrary jews at the time would have understood it to be
        claims that Jesus himself was not the High God. I haven't seen otherwise
        in jewish texts of the time or earlier that the one like a son of man in
        Daniel was understood to be another person than The Ancient of Days =
        The High God Jahwe. The son of man is subservient to God, a divine being yes,
        but not the High God.

        Best wishes

        Antonio Jerez
        Goteborg, Sweden

        Blog your life with Jubiiblog ? try the newest Blog on the block. http://www.jubiiblog.co.uk

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.