"Does the NT call Jesus God?"

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Paul Harvey

unread,
Jan 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/3/96
to
Even the great Roman Catholic scholar "Father" [cf.Mt23:9] Raymond Brown,
in Theological Studies #26 (1965) p.545-73 "Does the NT call Jesus God?"
is forced by the Biblical facts to concede that Mk10:18,Lk18:19,Mt19:17,
Mk15:34,Mt27:46,Jn20:17,Eph1:17,2Cor1:3,1Pt1:3,Jn17:3,1Cor8:6,Eph4:4-6,
1Cor12:4-6,2Cor13:14,1Tm2:5,Jn14:28,Mk13:32,Ph2:5-10,1Cor15:24-28 are
"texts that seem to imply that the title "God" was not
used for Jesus" and are "negative evidence which is often
somewhat neglected in Catholic treatments of the subject." Also: "Jesus
is never called God in the Synoptic Gospels, and a passage like Mk 10:18
would seem to preclude the possibility that Jesus used the title of
himself. Even the fourth Gospel never portrays Jesus as saying
specifically that he is God. The sermons which Acts attributes to the
beginning of the Christian mission do not speak of Jesus as God. Thus,
there is no reason to think that Jesus was called God in the earliest
layers of New Testament tradition. This negative conclusion is
substantiated by the fact that Paul does not use the title in any
epistle written before 58." And "The slow development of the usage of
the title "God" for Jesus requires explanation. Not only is there the
factor that Jesus is not called God in the earlier strata of New Testament
material, but also there are passages, cited in the first series of
texts above, that by implication reserve the title "God" for the Father.
Moreover, even in the New Testament works that speak of Jesus as God,
there are also passages that seem to militate against such a usage - a
study of these texts will show that this is true of the Pastorals and
the Johannine literature. The most plausible explanation is that in the
earliest stage of Christianity the Old Testament heritage dominated the
use of the title "God"; hence, "God" was a title too narrow to be
applied to Jesus. It referred strictly to the Father of Jesus, to the
God whom he prayed. Gradually, (in the 50's and 60's?) in the
development of Christian thought "God" was understood to be a broader
term. It was seen that God had revealed so much of Himself in Jesus that
"God" had to be able to include both Father and Son."

Now, of course, Fr. Brown, not wishing to be excommmunicated or perhaps
denied a shot at sainthood a la St. Jerome, does not deny the
post-Nicene (Constantinian-Justinian) "truth" (by committee) that Jesus
is "true God of true God." But, even he is reduced to three proof texts:
Heb1:8-9, Jn1:1, Jn20:28. Now, if you start with the "truth" and then
derive the facts (as is the Medieval European Dark Ages tradition) -
then these three will suit your purpose. However, starting instead with
the Biblical facts and only then deducing the truth, the conclusion is
quite clear, as Fr. Brown is forced to concede for Jesus and the
Jerusalem Church of Peter and James and early Christianity. Heb1:8-9
rests on the assumption that the LXX should be read in such a manner
that it conflicts with the MT. Highly unlikely and even then this cite
can only support a preconceived theory at best. Jn1:1 is mired in
controversy (see Brown's Gospel of John). A perfectly valid translation
of the Greek could be: "In the beginning was the word and the word was
toward God and divine was what the word was." In any case, the topic
here is clearly the pre-existant word (i.e. "Let there be light") which
is only loosely connected with Jesus (see Brown's Gospel of John).
Again, we have a cite that can only support a preconceived theory at
best. Fr. Brown, though a devoted Trinitarian is forced to concede once
again and even warns against reading this verse in a post-Nicene
context. And Jn20:28 rests on the assumption that early Christians found
the hated Emperor Domitian's [81-96] title of "dominus et deus noster"
[Our Lord and God] attractive and thus applied it to Jesus also. Quoting
Fr. Brown: "the contention of Theodore of Mopsuestia [d.428] that Thomas
was uttering an exclamation of thanks *to the Father* finds few
proponents today." Yet, of course, in context, that is exactly what
Thomas was doing. After all, Jesus didn't raise himself from the dead,
to do so would only rank him with all the other pagan magicians of his
day - rather the early Christians, who felt defeated by the crucifixion
and the failure of the "first coming," rejoiced that some had actually
seen Jesus raised *by* God [the Father] <the Greek is very specific on
this> to sit not in the throne of God but at the right hand of God as
His [God's] annointed Messianic King. Thomas of course doubted these
reports but when he saw Jesus himself, his faith was reborn. Thus, of
course, in context, Thomas praises God [the Father, who raised Jesus]
and Jesus the Messianic King.

In conclusion, Fr. Brown seems impressed that the Roman pagan historian
Pliny the Younger recorded Christians as "singing hymns to Christ as to
a god." <... Christo quasi deo> [Letter 10.96] But pagans also recorded
Jews as singing hymns to an ass as a god [gadarogamai=ass-kissers], etc.
And right in the NT, early pagan converts of Paul and Barnabas are
recorded as proclaiming them as gods [Ac14:11-13]. And one has the verses
Ac12:22,19:37,28:6,1Cor8:5,2Cor4:4,Phil3:19 to deal with. But why read
the Bible in a pagan context, or a Constantinian-Justianian context? Why
not read the Bible in the context of the Bible - and leave the Dark Ages
behind? Wise up - rise up - toward God. Into the light.

Ecce Homo. The reformation continues.

Barclay Stevenson

unread,
Jan 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/5/96
to
In article <nc3...@quack.kfu.com>, pha...@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
says:

>Thus,
>there is no reason to think that Jesus was called God in the earliest
>layers of New Testament tradition.

Rom 9:5 is quite convincing:
Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ
came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (KJV)

chris yung

unread,
Jan 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/5/96
to au...@freenet.toronto.on.ca
Barclay Stevenson wrote:
>
> In article <nc3...@quack.kfu.com>, pha...@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
> says:
> >Thus,
> >there is no reason to think that Jesus was called God in the earliest
> >layers of New Testament tradition.
>
> Rom 9:5 is quite convincing:
> Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ
> came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (KJV)

You would have been a great Simpson juror.

This says merely that Jesus was "God blessed for ever". At least the
way you've quoted it. I don't have my bible handy. Like anyone could
be blessed by God. Sheesh.

chris yung

unread,
Jan 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/5/96
to au...@freenet.toronto.on.ca
Barclay Stevenson wrote:
>
> In article <nc3...@quack.kfu.com>, pha...@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
> says:
> >Thus,
> >there is no reason to think that Jesus was called God in the earliest
> >layers of New Testament tradition.
>

nathan drdul

unread,
Jan 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/5/96
to

Ive been reading this news group for about three weeks now and
I always see people talking about the book "The Bible" or "The Holy
Bible". I thought I read some where it was written by John
Grissam(spelling) but I could not find it at Barnes and Noble under
his name. I have read The Firm and The Clien thought they were
excellent books. If anyone knows were i can purchase a copy please
email me.

N.paul
dr...@ix.netcom.com


Mike Dmytrenko

unread,
Jan 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/6/96
to
In article <30ED5C...@moh.gov.on.ca> chris yung <yu...@moh.gov.on.ca> writes:
>From: chris yung <yu...@moh.gov.on.ca>
>Subject: Re: "Does the NT call Jesus God?"
>Date: Fri, 05 Jan 1996 12:15:26 -0500

>Barclay Stevenson wrote:
>>
>> In article <nc3...@quack.kfu.com>, pha...@quack.kfu.com (Paul Harvey)
>> says:

>> >Thus,
>> >there is no reason to think that Jesus was called God in the earliest
>> >layers of New Testament tradition.
>>

>> Rom 9:5 is quite convincing:
>> Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ
>> came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (KJV)

>You would have been a great Simpson juror.

>This says merely that Jesus was "God blessed for ever". At least the
>way you've quoted it. I don't have my bible handy. Like anyone could
>be blessed by God. Sheesh.


1 TIM 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God
was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spitit, seen of angels, preached
unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Revelation 19:13 and He was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood:
and his name is called The Word of God.


John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and te Word was with God, and
the Word was God.

Won by One,
Mike Dmytrenko <>< (Toronto, Canada)


Syed Yusuf

unread,
Jan 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/11/96
to

NOWHERE does Jesus say "I AM GOD"
NOWHERE does Jesus say "WORSHIP ME"

--
:::::/~~~~~~~\:/~~\::/~~\:/~~~~~~\:/~~~~~~\:::| IQRA! (read!) Quran 96:1
::::/~~\::::::/~~\:/~~\::/~~\:::::/^^\::/~~\::|------------------------------
:::/~~~~~~~\::/~~\/~~\::/~~~~~~\:/^^\:::/~~\::| Syed Yusuf
:::::::/~~\::::/~~\::::/~~\:::::/^^\::/~~\::::| yusu...@uidaho.edu
:/~~~~~~~\::::/~~\::::/~~~~~~\:/~~~~~~\:::::::|http://www.uidaho.edu/~yusuf921

Charles Coen

unread,
Jan 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/12/96
to
Miriam Wolfe (maw...@merle.acns.nwu.edu) wrote:
: In article <coenDL2...@netcom.com>, co...@netcom.com (Charles Coen) wrote:

: § Syed Yusuf (yusu...@goshawk.csrv.uidaho.edu) wrote:
: §
: § : NOWHERE does Jesus say "I AM GOD"


: § : NOWHERE does Jesus say "WORSHIP ME"

: §
: § "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the father,
: § but by me."
: § --- saying attributed to Jesus in the New Testament.
: §
: § Chuck Coen

: Atrributed?
: Pen pal, are you open to the possibility that some writer just
: placed those words on his lips (so to speak)?

: Just curious.

There is no proof that would satisfy you?
Chuck

Rik Hamilton

unread,
Jan 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/12/96
to
yusu...@goshawk.csrv.uidaho.edu (Syed Yusuf) wrote:


>NOWHERE does Jesus say "I AM GOD"

Which Bible do you read?

Five Easy QUESTIONS concerning Jesus Christ within the Trinity!

QUESTION 1:

OK, For example when I read John 17:3 (NWT) is says;
3: This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of
you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD*, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus
Christ.

* = I added emphasis.

Based on this you say, Jehovah is the one true God! I agree.
However, this is when I face a tough problem? In John 1:1 (NWT) it
says "a god." Which you say is the correct rendering, But is Jesus a
true God or a false God? Because John 17:3 tells us that there is ONLY
ONE TRUE GOD?

Because if you say Jesus is a true God, then that would be
contradicting the WatchTower's book understanding of the Scripture
about (John 17:3)? And also the Scripture vers itself?

Again, thinking on the same verse, John 17:3 specifically tells
us that there is only ONE true God, Jehovah, agreed, so we can say
that whatever in NOT true must be false? So if there is only ONE true
God all OTHER gods MUST be FALSE? Now according to John 1:1 you tell
me that Jesus is "a god", so is Jesus a TRUE God or a FALSE god?

He can't be a false god, since that would mean the apostle John
was guilty of falsely honoring Jesus as a god? Therefore he must be a
TRUE God. Problem!, But Jehovah is the ONLY TRUE GOD! So what does
that make Jesus?

Because the words "only true" in John 17:3, in both grammar and
context are not intended to CONTRAST the Father and the Son, but
rather the one true God's nature with that of FALSE gods. The Greek
word for "TRUE" in this verse carries the meaning "REAL" or GENUINE."
Thus, Jesus in this verse is simply saying that the Father is the
"ONLY TRUE GOD", the only real or genuine God, as opposed to many
FALSE gods and idols (See again 2 Chron. 15:3; Isa. 65:16; 1 Thess.
1:9; 1 John 5:20; Rev. 3:7). John does not take away from Christ's
deity in any way? And John firmly establishes Christ's deity (as TRUE
GOD) elsewhere in his gospel look at;

John 1:1 (NIV)

The Word Became Flesh

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that
has been made.
4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.


Jehovah says in Isa.44:24,"I, the Lord, am the maker of ALL THINGS,
streaching out the heavens BY MYSELF, and spreading out the earth ALL
ALONE!" How then do you reconcile the the WatchTower teaching that
Jehovah first created Jesus the He (Jesus) created everything else! It
can't be done without deliberately twisting Scripture! This is also
saying Jesus is God if you look again at John 1:1! Think about it!

John 8:58 (NIV)

The Claims of Jesus About Himself

58 I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, before Abraham was born, I
am!"
59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself,
slipping away from the temple grounds.

John 20:28 (NIV)

Jesus Appears to Thomas

28 Thomas said to him,My Lord and my God!"
29 Then Jesus told him, Because you have seen me, you have believed;
blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

QUESTION 2:

Which Brings me to another question, do you understand that
Trinitarians teach NOT that there are three gods in the Trinity but
that there is only ONE God and that there are three persons within one
GodHead?

Do you know that we agree with the teaching of Deut. 6:4, that there
is only ONE God?

So how do you explain that the early Jewish Christians, who were
clearly committed to the SHEMA in Deut. 6:4, had no scruple about
applying to Jesus many OT texts that were originally written to
reference Jehovah? How would you explain that the early Jewish
Christians called Jesus "Lord" or "God" (Like Thomas) in the same
sense that Jehovah is called God? You will know that during the course
of God's self disclosure to mankind, he revealed His nature to man in
progressive stages. First God revealed His essential unity and
uniqueness, that is, He revealed that He is ONE and that He is the
ONLY TRUE GOD. This was a necessary starting point. As
Israel was surrounded by polytheism. This ONENESS is affirmed in the
SHEMA but with hints of the Trinity doctrine already there. We see
this in Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Prov. 30:4; Isa. 6:8; 48:16 for
example. But the fullness of this doctrine was revealed in the NT
time. The teaching that there is one God but three persons within the
GodHead is clear testimony of Scripture. One key NT verse illustrates
that truth in Matt. 28:19;

Matt. 28:19 (NIV)

The Great Commission

19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in a

the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And
surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

As I understand it the WatchTower teaching for this verse is
that this does not prove that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one?
However, it is critical to note the word "NAME" is singular in the
Greek text, indicating that there is ONE God, but three distinct
persons, let me explain a little more;

Jesus does not say,

1: "Into the names [plural] of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit."
2: "Into the name of the Father, and into the name of the Son, and
into the name of the Holy Spirit"
3: Nor does HE say "Into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,"
(that is omitting the three recurring articles), as if "the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" might be taken as merely three
designations of a single person.
4: What He does say is this! "Into the name [singular] of the Father,
and of the Son,and of the Holy Spirit," first asserting the unity
of the three by combining them all within the bounds of the single

Name, and then throwing into emphasis the distinctness of
each by introducing them in turn with the repeated artical! This
fact is unavoidable!

So this is then contrary to the WatchTower's explanation of
Matt. 28:19 that tells us that it is NOT proof of the Trinity, when in
fact it is a direct statement?

Can you see then that because the word "name" is singular in the
Greek, and definite articals are placed in front of Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit, that plurality within unity is thereby indicated?

There are so many Scriptures like this, for example when God
created man He said, "Let US make man in OUR image, in OUR likeness,
and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air,
over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures
that move along the ground" (Gen 1:26). Note that "OUR IMAGE" in
Gen.1:26 is explained in verse 27 as God's image!

You must be aware that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are ALL
called God in the NT? Is the Father called God in 1 Peter 1:2? Is
Jesus called God in John 20:28? And is the Holy Spirit recognized as
God in Acts 5:4-4? Just to name a few!

Can we agree that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit each exercise
the attributes of deity on different occasions? (I think that would be
safe to conclude?).

Now can anyone OTHER than God have the attributes of God?
Because in addition to having the attributes of deity, each of the
three persons were involved in doing WORKS of deity. For example, all
three were involved in creation of the world; the Father (Gen. 2:7;
Psa. 102:25), the Son (John 1:3; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2), and the Holy
Spirit (Gen. 1:2; Job 33:4; Psa.104:30)!

So can we agree that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all
involved in doing the WORKS of deity? So can anyone other than God do
the works of Deity? It seems clear that within the Triune GodHead,
never is a single act performed by one person without the instant
acquiescence of the other two. This is not to deny that each of the
three persons have a distinctive ministries unique to themselves. But
clearly, the three always act in harmonious unity in all the mighty
works wrought by God throughout the universe!

QUESTION 3:

I have noticed that the WatchTower tries to make a mockery of
the Trinitarian interpretations of Matt. 3:16-17, by asking "Was God
saying that he was his own son, that he approved himself, that he sent
himself?

No, God the Creator was saying that he, as the superior, was approving
a lesser one, his Son Jesus, for the work ahead." (Should you believe
in the Trinity? Page No.18).

However, it can be shown theologically that the three persons
mentioned in this verse,Father,Son and Holy Spirit, are God!

Matt. 3:16-17 (NIV)

The Baptism of Jesus

16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that
moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending

like a dove and lighting on him.
17 And a voice from heaven said,This is my Son, whom I love; with him

I am well pleased."

I am sure you know that the term "son of.." can refer to
"Offspring of" in some contexts, the more important theological
meaning is "of the order of." (See James Oliver Buswell, "A Systermaic
Theology of the Christian Religion" Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979, Ch1
page 105). For example "son's of the prophets" (1 Kings 20:35) can
mean "of order of prophets". Likewise the phrase "Son pf God" means
"of the order of God," and represents a claim to undiminished deity!

So if the phrase "son's of.." meant sameness of nature and
equality of being among the ancients, as historical records prove
true, then what does this tell us about the meaning of the phrase Son
of God"? Because from the earliest days of Christianity the phrase
"Son of God" was understood to be fully equivalent to God! This is why
when Jesus made His claim , the Jews insisted, he must die! Because He
claimed to be the "Son of God" (John 19:7). They recognized that Jesus
was identifying Himself as God! Look at Lev. 24:16

Lev. 24:16 (NIV)

A Blasphemer Stoned

16 anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death.
The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or
native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to
death.

They understood "EXACTLY" what was being said here!

QUESTION 4:

If Thomas was just expressing surprise at seeing the risen
Christ, wouldn't his words be equivalent to taking God's name in vain?
And if so surely Jesus would have rebuked him? But in fact we see the
exact opposite! Jesus affirmed what Thomas said, not corrected him!
Why do you think Jesus commended Thomas instead of rebuking him?

What precisely was it that Thomas "believed," according to John
20:29? The obvious answer is that he believed Jesus to be God Himself!
Oh, by the way did you know that in psalm 35:23 the phrase "my God and
my Lord" (NASB) is used for Jehovah? This makes one wonder?

We may conclude that John 20:28 constitutes an excellent support
text for the doctrine of the Trinity. The Father is fully God; the Son
is fully God; and yet there is only one true God. This makes sense
only within a Trinitarian framework. Within the unity of the one
GodHead, there are three persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and
each of the three are co-equal and co-eternal.

Do you understand that the consistent teaching of Greek scholars
that context is always determined in how a given word is to
interpreted in a particular sentence?

John 10:30 "I and the Father are one" What did he mean by this?
Well here Jesus used the Greek word (hen) for "one" in ALL those
instances. While the Greek word "hen" by itself does not have to refer
to more than unity of purpose, the context of John 10 makes it clear
that much more is meant! How do we know this? By the way the Jews
responded to Jesus' affirmation that "I and the Father are one." They
immediately picked up stones to put Him to death. They understood
Jesus was claiming to be God in an unqualified sense. Indeed,
according to verse 33, the Jews said, "For a good work we do not stone
you, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself
out to be God." The penalty for blasphemy was death by stoning!

So, why would the Jews pick up stones to kill Jesus if all He
was affirming was His unity of purpose with the Father? Didn't the
Jews have unity of purpose with the father? Why would the Jews, who
had unity of purpose with the Father, try to kill Jesus for affirming
the same thing? If Jesus was just affirming unity of purpose with the
Father by saying "I and the father are one," then why did the Jews
understand His words to be an affirmation that He was God (John
10:33)? And if they were mistaken in thinking this, Why, did Jesus not
correct them? Did they not understand Him correctly? Look at John
10:34-38!

If the WatchTower interpretation of John 10:30 is correct, and
the oneness that Christ shares with the Father is identical to the
oneness that believers have with Christ, are you will to insert your
personal name in John 10:30? In John 14:9? In John 5:23? In John
16:15? Look up each verse and read it aloud!

QUESTION 5:

Since Jesus is clearly claiming to be the "first and the last"
in Rev. 22:12-13, and since Isa. 44:6 records Jehovah-God as saying,
"I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God",
what must we conclude about Jesus' true identity?

Because when used of God (or Christ), the first and the last
letters express eternality and omnipotence. Christ's claim to be the
Alpha and the Omega is an affirmation that He is the all powerful One
of eternity past and eternity future (Jehovah God). "In describing
Himself as the "First and the Last" Christ is relating Himself to time
and eternity. He is the eternal God who has always existed in the past
and who will always exist in the future! For any CREATED being,
however exalted, to claim to be the Alpha and the Omega as these terms
are used of Jesus Christ would be utter blasphemy!

This however, is only the tip of the Ice Burge! The whole
Biblical account of Christ is full to overflowing with evidence that
the doctrine and concept of the Trinity is a reality!

>NOWHERE does Jesus say "WORSHIP ME"

At the NAME OF JESUS every knee shall bow, and every tounge confess
that HE is LORD! I think this is saying worship Jesus! Wouldn't you!

There are many other one's as well if you really want to go into it!

Somehow I think your fighting a lossing battle on that issue!
************************************************************
* <<<<<<< THE MUCK!>>>> MUCK-Mail: r...@mars.nrttrek.net.au *
*----------------------------------------------------------*
* ..:(All MUCK mail to the above E-mail address plese):.. *
************************************************************


mcca...@polaris.net

unread,
Jan 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/12/96
to
Syed Yusuf (yusu...@goshawk.csrv.uidaho.edu) wrote:

: NOWHERE does Jesus say "I AM GOD"

Yes, He did.
In the OT, God used the title "I AM"
In the NT, Jesus used the title "I AM" and was almost stoned for
blasphemy for claiming to be God.

: NOWHERE does Jesus say "WORSHIP ME"
In every instance when someone _other_ than God or Jesus was worshipped,
that person or angel told the person not to worship them but to worship
God. In several instances in the NT, Jesus was worshipped and He did not
rebuke the person worshipping Him. If Jesus did not want worship, he
would have rebuke them. Since He accepted worship, either this shows that
He considered himself God.

May God bless you and keep you always,
Carl

|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Carl McCaskey |
| [mcca...@polaris.net] |
|--------------------------------------|
| Keep yourselves in the love of God, |
| looking for the mercy of our Lord |
| Jesus Christ unto enternal life. |
|_______________[Jude 21]______________|


Miriam Wolfe

unread,
Jan 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/12/96
to
In article <coenDL2...@netcom.com>, co...@netcom.com (Charles Coen) wrote:

§ Syed Yusuf (yusu...@goshawk.csrv.uidaho.edu) wrote:
§
§ : NOWHERE does Jesus say "I AM GOD"

§ : NOWHERE does Jesus say "WORSHIP ME"
§

§ "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the father,
§ but by me."
§ --- saying attributed to Jesus in the New Testament.
§
§ Chuck Coen

Atrributed?
Pen pal, are you open to the possibility that some writer just
placed those words on his lips (so to speak)?

Just curious.


Miriam


€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
O L-RD, my strength and my fortress,
my refuge in the day of affliction,
THE GENTILES shall come to YOU
from the ends of the earth and say:
SURELY our fathers have inherited
LIES, VANITY, and Things of NO BENEFIT!"

Jeremiah 16:19

Charles Coen

unread,
Jan 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/12/96
to

Pastor Griffin

unread,
Jan 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/12/96
to
In <mawolfe-1201...@aragorn195.nuts.nwu.edu>

maw...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Miriam Wolfe) writes:
>
>In article <coenDL2...@netcom.com>, co...@netcom.com (Charles Coen)
wrote:
>
>Atrributed?
>Pen pal, are you open to the possibility that some writer just
>placed those words on his lips (so to speak)?
>
>Just curious.
>
>
>Miriam
>
>
> €€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
> O L-RD, my strength and my fortress,
> my refuge in the day of affliction,
> THE GENTILES shall come to YOU
> from the ends of the earth and say:
> SURELY our fathers have inherited
> LIES, VANITY, and Things of NO BENEFIT!"
>
> Jeremiah 16:19

John 10:9 My Father, which gave [them]
me, is greater than all; and no
[man] is able to pluck [them] out of
my Father's hand.
30 I and [my] Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones
again to stone him.

John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him,
Have I been so long time with
you, and yet hast thou not known
me, Philip? he that hath seen me
hath seen the Father; and how
sayest thou [then], Shew us the
Father?

This should satisfy even the most dire skeptic.

Hail Jesus' Victory,
Pastor Griffin


Joe Slater

unread,
Jan 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/13/96
to
mcca...@polaris.net writes:

>Syed Yusuf (yusu...@goshawk.csrv.uidaho.edu) wrote:

>: NOWHERE does Jesus say "I AM GOD"

>Yes, He did.


>In the OT, God used the title "I AM"
>In the NT, Jesus used the title "I AM" and was almost stoned for
>blasphemy for claiming to be God.

We don't know exactly what Jesus is alleged to have said, because nobody
bothered recording the supposed original of the conversation. In any
event, a cursory glance at a Bible will find many instances of "I am";
and a more rigorous look will find that G-d uses the title "I will be
what I will be" - in the future tense, and doubled. Even if Jesus' words
were misrecorded as being in the present tense, he can hardly be said to
have used a doubled expression as it does not fit into the text.

jds
--
j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | `You SHOULD have said "It's extremely
T: +61-3-525-8728 F: +61-3-562-0756 | kind of you to tell me all this" -
If all else fails try Dialix: | however, we'll suppose it said.'
j...@melb.dialix.oz.au | (The Red Queen)

Steve Jones

unread,
Jan 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/13/96
to
On 12 Jan 1996 22:40:24 GMT, jame...@ix.netcom.com(Pastor Griffin )
wrote:


>>Atrributed?
>>Pen pal, are you open to the possibility that some writer just
>>placed those words on his lips (so to speak)?
>>
>>Just curious.
>>
>>
>>Miriam
>>
>

> John 10:9 My Father, which gave [them]
>me, is greater than all; and no
>[man] is able to pluck [them] out of
>my Father's hand.
> 30 I and [my] Father are one.
> 31 Then the Jews took up stones
>again to stone him.
>
>John 14:9 Jesus saith unto him,
> Have I been so long time with
> you, and yet hast thou not known
> me, Philip? he that hath seen me
> hath seen the Father; and how
> sayest thou [then], Shew us the
> Father?
>
> This should satisfy even the most dire skeptic.
>
> Hail Jesus' Victory,
> Pastor Griffin
>

No, "Pastor" Griffin -- I don't believe your quotation of two verses
out of John are liable to satisy any *ordinary* skeptics, let alone
"dire" ones. Don't you understand that Y'shua Himself said that He
was a stumbling block to the Jews? Do you think it's really as easy as
your quoting a couple of verses out of the New Testament (which Jews
do not recognize as the Word of G-d), and therefore they will be
"convinced" by your verses to abandon the faith and community of their
lifetime, and of their ancestors going back 3800 years? If I were a
Jew, you surely wouldn't convince me of anything except your
heavy-handed insensitivity.

Sir, respectfully, you seem to understand neither Judaism, Jews, nor
even Dale Carnegie. Start with him, and learn how to "win friends and
influence people." Do you think you soften the hearts of those whom
you would convince by adding in a final salutation of "Hail Jesus'
Victory". When Jews hear Christians say "hail" they picture you in a
German uniform with your stiff right arm at full salute. Do you even
understand that Y'shua's victory was over sin and death, and not over
Jews, or even over Judaism?. Christ didn't come to achieve victory
over a "false" religion (the Torah is not false), he came to fulfill
Jewish Law and Jewish Prophets. He came to cut His people some slack,
and through them, you and I as well. Whatever He had to offer He
offered first to His own people, and through them to the rest of the
Gentile nations. May I seriously commend a more proper style of
witness to you? Listen to your Lord's command to you in
1 Peter 3:15-16 and allow it to shape your response to all
non-Christians:

"15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to
give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the
hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16
keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously
against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander."

The New International Version, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing
House) 1984.

Rest assured, "Pastor", that there are people here who *are* speaking
maliciously against you; unfortunately it is not your good behavior
they have in mind. Verse 16 also implies that if you do *not* employ
gentleness and respect, the maliciousness voiced against you may be
justified, and not slanderous.

A fellow believer -- steve

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Jones, President sjo...@i-link.net
Renaissance Media Group Austin, TX

"Pray for the peace of Jerusalem..." Ps 122:6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Greg Newman

unread,
Jan 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/13/96
to
Barclay....@rf.no (Barclay Stevenson) writes:

>Rom 9:5 is quite convincing:
> Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
>(KJV)

Ramans.... that would be Paul. Paul didn't know his ass from his elbow,
and was dead wrong.


Will Stewart

unread,
Jan 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/13/96
to
In <mawolfe-1201...@aragorn195.nuts.nwu.edu>
maw...@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Miriam Wolfe) writes:
>
>In article <coenDL2...@netcom.com>, co...@netcom.com (Charles Coen)
wrote:
>
>§ Syed Yusuf (yusu...@goshawk.csrv.uidaho.edu) wrote:

>§ : NOWHERE does Jesus say "I AM GOD"
>§ : NOWHERE does Jesus say "WORSHIP ME"

>§ "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the
father,
>§ but by me."
>§ --- saying attributed to Jesus in the New Testament.

>§ Chuck Coen
>
>Atrributed?
>Pen pal, are you open to the possibility that some writer just
>placed those words on his lips (so to speak)?

This concept can be applied not only to the Christian scriptures, but
to the Tanakh and the Talmud as well.

Cheers,

Will Stewart

Fr. John W. Morris +

unread,
Jan 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/13/96
to
St. Paul wrote, "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in
bodily form." Colossians 2:9
In Hebrews we read, "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the
exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful
word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the
right hand of the Majesty in heaven." Hebrews 1:3
St. John wrote, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God
and the Word was God....The Word became flesh and lived for a while
among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who
came from the Father, full of grace and truth." St. John 1:1, 1:14
Christ said, "I and the Father are one." St. John 10:30
Our Lord also said, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." St.
John 14:9
The New Testament clearly teaches that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh.
Fr. John W. Morris +

Arif M.

unread,
Jan 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/13/96
to

On Fri, 12 Jan 1996, Rik Hamilton wrote:

> yusu...@goshawk.csrv.uidaho.edu (Syed Yusuf) wrote:
>
> >NOWHERE does Jesus say "I AM GOD"
>

> Which Bible do you read?
>
> Five Easy QUESTIONS concerning Jesus Christ within the Trinity!
>

> ... [long passage snipped]


However, Jesus never proclaimed that he is God, let alone the true God or
the only true God. And, the only true God never proclaims that He is Jesus
nor that a part (a person or whatever you like to call it) of Him is Jesus
nor that He has so many parts/persons/personalities/whatever-you-call-it.
The only true God also never proclaimed that He gonna be spitted,
tortured, and die on a cross.

Sure, you can say that NT says this and that. But, who was John, who was
Mark, etc ? Nobody knows who they were. You can argue that the Holy
Spirit told tehm this and that. But, what is the evidence that the Holy
Spirit did tell them ? Moreover, who is the Holy Spirit ? Is there any
evidence that the Holy Spirit exists ? If he does, why not all people
believe that Jesus is the only true God ?

If you believe that Jesus is the only true God because he performed many
miracles, then why the only true God play a puzzle about His identity in
the NT by not lucidly proclaimed/stated it ?


Peace,
arif

Barclay Stevenson

unread,
Jan 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/13/96
to

Miriam Wolfe

unread,
Jan 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/14/96
to
In article <coenDL3...@netcom.com>, co...@netcom.com (Charles Coen) wrote:

§ Miriam Wolfe (maw...@merle.acns.nwu.edu) wrote:
§ : In article <coenDL2...@netcom.com>, co...@netcom.com (Charles
Coen) wrote:
§

§ : § Syed Yusuf (yusu...@goshawk.csrv.uidaho.edu) wrote:
§ : §
§ : § : NOWHERE does Jesus say "I AM GOD"

§ : § : NOWHERE does Jesus say "WORSHIP ME"


§ : §
§ : § "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the father,
§ : § but by me."
§ : § --- saying attributed to Jesus in the New Testament.
§ : §
§ : § Chuck Coen
§
§ : Atrributed?
§ : Pen pal, are you open to the possibility that some writer just
§ : placed those words on his lips (so to speak)?

§
§ : Just curious.


§
§ There is no proof that would satisfy you?
§ Chuck

Its not at all a matter of proof pen pal.
All I am asking is for a clarification on the statement
you made. G-D forbid, that I should misunderstand your meaning.

Miriam Wolfe

unread,
Jan 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/14/96
to
In article <4d740a$6...@nexus.polaris.net>, mcca...@polaris.net wrote:

§ Syed Yusuf (yusu...@goshawk.csrv.uidaho.edu) wrote:
§
§ : NOWHERE does Jesus say "I AM GOD"
§

§ Yes, He did.


§ In the OT, God used the title "I AM"
§ In the NT, Jesus used the title "I AM" and was almost stoned for
§ blasphemy for claiming to be God.

§

§ : NOWHERE does Jesus say "WORSHIP ME"

§ In every instance when someone _other_ than God or Jesus was worshipped,

§ that person or angel told the person not to worship them but to worship
§ God. In several instances in the NT, Jesus was worshipped and He did not
§ rebuke the person worshipping Him.

Citations please.

Thank you,

Miriam Wolfe

If Jesus did not want worship, he
§ would have rebuke them. Since He accepted worship, either this shows that
§ He considered himself God.
§

§ May God bless you and keep you always,
§ Carl
§
§ |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|


§ | Carl McCaskey |
§ | [mcca...@polaris.net] |
§ |--------------------------------------|
§ | Keep yourselves in the love of God, |
§ | looking for the mercy of our Lord |
§ | Jesus Christ unto enternal life. |
§ |_______________[Jude 21]______________|

Steve Jones

unread,
Jan 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/14/96
to
On Sat, 13 Jan 1996 10:04:03 -0600, "Arif M."
<ma...@osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu> wrote:

>
>On Fri, 12 Jan 1996, Rik Hamilton wrote:
>

>> yusu...@goshawk.csrv.uidaho.edu (Syed Yusuf) wrote:
>>
>> >NOWHERE does Jesus say "I AM GOD"
>>

>> Which Bible do you read?
>>
>> Five Easy QUESTIONS concerning Jesus Christ within the Trinity!
>>
>> ... [long passage snipped]
>
>
>However, Jesus never proclaimed that he is God, let alone the true God or
>the only true God. And, the only true God never proclaims that He is Jesus
>nor that a part (a person or whatever you like to call it) of Him is Jesus
>nor that He has so many parts/persons/personalities/whatever-you-call-it.
>The only true God also never proclaimed that He gonna be spitted,
>tortured, and die on a cross.
>
>Sure, you can say that NT says this and that. But, who was John, who was
>Mark, etc ? Nobody knows who they were. You can argue that the Holy
>Spirit told tehm this and that. But, what is the evidence that the Holy
>Spirit did tell them ? Moreover, who is the Holy Spirit ? Is there any
>evidence that the Holy Spirit exists ? If he does, why not all people
>believe that Jesus is the only true God ?
>
>If you believe that Jesus is the only true God because he performed many
>miracles, then why the only true God play a puzzle about His identity in
>the NT by not lucidly proclaimed/stated it ?
>
>
>Peace,
>arif
>

Friend, your level of ignorance about Christianity, the New Testament,
and textual criticism is so overwhelming that it would literally be
pointless to attempt to respond to your argumentative statements. I
mean you no disrespect, but if you wish to discuss comparative
religion intelligently, you must first pull your nose out of your own
religious writings (and hence away from your biases), and go actually
read the religious writings of another faith, as well as some
objective critical analysis of the scholarship, claims, etc. Your
objectivity is totally lacking, and your simple ignorance of fact is
profound. You make no contribution to this forum, show no interest in
aquiring knowledge, your only questions are rhetorical and
inflammatory.........I think that about covers it.

No it doesn't. There's one more thing. You're not reading the threads
of this newsgroup. There are numerous examples extant, backed up with
scholarship, of what you claim *cannot be*. Spare us your revelations
about the "only true god" unless you can provide some proof ---
either that he whispers in your ear, or out of some orthodox,
classically accepted religious writing.

And peace be to you.

Charles Coen

unread,
Jan 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/15/96
to
Miriam Wolfe (maw...@merle.acns.nwu.edu) wrote:
: In article <4d740a$6...@nexus.polaris.net>, mcca...@polaris.net wrote:

: § Syed Yusuf (yusu...@goshawk.csrv.uidaho.edu) wrote:
: §
: § : NOWHERE does Jesus say "I AM GOD"

: §
: § Yes, He did.


: § In the OT, God used the title "I AM"
: § In the NT, Jesus used the title "I AM" and was almost stoned for
: § blasphemy for claiming to be God.
: §
: § : NOWHERE does Jesus say "WORSHIP ME"
: § In every instance when someone _other_ than God or Jesus was worshipped,
: § that person or angel told the person not to worship them but to worship
: § God. In several instances in the NT, Jesus was worshipped and He did not
: § rebuke the person worshipping Him.

: Citations please.

John 20:17

Miriam Wolfe

unread,
Jan 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/15/96
to
In article <coenDL...@netcom.com>, co...@netcom.com (Charles Coen) wrote:


I don't see that yeshu is being worshipped
in that citation pen pal.
Explain your understanding of it.

Miriam

Andrew Solovay

unread,
Jan 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/15/96
to
In article <4d931v$i...@bird3.i-link.net>,

Steve Jones <sjo...@i-link.net> wrote:
>On 12 Jan 1996 22:40:24 GMT, jame...@ix.netcom.com(Pastor Griffin )
>wrote:
>
>> [John 10:9,30-1]
>>
>> [John 14:9]

>>
>> This should satisfy even the most dire skeptic.
>
>No, "Pastor" Griffin -- I don't believe your quotation of two verses
>out of John are liable to satisy any *ordinary* skeptics, let alone
>"dire" ones. Don't you understand that Y'shua Himself said that He
>was a stumbling block to the Jews? Do you think it's really as easy as
>your quoting a couple of verses out of the New Testament (which Jews
>do not recognize as the Word of G-d), and therefore they will be
>"convinced" by your verses to abandon the faith and community of their
>lifetime, and of their ancestors going back 3800 years? If I were a
>Jew, you surely wouldn't convince me of anything except your
>heavy-handed insensitivity.

FWIW, all that I thought Mr. Griffin was saying, is that the "New
Testament" unambiguously claims that Jesus is God incarnate. I am
happy to stipulate that it makes those claims, while still rejecting
the authority of the "New Testament"; just as I acknowledge the
Baghavad-Gita's similar claims for Krishna, while not believing those
claims either.

--Andrew Solovay <sol...@netcom.com>

"We never met anyone who believed in fortune cookies. That's
astounding. Belief in the precognitive powers of an Asian pastry
is really no wackier than belief in ESP, sublaxation, or astrology,
but you just don't hear anyone preaching Scientific Cookie-ism."
--- Penn & Teller

Zvi the Fiddler

unread,
Jan 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/15/96
to

<<In several instances in the NT, Jesus was worshipped and He did not
: § rebuke the person worshipping Him.>>

Yet in at least one instance (in Mark) Jesus rebukes a young man who merely
calls him a "good teacher" saying "Why do you call me good? Only G-d is
good." with the clear implication that he, Jesus, is not G-d.

(Zvi, you are quoting from memory again.)

Zvi the Fiddler


Mike Lim

unread,
Jan 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/16/96
to
In article <NEWTNews.82177180...@pop.net>,
Zvi the Fiddler <mail...@pop.net> wrote:
>
>Bruce Hawkins writes:
>
><<This mystery is one of the reasons for the 'trinity' concept:
>three persons in one God. My spirit tells me this is correct,
>but my brain can't figure it out>>
>
>Ah! Another example of the everything argument. "Granted I have no rational
>explanation or even understanding of it, still, I believe with all my heart
>that it is true so it must be true." This can be used to prove anything and
>everything, and therefore nothing.
>
>Zvi the Fiddler

So, are 1. the scientific paradox of the wave-particle duality and
2. the verbo-logical paradox of man's inhumanity to man, provened to
exist or not?


John F. Nixon

unread,
Jan 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/16/96
to
In article <4dgb67$9...@news.ox.ac.uk> shug...@sable.ox.ac.uk (Mike Lim) writes:

> >Ah! Another example of the everything argument. "Granted I have no rational
> >explanation or even understanding of it, still, I believe with all my heart
> >that it is true so it must be true." This can be used to prove anything and
> >everything, and therefore nothing.

> So, are 1. the scientific paradox of the wave-particle duality and

Sorry, but this won't do. There is no paradox of wave/particle
duality. Photons *always* are detected as particles. The probability
of these interactions is deduced by using wave mechanics. There is a
perfectly consistent, albeit counter-intuitive and very possibly
incomplete, explanation called Quantum Mechanics. It is perhaps the
most accurate and well attested of all physical theories. QM cannot be
used to prove 'anything and everything, and therefore nothing.' It's
predictions are very specific and so far 100.00% correct. There are no
known violations.
--
--
John Nixon
jni...@ix.netcom.com

Charles Coen

unread,
Jan 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/16/96
to
Miriam Wolfe (maw...@merle.acns.nwu.edu) wrote:
: In article <coenDL3...@netcom.com>, co...@netcom.com (Charles Coen) wrote:

: § : § "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the father,


: § : § but by me."
: § : § --- saying attributed to Jesus in the New Testament.
: § : § Chuck Coen
: §
: § : Atrributed?
: § : Pen pal, are you open to the possibility that some writer just
: § : placed those words on his lips (so to speak)?
: § : Just curious.
: § There is no proof that would satisfy you?

: Its not at all a matter of proof pen pal.


: All I am asking is for a clarification on the statement
: you made. G-D forbid, that I should misunderstand your meaning.

Oh sure, no problemo, see John 14:6. Hopefully that helps clarify
my meaning.
All the best,
Chuck

Paul Harvey

unread,
Jan 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/16/96
to
Even the great Roman Catholic scholar "Father" [cf.Mt23:9] Raymond Brown,
in Theological Studies #26 (1965) p.545-73 "Does the NT call Jesus God?"
is forced by the Biblical facts to concede that Mk10:18,Lk18:19,Mt19:17,
Mk15:34,Mt27:46,Jn20:17,Eph1:17,2Cor1:3,1Pt1:3,Jn17:3,1Cor8:6,Eph4:4-6,
1Cor12:4-6,2Cor13:14,1Tm2:5,Jn14:28,Mk13:32,Ph2:5-10,1Cor15:24-28 are
"texts that seem to imply that the title "God" was not
used for Jesus" and are "negative evidence which is often
somewhat neglected in Catholic treatments of the subject." Also: "Jesus
is never called God in the Synoptic Gospels, and a passage like Mk 10:18
would seem to preclude the possibility that Jesus used the title of
himself. Even the fourth Gospel never portrays Jesus as saying
specifically that he is God. The sermons which Acts attributes to the
beginning of the Christian mission do not speak of Jesus as God. Thus,

there is no reason to think that Jesus was called God in the earliest
layers of New Testament tradition. This negative conclusion is
substantiated by the fact that Paul does not use the title in any
epistle written before 58." And "The slow development of the usage of
the title "God" for Jesus requires explanation. Not only is there the
factor that Jesus is not called God in the earlier strata of New Testament
material, but also there are passages, cited in the first series of
texts above, that by implication reserve the title "God" for the Father.
Moreover, even in the New Testament works that speak of Jesus as God,
there are also passages that seem to militate against such a usage - a
study of these texts will show that this is true of the Pastorals and
the Johannine literature. The most plausible explanation is that in the
earliest stage of Christianity the Old Testament heritage dominated the
use of the title "God"; hence, "God" was a title too narrow to be
applied to Jesus. It referred strictly to the Father of Jesus, to the
God whom he prayed. Gradually, (in the 50's and 60's?) in the
development of Christian thought "God" was understood to be a broader
term. It was seen that God had revealed so much of Himself in Jesus that
"God" had to be able to include both Father and Son."

Now, of course, Fr. Brown, not wishing to be excommmunicated or perhaps
denied a shot at sainthood a la St. Jerome, does not deny the
post-Nicene (Constantinian-Justinian) "truth" (by committee) that Jesus
is "true God of true God." But, even he is reduced to three proof texts:
Heb1:8-9, Jn1:1, Jn20:28. Now, if you start with the "truth" and then
derive the facts (as is the Medieval European Dark Ages tradition) -
then these three will suit your purpose. However, starting instead with
the Biblical facts and only then deducing the truth, the conclusion is
quite clear, as Fr. Brown is forced to concede for Jesus and the
Jerusalem Church of Peter and James and early Christianity. Heb1:8-9
rests on the assumption that the LXX should be read in such a manner
that it conflicts with the MT. Highly unlikely and even then this cite
can only support a preconceived theory at best. Jn1:1 is mired in
controversy (see Brown's Gospel of John). A perfectly valid translation
of the Greek could be: "In the beginning was the word and the word was
toward God and divine was what the word was." In any case, the topic
here is clearly the pre-existant word (i.e. "Let there be light") which
is only loosely connected with Jesus (see Brown's Gospel of John).
Again, we have a cite that can only support a preconceived theory at
best. Fr. Brown, though a devoted Trinitarian is forced to concede once
again and even warns against reading this verse in a post-Nicene
context. And Jn20:28 rests on the assumption that early Christians found
the hated Emperor Domitian's [81-96] title of "dominus et deus noster"
[Our Lord and God] attractive and thus applied it to Jesus also. Quoting
Fr. Brown: "the contention of Theodore of Mopsuestia [d.428] that Thomas
was uttering an exclamation of thanks *to the Father* finds few
proponents today." Yet, of course, in context, that is exactly what
Thomas was doing. After all, Jesus didn't raise himself from the dead,
to do so would only rank him with all the other pagan magicians of his
day - rather the early Christians, who felt defeated by the crucifixion
and the failure of the "first coming," rejoiced that some had actually
seen Jesus raised *by* God [the Father] <the Greek is very specific on
this> to sit not in the throne of God but at the right hand of God as
His [God's] annointed Messianic King. Thomas of course doubted these
reports but when he saw Jesus himself, his faith was reborn. Thus, of
course, in context, Thomas praises God [the Father, who raised Jesus]
and Jesus the Messianic King.

In conclusion, Fr. Brown seems impressed that the Roman pagan historian
Pliny the Younger recorded Christians as "singing hymns to Christ as to
a god." <... Christo quasi deo> [Letter 10.96] But pagans also recorded
Jews as singing hymns to an ass as a god [gadarogamai=ass-kissers], etc.
And right in the NT, early pagan converts of Paul and Barnabas are
recorded as proclaiming them as gods [Ac14:11-13]. And one has the verses
Ac12:22,19:37,28:6,1Cor8:5,2Cor4:4,Phil3:19 to deal with. But why read
the Bible in a pagan context, or a Constantinian-Justianian context? Why
not read the Bible in the context of the Bible - and leave the Dark Ages
behind? Wise up - rise up - toward God. Into the light.

Ecce Homo. The reformation continues.

Bob Felts

unread,
Jan 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/16/96
to
In article <NEWTNews.82176916...@pop.net>, Zvi the Fiddler
<mail...@pop.net> wrote:

| <<In several instances in the NT, Jesus was worshipped and He did not
| : § rebuke the person worshipping Him.>>
|
| Yet in at least one instance (in Mark) Jesus rebukes a young man who merely
| calls him a "good teacher" saying "Why do you call me good? Only G-d is
| good." with the clear implication that he, Jesus, is not G-d.

Then why does Jesus say, "You want eternal life? Come, follow me!"

__|_______
| Bob Felts
| wr...@mindspring.com
|

Zvi the Fiddler

unread,
Jan 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/16/96
to

<<So, are 1. the scientific paradox of the wave-particle duality and
2. the verbo-logical paradox of man's inhumanity to man, provened to
exist or not?>>

1) My brain tells me that the wave particle duality fits all the requirments
of a logical theory, including expermental verfication, mathematical support,
and others. I have difficulty visiulizing it, but that is a diffent matter.

2) This just a semantic game.

Zvi the Fiddler

P.S. I suspect you do not know what a "proof" is. The concept of wave
particle duality is a theory -- not something proven, though as theories go,
it is a consistantly useful one.

Zvi the Fiddler


Charles Coen

unread,
Jan 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/16/96
to
Miriam Wolfe (maw...@merle.acns.nwu.edu) wrote:
: In article <coenDL...@netcom.com>, co...@netcom.com (Charles Coen) wrote:
[skipping]

:: In several instances in the NT, Jesus was worshipped and He did not

:: rebuke the person worshipping Him.

: § : Citations please.
: § John 20:17

: I don't see that yeshu is being worshipped
: in that citation pen pal.
: Explain your understanding of it.

According to my understanding, Mary Magdalene had come to the tomb
on the first day of the week to worship at the tomb (John 10:1). As
she arrived she saw that the stone had been rolled away. She runs to
Simon Peter and John (the beloved) to tell them that the Lord had been
taken out of the tomb (John 20:2).

In chapter 20 the word Lord is used to indicate Jesus; i.e. v.2, v.13,
v.18, and v.28. Chapter 20 ends with verse 31: "But these are written
that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that
by believing you may have life in his name.

Chapter 20 is written to explain why Mary and the disciples came to
worship Jesus as God as well as to show that Jesus breathed the Holy
Spirit of God onto his disciples giving them the power to forgive sin.

That's my understanding pen pal.
all the best
Chuck

Cheryl Haun Morris, Ph.D.

unread,
Jan 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/16/96
to
>Zvi the Fiddler wrote

>Yet in at least one instance (in Mark) Jesus rebukes a young man who
>merely
>calls him a "good teacher" saying "Why do you call me good? Only G-d
>is
>good." with the clear implication that he, Jesus, is not G-d.I disagree, the clear implication from this passage is that Jesus is God
because He is good.

DEBBIE LEE

unread,
Jan 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/16/96
to
In article <NEWTNews.82177180...@pop.net>, Zvi the Fiddler <mail...@pop.net> writes:
>
>Bruce Hawkins writes:
>
><<This mystery is one of the reasons for the 'trinity' concept:
>three persons in one God. My spirit tells me this is correct,
>but my brain can't figure it out>>
>
>Ah! Another example of the everything argument. "Granted I have no rational
>explanation or even understanding of it, still, I believe with all my heart
>that it is true so it must be true." This can be used to prove anything and
>everything, and therefore nothing.
>
>Zvi the Fiddler


Hey good one Zvi the Fiddler
So do you play violin or viola????

Debbie Lee Ray

>

Mike Lim

unread,
Jan 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/18/96
to
In article <NEWTNews.82184870...@pop.net>,

Zvi the Fiddler <mail...@pop.net> wrote:
>
><<So, are 1. the scientific paradox of the wave-particle duality and
>2. the verbo-logical paradox of man's inhumanity to man, provened to
>exist or not?>>
>
>1) My brain tells me that the wave particle duality fits all the requirments
>of a logical theory,

This is the first time I heard of the wave-particle duality being
described as logical.


>including expermental verfication, mathematical support,
>and others. I have difficulty visiulizing it, but that is a diffent matter.

Experimental verification yes. Interpretations of maths yes. But
no maths expression that says a wave must be a particle and vice
versa.


>2) This just a semantic game.

It is also a contradiction in verbo-logic. Refer to your original
post for relevance.


>Zvi the Fiddler
>
>P.S. I suspect you do not know what a "proof" is. The concept of wave
>particle duality is a theory -- not something proven, though as theories go,
>it is a consistantly useful one.
>
>Zvi the Fiddler

OK. Tell me what your definition of "proof" is, bearing in mind
that your words that the wave-particle duality is supported by
experimental and mathematical evidence and yet not provened. What
would you call a scientific "proof"?


Paul Harvey

unread,
Jan 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/19/96
to
In article <4dm6b9$6...@sarajevo.bmc.com>,
Rusty Bullerman <rusty_b...@bmc.com> wrote:

>yusu...@goshawk.csrv.uidaho.edu (Syed Yusuf) wrote:
>> NOWHERE does Jesus say "I AM GOD"
>> NOWHERE does Jesus say "WORSHIP ME"
>Your point is valid if and only if that is the only way Jesus could
>have expressed either or both points. It isn't, so no point.

John 18:20 (NRSV) Jesus answered, "I have spoken openly to the world; I
have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews
come together. I have said nothing in secret."

175?: Valentinus: b.100?, founder of Gnostic Valentinian School of Rome,
taught secret wisdom from Paul [Rm16:25,1Cor2:7] from his disciple Theudas,
wrote: "On the 3 Natures", quoted in Pseudo-Anthimus: God is 3 hypostases
[hidden spiritual realities] & 3 prosopa [persons]: Father, Son, Holy Spirit

202?: Irenaeus: 2nd bishop of Lyons, supports Quartodecimans in Easter contro-
versy against Pope Victor in 190, wrote "Against Heresies" in Greek (lost),
extant Latin; "... they have apostatized in their opinions from Him who is
God, & imagined that they have themselves discovered more than the apostles,
by finding out another god; and that the apostles preached the Gospel still
somewhat under the influence of Jewish opinions, but that they themselves
are purer, and more intelligent, than the apostles." [AH3.12.12,ANF,v.1]

Relationship of Christ and Law in Christianity:

Orthodox: Christ and Law are equal:
Law is Perpetual [Exodus 31:16, Numbers 15:14-16, Isaiah 56:6-7, 66:23,
...]; Lawlessness is AntiChrist [Daniel 7:25, ...]; James; Romans [2:12-
16, 3:31, 5:13, 6:15, 7:12, 8:7-8, 9:4-5, 10:4-5 (telos=goal), ...];
1 Thessalonians 4; 2 Thessalonians 2; Hebrews 8:13 (old agreement = Roman
appointed "House of Annas" Jerusalem Priesthood); Matthew (Sermon on the
Mount); Luke 5:36 (Against Gnostics), 5:39 (Against Marcion); Acts
(Jerusalem Church of Peter and James); John 14:15; 1 John [2:1-7, 3:4,
...]; Theophilus of Antioch to Autolycus 3.12; Hegesippus (in Eusebius'
EH 4.22.3); Polycrates to Victor (in Eusebius' EH 5.24); Irenaeus Against
Heresies 4.12.3; Apostolic Constitutions 2.36, 6.19, 7.23; ...

Gnostic: Christ is superior to Law:
Jeremiah 31:31 (out of context); Simon Magus of Samaria (Acts 8:9-24,
Petrine Acts, Eusebius' EH 2.13, ...); Romans 10:4 (telos=end); Hebrews
8:13 (out of context); Nicolaus of Antioch (Acts 6:5, Revelation 2:6,15,
Eusebius' EH 3.29, ...); Menander; Ignatius of Antioch to Magnesians 8.1;
Basilides; Satorninus; Silvanus; Montanus; Valentinus; Heracleon; ...

Marcionite: Christ abrogates Law:
Marcion (Luke 5:36); Justin Dialogue 11; Epistle to Diognetus 3; ...

FiddlerTsvi@.pop.net

unread,
Jan 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/20/96
to

Hiya Mike,

Generally, the word "proof" is used in math or logic, where a conclusion can
be shown to proceed inexorably from a premise. In experimental science (and
I, for one, am not sure if "non-experimental science" is possible) one speaks
of theories, i.e. a framework to explain the experimental data. At the risk
of oversimplifying, one proposes such a framework to explain data currently
available, and then devises some type of experiment to get new data, to see if
the theory can accurately predict what this new data will be. To the extent
that the theory predicts the new data, it is useful. To the extent it does
not, it is not useful. But itis not "right or wrong". "proven or unproven."

For example, Newton's theories of gravitation clearly do not explain certain
experimental data gathered, admittedly, under unusual sitations (e.g.comparing
the apparent distance between two stars during a solar eclipse and at other
times.) So it isn't useful for that. However, when trying to decide whether
to get out of the way of a falling piano, it is very useful indeed.

As for "verbo-logical paradox" (your first phrase), a paradox is an apparent
contradiction, not an actual contradiction. The resoltuion generally lies in
noteing that words have multiple meanings. To use your example of "man's
inhumanity to man", the word "inhumanity is used in a different sense, i.e.
the sense of compassion, than the word man, which is used here to denote the
specific species.

Zvi the Fiddler


Fr. John W. Morris

unread,
Jan 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/21/96
to
Paul Harvey wrote:
> Orthodox: Christ and Law are equal:

Where did you get your information. Orthodoxy is against legalism. Our Faith
is mystical not legalistic.

Larry Kruper

unread,
Jan 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/21/96
to
mcca...@polaris.net wrote:

: Syed Yusuf (yusu...@goshawk.csrv.uidaho.edu) wrote:
: : NOWHERE does Jesus say "I AM GOD"

: Yes, He did.


: In the OT, God used the title "I AM"
: In the NT, Jesus used the title "I AM" and was almost stoned for
: blasphemy for claiming to be God.


What was Jesus teaching at this verse ? Was he teaching that he was
someone with the title, "I AM? ? A common rendering of this passage:
"Before Abraham was I am.", (KJV) has caused many to think so. Or,
was the testifying to the fact of his living before Abraham lived,

As in: "The absolute truth is that I was in existence before Abraham
was ever born!" (Living Bible).

Let us consider both meanings and types of translations.

If "I am" (or, as found in some translations/versions, "I Am") is a
title which Jehovah used to identify Himself when speaking to Moses as
at Exodus 3:14, and if Jesus wished to apply it to himself, he would
have had to say something similar to: "I am the I Am" or "I was the I
Am". Did he say anything like these expressions ? The answer is, NO!

Yet we encounter statements in religious writings to the effect that
in speaking as he did about himself that: "Jesus claimed Jehovahistic
identity (John 8:58) when He announced Himself to the unbelieving Jews
as the "I Am" of Exodus 3:14 and Jesus literally said to them, "I am
Jehovah" Try as one may, one cannot find such a statement coming from
the lips of the Lord Jesus at this, or any other verse of Scripture.
Jesus merely said, translating literally from the Greek: "before
Abraham to become I am". He did not apply any title or identification
to himself. He only disclosed *when* he was alive, sometime before
Abraham, not *who* he was.

In trying to connect John 8:58 with Exodus 3:14, the claim has been
made in John, "Jesus quoted the exact words and tense in Exodus 3:14".
This would seem to be a very strong point for the side of the
trinitarians, (If in addition, a scripture were found in which the
holy spirit might be called "I Am"),

Except for one fact; it is not true!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The words in the LXX are not: "ego eimi ho eimi" (I am the I am); but
"ego eimi ho ohn" ( I am the being). Jehovah described Himself,
according to the Greek of the LXX as "the Being" not "the I Am".Jesus
did not use the expression "the Being" in John, with reference to
himself.

As to tense, the two verses are *not* the same.

Exodus 3:14 can be diagramed thus:
------------------------------------
ego (I) is the subject; eimi (am)
is the copula, the connector; ho (the) ohn (Being) the predicate
complement. This is an instance of each verb being in the present
tense.

John 8:58 can be diagramed as:
-----------------------------------
prin (before) Abraam (Abraham) genesthai (to become) is an adverbial
expression referring to past time, ego (I) is the subject, eimi (am) is
the predicate, "am" is in the present tense.

It will be seen, that Exodus 3:14 with reference to Jehovah is in
the present tense; while, in John 8:58, the description of the life of
the Son of God is a combination of past (aorist) and present tenses.
The two verses are not the same as to tense.

Of what import is the above fact with regard to correct translation
and understanding of the statement of Jesus? What to grammars tell us
on this ?

"The present [tense] with palai (long ago) or any other expression of
past time denotes an action begun in the past and continued in the
present, and is translated by the perfect (past tense) e.g. keinon
ichneuo palai -- I have been tracking him a long time --" William
Waston Goodwin, revised by Charles Burton Gulick, "Greek Grammar",
page 268, section 1258.

The literal translation of the above would be: "I am tracking him a
long time". This would be ignoring the function of the Greek present
tense to serve as a perfect, when accompanied by an adverbial
expression of past time, for English translation.

"The Present of Past Action still in Progress. The Present
Indicative, accompanied by an adverbial expression denoting duration
and referring to past time, is sometimes used in Greek ... to
describe an action which, beginning in past time, is still in progress
at the time of speaking. English Idiom requires the use of the
Perfect in such cases." Ernest De Witt, "Syntax of the Moods And
Tenses in New Testament Greek" page 10, section 17 (this is the syntax
of John 8:58, a past tense used along with a present)

"Present Tense ... It often stands with adverbial expressions
denoting past time, suc as palai "long since", arit or artios "just"
(now), where in English the progressive present would seem to be
required (I have long been looking)" A. N. Jannaris, "An Historical
Greek Grammar", page 434, section 1833. 2.

"Sometimes the Present includes also a past tense ... when the verb
expresses a state which commenced at an earlier period but still
continues, - a state in its duration; Jn xv. 27 ... viii. 58"
George Benedict Winer, "A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament",
(Lunemann translation), 1897, page 267.

According to Greek grammar, "eimi" ("am", in the present tense), at
John 8:58, because of its being accompanied by an expression of the
past time (prin Abraam genesthai) "before Abraham to become", should
be rendered, in English, in the prefect tense. See Strong's "Greek
Dictionary" in his Concordance word 1510.

It has been said; 'The word "am" at John 8:58 expresses no predicate'
(action) 'but is a title'. What do the lexicons have to tell on this?

"eimi, with various uses and significations, like the English verb to
be .. I. As substantive verb. 1. Of persons and things, to be,
exist .. Jo. 8:58" George Abbott-Smith, "Manual Greek Lexicon of the
New Testament", page 132.

"as predicate to be - 1. be, exist .. Of Christ prin Abraam
genesthai, ego eimi before Abraham was born, I am Jo 8:58", Baur,
Arndt and Gingrich, page 222.

"The verb eimi ... Sometimes it does express existence as a predicate
like any other verb, as in ego eimi (Jo 8:58)", A. T. Robertson, "A
Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical
Research", page 394.

At Isaiah 41:4 and 46:4, in the LXX, the words ego eimi are applied
to Jehovah. Jesus,in John 8:24, applied these words to himself. The
man cured of blindness from birth, as recorded at John 9:9, applied
these words to himself. In none of these citations is 'ego eimi' used
as a title. The use at Isaiah 41:4 is in answer to Jehovah's
questions: "Who raised up righteousness?" (vs. 2), "Who has wrought
and done these things?" (vs. 4). Jehovah responds to His own
inquiry "ego eimi" (I am, with 'the one who has' being understood).
The context of Isaiah 46:4, relates to the promise of Jehovah to
continue to be the one who would bear up and deliver His people. He
showed He would be "the same" to future generations as He had been to
those in the past.

Jesus' use of ego eimi in the eighth chapter of John (excepting the
58'th vs), had to do with what he had claimed for himself earlier in
that chapter. Such as: "I am the light of the world" and that he was
"from the realms above". He then added: "if you do not believe that
I am he, you will die in your sins". Yes, if they did not believe
that he was, "the light of the world" and that he was, "from the
realms above", they would die. As the NIV puts it: "if you do not
believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your
sins".

In John 9:9, some of the people were denying the man born blind was
the one who could now see. He responded to them "ego eimi", "I am",
with the words "he", "the one" or "the man" added to complete the
sense. (NWT; NASV; NIV; NEB; RSV).

The above usages of 'ego eimi' are not the same syntax as John 8:58.
The are examples of what is called a "predicate absolute". They are
not examples of the "present of past action still in progress".

A verb, such as "eimi" is said to be a predicate absolute when it is
used without an object or the noun is understood without being stated.
In the above quotations, the expression "I am" is not followed by a
noun telling what the subject is; the noun is understood. "Eimi" at
John 8:58, is not used as a predicate absolute, it does not tell who
Jesus was; it is used at this verse, to show that the Son of God was
alive before Abraham. Using "eimi" as part of a predicate absolute
would not fit the context. The people asked Jesus: "How could you
have seen Abraham, you are too young". The question had to do with
the age of the Son of God; not his identity. The answer Jesus have
them was to let them know that he was in existence and was looking
down on the Earth at a time before Abraham; so he could know what
Abraham felt about the blessings ' from the work of the promised
Messiah (cf vss 56,57)

We see, then, that while "ego eimi" (LXX) at Isaiah 41:4; John 8:24
and 9:9 are predicates absolute and answer the question "who" without
the use of an object. Exodus 3:14, John 8:58 tells of existence, not
identity.

Shifting our attention from Greek to the Hebrew, this question comes
to mind, Does the Hebrew lend and support to the claim of some, that
"I Am", as found in many English translations, of Exodus chapter
three, is the same as in the use of "I Am" in various English
translations of John 8:58 ?

These comments of the Hebrew expression: "ehyeh asher ehyeh" will be
illuminating:

"Such a translation as "I am what I am" appears to be ruled out
completely by the fact that the verbs used here are imperfects. "I
am" is the normal translation of a Hebrew perfect, not an imperfect,
... The translation offered here relates this explanation of the name
to the covenants with the with the patriarchs. As such it was a basis
of assurance concerning Yahweh's presence and support. This though is
made explicit in the verse that follows, and the proper name Yahweh,
the memorial name, is made synonymous with the description "I shall
continue to be what I have always been." This makes the description a
restatement of Yahweh's faithfulness an assurance that he will fulfill
the covenants with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." J. Wash Watt,
Professor of Old Testamane, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary,
1930-1968, "A Distinctive Translation of Exodus With An Interpretative
Outline", 1977, pages 140, 141.

"The translation "I am" is doubly false: the tense is wrong, being
present and the idea is wrong, because "am" is used in the sense of
essential existence. All those interpretations which proceed upon the
supposition that the word is a name of God as the self-existent, the
absolute, of which the Septuagint's "ho ohn" is the most conspicuous
illustration, must be set aside ... the nature of the verb and the
tense peremptorily forbid them." A. B. Davidson, "The Theology of
the Old Testament", in The International Theological Library, 1920,
page 55.

"Most moderns follow Rashe in rendering "I will be what I will be" i.e
not words can sum up all that He will be to His people, but His
everlasting faithfulness and unchanging mercy will more and more
manifest themselves in the guidance of Israel. The answer which Moses
receives in these words in thus equivalent to, `I shall save in the
way that I shall save.' It is to assure the Israelites of the fact of
deliverance, but does not disclose the manner." J. H. Hertz, "The
Pentatuech and Hoftorahs", 1950, footnote to Exodus 3:14.

"This meant that this Almighty One could adapt himself to the
circumstances of his people, and that, whatever he needed to become or
prove to be for the sake of his people and in line with his purpose,
he could and would meet any situation successfully. So, by this
Hebrew expression, He was not talking about his self-existence, his
being eternal." The Watchtower, December 1, 1974, pages 728, 729.


How do translations reflect this knowledge ?

1. I-will-be-what-I-will-be Mo
2. I Will Become Whatsoever I please Rotherham
3. I will be what I will be Byington
4. I will be that I will be Lesser
5. I SHALL PROVE TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE NWT
6. I shall continue to be what I have always been J. Wash Watts
7. I will be what I will be NEB

8. "The meaning of the divine name (v.12) is repeated and expanded,
God's freedom from and control of history are denoted by the
phrase, "I will be what I will be" Oxford Study Edition The New
English Bible.

9. I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE RSV, margin
10. I will be what I will be NIV, margin
11. I will be what I will be LB, margin
12. I will be what I will be (or become) The Companion
bible,mar
13. I will be what I will be
English Revised Version 1881-1885, margin
14. I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE ASV, margin


The above brings, more strongly into question, the correctness of
trying to link Exodus 3:14 to John 8:58.

How do scholars regularly render "the present of past action still in
progress" when translating from the writings of the apostles and
disciples of Christ ? In the following chart, the literal translation
from the Greek will be taken from the Interlinear Greek-English New
Testament, by Alfred Marshall; the usual English rendering from the
Revised Standard Version.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
LITERAL TRANSLATION GREEK PRESENT USUAL RENDERING OF
OF GREEK EXPRESSION GREEK PRESENT INTO
DENOTING DURATIOM AND THE ENGLISH PERFECT
REFERRING TO PAST TIME
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Luke 13:7 (is is) since I come I have come
Luke 15:29 so many years I serve I have served
John 5:6 much already time he has he had had
John 14:9 so long time I am have I been
John 15:27 from beginning ye are you have been
Acts 15:21 from generations has has had
2 Tim 3:15 from a babe thou knowest you have been
acquainted
2 Peter 3:4 from (the)days so remains have continued
1 John 3:8 from beginnings devil sins has sinned
---------------------------------------------------------------------

One can see from the above, and from consulting the other
translations meant for general reading, the grammatical principle has
been followed. The Greek present has been rendered into the English
perfect when the Greek construction noted above is found in the very
same sentence. Yet, when reviewing the renderings of most
translations/versions, we find the grammatical principle has not been
observed at John 8:58. Most translations are version have rendered
the Greek present into the English present; enen though it is
accompanied by an expression in the Greek perfect or aorist denoting
duration and refreeing to past time. Why? What has caused many
scholars to not take into account the government of grammar at John
8:58, when they have done so at other occurrence of 'the present of
past action still in progress' ?

"I am" (ego eimi, hehe could not resist :) happy to report that I do
find some translations, ancient and modern, which have adhered to the
grammar, as reflected in the wording of John 8:58.

They run the theological gamut from Protestant to Unitarian to
Jehovah's Witnesses. Also one can find some interesting use of the
English present to represent past action, in the work of Roman
Catholics, Orthodox and those of other persuasions, The use wording
which show Jesus was speaking of a state or condition beginning in
past time, his life; which was still continuing at the moment of his
speaking.


I will post those references if requested, right now I am tired from
typing -lakr

----------------------------------------------------------
Most Destructive Known Earthquakes on Record in the World
(50,000 deaths or more)
(Listed in order of greatest number of deaths)

<http://wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/eqsmosde.lis>
<http://gldfs.cr.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/eqlists.html">
---------------------------------------------------------

800 - 900 **
1100 - 1200 *
1200 - 1300 **
1500 - 1600 *
1600 - 1700 **
1700 - 1800 ****
1900 - Present *********

NOTE: This list may be incomplete. It is the only list
of it's type on the net that I can find and it is presented
in summary form but otherwise unedited, and uninterpreted.
Let the reader use their own discernment as to it's
significance.

----------------------------------------------------------
sccs_id[]="@(#)earthquakes.sig 2.1a 01/15/96 s.earthquakes.sig"
----------------------------------------------------------

Paul Harvey

unread,
Jan 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/22/96
to
In article <3102FC...@cannet.com>,

Fr. John W. Morris <jrj...@cannet.com> wrote:
>> Orthodox: Christ and Law are equal:
>Where did you get your information. Orthodoxy is against legalism. Our Faith
>is mystical not legalistic.

I repeat the references below. Most are from the Bible:

Relationship of Christ and Law in Christianity:

Orthodox: Christ and Law are equal:


Law is Perpetual [Exodus 31:16, Numbers 15:14-16, Isaiah 56:6-7, 66:23,
...]; Lawlessness is AntiChrist [Daniel 7:25, ...]; James; Romans [2:12-
16, 3:31, 5:13, 6:15, 7:12, 8:7-8, 9:4-5, 10:4-5 (telos=goal), ...];
1 Thessalonians 4; 2 Thessalonians 2; Hebrews 8:13 (old agreement = Roman
appointed "House of Annas" Jerusalem Priesthood); Matthew (Sermon on the
Mount); Luke 5:36 (Against Gnostics), 5:39 (Against Marcion); Acts
(Jerusalem Church of Peter and James); John 14:15; 1 John [2:1-7, 3:4,
...]; Theophilus of Antioch to Autolycus 3.12; Hegesippus (in Eusebius'
EH 4.22.3); Polycrates to Victor (in Eusebius' EH 5.24); Irenaeus Against
Heresies 4.12.3; Apostolic Constitutions 2.36, 6.19, 7.23; ...

Gnostic: Christ is superior to Law:
Jeremiah 31:31 (out of context); Simon Magus of Samaria (Acts 8:9-24,
Petrine Acts, Eusebius' EH 2.13, ...); Romans 10:4 (telos=end); Hebrews
8:13 (out of context); Nicolaus of Antioch (Acts 6:5, Revelation 2:6,15,
Eusebius' EH 3.29, ...); Menander; Ignatius of Antioch to Magnesians 8.1;
Basilides; Satorninus; Silvanus; Montanus; Valentinus; Heracleon; ...

Marcionite: Christ abrogates Law:
Marcion (Luke 5:36); Justin Dialogue 11; Epistle to Diognetus 3; ...


196: Polycrates: b.125?, bishop of Ephesus, supported Quartodecimans in
"Easter" controversy v. Pope Victor (190) [ANF=Ante-Nicene Fathers, v.8]


202?: Irenaeus: 2nd bishop of Lyons, supports Quartodecimans in Easter contro-
versy against Pope Victor in 190, wrote "Against Heresies" in Greek (lost),
extant Latin; "... they have apostatized in their opinions from Him who is
God, & imagined that they have themselves discovered more than the apostles,
by finding out another god; and that the apostles preached the Gospel still
somewhat under the influence of Jewish opinions, but that they themselves
are purer, and more intelligent, than the apostles." [AH3.12.12,ANF,v.1]

250-350: Apostolic Constitutions of Orthodox Christianity: #2.36 (p.413):
Thou shalt observe the Sabbath, on account of Him who ceased from His work
of creation, but ceased not from His work of providence: it is a rest for
meditation of the law, not for idleness of the hands. #6.19 (p.458): For He
nowhere has dissolved the law, as Simon <Magus> pretends, but fulfilled it;
for He says: [Mt5:18,17]. #7.23 (p.469): But keep the Sabbath, & the Lord's
day festival; because the former is the memorial of the creation, and the
latter of the resurrection. But there is one only Sabbath to be observed by
you in the whole year, which is that of our Lord's burial, on which men
ought to keep a fast, but not a festival. Approved at Orthodox Synod of
Trullo in 692 [ANF=Ante-Nicene Fathers,v.7,Eerdmans]


Is Christ the ***END*** of the Law??? [Romans 10:4]

Rom 10:4-5 (Gaus) Christ is what the law aims at: for every believer to
be on the right side of [God's] justice. Moses, after all, describes the
good standing based on the Law, saying: "The person who does these
things shall be given life by them."

Strong's [Rm10:4]
G5056. telos, tel'-os; from a prim. tello (to set out for a definite
point or goal); prop. the point aimed at as a limit, i.e. (by impl.) the
conclusion of an act or state (termination [lit., fig. or indef.],
result [immed., ultimate or prophetic], purpose); spec. an impost or
levy (as paid):--+ continual, custom, end (-ing), finally, uttermost.
Comp. G5411.

Excerpts from _Christ the End of the Law_, Romans 10.4 in Pauline
Perspective, Robert Badenas, 1985, ISBN:0-905774-93-0:
back cover:
This scrupulous examination of the key theological term telos aims
to resolve the ambiguity in the meaning of telos in Romans 10.4.
It is written with exemplary clarity and complete control of the
exegetical literature. ... Chapter 2 provides a thorough and much
needed philological study of the word telos and the phrase telos
nomou in biblical and cognate literature. This study shows that
the semantic impact of telos is primarily teleological, not
temporal. Telos with a genitive is generally used to indicate
purpose or outcome, not termination, and the phrase telos nomou
designates the object or fulfillment of law, never its abrogation.
Therefore, on philological grounds, an interpretation of Romans
10.4 as 'Christ has invalidated, superseded or abrogated the law'
would be awkward, if not incorrect or unintelligible to the
audience of Romans, even if it were so intended by Paul. ... In
brief, what is by design a study of a single word in a single
context proves to be a fundamental contribution to the question
of the relationship of the Testaments. ... Robert Badenas is
Professor of New Testament at the F.A.T., Collonges-sous-Saleve,
France. He holds degrees from the University of Valencia, the
University of Strasbourg and Andrews University, Michigan.
p.9:
The other most influential trend within the Church in the second
century was Gnosticism. Though in contemporary NT scholarship
Paul is considered the chief opponent of Gnosticism, the Gnostic
exegetes of the second century claimed Paul's writings as sources
of Gnostic theology. This fact must be taken into consideration
when studying the interpretation of Paul at that time, since the
'orthodox' interpretation certainly defined itself in opposition
to heresy. The Gnostic interpretation of Rom 10.4 is not well
attested. However, we can have an approximate idea of it by the
argumentation against Heracleon and the Valentinians found in
Origen's commentaries. According to Gnostic 'spiritual' exegesis,
Gentiles and Jews in the epistle to the Romans are to be under-
stood allegorically as 'psychic' and 'pneumatic' Christians.
According to Valentinian exegesis the 'psychic' Israelites,
though zealous (10.2), are ignorant that salvation comes from a
superior knowledge of God, and they seek 'the righteousness of the
law' (10.5) on the teachings of 'Moses the demiurge'. The
Valentinians apparently inferred from 10.10 that Paul intended
to discriminate between the two groups, distinguishing between
those who 'confess with their mouth' and those who 'believe in
their hearts.' The interpretation of 10.4 was probably anti-
nomian, since Origen argues against Heracleon, saying that 'if
Christ came to fulfil the law our faith cannot abolish the law,
but strengthen it'. The emphasis on the validity of the Law in
the early church may be related to the anti-Gnostic and anti-
Marcionite controversies. ...

p.34-37:
This detailed survey of literature has hopefully provided the necessary
historical perspective to summarize, in a few sentences, the major
developments in the interpretation of Rom 10.4. The period from the Early
Church to the end of the Middle Ages is characterized by a *multiplex
intelligentia* of *telos* with an absolute predominance of the teleological
and completive meanings. The Greek-speaking church understood and explained
*telos* in Rom 10.4 by means of the terms *skopos*, *pleroma*, and
*teleiosis*, seeing in it the meanings of 'purpose', 'object', 'plenitude',
and 'fulfillment'. *Nomos* was understood as the Holy Scripture of the OT
(often rendered by *nomos kai prophetai*). Consequently, Rom 10.4 was
interpreted as a statement of the fulfillment of the OT, its prophecies or
its purposes, in Christ. In the Latin Church *finis* took practically all
the meanings given by the Greek Church to *telos*. It was explained by the
terms *perfectio*, *intentio*, *plenitudo*, *consummatio*, or *impletio*.
In extremely rare instances (e.g. Augustine) *finis* was given temporal
connotations.
The Patristic interpretations were followed without any special change
during the Middle Ages, with the particularity that the manifold meanings
of *telos/finis* were accepted as simultaneously present in Rom 10.4. The
emphasis was, however, more on the completive/perfective nuances than on
the purely purposive ones. The temporal/terminal possibilities of *finis*
were seldom (e.g. Abelard) contemplated. Rom 10.4 was interpreted, there-
fore, as a statement of Christ's bringing OT law to its plenitude and
completion. The Reformation, with its emphasis on literal exegesis,
preserved the Greek and Latin meanings of *telos/finis*, giving Rom 10.4
both teleological (e.g. Luther) and perfective (e.g. Calvin) interpreta-
tions. After the Reformation era the doctrinal influence of the antithesis
between 'law' and 'gospel' and the theological emphasis on the disconti-
nuity between the OT and the NT, favored, particularly in Lutheran circles,
an antinomian interpretation of Rom 10.4. The overwhelming influence of
German liberal theology in the nineteenth century, with its emphasis on
historicism, biblical criticism, and developmentalism, caused the
temporal/terminal/antinomian intrepretation of Rom 10.4 to prevail.
As for the present situation concerning the interpretation of Rom 10.4
there may be discerned four different - though not always easily definable
- trends revolving about the meaning of *telos*:
1. *Telos as temporal.* For those who interpret *telos* as 'termination',
'cessation', or 'abrogation', Rom 10.4 is a main statement of the dis-
continuity between the Law and Christ.
The principle arguments advocated in favor of this interpretation are:
(1) the assumed antithesis between *nomos* (understood as 'works') and
*Christos*; (2) the assumed negative view of the law by Paul in Rom 9-10
(based on Pauline statements in Galatians, 2 Cor 3 and Phil 3); and (3) the
assumed negative eschatological relation between the OT and Christ in
salvation history. Other arguments invoked are: (4) the Pauline use of
*telos* as 'termination'; (5) the thrust of the context of Rom 10.4,
interpreted as dealing with the opposition between 'law' and 'faith' as
ways of righteousness; and (6) a presumed Pauline theology that supposes
the abrogation of the law.
Within the group of the supporters of the temporal/terminal interpreta-
tion, there are two main trends corresponding to two different approaches:
(1) the messianic-eschatological view of the 'end', as with Schweitzer,
Davies, and Schoeps; and (2) the salvation-historical view, as with
Conzelmann, Gutbrod, and others. In a mediating position, which may be
considered as a representative synthesis of both trends, stands Kasemann.
Although all the supporters of this line of interpretation take *telos*
somehow as 'termination', there is disagreement on what that termination
means. In order to resolve the ambiquity and give sense to the phrase
'Christ is the end of the law', the word *nomos* is interpreted as stand-
ing for something more than 'law' - which must consequently be supplied:
'the *validity of the observance of the OT law*', 'the law *understood as
legalism*', 'the law *era*', 'the law *in its ritual aspects*', etc. Each
interpretation seems to solve some problems, but at the same time has to
face some important questions.
The majority of scholars interpret Rom 10.4 as the '*end of the law as a
way of salvation*'. Whether this 'end' is explained in a historical or in
a subjective way, the result is very similar. This interpretation not only
seems to contradict a main theme of Romans, namely, that salvation has
always been by grace through faith (see especially ch. 4) - and so Christ
could hardly put an end to what did not exist - but it postulates a
temporal meaning for *telos* and a negative meaning for *nomos*, which
still have to be proved.
The interpretation of Rom 10.4 as '*end of the law aeon*', in spite of
its great success, is much questioned in recent scholarship. The texts
invoked as evidence for this view are not only too late as acceptable
sources or witnesses of Paul's law theology, but, in fact, they do not
really support the doctrine of the abolition of Torah in the Messianic
age.
Although the idea that the law somehow 'ends' for those who live God's
will by faith is certainly Pauline, the interpretation of Rom 10.4 as '*the
end of the law as an existential experience*' presents the problem that
there is no hint in Rom 10.4 and context for supporting this 'subjective'
interpretation
With slight variations, the same objection may be made against the
interpretations of 'end' as *partial abrogation* or as *transformation*.
These explanations may be theologically correct, but they are exegetically
unacceptable. Though Paul could speak of the moral and ceremonial aspects
of the law separately, there is no indication in the context which allows
one to interpret *telos* as 'partial abrogation' or *nomos* as '*ceremonial
law*'.
2. *Telos* as *teleological*. For those who translate *telos* as 'goal',
'purpose', 'aim', or 'object', Rom 10.4 is a main statement of the Pauline
belief in the continuity between the law and Christ, or between the OT and
Christianity. The principle arguments advocated in favor of this interpret-
ation are the following: (1) the basic meaning of *telos* in Greek; (2) the
flow of the context (9.30-10.21) and the thrust of the section (Rom 9-11);
(3) Paul's law theology in Romans; and (4) the theological assumption of
the unity of divine revelation and action.
3. *Telos as completive/perfective*. For those who interpret *telos* as
'fulfillment', 'climax', 'plentitude', or any other completive/perfective
expression, Rom 10.4 may express either/both the continuity and the dis-
continuity between the OT/law and Christ/Christianity. The arguments
invoked for each of the possibilities mentioned vary according to each
interpreter and may be a combination or selection of the arguments listed
above under trends 1 and 2. The specific nuances of each position make it
impossible to file every case in a particular and clearly delimited trend.
The interpretation of *telos* as '(substitutory) fulfillment' - i.e. by
fulfilling the law in our stead Christ put an end to it - not only does not
fit the context of Rom 10.4 and shares the problems of the temporal/
terminal interpretations, but runs counter to the theology of Romans, where
the law is presented as fulfilled, yet in force; 'weak' and 'unable to
justify', but 'holy and good' and still binding for Christians.
4. *Telos as polysemous*. Finally, for those who see the temporal/
completive and/or teleological meanings of *telos* as not mutually
exclusive but complementary, Rom 10.4 may mean any of the already reviewed
interpretations. Putting aside for the moment the problem of ambiguity -
whether intentional or accidental - of the Pauline statement, and the
problem of the logical and linguistic possibility of such a multiple
understanding, this exegesis shares with the temporal ones a similar burden
of proof: both involve some contradiction in Paul's exposition of his law
theology in Romans, leaving unexplained why 3.31 says that the Christian
faith *establishes* the law while Rom 10.4 declares that Christ has
*abrogated* it. The fact of giving to *telos* a temporal and a teleo-
logical/completive *double entendre* does not resolve the irreconcilable
antithesis between *establishing* and *abrogating*.
In conclusion, in spite of undeniable progress, the interpretation of
Rom 10.4 is still a 'bone of contention.' The relation between gospel and
law has dominated the theological discussion in modern times and forced
the attention of exegetes on Paul's law theology as the decisive criterion
for the understanding of this passage. The divergent recent studies which
have been here surveyed witness to the contemporaneity of the debate on
Rom 10.4 and to the need of better criteria and approaches for the inter-
pretation of such a controversial text. Two areas of research appear to
need special clarification: the terminology of the verse and the role of
this passage in its context. First of all, a lexical study of the use and
meaning of the word *telos* and the phrase *telos nomou* in biblical and
cognate literature is needed in order to provide, if possible, an object-
ive, philological basis for the interpretation of Rom 10.4. Then, an exe-
gesis paying due attention to the contextual setting of Rom 10.4 is also
necessary. These are the tasks of the next two chapters.

Larry Kruper

unread,
Jan 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/22/96
to
Joe Slater (j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au) wrote:
: mcca...@polaris.net writes:

: >Syed Yusuf (yusu...@goshawk.csrv.uidaho.edu) wrote:

: >: NOWHERE does Jesus say "I AM GOD"

: >Yes, He did.
: >In the OT, God used the title "I AM"
: >In the NT, Jesus used the title "I AM" and was almost stoned for
: >blasphemy for claiming to be God.

: We don't know exactly what Jesus is alleged to have said, because nobody
: bothered recording the supposed original of the conversation. In any
: event, a cursory glance at a Bible will find many instances of "I am";
: and a more rigorous look will find that G-d uses the title "I will be
: what I will be" - in the future tense, and doubled. Even if Jesus' words
: were misrecorded as being in the present tense, he can hardly be said to
: have used a doubled expression as it does not fit into the text.

: jds
: --
: j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | `You SHOULD have said "It's extremely
: T: +61-3-525-8728 F: +61-3-562-0756 | kind of you to tell me all this" -
: If all else fails try Dialix: | however, we'll suppose it said.'
: j...@melb.dialix.oz.au | (The Red Queen)

Fr. John W. Morris +

unread,
Jan 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/23/96
to
Charles Coen wrote:
>
> : Do the Greek's understand
> : the Hebrew in Exodus 3:14 better and Hebrew Scholars as well.
> Wrong question.
> Correct is "do you understand Hebrew as well as Greek scholars?"The Orthodox Church does not use the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. We use
the Septuigent, Greek text, which is older thant the Masoritic text.
Therefore, I would also assume that Greek Orthodox theologians would
understand the meaning of the Greek text of the Book of Exodus.
There is no need to insult me just because you do not agree with me. I
realize that I cannot prove to you the divinity of Christ. I really try to
avoid discussions of this nature. However, I strongly believe that the New
Testament does teach the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Cheryl Haun Morris, Ph.D.

unread,
Jan 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/23/96
to
Larry Kruper wrote:

> I posted rather lengthy research on "I AM", in this thread, by accident
> it was posted twice, in #28 and #30, so I will not post it again. I have
> mailed it to you. If you would like to discuss this subject, please
> respond with specifics.
> -lakI am not an expert on Greek grammer. However, I believe that the Greek
Orthodox understand Greek better than anyone else. They tell me that when
Christ said, "You rightly say that I am." St. Luke 22:70 is a direct parallel
to Exodus 3:14.

Larry Kruper

unread,
Jan 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/23/96
to
Libertarius (att...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <lakrDLn...@netcom.com> la...@netcom.com (Larry Kruper) writes:
: >
: >Fr. John W. Morris (jrj...@cannet.com) wrote:
: >: To Larry Kruper
: >
: >: St. Luke 22:70-71:
: >: Then they all said, "Are You then the Son of God?" So He said to
: them, "You
: >: rightly say that I am." And they said "What further testimony do we
: need? FOr
: >: we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth."
: >: Exodus 3: 14
: >: God said to Moses, I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the

: >: Israelites: I AM has sent me to you."
: >
: >: By saying I am, Christ was indeed identifying Himself with God.
: >: That is why the words in Greek "I am" are written in the halo of
: every
: >: Orthodox icon of Jesus Christ.
: >: Fr. John W. Morris
: >
: >
: >I posted rather lengthy research on "I AM", in this thread, by


: accident
: >it was posted twice, in #28 and #30, so I will not post it again. I
: have
: >mailed it to you. If you would like to discuss this subject, please
: >respond with specifics.

: >-lak
: >
: No matter how you strain yourself and your exegesis, the fact is,
: NOWHERE does the NT call Jesus God, which was the question.

: Libertarius

agreed. -lakr

Larry Kruper

unread,
Jan 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/23/96
to

Fr. John W. Morris

unread,
Jan 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/23/96
to

Libertarius

unread,
Jan 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/23/96
to
In <3102FC...@cannet.com> "Fr. John W. Morris" <jrj...@cannet.com>
writes:
>
>Paul Harvey wrote:
>> Orthodox: Christ and Law are equal:
>
>Where did you get your information. Orthodoxy is against legalism. Our
Faith
>is mystical not legalistic.
>Fr. John W. Morris +

=========================================

Anyone who has ever read, let alone studied, the NT must see
clearly that there is not one chapter, nor any verse, in which Jesys is
called God. The closest thing is the Gospel According To John, in which
the LOGOS of Heraclitus of Ephesus (believed by the Stoics to be part
of the nature of "ho theos" ("God"), is somehow equated with Jesus. The
writer must have consumed a bit too much of the Dyonesian wine in
Ephesus to get so carried away.

Larry Kruper

unread,
Jan 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/23/96
to
Cheryl Haun Morris, Ph.D. (jrj...@cannet.com) wrote:
: Larry Kruper wrote:

: > I posted rather lengthy research on "I AM", in this thread, by accident


: > it was posted twice, in #28 and #30, so I will not post it again. I have
: > mailed it to you. If you would like to discuss this subject, please
: > respond with specifics.

: > -lakI am not an expert on Greek grammer. However, I believe that the Greek


: Orthodox understand Greek better than anyone else. They tell me that when

: Christ said, "You rightly say that I am." St. Luke 22:70 is a direct parallel
: to Exodus 3:14.

: Fr. John W. Morris +

You believe them without any proof at all ? Do the Greek's understand
the Hebrew in Exodus 3:14 better and Hebrew Scholars as well. My post
speaks for itself and I do not hide behind any credentials.
-lakr

--
Matthew 24:7
<p>For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:
<p>and there shall be <a href="http://www.cirad.fr/EN/fao/smiar/fs/fstoc.htm"> famines</a>
, and <a href="http://www.ama-assn.org/what_new/what_new.htm">Pestilence</a>
<http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/amnews/amn_96/summ0122.htm>
, and <a href="http://gldfs.cr.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/eqlists.html"> earthquakes</a>,
in divers places.

Libertarius

unread,
Jan 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/23/96
to
In <lakrDLn...@netcom.com> la...@netcom.com (Larry Kruper) writes:
>
>Fr. John W. Morris (jrj...@cannet.com) wrote:
>: To Larry Kruper

>
>: St. Luke 22:70-71:
>: Then they all said, "Are You then the Son of God?" So He said to
them, "You
>: rightly say that I am." And they said "What further testimony do we

need? FOr
>: we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth."
>: Exodus 3: 14
>: God said to Moses, I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the

>: Israelites: I AM has sent me to you."
>
>: By saying I am, Christ was indeed identifying Himself with God.
>: That is why the words in Greek "I am" are written in the halo of
every
>: Orthodox icon of Jesus Christ.
>: Fr. John W. Morris
>
>

>I posted rather lengthy research on "I AM", in this thread, by
accident
>it was posted twice, in #28 and #30, so I will not post it again. I
have
>mailed it to you. If you would like to discuss this subject, please
>respond with specifics.

Libertarius

unread,
Jan 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/23/96
to
In <lakrDLn...@netcom.com> la...@netcom.com (Larry Kruper) writes:
>
>Cheryl Haun Morris, Ph.D. (jrj...@cannet.com) wrote:
>: Larry Kruper wrote:
>
>: > I posted rather lengthy research on "I AM", in this thread, by

accident
>: > it was posted twice, in #28 and #30, so I will not post it again.
I have
>: > mailed it to you. If you would like to discuss this subject,
please
>: > respond with specifics.
>: > -lakI am not an expert on Greek grammer. However, I believe that
the Greek
>: Orthodox understand Greek better than anyone else. They tell me that
when
>: Christ said, "You rightly say that I am." St. Luke 22:70 is a direct
parallel
>: to Exodus 3:14.
>
>: Fr. John W. Morris +
>
>You believe them without any proof at all ? Do the Greek's understand
>the Hebrew in Exodus 3:14 better and Hebrew Scholars as well. My post
>speaks for itself and I do not hide behind any credentials.
>-lakr
>
>--
>Matthew 24:7
><p>For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom:
><p>and there shall be <a
href="http://www.cirad.fr/EN/fao/smiar/fs/fstoc.htm"> famines</a>
>, and <a
href="http://www.ama-assn.org/what_new/what_new.htm">Pestilence</a>
><http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/amnews/amn_96/summ0122.htm>
>, and <a href="http://gldfs.cr.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/eqlists.html">
earthquakes</a>,
>in divers places.

=================================
Did Jesus speak Greek or Aramaic?

Why argue the subtleties of Greek grammer? What does that prove?
That the Gentile Christian writers of the NT may have tried to tie the
identity of Jesus to JHVH. (Jesus more than likely never said such
things, definitely not in Greek).

Libertarius

Charles Coen

unread,
Jan 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/23/96
to
Larry Kruper (la...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Cheryl Haun Morris, Ph.D. (jrj...@cannet.com) wrote:
: : Larry Kruper wrote:

: : > I posted rather lengthy research on "I AM", in this thread, by accident
: : > it was posted twice, in #28 and #30, so I will not post it again. I have
: : > mailed it to you. If you would like to discuss this subject, please
: : > respond with specifics.
: : > -lakI am not an expert on Greek grammer. However, I believe that the Greek
: : Orthodox understand Greek better than anyone else. They tell me that when
: : Christ said, "You rightly say that I am." St. Luke 22:70 is a direct parallel
: : to Exodus 3:14.

: : Fr. John W. Morris +

: You believe them without any proof at all ?

Sure! Just like I believe that Moses wrote the book of Genesis without
any proof at all.
If we get down to requiring proof then the same rules apply to everybody.

: Do the Greek's understand


: the Hebrew in Exodus 3:14 better and Hebrew Scholars as well.

Wrong question.
Correct is "do you understand Hebrew as well as Greek scholars?"

: My post


: speaks for itself and I do not hide behind any credentials.

Uhhhh, right. Some of us have noticed.
Chuck Coen

Fr. John W. Morris +

unread,
Jan 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/23/96
to
Libertarius wrote:
>

> No matter how you strain yourself and your exegesis, the fact is,
> NOWHERE does the NT call Jesus God, which was the question.

> Luke 22:30. I and the Father are one.
John 10:38 But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the
miracles, that you may learn and understand that the Father is in me, and I
in the Father.
John 16:15. All that belongs to the Father is mine.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God.
John 1:14: And the Word became flesh and lived for a while among us.
Philippians 2:5-7 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to
be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness."
Colossians 1:15,19 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over
all creation. For by him all things were created...For God was pleased to
have all his fullness dwell in him.
To me these texts and others such as the many texts that call Jesus Christ
the Son of God teach the divinity of Christ.
If you do not believe in the divinity of Christ, neither I nor anyone else
can convince you. However, please do not try to twist the Holy Scriptures to
support your position. Christians from all persuasions, Roman Catholic,
Orthodox, and Protestant agree that the New Testament calls Jesus Christ God.

Libertarius

unread,
Jan 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/24/96
to
In <3105B4...@cannet.com> "Fr. John W. Morris +"
====================================
A little intellectual honesty would go a long way.

I have yet to read a quotation that says that!

Tell me, where does it say: Jesus is God?!

John Hyde

unread,
Jan 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM1/24/96
to