On the Lord's Supper

_kaufmannphillips
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: SW Washington

reply to steve 7150

Post by _kaufmannphillips » Thu Nov 09, 2006 7:20 pm

Hi, Steve,

A tardy response here.
The difference between the miraculous things the prophets in the OT did and what Jesus did is that when the prophets did it , it was clear that is was by God's power there was not a modicum of doubt but when Jesus performed miracles there was no doubt He had the power to do it. There is not a hint that he did'nt calm the storm by his own authority or raise Lazarus or heal the sick or forgive sinners or accept worship or tell Peter he would deny Jesus three times. These events are in the synoptics and IMO portray divinity.
1) Though the narrative may not always explicate that Jesus did things by the power of God, such an omission would not prove that the power employed was Jesus' own, and a function of his own divinity. Even if the deeds were done as an exercise of Jesus' authority, such would not necessitate that the power and authority were innate (=divine) as opposed to delegated (humanly stewarded).

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

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

4) The verb used for "worship" in the synoptics, proskuneo, means "to bow down." In the Septuagint, it is used repeatedly to describe the cultural body language for giving honor and deference to another, including influential people and, notably, the anointed king [e.g., Genesis 23:7, 33:3, 42:6; Ruth 2:10; II Samuel 15:5, 18;21]. Notably, David receives this honorific on many occasions [e.g., II Samuel 9:6, 14:22, 16:4, 18:28, 24:20]. It cannot be assumed that accepting such honor was a pretense to divinity in Jesus' culture.

Jesus probably did offend some of the people following him but he was speaking about believing and abiding in him if you read some parallel verses in John 6 there isn't a doubt.
He who COMES TO ME will never go hungry ,and he who BELIEVES in me will never be thirsty." 6.37
Jesus also had previously said "I tell you the truth ,you are looking for me not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils but for food that endures to eternal life." 6.26
Perhaps Jesus was looking to weed out those who looked for food for the belly from those who looked for food that endures.
This is precisely the argument that John uses to elevate his eucharistic construct over that presented in the Didache. But I don't buy it. It smacks of a secondary layer of Christian tradition, wherein the embarrassing hallmarks of worldly messianism (with its imagery of material abundance, as found in Second Temple Judaism) are replaced with spiritualizations. This became a desirable trend in Christian thought, as the return of Jesus and the messianic age failed to transpire in a timely fashion.

Shalom,
Emmet
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_STEVE7150
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm

Post by _STEVE7150 » Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:33 pm

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

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

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

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


Hi Emmet, Glad to see you resurrected this thread :wink: Everything Jesus has was freely given to him by his Father but he is the unique Son of God. "Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Luke 1.35
"All POWER is GIVEN unto me in heaven and in earth." Matt 28.18
The prophets of the OT were sometimes delegated power to do a specific task but Jesus said he was given ALL POWER.
All power makes him divine IMO.
"Proskuneo" is used elsewhere in the NT to speak of worshipping the Father . In Hebrews 1.6 "Let all the angels of God worship him" (Jesus)
And in Rev 22.8-9 John says "I fell down to worship (proskuneo) before the feet of the angel" but he tells me , be careful do not do that "WORSHIP GOD."
Same word as in Hebrews 1.6 and the context in Hebrews 1 is to show Jesus's superiority to prophets, angels and Moses.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_kaufmannphillips
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: SW Washington

reply to steve7150

Post by _kaufmannphillips » Mon Nov 13, 2006 11:53 am

Hi, Steve,

Thank you for your timely reply!
Everything Jesus has was freely given to him by his Father but he is the unique Son of God. "Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Luke 1.35
"All POWER is GIVEN unto me in heaven and in earth." Matt 28.18
The prophets of the OT were sometimes delegated power to do a specific task but Jesus said he was given ALL POWER.
All power makes him divine IMO.
And yet the power was given, not innate. Since it was given, it need not be understood as proof of his divinity. It may simply be stewarded power.

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

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

"Proskuneo" is used elsewhere in the NT to speak of worshipping the Father . In Hebrews 1.6 "Let all the angels of God worship him" (Jesus)
And in Rev 22.8-9 John says "I fell down to worship (proskuneo) before the feet of the angel" but he tells me , be careful do not do that "WORSHIP GOD."
Same word as in Hebrews 1.6 and the context in Hebrews 1 is to show Jesus's superiority to prophets, angels and Moses.
Proskuneo is also used in the Septuagint to speak of worshipping God. But the root meaning of the word is not limited to divine worship, and that is what is important to our discussion. When Jesus of Nazareth accepts the proskuning of people, it does not follow as a matter of necessity that he is accepting divine honor, or that the people who are proskuning are intending to offer him divine honor.

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

And in Rev 22.8-9 John says "I fell down to worship (proskuneo) before the feet of the angel" but he tells me , be careful do not do that "WORSHIP GOD."
Yes, an interesting passage, and indicative of a shift in piety in the early church. It may be worth noting that this is not the first time that John has to be corrected for such behavior (q.v., Revelation 19:10). But Peter also is portrayed as refusing like honor, even though it was clearly accepted in the time prior to Jesus (Acts 10:25-26). Perhaps this became a point of sensitivity as the early Christians encountered more Gentiles, who might more easily misunderstand the honorific behavior as worship. But in any case, the Revelation is not one of the synoptics, and it significantly postdates the events described in the gospels and the behavior of Jesus himself.

Shalom,
Emmet
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_kaufmannphillips
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: SW Washington

reply to mdh

Post by _kaufmannphillips » Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:35 pm

Hello, Mike,

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

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

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

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

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

We are told to remember. Remember that a body was broken and blood was shed, a (new) covenant was being made between God and His people, mediated by Jesus. A covenant that offered freedom (from bondage to sin this time). We do not drink blood and we do not eat flesh. But we remember the price that the mediator paid so that we might live. Isn't that what we were told to do? (Lk 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24,26) We are told to do this until He returns (1 Cor. 11:26).
It is interesting to note that neither Matthew nor Mark mention the injunction to repeat and remember the ritual, particularly since both I Corinthans and Luke bear other evidence of theological development beyond the versions in Matthew and Mark. Close comparison of the narratives shows that Matthew and Mark both use language that is closer to a non-corporeal sense, while I Corinthians and Luke both make a more pointed reference to Jesus' blood. To wit, both Matthew and Mark refer to "my blood of the covenant," while the others refer to "the new covenant in my blood." The first "blood of the covenant" does not have to be understood as Jesus' own blood, while the other phrase tacks it down more clearly. It seems to me that Matthew and Mark are indicative of an earlier stage in the development of eucharistic tradition, and it is interesting to note that their eucharist is a covenant between Jesus and his close disciples, with no explicit provision for future celebration.


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

Shalom,
Emmet


P.S.: edited once to fix a few minor points...
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_STEVE7150
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm

Post by _STEVE7150 » Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:00 pm

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

Emmet, I'm sure you would agree that Jesus's relationship with the Father is unlike any other. "All things have been delivered to me by MY Father , and no one knows the Son except the Father ,nor does anyone know the Father except the Son , and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal him." Matt 11.27
As you know Jesus always uses the phrase "My Father" as opposed to "Our Father" when he includes himself which indicates his relationship is unique and different from anyone elses relationship to God. We never read about any other person using this type of language including Moses. By using this language Jesus is highlighting that the nature of his relationship with his Father is much higher and intimate then any prophet or human ever had with God. In fact Paul said in his writings that Jesus has the same nature as God and is the exact image of God and is made from the same substance as God. It's true that all of Jesus's authority and or power was given or delivered to him by God yet Paul taught that Jesus created "all things" so Jesus isn't a created thing outside of God and if he is the same substance as God as Paul says, then he can not be anything but divine IMO.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_kaufmannphillips
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: SW Washington

reply to steve7150

Post by _kaufmannphillips » Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:13 pm

Hi, Steve,

Thank you once again for your timely response!
Emmet, I'm sure you would agree that Jesus's relationship with the Father is unlike any other. "All things have been delivered to me by MY Father , and no one knows the Son except the Father ,nor does anyone know the Father except the Son , and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal him." Matt 11.27
This is an interesting passage which you have quoted from Matthew. Some critics may suggest that this is a fragment of Johannine tradition that has migrated into the Matthean gospel, and I would not consider such to be impossible, given the flavor of the verse. We have some precedent for floating material, in that the well-known pericope of the woman taken in adultery is found not only as an addition to some manuscripts of John, but also as an addition to at least one manuscript of Luke.

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

As you know Jesus always uses the phrase "My Father" as opposed to "Our Father" when he includes himself which indicates his relationship is unique and different from anyone elses relationship to God. We never read about any other person using this type of language including Moses. By using this language Jesus is highlighting that the nature of his relationship with his Father is much higher and intimate then any prophet or human ever had with God.
Which still falls short of a claim to divinity, in light of messianic precedent which I have previously mentioned. The synoptic Jesus may reflect a highly exalted concept of messiahship and its filial role, but there remains a difference between this and outright equivalence with God himself.

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

In fact Paul said in his writings that Jesus has the same nature as God and is the exact image of God and is made from the same substance as God. It's true that all of Jesus's authority and or power was given or delivered to him by God yet Paul taught that Jesus created "all things" so Jesus isn't a created thing outside of God and if he is the same substance as God as Paul says, then he can not be anything but divine IMO.
Once again, here, you repair to a source outside of the synoptics. I have neglected this thread for so long, though, that I can hardly fault you if you have forgotten that this line of discussion grew out of my contrasting the portrayals of Jesus in Paul and John with those in the synoptics.

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

Thank you again for your posting, Steve!

Shalom,
Emmet
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_STEVE7150
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm

Post by _STEVE7150 » Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:44 pm

Hi Emmet, OK let's continue our search for the divinity of Jesus in the synoptics.
"So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet saying, Behold the virgin shall be with child and bear a Son and they shall call his name Immanuel, which is translated , God with us." Matt 1.22-23
Matthews seems to understand Jesus's name as the fulfillment of the "God with us" prophecy of Isa 8.8
"God with us" sounds like divinity to me Emett.
And "God with us" sounds very similar to what Jesus says at the end of Matthew "and lo I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS even to the end of the age." Matt 28.20
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_kaufmannphillips
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: SW Washington

reply to steve7150

Post by _kaufmannphillips » Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:49 am

Hello, Steve,

Thank you for your response!

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

Shalom,
Emmet
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

Post Reply

Return to “Essays and Writings”