Calling Jesus God

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Listen to what the Trinitarian scholars are saying.

Warm regards,

Bro. Williams
=============================================================

>Date:    Thu, 21 Sep 95 10:13 CDT
>From: Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu>
>To: B-Greek@virginia.edu
>Subject: Calling Jesus God
>X-UIDL: 811737035.079
>
>Larry Hurtado's distinction between the linguistic evidence
>and the functional evidence in the NT regarding the divinity
>of Jesus is plausible and important.  The essays I noted
>by France and Baukham treat some important functional
>evidence, whereas the essays by Taylor and Wainwright focus
>on linguistic evidence.  Translators should be cautious
>about using inferences from the functional evidence to
>settle delicate ambiguities in the linguistic evidence
>(e.g., in the translations of Rom 9:5, Titus 2:13, Heb
>1:8).  The NRSV and various other mainline translations
>fail on this score, at least at a few important points.
>It's misleading at best to work with the assumption that
>Paul and various other NT writers held either that "Jesus is
>God" or that the orthodox doctrine of the trinity is true.
>This would be to read later developments into the minds
>of various NT writers.  It is arguable that the later
>developments offer the best explanation of the relevant
>data offered by the NT writers, but it is quite another
>matter to propose that the various NT writers themselves
>had this best explanation.  Even though the author of
>John and the apostle Paul (cf. Phil 2) had certain
>conceptions of the divinity of Jesus, it is not at all
>clear that they, or any other NT writer, knew how
>to elaborate those conceptions in accordance with
>later trinitarian monotheism.  At least, the burden
>of proof is definitely with the person who holds
>otherwise. --Paul Moser, Loyola University of Chicago.
>
>