Calling Jesus God

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

>To: David Moore <dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us>
>From: turquoyz@databank.com (turquoyz)
>Subject: Re: Calling Jesus God
>Cc: b-greek@virginia.edu
>
>Does a NT Greek Text proof of the Diety of Jesus Christ 'have' to
necessarily 'prove' the Doctrine of the Trinity? Doesn't it simply 'prove'
that Jesus was Divine; i.e., (God)? Other possibilities could include
Modalism, as well???
>
>Warm regards,
>
>Jim Williams
>================================================================
>
>>
>>
>>Paul Moser <PMOSER@cpua.it.luc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>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. 
>>
>>	Aren't you creating a straw man, Paul?  The only people I know of
>>who are maintaining that the Trinity as a full-blown doctrine is taught in
>>the apostolic writings are those who still maintain that I John 5:7 is
>>part of the original text.  A much more usual position among Evangelicals
>>is that the formulations by the apostles constitute the NT data that is
>>the basis of the doctrine of the tiunity of God. 
>>
>>	If the NT, within the larger biblical context, teaches the deity
>>of the Father, the deity of the Son and the deity of the Holy Spirit while
>>maintaining God's essential unity, then the doctrine of the Trinity may
>>legitimately spring from the NT data.  Most systematic theologies give
>>detailed explanations of this very point.  It is the exegete's task to
>>interpret the biblical data - in essence, to provide the theologian with
>>the biblical information he needs to do theology (although often,
>>theologians are also exegetes).  It is logical that biblical
>>interpretation should agree with theology if the latter sprang from the
>>former.  To say that the usual interpretations of Heb. 1:8 and of Titus
>>2:13, for instance, are suspect since they agree with certain theological
>>dictums does not constitute a weighty argument. 
>>
>>	If it could be shown by sound exegesis that the biblical data do
>>not support the idea of the deity of Christ, then one could legitimately
>>question the doctrine of the Trinity.  The interpretation is not _ipso
>>facto_ incorrect because it supports the Trinity - only if it can be shown
>>to be incorrectly used in this sense. 
>>
>>
>>David L. Moore                             Southeastern Spanish District
>>Miami, Florida                               of the  Assemblies of God
>>dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us           Department of Education
>>
>>
>>
>>
>