|
Post by Satori on Mar 22, 2005 17:13:27 GMT -5
Christ's reluctance to directly and unequivocally claim to be the Son of God is something that often comes up as a discussion point in Biblical history, the only such reference being generally considered to be Mark 14.
Granted there are other verses that could be construed to imply that that's what He was claiming, but it often looks like Christ is deliberately avoiding making the claim directly, often either talking about the Son of God in the third person or simply not denying it rather than actually confirming it.
I was curious as to what Christians - and, indeed, anyone else who's bothered - might think about why this is the case.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Mar 23, 2005 5:42:57 GMT -5
Well, even though I'm not a Christian now, this was addressed in many Bible studies I attended when I was one.
Of course, other Christians here will probably have different views on this, as with anything, but this is how it was explained to us. Like in his use of parables with symbolic meaning, Christ used this limited disclosure of his being the messiah as a way to exclude those who weren't meant to hear/understand his message. I know there is a verse of Jesus saying this somewhere in one of the gospels, but my Bible is packed away at the moment so I can't look it up and I don't like using online concordances. I do intend to look this up. There is certainly a verse of him saying that parables were used for this purpose, after one of his disciples asks him.
The Lord's chosen people were supposed to realise independently that Jesus fulfilled many OT prophesies and that he was, therefore, the Christ.
I think there are also some OT verses which have been interpreted as prophesies that Jesus would never say it outright, and these had to be fulfilled.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Mar 23, 2005 7:06:56 GMT -5
I see. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Mar 23, 2005 21:12:44 GMT -5
I'm curious about what this board's Christians have to say about this one, as well. Any other interpretations?
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Mar 24, 2005 4:05:18 GMT -5
I'm curious about what this board's Christians have to say about this one, as well. Any other interpretations? Yeah, I was trying to get a bit more insite into this. I'd heard the "chosen people will know he's the Messiah" thing before, but that didn't really sit comfortably with me as an explanation (even assuming for one moment that he actually was the Son of God). It's all along the same theme as Jesus' reluctance to claim any credit for the miracles he (allegedly) performed and his requests of those he performed them on to keep their mouths shut about it. Direct quotes from Jesus actually form very little of the Gospels, yet they are probably the most revealing bits of it in terms of trying to understand the man from a historical and academic perspective. Then, of course, one has to bear in mind the time gap between the time of Jesus and the Gospel writers, the aims of the Gospel writers themselves, the audience they were intended for, the translations from Aramaic to the Greek the Gospels were written in and the translations and interpretations down the centuries. There are other, more contemporaneous documents but, whilst they are probably more accurate records from the time Jesus lived than the Gospels (although, of course, they must be subject to the same scrutiny as the Gospels), their focus isn't specific to Jesus. I guess that's what makes it so interesting (to me, anyway).
|
|
|
Post by theditchmagnet on Mar 24, 2005 12:36:47 GMT -5
No, Christ didn't go around shouting that He was the Son of God; but just think what the reaction would be today if someone came claiming that. He did however make the claim. yes in your reference, and in more. when He was speaking with the disciples and asking them who people were saying He was, and then He asked them who they said He was. and peter said that He was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. And Jesus tells him that it was His Father in Heaven that revealed this to him. also, when thomas doubted, but then saw Him with the holes in his hands, he said "My Lord, My God!" and Jesus did not say that He wasnt. also, when the paralyzed man was droped before Him in the house, and He forgave the mans sins. Only God can forgive sins, as the pharasies mumbled, and Jesus healed him. also, He claimed to be the King of the Jews, the King of the Jews is God. Also, when the woman at the well says she is waiting for the messiah, Jesus tells her "I AM! The One speaking to you." ok, there are a few references. so He did make the claim. then He is either telling the truth, or He is a liar, or He is just flat out insane. you make the choice. -Joey
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Mar 24, 2005 14:05:35 GMT -5
No, Christ didn't go around shouting that He was the Son of God; but just think what the reaction would be today if someone came claiming that. He did however make the claim. yes in your reference, and in more. when He was speaking with the disciples and asking them who people were saying He was, and then He asked them who they said He was. and peter said that He was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. And Jesus tells him that it was His Father in Heaven that revealed this to him. also, when thomas doubted, but then saw Him with the holes in his hands, he said "My Lord, My God!" and Jesus did not say that He wasnt. also, when the paralyzed man was droped before Him in the house, and He forgave the mans sins. Only God can forgive sins, as the pharasies mumbled, and Jesus healed him. also, He claimed to be the King of the Jews, the King of the Jews is God. Also, when the woman at the well says she is waiting for the messiah, Jesus tells her "I AM! The One speaking to you." ok, there are a few references. so He did make the claim. then He is either telling the truth, or He is a liar, or He is just flat out insane. you make the choice. -Joey Yes, Jesus certainly made the claim many times according to the Gospels, often in a slightly cryptic or subtle way, but the Gospels certainly leave the reader in no doubt that He was meant to be the Son of God. What I was specifically looking at was His sayings that were neither didactic, polemic nor part of parables. I think they reveal more about the kind of person Jesus was than words He constructed for some purpose. How much of the Gospels is the invention of authors and how much is actually what Jesus did and said is open to scholarly opinion, but I'm trying to ignore that for now and just try to get a picture of Jesus as a person (or, at least, the picture the Gospel writers were trying to convey). For a non-Christian, reading too much about miracles and stuff is clearly in the land of invention and the non-Christian would be inclined to attribute that to the literary licence of the Gospel writers. Parables, words of wisdom and other teaching appear too 'prepared' to be of use when trying to find out what sort of person Jesus was, so what we're left with is the 'conversational' stuff. However, even if we forget the division of His words for the moment and take them all together, there are still many times when He seems to prefer not to directly claim to be the Son of God. We already have the theory that this is because He wanted people to figure it out for themselves - does that seem the most likely reason to you? Or do you think fear played a part? If so, why? - with God on His team he could hardly fail.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Mar 24, 2005 20:22:36 GMT -5
And there are plenty more posibilities than him simply being an evil liar, the Christ, or crazy. Christians always use this one to try and win converts and it really gets to me as it often closes up the possibility of independent thought on the matter.
There were plenty of people around during Jesus' time also claiming to be messiahs. It is possible, for example, that he himself was convinced of this, but genuinely mistaken. It is also possible that he was simply another moral teacher or prophet, as Christians often themselves claim regarding important people of other religions such as Mohammed and the Buddha.
Of course one can possess mistaken beliefs without requiring the classification of either "liar" or "crazy". It is intellectually stifling to portray Jesus in this black-and-white way, and Christians need to stop doing it.
|
|
critr
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by critr on Mar 25, 2005 19:10:51 GMT -5
Since I am a follower of Jesus Way I'll give you my point of view hopefully it helps.
I see His not going around claiming His Sonship to God as a being of unselfishness nature for what He was doing was manifesting the character of His Father in Heaven,and going around saying me,me,me just isn't what God or Jesus, whom we believe to be God Himself also, is about.He came to bring healing of and to the relationship between us and God The Father and providing away for us to live eternally with and like God. He achieved A pardon for our death sentence and in His resurrection showed that He also has the Power to resurrect our way of thinking from thoughts that lead to death into thoughts that lead to life thru Him that is Love and Wisdom personified.
His and Hers critr
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Mar 25, 2005 19:18:19 GMT -5
Thanks - 'unselfishness' isn't something I'd considered.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Mar 26, 2005 0:41:59 GMT -5
I see His not going around claiming His Sonship to God as a being of unselfishness nature for what He was doing was manifesting the character of His Father in Heaven,and going around saying me,me,me just isn't what God or Jesus, whom we believe to be God Himself also, is about. He came to bring healing of and to the relationship between us and God The Father and providing away for us to live eternally with and like God. But if this is why he came, why would he want to keep such a wonderful thing hidden. I would think it would make more sense to shout it from the rooftops instead of (imo) selfishly excluding many from knowing the truth.
|
|
critr
New Member
Posts: 6
|
Post by critr on Mar 26, 2005 1:55:33 GMT -5
He didn't keep anyone from knowing,all they had to do was follow the chain of evidence from scripture as to who and how and when the Messiah would come.The Jews at the time refused to accept despite the evidence that God is a Loving God who pardons and forgives our trangressions of the Law of Life and gives us power to overcome our wrong tendencies to do things that do not lead to life unto life,they wanted a messiah who would do things they wanted him to do,so they made up any excuse to not acknowledge The Messiah up to and including killing Him who is Life personified.Everyone is free to make their choices,it just happens that God knows what excuses they are going to use and He tried(and still does) to help them see,he knew they wouldn't even try,even His disciples, the apostles to be, at that time that He was on earth couldn't handle all of the truth He could have and tried to teach them at the time,later on they had a bunch of "oh duh!" moments I'm sure.
Also another perspective is that He could have said those things that made it seem as if He was excluding anyone to get people say "Hey just what is He trying to Hide and then maybe they would come to want to see the truth as they selfishly tried to search out what The Son of God was saying.
His and Hers critr
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Mar 26, 2005 4:05:21 GMT -5
Thanks for the insight citr.
Shiggy, that's a fair point, but the difficulty is knowing how much of what the Gospel writers tell us of Jesus' life is accurate. Their purpose (in current form, anyway) may be more related to transmitting the doctrine of the church than actually reporting the historical life of Jesus.
This would explain why things such as the 'miracles' Jesus performed have gained their 'supernatural' edge rather than remaining as the allegory they probably were originally.
It would also explain why documents more conteporaneous with Jesus than the Gospels often describe Him simply as one of many similar 'wandering preachers' of the time (if indeed they are describing Him at all) rather than the hugely significant preacher the Gospels describe. Although it's not always easy to determine if these documents are referring to Jesus or some other preacher.
However - even considering that - the Gospels may still be one of the best sources on Jesus' life that we have.
Whatever the accuracy of the Gospels, it by no means proves or disproves his 'Son of God' status. I mention this because that argument is not part of what I'm trying to understand here. That's a matter of faith which may never be proven one way or the other, but I'm trying to avoid that and look at it from a historical perspective here.
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Mar 28, 2005 21:57:15 GMT -5
OK.
Well, first of all, I want to dismiss the issue of biblical integrity as not relevant to the question at hand - although, Satori, you know full well that I am amply prepared to defend that question and I suffer no doubt about it. Even if I were not a Christian I would still be completely convinced that the Gospel manuscripts are accurate and were written by who they said they were written by. (Notice how it is impossible to "make" someone a Christian simply by argument? It wouldn't work for me, I can assure you.)
Second, I would say that the reason that Christ did not "reveal" Himself openly is because of Him being the master Communicator. Quite simply, arriving at a point obliquely usually enhances its ability to arrive with force at the audience. What happened is that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah and the Son of God many times but in many different ways. I don't feel like going into all the passages... but some of my favorites are, "Before Abraham was, I am" and the story of Him breaking the Sabbath, and thus establishing His supremacy as "Lord of the Sabbath." The Son of God issue is usually validated by the large amount of personal references of Jesus to "his father" which stand in stark contrast to the Jews who would only refer to God as "our Father."
Second, the fact that Jesus didn't simply declare His messiaship (although that completely depends on how you define "declare") is because, in my mind, the way He was to prove this was by fulfilling piece by piece all the prophecy about Himself. In other words, every move was deliberate and meant to convince the Jews that He was God -- and their reactions are fascinating as well as revealing of the human spirit.
I don't think its really an issue whether Jesus declared He was God. Any reference to "the I am" is a direct reference to the Hebrew tetragramatron "Yahweh" which is somewhat related to I am or I am who I am. To claim such a direct connection amounts to blasphemy, which if you notice, the Pharisees do accuse Jesus of (I can reference that for you if you like.)
Jesus, a controversial figure. I wonder if He will be received any better at His second coming than He was at His first?
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Mar 29, 2005 2:22:59 GMT -5
OK. Well, first of all, I want to dismiss the issue of biblical integrity as not relevant to the question at hand - although, Satori, you know full well that I am amply prepared to defend that question and I suffer no doubt about it. I'm not totally denying Biblical intergrity Bob. As I said above, the Gospels are one of the best sources available on Jesus. It's just that 'integrity' may not mean that they were ever meant to be a historical account of Jesus. The assumptions I make about the Gospels are generally based on a mixture of (mainly) 'scholarly opinion' and (secondly) my own interpretation if scholarly opinion is divided or unclear. In summary, I read them with the following understandings: - They were probably directly written in Greek rather than Aramaic, although they may have been based on Aramaic documents for all we know; the only 'evidence' that they might have been, though, is a fourth Century reference by Eusebius stating that the second century Bishop Papias thought Mathew was acquanted with some Aramaic sayings of Jesus. - Mark is probably the oldest at maybe AD70 and he may have been the interpreter of Peter. Mark's Gospel is probably an independant composition. - Mathew and Luke are probably later: AD80 - AD100, although Luke is first mentioned as the author of a Gospel in AD180. Mathew and Luke rely heavily on Mark and some postulated additional composition based on the sayings of Jesus (the 'Q' document). - John appears to be an even later 'evolution' of the Gospels altogether, steeped in even more doctrinal philosophy, maybe from around AD110-AD120. - All the Gospels appear to be written mainly as a doctrinal transmission rather than a historic work and may have undergone modification from AD70 until AD400 when they were 'formalised'. Certainly we lost a lot of stuff that may have been a useful reference on Jesus at that time. - The Gospels as they reach us today need to be taken in the context of a doctrinal transmission of early Christian philosophy intended primarily for a Roman audience. Their entire construction - parables, words of wisdom, supernaturalisation of the miracles etc. - lends itself to being that sort of work rather than a chiefly historical one, so we have to try and see through that to get any true historical concept of Jesus. I mention the above so that you know how I'm seeing things. John, I believe. From a historical perspective John is generally considered less 'useful'. Yes, and quite right he was too. The farmers of the era were already dismayed at the Judaic fundamentalism of the time, which would have had them leave lambs in wells and such if they happened to fall in on the Sabbath. Jesus' interpretation of the Sabbath - that it was delivered "unto them" rather than them being delivered "unto the Sabbath" - seems to be far more sensible. Yes, it's clear that Jesus is making a subtle challenge at Kingship, claiming to be God's representative on Earth - or the Son of God - in the same way that many kings of the era did (Romans, Egyptians etc.). This would, of course, have ruffled a some feathers and provides another good reason not to go shouting from the rooftops. Yep I agree. It certainly appears that He was on some sort of prophetic agenda according to the Gospels. I'm familiar with the accusations of blasphemy towards Jesus. When is this due? - I'll pencil it in my diary to make sure I'm free that day. Assuming His 'second coming' is true for one moment, how well He is received will depend largely upon how convincing He can be. We would need to be left in no doubt that He was Jesus and was the Son of God, otherwise he'd just be classed as another crackpot. In terms of Revelations and 'second comings' from an allegorical point of view, I think we're on a knife edge. We may pull together before we destroy ourselves and we may not: I wouldn't like to take a bet on it at the moment. Thanks for your insight Bob. Much appreciated.
|
|