Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: stevep@cadence.com (Steve Peterson) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Help me understand these Scriptures Message-ID: Date: 10 Nov 90 13:18:34 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 90 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Supersedes: I would like to here from folks who think that Jesus Christ is the Almighty God, Jehovah (YHVH) Psa 83:18. Either through private email or on this net (if our moderater will allow it), I would like their comments on how to understand these scriptures: 1) While on earth, before he died *Jesus had a God* (Mark 15:34 "*My* God") 2) While on earth, after he was resurrected, *Jesus had a God* (John 20:17 "*My* God") 3) After he had returned to his heavenly glory, *Jesus had a God* (Rev 3:12 "*My* God) 4) After he had returned to his heavenly glory, Jesus was under the Headship of *God* 1Cor11:3 You will notice that in all of these scriptures, it doesn`t only say that Jesus was in subjection to, or worshipped the *Father*, but it says *his God*. With scriptures like these that show that *Jesus has always had a God* that he worshipped, prayed to, and subjected himself(while here on earth, as well as now, in his heavenly glory), can you see where it is at least reasonable to consider that Jesus isn't the Almighty God Jehovah but actually second in command in the Universe? Best Regards...... Steve Peterson ---- stevep@cadence.com or ...!uunet!cadence!stevep [A simple identification of Christ with the Father is heretical. So I think you will find few people who will take you up on your challenge. I'm afraid that JW's (and related groups with similar ideas) simply have an incorrect idea of what classical theology is saying. The doctrine of the Incarnation says that the man Jesus was united to the Logos in such a way that his separate existence as a human being is not compromised. Jesus had a fully human existence. It is unfortunate that the term "person" was used to describe his union with the Father, because it suggests to 20th Cent. readers that the eternal Logos and the man Jesus are being claimed to be the same person, i.e. to have the same personality, knowledge, etc. Everything that is connected with the term "person" in the 20th Cent. was associated by the classical writers with the two natures (human and divine), which are kept separate. For example, the claim that Jesus and God have the same will is considered a heresy (the monothelite heresy), because it challenges the integrity of Jesus' human nature. The union of Jesus with the Father was never fully explained in classical theology. The doctrine of the Incarnation simply sets down certain rules that define the kinds of things we can say. My own feeling is that the union is best thought of as a functional one. That is, Jesus is God for us because God made Jesus' actions his own. God saw to it that Jesus' character and life were what is needed to reveal himself to us, and asks us to consider Jesus as his own presence with us. In some sense I do not object to the concept of Jesus as second in command. This is clearly consonant with the picture given in I Cor 15, where God places everything in subjection under Christ, and Christ is in subjection to God (15:28). However taken alone the concept of second in command is not quite enough, because Christ is also God for us. I believe the key is to see that Christ is "transparent" to God. It is possible to look at Christ in two ways. If you look directly at him, we see a human being like any other human being. But if we look "through" him, we see God. This is what classical theology is trying to capture by talking about two natures united in one person, but without confusing the two natures. At any rate, the classical doctrine does not say simply Jesus == God. Rather it says, that the eternal Logos took to itself a human life, in such a way that that life is -- when regarded one way -- fully God, but its separate human nature is maintained. The concern with Arian theology (and as you probably know, JW theology is normally viewed as being Arian) is that rather than maintaining the two aspects of Christ uncompromised, it confuses them. In orthodox theology, Christ is when regarded one way simply human, when regarded another way (i.e. when we look through him rather than at him) God himself. The Arians prefered a model of Christ that did not have this two-fold character, but made him simply an entity between God and man. Thus he neither fully revealed God nor was fully human. It's not clear that the JW idea is really quite the Arian one. I think the questions to ask are - do you agree that Jesus is a normal human being? - do you agree that when we see Jesus, we are seeing God, and that Jesus' acts are God's? I believe many JW's do believe this, in which case they may actually believe the classical doctrines, but have simply never understand correctly what those doctrines are trying to say. --clh]