Reflectorites
A couple of List members respond to my messages by chopping them up
into `one-liners'. This presents me with a dilemma. If I answer each
`one-liner', I would be posting a lot more messages to the
Reflector. But if I ignore their posts it could look like I am discourteous
or even unable to answer them.
So what I am going to do is save up the `one-liners' and respond
to them in one combined post every week or so. Here are two
such `one-liner' responses from Bill, with my replies in one combined
post. In this case they are from the same thread.
On Mon, 1 May 2000 08:57:46 -0700, billwald@juno.com wrote:
SJ>"...Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or
>some thing worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him
>and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord
>and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about
>His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us.
>He did not intend to." (Lewis C.S., "Mere Christianity," 1977, p52)
[...]
BW>First, Jesus is never quoted as saying, "I am God" but only making
>oblique statements such as, "If you have seen me you have seen the
>father." This could mean something like, "I am as close as you are going
>to get to seeing God."
First, "I am as close as you are going to get to seeing God" is not a bad
paraphrase of what Jesus said. I don't have a problem with it. And it does
not rule out that the reason this is so is that Jesus *is* God in human
flesh.
But even if Bill denies that Jesus is God, note what an *astounding*
claim that Bill himself interprets Jesus as saying. Imagine someone
saying that today. We would rightly think they were crazy.
BW>This is a common situation when one wants to
>access the top man in an organization. Sometimes you can't get past
>number two man.
[...]
I disagree with Bill's analogy. But even if it were true, again this would be
an *astounding* claim for Jesus to make, that he was the "number two
man" to God. If someone said this today, they would rightly be regarded as
a psychiatric case.
So even Bill's watered down interpretation cannot get away from the
problem that Jesus' claims were so astounding, that he was either a
fruitcake or He was who He said He was.
BTW non-Christians on this List might possibly think that Bill has a valid
point that "Jesus is never quoted as saying, `I am God", so I am briefly
going to post some of the Biblical evidence why the Christian church
concluded that Jesus was (and therefore is) God.
The first point is that it is true that Jesus did not actually say the three
words: "I am God". But there are good reasons for this. First, it would
probably have been impossible for His monotheistic Jewish disciples
to accept in that form. Second, it would have probably led to his
execution for blasphemy before He was ready. Third, it would be open to
the error of Sabellianism which is to think that Jesus is the same *Person*
as God the Father (rather than possessing the same *nature* as the
Father). Fourth, the way Jesus always worked was to await the
disciples' realising for themselves who He was.
But Jesus did in fact explicitly claim to be the Son of God and in Jewish
eyes this was the same as claiming that He was God:
"[Jesus said] `I and the Father are one.' Again the Jews picked up stones to
stone him, but Jesus said to them, `I have shown you many great miracles
from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?' "We are not stoning
you for any of these,' replied the Jews, `but for blasphemy, because you, a
mere man, claim to be God.' Jesus answered them ... Why then do you accuse
me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?" (Jn 10:30-36).
Note above that when Jesus was accused by the Jewish religious leaders
of claiming to be God, He did not deny it.
In fact it was for this claim that He was the Son of God that Jesus was
executed on a charge of blasphemy:
"But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked
him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" "I am," said Jesus
...The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?"
he asked. "You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?" They all
condemned him as worthy of death." (Mk 14:61-64).
Any evangelical Christian systematic theology work sets out thoroughly
why the historic Christian church concluded from the Biblical writings that
Jesus was (and is) God, but in the ones I have it covers many pages and it
would be too long to post.
But I have this little booklet called "Topical concordance of Bible
Doctrines" which briefly gives the reasons and the Bible verses why Jesus is
God:
"CHRIST IS GOD
As Jehovah. Isa. 40:3, with Mat 3:3.
As Jehovah of glory. Ps. 24:7, 10, with 1 Cor. 2:8. Jas. 2:1.
As Jehovah, our RIGHTEOUSNESS. Jer. 23: 5, 6, with 1 Cor. 1:30.
As Jehovah, above all. Ps. 97:9, with John 3:31.
As Jehovah, the First and the Last. Isa. 44:6, with Rev. 1:17. Isa. 48:12-16
with Rev. 22:13.
As Jehovah's Fellow and Equal. Zech. 13:7. Phil. 2:6.
As Jehovah of hosts. Isa. 6:1-3, with John 12:41. Isa. 8:13, 14 with 1 Pet.
2:8
As Jehovah of David. Ps. 110:1 with Matt. 22:42-45.
As Jehovah, the Shepherd. Isa. 40-10,11 Heb. 13:20.
As Jehovah, for whose glory all things were created. Prov. 16:4, with Col.
1:16
As Jehovah, the Messenger of the covenant Mal. 3:1, with Luke 2:27
Invoked as Jehovah. Joel 2:32, with 1 Cor 1:2
As the Eternal God and Creator. Ps. 102:24-27, with Heb. 1:8, 10-12
As the Mighty God. Isa. 9:6.
As the Great God and Saviour. Hos. 1:7 with Titus 2:13
As God over ail. From. 9:5
As the true God. Jer. 10:10, with 1 John 5:20.
As God the Word. John 1:1.
As God the Judge. Eccles. 12:10 with 1 Cor. 4:5. 2 Cor. 5:10. 2 Tim. 4:1.
As Emmanuel. Isa. 7:14, with Matt. 1:23
As King or kings and Lord of lords. Dan. 10:17, with Rev. 1:6. Rev. 17:14.
As the Holy One. 1 Sam. 2:2, with Acts 3:14
As the Lord from heaven. 1 Cor. 15:47.
As Lord of the sabbath. Gen. 2:3 with Matt. 12:8.
As Lord or all. Acts 10:36. Rom. 10:11-13.
As Son of God. Matt. 26:63-67.
As the Only-begotten Son of the Father. John 1:14,18. John 3:16,18. 1
John 4: 9.
His blood is called the blood of God. Acts 20:28.
As One with the Father. John 10:30, 38. John 12:45. John 14:7-10. John
17:10.
As sending the Spirit, equally with the Father. John 14:16, with John
15:26
As entitled to equal honour with the Father John 5:23.
As Owner of all things, equally with the Father. John 16:15.
As unrestricted by the law of the sabbath equally with the Father. John
5:17.
As the Source of grace, equally with the Father. 1 Thess. 3:11. 2 Thess.
2:16,17.
As unsearchable, equally with the Father. Prov. 30:4. Matt. 11:27.
As Creator of all things. Isa. 40:28. John 1:3. Col. 1:16.
As Supporter and Preserver of all things. Neh. 9:6, with Col. 1:17. Heb.
1:3.
As possessed of the fullness of the Godhead. Col. 2:9.
As raising the dead. John 5:21. John 6:40, 54.
As raising himself from the dead. John 2:19, 21. John 10:18.
As Eternal. Isa. 9:6. Mic. 5:2. John 1:1; Col 1:17. Heb. 1:8-10. Rev. 1:8.
As Omnipresent. Matt. 18:20. Matt. 28:20. John 3:13.
As Omnipotent. Ps. 45:3. Phil. 3:21.
As Omniscient. John 16:30. John 21:17.
As discerning the thoughts of the heart. 1 Kings 8:39, with Luke 5:22.
Ezek. 11:5, with John 2:24, 25. Rev. 2:23.
As unchangeable. Mal. 3:6, with Heb. 1:12. Heb. 13:8.
As having power to forgive sins. Col 3:13, with Mark 2:7, 10.
As Giver of pastors to the Church. Jer. 3:15, with Eph. 4:11-13.
As Husband of the Church. Isa. 54:5, with Eph. 5:25-32. Isa. 62:5, with
Rev. 21:2, 9.
As the object of divine worship. Acts 7: 59.2 For. 12:8, 9. Heb. 1:6. Rev.
5:12.
As the object of faith. Ps. 2:12, with 1 Pet. 2:6. Jer. 17:5, 7, with John
14:1.
As God, He redeems and purifies the Church unto himself Rev. 5:9, with
Titus 2:14.
As God, He presents the Church to himself. Eph. 5:27, with Jude 24:25.
Saints live unto him, as God. Rom. 6:11, and Gal. 2:19, with 2 Cor. 5:15.
Acknowledged by his Apostles. John 20:28.
Acknowledged by Old Testament saints. Gen. 17:1, with Gen. 48:15, 16.
Gen. 32:24-30, with Hos. 12:3-5. Judges 6:22-24. Job 19:25-27."
(Miller D.M., ed., "Topical Concordance of Vital Doctrines," [1955],
Lutterworth Press: Guildford, Surrey UK, 1984, reprint, pp.4-5)
Of course one can claim that the Church was wrong in the sense that Jesus
and the Apostles were wrong. But IMHO one cannot justly claim that the
Church was wrong in the sense that it misunderstood Jesus and the
Apostles claim that Jesus was God.
But as I said, this subject is off-topic in a Creation/Evolution forum so I do
not intend to respond to further arguments, why this or that verse can be
interpreted another way. Words are not like mathematical formulae and it is
possible to read into them other interpretations (as, for example, the
Jehovah's Witnesses do). But to be valid, such interpretations must deal
with the evidence *as a whole*. Those alternative interpretations which
depart from the historic Christian church's interpretation are wrong and can
be shown to be wrong, but it would be an abuse of this List to work through
those alternative interpretations to demonstrate they are wrong.
In any event, it is sufficient for my original purpose of this thread to show
that one cannot claim that Jesus was only a great moral teacher. His
claims about himself were so astounding that they are either: 1. true, or 2.
false. If they were 2. false, then either: a) Jesus knew they were false; or
b) Jesus did not know they were false. But if: a) Jesus knew they were
false; then he was a liar. Or if b) Jesus did not know they were false, then
he was crazy.
On Fri, 5 May 2000 12:51:49 -0700, billwald@juno.com wrote:
>SJ>It was not for 1-2 years that I became "religious" by entering a church
>>for the first time, hearing the gospel and became a Christian.
>
>>If I ceased being a Christian I would still believe in design.
BW>Thus for you design is a matter of philosophy, not fact.
No. As I said in the post that Bill chopped up, my original "philosophy"
was *atheism", but it was the *evidence* of the night sky (i.e. its
beauty, majesty, and order), in other words its evident "design",
which convinced me that there *must* be a God.
BTW is Bill claiming that for him, "design" or anti-"design" is *not*
(at least partly) "a matter of philosophy", but purely a matter
of "fact"?
BW>You have decided
>to reject evidence against design before analyzing it.
Again, no. I am well aware of the evidence against design (I have after
all been a member of this Reflector for 5 years!), but I consider that the
evidence for design is far stronger than the evidence against it.
BTW Bill himself claimed to be "leaning toward theistic evolution - God
started the ball rolling...":
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 00:28:07 -0700, billwald@juno.com wrote:
[...]
BW>Thanks. Graduated from Clarkson University (nee College), Class of '62
>with no backround in biology, just a smattering of engineering. Retired
>after 30 years with the Seattle Police Dept.
>I'm leaning toward theistic evolution - God started the ball rolling but
>doesn't need to micro-manage. <G>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
So presumably Bill himself must accept that there is evidence for design
at *some* level? If he does, then why is he criticising me? If he doesn't,
then why is he "leaning toward *theistic* evolution"?
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The origin of sugars, including ribose, seems readily explicable by the
prebiotic functioning of the formose reaction... In fact we are dealing here
with a complex network of reactions, producing sugars from pre-existing
sugars and formaldehyde.... There are two problems with this network that
should be mentioned. First, the sugars formed are rather unstable, so, if
they are to be present in significant amounts, this can only be in a steady
state of formation and decay. It is imperative, therefore, that the end
products of sugar decay be recycled to formaldehyde. Second, it is not at
all obvious how ribose, among the more than 40 sugars could have been
sufficiently prevalent under prebiotic conditions." (Maynard Smith J. &
Szathmary E., "The Major Transitions in Evolution," W.H. Freeman:
Oxford UK, 1995, pp.30-31).
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 07 2000 - 10:56:56 EDT