Did the authors of Scripture believe that Jesus was "God"?

[mitchellmckain]

NH, you seem to be following me around like a bad habit...What are you doing perusing this "Christian" post? Regarding your "one-note" comment, I don't remember us discussing the trinity in our discussion about your theory that you have no beliefs?

1. I make it a point to avoid posting in the Christian forum. My only recent comment there was to provide navigational help to a new member. (Consider it filling the vacuum left by befuddled Christians.) However, you, dear sir, have mounted this discussion in the Polls section, which I monitor regularly. If you wish to relocate the discussion, you know how to do so.

I am behind NHB 100% on this one. I have not even made a single post in the atheist section. I don't even read it so I don't even know if Christians violate its sanctity any more or less than the atheists have intruded on the Christian section. I very much like the ideas of these seperate sections in which it carry on discussions within the bounds of mutual assumptions. But one consequence is that if you post outside those sections then it is right and proper to assume that the poster WANTS input from both sides.

[Pseudonym]

(Disclaimer: My posts in this thread are drowning under the explicitly-stated assumptions that the story related in John 8 is accurate and that the person who compiled/wrote the fourth gospel was named "John". In the rest of this thread, unless otherwise stated, I will base everything on these assumptions being true.)

Sorry for the delay, I was out of the country.

Not a problem. We don't expect people to organise their lives around this forum.

Where did you go, by the way? Business or pleasure?

I'm not saying that this is how he should have translated Jn 8:58. I agree with his translation here, except for the possibility of "I have been" as shown below. How this verse was translated is not significant to me, the claim that it was a quote of Ex 3:14 however is.

Here's part of our disagreement. I think that the translation is crucial.

You seem to agree that, Jesus said something in Aramaic. What Jesus said was primary, and how the Greek translator understood it and how John understood it is important, but secondary. Once we've determined what would an eyewitness to Jesus' argument with the Jewish authorities have understood, then we can decide what John thought.

I think that we can both agree that assuming the story is accurate, its transmission was roughly like this:

• Jesus said it in Aramaic. Some eyewitness remembered it.
• There was possibly some oral transmission in Aramaic.
• Someone translated the story into Greek.
• There was possibly some oral transmission in Greek.
• John compiled the story into his gospel.

It's possible, though unlikely, that all of this was done by the same person (i.e. the person who translated the story into Greek and wrote it into the gospel was himself an eyewitness). This doesn't change the main story: Jesus said something in Aramaic, it was translated into Greek and then compiled into the fourth gospel.

What I believe you've shown is that if a) the story was originally written in Greek (i.e. doesn't come from Aramaic), and b) was intended to be a quote of Exodus 3:14, then whoever wrote it did a poor job of it. With this, I completely agree. The evidence is that this theory is incorrect.

But it doesn't follow automatically that b) is false, because you haven't dealt with the possibility that a) is false.

If the story originally came from Aramaic (and it would have were it an accurate quote from Jesus), then the evidence in Jn 8:58 is completely consistent with it being a quote from Ex 3:14, and completely inconsistent with the theory that any Greek speaker through whom the story passed, including John, believed that Jesus said "before Abraham was, I existed".

Ok, just so I'm clear, you're argument is that John knew Yahweh's claim in the LXX of "I am the Being," then heard Jesus say "I am" and said, "Hey, this was a quote of just the first part of Ex 3:14!?

No. On the contrary, my argument is that Jesus was not speaking to the Jewish authorities in Greek at all.

You're going to have to expound on this statement a bit. What do you mean the deity of Jesus is not "relevant." Obviously, all of Christiandom disagrees with you. (I obviously don't, but I'm surprised to hear someone else say it?)

I'm saying that it's not relevant what you or I believe about the deity of Jesus. The question entirely about what John believed.

For what it's worth, I personally disagree with NH Baritone:

But neither are you, as currently established, acceptable as a Christian.

I'm sure that a lot of Christians disagree, but I believe that Unitarian Christians are Christian. Even though you're not a Unitarian, I have no reason to doubt that you are a Christian, either. That's why I've been trying to ignore what you or I believe and concentrate on what John believed.

I'm liberal enough that I'm open to all sorts of exotic possibilities should there be good evidence for it, such as the possibility that John misunderstood, or that he understood the "deity of Jesus" to mean something different from post-Nicene trinitarian theology. (Indeed, given that the doctrine of the trinity developed over the space of 300 or so years, I think that's extremely likely; even the most orthodox theologians would have to concede that at the very least, John didn't have a perfectly-formed understanding of the nature of Jesus.)

But that's not the conversation that we're having right now.

When you say it's a "central theme" of the book, are you talking about the combination of the Prologue including the probable corruption of Jn 1:18, and Thomas' proclamation which John documents in 20:28 as the "central theme?"

I don't have a definitive list, but no, these are obviously not the only pieces. I include places where Jesus is called kurios (e.g. Jn 13:13), places where Jesus is worshipped (e.g. Jn 9:38) and remarks like Jn 10:30 as pieces of a theme.

What about Jn 5:44, 17:3, 20:17 and the other 75+ times that John uses the title of 'theos' almost exclusively for the Father?

I think that's very interesting. I don't want to go into a complete discussion of orthodox trinitarian doctrine here, but I see it as a perfectly reasonable attempt to incorporate all of the evidence. Ignoring the Holy Spirit for a moment: There is one God. Jesus is God. The Father is God. Jesus and the Father are somehow distinguished. You are not expected to understand this.

I believe that most of the great historic heresies on the nature of God came from an understandable desire to explain the nature of God in terms of human reason and rationality, and that is why they fundamentally failed. The nature of God is something that you're not meant to understand, it's something that you're meant to meditate upon.

[JustJim]

I believe that most of the great historic heresies on the nature of God came from an understandable desire to explain the nature of God in terms of human reason and rationality, and that is why they fundamentally failed. The nature of God is something that you're not meant to understand, it's something that you're meant to meditate upon.

This belongs in the next revision to Great Quotations.

Jim

[NH Baritone]

I believe that most of the great historic heresies on the nature of God came from an understandable desire to explain the nature of God in terms of human reason and rationality, and that is why they fundamentally failed. The nature of God is something that you're not meant to understand, it's something that you're meant to meditate upon.

This belongs in the next revision to Great Quotations.

Jim

I'll give that book a pass. The nature of the universe trumps the nature of God in every game.

[JustJim]

I'll give that book a pass. The nature of the universe trumps the nature of God in every game.

Well, for me, they're the same thing....



Jim

[ChristianHeretic]

Hey Pseud, since I'm a rookie, if you have any idea how to move this topic to the Christian forum, please do so. I apparently made the inexcusable rookie mistake of posting one of my first posts in the wrong spot and now I'm being crucified for it! These atheists are like bored schoolchildren not getting enough attention!

And I went to the Dominican Republic for a golf tournament...mostly pleasure! Thanks for asking.

I think that we can both agree that assuming the story is accurate, its transmission was roughly like this:

Jesus said it in Aramaic. Some eyewitness remembered it.
There was possibly some oral transmission in Aramaic.
Someone translated the story into Greek.
There was possibly some oral transmission in Greek.
John compiled the story into his gospel.

Yes I agree, however, I'm not as opposed to this all being the same person though as you are, but that's irrelevant I believe for this discussion. It seems though where we have landed is that we are now trying to interpret this event in spite of the opinion of whoever ultimately documented it in Greek rather than through his opinion of the event. But I will concede that it is possible that Jesus' intent was to recite Ex 3:14 if you will concede that the tradition/transcriber that ultimately wrote this event down in Greek who most likely used the LXX as "Scripture" did not have Ex 3:14 in mind as he was documenting it. So if you're argument is accurate, then those closer to the event than we were, possibly even the author of the gospel who saw the event, missed this alleged intent of Jesus. Now, I'm open to the idea that they were actually "quoting" one of the non-predicate versions of "ego eimi" that you have addressed, but just not comfortable with the subject portion of Ex 3:14 that almost all of Orthodoxy arrives at because the English versions sound similar.

For what it's worth, I personally disagree with NH Baritone...I'm sure that a lot of Christians disagree, but I believe that Unitarian Christians are Christian.

I would agree, and would argue that so would "Matthew," "Mark," "Luke," and "Paul" and the other authors of Scripture. Regardless of whether people agree with them/me or not, to argue that those prior to Tertullian (and even Tertullian himself) and Nicea had any vision of what would be ultimately "required" today is ludicrous. As you've pointed out in the other post, the insistence on "equality" between the two required today would be appalling to most prior to and at Nicea because of the early Orthodoxy of subordinationalism.

I include places where Jesus is called kurios (e.g. Jn 13:13), places where Jesus is worshipped (e.g. Jn 9:38) and remarks like Jn 10:30 as pieces of a theme.

I'd love to discuss any one of these if in fact you're interested, we should probably do so in a post of it's own though. But for a short answer, many were called 'kurios' that we don't consider "God" (Mt 27:63, Jn 12:21, 20:15) and 'theos' and 'kurios' were explicitly separated in many texts (Rom 10:9, Ac 2:36, 1Co 6:14). Others were "worshipped" as well that we don't consider them "God." (Rev 3:9 and kings throughout the LXX). And Jesus' response to the misinterpretation of the Jewish leaders (Jn 10:34-36) and His words documented in Jn 17:20-23 were enough to convince me that this was not His intent in Jn 10:30.

There is one God. Jesus is God. The Father is God.

This was exactly my hangup, it is obvious that the authors of Scripture beleived "the Father is God" because they called Him such over 1300 times solely in the NT. But the presumption throughout the history of Christendom that "Jesus is God," thus the necessity for this theory, has some flaws. The idea that He was somehow also "God" because we have 7-9 vague and oftentimes grammatically ambiguous verses that allegedly ascribe this title to Him among the 1300 times this term is used almost exclusively for the Father by the authors of Scripture was simply not enough evidence, especially when you look at them one by one. Again, I'd be happy to discuss each one of these at length as well, but we should probably open a different topic IN THE CHRISTIAN FORUM for each!

[mitchellmckain]

Hey Pseud, since I'm a rookie, if you have any idea how to move this topic to the Christian forum, please do so. I apparently made the inexcusable rookie mistake of posting one of my first posts in the wrong spot and now I'm being crucified for it! These atheists are like bored schoolchildren not getting enough attention!

Just start another thread like this in the Christian section, copy as much material as you like to there, and then just stop posting in this one if you want.

[spongebob]

Hey Pseud, since I'm a rookie, if you have any idea how to move this topic to the Christian forum, please do so. I apparently made the inexcusable rookie mistake of posting one of my first posts in the wrong spot and now I'm being crucified for it! These atheists are like bored schoolchildren not getting enough attention!

Geeeze, CH, really quick with the ad homenims, aren't we? This really sounds like a gruesome crucifixion:

I make it a point to avoid posting in the Christian forum. My only recent comment there was to provide navigational help to a new member. (Consider it filling the vacuum left by befuddled Christians.) However, you, dear sir, have mounted this discussion in the Polls section, which I monitor regularly. If you wish to relocate the discussion, you know how to do so.

OK, for your benefit, I'm moving this thread to the Xtian section. And why not hold off on the atheist bashing for a while? At least until you've been here a few more months?

[ChristianHeretic]

But one consequence is that if you post outside those sections then it is right and proper to assume that the poster WANTS input from both sides.

And mitch, I'm not necessarily opposed to having "input from both sides" on this topic, I'd actually be happy to have it if NH, JustJim or any other agnostic feels like they have the experience/education to contribute. My only beef is that NH doesn't seem to have "input." He seems to be bored and wandering around with his self-appointed "mediator" position looking for misspellings or any inconsistencies that he can find where he can attack the poster rather than the content of the post. They will argue that they don't have a dog in the fight because they have no beliefs as they seem to be navigating Christian forums solely for the purpose of trying to undermine the discussion (which doesn't convince me that my post would have been "off limits" even if it were in the Christian side, I'm sure we will get plenty of atheists' input after we are moved). Because many of his posts don't really deserve a response, they just get in the way and take more time to sift through. I'm fine if they listen in to find valuable morsels of logical inconsistencies they will later use to attack all Christians, and I'm fine if they have something they want to contribute, but to continue to nag with the subplot that "all Christians are ignorant" is nothing more than an annoying confirmation of the standard stereotype of atheists (spongebob now excluded, thank you!).

I'm new here so if that's the standard, forgive me. But I can tell you that in my experience, this just drives people away from posts rather than entices them to attend.

[ChristianHeretic]

And why not hold off on the atheist bashing for a while?

Will do spongebob, I'm done atheist bashing! I told you you've momentarily reaffirmed my belief that there are actually reasonable atheists/agnostics out there!

[Pseudonym]

Hey Pseud, since I'm a rookie, if you have any idea how to move this topic to the Christian forum, please do so. I apparently made the inexcusable rookie mistake of posting one of my first posts in the wrong spot and now I'm being crucified for it! These atheists are like bored schoolchildren not getting enough attention!

The only way to move the topic as a whole, as I understand it, is by administrator intervention. Would any admins care to do the honours?

[ChristianHeretic]

I think spongebob already moved it Pseud...so any thoughts on the post above?

[ChristianHeretic]

Hey Pseud, sorry for the interruption in our dialogue, but I am interested in your thoughts on my final post of our discussion 7 or 8 posts up. Let me know your thoughts, at least on Jn 8:58...

[Pseudonym]

Sorry for neglecting to respond to the rest of this, CH.

I get the impression that we're going around in circles on this (after having settled a few mutual misunderstandings), so unless something important comes up, this might be my last post on this topic.

And I went to the Dominican Republic for a golf tournament...mostly pleasure! Thanks for asking.

Sounds lovely. What's your handicap?

But I will concede that it is possible that Jesus' intent was to recite Ex 3:14 if you will concede that the tradition/transcriber that ultimately wrote this event down in Greek who most likely used the LXX as "Scripture" did not have Ex 3:14 in mind as he was documenting it.

Sorry, I can't concede that point. The agenda of whoever translated the event into Greek was to translate the Aramaic story as accurately as possible. If Jesus said "before Abraham was, ehyeh" (which I think is a reference to Ex 3:14, and the person translating into Greek would have known this), then the least misleading translation of this into Greek is "before Abraham was, ego eimi". To use "ho on" would be ungrammatical. To insert "ho on" after "ego eimi" would not be an accurate translation of what Jesus said.

But in addition, if the translator thought that Jesus was saying "before Abraham was, I was/existed", there are a few ways to say that in Greek, none of which appear here. Until such time as more evidence appears, this is really what swings the balance of probabilities into the realm of "as definitive as it gets".

Thanks for a really interesting discussion. I learned quite a bit out of this.

[ChristianHeretic]

Ok, thanks Pseud for taking the time to respond. Yes, it does look like we're going around in circles, and I don't seem to be getting my point across, but that's fine...one more time though, just in case I'm being unclear.

Even if you are correct on your presumption that Jesus says in Aramaic, "before Abraham was, ehyeh," which we would ultimately have to reverse engineer from how the author interpreted what he says Jesus said of, "before Abraham was, ego eimi," (which I've conceded you may be right), my sole point is that if in fact the author of the Gospel of John used the LXX as his "Scripture," which it seems we both believe he must have, he would not recognize this statement as a 'quote' of Ex 3:14, because he would not be aware that 'Yahweh' said "ehyeh who ehyeh," even if Jesus was in fact trying to replicate this phrase to obscurely prove His deity. He would rather think that God said "ego eimi ho on," and therefore, the author would not have made the connection that we make today. And I believe it is unreasonable to say that the author was trying to replicate simply the subject portion of this verse void of its predicate yet somehow believed it held the same intent.

I think this is the best that I can explain it, but it seems as I'm writing this that this is how I've tried to describe it throughout this thread so it looks like we're going to simply disagree on this. Thanks for the conversation though, nice to have a dialogue with a Christian who knows Scripture and the history of the Church well enough to discuss it. In Christ...