Well, I became distracted by other things for a while, and have been putting off finishing this, so this is the time to wrap it up by analyzing parts 14 through 22 (Conclusion).
* * * * * * * * *
Part 14 refers to Jesus as the “Son of God”, but Rev. Roberts is careful to state that at that time, it was not a claim to divinity, but rather it was used to refer to a righteous person. More specifically, this title would have been understood as a (entirely mortal) Messiah whom, most Jewish people believed, would have the God-given mission of throwing off the Roman oppressors. As this was not the mission God gave to Jesus, he did not claim that title in that sense.
Parts 15 through 17 discuss the “Son of Man” reference, but Mark points out that this meant “human being”, and was the title that Jesus himself used more than any other. This seems to imply that Jesus’ own view was that he was not God in the flesh, if the thought would have even occurred to him. Rev. Roberts expands on the “Son of Man” title, but the references seem to speak more about the role of the Son of Man as a ruler appointed by God, than as God himself. The passage, below, refers to a “Son of Man” coming to an Ancient One, who I am pretty sure refers to God.
As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him. To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed (Dan 7:13-14, emphasis added).
Mark writes this:
“The opponents of Jesus saw his use of “my Father” as scandalous, if not blasphemous. But his followers saw something very different. For them, the unparalleled intimacy between Jesus and his Father, combined with his self-reference as “the Son,” suggested that Jesus was the Son of God in a unique way.”
Ok, that is all reasonable. But then Mark continues with this:
“He wasn’t just God’s favored king, or a righteous man, but a human being who was also God in the flesh.”
I find that to be a huge leap to a desired conclusion. It is reasonable to believe that Jesus was the Son of God, and just as reasonable to believe that Jesus, whether Divine or mortal, had a special relationship with God. I just can’t see where this leads to Jesus being God in the flesh. It’s interesting that, as Mark points out, the Gnostics were strongly of the opinion that Jesus was more divine than human, and yet they were eventually labeled as heretics.
In reference to the forgiveness of sin, the idea that Jesus forgave sins doesn’t necessarily mean he is God; he could have been speaking in God’s name, sort of a delegation with all the authority of God granted to him. Or perhaps it was a way to indicate that God knows our human weakness, and is saying that you don’t have to worry about every little sin you committed in your life, as long as you are honestly trying to come to God. Basically, your sins are forgiven before you ask.
I do believe in the Resurrection, though I also don’t believe that means Jesus is God. God is very capable of bringing someone back to life. Additionally, I completely disagree with Mark’s statement, “Take the resurrection away from early Christianity and all you’ve got left is vanity.”
Besides the fact that Paul may have been simply saying that a religion founded on a lie is worthless, a statement like Mark’s implies that the Resurrection was the only meaning in the life and ministry of Jesus. I tend to believe the ministry of Jesus was the focus, and that the Resurrection was a tool for that, but that is a topic for another discussion.
“God the only Son” (John 1:18), is the only Biblical quote I have seen that hints at Jesus being God, but it is a very shaky hint at best. There are far more quotes that suggest against this. It is entirely possible that John’s personal interpretations or goals, or a translation problem influenced that saying.
I had not expected Reverend Robert’s essay to prove that Jesus is God, but I hoped to see a reasonable argument for this. Unfortunately, it seems that the argument boils down to, “Because the early Christians thought so”, and I can’t say that I find that to be a reasonable argument. As much as the people of the early Church may have believed that Jesus was God, it does not make them correct, any more than the Jews who thought that the role of the Messiah was earthly liberation rather than spiritual.
In fact, in Part 18, Mark quotes Matthew 24:36: “But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father”.
This, to me, is the soundest evidence against the concept of Jesus as God. I recall a quote that says that the only thing impossible for God is for him to not be God, so for Matthew’s passage to be true, and for the idea that Jesus is God, Himself, to be true, it would require God to hide knowledge from himself; but he is omniscient, so this is impossible.
I have heard people, confronted with religious conundrums such as this, simply throw their hands up and say, “It is just part of the mystery that is God”, but I believe this is actually more about the mystery that is man. I don’t believe that faith has to be separate from logic, I fully believe in original sin and I don’t believe anything written by the hand of man is infallible. I may very well be wrong. As Rev. Roberts says, this may be a job for the Holy Spirit, and I pray that God guides me to the right answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment