4 ms·

> Yes, he claimed he was the son of God ... all that's cannon and nobody denies it. That Jesus claimed to be the son of God is actually contested among bible s

by n4r9 2y ago

> Yes, he claimed he was the son of God ... all that's cannon and nobody denies it. That Jesus claimed to be the son of God is actually contested among bible scholars. See e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma#Criticism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma#Criticism

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
Not sure about that. Plenty of Jesus calling himself, and others calling him, the son of god, in the Gospels. This is from John 14: 8 Λέγει αὐτῷ Φίλιππος· Κύριε, δεῖξον ἡμῖν τὸν πατέρα, καὶ ἀρκεῖ ἡμῖν. 9 λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· [l]Τοσούτῳ χρόνῳ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμι καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωκάς με, Φίλιππε; ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα· [m]πῶς σὺ λέγεις· Δεῖξον ἡμῖν τὸν πατέρα; 10 οὐ πιστεύεις ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί ἐστιν; τὰ ῥήματα ἃ ἐγὼ [n]λέγω ὑμῖν ἀπ’ ἐμαυτοῦ οὐ λαλῶ, ὁ δὲ [o]πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοὶ [p]μένων ποιεῖ τὰ ἔργα [q]αὐτοῦ. 11 πιστεύετέ μοι ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί· εἰ δὲ μή, διὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτὰ [r]πιστεύετε. 12 ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ κἀκεῖνος ποιήσει, καὶ μείζονα τούτων ποιήσει, ὅτι ἐγὼ πρὸς τὸν [s]πατέρα πορεύομαι· 13 καὶ ὅ τι ἂν αἰτήσητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου τοῦτο ποιήσω, ἵνα δοξασθῇ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ· 14 ἐάν τι αἰτήσητέ [t]με ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου [u]ἐγὼ ποιήσω. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%CE%9A%CE%91%CE%A4%CE%91%20%CE%99%CE%A9%CE%91%CE%9D%CE%9D%CE%97%CE%9D%2014&version=SBLGNT https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%CE%9A%CE%91%CE... This takes place during the last supper, after Judas has left. Philip asks whether Jesus can't just show them "the father" and Jesus says that anyone who has seen him, has seen the father, because the father is in him and he is in the father, and that he does not speak by himself but the father speaks in him and acts his (the father's) acts. Then he tells his disciples to believe that he is in the father and the father is in him (again) and that anyone who believes in Jesus will be able to do what Jesus does and more besides (I think he means miracles) because Jesus is going towards the father. Finally: καὶ ὅ τι ἂν αἰτήσητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου τοῦτο ποιήσω, ἵνα δοξασθῇ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ· 14 ἐάν τι αἰτήσητέ [t]με ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου [u]ἐγὼ ποιήσω. My quick translation: "and what you ask for in my name, that I will make true, so that the father is glorified through the son. If you ask for something in my name I will make it true" So he's clearly saying he's the son of the father; and it's difficult to see what other father he means but god. I don't know why bible scolars have to go and split hairs here, it's very obvious what the Evangelist is saying Jesus is saying, you have to squint very hard to see something else. There's plenty more of that from the same chapter and in other places in John and the others. And then you can read the passages on the cross where people come and make fun of him for having said he's the son of god. People are assholes, trolling a man dying on a cross, but either there was a nasty rumour going around or Jesus really did call himself the son of god and that got up peoples' noses. On the other hand there's the bit about calling himself the King of the Judeans, which he seems to have vehemently denied in front of Pilate, so who knows? To his students anyway he seems to have clearly said he's the son of the father and the students certainly believed it.
- n4r9 2y ago
  My understanding is that John is a less than reliable historical source, having been written well after the others and with a totally different style and content. There's a lot of emphasis on the divinity of Christ along with other theological points. That stands in contrast to other variants of Christianity at the time which rejected the divinity of Christ (gnosticism), or the physicality of Christ (doceticism). It's very possible that John was canonised as a way of selecting the most acceptable or spreadable variant, rather than as a true reflection of the teachings of Jesus. As you say there are allusions to "son of God" in the other gospels but it's far less frequent and more ambiguous, and may well have been interpreted/revised in light of the experience of Jesus' resurrection. I suppose bible scholars are splitting hairs, but as programmers we know that sometimes you have to split a few hairs to get the bottom of things.

by n4r9 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago

Not sure about that. Plenty of Jesus calling himself, and others calling him, the son of god, in the Gospels. This is from John 14: 8 Λέγει αὐτῷ Φίλιππος· Κύριε, δεῖξον ἡμῖν τὸν πατέρα, καὶ ἀρκεῖ ἡμῖν. 9 λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς· [l]Τοσούτῳ χρόνῳ μεθ’ ὑμῶν εἰμι καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωκάς με, Φίλιππε; ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακεν τὸν πατέρα· [m]πῶς σὺ λέγεις· Δεῖξον ἡμῖν τὸν πατέρα; 10 οὐ πιστεύεις ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί ἐστιν; τὰ ῥήματα ἃ ἐγὼ [n]λέγω ὑμῖν ἀπ’ ἐμαυτοῦ οὐ λαλῶ, ὁ δὲ [o]πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοὶ [p]μένων ποιεῖ τὰ ἔργα [q]αὐτοῦ. 11 πιστεύετέ μοι ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί· εἰ δὲ μή, διὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτὰ [r]πιστεύετε. 12 ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ κἀκεῖνος ποιήσει, καὶ μείζονα τούτων ποιήσει, ὅτι ἐγὼ πρὸς τὸν [s]πατέρα πορεύομαι· 13 καὶ ὅ τι ἂν αἰτήσητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου τοῦτο ποιήσω, ἵνα δοξασθῇ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ· 14 ἐάν τι αἰτήσητέ [t]με ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου [u]ἐγὼ ποιήσω. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%CE%9A%CE%91%CE%A4%CE%91%20%CE%99%CE%A9%CE%91%CE%9D%CE%9D%CE%97%CE%9D%2014&version=SBLGNT https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=%CE%9A%CE%91%CE... This takes place during the last supper, after Judas has left. Philip asks whether Jesus can't just show them "the father" and Jesus says that anyone who has seen him, has seen the father, because the father is in him and he is in the father, and that he does not speak by himself but the father speaks in him and acts his (the father's) acts. Then he tells his disciples to believe that he is in the father and the father is in him (again) and that anyone who believes in Jesus will be able to do what Jesus does and more besides (I think he means miracles) because Jesus is going towards the father. Finally: καὶ ὅ τι ἂν αἰτήσητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου τοῦτο ποιήσω, ἵνα δοξασθῇ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ· 14 ἐάν τι αἰτήσητέ [t]με ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου [u]ἐγὼ ποιήσω. My quick translation: "and what you ask for in my name, that I will make true, so that the father is glorified through the son. If you ask for something in my name I will make it true" So he's clearly saying he's the son of the father; and it's difficult to see what other father he means but god. I don't know why bible scolars have to go and split hairs here, it's very obvious what the Evangelist is saying Jesus is saying, you have to squint very hard to see something else. There's plenty more of that from the same chapter and in other places in John and the others. And then you can read the passages on the cross where people come and make fun of him for having said he's the son of god. People are assholes, trolling a man dying on a cross, but either there was a nasty rumour going around or Jesus really did call himself the son of god and that got up peoples' noses. On the other hand there's the bit about calling himself the King of the Judeans, which he seems to have vehemently denied in front of Pilate, so who knows? To his students anyway he seems to have clearly said he's the son of the father and the students certainly believed it.

n4r9 2y ago
My understanding is that John is a less than reliable historical source, having been written well after the others and with a totally different style and content. There's a lot of emphasis on the divinity of Christ along with other theological points. That stands in contrast to other variants of Christianity at the time which rejected the divinity of Christ (gnosticism), or the physicality of Christ (doceticism). It's very possible that John was canonised as a way of selecting the most acceptable or spreadable variant, rather than as a true reflection of the teachings of Jesus. As you say there are allusions to "son of God" in the other gospels but it's far less frequent and more ambiguous, and may well have been interpreted/revised in light of the experience of Jesus' resurrection. I suppose bible scholars are splitting hairs, but as programmers we know that sometimes you have to split a few hairs to get the bottom of things.