Concerning the Nature of Jesus

[Didymos Thomas]

For nearly two thousand years, the clearly dominant opinion among Christian scholars, teachers, chruch officials and laiety, has been that Jesus was divine as the Son of God.
Jesus often refers to himself as the son of god, but he also suggests that we are all the children of God. Recall, "Our father...". Of course, in the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus is quite clear that we are all equally the children of god, but even in the New Testament, he does disagree with those who call him good, replying that only God is good.

Considering the figure of Jesus and his message, can we be anything other than compelled to reconsider the criticisms of a number of early theologians and ask ourselves "Should a Christian necessarily view Jesus as particularly divine?"

Of course, the presentation of Jesus is but a small consideration. If we say, yes Jesus is divine, we have to say what it is to not be divine, and the nature of that difference without slipping into some sort of silly dualism. No easy task.

[NeitherExtreme]

Interesting topic... Like you said, this one's been debated for time out of mind. I am one who believes that Jesus is God, but after you're question I'm going have to go back and look again at why it is that I believe that. It's always good to have others keep me on my toes so I don't get lazy and forgetfull.

As far as Jesus' divinity: I can't quote chapter and verse, but I do feel like I remember it being pretty hard to read John's gospel without the sense that Jesus is divine.

As far as the divinity of anyone else: I see at least a few differences in Jesus' claim as the Son of God and the idea that all followers of Christ are sons of God. Jesus was with God from the begining. Jesus was perfect, and did not need to be redeemed, but instead redeemed others. Jesus was not born to an earthly father. And there is also the idea that God has adopted others to be sons and daughters, whereas the idea of adoption is nowhere indicated toward Jeus.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

he does disagree with those who call him good, replying that only God is good.

I always understood this as Jesus pointing out the belief/disbelief in the person asking the question. Jesus doesn't deny that He is good, He says "Why do you call me good, only God is good." This leaves the questioner to either decide that Jesus is not good, or that Jesus is in fact God.

[Didymos Thomas]

You are absolutely right about John's Gospel. My only concern here is that the notion that Jesus is divine in a way others are not, and cannot be, seems to be unique to John's Gospel.

"Jesus was with God from the begining. Jesus was perfect, and did not need to be redeemed, but instead redeemed others. Jesus was not born to an earthly father. And there is also the idea that God has adopted others to be sons and daughters, whereas the idea of adoption is nowhere indicated toward Jeus."

I want to be careful because I do not want to argue issues that may be articles of faith. My interest is more in the careful evaluation of the texts we have in which the figure Jesus is presented. In other words, I am interested in the coming as close as possible to what Jesus taught; not in what his students thought of his teachings, or what the Old Testament suggests he should be. I'm not sure I see the ideas that Jesus was with God from the begining or that he was perfect presented consistently in the Gospels. Though, I do agree that Jesus' role in redemption seems clear - he did not need to be redeemed, and his teaching redeemed others; however, that he did not need to be redeemed himself seems worth considering as the gospels are, again, seem to be in disagreement. With respect to the divinity of Jesus' birth, I have two issues. The first being that the earliest texts, according to some scholars anyway, have "young maiden" which was mistranslated as "virgin". Second, that a human being exists without having a biological father defies , to say the least, a great deal of scientific understanding.

"I always understood this as Jesus pointing out the belief/disbelief in the person asking the question. Jesus doesn't deny that He is good, He says "Why do you call me good, only God is good." This leaves the questioner to either decide that Jesus is not good, or that Jesus is in fact God."

But if he says "Only God is good." isn't he limiting goodness to God by saying "Only God"? Also, why is the decision between Jesus being either good or not good, could he not be either? Then again, if Jesus is God, then Jesus would be good. Or maybe he just meant that the influence God in all of us is what is good about us.

[NeitherExtreme]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

In other words, I am interested in the coming as close as possible to what Jesus taught; not in what his students thought of his teachings, or what the Old Testament suggests he should be.

Hmm... I think I see where you're coming from. Can't say that I've ever looked at it from that perspective, but now I want to go and do some reading and get back to you. The only thought I have at the moment is to wonder if the Old Testament prophecies ought to be included in what Jesus taught about Himself, if in fact He taught or accepted that Old Testament Messianic prophecy was descriptive of Himself.

Hope to get back to you with some more thoughts in a little while.

PS, any significance between your username and this topic?

[NeitherExtreme]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

But if he says "Only God is good." isn't he limiting goodness to God by saying "Only God"? Also, why is the decision between Jesus being either good or not good, could he not be either? Then again, if Jesus is God, then Jesus would be good. Or maybe he just meant that the influence God in all of us is what is good about us.

The problem of whether He was limiting goodness to God would be present no matter what He is claiming about Himself... Personally I think we might be doing a "western thought interpretation injustice" (if you know what I mean ) to the text to take the statements as a blanket theological statement. I think Jesus really is just trying to bring to the front the quesiton of whether or not the man He is speaking to believes that Jesus is God. It is a bit of a confusing passage though, and I've spent some time scratching my head about it.

[Didymos Thomas]

The problem of whether He was limiting goodness to God would be present no matter what He is claiming about Himself... Personally I think we might be doing a "western thought interpretation injustice" (if you know what I mean ) to the text to take the statements as a blanket theological statement. I think Jesus really is just trying to bring to the front the quesiton of whether or not the man He is speaking to believes that Jesus is God. It is a bit of a confusing passage though, and I've spent some time scratching my head about it.

As you pointed out, Jesus isn't making a direct claim about himself, rather, the claim is about God, that "only God is good". As for the significance of the statement, I'm not convinced that it should be taken as a blanket theological statement that should be applied as absolute; though, the statement does have significant theological meaning, which is why it's important. Given my interest here, a philosophical rather than spiritual, I look at such statements, compare them to similar statements, and attempt to sift through the material we have to learn about the message of Jesus. Also, I wonder if you could explain why you think the passage relates to the divinity of Jesus. It seems to me that Jesus is, more than anything else, directing the focus away from himself and towards God.

The only thought I have at the moment is to wonder if the Old Testament prophecies ought to be included in what Jesus taught about Himself, if in fact He taught or accepted that Old Testament Messianic prophecy was descriptive of Himself.

A question probably best answered by examining the instances of Jesus referring to the Old Testament. Often times he does this, saying something to the effect of 'Have you not read' this or that. At the same time, Jesus does seem to hint that the Old Testament, rather, the bulk of what is today the Old Testament (as the contents of the OT varies from tradition to tradition), has at least been surpassed in importance by his teachings.

For me, the line was drawn when his disciples asked which of the commandments were most important and Jesus replied by saying that 'Love God' and 'Love thy neighbor as thyself' were most important, and upon those two commandemtns hang all the laws and prophecies. Also, we have the Pharisees again and again trying to trick Jesus by quoting Law, and Jesus always finds such issues to be irrelevant. Thus, it seems, Jesus was suggesting that we know the law and prophecies, because they can be very useful in your spiritual life; however, we should approach them with those two commandments in mind - 'Love God' and 'Love thy neighbor as thyself'.

As for the name, it's derived from the supposed author of The Gospel of Thomas, whose identity is of some debate. This Gospel should not be confused with the Acts of Thomas or the Infancy Gospel of Thomas which were written much later.

[cjames]

The Bahá'í faith (which for me seems incredible logical) tells us this about the prophets (including Jesus), I don't know if it answer your question directly but I seem to remember having read an explanation to your question somewhere on that site.

[Didymos Thomas]

I had an opprotunity to read some of Baha'u'llah's writing, which I enjoyed and found useful. From what I can tell, Baha'i attempts to reconcile various faith traditions in much the same way Buddhism does. My only problem with Baha'i teaching is that Baha'u'llah claimed to be the future prophet of many faiths. The coming prophet spoken of in various traditions does exist - be it the second coming of Jesus or the future Buddha, the Maitreya. Baha'u'llah claimed the title Maitreya, the problem being that the Maitreya, according to Buddhist scripture, will not come until the teachings of Buddha, Gautama Buddha, are entirely forgotten. This may seem to be a quibble, but to me, the claiming of such a title, one that he obviously cannot rightly claim, is a degree of spiritual materialism that I have a hard time accepting. Maybe someone better versed in Baha'i could clear this up for me.

[cjames]

Forgot to write the link sorry : http://www.info.bahai.org/article-1-4-0-3.html

[NeitherExtreme]

Some thoughts and questions...

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

You are absolutely right about John's Gospel. My only concern here is that the notion that Jesus is divine in a way others are not, and cannot be, seems to be unique to John's Gospel.

Just wondering, why the exclusion of John?

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

however, that he did not need to be redeemed himself seems worth considering as the gospels are, again, seem to be in disagreement.

I must not be seeing the same thing... where do you find the disagreement?

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

With respect to the divinity of Jesus' birth, I have two issues. The first being that the earliest texts, according to some scholars anyway, have "young maiden" which was mistranslated as "virgin". Second, that a human being exists without having a biological father defies , to say the least, a great deal of scientific understanding.

As far as the translation goes, I think the text of story would suggest a "fatherless" conception with or without the actual use of the word virgin. As for the possability of such an event, it would obviously fall under the catagory of being a miracle, and one unique to Jesus' life. (which by the way is one of the reasons that I would find Jesus to be a "son" in a way that others are not) If you don't believe in God's ability to do the miraculous, then I think you would really have to do away with all Biblical teaching as being any source of accurate information, and proceed to study it in an accademic way only.

As far as wether or not Jesus taught that He was the Son of God in way that others could not be (in the synoptic Gospels), I would have to say that He obviously never teaches directly on the subject. But that really does raise the quesiton that if it were our ultimate goal to be Sons of God the way Jesus is, then why would He not have taught that? And there are plenty of implications that He is something that others are not, and I believe, never would be. Mathew 16 is a good (thought not the only) example of this. Peter claims that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and Jesus responds by saying that this is right and that God have revealed this to Peter. Jesus then gives Peter his name, and says that He will build His Church on Peter. If Peter's eventual destination was to be another "the Son of God", this would seem to have been a natural time to state that.

All in all, I think that the lack of Jesus teaching about it, and the witness of the Old Testament prophecies as well as His own that point to His uniqueness, and the "fatherless" birth lead me to believe that Jesus was intended to be the Son of God in a way that no other would or could be.

As far as the Gospel of Thomas, I have never read it and don't know what it teaches. Do you know of a good website to learn about it?