C
camerong
Guest
Having trouble finding where this is clearly true…
- Status
H
hellopeople
Guest
To my knowledge he does not. He obviously thinks of him as divine and the savior of humans, but he makes a distinction between God and Jesus.
One of my professors is actually an internationally reknowned scholar specializing on Paul…he has written a few books that are quite popular in academic circles about Paul. Would you like me to email him and get his opinion?
I will give a disclaimer that he has a very lutheran interpretation of Paul, but he tells it like it is.
EDIT: Alright, I emailed my professor and I will see what he says. If Paul suggests one way or the other I am sure he knows of it…I feel like this guy could quote pages and pages of Paul’s epistles.
C
camerong
Guest
It was your response in my other thread that made me give start this topic.
Forgive me for being skeptical of non-Catholic authors and professors… in my mind, if he was an expert, he’d become Catholic
H
hellopeople
Guest
Well, you know what, the question pertains to what is in the text and I am sure that he will give adequate evidence for his position one way or the other. I will post his reply when he emails me back.It was your response in my other thread that made me give start this topic.
Forgive me for being skeptical of non-Catholic authors and professors… in my mind, if he was an expert, he’d become Catholic
C
camerong
Guest
Ahh, I thought you meant he already told you Paul never declares that Christ is God, in which case his ultimate conclusion on the issue holds much less weight for me than, say, that of a priest or Catholic professor. I certainly have no problem learning from a non-Catholic.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Yes of course.
(Though one should note to that while the term “God” is used quite often in the New Testament per se for the Father…Jesus is professed as being Divine…the Son of God…Lord etc in the New Testament…)
Pope Benedict XVI
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081022_en.html
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081008_en.html
C
camerong
Guest
I agree that its certainly true, but I still don’t see where.
Now, maybe Paul never had a reason to assert that Christ is God? It was presumed?
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
Various places, but two good ones:
Phil 2: 5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
The words in red above (‘taking the nature of’) are the same Greek word, this is powerful and significant because of the parallel. Verse 7 says something nobody denies, that Jesus ‘took on the nature’ of humans…but this is already applied to verse 6 which says Jesus ‘had the nature’ of God. Further, verse 5 is speaking to Christians, who must model after Christ in that though they are equal by nature must humble themselves (which Jesus did, being equal to God by nature, humbled Himself and took on a servant’s role).
Col 2: 9For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,
Here Paul clearly says Christ fully possesses the nature of God, and this is combined with Col 1:15ff where Paul states Jesus was the creator of everything (which is utter blasphemy if He were not God).
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
Another good one is Rom 10:
9That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. … 11As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” [Jl 2:32]
Paul says clearly that “Jesus is Lord,” and Paul proceeds to apply Old Testament references to Jesus here…however, when you look up those references they are clearly talking about God!
Joel 2: 27 Then you will know that I am in Israel,
that I am the LORD your God,
and that there is no other;
never again will my people be shamed.
…
…
32 And everyone who calls
on the name of the LORD will be saved;
for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem
there will be deliverance,
as the LORD has said,
among the survivors
whom the LORD calls.
Paul and his audience were well versed in the OT, and Paul’s Jewish mind knew full well what he was saying in applying these to Jesus - if Jesus wasn’t really God it would be utter blasphemy.
Also, Romans 9:5 is traditionally read by Christians as saying: “To [the Jews] belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.”
9That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. … 11As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” [Jl 2:32]
Paul says clearly that “Jesus is Lord,” and Paul proceeds to apply Old Testament references to Jesus here…however, when you look up those references they are clearly talking about God!
Joel 2: 27 Then you will know that I am in Israel,
that I am the LORD your God,
and that there is no other;
never again will my people be shamed.
…
…
32 And everyone who calls
on the name of the LORD will be saved;
for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem
there will be deliverance,
as the LORD has said,
among the survivors
whom the LORD calls.
Paul and his audience were well versed in the OT, and Paul’s Jewish mind knew full well what he was saying in applying these to Jesus - if Jesus wasn’t really God it would be utter blasphemy.
Also, Romans 9:5 is traditionally read by Christians as saying: “To [the Jews] belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.”
B
Bookcat
Guest
read the texts linked…
H
hellopeople
Guest
This is the message I sent to my professor:
The problem is that I don’t know how an educated Jew, such as Paul
was, could say that Jesus was “divine to some extent”; Paul was a
monotheist. But he does use divine titles of Jesus, applies Old
Testament texts that talk about God to Jesus, speaks of Christ as the
one who created all things, as the judge of all, etc. So I think it’s
clear that he did think of Jesus as God, but that he nonetheless also
distinguished between Jesus as the Son and God the Father. It’s clear,
however, that he didn’t have a handy formula for describing how that
works; it would take the church years to come up with formulas like
that.
This was his reply:
The problem is that I don’t know how an educated Jew, such as Paul
was, could say that Jesus was “divine to some extent”; Paul was a
monotheist. But he does use divine titles of Jesus, applies Old
Testament texts that talk about God to Jesus, speaks of Christ as the
one who created all things, as the judge of all, etc. So I think it’s
clear that he did think of Jesus as God, but that he nonetheless also
distinguished between Jesus as the Son and God the Father. It’s clear,
however, that he didn’t have a handy formula for describing how that
works; it would take the church years to come up with formulas like
that.
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
This is the message I sent to my professor:
That is a very good reply.The Jews, especially someone like Paul, were strict monotheists, meaning any sort of application of divinity to something other than God was utter blasphemy (cf John 5:18). Further, the professor was correct in saying that Paul clearly distinguished between the Father and Son, and that there was no ‘clean’ formulas for explaining the Trinity.
C
crazzeto
Guest
It most certainly was presumed, more over it’s contained in the Gosples and other Epistles all of which Paul was well aware of. You can not take the fact that he never said “by the way, Jesus is God” to mean he didn’t beleive it was true.
J
James224
Guest
My Answer: Phil 2:6-10 says, “Who being ‘in the form (Gr = Morphe = external appearance; a more precise meaning is “in the nature of”) of God’, thought it ‘not ‘robbery’ (Gr = harpagmos = seizing a prize) to be equal with God’: But ‘emptied’ (Gr =keeno or kenosis) himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit ‘found as a man’(or became man). He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. For which cause, God also hath exalted him and hath given him a name which is above all names: That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth:”
In other words, Jesus had the nature of God and He didn’t have to try to become God because He was God. He emptied His Godly nature into the nature of a man, thus He became man.
- Status