Jesus Is Jehovah/Jehovah Is Jesus (page 9)

snowbird

Maybe you can go back to sleep for that part.

Jag, there is absolutely no reason for that.

I started this thread to show how I've accepted the historical Christian view that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament, and how the WTS has consistently denied and covered up that fact.

I used to read all the references that Leo cited and my insides would roil with confusion. I KNEW something was amiss with the WT's explanation that Jesus was only a representative from Jehovah, and as such, those Scriptures could only be applied to Him in a relative sense.

Now that I've abandoned the WT's convoluted reasoning, everything makes sense.

Thanks to all who replied.

Sylvia

ex-icoc

Thanks for all the good research that is put into your posts.

possible-san

Hi, sacolton.

I do not want to say so much in this thread no more.
But if you call to me, I will reply to you.

Are you saying that Jesus wasn't a real person? When I think of "symbol" it seems to imply an idea and not a actual person. Possible-San, your avatar is a symbol ... are you that symbol?

"Historical Jesus" may be having actually existed or he may be not having existed in fact.
But this topic is not so important for me. The Apostle Paul did not meet "historical Jesus" and Jesus for him is symbolic and figurative. Well, my avatar is called "Hanko" in Japan.
It translates into a "stamp" (seal) in English.
(The Japanese impress a document with their seal instead of signing it.) In the Japanese character called "hiragana", it is written as "po."
It is "po" of my handle name "possible." possible
http://bb2.atbb.jp/possible/

CHILD

In what manner was Jesus "symbolic" or "figurative" to Paul? You have been asked this question at least twice earlier.

possible-san

CHILD,

In what manner was Jesus "symbolic" or "figurative" to Paul? You have been asked this question at least twice earlier.

Please look at my past post.
I think that I answered kindly already repeatedly.
I have quoted also from the Scriptures. If you have a question, please ask me about it.

Since I have my forum, if you have much more questions, I answer there. The matter which you are asking is a question which only the person who wants to know truly asks. possible
http://bb2.atbb.jp/possible/

Leolaia

Narkissos....Good post! I love how you get down to the nitty-gritty of an issue. I thought I had earlier cautioned against those concluding that Paul thinks of Jesus as Yahweh since there is no Yahweh whatsoever in Paul, but I don't think I've expressed it in exactly those terms. Nor should it be expected that the references and concepts in the original text should be retained intact without change in its appropriation by a later writer. My point is that there is significance in this activity, such that the Lord Jesus receives attributes and roles from OT scripture which formerly belonged to the gamut of religious development of Yahweh. The use of material from Deutero-Isaiah seems particularly stunning since the singular voice in those passages is "the Lord your God" stating his own utter uniqueness as God without par or equal. Since some of the statements of exclusive devotion in Deutero-Isaiah are applied unhesitatingly to Jesus, it would be natural to expect that such application of scripture had a perceptible effect on the author's expressed christology. The issue is not retroverting back from Paul to recover all of Yahweh in the NT but rather observing how much of Yahweh under the guise of kurios made it through to the NT into the person of Jesus. Despite the transformation involved, Paul still does see Jesus as the Lord who was tested by the Israelites in the wilderness. Here he developed his argument through multiple allusions to Numbers and Deuteronomy (with some hints of Malachi and Psalms) and it is hard to aviod the implication that the Lord who punished the Israelites for testing him and for defiling the loaves consecrated to him with idolatry is the same Lord that today punishes those who defile the bread of his body and the cup of his blood by sharing his table with that of idols.

Narkissos

Hi Leolaia,

I didn't mean to question your understanding of this issue, I just tried to clear a possible misunderstanding by your readers, in view of the topic title and op. You have made excellent points as ever.

One thing I find striking is the difference between Paul and Justin in their reappropriation and distribution of OT material to the "Father" and the "Son". It seems to me that Justin's criterium is mostly contextual (no matter how fanciful his exegesis can look to us): wherever Yhwh acts on the earthly scene or is perceived by senses (seen, or heard) in the OT narratives, the corresponding character is identified with the second "God/Lord," i.e. the Son. Otoh, Paul's criterium seems to be purely verbal: wherever the word kurios is used, regardless of the narrative (or discursive) context, the material can be ascribed to the Son, whereas the word theos is restricted to the Father, in both OT quotations and autonomous Pauline writing. Of course the general thrust of the argument is different, too: Justin, addressing a "Jew," strives to distinguish the Son-God from the Father-God while Paul mostly tries to establish a practicalequivalence between them (implying that relationship with the "Lord" Jesus counts as relationship with "God"). The distinction is only implied in the overall movement of the Pauline Christ-myth: God sends his Son and, at the end of his mission, the Son submits to the Father so that "God is all in all" (1 Corinthians 15).

However, what I think needs to be stressed is that Christian theology always rests on a redistribution (the terms of which differ from one author to another) of the OT Yhwh/God material between two (and eventually three) figures, neither of which can be simply identified with "the OT God".