Originally posted by Starlight
View Post
I think it's fair to say that if the gospel writers were wanting to project their own theology back onto Jesus, the easiest way for them to do that would be in their narration sections where they are outright giving their own theology (e.g. John 1:1), and the second-easiest would be to record Jesus saying things in private to the disciples (e.g. Matt 16:16,20) because nobody could fact-check secret/private teachings (and indeed, a number of writings about private/secret teachings of Jesus seem to have appeared in the 2nd century). Whereas, insofar as there were people around who had heard Jesus themselves or knew the stories about Jesus' preaching, it would be harder for the gospel writers to take liberties with misrepresenting the public's understanding of Jesus and with the public teachings of Jesus. It seems pretty clear that in his lifetime Jesus was understood by the public to be a prophet - all the gospels attest to this, and that later some of his followers would convince themselves that he was something more than a prophet, and that perhaps (or perhaps not) he had given hints of this to a chosen few in some private teachings not known to the general populace (and I would say we can see a bit of a progression over time with regard to exactly what 'more than' a prophet actually entailed).
But the gospels attest that the public's understanding of Jesus was as a prophet. So I think you're doing a bit of disservice to the text in this thread when you try and reinterpret the Sermon on the Mount through your own God-Incarnate theology and point to things like speaking with authority as proof of that God-Incarnate theology. The gospels are clear that those who heard him immediately thought "prophet". And I'll grant you your point that this was probably because he taught with authority unlike the standard teachers of the law, who didn't purport to be prophets or to be giving new teachings from God like prophets were understood to do.
But the gospels attest that the public's understanding of Jesus was as a prophet. So I think you're doing a bit of disservice to the text in this thread when you try and reinterpret the Sermon on the Mount through your own God-Incarnate theology and point to things like speaking with authority as proof of that God-Incarnate theology. The gospels are clear that those who heard him immediately thought "prophet". And I'll grant you your point that this was probably because he taught with authority unlike the standard teachers of the law, who didn't purport to be prophets or to be giving new teachings from God like prophets were understood to do.
In the Pauline epistles, we have the same thing. Maranatha is an Aramaic saying which puts it early and describing Jesus as the Lord who is to come. Paul in Romans says whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved equating YHWH with Jesus. In 1 Cor. 8, Paul Christianizes the Shema and puts Jesus in it.
There is a lot more to explain about Jesus if He is not fully deity.
Comment