Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian
From: palosaari@oxy.edu (Jedidiah Jon Palosaari)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: RE:  WHO DO YOU SAY CHRIST IS?
Message-ID: 
Date: 27 Sep 89 07:46:34 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA  90041
Lines: 83
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

John King raised some questions in my mind, so I went to the Bible to dig up
some thoughts.	From a brief review, it seemed that there would have to be
some disagreement with his Biblical findings.  However, I am by no means
greatly versed in the Scriptures (at least in comparison to some), and only
propose thoughts here.	I would find it very enlightening if someone would
comment on these thoughts, as to their validity.
     Anyway, John says near the beginning of his letter that
>Back in vs. 1, John states how the Word was in the beginning.	Since God
>has no beginning, the distinction [between God and Jesus] is clear.
It seems to me, that, as the Bible was written for us humans, and not God or
Jesus, that that beginning would be reffering to our beginning, and that of
the material world, and not God's.  ie., The Word (Jesus) was there in the
beginning, but "the beginning" refers to the beginning of existance *as we
know it*.
     John quotes (I believe it is in Lance's letter) Col 2:9, which says "
For in Him dwells al the fullness of the Godhead bodily".  It is obviously
referring to Jesus Christ here (I believe if you we can all agree on that),
but some manuscripts refer to the passage as "God appeared in body".  What's
interesting about this, is that, the same passage is used in different
manuscripts to refer to both God and Jesus, and also that it says that *God*
appeared in body.  Now, it seems to me that, either God appeared another tim
e we don't know about, or else it's reffering to Jesus as God appearing in
body.
     It's always seemed to me that the 3 members of the Godhead simply have
different jobs, but are all God.  One might do the sending, another the work
with humans, another the work in humans.  But each job would be equally
important.  (Note:  the previous is strictly hypothesis.)  John makes a
important point about how many passages refer to God as doing the sending,
and I gather from this that we are to see Jesus as just a tool of God's, if
the most important tool.  But another passage, John 15:26, has Jesus saying
"When the counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father...".  It
seems here, that if there is any kind of Godhead heiarchy, that it would be
Jesus in charge, as He is doing the sending, and He is also sending it from
the Father, who in this case acts only as a repository.  However, I do not
believe that there is any Godhead heirarchy, but that it seems more that all
members of the Godhead are equal, and another way of saying John 15:26 would
be "When I come, whom I will send to you from Myself...".
     John goes on to describe the different Hebrew words for worship, amoung
them proskuneo, a word for homage and obeisance.  (Sorry, I meant *Greek*
words for worship.)  It did not seem entirely clear from John's letter as to
whether or not	proskuneo was used in Hebrew 1:6.  I would appreciate a
response from John as to the Greek wording of that passage.  John says that
Jesus is not worthy of worship, and yet there are numerous passages where
Jesus is worshipped, and it would appear with more than proskuneo.  The Magi
worshipped Him with gifts, and Luke 24:52, Mathew 14:33 and 28:9 all have
examples of Jesus being worshipped.  Even Revelations, which John pointed ou
t was a very symbolic book, has the elders worshipping the Lamb
(representing Jesus) by bowing down to Him repeatedly in Revelations 5:8.
If what the elders say and do is not worship, than I am at a loss to know wh
at is.	And if it is worship, than we seem to have somewhat of a dillemma.
For God commands us to have no other gods before Him, and to worship only
Him.  So either these are instances of worship of God, or else the Magi, the
apostles/disciples, and the 24 elders are all in direct disobediance of a
jealous God.
     I have one last hypothesis.  John mentions that Jesus commanded us to
pray to God, or the Heavely Father, but not to Jesus.  Yet the apostle
group repeatedly did things in the name of Jesus, speaking to the spiritual
world (demons) in that name.  So it occured to me, that perhaps the reason
the apostle/disciples didn't pray to Jesus was the same reason they didn't
fast-Jesus was still with them.  (Recall the story of the disciples eating
grain in the field on the Sabbath.  The pharisees ask why Jesus allows this,
and He reply's that He is still with them.  When He leaves, than they will
have plenty cause and time to fast.)
    Again, I am not attempting to set down doctrine, but only ideas.  I
would appreciate any response to the ideas from any corner.

[The UBS 2nd edition shows no alternative readings in Col 2:9.  I can't
find any source for "God appeared in body".

Yes, proskuneo is the word in Heb 1:6.  Gingrich says this about that
word: "(fall down and) worship, do obeisance to, prostrate oneself
before, do reverence to, welcome respectfully, depending upon the
object."  He then cites examples where it is applied to human beings,
God, the devil and Satanic beings, angels, and Christ.  It seems
pretty clear that the word is sufficiently context-dependent that it's
hard to prove exactly what kind of respect Jesus is worthy of based on
that word.  I don't agree with Jack that it is always weaker than the
true worship that is owed to God, since it is used for exactly that in
many passages.  But it is used in enough other contexts that I do
agree that it doesn't prove much.  Three passages you cite: Lk 24:52,
Mt 14:33, Mt 28:9, use the proskuneo.  Rev 5:8 says "fall before".

--clh]