|
As usual, good post Chavos. I don't have a full response yet, but let me make a few points. I agree that ben-adam is often used merely as a generic reference. It's clear that it's not being used in this way in the Daniel text. The two points in question are: 1. Does the Daniel text refer to a divine figure? and 2. Does Jesus identify himself with this figure in his use of the term? I think the answer to the second is more clearly a yes than the answer to the first, though I think that the answer to both is yes. But I also think that the interpretation is cloudy enough that reasonable people can disagree. What I'm arguing is that the preponderance of evidence is that Christ claimed divinity, not that every case where one could read it that way requires that one read it that way.
I should also point out, more as a point of interest, that I have met people who believe that before his incarnation as human, Christ was incarnate as an angel.
My roommate (who I'm sure I will be citing more than once here) brought my attention to another place where Christ's divinity is claimed, though a less obvious one. This is the story of his taming of the sea. To us, it seems like just another miracle. But in the mindset of an ancient Jew, such a miracle would require divinity, since the sea represents primordial chaos. Recall Genesis "...and the earth was formless and void, and the spirit of the Lord hovered over the water." Recall as well the Sumerian myths of Tiamat, and Marduk who tamed her.
You also mention the relative ages of the gospels. Well, the story above is present in Mark. Also, most biblical scholars agree that all of the NT was written in the first century CE, so I'm not sure how much age is going to matter -- certainly even when the gospel of John was written, eyewitnesses were still alive. Again, the epistles were written before the gospels, and these tend to support rather than deny the divinity of Christ.
Finally, forgiveness. I agree that audiences usually don't get what Jesus was doing. But that doesn't mean that their responses can't be used as a guide to what he was actually doing. Certainly you don't mean to argue that his audience always radically misunderstood him? I also want to disagree with your interpretation of the use of the present tense. I read those passages as Christ saying "As of right now, your sins are forgiven" -- that is, as claiming the power of forgiveness. You are right in saying that he points to a relation with God that doesn't require intercession, but that is because he is claiming to be God, and the intercession he is setting aside is that of the temple.
And less an argument than a question. I've always disliked the question "What would Jesus do?" because of my belief in Christ's divinity. If Christ is divine, then there are certain things he is entitled to do that we are not. But if he is not divine, but rather just a very good role model, then what of his actions that we would not think are very good, if done by anyone other than God? Say, his cleansing of the temple?
__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."
"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
|