DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9552#0452
io8
FIXAL APPEAL
metaphorical sense ? I am sorry to observe, that the Edii
tor seems to have bestowed little or no reflection upor
these texts.
In answer to my observation on the attempt of on
thodox Christians to prove the deity of Jesus from i Co:
x. 9, " Neither let us tempt Christ as some of them alss
tempted," the Editor quotes first, an observation of mr
own, to wit, "How far cannot prejudice carry away me5
of sense ! Are we not all, in common with Jesus, liable V
be tempted both by men and Satan ? Can the liabilty If
temptation, common to God, to Jesus, to Abraham, am
all mankind, be of any avail to prove the divinity am
unity of those respective subjects of temptation ?" He thes
declares, that I was not correct in the statement of nr.
opponent's doctrine on this subject, and denies any oneje
" having attempted to prove the deity of Christ merejp
from his being tempted." To shew the accuracy of rn
statement, however, I beg to refer the Editor to JV/I
Jones's work on the nature of Christ. The Editor lastte
asserts, that " it is the apostle's declaring that Christ w/
he who was tempted in the wilderness, and hence, the Mil
High God, described by the Psalmist as tempted, whi:/
is here adduced." But I do not find in the verse
question, nor in any preceding or following verse, " ti
apostle's declaring that Chiist was he who was tempvc
by Israel in the wilderness." If the Editor has met w:\
sue) i a declaration elsewhere, he should first point it oo
and then build his argument upon it. But unless he fi
shew, that being tempted by the devil, and being ten
ted by Israel, mean the same thing, I cannot admit ;i
relation between the 'declaration of the apostles and t j
of the Psalmist.
FIXAL APPEAL
metaphorical sense ? I am sorry to observe, that the Edii
tor seems to have bestowed little or no reflection upor
these texts.
In answer to my observation on the attempt of on
thodox Christians to prove the deity of Jesus from i Co:
x. 9, " Neither let us tempt Christ as some of them alss
tempted," the Editor quotes first, an observation of mr
own, to wit, "How far cannot prejudice carry away me5
of sense ! Are we not all, in common with Jesus, liable V
be tempted both by men and Satan ? Can the liabilty If
temptation, common to God, to Jesus, to Abraham, am
all mankind, be of any avail to prove the divinity am
unity of those respective subjects of temptation ?" He thes
declares, that I was not correct in the statement of nr.
opponent's doctrine on this subject, and denies any oneje
" having attempted to prove the deity of Christ merejp
from his being tempted." To shew the accuracy of rn
statement, however, I beg to refer the Editor to JV/I
Jones's work on the nature of Christ. The Editor lastte
asserts, that " it is the apostle's declaring that Christ w/
he who was tempted in the wilderness, and hence, the Mil
High God, described by the Psalmist as tempted, whi:/
is here adduced." But I do not find in the verse
question, nor in any preceding or following verse, " ti
apostle's declaring that Chiist was he who was tempvc
by Israel in the wilderness." If the Editor has met w:\
sue) i a declaration elsewhere, he should first point it oo
and then build his argument upon it. But unless he fi
shew, that being tempted by the devil, and being ten
ted by Israel, mean the same thing, I cannot admit ;i
relation between the 'declaration of the apostles and t j
of the Psalmist.