DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9552#0586
does it tend to prove his deity. Let us apply these
circumstances as they stand literally to Moses and Elias,
who descended from their heavenly abode, and appeared
with Jesus Christ to his apostles, (Matt. xvii. 3,) and
again ascended, would it prove their ubiquity, or involve
absurdity ? But is there anything more absurd than an
attempt to prove the ubiquity of a son of man capable
of occupying only a certain small space on earth ?
In reply to his assertion, that " when John wishes to
describe a past state of action or being, he chooses some
past participle," I only beg to remind him, that in the
Greek language there is no past or future participle for
the verb to be, and, consequently, the present parti-
ciple is used for those tenses under the specific rules.*
As to the second passage which he quoted to demon-
strate the ubiquity of Jesus. (Matt, xviii. 20, " For where
two or three are gathered together in my name, there am
I in the midst of them,") I observed in my Second
Appeal, "Is it not evident that the saviour meant here, by
being in the midst of two or three of his disciples, his
guidance of them when joined in searching for the
truth, without preferring any claim to ubiquity ? We find
similar expressions in the Scriptures wherein the guidance
of the prophets of God is meant by words that would
imply their presence. Luke xvi. 29 : ' Abraham said
unto him, They have Moses and the prophets, let them
hear them.' No one will suppose that the expression is
intended to signify that the Jews actually had Moses and
the prophets in person among them, or that they could
* The true explanation of the verse is given in the Improved
Version, as follows : " Now no man hath ascended up to heaven,
but he who came down from heaven,f even the Son of Man,
[who is in heaven. ] " £
circumstances as they stand literally to Moses and Elias,
who descended from their heavenly abode, and appeared
with Jesus Christ to his apostles, (Matt. xvii. 3,) and
again ascended, would it prove their ubiquity, or involve
absurdity ? But is there anything more absurd than an
attempt to prove the ubiquity of a son of man capable
of occupying only a certain small space on earth ?
In reply to his assertion, that " when John wishes to
describe a past state of action or being, he chooses some
past participle," I only beg to remind him, that in the
Greek language there is no past or future participle for
the verb to be, and, consequently, the present parti-
ciple is used for those tenses under the specific rules.*
As to the second passage which he quoted to demon-
strate the ubiquity of Jesus. (Matt, xviii. 20, " For where
two or three are gathered together in my name, there am
I in the midst of them,") I observed in my Second
Appeal, "Is it not evident that the saviour meant here, by
being in the midst of two or three of his disciples, his
guidance of them when joined in searching for the
truth, without preferring any claim to ubiquity ? We find
similar expressions in the Scriptures wherein the guidance
of the prophets of God is meant by words that would
imply their presence. Luke xvi. 29 : ' Abraham said
unto him, They have Moses and the prophets, let them
hear them.' No one will suppose that the expression is
intended to signify that the Jews actually had Moses and
the prophets in person among them, or that they could
* The true explanation of the verse is given in the Improved
Version, as follows : " Now no man hath ascended up to heaven,
but he who came down from heaven,f even the Son of Man,
[who is in heaven. ] " £