Divinity of Christ

[LittleLes]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='May 21 2005, 11:13 AM'] Brother Littleles

You know exactly what is meant by calling Jesus the Son of God, versus talking about the Jewish kings sons of God.

You keep trying to make them indifferent to prove you point.
There is a clear distinction between the Son of God and sons of God.
Jesus was of the same substance of the Father, the Son on God in that way.
The Jewish kings were sons of God because we all are sons of God, made in his likeness and image. Not of the same substance.

Stop trying to blend the two together when they are not the same thing. [/quote]


Calling Jesus the Son of God is recognizing him as the Messiah and therefore king of the Jews. It is a Jewish term of respect and does not equate with divinity (and capitalizing the "G" [ which does not occur in the gospels] doesn't change that fact).

Perhaps you would want to review the Old Testament and see where the term "son of God" is applied to Jewish kings and even to the just man in general.

And you are bringing in the "substance" argument later developed by John in his "In the beginning was the Logos (Word)."

You won't find this claim in the earlier synoptic gospels which neither identify Jesus as being divine nor quote him as ever having made that claim.

If you like, look up the writings of Philo of Alexandria (25 - 50 A.D.) and you'll see where the Logos claim comes from.

Edited May 21, 2005 by LittleLes

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 20 2005, 07:30 PM']

(1) You continue to to think of "Son of God" as a literal expression. It isn't. Look it up in the Old Testmant.

(2) The gospel of John which we now have was very doubtfully written by John the Apostle. More likely by one of the many other Johns. Also, note that there are three authors. The bulk was written by one author, the last chapter by another. And John 8, the story of the woman taken in adultery, doesn't appear until the fourth century.

"In the beginning was the Word (ie Logos)." This gnostic concept was created in the 8th century BC and was very popular in the first century. See Philo of Alexandria Jesus' contemporary, a popular Jewish gnostic philosopher writing for the Greeks, as was John.

(3) The quotes from the second century were obviously not made by those living within "living memory" of Jesus. Unles they were over 100 years of age.

(4) For a refutation of dating the Huelatt manuscript as of 50 AD, you might profitably search for "Date of P64 (Magdalen Papyrus of Matthew)" Its subtitled "a response to C.P. Thiede." [/quote]
(1) Context! Context! Context! In the Gospel according to Mark this term is used twice by divine declaration by God the Father Himself at important events (the Baptism of Christ and the Transfiguration) and Christ Himself replied in affirmative to this when He was on trial. Solemn divine declaration (only times God the Father speaks directly in the Gospels) and during a life-and-death court trial - hardly times to use metaphor!
Your denials that this term meant anything significant in these cases are very weak and unconvincing.

(2) There is no reason to doubt that the Gospel was written by John the Apostle, as tradition has always affirmed. It contains many details which only an intimate disciple of Christ can know and shows a detailed knowlege of Jerusalem and the Holy land at the time of Christ, and very early copies of this Gospel have been found, showing it to truly be an early record of Christ's life. (Though a few parts may have been added by John's own disciples, based on the teaching they recieved directly from John - and the last chapter affirms that it is the testimony of an eyewitness).

Again, John contains no gnostic teaching! God the Son as the Word of God is solid Christian theology! And using Greek philosophical terms to describe the nature of the Son would be a perfect way to explain this truth to the Greeks! This in no way invalidates this Gospel!

(3) People in the early first century would have been able to receive teaching directly from eyewitnesses. This is still very early in Christianity and proves that orthodox teaching at this time affirmed Christ's divinity. It is contrary to your baseless assertians that the "Early Church" taught that Christ was not divine!
You knit-pick all the evidence which favors belief in Christ's divinity, yet can produce absolutely no solid evidence to the contrary (only hypothesis and unproven assertions).

(4) And there are refutations of the refutations. The early date is accepted by many experts. The best you can truthfully claim is that the dating is controversial (many who oppose the early dating are those who,like you cling to the unproven assertion that Matthew was originally written at a later date.) But this is really all beside the point. Even it were conclusively proven that the Huleatt Mansuscript was written at a later date (which it has not) it would do absolutely nothing to prove your claims against the divinity of Christ, nor prove that Matthew was orignally written later.

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 21 2005, 07:29 AM'] The alleged blasphemy of Jesus did not involve his agreeing with the high priest that he was the Messiah and the Son of God. This is a common misconception which is explained by footnote in the New American Bible.

But Jesus was silent. 34 Then the high priest said to him, "I order you to tell us under oath before the living God whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God."
64
Jesus said to him in reply, "You have said so. 35 But I tell you: From now on you will see 'the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power' and 'coming on the clouds of heaven.'"
65
Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has blasphemed! 36 What further need have we of witnesses? You have now heard the blasphemy;
66

36 [65] Blasphemed: the punishment for blasphemy was death by stoning (see Lev 24:10-16). According to the Mishnah, to be guilty of blasphemy one had to pronounce "the Name itself," i.e. Yahweh; cf Sanhedrin 7, 4.5. Those who judge the gospel accounts of Jesus' trial by the later Mishnah standards point out that Jesus uses the surrogate "the Power," and hence no Jewish court would have regarded him as guilty of blasphemy; others hold that the Mishnah's narrow understanding of blasphemy was a later development.

LittleLes [/quote]
Here's my response to Littleles' nonsensical interpretation about the trial from a now-closed thread. I'm repeating it here for the benefit of those who might be new to this deabate.

As I've earlier pointed out out it is clear from the context in the Gospels what "Son of God" means. God twice spoke from heaven on important revelations of Christ's divinity that Jesus was His beloved Son (the only times in the New Testament when God the Father speaks directly). Why would God choose to speak directly to say something that was only a metaphor, or just a way of saying Jesus was just a good man? Obviously, the words here have greater import!


[quote]
Matt:26:64-65 "Jesus said in reply, "You have said so. But I tell you. From now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming in the clouds of heaven. " Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has blasphemed! What further need have we of evidence? You have heard the blasphemy." (NAB)
[/quote]


And directly before this, the Chief Priest asked Jesus, "I put you on oath by the living God to tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."

And Jesus affirmed this statement under oath rather than denied it. It is quite clear that this is the "blasphemy" condemned by the Sanhedrin!

Why didn't Jesus deny this before the Sanhedrin, if it did not mean anything serious? He had a chance to defend Himself. Why didn't He take it and explain what He REALLY meant, rather than risk a horrible death for his assertions???


Littleles, it's actually kinda fun to watch how you squirm to avoid the obvious truth right in front of your face!
The Chief priest had just more directly spoken of God! And if Christ's mention of "the Power" was blasphemous, why would He risk making a statement that would be taken as blasphemous when He was on trial before the Sanhedrin???
Not a very smart move! Again, this makes no sense!

There are two conclusions we can draw from this:

A) Jesus was the really the Son of God.

or B) He was either a deluded maniac or complete idiot, and therefore there is no reason to follow Him (much less go to the death for Him), or call oneself a member of His Church!

Take your pick, Littleles, you can't have it both ways!

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 21 2005, 05:16 PM'] (1) Context! Context! Context! In the Gospel according to Mark this term is used twice by divine declaration by God the Father Himself at important events (the Baptism of Christ and the Transfiguration) and Christ Himself replied in affirmative to this when He was on trial. Solemn divine declaration (only times God the Father speaks directly in the Gospels) and during a life-and-death court trial - hardly times to use metaphor!
Your denials that this term meant anything significant in these cases are very weak and unconvincing.

(2) There is no reason to doubt that the Gospel was written by John the Apostle, as tradition has always affirmed. It contains many details which only an intimate disciple of Christ can know and shows a detailed knowlege of Jerusalem and the Holy land at the time of Christ, and very early copies of this Gospel have been found, showing it to truly be an early record of Christ's life. (Though a few parts may have been added by John's own disciples, based on the teaching they recieved directly from John - and the last chapter affirms that it is the testimony of an eyewitness).

Again, John contains no gnostic teaching! God the Son as the Word of God is solid Christian theology! And using Greek philosophical terms to describe the nature of the Son would be a perfect way to explain this truth to the Greeks! This in no way invalidates this Gospel!

(3) People in the early first century would have been able to receive teaching directly from eyewitnesses. This is still very early in Christianity and proves that orthodox teaching at this time affirmed Christ's divinity. It is contrary to your baseless assertians that the "Early Church" taught that Christ was not divine!
You knit-pick all the evidence which favors belief in Christ's divinity, yet can produce absolutely no solid evidence to the contrary (only hypothesis and unproven assertions).

(4) And there are refutations of the refutations. The early date is accepted by many experts. The best you can truthfully claim is that the dating is controversial (many who oppose the early dating are those who,like you cling to the unproven assertion that Matthew was originally written at a later date.) But this is really all beside the point. Even it were conclusively proven that the Huleatt Mansuscript was written at a later date (which it has not) it would do absolutely nothing to prove your claims against the divinity of Christ, nor prove that Matthew was orignally written later. [/quote]
(1) Yes, indeed. As CAM once pointed out in the past, it is necessary to separate allegorical events (ie. didn't really happen) from historical events ( ie.really happened) in scripture. And God "spoke" too (allegorically) in the Old Testament calling David his Son, didn't He?

(2) And again, yes, some apologists claim that the Gospel of John was written by the Apostle John, rather than John the Elder, or John Patmos, or another John. But as the New American Bible (Catholic Bible) explains:

"Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in its present form are presented by its highly developed theology and by certain elements of its literary style. For instance, some of the wondrous deeds of Jesus have been worked into highly effective dramatic scenes (John 9); there has been a careful attempt to have these followed by discourses that explain them (John 5; 6); and the sayings of Jesus have been oven into long discourses of a quasi-poetic form resembling the speeches of personified Wisdom in the Old Testament."

(3) And perhaps you will cite a passage in Mark, Matthew, or Luke where Jesus claimed divinity.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Scofizzle' date='May 20 2005, 07:38 PM'] how about some of these arguments...

Luke 4
The temptaion of Jesus by the devil...
When Jesus directly talking to the devil...says "so not put the Lord your God to the test."
but your argument against that will be that he was not refering to himself (when he clearly is) but instead to God in heaven.

"But He held His peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, and said to Him: Art thou the Christ the Son of the blessed God? And Jesus said to him: I am. And you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming with the clouds of heaven." - Mark 14:61-62

Also if you believe in Christ (sorry I havent read all of your replies) you may believe that the single greatest shread of evidence that Christ was devine was his resurrection. He was not ressurected....he did it of his own power. Now im pretty sure that neither you or I will be able to ressurect ourselves when we die.....

[/quote]
(1) You need to separate the allegorical from the historical.

(2) And, yes, you must have missed my post where I cited the New American Bible's account of Jesus statement before the high priest, and what the blasphemy claim consised of).

Also note that Son of God and Son of Man are titles of respect used throughout the Old and New Testament. (Also, I, too, am a son of God. How about you? )


(3) I may be duplicating responsies here. Didn't Peter in Acts state that God rasied Jesus, not Jesus. God also raised Lazarus, remember?

[Fidei Defensor]

Brothers and Sisters, Just remember, It is quite hard to change anyone's mind, but we will have peace of mind knowing that the truth will be known at the ends of our lives.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='May 22 2005, 11:36 AM'] Brothers and Sisters, Just remember, It is quite hard to change anyone's mind, but we will have peace of mind knowing that the truth will be known at the ends of our lives. [/quote]
Actually, one doesn't have to wait that long. Just a careful analysis of the available evidence provides the actual (or most probable) answer.

"Test everything. Hold fast to that which is true"

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 22 2005, 03:47 PM'] Actually, one doesn't have to wait that long. Just a careful analysis of the available evidence provides the actual (or most probable) answer.

"Test everything. Hold fast to that which is true" [/quote]
Yes, but we will fully know then

[LittleLes]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='May 22 2005, 08:04 PM'] Yes, but we will fully know then [/quote]
Hi DF,


Yes, and you may be in for a big surpirse. Have you considered that possibility?

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 22 2005, 11:28 AM'] (1) Yes, indeed. As CAM once pointed out in the past, it is necessary to separate allegorical events (ie. didn't really happen)  from historical events ( ie.really happened) in scripture. And God "spoke" too (allegorically) in the Old Testament calling David his Son, didn't He?

(2) And again, yes, some apologists claim that the Gospel of John was written by the Apostle John, rather than John the Elder, or John Patmos, or another John.  But as the New American Bible (Catholic Bible) explains:

"Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in its present form are presented by its highly developed theology and by certain elements of its literary style. For instance, some of the wondrous deeds of Jesus have been worked into highly effective dramatic scenes (John 9); there has been a careful attempt to have these followed by discourses that explain them (John 5; 6); and the sayings of Jesus have been oven into long discourses of a quasi-poetic form resembling the speeches of personified Wisdom in the Old Testament."

(3) And perhaps you will cite a passage in Mark, Matthew, or Luke where Jesus claimed divinity. [/quote]
(1) Well the context in these passages clearly indicates a literal statement. A direct declaration that Christ was His beloved Son. Why would God make this one-sentence declaration if it was a metaphor, or only to say Christ was a good, holy man? (This much would be obvious to the apostles already!)

It's quite obvious what the Gospel is saying, and that "Son of God" was understood literally by the Church since the beginning is amply indicated by the quotes provided at the beginning of this thread. That you choose to interpret it differently says more about you and your stubborn denial of the truth than it does about that Gospel passage!

(2) And what have you proven here? The notes to my New Jerusalem Bible (incidently, not the most "conservative" Bible translation) say there is good reason to beleive St. John the Apostle was the author (as does the Catholic Douhey-Reims). The NAB notes are a bunch of modernistic mush for the most part, and I could really care less what they say. (Yet you continue to quote the NAB notes like you think [b]they[/b] are the infallible inspired word of God!) Again, you've provided no solid evidence, just a rehashing of the modernist "party line"!

(3) Christ's affirmation of the charges that He was "the Christ, the Son of God," for one. (As I have shown, your denial of this is weak and unconvincing!) And His affirmation of Peter's proclamation that He was the Son of God, and Matthew and Luke's account of the Christ's conception by the Holy Spirit (His Father was literally God). Of course, you will "explain away" all this as "poetry" or metaphor," but that was obviously not how the "early Church" took these passages!

The Gospels are full of evidence for the divinity of Christ which you repeatedly reject. You either make a weak attempt to say the gospel's meant something other than their obvious meaning, or deny that the source was trustworthy!
You provide no evidence that the Church ever taught other than Christ's divinity, in face of all the evidence I and others have provided. You merely put forth modernist hypothesis (or shall we say "party line") without evidence to back it up.

Edited May 23, 2005 by Socrates

[scardella]

LittleLes,

Do you regard Scripture as merely a historical document?

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 20 2005, 11:12 PM'] Hi Sco,

Do you maintain that all of the saying reported in the New Testament were actually said by Jesus and recalled by the scripture writer 40 to 70 years after the fact? Who, outside of Jesus and Satan, was present and making notes at the event you describe.?

And please note that Jewish kings were all "Sons of God."

Please cite me the verses that say that Jesus rose under his own power. I think most, including Peter in Acts, say that Jesus was raised by God from the dead.

Like Lazaarus. [/quote]
Jesus might have told some of His apostles of His temptation, and they would have passed this knowledge to others.

The "Son of God" issue is discussed at length elsewhere in this thread.

As for your using the raising of Lazarus to disprove Christ's divinity, this is just absurd.
1. This comes from John, whose Gospel you dismiss (when it suits you), which, as we have seen, quite frequently and blatently asserts the divinity of Christ.

In the account of the raising of Lazarus, it is clear that Jesus raises Lazarus by His own authority. In this same account:

'[b]I am [/b] the resurrection.
If anyone believes [b]in me[/b] , even though he dies he will live,
and whoever lives and believes [b]in me[/b]
will never die.
Do you beleive this?'

'Yes, Lord,' [Martha] said 'I beleive you are the Christ, the Son of God, the one who has come into this world.'

(John 11:25-27]

The fact that God raised Christ from the dead does not contradict His divinity. God the Father raised His Son, and it was through His divine nature, that His human nature was raised from the dead.

You cite Acts, but note how the Apostles baptized, forgave sins (a power which every Jew of the time would recognize as belonging to God alone), and worked miracles [b]in the name of Jesus Christ[/b]! (Acts 1-2) If Christ was not divine, but merely a man whom God was acting through, it would be blasphemous and foolish to do these things in His name, rather than God's! Unless of course, Jesus was God!

[Fidei Defensor]

2 Peter 1:1-
"SimonPeter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our [b]God and Savior[/b], Jesus Christ"

[Socrates]

bump

[Apotheoun]

A recent notification concerning the theological views of Fr. Haight was issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and it touches upon the topic of this thread. Click the link below to read the notification:

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFNOTSG.HTM"][u]Notification on the Book, [i]Jesus Symbol of God[/i], by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith[/u][/url]