Divinity of Christ

[Fidei Defensor]

Bump. Are you here brother Littleles?

[Fidei Defensor]

bump again.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='scardella' date='May 23 2005, 04:52 PM'] LittleLes,

Do you regard Scripture as merely a historical document? [/quote]
Not all of scripture is actually historical (ie the events described actually happened).

The New Testament was written forty or more years (ie., a generation) after the events described. While there was not a attempt to deceive, words were put in Jesus mouth which he never spoke, and events were described which never happened, but which reflected what the believers had come to believe about or how they regarded Jesus.

Separating the "Christ of Faith" from the "Historical Jesus" has become a major field of scriptural research. Some people, regardless of how compelling the evidence, cannot accept what can be established historically, if it in any way conflicts with their present belief system.

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='May 24 2005, 02:48 PM'] 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] [/quote]
I haven't read Fr. Haight's book, but while the CDF's objection should be noted (ie his book does not conform with gthe present official Church teaching), this does not necessarily mean that it is incorrect.

A current ruling by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

"Conclusion

In publishing this Notification, the Congregation for the Doctrine, of the Faith is obliged to declare that the above-mentioned assertions contained in the book Jesus Symbol of God by Father Roger Haight, S.J., are judged to be serious doctrinal errors contrary to the divine and catholic faith of the Church. As a consequence, until such time as his positions are corrected to be in complete conformity with the doctrine of the Church, the Author may not teach Catholic theology."


Compare this ruling with an earlier ruling by the Holy Office, later renamed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare, that thou, the said Galileo, by the things deduced during this trial, and by thee confessed as above, hast rendered thyself vehemently suspected of heresy by this Holy Office, that is, of having believed and held a doctrine which is false, and contrary to the Holy Scriptures, to wit: that the Sun is the centre of the universe, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the universe: and that an opinion may be held and defended as probable after having been declared and defined as contrary to Holy Scripture; and in consequence thou hast incurred all the censures and penalties of the Sacred Canons, and other Decrees both general and particular, against such offenders imposed and promulgated."

See any parallels?

LittleLes

Edited May 26, 2005 by LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='May 23 2005, 06:22 PM'] 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" [/quote]
Who wrote 2 Peter and when was it written?

From the Catholic Bible approved by our bishops, ie, the New American Bible, we have this:

"Nevertheless, acceptance of 2 Peter into the New Testament canon met with great resistance in the early church. The oldest certain reference to it comes from Origen in the early third century. While he himself accepted both Petrine letters as canonical, he testifies that others rejected 2 Peter. As late as the fifth century some local churches still excluded it from the canon, but eventually it was universally adopted. The principal reason for the long delay was the persistent doubt that the letter stemmed from the apostle Peter.

Among modern scholars there is wide agreement that 2 Peter is a pseudonymous work, i.e., one written by a later author who attributed it to Peter according to a literary convention popular at the time. It gives the impression of being more remote in time from the apostolic period than 1 Peter; indeed, many think it is the latest work in the New Testament and assign it to the first or even the second quarter of the second century."

One should always check the validity of the evidence one presents!

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 23 2005, 05:35 PM'] 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! [/quote]


Re: The Lazarus issue and the Son of God issue (esp the baptism of Christ).

(1) Please note that the Lazarus legend is only reported by John. Why do you think that the three synoptic gospels, written much earlier, don't mention it?

And whose power are we talking about?

"So they took away the stone. And Jesus raised his eyes and said, "Father, I thank you for hearing me. I know that you always hear me; but because of the crowd here I have said this, that they may believe that you sent me."

(2) While the on-line old Catholic Encyclopedia is basically a apologetics text of the "official" Catholic teaching, observe what it admits about the phrase "Son of God:"

"IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
The title "son of God" is frequent in the Old Testament. The word "son" was employed among the Semites to signify not only filiation, but other close connexion or intimate relationship. Thus, "a son of strength" was a hero , a warrior, "son of wickedness" a wicked man, "sons of pride" wild beasts, "son of possession" a possessor, "son of pledging" a hostage, "son of lightning" a swift bird, "son of death" one doomed to death, "son of a bow" an arrow, "son of Belial" a wicked man, "sons of prophets" disciples of prophets etc. The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job, i, 6; ii, 1; Ps. lxxxviii, 7; Wisd., ii, 13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deut., xiv, l); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Ex., iv, 22 sq.). "


In interpreting scripture, one must distinguish between historical fact and literary devices used by the writer to illustrate his point.

Continuing this Old Testament tradition of ascribing the title "son of God" to illustrate intimate affiliation, Mark 1:10 used the "This is my Beloved Son..." phrase allegedly spoken directly by God. Matthew 3:16 and Luke 3:22, who use Mark as a source, copied Mark pretty accurately here. But John 1:32 recounts the legend without any mention of God speaking. A different version of the legend? Is an actual or a symbolic event being described?

LittleLes

Edited May 26, 2005 by LittleLes

[CatholicCid]

What would you consider [url="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:22;&version=31;"]Luke 10:22[/url] meaning... I am curious.

[quote]22"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."[/quote]

It's the New International Version.

Or I could quote some an article like:

[url="http://www.caledonianfire.org/caledonianfire/Boettner/trinity/t3.htm"]http://www.caledonianfire.org/caledonianfi.../trinity/t3.htm[/url]

Though the first Chapter of Mark, first verse (1The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.) kinda speaks somewhat to me...
Though, the whole first chapter alone speaks tons.



Though, you may have said before, do you believe Jesus was concieved by the Holy Spirit or do you think that might just be spiritually or something of the such?

[Archangel]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 25 2005, 06:12 PM'] Who wrote 2 Peter and when was it written?

... [/quote]
Red herring

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Archangel' date='May 26 2005, 05:04 AM'] Red herring [/quote]


Stop being so difficult. Your making it harder on yourself.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Archangel' date='May 26 2005, 05:04 AM'] Red herring  [/quote]
I would hardly say it is a red herring. Fidei quoted 2 Peter 1 in an attempt to prove that Jesus was divine. I used the the introduction to 2 Peter in the New American Bible that points out that (1) 2 Peter was not written by Peter at all, and probably a product of the second century.

Hence, Fidei's claim of what St Peter actually said is disproven.

So, again, by way of summary. There is nothing in the synoptic gospels stating specifically that Jesus was divine nor is Jesus reported to have made any such claim.

LittleLes

Edited May 26, 2005 by LittleLes

[Aloysius]

so you've proven sola scriptura wrong then? good job. would you like a cookie?

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 25 2005, 10:34 PM']

Re: The Lazarus issue and the Son of God issue (esp the baptism of Christ).

(1) Please note that the Lazarus legend is only reported by John. Why do you think that the three synoptic gospels, written much earlier, don't mention it?

And whose power are we talking about?

"So they took away the stone. And Jesus raised his eyes and said, "Father, I thank you for hearing me. I know that you always hear me; but because of the crowd here I have said this, that they may believe that you sent me."

(2) While the on-line old Catholic Encyclopedia is basically a apologetics text of the "official" Catholic teaching, observe what it admits about the phrase "Son of God:"

"IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
The title "son of God" is frequent in the Old Testament. The word "son" was employed among the Semites to signify not only filiation, but other close connexion or intimate relationship. Thus, "a son of strength" was a hero , a warrior, "son of wickedness" a wicked man, "sons of pride" wild beasts, "son of possession" a possessor, "son of pledging" a hostage, "son of lightning" a swift bird, "son of death" one doomed to death, "son of a bow" an arrow, "son of Belial" a wicked man, "sons of prophets" disciples of prophets etc. The title "son of God" was applied in the Old Testament to persons having any special relationship with God. Angels, just and pious men, the descendants of Seth, were called "sons of God" (Job, i, 6; ii, 1; Ps. lxxxviii, 7; Wisd., ii, 13; etc.). In a similar manner it was given to Israelites (Deut., xiv, l); and of Israel, as a nation, we read: "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn. I have said to thee: Let my son go, that he may serve me" (Ex., iv, 22 sq.). "


In interpreting scripture, one must distinguish between historical fact and literary devices used by the writer to illustrate his point.

Continuing this Old Testament tradition of ascribing the title "son of God" to illustrate intimate affiliation, Mark 1:10 used the "This is my Beloved Son..." phrase allegedly spoken directly by God. Matthew 3:16 and Luke 3:22, who use Mark as a source, copied Mark pretty accurately here. But John 1:32 recounts the legend without any mention of God speaking. A different version of the legend? Is an actual or a symbolic event being described?

LittleLes [/quote]
(1) As I have noted earlier, the Gospel of John, written by an actual eyewitness, contains more details of Christ's life. Christ did many more things than were recorded. The other gospels are shorter versions. There is no contradiction.
Again, I was showing how absurd it was for you to cite this Gospel as evidence against Christ's divinity. You try to cite it to make your case, then deny its authenticity when it disproves your claims.

You have given no refutation of the "I am the Resurrection" speech given by Jesus in the account of the raising of Lazarus.

Again, there is no contraction. God the Son frequently communicated with His Father and did everything through His Father's power.

"But this made the Jews even more intent on killing [Christ], because, not content with breaking the Sabbath, he spoke of God as His own Father, and so made Himself God's equal.

To this accusation Jesus replied:

'I tell you most solemnly,
the Sone can do nothing by himself;
he can only do what he sees the Father doing;
and whatever the Father does the Son does too.'"

(John 5:17-19)

Again in John 10:28-30:
"I give them eternal life;
they will never be lost
and no one will steal them from me.
The Father who gave them to me is greater than anyone,
and no one can steal from the Father,
[b]The Father and I are one.[/b]"

The Jews then began to fetch stones to stone him for blsaphemy.
"The Jews answered him, 'We are not stoning you for doing a good work but for blasphemy; you are only a man and you claim to be God." (John 5:33)

At first you try to use this Gospel to prove Jesus was not divine, then reject it, when it clearly solidly proves your claims false!


(2) Again, for the hundredth time, context is everything. The term "Son of God"is clearly being used in literal sense in the Gospels, rather than the figurative sense obviously used in those Old Testament passages.

This was clear to the Jews who wanted to stone Christ, to St. John, to St. Paul (who personally knew Christ's disciples), to all the early Christians cited at teh beginning of this thread, and to Christians for over 2000 years!

How fortunate we now finally have Littleles to come along and straighten things out for us!

Just think, all those Christian martyrs could've been spared painful deaths for their erroneous beleif in what Christ taught!

Again there is no contradiction here. Seems Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all agreed on the divinity of Christ!

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 26 2005, 04:46 PM'] (1) As I have noted earlier, the Gospel of John, written by an actual eyewitness, contains more details of Christ's life. [/quote]
Please supply us with your evidence that the Gospel of John was written by the Apostle John. Or are you making an assertion without any evidence?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 26 2005, 04:46 PM']
You have given no refutation of the "I am the Resurrection" speech given by Jesus in the account of the raising of Lazarus.

Again, there is no contraction.  God the Son frequently communicated with His Father and did everything through His Father's power. 

"But this made the Jews even more intent on killing [Christ], because, not content with breaking the Sabbath, he spoke of God as His own Father, and so made Himself God's equal.

To this accusation Jesus replied:

'I tell you most solemnly,
the Sone can do nothing by himself;
he can only do what he sees the Father doing;
and whatever the Father does the Son does too.'"

(John 5:17-19)

Again in John 10:28-30:
"I give them eternal life;
they will never be lost
and no one will steal them from me.
The Father who gave them to me is greater than anyone,
and no one can steal from the Father,
[b]The Father and I are one.[/b]"

The Jews then began to fetch stones to stone him for blsaphemy.
"The Jews answered him, 'We are not stoning you for doing a good work but for blasphemy; you are only a man and you claim to be God."  (John 5:33)

[/quote]

Hi Socrates,

Aren't all your scriptural quotations ONLY from John the Evangelist and NOT from the three synoptic gospels? Don't you think your readers notice that?

Edited May 27, 2005 by LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 26 2005, 04:46 PM']

Just think, all those Christian martyrs could've been spared painful deaths for their erroneous beleif in what Christ taught!

[/quote]
Do you apply the same logic to the Iraqi suicide bombers? Does their willingness to die prove the theological truth of Islam?