Divinity of Christ

[CatholicCid]

There is a difference between misguided suicide and causing the death of others
then
preaching your beliefs to others and being hunted down and killed for such beliefs

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 26 2005, 09:16 PM'] 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? [/quote]
St. John the Apostle, alone among the apostles was an eyewitness to the Passion and crucifixion of Christ, and it is natural that he would be asked to record his experiences. He was very young at the time of the events of the gospel and, tradition has it that he wrote (or dictated to his followers) the gospel towards the end of his very long life (late first century.) The great detail found in John's Gospel reflects the testimony of an eyewitness. John is also identified as the "apostle Jesus loved" in this Gospel, while the other apostles are referred to by name.

The Gospel itself testifies to this fact.

"So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him; but when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. [b]He who saw it has borne witness - his testimony is true, and he knows thathe tells the truth--that you may also believe.[/b] For these things took place that the scripture might be fulfilled 'Not a bone of him shall be broken" And again another scripture says, "They shall look on him whom they have pierced.'" - John 19:32-37


"Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved, who had lain close to his breast at the supper and had said, 'Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?' Jesus said to him, 'If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!' The saying spread among the the brethren that this disciple was not to die, but "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?'

[b]This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things; and we know that his testimony is true.[/b] John 21:20-24

So either the author is a perjurer, or he is indeed John the Apostle!

From the notes to the Jerusalem Bible:

". . . the duration of the ministry and the chronology of the Passion seem to be more precisely defined than in the Synoptics. Indeed, one of the most precise chronological indications in any of the gospelsis to be found in John 2:20, and is supported by Lk 3:1. Topography in the fourth gospel is also much mnore detailedthan it is in the Synoptics and this information has been confirmed more than once by recent discoveries (e.g. the pool with five porticos, cf. 5:2). Moreover, thoughout the gospel we meet with factual detail that diplays the author's close familiarity with Jewish religious practice as also with the rabbinic mind and with the casuistry of the doctors of the Law. The portrait of Christ as the painted by the evanglist presents him as a figure from some other world but nevertheless as someone real and entirely human: simple and humble even in his risen glory. Finally it may be remarked that if John had not been entirely convinced of the truth of all he wrote, his gospel would have to remain an insoluble enigma."

Christian tradition unanimously ascribes authorship of this gospel to John the apostle.

Ignatius of Antioch affirms this before 150 AD, as do Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and the Muration Canon.

There is a fragment of a copy of John's Gospel the Ryland Papyrus, dating from ca. 125 proving that the gospel was already well distributed at this date, confirming the traditional dating of John's writing of the gospel at Ephesus in the late first century.

Edited May 27, 2005 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 26 2005, 09:19 PM']
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? [/quote]
I was showing how absurd it was to cite the Gospel of John and the resurrection of Lazarus to disprove Christ's divinity.

I've repeatedly earlier shown how the "Synoptics" likewise confirm the divinity of Christ, and shown how your denial of this is is fallacious and unconcvincing to say the least.

So far I have yet to see a reader convinced by your silly "arguments."

How about a littleles of your silly games and a little more intellectual honesty!

Edited May 27, 2005 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 26 2005, 09:24 PM'] Do you apply the same logic to the Iraqi suicide bombers? Does their willingness to die prove the theological truth of Islam?  [/quote]
Oh here we go with the "compare Christians to Iraqi suicide bombers" game.
The suicide bombers do prove that they were convinced of the truth of what they died for.

The Christian martyrs include most of Christ's own disciples, who lived during Christ's death and resurrection. If they did not witness Christ's divinity and resurrection, it is unlikely they would be willing to die for something they knew didn't really happen.
If the resurrection didn't happen, wouldn't Christianity's detractors be able to bring forth evidence and testimony against it?

I have provided much evidence that the early Christians beleived in Christ's divinity. You have provided no evidence to the contrary.

Edited May 27, 2005 by Socrates

[Fidei Defensor]

Mark 11:15-18
"And he entered the Temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the Temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves; and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the Temple. He was teaching and saying, "Is it not written, ´[b]My house [/b]shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations´? But you have made it a den of robbers." And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him; for they were afraid of him, because the whole crowd was spellbound by his teaching"

Question - what does he mean by "my house"? The Temple is called the House of God, yet he calls it his house.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 26 2005, 10:37 PM']

So far I have yet to see a reader convinced by your silly "arguments."

[/quote]
How large a sampling did you survey?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='CatholicCid' date='May 26 2005, 10:01 PM'] There is a difference between misguided suicide and causing the death of others
then
preaching your beliefs to others and being hunted down and killed for such beliefs [/quote]
Indeed there is. There weren't any bombs in the early Christian days. But I'd agree that both might be misguided but be acting under similar motivation.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='May 27 2005, 05:44 AM'] Mark 11:15-18
"And he entered the Temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the Temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves; and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the Temple. He was teaching and saying, "Is it not written, ´[b]My house [/b]shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations´? But you have made it a den of robbers." And when the chief priests and the scribes heard it, they kept looking for a way to kill him; for they were afraid of him, because the whole crowd was spellbound by his teaching"

Question - what does he mean by "my house"? The Temple is called the House of God, yet he calls it his house. [/quote]
Reread the passage and note that Jesus is quoting God speaking in scripture. Jesus isn't calling the Temple is own house.

You really are grasping at straws, aren't you.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 26 2005, 10:32 PM'] St. John the Apostle, alone among the apostles was an eyewitness to the Passion and crucifixion of Christ, and it is natural that he would be asked to record his experiences. He was very young at the time of the events of the gospel and, tradition has it that he wrote (or dictated to his followers) the gospel towards the end of his very long life (late first century.) The great detail found in John's Gospel reflects the testimony of an eyewitness. John is also identified as the "apostle Jesus loved" in this Gospel, while the other apostles are referred to by name.

The Gospel itself testifies to this fact.

"So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him; but when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. [b]He who saw it has borne witness - his testimony is true, and he knows thathe tells the truth--that you may also believe.[/b] For these things took place that the scripture might be fulfilled 'Not a bone of him shall be broken" And again another scripture says, "They shall look on him whom they have pierced.'" - John 19:32-37


"Peter turned and saw following them the disciple whom Jesus loved, who had lain close to his breast at the supper and had said, 'Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?' Jesus said to him, 'If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!' The saying spread among the the brethren that this disciple was not to die, but "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?'

[b]This is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things; and we know that his testimony is true.[/b] John 21:20-24

So either the author is a perjurer, or he is indeed John the Apostle!

From the notes to the Jerusalem Bible:

". . . the duration of the ministry and the chronology of the Passion seem to be more precisely defined than in the Synoptics. Indeed, one of the most precise chronological indications in any of the gospelsis to be found in John 2:20, and is supported by Lk 3:1. Topography in the fourth gospel is also much mnore detailedthan it is in the Synoptics and this information has been confirmed more than once by recent discoveries (e.g. the pool with five porticos, cf. 5:2). Moreover, thoughout the gospel we meet with factual detail that diplays the author's close familiarity with Jewish religious practice as also with the rabbinic mind and with the casuistry of the doctors of the Law. The portrait of Christ as the painted by the evanglist presents him as a figure from some other world but nevertheless as someone real and entirely human: simple and humble even in his risen glory. Finally it may be remarked that if John had not been entirely convinced of the truth of all he wrote, his gospel would have to remain an insoluble enigma."

Christian tradition unanimously ascribes authorship of this gospel to John the apostle.

Ignatius of Antioch affirms this before 150 AD, as do Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and the Muration Canon.

There is a fragment of a copy of John's Gospel the Ryland Papyrus, dating from ca. 125 proving that the gospel was already well distributed at this date, confirming the traditional dating of John's writing of the gospel at Ephesus in the late first century. [/quote]
The New American Bible, addressing the authorship of the Gospel of John has this to say:

"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"

As one historian has noted

"Like the other Gospels, John was certainly based on previous works that are now lost. The contemporary scholar of the Johannine community, Raymond E. Brown,
in The Community of the Beloved Disciple (Paulist Press, 1979) identifies three layers of text in the Fourth Gospel (a situation that is paralleled by the synoptic gospels): an initial version based on personal experience of Jesus, a structured literary creation by "the evangelist," which draws upon other sources, and the edited version that we know today.

And the dating of the Ryland document is disputed. Even so, it does not refer to the authorship of John which is the subject at hand.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 26 2005, 10:37 PM']

I've repeatedly earlier shown how the "Synoptics" likewise confirm the divinity of Christ, and shown how your denial of this is is fallacious and unconcvincing to say the least.

[/quote]
No, you've never proven that Jesus regarded himself to be divine in the synoptic gospels.

Please show in the synoptic Gospels where the writer claims divinity for Jesus or where Jesus is reported as claiming divinity.

Mark 10:18:

As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up, knelt down before him, and asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
Jesus answered him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone"

If accurately reported, Jesus is here distinguishing between himself and God.

Mark 13:31-32:

Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

"But of that day or hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. "

Thus Jesus admits that he does not possess divine knowledge.

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 27 2005, 05:54 AM'] How large a sampling did you survey? [/quote]
Shall I take another poll? (You can make your own poll if you like, so you can't cry about who the poll was supposedly "fixed! )

And anyone convinced by Littleles, please feel free to post your testimony on this thread!

Edited May 27, 2005 by Socrates

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 27 2005, 11:31 AM'] Shall I take another poll? (You can make your own poll if you like, so you can't cry about who the poll was supposedly "fixed! )

And anyone convinced by Littleles, please feel free to post your testimony on this thread! [/quote]
It is important that one's data and conclusions be correct. It is not important that they be popular.

And again, belief lies in the will (to believe or not believe). Not in the intellect (or the establishment of fact).

LittleLes

But I like the concept of establishing "truth" by vote. Isn't that how ecumenical councils established "dogma"?

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 27 2005, 06:29 AM'] The New American Bible, addressing the authorship of the Gospel of John has this to say:

"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"

As one historian has noted

"Like the other Gospels, John was certainly based on previous works that are now lost. The contemporary scholar of the Johannine community, Raymond E. Brown,
in The Community of the Beloved Disciple (Paulist Press, 1979) identifies three layers of text in the Fourth Gospel (a situation that is paralleled by the synoptic gospels): an initial version based on personal experience of Jesus, a structured literary creation by "the evangelist," which draws upon other sources, and the edited version that we know today.

And the dating of the Ryland document is disputed. Even so, it does not refer to the authorship of John which is the subject at hand. [/quote]
And what have you proven here??

As I've said before, I could care less what the notes of the NAB say or about the opinions of dissident modernist theologians such as Raymond Brown and Karl Rahnner.
You have no arguments, you just parrot the tired and discredited theories and opinions of of the modernists.

They provide no solid evidence for their claims, just some huff-and-puff about "literary style," and such, which prove absolutely nothing. And why should John not have "highly developed theology"? After all, he was the beloved disciple of the Lord, and had a long life to meditate on His teachings!

You've cited your bible notes; I've cited others that claim otherwise. What have you proven?

I've cited Church Fathers and other early Christians, the scriptures themselves, and concrete archaelogical evidence. You've provided nothing but but the baseless words of some twentieth-century modernist scribblers.

"Like the other Gospels, John was certainly based on previous works that are now lost."
- Gotta love that one! Where are these mysterious lost works? Who has read them? Where has anyone ever referred to them in any other ancient documents? Could it be they never existed? (Oh no, that would contradict the modernist party line!) Why are they so "certain" about this?

This is not science; it is pure speculation and hot air!

The dating of such fragments will always be disputed by those who claim (on their own authority) that the gospels were written much later! (Orginally the modernists claimed that all 4 gospels were written well into the second century, befrore archaelogical evidence forced most of them to accept dates closer to those traditionally held. The dating of the Ryalnd document is accepted by most archaleogists, and this strongly suggests that John's Gospel was orginally written at the time it was traditionally claimed that John wrote it.

Edited May 27, 2005 by Socrates

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 27 2005, 11:59 AM'] And what have you proven here??

[/quote]
That the clear proponderance of the evidence shows that the gospel we call the Gospel of John was written by someone other than an eyewitness and not by the Apostle John, a "traditional" belief not supported by the evidence.

Succint enough?

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 27 2005, 06:47 AM'] No, you've never proven that Jesus regarded himself to be divine in the synoptic gospels.

Please show in the synoptic Gospels where the writer claims divinity for Jesus or where Jesus is reported as claiming divinity.

Mark 10:18:

As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up, knelt down before him, and asked him, "Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
Jesus answered him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone"

If accurately reported, Jesus is here distinguishing between himself and God.

Mark 13:31-32:

Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

"But of that day or hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. "

Thus Jesus admits that he does not possess divine knowledge. [/quote]
I've already proven numerous times how the Synoptic Gospels show the divinity of Christ! Christ's reply when on trial before the Sanhedrin in which He affirmed that He was "the Christ the Son of God," depite the fact that this meant him being charged with blasphemy. This is recorded in all four gospels (And again, I find your "twisty" denial of the meaning of this very unconvincing - no need to repeat this once again!), The accounts of the Virgin Birth in Matthew and Luke (showing Christ was literally God's Son), and God the Father's own solemn declaration of Christ as God's Son at His baptism and the Transfiguration, his affirmation of Peter's proclamation of Faith in Matthew.

The evidence is there -the fact that you deny it proves nothing but your own wilfull blindness and prejudice to the truth.


Mark 10:18 - 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."
This is a rhetorical question testing the man's faith (similar to "Who do you say that I am?") He is asking the man the reason for calling him good (and implying that if He is called good, He is God.) Note that he does not deny His goodness. This is proof that Jesus claimed divinity, rather than proof against it.

Mark 13:31-32

Christ's human nature (and knowledge) must be distinquished from His divine nature.