Divinity of Christ

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 27 2005, 12:06 PM'] 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? [/quote]
Yes - succinct, yet you've cited no evidence!

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 27 2005, 12:18 PM'] 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. [/quote]

(1) No. You've proven nothing of the kind. Claiming that he was the Son of God would not be blasphemy. Check your scriptures. Any "just man" could make that claim. I already quoted the bishop's New American Bible which explained the Jesus use of the term "the Power" was the basis of the blasphemy charge. Not the Son of God claim.

(2) And there is this observation on John's gospel:

"If the author of the Gospel of John were an eyewitness, presumably the author would have known that Jesus and his compatriots were permitted to enter the synagogues. But at several points it is stated that those who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ during the life of Jesus were put out of the synagogue. This anachronism is inconceivable as the product of an eyewitness."


(3) And the human nature in conflict with the divine nature arguement for Jesus not knowing the day and hour of end times contradicts the Church's claim that divine knowledge was never absent in Jesus.

and

Mark 15: "And at three o'clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Evidently God and Jesus are different people.

Edited May 27, 2005 by LittleLes

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 27 2005, 02:02 PM']
(1) No. You've proven nothing of the kind. Claiming that he was the Son of God would not be blasphemy. Check your scriptures. Any "just man" could make that claim. I already quoted the bishop's New American Bible which explained the Jesus use of the term "the Power" was the basis of the blasphemy charge. Not the Son of God claim.

(2) And there is this observation on John's gospel:

"If the author of the Gospel of John were an eyewitness, presumably the author would have known that Jesus and his compatriots were permitted to enter the synagogues. But at  several points it is stated that those who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ during the life of Jesus were put out of the synagogue. This anachronism is inconceivable as the product of an eyewitness."


(3) And the human nature in conflict with the divine nature arguement for Jesus not knowing the day and hour of end times contradicts the Church's claim that divine knowledge was never absent in Jesus.

and

Mark 15: "And at three o'clock Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?"  which is translated, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Evidently God and Jesus are different people. [/quote]
(1) I don't know how many times I have to keep repeating myself. If the claim of "Son of God" in the context of the Gospels, meant nothing more than being a "just man," why was it part of the charge against Him by the Sanhedrin?
Jesus was on trial for being a just man??

[quote]And the high priest said to him, "I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God."  Jesus said to him, "You have said so.  But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man seated at the Right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of Heaven."  Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has uttered blasphemy.  Why do we still need witnesses?  You have now heard his blasphemy.  What is your judgement?"  They answered, He deserves death."[/quote] (Matt 26:63-66)


[quote]Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"  And Jesus said, "I am; and you will see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."  And the high priest tore his mantle, and said, Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy.  What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death.[/quote] (Mark 14:61-64)

[quote]When the day came, the assembly of the elders of the people gathered together, both the chief priests and the scribes; and they led him away to their council, and they said, "If you are the Christ, tell us."  But he said to them, "If I tell you, you will not beleive; and if I ask you, you will not aswer.  But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God."  And he said to them, "You say that I am."  And they said, "What further testimony do we need?  We have heard it ourseleves from his own lips."[/quote] (Luke 22:66-71)

It's quite clear that the Jews regard Christ's statement of equality with God ("you will see the Son of Man seated at the Right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of Heaven.") blasphemous.

If Jesus did not beleive He was the literal Son of God, why did he explain what he really meant to the Sanhedrin? Why make the bold proclamation that he would come seated at the right hand of God, when this could (and did) cost him his life?

Your modernist "interpretation," that Jesus really meant nothing by this statement (in a court of law!) is on-the-face-of-it absurd!

As recorded in John:

[quote]Pilate said to them, "Take him away yourselves and crucify him, for I find no crime in him, the Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he has made himself the Son of God."[/quote] (John 19:5-7)

In Matthew, Christ says, [quote]"All things have been delivered to to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son, and to anyone the Son chooses to reveal him."[/quote] (Matt 11:16)


(2) This is a non-sequitor. There is no "conflict." Please cite the verses, and tell what other verses they supposedly conflict with.


(3) The exact nature of how Christ's divine and human natures interact is mysterious. Jesus was emphasising how unknown the time of the second coming would be.

Mark 15: Christ was beginning to recite Psalm 22, which fortells the suffering of the Messiah and God's triumph over all the nations (the Kingdom of Christ).

Evidently, you know nothing of Christian theology. God the Father and God the Son (incarnate as Jesus Christ) are two Persons, though one God.

Edited May 27, 2005 by Socrates

[CatholicCid]

[quote]"If the author of the Gospel of John were an eyewitness, presumably the author would have known that Jesus and his compatriots were permitted to enter the synagogues. But at several points it is stated that those who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ during the life of Jesus were put out of the synagogue. This anachronism is inconceivable as the product of an eyewitness."[/quote]

Just curios on this one, but what exactly is this even for?
It states that if John, the author was an eyewitness he would have known Jesus was allowed in the Synagogue?
How would this have any bearing in the Believers of Christ Jesus as the Messiah...

If I were to proclaim a man savior, would I not be thrown out?
Because that man is allowed in would have no bearing on my actions...

Jesus being allowed to enter the temple would have no matter in another man going against the temple leaders and proclaiming what they called false. The proclaimer would be thrown out, but this would have no bearing on Jesus.

Also, did not Jesus tell his companions to not reveal his true identity to anyone as the World was not ready?

[i]Mark 16:13-20[/i]

[quote]
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
    14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

    15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

    [b]16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[a] the Son of the living God." [/b]

    [b]17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.[/b] 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it.[d] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven." [B]20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ[/b].[/quote]

If they are refering to the general term "son of God" instead of "Son of God" then why would it matter if they told anyone else? Unless there was more to it... Such as he is the Son of God, not a "son."

Also note this came from Peter, not Christ. He did not deny the claim. He was happy that Peter saw this.

[i]Luke 4:9-12[/i]

[quote]9The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. [b]"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down from here.[/b] 10For it is written:
  " 'He will command his angels concerning you
      to guard you carefully;
    11they will lift you up in their hands,
      so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'[c]"

  [b] 12Jesus answered, "It says: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.[/b]'[d]" [/quote]
What about here as well. The Devil is attempting to temp Jesus, but is rebuked and told not to test God... But was no the devil attempting to tempt both God the Father and God the Son?
The devil then left... Why did he not stay and try and temp Christ as Jesus only said to not tempt God... Could not the devil have stayed and tempted Christ as human more? Unless he is one with God. Then his command would repel the devil away.

[i]Matthew 8:28-34[/i]

[quote] 28When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes,[a] two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. [b]29"What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?" [/b]
    30Some distance from them a large herd of pigs was feeding. 31The demons begged Jesus, "If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs."

    32He said to them, "Go!" So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water. 33Those tending the pigs ran off, went into the town and reported all this, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men. 34Then the whole town went out to meet Jesus. And when they saw him, they pleaded with him to leave their region.[/quote]

Here, do not the possessing demons recognize Christ as Son of God? They do not recognize him as a "son" of God as they show knowledge of his divinity when saying: [i]"Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?"[/i]

If Jesus was only human, would he have such power over demons? Would they recognize him as the Christ, Lord God?
Have you come to toture us before the appointed time? Before the appointed time... Would that not mean they recognize Christ as the Judge of All, God Almighty? If he was merely human alone, he would be at judgement time with the rest of us... being judged, not judging.

Then the townspeople... When they just hear of the mighty power of Christ, they ask him to leave the region... They show a fear of him... How would they react if he showed his true identity as God when they cower at such a simple feat... This shows how unprepared the world was... Giving even better reason for Christ to hid his identity,

I could probably spit out a few more verses, but these are of the Synoptic Gospels as asked.
Go easy on me though, it's my first debate here

[LittleLes]

[quote name='CatholicCid' date='May 27 2005, 05:45 PM']
Just curios on this one, but what exactly is this even for?
It states that if John, the author was an eyewitness he would have known Jesus was allowed in the Synagogue?
How would this have any bearing in the Believers of Christ Jesus as the Messiah...

[/quote]
"If the author of the Gospel of John were an eyewitness, presumably the author would have known that Jesus and his compatriots were permitted to enter the synagogues. But at several points it is stated that those who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ during the life of Jesus were put out of the synagogue. This anachronism is inconceivable as the product of an eyewitness."

It evidences that the writer of John was not an eyewitness to the events he described, ergo, was not the Apostle John.

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 27 2005, 07:28 PM'] "If the author of the Gospel of John were an eyewitness, presumably the author would have known that Jesus and his compatriots were permitted to enter the synagogues. But at several points it is stated that those who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ during the life of Jesus were put out of the synagogue. This anachronism is inconceivable as the product of an eyewitness."

It evidences that the writer of John was not an eyewitness to the events he described, ergo, was not the Apostle John. [/quote]
I understood what it is supposed to mean...

But I don't understand how it fufills that meaning...

It says that if John was the True Apostle John, then he would have known Jesus was welcome into the Temple. But he states that those who proclaimed Jesus as the Christ were put of of the synagogue.

Well... Those are two different things.

Jesus was allowed to enter the Temple, yes...

Someone who went against the Teachers at the Temple and proclaimed Jesus as Christ was removed from it...

Well, if one goes against the Teachers (I want to say Pharisees, but I'm not sure) and calls Jesus the Christ when they say he is not... Of course he would be removed... They would proclaim him of speaking blasphemy and the such...
But this has nothing to do with whether Jesus was allowed in the temple or not...

If I went into a library screaming "Mike Loutz Rules!!!" and I get thrown out, will they not allow Mike Loutz in because I screamed his name?
The two encounters have nothing to do with each other.

So whether Jesus was allowed in a temple or not would have no bearing on the accounts John gives of people being removed from the Temple for calling Jesus the Christ...

How would exactly prove he was not an eyewitness then?

[LittleLes]

Matt 24:36- 38 "Amen, I say to you, this generation 20 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 and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. "

Jesus is quoted as saying that he doesn't know the day and hour of end times.

The on-line Catholic Encyclopedia points out:

Petavius (De Incarnatione, I, xii, c. 4) maintains that there is no controversy among theologians, or even among Christians, as to the fact that the soul of Jesus Christ was endowed with the beatific vision (see HEAVEN) from the beginning of its existence. He knew God immediately in His essence, or, in other words, beheld Him face to face as the blessed in heaven.

And even as reported in John, evidently not an eyewitness, but reporting hearsay:

John 14:28 If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.

"Greater than I" is not identity.

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 27 2005, 07:28 PM'] "If the author of the Gospel of John were an eyewitness, presumably the author would have known that Jesus and his compatriots were permitted to enter the synagogues. But at several points it is stated that those who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ during the life of Jesus were put out of the synagogue. This anachronism is inconceivable as the product of an eyewitness."

It evidences that the writer of John was not an eyewitness to the events he described, ergo, was not the Apostle John. [/quote]
You've still done absolutely nothing to prove that John was not a first-hand witness of Christ (and the author of this gospel a bald-faced liar and perjurer!).

You haven't cited the verses in question or explained how they are contradictory. (And CatholicCid refutes you in the next post and you do not even acknowledge this!)

You've said basically, "So-and-so says that John was not an eyewitness, ergo John was not an eyewitness."

Nice job of circular reasoning!

[Guest JeffCR07]

LittleLes, God Bless, and the Peace of the Risen Lord be upon you,

I would like to call into question the basic outlook of your argument thus far:

In your quest for proof of the fact that the early Church believed in the Divinity of Christ, you have, it seems, rejected any evidence that comes from anything that is not of the synoptic Gospels. Now I thus see your argument as being posited in this way (if I am doing injustice to your position, please correct me):

"The primitive Church did not believe in the Divinity of Christ, because the synoptic Gospels - the earliest written accounts, do not contain such a teaching. Moreover, because writings such as the Gospel of John and other texts came later, I do not consider them to be evidence in support of the thesis that the primitive Church was a Church of High Christology."

The problem that I have with this argument is that it is a logical fallacy. The above, if I have correctly understood your argument, is an argument from silence. In a sense, it is "X does not explicitly state Y, therefore not Y." However, this kind of argument is erroneous, and does not hold up to logical scrutiny. Just because Y is not explicitly contained within X does not mean that Y is untrue, or even that Y is not implicitly contained within that X.

I apologize for our little trist into formal logic, but it should help clarify things, so lets apply this to the situation:

Let us imagine that you are correct, and that the synoptic gospels do not contain any explicit teaching that Jesus Christ is Divine. This does not necessarily mean that such a believe was not held, it only means that such a believe was not manifest in those particular writings.

Moreover, it would be utterly irrational to assume that the primitive Church had definitively answered the question of "who is Christ?" Christology is still an active and growing field. It is the nature of the development of doctrine to explicitly state those things which are implicitly contained within a given belief system, while explicitly rejecting those things which are not contained implicitly.

Basically, to sum up the above, your argument is multiply flawed. First, an argument from silence shows nothing, and thus your whole argument is incapable of proving that the primitive Church did not believe Jesus was Divine. Moreover, even if we were to illogically and irrationally grant you your argument from silence, you would only have shown that the primitive Church did not [i]explicitly[/i] profess Christ's Divinity, and would not have shown that such a believe was [i]implicitly[/i] contained in their explicit beliefs.

In Christ,

Jeff

[Guest JeffCR07]

Socrates, I am certainly not scolding you, for such is not my place, but I think it prudent to remind you that it is not essential to the Faith that we believe the Gospel of John to be the actual penmanship of John himself.

It is perfectly permissible to believe that the Gospel of John was written by an early member of the Johannine community, who pseudonimously attributed the work to his teacher, so long as one maintain that the author was indeed Inspired when it was written.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 27 2005, 07:47 PM'] Matt 24:36- 38 "Amen, I say to you, this generation 20 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 and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. "

Jesus is quoted as saying that he doesn't know the day and hour of end times.

The on-line Catholic Encyclopedia points out:

Petavius (De Incarnatione, I, xii, c. 4) maintains that there is no controversy among theologians, or even among Christians, as to the fact that the soul of Jesus Christ was endowed with the beatific vision (see HEAVEN) from the beginning of its existence. He knew God immediately in His essence, or, in other words, beheld Him face to face as the blessed in heaven.

And even as reported in John, evidently not an eyewitness, but reporting hearsay:

John 14:28 If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.

"Greater than I" is not identity. [/quote]
Exactly how the human nature of Christ interacted with His divine nature is a supernatural mystery we can never fully understand.

Go the Father is greater than Christ in His limited Human Nature. This again is part of the profound mystery of the Incarnation.

Christ also said "The Father and I are One." (John 10:30)

And John 8:58 -

[quote]The Jews then said, You are not fifty yet and you have seen Abraham!"
Jesus replied:

"I tell you most solemnly,
before Abraham ever was,
[b]I Am.[/b]

At this they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus his himself and left the temple.[/quote]

"I Am" was the Sacred Name of God revealed to Moses. For identifying Himself with almighty God, the Jews tried to stone Christ.

[Socrates]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='May 27 2005, 08:14 PM'] LittleLes, God Bless, and the Peace of the Risen Lord be upon you,

I would like to call into question the basic outlook of your argument thus far:

In your quest for proof of the fact that the early Church believed in the Divinity of Christ, you have, it seems, rejected any evidence that comes from anything that is not of the synoptic Gospels. Now I thus see your argument as being posited in this way (if I am doing injustice to your position, please correct me):

"The primitive Church did not believe in the Divinity of Christ, because the synoptic Gospels - the earliest written accounts, do not contain such a teaching. Moreover, because writings such as the Gospel of John and other texts came later, I do not consider them to be evidence in support of the thesis that the primitive Church was a Church of High Christology."

The problem that I have with this argument is that it is a logical fallacy. The above, if I have correctly understood your argument, is an argument from silence. In a sense, it is "X does not explicitly state Y, therefore not Y." However, this kind of argument is erroneous, and does not hold up to logical scrutiny. Just because Y is not explicitly contained within X does not mean that Y is untrue, or even that Y is not implicitly contained within that X.

I apologize for our little trist into formal logic, but it should help clarify things, so lets apply this to the situation:

Let us imagine that you are correct, and that the synoptic gospels do not contain any explicit teaching that Jesus Christ is Divine. This does not necessarily mean that such a believe was not held, it only means that such a believe was not manifest in those particular writings.

Moreover, it would be utterly irrational to assume that the primitive Church had definitively answered the question of "who is Christ?" Christology is still an active and growing field. It is the nature of the development of doctrine to explicitly state those things which are implicitly contained within a given belief system, while explicitly rejecting those things which are not contained implicitly.

Basically, to sum up the above, your argument is multiply flawed. First, an argument from silence shows nothing, and thus your whole argument is incapable of proving that the primitive Church did not believe Jesus was Divine. Moreover, even if we were to illogically and irrationally grant you your argument from silence, you would only have shown that the primitive Church did not [i]explicitly[/i] profess Christ's Divinity, and would not have shown that such a believe was [i]implicitly[/i] contained in their explicit beliefs.

In Christ,

Jeff [/quote]
Hi Jeff,

Thanks for pointing out the logical fallacy of Littleles' arguments, but his very [b]premises [/b] remain flawed. The synoptics do indeed contain evidence for Christ's divinity as I have shown.
Also, Littleles has given no conclusive evidence against the Johannine authorship of John's gospel.

So we have a fallacious argument resting on false premises - in other words no argument at all!

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 27 2005, 08:22 PM'] Exactly how the human nature of Christ interacted with His divine nature is a supernatural mystery we can never fully understand.

Go the Father is greater than Christ in His limited Human Nature. This again is part of the profound mystery of the Incarnation.

Christ also said "The Father and I are One." (John 10:30)

And John 8:58 -



"I Am" was the Sacred Name of God revealed to Moses. For identifying Himself with almighty God, the Jews tried to stone Christ. [/quote]
I think once again you are quoting John, the only Gospel writer to use the "I am" claim which is consistent with the gnostic concept of the "Word" or the "Logos."

The writer of John seems very confused about Jesus' identity, but evidently Jesus is different from God the Father.


John 10:30 "I cannot do anything on my own; I judge as I hear, and my judgment is just, because I do not seek my own will but the will of the one who sent me.
Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me,

John 6:38-39

“…because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day. “

No power to do anything on his own. And not to do his own will, but the will of one who sent him. Different wills then? We're realy getting into polytheism here!

Rather inescapably different entities. Or God is very conflicted!

[Archangel]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 26 2005, 02:31 AM']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[/quote]
This is a red herring:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

You've just proven your red herring by attacking the [u]authorship[/u] of 2 Peter rather than the topic under discussion, [u]the divinity of Jesus[/u]:

1. Fidei quoted 2 Peter 1 in an attempt to prove that Jesus was divine. (Topic A)
2. 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. (Topic B)
3. Hence, Fidei's claim of what St Peter actually said is disproven. (Topic A is abandoned)



The synoptic gospels do have many references to the divinity of Jesus. You just don't want to believe them.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Archangel' date='May 28 2005, 03:03 AM'] This is a red herring:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

You've just proven your red herring by attacking the [u]authorship[/u] of 2 Peter rather than the topic under discussion, [u]the divinity of Jesus[/u]:

1. Fidei quoted 2 Peter 1 in an attempt to prove that Jesus was divine. (Topic A)
2. 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. (Topic B)
3. Hence, Fidei's claim of what St Peter actually said is disproven. (Topic A is abandoned)



The synoptic gospels do have many references to the divinity of Jesus. You just don't want to believe them.

[/quote]
Actually, whether 2 Peter, allegedly claiming the divinity of Jesus, was written by Peter, a witness, or much later by a nonwitness, is very relevant.

You had best review basic logic and the rules for evidence.