Divinity of Christ

[LittleLes]

[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]
It is evident from your rebuttal that you do not understand the points I have made. Perhaps, you would want to reread my posts.

Here is where to begin . An assertion (eg Jesus was divine) must be proven to exist. The proof must be provided by the person making the assertion. Never by the person presenting the rebuttal.


One cannot begin an argument by assuming that the assertion is correct (eg "St. Peter lived in Brooklyn because nothing in the New Testament says he didn't." or "Jesus must to have been divine because the Gospel we call John's says so.")

And than expecting the assertion to be accepted as correct.

Edited May 28, 2005 by LittleLes

[LittleLes]

Since the gospel claimed to have been authored by John is the only one of the four that really claims divinity for Jesus, let examine just what John is claiming.

" In Greek thought, Logos described the part of God that acts in the world. Origen of Alexandria called it the soul that holds the universe together. Clement tells us that each man has the "image of the Word [Logos]" within him, and it is for this reason that Genesis says man is made "in the image and likeness of God."[14] Philo, one of the greatest Jewish philosophers and a contemporary of Christ, called the Logos "[G]od’s Likeness, by whom the whole [c]osmos was fashioned." Philo believed great human beings like Moses could personify the Logos."

John 1:1-6 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. "

This concept is not found in the Synoptic Gospels. It was a later development by the writer of John. What might this suggest about the background of the writer of what we call the Gospel of John?

Edited May 28, 2005 by LittleLes

[Archangel]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 28 2005, 01:04 AM'] 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. [/quote]
The Church has determined that 2 Peter is canon and inspired Scripture. Arguing about the authorship is just a lame attempt to divert attention away from the matter at hand regarding the divinity of Jesus.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Archangel' date='May 28 2005, 05:32 AM'] The Church has determined that 2 Peter is canon and inspired Scripture. Arguing about the authorship is just a lame attempt to divert attention away from the matter at hand regarding the divinity of Jesus.  [/quote]


I think it was yourself who attempted to use 2 Peter as evidence. Not I.

"Inspired" or not, since 2 Peter was not written by the Peter, its only hearsay at best.

The Church selected those writings for inclusion in the canon which she thought at the time best represented her evolving theology. And then claimed "inspiration" for them. It made a big mistake including John however.

Because some writing is in the canon or not in the canon is no evidence of its accuracy. Only its (then) popularity.

Edited May 28, 2005 by LittleLes

[Guest JeffCR07]

Les, you have not actually replied to the subject of my post:

You are making the claim that the primitive Church did not believe in the Divinity of Christ.

Now all evidence points to the fact that you are wrong: The later councils of the Church espouse this belief and the purpose of such councils was to refute heresy (individual opinion) and establish orthodoxy (the true faith of the apostles). Moreover, as you have admitted, the Gospel of John also espouses such a belief.

Thus, your claim: that the primitive Church did not believe in the Divinity of Christ, is counterintuitive, and desires proof.

However, the extent of your argument thus far has been an argument from silence, which shows nothing.

Please offer positive proof that the primitive Church asserted that Christ was not divine, or else drop your argument.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='May 28 2005, 09:05 AM']

Please offer positive proof that the primitive Church asserted that Christ was not divine, or else drop your argument. [/quote]
Whoa. I didn't make the assertion that the primative Church believed in the divinity of Jesus. So convincing evidence that it did in fact do so should be presented by whoever makes such a claim, rather than making me disprove what was never established in the first place. The "everybody knows..." argument is without foundation. Whoever makes the assertion is responsible for proviing it!

However, being the nice guy that I am, let me present this from our old favorite apologetics text, the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia:

(Note that the members of the original Christian sect which existed within orthodox Judaism were known as followers of "The Way" or Nazarenes. Ebionites was a later term applied to these original Jewish Christians).

"Recent scholars have plausibly maintained that the term did not originally designate any heretical sect, but merely the orthodox Jewish Christians of Palestine who continued to observe the Mosaic Law."

"The doctrines of this sect are said by Irenaeus to be like those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ; they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law; they regarded St. Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew (Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2; III, xxi, 2; IV, xxxiii, 4; V, i, 3).

Also observe in Acts, the Jewish leaders had no quarrel with the possibility that Jesus might be the Messiah and tolerated his followers. But that would not have been the case if his followers had insisted on his divinity which would, of course, be an egregious contradiction to Judaic monotheism.

Acts 5:34-39: " But a Pharisee in the Sanhedrin named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, respected by all the people, stood up, ordered the men to be put outside for a short time, and said to them, "Fellow Israelites, be careful what you are about to do to these men. Some time ago, Theudas appeared, claiming to be someone important, and about four hundred men joined him, but he was killed, and all those who were loyal to him were disbanded and came to nothing.

After him came Judas the Galilean at the time of the census. He also drew people after him, but he too perished and all who were loyal to him were scattered.
So now I tell you, have nothing to do with these men, and let them go. For if this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself.

But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God." They were persuaded by him." (NAB)

[Archangel]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 28 2005, 04:56 AM']

I think it was yourself who attempted to use 2 Peter as evidence. Not I.

"Inspired" or not, since 2 Peter was not written by the Peter, its only hearsay at best.

The Church selected those writings for inclusion in the canon which she thought at the time best represented her evolving theology. And then claimed "inspiration" for them. It made a big mistake including John however.

Because some writing is in the canon or not in the canon is no evidence of its accuracy. Only its (then) popularity. [/quote]
Actually, if you go back and re-read the posts, I just wanted to point out that you brought up a red herring. Which you did.

Nevertheless, 2 Peter is considered canon and inspired. It was not included because of its "popularity", but because of its inspiration. Nothing in 2 Peter contradicts Church teachings and all of it supports what it taught by the Church.

Going back to the topic at hand, the Divnity of Jesus, 2 Peter supports this belief. [b]The Divinity of Jesus is a belief that goes back to the dawn of Christianity as evidenced from the letter regardless of who actually wrote it.[/b]

As you said earlier when you quoted the NAB introduction:

[quote]It gives the impression of being more remote in time from the apostolic period than 1 Peter; indeed, [b]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.[/b][/quote]

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Archangel' date='May 30 2005, 01:31 AM']

Nevertheless, 2 Peter is considered canon and inspired. It was not included because of its "popularity", but because of its inspiration. Nothing in 2 Peter contradicts Church teachings and all of it supports what it taught by the Church.

Going back to the topic at hand, the Divnity of Jesus, 2 Peter supports this belief. [b]The Divinity of Jesus is a belief that goes back to the dawn of Christianity as evidenced from the letter regardless of who actually wrote it.[/b]

As you said earlier when you quoted the NAB introduction:



[/quote]
(1) So you are claiming that all the scriptures containing in the Catholic canon of Scripture are "inspired," is that it? Can inspired writings contain contradictions and errors?

(2) And from the Introduction to 2 Peter from 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."

In sum, contrary to the evidence you attempted to argue, a pseudonymous work of the second century is absolutely no evidence that Peter considered Jesus to be divine.

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 27 2005, 10:39 PM'] 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! [/quote]
John is not confused about Jesus' identity; it is you who are confused!

The Catholic Church teaches that the Trinity is Three Persons in one God, and that the exact nature of the Trinity is a mystery beyond the power of the human intellect (and certainly Littleles' wilfully ignorant intellect!) to comprehend.

Jesus is God the Son (the Word of God) incarnate as man. God the Son is a seperate Person from God the Father (and God the Holy Spirit), yet all three Divine Persons are One God.

Jesus Christ has two natures: human and divine.

You need a lesson in basic theology!


The quotes you give prove the divinity of Christ, not refute it!

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 28 2005, 05:30 AM'] Since the gospel claimed to have been authored by John is the only one of the four that really claims divinity for Jesus, let examine just what John is claiming.

  " In Greek thought, Logos described the part of God that acts in the world. Origen of Alexandria called it the soul that holds the universe together. Clement tells us that each man has the "image of the Word [Logos]" within him, and it is for this reason that Genesis says man is made "in the image and likeness of God."[14] Philo, one of the greatest Jewish philosophers and a contemporary of Christ, called the Logos "[G]od’s Likeness, by whom the whole [c]osmos was fashioned." Philo believed great human beings like Moses could personify the Logos."

John 1:1-6  "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.  All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race;  the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. "

This concept is not found in the Synoptic Gospels. It was a later development by the writer of John. What might this suggest about the background of the writer of what we call the Gospel of John?  [/quote]
As myself and others have shown, the synoptic gospels do indeed claim divinity for Jesus. (Jesus' virgin birth, divine testimony at His baptism and the Transfiguration, and Jesus' reply at His trial before the Sanhedrin.) No need to repeat in detail what I have already posted, but you have failed to make a convincing case otherwise. (you can go back and reread my posts on this subject - I'm tired of endlessly repeating myself)
Therefore any further arguments from the premise that the synoptics do not offer evidence of Christ's divinity are worthless.


Your quotes offer no proof against John being the offer of that gospel, nor against the divinity of Christ. They do prove the author beleived in Christ's divinity.

Edited May 30, 2005 by Socrates

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 30 2005, 12:11 PM'] John is not confused about Jesus' identity; it is you who are confused!

The Catholic Church teaches that the Trinity is Three Persons in one God, and that the exact nature of the Trinity is a mystery beyond the power of the human intellect (and certainly Littleles' wilfully ignorant intellect!) to comprehend.

Jesus is God the Son (the Word of God) incarnate as man. God the Son is a seperate Person from God the Father (and God the Holy Spirit), yet all three Divine Persons are One God.

Jesus Christ has two natures: human and divine.

You need a lesson in basic theology!


The quotes you give prove the divinity of Christ, not refute it! [/quote]
(1) Yes. The Catholic Church determined by majority vote at Constantine's urging at the Council of Nicea in 325 the Christ indeed was divine and the Trinity existed. Did you ever notice that when the Church can't explain a contradiction, it then becomes a "mystery."?

(2) Please note that according to Catholic theology, Jesus always enjoyed the Beatific Vision and was never without his divine nature. Consequently, he would not be ignorant of when end time would occur. But evidently he was.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 30 2005, 12:24 PM'] As myself and others have shown, the synoptic gospels do indeed claim divinity for Jesus.  (Jesus' virgin birth, divine testimony at His baptism and the Transfiguration, and Jesus' reply at His trial before the Sanhedrin.)  No need to repeat in detail what I have already posted, but you have failed to make a convincing case otherwise.  (you can go back and reread my posts on this subject - I'm tired of endlessly repeating myself)
Therefore any further arguments from the premise that the synoptics do not offer evidence of Christ's divinity are worthless.


Your quotes offer no proof against John being the offer of that gospel, nor against the divinity of Christ.  They do prove the author beleived in Christ's divinity. [/quote]
No. Jesus never claimed he was divine nor did the Synoptic writers claim that he did. Neither "Son of God," which Jesus didn't use to describe himself, nor Messiah are claims of divinity.

And you are confusing legends and literary devices with historical events. Divine testimony supposedly at his baptism according to Mark, later copied by Matthew and Luke, but not reported by John; conflicting natavity narratives; and claims of a virgin birth not supported by Paul, Mark, or John, but based on a mistranslation of the Hebrew are not history.

And constantly repeating the same error does not make it any less of an error.

Edited May 30, 2005 by LittleLes

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 30 2005, 12:31 PM'] (1) Yes. The Catholic Church determined by majority vote at Constantine's urging at the Council of Nicea in 325 the Christ indeed was divine and the Trinity existed. Did you ever notice that when the Church can't explain a contradiction, it then becomes a "mystery."?

(2) Please note that according to Catholic theology, Jesus always enjoyed the Beatific Vision and was never without his divine nature. Consequently, he would not be ignorant of when end time would occur. But evidently he was. [/quote]
(1) As I have shown at the beginning of this post, the divinity of Christ was firmly believed in by Christians long before 325. Your assertion that this was some new beleif which arose at that time is false, as has been repeatedly proven. Time you give it up!


There is no contradiction in the Trinity - a mystery is something whose depth goes beyond the limited power of the intellect to comprehend. If we could fully grasp the nature of God, He wouldn't be much of a God, would He?) How about a littleles pride and a little more humility and intellectual honesty!

(2) Jesus always had His divine nature, yet, on earth as man, took on weakness and limitations according to his human nature (including letting himself suffer pain torture, and death).

[Qoheleth]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 30 2005, 01:31 PM'] (1) Yes. The Catholic Church determined by majority vote at Constantine's urging at the Council of Nicea in 325 the Christ indeed was divine and the Trinity existed. Did you ever notice that when the Church can't explain a contradiction, it then becomes a "mystery."? [/quote]
The "majority vote" argument is not entirely accurate. It was not a vote per se, but signing a document, and only two bishops, out of the more than three hundred gathered at Nicea, refused to sign. Their Arian view (that Jesus was only semi-divine) had been considered heretical beforehand, and continued to be afterwards.

The idea of the Trinity has been around at least since Mt 28:19 was written.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 30 2005, 01:31 PM']Did you ever notice that when the Church can't explain a contradiction, it then becomes a "mystery."? [/quote]
A mystery is never a contradiction. A mystery is a truth that cannot be proven through reason alone. For more information:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10662a.htm"]Mystery (Catholic Encyclopedia link)[/url]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 30 2005, 01:31 PM'](2) Please note that according to Catholic theology, Jesus always enjoyed the Beatific Vision and was never without his divine nature. Consequently, he would not be ignorant of when end time would occur. But evidently he was. [/quote]
The reference is [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/mark/mark13.htm#v32"]Mark 13:32[/url] and [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew24.htm#v36"]Matthew 24:36[/url].

Please note: In the Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas addresses your misinterpretation of these verses:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/401002.htm"]Whether the Son of God knew all things in the Word? (link)[/url]

[quote name='LittleLes']No. Jesus never claimed he was divine nor did the Synoptic writers claim that he did. Neither "Son of God," which Jesus didn't use to describe himself, nor Messiah are claims of divinity.[/quote]
I suppose you're waiting for a verse like, "Hi, I'm God. Glad to meet you."

So what are the game's rules? We can only use the Synoptics. It must be Jesus quoted by the Synoptics. Is that the parameters for the moment?

How about we start with the Gospel of St. Luke: [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke22.htm#v70"](link)[/url]:
[quote name='Luke 22:70' date='71']They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied to them, "You say that I am."  Then they said, "What further need have we for testimony? [u]We have heard it from his own mouth[/u]." [/quote]

[quote name='LittleLes']And constantly repeating the same error does not make it any less of an error.[/quote]
An ironic admission.