Divinity of Christ

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 30 2005, 12:38 PM'] 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.

[/quote]
Well, well, well - More of the same tired old Littleles game.

When on trial, Jesus answered that He was the Son of God in the affirmative, as when Peter said this of him (both in the "synoptics").

According to Littleles' "expanation" of this inconvenient fact, this was all just a metaphor meaning "just man." Yet, then Jesus was willing to risk death while in court under oath on account of a metaphor??

He replied that indeed he was the Son of God, and that he would be seated at the right hand of God (implying equality with God), at which the Chief Priest and Sanhedrin immediately accused Him of blasphemy!

If Jesus only meant to say He was a just man, why would He even make such a reply in court? (If that was the case, then Jesus would indeed not be divine, but an idiot!) This interpretation of Littleles is absurd!

And of course, everything else in the synoptics affirming Christ's divinity Littleles disregards as "legends and literary devices." How convenient!

("The 'synoptic' gospels have nothing saying Christ was divine -but if they do, they don't really mean it!")

Then, on no solid basis, Littles, rejects the Gospel of John. ("Too much stuff saying Christ was divine - Can't be a trustwothy source!")

Likewise with St. Paul, and with the quotes from members of the Early Church.

Rules of the Littleles game - Claim that the early Christians did not beleive in Christ's divinity, then ignore or reject as untrustworthy every piece of evidence to the contrary.

[quote]And constantly repeating the same error does not make it any less of an error. [/quote]
Indeed, Littleles, indeed!

Edited May 30, 2005 by Socrates

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 30 2005, 02:14 PM'] Well, well, well - More of the same tired old Littleles game.

When on trial, Jesus answered that He was the Son of God in the affirmative, as when Peter said this of him (both in the "synoptics"). 

According to Littleles' "expanation" of this inconvenient fact, this was all just a metaphor meaning "just man."  Yet, then Jesus was willing to risk death while in court under oath on account of a metaphor??

He replied that indeed he was the Son of God, and that he would be seated at the right hand of God (implying equality with God), at which the Chief Priest and Sanhedrin immediately accused Him of blasphemy! 

If Jesus only meant to say He was a just man, why would He even make such a reply in court?  (If that was the case, then Jesus would indeed not be divine, but an idiot!)  This interpretation of Littleles is absurd!

And of course, everything else in the synoptics affirming Christ's divinity Littleles disregards as "legends and literary devices."  How convenient!

("The 'synoptic' gospels have nothing saying Christ was divine -but if they do, they don't really mean it!")

Then, on no solid basis, Littles, rejects the Gospel of John.  ("Too much stuff saying Christ was divine - Can't be a trustwothy source!")

Likewise with St. Paul, and with the quotes from members of the Early Church.

Rules of the Littleles game - Claim that the early Christians did not beleive in Christ's divinity, then ignore or reject as untrustworthy every piece of evidence to the contrary.


Indeed, Littleles, indeed!  [/quote]
(1) I think I've explained this three times now and cited the New American Bible's esplanation. Jesus' use of the term "the Power" thought to be a synomym for God that no one was allowed to speak was the "blasphemy" which the Gospel writers claim condemned him. "Son of God," as I also explained and cited in the CE, was a common term and would not have caused any difficulty. Nor by itself was a claim to messiahship for the Pharisees. But it would for the Romans and the Sadduces since this could involve Jewish kingship.

It was the kingship claim for which Jesus was executed. Luke attests to this in Luke 23:1-5:

" Then the whole assembly of them arose and brought him before Pilate.
They brought charges against him, saying, "We found this man misleading our people; he opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar and maintains that he is the Messiah, a king. Pilate asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" He said to him in reply, "You say so." Pilate then addressed the chief priests and the crowds, "I find this man not guilty."

But they were adamant and said, "He is inciting the people with his teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee where he began even to here."

Note: THERE IS NO CLAIM OF BLASPHEMY!

And the criminal charge nailed to the cross indicating the reason for the execution was:

Luke 23:38 "Above him there was an inscription that read, "This is the King of the Jews."


(2) And perhaps the best evidence that Jesus didn't claim divinity was that his original followers did not make such a claim. They remained instead a sect within orthodox Judaism. If they had claimed the divinity of Jesus, they would have been expelled, as later they were. But originally, they made no such claim nor did they attempt to found a "church." They remained orthodox Jews followers of "the Way" also called the Nazarenes.

As Ancient Pathways points out:

"Josephus reports four main sects or schools of Judaism: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots. The earliest followers of Jesus were known as Nazarenes, and perhaps later, Ebionites, and form an important part of the picture of Palestinian Jewish groups in late 2nd Temple times.

"The Ebionite/Nazarene movement was made up of the mostly Jewish/Israelite, followers of John the Baptizer, and later Jesus, who were concentrated in Palestine and surrounding regions, and led by “James the Just,” oldest brother of Jesus, flourishing between the years 30-80 CE. They were zealous for the Torah, and continued to walk in all the mitzvot (commandments) as enlightened by their Rabbi and Teacher, accepting non-Jews into their fellowship on the basis of some version of the Noachide Laws (Acts 15 and 21)."

(3) And I've already shown the evolution of John's Gnostic claim identifying Jesus with the "Logos" or "Word." This isn't found in the earlier Gospels.

Edited May 30, 2005 by LittleLes

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 30 2005, 03:05 PM'] (1) I think I've explained this three times now and cited the New American Bible's esplanation. Jesus' use of the term "the Power" thought to be a synomym for God that no one was allowed to speak was the "blasphemy" which the Gospel writers claim condemned him. "Son of God," as I also explained and cited in the CE, was a common term and would not have caused any difficulty. Nor by itself was a claim to messiahship for the Pharisees. But it would for the Romans and the Sadduces since this could involve Jewish kingship.

It was the kingship claim for which Jesus was executed. Luke attests to this in Luke 23:1-5:

" Then the whole assembly of them arose and brought him before Pilate. 
They brought charges against him, saying, "We found this man misleading our people; he opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar and maintains that he is the Messiah, a king. Pilate asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" He said to him in reply, "You say so." Pilate then addressed the chief priests and the crowds, "I find this man not guilty."

But they were adamant and said, "He is inciting the people with his teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee where he began even to here."

Note: THERE IS NO CLAIM OF BLASPHEMY!

And the criminal charge nailed to the cross indicating the reason for the execution was:

Luke 23:38  "Above him there was an inscription that read, "This is the King of the Jews."


(2) And perhaps the best evidence that Jesus didn't claim divinity was that his original followers did not make such a claim. They remained instead a sect within orthodox Judaism. If they had claimed the divinity of Jesus, they would have been expelled, as later they were. But originally, they made no such claim nor did they attempt to found a "church." They remained orthodox Jews followers of "the Way" also called the Nazarenes.

As Ancient Pathways points out:

"Josephus reports four main sects or schools of Judaism: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots. The earliest followers of Jesus were known as Nazarenes, and perhaps later, Ebionites, and form an important part of the picture of Palestinian Jewish groups in late 2nd Temple times.

"The Ebionite/Nazarene movement was made up of the mostly Jewish/Israelite, followers of John the Baptizer, and later Jesus, who were concentrated in Palestine and surrounding regions, and led by “James the Just,” oldest brother of Jesus, flourishing between the years 30-80 CE. They were zealous for the Torah, and continued to walk in all the mitzvot (commandments) as enlightened by their Rabbi and Teacher, accepting non-Jews into their fellowship on the basis of some version of the Noachide Laws (Acts 15 and 21)."

(3) And I've already shown the evolution of John's Gnostic claim identifying Jesus with the "Logos" or "Word." This isn't found in the earlier Gospels. [/quote]
(1) As I've refuted it at least three times. As you've said, endless repetition of an error does not make it true. No need to keep goin in circles here.
Jesus not only spoke the word but said He would be seated at God's right hand. This implication of equality with God was found blasphemous.

Why was He even questioned about being the "Son of God" if this term was so innocuous?

Why would Jesus needlessly speak something regarded as blasphemous when on trial??

Why did Jesus give that provocative reply, if He did not consider Himself to truly be the Son of God, rather than giving a defence of Himself to explain "what He really meant" by all this? After all, His own life was a stake here!

Your "refutation" is extremely unconvincing to say the least, and there's no need to continue repeating myself to once more refute this nonsense.

It is made clear numerous times in John that the Jewish leaders wanted to kill Christ on charges of blasphemy for claiming equality with God. This does not contradict the synoptics.

The Jews brought Christ before the Romans to be crucified. Obviously, bringing charges of insurrection was the only way to get the Romans to kill him, as the pagan Romans could care less about claims to divinity. This in no way contradicts the fact that Jesus claimed to be divine. What the Romans thought is beside the point.

(2) you have provided no evidence that Jesus' original followers did not claim Christ's divinity. The Nazarenes were not the same as the Christian Church.
All the citations I have given from the "early" Church support the divinity of Christ.
Even you admit that St. John and St. Paul beleived in Christ's divinity (though you seem to keep changing your mind on this as it suits you). St. Paul personally knew St. Peter and the other leaders of the early Church. If St. Paul or St. John believed something contrary to St. Peter and the other original Christians regarding the divinity of Christ, wouldn't there be conflict at that time. Why were there no arguments from the "early Christians" against the those that taught Christ was divine?

As historian Dr. Warren Carroll writes:

"If Christ did not claim to be God, perform miracles, rise from the dead, and appear resurrected in the flesh, then there were many alive when the gospels were first written and circulated who knew what He had really taught and done, and in faithfullness to His memory would have resisted and denounced the innovations of writers attributing to Him claims of divinity He never made. All religions and ideologies produce strong and active opposition to attempted major innovations and reinterpretations. But there is absolutely no evidence of any group in the first century which claimed to follow Christ but did not accept His divinity. Surely in all the controversial letters of St. Paul, at least, there would have been some referrence, however derogatory, to such a group and its beliefs, if it existed. There is none. Only in the second centruy A.D., after teh close of the Apostolic Age, and beyond living meory of Christ, does the Ebionite sect of Christian Jews appear, denying that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God though honoring Him as one through whom God spoke and acted in a special way. What the critics who deny the Incarnation must regard as the original and correct interpretation of the Life of Jesus turns out to have almost exactly the same late date they orignially attempted, without lasting success even on their own academic terms, to impute to the Gospel."

(3) There is nothing contradicting this in the other Gospels. John simply gives more detailed theological explanations than the other gospels. There is no contradiction.

Edited May 30, 2005 by Socrates

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 30 2005, 06:18 PM']

Why was He even questioned about being the "Son of God" if this term was so innocuous?

[/quote]
Jesus was questioned about his claim to be the Messiah which involved Jewish kingship. But in forming his answer he used the term "Power" in reference to God wrongly claimed to be blasphemy.


"But he was silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him and said to him, "Are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One?" Then Jesus answered, "I am; and 'you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.'"


The New American Bible offers a concise explanation on the Jesus' "blasphemy". Please note, it has nothing to do with the term "Son of God."

" 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."



The Romans didn't care about Jewish theology or even blasphemy. But the claim of kingship, which was posted as the reason for Jesus' execution, was what caused him to be condemned.

"Then the whole assembly of them arose and brought him before Pilate.
They brought charges against him, saying, "We found this man misleading our people; he opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar and maintains that he is the Messiah, a king." Pilate asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" He said to him in reply, "You say so."

Jesus' claim to be king might have inspired revolution against Rome. Thus:

"If we leave him alone, all will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our land and our nation." But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing, nor do you consider that it is better for you that one man should die instead of the people, so that the whole nation may not perish."

Edited May 31, 2005 by LittleLes

[CatholicCid]

[quote]This is usually a difficult subject since we are dealing with the mystery between the human and divine natures in Christ. But the Church has been very firm that Christ had full knowledge present with him on earth, and still does in heaven.

Gregory the Great tried to explain Matthew 24:36 by saying that Christ knew the day and hour of Judgment Day, but that that divine knowledge did not come from his human nature. I appreciate Gregory's attempt, but I personally don't like the explanation. The text is clear that Christ is putting himself in the same category as the angels and everyone else who do not know the day and hour.

The question is: do we use grammatical/historical exegesis, or in this case does theology override the plain meaning of the text? A Thomist would be more inclinded to the latter, but a phenomenologist would be more inclinded to the former.

Pius X seems to lean more to former option in his syllabus of errors saying that "The natural sense of the evangelical texts cannot be reconciled with that which our theologians teach about the consciousness and the infallible knowledge of Jesus Christ" is in error. However, Pius X is only saying that it is wrong to say that the biblical texts cannot be RECONCILED with Christ's infallible knowledge, not that the biblical texts cannot be taken at face value and Christ's infallible knowledge be taken at face value. As such, Pius leaves room for the mystery but condemns the idea that there is a contradiction between the biblical text and Christ's infallible knowledge. Unfortunately, he does not offer a solution to the seeming contradiction.

The Holy Office of 1918 answered questions regarding the "soul" of Christ, that is, whether the soul of Christ enjoyed the beatific vision while on earth; whether the soul of Christ knew all things; and whether there is no limitation to the knowledge of Christ's soul. They said in all three cases Christ enjoyed these divine benefits. Pius XII in Mystici Corporis also said Christ enjoyed the beatific vision while on earth.

But again, as we saw in Pius X, the Holy Office does not attempt an exegetical reconciliation between the face value meaning of the biblical text (e.g., Matthew 24:36) and Christ's infallible knowledge.

As it stands, the preponderant testimony from the Church (although it has not been defined, and probably never will be) is that Christ had complete and infallible knowledge while on earth at least in his "soul," but no one has offered a sufficient grammatical/historical exegesis of passages such as Matthew 24:36. As I see it, it will simply not suffice to say that: "Well, it doesn't matter what Matthew 24:36's face value meaning is, Christ had infallible knowledge because our theology says so." We, as Catholics, surely aren't so bold when it comes to passages such as John 6:54 which, in its plain meaning, dictates to us that we are to eat Christ's flesh, while our theology of transubstantiation simply does not do adequate justice to the nature of the eucharist (although it is the best we have).

As such, since the issue has not been defined by the Church, there is still room for discussion. I believe the discussion should center around how we can properly exegete passages such as Matthew 24:36, being faithful to the grammatical meaning of the text, but, at the same time, not diminishing the infallible knowledge of Christ. Whoever comes up with it will be quite honored by the Church, I'm sure.[/quote]


Also, remember when Jesus asks his Apostles who they thought he was... Peter responds that Jesus is the Son of God... Jesus then rejoiced that Peter had figured this out but swore all the Apostles to silence at the time being.
If this term "Son Of God" meant nothing special and could be used by all, why would he silence his followers about it? There would be nothing wrong with such a term if it was such common place. There would be no need for silence and secretcy.

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 31 2005, 08:13 AM'] Jesus was questioned about his claim to be the Messiah which involved Jewish kingship. But in forming his answer he used the term "Power" in reference to God wrongly claimed to be blasphemy.


"But he was silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him and said to him, "Are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One?" Then Jesus answered, "I am; and 'you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.'"


The New American Bible offers a concise explanation on the Jesus' "blasphemy". Please note, it has nothing to do with the term "Son of God."

" 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."



The Romans didn't care about Jewish theology or even blasphemy. But the claim of kingship, which was posted as the reason for Jesus' execution, was what caused him to be condemned.

"Then the whole assembly of them arose and brought him before Pilate.
They brought charges against him, saying, "We found this man misleading our people; he opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar and maintains that he is the Messiah, a king." Pilate asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" He said to him in reply, "You say so."

Jesus' claim to be king might have inspired revolution against Rome. Thus:

"If we leave him alone, all will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our land and our nation." But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing, nor do you consider that it is better for you that one man should die instead of the people, so that the whole nation may not perish." [/quote]
Thank you, Littleles, for helping confirm my point about Christ's "blasphemy"!

If using the term, "the Power" (as recorded in Mark's gospel) was not indeed considered blasphemous, then obviously the "blasphemy" of Christ, consisted not in simply uttering that word, but in His claim to be the Son of God, and claiming that they would see him "seated at the right hand of the Power" (God), thereby implying an equality with God that any good Jew would find blasphemous!

On its face value, this statement would sound blasphemous to one who did not believe Christ was divine and literally the Son of God!

Your claim that the only thing "blasphemous" that Christ uttered was using the term "the Power" (which even your liberal NAB notes admit would not be in itself blasphemous) requires a huuuuuuuge stretch of credibility!
With this interpretation, the whole episode in the Temple makes absolutely no sense!

(2) This is a red herring, and has no bearing on my arguments concerning Christ's claims about Himself before the Sanhedrin.
If you read my posts, you'll see I never said the [b]Romans[/b] crucified Christ for blasphemy.

The charges of political insurrection were a bogus charge brought before the Roman authorities to have them crucify Christ.

These charges were false. Christ said, "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."

[LittleLes]

Hi Catholic Cid,

"This is usually a difficult subject since we are dealing with the mystery between the human and divine natures in Christ. But the Church has been very firm that Christ had full knowledge present with him on earth, and still does in heaven. "

I agree with your statement as to what the Church teaches in this case. But how do you then explain Jesus' claim that the day and hour of end times is unknown to the Son (but to God only)?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 31 2005, 01:51 PM']

If using the term, "the Power" (as recorded in Mark's gospel) was not indeed considered blasphemous, then obviously the "blasphemy" of Christ, consisted not in simply uttering that word, but in His claim to be the Son of God, and claiming that they would see him "seated at the right hand of the Power" (God), thereby implying an equality with God that any good Jew would find blasphemous!
[/quote]
No. You still aren't following what is being said.

" 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." (NAB)

There was no Blasphemy. It was a ruse. When tried before Pilate, the blasphemy charge was not mentioned, only Jesus' claim to be Messiah and King.

He was crucified for insurrection against Rome. His crime "He said I am King of the Jews."

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 31 2005, 05:41 PM'] Hi Catholic Cid,

"This is usually a difficult subject since we are dealing with the mystery between the human and divine natures in Christ. But the Church has been very firm that Christ had full knowledge present with him on earth, and still does in heaven. "

I agree with your statement as to what the Church teaches in this case. But how do you then explain Jesus' claim that the day and hour of end times is unknown to the Son (but to God only)? [/quote]
I believe Jesus held both a Divine and Human Nature.
Each Nature was on their own a part of him, but they also made him up together.
They have to be taken as individuals but also as one.

[quote]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. "[/quote]

Now, for one to even begin talking about this means they have to accept Jesus is the Son of God. If not, then the Son he is refering to could be any man by your writings, as all men can claim to be the "son of God."

I think the first paragraph is refering to Jesus' Divine side. He is showing knowledge of both that "Heaven and the Earth will pass way" and that "this generation will not pass away until all things have taken place." How can he know that the generation will not pass away until all have taken place? What does he mean by "all things have taken place"?
I'd assume this means his Death, Ressurection, and Accession, but that is only my speculation.
I think he shows his Divine side as he predicts the future somewhat.

Also as "but my words will not pass away." Well, if he is not God, how can his words live on? Surely they would eventually pass on... Unless the one speaking them is eternal?

I believe the second paragraph then shows his Human Side.
He is saying that even the Son of Man, through his Human Side alone, does not now the hour that the World will end. But since he is also God, his knows through his Divine Side.

But why would he do this?
A closer examination at the rest of the passage is needed.

Mark 13:32-37
[quote]32"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33Be on guard! Be alert[f]! You do not know when that time will come. 34It's like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with his assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch.
    35"Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. 36If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping. 37What I say to you, I say to everyone: 'Watch!' "[/quote]

I think the comparison there is great... It fits us perfectly... God gave us this world to care for... Did he go away? No... But he sent his Son down to us... and He died and left this world as he Ascended... When will he return? We do not know, all we can do is wait for his Second coming taking head to his warning.

Back on topic, I see this being said to draw us to God. It is Jesus showing he is both Human and Divine... He is saying, You do not know when the end times will be, as neither do I... Only the Lord... So Prepare for his return. Well, the Lord never left us, so this would point to the Second Coming of Christ first off. But this also allows us to bond with Christ. His human side, just like us, did not know when the world would end. He was 100% man, just like us. But he was also 100% Divine and he leaves us in care of the World as would a Master to a Servant.
We shall watch for his return.

Christ shows us that he both knows when the World will end, but he is also with us as he doesn't. The two sides that make Christ are full sides, completely by themselves. This allows us to both Praise Christ but also to connect with him as he was human just like us.


Also, On Mark 13:5-6
[quote] 5Jesus said to them: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 6Many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and will deceive many.[/quote]

Shouldn't Jesus mean "Many will come in the name of the Lord"... Unless of course, he is the Lord! Many shall come claiming they are Him, Christ Jesus! They shall claim I AM he... I AM... I am God! in the attempts to decieve us.
If Jesus was just a man, then we have no reason to worry if someone comes in his name... He is just a man... Unless he was God, then we should worry.
They shall claim I am he... I am... Isn't that what God called himself, I am?
They shall come in the name of Christ, claiming they are God? That doesn't make sense unless Christ is God.

Just my thoughts on this.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 31 2005, 06:41 PM'] Hi Catholic Cid,

"This is usually a difficult subject since we are dealing with the mystery between the human and divine natures in Christ. But the Church has been very firm that Christ had full knowledge present with him on earth, and still does in heaven. "

I agree with your statement as to what the Church teaches in this case. But how do you then explain Jesus' claim that the day and hour of end times is unknown to the Son (but to God only)? [/quote]
Apparently, St. Thomas Aquinas' answer wasn't good enough for LittleLes.

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 31 2005, 05:47 PM'] No. You still aren't following what is being said.

" 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." (NAB)

There was no Blasphemy. It was a ruse. When tried before Pilate, the blasphemy charge was not mentioned, only Jesus' claim to be Messiah and King.

He was crucified for insurrection against Rome. His crime "He said I am King of the Jews." [/quote]
I beleive I understand what you'r esaying, although I must admit the logic behind it is indeed hard to follow!

You're claiming that the Sanhedrin did not find Jesus' claim to be the Son of God and that he would come "seated at the right hand of the Power" blasphemous, but only that he uttered the word "the Power."

This is baseless and convoluted reasoning, contrary to the plain meaning of the text.

Let me repeat once more the gospel text in question:

[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]

"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."
It is clear how a Jew would consider this statement blasphemous, if he beleived Jesus to be a mere man and not the actual Son of God -as it implies an equality with God.

As I've said, I do not care much what the NAB notes say, nor accept them as the final authority on the meaning of Scripture. However, as I've pointed out, even they reveal the weakness of this interpretation:

[quote]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[/quote]

It was not just saying "the Power," but His claim that he would come "seated at the right hand of the Power" that was considered blasphemous.

For instance, if LittleLes prayerfully uttered, "may the Lord bless you," that would not be blasphemy.

If LittleLes were to proclaim, "I am the Son of God, and you shall me coming seated at the right hand of the Lord," I would rightfully regard that as blasphemy.

And I've never heard you give an explanation of why, according to you, Jesus made the reply, "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," before the Sanhedrin.

If Christ didn't mean what He was saying, and regarded himself as only a man, why would He give such a reply in court?

It's actually rather comical to see the contortions and logical gymnastics you go through to avoid the plain meaning of the text!


Again, the false charges brought before the Romans are irrelevent to what said about Himself. Your simply trying to deflect away from the issue at hand.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 31 2005, 09:29 PM'] I beleive I understand what you'r esaying, although I must admit the logic behind it is indeed hard to follow!

You're claiming that the Sanhedrin did not find Jesus' claim to be the Son of God and that he would come "seated at the right hand of the Power" blasphemous, but only that he uttered the word "the Power."

This is baseless and convoluted reasoning, contrary to the plain meaning of the text.

Let me repeat once more the gospel text in question:



"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." 
It is clear how a Jew would consider this statement blasphemous, if he beleived Jesus to be a mere man and not the actual Son of God -as it implies an equality with God.

As I've said, I do not care much what the NAB notes say, nor accept them as the final authority on the meaning of Scripture.  However, as I've pointed out, even they reveal the weakness of this interpretation:



It was not just saying "the Power," but His claim that he would come "seated at the right hand of the Power" that was considered blasphemous.

For instance, if LittleLes prayerfully uttered, "may the Lord bless you," that would not be blasphemy.

If LittleLes were to proclaim, "I am the Son of God, and you shall me coming seated at the right hand of the Lord,"  I would rightfully regard that as blasphemy.

And I've never heard you give an explanation of why, according to you, Jesus made the reply, "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," before the Sanhedrin.

If Christ didn't mean what He was saying, and regarded himself as only a man, why would He give such a reply in court? 

It's actually rather comical to see the contortions and logical gymnastics you go through to avoid the plain meaning of the text!


Again, the false charges brought before the Romans are irrelevent to what said about Himself.  Your simply trying to deflect away from the issue at hand. [/quote]
Hi Socrates,

Perhaps you should read the Old Testament and New Testament more carefully. For example, please note that Jesus is reported to have said the "Son of Man."

"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."


"The Prophet Ezechiel is addressed by God as "son of man" more than ninety times, e.g. "Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak to thee" (Ezechiel 2:1)." (see Catholic Encyclopedia)

And, of course, Ezechiel didn't die but was assumed into heaven. So he too could be coming at the right hand of the Power.


Jesus never referred to himself as the "Son of God." Always as the "Son of Man." But since "son of God" was a common title for God's agents in the Old Testament, Jesus never objected to being called the "Son of God."

So the use of "Son of Man" or "Son of God" do not imply any divinity. Only agency.

Edited June 1, 2005 by LittleLes

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 1 2005, 08:42 AM'] Hi Socrates,

Perhaps you should read the Old Testament and New Testament more carefully. For example, please note that Jesus is reported to have said the "Son of Man."

"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."

"The Prophet Ezechiel is addressed by God as "son of man" more than ninety times, e.g. "Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak to thee" (Ezechiel 2:1)." (see Catholic Encyclopedia)

And, of course, Ezechiel didn't die but was assumed into heaven. So he too could be coming at the right hand of the Power.

Jesus never referred to himself as the "Son of God." Always as the "Son of Man." But since "son of God" was a common title for God's agents in the Old Testament, Jesus never objected to being called the "Son of God."

So the use of "Son of Man" or "Son of God" do not imply any divinity. Only agency. [/quote]
You know, we've played this game with other non-Christians before. It goes something like this:

Request: Prove Christ's divinity.

We prove it.

Request: "X" Portion of the Bible isn't reliable. Prove Christ's divinity with "non-X" portions of the Bible

We prove it.

Request. Well, you can only use Christ's own words with "non-X" portions of the Bible. (Side note: one wonders why a skeptic would trust a gospel author as accurately quoting Jesus, if the same skeptic doubted the gospel author's portrayal of Jesus as divine).

We prove it.

Request. Well, Christ really didn't mean that He was divine. Those words mean something else.

etc, etc...

Pretty soon, it gets to be the theological equivelant to MacGyver. Something like, "Why don't you make a thermonuclear device with some phone wires and a container of anti-freeze?"

Jesus Christ is divine. The message is all of the New Testament. It's repeated by the earliest Fathers of the Church.

Maybe, you just don't want to believe. We're acting out the truism:
[quote]For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't
believe, no proof is possible.[/quote]

You have clearly made an effort to find every reason to "not believe." In fact, your arguments have been almost exclusively contrarian. Up to this point, you've presented much of what you [i]do not [/i]believe, but little to nothing of what you [i]do [/i]believe.

You seem to want clear Biblical proof of Christ's divinity (as if Catholics were "Sola Scriptura" believers), yet it's not clear that you believe a single word of the Holy Bible.

So, my question is: Why would you want us to prove an article of Our Catholic Faith using a source that you don't believe?

If you would like to have a fruitful discussion, I'd ask you to bring yourself out of the shadows and let us know what carries authority with you. If it isn't the Holy Bible, then why in the world would you care to discuss it, unless your sole purpose was to sow disbelief? If that's your goal, at least be honest about your purpose and let us know what sources you trust and what you don't.

[scardella]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 1 2005, 07:42 AM'] Hi Socrates,

Perhaps you should read the Old Testament and New Testament more carefully. For example, please note that Jesus is reported to have said the "Son of Man."

"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, of course, Ezechiel didn't die but was assumed into heaven. So he too could be coming at the right hand of the Power.

... [/quote]
He's not debating the title "Son of Man." The "I am" = YHWH/Yahweh. That is clearly a statement of equality. Additionally, the "right hand of the Power" implies that he will be on the same level as God.

Ezekiel also didn't claim to be at the right hand of the Power or YHWH, though. He never claimed to be on the same level as God.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Jun 1 2005, 10:05 AM'] You know, we've played this game with other non-Christians before. It goes something like this:

Request: Prove Christ's divinity.

We prove it.

Request: "X" Portion of the Bible isn't reliable. Prove Christ's divinity with "non-X" portions of the Bible

We prove it.

Request. Well, you can only use Christ's own words with "non-X" portions of the Bible. (Side note: one wonders why a skeptic would trust a gospel author as accurately quoting Jesus, if the same skeptic doubted the gospel author's portrayal of Jesus as divine).

We prove it.

Request. Well, Christ really didn't mean that He was divine. Those words mean something else.

etc, etc...

Pretty soon, it gets to be the theological equivelant to MacGyver. Something like, "Why don't you make a thermonuclear device with some phone wires and a container of anti-freeze?"

Jesus Christ is divine. The message is all of the New Testament. It's repeated by the earliest Fathers of the Church.

Maybe, you just don't want to believe. We're acting out the truism:


You have clearly made an effort to find every reason to "not believe." In fact, your arguments have been almost exclusively contrarian. Up to this point, you've presented much of what you [i]do not [/i]believe, but little to nothing of what you [i]do [/i]believe.

You seem to want clear Biblical proof of Christ's divinity (as if Catholics were "Sola Scriptura" believers), yet it's not clear that you believe a single word of the Holy Bible.

So, my question is: Why would you want us to prove an article of Our Catholic Faith using a source that you don't believe?

If you would like to have a fruitful discussion, I'd ask you to bring yourself out of the shadows and let us know what carries authority with you. If it isn't the Holy Bible, then why in the world would you care to discuss it, unless your sole purpose was to sow disbelief? If that's your goal, at least be honest about your purpose and let us know what sources you trust and what you don't. [/quote]
But you've repeatedly failed to prove it. That's the difference.