Divinity of Christ

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 11 2005, 01:58 PM']Thanks for misrepresenting my position, yet again.  Why don't you go back, find what I acutally said, quote it in it's entirety, and then comment.  Misrepresentations don't look good on you.

You are missing the boat, yet again.  As for the rest of it, you just don't get it....you can't defeat 2000 years of the truth with 6 months of lies.

Time to assent you will LittleLes.
[right][snapback]609313[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Try to stay focused on your statements. You claimed that Jesus referred to himself as "the Son of Man" 80 times and therefore apparently we are to believe that when he said that the Son of Man would return at the right hand of the Power, this proved that he claimed divinity. I evidenced that the term Son of Man was used more frequently to refer to Ezekiel (and others actually). Therefore, if you are now stating that Son of Man is also is a claim of divinity, Ezekiel too (and others) must also be divine. Your argument reaches the logically absurd.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 11 2005, 06:41 PM']Try to stay focused on your statements. You claimed that Jesus referred to himself as "the Son of Man" 80 times and therefore apparently we are to believe that when he said that the Son of Man would return at the right hand of the Power, this proved that he claimed divinity. I evidenced that the term Son of Man was used more frequently to refer to Ezekiel (and others actually). Therefore, if you are now stating that Son of Man is also is a claim of divinity, Ezekiel too (and others) must also be divine. Your argument reaches the logically absurd.
[right][snapback]609428[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Whatever......misrepresentation.

[Mateo el Feo]

I think LittleLes is confused about which "Reply" button to press.

LittleLes, please review your post to be sure that you are quoting the post you intend to respond to.

Assuming that you intended to reply to my post, I would simply say that you still look like someone grasping at straws. Here's the summary:
(1) You made an unsupportable assertion about the Son of man (i.e. "...sitting at the right hand...") not referring to Jesus.
(2) I called you on it.
(3) You made an opposite assertion. (Son of man does refer to Jesus)
(4) I called you on the inconsistency.
(5) You complained.

Still waiting for you to consider your "rule #10" about being open to correction.

Also, still waiting for you to come out of the shadows and answer my question. No need to be a troll.
[quote name='Jargon4.2'][b]Troll[/b]

To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT. 2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." [/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 10 2005, 03:27 PM']The implication that this statement claimed divinity is your's.
[/quote]

Mine, and the all the father's of the Church, and all the members of the Sanhedrin who who charged that Christ's claim of coming seated at the right hand of God was blasphemous.

[quote]And what even makes you certain that the "Son of Man" refered to is Jesus? Again, an assumption on your part!
[right][snapback]608887[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Of course it referred to Jesus! Jesus was being questioned about Himself, and consistently refers to Himself as the "Son of Man" in the gospels.

The contortions you go through to avoid the clear meaning of this passage get ever more ludicrous!

Now we are to believe that Jesus when questioned about Himself in court, made a completely gratuitous answer about someone else, which the Sanhedrin found blasphemous for no reason at all!

You can continue to claim whatever you want about this passage, but it's only making you look foolish and desperate. All I can say is that my "assumptions" about its meaning make far more sense than your own!

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Jun 11 2005, 09:13 PM']I think LittleLes is confused about which "Reply" button to press.

LittleLes, please review your post to be sure that you are quoting the post you intend to respond to.

Assuming that you intended to reply to my post, I would simply say that you still look like someone grasping at straws.  Here's the summary:
(1) You made an unsupportable assertion about the Son of man (i.e. "...sitting at the right hand...") not referring to Jesus.
(2) I called you on it.
(3) You made an opposite assertion. (Son of man does refer to Jesus)
(4) I called you on the inconsistency.
(5) You complained.

Still waiting for you to consider your "rule #10" about being open to correction.

Also, still waiting for you to come out of the shadows and answer my question.  No need to be a troll.
[quote name='Jargon4.2'][b]Troll[/b]

To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies" which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See also YHBT. 2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll." [/quote]
[right][snapback]609503[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Perhaps if you can succinctly state your question , I can respond to it.

But to sum up, neither the term "Son of God" nor "Son of Man" is synonomus with a claim of divinity, ie. the same terms were used to refer to clearly non-divine persons in scripture as I have demonstrated.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 12 2005, 07:45 AM']Perhaps if you can succinctly state your question , I can respond to it.[/quote]
I asked the question in one sentence:
[quote]Why would you want us to prove an article of Our Catholic Faith using a source that you don't believe?[/quote]
It's a simple question, LittleLes. Your reluctance to answer this question is just one more indicator that you're afraid of actually revealing your own beliefs. Come out of the shadows.

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 12 2005, 07:45 AM']But to sum up, neither the term "Son of God" nor "Son of Man" is synonomus with a claim of divinity, ie.  the same terms were used to refer to clearly non-divine persons in scripture as I have demonstrated.
[right][snapback]609608[/snapback][/right][/quote]
This statement is irrelevant to the fact that you made a false claim. Then you contradicted yourself. Rule #10, LittleLes--be open to correction when proven wrong.

Edited June 12, 2005 by Mateo el Feo

[photosynthesis]

um....how about the Resurrection? And all the miracles Jesus performed?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Jun 12 2005, 11:16 AM']I asked the question in one sentence:

It's a simple question, LittleLes.  Your reluctance to answer this question is just one more indicator that you're afraid of actually revealing your own beliefs.  Come out of the shadows.
This statement is irrelevant to the fact that you made a false claim.  Then you contradicted yourself.  Rule #10, LittleLes--be open to correction when proven wrong.
[right][snapback]609666[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


How about proving an article of your faith using a creditable source? []

[LittleLes]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Jun 12 2005, 11:35 AM']um....how about the Resurrection?  And all the miracles Jesus performed?
[right][snapback]609672[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Acts 1:24 Peter reports of Jesus:

"But God raised him up, releasing him from the throes of death, because it was impossible for him to be held by it." (NAB)

John 11:41-43

So they took away the stone. And Jesus raised his eyes and said, "Father,I thank you for hearing me.
I know that you always hear me; but because of the crowd here I have said this, that they may believe that you sent me." And when he had said this, he cried out in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!" (NAB)


So it is reported that God raised both Lazarus and Jesus from the dead. Does this mean that both Lazarus and Jesus were divine?

[LittleLes]

An interesting question.

Matt 26:39
"He advanced a little and fell prostrate in prayer, saying, "My Father, 25 if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet, not as I will, but as you will."

Also Mark 14:35-36
"He advanced a little and fell to the ground and prayed that if it were possible the hour might pass by him; he said, "Abba, Father, all things are possible to you. Take this cup away from me, but not what I will but what you will."

Problems:

(1) Are these passages historical (ie. the event happened) or non-historical (ie. not a real event)?

(2) Note: "Not as I will, but as you will." Despite the hypostatic union and the Beatific Vsion, Jesus' will is different than God's will.

If Jesus is divine, how can his will be different from God's will?

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 13 2005, 06:29 AM']Acts 1:24  Peter reports of Jesus:

"But God raised him up, releasing him from the throes of death, because it was impossible for him to be held by it." (NAB)

John 11:41-43

So they took away the stone. And Jesus raised his eyes and said, "Father,I thank you for hearing me.
I know that you always hear me; but because of the crowd here I have said this, that they may believe that you sent me." And when he had said this, he cried out in a loud voice,  "Lazarus, come out!"  (NAB)
So it is reported that God raised both Lazarus and Jesus from the dead. Does this mean that  both Lazarus and Jesus were divine?
[right][snapback]610255[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

For those of you new to the LittleLes game, LittleLes' method is to keep repeating the same nonsense over and over endlessly after it has previously been refuted. So, for the benefit of those who have just entered this debate, I will repost my previous reply to this same nonsense:

As for your using the raising of Lazarus to disprove Christ's divinity, this is just absurd.
1. This comes from John, whose Gospel you dismiss (when it suits you), which, as we have seen, quite frequently and blatently asserts the divinity of Christ.

In the account of the raising of Lazarus, it is clear that Jesus raises Lazarus by His own authority. In this same account:

'[b]I am[/b] the resurrection.
If anyone believes [b]in me[/b] , even though he dies he will live,
and whoever lives and believes [b]in me [/b]
will never die.
Do you believe this?'

'Yes, Lord,' [Martha] said 'I beleive you are the Christ, the Son of God, the one who has come into this world.'

(John 11:25-27)

The fact that God raised Christ from the dead does not contradict His divinity. God the Father raised His Son, and it was through His divine nature, that His human nature was raised from the dead.

You cite Acts, but note how the Apostles baptized, forgave sins (a power which every Jew of the time would recognize as belonging to God alone), and worked miracles in the name of Jesus Christ! (Acts 1-2) If Christ was not divine, but merely a man whom God was acting through, it would be blasphemous and foolish to do these things in His name, rather than God's! Unless of course, Jesus was God!

Edited June 14, 2005 by Socrates

[Socrates]

And while on the topic of forgiving sins and miracles:

[quote]Seeing their faith, Jesus said to the paralytic, "My child, your sins are forgiven"  Now some scribes were sitting there, and they thought to thesmselves, "How can this man talk like that?  He is blaspheming.  [b]Who can forgive sins but God?[/b]"  Jesus, inwardly aware that this is what they were thinking, said to them, "Why do you have these thoughts in your hearts?  Which of these is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven' or to say, 'Get up, pick up your stretcher and walk'?  [b]But to prove to you that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins[/b]"--He said to the paralytic--"I order you, pick up your stretcher and go off home."
[/quote]
(Mark 2:5-10)

(Note: This is from Mark, which LittleLes keeps claiming has no proof for Christ's divinity!)

Edited June 14, 2005 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 13 2005, 06:40 AM']An interesting question.

Matt 26:39
"He advanced a little and fell prostrate in prayer, saying, "My Father, 25 if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet, not as I will, but as you will."

Also Mark 14:35-36
"He advanced a little and fell to the ground and prayed that if it were possible the hour might pass by him; he said, "Abba, Father, all things are possible to you. Take this cup away from me, but not what I will but what you will."

Problems:

(1) Are these passages historical (ie. the event happened) or non-historical (ie. not a real event)?

(2) Note: "Not as I will, but as you will." Despite the hypostatic union and the Beatific Vsion, Jesus' will is different than God's will.

If Jesus is divine, how can his will be different from God's will?
[right][snapback]610258[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

(1) Historical. And if you don't beleive anything in the Gospels, what's the point of trying to use them to prove your points?

(2) Jesus Christ, being True man, as well true God, in His human nature would not desire to undergo the tremendous torture of the Passion. Yet, He unites his human nature to the Divine Will of His Father perfectly, and He undergoes the Passion. Christ never does anything contrary to the Divine Will.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 13 2005, 09:48 PM']
For those of you new to the LittleLes game, LittleLes' method is to keep repeating the same nonsense over and over endlessly after it has previously been refuted. So, for the benefit of those who have just entered this debate, I will repost my previous reply to this same nonsense:

Response:

I carefully list the argument. You have not refuted it. Writing a nonspecific ramble embellished with unrelated scriptural quotations is not a refutation.

In Acts Peter is not claiming Jesus rose from the dead. Jesus was "raised" by God.

Acts 2:23-24
This man, delivered up by the set plan and foreknowledge of God, you killed, using lawless men to crucify him. But God raised him up, releasing him from the throes of death, because it was impossible for him to be held by it.

Who acts and who is acted upon here?

And in the Lazarus legend, only found in John and not any of the other gospels, Jesus prays to the Father to act.

John 11:41
So they took away the stone. And Jesus raised his eyes and said, "Father, I thank you for hearing me. I know that you always hear me; but because of the crowd here I have said this, that they may believe that you sent me."

Compare with:

Ezeh 37: 1, 10:

The hand of the LORD came upon me, and he led me out in the spirit of the LORD and set me in the center of the plain, which was now filled with bones...Then he said to me: Prophesy to the spirit, prophesy, son of man, and say to the spirit: Thus says the Lord GOD: From the four winds come, O spirit, and breathe into these slain that they may come to life.
I prophesied as he told me, and the spirit came into them; they came alive and stood upright, a vast army.

Does this make Ezekiel divine too?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 13 2005, 10:04 PM']And while on the topic of forgiving sins and miracles:
(Mark 2:5-10)

(Note:  This is from Mark, which LittleLes keeps claiming has no proof for Christ's divinity!)
[right][snapback]611016[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Response.

Aren't Catholic priests suppose to be able to forgive sins too. Is this proof that they are divine? Or, like Jesus, can we believe that God was the one who really forgives the sins?