Divinity of Christ

[missionseeker]

I knew it was one of those old old heresies so I looked through my old papers from a CCD course on Church history and it's Arian.

So I typed in Arian Heresy in the CDD and got the Church Fathers' letters

[quote]4. But that the Son of God was not made "from things which are not," and that there was no "time when He was not," the evangelist John sufficiently shows, when he thus writes concerning Him: "The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father." For since that divine teacher intended to show that the Father and the Son are two things inseparable the one from the other, he spoke of Him as being in the bosom of the Father. Now that also the Word of God is not comprehended in the number of things that were created "from things which are not," the same John says, "All things were made by Him." For he set forth His proper personality, saying, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him; and with out Him was not anything made that was made." For if all things were made by Him, how comes it that He who gave to the things which are made their existence, at one time Himself was not. For the Word which makes is not to be defined as being of the same nature with the things which are made; since He indeed was in the beginning, and all things were made by Him, and fashioned "from things which are not." Moreover, that which is seems to be contrary to and far removed from those things which are made "from things which are not." For that indeed shows that there is no interval between the Father and the Son, since not even in thought can the mind imagine any distance between them. But that the world was created "from things which are not," indicates a more recent and later origin of substance, since the universe receives an essence of this sort from the Father by the Son. When, therefore, the most pious John contemplated the essence of the divine Word at a very great distance, and as placed beyond all conception of those things that are begotten, he thought it not meet to speak of His generation and creation; not daring to designate the Creator in the same terms as the things that are made. Not that the Word is unbegotten, for the Father alone is unbegotten, but because the inexplicable subsistence of the only-begotten Son transcends the acute comprehension of the evangelists, and perhaps also of angels.

5. Wherefore I do not think that he is to be reckoned amongst the pious who presumes to inquire into anything beyond these things, not listening to this saying: "Seek not out the things that are too hard for thee, neither search the things that are above thy strength." For if the knowledge of many other things that are incomparably inferior to this, are hidden from human comprehension, such as in the apostle Paul, "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him." As also God said to Abraham, that "he could not number the stars;" and that passage, "Who can number the sand of the sea, and the drops of rain." How shall any one be able to investigate too curiously the subsistence of the divine Word, unless he be smitten with frenzy? Concerning which the Spirit of prophecy says, "Who shall declare his generation?" And our Saviour Himself, who blesses the pillars of all things in the world, sought to unburden them of the knowledge of these things, saying that to comprehend this was quite beyond their nature, and that to the Father alone belonged the knowledge of this most divine mystery. "For no man," says He, "knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son." Of this thing also I think that the Father spoke, in the words, "My secret is to Me and Mine."

6. Now that it is an insane thing to think that the Son was made from things which are not, and was in being in time, the expression, "from things which are not," itself shows, although these stupid men understand not the insanity of their own words. For the expression, "was not," ought either to be reckoned in time, or in some place of an age. But if it be true that "all things were made by Him," it is established that both every age and time and all space, and that "when" in which the "was not" is found, was made by Him. And is it not absurd that He who fashioned the times and the ages and the seasons, in which that "was not" is mixed up, to say of Him, that He at some time was not? For it is devoid of sense, and a mark of great ignorance, to affirm that He who is the cause of everything is posterior to the origin of that thing. For according to them, the space of time in which they say that the Son had not yet been made by the Father, preceded the wisdom of God that fashioned all things, and the Scripture speaks falsely according to them, which calls Him "the First-born of every creature." Conformable to which, that which the majestically-speaking Paul says of Him: "Whom He hath appointed heir of all things. By whom also He made the worlds. But by Him also were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by Him, and for Him; and He is before all things."

7. Wherefore, since it appears that this hypothesis of a creation from things which are not is most impious, it is necessary to say that the Father is always the Father. But He is the Father, since the Son is always with Him, on account of whom He is called the Father. Wherefore, since the Son is always with Him, the Father is always perfect, being destitute of nothing as regards good; who, not in time, nor after an interval, nor from things which are not, hath begotten His only-begotten Son. How, then, is it not impious to say, that the wisdom of God once was not which speaks thus concerning itself: "I was with Him forming all things; I was His delight;" or that the power of God once did not exist; or that His Word was at any time mutilated; or that other things were ever wanting from which the Son is known and the Father expressed? For he who denies that the brightness of the glory existed, takes away also the primitive light of which it is the brightness. And if the image of God was not always, it is clear also that He was not always, of which it is the image. Moreover, in saying that the character of the subsistence of God was not, He also is done away with who is perfectly expressed by it. Hence one may see that the Sonship of our Saviour has nothing at all in common with the sonship of the rest. For just as it has been shown that His inexplicable subsistence excels by an incomparable excellence all other things to which He has given existence, so also His Sonship, which is according to the nature of the Godhead of the Father, transcends. by an ineffable excellence. the sonship of those who have been adopted by Him. For He, indeed, is of an immutable nature, every way perfect, and wanting in nothing; but these since they are either way subject to change, stand in need of help from Him. For what progress can the wisdom of God make? What increase can the truth itself and God the Word receive? In what respect can the life and the true light be made better? And if this be so, how much more unnatural is it that wisdom should ever be capable of folly; that the power of God should be con-joined with infirmity; that reason should be obscured by unreason; or that darkness should be mixed up with the true light? And the apostle says, on this place, "What communion hath light with darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial?" And Solomon says, that it is not possible that it should come to pass that a man should comprehend with his understanding "the way of a serpent upon a rock," which is Christ, according to the opinion of Paul. But men and angels, who are His creatures, have received His blessing that they might make progress, exercising themselves in virtues and in the commandments of the law, so as not to sin. Wherefore our Lord, since He is by nature the Son of the Father, is by all adored. But these, laying aside the spirit of bondage, when by brave deeds and by progress they have received the spirit of adoption, being blessed by Him who is the Son by nature, are made sons by adoption.

8. And His proper and peculiar, natural and excellent Sonship, St. Paul has declared, who thus speaks of God: "Who spared not His own Son, but for us," who were not His natural sons, "delivered Him up." For to distinguish Him from those who are not properly sons, He said that He was His own Son. And in the Gospel we read: "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Moreover, in the Psalms the Saviour says: "The Lord hath said unto Me, Thou art my Son." Where, showing that He is the true and genuine Son, He signifies that there are no other genuine sons besides Himself. And what, too, is the meaning of this: "From the womb before the morning I begat thee"? Does He not plainly indicate the natural sonship of paternal bringing forth, which he obtained not by the careful framing of His manners, not by the exercise of and increase in virtue, but by property of nature? Wherefore, the only-begotten Son of the Father, indeed, possesses an indefectible Sonship; but the adoption of rational sons belongs not to them by nature, but is prepared for them by the probity of their life, and by the free gift of God. And it is mutable as the Scripture recognises: "For when the sons of God saw the daughters of men, they took them wives," etc. And in another place: "I have nourished and brought up children, but they have rebelled against Me," as we find God speaking by the prophet Isaiah.

9. And though I could say much more, brethren beloved, I purposely omit to do so, as deeming it to be burdensome at great length to call these things to the remembrance of teachers who are of the same mind with myself. For ye yourselves are taught of God, nor are ye ignorant that this doctrine, which hath lately raised its head against the piety of the Church, is that of Ebion and Artemas; nor is it aught else but an imitation of Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, who, by the judgment and counsel of all the bishops, and in every place, was separated from the Church. To whom Lucian succeeding, remained for many years separate from the communion of three bishops. And now lately having drained the dregs of their impiety, there have arisen amongst us those who teach this doctrine of a creation from things which are not, their hidden sprouts, Arius and Achilles, and the gathering of those who join in their wickedness. And three bishops in Syria, having been, in some manner, consecrated on account of their agreement with them, incite them to worse things. But let the judgment concerning these be reserved for your trial. For they, retaining in their memory the words which came to be used with respect to His saving Passion, and abasement, and examination, and what they call His poverty, and in short of all those things to which the Saviour submitted for our sakes, bring them forward to refute His supreme and eternal Godhead. But of those words which signify His natural glory and nobility, and abiding with the Father, they have become unmindful. Such as this: "I and My Father are one," which indeed the Lord says, not as proclaiming Himself to be the Father, nor to demonstrate that two persons are one; but that the Son of the Father most exactly preserves the expressed likeness of the Father, inasmuch as He has by nature impressed upon Him His similitude in every respect, and is the image of the Father in no way discrepant, and the expressed figure of the primitive exemplar. Whence, also, to Philip, who then was desirous to see Him, the Lord shows this abundantly. For when he said, "Show us the Father," He answered: "He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father," since the Father was Himself seen through the spotless and living mirror of the divine image. Similar to which is what the saints say in the Psalms: "In Thy light shall we see light." Wherefore he that honoureth the Son, honoureth the Father also;" and with reason, for every impious word which they dare to speak against the Son, has reference to the Father. [/quote]


[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0622.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0622.htm[/url]

I hope that maybe that will help

[curtins]

[quote] [/quote]It is the commandment of God that we worship Christ. We do not worship Christ because He is God, rather we worship Christ because God commanded us to .[quote]


That would be a direct contradiction on God's part. God says worship no one but me. So if he told people to worship Christ, and Christ is not God, then God just contradicted himself and so God is no longer God.

Also- Thomas says (as someone pointed out) "My Lord and My God" thats pretty explicate- Jesus doesnt say- no Thomas I'm not God dont call me that.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I think the Biblical passages that I posted were pretty explicit in regards to Christ's divinity.

[morostheos]

[quote] John 1:1
Again, because the Bible says that the word was "divine", it does not make the word God. As we have established, when the Apostle John uses "word," it does refer to Christ. but does that mean Christ pre-existed?

According to the Ryrie Study Bible p. 1599, the Greek term used in John 1:1 for "word" is logos, which means: "word, thought, concept, and the expression thereof." in the New Encyclopedia Britanica Micro. p 302, logos means "word, reason, or plan." So, it was not Jesus himself who was with God in the beginning, but it was the idea, the plan for Christ, which was with God.[/quote]

Here's some good stuff from the Jerome Bibilical Commentary:
"In Hellenistic thinking logos meant divine utterance, emanation, mediation. In the OT the word of God is God's manifestation, the revelation of himself, whether in creation, in deeds of power and of grace, or in prophecy. All these strains of thought are taken up by Jn, who shows that Christ, the Incarnate Word, is the ultimate and complete revelation of God (cf. Heb 1:1-4; Col 1:15-20)." (63:40)

If it was merely the idea of Christ which existed, why did he mention it at all? Did God not have the idea for the rest of creation as well?

There's a lot more in the Jerome Biblical Commentary, but much of it goes over my head so I don't know how much of it actually applies. The scripture quotes your friend uses start out with one point and finish with a different one, making it very difficult to address everything.

[ReinnieR]

THANKS

[cappie]

This is not apologetics but faith :

The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity isn’t simply a matter of words.

It forms the core belief of our faith in which we proclaim

the unity between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.



It’s not just a matter of words.

It’s a matter of the heart,

it’s a matter of the mind,

it’s a matter of who God is

and who God is…for you!



If Christ is not God,

then God did not “so love the world” so as to enter into our world

in the person of Jesus Christ in order to love us as one of us.



If Christ is not God,

then we are not saved by a God who loved us enough to die for us.



If Christ is not God,

then the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist

is not God’s abiding presence in our midst.



If Christ is not God,

then we do touch the living Spirit of God

in the lives of the people we love…

nor in the lives of the poor,

nor in the lives of those with whom we worship

nor in the live of those with whom we strive to build a better world.



Don’t be misled by fiction.

[phatcatholic]

also, i'm pretty sure that the Jews considered the anticipated "Son of God" to be one no less divine than God Himself, in which case it would be rather odd to say that Jesus is the Son of God...........but not God.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I don't think the Jews would have had as big a problem with him if he wasn't saying he was God.

[phatcatholic]

well, i could be wrong, but i think i'm correct in saying that it wasn't so much the idea of a "Son of God" that was repulsive to the Jews as much as it was the fact that their understanding of the "Son of God" did not coincide with what Jesus was saying and doing.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

It would have been blasphemy though, correct?

[missionseeker]

[quote name='phatcatholic' post='1001053' date='Jun 9 2006, 12:15 AM']
also, i'm pretty sure that the Jews considered the anticipated "Son of God" to be one no less divine than God Himself, in which case it would be rather odd to say that Jesus is the Son of God...........but not God.
[/quote]

What do they say He is? Half- God or not God at all which just doesn't make sense.

[phatcatholic]

Reinnier's opponents are anti-trinitarian, so they probably believe that the Son is merely a manifestation of the Father, like Oneness Pentecostals do.

[missionseeker]

Like the Father is the Son in human form or something else?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I think he means like the Son is the Father's puppet. Think Jim Henson.

[missionseeker]

I see you're from Sesame Street, do you know him?

So the Son is Father's pupet, the Father is God, the Son is not God. But He is the Son of God. So is this God loving and merciful, or does He get someone else (the "Son") to do all the dirtywork for Him?