Jesus' Divinity And An Idiot

[Fidei Defensor]

Precisely. But this girl told me the Gospels weren't actually written by the Apostles, so this was some other guy claiming Jesus is God.

I'd just let this one go, then. If you can't even use the Bible to properly argue a point, it's not worth it.

[PhuturePriest]

I'd just let this one go, then. If you can't even use the Bible to properly argue a point, it's not worth it.

 

I still don't get why she was arguing with me. Why would you state Jesus never claimed he was God and then keep arguing the point, just to end up telling me you don't even think the Gospels are authentic when I prove your claims wrong?

[NotreDame]

John 1:1-5
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 into being through him, and  without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.

 

 

Granted, I don't believe Jesus necessarily existed. But the Bible is pretty clear that he was God.

 

The bible is clear, but the argument you get from muslims (and perhaps FP's friend) is that Jesus himself never said he was God, therefore Jesus' divinity is the creation of his apostles and disciples, like John who wrote what you quoted above. 
 

[arfink]

The bible is clear, but the argument you get from muslims (and perhaps FP's friend) is that Jesus himself never said he was God, therefore Jesus' divinity is the creation of his apostles and disciples, like John who wrote what you quoted above. 
 

 

The problem for people who want to argue against Jesus' assertion that he was divine (or his existence at all) is that despite how many people would like to deny it, the Bible is actually at least as academically reliable as a historical primary source as, say, Tertullian. In fact, it's probably much more reliable as a historical source in this instance. We have no other closer eyewitness sources, and the next closest sources (Tertullian being the main one) seem to corroborate rather than deny the reality of a person named Jesus who claimed to be god and was subsequently killed by the Jews for it.

 

Also, the willingness of Jesus' followers to be martyred, and the huge cult that sprang up almost immediately after Jesus' death speaks louder than any history book that people of that time period understood what Jesus was claiming to be.

[PhuturePriest]

The bible is clear, but the argument you get from muslims (and perhaps FP's friend) is that Jesus himself never said he was God, therefore Jesus' divinity is the creation of his apostles and disciples, like John who wrote what you quoted above. 
 

 

But he clearly does state that he is God before the Sanhedrin, which is why he was condemned in the first place.

[NotreDame]

Guys, I get that... I'm not arguing against you - see my post on page 1 - I'm just clarifying the argument you'll get from others.

[arfink]

Guys, I get that... I'm not arguing against you - see my post on page 1 - I'm just clarifying the argument you'll get from others.

 

Totes. ^_^ Why do you think I'm just saying more agreeing things in response? :P

[Fidei Defensor]

The problem for people who want to argue against Jesus' assertion that he was divine (or his existence at all) is that despite how many people would like to deny it, the Bible is actually at least as academically reliable as a historical primary source as, say, Tertullian. In fact, it's probably much more reliable as a historical source in this instance. We have no other closer eyewitness sources, and the next closest sources (Tertullian being the main one) seem to corroborate rather than deny the reality of a person named Jesus who claimed to be god and was subsequently killed by the Jews for it.

 

Also, the willingness of Jesus' followers to be martyred, and the huge cult that sprang up almost immediately after Jesus' death speaks louder than any history book that people of that time period understood what Jesus was claiming to be.

Yes, the Bible is a source. But due to the nature of its content, its a biased source. Thats why it tends to be discounted as a reliable source.

 

Second, martyrdom isn't always the best argument. Nazi soldiers were willing to die for their beliefs, which were much harder to swallow than what Jesus was allegedly selling.

[RC Patriot]

There are two important things to remember when arguing this.
1) If someone claims to be god, that claim is not enough to identify him as God. It was normally interpreted to mean "god-like." In other words, angels. The bible says as much somewhere, but I can't look it up at the moment. So the argument that "Jesus never said he was God," is a dead end road anyway. That is why Jesus said so cryptically, "Before Abraham was, I AM." Now, if you're talking to a JW, this will inevitably lead into an argument about the name God uses with Moses in the desert... be prepared.

2) and probably most importantly, Unitarians try to get away with arguing against the Trinity and the divinity of Christ, but are rarely able to coherently describe what they DO believe. Press this. Ask specifically about what salvation means to them, why it was necessary, and what power Jesus had to pay for sins against God. You'll start finding a lot of self-contradiction.

Also, just because the question was stated "in the gospel" doesn't mean you have to be bound to the gospels to find that evidence. The best of it really in the Book of Revelation. Great question...

[arfink]

Yes, the Bible is a source. But due to the nature of its content, its a biased source. Thats why it tends to be discounted as a reliable source.

 

Second, martyrdom isn't always the best argument. Nazi soldiers were willing to die for their beliefs, which were much harder to swallow than what Jesus was allegedly selling.

 

All sources are biased and unreliable. While the bible may be biased, it should come as no surprise that Jesus claimed he was God and his followers believed that he was and his enemies also believed that he claimed as such.

 

I didn't make further claims there.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I've heard muslims say the same thing about christ - that he himself never said he was God - so it's good to have a retort ready. 

 

Arfink's reference to Jesus in front of the Sanhedrin is one really good quote, probably the best.  There are others where he refers to his father and going where he was before, etc.  I will look for these tonight.

 

Jesus talked like a normal dude.  He didn't go around saying "I am the son of God!!!", that would be awkward instead he talked about his Father, who happened to be in heaven.

 

Isn't it useless to argue with Muslims about that? They claim the Bible is a corrupted text. Come to think of it, I don't get why Muslims ever cite it.

Edited March 12, 2014 by CatholicsAreKewl

[NotreDame]

Isn't it useless to argue with Muslims about that? They claim the Bible is a corrupted text. Come to think of it, I don't get why Muslims ever cite it.

I've heard it from a muslim friend, but didn't argue it.  I've also read some interesting arguments on muslim apologetic sites.  Some are tricky, some are loony.  Google around and you'll find some interesting sites out there.  Funny enough, one of the most thorough takedowns I've read on Jehovah Witnesses came from a muslim apologetic site.

 

RC Patriot - good points.  It also reminded me of Fulton Sheen's points (let me poorly paraphrase here) on how Jesus was the only one who was pre-announced, the only one whose mission depended on his death, and the only one whose Church was founded after he died. 

 

[Luigi]

It's interesting that among Jesus' miracles, he cured paralytics, the blind, the deaf, lepers, people possessed by devils ... 

 

 

 

but never any idiots. 

[RC Patriot]

Christ’s divinity is shown over and over again in the New Testament. For example, in John 5:18 we are told that Jesus’ opponents sought to kill him because he "called God his Father, making himself equal with God."
 
In John 8:58, when quizzed about how he has special knowledge of Abraham, Jesus replies, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am"—invoking and applying to himself the personal name of God—"I Am" (Ex. 3:14). His audience understood exactly what he was claiming about himself. "So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple" (John 8:59).
 
In John 20:28, Thomas falls at Jesus’ feet, exclaiming, "My Lord and my God!" (Greek: Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mou—literally, "The Lord of me and the God of me!")

 

In Philippians 2:6, Paul tells us that Christ Jesus "[w]ho, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be g.asped" (New International Version). So Jesus chose to be born in humble, human form though he could have simply remained in equal glory with the Father for he was "in very nature God."

 

Also significant are passages that apply the title "the First and the Last" to Jesus. This is one of the Old Testament titles of Yahweh: "Thus says Yahweh, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, Yahweh of armies: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is no god’" (Is. 44:6; cf. 41:4, 48:12).

 

This title is directly applied to Jesus three times in the book of Revelation: "When I saw him [Christ], I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand upon me, saying, ‘Fear not, I am the First and the Last’" (Rev. 1:17). "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: ‘The words of the First and the Last, who died and came to life’" (Rev. 2:8). "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the beginning and the end" (Rev. 22:12–13).

 

This last quote is especially significant since it applies to Jesus the parallel title "the Alpha and the Omega," which Revelation earlier applied to the Lord God: "‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty" (Rev. 1:8).

 

As the following quotes show, the early Church Fathers also recognized that Jesus Christ is God and were adamant in maintaining this precious truth.
 
Ignatius of Antioch
"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).
"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).
"[T]o the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is" (Letter to the Romans 1 [A.D. 110]).
 
Aristides
"[Christians] are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the Creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit" (Apology 16 [A.D. 140]).
 
Tatian the Syrian
"We are not playing the fool, you Greeks, nor do we talk nonsense, when we report that God was born in the form of a man" (Address to the Greeks 21 [A.D. 170]).
 
Melito of Sardis
"It is no way necessary in dealing with persons of intelligence to adduce the actions of Christ after his baptism as proof that his soul and his body, his human nature, were like ours, real and not phantasmal. The activities of Christ after his baptism, and especially his miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the deity hidden in his flesh. Being God and likewise perfect man, he gave positive indications of his two natures: of his deity, by the miracles during the three years following after his baptism, of his humanity, in the thirty years which came before his baptism, during which, by reason of his condition according to the flesh, he concealed the signs of his deity, although he was the true God existing before the ages" (Fragment in Anastasius of Sinai’s The Guide 13 [A.D. 177]).
 
Irenaeus
"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father Almighty, the creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who announced through the prophets the dispensations and the comings, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to reestablish all things; and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth . . . " (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

 

"Nevertheless, what cannot be said of anyone else who ever lived, that he is himself in his own right God and Lord . . . may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth" (ibid., 3:19:1).
 
Clement of Alexandria
"The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning—for he was in God—and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things" (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1 [A.D. 190]).

 

"Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, [Jesus is] the expiator, the Savior, the soother, the divine Word, he that is quite evidently true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son" (ibid., 10:110:1).
 
Tertullian
"The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born" (The Flesh of Christ 5:6–7 [A.D. 210]).

 

"That there are two gods and two Lords, however, is a statement which we will never allow to issue from our mouth; not as if the Father and the Son were not God, nor the Spirit God, and each of them God; but formerly two were spoken of as gods and two as Lords, so that when Christ would come, he might both be acknowledged as God and be called Lord, because he is the Son of him who is both God and Lord" (Against Praxeas 13:6 [A.D. 216]).
 
Origen
"Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4 [A.D. 225]).
 
Hippolytus
"Only [God’s] Word is from himself and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:33 [A.D. 228]).
 
Hippolytus of Rome
"For Christ is the God over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from mankind, rendering the old man new" (ibid., 10:34).
 
Novatian
"If Christ was only man, why did he lay down for us such a rule of believing as that in which he said, ‘And this is life eternal, that they should know you, the only and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent?’ [John 17:3]. Had he not wished that he also should be understood to be God, why did he add, ‘And Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent,’ except because he wished to be received as God also? Because if he had not wished to be understood to be God, he would have added, ‘And the man Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent;’ but, in fact, he neither added this, nor did Christ deliver himself to us as man only, but associated himself with God, as he wished to be understood by this conjunction to be God also, as he is. We must therefore believe, according to the rule prescribed, on the Lord, the one true God, and consequently on him whom he has sent, Jesus Christ, who by no means, as we have said, would have linked himself to the Father had he not wished to be understood to be God also. For he would have separated himself from him had he not wished to be understood to be God" (Treatise on the Trinity 16 [A.D. 235]).
 
Cyprian of Carthage
"One who denies that Christ is God cannot become his temple [of the Holy Spirit] . . . " (Letters 73:12 [A.D. 253]).
 
Gregory the Wonderworker
"There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is his subsistent wisdom and power and eternal image: perfect begetter of the perfect begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, only of the only, God of God, image and likeness of deity, efficient Word, wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, invisible of invisible, and incorruptible of incorruptible, and immortal of immortal and eternal of eternal. . . . And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever" (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).
 
Arnobius
"‘Well, then,’ some raging, angry, and excited man will say, ‘is that Christ your God?’ ‘God indeed,’ we shall answer, ‘and God of the hidden powers’" (Against the Pagans 1:42 [A.D. 305]).
 
Lactantius
"He was made both Son of God in the spirit and Son of man in the flesh, that is, both God and man" (Divine Institutes 4:13:5 [A.D. 307]).

 

"We, on the other hand, are [truly] religious, who make our supplications to the one true God. Someone may perhaps ask how, when we say that we worship one God only, we nevertheless assert that there are two, God the Father and God the Son—which assertion has driven many into the greatest error . . . [thinking] that we confess that there is another God, and that he is mortal. . . . [But w]hen we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate each, because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father" (ibid., 4:28–29).
 
Council of Nicaea I
"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through him all things were made" (Creed of Nicaea [A.D. 325]).

 

"But those who say, ‘There was a time when he [the Son] did not exist,’ and ‘Before he was born, he did not exist,’ and ‘Because he was made from non-existing matter, he is either of another substance or essence,’ and those who call ‘God the Son of God changeable and mutable,’ these the Catholic Church anathematizes" (Appendix to the Creed of Nicaea [A.D. 325]).

Patrick of Ireland
 
"Jesus Christ is the Lord and God in whom we believe, and whose coming we expect will soon take place, the judge of the living and the dead, who will render to everyone according to his works" (Confession of St. Patrick 4 [A.D. 452]).

 

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

 

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

 

[mortify ii]

Jesus worshiped as an infant, John the baptist fulfilling the scripture that he will prepare the way for God (=Jesus), Jesus doing things only God does (forgiving sins, judge on judgement day,etc), the transfiguration, etc, etc, etc

 

The Divinity of Jesus is revealed in numerous ways, many never needing Jesus to explicitly say, "Hey guys, I'm God"

[RC Patriot]

There are two important things to remember when arguing this.
1) If someone claims to be god, that claim is not enough to identify him as God. It was normally interpreted to mean "god-like." In other words, angels. The bible says as much somewhere, but I can't look it up at the moment. So the argument that "Jesus never said he was God," is a dead end road anyway. That is why Jesus said so cryptically, "Before Abraham was, I AM." Now, if you're talking to a JW, this will inevitably lead into an argument about the name God uses with Moses in the desert... be prepared.

2) and probably most importantly, Unitarians try to get away with arguing against the Trinity and the divinity of Christ, but are rarely able to coherently describe what they DO believe. Press this. Ask specifically about what salvation means to them, why it was necessary, and what power Jesus had to pay for sins against God. You'll start finding a lot of self-contradiction.

Also, just because the question was stated "in the gospel" doesn't mean you have to be bound to the gospels to find that evidence. The best of it really in the Book of Revelation. Great question...

 

Now that I'm at a computer...

I was wrong about the bit about "angels." The reference was to John 10:34, which refers to Psalm 82:6, which says,

"I said you are gods..." So claiming that if only Jesus said, "I am God," people then would not have understood this the same way that a JW or other Unitarian means it now. And now that I looked up that scripture, John 10:30 is pretty clear, too, "I and the Father are ONE." The following stoning puts it into context. Honestly, I have a hard time understanding why anyone would claim that Jesus was not God....

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Yes, the Bible is a source. But due to the nature of its content, its a biased source. Thats why it tends to be discounted as a reliable source.

 

Second, martyrdom isn't always the best argument. Nazi soldiers were willing to die for their beliefs, which were much harder to swallow than what Jesus was allegedly selling.

 

 

Christs followers wouldn't kill for the cause and attempt take the earth by the force of violence.

Edited March 12, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Also BTW if where going to use holy scripture as a source of claiming Jesus was God made flesh who died for our sins the only acceptable sacrifice etc, we must believe what the scriptures teach us and as far as i can remember in the Gospels Jesus says not to call people things like idiots.

[Basilisa Marie]

Precisely. But this girl told me the Gospels weren't actually written by the Apostles, so this was some other guy claiming Jesus is God.

 

This is what happens when people get tiny nuggets of academic information without any context whatsoever, and run off down ideological rabbit trails with them (which, conveniently, was one reason why Christians the the Jews before them ALWAYS did biblical exegesis under the guidance of a competent teacher/rabbi - some Jews weren't even allowed to read certain texts without the rabbi present with them to help, that's how seriously they took it. So if you ever hear people complaining about restricting the use of the Bible - there are good historical reasons for that). 

Many scholars believe that the gospels probably weren't written by the actual people they're ascribed to.  Like, the original Mark didn't write Mark's gospel, etc.  HOWEVER, there are a couple of things we have to understand about the way scholarship was done in the ancient world.  It's NOT the same as doing it now.  Today, if you put someone else's name on a work, you're committing fraud and will lose your whole reputation. Back then, if you put someone else's name on your work, it secured your reputation. It meant that you were a student of that person, or writing in their tradition. It gave credibility and context to your work. So in this example, maybe the person who sat down to write Mark was one of his students. Furthermore, we know that the Gospel of Mark was written for the community that believes it was founded by Mark. So that's another good reason why their written gospel has his name. 

 

These things also don't make the gospel any less authentic or divinely inspired at all.  I mean, how ridiculous is that - "oops, sorry, wasn't physically written by Mark, so there's no way God can have divinely inspired it!" It doesn't make any sense with the way we understand our faith.  Now, can we believe that Mark actually physically wrote it? Of course we can. There's nothing wrong with that in the slightest. But the named author not actually writing it still means that it's divinely inspired, because 1) it's still the person's community and 2) the rules of scholarship were different ~2000 years ago (shocking that changes would happen over the course of two millennia, I know :) )

 

 

I still don't get why she was arguing with me. Why would you state Jesus never claimed he was God and then keep arguing the point, just to end up telling me you don't even think the Gospels are authentic when I prove your claims wrong?

 

She's a giant troll, but not the usual kind of troll that does things just to get a rise out of you.  She's not interested in actually examining anyone's beliefs, she's interested in forcing her beliefs in your face. She's not interested in truth. She's interested in hearing herself talk and feeling righteous. Once you get to that point there is zero point to continuing with a person like that. 

Edited March 12, 2014 by Basilisa Marie

[KnightofChrist]

Before calling someone an idiot, even when there is profound evidence to show it to be true, one must remember we are all God's fools, every last one of us.