Divinity of Christ

[LittleLes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Archangel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you said earlier when you quoted the NAB introduction:

[quote]It gives the impression of being more remote in time from the apostolic period than 1 Peter; indeed, [b]many think it is the latest work in the New Testament and assign it to the first or even the second quarter of the second century.[/b][/quote]

[LittleLes]

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

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

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

As you said earlier when you quoted the NAB introduction:



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

(2) And from the Introduction to 2 Peter from the New American Bible, we have this:

"Nevertheless, acceptance of 2 Peter into the New Testament canon met with great resistance in the early church. The oldest certain reference to it comes from Origen in the early third century. While he himself accepted both Petrine letters as canonical, he testifies that others rejected 2 Peter. As late as the fifth century some local churches still excluded it from the canon, but eventually it was universally adopted. The principal reason for the long delay was the persistent doubt that the letter stemmed from the apostle Peter.

Among modern scholars there is wide agreement that 2 Peter is a pseudonymous work, i.e., one written by a later author who attributed it to Peter according to a literary convention popular at the time. It gives the impression of being more remote in time from the apostolic period than 1 Peter; indeed, many think it is the latest work in the New Testament and assign it to the first or even the second quarter of the second century."

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

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 27 2005, 10:39 PM'] I think once again you are quoting John, the only Gospel writer to use the "I am" claim which is consistent with the gnostic concept of the "Word" or the "Logos."

The writer of John seems very confused about Jesus' identity, but evidently Jesus is different from God the Father.


John 10:30 "I cannot do anything on my own; I judge as I hear, and my judgment is just, because I do not seek my own will but the will of the one who sent me.
Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me,

John 6:38-39

“…because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day. “

No power to do anything on his own. And not to do his own will, but the will of one who sent him. Different wills then? We're realy getting into polytheism here!

Rather inescapably different entities. Or God is very conflicted! [/quote]
John is not confused about Jesus' identity; it is you who are confused!

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

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

Jesus Christ has two natures: human and divine.

You need a lesson in basic theology!


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

[Socrates]

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

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

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

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


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

Edited May 30, 2005 by Socrates

[LittleLes]

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

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

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

Jesus Christ has two natures: human and divine.

You need a lesson in basic theology!


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

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

[LittleLes]

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


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

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

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

Edited May 30, 2005 by LittleLes

[Socrates]

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

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


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

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

[Qoheleth]

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

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

[Mateo el Feo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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.