Divinity of Christ

[Socrates]

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

" Blasphemed: the punishment for blasphemy was death by stoning (see Lev 24:10-16). According to the Mishnah, to be guilty of blasphemy one had to pronounce "the Name itself," i.e. Yahweh; cf Sanhedrin 7, 4.5. Those who judge the gospel accounts of Jesus' trial by the later Mishnah standards point out that Jesus uses the surrogate "the Power," and hence no Jewish court would have regarded him as guilty of blasphemy; others hold that the Mishnah's narrow understanding of blasphemy was a later development." (NAB)

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

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

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

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

Let me repeat once more the gospel text in question:

[quote]Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"  And Jesus said, "I am; and you will see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."  And the high priest tore his mantle, and said, "Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy.  What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death.[/quote]

"I am; and you will see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."
It is clear how a Jew would consider this statement blasphemous, if he beleived Jesus to be a mere man and not the actual Son of God -as it implies an equality with God.

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

[quote]Those who judge the gospel accounts of Jesus' trial by the later Mishnah standards point out that Jesus uses the surrogate "the Power," and hence no Jewish court would have regarded him as guilty of blasphemy[/quote]

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

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

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

And I've never heard you give an explanation of why, according to you, Jesus made the reply, "I am; and you will see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven," before the Sanhedrin.

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

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


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

[LittleLes]

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

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

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

Let me repeat once more the gospel text in question:



"I am; and you will see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." 
It is clear how a Jew would consider this statement blasphemous, if he beleived Jesus to be a mere man and not the actual Son of God -as it implies an equality with God.

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



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

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

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

And I've never heard you give an explanation of why, according to you, Jesus made the reply, "I am; and you will see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven," before the Sanhedrin.

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

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


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

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

"I am; and you will see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."


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

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


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

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

Edited June 1, 2005 by LittleLes

[Mateo el Feo]

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

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

"I am; and you will see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."

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

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

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

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

Request: Prove Christ's divinity.

We prove it.

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

We prove it.

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

We prove it.

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

etc, etc...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[scardella]

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

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

"I am; and you will see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."
...

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

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

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

[LittleLes]

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

Request: Prove Christ's divinity.

We prove it.

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

We prove it.

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

We prove it.

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

etc, etc...

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[LittleLes]

[quote name='scardella' date='Jun 1 2005, 10:57 AM'] He's not debating the title "Son of Man." The "I am" = YHWH/Yahweh. That is clearly a statement of equality. Additionally, the "right hand of the Power" implies that he will be on the same level as God.

Ezekiel also didn't claim to be at the right hand of the Power or YHWH, though. He never claimed to be on the same level as God. [/quote]
Sitting at the right hand of the Power does not establish equality with God.

For example if Ezekiel were the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of God, that would not make him God. You are attempting to read something that isn't there.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 2 2005, 03:05 AM'] But you've repeatedly failed to prove it. That's the difference. [/quote]
For those who don't believe, no proof is possible. You're games have underscored this truth.

In any event, I would appreciate if you would answer my question.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Jun 2 2005, 02:39 AM'] For those who don't believe, no proof is possible. You're games have underscored this truth.

In any event, I would appreciate if you would answer my question. [/quote]
Please succinctly state your question then, and I'll try to answer it.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 3 2005, 10:06 AM']Please succinctly state your question then, and I'll try to answer it. [/quote]
I was requesting an answer to the following question (I've left a little context for you):
[quote name='Mateo el Feo']You seem to want clear Biblical proof of Christ's divinity (as if Catholics were "Sola Scriptura" believers), yet it's not clear that you believe a single word of the Holy Bible.

So, my question is: Why would you want us to prove an article of Our Catholic Faith using a source that you don't believe?[/quote]
If you judge that this is not succinct, let me know.

[Archangel]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 30 2005, 01:31 AM'] (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. [/quote]
(1) The bible does not contain contradictions or errors.

(2) Regardless of who actually wrote 2 Peter, it is historical proof that the Divinity of Jesus was believed as early as the 2nd century if not sooner.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Archangel' date='Jun 4 2005, 01:02 AM'](1) The bible does not contain contradictions or errors.

(2) Regardless of who actually wrote 2 Peter, it is historical proof that the Divinity of Jesus was believed as early as the 2nd century if not sooner.
[right][snapback]607254[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Reply to #1
No errors you say? Then you feel that the Catechism of the Catholic Church #2414 describing slavery as a sin as well as Pope JPII's Veritatas splendor #80 insisting that slavery is intrinsically disordered is in error? Form Leviticus 25:

44
"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations.
45
You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves you may own as chattels,
46
and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves.

Reply to #2

Belief in Jesus' divinity in the second century is a far different matter than such a belief in the first century. The theory of the Messiah as the Logos hadn't developed yet. It took a little Greek influence.

[Cam42]

We've been through the whole slavery thing before brother LittleLes...unless of course you have forgotten the whole chattel vs. not debate of 2 months ago....

Why keep pushing up daisies? You can't come up with any new topics of conversation?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 8 2005, 10:37 PM']We've been through the whole slavery thing before brother LittleLes...unless of course you have forgotten the whole chattel vs. not debate of 2 months ago....

Why keep pushing up daisies?  You can't come up with any new topics of conversation?
[right][snapback]607707[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm sorry that you can't accept that there are errors in the Bible, and that the Catholic Church once based its moral teachings on such errors.

Lev 25:44 -46
"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations. You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves you may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves."

In 1866 a request for an opinion on slavery was made to the Holy Office in reaction to the passing of the 13th amendment to the United States Constitution. It responded that:

"It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given."

But the (New) Catechism of the Catholic Church reversed this teaching error.

#2414 The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity.

And from Pope John Paul II's Veritatis splendor, section #80::

" Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object". The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: ...; 'whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; ...' "

So the moral legitimacy of slavery, taught by the Church for most of its history right up through at least 1866, is now a "sin" and said to be intrinsically disordered.

But some Catholics still can't recognize the original error and the change in spite of the clear documentary evidence.

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 2 2005, 02:09 AM']Sitting at the right hand of the Power does not establish equality with God.

For example if Ezekiel were the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of God, that would not make him God. You are attempting to read something that isn't there.
[right][snapback]605277[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ezekiel did not claim to come at the right hand of the Power (a statment implying equality with God, which would rightfully be regarded as blasphemous by any devout Jew). Neither did Abraham, Moses, nor any of the other prophets.

Again, why would Jesus even make such a reply to the Sanhedrin?

The implication is quite clear. You are simply stubbornly refusing to admit it.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 10 2005, 02:32 PM']Ezekiel did not claim to come at the right hand of the Power (a statment implying equality with God, which would rightfully be regarded as blasphemous by any devout Jew).  Neither did Abraham, Moses, nor any of the other prophets.

Again, why would Jesus even make such a reply to the Sanhedrin?

The implication is quite clear.  You are simply stubbornly refusing to admit it.
[right][snapback]608831[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The implication that this statement claimed divinity is your's.

And what even makes you certain that the "Son of Man" refered to is Jesus? Again, an assumption on your part!

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 10 2005, 04:27 PM']The implication that this statement claimed divinity is your's.

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]
This is just willful ignorance, LittleLes. If you've got a conspiracy theory about the Son of Man referring to someone else other than Jesus, I would recommend that you do a quick search through the New Testament to collect your proof.

The New Testament clearly shows that Jesus is the Son of Man. To support your conspiracy theory, one would have to assume that the New Testament is corrupted in approximately 80 verses where the term "Son of Man" occurs! Is that your position?

BTW, LittleLes, you have a habit of reading the Holy Bible in a way that is similar to some Muslim apologists I have encountered. They selectively quote certain portions of the Holy Scriptures that appear to support their position, and then cry corruption where the Holy Scriptures explicitly refute their position. That's quite convenient, though I don't regard such a practice as objective or scholarly.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Jun 11 2005, 10:11 AM']This is just willful ignorance, LittleLes.  If you've got a conspiracy theory about the Son of Man referring to someone else other than Jesus, I would recommend that you do a quick search through the New Testament to collect your proof.

The New Testament clearly shows that Jesus is the Son of Man.  To support your conspiracy theory, one would have to assume that the New Testament is corrupted in approximately 80 verses where the term "Son of Man" occurs!  Is that your position?

BTW, LittleLes, you have a habit of reading the Holy Bible in a way that is similar to some Muslim apologists I have encountered.  They selectively quote certain portions of the Holy Scriptures that appear to support their position, and then cry corruption where the Holy Scriptures explicitly refute their position.  That's quite convenient, though I don't regard such a practice as objective or scholarly.
[right][snapback]609212[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Sorry, Mateo.

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

Jesus never refered to himself as the "Son of God," always as the "Son of Man." You tell me 80 times. 90 beats 80. []

Maybe those Muslim apologists are correct? You think?

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 10 2005, 12:39 PM']I'm sorry that you can't accept that there are errors in the Bible, and that the Catholic Church once based its moral teachings on such errors.

Lev 25:44 -46
"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations. You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves you may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves."

In 1866 a request for an opinion on slavery was made to the Holy Office in reaction to the passing of the 13th amendment to the United States Constitution. It responded that:

"It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given."

But the (New) Catechism of the Catholic Church reversed this teaching error.

#2414 The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity.

And from Pope John Paul II's Veritatis splendor, section #80::

" Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object". The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: ...; 'whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; ...' "

So the moral legitimacy of slavery, taught by the Church for most of its history right up through at least 1866, is now a "sin" and said to be intrinsically disordered.

But some Catholics still can't recognize the original error and the change in spite of the clear documentary evidence.
[right][snapback]608733[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You have been proven wrong and are found wanting....all this is is banter.

[Cam42]

[quote]Yes, indeed. As CAM once pointed out in the past, it is necessary to separate allegorical events (ie. didn't really happen) from historical events ( ie.really happened) in scripture. And God "spoke" too (allegorically) in the Old Testament calling David his Son, didn't He?[/quote]

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.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 11 2005, 01:00 PM']Sorry, Mateo.

This from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The Prophet Ezechiel is addressed by God as "son of man" more than ninety times, e.g. "Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak to thee" (Ezechiel 2:1). "[/quote]
Sorry LittleLes. Not germane. Stay focused and don't try to hide your incorrect assertion by changing the subject.

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 11 2005, 01:00 PM']Jesus never refered to himself as the "Son of God," always as the "Son of Man." You tell me 80 times. 90 beats 80. [][/quote]
"Son of God" is also unrelated to my post. Let me remind you of your earlier assertion:
[quote name='LittleLes' date=' Jun 10 2005, 04:27 PM']And what even makes you certain that the "Son of Man" refered to is Jesus? Again, an assumption on your part![/quote]
So, first: you say that it is an "assumption" that "the 'Son of Man' referred to is Jesus." Next, you say that Jesus referred to himself "always as the 'Son of Man.'" First, you complain of a bad assumption. Then you make the same assuption!

This, my Internet friend, is grasping at straws. You're just reaching out for anything in order to play the contrarian/unbeliever.

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 11 2005, 01:00 PM']Maybe those Muslim apologists are correct? You think?
[right][snapback]609257[/snapback][/right][/quote]
I just want to be sure what you are saying. Would you like to defend the validity of the technique I described?

You're still hiding in the shadows. Why don't you answer my earlier question?
[quote]You seem to want clear Biblical proof of Christ's divinity (as if Catholics were "Sola Scriptura" believers), yet it's not clear that you believe a single word of the Holy Bible.

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