The divinity of Christ

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Again, you are making the scriptural case for Christ's manhood, and no doubt Christ's manhood can be proven. I'm not denying there is a distinction between the Son and the Father, the distinction underscored by the passages which you've cited. Though neither do I, nor can I, deny the scriptural case for Christ's Godhood, underscored by th ...[text shortened]... nnot be resolved, only appreciated (i.e. Jesus Christ is somehow both God and man).

Then the bible is wrong. Or you are wrong. He is not made like His brethren. Only in part.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
It is not about what makes 'sense'. It is all about what is revealed by scripture, which doesn't necessarily make 'sense'. You are appealing to logic rather than faith in God's word. Logic is employed here as a means to discount the mystery of Christ as both God and man, but faith is not to be based on logic (human wisdom).

God invented logic. He also invented what makes sense. On the contrary logic is used throughout the bible. What does not make sense? If what the bible teaches can make no sense, then why read it?
I agree with Vistesd that we are at an impasse.....Peace....🙂

Originally posted by checkbaiter
God invented logic. He also invented what makes sense. On the contrary logic is used throughout the bible. What does not make sense? If what the bible teaches can make no sense, then why read it?
I agree with Vistesd that we are at an impasse.....Peace....🙂

I think you will find that an all knowing being cannot be fully understood. That is of coarse unless you are his equal.

Proverbs 3:5 "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding."

Originally posted by checkbaiter
God invented logic. He also invented what makes sense. On the contrary logic is used throughout the bible. What does not make sense? If what the bible teaches can make no sense, then why read it?
I agree with Vistesd that we are at an impasse.....Peace....🙂

If what the bible teaches can make no sense, then why read it?

Why? Because it is still the revelation of God and His purpose.

Remember, our natural process of understanding (e.g. logic) cannot comprehend the things of God, "because (the things of God) are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14). Spiritual discernment does not depend upon logic, because spiritual discernment is intuitive rather than deductive.

"I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight" (Isaiah 42:16).

I agree with Vistesd that we are at an impasse.....Peace....🙂

We may be at an impasse, but it not one necessitated by God's word. What we have on our hands is a great mystery, which none of us can fully comprehend.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Remember, our natural process of understanding (e.g. logic) cannot comprehend the things of God, ".

This is precisely the reason why the important matters that are required for us to get salvaton are made crystal clear. There is no need for long complicated analysis and connecting verses, checking this and that translation etc etc , which you like to do. The important things are :

1. There is One God
2. Man is sinful
3. God sent His son Jesus to die for our sins so that we can have a chance to get salvation
4. To get salvation we have to believe AND be baptised AND do good works.

Certainly bible study is useful but there is such a thing as too much Bible study.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]If what the bible teaches can make no sense, then why read it?

Why? Because it is still the revelation of God and His purpose.

Remember, our natural process of understanding (e.g. logic) cannot comprehend the things of God, "because (the things of God) are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14). Spiritual discernment does not depend u word. What we have on our hands is a great mystery, which none of us can fully comprehend.[/b]

Exactly. It is God's revelation....and we are to study it.

Col 1:9-12
9For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;
10that you may have a walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God;
11strengthened with all might, according to His glorious power, for all patience and longsuffering with joy;
12giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light.
(NKJ)

And we are at at impasse, I agree that it is not necessitated by God's word. What we have is no mystery at all, it is a mystery to trinitarians, not to those who agree with what is written. All the verses you cited can be used the other way. Mostly they are out of context or you assume your position disregarding all other explanations....I have no further interest in debating this with you, I do not want to cause ill will between us.🙂

Originally posted by whodey
Why in your opinion was Christ seen as a blasphemer and subsequently killed if he was not seen as divine by claiming to be the Son of God? The options I can think of are:

1) The people were ignorant of what the term "Son of God" ment and assumed he was claiming to be divine.
2) The religious leaders knew that he was not really claiming to be divine when ...[text shortened]... st was divine.

If there are other scenerios you can think of I would like to hear them.

The only other scenarios that I can think of off-hand would just be variations of the ones you laid out.

1) might hold for gentiles, but doubtfully, I think for educated Jews. This is not to say that it’s impossible; but “messiah” in Judaism does not necessarily mean “divine.”

I also did not mean to imply that “son of God” was a common euphemism that any Israelite would use—simply that it was one that any Israelite could use. (In the so-called “inter-testamental” period, some Jewish writers seem to have reserved the appellation for a tzaddik, a just person.)

2) would be my best guess: trumped up charges.

With regard to 3) I would not say “put there by ‘trinitarians’.” However, since I tend to view the NT as early church documents, I think that they do reflect certain biases (which I do not intend as a criticism). It is hard for me to read the Gospel of John, for example, without seeing the theme of Jesus’ divinity—but, I too, sometimes have difficulty setting aside all my cultural/religious habitual mindset in reading the texts (which may be partly why I tend to do “close readings,” taking small chunks at a time.)

As I said, I think the texts can be validly argued either way. The site that CB referred to, for example, is cogently argued and presented. I can only argue by applying a different hermeneutical approach.

I wanted to introduce the Orthodox perspective into the mix, since it is one that is seldom seen on here (Clendenin refers to Orthodoxy as “the unknown [in the West] branch of Christianity” ).

Personally, I think Jesus was minimally claiming some kind of divine nature. But, as you know (you know me pretty well!), by the time I can interpret that in a way that I could affirm, I have stepped outside the bounds of conventional Christian understandings.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Exactly. It is God's revelation....and we are to study it.

Col 1:9-12
9For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;
10that you may have a walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in eve ...[text shortened]... e no further interest in debating this with you, I do not want to cause ill will between us.🙂

I definitely have no ill will towards you, CB. Quite the opposite. Like you I just felt the need to espouse my point of view, that's all. We'll let it rest. I have nothing further really to add to what I've already said anyway.

Peace indeed. 🙂

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I definitely have no ill will towards you, CB. Quite the opposite. Like you I just felt the need to espouse my point of view, that's all. We'll let it rest. I have nothing further really to add to what I've already said anyway.

Peace indeed. 🙂

Ditto....🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
The only other scenarios that I can think of off-hand would just be variations of the ones you laid out.

1) might hold for gentiles, but doubtfully, I think for educated Jews. This is not to say that it’s impossible; but “messiah” in Judaism does not necessarily mean “divine.”

I also did not mean to imply that “son of God” was a common euphemism tha ...[text shortened]... that I could affirm, I have stepped outside the bounds of conventional Christian understandings.

Do keep in mind that throughout the ministry of Christ he was at times sought out for stoning. Such scenerios occured when he did things such as telling people that there sins were forgiven or saying that before Abraham was I am. Such actions incited charges of blasphemy. What is even more puzzling is why Christ made no defense of such charges if in fact they were false right before he went to the cross. What would be the implications for allowing them to believe he had blasphemed for saying he was the Son of God? Did he care nothing about the truth?

One more aspect to all this is troubling. Why did he tell his disciples specifically NOT to reveal his identity as being the Son of God? What was so inflamatory about this notion if it did not correlate to him as divine? Would he have been killed earlier if they had let the cat out of the bag earlier? Of coarse, after he had been put to death there was no more reason to hide this fact. Christ even told them to go and preach the good news throughout the world right after his resurrection.

Originally posted by whodey
Do keep in mind that throughout the ministry of Christ he was at times sought out for stoning. Such scenerios occured when he did things such as telling people that there sins were forgiven or saying that before Abraham was I am. Such actions incited charges of blasphemy. What is even more puzzling is why Christ made no defense of such charges if in fact ...[text shortened]... even told them to go and preach the good news throughout the world right after his resurrection.

Do keep in mind that throughout the ministry of Christ he was at times sought out for stoning. Such scenarios occurred when he did things such as telling people that there sins were forgiven or saying that before Abraham was I am. Such actions incited charges of blasphemy. What is even more puzzling is why Christ made no defense of such charges if in fact they were false right before he went to the cross. What would be the implications for allowing them to believe he had blasphemed for saying he was the Son of God? Did he care nothing about the truth?

Very good questions, no doubt. According to the Gospel of John, he did on one occasion at least, mount a defense of sorts—

John 10:34 Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If those to whom the word of God came were called 'gods'—and the scripture cannot be annulled— 36 can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God's son?’”

He is, of course, here quoting Psalm 82:6—“I say, ‘You are gods, children of the Most High, all of you’...”

Otherwise, all he could have done was to make an explicit denial. [Remember, I have been arguing the Orthodox perspective on the “pro” side of this debate.]

What is your take on Psalm 82, regarding divine nature?

One more aspect to all this is troubling. Why did he tell his disciples specifically NOT to reveal his identity as being the Son of God? What was so inflammatory about this notion if it did not correlate to him as divine? Would he have been killed earlier if they had let the cat out of the bag earlier? Of coarse, after he had been put to death there was no more reason to hide this fact. Christ even told them to go and preach the good news throughout the world right after his resurrection.

The only answer I recall hearing was his desire to complete his ministry. I have not done a lot of study on this particular question, for which I realize no one has yet offered you an answer.

As to what would be inflammatory, there are a number of possibilities:

(1) He is a Galilean rabbi challenging the Judean religious authorities on their own turf, with a different “torah.” (Historically, there was animus between Galilee and Judea, on political, cultural and religious grounds.)

(2) Judea/Galilee was a tinderbox, with a whole mix of different Jewish groups who had different political views vis-à-vis the Roman occupation, as well as religious differences (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots). All differences were likely sensitive. He may have well been seen as one more unwanted pot-stirrer. After all, many would not have wanted the Roman authorities to hear anyone openly speaking about being a son of God, given the putative divinity of Caesar.

—One needs to be aware, in each instance, which Jewish group(s) Jesus is engaging.

(3) On a more mundane level, there was simply a lot of religious argument—often quite polemical—going on. The likely response to any teacher—especially a Galilean in Judea, who had no clear “party connection”—would be to mount a challenge, rather than ask polite questions.

(4) I’m not sure how the Essenes might play in the background here. They, like the Pharisees (although from a different perspective) were at odds with the temple authorities. I’m not sure, for example, if the phrase “son of God” had some different connotation for them. The phrase was not, I think, univocal (sometimes referring to any Israelite, sometimes to a king like David, sometimes to a tzaddik, sometimes perhaps to a non-divine messiah, depending on which group’s particular emphasis).

Frankly, in the grand scheme of things, Jesus may not have been that big a deal outside his own circle—and those are the guys who kept his teaching, first in oral, then in written tradition. If I remember correctly, the total Jewish population of Judea/Galilee was something like 500-700,000—with another few million in disapora. In an age with no mass communication and no printing presses, how many do you suppose even heard of him during his lifetime? (Can you give me the name of the leader of the Essenes at the time?)

Despite his reluctance as portrayed in the gospel account, Pilate himself—and Rome generally—was not averse to crucifying people. He would’ve likely been viewed as just one unfortunate (largely unknown) caught in that net. (How many people do you suppose were crammed into Pilate’s courtyard? 50? 100?)

____________________________________

Now, I think Jesus was claiming divinity of some sort—and I do not want to argue here what sort (although, with the Orthodox, I think Psalm 82 is a key piece of the puzzle; and I think my Gregory of Nyssa quotes get at it as well). I have simply acknowledged that an exegesis, such as the ones CB has offered, that comes to the opposite conclusion can be argued just as cogently from scripture. I take my cue here largely from the early church and its continuing oral tradition, in exegeting the written tradition.

Again, I am not a sola scripturist, and I suspect that those who are draw more on early church tradition than they sometimes realize—if they read any Bible commentary at all. (After all, it was that tradition that both ultimately decided the scriptural canon, and provided the earliest exegesis. Why should one assume that they got one right, but not the other?)

Originally posted by whodey
One more aspect to all this is troubling. Why did he tell his disciples specifically NOT to reveal his identity as being the Son of God?

One possibility is that this may be one of the more Gnostic elements to ultimately have made its way into the bible. Gnosticism (obviously) emphasized divine knowledge as being the key to salvation, but this was seen as a 'secret' knowledge that was not open to everyone. We see this spelled out in the brief introduction to the Gospel of Thomas, for example:

These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded.

Originally posted by rwingett
One possibility is that this may be one of the more Gnostic elements to ultimately have made its way into the bible. Gnosticism (obviously) emphasized divine knowledge as being the key to salvation, but this was seen as a 'secret' knowledge that was not open to everyone. We see this spelled out in the brief introduction to the Gospel of Thomas, for example: ...[text shortened]... hese are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded.[/b]

In your opinion, would you say that this gospel stands on the same footing as the other 4 gospels?

Originally posted by Rajk999
In your opinion, would you say that this gospel stands on the same footing as the other 4 gospels?

I give no preference to canonical works over the apocrypha. But for the vagaries of early church politics, their status could easily have been reversed.

Originally posted by vistesd

Very good questions, no doubt. According to the Gospel of John, he did on one occasion at least, mount a defense of sorts—

John 10:34 Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If those to whom the word of God came were called 'gods'—and the scripture cannot be annulled— 36 can you say that the one whom the Father has sanc course, here quoting Psalm 82:6—“I say, ‘You are gods, children of the Most High, all of you’...”

I view Christ's response as not really answering the question. Notice that Christ answered a question with a question? It is like walking into a store and an employee asking if you work here. The response could be, "Do you not work here?" In giving such an answer one has not really answered the question at all.

I view Christ's response as being somewhat sarcastic in nature. Remember in the garden of Eden when the serpent tempted Adam and Eve? He said something interesting, he said that if you partake of the fruit, "You will be as gods." This implies that before partaking of the fruit they were not "gods". I view this statement as meaning that once they no longer recognized their own God as being their Lord by disobeying him and doing their own will instead, they then became gods unto themselves loosing all accountability to their former God. Really this is all that Christ is saying here. "Are you not now gods unto yourselves now that you have gone your own way?"

I recognize that Christ at least responded to the question as in other cases he completly avoided it and even at that I do not see it as a definitive answer. I think had he done so, he would have broken the mandate he gave his disciples not to reveal that he was the Son of God. I think the reason is obvious. Had he done so, they would have sought all the more to kill him. On the other hand, had he not responded to the question at all this may have been interpreted as agreeing by saying nothing at all. With this repsonse at least he was responding to it without actually denying it and thus it could have been interpreted as many have interpreted it here as a rebuttul but it, in fact, was not really so. This response simply bought him time because his time had not yet come to go to the cross.