Originally posted by kingdanwaGen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Mon ami grenouille, I thought I already told you, "And, as a matter of fact, they did die as a result of their sin."
If God had created a perfect creation, it never would have fallen.I'm glad you brought up Jesus. One major distinction must be made between Jesus' perfection and the hoped-for perfection of Adam and Eve. According to Jesus, he himself was God, not simply God's creation.
Consider the way in which Jesus was viewed: He underwent all manner
of very active temptation by the Devil itself, but never so much as
waffled. A perfect being will respond to temptation in the perfect way.
Clearly, humankind was not perfect and thus sucumbed to temptation.
As for needing the Fall in order to love God, ...[text shortened]... ing your child that you love them more than they could have
understood without the 'box lesson?'
In all of this I see a common problem with our ability to communicate. I am convinced that God is good, by His very nature. You are convinced that God is evil (if He exists?). My question then is, where do you find justification for your judgment of God. Where is your definition of good and evil coming from?
Originally posted by poopsiecuiFirst of all, any claims made about Jesus's divinity are not 'according to
According to Jesus, he himself was God, not simply God's creation.
Jesus' (for He, Himself, left no writings).
Second of all, what citation attributed to Jesus (or any other NT writer)
explicitly says that 'Jesus was God' (not 'Son of God,' which is vastly
different).
Nemesio
First of all, any claims made about Jesus's divinity are not 'according to Jesus' (for He, Himself, left no writings).I have often heard this argument, and I understand why so many would ask it. Unfortunately this view would destroy completely the notion of any kind of history. Would we only accept that Napolean conquered most of Europe, if he wrote about it himself? Do we not rely on reporters and investigators for all of our news, current and ancient?
Second of all, what citation attributed to Jesus (or any other NT writer)
explicitly says that 'Jesus was God' (not 'Son of God,' which is vastly
different).
Your second question is my favorite. Of course I can argue context, context, when Jesus says "Son of God", but there is an excellent witness's report in the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verses 22-42. Most people will jump right to Jesus' words in verse 30, "I and the Father are one," but I think you will find the Jews reaction to Jesus in verse 33 to be the most telling. The Apostle Paul also writes extensively on this topic (see Colossians 1:13-20 and 2:9-10), but John's first hand account of Jesus' words is the best place to start. I would read the whole section and see what you think.
Originally posted by poopsiecui
I have often heard this argument, and I understand why so many would ask it. Unfortunately this view would destroy completely the notion of any kind of history. Would we only accept that Napolean conquered most of Europe, if he wrote about it himself? Do we not rely on reporters and investigators for all of our news, current and ancient?
The argument is relevant for several reasons, and your Napolean
analogue poor for a few.
The reason the argument is specifically relevant is because the four
main accounts of Jesus's words are, to say the least, only loosely
concordant. Consider the so-called 'Beatitudes' as an example, which
do not match up in either content or even number. Even those which
appear to align connote different meanings (compare St Luke's
'Blessed are the poor' with St Matthew's 'Blessed are the poor in spirit).
Consider further that the biographical details of the Synoptic accounts
do not reconcile with that of St John (e.g., the Scourging in the Temple
occurs at the end of Jesus's Minisitry in the former, but at the
beginning in the latter).
Consequently, these accounts should be considered historically
suspect in matters of history (matters of theology are another
matter entirely).
Regardless, in any of the so-called Canonical Gospels, Jesus never
makes any claim to divinity anywhere whatsoever, so the entire
thrust of your argument is founded on a false claim.
The reason that the Napolean example is irrelevant is threefold. First,
Napolean's biography is compiled from friends, enemies, observers,
the conquered, the conquerors, and so on. There is a lot of 'peer
review.' Consequently, there is a lot of disputed evidence. The
unreliable evidence is discarded in favor of more reliable evidence,
decisions which are made (and debated) by historians. Second,
Napolean never laid claim to being God's messenger (Son of God, or
whatever) and, so, there are very few extraordinary claims to be
evaluated. Third, and most significantly, the sources for the
compilation of Napolean's biography exist concurrently with Napolean's
life. The Gospel accounts are, at earliest, two generations after Jesus.
We have Napolean's letters (and replies), reports from diaries and
contemporary newspapers, and so forth, all in Napolean's own time.
The closer a source is to its topic, the more reliable it is (all other
things being equal).
Your second question is my favorite. Of course I can argue context, context, when Jesus says "Son of God", but there is an excellent witness's report in the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verses 22-42. Most people will jump right to Jesus' words in verse 30, "I and the Father are one," but I think you will find the Jews reaction to Jesus in verse 33 to be the most telling. The Apostle Paul also writes extensively on this topic (see Colossians 1:13-20 and 2:9-10), but John's first hand account of Jesus' words is the best place to start. I would read the whole section and see what you think.
I note you attempt to introduce the notion that St John's Gospel was,
in fact, penned by St John which is largely rejected by the theological
community as absurd. This Gospel, which differs in almost all details
from the Synoptic (and earlier) Gospels, is certainly the work of late
1st-century Christians, perhaps of the proto-Gnostic persuasion. The
theology is widely more advanced in its hermeneutic than any other
text in the NT (except for the bizarre Revelation). As such, this notion of a 'first-hand' account is utterly spurious and should be given no
credence.
Second of all, you will notice that St John's account includes the
following cryptic sentence: 'My Father is greater than I.' (14:28). This
creates a dichotomy between Father and Son which calls into question
the notion that Jesus was viewed by early Christians as co-equal with
God. Indeed, this was debated rather spiritedly amongst early
Christian sects in the late first and early second centuries. Was Jesus
Man? Was He God? Was He corporeal or a ghost? Did He die? Was
He raised? What does 'In memory of me' mean? &c &c &c. The
Orthodox notion that Jesus was Fully Man and Fully God was a late
development based on interpretations of Scripture. They
were, by no means, universal and no means explicit in what came to
be known (i.e., ratified by committee) as Scripture.
Four centuries of theological development supports what I am saying,
with four centuries' worth of theological debate and disunity about
what precisely Jesus was and what He was trying to do. To make, as
the fundament of your argument, the blithe claim that the Bible
unequivocably supports the notion that Jesus was God, is outright
silliness (because it is demonstrably false).
In any event, St Paul writes that Jesus was the 'firstborn of Creation'
in the opening passage of Colossians, which makes pretty clear that
He was part of God's Creation.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioThis is Gnostic
Originally posted by poopsiecui
[b]I have often heard this argument, and I understand why so many would ask it. Unfortunately this view would destroy completely the notion of any kind of history. Would we only accept that Napolean conquered most of Europe, if he wrote about it himself? Do we not rely on reporters and investigators for all of our n ...[text shortened]... passage of Colossians, which makes pretty clear that
He was part of God's Creation.
Nemesio
77) Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the All. From Me did the All come forth, and unto Me did the All extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find Me there."
from the Coptic Gospel of Thomas
Of course, it's not in the canon
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAssuming, of course, that the serpent was an entity external to Adam and Eve and tempted them at a specific point in time.
Upon a personal recommendation from a respected theologian, I am
currently reading C.S. Lewis's Space Trilogy, which allegorically addresses
several questions of theology in general, and in particular, some
central aspects of Christian theology.
I came across the following passage today, where I have substituted
standard Christian terminology ...[text shortened]... assignment: answer Lewis's questions.
I hope to receive some thoughtful responses.
Dr. S
Originally posted by frogstompYes, there are many themes which are common to the various
This is Gnostic
77) Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the All. From Me did the All come forth, and unto Me did the All extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find Me there."
from the Coptic Gospel of Thomas
Of course, it's not in the canon
Gnostic sects, many of which are echoed in the Gospel of St Thomas,
some of which are in the Gospel of St John. You will notice I used the
term 'proto-Gnostic' because Gnosticism was not a fully-fledged
movement in the late 1st century, but a theo-philosophical twist on
the reports of Jesus's life and ministry. You will find that the other
Gnostic accounts (like the Gospels of St Philip, St Peter, and 'Truth'😉
are much more similar to that of St John than, say, the Synoptic
Gospels.
All of this is an aside to my main point above which was that the notion
of Jesus's being Divine was not concretely established until a long time
after His death and is certainly not present in any of the Canonical
writings.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesiohttp://www.catholic.com/library/Divinity_of_Chirst.asp
All of this is an aside to my main point above which was that the notion
of Jesus's being Divine was not concretely established until a long time
after His death and is certainly not present in any of the Canonical
writings.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI've read "Gospel of Truth" , written in the absence of the canon, by a presbyter of the Church of Rome, Valentinus. At first reading the Coptic words make it seem off the wall but retranslating them in the light of a more modern understanding of the nature of the universe, makes it clear that he was a bit more spiritually advanced than the people that ran him out of the church.
Yes, there are many themes which are common to the various
Gnostic sects, many of which are echoed in the Gospel of St Thomas,
some of which are in the Gospel of St John. You will notice I used the
term 'proto-Gnostic' because Gnosti ...[text shortened]... rtainly not present in any of the Canonical
writings.
Nemesio
The Gospel of Thomas has more reference hits to the words of Christ. than all of Pauls writings combined (and Paul wrote 60% of the the words in the NT).
Much of the "Gnostic" writers were whacko and it's difficult to tell what was written by a lunatic and what was written by someone that wanted it to look like that way.
Originally posted by NemesioIt's more intellectually honest than simply doing a copy-paste job on the website.
I'm disappointed you have resorted to the 'cite a website' game.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/son.html
Nemesio
Thanks for your link - but I think it is beside the point of debate here. We're not trying to debate whether the Gospels are a reliable account of the "real" Christ's life, or whether they argue necessarily for the divinity of Christ. All we're trying to establish are matters of historical fact:
1. Was the notion of Christ's divinity "concretely established" shortly after His life and death?
2. Is the notion of Christ's divinity present in the Canonical writings?
The answer to the second, I believe, is yes. Granted, there are verses that seem to contradict those that support the idea. At worst, this implies that the Canonical writings do not have a consistent view on Christ's divinity. But that's not the same thing as saying that the notion is completely absent from these writings.
The answer to the first is more complex because you have used the term "concretely established" - implying you're using some evidentiary standard of proof. What is it? If you mean "universal acceptance", then one cannot say that of the divinity of Christ even today - certainly there are Christian sects that deny that Christ was divine.
The writings of Ignatius and Tatian are quite unambiguous in reflecting their belief that Christ was God. How, precisely, is a matter of theological development. I'm certainly not arguing that they had thought out ideas such as homousion/homoiusion, hypostatic union etc. In fact, the idea that Christ was not divine did not achieve any prominence until over two centuries after the death of Christ. Indeed, the central thrust of the Gospel of John (Christ as Logos) should be sufficient to show that the divinity of Christ was not something that was cooked up much later, or even arose gradually over time. This is a question of "whether", not "how".
LH