Why Is There Belief in the Divinity of Jesus?

Originally posted by Henry23
God the Father and God the Son are distinguishable, but not distinct.

I you know anything about interpreting Scripture you'll know about the 'Context Principle' of Hermeneutics: 'Scripture interprets Scripture.'

Paul, whom you quote, also said the following:

[b]Rom 9:5 [The Israelites] of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, C and fit that ocean of divine truth into the pint size cup of your human understanding! 🙂

Originally posted by Henry23
Matt 5:18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

John 10:35 ...and the Scripture cannot be broken

1 Pet 1:23 having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever...

Ps 119:89 Fore ...[text shortened]... y no means pass away.

In other words, His words are the very words of God that will not fail.

Originally posted by Scriabin
What's the use? Do what you like -- but I think maybe you need more help than even I do -- and I don't dispute I need help. My burden is too heavy for most people; not just losing a son, but my own ill health and now that of my wife who is fighting cancer and numerous other serious problems. Yet we go on and we face what we have to without hiding behind fables ...[text shortened]... ith what those things require of us in order to keep going. We are strong because we choose to be.

Originally posted by whodey
I will give you an example of what I mean. In 1 Samuel 17:23, 50 we have the story of David killing Goliath. However, in 2 Samuel 21:19 we have Elhanan the son of Joareoregem killing Goliath. Gittite means "man of Gath" so it is the same Goliath that was being slain in both 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel.

You are correct that the "word" of God is inerrant, howe ...[text shortened]... eed to forever focus on the spirit of the "Word" and of the law rather than the letter.

Originally posted by Henry23
..Rom 9:5 [The Israelites] of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Thats the New King James Version.

The KJ and the AV both have this wording :

Rom 9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

A totally different meaning.

Originally posted by Henry23
Good point, whodey, and I agree with most of what you say in your post.

I didn't know about the 2 Sam 21:19 Scripture, so I checked it out. It seams like it was Goliath's brother, though, when you cross reference it with 1Ch 20:5 'And there was again war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittit e errors are minor, though.

But I believe that the Bible in the original is infallible.

Originally posted by knightmeister
...and you seem very confident yourself about what you think you know , almost certain infact. How do you know that you know this?

Interestingly , I did not specifically say it was a matter of confidence. What I hinted at was a different kind of knowing rather than intellectualising about it. Knowing the living Christ is not the same as having reli ...[text shortened]... about witches and their need for burning. I'm not sure Christ would have condoned such actions.

Originally posted by whodey
I will give you an example of what I mean. In 1 Samuel 17:23, 50 we have the story of David killing Goliath. However, in 2 Samuel 21:19 we have Elhanan the son of Joareoregem killing Goliath. Gittite means "man of Gath" so it is the same Goliath that was being slain in both 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel.

You are correct that the "word" of God is inerrant, howe ...[text shortened]... eed to forever focus on the spirit of the "Word" and of the law rather than the letter.

Originally posted by whodey
Matthew 11:28 "Come with me, all you that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you will find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

I think it matters little who needs it worse. The bottom line is that we ALL need Jesus Christ.

As I have said elsewhere, all this assertion about the truth of religious beliefs is human vanity. Yet there are thinkers who have something of actual use to say, borne of experiences so terrible, no one here in all probability has ever been close to the kind of suffering the author of these words witnessed and suffered himself. I speak of Viktor Frankl.

My own pain, grief and ill health of the last two years has taught me that I can choose my attitude and beliefs about the meaning of my life, even in the face of the most severe suffering. That is Viktor Frankl's view and, out of choice, I prefer it over almost every other point of view.

Frankl said:

* "We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way."

* "Nietzsche's words, 'He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how.'"

* "When we are no longer able to change a situation—just think of an incurable disease such as inoperable cancer—we are challenged to change ourselves"

* "Fundamentally, therefore, any man can, even under such circumstances, decide what shall become of him - mentally and spiritually. He may retain his human dignity even in a concentration camp."

* "We can discover this meaning in life in three different ways: (1) by creating a work or doing a deed; (2) by experiencing a something or encountering someone; and (3) by the attitude we take toward unavoidable suffering."

* "It did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life—daily and hourly. Our answer must consist, not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual."

* "Man is capable of changing the world for the better if possible, and of changing himself for the better if necessary."

* "Set me like a seal upon thy heart, love is as strong as death." (Cf. Song of Solomon 8:6)

* "We have come to know man as he really is. After all, man is that being who invented the gas chambers of Auschwitz; however, he is also that being who entered those gas chambers upright, with the Lord's prayer or the Shema Yisrael on his lips."

* "A man who for years had thought he had reached the absolute limit of all possible suffering now found that suffering had no limits, and that he could suffer still more, and more intensely."

* "Woe to him, when the day of his dreams finally came, found it to be so different from all that he had longed for!"

* "We were not hoping for happiness---And yet we were not prepared for unhappiness."

* "Live as if you were living already for the second time and as if you had acted the first time as wrongly as you are about to act now!"

Originally posted by Henry23
Rom 9:5 [The Israelites] of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.

This is, of course, a disingenuous translation. In Greek it reads as follows:
On oi pateres kai ex on o Christos to kata sarka, o on epi panton Theos eulogetos eis tous aionas, amen.

This, literally reads:
[The Israelites] Of whom the fathers and out of whom the Christ according to the flesh, the one being over all God blessed into the ages. Amen.

The 'God blessed' part is not appositive to Christ. The comma in the text makes that clear;
it's a separation between the subject which precedes it (Christ) and that which follows it (God).
A better translation would read (as found in the NAB or NRSV, for example) something
like: to whom belong the patriarchs and out of whom, according to the flesh, the Christ, who
is one over all; God be blessed into the ages. Amen.

The sudden and unprecipitated (in Hebrew Scripture, or in any of the other writings of St Paul)
equating of the Messiah with God would detract from his otherwise clear, poetic point: the Israelites
laid claim to seven historic prerogatives (the adoption of Israel as the 'son of God,' the glorious
manifestation of God to them, for example in the desert and Temple, the covenants with the
Patriarchs, the Torah, the proper worship of God [as opposed to the improper worship by
pagans], the promises made to the Fathers of their Faith, and its ancestral heritage). To these
seven (which would have been as familiar to the Jews to whom he was writing as the capitals
of the various states are to attentive Americans) listed by St Paul in the previous verse, he
adds the climactic eighth: the Messiah.

To then juxtapose this with the bombshell that Jesus was also God, and then leave that very
well alone for the rest of the letter is just absurd, without justifying it, explaining it, or even
articulating it clearly. Further, that claim (that St Paul equated Jesus with God) is undermined
by several other passages in that very same letter.

For example: Romans 15:5-6, May the God of endurance and encouragement grant you to
think in harmony with one another, in keeping with Christ Jesus, that with one accord you may
with one voice glorify God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Again, notice how St Paul
equates God with the progenitor of Jesus, that God would grant strength in keeping with Jesus,
not in keeping with Himself, not in keeping with 'God the Son.' Distinct.

Even the opening of the letter, St Paul gives thanks to 'my God through Jesus Christ.' God is
his witness, through whom he served in proclaiming the Gospel of his [God's] Son. In the
third chapter, he points out that God sent Jesus as expiation for sins (verse 25). Again,
God didn't 'send Himself.' In chapter 5, St Paul notes that Christians have 'peace with God
through the Lord Jesus Christ' (verse 1) and later notes that Christians 'were reconciled
to God through the death of his Son...' and that they 'also boast of God through our Lord
Jesus Christ.'

Further, later in the same chapter, St Paul writes 'how much more did the grace of God and the
gracious gift of the one person Jesus Christ overflow for the many' (verse 15) Again, note
the distinction, not equation.

One more: In chapter six, note verses 8-11, in which St Paul writes, 'If, then, we have died with
Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. We know that Christ, raised from the dead
[note the passive voice], dies no more; death no longer has power over him. As to his death,
he died to sin once and for all; as to life, he lives for God. Consequently, you too
must think of yourselves as dead to sin and living for God in Christ Jesus.'

It's not, 'God lives for God,' or that live for God the Son. So, your claim based on the imposition
of a Creedal assertion (that Jesus is God) does not hold water against the many other things
that St Paul said in that very letter (much less the citations I gave earlier which you ignored).


Acts 20:28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

St Paul didn't write Acts; St Luke did. But I'll play ball because I'm a nice guy. First, allow me
to note that the word 'God' in that sentence is not reported in all the ancient authorities, but the
word 'Lord' (i.e., not Theon but kupiou) which is used for Jesus. But, the two oldest
authorities I checked had 'God,' but it testifies to ambiguity on the part of early scribes (the
people closest to this tradition, fluent in the language which we read in translation). You'll also
probably notice that the NRSV translates this passage 'blood of his own [Son],' interpreting the
'his own' in the passage to be a replacement for 'Son.' For example, I personally have a son.
He frequently makes little macaroni art and my wife and I hang it on the refrigerator. When
visitors come to my house, they look at the art, they might ask, 'Is that yours?' They aren't
asking me if I did the macaroni art, they are asking me, 'Is that of yours?' And, it
would be perfectly correct for me to answer that the art was 'the product of the labors of my own.'

The NAB, similarly, translates with this understanding, though they don't add the word 'Son' to
the translation; they offer the following note:
Because the clause 'that he acquired with his own blood' following 'the church of God' suggests
that 'his own blood' refers to God's blood, some early copyists changed 'the church of God' to
'the church of the Lord.' Some prefer the translation 'acquired with the blood of his own,' i.e., Christ.

So, once again, your misreading of the Scriptures through translation has led you to erroneous
(though understandable) interpretations. Obviously, you aren't alone in these misunderstandings,
since the scholarly informed translations have bothered to take the time to address these very
passages, so you shouldn't feel bad about it.

But such interpretations simply don't jive with the Greek, which is where you should go if you
really want to know what the authors of the various texts of Christian Scriptures are trying to
communicate.

There are litterally dozens of other Scriptures, but I won't bore you with them, I think you get the point: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are distinguishable, but not distinct. They are three Persons, but one God.

But this isn't true. There aren't 'dozens of other Scriptures.' There are a handful which, if read
out of context, might point to a Trinitarian conclusion, but only if you ignore the dozens of others
by the same authors which point to a non-Trinitarian belief.

Try and fit that ocean of divine truth into the pint size cup of your human understanding!

If the Trinitarian dogma was really all that important to the authors of the NT texts, then it
would have been trivial for them to say 'God is One Being in Three Persons,' or for any of
them to say 'Jesus Christ is Divine.' This would have made the 'truth' fit into a pint-sized, or
even a tablespoon-sized human understanding. It would have been unequivocal.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Scriabin
Why, whodey, I didn't know you had so much of Savonarola in you.

Originally posted by Scriabin
You can use words like "love" and "compassion" etc. all you like -- but the record of Christians once they get their hands on power isn't about these things -- their hands are covered in the blood of millions of innocent lives taken in the name of Christ and his various churches.