bertot: Here we go.
Quote from Jon
quote:
For this post Thread Divinity of Jesus, I'd just like to say that I want to focus on the historical aspects behind this matter, and not the supernatural ones”so no posts saying 'Jesus really was God, that's why'. We must assume that there is a reasonable, realistic, real-world and non-supernatural-invoking answer to this question. Jon
And by HISTORICAL ASPECTS he means everything outside of the New Testament?
The clause Jon uses is “non-supernatural-invoking”, and since the NT invokes the “supernatural” I would say, Yes, ”HISTORICAL ASPECTS” in this particular thread means anything outside the New Testament.
And by REAL WORLD, he means his view and perception of the real world and all that is possible within existence itself.
Jon specifies by saying, “Reasonable, realistic, real-world.” This clause denotes an
objective perception of reality. A subjective view of reality would be a Christian, supernatural, and superstitious view of the “real-world.”
A loaded, unreasonable and unrealistic quetion at best.
Why is Jon’s question “loaded, unreasonable, and unrealistic”? Come up with something {a.k.a. some hard evidence} outside the NT and make your case.
But for he sake of arument Ill follow him down his bunny trail. His assumption, as he puts it, is and should be based on something he has not exacally stated. Exacally what is being assumed and exacally what do mean by historical event. Specify.
bertot, I thought you did not want to get into a discussion regarding what is “meant” by the English terminology, “historical event.” When Jon says, “non-supernatural-invoking answer,” the “historical event” he is looking for would have to come from outside the NT.
quote:
What historical aspect of the Jesus situation could explain why he was deified into one with God?
None, to the satisfaction of all people, so whats the point of the question. Watch me reword the question. What aspect of history could explain to everyones satisfaction , that all aspects of a persons life (say G Washington) atually happened as stated in history. Whats the point.
Now you are comparing “G Washington” to "Jesus Christ"? We are talking about the “G Washington”, the first president of the U.S.A. right? Now then, we are talking about the “Jesus Christ” who is touted by Christians to be the “Father” of the cosmos and planet earth? Why should we {whoever may be interested} not want to know the extra-biblical history of He who is said to be the “Father” of all creation? If He in fact is the “Father” of all creation, and was in fact
manifest in a human mammal form so that humanity could be saved from sin/death, would it not be helpful if He made available to us a number of extra-biblical, historical accounts of his time spent on planet earth? So, what was the extra-biblical situation that caused Jesus of Nazareth to be deified into one with God? I return the question to you, What was the point?
Its a poorly worded question that isolated by itself, without taking into consideration all the information, tries to establish prejudice in the minds of hearers. however, if we take into consideration all the Historical information to include the NT, then you have a valid answer to a legitimate question. See how it works.
We want to “take into consideration all the Historical information” that is outside the NT first. After reviewing all the extra-biblical Historical information, we {well, at least, I} am willing to “include the NT. See how it works?
AM writes
quote:
Why did Valentinus and his disciples revere the authority of Jesus as equal to or above the Hebrew Scriptures of the Jews a hundred years before the NT canon? Ptolemy, a disciple of Valentinus, goes so far as to makes the claim that the sayings of Jesus offer the only unerring way to comprehend reality. However, Irenaeus - Bishop of a Christian group in 2nd century Gaul - called Valentinus and Ptolemy, “evil interpreters of the Scriptures who have cast truth aside.” Some followers of Ptolemy eventually went so far as to say that divine Wisdom came forth in the beginning and assisted God in bringing forth the cosmos and the earth as described in Gn chapters 1 - 3.
So your whole argument is that because certain people disagreed about things and the nature of Christ, we can conclude that Jesus was not diety?
Where was the Holy Spirit/Comforter when all this early disagreement was going on within the early Christian communities? That was a rather profound disagreement, and it is of extra-biblical historical record that the early Christian disagreement over the nature of Jesus Christ did in fact continue until Roman Emperor Constantine convened the early church Bishops at Nicaea in 325 AD. After intense argument, the Christian creed that emerged from the council of Bishops at Nicaea proclaimed that Jesus Christ was God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, God’s only begotten (Letter of Eusebius of Caesarea to his church, in Socrates’ Historia Ecclesiae 1.8). This is extra-biblical history, what are your extra-biblical sources and evidence?
Interesting way of debating. Im sure if we used the sources these people were using, we would see that it is same as the sources we have today. Your argument is that a certain class of people won the debate by force. I say they did not do it that way. the earliest manuscripts and the earliest Church fathers will attest to that.
What are those earliest extra-biblical manuscripts of which you speak? Who are these extra-biblical early church father? If you have the goods, produce the goods.
If not completly, they would certainly be a counterfactual hypthosis to your contention. They were aware of the diety of Jesus long before Constantine.
Irenaeus, the 2nd century Christian Bishop in Gaul was well before Constantine and Nicaea in 325, the four century AD. He very much disagreed with Valentinus’ and Ptolemy’s extreme supernatural and superstitious interpretations of the biblical texts.
Disagreement is not equivalent to falsifacation.
Not always, but, with what was at stake at that time in Roman history, losing a disagreement of this magnitude could cost one “wealth, property, family, and even one’s own life.” Although, the latter was preferred, for death would end one’s pain and humiliation.
The fact that they were debating it, indicates that they were well aware of the tradition and belief.
An indication of tradition and belief due to an argument over the divinity of Jesus does not argue well for the “truth” of Jesus’ being God. In fact, such an argument so early in the traditional Christian movement, speaks volumes insofar as the “lack of truth” expressed by those early Christian traditions and beliefs.
There my friend is a great HISTORICAL ATTESTATION to Jon question.
It’s so good to see you so happy.
We can do this all day long.
I am packing breakfast, lunch, and dinner; all day long for as long as it takes.
Arguments that equate themselves with historical events and the way history and natural events occur typically, are not a valid method of dismissing a thing completly, such as the diety of Christ.
Jesus is said to be the God of creation, but we cannot use “creation” to determine if Jesus is God of creation. So, how do you, in an extra-biblical way, prove that Jesus is the God of Creation? If someone asks you, “How do you know with certainty that Jesus is the God of creation?” How do you reply?
They fall short because they are a limited way of establishing facts, now or then.
So, establish for me some “facts, now and then.”
All the best,
Ger
™ Version 4.2