|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
|
| |
| popoi | |
| Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Divinity of Jesus | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
jar Member (Idle past 414 days)  Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Member (Idle past 4979 days)  Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member  Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
I only have a minute so this will be brief.
Brian writes:
Isiah 7:14Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold a virgin will be with child and bear a son, ans she will call His name Immanuel. But the things that are claimed for Jesus are not the same as what the Old Testament claims for the Messiah. The virgin birth, for example, is an alien concept to Jews, the messiah would be a simple straightforward human like you or I. Clearly the idea of a virgin birth was not foreign to the early Jews. They did not think however that this would make the Messiah divine.
Brian writes:
We all know the prayer that starts "our Father". The term children of God is frequently used. I don't see that as a statement of divinity. As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." This is certainly not messianic, and God says Jesus is His Son. Terms like "Son of Man', and Son of God" were Jewish Messianic terms.This is what N.T. Wright has to say about the term "Son of God" N.T. Wright writes: Son of God: Originally a title for Israel (Exodus 4.22) and the Davidic king (Psalm 2.7) also used of ancient angelic figures (Genesis 6.2) By the New Testament period it was already used as a messianic title, for example in the Dead Sea Scrolls. There and when used of Jesus in the gospels 9eg. Matthew 16.16), it means, or reinforces, "Messiah" without the later significance of 'divine'. However, already in Paul the transition to the fuller meaning (one already equal with God and was sent by Him to become human and to become messiah) is apparent, without loss of the meaning 'Messiah' itself. (eg. Galatians 4.4) Brian writes: Infancy Gospel of Thomas 4:1-4 You already know what I'll say about this.  Thomas is a gnostic gospel written around 200 ad. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
jar writes: The point is that Jesus dying was not a sacrifice, nor was crucifixion some special type of suffering.There are two things of importance here. One is that if Jesus was divine then even death was just a sham. A God dying is simply a God pretending to die; a kids game. Second, Jesus death was not a sacrifice. The idea that God could kill himself to pay himself some token that would allow God to the forgive mankind is just silly. Finally, the idea of GOD actually becoming man, no longer GOD, not even God or god, but just man; that IS a sacrifice. GOD becoming flesh, dirty, smelly, often in pain, often unable to control even his own body; that is a sacrifice and lesson. I'm back to what Bishop N. T. Wright has to say on the subject. Here is a part of essay written by Wright.
N.T.Wright writes: My case has been, and remains, that Jesus believed himself called to do and be things which, in the traditions to which he fell heir, only Israel’s God, YHWH, was to do and be. I think he held this belief both with passionate and firm conviction and with the knowledge that he could be making a terrible, lunatic mistake. I do not think this in any way downplays the signals of transcendence within the Gospel narratives. It is, I believe, consonant both with a full and high Christology and with the recognition that Jesus was a human figure who can be studied historically in the same way that any other human figure can be.[20] Indeed, I have come to regard such historical study not just as a possibly helpful source for theology but a vital and non-negotiable resource: not just part of the possible bene esse, but of the esse itself. Partial proof of this drastic proposal lies in observing what happens if we ignore the history: we condemn ourselves to talking about abstractions, even perhaps to making Jesus himself an abstraction. Fuller proof could only come if and when systematicians are prepared to work with the first-century Jewish categories which are there in the historical accounts of Jesus and which shaped and formed his own mindset. [60] It will also enable other topics in New Testament theology, notably the Christology of Paul, John, Hebrews, and indeed the Synoptics, to fall into a more appropriate place and shape. The ultimate origins of that very early, very Jewish, very high Christology which we find not only in Paul but in the (hypothetically) pre-Pauline passages are to be found, I suggest, not in an explosion of creative thought which took place after the resurrection”though there certainly was an explosion of creative thought on that point”but in the mindset of Jesus himself. And this mindset is discovered not by probing individual sayings in isolation, but in the whole tenor and aim of Jesus’ public career and teachings. It will be noted that I have come as far as the last paragraph without mentioning the resurrection. Despite a long tradition, I do not regard the resurrection as instantly ”proving Jesus’ divinity’. In such Jewish thought as cherished the notion of resurrection was what would happen to everybody, or at least all the righteous. It would not constitute those raised as divine beings. Nor would the ”glorification’ of Jesus, his ascension to God’s right hand have that effect: Jesus had, in New Testament theology, thereby attained the place marked out from the beginning not for an incarnate being but for the truly human one (note the use of Psalm 8 in e.g. 1 Cor, 15: 27). But this is not to say that the resurrection and ascension have nothing to do with the early church’s belief in Jesus’ divinity. We must not short-circuit their thought-processes, even though the time involved for such thinking may have been very short. My own reading of the process goes like this. The resurrection and ascension proved, first and foremost, that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. This meant, at once, that his death had to be regarded in some fashion as a victory, not a defeat, whereupon all Jesus’ cryptic sayings about the meaning of his death fell into place. Within that, again very quickly, the earliest Christians came to see that what had been accomplished in Jesus’ death and resurrection as the decisive climax to his public career of kingdom-inauguration, was indeed the victory of YHWH over the last enemies, sin and death. And with that they could no longer resist the sense, backed up again by Jesus’ cryptic sayings, that in dealing with him they were dealing with the living”and dying”embodiment of YHWH himself, Israel’s God in person. From that it is a short step”not a long haul, involving abandoning Jewish categories and embracing those of the pagan [61] world”to speaking of ”that which was from the beginning, which we heard, which we saw with our eyes, which we beheld, and which our hands touched, concerning the word of life’ (1 John 1:1). The worship of Jesus in early Jewish Christianity, a worship which was not perceived as flouting monotheism but as discerning its inner heart, was indeed, as is now more regularly seen, the beginnings of Christian thinking about Jesus. But that worship was simply discerning, in the Jewish categories that he had himself made thematic, what lay at the heart of the vocation and self-understanding of Jesus himself. Here is the link to the entire essay.http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesus_Self.htm Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Raphael Member (Idle past 483 days)  Posts: 173 From: Southern California, United States Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Member (Idle past 4979 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3688 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Member (Idle past 4979 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
jaywill Member (Idle past 1961 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Brian Member (Idle past 4979 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Apparently, you have no understanding of God's ways. Apparently you have no understanding of what history is.
Have you ever read the 11th chapter of the book of Hebrews? Yes I have, a book that used to be allocated to the fervent St. Paul, but is no longer considered to be written by him.
You seem to regard "faith" as some poor second-best means that man is left with to know about rather questionable and shady things supposedly done by God. I think you are probably misunderstanding the intention of my post. I am merely pointing out that we do not know for sure ANYTHING that Raphael claims that Jesus ACTUALLY DID. You may have FAITH that He did these things, but to say that He ACTUALLY DID them displays an ignorance of what history is.
God has chosen the means of faith for men and women to substantiate Him. IOW, the fictional character Yahweh really doesn’t need to do anything, men and women will always invent a means to keep this entity alive,
Perhaps, He has done so so as to leave mankind with nothing to boast and brag about. Oh I think mankind has a lot to boast and brag about.
Why don't you read through the 11th chapter of the book of Hebrews and count the number of times the author writes "BY FAITH ..." This has nothing to do with my questions though. Why do you think the author (s) uses the word ”faith’ so much, is it because they know that there is zero evidence to support God? Did they know that they have to pre-program the believer into this silly position because they knew God is absent in the real world?
You think you really have a strong humanistic case debating here "How do you know this. What is your evidence that Jesus did that?" What is your evidence the Jesus said this or that? What is your evidence that Jesus was this or that?" It really is such a simple question. Raph says Jesus ACTUALLY DID these things and I am asking how does he know the Bible is correct, and his silence speaks volumes.
Haven't you read? "Now there abide faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love." (1 Cor. 13:1) So, do you really think that this is a valid approach to take in regard to historical research? Do you think it is in any way impressive that the only evidence that you have that something in the Bible us true is because the Bible says it is? Is this really a valid argument, and if it is then surely everything in the Qur’an, Veda’s, Dhammapada, and all other scriptures are equally true?
Three great God inspired virtues Paul places in importance. One of them is faith - faith, hope, love. He did not say science, mathematics, love. He said faith, hope, love. If only God loved us as much as He expects us to love Him. Faith and hope are all very nice, but useless as a tool for historical research.
You err greatly by seeking to trivialize faith. I haven’t even mentioned faith, I simply asked how Raph knows Jesus ACTUALLY DID these things, if his answer is by faith then he really doesn’t know if Jesus ACTUALLY DID anything. All he is doing is retelling me something I have heard a million times.
Faith is humbling. Faith invites the mocking of the unbelievers. Faith is an embarrassing excuse.
YOu have never read in Galatians how Paul elaborated on the mocking of Ishmael against Isaac. Faith was mocked. Faith was ridiculed. You don’t know what I have read or what I know about Galatians, Paul, or anything else. You perhaps HOPE that I haven’t, but just because I haven’t arrived at the same conclusions as you have about the Bible, God, and faith doesn’t mean I haven’t studied the Bible.
You essentially are doing the same work here. I was asking a simple question from an historical angle, I never mentioned faith, and neither did Raph. If you want to believe that everything in the Bible is true because you have already accepted that it will be true regardless of how silly it is, then you really cannot get upset when someone refuses to accept your word for it. I mean do you accept that the Qur’an is 100% accurate if a Muslim tells you it is?
So coming off smugly demanding evidence for this and for that is not as impressive to some of us as you think. I didn’t demand anything, I asked a simple question, and I even said ”please’. BTW, I really do not ponder for even a second on the possibility that you and your ilk have the slightest interest in anything I say.
We have faith in God's word. We have faith in the faithfulness of God's word. Which is all fine and dandy, but useless as a method of historical research. If you have faith that people lived to nearly a thousand years of age then it is an embarrassing faith that you have, a faith that calls for unthinking, mindless robots.
Sure we have biblical evidence Well you cannot use Bible evidence to suggest that something in the Bible is true, that’s just silly.
and even in many cases extra biblical evidence for things written in the Bible. Of course, no one would argue with that.
But you can always say "Neither do I believe this. Neither do I believe that." But if you are asking someone to believe that something is historically accurate, surely that person is entitled to ask how you arrive at your conclusion? A few months ago in the middle of Falkirk I was stopped by and elderly lady who asked me if I was interested in coming to a church meeting, I said that I was really busy but even as an atheist I still enjoy popping along to church now and then. The elderly lady then had a go at me, trying to ridicule my faith! Of course this got my back up and I asked her why on earth would I want to go along to a meeting about a fairytale character, and she laughed and said there is more evidence in history for Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar (that old chestnut), then I asked her to name one piece of evidence and she said the Gospels, which I reminded her is a circular argument. So I asked for external support, all she said is there are many many sources, but I wouldn’t let it go and I just kept asking her to, “name one”, she kept dodging, so I kept saying “name one”, and she couldn’t. I even asked her to bring out her minister and we could ask him, but she didn’t. Finally I said to her, “look, if you are going to ridicule people’s faith then you really should know a lot more about your own, what effect do you think you have had on the chances of me now going along to your little meeting?” She was correct when she said she didn’t think I would appear, the first thing she was correct about BTW. Now if she had at least supported some of the things she had said I probably would go to one of their meetings. I never ever just say I don’t believe this or that, I always give good reasons why I do or don’t believe something. But my training requires a lot more than simply taking someone’s word for something, I even question some of my old lecturers’ works. John Drane for example, he is a very well respected Christian scholar that I studied under at Stirling. But some of the stuff in a few of his articles is complete bull. So, all I ask of someone is what I would expect them to ask of me, which is only fair.
The New Testament does not beg you to believe this or that. It states the facts in a matter of fact manner. No it doesn’t state ”facts’. It MAY state facts, but to accept something as a FACT just because it is in a book you happened to naively think is an accurate account of everything, does not make it a fact.
The simplicity is impressive. To some people it may be.
It tells you that it is telling you so that you would believe. Either you believe or you don't. That’s fine until you start telling others that they should accept it too. When you tell others that something in the Bible is a fact, then why should they just take your word for it?
Do you KNOW that your father and mother are really your parents? You trust your father when he tells you that he is your father? Do you KNOW that or do you TRUST him on that? That’s a pretty poor example mate. I have many other sources that confirm who my parents were.
How do you know that your evidence for being their child has not been tampered with?  The thing is I CAN provide evidence, you however cannot provide any evidence for old Jesus.
They could be deceived. They could have lied. They could have taken the wrong baby from the hospital. You don't really have strong evidence that your dad is REALLY your dad. Of course I have STRONG evidence. Apart from the fact that I am the spitting image of him, I have eyewitness accounts, which you do not have for Jesus. Also, if I wanted to, I could dig him up and have DNA tests carried out.
I wish before you continue on this proud examination of evidence of Jesus doing this or that, that you would read about FAITH in the book of Hebrews. Why? How could I possibly reference this in a history paper? I would be laughed out of any conference in the world if I had the neck to stand up and say that Jesus ACTUALLY DID everything the Bible said because I have faith in the Bible. Do you really think any of my work would be taken seriously?
Without faith it is impossible to be well pleasing to God. Who cares about pleasing God?
And obviously, in the Bible faith is not presumption and is not believing WHATEVER you want to believe. It is about being that automaton, that mindless robot, the state of ignorance that one MUST achieve before they can have faith in a book.
What you regard as a poor way, a not adaquate way, a second hand and illigitimate way, is the way that God has chosen to manifest His truth to us. The same way that Allah, Brahman, and all the rest of the absent gods have chosen. Why should I take the Bible on faith and not any other collection of holy texts? Why should I take the Bible on FAITH when I know that most of its history has been falsified? If the best argument you have for the Bible being true is the Bible itself then that is mightily unimpressive. Have a nice day. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
iano Member (Idle past 1961 days)  Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Brian writes: I haven’t even mentioned faith, I simply asked how Raph knows Jesus ACTUALLY DID these things, if his answer is by faith then he really doesn’t know if Jesus ACTUALLY DID anything. I'm afraid you're not in a position to state that someone doesn't know x by faith. Such a statement would be making the claim that the only ways to know things are by means which exclude by faith. Such a position is a philosophical position - and a faith-based philosophical position at that
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
