[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< the divinity of Jesus, and I say it was unnecessary. >>>[/quote] The trouble here is that He says it’s not. It’s incredible at this late date how few people still actually comprehend even on a human level what the Christ was all about.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Or how about simply that Jesus was sent or inspired by God to teach the new covenant. Much has been lost to the potential invention of his divinity. The message loses nothing if Jesus is teacher and prophet. Christianity chose to hitch it’s wagon to the divinity of Jesus, and I say it was unnecessary.
I’ll again refer you to the disputed “triune God”:
The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8 | Bible.org [/quote]
Ahh, no wonder you’re still ignoring that the divinity of Jesus was flatly stated in my passage…This is a religious belief of yours.[/quote]
Really Sloth, it’s not. I was a skeptic. I’m not so skeptical now. To call it a “religious belief” I’m not sure is fair b/c I certainly attach myself to no particular religion. And again, I don’t believe Jesus divinity was “flatly stated”. I think there there are a disputed interpretations, doctrines later invented and conflicting passages. I raised at least a dozen conflicting passages and got tired of doing it. And I already responded to your passage.
Yes, end thread.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< the divinity of Jesus, and I say it was unnecessary. >>>[/quote] The trouble here is that He says it’s not. It’s incredible at this late date how few people still actually comprehend even on a human level what the Christ was all about.
[/quote]
Well, you’re stepping into muddy waters with the “christ” and “jesus”. Notwithstanding that quagmire, I just quoted at least a dozen scriptures (and I could have continued for probably a dozen more) that clearly distinguish Jesus from God. In fact, numerous times Jesus is referred to as God’s servant. He was lifted to heaven to “sit at God’s right hand”. “God raised him”. These are curious grammatical constructions to say the least if Jesus and God were one in the same.
Again, I think it would be fair to say that if the doctrine of the triune God were false, we could safely conclude that Jesus was not divine. Is anyone hear prepared to admit that.
And finally, with sloth especially, this is feeling to much like a “fight”. I’ve stated clearly more than once, I am only interested in discussing it. I’m not trying to “win” an argument and no one here is going to “win” against me. I’m just looking for a discussion. If we can’t do that, if this discussion is going to always lead back to “faith” in the institution of the Catholic Church (which I call an institution of man), the the discussion is indeed circular.
What’s funny is that even many honest flaming theological liberals who are nonetheless eminently qualified in the historical biblical culture and languages will tell you that the Christian scriptures do teach the trinity and the deity of Christ even though they don’t believe in either. What are we gonna do here? Go on yet another technical exegetical journey as if any of us here are qualified to settle these issues. I can stumble my way through some Koine Greek though I was once much better. Hebrew even less. Here is somebody who actually is qualified http://vintage.aomin.org/Witnesses.html
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Wow, what’s up with my buddy Sloth? You didn’t even get this aggravated when you and I were goin at it fer days. Regardless, it’s always good to see you here my friend.[/quote]
Believe it or not, I’m not even mad with BodyGuard here. He’s not bashing my mother, or anything. It’s just that I’m aiming to be brief, blunt, and to the point. And above all, trying to identify when a topic isn’t going anywhere. Too many things to do lately, so little time. Oh, and always good to speak with ya too, Tiribulus.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Wow, what’s up with my buddy Sloth? You didn’t even get this aggravated when you and I were goin at it fer days. Regardless, it’s always good to see you here my friend.[/quote]
Believe it or not, I’m not even mad with BodyGuard here. He’s not bashing my mother, or anything. It’s just that I’m aiming to be brief, blunt, and to the point. And above all, trying to identify when a topic isn’t going anywhere. Too many things to do lately, so little time. Oh, and always good to speak with ya too, Tiribulus.[/quote]
Why in the world would you even think to be “mad” at me?! SMH
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Wow, what’s up with my buddy Sloth? You didn’t even get this aggravated when you and I were goin at it fer days. Regardless, it’s always good to see you here my friend.[/quote]
Believe it or not, I’m not even mad with BodyGuard here. He’s not bashing my mother, or anything. It’s just that I’m aiming to be brief, blunt, and to the point. And above all, trying to identify when a topic isn’t going anywhere. Too many things to do lately, so little time. Oh, and always good to speak with ya too, Tiribulus.[/quote]
Why in the world would you even think to be “mad” at me?! SMH [/quote]
I’m not. What’s SMH? Probably should be obvious, but I’m drawing a blank.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
What’s funny is that even many honest flaming theological liberals who are nonetheless eminently qualified in the historical biblical culture and languages will tell you that the Christian scriptures do teach the trinity and the deity of Christ even though they don’t believe in either. What are we gonna do here? Go on yet another technical exegetical journey as if any of us here are qualified to settle these issues. I can stumble my way through some Koine Greek though I was once much better. Hebrew even less. Here is somebody who actually is qualified http://vintage.aomin.org/Witnesses.html[/quote]
You’re appealing to authority which is flawed because we both know that I could provide a counter-authority. As I said before, it’s a disputed matter and there will be no factual reconciliation here. It’s been disputed since your church invented the doctrine. Yes, I said invented it. Whether or not it was “inspired” is up to your faith.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Wow, what’s up with my buddy Sloth? You didn’t even get this aggravated when you and I were goin at it fer days. Regardless, it’s always good to see you here my friend.[/quote]
Believe it or not, I’m not even mad with BodyGuard here. He’s not bashing my mother, or anything. It’s just that I’m aiming to be brief, blunt, and to the point. And above all, trying to identify when a topic isn’t going anywhere. Too many things to do lately, so little time. Oh, and always good to speak with ya too, Tiribulus.[/quote]
Why in the world would you even think to be “mad” at me?! SMH [/quote]
I’m not. What’s SMH? Probably should be obvious, but I’m drawing a blank.[/quote]
Shaking my head. SMH
“St. Faustus, a fifth century bishop writes, “Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since–as already it has been often proved–these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of lot, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them.””
BodyG:
You never responded. There is ONLY ONE who can say “I AM” that is, the one who is. By definition this is so. Interestingly, if you interested in the logic of this, which should already be obvious, you can always read C.S. Lewis treating of this topic.
None of your quotes goes against the interpretation given by Christians. YOU have to explain why he says I AM who I am. And if you call John a liar or other parts (or any) of the Bible made up, then why even bother asking questions about the Bible? You already have your answer.
You probably aren’t aware that the Bible was written in Greek, and the Old Testament was translated into Greek by Jews ~300 years before Christ for Hellenic Jews (The Septuagint, where we get the titles of the Old Testament such as “Genesis” which in Hebrew is called “In the beginning” … etc)
NO YOU CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT HE IS NOT DIVINE.
Answer my questions, who can forgive sins but God alone and
WHO CAN SAY ‘I AM’?
Only God.
That he is completely human, completely divine has been a stumbling block for people since the beginning. It’s not like it’s anything new. He is the Son of Man, yes, he is the suffering servant, he is the perfect image of God, he is the only path that humans have for redemption BECAUSE he is human and perfectly obedient to God his Father. He shares in everything we have, assuming humanity in its totality, and healing the broken relationship that we have through his obedience, as I have said.
Indeed, there is only one who is Good. He was with God before all the ages, the whole story of creation is about him, through him, for him, in Him, etc.
He was God and nothing in the gospels contradict this, I state adamantly again. That he is also one of the persons of God is ALSO the story.
What you have to explain is what YOU have ducked. How does he forgive sins (and why are the Jews saying only God can do this, the point of the story) and how does HE say “Ego eimi o wn”? I AM WHO I AM?
ONLY GOD can say this.
Until you answer these questions, there is no point to proceed. And if you can’t, why do you continue to protest? You have your answer.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
This is disingenuous at best. The early church fathers were authoring the dogma. You’re concluding they agree with themselves.
[/quote]
Then, I conclude you don’t know much about Dogma. Last time Dogma came out was before Vatican II that was in 1950, I don’t think the Early Church Fathers were still breathing in 1950. Oh, and humans don’t author dogma, it has a divine origin, but the Magisterium confirms Dogma. I think the first time Dogma was used was 450, so that was after the Bible was canonized, and after most of the Early Church Father’s I talked about had died.
Yes, St. Peter our first Pope, St. Paul one of our first Bishops ordained not by Jesus, Sts. Mark, Matthew, Luke, John were all Bishops ordained by Jesus. Another Bishop who was close to at least one Apostle wrote this in 110 A.D. “Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Ignatius). The men that wrote it where distinctively Catholic, it was inspired by G-d, but Catholics wrote it. The Church is not a denomination, it is the Church which Jesus established, not that man established (which is the term denomination stands for):
This is the earliest occurrence in Christian literature of the phrase ‘the Catholic Church’ (ἡ καθολικὴ á¼?κκληÏ?ία). The original sense of the word is ‘universal’. Thus Justin Martyr (Dial. 82) speaks of the ‘universal or general resurrection’, using the words, (ἡ καθολικὴ á¼?νάÏ?Ï?αÏ?ιÏ?. Similarly here the Church universal is contrasted with the particular Church of Smyrna. Ignatius means by the Catholic Church ‘the aggregate of all the Christian congregations’ (Swete, Apostles Creed, p. 76). So too the letter of the Church of Smyrna is addressed to all the congregations of the Holy Catholic Church in every place. And this primitive sense of ‘universal’ the word has never lost, although in the latter part of the second century it began to receive the secondary sense of ‘orthodox’ as opposed to ‘heretical’. Thus it is used in an early Canon of Scripture, the Muratorian fragment (circa 170 A.D.), which refers to certain heretical writings as ‘not received in the Catholic Church’. So too Cyril of Jerusalem, in the fourth century, says that the Church is called Catholic not only ‘because it is spread throughout the world’, but also ‘because it teaches completely and without defect all the doctrines which ought to come to the knowledge of men’. This secondary sense arose out of the original meaning because Catholics claimed to teach the whole truth, and to represent the whole Church, while heresy arose out of the exaggeration of some one truth and was essentially partial and local. - J.H. Srawley
[quote]
I tried before to end the thread. Let’s agree that this rises and falls upon whether you agree with the allegedly inspired teachings of the Catholic Church. I was skeptical prior. Now, after this dialogue, I’m feeling pretty good about rejecting them. Not rejecting God, but the alleged inspired teachings of your Church. Surely we can agree to disagree right? Would any further discussion be fruitful?[/quote]
I don’t agree to disagree, it’s a form of relativism. Basically it’s saying what I consider truth may be true for me, but what you consider truth, even though contradictory, is true for you. No, truth is truth, there is one truth. If we contradict either you’re right or I am right.
That is not how it works. There is one truth, either you’re right or wrong. Now, that being said, I don’t need a peace treaty, either. I don’t need you to agree with me, I don’t care to force you to believe as I do. I respect your freedom of conscience. If you can’t in good conscience believe the claims of the Catholic Church, then go on your merry way. 
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Would you agree that without the Doctrine of the Trinity that one could reasonably conclude that Jesus is not divine? Would that be fair? [/quote]
Doctrine of the Trinity doesn’t really doesn’t establish Jesus’ divine nature, it assumes it. It establishes the triune nature of G-d.
I don’t know how easy it is to twist scriptures. But, I assume that it is possible as people have done it.[/quote]
I know logic allegedly does not belong in a dialogue about religion, but the above was completely circular reasoning (with some other fallacious argument forms making an appearance - which is remarkable given that it’s one sentence at issue). [/quote]
I don’t understand. Jesus’ divine nature was already established, when Jesus taught it. The Doctrine of the Trinity was in work for about four centuries. It was already assumed by the Catholic Church that Jesus was divine, because Jesus taught and they believed.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
If you can’t in good conscience believe the claims of the Catholic Church, then go on your merry way. :)[/quote]
I don’t, and I have. As for your references as to Paul et als., we don’t even want to open that can of worms about the actual authorship of the various gospels.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Would you agree that without the Doctrine of the Trinity that one could reasonably conclude that Jesus is not divine? Would that be fair? [/quote]
Doctrine of the Trinity doesn’t really doesn’t establish Jesus’ divine nature, it assumes it. It establishes the triune nature of G-d.
I don’t know how easy it is to twist scriptures. But, I assume that it is possible as people have done it.[/quote]
I know logic allegedly does not belong in a dialogue about religion, but the above was completely circular reasoning (with some other fallacious argument forms making an appearance - which is remarkable given that it’s one sentence at issue). [/quote]
I don’t understand. Jesus’ divine nature was already established, when Jesus taught it. The Doctrine of the Trinity was in work for about four centuries. It was already assumed by the Catholic Church that Jesus was divine, because Jesus taught and they believed.[/quote]
You’re going in circles. There are too many contradictions in the scripture to call his divinity clear and the scripture you quoted as being the basis for the trinity didn’t appears until some 1500 years later.
Chris, no amount of persuasion or argument will change my mind at this point. It keeps coming back to your Church. I see your Church as an institution of man, not divinely inspired.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[
That the Bishops of the Catholic Church wrote the books in the Bible. Then later canonized it around 400 A.D.
[/quote]
I suggest you revisit this claim starting with:
The list was compiled by the bishops of the Catholic Church.
http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/1l.htm
Your claim above is patently false and intentionally misleading. Or, you simply misspoke.[/quote]
Actually it’s not, from the website, “written by an apostle or someone who was reporting the words of an apostle.” An Apostle is an ordained Bishop. That is why Bishops in the Catholic Church have the powers and authority that comes with Apostolic (see the word Apostle in there) succession, or the powers and authority that Jesus ordained the Apostles. Apostolic succession means that they can trace their ordination to the original Apostles.
Apostles were Bishops. They have the powers of Bishops, they did what Bishops do, they had authority as Bishops do.
Walk like a duck, talk like a duck, look like a duck, it’s a duck.
“The list was compiled by the bishops of the Catholic Church.”
I’m not sure how it is false or misleading.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Without a Jesus who is God there is no gospel and the new testament is meaningless. HE is the gospel and the new covenant. What about a triune God then? I suppose it may be conceivable (though not biblically so) that Jesus could be divine without God being triune, but the scriptures everywhere proclaim the existence of one and only one true and living God while referring to three distinct persons as that one God. Do I understand that? Nope, but then again any god that fits inside my puny skull is no God at all.[/quote]
Or how about simply that Jesus was sent or inspired by God to teach the new covenant. Much has been lost to the potential invention of his divinity. The message loses nothing if Jesus is teacher and prophet. Christianity chose to hitch it’s wagon to the divinity of Jesus, and I say it was unnecessary.
I’ll again refer you to the disputed “triune God”:
The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8 | Bible.org [/quote]
Yeah, except Jesus he would be lying or intentionally misleading people when he lets people call him G-d and when he teaches that he is G-d. Therefore not be a good teacher or a prophet at all. Christianity didn’t do anything, Jesus taught it we preached it.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
“St. Faustus, a fifth century bishop writes, “Many things have been inserted by our ancestors in the speeches of our Lord which, though put forth under his name, agree not with his faith; especially since–as already it has been often proved–these things were written not by Christ, nor [by] his apostles, but a long while after their assumption, by I know not what sort of lot, not even agreeing with themselves, who made up their tale out of reports and opinions merely, and yet, fathering the whole upon the names of the apostles of the Lord or on those who were supposed to follow the apostles, they maliciously pretended that they had written their lies and conceits according to them.””[/quote]
Um…he’s talking about corrupted manuscripts, not what the faithful use. Lol.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Without a Jesus who is God there is no gospel and the new testament is meaningless. HE is the gospel and the new covenant. What about a triune God then? I suppose it may be conceivable (though not biblically so) that Jesus could be divine without God being triune, but the scriptures everywhere proclaim the existence of one and only one true and living God while referring to three distinct persons as that one God. Do I understand that? Nope, but then again any god that fits inside my puny skull is no God at all.[/quote]
Or how about simply that Jesus was sent or inspired by God to teach the new covenant. Much has been lost to the potential invention of his divinity. The message loses nothing if Jesus is teacher and prophet. Christianity chose to hitch it’s wagon to the divinity of Jesus, and I say it was unnecessary.
I’ll again refer you to the disputed “triune God”:
The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8 | Bible.org [/quote]
Yeah, except Jesus he would be lying or intentionally misleading people when he lets people call him G-d and when he teaches that he is G-d. Therefore not be a good teacher or a prophet at all. Christianity didn’t do anything, Jesus taught it we preached it.[/quote]
It’s still circular. The scriptures are conflicting. Clearly the hand of man there sir. In my opinion, which you will not change. These arguments are not new? So let’s agree to disagree and move on. I appreciate your effort and your civility. Thanks.
[quote]LeanMoreThanMean wrote:
BodyG:
You never responded. There is ONLY ONE who can say “I AM” that is, the one who is. By definition this is so. Interestingly, if you interested in the logic of this, which should already be obvious, you can always read C.S. Lewis treating of this topic.
None of your quotes goes against the interpretation given by Christians. YOU have to explain why he says I AM who I am. And if you call John a liar or other parts (or any) of the Bible made up, then why even bother asking questions about the Bible? You already have your answer.
You probably aren’t aware that the Bible was written in Greek, and the Old Testament was translated into Greek by Jews ~300 years before Christ for Hellenic Jews (The Septuagint, where we get the titles of the Old Testament such as “Genesis” which in Hebrew is called “In the beginning” … etc)
NO YOU CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT HE IS NOT DIVINE.
Answer my questions, who can forgive sins but God alone and
WHO CAN SAY ‘I AM’?
Only God.
That he is completely human, completely divine has been a stumbling block for people since the beginning. It’s not like it’s anything new. He is the Son of Man, yes, he is the suffering servant, he is the perfect image of God, he is the only path that humans have for redemption BECAUSE he is human and perfectly obedient to God his Father. He shares in everything we have, assuming humanity in its totality, and healing the broken relationship that we have through his obedience, as I have said.
Indeed, there is only one who is Good. He was with God before all the ages, the whole story of creation is about him, through him, for him, in Him, etc.
He was God and nothing in the gospels contradict this, I state adamantly again. That he is also one of the persons of God is ALSO the story.
What you have to explain is what YOU have ducked. How does he forgive sins (and why are the Jews saying only God can do this, the point of the story) and how does HE say “Ego eimi o wn”? I AM WHO I AM?
ONLY GOD can say this.
Until you answer these questions, there is no point to proceed. And if you can’t, why do you continue to protest? You have your answer.[/quote]
Did you really just presume I didn’t know the language that the bible was written in? Okay.
Let’s stop here. I’ve already stated I have no interest in participating any longer. I appreciate your effort, respect your right to believe what you choose, but I do not share those beliefs as taught by your Church. No further dialogue will move our respective positions an inch. Thanks.