The Divinity of Jesus: The Catholic Argument

[tzor]

Yes I know about throwing pearls to swine ... spreading around the symbols of pain and suffering only makes those oysters all the more angry, especially when given to creatures that even lipstick won't help.

The Divinity of Christ Catholic Amswers

[mean_liar]

Hypostatic union wasn't doctrinal until 431.

[angelfromanotherpin]

It's entirely unsurprising that the Bible supports the divinity of Jesus. The Council of Nicaea decided that of all the competing theories of the time that it was the one they wanted. That decision was made before it had been decided which of the many gospels would come to make up the 'officially supported' New Testament, and doubtless was a strong infuence on it.

Now, as has been pointed out, there are still a number of things in the Bible which stand as evidence against his divinity. Which is to be expected, since the people involved were cobbling their fiction together from many different folk tales, and continuity was not a strong influencing factor.

[tzor]

To understand the problem of doctrine and dates, it is important to understand the notion that doctrine is never formally defined until it is challenged. No one has ever had to define the doctrine "they sky is blue" becuse no one has ever tried to insist that the sky is floursent pink.

Can Dogma Develop?

As these and many other cases demonstrate, doctrinal questions can remain in a not-yet-fully-defined state for years. The Church has never felt the need to define formally what there has been no particular pressure to define. This strikes many, particularly non-Catholics, as strange. Why weren’t things cleared up in, say, A.D. 100, so folks could know what’s what? Why didn’t Rome issue a laundry list of definitions in the early days and let it go at that? Why wasn’t an end-run made around all these troubles that plagued Christianity precisely because things were unclear? The remote reason is that God has had his own timetable and set of reasons (to which we aren’t privy) for keeping it. The same could be said about Old Testament prophets: Why didn’t they understand the fullness of the doctrine of the Trinity all at once? Or the identity of the Messiah? Or the fullness of Christian teaching? Partly because God had not revealed it all yet, and partly because their understanding of the implications of the doctrines they had needed to grow clearer over time.

This need to discern more clearly what is contained in the deposit of faith given to the Church by the apostles points us to the related subjects of infallibility and inspiration. The pope and the bishops (when teaching in union with him) have the charism of infallibility when defining matters of faith or morals; but infallibility works only negatively. Through the intervention of the Holy Spirit, the pope and bishops are prevented from teaching what is untrue, but they are not forced or told by the Holy Spirit to teach what is true. To put it another way, the pope and the bishops are not inspired the way the authors of Scripture or the prophets were. To make a new definition, to clear up some dogmatic confusion, they first have to use human reason, operating on what is known to date, to be able to teach more precisely what is to be held as true. They cannot teach what they do not know, and they learn things the same way we do. They have no access to prophetic shortcuts—they must delve by study into the riches of the words God has already given us.

[Gnosticism Is A Hoot]

With respect, Tzor, I'm not sure what the rest of us are supposed to get out of this thread. I kinda already knew that Catholics believe the Bible supports Christ's divinity. As a nonbeliever, I don't find that fact particularly compelling.

Don't take this as an attack. You can believe whatever you like as far as I'm concerned...but why did you post this?

EDIT: Never mind, caught up on the other thread, I has context nao.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Unrelated question:

About what time did the Christian church decide that all of the other religions/deities were fake and that only Yahweh God was real? Was it around this time?

[Kaelik]

Unrelated question:

About what time did the Christian church decide that all of the other religions/deities were fake and that only Yahweh God was real? Was it around this time?

That was more of a Jewish thing.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I thought that Jews and Muslims, at least in the foundational writings, believed in multiple deities. I mean, I'll believe nowadays that both believe only in Yahweh, but it seems as though Christians were the ones who really kicked off the monotheist movement.

[tzor]

Unrelated question:

About what time did the Christian church decide that all of the other religions/deities were fake and that only Yahweh God was real? Was it around this time?

That was more of a Jewish thing.

There is an evolution towards Monotheism in the Old Testament. The Torah (first five books) basically has The God of Abraham be the greatest God and the only one to be worshiped by them because he was a "jealous" God. But then one get the notion that the other gods are not really gods at all but dead idols. I suspect that this occured during one of the periods of captivity, probably the Bablyonian after the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem.

In the Book of Baruch, This sixth chapter, which is very beautifully written, is an argument in popular language in favor of the one true God. It ridicules idolatrous worship as vain and empty; the exiles have no need to fear it, no matter how decked out in gold or silver these idols are; they are only pieces of wood which cannot move and can do nothing to help themselves. The prophet cleverly proves that the gods the Babylonians adore are idols, on which no one can rely:

"They cannot save a man from death or rescue the weak from the strong. They cannot restore sight to a blind man; they cannot rescue a man who is in distress. They cannot take pity on a widow or do good to an orphan. These things that are made of wood and overlaid with gold and silver are like stones from the mountain, and those who serve them will be put to shame. Why then must anyone think that they are gods or call them gods?" (Bar. 6:36-40).

Indeed, the basic arguments of both Jews and Muslims is based on the notion that since there is only one God, Jesus cannot be God.

[shadzar]

I thought that Jews and Muslims, at least in the foundational writings, believed in multiple deities. I mean, I'll believe nowadays that both believe only in Yahweh, but it seems as though Christians were the ones who really kicked off the monotheist movement.

I know very little save for Christians follow the teachings of Christ. Some claim they worship him, and others his father.

I know Mary and Joseph were Jewish as was Christ.

The Old Testament is the Jewish bible, and New Testament the Christian one.

10 Commandments were given to the Jewish by way of Moses...Thal shalt have no gods before Me.

Not sure if that means monotheism started with the Jewish freed from Egypt, or if it just means since this one freed them that all others must take a back seat (they can still be worshiped so long as they are not worshiped before Him), or just that man such as a pharaoh should not be considered a God to worship.

It would depend on your interpretation of that commandment as to whether it started with Jewish or Christian religion wouldn't it?

[IGTN]

I thought that Jews and Muslims, at least in the foundational writings, believed in multiple deities. I mean, I'll believe nowadays that both believe only in Yahweh, but it seems as though Christians were the ones who really kicked off the monotheist movement.

This may have been already addressed by someone I have on ignore, but I'm not going to check. If I remember right, though, Judaism had become monotheistic well before Roman times. The account I heard had that Moses was invented by the Yahwehists were always in power, so sometime in the ancient kingdom, probably.

As for Islam, its foundational tenet has always been "there is no god but Allah and Mohammed his prophet." Preislamic Arabia had been polytheistic; Islam brought in monotheism there.

[PhoneLobster]

*cough*Trinity*cough*

Oh my, did someone just say something?

[Koumei]

So three blokes walk into a pub. Well I say three blokes. It's the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and they're all God, so really, one bloke walks into a pub but then that really doesn't work for this joke because it requires three blokes. So while they wait around - having some nibbles...

[CatharzGodfoot]

10 Commandments were given to the Jewish by way of Moses...Thal shalt have no gods before Me.

Not sure if that means monotheism started with the Jewish freed from Egypt, or if it just means since this one freed them that all others must take a back seat (they can still be worshiped so long as they are not worshiped before Him), or just that man such as a pharaoh should not be considered a God to worship.

It would depend on your interpretation of that commandment as to whether it started with Jewish or Christian religion wouldn't it?

Presumably the commandment means that YHWH has to be the big cheese. You can worship other gods so long as Jehova is the supreme taco. Hence, Mary can still be worshiped, as long as you keep in mind who the head honcho is. Saints are the same deal.

Unrelated, but...

I think that catholics say they aren't breaking the idolatry restriction because they claim to worship what the idols represent rather than the idols themselves. Makes me wonder what Moses would have said if Aaron had claimed that he was worshiping what the calf represented, and still believed YHWH was top dog.

Jesus probably lifted the graven images restriction along with kosher restrictions and killing.

Maybe Tzor can clear things up, because I've wondered about that for a long time.

[shadzar]

10 Commandments were given to the Jewish by way of Moses...Thal shalt have no gods before Me.

Not sure if that means monotheism started with the Jewish freed from Egypt, or if it just means since this one freed them that all others must take a back seat (they can still be worshiped so long as they are not worshiped before Him), or just that man such as a pharaoh should not be considered a God to worship.

It would depend on your interpretation of that commandment as to whether it started with Jewish or Christian religion wouldn't it?

Presumably the commandment means that YHWH has to be the big cheese. You can worship other gods so long as Jehova is the supreme taco. Hence, Mary can still be worshiped, as long as you keep in mind who the head honcho is. Saints are the same deal.

That is the way I read it as well. Kind out out of the frying pan with the pharaoh, and into the fire with another being vying for top billing....

[TOZ]

*cough*Trinity*cough*

It never really bothered me, but then they did attempt to brainwash me at a young age.

I've always considered it like the Magi computer system in Evangelion. Yes, there are three parts, but it is all one system. Arguing over if it can be both three AND one is a matter of semantics.

Besides, there are more important issues with religion to fight than that.

[Juton]

Jesus probably lifted the graven images restriction along with kosher restrictions and killing.

I've never understood why the more conservative Christians I've met haven't kept kosher. One explained it to me as Jesus rewriting the rules, so some are no longer applicable. But he never explained how he choose what was applicable.

It's not like Jesus said 'Blessed are the weak, BTW this ham sandwich is delicious!'. So why don't Christians keep kosher?

[Fenrisulfr]

I've never understood why the more conservative Christians I've met haven't kept kosher. One explained it to me as Jesus rewriting the rules, so some are no longer applicable. But he never explained how he choose what was applicable.

It's not like Jesus said 'Blessed are the weak, BTW this ham sandwich is delicious!'. So why don't Christians keep kosher?

According to a Christian friend of mine, it's because at some point Jesus said something along the lines of, "Out with the Old (Testament), in with the New." There's a line about a new covenant that can be interpreted as saying that Christians don't have to follow the Old Testament rules. Some still cherry pick anyway, like the always-popular anti-gay stuff in Leviticus.

[Crissa]

The way Catholics deal with the divinity of Jesus is nothing like the way Baptists do.

Catholics do not, and would not, call their god 'Jesus'. Jesus is just one conduit - the earthly one - of god. They don't pray to Jesus separate from God, or as God, or say 'Jesus is my God.'

I'm not the clearest on the catechisms, since my mother did not focus on her catholic background aside from making sure that I knew that peopler were still capable of evil behavior, even though they were in authority.

-Crissa

[Lago PARANOIA]

I knew that peopler were still capable of evil behavior, even though they were in authority.

And that's very important for a young child raised Catholic to know.

[Crissa]

Yes, well, not all of them get the 'lesson' of having their father killed by a police officer in a failed stop, either.

But none the less, most people seem to think I'm too trusting of authority.

-Crissa

[ckafrica]

A general rule you should follow with laymen Christians is if they say something that sounds weird about things involving Jesus, ask them to cite chapter and verse. If they can't assume it's bullshit until proven by a reliable source.

In truth, I'd follow that rule with people of any religion; most don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

[fbmf]

Yes, well, not all of them get the 'lesson' of having their father killed by a police officer in a failed stop, either.

What is a "failed stop"?

You mean a "routine traffic stop that went bad"?

Game On,
fbmf

[Draco_Argentum]

It never really bothered me, but then they did attempt to brainwash me at a young age.

Meh, if I'm going to accept the wave particle duality then the Christians can have one god who is three dudes at the same time.

[Crissa]

What is a "failed stop"?

You mean a "routine traffic stop that went bad"?

Game On,
fbmf

The officer, following a tip about a drug something, tried to flag down my father's car in a grocery store parking lot. When he failed to get the driver's attention, he fired three times into the car. All three bullets struck the car. One bullet passed through the tail lamp and through the void in the body of the car, striking my father in the spine, killing him instantly. He was hit twice altogether, but the second one did less damage, as his heart was already stopped.

The case was heard before the county court and the officer and department were found liable for his death. This took three years to resolve.

I was three when he died. He had given me Rolos as a special treat and dropped me off unscheduled at the Montessori school I normally attended before heading onto his errands. I was supposed to be with him all that day.

-Crissa