[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
That reasoning is flawed. That the divinity of Jesus was later created is a common criticism.[/quote]
Common, not correct. Read the early Church Fathers, read the Bible (after all those guys walked with Jesus, so it would be kind of important to use their written testimony as a primary source), read the doctrines of the early councils (and later as they either establish a Tradition, or reaffirm a doctrine from a earlier council). People get commonly confused on how councils work, they are not editing or adding or taking away the traditions of the the Church, they are teaching them in away that establishes them (you can tell that they were established and not created or changed because the writings of the Christians showed no protest to the establishing of these truths). Yes, there were some people in the Church (the first thing to pop into my head is Arius) who were influenced by pagan philosophers in a negative manner, like the gnostic, who did not believe in the divinity of the Jesus. However, these people were discredited, as well the people (laymen) would have and sometimes did when these people tried to teach false things. The early Christians had a tendency to take things into their own hands with false teachers, disturbance from them would have been noted. It wasn’t when these things were decreed.
[quote]
It bears examination. To argue that it is so “because we say so” relies upon a fallacious argument construct.[/quote]
Sure let’s have an examination, you start it and I will follow.
On what fallacious argument, it is Tradition, the Bible is part of our Tradition. If Jesus is not divine then it is all vain, the past 2000 years have been in vain. Now, that itself does not prove Jesus’ divinity. But, I question in what way you wish that we prove Christ’s divinity. If you want scientific proof, well that is impossible, Jesus isn’t here on earth (except in the Eucharist) and even if he was, you can’t do scientific tests on the spirit.
[quote]
In fact, your reply replies upon a number of fallacious arguments. It would appear that you have faith in the Church, not the scripture.[/quote]
I have faith in Scriptures because of the Church (not the other way around). Even the Bible tells us that we receive the faith through what we hear preached by the Church.
[quote]
Or, where the scripture is ambiguous or inconsistent, you want to have faith that your Church’s interpretation is correct. Sounds to me a lot like faith in man, and not God.[/quote]
I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here, so if I misunderstand something please correct me. We know that the Scriptures are hard to understand without a guide (this comes from the Bible), and sola Scriptura is heresy (man-made, as itself isn’t in the Bible). My faith is not that I want my Church to be correct, my faith is what the Church preaches (Mt 16:19, gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church…not the Bible).
No, I have very little faith in man, if you haven’t noticed through history my Church has been one of the most corrupt institutes in the world, and St. Peter one of the most flimsiest of the Apostles (he did deny Jesus three times, even though he was warned by Jesus. I mean really Peter you think you can hold your water when the person you know is God tells you what is going to happen). The Church didn’t have a great start in human terms, however I have faith in G-d (which holds the Church true) that he will keep his word (Mt. 16:19, Hell will not prevail).
[quote]
If the charge is that the divinity of Jesus was an invention of man, then it is perfectly reasonable to look to the scripture raised, and to debate the interpretations.[/quote]
This is a little difficult for me to explain (because my brain isn’t completely wrapped around it), but the Word of God is to be preached, the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of the truth, not the Bible. The Church holds up the Bible as truth (not the Bible holds up the Church as truth), because of her inherent qualities (that the Holy Ghost guides the Church in preaching the truth, and Jesus’ covenant with the Church). So, to take the Scriptures alone without the Church is like taking the Koran and dismissing what Islam preaches about the Koran. See what I am trying to get at?
It is fine to debate interpretations (a little pointless in some people’s eyes), but ultimately we have to humble ourselves to what the Bible says itself, the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of truth. Ultimate giving way goes to the teaching/preaching of the Magisterium of the Church. The Church says Jesus is G-d, the Magisterium of the Church wrote and canonized the Bible, so…I’d suspect (and believe because the Church itself teaches it) that when they wrote the Bible they wholly meant those verses to be harmoniousness with the teaching that Jesus is the second person of the Triune G-d, because the Holy Ghost divinely inspired them, and the Holy Ghost cannot be deceived.
[quote]
As far as I can recall, there was no Catholic Church when the scripture was written. And I am unaware of Islam’s rejection of the Bible or Jesus so your argument that they can’t look to the scripture is a poor one. Like the Jews (among others), they reject the divinity of Christ. [/quote]
Actually, the name “Catholic” came around 110 A.D. (before the canonization of the Bible around 400 A.D.) by the Bishop Ignatius of Antioch (I believe one of the five Sees before the Great Schism) as a nickname for the one Church of believers that was universal or for everyone.
Islam rejects the Bible, because the ‘people of the book’ (book=Bible) have corrupted the scriptures, although they still believe that we’re brothers and to be treated as at least as second class citizens instead of slaves and war booty as long as we abide by their rules. As well, they believe Jesus was the greatest prophet (Mo was the last of the great prophets), will come again, as Christians believe, on the day Second Coming to judge the living and the dead, but that he didn’t die on the Cross, but it was an imposter on the cross.
Although, they do hold Mary as the highest woman (she was sinless and a virgin!) created and highest regarded woman in Islam. Which is nice of them to hold Jesus’ mother in such high regard.[/quote]
I don’t really care for the quote/reply by sentence discourse because after the 1st time it becomes very difficult to keep a flow and it’s more trouble than it’s worth. I will simply say that I respect your convictions and that I disagree. In one breath, you admit the corruption of your Church, and in the next you place your faith in that Church. I simply do not agree and it’s the same circular emotional appeal that sucks people into all sorts of crazy beliefs - including cults (surely we do not have to respect ALL beliefs right? )
My post is simple. I think the reference made some interesting arguments against the divinity of Jesus. They are not alone in their beliefs. I wanted to see discourse on the scripture, because the scripture should speak for itself. When Jesus himself seems to draw a distinction between he and the Father, I think it bears examination. To surrender examination of that legitimate discourse to a later council and an admittedly corrupt institution is “curious” thinking to me. You’re trying to reason to me that scripture was written by man, inspired by God, at a time when the Catholic Church did not exist, and that the Catholic Church later became the sole authority for the interpretation of those scriptures. I reject that argument.
About the only thing I think we agree on is that if Jesus was merely a prophet, a Son of God (not an inclusive term used only in reference to Jesus), then yes, 2000 years of dogma has been in vain.