The Divinity of Christ [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : The Divinity of Christ


WS6
04-21-2012, 12:38
From another thread:

My point in bringing up the Council of Nicaea was that the divinity of christ wasn't even a settled issue amongst christians until about 300 years after his death.

Are you sure? (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-divinity-of-christ)

Geko45
04-21-2012, 13:30
Are you sure?

Showing that there were some that believed that christ was divine before the Council of Nicaea does not prove that it was an accepted major tenent in the christian community before that time. My point was that it was still being debated right up to and even after the Nicene Creed was established.

Guss
04-21-2012, 14:24
Since the Roman culture was already accustomed to the notion of gods breeding with mortals, it was easy to slip that one in.

Geko45
04-21-2012, 14:39
So that WS6 won't pretend in this thread that what I posted in the other doesn't exist. At the Council of Nicaea, Costantine declared Arius a heretic for teaching that christ was not the same as the father himself, but instead a subordinate deity of some sort. Not all-powerful and all-knowing like the father. Constantine exiled him for this and ordered all copies of his book, the Thalia, burned.

So, if people were being exiled and books burned at the Council of Nicaea, that pretty much settles the issue of whether or not the debate was still going on at the time.

Full post from other thread.

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18875071&postcount=4

The most relevant link supporting the point:

First Council of Nicaea and its aftermath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#First_Council_of_Nicaea_and_its_aftermath)

WS6
04-21-2012, 16:26
So that WS6 won't pretend in this thread that what I posted in the other doesn't exist. At the Council of Nicaea, Costantine declared Arius a heretic for teaching that christ was not the same as the father himself, but instead a subordinate deity of some sort. Not all-powerful and all-knowing like the father. Constantine exiled him for this and ordered all copies of his book, the Thalia, burned.

So, if people were being exiled and books burned at the Council of Nicaea, that pretty much settles the issue of whether or not the debate was still going on at the time.

Full post from other thread.

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18875071&postcount=4

The most relevant link supporting the point:

First Council of Nicaea and its aftermath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#First_Council_of_Nicaea_and_its_aftermath)

Perhaps you can now buttress your claims with the source material I provided in this post (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18875358&postcount=5), or perhaps not.

rgregoryb
04-21-2012, 16:40
I love Divinity

http://images.media-allrecipes.com/userphotos/250x250/00/12/79/127903.jpg

Paul7
04-22-2012, 07:50
Showing that there were some that believed that christ was divine before the Council of Nicaea does not prove that it was an accepted major tenent in the christian community before that time. My point was that it was still being debated right up to and even after the Nicene Creed was established.

.....by heretics, who will always be with us.

cowboywannabe
04-22-2012, 08:03
Hercules' father was a God too, and he did miraculous feats as well. maybe Hercules and Jesus were cousins? maybe play cousins?

NMG26
04-22-2012, 08:14
.....by heretics, who will always be with us.

The whole Christian faith is heretical.

The word heretic come from a word that means sectarian.

It means to believe something with specific rule of dogma.

Also known as "party spirit".

My party is the right party. My group has the right beliefs.

If Martin Luther did not stand up against the dogma of the Catholic church, as a heretic, you would be Catholic right now.

fgutie35
04-22-2012, 08:17
Showing that there were some that believed that christ was divine before the Council of Nicaea does not prove that it was an accepted major tenent in the christian community before that time. My point was that it was still being debated right up to and even after the Nicene Creed was established.

The disagreement between the roman counsel and the constatinoplan counsel was about the true nature of Jesus and not his relation with the father, the constantinoplans (orthodox catholics nowdays). Believe that Jesus was only of divine substance and not two entities in one body like the roman catholics would claim (Jesus as men with all the mens attributes, and at the same time divine with all the divine attributes in one flesh body.
The whole disagreement came about certain times during his passion where the roman catholic claim his divine entity left temporarily and Jesus as Men had to endure the unhuman suffering of his wounds. One of those moments being when Jesus cries out to God " Father why have you forsaken me?".
Therefore puzzling the theologians. Also critics questioning his divine authenticity. Since He was God to begin with, why make such statement? Which brings another controversial issue. What is the true nature of the trinity?

Bren
04-23-2012, 12:56
From another thread:



Are you sure? (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-divinity-of-christ)

It is hard to believe you don't see the flaw in your google-researched response.

WS6
04-23-2012, 13:39
The disagreement between the roman counsel and the constatinoplan counsel was about the true nature of Jesus and not his relation with the father, the constantinoplans (orthodox catholics nowdays). Believe that Jesus was only of divine substance and not two entities in one body like the roman catholics would claim (Jesus as men with all the mens attributes, and at the same time divine with all the divine attributes in one flesh body.

Your comment in bold does not reflect Catholic Church teaching, which is more appropriately stated:

[The Son of God] assumed our nature in his essence in such wise, namely, that it is united in his essence in the unity of the person. [Aquinas, Against the Greeks, ch.19.]

Continuing ...

The whole disagreement came about certain times during his passion where the roman catholic claim his divine entity left temporarily and Jesus as Men had to endure the unhuman suffering of his wounds.

From where do you get this claim?

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4050.htm

One of those moments being when Jesus cries out to God " Father why have you forsaken me?". Therefore puzzling the theologians. Also critics questioning his divine authenticity. Since He was God to begin with, why make such statement?

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/do-jesus-words-from-the-cross-my-god-my-god-why-have-you-forsaken-me-mean-that-god-th

Which brings another controversial issue. What is the true nature of the trinity?

This may interest you:

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm

WS6
04-23-2012, 13:48
It is hard to believe you don't see the flaw in your google-researched response.

There are self-acclaimed Christians today, who do not agree with the Catholic Church's teaching regarding the divinity of Christ. Does that consideration necessarily punch a hole in the Catholic Church's claim, which it has understood since New Testament times?

creaky
04-23-2012, 14:05
It is hard to believe you don't see the flaw in your google-researched response.

What's the flaw? Enlighten us please.

Also, you say "google-researched response" like maybe that's bad for some reason? He's a Catholic. Why wouldn't he use readily available citations from Catholic Answers to buttress his argument?

Not everyone can claim to be totally omniscient these days, as the neo-atheists seem to fancy themselves...

Roering
04-23-2012, 14:36
Showing that there were some that believed that christ was divine before the Council of Nicaea does not prove that it was an accepted major tenent in the christian community before that time. My point was that it was still being debated right up to and even after the Nicene Creed was established.

Yes it was, and continues to be debated today. The reason most positions on faith are defined from these councils is because heretical beliefs pop up from time to time and the Church is compelled to make a pronouncement. Currently the Mormons believe that after you die you inherit your own planetary system. If this belief is to take a serious enough hold among Catholics to cause a council or have the Church make a pronouncement on it does that act in any way validate such a claim?

-Answer is "no"

Schabesbert
04-23-2012, 16:23
Showing that there were some that believed that christ was divine before the Council of Nicaea does not prove that it was an accepted major tenent in the christian community before that time.
The contention between the Arians and the Athenasians was NOT about the Divinity of Christ; both sides believed He was divine. It was about whether Christ was of the same substance ("consubstantial" or homoousios) as the Father, or of similar substance (homoioúsios).

Very nearly all of the early Christian heterodox sects believed in Christ's divinity, although just how that was accomplished was in question. So, I'd have to say, in order to be intellectually honest, that Christ's Divinity was certainly an accepted major tenent in the pre-Nicene Christian community.

My point was that it was still being debated right up to and even after the Nicene Creed was established.
I endorse Roering's answer to this part.

juggy4711
04-24-2012, 22:48
The whole Christian faith is heretical.

The word heretic come from a word that means sectarian.

It means to believe something with specific rule of dogma.

Also known as "party spirit".

My party is the right party. My group has the right beliefs.

If Martin Luther did not stand up against the dogma of the Catholic church, as a heretic, you would be Catholic right now.

Not surprised this post was ignored.

...Council of Nicaea... I wonder what percentage of Christians have ever heard of the CoN, much less know what it was or when it took place.

.....by heretics, who will always be with us.

How convenient.

Bren
04-25-2012, 05:12
What's the flaw? Enlighten us please.

Also, you say "google-researched response" like maybe that's bad for some reason? He's a Catholic. Why wouldn't he use readily available citations from Catholic Answers to buttress his argument?

Not everyone can claim to be totally omniscient these days, as the neo-atheists seem to fancy themselves...

Let's see - I don't even remember his response, since I haven't looked at this thread in a few days, but since it's WS6, I'm guessing he responded by linking to a page that would prove a biblical truth by reference to the bible:rofl:...am I close? Circular reasoning and google-and-paste are basically all he does.

Schabesbert
04-25-2012, 07:28
Let's see - I don't even remember his response, since I haven't looked at this thread in a few days, but since it's WS6, I'm guessing he responded by linking to a page that would prove a biblical truth by reference to the bible:rofl:...am I close?
Not close at all. But your perfunctory answer was pretty much the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.

I was hoping you'd do better.

Geko45
04-25-2012, 08:26
The contention between the Arians and the Athenasians was NOT about the Divinity of Christ; both sides believed He was divine. It was about whether Christ was of the same substance ("consubstantial" or homoousios) as the Father, or of similar substance (homoioúsios).

This is just terminology and I'm pretty sure you already knew that. If christ is not made of the same "stuff" as god and was created by god then he is not "god" incarnate. Yeah, ok, they still saw him as divine in the same manner that an angel might be considered divine, but my point was he was not viewed as "god".

Really, only believers spend so much time arguing nuance and terminology.

Geko45
04-25-2012, 08:31
Not close at all. But your perfunctory answer was pretty much the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.

Not really, maybe a little ad hominem, but that's it. He still made a valid point about circular reasoning. Are you just gonna throw the words "intellectual" and "dishonest" into every one of your posts now that I started a thread on it? If so, I don't need to give you the proper adjectives to describe that practice.

I was hoping you'd do better.

I was hoping you would too.

WS6
04-25-2012, 08:53
Not really, maybe a little ad hominem, but that's it. He still made a valid point about circular reasoning. Are you just gonna throw the words "intellectual" and "dishonest" into every one of your posts now that I started a thread on it? If so, I don't need to give you the property adjectives to describe that practice.



I was hoping you would too.

Did you intend to use the term property as an adjective or as a noun?

Schabesbert
04-25-2012, 08:54
Not really, maybe a little ad hominem, but that's it. He still made a valid point about circular reasoning.
Except that WS6's post addressed this very point, and you guys seem to have missed it. Purposefully?


Are you just gonna throw the words "intellectual" and "dishonest" into every one of your posts now that I started a thread on it?
No, I've been pointing out intellectual dishonesty on this site since before you joined. You are just giving us further examples of it, and since you seem to value it, I'd like to point out that you and he are engaging in it ever so vigorously.

WS6
04-25-2012, 09:02
Let's see - I don't even remember his response, since I haven't looked at this thread in a few days, but since it's WS6, I'm guessing he responded by linking to a page that would prove a biblical truth by reference to the bible:rofl:...am I close? Circular reasoning and google-and-paste are basically all he does.

Do you refer to this post (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18887187&postcount=31)? If so, what's the problem?

Geko45
04-25-2012, 09:05
Did you intend to use the term property as an adjective or as a noun?

You've never had an auto spell check correct a word for you with the wrong one? Really, are we going start a spelling contest now?

WS6
04-25-2012, 09:17
You've never had an auto spell check correct a word for you with the wrong one? Really, are we going start a spelling contest now?

Quit whining. While attending high school before dropping out, I used slide rules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slide_rule) in math and learned how to spell without spell check.

Geko45
04-25-2012, 09:41
Quit whining. While attending high school before dropping out, I used slide rules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slide_rule) in math and learned how to spell without spell check.

I know how to use a slide rule (E6B) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E6B) and I know how to spell, but apparently you've never used an Android tablet or iPhone before. They are notorious for auto-correcting words incorrectly.

http://www.damnyouautocorrect.com/

And really, "quit whining"??? That's mature...

WS6
04-25-2012, 10:17
I know how to use a slide rule (E6B) and I know how to spell, but apprently you've never used an Android tablet or iPhone before. They are notorius for auto-correcting words incorrectly.

http://www.damnyouautocorrect.com/

Hey, that's your problem, not mine. Don't come half-stepping into this forum with misspelled words, and expect to initiate a thread titled On the rampant intellectual dishonesty in this forum, without someone digging in your arse.

And really, "quit whining"??? That's mature...

No, whining is not mature.

Geko45
04-25-2012, 10:20
There are self-acclaimed Christians today, who do not agree with the Catholic Church's teaching regarding the divinity of Christ. Does that consideration necessarily punch a hole in the Catholic Church's claim, which it has understood since New Testament times?

Did you intend to say "self-acclaimed" in that they praise themselves as christians or did you intend to say "self-proclaimed" in that they publicly announce themself as christians?

Just asking...

Geko45
04-25-2012, 10:25
Don't come half-stepping into this forum ...

"Half-stepping into this forum" would be showing up here without even knowing your own church's history and pretending like you are ready to debate the topic. You never did concede that you were wrong about what took place at the Council of Nicaea.

WS6
04-25-2012, 10:34
Did you intend to say "self-acclaimed" in that they praise themselves as christians or did you intend to say "self-proclaimed" in that they publicly announce themself as christians?

Just asking...

WS6 - 7; Geko45 - 1. http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/images/smilies/xxrotflmao.gif

WS6
04-25-2012, 10:38
"Half-stepping into this forum" would be showing up here without even knowing your own church's history and pretending like you are ready to debate the topic. You never did concede that you were wrong about what took place at the Council of Nicaea.

You are quite right, I made no such concession.

Geko45
04-25-2012, 11:39
WS6 - 7; Geko45 - 1. http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/images/smilies/xxrotflmao.gif

You must be using your slide rule...

:rofl:

WS6
04-25-2012, 11:56
You must be using your slide rule...

:rofl:

WS6 - 7; Geko45 - 2

muscogee
04-25-2012, 12:47
This is just terminology and I'm pretty sure you already knew that. If christ is not made of the same "stuff" as god and was created by god then he is not "god" incarnate. Yeah, ok, they still saw him as divine in the same manner that an angel might be considered divine, but my point was he was not viewed as "god".

Really, only believers spend so much time arguing nuance and terminology.

I don't see where debating the nature of Jesus and debating the divinity of Jesus are that different. Either one would get you tortured and executed when the Church had the power to do that.

muscogee
04-25-2012, 12:52
Quit whining. While attending high school before dropping out, I used slide rules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slide_rule) in math and learned how to spell without spell check.

What do personal attacks like this add to the discussion?

muscogee
04-25-2012, 12:56
.....by heretics, who will always be with us.

Heretics then being those who disagreed with the Church and Heretics now being those who disagree with your denomination. Maybe you're all wrong.

Schabesbert
04-25-2012, 13:06
I don't see where debating the nature of Jesus and debating the divinity of Jesus are that different. Either one would get you tortured and executed when the Church had the power to do that.

That's just factually wrong.

Geko45
04-25-2012, 13:08
I don't see where debating the nature of Jesus and debating the divinity of Jesus are that different. Either one would get you tortured and executed when the Church had the power to do that.

That's just factually wrong.

List of people burned as heretics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_burned_as_heretics)

And much more specific to this point:

Michael Servetus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus)

He participated in the Protestant Reformation, and later developed a nontrinitarian Christology. Condemned by Catholics and Protestants alike, he was arrested in Geneva and burnt at the stake as a heretic by order of the Protestant Geneva governing council.

Schabesbert
04-25-2012, 13:28
List of people burned as heretics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_burned_as_heretics)

And much more specific to this point:

Michael Servetus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus)
Show that they were burned for merely discussing issues such as muscogee claimed.

WS6
04-25-2012, 13:32
What do personal attacks like this add to the discussion?

How does your comment add to the discussion?

Geko45
04-25-2012, 13:37
Show that they were burned for merely discussing issues such as muscogee claimed.

Bert, do you really want to align yourself with the folks here that accept no level of evidence no matter how conclusive?

At any rate, Muscogee used the word "debating" not "discussing". Debating implies taking a stance on an issue and supporting it (much like we do here), which was Servetus' real "crime" in the eyes of the church.

Geko45
04-25-2012, 13:38
How does your comment add to the discussion?

Because it is a plea to be civil and return to the actual topic. Did you really not understand that?

WS6
04-25-2012, 14:39
Because it is a plea to be civil and return to the actual topic. Did you really not understand that?

Awright, all whiners outta my thread. http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/images/smilies/xxrotflmao.gif

muscogee
04-25-2012, 22:19
Show that they were burned for merely discussing issues such as muscogee claimed.

Why were they executed?

muscogee
04-25-2012, 22:21
How does your comment add to the discussion?

It is an attempt to keep you honest. Personal attacks are an admission that you have lost the argument and have nothing else to fall back on.

WS6
04-26-2012, 04:06
It is an attempt to keep you honest. Personal attacks are an admission that you have lost the argument and have nothing else to fall back on.

Comply with this (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18890944&postcount=44).

Geko45
04-26-2012, 07:01
Comply with this (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18890944&postcount=44).

Well, that pretty much does it. You've resorted to heckling because you have no arguments left. I think we're done here.

WS6
04-26-2012, 08:19
Well, that pretty much does it. You've resorted to heckling because you have no arguments left. I think we're done here.

We?! You must have a mouse in your pocket, because I've consigned this thread to the junk heap several days ago.

muscogee
04-26-2012, 08:51
Comply with this (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18890944&postcount=44).

non sequitur

Why do so many Christians feel compelled to say something, even if it's nothing? They just can't admit they have reached the end of their thought process and have no rebuttal. Your Sky God should school you better.

WS6
04-26-2012, 10:02
[ … ] Why do so many Christians feel compelled to say something, even if it's nothing? [ … ]

You do make a valid point, and Christians should make every effort not to have their total contribution to a thread mirror this tripe:

I don't see where debating the nature of Jesus and debating the divinity of Jesus are that different. Either one would get you tortured and executed when the Church had the power to do that.

What do personal attacks like this add to the discussion?

Heretics then being those who disagreed with the Church and Heretics now being those who disagree with your denomination. Maybe you're all wrong.

Why were they executed?

It is an attempt to keep you honest. Personal attacks are an admission that you have lost the argument and have nothing else to fall back on.

non sequitur

Why do so many Christians feel compelled to say something, even if it's nothing? They just can't admit they have reached the end of their thought process and have no rebuttal. Your Sky God should school you better.

muscogee
04-26-2012, 12:27
You do make a valid point, and Christians should make every effort not to have their total contribution to a thread mirror this tripe:

Do you have a point?

juggy4711
04-26-2012, 21:56
We?! You must have a mouse in your pocket, because I've consigned this thread to the junk heap several days ago.

No you didn't. You're still replying to responses in this thread.

Do you have a point?

He thinks he does but the only point he is actually demonstrating is that he is full of BS.

muscogee
04-27-2012, 03:23
No you didn't. You're still replying to responses in this thread.



He thinks he does but the only point he is actually demonstrating is that he is full of BS.

Well, he does seem to have mastered the ad hominem argument. One would think an omnipotent being could send a more skillful advocate.