Divinity of Jesus Christ

[-Stormrage-]

What this is about : To prove to our brothers the christians that Jesus Christ Never claimed Divinity, instead he proved the opposite, that he wasnt divine.

Jesus said :

<< John 14:28 >> My father is Greater then I

<< John 10:29 >> My father is greater then all

<< Matthew 12:28 >> I cast out devils with the spirit of god

<< Luke 11:20 >> I with the finger of god cast out devils

<< John 5:30 >> I can of my own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father who has sent me.

<< Matthew 7:22 >> Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name? and in your name have cast out devils? and in your name done many wonderful works?

<< Matthew 7:23 >> And then will I profess to them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

Why will he tell you Depart from me i never knew you ?
Becuase you called him lord, you attributed Divinity to him . Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord ...And then will I profess to them, I never knew you: depart from me


Resurrection of Lazarus

<< John 11:41 >>Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank you that you have heard me.

<< John 11:42 >>And I knew that you hear me always: but because of the people who stand by I said it, that they may believe that you have sent me.

Here is the imprtant part, jesus sais I know you always hear me but i said it because these people standing here they will think i did it. I thanked you for this so that they believe you have sent me and it is not of my own power.


that they may believe that you have sent me.
The one who is sent is always inferior then the sender. The one who is Sent to a people is called a Messenger.
You should Read your own Bible, Jesus never Claimed Divinity, he even proved to the contrary.

[Lemur]

Accepting Jesus as divine is a matter of faith, not reason. So you're bringing a fish to a spoon fight. Or something like that.

Otherwise ...

[Hax]

What this is about : To prove to our brothers the christians that Jesus Christ Never claimed Divinity, instead he proved the opposite, that he wasnt divine.

Are you Muslim?

[-Stormrage-]

Yes.

And Lemur

Accepting Jesus as divine is a matter of faith, not reason. So you're bringing a fish to a spoon fight. Or something like that.

Where does Christian Faith come from ? The Bible, and i have quoted Verses from the bible which state Jesus wasnt Divine. What do you mean Faith not reason what you talkin about. faith is Weak it is flimsy without Proof and Reason. If im a muslim with just faith i would get torn apart by atheists. but you see We have Reasoning, We have Evidence, to support Faith.

[Montmorency]

but you see We have Reasoning, We have Evidence, to support Faith

Oh, boy. That line could be appropriated by any religion out there.

[drone]

I'm not sure you can use verses in third-hand accounts, written many years after his death, translated and edited multiple times, for a discussion like this. The quotes are not his actual words.

[-Stormrage-]

To you, these might not be His words, but to the christian ...

The christian believes in the Authenticity of the Bible, and the important thing is that the christian believes these are the words of Jesus. Thats what matters.

i dont think your a christian, so we can talk about other things? so how you doin ?

[Tuuvi]

I don't have time to look it up right now, but I believe that Jesus did claim to be Jehovah, which is what ended up getting him crucified.

In those versus you quoted, Jesus isn't denying his divinity, but rather explaining that he is subordinate to the Father.

[-Stormrage-]

I know the Verse you are talking about let me go get it for you :D

EDIT:

Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

can reply to this by simply asking you to continue to complete the passage. The answer to this is given in the verse directly after.

<< John 10:34 >>Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, You are gods?

is it not in your Torah that God called some people gods ? Why do you take offense when i say i am the Son of God, when people in your book have been called Gods.

<< John 10:35 >> If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

<< John 10:36 >> Say you of him, whom the Father has sanctified, and sent into the world, You blaspheme; because I said, I am the Son of God?

You are accusing me of blasphemy because i say i am the son of God, But you yourselves have been called Gods in your own book.

[Hax]

Can you please read Ibn al-Arabi and then get back here? I'd seriously hoped proselytisation had stopped a while ago, but apparently, it's still going strong.

but you see We have Reasoning, We have Evidence, to support Faith.

Uh yes, but what if falsafa contradicts kalam?

[drone]

I am a Christian (lapsed). But it's pretty common knowledge that the gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but later in the first century by others. The whole history of the New Testament canon pretty much guarantees that church leaders' agendas were pushed, it's just human nature. Combined with the translation and revisions, it can't be used sole source for historical accuracy.

PVC wall of text in 3, 2, 1...

[Beskar]

There is also the whole issue about the Apocrypha, then there are the off-shoots of Christianity such as Arianism. There is also the arguments and debates which occurring during the First Council of Nicaea. There are sections removed and others added, others altered and tampered with.

In short, the Bible is tailored by many people to speak a certain theme, even then, some of the verses and various versions contradict themselves and others are made obsolete by later additions. If you take the bible and it's contents literally, you would be looking towards a omnipresent being with a dissociative identity disorder and suffering a severe case of schizophrenia.

This is why the various churches, branches and off-shoots create their own separate "Strawmen" of trying to conceptualise the being known as 'God' from the bible and understand them, including the various relations in regards to 'Jesus'.

As main-stream Christian theology follows the concept of the 'Trinity' which speaks of the "Being" understood in three separate ways, the Divinity of Jesus Christ is accepted as part of faith. There isn't "Evidence" to back it up and turning to the bible and referencing to it as "Evidence" is inappropriate usage of the word.

PVC wall of text in 3, 2, 1...

These are the contributions I like from PVC. I enjoy reading them.

[-Stormrage-]

There is another Verse Which Christians also standby which is:

<< John 10:30 >>I and my Father are one.

This is a verse which is a victim of Mis-interpretation, becuase it is not taken in its context. I will give the context, the 2 verses before it give us the True meaning.

<< John 10:28 >>And I give to them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

<< John 10:29 >>My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

<< John 10:30 >>I and my Father are one.

I and the father are one , ok one in what ? One in entity , or One in Purpose. from the context we know its one in purpose .

[Lemur]

The christian believes in the Authenticity of the Bible, and the important thing is that the christian believes these are the words of Jesus.

It doesn't sound as if you know a whole lot about Christians. The vast majority do not believe that the Bible is the inerrant, literal word of God. Even people who fancy themselves "Biblical literalists" are usually happy to pick and choose which versees are applicable to their lives and which are not. So quoting some bit of scripture here or there to "prove" something is, at best, a mug's game.

Furthermore:

[classical_hero]

I have to cringe about what some people are saying in this thread.
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

This verse is a clear reference to Exodus when God was talking to Moses, by saying "I AM THAT IAM" when he describes himself to Moses, meaning that he is the self existent one.

John 3:13-22 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
¹⁴ And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
¹⁵ That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
¹⁶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
¹⁷ For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
¹⁸ He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
¹⁹ And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
²⁰ For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

²¹ But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Psalm 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

This passage is then quoted by God towards Jesus on two occasions. First when he was baptised and then his transfiguration.
Matthew 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased
Mark 1:11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Luke 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

And,
Matthew 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
Mark 9:7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
Luke 9:35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
2 Peter 1:17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

It is pretty clear that the Bible makes the distinction that Jesus was Divine and Jesus said it many times. He did things that only a divine person could do. The whole Gospel message is based on the fact that Jesus is God and that he is the Son of God. It is good to see the difference between Islam and Christianity, since we clearly do not worship the same God. The Gospel message is that Jesus died and was buried for 3 days and then rose again showing him to be God.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To you, these might not be His words, but to the christian ...

The christian believes in the Authenticity of the Bible, and the important thing is that the christian believes these are the words of Jesus. Thats what matters.

Authenticity does not automatically mean complete accuracy of factual reporting.

A Christian is one who holds faithfully to the teachings of the Christ, not one who finds his religion up in scrolls copied by miopic scribes hundreds of years ago.

i dont think your a christian, so we can talk about other things? so how you doin ?

You're not a Christian either, so by what right do you speak?

Judge not, lest ye by judged

I know the Verse you are talking about let me go get it for you :D

EDIT:

can reply to this by simply asking you to continue to complete the passage. The answer to this is given in the verse directly after.

is it not in your Torah that God called some people gods ? Why do you take offense when i say i am the Son of God, when people in your book have been called Gods.

You are accusing me of blasphemy because i say i am the son of God, But you yourselves have been called Gods in your own book.

Spot quoting? Ok, I'll play, here's one:

John 10.38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.

Word of advice, don't quote verses of the Bible, quote chapters with commentary.

There is another Verse Which Christians also standby which is:

This is a verse which is a victim of Mis-interpretation, becuase it is not taken in its context. I will give the context, the 2 verses before it give us the True meaning.

I and the father are one , ok one in what ? One in entity , or One in Purpose. from the context we know its one in purpose .

Really? You are quibbling over words in the English translation?

Chapter and verse next time, please.

Anyway, as a Muslim you don't believe the Gospels contain much truth, you think they're faulty and/or doctored, so me having this conversation with you is largely pointless.

Christ's Divinity is a cardinal belief of post-Nicean Christianity but, as Beskar has already noted, there are Christian sects which deny the Divinity, or at least the equality, of the Christ with God. Still, even were I an Arian I would still have far more in common with Niceans than Muslims.

God have mercy upon me, but I find you irritating and your mode of argument crude and uninteresting - so I'm afraid there will be no "wall of text" this time.

[Hax]

Christ's Divinity is a cardinal belief of post-Nicean Christianity but, as Beskar has already noted, there are Christian sects which deny the Divinity, or at least the equality, of the Christ with God. Still, even were I an Arian I would still have far more in common with Niceans than Muslims.

Be it only from the fact that a lot of Muslim rituals and beliefs are based upon pre-Islamic Arabic traditions.

[Brandy Blue]

Stormrage reminds me of a guy who was trying to disprove Daoism. Someone asked him how he tought he could disprove a philosophy that has been around 3000 years. If it could be disproven, then someone would have done it already. The guy answered, "I know I can't disprove it. I'm just having fun trying." Odd way to have fun, but at least he realized that Daoists aren't fools.

The arguements Stormrage gives are old ones and have been answered before. If he doesn't agree with the answers Christians give, that's up to him, but I suggest he do some research.

[Major Robert Dump]

Is this at all related to Divine from the John Waters movies?

[Papewaio]

What do you mean Faith not reason what you talkin about. faith is Weak it is flimsy without Proof and Reason. If im a muslim with just faith i would get torn apart by atheists. but you see We have Reasoning, We have Evidence, to support Faith.

Meh, believe in what you want.

Faith, Belief and Love, the most important of thes is Love.

=][=

Don't worry atheists are quite happy to tear apart any faith... it's just some of them are more local and accessible to start with like one's family and friends.

Except most of us know that you can't disprove God using science. You can only prove something exists, not disprove a non-existence... kind of the Black Swan issue.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Don't worry atheists are quite happy to tear apart any faith...

I am as hardcore atheist as you can get, but I purposely go out of my way not to tear apart any mainstream faith. I have my beliefs and others have theirs. Also, I have noticed that some people just can't handle life without religion, why try to take it away from them when it helps them so much? I don't see any sort of coherent, consistent, secular moral philosophy that provides the kind of "right" and "wrong" that many people need and take from religion, (so relativism is out). So there isn't anything I can preach to them to replace religion, if I wanted to anyway.

[Major Robert Dump]

I LOLd when I saw the OP say he has proof and evidence.

[rory_20_uk]

So, we have to start off from the premise that everything in the bible is 100% accurate, and everything else is utterly irrelevant? All the other gospels, epistles, letters and what not. Almost arguing about what words are in a dictionary after 80% of the pages have been torn out.

Jesus Christ is merely bringing together two threads of Christianity, one lot who viewed Iesus as a modern day prophet and the other lot who viewed Christ as divine. A compromise / fudge that would make modern day politicians proud.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So, we have to start off from the premise that everything in the bible is 100% accurate, and everything else is utterly irrelevant? All the other gospels, epistles, letters and what not. Almost arguing about what words are in a dictionary after 80% of the pages have been torn out.

Well, no. On the other hand, what's actually in the Bible, excusing Revelations, is the earliest stuff with a reasonable authorial attribution. The only book that might be earlier is Thomas, but that doesn't contain anything massively controversial from what we have seen of the surviving fragments.

Jesus Christ is merely bringing together two threads of Christianity, one lot who viewed Iesus as a modern day prophet and the other lot who viewed Christ as divine. A compromise / fudge that would make modern day politicians proud.

Now this is just nonsensicle, "Jesus Christ" simply denotes the recognition of the man Jesus being annointed by God, which is merely a recognition of his status as a prophet in the line of Moses, Samuel and David. It does not denote divinity. The argument you refer to is the one over whether Jesus should be worshipped as seperate from God, or as the same as God. In this way the Trinitarian formulation is a compromise which, ultimately expresses the relationship as beyond human comprehension, rejecting either absolute option.

[rory_20_uk]

Well, no. On the other hand, what's actually in the Bible, excusing Revelations, is the earliest stuff with a reasonable authorial attribution. The only book that might be earlier is Thomas, but that doesn't contain anything massively controversial from what we have seen of the surviving fragments.

Merely that things are not earlier (and we are already talking tens if not hundreds of years for this allowed "early" stuff) doesn't mean that other sources wern't early, merely that earlier versions have been destroyed in one of the church's early book burning activities - hence not allowed as evidence it could be allowed has been destroyed. Rather similar to tearing out parts of a dictionary before using it as a source of information. I believe that a lot of the Dead Sea material is from a similar period of time.

Creationism makes sense if you are allowed to destroy everything that contradicts it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Merely that things are not earlier (and we are already talking tens if not hundreds of years for this allowed "early" stuff) doesn't mean that other sources wern't early, merely that earlier versions have been destroyed in one of the church's early book burning activities - hence not allowed as evidence it could be allowed has been destroyed. Rather similar to tearing out parts of a dictionary before using it as a source of information. I believe that a lot of the Dead Sea material is from a similar period of time.

We are only talking about decades, in the field of classical biography and historiography that's pretty good going. There is, for example, no history of Alexander the Great surviving from before the second century AD, and no account is known to have been written until several decades after his death. So Paul's letters and the Canonical Synoptic Gospels are likely to have been the earliest coherent books. That doesn't mean there weren't earlier written accounts, but you tend to only systematise information once the people who lived through the events in question have died. In this case Mark is about 30 years after Jesus died, Matthew and Luke between 40 and 50 and John 60-70. It is entirely possible that the younger actors who lived through those events were still alive when Mark, Matthew and Luke were writing, so the likelyhood of blatent fakery and construction is actually fairly low.

As to "Book Burning", do you have any evidence of Christians systematically destroying books prior to the 4th Century? Given that the tradional canon was already basically in place by this point, with only minor revisions, can you demonstrate any underhand supression at all, aside from anachronising later medieval practice when putting down heretical movements?

Creationism makes sense if you are allowed to destroy everything that contradicts it.

sure, but most of the non-Canonical works have survived, they sit on my bookself in a volume thicker than my Bible, even the 2nd Century ones are hardly Earth shattering, a few of the much later ones are a bit wierd, but so what. It's like reading the Book of Mormon and going "Ah-ha!" Christianity's truth has been horribly supressed, which irrc not even the Book of Mormon claims.

[Ronin]

while we are in this level of discussion..

who do you guys think would win in a fight? Wolverine or Batman???

I'm going with Wolvie all the way.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

while we are in this level of discussion..

who do you guys think would win in a fight? Wolverine or Batman???

I'm going with Wolvie all the way.

Well, Wolverine can't die, but Batman isn't going to try and kill him anyway. That actually puts Wolverine at a disadvantage, because Batman can just shoot grapling harpoons into him and drag him into an adamantium cage, lock him up and weld the door shut.

[Beskar]

Cue for Topic Nap-time? Please keep the discussion remaining on topic.

[TheLastDays]

Bah, the OP wrote his posts makes it pointles to quote him, because his quotes disappear. Most has already been answered but if you want to argue biblically, as PVC pointed out, you have to use context, which means, whole passages.

For example, please read John 1:1-18 and this should pretty much settle the discussion about whether the Bible states that Christ is God or not. Now, the questions as to whether you believe what the Bible says or choose to doubt it, is a different one, but that's not what the OP was arguing.

Also, if you want to indulge in word studies, please refer to the language in which the document was originally written, not some translation.