Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
Certainly not all historians agree with you,
***The vast majority of them do.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2056400/posts
nor do the Gospels themselves claim that Jesus consistently said he is God,
***Wow, look how far off you are. Just start with John1:1 &1:14. Then click on the link above, and educate yourself.
or equal to God.
***So when doubting Thomas said “behold, my Lord and my God”, then Jesus should have retracted in horror, right? You simply do not know what you are talking about.
He just as often said the opposite — Son of Man, Messiah, even Son of God are not claims of “equality”.
***When Jesus asked about “what think ye of Christ, whose son is he?” And the discussion was about him being son of David. Then is it your position that Christ was supposed to be the ACTUAL son of David (long dead) or was He getting at the level of respect intended? Do you even know what you’re talking about?
Just as often, Jesus acknowledged his Father’s superiority.
***Because He was humble and did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped. Perhaps you’ve heard that phrase before? Nahh, I doubt it.
Again, I respect your religious beliefs,
***I’m startin’ to really disrespect yours if they’re based upon such historically ridiculous arguments.
but you have not entertained any historical facts or even textual interpretations contrary to them, and that tells me you are no historian, FRiend.
***Methinks the lady doth protest too much. You’re projecting.
Spoken like a real religious believer, and thus negating any and all claims that your views have something to do with scholarship or history.
I see you’re displaying studied incomprehension.
Of course it did. That’s not the subject of debate.
***That’s precisely the subject of the debate.
The issue here is only your personal religious belief that Jesus’ words were somehow tantamount to claiming “equality” with God.
***That is not a religious belief. It is a historical observation. Historians don’t have a problem with it, but apparently you do. And to think, you were the one who went out of his way to point out the differences between religious faith and history. You can’t even tell the difference yourself.
Sorry, FRiend, but you are getting tired and forgetful.
In fact, I've posted chapter & verse where Pilate changes his mind about ordering Jesus' crucifixion after he learns of Jesus' claim to be "King of the Jews".
But your own mind is just too fixed in its religious beliefs to accept anything contrary, right?
That word “equality” is not in the Bible — it is your personal construct, and that of likeminded believers.
***Neither is the word “Trinity”. That’s a worn out old argument. It is NOT my personal construct, it is acknowledged by the vast majority of historians. If you were the history buff you claimed, you’d know this to be the case.
I would only suggest there may be other ways to interpret the words.
***There was only one way: to tear one’s clothes in crying out blasphemy, or, as the bible records, to pick up stones to kill the man or throw him off a cliff. If there is such another way to interpret Jesus’s words, why didn’t he correct the supposed misinterpretation? It would be a hellofa lot easier than dying & being resurrected. Your suggestion and your other correspondence here shows you to be a pisspoor historian.
You said that I was pushing such beliefs as HISTORY. When the time came for me to express my beliefs, I properly identify them as religious, not history.
You’re not too bright. And quite frankly, you appear to be slipping into the realm of those who defend damnable heresy.
Sorry FRiend, but I took you to be at least half way sane.
Here I see that I was mistaken.
Sorry to waste your time...
Sorry, FRiend, but you are getting tired and forgetful.
In fact, I’ve posted chapter & verse where Pilate changes his mind about ordering Jesus’ crucifixion after he learns of Jesus’ claim to be “King of the Jews”.
***And, Mr. Forgetful, I posted chapter & verse showing such a claim was contradicted in scripture.
But your own mind is just too fixed in its religious beliefs to accept anything contrary, right?
***Pot, meet kettle. You’re the one so steeped in idealogy that you can’t see a simple historical FACT for what it is, and keep pushing your own postulate onto the established historical framework even when it’s contradicted by the most reliable documents at the time... because your postulation is so important to you rather than the actual history. I see now why you started out with all that bowlsheet about the differences between science & history & faith because YOU yourself cannot tell them apart.
You got a problem with the biblical accounts of the attempts to kill Jesus?
What ELSE do you have problems with? What parts of the bible will you throw under the bus in your idealogical quest? And at what point does it become heresy? Well, you’re already awfully close.
From the article that this thread is about...
Therefore, to deny the Holy Father is to logically deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, hence,
“…every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist . . . and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:3).
According to Peter (2 Peter 2:1), falling stars will work among the faithful, teaching damnable heresies that deny the Lord, cause the fall of men into unbelief, and bring destruction upon themselves:
If spirited Irish thinks I have diluted the topic then I’ll open my own thread. “
Spirited: From the start, BroJoeK has been attributing thoughts and intentions to other posters that are not their own but his. That said, I do not now nor have I ever thought that you have been diluting the topic, so please carry on as you have been.
Kevmo responding: "***Neither is the word “Trinity”.
That’s a worn out old argument.
It is NOT my personal construct, it is acknowledged by the vast majority of historians.
If you were the history buff you claimed, you’d know this to be the case."
And vastly more important than what historians say, it's acknowledged by at least 95% of all Chirstians, worldwide.
Only a tiny minority of Christians fall into the category of "Unitarians", who take a different view of Christ's divinity -- a divinity not-equal to God-the-Father.
However, these Unitarian-types included many of our Founders, and that is why I'm here defending them.
Kevmo: "If there is such another way to interpret Jesus’s words, why didn’t he correct the supposed misinterpretation?
It would be a hellofa lot easier than dying & being resurrected."
FRiend, for somebody who claims to be intimate with every jot & tittle of New Testament text, you seem woefully unaware of some very basics: Jesus came to die for the sins of mankind.
So he was not trying to avoid crucifixion, he was trying to incite it, with whatever words were necessary for that.
If claiming to be "Son of God" was adequate, fine, but if discussions of "Coming on the clouds of heaven" or “Ani Hu” were necessary, so be it.
Precisely what Jesus said, or meant, by those words is irrelevant to the fact that they were necessary to incite the Sanhedrin to action.
At least some of the texts and epistles are clear on this: Jesus believed that he must die, and was willing to submit to God's will in the matter.
So, precisely how he accomplished that purpose is a matter of secondary importance, isn't it?
From a historical perspective, of course, none of this is verifiable, since the Gospels are not 100% consistent in what they report, and there are no non-biblical accounts of the details.
From a religious faith perspective, of course, none of that matters, since differences in Gospels can be easily ignored, or reconciled, and interpretations can focus on what matters most to believers.
kevmo: I consider the denial of the Deity of Christ to be a damnable heresy
Kevmo’s stance is entirely scriptural:
“Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22).
Tolkien’s masterpiece, the “Silmarillion” is the book of beginnings, the all-important Genesis account that sets the stage for all that follows in the towers trilogy.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and there was nothing made that was not made by Him.”
Just as the Genesis account opens with creation ex nihilo, so does Tolkien’s account. In the beginning was Illuvatar, the Word who was, is, and always will be.
Illuvatar ‘thought,’ then Spoke, or Sang, according to Tolkien and CS Lewis in his Magicians Nephew. As Illuvatar sings He instantaneously creates the things of His thought, thus all things are created instantaneously after their own kind.
Returning to Genesis, we are told that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. God Incarnate is Jesus Christ, God made flesh, the fulfillment and perfection of all prophecy from the very beginning with Adam and Even who received the knowledge of a coming Redeemer as well as the knowledge that the world would be destroyed two times, once by water, once by fire. Thus Jesus Christ in His office as prophet is the Angel of Prophecy who spoke to Moses in the desert, revealing to him the creation account.
Therefore, to deny the Holy Father is to logically deny the deity of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, hence,
“…every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist . . . and even now already is it in the world” (1 John 4:3).
Proud, willful humans deny the deity of Jesus Christ for many reasons, not the least of which is their stubborn refusal to admit their sinful condition together with their arrogant assumption that God is like them. Thus if He thinks at all, it must be like men think, an evolving process that begins with one word, then another and another, each word following another. Because of the way men must think and speak, they are comfortable with evolutionary process, thus they limit God with their inventions:, i.e.,evolutionary theories.
To reject the deity of Jesus is to reject fallen man’s dire need of our Saviour Jesus Christ, the Physician of our souls. All who deny the deity of Jesus Christ deny the Physician thus are anti-Christs who deny His prescription and assign themselves to outer darkness.
Vladimir Soloviev (1850-1900) was a brilliant Russian philosopher and theologian. In a gripping novel, “A Short Tale of the Antichrist” Soloviev offers an amazingly accurate glimpse into the mind of the super-man who will become the Antichrist as well as illustrating the real obstacle to salvation, the refusal by proud, willful men to recognize and admit to their sinful condition.
Prior to his transformation by Satan, Soloviev describes the super-man as outwardly just, but within he is full of pride and is morally reprehensible:
“.... He believes in God but loves nobody but himself. His relationship with Christ was quickly defined as one of superiority (for he will never) bow before Him like the most stupid of Christians (nor) mutter senselessly....’Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me’....’I, the bright genius, the superman! No, never!” (The Wrath of God: The Days of Antichrist, Livio Fanzaga, pp. 39-40)
As the super-mans’ spiritual fall progresses, or evolves downward, instead of the former cold rational respect for Jesus Christ God Incarnate:
“.....there was born and grew in his heart, first, a kind of terror, and then a burning, choking and corroding envy and furious breath-taking hatred.” Devoured with envy of Jesus Christ he cries out “He rotted in the tomb, rotted like the lowest...” (ibid, pp. 40-41)
This is the moment the Evil One has been waiting for. He openly approaches the super-man and possesses him:
“He saw those piercing eyes and heard...a strange voice, toneless...stifled, and yet clear, metallic and absolutely soulless as though coming from a phonograph.” Satan pours out his spirit, saying, “I ask nothing of you, and I will help you for your own sake...Receive my spirit...it gives birth to you in power. At these words...the superman’s lips opened of themselves, two piercing eyes came quite close to his face, and he felt a sharp, frozen stream enter into him and fill his whole being. And at the same time he was conscious of a wonderful strength, energy, lightness and rapture.” (p. 43)
Soloviev masterfully portrays a striking contrast between the apostles of Christ and the Antichrist. The former receive the power of the living Word and are full of wisdom, virtue, truth, and courage while the latter receives the power of the devil and is full of nihilistic pride, lies, burning envy, murderous hate, blasphemy, cursing, resentment, deception, covetousness, and perversion.
The Antichrist, as described by Soloviev, suffers the same massively inflated pride and envy that transformed Lucifer into the devil. This same pride and envy animated Cain, Judas, Nimrod, the pantheist sorcerer Hegel, the occult Luciferian Illuminati who planned and instigated the bloody French Revolution, as well as Madame Blavatsky, Karl Marx, Nietzsche, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Teilhard de Chardin, the West’s “God is dead” theologians, Crossan and the Jesus Seminar gnostics and too many others to be named.
In the end, Hell is the choice of proud, willful men who refuse to recognize and admit to their sinful condition. In affirmation, CS Lewis writes:
“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell chose it.”
And arguably anti-semitic.
Sure, "claim of deity", i.e., "Son of God" = "blasphemy", a capital crime to the Jewish Sanhedrin.
Claims of equality with God are never stated explicitly in the New Testament, and whenever hinted at are debatable, and have long been debated, by scholars with opposing views.
But regardless of what scholars debate, at least 95% of Christians accept your claim, Kevmo, of Christ's "equality" with God.
That is religious belief with which I have no problems.
Kemo: "The resurrection Proved to all nearby that Jesus was Who HE said He Was, He was GOD.
The simple historical claim before the sanhedrin was that He was equal with God."
Resurrection would certainly evidence some form of divinity.
But no New Testament writer says explicitly, "Jesus is God".
That is a matter of theological interpretation, not of history.
Kemo: "For you to say the Resurrection is “well attested” but the claim to deity is “ is not indisputably supported by any text” is huge backtracking.
It also betrays an ignorance of history."
Sorry, FRiend, but any ignorance here is yours, since you've utterly refused to acknowledge what I really posted.
Biblical accounts of Christ's "divinity" are not in dispute -- according to them, Jesus certainly did claim to be Son of God, Son of Man, Messiah & other divine titles.
The historical dispute -- leading to millenniums of violent conflict -- has been over theological assertions, reflected in creeds, that Jesus claimed to be "equal to God" or even that "Jesus is God".
These creeds are not supported directly by New Testament texts, regardless of how much blood was shed to impose them.
In the little church I attend, we recite a version of the Apostle's Creed, which originated as early as 180 AD and is not explicit on this subject.
FRiend, I'd say these words prove you are a poser for pretending your arguments here have anything to do with real history.
In fact, you are simply arguing to "prove" that your own religious beliefs are orthodox, while anyone disagreeing are "damnable heretics".
Please, let me try to suggest for you a very simple way to distinguish history from religious beliefs.
If in your analysis you are considering all the data available (i.e., Crossan's work), trying to explain any discrepancies, and largely letting the data speak for itself, that is history.
If you begin with a pre-conceived idea -- i.e., "Jesus is God" -- and then mine the data for "proof texts" to support your theology, that is religious belief.
This certainly does not mean that all "history" is right and all "religious beliefs" wrong.
But it does suggest that these are different ways of understanding, each appropriate to different circumstances.
In fact, FRiend, you've been defending your religious beliefs, using tactics you claim are "historical".
But they're not, because you've studied no contemporary history beyond the Bible itself, and take no serious account of any historical data outside your orthodox religious beliefs.
Nothing wrong with you defending your religion: good for you.
Just don't pretend it's "history".
Kevmo: "By all means, post some non-biblical texts and let’s see how they stack up.
So far you’ve posted one minor reference about Pilate that doesn’t even contradict the biblical account."
This comment again proves that your views have nothing to do with history and everything to do with defending your orthodox religious beliefs.
If you had any serious interest in history itself, you'd already know the major texts & arguments.
On the issue of Pilate, once again: I've mentioned this numerous times already, and each time you studiously ignore it, but here is one text which proves Pilate's motivations:
3 So Pilate asked Jesus, 'Are you the king of the Jews?' "
Of course, the story goes on from there, but in the end these verses -- and others similar -- prove that both Jews and Pilate well knew: rebellion is the only crime for which Pilate might order crucifixion.
FRiend, Kevmo, in no gospel account -- zero, zip, nada -- does Pilate question Jesus about his theological status as "Son of God", "Son of Man" "Messiah", etc.
Instead, Pilate is only concerned about Jesus' political status as "King of the Jews".
And that is the sign which all agree was posted on Jesus' cross.
Of course, Pilate's seeming reluctance to crucify Jesus is entirely possible, especially since, as Luke 23:12 reports:
For Pilate, it was a win-win situation.
Kevmo: "For you to accept gospel accounts of “king of the jews” but then throw out gospel accounts that show Pilate finding Jesus innocent of rebellion is an exercise in religiosity, not history."
No because: despite Pilate's protestations to the contrary, rebellion is exactly what is indicated by his sign, "King of the Jews".
Again, I can't imagine why you so wish to deny what is obviously true, from the texts.
Kevmo: "I object to your particular interpretations because they are unhistorical, and driven by your idealogy."
You mis-understand, doubtless because your religious beliefs won't allow you to consider broader historical data.
Kevmo: "I have read lots of apologetics and historical books.
If your writing is an example of what I can expect from Crossan, I’m not all that interested.
I like real history, not idealogically driven revisionism."
Sorry, but if you can't distinguish between apologetics and real history, then we know what your problem is, FRiend.
My familiarity with Crossan's work is now two decades old, so I can't tell you exactly what any of his ideas are, only that he breaks down the data according to strict historical standards.
He writes history, not religious apologetics.
Naturally, you claim it's "just another religion", since his history doesn't agree with your beliefs.
But I began this, ahem, discussion trying to distinguish between definitions of the words "science", "history" and "religious beliefs".
Those are my distinctions, and I'm sticking to them...
Kevmo: "Did you even click over to the link of the article I wrote?
It PROVES that I have strong historicity backup to what I say.
It seems that perhaps you have read only one book."
Sadly, there are many links on this thread that I've not had time to study.
Maybe someday.
But your efforts to prove historicity of the Bible, and only the Bible, shows us that you are not interested in history so much as "proving" your religious beliefs.
When you can bring yourself to objectively consider non-biblical data & non-traditional interpretations, that will begin your study of real history.
Despite your claims to the contrary, in fact none of your arguments are non-religious.
All of them are efforts to justify your orthodox religious beliefs.
When you begin to study & account for non-religious historical reports, then you can claim to be "historical".
But, dear FRiend Kevmo, here is your real problem: "quick to accuse me of being religious".
"Being religious" is only an "accusation" if you pretend to be something else, so why do it?
Why not embrace your own faith?
Why not just tell us the truth of the matter: Kevmo believes orthodox understandings of the Bible because that is his religious faith, period, end of discussion?
Nothing to be ashamed of, no need to seek outside "historical" justifications, no need to "debate" anything -- it just is what it is.
That's my recommendation to you.
Kevmo: "I don’t dismiss it.
I just don’t want to read it at this time because the first time I’ve heard of it was from you, and you don’t really show a strong grasp of historicity.
So it colors my perception of Crossan.
Have you read anyone else? Yamauchi? Ramsay? FF Bruce? Stauffer? Even Josh McDowell?"
FRiend, I'm a "history buff", not a scholar, but I do "get" the difference between "history" and "religious beliefs".
Real history may often include data which is contrary to your religious orthodoxy.
You will certainly find such data in the books of Crossan.
But, since Kevmo allows no such data into your own arguments, that fact proves you're not here about "history".
Kevmo: "Just ‘cause you say it that way, don’t make it so.
If it were true, what you said, then you could easily point to one or two places in this thread where I pushed a religious viewpoint as historical. Go ahead."
FRiend, it's easy for you to prove me wrong: all you need do is quote some words of your own which are contrary to your own religious orthodoxy.
I have certainly seen none such from you.
FRiend, every one of those traditional "proof-texts" can be, and have been, disputed by scholars who interpret them to mean something different than traditional orthodox religion teaches.
Of course, I think you are entitled to believe whatsoever you wish to believe about your "proof-texts", so long as you don't call your religious beliefs "history".
Kevmo: "So when doubting Thomas said “behold, my Lord and my God”, then Jesus should have retracted in horror, right?
You simply do not know what you are talking about."
FRiend, even the Gospel writer John, who advances Christ's divinity beyond all other New Testament writers, in the end, even John is absolutely clear about what he intends for us to understand:
In the end, even John does not ask us to believe that Jesus is God, only that He "is the Messiah, the Son of God."
That seems significant to me, personally.
Indeed, in John 10:34 Jesus himself denies that the title of "god" means "God":
34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]?
35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came — and Scripture cannot be set aside —
36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?
Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? "
Here's my point on this: reasonable people should be able to disagree reasonably on these matters without one side or the other feeling the need to burn somebody at the stake as a "damnable heretic".
Kevmo: "is it your position that Christ was supposed to be the ACTUAL son of David (long dead) or was He getting at the level of respect intended?"
Seems to me, Jesus was talking about, in your words, "the level or respect intended" in calling certain human beings "gods" or "Lord".
In both cases, in Matthew 22:44, the word "Lord" translates kyrios.
However, the original Hebrew of Psalms 110:1, which Jesus quotes uses the terms Yahweh and adoni. "adoni", with which Jesus refers to himself, was never a term for God.
Instead, it is a term of respect for human beings.
Kevmo: "Do you even know what you’re talking about?"
Yes, and I have expert help from books when needed...
Kevmo: "Because He was humble and did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped.
Perhaps you’ve heard that phrase before? Nahh, I doubt it."
Indeed, the word "grasp" in Luke 9:45 refers to the "Son of Man" a term which in no way-shape-or-form can mean a co-equal person in a triune God-head.
Kevmo: "You’re projecting."
No, but you are certainly deflecting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.