Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

    The issue of the nature of Jesus' divinity while he was on earth had long occupied early Christian thought and judging from another thread, it still continues.

    After 381 CE, the debate was made more, rather than less, difficult by the need to reconcile a definition of Jesus’ humanity with Nicene orthodoxy. One issue with the elevation of Jesus into the Godhead was to leave it unclear how his humanity, as described in the gospels, could be related to his new divine status. The Nicene creed simply stated that he had become a man but provided no further enlightenment

    So what exactly was his nature and where did the divine part from the human?

    Was his divine nature put into abeyance at the moment of his birth but somehow reactivated at the Resurrection? Or did it continue throughout his earthly ministry? Could he, for example, have a divine soul that was of a different quality from that of an ordinary human being, but still contained within a human body?

    To what did Mary give birth? A man or a god? During his everyday life did Jesus switch back and forth from divinity to humanity? Did he act as a divinity when he performed his miracles, but as a human being when he ate and drank?

    How were his teachings to be allocated? To his divine self or to his human one, depending on their content?

    Did he have emotions or did he transcend them? Were they "real" emotions or only intended to ensure an effective contact with his followers.

    How did his divinity affect the extent to which he could endure the suffering he apparently underwent for the saving of mankind? Could he suffer pain? If he could then was he really a deity? If he was a deity and could not suffer pain then what was the purpose of the crucifixion?

    In the early development of the religion two opposing parties emerged. The Adoptionists believed that Jesus was fully human but had been "adopted" by God at either his birth, his baptism, or at his resurrection [the precise moment was never actually defined]. However, that divinity which the Father bestowed on him did not compromise his humanity, and his suffering on the cross was the same agony that any other human being would experience.

    At the other extreme were the Docetists who contended that Jesus went through the motions of being human but was actually divine all the time. Clement of Alexandria even claimed that while Jesus gave the appearance of eating and drinking he did not actually digest the food or have any need to excrete waste. It all somehow disappeared!

    For the subordinationists such as Arius the problem had been avoided by simply saying that Jesus was a lesser divinity and his divinity was never great enough to deprive him of both human pain and emotions. However, after 381 CE this option could no longer be open to the new "orthodox" Christians and as a result the debates reached new levels of intractability.

    Hence the concept of a single or a divided nature of Christ was entirely artificial and could never be related to any text from the gospels given the opposing views found in those four disparate works. How could the Jesus of Luke gain in wisdom if he was part of the Godhead? How could the Jesus of Mark tell a man that no one was good but god alone if he was part of the Godhead? John's gospel caused further problems because its Jesus appeared to contradict himself. If John's Jesus was one with the Father, how could the same Jesus state that the Father was greater? Or that the Son could do nothing on his own but only what he saw the Father doing?

    All these contradictory verses were of little help to anyone as it was impossible to propose that one gospel contained more theological truth than another.

    Hence it was an issue that could either be considered as insoluble or, if the debate became too fractious, as one to be settled by imperial decree.

    Which is precisely what happened.

    In 451 CE the new emperor, Marcian presided over the session that affirmed a new Definition of Faith. Christ was declared to be "at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood. Truly God and truly man". He was begotten of the Father "as of his Godhead". but born of the Virgin Mary who was given the title Theotokos. Within this "one person" Christ had two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, the distinction of natures being in no way abolished because of the union, but rather the characteristic property of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence."

    Marcian had succeeded in imposing his will on the Church.

    "It ain't necessarily so
    The things that you're liable
    To read in the Bible
    It ain't necessarily so
    ."

    Sportin' Life
    Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

  • #2
    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
    If John's Jesus was one with the Father, how could the same Jesus state that the Father was greater?
    It might have helped if they had given some consideration to what "one with" might indicate.

    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    Not to mention that prayer in the garden. Jesus prays that the disciples might be one, just as he and the Father are, and later in that same prayer that the disciples might be one with the Father and with himself, in the same way that he and the Father are one. Nothing in there even begins to indicate that "I and the Father are one" might be a call to a common ontology.
    As to how could the Father be greater? Simple - Jesus was lesser than the angels, as stated elsewhere in the thread cited above.

    Far too simple and straightforward for people so proud of their intellectual prowess that they can't read.
    Last edited by tabibito; 08-29-2022, 02:59 PM.
    1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω
    Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
    .
    If Palm Sunday really was a Sunday, Christ was crucified on a Thursday (which could be adduced from the gospels anyway).

    "The synoptic gospels claim that Jesus was crucified on the 15th day of Nisan and buried on the 14th day of Nisan:" Majority Consensus

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by tabibito View Post

      It might have helped if they had given some consideration to what "one with" might indicate.
      Are you contending you know Greek better than they did?



      Originally posted by tabibito View Post
      As to how could the Father be greater? Simple - Jesus was lesser than the angels, as stated elsewhere in the thread cited above.
      Where does Jesus state he is lesser than the angels?

      Originally posted by tabibito View Post

      Far too simple and straightforward for people so proud of their intellectual prowess that they can't read.
      Could you explain what you intended by that, but in straightforward prose?
      "It ain't necessarily so
      The things that you're liable
      To read in the Bible
      It ain't necessarily so
      ."

      Sportin' Life
      Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
        Are you contending you know Greek better than they did?
        Not in the least, but this is not an issue of fluency in a language; it is an issue of logic.

        Jesus prays:
        that the disciples be one, in the same way that Jesus and the Father are one:-
        he is not praying that the disciples combine with each other to become a single (ontological) entity.

        that the disciples become one with the Father in the same way that Jesus and the Father are one:-
        he is not praying that the disciples combine with the Father to become a single (ontological) entity.

        that the disciples become one with Jesus in the same way that Jesus and the Father are one:-
        he is not praying that the disciples combine with Jesus to become a single (ontological) entity.

        When Jesus says that he and the Father are one, there is no reason to believe that Jesus is saying He and the Father are a single (ontological) entity. His use of "the same way" or "just as" (translator's choice) preclude the possibility.

        Where does Jesus state he is lesser than the angels?
        The author of Hebrews said that. Jesus said, "the Father is greater than I."


        1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω
        Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
        .
        If Palm Sunday really was a Sunday, Christ was crucified on a Thursday (which could be adduced from the gospels anyway).

        "The synoptic gospels claim that Jesus was crucified on the 15th day of Nisan and buried on the 14th day of Nisan:" Majority Consensus

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by tabibito View Post

          Not in the least, but this is not an issue of fluency in a language; it is an issue of logic.

          Jesus prays:
          that the disciples be one, in the same way that Jesus and the Father are one:-
          he is not praying that the disciples combine with each other to become a single (ontological) entity.

          that the disciples become one with the Father in the same way that Jesus and the Father are one:-
          he is not praying that the disciples combine with the Father to become a single (ontological) entity.

          that the disciples become one with Jesus in the same way that Jesus and the Father are one:-
          he is not praying that the disciples combine with Jesus to become a single (ontological) entity.

          When Jesus says that he and the Father are one, there is no reason to believe that Jesus is saying He and the Father are a single (ontological) entity. His use of "the same way" or "just as" (translator's choice) preclude the possibility



          The author of Hebrews said that. Jesus said, "the Father is greater than I."

          So you are offering your interpretation of a text; while the author of Hebrews is offering their opinion?

          Where does that leave us?

          All you are showing is the varying stages of the Christological development.

          There is nothing from alleged comments made by Jesus defining any of this. And I note you are citing later and more highly developed theological texts, namely John and Hebrews.

          What about the Synoptics? How could Jesus grow in wisdom if he was part of the Godhead which possessed ultimate wisdom?

          How could Jesus ask "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone" if he was part of the Godhead?

          What is forgotten is that Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew, not a Christian.

          "It ain't necessarily so
          The things that you're liable
          To read in the Bible
          It ain't necessarily so
          ."

          Sportin' Life
          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

            So you are offering your interpretation of a text; while the author of Hebrews is offering their opinion?

            Where does that leave us?

            All you are showing is the varying stages of the Christological development.

            There is nothing from alleged comments made by Jesus defining any of this. And I note you are citing later and more highly developed theological texts, namely John and Hebrews.

            What about the Synoptics? How could Jesus grow in wisdom if he was part of the Godhead which possessed ultimate wisdom?

            How could Jesus ask "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone" if he was part of the Godhead?

            What is forgotten is that Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew, not a Christian.
            OK - you're not here to engage, just to preach. I'm out.
            1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω
            Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
            .
            If Palm Sunday really was a Sunday, Christ was crucified on a Thursday (which could be adduced from the gospels anyway).

            "The synoptic gospels claim that Jesus was crucified on the 15th day of Nisan and buried on the 14th day of Nisan:" Majority Consensus

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by tabibito View Post

              OK - you're not here to engage, just to preach. I'm out.
              Ah so you are running away...again!

              The point being made is that these concepts were all in the minds of men and the only way the issue could be resolved was by Imperial edict not by any theological "truth".
              "It ain't necessarily so
              The things that you're liable
              To read in the Bible
              It ain't necessarily so
              ."

              Sportin' Life
              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                The issue of the nature of Jesus' divinity while he was on earth had long occupied early Christian thought and judging from another thread, it still continues.

                After 381 CE, the debate was made more, rather than less, difficult by the need to reconcile a definition of Jesus’ humanity with Nicene orthodoxy. One issue with the elevation of Jesus into the Godhead was to leave it unclear how his humanity, as described in the gospels, could be related to his new divine status. The Nicene creed simply stated that he had become a man but provided no further enlightenment

                So what exactly was his nature and where did the divine part from the human?

                Was his divine nature put into abeyance at the moment of his birth but somehow reactivated at the Resurrection? Or did it continue throughout his earthly ministry? Could he, for example, have a divine soul that was of a different quality from that of an ordinary human being, but still contained within a human body?

                To what did Mary give birth? A man or a god? During his everyday life did Jesus switch back and forth from divinity to humanity? Did he act as a divinity when he performed his miracles, but as a human being when he ate and drank?

                How were his teachings to be allocated? To his divine self or to his human one, depending on their content?

                Did he have emotions or did he transcend them? Were they "real" emotions or only intended to ensure an effective contact with his followers.

                How did his divinity affect the extent to which he could endure the suffering he apparently underwent for the saving of mankind? Could he suffer pain? If he could then was he really a deity? If he was a deity and could not suffer pain then what was the purpose of the crucifixion?

                In the early development of the religion two opposing parties emerged. The Adoptionists believed that Jesus was fully human but had been "adopted" by God at either his birth, his baptism, or at his resurrection [the precise moment was never actually defined]. However, that divinity which the Father bestowed on him did not compromise his humanity, and his suffering on the cross was the same agony that any other human being would experience.

                At the other extreme were the Docetists who contended that Jesus went through the motions of being human but was actually divine all the time. Clement of Alexandria even claimed that while Jesus gave the appearance of eating and drinking he did not actually digest the food or have any need to excrete waste. It all somehow disappeared!

                For the subordinationists such as Arius the problem had been avoided by simply saying that Jesus was a lesser divinity and his divinity was never great enough to deprive him of both human pain and emotions. However, after 381 CE this option could no longer be open to the new "orthodox" Christians and as a result the debates reached new levels of intractability.

                Hence the concept of a single or a divided nature of Christ was entirely artificial and could never be related to any text from the gospels given the opposing views found in those four disparate works. How could the Jesus of Luke gain in wisdom if he was part of the Godhead? How could the Jesus of Mark tell a man that no one was good but god alone if he was part of the Godhead? John's gospel caused further problems because its Jesus appeared to contradict himself. If John's Jesus was one with the Father, how could the same Jesus state that the Father was greater? Or that the Son could do nothing on his own but only what he saw the Father doing?

                All these contradictory verses were of little help to anyone as it was impossible to propose that one gospel contained more theological truth than another.

                Hence it was an issue that could either be considered as insoluble or, if the debate became too fractious, as one to be settled by imperial decree.

                Which is precisely what happened.

                In 451 CE the new emperor, Marcian presided over the session that affirmed a new Definition of Faith. Christ was declared to be "at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood. Truly God and truly man". He was begotten of the Father "as of his Godhead". but born of the Virgin Mary who was given the title Theotokos. Within this "one person" Christ had two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, the distinction of natures being in no way abolished because of the union, but rather the characteristic property of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence."

                Marcian had succeeded in imposing his will on the Church.
                There is so much wrong here that I don't know where to start. In just the last paragraph: there was no new "Definition of Faith"; the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was left unchanged. Also, the dispute over what Mary was to be called was at the Council of Ephesus in 432, not the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (and the title Theotokos itself was at least as old as the mid-3rd century, when Origen used it). A number of emperors attempted to impose their will on the church; it's fairer to say that Marcian, unlike others who attempted to do so, managed to back the winning side in the dispute.
                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                sigpic
                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  There is so much wrong here that I don't know where to start. In just the last paragraph: there was no new "Definition of Faith"; the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was left unchanged. Also, the dispute over what Mary was to be called was at the Council of Ephesus in 432, not the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (and the title Theotokos itself was at least as old as the mid-3rd century, when Origen used it). A number of emperors attempted to impose their will on the church; it's fairer to say that Marcian, unlike others who attempted to do so, managed to back the winning side in the dispute.
                  You are forgetting the Council of Ephesus in 449 CE which was a particularly unpleasant affair. Dioscorus had set it up to achieve his goal of condemning Flavian and also refused Leo's Tome [which Flavian supported] to be read. He instead proposed the council endorse what appeared to be an uncontentious reaffirmation of Nicaea. Upon agreement he announced that Flavian had violated the creed, must be deposed and that all must sign the decree excommunicating Flavian, who was so badly beaten up by a mob entering the church, that he died of his injuries. Later in Rome Leo denounced this "robber council" to Theodosius.


                  "It ain't necessarily so
                  The things that you're liable
                  To read in the Bible
                  It ain't necessarily so
                  ."

                  Sportin' Life
                  Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                    The issue of the nature of Jesus' divinity while he was on earth had long occupied early Christian thought and judging from another thread, it still continues.

                    After 381 CE, the debate was made more, rather than less, difficult by the need to reconcile a definition of Jesus’ humanity with Nicene orthodoxy. One issue with the elevation of Jesus into the Godhead was to leave it unclear how his humanity, as described in the gospels, could be related to his new divine status. The Nicene creed simply stated that he had become a man but provided no further enlightenment

                    So what exactly was his nature and where did the divine part from the human?

                    Was his divine nature put into abeyance at the moment of his birth but somehow reactivated at the Resurrection? Or did it continue throughout his earthly ministry? Could he, for example, have a divine soul that was of a different quality from that of an ordinary human being, but still contained within a human body?

                    To what did Mary give birth? A man or a god? During his everyday life did Jesus switch back and forth from divinity to humanity? Did he act as a divinity when he performed his miracles, but as a human being when he ate and drank?

                    How were his teachings to be allocated? To his divine self or to his human one, depending on their content?

                    Did he have emotions or did he transcend them? Were they "real" emotions or only intended to ensure an effective contact with his followers.

                    How did his divinity affect the extent to which he could endure the suffering he apparently underwent for the saving of mankind? Could he suffer pain? If he could then was he really a deity? If he was a deity and could not suffer pain then what was the purpose of the crucifixion?

                    In the early development of the religion two opposing parties emerged. The Adoptionists believed that Jesus was fully human but had been "adopted" by God at either his birth, his baptism, or at his resurrection [the precise moment was never actually defined]. However, that divinity which the Father bestowed on him did not compromise his humanity, and his suffering on the cross was the same agony that any other human being would experience.

                    At the other extreme were the Docetists who contended that Jesus went through the motions of being human but was actually divine all the time. Clement of Alexandria even claimed that while Jesus gave the appearance of eating and drinking he did not actually digest the food or have any need to excrete waste. It all somehow disappeared!

                    For the subordinationists such as Arius the problem had been avoided by simply saying that Jesus was a lesser divinity and his divinity was never great enough to deprive him of both human pain and emotions. However, after 381 CE this option could no longer be open to the new "orthodox" Christians and as a result the debates reached new levels of intractability.

                    Hence the concept of a single or a divided nature of Christ was entirely artificial and could never be related to any text from the gospels given the opposing views found in those four disparate works. How could the Jesus of Luke gain in wisdom if he was part of the Godhead? How could the Jesus of Mark tell a man that no one was good but god alone if he was part of the Godhead? John's gospel caused further problems because its Jesus appeared to contradict himself. If John's Jesus was one with the Father, how could the same Jesus state that the Father was greater? Or that the Son could do nothing on his own but only what he saw the Father doing?

                    All these contradictory verses were of little help to anyone as it was impossible to propose that one gospel contained more theological truth than another.

                    Hence it was an issue that could either be considered as insoluble or, if the debate became too fractious, as one to be settled by imperial decree.

                    Which is precisely what happened.

                    In 451 CE the new emperor, Marcian presided over the session that affirmed a new Definition of Faith. Christ was declared to be "at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood. Truly God and truly man". He was begotten of the Father "as of his Godhead". but born of the Virgin Mary who was given the title Theotokos. Within this "one person" Christ had two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, the distinction of natures being in no way abolished because of the union, but rather the characteristic property of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence."

                    Marcian had succeeded in imposing his will on the Church.
                    What are your sources?

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                      What are your sources?
                      There are some horrible deficiencies in that, but as a broad overview it is reasonable. Good enough to get a better than reasonable grade if high school included the subject in its curriculum.
                      1Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω
                      Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                      .
                      If Palm Sunday really was a Sunday, Christ was crucified on a Thursday (which could be adduced from the gospels anyway).

                      "The synoptic gospels claim that Jesus was crucified on the 15th day of Nisan and buried on the 14th day of Nisan:" Majority Consensus

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        What are your sources?
                        Books. Seek and Ye shall find!

                        There is a large corpus on early Church history.
                        Last edited by Hypatia_Alexandria; 08-30-2022, 04:40 AM.
                        "It ain't necessarily so
                        The things that you're liable
                        To read in the Bible
                        It ain't necessarily so
                        ."

                        Sportin' Life
                        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by tabibito View Post

                          There are some horrible deficiencies in that, but as a broad overview it is reasonable. Good enough to get a better than reasonable grade if high school included the subject in its curriculum.
                          An unfortunate remark to address to

                          I thought you had departed this thread.
                          "It ain't necessarily so
                          The things that you're liable
                          To read in the Bible
                          It ain't necessarily so
                          ."

                          Sportin' Life
                          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                            An unfortunate remark to address to rogue06

                            I thought you had departed this thread.
                            I omitted the subject!
                            "It ain't necessarily so
                            The things that you're liable
                            To read in the Bible
                            It ain't necessarily so
                            ."

                            Sportin' Life
                            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              Books. Seek and Ye shall find!

                              There is a large corpus on early Church history.
                              Bookmarked for the next time you start demanding the name of the work, the author, publisher, publishing date, volume number and pages -- as you so often do.

                              Given just the short list of egregious errors that the pig listed, it would seem that there is good reason you would hesitate to list any of them. smiley snicker.gif

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by One Bad Pig, 11-17-2022, 01:47 PM
                              20 responses
                              29 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 08-29-2022, 02:12 PM
                              356 responses
                              1,611 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by little_monkey, 08-13-2022, 04:09 AM
                              317 responses
                              1,732 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Machinist  
                              Started by Cow Poke, 08-11-2021, 09:24 AM
                              36 responses
                              286 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Working...
                              X