Kevin's Watch

To answer iQuestor... Jesus's status as fully Man and fully God was not set from the beginning... rather, it was only definitely "approved" by the fledgling church a few centuries later during the First Council of Nicaea, when the rising of the Aryan heresy displayed the need for a unified belief about, among other things, the nature and divinity of Christ.

It should also be noted that apparently the vast majority of references to Jesus being divine (either through his own words or through the words of the author) are presented through the Gospel of John, which is rather different in structure and contents from the other three canonical Gospels.

In any case, until the Council of Nicaea, there was no strictly unified position of the various bishops as to Christ's nature - as such, it could be argued that while Christ's divinity is now a central tenet of Christianity, removing it or "diluting" it would not automatically void the values and tenets of the religion itself.

Nice post, Xar.

Also, I have 3 words.

Dead Sea Scrolls. These do exist and the Catholic Church does not want them public. If it was public it would bring down many things, but I honestly do not think it would destroy the Church. I think it would make it stronger. Ok, maybe priests, cardnials, bishops, etc might lose some stature and silly rules like clergy not getting married would likely become obsolete. Change is never easy, but that doesn't mean it isn't right. We need to ask what is right and not comfortable. I do not approve of biblical scrolls/documents being kept away from public knowlege.

SoulQuest1970 wrote:Dead Sea Scrolls. These do exist and the Catholic Church does not want them public. If it was public it would bring down many things, but I honestly do not think it would destroy the Church. I think it would make it stronger. Ok, maybe priests, cardnials, bishops, etc might lose some stature and silly rules like clergy not getting married would likely become obsolete. Change is never easy, but that doesn't mean it isn't right. We need to ask what is right and not comfortable. I do not approve of biblical scrolls/documents being kept away from public knowlege.

Lots of Dead Sea Scrolls and fragments have been made public... incidentally, though, it should be said that the aforementioned Gospel of Judas was part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. So one might also argue that - given that this is just a sample of the kind of things which the Scrolls contain - it is probably best to keep them under wraps and reveal their contents only once researchers are sure of them and of the proper context. Just look at the hype the Gospel of Judas received when it was first published - I can easily imagine that if those scrolls had been public knowledge before, the media would have gone into a frenzy, mistranslating, taking things out of context. In fact, they might have simply picked up different translated fragments and make up sensationalistic versions, built just in order to provoke a reaction.
If I were the Church, or even just as a responsible person, I'd rather have researchers work on them and only release translations once they're sure of what they've got.

Xar wrote:To answer iQuestor... Jesus's status as fully Man and fully God was not set from the beginning... rather, it was only definitely "approved" by the fledgling church a few centuries later during the First Council of Nicaea, when the rising of the Aryan heresy displayed the need for a unified belief about, among other things, the nature and divinity of Christ.

It should also be noted that apparently the vast majority of references to Jesus being divine (either through his own words or through the words of the author) are presented through the Gospel of John, which is rather different in structure and contents from the other three canonical Gospels.

In any case, until the Council of Nicaea, there was no strictly unified position of the various bishops as to Christ's nature - as such, it could be argued that while Christ's divinity is now a central tenet of Christianity, removing it or "diluting" it would not automatically void the values and tenets of the religion itself.

Great point. However, all of the protestant religions do see Christ's divinity as a fundamental tenant of their belief, so I guess I strongly disagree -- if Christ's divinity was ever proven wrong, then I fail to see how any christianity based church would survive that knowledge intact -- thats why it was called Christianity; He was not a prophet to Christians, he was the literal son of God.

Now Catholics would profit greatly, because they don't believe Jesus was divine (I dont think) and I could hear a collective I told you so from the Vatican to all of the protestants. (Just think of that happening -- how much power the Catholic Church would have in that case *shudders*)

I would also like to point out that protestant reliegions as we know them werent formed when the Council of Nicea determined Christ's Divinity (as well as which books were included in the bible, and which were not) and so they were founded well afterward. And these protestants were absolutely founded on the belief that 1) Jesus Christ was the literal son of God and 2) that anyone who beleived in him and repented that they were a sinner could be saved from eternal damnation. You can only get to heaven through Jesus Christ is the fundamental belief here.

SoulQuest's comment about the scrolls be kept out of the public domain -- the council of Nicea was a giant piece of propoganda, not the least of which a human decision that Jesus was divine? HA. That ranks up there with the selling of Indulgences, which church members could purchase to either get a late relative of friend out of purgatory, or keep themselves out. NOW THAT is marketing, my friend.

Xar wrote:To make a simpler example, borrowing from F&F's post:

If you know with absolute certainty that your kid will break a ceramic vase if you put it on a low table (not because the kid is evil, but because he is a rather active kid), you still decide to put the vase on the low table, and the kid breaks it, who is responsible for the destruction of the vase?

Although that scenario is something to consider in the thread, it's not at all the kind of thing I'm talking about. I'm talking about intentional disobedience on issues that, for example, I, being a little more experienced, know to be dangerous.

I don't really have anything to add...but I'm really enjoying all the disscussions.

(edit) Is it bad form to start a post with a p.s.? I just wanted to say that it's worth reading about the Gnostic Gospels. For the faithful who want to know more about what they are, and for the non-faithful who simply interested in religious history related to christian theology. A poster I respected on another board once recommended a book on the subject, and it really was well worth the two weeks I spent reading through it. For a believer it confirms christianity just as much as it brings to mind various points to consider, that you might not have even previously thought about. Just my two cents on that... (/edit)

Lord Mhoram wrote:That does make sense to me, SQ. It has just never happened to me personally.

Tjol,

But their actions were, according to the canonical Gospels, more than predictable, like say the weather. Jesus knew Peter and Judas would do what they did. He knew they would "choose" to do it. What I'm saying is, when someone knows ahead of time exactly what you'll do and how you'll do it, then it seems to me that there's a set of stage directions that Peter and Judas were obeying. That is not free will.

Being predictable is different then being predestined. My theology says that the creator deliberately created a universe with free will, and one that has multitudes of individual experiences to be had from it. Jesus had no power to change Judas or Peter's choices, eventhough he knew what they would be, because the creator chose to create a universe where free will would not be stifled by the creator's hands. It is why people can still perform evil. Yes it is their nature to do so, but it is also always their choice to do something different.

I wish I could think of a non theological approach to it, but that goes back to whether reality accidentally created itself, or deliberately created itself first, in order for you and me to be talking in points of reference that are understandable to each other. Then maybe I could show the line that exists between predictability and predestination.

Maybe some sort of extraction of chaos theory kind of touches on the same line... but in an opposite fashion, that just because the results of a combination of forces looks random and unpredictable, it doesn't mean that they act free of the physical laws of this reality, and are incapable of predictability. In the same fashion something predictable, may in fact still have a choice left to make, even if it has regularly made the same choice over and over again.

Meh, I need to construct that more clearly, but maybe you get the diagram I'm trying to create?

iQuestor wrote:

Lord Mhoram wrote:That does make sense to me, SQ. It has just never happened to me personally.

Tjol,

But their actions were, according to the canonical Gospels, more than predictable, like say the weather. Jesus knew Peter and Judas would do what they did. He knew they would "choose" to do it. What I'm saying is, when someone knows ahead of time exactly what you'll do and how you'll do it, then it seems to me that there's a set of stage directions that Peter and Judas were obeying. That is not free will.

The protestant movement (Calvin, Martin Luther) believed in pre-destination, meaning that it had already been decided if you were going to heaven or hell when (before) you were born. Later, the protestants decided this wasn't good for business (my opinion) and gave everybody in these offshoots a chance to get salvation by accepting christ and following his path.

Well, first and foremost, the Reformation was against the Catholic interpretation of Christian Theology. Catholic Theology had a huge start on thinking through their theology, whereas the Protestants, while knowing that there were parts they didn't think were correct, had not had the time to refine their theology at the very instant of the Reformation. How long did it take the Catholic Church to form after the Crucifixion?

Luther was in essence, arguing that the less priveleged could still get into heaven even though they didn't have treasures to give to the Catholic Church. Predestination was his first theological stab at establishing that. His error in theological deduction (in my opinion), does not render his larger theological assumption regarding the accessibility of salvation incorrect. The Catholic Church was at some point at a similar point of theological development, and the refinement of their theology need not be dismissed to being good business. It could simply be the result of the refining process of years of thinking that allows for any ideology to hammer out it's flaws.

Now, if History were to show that Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene, and their descendants were the merovingian Kings, and there is a bloodline, how would this affect the faith?

The biggest flaw in Dan Brown's theory is that he doesn't seem to have spent much time looking into what the theological disagreements were between the Gnostic and the Catholic (and the Orthodox) theologies. If the Catholic Church could have a royal blood line to claim, do you really think they wouldn't have taken advantage of it? If there was a royal holy bloodline, don't you think the Gnostics would have denied such a thing because it would directly contradict the idea of spiritual gifts from the Holy Spirit?

In order to imagine a good conspiracy, it helps to understand the motivations of the parties involved first, so that the conspiracy has some plausability.

That being said, I don't think it changes my faith especially if Jesus lived a more human life, the more human his living in this world was, the greater the sacrafice that exists in his surrendering himself to God's will.

This implies Jesus didnt have a choice, that his crucifixion (or however he ended up being killed or sacrificed) was pre-determined and all paths God had in mind led to this one way or another. How then how can Jesus be the salvation of the world if he was a robot? How could he be anything other than a tool? How could his sacrifice have any meaning whatsoever?

Jesus did have a choice, in the Garden of Gesthemene he surrenderred it, trusting the will of God. He very specifically says what his will is, and also says that he will do what is asked of him, if it is his father's will.

(yes this could spin off into theological discussion of the trinity, but really this can be argued both ways...so I won't detour into that.)

Xar wrote:In any case, until the Council of Nicaea, there was no strictly unified position of the various bishops as to Christ's nature - as such, it could be argued that while Christ's divinity is now a central tenet of Christianity, removing it or "diluting" it would not automatically void the values and tenets of the religion itself.

Now there is something I certainly can agree with. The moral and philosophical values of a religion, and the social / psychological structures thereof, and the...mythical / mythological aspects can all be very distinct entities.

I can certainly recognise the ethical values of christianity without having to subscribe to the mystical claims.

--A

iQuestor wrote:

Xar wrote:To answer iQuestor... Jesus's status as fully Man and fully God was not set from the beginning... rather, it was only definitely "approved" by the fledgling church a few centuries later during the First Council of Nicaea, when the rising of the Aryan heresy displayed the need for a unified belief about, among other things, the nature and divinity of Christ.

It should also be noted that apparently the vast majority of references to Jesus being divine (either through his own words or through the words of the author) are presented through the Gospel of John, which is rather different in structure and contents from the other three canonical Gospels.

In any case, until the Council of Nicaea, there was no strictly unified position of the various bishops as to Christ's nature - as such, it could be argued that while Christ's divinity is now a central tenet of Christianity, removing it or "diluting" it would not automatically void the values and tenets of the religion itself.

Great point. However, all of the protestant religions do see Christ's divinity as a fundamental tenant of their belief, so I guess I strongly disagree -- if Christ's divinity was ever proven wrong, then I fail to see how any christianity based church would survive that knowledge intact -- thats why it was called Christianity; He was not a prophet to Christians, he was the literal son of God.

Now Catholics would profit greatly, because they don't believe Jesus was divine (I dont think) and I could hear a collective I told you so from the Vatican to all of the protestants. (Just think of that happening -- how much power the Catholic Church would have in that case *shudders*)

I would also like to point out that protestant reliegions as we know them werent formed when the Council of Nicea determined Christ's Divinity (as well as which books were included in the bible, and which were not) and so they were founded well afterward. And these protestants were absolutely founded on the belief that 1) Jesus Christ was the literal son of God and 2) that anyone who beleived in him and repented that they were a sinner could be saved from eternal damnation. You can only get to heaven through Jesus Christ is the fundamental belief here.

Catholics believe in the divinity of Christ - that He was fully God and fully Man. However, what I mean to say is that even if Jesus's divinity were demonstrated to be a wrong concept, the Church could still endure - by pointing out HOW they came to the conclusion Jesus was divine in the first place. Christianity is called this way because it is based on the teachings of Christ - NOT specifically because its adherents believe that Christ was God. Surely, such a revelation would harm many believers, and weaken any Christian Church - but there would be believers who would realize that Jesus's divinity is not the central point of Christianity - His teachings are.

iQuestor wrote:SoulQuest's comment about the scrolls be kept out of the public domain -- the council of Nicea was a giant piece of propoganda, not the least of which a human decision that Jesus was divine? HA. That ranks up there with the selling of Indulgences, which church members could purchase to either get a late relative of friend out of purgatory, or keep themselves out. NOW THAT is marketing, my friend.

You're wrong, iQuestor... the Council of Nicaea was established because the fledgling Church was too widespread, and it was beginning to fracture because of different opinions on the main beliefs; it was an attempt to ensure that the Church would remain one, rather than fragment in many sects. It was a matter of survival and of avoiding schisms, and one of the main reasons why it was called was because the danger of schisms was already rearing its head, with the Aryan heresy. I wouldn't call the Council "propaganda" or compare it with the selling of Indulgences.

I didn't know people actually thought the Bible doesn't teach that Jesus Himself thought He was God. He says as much, 'I AM'. And the Jews picked up stones to stone Him for blasphemy, they knew what He was saying.

Cybrweez wrote:I didn't know people actually thought the Bible doesn't teach that Jesus Himself thought He was God. He says as much, 'I AM'. And the Jews picked up stones to stone Him for blasphemy, they knew what He was saying.

Ah, but until the Council of Nicaea there wasn't even an agreement on which Gospels were canonical and which ones weren't... how could there be an agreement on Jesus's divinity or lack thereof?

Xar wrote:

Catholics believe in the divinity of Christ - that He was fully God and fully Man. However, what I mean to say is that even if Jesus's divinity were demonstrated to be a wrong concept, the Church could still endure - by pointing out HOW they came to the conclusion Jesus was divine in the first place. Christianity is called this way because it is based on the teachings of Christ - NOT specifically because its adherents believe that Christ was God. Surely, such a revelation would harm many believers, and weaken any Christian Church - but there would be believers who would realize that Jesus's divinity is not the central point of Christianity - His teachings are.

That is a defect in my understanding of the Catholic faith... I had always thought that the Catholics beleived that Christ was a prophet and not the true messiah. I had always wondered why they held Mary in such high esteem while not emphasizing Jesus's role. Thanks for setting that stright, guess I need to go read up more.

You're wrong, iQuestor... the Council of Nicaea was established because the fledgling Church was too widespread, and it was beginning to fracture because of different opinions on the main beliefs; it was an attempt to ensure that the Church would remain one, rather than fragment in many sects. It was a matter of survival and of avoiding schisms, and one of the main reasons why it was called was because the danger of schisms was already rearing its head, with the Aryan heresy. I wouldn't call the Council "propaganda" or compare it with the selling of Indulgences.

I base my opinion on a history class I took in college, which was likely biased by my professor -- she took a real hard line on the differences between Catholic's version of history and other (possibly more unbiased ) versions.

I should go back and research more, but still have a problem with humans granting or denying divinity to Christ. I know their intent was to prove it or support it, but still -- there are many books and letters written by disciples, and other sects of people who worshipped and interacted with Christ's church who were not included in the offcial bible. These accounts were left out, but they left in Revelations????

Xar wrote:However, what I mean to say is that even if Jesus's divinity were demonstrated to be a wrong concept, the Church could still endure - by pointing out HOW they came to the conclusion Jesus was divine in the first place. Christianity is called this way because it is based on the teachings of Christ - NOT specifically because its adherents believe that Christ was God.

Strongly disagree there. Jesus' teachings are revered BECAUSE he was the son of God - he was disseminating God's teachings. If the Church doesn't have "because God told you so" to back up it's claims, it'd pretty much waste away. It's set up to be a patriarchical hegemony, not a philosophical fad.

Wayfriend wrote:

Xar wrote:However, what I mean to say is that even if Jesus's divinity were demonstrated to be a wrong concept, the Church could still endure - by pointing out HOW they came to the conclusion Jesus was divine in the first place. Christianity is called this way because it is based on the teachings of Christ - NOT specifically because its adherents believe that Christ was God.

Strongly disagree there. Jesus' teachings are revered BECAUSE he was the son of God - he was disseminating God's teachings. If the Church doesn't have "because God told you so" to back up it's claims, it'd pretty much waste away. It's set up to be a patriarchical hegemony, not a philosophical fad.

But you say it yourself - he was disseminating God's teachings. And he always said those were God's teachings. The fact whether he was God himself or not does not necessarily validate or invalidate the teachings: in fact, even if he had been just a human prophet, the teachings would still be valid and could still be considered divinely inspired.

But you say it yourself - he was disseminating God's teachings. And he always said those were God's teachings. The fact whether he was God himself or not does not necessarily validate or invalidate the teachings: in fact, even if he had been just a human prophet, the teachings would still be valid and could still be considered divinely inspired.

Despite my shortcomings on the Catholic faith and other things, I never got from my version of the bible, or in church as a kid, that Jesus WAS God. I Never got that anywhere.

iQuestor wrote: Despite my shortcomings on the Catholic faith and other things, I never got from my version of the bible, or in church as a kid, that Jesus WAS God. I Never got that anywhere.

It's the whole "Trinity" thing.
Which is one of the things that hastened my "release" from the Church.
I just couldn't swallow that one.
There's also some talk about Mary's hymen still being intact even after giving birth to Jesus too which just makes me laugh to this day.
Anyone ever hear that one?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

Good post HLT

Yeah I agree, HLT. I look at a lot of Christian theological doctrines as excercises in sophistry to, as I said earlier, cover up the obvious holes in the ideas.

Thanks guys.

Wayfriend wrote:

Xar wrote:However, what I mean to say is that even if Jesus's divinity were demonstrated to be a wrong concept, the Church could still endure - by pointing out HOW they came to the conclusion Jesus was divine in the first place. Christianity is called this way because it is based on the teachings of Christ - NOT specifically because its adherents believe that Christ was God.

Strongly disagree there. Jesus' teachings are revered BECAUSE he was the son of God - he was disseminating God's teachings. If the Church doesn't have "because God told you so" to back up it's claims, it'd pretty much waste away. It's set up to be a patriarchical hegemony, not a philosophical fad.

I'm not sure I agree there WayFriend. Other religions respect Christ's teachings as the teachings of a prophet, without recognising his divinity. Morally and ethically, there is much of value in Christ's teachings which do not rely upon his supposed divinity.

HLT: An odd one indeed...especially considering the bible is pretty upfront about Jesus' brothers.

--A