All we need is Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter earthlypilgram
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah but you’re picking at straws. The average Roman Catholic has never read the Confessions of Augustine, Ireneaus Against Heresy, Aquinas Summa Theologica, etc., or the Bible from cover to cover for that matter. Let’s face it, most lay persons of any denomination aren’t book nerds.
 
Last edited:
Catholics taking their own faith for granted and just accepting the teachings of the church isn’t unusual or grasping at straws.

People in rebellion against Christ’s Church who claim sola scriptura yet don’t even realize that things as basic as the divinity of Christ weren’t even solidified for several hundred years by the same church they like to disparage is a total different ball game.
 
Well, Jesus has needs, too. And He expressed them extremely clearly: works of charity.

If they will not believe our Lord, tell them Paul taught the same.

OK, a slight exaggeration there - but not all that much.
 
The divinity of Christ has been solidified from the beginning of the church and is demonstrable in the scriptures. It was by the scriptures that the divinity of Christ was defended. The teaching of heretical views of Christ is still ongoing today. Would that cause you to say that the divinity of Christ is a still moving target? Of course not. Again, the scriptures demonstrably show that Christ was both the son of God was both human and man. Believing that the scriptures are sufficient to teach that principle is not rebellion against Christ’s Church. We acknowledge and confess the same Christ as you do.
 
Oh really? Which verse explicitly shows Christ as being divine?
 
Last edited:
Well, to start: Εν αρχή ην ο λόγος και ο λόγος ην προς τον θεον και θεός ην ο λόγος. In the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god. The word later in the passage being explained to be Christ.

But if that isn’t enough to convince you, you can progress through the prologue of John to vs 18 which again specifically calls Christ God, you can go to John 8:58 where Christ explicitly refers to himself as I Am, you can then see Thomas calling Christ his lord and his God in Chapter 20. Paul has a questionable quote in Romans which I won’t bring up since it cannot be clearly discerned if he is referring to the Father or Christ. However, he explicitly calls Jesus God in Philippians 2, and Titus 2:13, and insists that all things were made through Christ in Colossians 1 (a claim only made about God). Also, Peter refers to Jesus as God in 2 Peter 1:1. The author of Hebrews also makes explicit statements about the divinity of Christ in Hebrews 1-4, and also applies at least two passages that refer to YHWH directly to Jesus. Also in chapter 2 he insists that because we were flesh, Jesus had to come in the flesh, assuming that he began as divine. John also makes this same assumption in his first epistle when he warns his audience to test the spirits, any spirit that does not confess that Christ came in the flesh is not of God, refuting the docetic heresy that Jesus was divine and could not have come in the flesh but only seemed to do so. So there are many explicit and implicit references to the divinity of Christ throughout scripture.
 
Last edited:
Just to state this, I agree with you. But there have been many interpretations over the centuries that don’t. Arius being the foremost among them. Scripture itself does not definitively rule in favor of the divinity of Christ. That’s why a council had to be called.
 
The tense used in John 1:1 is the imperfective tense which means the action began at a past point in time and continued until the ending reference. John’s beginning point is creation, and he states in verse three that all things were created through Christ and without him was created not one thing that has come into existence. So unless you are trying to argue that God did not exist until the beginning when he created the heavens and the earth, the reference in John is quite conclusive. It is interesting that your first response is to debunk God’s word and argue against the divinity of Christ in order to defend tradition. That speaks volumes.
 
I agree with you that many interpretations, very plainly incorrectly exegeted by ignoring parts of scripture, and its context, and led to heretical teachings. That being said, the fact that sinful man is willing to twist God’s word to say something it didn’t is not an argument against the sufficiency of scripture regarding the doctrine of the deity of Christ. It is a proof that people ARE sinful and reject the Christ that God has revealed. And again, Alexander relied primarily on exegesis of the text at the council of Nicaea, as did Athanasius as he continued to battle Arianism.
 
Last edited:
I heard people use that “was” argument, I don’t actually believe it. What tradition are you talking about?
 
Last edited:
Don’t believe it. Your believing it or not believing it doesn’t impact the truth of the argument.
 
I am not talking about what you said. I was talking about what I said.
 
Last edited:
Luke 22:70: ‘And they all said, Are You the Son of God, then? And He said to them, Yes, I am.’
John 10:30: ‘I and the father are one.’
 
I personally would not use John 10:30 by itself because in the context the “oneness” described is that of unity of purpose and action, not persons since the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father. However, as the passage goes on and describes the intimate unity of the Father and the Son. However, when he makes explicit application that he is the Son of God, a term of deity in First Century Roman mind, that caused the Jews to pick up stones, that would indicate the ontological equality between the Father and the Son. Just my opinion. Many apologists disagree on use of this passage as a proof text for Jesus divinity.
 
Sean77 said:
The divinity of Christ has been solidified from the beginning of the church and is demonstrable in the scriptures. It was by the scriptures that the divinity of Christ was defended. The teaching of heretical views of Christ is still ongoing today. Would that cause you to say that the divinity of Christ is a still moving target? Of course not. Again, the scriptures demonstrably show that Christ was both the son of God was both human and man. Believing that the scriptures are sufficient to teach that principle is not rebellion against Christ’s Church. We acknowledge and confess the same Christ as you do.
Click to expand...
So Sean what was the purpose of the early councils like Nicaea in 325 and Ephesus in 431, in your opinion?

Peace!!!
 
If the Jews picked up the stones to kill him because they understood he was claiming to be God, that is good enough for me as proof. You are entitled to your opinion of course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top