How do you deal with conversations like this? Christ's Divinity

[havemercy]

Ed:

I decided I accept all of the moral teachings of Christ in the Gospels as sheer brilliance. I also like Christ’s view of God as so loving man in the manner of a shepherd who risks losing 99 sheep to go after the one that got away. I find that truly wonderful. I accept the only title Christ affirmed for himself, Son of Man. I reject that he was Son of God, or God, except in a mystic sense, such as in the sense of the theosis of Sufis who had attained union with God, or Qabalists, or certain Christians mystics, or Enlightened Buddhists, or Wuwei-mastered Taoists or Samadhi-attained Hindus, or divine-realised Sikhs. I reject God ever came to earth in the form of a man. I accept God as poetic symbol for the infinite underlying essenceless-essence. I accept Christ as a leader of men to this ineffable, unnamable, unthinkable, unpersonifiable, undescribable, infinitely wonderous essence, as I accept the Buddha, Muhammad ibn Abd’Allah, Krishna, Guru Nanak, Mosheh, Lao-tzu and all other great spiritual teachers. I view God very mystically, very universally, very poetically, very symbolically.

Any doctrine which leads to upright moral action and the pursuit of wisdom and compassion and love, and a consciousness of the divine mystery, I accept. Any which is detrimental to human advancement and expansion of awareness, I reject.

Finally, I advocate religious tolerance for all, for similar reasons to Locke, Voltaire, Bayle and Spinoza. Freedom! Joy! Light! Love! Wisdom!

…

havemercy:

where’s the inquisition when you need it?!

Jesus was the first “Catholic theologian”, and the promised of ages. who do you think the Church gets her new covenant doctrine from? Jesus claimed to be one IN BEING with the Father, claimed to be “I AM”, forgave sins and is known to be LORD. “Son of Man” is his name in the Old Testament prophecies. Jesus refers to himself by this title because it is a title of authority and also a title that identifies him as the messiah. he doesn’t call himself “son of man” so that people read those words out of context and assume that he denies his divinity. (i.e. not for Adam to use in defense of his super-cool-teacher model of Christology.)

the Church and her ‘lies’ have survived for two thousand years and the most i’m guilty of is giving Jesus too much credit.

 

[havemercy]

Ed:

Fully disagree that Christ was a “Catholic theologian” in any sense of that term at all. Promised of the ages, Messiah, agreed. Not God in Man. Not son of God.

Jesus claimed to be one IN BEING with the Father, claimed to be “I AM”

As have many mystics before and after him. Yet no one Trinitized them. It is not unusual for followers to deify their leaders after their deaths. Happened with the Buddha by the Mahayanists, and by the Hindus with Krishna, who made him an avatar of part of the Hindu Trinity. Not much difference. The foolishness of people. Their inability to accept and cope with the death of their beloved.

forgave sins

I can forgive your sins too symbolically. As can a priest, or a Saint, or whoever you wish. Whether sins are actually tabulated or not, I am agnostic about it. Whether Christ had the power or not, I am agnostic about it. There is no way to know if so or if not, and the attempts of theologians to do so are rationalistic claptrap and a mess of appeal to authority fallacies.

and is known to be LORD.

Circular argument. He’s known to be Lord, by those who are making the claim he is Lord. He is not strictly speaking “known” to be God in any sense. No one can prove this. It is a belief, not a true justified one, therefore not knowledge. I accept he was lord, but not Lord.

Son of Man" is his name in the Old Testament prophecies.

Fully agreed, my friend. The title of the HUMAN messiah.

Jesus refers to himself by this title because it is a title of authority and also a title that identifies him as the messiah.

Agreed again. Once again, no claim to be God or literal Son of God here.

he doesn’t call himself “son of man” so that people read those words out of context and assume that he denies his divinity.

You mean: “He doesn’t call himself “Son of Man” so that people can read those words out of context and assume that he affirms his divinity.”

(i.e. not for [Ed] to use in defense of his super-cool-teacher model of Christology.)

Haha. I had a sarcastic reply, but I made the decision not to engage in sarcasm because of its ungenuine negativity, so I will refrain.

the Church and her ‘lies’ have survived for two thousand years

Agreed, but the duration of an institute or its claims do not justify it as true, sadly.

and the most i’m guilty of is giving Jesus too much credit.

Not too much credit, you mean claiming more than is reasonable about a wonderful mystic and moral teacher who came to earth to set an example for all men and women. No need to make the jump beyond that for his message to be relevant to all.

Can anyone critique our points of view? Feel free to go on tangents (those are fun).

 

[havemercy]

I just got this additional message from Ed. I just feel like sharing this. I would still like your (name removed by moderator)ut on the mini-debate we had, though.
Ed:

I want to call off this discussion.

My philosophical position on religion is in line with Hume, Kant, Pascal, and Bayle. That reason should stay away from faith, and faith so that they do not bring conflict upon each other, but are allowed to prosper each on their own.

For every other philosophical problem, I think reason is the well… most reasonable route to go, but for religion I don’t think it appropriate, or even adequate. As Pascal pointed out, we must leave to the mind what belongs to the mind, and let the heart experience the Infinite unimpeded.

So, I would like to apologise for my harsh comments in the previous post. I don’t want to create boundaries, seperations or divisions. I want to create unity and do only that which is in line with wisdom and compassion, what I hold to be the two greatest goods, the two parts of the philosopher’s stone, which heal all ailments.

I also am a strong believer in religious tolerance, like Bayle, Voltaire and Spinoza. Everyone should be allowed to find their way to God as best they know how, and all should be respected.

I apologize for my attacks on the Catholic Church, I fully admit that they are the result of past prejudices which I find to be insubstantiated. I have great respect for the Church, for the mystics and saints it has spawned, and the spiritual needs which it has tended to in the hearts of many believers. Each person who walks toward the Lord, I have great respect for, and the Church has helped many people do this. Several philosophers I greatly admire, such as St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine, and many great spiritual teachers such as St Francis Assissi and St John of the Cross have heralded from this antient institution, and as such, it is worthy of my profound respect for this reason as well.

I also want you to know that I have a deep respect for you and your unshakeable faith. You are indeed an inspiration, and your humility is an example for me to aspire to.

But we strive on our path to God, so let us strive not against one another, but together, as brothers. For do we not both admit that the love of the Lord is boundless? If so, let us both spread this boundless love as well.

Arguments and foul disputes over things which are beyond reason’s reach do not, to quote that most respectable band, mewithoutyou, open up our hearts to “whatever makes [us] Love you more.” Kindness, compassion, wisdom, understanding. These things do. So let us seek to cultivate them, and struggle ever more against our own vices and shortcomings, when we see in ourselves a wrong, let us strive to right it, and when we seen such in our actions, let us do the same.

Will you walk with me on this mysterious and majestic path of life, as equals, my dear brother?

Benedicite Kyrie, Kyrie Eleison, Amen.

 

[havemercy]

bump

Perhaps there is a book that debates this in detail?

 

[John_Taylor]

Greetings, havemercy…

I would just share with Ed my conviction that all of us are in need of the forgiveness for our sins from a Personal, infinitely Good, and infinitely Holy God whom we have offended and failed to love as He deserves. I would share with him my consciousness of my own failings to “do good and to avoid evil” (the Law written upon the heart of every man and woman) - and how I believe that God sent His Son Jesus to make reparation to God for my sins and for the sins of all mankind in order to restore our friendship with God.

I would explain that Jesus had to be a “true man” in order for Him to be able to represent me and all of mankind but also, Jesus had to be “True God” in order to be able to present to God an act of reparation of “infinite worth” precisely because our sins are deserving of “infinite punishment” for they offend The Infinite God.

By His life of perfect obedience - obedience unto death, even death upon a cross - Jesus offers to God the Father an act of reparation of infinite worth (by virtue of His Divinity) on behalf of mankind (by virtue of His common humanity with us).

Being finite creatures we could never offer anything but a finite act of reparation for our personal sins and all of our attempts to be good and holy can never make up for our past disobedience and ungodliness…praise then to Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, for providing the means for our forgiveness and our restoration to God’s friendship!

I would just share with Ed, that the same forgiveness of sins and salvation that Jesus provides for me, He offers to him…

I hope this might be of some help.

God Bless and Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[thistle]

bump

Perhaps there is a book that debates this in detail?

Have a look at this by Peter Kreeft.

peterkreeft.com/topics/christ-divinity.htm

 

[havemercy]

Thank you both.

I actually did some meditation on Christ’s divinity today, and it hit me that in fact, Jesus HAD to be God in order to pay our debt. He can’t be the messiah and only human.

!!