Divinity of Christ

From the second century onwards, a number of controversies developed about how the human and divine are related within the person of Jesus.

A number of different and opposing approaches developed among various groups. For example, Arianism did not endorse divinity, Ebionism argued Jesus was an ordinary mortal, while Gnosticism held docetic views which argued Christ was a spiritual being who only appeared to have a physical body.

It wasn't until the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451, the Hypostatic union was decreed—the proposition that Christ has one human nature [physis] and one divine nature [physis], united.

Also see Lamentabili sane exitu ("with truly lamentable results"), a 1907 syllabus, prepared by the Roman Inquisition and confirmed by Pope Pius X:

27. The divinity of Jesus Christ is not proved from the Gospels. It is a dogma the Christian conscience has derived from the notion of the Messiahs.

28. While He was exercising His ministry, Jesus did not speak with the object of teaching He was the Messiah, nor did His miracles tend to prove it.

>The divinity of Jesus Christ is not proved from the Gospels

I rest my case.

Point being?

Christcucks btfo.

K
/thread

Indeed. Christian believe that Jesus was God when it is not proved in the Gospels. For 400 years Christians argued (still argue) about the Divinity of Christ.

Obviously then Jesus is not God if this scriptures do not even show this.

After hundreds of miracles and rising from the dead...what other info do you want from the bible to describe divinity?

>66966
Also this.

So then all who perform miracles are God incarnate?

Jesus was Gods son

He is the son of Man

But was Jesus = God?

As Gods son, he was bound to inherit great powers. He wasn't God per se, because he was still human of flesh.

Well sure, Jesus was given the word of God, but was Jesus = God like what the Trinity says?

Also, the Gospels don't explain how Jesus is human flesh but also God. Can God be crucified? If you want to follow Catholic dogma, why did it take over 400 years to determine? This is done ad hoc and not a question delt with until the second century.

Why doesn't the gospels resolve this contradiction?

Here is the contradiction:

If Jesus is God, he cannot die.
If Jesus is man, then how can the death of a mere man be enough to forgive mankind?

It took 450 years to solve this contradiction via ad hoc reasoning. The gospels do not.Why?

Scripture was only compiled about 50 years before that council, it's not the end all, be all of Christianity.

>scripture isn't that important
OK... but you are not answering why 'Jesus is God' that died on the cross is a contradiction not resolved in the scriptures or anywhere until fifth century.

That's a long fucking time between drinks.

The gospel of Thomas has no narration is is just direct (supposedly) quotes from Jesus. It's very esoteric, not hard to see how a battle of semantics could follow his passing. Did they really solve anything? or just win an argument inside their sect?

> Jesus did not speak with the object of teaching He was the Messiah

John 8:24 - “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I AM [He], you will die in your sins.”

John 8:58 - Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

John 10:30-33 - Jesus answered them, “I and My Father are one.” Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?” The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”

I could go on...

>Whatever Church (Peter) bonds in earth is bound in Heaven
>Church bonds dogma in earth
>It is bound in Heaven
>Heaven cannot lie
>Dogma is true
QED
Also, Son of Man is divine title and at Chalcedon it weren't discussed "Is Jesus have two Natures". What was discussed was "How two Natures of Jesus work with Christ". Read a book nigger.

Gnosticism is more nuanced. They claim Jesus was not the word made flesh, but was always a pure spirit form. This also nullifies the crucifixion though, since if it only appears to kill the flesh, what was really sacrificed to forgive mankind? Which seems to be the point of Christianity.

Arguably, this is where gnosticism and Christianity orthodox seperate. Gnostics are more concerned with shedding the material world above all else. Gnostic appropriated Christianity and so they approach it with preconceptions the change what the gospels say into a certain context, rather than as a standalone manuscript.

kek is more benevolent than god

>Dogma
>not gospels

Why does the gospels contain contradiction?

>raising the dead
>rising from the dead
That's proof enough for me, tbqh.

How can God be dead?

Idiot, the trinity very easily allows for it

Jesus himself says He's God.

Try reading the Bible instead of getting your bunk info from some queer on jewtube.

Read Leviticus, Ahmed.

>the trinity very easily allows for it
God kills a part of himself?
That's a contradiction. God cannot die, in part of whole, else he is not God.

Stop projecting and answer the challenge.

>Read Leviticus, Ahmed.
Please show which passage you mean here.

God was born in the flesh. His flesh died, his spirit is eternal.
>In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

>There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

>That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

>And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

ITT: someone dropped their Quran traveling through the outback and an emu got hold of it

>hurr durr he never said "I am God, worship me"
>implying you would unquestioningly worship someone who actually did say that

why do you demand "proof" that you wouldn't accept if it were given?

>God was born in the flesh. His flesh died, his spirit is eternal.
You keep saying this, and this is what the bible says, but it doesn't make any logical sense.

If only the flesh of a man died, how could mankind be forgiven of sin from the death of a mere man?

>Not realising that there are essential things needed for salvation and true things that are mostly technical things, but nonetheless they are true
Animal.
>Why does the gospels contain contradiction?
Most of them are not contradictions at all, that the first thing. Rest are minor differences that you would expect in every other testimonies

You are wandering here. The contradiction I mention is very simple and clear.
But your response is that 'dogma solves this'. This is true, but this in an ad hoc argument. The gospels exist as a contradiction.

>why do you demand "proof"
Something like 'Jesus = God' is the cornerstone of Christianity and it is not even clear in scripture. It is not presented without contradictions.

Jesus is God. He came in the flesh as the sinless Lamb that would be sacrificed so that His blood may atone for all sins once and for all, or else all mankind would be damned for failing to live a sinless life.

Leviticus describes the various offerings to God, for various types of sins.

In the old testament Jesus is sometimes referred to as the Word, or as The Angel of The Lord.

Can God die? This is a fucking stupid question with no regards to the mechanics of the Trinity. Jesus' essence is that of perfection. It'd take a longer post than I care to make to explain the Godhead.

To summarize, Jesus' soul was perfectly divine, unlike a normal human's soul, which is kind of divine. I'm not explaining the essence of divinity either. Think about it for yourself.

For Jesus to die on the cross is not at all at odds with the essence of God. It was an act of Love. In fact a completion of his divinity manifest. For you to think that Jesus was physically God, some kind of space being that precludes death, is fucking stupid. He's God incarnate.

That's theology from me. Ya'll motherfuckers need Jesus.

I grant you all of this but one sentance: 'Jesus is God.'

Can you explain how this follows from Leviticus?

Can't this wait until Sunday /Generals/?

There's an inauguration happening tomorrow.

PART PHYSICAL
PART SPIRITUAL
HERETICS

>mechanics of the Trinity
Unfortunately, this is not explained in the bible.

Idiot. Read John 10:30. Fuck the pope anyway. Everyone who knows anything knows that the "church" is run by conman who want to pull us away from God. Trust nothing but the word itself.

Yes it is. John 10:30 "I and the father are one." The father is one of the many ways to refer to God, incase you are too retardted to understand.

Care to provide verses or proof of said contradictions?

Obviously,

since Jesus is man, he could die.
since Jesus is God, his death was enough to atone for mankind.

not exactly rocket science here, abo

Jesus is no ordinary man, He is the Godman.

Our life is in our blood.
>Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.

This has been proven by modern medicine. The elite have been having infant blood transfusions for centuries. That's where the vampire myths come from. There is something about the rejuvenating effects of very young blood.

In olden times those with certain blood types could receive any type of human blood and not die. They were though to have special powers.

>jesus is god
>muh bible says so
Can you explain how the Crucifixion works again? Did God (Jesus) kill himself?

>proposition that Christ has one human nature [physis] and one divine nature [physis]
You don't know your Christian history. Different Christian confessions competed against one another, until one sect won. For example Nicene vs. Arian, Where Nicene eventually won. There were other confessions too, like Marcian, or the Monophysite. The latter held Christ to have one nature, but it wasn't until the confessions battled it out that we can look at the past and call these other confessions heresy. Seeing the divinity of Christ through studying the texts is best achieved through monasticism and religious devotion. It can't be done quickly or with untrained / uncultured reading.

The bible isn't a Theological paper. There's a study of Theology of a fucking reason. Your question is an explicitly Theological question. How can Jesus be God? Are we going to explain the nature of God to you? Are you even a Theist or are you high on Atheism thinking you know jack shit about the hypothetical study of God?

You didn't meant any.

Go and research Theology if you're interested. But please, seriously, please don't go on rants about one thing or another is a contradiction if you don't even understand the concept of God.

We killed Him, but He died willingly.

>your argument
>"lol the bible doesn't say Jesus is God BTFO XDDDD"
>I provide proof that dismantles your argument entirely.
>"Lol that's not what I meant to say XDDDD."
God is omnipotent. Therefore he can kill himself.

So God says 'the death of this man (jesus) is enough to atone for mankind'? I am sure God could do this, but then Jesus would not be God.

You see the problem. Can God die?

Or even allow himself to be killed. Of course God is still alive despite dying. Because he can do that. Because he's God.

Can God die is a stupid FUCKING question. Jesus was the perfect embodiment of God and his death posed no threat to the immutable spirit of the Father.

So God revealed a contradiction?

Duh. He can make his own son worth all the sins in the world while being his own son and letting his own son die. He's God. What part of he's OMNIPOTENT do you not understand?

What contradiction you moron?

I think you may be legitimately learning disabled and definitely ESL, so I'm going to dip out.

You should be asking a Baptist pastor who speaks your native tongue.

You're annoying. Christians are easy to Sperg, but pretending to be retarded isn't a hard thing to catch. You're an Atheist, you don't grok God, and you, OP, are a faggot.

>We killed Him, but He died willingly.
>God is omnipotent. Therefore he can kill himself.
>Jesus was the perfect embodiment of God and his death posed no threat
A God that kills himself, in part or in whole, is not God. God cannot destroy himself, it is self-defeating, a contradiction.

Why would you say you rest your case when you haven't made any arguments?
sage

>What contradiction you moron?
That God can die.

Yes he is. Because God can kill himself and still be God because he's omnipotent.

He can if he's also a man.

Your "contradiction" (itself a faulty line of reasoning, as I showed by reaching the opposite conclusion using the same logic) is based on the faulty premise that godhood and manhood are mutually exclusive. They are, in fact, identical. The Psalmist declares, and Jesus repeats, "you are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High."

Mortality is a totally separate question. Obviously there are mortal gods, such as you, I, and 33 AD Jesus. Then there are immortal gods, such as God the Father and present Jesus. The Crucifixion was simply the sacrifice of a mortal god fully in touch with his divinity by sinlessness where you and I are not.

You made me reply though, so I guess this is a win for the Australian baiting team.

This.

The concept your looking for is Jesus and the God head are co-mingled, yet distinct.

Sacrificing his son, if that helps you. And no part of Jesus' death is contradictory. You've not made a case, you think you're cute.

Peace be upon you and shit.

>a God who kills himself in part or in whole is not God

That's not what God says...
What do you know about anything? You're here asking us to educate you on something you lack a basic understanding of.

>My understanding of what is a priori a logical contradiction can disprove the existence of a being omnipotent by defnition.
>God can do anything therefore He can't do that.
>God can't not exist therefore He doesn't exist.
You really need to take a logic class or something.
again, sage

>God can kill himself and still be God because he's omnipotent.
Then you have with that statement defeated your own argument. You cannot rationally say anything about a God who has the power to contradict himself. All statements are prone to falsehood and its own opposite.

>Your "contradiction" (itself a faulty line of reasoning, as I showed by reaching the opposite conclusion using the same logic) is based on the faulty premise that godhood and manhood are mutually exclusive. They are, in fact, identical.
Unfortunately, the bible does not say this or resolve this problem.

>God can do anything
God cannot contradict himself, otherwise he is a falsehood.

OP is intentionally ignoring verses and lacks basic understanding or INTENT to grasp theology.

I'm leaving, feed at your own discretion.

The bible refers to the trinity, even though the trinity doctrine wasn't formalized until 3rd century.

>ignore everything I said
>ignore faultiness in your own logic
>respond with a non sequitur "hur dur the bible doesn't say anything"

kys

>I have never read the Bible
>let me tell you what a book I have never read before says
This is why we kill your people 1000-1 in a fight. The Bible talks about that too.

>And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.

Sound familiar, Ahmed?

Don't go to war with Israel, or the lost 10 tribes thereof.

>2Tim1:9
>"Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began"
>"before the world began"

That's why hypostatic union is a concept, even though it's pretty obvious that for Jesus to have been before the world he would have had a divine quality.

Also, the guys here whipping out John 10:30.

And yes, KJV means I'm a filthy Prot, but seriously considering becoming catholic.

>Then you have with that statement defeated your own argument.
No he hasn't. You are falsely assuming Jesus can't be a proper subset of God, and that therefore, if Jesus dies, God can't exist. Jesus is God, did die, and God never stopped existing. You can envision this as God and Jesus being subsets of each other, or you can conceive of God being able to do the conceivably logically impossible, or you can conceive of God having made logic or our conception of logic in the first place. Either way, nothing you're saying is an argument. Certainly yelling "That doesn't make sense!" over and over doesn't constitute and argument.
>otherwise he is a falsehood.
>The existence of a being omnipotent by definition is contingent on my epistemic understanding of His coherency.
Again, you should try taking a logic class before you come here and embarrass yourself, satan.
sage, again.

>KJV
Anything other than 1611 KJV is degenerate

Guys,

If god exists, then he must be eternal. If he is eternal then he cannot cease to exist. Yet, if he is omnipotent he is able to do anything including being able to destroy himself, then he is no longer eternal because he can be destroyed. This, therefore creates a paradox.

I like your style, user.

Docetism was literally the reason an old John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, wrote the book of John. Docetism was the first heresy and the Ebonite Jewish heretics. John ch 1:1-5 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.'

>contingent on my epistemic understanding of His coherency.
Ahmed is alienated from God. Who would have thunk it

Pantheism is the only version of a god worth contemplating. The others are silly, rife with inherent logical contradictions that preclude a personal god's existence.

>If god exists, then he must be eternal. If he is eternal then he cannot cease to exist.
But Jesus can die. pq can die with no effect on q. If it helps your stubborn mind, you can imagine that only Jesus' body died when Jesus died and that God still existed.
You need to stop regurgitating these stupid arguments you find on atheist websites. They're never very good.

You're not making any arguments here

These 'controversies' were them trying to untangle Christianity's true origins but failing. An anti-Western Jewish terrorist was portrayed by liars abd propagandists literally as a divine being.
-Thats the truth they could not uncover.

The best they could do is use the Jewish mode of concocting bullshit to explain away the issue retroactively.

They lacked the tools and insight to come to the truth of the matter.

He can die. He simply doesn't because he doesn't want too. If God really, really, really wants to die he could, but then he'd just come back to life anyway. Also Jesus is man therefore he biologically dies but since he is God he is still alive. He could theoretically die, but the bible says he will
A) Not change
B) is everlasting
Therefore since he is everlasting he can die but he must still exist. Since God is still is heaven at the time of Jesus' death, God is still, everlasting, since Jesus is still spiritually alive, God is still everlasting. He dies yet still lives and that is why it is called a miracle. As such is the work of God. It doesn't contradict since he still lives and the bible says that he will live for ever. When Jesus said he wouldn't die it means he won't be dead as in totally dead. He dies but lives and since he lives he is correct in saying that he will live instead of die.

>But Jesus can die
This logically absurd. It is akin to stating that you can find the radius of a square. God necessarily being eternal, he cannot destroy a part of himself.

Wow you're smart and insightful /s

kek
You can't apply restrictions that make sense to our logic to something that by definition rests outside the confines of our reality

Regardless of where you sit on the spirituality fence its a ridiculous argument

It's not even an arbitrary hypothesis, its a coherent assumption that the creator would allow himself to be tortured and killed since it is the one responsible for an indefinite amount of relatable suffering

jesus was jewish propaganda to divide rom.

If he's infinitely powerful, you have to realize infinite does not have a definable limit, and therefore can't kill himself no matter how powerful he gets, because he his infinitely powerful. If he could kill himself, he would be powerful-but not infinitely powerful. Get it?

This get's into the question of: if his power is truly infinite, he would be able to overcome himself, but then it would have to be a temporary overcoming, as his power continuously overcomes itself.

Infinite has to be defined has continuous or unending, which means that he would not be able to overcome himself. If you say his inability to overcome himself means he is not powerful, then you have to repeat the definition of infinite.

TLDR: The only way he could be infinitely powerful is if he cannot kill himself. No, he cannot create a burrito that will be uneatable or a boulder unliftable, because he could then lift or eat in the next moment. The only exception is if he creates a manifestation of his own infinite power in the form of one of those two things-at which point it becomes God, and thus infinite.

>John 14:10
>Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.

Really jogs the noggin OP
>low level bait

Everything I say has implicit premises. Just because I haven't made everything explicit, doesn't mean the "hurr no argument" thing is going to work for you. For example, an implicit premise of pq v q, ~pq -> q supports the second statement, which supports the first. p sure my autism doesn't allow me to make actual non-arguments.
>If God really, really, really wants to die he could
So your argument is "God can die but can't die, therefore He doesn't exist?"
All that shows is that your understanding of the definition of God is incorrect. Omnipotence doesn't actually entail ability to perform the logically absurd. If it is logically absurd for a necessary being not to exist, then this doesn't necessarily contradict with omnipotence. This is boring me.
>God necessarily being eternal, he cannot destroy a part of himself.
I cannot remove a finger else I'm not alive. Your objection is retarded.

>You can't apply restrictions that make sense to our logic to something that by definition rests outside the confines of our reality
>continues to use logic to apply restriction about the creator having to kill himself

I was pantheist a few years ago
Before that atheist
Before that a child growing up in Christianity

settled with Christ ;)

>Also see Lamentabili sane exitu ("with truly lamentable results"), a 1907 syllabus, prepared by the Roman Inquisition and confirmed by Pope Pius X:
I dont know what youre implying. The syllabus explicitly says that 27 and 28 are theological errors. I think you confused that condemnation with an admission that Christ's divinity isnt biblical.

Maybe you can think of it like Jesus' body was a bucket, and God is water. In order for the bucket of water to "die," the water wouldn't necessarily have to stop existing.
But you won't consider that, will you?
sage