The Divinity of Christ was taught long before Nicea

[rakovsky]

Grammastola and AGDIRGIA,

Thanks for your responses! In my everyday life I am shy to talk about our Christian faith, so your discussion is special. After watching your movie and others, I have come to a strong belief that the scriptures prophecy the Messiah's resurrection, and I wrote about my discovery on my "Rakovskii" blog on Livejournal.

Health, Happiness, and Inspiration to You!

[aaa333ify]

@grammastola So we don't know who wrote the gospels of Peter and Thomas? (You'd mentioned it in an earlier comment.)

[CBALLEN]

Jesus was worshiped from the time He was born,until today.When Jesus walked the Earth many people openly worshiped Him as they bowed and praised Him as God and never once did He rebuke anyone.Thomas met Him in the upper room after earlier denying that He had risen,however when Jesus held out His hands and showed His side,Thomas ACTUALLY SAID IN THE GREEK,THE LORD OF ME AND THE GOD OF ME and Jesus called him blessed.So if Jesus was/is not God,He is a false prophet.

[810suited]

@CBALLEN amen

[arizonabay07]

I find it very ironic that you, like the Council of Nicea, must approve all comments first. You hide behind a cloak of power because you fear scrutiny.

[grammastola]

@arizonabay07 That is incorrect. I moderate the comments in order to keep the discussions on-topic and to filter out the more abusive comments. Pure ad hominem remarks, for example, are generally prohibited, though I may initially allow a few. In point of fact, I allow a great many hostile remarks, provided that they are phrased in a civil manner.

[arizonabay07]

@grammastola Is this post the proof you offer as if to say "I'm not bias...look at me?" Are you a journalist?

[grammastola]

@arizonabay07 Please read what I'm saying carefully. I'm not claiming to be completely unbiased. What I am saying that I have reasons for choosing to moderate the comments -- and these reasons are NOT because I "fear scrutiny." If I did, I would not invite any hostile comments at all.

Having said that, I urge you to keep the discussion civil. Personal potshots -- especially slanderous ones -- have no place in discussions like these.

[arizonabay07]

If it wasn't decided then why did the authors of works on Christ life that told a much different story hunted down, killed, had their works burned and scribes killed? Christ didn't resist his torture but the Council of Nicea somehow felt inspired by God to do these acts because the acts of Jesus couldn't stand up on their own two feet?

The fact remains. Jesus was a great man who was turned into the ultimate hero so the people could be controlled by the church (politicians).

[grammastola]

@arizonabay07 Where in the world did you get the idea that authors who told a different story were hunted down and killed. That claim has no historical basis. The truth is that we simply do NOT know who wrote the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, and these other apocryphal works.

With all due respect, if you're going to criticize, you need to have a firm historical foundation for your claims. Even the most hostile scholarly critics don't make such outlandish claims.

[JahariKavi]

Error? I simply stated that not everyone claims that the council was where "the origins" of the trinity can be traced back to. There are more authors on the subject than Dan Brown.  But, I am right when I say that the Council did have a tremendous impact on the christian church and it's views of the trinity, correct?....Since the answer of this is yes, then we must evaluate why this was done and who it benefitted.

[JahariKavi]

i don't think the argument is that the council of nicea is where the origins of the trinity came from......the argument brought to the table is that this council, constantine, and the roman catholic church have A LOT to do with they way christianity has been interpreted in our modern society.......there is no denying this.

[grammastola]

Sorry, but you're in error, JahariKavi. A great many people DO claim that the Trinity was invented at the Council of Nicea. In fact, Dan Brown makes a big deal of this in his most famous novel, and I've often seen people parrot this claim.

Whether the council, Constantine, etc have also greatly influenced Christianity is another claim altogether. Few people would deny it, but it's not the claim that I was addressing.

[AGDIRGIA]

That was the ending of my answer to Rakovsky

[rakovsky]

thanks

[AGDIRGIA]

"They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."

[rakovsky]

@AGDIRGIA That is a good quote, showing that the early Christians saw Christ as God or a godlike being. Thanks.

[AGDIRGIA]

I was once told that "Logos" was a reference to the word by which God made all creation. God spoke, and everything was made, and that word is Jesus. Also, it can be interpreted as the word of God sent to Humans. We had forgotten God, and Christ came, as the word of God to save us.

[rakovsky]

@AGDIRGIA I have also been told by a friend that LOGOS (the "Word") is connected with God speaking to make Creation. His view was like you said, that that word is Jesus. I am not sure about the two interpretations, although they makes sense, as does the second one- Christ as the word of God sent to Humans to save us.

[rakovsky]

Dear grammastola,

You did a good job showing that the idea of Jesus' divinity goes back before Nicea. John's Gospel is the clearest. Can you also show that Jesus taught he was divine by sources outside John? Could the Gospel of John be written later (100 years after Jesus) and create new ideas like calling Jesus God? The ideas about Jesus=Greek LOGOS might be a later addition than something Jesus, a non-Greek taught? Or is Jesus=God part of the Gospels of Mark&Matthew too? Thanks!

[grammastola]

One of these days, I might talk about how the gospels do argue for the divinity of Christ. Frankly though, there is no lack of materials on this matter, so I probably won't make this a priority.

As for the gospel of John, even the most liberal dating estimates place it at around AD 90. This only makes it roughly 60 years after the time of Jesus, not 100 years or more.

As for the suggestion that calling Jesus "logos' was a later addition... there is no evidence for that. None.

[rakovsky]

Good answers. thanks.

Yes I think it would be good to show that Matthew says Jesus=God.

I heard that around the time of Constantine, books outside the bible were burned. I don't know if that is true, but maybe those were the apocrypha we have fragments of.

Also, did you hear of a group called the Ebionites, led by James, who believed Jesus was only Gods' "adopted son"?

[grammastola]

As I said, rakovsky, there are plenty of resources that discuss the divinity of Jesus as presented in the Bible. I prefer to cover topics for which there are fewer resources available.

As for the claim that the extra-Biblical "gospels" were burned during the time of Constantine, that is pure fiction. It's the sort of thing that Dan Brown and his followers like to promote, and Dan Brown is not an historian.

[rakovsky]

@grammastola OK, that makes sense. The topic of the scriptural predicyions of His resurrection are deep enough, that I am afraid I will be overwhelmed before I get a chance to get into it. I am unsure if extra-Biblical gospels were burned. It seems reasonable, what with the Middle Ages and dislike of heresy and all. But you are right that it is the sort of claim about history that folks like Dan Brown would promote.

[grammastola]

@rakovsky Constantine lived from AD 272 to 337, more than a century before even the earliest period of the Middle Ages. Thus, even if we were to accept that extra-Biblical "gospels" were burned during medieval times (and again, I'd like to see some hard evidence for that claim), that still would not support the spurious claim that Constantine went around burning other gospels. Various "gospels" did not make it into the canon, but that was due to their questionable origins and authorship.

[rakovsky]

@grammastola OK, I think it would be nice for me to hear some more about how the gospels argue for his divinity. You're right that there's "no lack of materials" on the matter. The priority is up to you, brother. I am not sure that the most liberal dating puts it at about 90 AD, although that sounds like a very reasonable time.

I am unsure about whether there is evidence that calling Jesus "logos" was a later addition, but I haven't looked into it.

[grammastola]

@rakovsky Everything that I've said is readily verifiable. You can check Wikipedia regarding the dating of John's gospel, for example, since it cites its various sources. Wikipedia attests that even liberal scholars date it to AD 90-100, which is consistent with my claim that even the most late estimates place it near AD 90 -- not 100 years later, as people who haven't done the research sometimes claim.

[SeventhSun]

@grammastola

Should we reject the gospels because they are biased.

You flops are biased anyway, you need bias to continue your lives.

[AGDIRGIA]

Well, there is evidence that he was being worshiped as God even outside the Bible. Pliny the younger wrote to the Roman Emperor when asking how to deal with Christians,

The text will be in the next window, because it would excede the character limit.

[rakovsky]

@AGDIRGIA That is interesting about Pliny writing about Jesus being worshiped.

[SeraphsWitness]

Wooow that verse gives whole new meaning to Matt Slick's proposal that logic was not a creation of God, but a property of the mind that was always with God, and which WAS God. That word LOGOS changed that whole verse for me, thankyou.

[fissure226]

exactly, john did not write "word" by the english definition but he wrote "logos" in his native greek a much more open ended word.

[jbbremerton]

was it the mormons or jehovah's witnesses that said it was "a god"? i think i heard it both ways.

[darklink0112]

Nice video on the logos theory of Jesus. From what I have seen since qumran was excativated there's been a change in the thinking of Johns gospel, a whole new notion on John gospel has been thought,the Logos and light/darkness are found all over qumran literature proposing Johns gospel didn't come from greek influence but right from Pre-Judiasm literature and may be the most primative of the gospels.

also related to that is tektonics article Jesus:gods wisdom and tell me what you think.

[joness105639]

Jesus claimed to be the truth. How fitting then that John used the word logos. The Greeks could be a tough crowd so any allusion to their culture any show of strength is rhetorics helped. I like to point out what paul did in acts 17:16-34 as a good example of this.

[malgalin]

...Subsequent appearences of the Word to Moses and a host of others can be used as a defence against the claim that those that came before Jesus cannot be saved, because of the bad timing! If the word is eternal, and not just the physical Christ, then He could be accepted before his actual physical appearance on Earth, and could also have revealed himself to the heathens that have not heard the Gospel due to where they live.

(hope this makes sense with limited word count?)

[malgalin]

Interesting video.

I thought The Word from John 1:1 was a reference to Genesis 15:1 "After this, the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision: "Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your very great reward."

continued...

[grammastola]

malgalin said, "I thought The Word from John 1:1 was a reference to Genesis 15:1..."

I had not heard that before, but a Google search uncovered at least one fella who espouses that view. He may have a point, but that connection seems tenuous to me.

The same fella mentioned that others have also suggested that it's a reference to pre-Socratic philosophy, as I did. I'm not surprised to see that I wasn't the first to make this connection.

[grammastola]

Hmm... I just read the article that I cited more thoroughly, and I must admit that the author makes a more compelling case than I had initially thought. It would not surprise me if John's description of Christ as "the Word" had multiple levels of meaning. Logos as the pre-Socratic source of all things ties in nicely with John 1:3, after all. At the same time, a good case can be made that he was alluding to Genesis 15:1, as you said.

[jonjames1986]

I think the word "logos" is the word he used, but I'm not sure.

[SavedTru8]

Though, I haven't heard this claim in quite a while, (probably because of your 1st video) thanks for a simple way to dismiss this claim.

-By the way, I do enjoy when you emulate scattershot.

[grammastola]

"By the way, I do enjoy when you emulate scattershot."

Hey, thanks for the encouragement, dude! Now when you speak of me 'emulating' scattershot, are you referring to the times when I object to scattershot tactics? I"d certainly like to think that I don't emulate scattershot reasoning, since I often object to this tactic. :)

Again, thanks for the feedback and encouragement, bud!

[SavedTru8]

"Some people got upset and they said, 'Well, you have'nt provin that Christ is divine, you have'nt provin that he is God, he's still just a man.'" - :) haha