Is belief in Jesus's divinity necessary?

[Voyageur]

As C.S. Lewis pointed out in Mere Christianity, if Jesus was not God, then he was either a liar or a lunatic, neither of which makes him a worthy master. And, it's more than clear that Jesus of Nazareth wasn't a lunatic. So, our only choices are that He either lied or is indeed God.

I love CS Lewis as an author, but I have always found this line of reasoning weak. It presents a false premise that there are no other alternatives, not to mention he creates a straw man argument in the process (that if Jesus isn't God, he was a liar or crazy).

Above and beyond this, the whole argument masquerades as proof of Jesus' divinity, when it in fact proves nothing. This argument (which really isn't Lewis' to begin with), by its nature, cannot prove anything!

That is the truth.

 

[handy]

The reason that anybody fights over the trinity and Jesus' divinity, in the final analysis, is because the Catholic Church developed the idea in the first place and decreed it.

It was one group of men winning out in an argument over various other groups of men.

Wrong. The Gospels and the Epistles firmly established what Thomas declared when he saw the resurrected Jesus, that Jesus is our Lord and our God. That truth was what the Apostles and the early Christians died for.

In this case some believe that Jesus is God and and some accept Him as the Son of God.

And many rightly believe both.

Agreed, but I wouldn't use the word 'many'. The overwhelming majority of the Body of Christ testify to the divinity of Christ. Out of the Church, (not skeptics or atheists, but actual redeemed believers) those who deny the divinity of Christ are a very small minority and I truly believe that of them, most are simply ignorant of the totality of Scripture on the subject. That's because most people, both those who testify to the divinity of Christ and those who don't, don't search the Scriptures for themselves but do approach the Bible with thier firmly held prejudices. It just so happens though that the prejudices of most Christians on this subject happens to be true.

For, if one reads the Scriptures, does the homework, cross-references the texts and does not allow for any text on the matter to fall to the floor, the divinity of Christ stands firm. The only way a true student of scripture can come to the conclusion that Christ isn't God is to ignore or obfuscate some very well known passages. The strategy of most non-Christian biblical scholars, and there are scores of them, seems to be to simply deny the Gospel of John as being a valid Gospel or deny the validity of the Bible as a whole.

 

[handy]

As C.S. Lewis pointed out in Mere Christianity, if Jesus was not God, then he was either a liar or a lunatic, neither of which makes him a worthy master. And, it's more than clear that Jesus of Nazareth wasn't a lunatic. So, our only choices are that He either lied or is indeed God.

I love CS Lewis as an author, but I have always found this line of reasoning weak. It presents a false premise that there are no other alternatives, not to mention he creates a straw man argument in the process (that if Jesus isn't God, he was a liar or crazy).

Above and beyond this, the whole argument masquerades as proof of Jesus' divinity, when it in fact proves nothing. This argument (which really isn't Lewis' to begin with), by its nature, cannot prove anything!

That is the truth.

Wrong again. (Sorry Voyager, I call 'em as I see 'em. Nothing personal.)

Jesus did claim to be God. If He wasn't God, He was either delusional, (crazy) or lying. If He hadn't claimed to be God, then there would be other alternatives. But, He has claimed to be God. The only way someone can make such a claim and not be either lying or crazy, would be if it is true.

And, that's the truth!

 

[Voyageur]

Sorry, Handy.... I meant the Trinity instead of 'Jesus' divinity.' I'm going to edit that.

 

[Voyageur]

As C.S. Lewis pointed out in Mere Christianity, if Jesus was not God, then he was either a liar or a lunatic, neither of which makes him a worthy master. And, it's more than clear that Jesus of Nazareth wasn't a lunatic. So, our only choices are that He either lied or is indeed God.

I love CS Lewis as an author, but I have always found this line of reasoning weak. It presents a false premise that there are no other alternatives, not to mention he creates a straw man argument in the process (that if Jesus isn't God, he was a liar or crazy).

Above and beyond this, the whole argument masquerades as proof of Jesus' divinity, when it in fact proves nothing. This argument (which really isn't Lewis' to begin with), by its nature, cannot prove anything!

That is the truth.

Wrong again. (Sorry Voyager, I call 'em as I see 'em. Nothing personal.)

Jesus did claim to be God. If He wasn't God, He was either delusional, (crazy) or lying. If He hadn't claimed to be God, then there would be other alternatives. But, He has claimed to be God. The only way someone can make such a claim and not be either lying or crazy, would be if it is true.

And, that's the truth!

Its a fallacious argument, plain and simple. False premises. Straw man.

I'm willing to bet a good number of Christian apologists find it rather weak as well.

 

[Voyageur]

Jesus did claim to be God. If He wasn't God, He was either delusional, (crazy) or lying. If He hadn't claimed to be God, then there would be other alternatives. But, He has claimed to be God. The only way someone can make such a claim and not be either lying or crazy, would be if it is true.

And, that's the truth!

You are misreading my statement, and so you're not getting it.

Lewis' Trilemma attempts to prove Jesus' divinity through reason.

In other words, Lewis is trying to prove, through logic, what the Bible--according to some theological interpretations--already asserts: that Jesus is Divine, or one in the same with God.

 

[handy]

You're going to have to explain why you reject Lewis' trilemma a bit better. There is no reason not to apply logic in this matter. Jesus' divinity is perfectly logical.

 

[Voyageur]

That said, many people don't fully understand the full ramifications of Lewis' trilemma. There is a possibility that Jesus was indeed a lunatic or a liar.

Handy, you accept (as truth) that Jesus was/is divine and wasn't a lunatic or liar. You accept it on faith and according to a book that was assembled by a multitude of authors over approximately 800 years (from the time the Jews were enslaved in Bablyon, circa 600 BCE, until the time of canonization in the 300's CE).

I think the more reasonable position to take is that the truth cannot be known one way or another. We have to take the word of a New Testament written and collected many years after Jesus' death. Further, we have to trust not only the apostles but religious leaders from 2000 years ago.

 

[Voyageur]

You're going to have to explain why you reject Lewis' trilemma a bit better. There is no reason not to apply logic in this matter. Jesus' divinity is perfectly logical.

What?

The proof is in the pudding. Lewis' argument does not prove anything--that's my point. The explanation need not extend beyond that; but, I will humor you.

There is the false premise: either Jesus was God or he was a liar/lunatic. This is illogical because it frames the trilemma in such a way that it stealthily convinces the naive reader that there are no other options--which there are, such as that Jesus is mythical in much the same way as Apollo is, or the other divinities born of virgin mothers. Or that the instances where he equates himself with God might have been added by apostles in order to give weight to Jesus' moral teachings. Or maybe Jesus claimed divinity as a political tactic to help organize Jews against the Roman Republic. (On a more absurd note, Jesus might have been a religious satirist or prankster for all we know). And, I might add, if one makes the assumption that Jesus is God, it is based on two other assumptions: 1) that there even is a God, and 2) that this God is the God of the Jews.

The straw man argument is that if Jesus wasn't God, then he was a lunatic or a liar.

 

[handy]

Satirist or prankster? When they hung Him on a cross for the very reason that He was equating Himself with God? Now that's illogical. If you haven't done so already, watch "The Passion of the Christ" (Gibson's film) It gives a very realistic account of what Jesus went through and then ask yourself if any religious satirist or prankster would have gone to the cross for the ...prank.

Glad to see that even you admit that this would be absurd!

Jesus made the claims that He did in an atmosphere of dead serious opposistion of the most powerful religious leaders of the land. Now, He may have been a zealot, seeking to overthrow the government and seeing that the end (establishment of a better government) justified the means, (convincing the populace that He was the divine Messiah.) But then, He would still be lying.

It's perfectly clear that He wasn't crazy.

And, thanks for proving my point. I've said several times that the only way one can truly deny the divinity of Christ is to attack the veracity of the Gospels, suggesting that the claims were later added by the Apostles or that the Jesus of the Bible is mythical.

 

[Voyageur]

Satirist or prankster? When they hung Him on a cross for the very reason that He was equating Himself with God? Now that's illogical. If you haven't done so already, watch "The Passion of the Christ" (Gibson's film) It gives a very realistic account of what Jesus went through and then ask yourself if any religious satirist or prankster would have gone to the cross for the ...prank.

As a satirist or prankster, he could have incurred wrath in much the same way that the Yippie movement did. (See Jerry Rubin and Abbie Hoffman.) He might have gone against his will but his followers claimed he didn't resist. In which case, they were liars and have propagated the lie on down through the generations.

 

[handy]

Rubin and Hoffman did some time in the pokey and then remained media darlings. They weren't crucified.

But, yep, this is how one denies the Divinity of Christ. By dening the truth of God's Word. :smt023

 

[Imagican]

God, the Father, was/IS able to bestow that which He chooses to bestow.

We KNOW that He 'gave power' to His Son. Power on this earth and in heaven.

But we ALSO Know that Christ Himself stated that the Father, God, IS 'greater' than HE.

Now, 'trinity' would offer that Christ is EQUAL to God. A pure and utter contradiction of the words of Christ HIMSELF. For Christ NOT only stated that the Father is GREATER than He, but that there are 'things' that ONLY the Father knows. That there are 'things' that had NOT EVEN been REVEALED to The Son.

Christ PLAINLY offers that HE and the Father, God, are ONE. But He also offers that God IS The Father and that He IS The Son. A 'part' of the family, or Godhead, but NOT the Father Himself who we KNOW IS God.

There would be NO reason for Christ to offer that He IS The Son if this had no pertinence. For IF Christ WAS/IS God Himself, then ALL that was offered that contradicts this would have been offered in vain.

Christ NEVER stated that He WAS/IS God. The 'I am' statement was NOT offered as it was in Exodus so CANNOT be USED in the SAME manner. For the 'I Am' offered in Exodus was offered AS a 'name' or 'title'. Christ offered NO SUCH THING. Even those that translated these words DID NOT offer the 'I am' in TITLE but statement. For IF it HAD been a 'title', they would SURELY have offered it in 'captital letters'. He made a statement NOT an offering of 'title'. One MUST 'create' this ILLUSION in order for it to exist. For it was NOT offered in this manner. That some WISH to 'see it' this way just goes to show how POTENT this 'trinity' is in forcing one to 'create' doctrine that was NOT offered BY the Apostles and then altering scripture to MAKE IT FIT.

NO MAN has EVER 'seen God'. Now, IF Christ is God Himself, then the Bible is UNTRUE. Moses 'glimpsed' God's 'backside'. Other than THAT, we have NO instance of ANYONE actually, literally, SEEING God. Visions are NOT 'actual'. That is WHY they are called, 'visions'.

Now, seeing as how there were THOUSANDS that witnessed Christ in the FLESH, then He CANNOT BE God Himself according to scripture. No matter HOW one attempts to 'talk their way around this', the truth IS the truth and there is ONLY one WAY to deny it. And that is to 'form a 'different' doctrine' than that offered by the apostles through Word and Spirit.

Thomas calling Christ God is NO different than denying that Christ was risen to start with. This man was a doubter, (hence his 'nick-name'). Using the word of this man to form a foriegn doctrine is utterly foolishness. Forming a doctrine that goes against ALL the REST of what is written over one man's statement goes BEYOND reason.

So, 'trinity' relies on about six lines of scripture that are SO vague that even these are able to BE offered in relation to ALL the rest of scripture in a way that DOES NOT contradict ANY OTHER. Yet to 'accept trinity' one MUST accept contradiction in order for it to 'fit' into their doctrinal understanding.

Christ IS The Son of God. Christ is NOT the Father of Himself. The Father IS God. The Father is NOT The Son. NO ONE has EVER seen God other than Christ Himself who revealed His Father, God, TO US. These statements ARE TRUTH. One could certainly run around and around in circles TRYING to deny the TRUTH of what is offered in these statements ONLY to find themselves RIGHT back to the first one. Christ IS The Son of God..........................

To MAKE Christ God Himself is to 'create' something that was NEVER offered by Christ OR The apostles. Never offered by Christ HIMSELF. And this is NO different than making Mary the Mother of God or the Queen of Heaven. Never was this offered in scripture that Mary IS the Mother of God Himself. For God CREATED Mary and the creation CANNOT create the 'Creator' except in the minds and hearts of those that choose to 'create' their OWN religion.

Mary WAS the Mother of God's Son. Mary is NOT the Queen of ANYTHING. Christ IS the Son of God who IS Our Savior and the Head of The Church. God IS the Father of Christ and the Head of Christ as Christ is the Head of man, as man is the Head of woman. And we can ALL be ONE in the family of God. But even becoming ONE does NOT make us God anymore than His Only Begotten Son.

MEC

 

[Voyageur]

Satirist or prankster? When they hung Him on a cross for the very reason that He was equating Himself with God? Now that's illogical. If you haven't done so already, watch "The Passion of the Christ" (Gibson's film) It gives a very realistic account of what Jesus went through and then ask yourself if any religious satirist or prankster would have gone to the cross for the ...prank.

Glad to see that even you admit that this would be absurd!

Rhetorical question: On a purely rational level, is it any more absurd than the idea a Jewish carpenter, who was confined to a small geographical area, and represented a small proportion of the Earth's population, proclaimed himself God incarnate? Any more absurd than the idea that an infinite and boundless God would choose to convey his message in such a limited area, through one language and amongst one people, instead of a worldwide, simultaneous revelation that would leave little room for confusion and debate? Is it any more absurd that people believe this based on a book without any corroborating evidence?

 

[handy]

Speaking of running around in circles.

Yes, Christ the Son said all He said of God the Father.

The fact that no man has seen the Father actually gives more creedence to the Son being God than less, but you can go ahead and keep insisting upon this if you like.

Still doesn't negate the fact that He also said that He was God the Son. As has already been explained, when Christ came to earth as the Son, He humbled Himself "for a little while."

Read and study all the texts in the matter. Those texts that are clear and not vague in any way.

BTW, my bible DOES offer the I AM that Christ stated in CAPITAL LETTERS. Not that that proves anything, but, nonetheless it does.

And, no Catholic had better respond to the Mary part of MEC's thread. The subject of this thread is the divinity of Christ. There is already a thread on Mary. Even the Catholics should agree that the divinity of Christ is of more import than Mary being the "Queen of Heaven."

 

[Voyageur]

Rubin and Hoffman did some time in the pokey and then remained media darlings. They weren't crucified.

You have almost illustrated my point for me.

Yes, Rubin and Hoffman were a product of a certain time and place. So was Jesus. Had Rubin and Hoffman been outspoken in Jesus' time--that is, critical of Jewish officials, priests and Roman proconsuls (or the Roman Empire, in general), they would most certainly have been crucified.

In fact, they could have been crucified for lesser crimes.

 

[Imagican]

handy,

I HOPE that you understood WHY I offered my comparison to the 'Mary: Queen of Heaven' argument. I was MOST CERTAINLY NOT to bring THAT into the discussion EXCEPT as a 'comparison' of doctrine.

My Bible DOESN'T offer the 'I AM' But "I am". And you still didn't address the issue of the incidental offering in Exodus BEING 'different' in context to that offered by Christ.

Or the FACT that there ARE 'things' that Christ STATED that HE did NOT know. That ONLY the Father KNEW them. If both Christ AND the Father ARE God, then HOW is it that there ARE 'things' that ONE knows and NOT the other?

MEC

 

[handy]

If Rubin and Hoffman were alive in Jesus' time, I hardly think either would have done the stunts they did. But, perhaps I misjudge how sold out they were to their own rhetoric. I'm not much of a student of the two. I'm far more interested in Jesus. At any rate, this isn't the forum in which to debate whether or not God is real, but rather if the Son was God.

MEC, lesser point first: The fact that Jesus said that there were things the Father knew that He didn't is only proof that the Father and Son are separate identities. The Oneness folks have it wrong. Jesus is not the Father, nor the Spirit. This doesn't mean that He isn't God.

Dang, all ready to give a dissertation here, and now the hubby and kids are back. I'll get back to this later, MEC. It's important.

 

[Imagican]

Handy,

Let me offer this so you can address it as well.

IS God ABLE to DO what He WILL? Are WE able to dictate TO God?

With these two points in mind, how can it be SO difficult to understand that God IS able to bestow POWER to whom He WILL.

Now, WAS Christ The Son of God BEFORE He was 'born in the flesh'. PREVIOUS to Christ BEING on this PLANET, was Christ the Son of God THEN?

This is important in understanding the entity of Christ.

For IF one simply 'believes' that Christ IS God for the offering of 'I and the Father ARE ONE', then this is NOT proper theology. For WE TOO are able to BE one with Christ JUST as a man and woman are ABLE to become ONE. This does NOT make ANY of us God Himself.

God is NOT the 'author of confusion'. And I have witnessed NOTHING short of UTTER confusion when studying this 'doctrine of trinity'. Even those that accept and believe in it SEEM to have a VERY difficult time explaining their UNDERSTANDING. And HOW is it TRUE understanding when one doesn't REALLY even understand it?

But I can offer this: Even a 'CHILD' could understand God, the Father, and Christ, His Son. SIMPLE really. And we have been warned that MANY would refuse to ACCEPT the SIMPLICITY that IS Christ Jesus. And that simplicity in my opinion is this: Christ: The Son of God, came, taught and died for our sins by offering the ULTIMATE example of LOVE; the sacrifice of HIMSELF for our sins. That simple.

He taught that an understanding of service to others IS what the Spirit was sent to TEACH. That to be 'greatest' among our brothers is to UNDERSTAND and offer OUR LOVE through GIVING instead of TAKING.

Yet those that 'created trinity' seem to have LOST this message and insisted that those that serve MUST serve their CHURCH rather than their brothers and sisters through LOVE. And it was THESE that created this doctrine that YOU say you 'understood' from the age of 13. Yet for over 300 years, 'trinity' was an issue that so highly debated that it threatened to utterly SPLIT the Catholic Church. Not UNTIL a 'pagan Emperor' made a decision that the STATE RELIGION WOULD accept and teach 'trinity' was it a PART of 'church dogma'.

Study the history of this doctrine and you will find that it was through threat and force that this doctrine was imbeded into Christianity. Not through the understanding of those that accepted Christ into their hearts and KNEW that Christ WAS God. But through the manipulation of those that refuted it to the point that 'self preservation' FORCED all those under the leadership of the CC SAID that they 'believed' in 'trinity' REGARDLESS.

Parents began to TEACH their children to SIMPLY ACCEPT, not only 'trinity', but ANY doctrine offered by the CC for the sake of their SAFETY. For to 'speak out' against ANY doctrine of the CC was to be labeled an heretic and subjected to WHATEVER form of punishment that they deemed apporpriate.

And THIS IS 'how' the doctrine of 'trinity' CAME into prominance in the CC. Martin Luther recognized MUCH that the CC was doing in abuse and contrary to scripture, but 'trinity' wasn't one of the 'things' that he even questioned for HE WAS RAISED TO BELIEVE IN IT.

And even today there are TONS of 'different' understandings concerning this 'doctrine'. When we discuss here on this forum, MOST that state a belief in it know LITTLE about it other than; Father, Son and Spirit ARE God. Yet the CC itself in it's statements of belief concerning this issue are SO vague that MOST of what is offered today has little bearing on the actual wording of the actual doctrine.

MEC

 

[Voyageur]

If Rubin and Hoffman were alive in Jesus' time, I hardly think either would have done the stunts they did. But, perhaps I misjudge how sold out they were to their own rhetoric. I'm not much of a student of the two. I'm far more interested in Jesus. At any rate, this isn't the forum in which to debate whether or not God is real, but rather if the Son was God.

MEC, lesser point first: The fact that Jesus said that there were things the Father knew that He didn't is only proof that the Father and Son are separate identities. The Oneness folks have it wrong. Jesus is not the Father, nor the Spirit. This doesn't mean that He isn't God.

Dang, all ready to give a dissertation here, and now the hubby and kids are back. I'll get back to this later, MEC. It's important.

Handy,

Rubin and Hoffman are not the issue! I'm only using them as an example to illustrate a point, and my point is this: people critical of the status quo are always a threat to the state, to religion, to the wealthy elite, to empires, etc. And history will show that these sort of people (who rock the boat) stand on a precipice where the slightest wind can lead them to being jailed, tortured or killed, or their lives otherwise destroyed.

So, what I'm saying is this--the trilemma has faulty premises because one possible option (amongst others) is that Jesus was a moral leader in the tradition of Gandhi or Martin Luther King, and it was only after he was crucified that his followers attributed divinity to him.

At any rate, this isn't the forum in which to debate whether or not God is real, but rather if the Son was God.

I disagree. We're talking about CS Lewis' Trilemma, and the assumption of his argument is that there IS a God, and furthermore that this God is the Jewish God. So, this assumption cannot be ignored when speaking to whether or not Jesus is God or of God, etc.