I want to debate with a catholic
Offline After reading much more what I knew before, I think is the moment to debate with a catholic. First, because protestants are more closed-minded in their arguments. And second, because I used to be catholic since I started to look for my own answers. If you are catholic and want to debate with me, just post an answer in this topic or send me a private message. Then we can select a particular topic about religion to discuss. Thanks
Debate is the best way to share the knowledge
- Login to post comments
Offline Hey I appreciate that Manu. I figured it was because English was probably your second language. That is why I take a little bit more time trying to understand what you are getting at. I could tell you are not uneducated just because of bad spelling and grammar. The more I read, the more I could see the flow of ideas. And you seem to be a good soul (if you believe in such things - lol).
Probably my last post on this thread though.
To continue...
Even though there are some tales in the gospels about Christ talking with the apostles after the resurrection, we don't have scientific proofs.
Some catholics assure the Shroud of Turin is a scientific evidence, but as it was discovered the shroud came from the middle ages, this topic is a matter of faith, not science. In consequence, I could not follow you through this argument no matter how many you use. What it can be discussed is creating a symbol as a man returned from death can help to persuade people. Even more, it could be considered as a metaphor, i.e.: people think Michael Jackson is still alive in his music, some of them say "he's not death" what we know is a metaphor. The same for this issue of the christianity.
Now if the early witnesses claimed appearances of a risen Christ after the crucifixion and burial, an empty tomb in the very city of such claims would support a bodily resurrection. You can argue the tomb was empty for some other reason than the resurrection, but we can at least conclude the disciples (especially from a Jewish perspective) did not mean the resurrection as a mere figure of speech (metaphor).
Some catholics assure the Shroud of Turin is a scientific evidence, but as it was discovered the shroud came from the middle ages, this topic is a matter of faith, not science. In consequence, I could not follow you through this argument no matter how many you use. What it can be discussed is creating a symbol as a man returned from death can help to persuade people. Even more, it could be considered as a metaphor, i.e.: people think Michael Jackson is still alive in his music, some of them say "he's not death" what we know is a metaphor. The same for this issue of the christianity.
It is logical to think which relation can exist between a man rose from the dead and the first christian groups. As I will explain in the topic I told you I'll open, they needed a symbol to create the communities. The story about a good rabbi that died in a cross is ok, but is not enough in order to persuade people. (I.E. No matter Baden Powell did a great work with the boy scouts, he's not considered a god or a messenger of god just due his humanistic activities)
Therefore they needed to argue he would still alive between them if they practiced the good moral teachings he taught. The aggravation was necessary in order to create a more confident and united group. It could sound ilogical, but according to my experience, the same process was followed by some "guerrillas" here in Latin America: watching a lot of people dead by the "cause" they were impulsed to continue with the war.
The resurrection will be a metaphorical concept (a new around the year 2005 presented the empty tomb of jesus, so I was explained when I was catholic the resurrection was a metaphor) that will give unity to the first christians. After the years passed, the doctrine would be much more built in order to create theology.
Agreed. But remember he has more knowledge about the Jewish scriptures and the laws because he was formed as a master of law. So, that knowledge will help him to argue through the scripture jesus was god. This is very obvious when you compare the epistoles of Peter with Paul's. Peter is emotive, sensitive. Paul is rational, he gives directions to rule the new church.
Peter is not simply emotive and sensitive as you suggest. Read his letters (where he also gives rules of the faith) and his speeches in Acts. His words are very complementary to Paul’s.
Me: Why try to demonstrate to the Romans that Jesus was God *especially* if they had no facts. Why make a fierce defense of something they had no proof for and which led to torture and certain death? Certainly not to facilitate a loving, peaceful community. You: To convert the Romans to the christianity in order to stop the conquests and the Empire invasions. Also to give unity to the pagans as a nation and the Jews too, through the new cult.
The fact to prove the new religion and the new god was that, their martyrs. How can they offer their own lives to that god? Maybe it is a more powerful than ours. Then the romans started to convert.
Remember this situation was evolving till the days of Constantine in which the Empire was completely surrounded of christians. The Emperor had no choice but to make the christianity the official cult of the Roman Empire.
You: There are two judgments within the story of Christ. First, the religious one, which implied he was a blasphemous because he claimed he was the son of god. Second, the political which implied he was making a rebellion against the Romans. Me: Those two judgments are co-mingled. In other words, his blasphemous claims instigated the jewish religious leaders to spur on a political execution. They do not stand apart. You: Can you see now how does a hybrid work? They needed to present in the gospels both judgments at the same time, blending them they could justify Christ was man and god. What it is true he made actions that were against the traditional Jewish cult -the sabbath, talk with the poor people "anawim" and the women and the kids, avoid hand-washing, etc- The rest of the miracles and his claims about god are fake. They were written after the character was created as a myth after the real human died. So, we can infer the Jewish authorities in the days of jesus needed a justification in legal matters in order to ask to Pilatus killing him. If they started to argue with their beliefs, Pilatus wouldn't have done nothing. When they started to claim he was a revolutionary asking to don't pay to Ceasar, the thing took a real tone.
The problem is that it ignores the origin of the disciples belief when related to the events themselves (death, empty tomb, appearances). The idea that the early believers, who were monotheistic Jews, would have gone on to suffer as they did for the claims they made (starting soon after the events) just for an unorthodox rabbi wouldn’t make sense and assumes the gospels are straight up lies without a kernel of historical truth. Critical historians do not take that position. Only sensationalist writers, who are on the fringe, do.
Rather, why not take the claims of blasphemy at face value as it seems more probable. Blasphemy, which warranted death under Jewish law, pushed the leaders to seek Pilates sentence. They had to since under Roman rule they could not carry out the sentence themselves.
What I tried to explain throughout this was during that missed episodes we can suppose jesus grew as a normal human. If you hide that behavior by not researching about it -remember Luke assures he made an investigation- you can create a character as you want. Other perspective claim jesus wasn't killed in a cross but died as an old man.
However, I wasn’t hiding anything by lack of research (not sure if that was what you meant). Regardless, these claims that Jesus lived on as an old man are virtually (or completely) baseless. I hold to the vastly more probable historical fact that he was dead on a roman cross.
Other perspective claim jesus wasn't killed in a cross but died as an old man. Even to me, as atheist, it doesn't sound logical. If all this has been narrated there would have a real source. No matter the fact it could be real, jesus was a bold human.
Anyway, the original question (was Jesus a man or a god?) led us to how the doctrine of the hypostatic union came about. As I indicated earlier, it had been taught that Christ was both man and God by the church since the very beginning. The theological explanation would later be hashed out as the years went by. So it wasn’t the claim that evolved... it was the theological explanation.
Now whether or not one believes in these things has no relevance to our discussion. However, the argument for the early origin of this belief is sound I think, as testified by the early teachings (rooted in the historical facts) and later written down in the early documents.
Ok, I see you put up a new thread (on the double-moral of the christian). I may get around to it later on in the week... but I think I’m finished with this one. It’s cool if you want to response and have the last word though.
Thanks for the discussion Manu.
- Login to post comments
Offline Hi there! Thanks for following my efforts to communicate! LOL I must continue improving. Well this will be my last post too, we must continue with the other thread I created.
What do you mean by scientific proof? Are we not on the same playing field when dealing with history? Historians attempt to reconstruct past events. There must be some evidence(and explanatory power) to support a supposed event to justify the reconstruction. The evidence is strong that they *did* claim early on that Christ appeared to them. You can argue that they hallucinated if you want, but the claim at least is considered historical by the majority of new testament scholars (both skeptics and believers).
By scientific proof I mean material evidence as clothes, devices, places, buildings, etc, not only written records. It is true the written records as biographies can be considered evidence for the humanistic sciences but in this case -an issue related to naturalism- we need naturalist evidence. On the other hand as I told you in a previous post, this is a matter of faith. I mean no matter the evidences can appear, each person has the decision to believe or not in the resurrection.
Now if the early witnesses claimed appearances of a risen Christ after the crucifixion and burial, an empty tomb in the very city of such claims would support a bodily resurrection. You can argue the tomb was empty for some other reason than the resurrection, but we can at least conclude the disciples (especially from a Jewish perspective) did not mean the resurrection as a mere figure of speech (metaphor). I wouldn’t use the Shroud of Turin at all in this discussion. Catholics are free to be agnostic on that issue. Our topic is *not* just a matter of faith but is rather one of the science of history and whether or not the concept of Christ’s divinity evolved.
Yeah sometimes I guess I made the mistake to include some topics that are not the main one. Anyway you can read the book of Maccabees in which the idea of resurrection appeared centuries before jesus christ rose from the tomb. Then to say "disciples claimed resurrection even they did not believe in it before, so the resurrection is true" is not so convicent after all.
I understand you may not be convinced of any arguments for a resurrection. This may be in part due to a presupposition of scientific naturalism. If that is the case, everything *has* to be explained and reduced to naturalistic means. So the resurrection of Christ (being supernatural) would therefore be dismised no matter how powerful the evidence. The assumption of naturalism blocks one from ever even considering the possibility.
Agreed. We atheists need proofs.
Well then where is the scientific proof that one *needs* a symbol to create a community of charity? What you argue is not scientific proof but only conjecture at best.
The need of a symbol to create a community of charity is the same need governments had to create their monarchies, republics and all the systems we already know. The fact is in this particular case we see the symbol working for a community of charity which after three centuries would become a symbol of unity for the roman government. Scientific proofs? You can compare the same situation reading The Republic by Plato in which he exposes they needed religion and gods to justify their power, their festivals and the reason why the powerful people was in the government and not the rest. As this is a universal behavior in human civilizations, the symbol would be necessary on the construction of christianity.
Again, conjecture at best, and illogical (as you say yourself) when pitted against what is confidently held to be the core events.
The previous answer is the same for this argument.
If you had been taught as a Catholic that the resurrection was a metaphor, you had been taught incorrectly. The Catholic church has never held it to be a metaphor.
If I was taught the resurrection was a metaphor it was because the new that showed the tomb of jesus christ would debunk all the catholic theology. So my religion teachers had to justify their arguments in some way. I do not believe because I also was taught the tale of jesus multiplying the bread was a myth because people who followed their rabbis to the open field always carried enough food and water. Therefore what the charismatic jesus did was to persuade people sharing their food. So, if he hadn't the power to multiply bread he wouldn't have the power for beating death.
Yes, in fact I almost edited my last post to read how much Paul was a master of Jewish tradition and law. Jews had no concept of a dying and resurrecting Messiah. The fact that Paul (Saul) was heavily persecuting the early believers from his Jewish perspective has to be considered. He suddenly becomes convinced of the resurrected Christ. He then converts to that which he profoundly detested, and gets heavily persecuted and is martyred himself for the belief. The conversion of Paul is extraordinary. This is good evidence that what he claimed, he truly believed (and did not conspire for political reasons). Peter is not simply emotive and sensitive as you suggest. Read his letters (where he also gives rules of the faith) and his speeches in Acts. His words are very complementary to Paul’s.
How can I be assured this is true if after looking for a confident source everything in the bible was lie? If he decided to stop persecuting the christians it could be due his own decision not by the tale in the acts. Maybe this was another kind of apocalyptic language. And talking about Peter's letters even he could give some instructions, these are few compared with all the rules Paul wrote.
You are arguing that they tried to convince the Romans that Jesus was more than just a man and had rose from the dead (despite the fact that this all took place in the very city of his death and burial in a tomb, and which could easily have been falsified); that they were tortured and killed for these claims for centuries - for the sake of unifying pagans and Jews? I would suggest that this unintelligible conspiracy plan utterly failed.
Maybe I wrote in a wrong way my argument. Paul united the pagans and the christians that came from the Jews. Not the Jews with the pagans. His goal was to present to Romans Jews were the responsible of the death of jesus christ and not the Romans, because a religion blaming "Romans killed our god" would be dangerous from an emperial perspective. Thus to look for a scapegoat in Jews will help the christians to start their work. Anyway, they were tortured beside of their beliefs by don't adore Caesar as a god and don't giving military service.
The fact of the new religion was based firmly on the claims of the resurrection (i.e. death, appearances, and empty tomb). Martyrdom came as a consequence to those claims. Yet they were willing to die for it. They did not die for something they would have known to be a lie.
Most of the "guerrilleros" died as a consequence to believe in the marxist revolution and to believe they were offering their lives for the people. What did they win? Nothing. They were brain-washed. In those days -and today-everybody knew the marxist ideal of communist was a lie. Not even the URSS could support it. Then they died for a lie. The same process for the first christians.
Constantine’s Edict of Milan did *not* make Christianity the official religion. He simply made it tolerable to be practiced within the empire. This was early on in the 4th century - *long* after Jesus Christ was seen as divine. The four gospels and letters of the early disciples along with the early church fathers attest to their claims. These early claims preceded the writings.
If that is true why the temples of egyptian goddess for instance were suppresed from the Roman Empire? Of course because the christianity would be the new religion, then they needed to erase every cult from the Empire. So this process was not based on the ancient claims but in political reasons.
I think we agree that politics were involved. However, it is far more likely that Christ made his blasphemous claims. If I’m following your thoughts right, you seem to be saying the Jewish authorities wanted to kill Jesus only based on his unorthodox actions which weren’t enough to have caused Pilate to get involved. Therefore they convinced Pilate to crucify him for political convenience. The problem is that it ignores the origin of the disciples belief when related to the events themselves (death, empty tomb, appearances). The idea that the early believers, who were monotheistic Jews, would have gone on to suffer as they did for the claims they made (starting soon after the events) just for an unorthodox rabbi wouldn’t make sense and assumes the gospels are straight up lies without a kernel of historical truth. Critical historians do not take that position. Only sensationalist writers, who are on the fringe, do. Rather, why not take the claims of blasphemy at face value as it seems more probable. Blasphemy, which warranted death under Jewish law, pushed the leaders to seek Pilates sentence. They had to since under Roman rule they could not carry out the sentence themselves.
Ok let's follow the order of the underlined phrases.
The Jewish authorities need to justify to Pilate the execution of Jesus through a political argument because Pilate would not believe in the argument he was blasphemous. Actually he had another religion. The Jews having knowledge of this argued the political fact "he was against the tributes to Caesar". They wanted to kill him first because he claimed he was god and second because he talked against the Jewish authorities. Both situations were meaningless to the Romans. Then they needed to argue with an issue related to Roman politics.
Let's start from the perspective Jesus Christ existed. Ok. I would not have problems with that as I don't have problems with Buddha. But claim Jesus was god or Buddha was a messenger of god is a matter of faith not of history.The very existence of Jesus does not implies he was god.
Well if it doesn’t sound logical maybe you might want to re-evaluate and study the critical historians and the reasons why they largely agree that: Christ died and was buried, the tomb was found empty, his disciples experienced his appearances. The disciples belief in the resurrection (a very non-Jewish idea) only came about suddenly and profoundly from those facts. These facts are more plausible in explaining their willingness to die for the claim. A bold Jewish rabbi won’t give you the Christian religion under the circumstances. Anyway, the original question (was Jesus a man or a god?) led us to how the doctrine of the hypostatic union came about. As I indicated earlier, it had been taught that Christ was both man and God by the church since the very beginning. The theological explanation would later be hashed out as the years went by. So it wasn’t the claim that evolved... it was the theological explanation. Now whether or not one believes in these things has no relevance to our discussion. However, the argument for the early origin of this belief is sound I think, as testified by the early teachings (rooted in the historical facts) and later written down in the early documents. Ok, I see you put up a new thread (on the double-moral of the christian). I may get around to it later on in the week... but I think I’m finished with this one. It’s cool if you want to response and have the last word though. Thanks for the discussion Manu.
To me it would be ok if Jesus existed as a real person. That would be the historical fact and there won't be discussion about it. The discussion will be about the claims he was the real god. Till the part he dies is ok. But the rest is a matter of religion. So I consider this point is clear and is in agreement with the opinions of historians and scholars.
In the beginning the figure of jesus was considered as a human by one side and as a god by another. A heresy of the first epochs of the Catholic Church as we know it today claimed Jesus was only a god and that was the reason he could revive. Other groups were against it and they claimed he was just a human who god gifted with the power of resurrection. In order to deal with both perspectives "the fathers of the church" affirmed he was both things, giving as a result the hybrid we were dicussing about.
But as you did, these are my last words too. We must continue with the other thread which implies a philosophic issue.
Thank you too, twilliam.
P.S. Is my grammar improving? LOL
Debate is the best way to share the knowledge
- Login to post comments
I'm not convinced that Protestants are more closed-minded than Catholics. The Protestants started a revolution FFS. They questioned and fought against the status quo. The Catholics were the ones mired hopelessly in their pedophile hierarchy with the Grand Poobah telling everyone what to do like some crazy 1970s cult and dictating what happened all over Europe (and beyond) for thousands of years.
I'm not a Protestant either, but come on. Really?
Well at least here in my country protestants are very closed-minded. Just imagine here the little churches pop up like viruses. You can find a church in a garage, or in a little private house or a wood-made cabin nearby your neighborhood. The most problematic thing is each one of this groups believe they are the 144,000 of the apocalypse. So, when you tell them the bible is a fairy tale they swear you hell is waiting for your soul.
If I made a misjudgment starting from my own reality I sincerely apologize. But I insist I'm looking for a catholic to debate.
Debate is the best way to share the knowledge
I'm not all that big a fan of the catholics, either. So if you want to challenge them, I really can't fault you.
tend to think it's the catholics who are stuck in the mud. Of course, I also see the catholic faith as intrinsically pagan with the paying off of sins and so on. This human element to catholicism resonates with me. I rather like the obviousness of its deceptions. Anyway, Manu, debate a catholic, if you can find one prepared to joust.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Hi Atheistextremist, thanks for the comment!
Well after all we can say both religions are closed-minded. The problem is, as I stated before, I started to make a judgment starting from my own reality. At the end both, catholics and protestants are a crap. Anyway, I ask a challenge to a catholic because that was the religion I was taught.
And the most curious thing is none of them have appeared yet! LOL
Debate is the best way to share the knowledge
I was brought up Anglican. Which is just the English way of saying, Hi I'm a Catholic. Sorry to say debate is not in the cards. I never believed in a word the smartly dressed ministers said.
Understanding that there is no purpose in the Universe frees us all to find one.
It's ok if you ain't gonna debate. As you're atheist as me, there's no need of discuss. So, the challenge is still open for the catholics...
Debate is the best way to share the knowledge
Why are you looking for catholics here? Wouldn't it be better to look for a catholic website? Should you find one post it here and we can join in.
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/
If an "Atheist vs. theist" forum is open here, I thought it was possible to debate with a catholic. I don't think the creators of this website opened that space just for nothing. And if no catholic appear here then, I will look for them in another religious site.
Debate is the best way to share the knowledge
Good luck, any help needed just let us know.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Hello,
Your ignorance has the bright colors of yellow. You have yet to define what kind of Catholic you wish to debate. What of Western Catholics and Eastern Catholics. What of the catholics who are actually Chrisitan. What of the Old Catholics and the Tridentine Catholics (Mel Gibson was Tridentine) or Council of Trent catholics or Vatican II Catholics. What of the coptic catholics?
Your thesis is so ignorant in your request, it is meaningless. Next time, reguest a debate via intelligence, for you lost the debate before you began.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
What thesis? All Manu put forth was essentially a challenge to debate a catholic. He did not condense any arguments yet, so how exactly is his request “meaningless”? Furthermore, I would suspect Manu is interested in debate with a “Roman Catholic” or more accurately, one from the Roman rite. Regardless though - Western (e.g. Ambrosian rite, Latin rite), Eastern (e.g. Byzantine rite, Chaldean rite), Coptic (an Eastern rite), Tridentine (a form of the Roman rite)... *all* in communion with the Bishop of Rome and part of the worldwide Catholic Church. The teachings are the same, but it’s how the mass is celebrated that differs.
Manu, I am about to enter the Catholic Church and have been studying to do so. My background in a nutshell is that I was raised catholic without really learning what and why I should believe. I became an unbeliever during my teens but then became a protestant in my mid-twenties and now after around ten years I have been drawn to Catholicism.
I may be able to offer some answers to your challenges from a Catholic perspective but I admit that I do not consider myself extremely knowledgeable. As it happens, this may help me to scrutinize things more closely.
What is the discussion then?
Hi TWilliam,
The way you phrase the debate has consequences for the outcome of it. And not all "catholics" subscribe to the pope since I am a hardcore Calvinist Protestant and also a catholic. The pope is going to hell. Especially the last one.
The Tridentine's do not subscribe to the Pope per sa.
Nor do the Anglican Catholics (C.S. Lewis type).
Anyways, Roman Catholicism which you assume is extremely heretical and full of evil and superstition. They are as pagan as one can get.
They are the synongogue of Satan.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Feel free to ignore Jean Chauvin, the rest of us do it. Please continue your discussion with Manu.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Thanks a lot Jean Chauvin!
I was waiting for the reaction of a theist and at last it has appeared! Thanks to Twilliam too (Am I right?) who explained me he was moving from religions and currently he's become catholic again.
If you want more specific info, I'm looking for a Roman Catholic. Those that follow the pope Benedict XVI and follow the Roman rite that is extended from the Vatican to the rest of the world. I already knew the other subdivisions of this religion as they were posted before, but as I was formed as a catholic in a latinamerican country, I forgot to specify I'm loooking for a Roman one.
Meanwhile the course of the debate evolves, I could consider the idea of debating with another christians, but for now I just want to check how much I've learned and how much the theist can say.
Debate is the best way to share the knowledge
Hi Jean,
All I see is an issued challenge to debate and not a specific topic to debate. I do agree with you that how one phrases it makes a difference (not necessarily on the outcome but more so on what the content should focus on).
With regards to the use of the word “catholic”, I am simply assuming Manu is interested in debating a Roman Catholic (I could be wrong, I’m sure he’ll clarify). But in light of his distinguishing what type of christian he’d like to debate (i.e. catholic vs protestant), I’m rather sure he did not mean a Protestant who happens to refer to himself as a “catholic” (universal christian; part of the “invisible” church).
So now I see where you are coming from...
Do calvinists generally judge the eternal destiny of men or just the Pope?
What heretical views and evil superstitions would you say we hold?
BTW, I wouldn’t mind talking about these things with you but this is Manu’s thread after all and I don’t want to hijack it with a Catholic/Protestant debate.
Maybe another place.... : )
Manu,
Looks like we just cross-posted. Thanks for clarifying...
*edit* Yes I am considering Roman Catholicism btw...
Don't worry twilliam! I know sometimes that happens. Anyway, I just started asking for a catholic -a Roman one- because after having an answer like "yes, I'm catholic wanna debate?" then I'd start to propose topics in order to discuss them. But first I need to have the confirmation...however, you are here and you are catholic or something like that..wanna debate? lol
Debate is the best way to share the knowledge
Lol... Yeah I figured that. Yeah I wouldn't mind a bit of discussion... What topics were you thinking of? Throw some out there and I'll see if I have a clue...
OK let's start with the following: jesus is a man or a god? because according to the catholic church is both at the same time but to me that's impossible because you are facing a hybrid. I wait for you reaction
Debate is the best way to share the knowledge
Good question, but I should say that this is not just a catholic teaching but is held by mainstream christianity including my calvinist friend above.
As far as I understand it, the hypostatic union is a union of two natures into one person. So the divine takes on (in the incarnation) flesh and what is necessary to be human while retaining divinity. Kind of hard to grasp I admit but I think the characterization of a hybrid (like an Achilles) is an incorrect understanding of the doctrine.
Ok, think in the following: What is jesuschrist? Is a man? Is a god?
Let's start with the myth. If you present in a myth just a very nice man -like socrates-you are going to say: well it was a great character but no more. After the years passed over, the myth was enlarged with a lot of information including the idea of he was god. Thus, ancient christian leaders had a concillium in which they discussed to determine whether jesus was or not a god. (I can't remember if it was at Nicea or Trentum...I'm not sure and I don't know these names in English)
So, they faced this problem: if jesus was just a man, he didn't revived from the tomb. Then, he utterly had had to share his life with Mary of Magdala. This points will contradict apostle Paul's doctrine. On the other hand, if he was just a god, then he couldn't suffer any human characteristic as hunger, thrist, feel tired or even the sorrow in the moment of his death. Hence god wouldn't be comitted with the human suffering as the doctrine stated. Then the catholic church had to create a hybrid in order to justify not only the behavior of his founder but also some ideas as the transubstantiation of the host, the power of the pope and even the behavior of the believers. Think about this: why an average catholic is catholic just on sundays at church and not in the real world the rest of the week? Why a catholic tries to run away from normal human behavior -self-defense, sexual attraction- thinking this is a sin if the bible says "god made everything good?
Therefore they created a blend of concepts in order to create a religion to manipulate masses based on a hybrid that permit not only to say "jesus is the son of god" but "we have both, the bible and the sword"
Debate is the best way to share the knowledge
The doctrine does not entail either/or (god or man) but rather both/and (union of divinity and humanity).
The problem here is that there is an assumption that years passed before this became a teaching of christianity. The fact that a doctrine is later clarified and defined with specific words does not mean it was therefor invented. Not sure if you still own a bible, but the notion of Christ as man and God is suggested throughout. The first chapter in John’s gospel seems clear (i.e. Word was God... Word became flesh...).
So to suggest that this doctrine was created by the Catholic Church for control reasons early in the 4th century (Nicea) is inaccurate.
Not sure I understand the relevance to the initial question here. Regardles, Self-defense and sexual attraction in and of itself are not taught as sin.
This seems to be your assertion and does not necessarily follow from why a catholic may have issues regarding sin and how to deal with it.
Happy new year btw - lol...
Hullo Twilliam! Thanks for continuing with the dicussion.
Well, it seems to be logical that something was exposed to the action of time it doesn't imply there was a creation and/or manipulation of the argument. In this concrete situation, we have a social phenomenon that is related to the characterization of a person, not the personification of a character.
According to the sinoptic gospels, no man in whole Israel thought jesus was god. Remember he asked: who the people say am I? Then the disciples said: one of the prophets, elias, john the baptist that returned from the tomb. But no one say: you are the son of god but Peter. I was thought by a religious teacher -I was raised in a catholic school for years- that this passage was written years after it could ocurred. Why? Because the earliest gospel was written in the year 50 A.D. that's Marcus' Gospel. Then appeared Matthew around the 70 A.D. and Luke around the 80 A.D. John's gospel was written nearly the 96 A.D. So, after so many years the history could be changed. This not only happen with the bible, it happened also with Homer's The Iliad and The song of Mio Cid, in which the main characters -Achilles and Ruy Diaz de Vivar respectively-were changed in their human nature to become powerful heroes.
Then we can infer, if jesus was god, why anybody recognized him? They said: he's the son of the carpenter.
Catholic researchers explain this through teology affirming "they weren't revealed the truth" This explanation look likes to fill in a gap justifying or even trying to hide a blank in the biblical history. Summarizing, this situation of humanity-divinity lead us to a double moral. You mentioned something about the self-defense and the sexual attraction, and you are part of right as they weren't stated as sins in the beginning. However, I consider we can discuss this sitaution in another thread for completing the whole idea and make a synthesis. In conclusion, double moral is justified by hybrids, not only in the christianity, but also in different figures as King Arthur, the Greek gods and goddesses and Plato's idealistic philosophy for example, leading people to double moral.
Thanks for your discussions manners. You are very respectful and focused on the arguments, not the person. Happy New Year for you too!
Debate is the best way to share the knowledge
Hey, no problem, a debate can be fun and clarifying.
Yes, I think I understand what you are saying here and wouldn’t deny that there can be such social phenomenon. However, if you are still suggesting that the catholic church invented this doctrine through development by social means in which the idea of Christ’s divinity evolved (especially in order to control people), I think there are problems with it.
Why would a heavily persectuted early church develop this idea of Christ as divine? To what end? What would be the social advantages in light that it was the idea itself which brought torture and death?
Yes agreed. No man believed he was God at that point in the story. His disciples were very skeptical, especially immediately following the crucifixion. Their confident belief only came after the resurrection. The questions, I think should be, are what did Christ claim and why in fact was he was crucified?
For the sake of argument, I won’t use the later written gospels. Mark’s gospel does give some indication of Christ’s divine nature. He forgives sin by his own authority, something the Pharisees knew to be a claim of divinity and blasphemous. Indeed, he was crucified for such claims and not simply for being a good moral teacher (you don’t get crucified by being just a “good" guy). So the claim is tied to an historical event (i.e. the crucifixion). There is also the foreshadowing by John the Baptist from the prophet Isaiah in which he prepares the way of the LORD (God) and then “clears the way” for non other than Jesus.
Again though, I think it should be noted that the date in which a teaching is written down does not in anyway suggest that it is the date of the teachings origination. The culture passed things down orally which is nothing like what we find today. So when Christ gave his commission to the apostle’s to teach, they did not wait to teach until they decided to use written communication.
Sure, theology does give insight to why it all panned out as such, and Christ Himself explained that his “time had not yet come”. I would suggest that there is no blank in biblical history in light of His claims/actions being tied to the historical event of the crucifixion. So it was after the crucifixion and resurrection when you see that Christ’s disciples started to teach what was now clear to them in regards to Christ’s nature (the oral teachings later written in epistle form).
I’m still not sure how it follows that a doctrine of humanity/divinity (even if it was a later development) would lead to someone living a double moral life (hypocritically). Do you suggest that only those who believe in certain gods or philosophies live hypocritical lives? I’d be surprised if that were the case. Wouldn’t you say that anyone with any sense of morality - despite where that morality originated - can live in contradiction to their moral sensibilities?
Still, mere self-defense and sexual attraction were not, and are not now, considered sins.
Thank you as well for being respectful. There is nothing that distracts more from the heart of an argument than child-like, self-edifying attacks on another person and what he may believe.
Ok, let's start to separate the situations. First we have the fact Christ divinity evolved to control people. How this ocurred? In the beginning, the figure of this character wasn't a god. It was a bold human. After the crucifixion the apostles started to claim he had raised from the tomb, for which there are no proofs. The true is people was attracted by the attitude of the first disciples -sharing and loving as a community-and they created the first christian groups as you can read in the Acts. But the leiv motiv within this process wasn't the power of a divinity, but the organization of these communities as "aid groups" They supported people with material things, they shared everything they had. This made the communities grow and expand. It is true the apostles taught something from jesus the man -like the sophist did after socrates-and during those epochs, his figure was still as a human. If you want to say the rite of the host was a divine thing, the true is that was like a metaphor of unitiy for them. So why would a heavily persecuted church did developed the idea of a Christ divine no matter the torture and death?
We must remember most of the people was ignorant. Fishers, carpenters, peasants, etc. People in this social situation tend to be very sensitive, not rational. Thus, the church will start to grow but without rules or structure. Remember it wasn't till the suscription of the apostle Paul the christian cult began to have a defined form. After all these reforms happened it still remained the question: How to demonstrate to the Romans our jesus is god? How to prove a crucified was glorious as Jupiter or Venus? As they didn't have enough facts, the only via was to make a very fierce defense against the established power claiming they wouldn't adore Ceasar. Then the death was sure. In consequence to see people dying for a god -what no Roman in the Empire will do for Jupiter-would lead to the idea of a real god behind the crucified. The christian crew then started to grow. It wouldn't be but after Constantine's reforms that the new empire religion will face the necessity of claiming jesus was a god and a human at the same time.
There are two judgments within the story of Christ. First, the religious one, which implied he was a blasphemous because he claimed he was the son of god. Second, the political which implied he was making a rebellion against the Romans. We must remember before jesus there were a lot of messiahs which assured they were god and started rebellions against Pilatus government. So, this man could gain followers that assured to the authorities he was god even he really wasn't.
That passage was really talking about the people of Israel characterized in the figure of Isaiah. When the gospels were written, the authors looked for in the old testament the justifications in order to demonstrate jesus was god when he wasn't
Well said! For this very reason the real facts of jesus were changed when they were written. Don't you remember the game about the broken phone? The message is utterly changed. Now imagine the same with the character and stories of jesus. The apostles started to speak about him and his teachings, and after some years passed, they wrote the gospels. Then, the real situations that happened were completely transformed. You can find this evidence also in the apocryphs (it is well written?) gospels wherein a wizard jesus always make miracles "with the power of god"
The blanks I was talking about were related about the "jesus' lost years" and also the issues related with his marriage with Mary the Magdalen and some explanations about his "miracles" by some scholars that explain -in specific the multiplication of the breads- they were created in order to teach a moral thing but not a supernatural. Also the blank of how the authors of gospels could knew the conversation between jesus and pilatus if the bible says they were alone apart in the palace of Pilatus (remember the scene of Mel Gibson's the passion of the christ)
Ok, as I posted before, this is a matter for another topic. I will open it soon with the title "the double moral life of the christian religion" in order we can continue there just with that issue. But I can assure you I don't think just the religious people have double morals. People without beliefs can have them too.
I'll wait for your posts soon! Thanks!
Debate is the best way to share the knowledge
Thanks for replying Manu...
Btw, it took me a while to sift through and try to sort out your arguments. You’ll have to pardon me if it takes some time to generate a reasoned respond - especially with a new work week looming! Anyway...
The Apostles were dejected after the crucifixion and were skeptical even upon hearing that the tomb was empty. They only started to claim the resurrection after the proofs of the empty tomb and interactions with Christ.
So if I’m following your argument correctly, the Apostles only claimed that Jesus rose from the dead so they can form communities of love? Why not skip such claims that could have easily been disproven of if the tomb (which was essentially around the corner) remained occupied? Why not just preach the loving teachings of Christ and form these “aid groups”, and therefore skip all the aggravation and heavy persecution?
So are you saying that they only taught certain moral ideas from Jesus (and nothing else he taught) but added their own ridiculous claims of a proofless resurrection? Again why? Was this so that centuries on down the road they can somehow control the masses?
Ignorant of what? Or do you mean uneducated? If so, that is not the case at all with the Palestinian Jews as they were obliged from childhood to learn from the rabbis. “If you have knowledge, you have everything; if you do not possess knowledge, you possess nothing” was a commonly used maxim in that culture. I reject the idea that they were simply feeling-driven and irrational.
Paul was certainly a part of helping to define the early church but he was far from alone. He had to be taught by some of the diciples himself.
To what end? Why try to demonstrate to the Romans that Jesus was God *especially* if they had no facts. Why make a fierce defense of something they had no proof for and which led to torture and certain death? Certainly not to facilitate a loving, peaceful community.
The council at Chalcedon defined in theological terms what had already been taught by the early Church (i.e. Word was God...Word became flesh).
Those two judgments are co-mingled. In other words, his blasphemous claims instigated the jewish religious leaders to spur on a political execution. They do not stand apart.
Well now you seem to be asserting that Christ claimed to be God. Which is it? Did he not claim this but rather was a future invention? Or did he gain followers to "assure the authorities" on his claim on divinity. You can’t have it both ways.
I could understand your point here. But now this gets into how prophesy regarding the Messiah is foreshadowed. This gets into biblical Typology.
To say the telephone game is analogous to oral tradition is to misunderstand how oral tradition worked. The oral culture used a highly skilled system of mnemonics for memorization and transmission. It relied on parallelism and repetition for instance. Seriously, you might want to study how the oral culture of the day was used to pass things along.
There is no legendary development with the teachings of Christ about himself when it ties into why he was crucified as orally transmitted, further tying in with an empty tomb and later expressed through the early writings of the new testament biographies and letters. The apocryphal gospels come around much later on when legendary developments actually had the time to evolve.
I'm not following then... seems to be a somewhat different question.
I don’t see how spurious speculations about “lost years” come into play on the question of the origin of Christ’s divinity. If he was dead on a cross, a supposed marriage to Mary of Magdala would be strange indeed. So again... can’t have it both ways. Did he die due to rebellious action against the Roman government (as argued above) or did they not crucify him which presupposes a secret life with Mary?
Ok, that’s cool. Or we can just move on from our current topic. Either way...
Hi there twilliam! Don't worry and take your time. I know this could be difficult when you have other tasks. Anyway, I'm having troubles too not only due time but to my lack of knowledge of some vocabulary and the way I must order my ideas in my second language.
Well, let's continue the discussion
Even though there are some tales in the gospels about Christ talking with the apostles after the resurrection, we don't have scientific proofs. Some catholics assure the Shroud of Turin is a scientific evidence, but as it was discovered the shroud came from the middle ages, this topic is a matter of faith, not science. In consequence, I could not follow you through this argument no matter how many you use. What it can be discussed is creating a symbol as a man returned from death can help to persuade people. Even more, it could be considered as a metaphor, i.e.: people think Michael Jackson is still alive in his music, some of them say "he's not death" what we know is a metaphor. The same for this issue of the christianity.
It is logical to think which relation can exist between a man rose from the dead and the first christian groups. As I will explain in the topic I told you I'll open, they needed a symbol to create the communities. The story about a good rabbi that died in a cross is ok, but is not enough in order to persuade people. (I.E. No matter Baden Powell did a great work with the boy scouts, he's not considered a god or a messenger of god just due his humanistic activities) Therefore they needed to argue he would still alive between them if they practiced the good moral teachings he taught. The aggravation was necessary in order to create a more confident and united group. It could sound ilogical, but according to my experience, the same process was followed by some "guerrillas" here in Latin America: watching a lot of people dead by the "cause" they were impulsed to continue with the war.
Of course they taught certain moral ideas because they could not remember all. It is stated in the appendix of John's gospel that "if all the things jesus did were written completely, there would not have enough space to so many books" The resurrection will be a metaphorical concept (a new around the year 2005 presented the empty tomb of jesus, so I was explained when I was catholic the resurrection was a metaphor) that will give unity to the first christians. After the years passed, the doctrine would be much more built in order to create theology.
Sorry for the misunderstading of concepts, but I still make the mistake of write "ignorant" instead of "uneducated"What I tried to say is that Jews were not a philosophical people. If you compare the writtings of Plato with the Solomon's, you can see there's a deeper thought in the Greek one. I cannot discard the moral value of Solomon's Proverbs, but all those are related to give rules of behavior to the people. They are not a intent of analyze the reality and think in more complicated problems -the duality of body and soul for example- The knowledge for the Jews was related to the moral, not to the science or philosophy. Think about their society: everything was ruled by god, not by the own thoughts of their kings.
Agreed. But remember he has more knowledge about the Jewish scriptures and the laws because he was formed as a master of law. So, that knowledge will help him to argue through the scripture jesus was god. This is very obvious when you compare the epistoles of Peter with Paul's. Peter is emotive, sensitive. Paul is rational, he gives directions to rule the new church.
To convert the Romans to the christianity in order to stop the conquests and the Empire invasions. Also to give unity to the pagans as a nation and the Jews too, through the new cult. The problem is, as I told you before with the example of the latin american "guerrillas", when they received the doctrine and the help of the community they were like "brain-washed" till the extreme to die for an ideal. The fact to prove the new religion and the new god was that, their martyrs. How can they offer their own lives to that god? Maybe it is a more powerful than ours. Then the romans started to convert. Remember this situation was evolving till the days of Constantine in which the Empire was completely surrounded of christians. The Emperor had no choice but to make the christianity the official cult of the Roman Empire
The Word is a metaphor. The word can only be pronounced by the mankind, not by god. If god could pronounce it he wouldn't have had the necessity to ask for prophets or messengers. It was always the same. That council established what the christianity was thinking through the years till they thought all the arguments were ok. And also, remember those metaphors of John's gospel are based in the Genesis, and the whole Genesis is a metaphor. So we have here what is called in philosophy "origin error". Then, John was wrong since the moment he started with a wrong base.
Can you see now how does a hybrid work? They needed to present in the gospels both judgments at the same time, blending them they could justify Christ was man and god. What it is true he made actions that were against the traditional Jewish cult -the sabbath, talk with the poor people "anawim" and the women and the kids, avoid hand-washing, etc- The rest of the miracles and his claims about god are fake. They were written after the character was created as a myth after the real human died. So, we can infer the Jewish authorities in the days of jesus needed a justification in legal matters in order to ask to Pilatus killing him. If they started to argue with their beliefs, Pilatus wouldn't have done nothing. When they started to claim he was a revolutionary asking to don't pay to Ceasar, the thing took a real tone.
Once again I guess I made a mistake in my writting. What I tried to explain is jesus was a nice rabbi, maybe much better than the rabbis of his time. When the Jewish people watched his good manners and charity, they thought he was the messiah -remember the messiah would take the role of Moses, therefore he wouldn't be god, or the son of god- and they started to follow him and claim he was "the king of the Jews" even he didn't say such a thing. After all those events happened, his figure was turned into the son of god.
According to Jewish and Catholic theology, prophets had the mission of saying what was wrong with the people of Israel, what was wrong with their beliefs and their governments in the very moment the prophet appeared. They didn't have the function of foretold the future as we can see in other mythologies.
Let's go back to the example of Achilles. It seems to be logical that Achilles wasn't a half-god. The oral tradition was changing his original capabilities Probably he was an exceptional warrior during the battle. When their companions found him dead with the arrow in his ankle, they thought that was his weak point. Based on this war-tale, people and then poets will start to create the figure of a half-god Achilles, which is the image we know today. The same for jesus. He was a good man, he tried to change the system and he was killed. After that, the people started to claim he was god.
Which criteria was used in order to select the gospels we know today? Some of the catholic experts in this issue claim they were selected because the followed a logical time-line and the rest were just pure magic and folk-tales. But the true is all of them were written in simultaneous epochs. The problem is when you go to read about the apocryphal gospels and you find there are some good teachings in some of the as the gospel of the virgin Mary and the gospel of Thomas. If these one were good, why these weren't included in the cannon? What we can suppose is the Catholic Church looked for those one which defended their interests.
What I tried to explain throughout this was during that missed episodes we can suppose jesus grew as a normal human. If you hide that behavior by not researching about it -remember Luke assures he made an investigation- you can create a character as you want. Other perspective claim jesus wasn't killed in a cross but died as an old man. Even to me, as atheist, it doesn't sound logical. If all this has been narrated there would have a real source. No matter the fact it could be real, jesus was a bold human.
Well, I hope I can have the chance this night to open the next topic. Let's see how many people get in the discussion.
Debate is the best way to share the knowledge