prove im not god, daniel 2 and 7 kingdom of god son of man 1

Summary

This theological debate revolves around the nature of Jesus and the fulfillment of biblical prophecies, particularly from the book of Daniel. The conversation challenges traditional Christian views on Jesus's divinity, exploring ideas such as the Hypostatic Union and the nature of God's kingdom. The dialogue contrasts different interpretations of scripture, questioning the historical and spiritual implications of Jesus's life and resurrection. The participants argue over whether Jesus fulfills the prophecy of an everlasting kingdom and how fulfillment is understood in a broader theological context.

Takeaways

• 😀 The debate centers around whether a human can be considered God, with one participant asserting that a human cannot be divine, while the other argues that divinity is not restricted by human characteristics.
• 😀 The concept of **proof** plays a central role, with one party challenging the other to prove that they are not God, while also pointing out the inability to prove divinity through human limitations alone.
• 😀 The **hypostatic union** (the belief that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine) is questioned, with the argument that this union could apply to any individual, not just Jesus.
• 😀 The participants challenge each other’s interpretation of **Christian doctrine**, especially regarding Jesus' nature, resurrection, and divinity, bringing into question the theological frameworks used to understand these concepts.
• 😀 The concept of **eternity** and **age** is a critical point of contention, with the idea that a being with an age cannot be eternal, contrasted with the notion that Jesus' divinity transcends age and human limitations.
• 😀 **Scripture** is debated as the foundation for understanding divinity, with references to the **Gospel of John** and **the Council of Chalcedon**, arguing that Jesus is both divine and human in nature, while the other side questions the sufficiency of scripture to prove this.
• 😀 The debate touches on the role of **all-knowingness** (omniscience), with one party suggesting that Jesus was all-knowing and had control over his life, while the other argues that mere humanity cannot claim such powers.
• 😀 The idea of **control over life and resurrection** is discussed, with the question being raised whether a human could resurrect themselves or control their own life as Jesus supposedly did, with opposing views on the matter.
• 😀 The **Catholic Church's teachings** are referenced, particularly the **Catechism**, regarding Jesus’ dual nature (human and divine) and how it shapes the understanding of who could be considered God.
• 😀 The **Daniel prophecies** (Daniel 2 and 7) are invoked as evidence for Jesus' divinity, with one side claiming that Jesus fulfills these prophecies through preaching the kingdom of God, while the other side challenges this interpretation, arguing for a spiritual, rather than earthly, kingdom.

Q & A

What is the core issue discussed between the two individuals in the transcript?

The core issue is a theological debate about the divinity of Jesus and the nature of God. One individual is challenging the other to prove that he is not God, using various theological arguments related to scripture and the nature of Jesus' incarnation.

How does the individual questioning the divinity of Jesus argue that Jesus is not God?

The individual argues that Jesus was not eternal, pointing out that Jesus had an age and therefore couldn't be eternal. They also question how Jesus could be God if he had a human nature and was subject to death.

What is the concept of the hypostatic union, and how does it factor into this conversation?

The hypostatic union refers to the Christian theological doctrine that Jesus Christ is both fully divine and fully human. The person challenging the divinity of Jesus brings it up as a counterpoint, questioning how a human being could also be God, even though they acknowledge Jesus' divine nature in some interpretations of scripture.

What role does scripture play in the discussion between the two individuals?

Scripture is central to the conversation, with one individual using the Bible to argue that Jesus was always divine, even before the scripture was written, while the other insists that Jesus' divinity must be proven through scripture. They also refer to different councils and interpretations of biblical texts to make their points.

How do the individuals disagree about the nature of Jesus' kingdom?

One person argues that Jesus' kingdom is spiritual and everlasting, while the other challenges this interpretation, demanding evidence of a tangible, historical kingdom. The debate centers around whether the kingdom Jesus preached about was meant to be taken as a real, earthly kingdom or as a symbolic or spiritual one.

What is the significance of the concept of 'everlasting' in this conversation?

The word 'everlasting' is debated in relation to Daniel 2 and 7, with one individual interpreting it as referring to a real, eternal kingdom, while the other suggests it could refer to a spiritual kingdom. The debate reflects differing interpretations of biblical language, particularly the Hebrew word 'olam', which can mean 'a long time' rather than forever.

How does the discussion shift from Jesus' divinity to the interpretation of prophecy in Daniel?

The conversation shifts to the fulfillment of prophecy, particularly the kingdom described in Daniel 2 and 7. The individual arguing for Jesus' divinity uses these prophecies to claim that Jesus' teachings and resurrection fulfill these ancient predictions, while the other challenges this by asking for concrete, non-dogmatic evidence.

What is the significance of the ecumenical councils in this conversation?

The individual defending the Christian doctrine references ecumenical councils, particularly the Council of Chalcedon, which defined the nature of Christ as both fully human and fully divine. This reference is used to support the view that Jesus is consubstantial with humanity and divinity. The conversation also touches on differing interpretations between Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, and other denominations.

What is the issue with proving the fulfillment of prophecy according to the second individual?

The second individual argues that proving the fulfillment of prophecy, especially regarding Daniel 2 and 7, cannot simply be done by referencing scripture alone. They demand historical and tangible evidence, pointing out that citing the New Testament without external validation amounts to begging the question.

Why is the idea of the 'spiritual kingdom' contested in this dialogue?

The idea of a 'spiritual kingdom' is contested because one individual believes it to be a convenient explanation for a lack of concrete, historical evidence of Jesus' kingdom. They question why the kingdom should be understood as spiritual and invisible, rather than a real, earthly kingdom as described in the Old Testament prophecies.