Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-24-2019 11:57 AM
41 online now:
edge, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx (5 members, 36 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,619 Year: 3,656/19,786 Month: 651/1,087 Week: 20/221 Day: 20/36 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
35NextFF
Author Topic:   Divinity of Jesus
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 31 of 517 (423655)
09-23-2007 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Hyroglyphx
09-23-2007 1:49 PM


Re: Try reading what you are replying to. It might help.
Because it had everything to do with the discussion! This is what you do when you're presented with questions you presumably can't answer with integrity.

Except of course, that you have not show how it was in anyway relevant to the post you were responding to, all you have done is whine. The audience can of course go to Message 19 and then follow the conversation and see for themselves.

You have plainly stated that all writings are scripture-- even Archie comic books. Why then do you only attack what is well understood to be scripture, the very same kinds of writings you refer to as 'maps'?

Well, first, perhaps you can actually show where I attacked any scripture. Now I can understand you thinking I might have referred to Archie Comics books, however the reference was to Archy and Mehitabel, the wisdom to be learned from a cockroach.

So we are basically relying on your incredulity at this point as some sort of evidentiary claim. Your argument is tantamount to, "it looks different from the other gospels, so it must be phony."

Not at all. Some of us actually read the Bible and can note the differences. In addition, you once again misrepresent what I have said. Please point out where I claim John is phony.

You know Nem, when you misrepresent someone once it could just be ignorance, however when you continue to constantly misrepresent what folk say, we need to ask if it is intentional.

You are constantly alluding that grand conspiracy pervades most of Christendom as a way to malign the gospel. You're welcome to do that, but don't be surprised when somebody points out that this is what you're doing.

And here you go yet again misrepresenting what I have said.

Please point out where I made such a claim.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-23-2007 1:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 517 (423659)
09-23-2007 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Hyroglyphx
09-23-2007 1:49 PM


Re: Try reading what you are replying to. It might help.
Polycarp, Iraneus, Ignatius, etc have all attested for the authenticity.

I wish you'd link us to not only the authors, but also the writings that you claim as evidence. It's really not helpful of your argument to present nothing but endless pages of off-putting text through which one must search to find the minuscule parts that you have misrepresented/misinterpreted as supportive of your view.

Also, no one said John was the only human alive with those view points about Jesus, so I don't see how pointing out the others changes whether or not John's Gospel is a misrepresentation of what happened or not.

The point, after all, being presented here is that there was a small group of people who believed Jesus was God (one of whom was John), and so John (and likely others of this group) instead of trying to honestly depict what might have happened in Jesus' life tried to change history (or just write his own) in order to push his particular view points.

You are constantly alluding that grand conspiracy pervades most of Christendom as a way to malign the gospel. You're welcome to do that, but don't be surprised when somebody points out that this is what you're doing.

Stop it. Unless jar says this, you need to quit putting words in peoples' mouths. And it is all irrelevant, anyway, because the issue being discussed is John and the authenticity of it, and moreso why it came to be written and lead to Jesus being deified.

All of the biblical and extrabibilical evidence suggests authenticity, whereas your "evidence" is basically tongue-in-cheek.

You're acting like a fool. Just because other people agreed with John doesn't mean what he wrote was accurate in any way. It doesn't make his account right.

Much like John, you are putting words into peoples' mouths that they never say.

Jon


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-23-2007 1:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Equinox, posted 10-09-2007 1:26 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 20 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 33 of 517 (423689)
09-23-2007 6:14 PM


This is "What does HISTORY really mean?"
I think the topic, with the originator's desire to focus on historical arguments, is misplaced under Bible Study.


Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by AdminPhat, posted 09-24-2007 8:24 AM jaywill has not yet responded

  
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1907
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 34 of 517 (423757)
09-24-2007 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by jaywill
09-23-2007 6:14 PM


Bible Study: What Does The Bible Really Mean?
We once had a discussion here concerning what philosophical purpose the Bible Study Forum had. Perhaps you can reopen that topic and add your two cents in as to what the purpose of Bible Study should be.

To some, the Bible is inerrant and should be respected as the very "word of God." To others, the Bible is entirely a human document formed for human agendas.

When Bible Study was originally proposed, I voiced my opinion of its purpose:

quote:
Bible Study is for the faith based interpretations (philosophically and theologically) of the text.

Accuracy/Innerrancy is the scholars and their attempts at explaining the history of the authors, the identity of the authors, and the secular based questions and academic disciplines surrounding the text.


Perhaps you are right, Jaywill. ;) At any rate, I think personally that this topic should stay here for now, unless anyone else objects.

Edited by Phat, : changed identity to AdminPhat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by jaywill, posted 09-23-2007 6:14 PM jaywill has not yet responded

    
Brian
Member (Idle past 3038 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 35 of 517 (423852)
09-24-2007 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by PaulK
09-22-2007 3:03 PM


Probably is a lot better

More specifically, the Messiah would be a descendant of Solomon, which Jesus wasn't.

Just one example of why Jesus was not a/the Messiah.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by PaulK, posted 09-22-2007 3:03 PM PaulK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jaywill, posted 10-10-2007 9:34 PM Brian has responded

    
Equinox
Member (Idle past 3220 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 36 of 517 (427008)
10-09-2007 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Jon
09-23-2007 2:35 PM


later Christianity
Jon wrote:
What historical aspect of the Jesus situation could explain why he was deified into one with God? With so many prophets in the day, what about Jesus and his followers brought about the following cult? There's been a lot of people since then who have been highly-regarded; why didn't they get a super-mega religion named after them?

For this post, I'd just like to say that I want to focus on the historical aspects behind this matter, and not the supernatural ones—so no posts saying 'Jesus really was God, that's why'.

My guess is that the biggest factor is simple: like the lottery, somebody’s gotta win. In other words, if any of the others had happened to be made into a deity and set up as the official Roman religion, you could be here asking the same question about them. I think that on top of that, there may be some real reasons. For instance, the connection to Judaism provides some advantages, such as the extreme intolerance of other religions (useful in squashing competitors), and a poster boy who really did say some nice things (like be good to the poor, etc.).

Much of the discussion has reflected on the Gospel of John (or the 4th Gospel, since it doesn’t claim to be by John, and the John idea is a later Catholic tradition). Mentioning P52 isn’t terribly relevant, since P52 (which dates to between 110 and 150) only contains parts of just 5 verses (about 0.06% of the new testament) – so it only shows that John existed then, but not that it wasn’t changed or tampered with later (which Jar wasn’t saying anyway). Similarly, saying that three prominent Catholics revered Catholic scripture in the second century is hardly surprising.

Most importantly, the 4th gospel has so much magic and so many fabrications that is does not appear to be written by someone who was there or even someone familiar with the Palestinian world and the life of Jesus described in the synoptics. This is probably the biggest point against any kind of eyewitness. Whoever wrote the 4th gospel, it wasn’t any who was around Jesus and the disciples. In the 4th Gospel, Jesus never casts out a single demon, talks incessantly about himself, never does anything special with the bread and wine at supper, openly does miracles to prove that he’s the messiah and never even tells a freakin’ parable! The exact opposite is seen in the other gospels. If the other gospels have accurate information about a real Jesus, then it is clear that whoever wrote the 4th gospel can’t be anyone who was around Jesus. The author of the 4th gospel also speaks in Greek, and apparently doesn’t know Aramaic (see Greek word pun in John chap 3 – ask me if interested). How could a disciple not know Aramaic??

The bottom line for me is that we don’t have much of a clue as to who wrote the 4th gospel – but that it appears to be a well-educated, upper class person, far removed from Jesus' life and direct followers by both distance and time, so getting information about the historical Jesus is better done with the synoptics, especially the earliest, Mark.

Plus, it’s clear that whoever wrote the 4th gospel changed quite a bit to fit the religion that he wanted people to believe. In addition to the many differences I mentioned above, he changed little details too, such as moving the temple tantrum to the beginning of the ministry instead of the end, changing the day that Jesus died on (so as to make him into the lamb of god), etc. Thus studying the 4th Gospel does give you good information about what the author of the 4th gospel believed, and about his group of Christians around 100 CE, but not much information about the historical Jesus.

Have a fun day-

Equinox

Edited by Equinox, : removed obsolete subtitle


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Jon, posted 09-23-2007 2:35 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 20 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 37 of 517 (427291)
10-10-2007 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Brian
09-24-2007 4:23 PM



Brian,

Where does it say the Messiah must be a descendent of Solomon?

It seems like we've been through this before, a few years ago.

I'm not going through it again. But to refresh me on your argument what passage says the Messiah must be a descendent of Solomon - OF SOLOMON?

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Brian, posted 09-24-2007 4:23 PM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Rahvin, posted 10-10-2007 10:14 PM jaywill has responded
 Message 40 by Brian, posted 10-11-2007 2:24 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1265 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 38 of 517 (427295)
10-10-2007 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by jaywill
10-10-2007 9:34 PM


Brian,

Where does it say the Messiah must be a descendent of Solomon?

It seems like we've been through this before, a few years ago.

I'm not going through it again. But to refresh me on your argument what passage says the Messiah must be a descendent of Solomon - OF SOLOMON?

As I recall (and this is from memory, so forgive me), he was supposed to be a descendant of David. Since Solomon was David's son, Jesus would have to have been a descendant of Solomon as well.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by jaywill, posted 10-10-2007 9:34 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by jaywill, posted 10-12-2007 10:44 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3100
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 39 of 517 (427441)
10-11-2007 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Hyroglyphx
09-22-2007 6:54 PM


Re: Two reasons for two questions.
Begging your pardon, but how does a fragment that is dated via the style of writing , arbitrarily dated to 135 c.e. (but the methodology has an error factor of +- 100 years ) show that John was written in the first century?

I would like to see the reasoning there. It is quite feasible that the Ryland fragment is even 3rd century, not first , because of the margin of error of the analysis. It COULD be first century too. But, you can't demonstrate it at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-22-2007 6:54 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3038 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 40 of 517 (427460)
10-11-2007 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by jaywill
10-10-2007 9:34 PM


Hi J,

The prophecy can be found specifically in 2 Samuel 7:13.

God spoke to Nathan and told him to pass on a message to King David saying that Yahweh hasn't dwelt in a building since the Exodus and that Yahweh is with David and Israel and will establich a home for them.

Yahweh promises to preserve David's dynasty forever after David dies, God will raise up David's offspring and in particular it will be the offsrping that builds a house for Yahweh whose line will succeed.

As you can see this is supported by 2 Sam 7:13

He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.

Read in context, this reference clearly informs us that it is relating to one person. 'He' will build a house, 'his' kingdom forever. The 'house for my name' is the Temple built by Solomon, and it is Solomon?s kingdom that will be established forever.

That it is Solomon who is chosen by God is further supported by 1 Chronicles 29:1:

Then King David said to the whole assembly: "My son Solomon, the one whom God has chosen, is young and inexperienced The task is great, because this palatial structure is not for man but for the LORD God.

Solomon was chosen to build the Temple, it is Solomon's line that succeeds and Jesus has no line to Solomon, thus Jesus was not the Messiah.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by jaywill, posted 10-10-2007 9:34 PM jaywill has not yet responded

    
Brian
Member (Idle past 3038 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 41 of 517 (427461)
10-11-2007 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by pbee
09-21-2007 6:07 PM


Long before Jesus arrived, the scriptures prophesied the coming of the Messiah.

Could you provide any references from the Hebrew Bible that suggest the messiah would be anything other than a normal everyday human being?

Two outstanding example can be observed when 700 years earlier, a prophet(Micah) foretold that the promised one would originate in the small town of Bethlehem in the land of Judah(Micah 5:2).

Do you have evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Also, are you sure you have read Micah properly?

Micah 5:2

But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

The problem with this passage you have referenced is that it is not referring to a town at all, it is referring to a clan. It is out of this clan that the Messiah will come, so your 'outstanding' fulfillment is based on a misunderstanding.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by pbee, posted 09-21-2007 6:07 PM pbee has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Jon, posted 10-13-2007 3:49 AM Brian has responded

    
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2072 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 42 of 517 (427576)
10-12-2007 2:43 AM


Divine or no?
I apologise, Jon, if this is wandering away from the question posed in Message 1, but I think it relevant to a degree.

One point I have never seen covered apologetically (successfully or otherwise), is the reference by Jesus to the Flood:

Matt 24: 37-39
Luke 17: 26,27

Now, science assures us that there never was a world-wide flood, so can we assume that Jesus:

(a)Was divine, had seen/created (?) the Flood and was telling the truth?
(b)Was divine, knew there was no WW Flood, and was scamming his disciples?
(c)Wasn`t divine, and knew no better than the OT folk-tales?
(d)Never said any such, being a figment of the author?


Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 10-12-2007 5:59 AM Nighttrain has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 43 of 517 (427593)
10-12-2007 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Nighttrain
10-12-2007 2:43 AM


Re: Divine or no?
Yes, those are all posible.

What is your point?

(a)Was divine, had seen/created (?) the Flood and was telling the truth?

Well we know that one is not correct since there was no flood.

(b)Was divine, knew there was no WW Flood, and was scamming his disciples?

That is certainly possible but scamming is a somewhat ridiculous assumption on your part. It is equally likely that all of the parties knew is was an allegorical reference to a well known fable.

(c)Wasn`t divine, and knew no better than the OT folk-tales?

Why would Jesus know anything more than what he had learned during his life? Why, during the period of time that Jesus lived here on earth, would he be anything other than human?

(d)Never said any such, being a figment of the author?

Another of your either silly assertions or poorly worded. Do you mean that the comment was a figment of the author (and this is one of the possible things from the Q source) or that Jesus was a figment of the authors? Certainly both are possible.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Nighttrain, posted 10-12-2007 2:43 AM Nighttrain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Nighttrain, posted 10-12-2007 10:19 PM jar has responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2072 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 44 of 517 (427781)
10-12-2007 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by jar
10-12-2007 5:59 AM


Re: Divine or no?
You get out of the wrong side of the bed this morning, Hairy One? :-p

That is certainly possible but scamming is a somewhat ridiculous assumption on your part. It is equally likely that all of the parties knew is was an allegorical reference to a well known fable.


Kindly point out any references to where the disciples are portrayed as other than incompetent. Hardly any literary talents among them. Any evidence the Jews of that period understood the OT as allegorical in sections?

Why would Jesus know anything more than what he had learned during his life? Why, during the period of time that Jesus lived here on earth, would he be anything other than human?

Know any other humans of the period racking up miracles? That`s the claim.If you`re saying you don`t need divinity to water-walk, pollute piggies, restore a corpse, etc., etc., how come the secret disappeared with Jesus?

Another of your either silly assertions or poorly worded. Do you mean that the comment was a figment of the author (and this is one of the possible things from the Q source) or that Jesus was a figment of the authors? Certainly both are possible

What`s possible? That it`s one of my silly assertions? Or poorly worded?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jar, posted 10-12-2007 5:59 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 10-12-2007 10:26 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded
 Message 74 by GDR, posted 11-02-2007 1:29 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 45 of 517 (427782)
10-12-2007 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Nighttrain
10-12-2007 10:19 PM


Re: Divine or no?
Kindly point out any references to where the disciples are portrayed as other than incompetent. Hardly any literary talents among them. Any evidence the Jews of that period understood the OT as allegorical in sections?

Huh?

What makes you think folk back then didn't take folk tales with a grain of salt?

Know any other humans of the period racking up miracles? That`s the claim.If you`re saying you don`t need divinity to water-walk, pollute piggies, restore a corpse, etc., etc., how come the secret disappeared with Jesus?

Lots of people throughout the Old Testament were performing miracles. And they were certainly simply human. Even in the New Testament Peter walks on water.

What makes you think that the secret disappeared with Jesus?

What`s possible? That it`s one of my silly assertions? Or poorly worded?

Just trying to figure out what it was you were asserting.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Nighttrain, posted 10-12-2007 10:19 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
456
...
35NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019