Divinity of Jesus

Unlike the others here I am going to try to answer the question.Any answer has to be speculative because we have very little trustworthy information form the critical time period. We must deal with the implications of the surviving works more than their contents.In my view Jesus put himself forward as the Messiah. Clearly he failed. He did not reestablish the Davidic kingdom - the Romans caught him and killed him as a rebel. A hard core of his movement refused to accept the destruction of their hopes. They clung to the idea that Jesus was still alive in some way. Maybe they thought they "saw" him as more recently people have "see" Elvis after his death. Maybe they had dreams or even visions of the dead Jesus. But the idea grew that Jesus would return and fulfil the prophecies he had failed to fulfil in life. It is likely at this point that they began to identify Jesus with Daniel's "Son of Man" (who appears to be an angelic or even divine figure).Paul took it further. He hadn't met Jesus, all he had was a vision. And his idea of Christianity (then a Jewish sect) was at odds with that of the disciples. Paul says very little about Jesus' life or even his teachings in life. He is almost entirely focussed on the Jesus of his visions.Paul also took his teachings to the gentiles. The gentiles would be more receptive to the idea of God having a literal son. Ideas that Jews would take as metaphorical could be taken literally among the gentile community which came to dominate Christianity.I am not sure, however, that that is what John had in mind. John's idea of the Logos seems to be based on the Jewish concept of Sophia ("Wisdom"). The different name may be simply because Sophia is conceived as as feminine.From Proverbs 8 Thus the deified Jesus may be seen as a co-option of the Jewish Sophia, seen through a lens of pagan belief in demigods and heroes.

quote:

---

God restored his kingdom in an untypical way.

---

Not doing it is hardly "doing it in an untypical way". There is no restored kingdom of Israel. Israel was only reestablished as a state 60 years ago and Jesus had nothing to do with it and is not recognised as even a constitutional monarch.

quote:

---

He set up the kingdom in the hands of Jesus, who, when he was a man on earth, was a descendant of King David.

---

Jesus probably WASN'T a descendant of David, and isn't King of Israel. He STILL hasn't fulfilled the real Messianic prophecies.

quote:

---

Additionally, since Christ is no longer a man and now resurrected to a spirit life, God set up the kingdom of this Descendant of King David in what is called the heavenly Jerusalem(Matthew 1:1) (1 Peter 3:18) (Hebrews 12:22). That is why the birth of the Messianic kingdom in 1914 CE. was not visible to the political rulers. Yet the birth was on time, and the effects were felt in both in heaven and on earth.

---

So you're a Jehovah's Witness. Well thanks for demonstrating my point. People make up all sorts of excuses to deal with failed prophecies. So my hypothesis that some of Jesus' followers did the same thing rather than admit to the failure of they're Faith is shown to be reasonable and in line with human nature. Arguing that the prophecies were fulfilled in a way that NOBODY COULD NOTICE is exactly the sort of ploy that the disciples might have used.

quote:

---

Describing Paul's encounter as "all he had" is a pretty pathetic attempt at downplaying the events which took place on the road to Damascus.

---

If he wanted to argue against the words of people who actually knew Jesus in life it isn't much. I'm not downplaying it. I'm pointing out the fact that it isn't as good as actually knowing Jesus in life. Not if he wants to claim authority for his teachings.Now if you want pathetic your attempt to claim that Jesus is King of Israel only nobody can actually see it. is as pathetic as it gets.

quote:

---

Don't get mad but the scriptures say otherwise.

---

Don't get mad, but they don't. The Kingdom of Israel is gone. The Lost Tribes are gone. THe messianic prophecies remain unfulfilled.

quote:

---

*Probably doesn't cut it.

---

Probably is a lot better "probably not" which is what you have. I guess in our world "probably false" means "definitely true".

quote:

---

Please don't patronize me such sore attempts at religious discrimination. You 'll do fine keeping such things to yourself. The world is filled with religious enterprises and followers who each and all believe they are the ones(just as do). In short, try not to be petty and let your emotions get the best of you. Your beliefs are of your own, and I for one have no interest in convincing you otherwise.

---

So telling the truth about your religion is "discrimination" now ? The fact that your religion has a long record of failed prophecies is something that everyone should "keep to themselves" ? I am sorry that you find the truth offensive but I'm afraid that that is your problem. If you want a forum where facts embarrassing to the Jehovah's Witnesses are censored you'll have to stick to JW-controlled fora.

quote:

---

Despite your attempts to try and gain some sort of authority, I do not have a religion or motives. Nor have I ever served under any religious enterprise or label. So your own your own with your childish endeavors.

---

MY attempts to gain authority ? You're the one demanding censorship. I'm just telliing you that you can't have it.And I'd say that your explicit endorsement of JW doctrine as well as your use of slander to try to silence criticism of the JWs clearly indicates that you are a Jehovah's Witness. So denying that you have a religion is not exactly convincing.As for childishness you;re the one throwing a fit and storming off because he can't have his way.

quote:

---

No... What I don't like is being discriminated by religious fanatics who make it a practice to gain ground by categorizing others based on scriptural reasoning.

---

Since that isn't what is happening here I don't know what you're complaining about. So far as I can see the only religious fanatic here is you.

quote:

---

I happen to believe that religions are discriminatory enterprises that have ruined the pure worship of God. And I take offense to anyone trying to categorize me as such.

---

That doesn't change the fact that the whole 1914 prophecy is Jehovah's Witness doctrine. No other group believes it.

quote:

---

You're abilities to identify people is about as accurate as your interpretations of the scriptures.

---

It seems to be rather better than your ability to identify religious discrimination.

quote:

---

If you want to continue on such behavior, I will file a complaint with the forum moderators.

---

Good luck getting Percy to believe your false and baseless accusations. You'll need it. If I wasn't involved in this conversation I'd suspend you myself for your atrocious behaviour.

In deference to the moderator request I will not produce a point by point rebuttal of your latest post.Instead I simply ask that you retract all your false accusations and apologise.As the victim of your emotional rants and your repeated false accusations I feel the right to at least that much.(I'll add that my Message 6 is so far one of only two attempts to address the issue raised by the OP. The other is Jar's Message 19. At the time of writing, nobody else can claim to have contibuted anything of consequence).Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Why is it significant that the beliefs of fictional scholars agree with those of the author that created them ?

quote:

---

Why is it significant that the unsupported assertion be declared by the wishful thinking of some skeptic?

---

Not exactly grammatical Or sensible. Skeptics don't rely on wishful thinking.In fact there are excellent reasons to think that Nativity account in Matthew is largely fiction.The events we are interested in - the star, the wise men, the Massacre of the Innocents, the flight to Egypt are not corroborated anywhere else. Not even elsewhere in the Bible. Indeed the authors of Luke and Matthew seem to be completely unaware of each other's Nativity story. They do not fit easily together and the historical markers place the account in Luke - which include Jesus' birth about ten years AFTER the events in Matthew.That is enough to raise suspicion. But there is more the events in Matthew are the sort of inventions we would expect to see. The Massacre of the Innocents is a common theme of legend (and such a story seems to have been added to the biography of Augustus, too - to name an example form the same period). Equally some of Matthew seems to be designed to support the use - or abuse - of scripture. The obvious reason why Egypt - rather than Syria - is the refuge of Joseph and Mary, for instance. And Matthew is the gospel most likely to contain such additions.All that considered it seems that the onus is on the believer to show that the events are real.

quote:

---

Yes they do. There are things which they want to believe and don't want to believe.

---

No, because that would be contradictory.

quote:

---

ou're changing the subject now.

​

What the poster said was that the "scholars" were fictional. In other words that there were in Jerusalem schooled and trained men of letters who were diligent students of the Hebrew Bible and other sacred writings, were "fictional" people and didn't really exist.

---

No, I'm not. I referred to the specific scholars who are supposed to have said that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem - in the Gospel of Matthew. I certainly did not assert that there were no scholars in Jerusalem at the time Jesus was born !

quote:

---

This Forum is on What Does the Bible Really Mean.

---

In that case your original point should be equally valid even if the scholars were fictional - since what the Bible says is independent of whether it is fact or fiction.

quote:

---

I don't think there is corroborating evidence that Socrates ever lived except for the testimony of Plato. So I wonder if you apply the same amount of rigorous insistence of other corroborating evidence to other key figures in history.

---

And you are wrong since other contemporaries (such as the playwright Aristophanes) also mention Socrates. But even if you were wrong we could justifiably be more skeptical of stories of events that supposedly happened in his life than in the idea that there Socrates lived. (Augustus certainly did exist, yet I reject the story about the omens surrounding his birth and the idea that the Senate aonsidered ordering the deaths of all born in that year)..

quote:

---

Absence of the corroborating evidence (if that is really the case) would not in and of itself prove that the events told did not take place.

---

Even so, when the story is not even mentioned elsewhere in the Bible, when we might expect the star or the Massacre or even the "wise men" to have been mentioned in non-Biblical sources it is a significant point against taking the story as fact. Even if there were no other reasons to question it - and in this case we do have those reasons.

quote:

---

But the individual nature of the accounts by Luke and Matthew could also be an indication that collaboration and conspiracy did not take place.

---

Nobody alleges such conspiracy and collaboration.

quote:

---

Suspicions that you perhaps had before you even considered comparison.

​

You may have had suspicions as the telling of the birth of the Son of God period, to begin with. Then it could be a matter of suspicions in search of rationals.

---

And you would be wrong. As if I would need an ulteriror motive for telling the truth anyway !

quote:

---

It seems that every one else is incompetent to be trusted to relay the history of a significant event.

​

Because this account was written a long time ago are we to assume that of course people were not capable or honest to record events accurately?

---

You will note that nowhere did I make any reference to the age of the account or suggest that had anything to do with the accuracy. If modern Christians show such a cavalier disregard for the truth as you do, then why should we expect ancient Christians to be any better ?

quote:

---

When the story is not mentioned elsewhere? What rule do you derive that any story in the Bible must be repeated in more than one place? Whose rule is that?

---

Apparently it is yours because I didn't say any such thing. Do you really think this continuing use of misrepresentation on your part really helps your case ?To start with it is not just the Bible, but all other sources covering the period that fail to provide corroboration. And important events in Jesus life might expect to be mentioned in more than one book of the Bible - the more so if they "fulfil" scripture. Yet not even the other Gospels show that their authors has any awareness of this story. Surely given this it must be a distinct possiblity that the story was simply invented by the author of Matthew. An anonymous man, likely writing more than 70 years after the event who gives no sources as even an ancient historian might.

quote:

---

I do believe that astronomical records of ancient times do include the mentioning of this star. But I am not current on that as I heard it in a planeterium discussion years ago.

---

THere are astrological events that MIGHT have been taken as indicating the birth of someone important but that is all that I have heard of. THe star resting above the place Jesus lay, though ? Nothing there.

quote:

---

Though the exact event is spoken of in Matthew alone events the wrathful jealousy of a king over any threat to his domain is not surprising.

---

When it goes as far as mass murder of children - among his own people! - it is far more likely legend. Similar stories abound. Actual events of this sort seem rarer. (I can't think of one)

quote:

---

Balaam was a Gentile prophet in the book of Numbers. Some students believe that Balaam's prophecy furnished the backround for the Messiah being recognized by the star. A star arising out of Jacob.

---

And that would be another case of the author of Matthew deriving his story from scripture - taken out of context.

quote:

---

You're free to question it all you want. And I am free to question you and your skepticism, its motives and agenda.

​

I am free to question why I should trust you over Matthew.

---

Yes, you are permitted to use dishonest tactics. That you should use this freedom reflects badly on you, however. And on your religion - "by their fruit you shall know them".And of course the real question here is why should WE trust Matthew - as is required for the point under dispute.

quote:

---

"[T]hose reasons to question it," include the lack of the mentioning of the story in other places in the Bible.

---

Obviously it is not - if you actually read what I wrote. Which seems to be something you have trouble doing.Which renders the rest of your post redundant.

quote:

---

So you're saying that "those reasons" do NOT include the singular mentioning of the star in Matthew?

​

I think a Yes or No should do it.

---

I guess it must be true. Christianity really does destroy the ability to read.But I will repeat the point to be very clear - at least to those capable of honest reading. The reasons other than a lack of corroborration for unlikely events events that we should expect to be mentioned elsewhere do not include the singular mention of the star in Matthew.

quote:

---

I did not mean that the same significance was placed on the star in terms of signifying the coming of the Son of God. I only said that I heard in a planeterium talk about a possible nova, or bright star being recorded at that time.

---

Which would not miraculously stand over Bethlehem.

quote:

---

It is similar to the mentioning of the day growing dark on the day of Christ's crucifixion. That darkness was recorded. The same significance was not written about it, only that it happened and that it could not have been a solar eclipse.

---

So far as we can tell, that is only mentioned in the Bible. No other source recorded it, that we know.

quote:

---

I'm sure you have read about Stalin. He was paranoid to the nth degree and murdered millions of his own people. Would you count Joseph Stalin's murders as a legend?

---

Of course not BECAUSE WE HAVE RECORDS. Yet if people referred to an unrecorded massacre by Stalin supposedly intneded to kill a single child then I WOULD count that as a legend. You're trying to compare apples with oranges here.

quote:

---

Matthew said nothing about Balaam or the book of Numbers. I only speculated that the Gentile prophet may have furnished the belief that the star of Jacob was significant to some Gentiles about the nation of Israel.

---

Or it could have suggested the idea that there had been a star to early Christians. Let me also add that your speculation is not evidence.

quote:

---

We do not know how or what they read or figured out about the appearing of the star. They seemed to know that in Jerusalem someone should be able to tell them.

---

Since we do not know that those events were real, we do NOT know any such thing.

quote:

---

And if you didn't realize it, Christ is the center of the divine revelation of the Bible. So when you speak of "context" I would say that the stories of the Old Testament are leading up to and related to Christ who is the spiritual center of the Bible. The book is about Christ.

---

I happen to know that that isn't true. If you actually read the Bible you will only "find" Jesus in the OT by assuming that he's there.

quote:

---

You choose tactics and prove I should trust you over Matthew?

---

No - YOU choose tactics.

quote:

---

Who are you? Matthew was one of the twelve disciples. Why should I trust that he needs to sit at your feet and get clarification on the record about Jesus?

---

The author of the Gospel of Mathew is anonymous and almost certainly was NOT the disciple Matthew. Nor am I claiming to be an independant souce on Jesus life. Rather I propose an HONEST evaluation of the evidence we have. And that seems to be the problem - you just don't like honesty.

quote:

---

Why should we trust you?

---

Because I am honest and because I know what I am talking about. Because you cannot answer my arguments honestly, always seeking to twist and misrepresent. Implicitly admitting that you know that what I say is true.

quote:

---

I am very convinced that there is good evidence that he was the author of the book under his name.

---

You may be "very convinced" but it is certainly not true.

quote:

---

You don't know that such an unusual phenomenon could not be witnessed. Why would not an unusual event accompany an unusual Person? That was the whole point. Something extraordinary was taking place.

---

Perhaps you would like to try answering my actual point. There is no point in attempting to link a miraculous star to astronomical phenomena because - by definition - they will not fit.

quote:

---

I don't know what "we" you are speaking of. But Hugh Ross has documented this history.

---

All Hugh Ross can do is speculate. He doesn't know when Jesus was born so he can do no more.

quote:

---

Where is the record from the first century disputing it and maintaining that there was no massacre?

---

Why would there be one ? Herod was an unpleasant memory even to the Jews by the time the Gospel of Matthew was even written. Why should those Jews aware of the Gospel choose to disputre that point ? And if they had what makes you think that their views would ahve survived ? Christians were not keen to preserve works critical of their religion. The massacre itself - if it had happene d- would be much more likelly to leave records.

quote:

---

True that he is anonymous. But when the list of 12 disciples is mentioned the order is different in Matthew than in the other gospels.

---

Not exactly a strong argument. Fortunately since you beleive that any disputes with the document swoudl ahve survived to reach us, you must have a first century source testifying to the authorship. If that is you are being consistent. But then you aren't, are you ?

quote:

---

It all amounts to a huge conspiracy theory which requires more "faith" to believed occured than to just believe what is written in the Bible.

---

That's complete nonsense. There is no conspiracy involved at all. Authors adding to the works of others, writing in the names of others, people attempting to identify the authorship of doucuments - and relying on wishful thinking more than evidence. But no conspiracy.

quote:

---

I appreciate honesty. I just am more impressed with the character of Matthew than with yours. And I think that you are not telling me a lot about the writing of the Bible actually. I think you are telling me a lot about the unbelieving strivings of your own soul.

---

Well you're wrong. I don't feel the slightest urge to join your religion. Why would I want to be like you - prejudiced to the point where I cannot even read the views of those who reveal truths I don't like ?

quote:

---

I am no sure what you mean here.

---

It's simple. No natural event fits the description, therefore references to natural events cannot confirm that the description is factual.

quote:

---

There might be one. If ancient people as intelligent as you and as concerned as you with "debunking" the gospel as you apparently are, then maybe they protested to "false propoganda" circulating in the gospel of Matthew.

---

It is STILL less likely than that there would be a confirming record IF the massacre had actually happened.

quote:

---

That's my point. If the Jews as concerned with you with the "accurate telling of the history of Jesus" (so to speak) wanted to correct misinformation, here was a good opportunity to do so.

---

Actually a very bad one,, since it deals with events referred to in only one Gospel, events that would have happened a long time before Jews were even aware of that Gospel and concerning a ruler whoxsse memory they had no wish to defend.

quote:

---

So its the Christian's fault that such works did not survive?
The Christians buried the evidence of contradicting Matthew's account?

---

If there had been usch works then is is unlikely that they owuld have been preserved. Works confirming the massacre would be more likely to survive because Christians would prefer those. You do know that our knowledge of some of the major criticisms of Christianity is limited to Christian responses to those works ?

quote:

---

I have no religion for you to join. My Christ is a living Person not a religion.

---

If you can't even admit the fact that you have a religion, then what hope is there for you ?

quote:

---

So then you know it to be true that Saul of Tarsus was in fact not a zealous persecutor of the disciples of Jesus? So then you know it to be true that Herod did not kill three year old boys in an attempt to murder Jesus? You know it to be true that these things never happened?

---

I have said nothging about Saul of Tarsus. About the alleged Massacre the weight of evidence indicates that it is a fiction. You can't answer that evidence and so you resort ot distortion, misrepresentation and double standards.

quote:

---

The writer of the book of Matthew displays a concern that Christians would have the highest morality in the world. The writer of the book of Matthew highights the most difficult teachings of Christ in terms of the morality and behavior.

---

Then your conduct here must be all the more disappointing.

quote:

---

If the author of Matthew was so focused on this impossibly high level of morality taught by Jesus, ie. loving one's enemies, turning the other cheek, not even looking at a woman to lust after her, not being murderous even in the anger of the heart, not being a hypocrit, etc. etc., then how is it that he found it so easy to tell us a lie about the birth of Jesus?

---

Maybe because he believed his fiction. Or because he was so self-righteous he didn't care. Either is plausible. Tell me, do you beleive all the many falsehoods that you have produced in this thread ? Do you really beleive that your behaviour here has been honest ? Either answer damns your argument.