Divinity of Jesus

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.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

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.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. 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? 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.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.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. You choose tactics and prove I should trust you over Matthew?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? Why should we trust you?At least Matthew was 2,000 years closer to the events then you.
I am very convinced that there is good evidence that he was the author of the book under his name.Why should we trust you over Matthew?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

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.Anyway, I believe they saw something. And the NT doesn't seem to emphasize it as much as the words, deeds, death, and resurrection of Jesus. I don't know what "we" you are speaking of. But Hugh Ross has documented this history.And I expect that some skeptical website somewhere discounts the record as a fabrication concocted by Christians. I've seen the argument. And it looked typical.Regardless, I find the Evangelists words on the matter authoritative enough. Where is the record from the first century disputing it and maintaining that there was no massacre? If the reign of Herod were fresh in the minds of some older folks around the time of the circulating of Matthew's gospel, and they disputed that no such slaughter occured, where is the contemporaneous denial of it?And I mean contemporaneous not an argument raised 300 or 400 hundred years latter. I find Him there because of the mercy of God to grant me revelation. I find Him there in Genesis chapter one and on in many many places - some rather obscure perhaps but others rather obvious. 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.Jesus sent the disciples out in teams of two. Most likely one was considered more senior and the other more junior."And the names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; and James the son of Zebedee, and JOhn his brother. Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector ...etc. " (Matthew 10:2-3)Mark and Luke listed Matthew before Thomas (Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15), but Matthew, listed Matthew after Thomas. Matthew, the writer of this book, listed himself after Thomas, showing his humility. Probably he was considered the senior of the team. But in his own gospel his humility causes him to list his name after his partner Thomas.Though we are not told that Matthew wrote it I believe this is an indication that "Matthew, the tax collector" wrote Matthew.Higher criticism may have it that Matthew did not write Matthew.
Of course they would also have it that Isaiah didn't write Isaiah and Jermiah didn't write Jeremiah and Ezekiel didn't write Exekiel and Zechariah didn't write Zechariah and Luke didn't write Luke and Mark and John didn't write the books designated after their names and Paul did not write the letters with his salutations.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. 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. I don't think so. And if in the end I find out I was I would have absolutely no regrets. Living with faith in the Son of God is the best possible life I could have lived.I would have changed nothing. There is no better existence I could have had then one of living with faith in the Christ Whom I know and the Bible which led me to Him.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Are you sure?In Paul's day there were fellas like you standing by to contradict the teaching of the New Testament delivered to the apostles. There is nothing new under the sun. The Bible says that their error was quite contagious:But avoid profane, vain babblings, for they will advance to more ungodliness,

​

And their word will spread like GANGRENE, of whom are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who concerning the truth have misaimed, saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and overthrow the faith of some." (2 Tim. 16-18)Paul discribes the contradictory teaching of these First Century Brians and Jars to Paulks to be a wasteing death spreading desease - GANGRENE. Very contagious indeed.What were they doing. They were contradicting the teaching of the apostles and putting their desired spin on the matter of resurrection.Just like you are trying to craft your own version of the book of Acts and the account of Paul's calling to the apostleship of Christ, so they were spinning their ideas too.Essentially, they were teaching people how to disbelieve the gospel of Christ. What are you doing? Teaching people how to disbelieve the New Testament Gospel too.Paul was not at all polite about those busy tearing down the truth of the Gospel. He also wrote: Every word of Jesus Christ spritually healthy and your way of standing by to slander His apostle as a crook and to teach questionings probably demonstrates that you also very well may be:
1.) Blinded with pride
2.) Understanding nothing
3.) Diseased with questionings and contentions of words
4.) Given to envy, strife, slanders, and evil suspicions

​

At least you are continually suspicious that the writers of the Bible are out to deceive you.

​

5.) Corrupted in mind
6.) Given to perpetual wranglings
7.) Deprived of the truth
You're fighting against the Bible's teaching of the Deity of Christ at every step, it seems to me. And yes, such rebellion of unbelief can be infecting and spreading like gangrene.Perhaps you never read about those who themselves would not enter into the kingdom of God and would neither allow others to enter.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The perceived "threat" to Roman politics was not immediately ascertained.When the Christians grew in number in Rome the perceived danger materialized. As far as they were concerned the tension of the CHristians and the Jews was just a religious squabble within the Jewish religion. Big deal. Some of the Ceasars did not appreciate not being thought of as gods themselves. So how can you say that if the Christians regarded Jesus as another God besides the Ceasar they would not be concerned?Even the suggestion that Pilate might be allowing the proclaimation that there was another King besides Ceasar was held up to Pilate as a threat. He caved into the mob and had Jesus crucified.I think you have some revisionist history going on suggesting that the Romans couldn't care less about the cult of Jesus. I suggest that as time progressed gradually intolerance of the Christian church grew to the Romans. I'm kind of wary of Christians who have sold millions of books.So your compliant is that Paul hyped his conversion experience? And you say that the Roman Empire was tolerant towards the "Jesus is a King" cult among the Jews?Very INTERESTING !!Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

What is the single most contradictory thing about his testimony?Don't give me the lesser contradictions. Give me the BIGGEST contradiction you have.I'll reply. What's your most striking case of a contradiction ?

I am no sure what you mean here.However, in a number of places significant events in the move of God to accomplish His eternal purpose were accompanied by confirming events in the natural world. This is one way of God reminding man that creation is for man and man is for God's eternal purpose.Of course modern thought is that man is accidently here in a purposeless and random way. But the Bible's view is the creation if for man its center and humanity if for the eternal purpose of God.At one point the conquest of Canaan under Joshua and his army was accompanied by stones falling from the sky on the enemies. The parting of the Red Sea would be another example. The turning back of the sun dial for Hezekiah would be another example.The point is that sometimes God accompanied a crucial turning point in His economical move with a miraculous and confirming sign in the natural world. Speculation can be more or less accurate at times. 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.Your case would be stonger if you could show that contempory sources protested that there was no such massacre as described under Herod related to a Messiah. 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.Your case would be stronger if you showed that contemporary writings denied this massacre of Herod in relation to a Messiah. It easy to come along 2,000 years latter and with great fanfare say "We know that this never happened."Did anyone in the first or second century protest that it never happened? Look, maybe you'll find something. It was a question. Because since the advent of the Christian church Judaism has been largely concerned with constantly reinforcing its core tenets that Jesus of Nazareth was not the Messiah. So its the Christian's fault that such works did not survive?
The Christians buried the evidence of contradicting Matthew's account?If you don't have evidence that that occured in this case, then its just speculation. They didn't seem to be able to hide or suppress the plethora various other non-canonical writings like the Gospel of Thomas, and Mary, and Peter, and so on which the orthodox find destructive to the biblical faith. Thus such many writing were not declared inspired or canonical.Thse many writing still survive to the glee of conspiracy spinners. I have no religion for you to join. My Christ is a living Person not a religion.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?Or are you just demonstrating that you can come up with at least a plausible alternative explanation to hundreds of items recorded in the New Testament as facts?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.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?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I take the appearing of the star to be a supernatural event. How the mechanics of it worked I do not know. But that it was arranged under the supervision of the Creator on behalf of the incarnation of the Son of God, is how it seems presented in the Bible.I do not know the scientific mechanics of how it happened. I don't think this helps your skeptical analysis that much. It implies that things repeated in all the gospels are more credible.So should we say then that the appearance of the star, because it is mentioned only in Matthew is not to be believed. But the resurrection of Christ from the dead, because repeated in all four gospels, is much more likely to have occured?Anyway, I see God overseeing the writing of His book. And it was under His guidance what was mentioned and how many times. If you look at a cell under a powerful microscope you will notice of course incredible detail of the mechanics of life. I don't think God would be more sloppy in the passing on to us a revelation of His move of salvation as recorded in the Bible.I include God in my reasoning process. I think you exclude the possibility of the presence and power of God in your reasioning process about these things.Now if the resurrection had been mentioned only in Matthew and the star mentioned four times in all four gospels, I would wonder that there was something more important to realize about that star. As it stands God saw fit that one mention of it in Matthew was good enough.It is the difference between regarding the Bible as a religious scap book thrown together willy nilly and a sovereign and wise God overseeing its writing, preservation, and transmission. I believe the latter. This theory doesn't hold up to me. There are too many things recorded in the New Testament, that if it were false propoganda, a sensible propogandist would have NOT included them. Had they wanted to eliminate difficult, embaressing, and suspect material there are plenty things that they could have made sure that they were eliminated from the gospels.For example:1.) Jesus's own brothers not believing in Him
2.) His family thinking that He was mad or beside Himself
3.) He being accused of being a winebibber
4.) He being accused of having a demon
5.) Sayings causing His own disciples to withdraw from Him
6.) Women being the first to witness His resurrection
rather than men
7.) His own disciples being too cowardly to bury Him
8.) His calling the lead disciple "Satan" on one occasion
9.) His crying out "Why have you forsaken Me" to God
10.) Diffiult teachings which practically no one can accept
11.) Some of His own disciples doubting His resurrection
12.) He being accused of socializing with sinners and tax
collectorsThese and other inclusions of the Gospel accounts could have been eliminated because they would be problematic to the cause of the Christian propogandist.The testimony of women was not counted in court for example. Yet the mentioning of the fact that the women and not the men were the first witnesses of the singularly most important aspect of Christ's mission - His resurrection, is telling. It speaks of the candor of the record. Oh, you haven't read? He is the God of eternal encouragement.
Christ is not a religion but a living Person.If I do have some religion in me I know Who to go to to be saved from it, Jesus. What evidence? Your speculations that this or that is more likely to have been the case? Is that your weighty evidence?Instead of accusing me of having a religion you should consider that you are an obsessed person perhaps - obsessed with acculating a lot of speculative "Should have beens" and "More likely thats" and parading it as solid "evidence". I don't see evidence to distort. I see a lot of speculative -"This should have been the case" and "that is more likely" and "certainly it would have been like this" and "only mentioned once so it probably didn't happen".Junk I'm still a work in progress.Doesn't rescue the flimsy skepticism your obsessed with. Self deceived? Maybe. A self deceived writer writing with lucidity about a Person Jesus who seemed to be very soberminded, honest, straight forward, frank, not self serving, absolute for His Father's will to the point of torture and death.This is the theory of a befuddled Matthew writing about a extrememly lucid and soberminded Savior.What other theory do you have? A self righteous and self deceived writer writing about Christ's constant exposure of the hypocrisy of of the self righteous religionists?Not caring? Are you projecting? I think you're the one who couldn't care less about what the Apostle Matthew recorded for us. You're the one who seems to not care that a Son of God was born to be the Savior of the world.Why do you want now to project your apathy onto Matthew? I think that is a loaded question like, "Don't you think it is time you stop beating your wife?"I'm not immoral just because I don't take some of your speculative skepticism hook, line, and sinker. After the event with the star what is the next bone you choke on in Matthew's gospel?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Brian, PaulKThis topic content (as you have presented it) is misplaced in this forum. You should take your talk to Bible Innerancy and Accuracy.What the Bible really means is pretty obvious that the Man Jesus is Divine. If you want to argue that the meaning is otherwise then we have something to talk about here in this room.Do you have reason to believe that the Bible means to teach that Jesus is not divine?I don't know why the Moderators are leniently allowing this discussion under Bible Study (What the does the Bible Really Mean).Anyway, you should be over at Innerancy and Accuracy. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I said it long ago earlier in the discussion. And I just repeated.

No, it is worthless to those who do not receive and experience His divinity.

Most of the rebuttals I have seen are simply speculations that maybe this or that alternative is the case.All I see is a lot of creative proposals that perhaps this or that is what happened.Anyway, its not a matter of Bible interpretation which is the main thing here.I'm traveling and writing from a temporary lodging and don't have a lot of my historical books with me.So laugh harder and while you're at it - cheer up.

You're wrong. And in the context of "What does the Bible REALLY mean" I can prove to you that you're wrong.Now you may not agree as I'm sure you won't. However in terms of what the Bible MEANS to communicate to us, for those who do not receive Christ, His divinity will profit you nothing. ie. what He is will be worthless to you.That is an important part to the Bible's message.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Do you have any more than skepto-babble to prove that the Bible really means that Jesus was NOT divine?I thought not.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Apparently, you have no understanding of God's ways.Have you ever read the 11th chapter of the book of Hebrews? You seem to regard "faith" as some poor second-best means that man is left with to know about rather questionable and shady things supposedly done by God.God has chosen the means of faith for men and women to substantiate Him. Perhaps, He has done so so as to leave mankind with nothing to boast and brag about. But from Genesis to Revelation God has chosen the means of faith plus His own faithfulness to cause His eternal purpose to move forward for this age.Faith leaves you and I with nothing to boast about.Why don't you read through the 11th chapter of the book of Hebrews and count the number of times the author writes "BY FAITH ..."How many times does the writer emphasize that it is by faith a certain patriarch or believer accomplished this or that?How does God say Christ makes His home in our hearts? It is by faith -"That Christ may make His home in your hearts by faith ..." (Ephesians 3:17)The means that God has adopted to infuse His Spirit into the hearts and lives of people is "by faith".You think you really have a strong humanistic case debating here "How do you know this. What is your evidence that Jesus did that?" What is your evidence the Jesus said this or that? What is your evidence that Jesus was this or that?"Haven't you read? "Now there abide faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love." (1 Cor. 13:1)Three great God inspired virtues Paul places in importance. One of them is faith - faith, hope, love. He did not say science, mathematics, love. He said faith, hope, love.You err greatly by seeking to trivialize faith. You err in thinking that because God can do NO BETTER, subsequently we are left with this POOR and SICKLY means of FAITH to approach Him. Faith to God is rich. Faith to God is precious. Faith leaves you with nothing to point to yourself to in a bragging and proud way.Faith is humbling. Faith invites the mocking of the unbelievers.YOu have never read in Galatians how Paul elaborated on the mocking of Ishmael against Isaac. Faith was mocked. Faith was ridiculed. You essentially are doing the same work here.And there is another thing. Throughout the history of God's dealing with man, man's presumption or false faith is contrasted against true God inspired faith. It is not that EVERYTHING man believes is exceptable to God. The Golden Calf does not replace the need for the Hebrews to wait patiently in FAITH for the return of Moses.The shouting of the Hebrews so loud because they had the ark of the covenant could not replace the FAITH which inspired godly living. The ark was captured because they did not excercise true faith. The temple was destroyed because they did not excercise obedient faith. The nation was captured and carried away to Babylon because they were faithless.The point is here that not all presumption of any and everything was acceptable to God. Genuine and true faith in His word was acceptable.A third thing: Man's faith is only one half of the equation. On the other side is the FAITHFULNESS of God. It was not man's faith in a vacuum. It is man's faith plus the faithfulness of God.Christ excercised FAITH to obey His Father even unto the death on a cross. The FAITHFULNESS of His Father caused Him to rise from the dead.So coming off smugly demanding evidence for this and for that is not as impressive to some of us as you think. We have faith in God's word. We have faith in the faithfulness of God's word.Sure we have biblical evidence and even in many cases extra biblical evidence for things written in the Bible. But you can always say "Neither do I believe this. Neither do I believe that."The New Testament does not beg you to believe this or that. It states the facts in a matter of fact manner. The simplicity is impressive. It tells you that it is telling you so that you would believe. Either you believe or you don't.Do you KNOW that your father and mother are really your parents? You trust your father when he tells you that he is your father? Do you KNOW that or do you TRUST him on that?Did you ever get a DNA analysis done so as to be certain that he really is your father? Why not? Where is your evidence that he is really your father? How do you know that the nurses and the doctors did not lie on your birth certificate? Where are the results of your DNA analysis proving that your dad is really your father?What witnesses have you examined to provide proof that so and so doctor REALLY delivered you from the woman who CLAIMS to be your mother? Did you have a scientific analysis done to verify that she really is your mother?How do you know that your evidence for being their child has not been tampered with?They could be deceived. They could have lied. They could have taken the wrong baby from the hospital. You don't really have strong evidence that your dad is REALLY your dad.I wish before you continue on this proud examination of evidence of Jesus doing this or that, that you would read about FAITH in the book of Hebrews.Without faith it is impossible to be well pleasing to God. And obviously, in the Bible faith is not presumption and is not believing WHATEVER you want to believe.What you regard as a poor way, a not adaquate way, a second hand and illigitimate way, is the way that God has chosen to manifest His truth to us.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.