Divinity of Jesus

The Book of Acts, and the Gospel of Luke, were both anonymous works, this is Sunday School level theology. Some Jews did what, and what supporting evidence can you provide for whatever it is you are claiming? Because..... You don't really know much about Christianity do you? Because....... I hope you put more effort into your essays.You should also read your student handbook, it will tell you how to support your arguments.

Im the happiest and most laid back person you are ever likely to meet.

Which is contrary to what the Bible tells us.

How many humans do you know have no biological father?

Well, since Jesus did not have a biological father, then we can deduce that He was not human. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? So, the Bible informs us that Jesus was not human.

It clearly says he did not have a biological father, which you agreed was a prerequisite for being human.

I asked if you knew of any humans that didnt have a biological father and you said "no".Thus, as Jesus did not have a biological father, then he wasn't human.Do you mean that Jesus was the only human without a biological father?

Jesus would have to be pretty retarded to be unable to join up the dots.Born of a virgin, kills people with a glance, brings people back to life, that whole 40 day thing in the desert with the devil, His predicting that He will rise in 3 days (although this was a fictional prophecy), water into wine, chatting about His Father all the time........Hardly a big leap of faith required.

So what's the difference between:Do you know any humans that didn't have a bio dadandI know no humans that did not have a human dadIt is the same thing. Only if you change the definition of what a human being is.

You are entitled to your own opinion, which is every bit as valid as any theologians. But the things that are claimed for Jesus are not the same as what the Old Testament claims for the Messiah. The virgin birth, for example, is an alien concept to Jews, the messiah would be a simple straightforward human like you or I.But, if we go a bit deeper, there are so many clues to Jesus' divinity that I have great difficulty in imagining that He could see Himself as anything other than divine.His mother was told by Gabriel that Jesus was concieved of the HS, Joseph was told pretty much the same by Gabriel. When Jesus was baptised by John look at what happened: As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."This is certainly not messianic, and God says Jesus is His Son.Then when Jesus was tempted, Satan said "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread." Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" This is not messianic either.And what about when Jesus was exorcising demons, He was recognised by them! " He shouted at the top of his voice, "What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? Swear to God that you won't torture me!" For Jesus had said to him, "Come out of this man, you evil spirit!" There's so many other places where I think it is clear that Jesus was something other than human, if you want more let me know. Infancy Gospel of Thomas 4:1-4 (1) Next, he was going through the village again and a running child bumped his shoulder. Becoming bitter, Jesus said to him, "You will not complete your journey." (2) Immediately, he fell down and died.

​

(3) Then, some of the people who had seen what had happened said, "Where has this child come from so that his every word is a completed deed?"

​

(4) And going to Joseph, the parents of the one who had died found fault with him. They said, "Because you have such a child, you are not allowed to live with us in the village, or at least teach him to bless and not curse. For our children are dead!"

You do know that these things are not proven?Everything you claim that Jesus ACTUALLY DID is taken on faith and does not have a single shred of supporting evidence.For example, how do you know that the Bible is correct when it says Jesus raised Jairus' daughter from the dead?

What evidence do you have to prove that when the Bible claims that Jesus was born in Bethlehem He was ACTUALLY born in Bethlehem?I would appreciate an answer please.

Apparently you have no understanding of what history is. Yes I have, a book that used to be allocated to the fervent St. Paul, but is no longer considered to be written by him. I think you are probably misunderstanding the intention of my post. I am merely pointing out that we do not know for sure ANYTHING that Raphael claims that Jesus ACTUALLY DID. You may have FAITH that He did these things, but to say that He ACTUALLY DID them displays an ignorance of what history is. IOW, the fictional character Yahweh really doesn’t need to do anything, men and women will always invent a means to keep this entity alive, Oh I think mankind has a lot to boast and brag about. This has nothing to do with my questions though.Why do you think the author (s) uses the word ”faith’ so much, is it because they know that there is zero evidence to support God? Did they know that they have to pre-program the believer into this silly position because they knew God is absent in the real world? It really is such a simple question. Raph says Jesus ACTUALLY DID these things and I am asking how does he know the Bible is correct, and his silence speaks volumes. So, do you really think that this is a valid approach to take in regard to historical research?Do you think it is in any way impressive that the only evidence that you have that something in the Bible us true is because the Bible says it is? Is this really a valid argument, and if it is then surely everything in the Qur’an, Veda’s, Dhammapada, and all other scriptures are equally true? If only God loved us as much as He expects us to love Him.Faith and hope are all very nice, but useless as a tool for historical research. I haven’t even mentioned faith, I simply asked how Raph knows Jesus ACTUALLY DID these things, if his answer is by faith then he really doesn’t know if Jesus ACTUALLY DID anything. All he is doing is retelling me something I have heard a million times. Faith is an embarrassing excuse. You don’t know what I have read or what I know about Galatians, Paul, or anything else. You perhaps HOPE that I haven’t, but just because I haven’t arrived at the same conclusions as you have about the Bible, God, and faith doesn’t mean I haven’t studied the Bible. I was asking a simple question from an historical angle, I never mentioned faith, and neither did Raph.If you want to believe that everything in the Bible is true because you have already accepted that it will be true regardless of how silly it is, then you really cannot get upset when someone refuses to accept your word for it. I mean do you accept that the Qur’an is 100% accurate if a Muslim tells you it is? I didn’t demand anything, I asked a simple question, and I even said ”please’. BTW, I really do not ponder for even a second on the possibility that you and your ilk have the slightest interest in anything I say. Which is all fine and dandy, but useless as a method of historical research. If you have faith that people lived to nearly a thousand years of age then it is an embarrassing faith that you have, a faith that calls for unthinking, mindless robots. Well you cannot use Bible evidence to suggest that something in the Bible is true, that’s just silly. Of course, no one would argue with that. But if you are asking someone to believe that something is historically accurate, surely that person is entitled to ask how you arrive at your conclusion?A few months ago in the middle of Falkirk I was stopped by and elderly lady who asked me if I was interested in coming to a church meeting, I said that I was really busy but even as an atheist I still enjoy popping along to church now and then. The elderly lady then had a go at me, trying to ridicule my faith! Of course this got my back up and I asked her why on earth would I want to go along to a meeting about a fairytale character, and she laughed and said there is more evidence in history for Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar (that old chestnut), then I asked her to name one piece of evidence and she said the Gospels, which I reminded her is a circular argument. So I asked for external support, all she said is there are many many sources, but I wouldn’t let it go and I just kept asking her to, “name one”, she kept dodging, so I kept saying “name one”, and she couldn’t. I even asked her to bring out her minister and we could ask him, but she didn’t. Finally I said to her, “look, if you are going to ridicule people’s faith then you really should know a lot more about your own, what effect do you think you have had on the chances of me now going along to your little meeting?” She was correct when she said she didn’t think I would appear, the first thing she was correct about BTW. Now if she had at least supported some of the things she had said I probably would go to one of their meetings. I never ever just say I don’t believe this or that, I always give good reasons why I do or don’t believe something. But my training requires a lot more than simply taking someone’s word for something, I even question some of my old lecturers’ works. John Drane for example, he is a very well respected Christian scholar that I studied under at Stirling. But some of the stuff in a few of his articles is complete bull. So, all I ask of someone is what I would expect them to ask of me, which is only fair. No it doesn’t state ”facts’. It MAY state facts, but to accept something as a FACT just because it is in a book you happened to naively think is an accurate account of everything, does not make it a fact. To some people it may be. That’s fine until you start telling others that they should accept it too. When you tell others that something in the Bible is a fact, then why should they just take your word for it? That’s a pretty poor example mate. I have many other sources that confirm who my parents were. The thing is I CAN provide evidence, you however cannot provide any evidence for old Jesus. Of course I have STRONG evidence. Apart from the fact that I am the spitting image of him, I have eyewitness accounts, which you do not have for Jesus. Also, if I wanted to, I could dig him up and have DNA tests carried out. Why? How could I possibly reference this in a history paper? I would be laughed out of any conference in the world if I had the neck to stand up and say that Jesus ACTUALLY DID everything the Bible said because I have faith in the Bible. Do you really think any of my work would be taken seriously? Who cares about pleasing God? It is about being that automaton, that mindless robot, the state of ignorance that one MUST achieve before they can have faith in a book. The same way that Allah, Brahman, and all the rest of the absent gods have chosen.Why should I take the Bible on faith and not any other collection of holy texts?Why should I take the Bible on FAITH when I know that most of its history has been falsified?If the best argument you have for the Bible being true is the Bible itself then that is mightily unimpressive.Have a nice day.Brian.

This statement is untrue. Everything is a position of faith Ian. My evidence based, external sources based methodology is faith based as well. Faith that my approach is reliable. But you cannot simply make a statement, and absolute statement at that, that something 100% happened in history based on the fact that you think everything in a book is true.Now if Raph had said, "I believe that Jesus ACTUALLY DID these things", then that is fine with me, that is at least intellectually honest. Well, since your premise was false it follows that your conclusion is too.If I said I had a meal with Audrey Hepburn last night you would probably believe me.

And questions? There’s no such thing as infallible historical proof Jay, which was one of the points I was originally making. I had no reason to, but if I did, as a postmodernist, I would have to leave open the possibility that I could have been switched at birth, although this is highly unlikely, it is not impossible.The thing is Jay, as far as history goes, the ”truth’ about the past is really only ”degrees of truth’, we never make absolute claims about something that happened in the past, especially thousands of years ago. This is simply what history is. Not at all. I am perfectly open to the idea that my mum and dad may not have been my real mum and dad, it is not a problem in any way, shape or form for me to do so.In fact, your little scenario regarding my parents is really supporting the point that I am making. So, thanks for that. But, what does God have to do with the events recorded in the Bible?Also, if ”God’ said that, about 4500 years ago, people lived to 969 years of age, do we blindly accept that or do we question it?