fulfilled prophecy - specific examples.

quote:

---

If you in dispair with crocodile tears say " Pitty, pitty, we'll NEVER know what Jesus said. Alas ... the loss! " then that will be impossible to demonstrate.

---

That happens to be true - at least on the word-for-word level. But of course if you understood the issues you would know that isn't the all-purpose answer that you pretend that it is. As I said earlier you need to show that the alleged prediction preceded the alleged fulfillment. So if you were really looking for a good example from the Gospels you'd look for a prediction fulfilled AFTER the Gospels were written. Not one that was supposedly fulfilled decades before !

quote:

---

You're wild imaginative conspiracy theory that John either dishonestly or in a drunken state of self deception went back and fabricated a meaning to the words of Jesus - suggests to me that the example is a good one, judging from all the tricks you had to use to discount it.

---

The fact that you need to rely on such fantasies to "answer" my points only proves that you can't do it. I'm not even proposing that John was as bad as you ! Are you going to tell me that it is impossible that you exist now ?

quote:

---

"He never said it.... If He did say it, He meant something else. John hoodwinked us into believing he meant this other thing. See? No fulfilled prophecy."

---

We've got no reason to suppose that it was reported accurately. After all John was likely written 60 years after events. You can't even manage to accurately follow the thread of this conversation. And you've already admitted that the disciples would reassess what Jesus had said after the crucifixion - you called that an "obvious FACT".And just how difficult is it to "hoodwink" somebody who uncritically believes everything you write ?So really I am not proposing anything complicated or unlikely or any sort of conspiracy. You don't need a vast conspiracy to produce YOUR posts, do you ?

quote:

---

However, in the development of the New Testament canon there is sufficent evidence that quite a deliberate effort was exerted to authenticate the genuine writings about Christ

---

The author of Luke says that he made such an effort. Just like you say that you read my posts quite carefully. Not exactly sufficient evidence. And he didn't - for instance - identify his sources. Not that they could have provided him with word-for-word accuracy anyway.

quote:

---

The apostles deligently acted as watch dogs over false teachings that might be circulating. Peter deligently assured his audience on the grounds of him being an eyewitness and that they were getting authentic testimony and teaching about Jesus:

---

Or rather whoever wrote 1 Peter was thoroughly opposed to those who didn't follow the party line - which need not be the truth. And since it's very unlikely that the author was Peter it's also very unlikely that the author was an eyewitness.It's also questionable whether the apostle John wrote anything. There's evidence that he was martyred before the Gospel of John was written. And again this John simply insists that others should agree with the doctrine he believed - which need not be the truth.

quote:

---

The writings of New Testament apostles were collected along witht the Old Testament Scriptures. The eyewitness Peter recommended that such attention should be given to the letters of the Apostle Paul:

---

Given that there are NO authenticated writings from Peter you really should't be asserting that as a fact !

quote:

---

We see evidence that latter NT books quoted earlier NT books as Scripture. Paul quoted Luke as Scripture:

---

Luke is LATER than Paul's wriitngs, not earlier.

quote:

---

Jude quoted the Apostle Peter (Compare Jude 17 and 2 Peter 3:2). And it is evident also how careful Jude was to teach the same things as were taught by Peter.

---

It's far more likely that the author of 2 Peter - who was not the apostle - quoted Jude. Jude also used Enoch and the Assumption of Moses as sources.

quote:

---

Luke assumed that Theophilus possessed his first book as a former account:

---

LOL ! Are you familiar with Luke 1:3 ? I don't think so !

quote:

---

There are many other evidences that the apostles were deligent to preserve the authentic teachings of Christ. Paul's warnings are numerous. His instructions to His junior co-workers Timothy and Titus were filled with vigilance that the ministry would not be corrupted by mistakes in behavior or in instruction.

---

Are all of them as worthless as the ones you chose to use ? TImothy and Titus are two more books widely accpeted as pseudonymous, likely written decades after Paul died.

quote:

---

The above explanation gives us rise that John did report accurately. The alledged sloppiness over which you WISH the early church allowed the authentic teachings of Jesus to be corrupted is just that, your wishful thinking.

---

Unfortunately the wishful thinking is on your side. Like the idea that the apostle Peter wrote 1 Peter ! No, you've got nothing solid.

quote:

---

In writing his Gospel of John John recalls that Jesus spoke of the destroying of the temple and its being raised by Him in three days. Now it has more impact upon him that Jesus was speaking of the temple of His body. I cannot insist that Jesus TOLD them that at that time. That I cannot prove.

---

So it likely WAS a reinterpretation, just as I said. And you admit that you can't make a case against it. So it wasn't some crazy fantasy of a conspiracy theory after all. Hah!

quote:

---

Lastly, in this post, I would offer further evidence that John had it right. That is the speech of Stephen before he was stoned to death.

---

Then why didn't you ?

quote:

---

This shows not only Stephen's grasp of God's heart in the Hebrew Bible but also his understanding of the mission of Jesus. Jesus was the MAN in WHOM the Most High God was pleased to live as His habitation. In this Son of God the Old Testament God had His habitation and rest.

---

Even if we assume that Stephen made that speech (likely he didn't) he said no such thing.

quote:

---

I think it is unlikely that John decided to push his own original ideas and fabricated a meaning which he then dishonestly attributed to his Master.

---

Of course we don't know that the apostle John wrote anything. And if he did then it seems unlikely that his ideas would not have developed in the 60 years or more. ANd let us note, for instance, that the Gosepl of John disagrees with the Synoptics - for instance denying that the Last Supper was a Passover meal. You would think that THAT is something that would be remembered accurately ! Or need we point out the disagreement between the Gospels over Jesus last words. Wouldn't that be something to be remembered ?

quote:

---

Lastly, I think that it is BELIEVABLE that a Person like Jesus Christ would perform deeds which matched the moral power of His teachings. Had any other typical human being said to have come back from death on his or her own, I would be more skeptical of course.

---

Jesus' moral teachings aren't that great. And I don't remember Gandhi coming back from he dead after HE was assassinated. Have you got even one proven case of a moral teacher being killed and resurrected ? I doubt it. I am all but certain that you are just making an excuse to believe - in the same way you make excuses to disbelieve

quote:

---

Now, we have had a stong contention between us. Anything I said which crossed over into a personal attack I apologize for. But I very much have to stand by my example.

---

Then you shouldn't be apologising to me. You should be apologising to Jesus.

quote:

---

Had he done so it is questionable that you would have accepted it as truthful.

---

Whether I would believe it or not it is a fact that he did not do so and that is the important point.

quote:

---

Sometimes even "the party line" can be true.

---

And sometimes it can be an outright lie. The point remains that enforcement of a party line is not the same thing as a care for the truth (something notably absent from your posts).

quote:

---

I have no doubts abut Peter writing the epistle under his name. The brothers in those days did things together. He may have had assistance from someone who wrote very well in Greek.

---

Many modern Bible scholars would disagree with you. There are good reasons for doubt.

quote:

---

Its questionable that your sources know what their talking about.

​

Its questionable that you are even capable of thinking outside the box of your own party line.

---

You may question the truth all you like. But it won't make it any less true.

quote:

---

Its questionable that all New Testament scholars agree with that statement.

---

Any honest one - whatever their own views - would have to agree that there are serious doubts about the auhtorship.

quote:

---

It is questionable that you know that.

​

The gospel of Luke was written around A.D. 60 before the book of Acts was written (Acts 1:1)

---

That is a VERY early date for Luke - a more usual date would be around 80 AD. And I've already pointed to evidence that supports a date after 70 AD in this thread ! The genuine Pauline Epistles are dated in the range 50-60 AD, so even your 60 AD date isn't early enough to support your point.

quote:

---

The First Timothy was written approximately A.D. 65, after Paul's first imprisonment. That makes First Timothy written after the gospel of Luke.

---

More likely after 100 AD (the usual range is 100-150 AD)

quote:

---

That's questionable too.

---

But still more likely than your preferred idea.

quote:

---

Paul quoted pagan poets too. The quotation of an Apachryphal book doesn't prove that Peter didn't write it.

---

So now you're saying that Peter wrote Jude. However the point is that Jude used books that you do not accept as reliable. So where is this care that you were talking about ?

quote:

---

I know Luke 1:3.

---

Really ? Then why did you say the Luke ASSUMED that Theophilus had a copy of his Gospel. Luke 1:3 tells us that Luke had no need to ASSUME any such thing !

quote:

---

It is questionable that your sources have accurate information on that.

---

It's the mainstream view of Bible scholars. SO either you can admit that you are wrong or retreat to the position that we don't have accurate information on the authorship. Which hurts your position more than mine.

quote:

---

Here are some of the ancient scholars who we know accepted it as an authentic letter of Peter:

---

Modern scholars have more developed methods. And the earliest scholar you mention was not born at the time it was written. Even the mainstream view puts it at no later than 110 AD.

quote:

---

Please tell me who during the first four centries AD named First Peter as not an authentic letter from the Apostle Peter.

---

Just as other pseudonymous Epistles were accepted into the Bible ? Hardly a good argument. [quote] No what seems likely is that had someone told you the gospel in the first century it would take 60 years to even consider that it was true. [quote] No Bible scholar would agree with your idea that John does not display a distinctive theology !

quote:

---

I am not sure what you intend by saying "a Passover meal".

---

Perhaps you could try the obvious meaning. The meal Jews partake in to celebrate the Passover. As the Bible tells them to.

quote:

---

Not really. Someone standing afar of may have heard the "last words" because they were spoken loudly. Someone standing quite a bit closer to the dying man might have recorded "last words" spoken in a softer manner which the person at a distance didn't pick up.

---

In other words all their "careful checks" missed things.

quote:

---

It is questionable that you can draw any strong conclusion of the non-authenticity of the Gospels based on divergent testimony concerning what Jesus said while on the cross for six hours.

---

Just how many times did Jesus die in those six hours ? Look, the words Jesus spoke just before he did must have been said JUST BEFORE HE DIED.

quote:

---

So Jesus was a moral teacher ?

​

How do you know if you think His words are lost forever from being recovered?

---

Again you miss the point. You assert that great moral teachers are - for some reason you won't say - likely to be resurrected. So do you havce any proven examples of this happening ? Or is it just some crazy idea you've come uip with because you don't have anything better ?

quote:

---

That night in the privacy of my home it was just Jesus, and me. It was just the Holy Spirit of God and me. He received me without demanding that I master all these subjects listed above.
He received me "Just As I Am" as the hymn says.

---

Of course I have no more reason to consider your religious expereince as any more meaningful than the religious experiences of others who take quite different views.Better to judge your religion by its fruit. And in you I see something quite rotten.

quote:

---

One more dying liar like yourself, with an anti-supernatural bias won't make much difference to the triumph of the truth.

---

In this discussion you've been caught time and again in obvious misrepresentations and fabrications. This last piece of unwarranted and baseless nastiness just confirms what I said.

quote:

---

I fabricated nothing.

---

False. To refer to just one - repeated - example your assertion that I was proposing a "conspiracy theory" was a complete fabrication with no basis in fact.The rest of your post just proves my point - again.

quote:

---

1.) Maybe Jesus didn't make the statement.

​

But it is written there by some liar or crazy person making up myths ( I guess ).
Who wrote John's Gospel to deceive us? What did he get out of it?
What about the people who were almost two thousand years closer to the event than PaulK?

---

Already we are seeing some fabrication on your part. I didn't say anything about a liar or a crazy person or making up myths. We have other, easier solutions. A failure of memory (more likely than not over a period of 60 years !). A message that changes as it is passed on from person to person by word of mouth. The author inventing the words, as ancient historians were known to do. Not to mention the author's personal biases affecting his recollections or his choice of sources (as they affect yours).

quote:

---

2.) It doesn't matter what Jesus meant. It only matters what they thought Jesus meant.

---

Another invention on your part. If we could reliably tell what Jesus meant then it would matter. But we can't. I think he meant one thing. YOu think he meant another. But neither can be proven.

quote:

---

3.) John may not have been a disciple. No one knows.

---

John - as in the AUTHOR of the Gospel of John - may or may not have been a disciple/ Nobody knows for sure. This is a fact. Whether you like it or not.

quote:

---

4.) If Jesus said it it is more likely that Jesus meant nothing more than the Temple in Jeru was to be destroyed.

---

That's my personal assessment. It's a reasonable possibility as I've shown.

quote:

---

5.) John (if he was a disciple) made his comment "much latter".

---

This is the view of mainstream Biblical scholars - see my response to your point 1 to see why it is relevant.

quote:

---

Calling this reasoning a consipracy is almost too good for it.

---

Calling it a conspiracy is an obvious falsehood. Even your misrepresentations don't add up to any sort of conspiracy.

quote:

---

PaulK's only job is to raise plausible doubts about as much of the text as possible. It cannot possibly be, to him, that a eyewitness saw and heard and understood, was sufficiently impressed so as to want to pass on the criticality of the event to future generations.

---

By which you mean that nobody should be allowed to actually BELEIVE those reasonable doubts.

quote:

---

Saying conspiracy theory is in this skepticism is an understatement.

---

No it's a blatant falsehood. A fabrication concocted because you can't answer my points.

quote:

---

An underlying anti-supernatural bias permeates his "analysis". It requires more of a blind "leap of faith" to take his explanations as to how the Gospel of John was written.

---

It would require a far greater leap of faith - and a strong Christian bias, even a Johannine bias - to assume that the Gospel of John is entirely right. But you don't have a problem with blind leaps of faith.Again you prove that there is something rotten in your religion.

quote:

---

But you're not going to commit yourself to saying positively that that is what happened. You are just throwing up what you think are plausible alternatives to the John's simple presentation of the life of Jesus.

---

Since my "job" is to raise reasonable doubts then that is precisely what I SHOULD be doing.

quote:

---

By not definitely commiting yourself to saying that this is what happened, then if someone charges you with that view you can always say that they are fabricating things which you did not say.

​

I don't see you taking a position. I see you deliberately only submitting suggestions like innuendos. That is one reason why I would not trust you on the subject.

---

So basically you don't trust me because I'm doing what you yourself say that I should be doing. That's a lousy reason.

quote:

---

I don't see you commiting in a definite way to Jesus meaning other than what John tells us He meant. I see you hiding behind subjectivity that no one can prove it one way or another.

---

But what I say its the truth. I'm not "hiding" behind it. Those are the facts. [quote] This is another vague and non-committal position. And it pretends objective neutrality. It conceals your own bias behind pretended objectivity.
[/quotre]Of course there is no pretence. And let us note that your position is far more strongly biased than mine.

quote:

---

I am not going to waste energy in debating a position that you will not definitely take. But the evidence that John was a disciple is stronger.

---

But not that strong. Not strogn enough to definitely conclude that. It's just that the contrary evidence is weaker than it is for the synoptics.

quote:

---

Give us five names of your "Mainstream" NT scholars are representatives of the view you like. The source I am presently looking at says that the Gospel of John was written approximately in A.D. 90.

---

OK, so your source agrees with me. If your own preferred source doesn't indicate date close to the actual events, why should I need provide any more ? Maybe you don't you think that 60 years is a long time in terms of a human lifespan, but I can't imagine anyone else agreeing with you.

quote:

---

That is the luxury of not commiting definitely to a position. When you are countered you can always accuse the other of fabricating your views.

​

I think it is a bit cowardly.

---

Of course this is just another of your smears. If I had presented a position as a possibility then it would indeed be a misrepresentaion for you to claim that I had presented it as a fact. But there are no examples of tha in this discussion. Your misrepresentations include taking the direct opposite of one of my statements. Or your repeated references to "conspiracy theory" when even your misrepresentaions include no such thing.You allow yourself the luxury of ignoring or twisting the truth whenever it suits you. Of using baseless smears and innuendo. All you do is demonstrate that your position is morally as well as intellectually bankrupt.

quote:

---

Commit to a point. Tell us that you definitely believe that THIS is what occured rather than Jesus saying something and John assisting us in knowing what He meant.

---

This discussion does not require me to do any such thing.

quote:

---

Now I have to charge YOU with fabrication. Anyone who goes back over this discussion should be able to see that I DID answer a lot of your objections

---

If I had said "every single point" you would have a case. But the fact is that some points you "answer" solely with your "conspiracy theory" fabrication.

quote:

---

But your apparent basic distrust of John's Gospel implies to a great degree for some kind of conspiracy to go into its making. It requires that someone along the line knew the truth but concealed it and gave the impression that something else was at play.

---

No it doesn't.

quote:

---

For example, either John knew Jesus did not refer to His body, or some copyist knew John did not write that but inserted it like he did. It is hard for me to read John 2:21 as a mistake.

---

Or the author of John invented the quote (as ancient historians were known to do) as something he thought Jesus might say. Or the author of John did not know what Jesus meant, having had no specific explanation from Jesus and relied on his own interpretations.

quote:

---

But your reasoning is definitely with an anti-supernatural bias. I think you probably start out with the basic assumption that miracles from God do not happen. Therefore you probably reason that it is unlikely that anything involving the resurrection of Christ happened.

---

Of course it is not a special anti-supernatural bias. What you mean is that I do not have a pro-Chrisitan bias which cauyses me to treat Christian claims of supernatural events as more credible than any others. I also recognise the biases of the Gospel authors - something you don't want to do.

quote:

---

But the luxury of not definitely stating that position is that you can always not accuse me of fabricating a opinion that didn't state.

---

Since I have never taken advantage of this "luxury" - and it would be very difficult to do so to any great effect - this is just innuendo.

quote:

---

That is clever debating. But not trustworthy interpretation of the New Testament.

---

And ignoring the biases of the Gospel authors, making asusmptions about the accuracy of their sources, even assuming their identities is not - nor does it lead to - trustworthy interpretation. Quite the reverse.Your use of innuendo might be called clever - if dishonest - debating . You attempt to excuse your genuine misrepresentations. You falsely accuse me of cowardice for simply doing what you youeself say I should be doing. What would Jesus do ? Your Jesus would apparently misrepresent his opponents and use smears to try to cover it up. Is that what a great moral teacher would do ?But then maybe that's the message you want to send out.

quote:

---

Perhaps when PaulK reads what historians write about which occured over 20 years ago he says "That's impossible to remember something that happened that long ago." It is now 2008. Some historians are writing about the 1950s. Are we to dismiss all their writings as impossible because people can't remember that long ago?

---

My point of course is that it is impossible to rely on the details - like what, exactly someone said - after that much time. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Adding in the weaknesses of human memory only makes things worse.Ronald Reagan "remembered" things that hadn't happened - in 1980.
ExampleOr Example
As for the development of legends let us not forget:Joseph Smith convinced his followers that he had - by divine inspiration translated the Book of Mormon from "Golden Tablets" he had found. He even convinced some of his followers to sign a statement that they had seen the tablets.L Ron Hubbard convinced His followers that he had healed himself from crippling injuries. Investigation of the records show that he had never suffered the injuries in the first place.For legends. we have Elvis being alive, the conspiracy theories around the assassination of JFK, 9/11 and the death of Princess Diana. The Roswell incident. Numerous urban legends (many of which are told as if they are recent events, even if the original story is quite old). On example, that I have seen presented as fact (despite being virtually impossible !) is the story of NASA discovering Joshua's "missing day", thus confirming the Bible. Are modern Christians really that much more gullible than their ancient counterparts ?All these examples have spread and been believed by some in less than two - or even one - generation. The examples of Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard are especially relevant given the emphasis on "correct doctrine" that you yourself have documented. Within a small religion it IS possible to rewrite history, and in a short period off time, too.

Lets raise some points you have managed to miss.Mark wasn't a disciple and neither was Luke, and it's very unlikely that the author of Matthew was and we don't know about the author of John. Therefore you can't say that Mark or Luke do themselves down in the Gospels, and even your example form John is questionable.The aim is to play Jesus up - that is more important than the disciples.It is possible that the Gospels reflect disputes between Paul's Gentile church and the Jewish Ebionite Church of the other disciples. Doing down the disciples would be of advantage to the gentiles.The criticisms of Jesus may reflect contemporary claims - and can be expected to be rejected by the reader anyway. Remember they are presented as attacks on Jesus - not as something likely to be true.The author of John is the only one to identify Jesus as God. Maybe he is being dishonest - or wrong - when he presents Jesus as making such claims.While we can assume that the "difficult" teachings were genuinely believed by the authors, or at least their communities, we can't from that conclude that they came from Jesus.Let it be noted that Matthew 5:3 is less hard than the equivalent in Mark (10:11).(And most Protestant churches seem to allow marrying divorced women. I guess that most Protestants don't think much of THAT teaching.)

quote:

---

Some scholars believe that Mark put his signature on the gospel after his name in a certain humble incident.

---

And many more believe otherwise.

quote:

---

Luke employed historian's methods and most likely interviewed people.

---

Luke doesn't list his sources or mention any interviews and copied a good deal of material from Mark or Matthew. Unless you want to take the minority view that Mark and/or Matthew copied from Luke !Your assertions are just guesses.

quote:

---

Matthew declares that Jesus is "Emmanual, which is translated - God with us"

---

Quoting Isaiah 7 - where it is NOT meant literally. And it isn't Jesus speaking anyway. So that certainly isn't an example of Jesus claiming to be God.

quote:

---

Matthew also closes his Gospel with Jesus saying "Behold, I am with you all the days until the consummation of the age" (28:20)

---

Which doesn't claim that he is God.

quote:

---

Also Matthew clearly depicts Jesus as teaching that He was the God of the Old Testament Who like a parent bird, sought to protect Jerusalem under her wings:

---

Except that the bit about being God isn't even implied there. Your other examples are not even greatly similar. The bird referred to is in flight in both cases (and in Deuteronomy it's an eagle not a hen).

quote:

---

Whereas the other Gospels beside John make mention of Jesus teaching that He was God, John clearly has it as a main emphasis in his Gospel.

---

Then produce examples. Real examples.

quote:

---

Less likely that they invented very difficult teachings and put them into the mouth of Jesus.

---

Yet if their community had developed new rules, they might well attribute them to Jesus. And as I keep pointing out ancient historians were far less particular than modern ones about putting speeches in the mouths of their subjects. If they believed that Jesus would approve of their rules they could well attribute them to him, even if they had no direct testimony.

quote:

---

I don't see how any of these comments do anything but to strengthen to very point I am making. I don't know of what use they have to Paul for any other point.

---

They reinforce my idea that Jesus was not such a great moral teacher as you suggested. It's hard because it isn't a great teaching. That's why it's been set aside.

quote:

---

Wrong.

---

Then you're going to have to show more than the vague similarity of "protecting bird" imagery. That isn't nearly enough to show that Jesus meant to claim that he was God.

quote:

---

Jehovah of hosts, Who is God Himself, will act like protective birds over Jerusalem.

---

Like a flock of birds flying over. So here you agree with me.

quote:

---

Again the allegory refers to God Himself. The escape IS God Himself. In some cases it is protection by deliverance. It is rousing the nest, protecting, shielding, including also protection by deliverance.

---

Again this disputes nothing that I said.

quote:

---

1.) "How often" indicates more than once He had the desire. And the speaking of God being as a protective bird or birds over the children of Israel was employed more than once in the Old Testament.

---

That he had the desire - but not that he was able to do it (indeed it tends to imply that he didn't do it). And a chicken crouched over her young is not a flock of flying birds nor a hovering eagle.Now, if the images were exactly the same you would have a weak case. But they aren't even that.So since you are reduced to trying to defend this laughable nonsense I think we can assume that you have no case at all.

quote:

---

For someone seemingly eager to always go with the majority view why this strange inconsistancy?

​

So PaulK runs with the majority depending on what is believed? And then runs with the minority when it suites his purpose to do so?

---

Jay indulges in his habit of fabrication and evasion again. I've never gone purely with the majority. I've always reserved the right to my own opinions. And the evidence that you're avoiding shows that quite a lot of people implicitly accept my view.

quote:

---

The point was not about what Jesus said so much in this case, but as to what the authors of the individual Gospels say. So I demonstrated that Matthew says that Jesus was "God with us" quoting Isaiah the prophet.

---

That still doesn't change the fact that Matthew is ONLY giving the meaning of the name and that he was quoting Isaiah. And the name was not meant literally by Isaiah. So on what grounds do you claim that Matthew meant it literally ?

quote:

---

I don't feel the need to say anything more about that passage.

---

i.e. you don't have a case.

quote:

---

Rather we can assume that you are on the side of those who do not believe the words of Jesus. That's all.

---

Even if we assume that Jesus spoke those words it does not mean that your interpretation - which is strained far beyond the point of reason - has any merit whatsoever. In fact it quite obviously doesn't.So it isn't a matter of believing Jesus' words. It's a matter of putting YOUR words before the truth.

quote:

---

The one with no case is PaulK.

---

An obvious falsehood. You failed to make a case and then decided that you had nothing more to say, In doing so you implicitly admitted that you had no case.

quote:

---

The overall "interpretation" that the audience of Jesus got was that He was teaching that He was God come to earth as a man

---

You have yet to produce any significant evidence to support this assertion.

quote:

---

I think we have a adaquate record of the words and deeds of Jesus in the New Testament. And we have an adaquate record of what was the response to those words and deeds from various quarters of His overall audience.

---

And until you answer the reasons to doubt this all you have is an unsupported opinion. The fact that we have no truly contemporary accounts and no accounts from neutral or hostile sources are in themselves good reason to doubt such a claim.