Divinity of Jesus

Is this OFF TOPIC ?You're pretty familiar with this Forum. Are we about to go OFF TOPIC here ?

The exchanges are interesting on eyewitness account and reliability of the NT documents.But I sometimes wonder why textural criticism issues which creep into the Bible Study forum are not channeled to the Forum The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy.Very often here, discussions on the meaning of the Bible text morph into arguments about how soon the authors wrote after the death/resurrection of Jesus or whether Jesus was a real historical figure.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I went to a website on The Credibility of Josephus.
The authors seem to be Israeli researchers.There was a long article with discussion on possible exagerations of Josephus writings. I think if there was question about the reference to Jesus it should have been found at this site from Jewish scholarship. I noticed none.This was the closing paragraph of the article on The Credibility of Josephus But the Internet has a lot of information and misinformation on it. So I will examine your source above to be fair.

Theodoric, Exactly WHAT in that article are you claiming I should pay attention to to discredit the reference to Jesus by Josephus ? What should I derive from this non-commital summary of the contraversy ? Am I suppose to get from that that the matter IS settled and the passage has positively been identified as a forgery ?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Are we off topic yet ?

Do you expect me to believe that the Humanist Net is a great beacon of objectivity ?Is it your opinion then that G A Wells was mistaken to back off of his belief that Jesus Christ never lived?Are you positively taking a stand that the New Testament's Jesus Christ never lived? Or are you just throwing the concept out there as a hypothetical issue to be wrestled with ?I am also still interested in you naming someone during the first 800 years of the first century that went on record arguing that a Jesus of Nazareth never lived at all.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Theodoric, you're not getting off to the best start there. Diminative name calling ("fundie, fundie, fundie,") as you do repeatedly through your post, doesn't impress me that you are going to be a pristine example of a good teacher on objectivity.By the way, I don't mind that the experience of the divinity of Christ is a subjective one. The Apostle John makes it abundantly clear that the purpose for his writing is to bring the reader into a subjective experience of Christ as life. What could be more subjective to a person than the life he lives: I feel that I am coming to the Gospel of John in the proper way when I come looking for a subjective experience. He wrote these things not simply that I may have objective knowledge, even though it be accurate. He wrote them to me that I may believe and have sipritual life in the name of Jesus Christ. So I feel I am coming to the Gospel as it was intended for me to approach it.I think the people MOST prone, in the early years of the Christian church, to have the biggest stake in exposing the fictitious existence of Jesus, had it been the case, would have been the architects of First Century Judaism. They had the most to gain by exposing a totally fictitious Jesus of Nazareth.I don't see the rabbis of first century Judaism writing a lot about who in the world this Jesus of Nazareth could possibly. I can see them disputing His claims. I can see them saying that he was an illegitimate child of Mary and some soldier named Panthera. I do not see them wondering what the hoopla is all about concerning someone who NEVER EXISTED.Likewise, the early "deviants" against the Gospel are not seen arguing that Jesus never existed. Rather we get the impression that Jesus for them, was too good to be real flesh and blood. He was historical to them but had to be a fantasm or non-material manifestation.The early apologetics of the Christain church was not against people denying that a Jesus ever lived. It was against people claiming that He was too good to be physical like the rest of us.

No. I did not say that. But I do not stay only in the objective realm. And the reason for that is that the divinity of Jesus, is knowledge mostly imparted to man for subjective enjoyment - "and that believing you may have life in His name."I know I am on the right track because I have received divine and spiritual life in His name.I think you should start another thread on the HISTORICAL EXISTENCE of Christ. The first sentence is a typo. Sorry. It was meant to read: "I don't see the rabbis of first century Judaism writing a lot about who in the world this Jesus of Nazareth could possibly [be]" Where are the first century to third century AD Jewish theologians claiming that no such person ever existed as was being claimed as the Founder of the Christian Church? I don't think Josephus would have bothered to write something about Him if He wasn't discussed among the Jews to some degree.And the book of Acts says that the "sect of the Nazarenes" was known about and spoken against everywhere. If the "sect of the Nazarenes" was spoken against everywhere they must have disputed about the claims of "Jesus of Nazareth".Asking me to believe they didn't is like expecting me to believe people spoke against"Moonies" everywhere but nobody knew who Rev. Sung Moon was. I seriously doubt that because I have heard it argued that Judaism since the first century has practically been restructured around a strong dogma that Jesus Christ was not the Jewish Messiah.You never told me whether or not your sacred GA Wells was wrong to back off of his belief the Jesus never lived. Was he wrong to do so? I doubt that they would restructure Judaism around defense that Jesus was not the Messiah if Jesus never existed.Survival of references may be scant. But I am pretty sure that you do not dispute the existence of other hisotical persons for that reason. How many people were burnt at the stake of fed to the lions because of a claim that they knew Paul Bunyan ?I didn't say it was proof. They by far had the most to gain from proving He didn't existt. The absence of this argument is not supportive of your argument. It would be if found some.Even if we looked into their writings a few hundred years latter we should expect to see objections that Jesus never lived. I've never seen any.Norman Giesler provides me this list of persons in the New Testament, including Jesus who were mentioned in non-Christian writings or confirmed by archeological sources: 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.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Questionable huh? I guess anything and everything is "questionable".Now are you going to take a stand that no Jesus of Nazareth ever lived ? Or are you just going to raise a "questionable" objective with everything?Was Wells right now or right then concerning Jesus's having lived?No definite position is always the easiest to defend. So take a position that Jesus never lived if that's what you think you know.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

If you want me to believe that the writings of Josephus was edited with an insertion to make it look like he refered to a non-existent person, then I think you should start a conspiracy theory that the dozen other people mentioned in the New Testament by Josephus writings were also forgeries.Why not go all the way? To assure no possible correlation between Josephus and the NT you might as well extend your silly conspiracy to cover all the others.And the whole questions as to why you would exclude Gospel writers I find simply biased. It assumes that no propoganda can be true. I think there is such a thing as true propoganda.I had to help a highschool kid do a report on the Holacaust. We got from the library of fil footage of the most horrible scenes of the Holacaust. It was no doubt propoganda. But I believe that it was propoganda based on truth.I think that it is just the case that some men were turn upside down about an extraordinary Person they met and wanted to world to know about it.I have no problem with the concept of the New Testament being propoganda. I don't exclude the writers as not being worthy to consult for that reason.I see a dozen references to Jesus from non=biblical writers. I that is skeptic land you've been busy raising the "questionable" objection with all of them.

I don't think I know of any.There are the writings of the Gospel writers. There are the refences of the so-called "church fathers" like Polycarp and Justin Martyr. There are the referenes to Jesus from the other ancient writers.There is a reference to the daek day on which Jesus died. There is an explanation that it could not have been a solar eclipse.But contemporary to the life of Jesus before His resurrection and ascencion, I do not know of any.I don't require them. I have evidence enough that I am on the right track to believe that Jesus lived and was who He claimed to be. And I am not impressed with the various and sundy "questionable" objections raised by the skeptical mill concerning those ancient references to Jesus which were soon after Christ's death and resurrection.Do you have irrefutable proof that your father and mother are actually your biological parants?Maybe they lied. Maybe your birth certificate was forged. Maybe the hospital records are questionable. Maybe a DNA sample would be flawed. Maybe your parents are mistaken. Maybe they gave your mother the wrong baby who was a relative of your mother. Maybe you mother lied to your father. Maybe your father lied to you. Maybe the nurses conspired and deceived the medical doctors. Maybe they have never told you the truth. Maybe they don't really know.Do you have irrefutable evidence that your mother and father are your real biological parents? You don't really know who your real biological parants are.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

An ancient quote provided by New Testament scholar F.F. Bruce from one Julius Africanus. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

No it doesn't seem strange. Nor is it the case. At least it is not nearly as strange as the multitude of rationals skeptics like yourself raise to exploit any possible avenue of doubt concerning all things Christian.I know that we do not have the original writing of Thallus on this, as far as I know. I also know that historians do this kind of indirect research often. It is not perculiar to Christian scholarship that indirect writings might indicate something important in history to which we have a second hand testimony to.I don't know why you would be so eager to point this out except to be fond of trying to raise questionable objections to all things Christian.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

How do you know that? And how can you say it with such certainty?This seems to me a statement of faith itself. To me it requires more of a leap of faith to say the biblical Christ never existed than to realize that He did.Since this thread is on the Divinity of Christ and is a part of Bible Study, do you have Bible passages which lead you to believe that the belief in the Divinity of Christ is not even in the Bible?The preasure in this thread is conciderable to morph the discussion into something more appropriate to the forum "The Bible: Accuracy and Inerancy". This is kind of a highjacking taking place IMO.Where in the Bible can we Study the ground for or against the Divinity of Jesus?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

That is not the Bible's fault. Maybe the issues have implications which are more far reaching then historians would like to deal with. Jesus may have good reason to be ingrained in society.
Perhaps He earned it. The edication backround of the 12 disciples was not that high. Yet they seemed to have turned the world upside down with there message that a crucified Christ had risen.The point is how far are you going to take credentialism ? It has a place. It doesn't have the only place. One scholar, Paul, wrote to the Corinthian church:" For the word of the cross is to those who areperishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

​

For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the understanding of those who understand I will set aside."

​

" ... since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know God, God was well pleased through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe."

​

" .. the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is tronger than men." I think God is sovereign over how much evidence accompanies His acts. I think what we have and what we do not have is under His divine providence. Perhaps He examines our hearts to see how we handle what He has provided.The night Christ became real to me I was in the privacy of my own room. No historian was there to tell me about Thallus. No expert on Roman politics was there to explain Roman history. I didn't know very much. I had received a revelation that Jesus was someone I could talk to. And when I started to all heaven broke loose over my head and within my being (so to speak).Latter, upon noticing arguments such as you pose here I read here and there some historical evidence for my faith. I am not expert on history. But I see some confirmation that I am on the right track to my realization.And judging from the opposition Jesus Christ received in the Gospels, often times objections raised by unbelievers in Christ impress me that I probably am on the right track to believe that I do know the living Jesus. They are still amassing debates of all kinds against Him.Anyway, non-biblical writings (perhaps not contemporary with His three and one half years earthly ministry) do confirm the historicity of Jesus. And the talent of some to raise the "questionable" flag at everyone of them doesn't impress me that much.And "non-biblical" would include Christian writers too. And excluding them arbitrarily I think is not real research. Suppose we excluded all Roman historians, discounting their writings about Rome under the suspicion that they are just scheming propogandists?So I don't accept the knee jerk suspicion that all ancient Christians' writing about Christ are the clever schemes of lying propogandists. Though it is true that in many cases propoganda is what we are reading.There can be in this world propoganda which is based on true people and events which actually happened. I have read some F.F. Bruce. I would not call it flimsy. Norm Giesler does not come accross to me as flimsy. Others recommended to me like Benjamin Warfield are highly regarded. It should not be a surprise that the people who would REALLY CARE about a scholarly research into these things would be Christians.Just like people who really care about evidences for the Big Bang theory would be astronomers and cosmologists. Why would we not expect that those most interested would be on the leading edge of stydying the matter.Anyway, it has occured once to my knowledge that an expert on Logal Evidence came as an unbliever in the Gospel to explore the testimony of the resurrection of Christ as to how it would stand up in a law court. He ended up believing in Christ and that the evidence presented in the Gospels would be admissable in a modern court.In the last analysis my faith rests not on the wisdom of man but on the power of God.And if one does not touch the Spirit of Christ ("the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)) all the historical confirming evidence will not do him any good. That Divinity of Jesus issue is inseparable with receiving Jesus as divine life within.