Divinity of Jesus

That one is easy. Christianity grew because it was adopted by the Super-power of the period and so those living under that super-power had a vested interest in adopting the religion.The second question relates to the Gospel of John and is slightly more complex.There is no doubt that the Gospel of John is revisionist. It is entirely different when compared to any of the others. John is the only one of the Gospels to equate Jesus with God or to assert that Jesus was involved in the creation event. There is no birth narrative, no baptismal, no temptation, no parables, little teaching and only assertion. There is no sign of Apocalyptic message.In John we see an open declaration of identity that is missing in all of the other Gospels, far less emphasis on how to live and a far greater condemnation of those you do not acknowledge Jesus divine identity.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So what. Nothing in that has anything to do with what I said. I did not say it was revised but rather revisionist. Yada, yada. Many religions faced the threat of death. Big damn deal.And yes, it was after Constantine adopted it as the official religion that fold had an incentive to join and Christianity grew beyond the point of just being another fringe cult. Is there a point in all of that?The author of Mark wrote a gospel. The authors of Matthew and Luke copied much of what Mark wrote, also used Q, as well as their own independent sources. But there the similarities end.The point is that the author of John was writing a revisionist gospel, pointing out what that author thought was flawed about the then current images and beliefs about Jesus. The person that wrote John did so because he believed the then accepted Gospels were flawed, incorrect and he wanted to revise that image.The idea of the chosen Gospels being part of a single picture came much later. It was another 250 years or so AFTER John that the current four Gospels were brought together into one redacted message, an anthology.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin and left a line out on revisionist vs revised.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

LOLIf you understood what I was saying then why did you say: What the author of John was doing was presenting a different view of Jesus than found in the many other Gospels making the rounds.John is a completely different depiction of Jesus than found in the synoptic Gospels, as I pointed out back in Message 19. Which might be of some relevance if I had ever made a claim of "the Evil Christ Monster that swallows everything in its path".Don't you ever tire of misrepresenting folk?The rest of your post is just more attempts to misdirect the attention of the audience from the subject. Normal it seems for you.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

One other thing. We can never find evidence that Jesus was divine from any of the Gospels. The most we can get from the Gospels is a glimpse at what the authors of the gospels believed.We can though see change over time in how the authors of the period depicted Jesus and Jesus relationships and divinity.As you mentioned, there were other similar people throughout the area about the same time. You mentioned Apollonius of Tyana who was also seen as a miracle worker. One big difference was that the works of Apollonius of Tyana were seen as natural as opposed to super-natural.All of these people had followers. The Neo-Pythagoreans in particular had very large following throughout Greece and later the Roman territories.The biggest difference was that the Christian Sects were picked as a State Sponsored and Sanctioned religion. That special status made Christianity different than all the competing ones.Suddenly, from simply being another of the Jewish sects, Christianity had an identity of its own as well as State Sanction.But none of this really addresses the issue of Jesus' divinity. That can never be anything more than an article of faith. Even if we found absolute proof of Jesus existence, as well as his expense accounts for all the travels and events, it would not address the issue of divinity.The issue is "why did Christianity flourish more than any other religion?"The key to that falls on several key events.One was the establishment of Christianity as the State Religion.A second was the creation and adoption of a few very short, very basic Creeds; statements of faith.The third big issue was the adoption and enforcement of a Canon that was then spread throughout the Roman Empire so that there was a uniformity that provided consistency throughout a population base that no other sect could reach.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Except of course, that you have not show how it was in anyway relevant to the post you were responding to, all you have done is whine. The audience can of course go to Message 19 and then follow the conversation and see for themselves. Well, first, perhaps you can actually show where I attacked any scripture. Now I can understand you thinking I might have referred to Archie Comics books, however the reference was to Archy and Mehitabel, the wisdom to be learned from a cockroach. Not at all. Some of us actually read the Bible and can note the differences. In addition, you once again misrepresent what I have said. Please point out where I claim John is phony.You know Nem, when you misrepresent someone once it could just be ignorance, however when you continue to constantly misrepresent what folk say, we need to ask if it is intentional. And here you go yet again misrepresenting what I have said.Please point out where I made such a claim.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yes, those are all posible.What is your point? Well we know that one is not correct since there was no flood. That is certainly possible but scamming is a somewhat ridiculous assumption on your part. It is equally likely that all of the parties knew is was an allegorical reference to a well known fable. Why would Jesus know anything more than what he had learned during his life? Why, during the period of time that Jesus lived here on earth, would he be anything other than human? Another of your either silly assertions or poorly worded. Do you mean that the comment was a figment of the author (and this is one of the possible things from the Q source) or that Jesus was a figment of the authors? Certainly both are possible.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Huh?What makes you think folk back then didn't take folk tales with a grain of salt? Lots of people throughout the Old Testament were performing miracles. And they were certainly simply human. Even in the New Testament Peter walks on water.What makes you think that the secret disappeared with Jesus? Just trying to figure out what it was you were asserting.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You position might seem unreasonable if we did not see exactly the same thing happening today, particularly in the "Born Again" cults. From Pulpit (or in most Born Again cults the Stage) to Pew, we see folk bewailing their manifold sins and inequities and how they have been "Washed in the Blood of Jesus and came out White as the Lamb".The reality we see today is that those making such claims, particularly the pastors and televangelists, are far less "sinners" than simply irrelevant nobodies who wanted to be noticed. In addition, the changes seem to be far less obvious than many claim. As in the case of Paul, even if the story is true he simply went from being the nutjob fanatic for one club to being the nutjob fanatic for the opposing team.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

We see that often here at EvC; other recent examples are Why is Faith so Important to God? and Manna from Heaven. What the Grossness? (Ex. 16).In both cases folk become so tied down in arguing trivialities that they totally miss the messages of the Bible.It's the MESSAGE folk.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If Jesus is divine while living among us then the whole lesson is pretty much a fraud and worthless.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm sorry but that is not only silly and laughable nonsense, it is irrelevant to the topic. Do you have anything other than theobabble or related to the topic?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Of course I do.If Jesus was divine while living among us then he taught us nothing.A God can not be tempted.A God can not be killed.It is no big deal for a God to be resurrected.It is no big deal for a God to perform miracles.It is a big deal for a God to repeat fallacies like Jesus did; that there was an Exodus, a Flood or an actual Genesis.No, the only way Jesus life can have any value or meaning is if he was totally human while living among us, limited just as any of the rest of us, the sacrifice of a GOD becoming man, to suffer teething and learning to go potty and to walk and talk and NOT knowing the future or that he really will rise from the dead, yet still following his path.No, for Jesus to have meaning he must NOT have been divine while living among us.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ah, the greed factor, the what's in it for me theology.Sorry but "profiting" is unimportant, irrelevant and off topic.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If Jesus was divine while living among us, I can see no value to his life and for the reasons outlined above. That never made any sense, and I just do not understand that at all.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, the reasons I outlined above were based on Jesus being divine. Even if he did not know he was divine, if he was, the whole thing is just a fraud and joke.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion