Divinity of Jesus

I am amazed that this whole discussion going on does not have more impact on these fundies arguing whether their God is unitarian or trinitarian. Is the irony lost on them?They are all using the same book, but they all claim that THEIR interpretation is the only and correct reading. Instead of acknowledging that there may be other ways to read or interpret they proclaim the others to be heretics and cults.Then they have the gall to criticize and demonize atheists that don't believe any of the mumbo-jumbo. If they could get together and present one mumbo-jumbo, I might give them the benefit of the doubt and listen to them.Might but probably not.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Why do you assume we who do not believe have never read the bible? I have read the bible numerous times and I seem to know more about what it says than most christians I know. I have read it it without the preconceived ideas that christians read it with.My findings? It is mumbo jumbo.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Can you point out who these people were? I mean give some sort of first hand historical account. Oh and please any documentation or evidence to back this up.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Again I ask. Do you have anything to back up these statements? Other than faith of course.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Do you have any idea when these guys date from? Source
The gnostics or protognostics were there early in the church. To say they developed 300 years after is not true. You keep talking about eyewitnesses. What is this eyewitness testimony? The NT? You do realize that all of the gospels are dated quite well after the supposed crucifixion of this Jesus. If you are going to claim eyewitness, provide some evidence.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

You didn't answer her question.Why don't you just answer? Maybe with a nice succinct response. You can quote all the bible passages you want but you are not answering the question. By the way no one is impressed.So how about an answer?What is the definition of God?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

There are hundreds of documents that verify and validate the existence of Julius Caesar and his writings. This is a lame argument with NO basis in reality.We even have coins with Caesar name and image. What do we have with Jesus name and image? Here is a quick list of contemporaries(means they lived at same time) that wrote about Caesar.

quote:

---

Sallust

​

Caius Sallust (86-34 BC) tribune, provincial governor and supporter of Caesar. His testimony is in a history "Bellum Catalinae".

​

Nepos

​

Cornelius Nepos (c100-24): "Life of Atticus".

​

Catullus

​

Gaius Valerius Catullus (c84-54 BC): "Carmina".

​

Asinius Pollio

​

Gaius Asinius Pollio (76 BC-4 AD) was an ally of Caesar and founder of the first public library in Rome. He was a source used by Plutarch.

​

Virgil

​

Virgil (70BC-17AD): "Aeneid".

---

SourceCaesar’s De bello Gallico also be shown to reflect historical events when compared to other sources. Also, you make it sound like there is no evidence for the manuscript for 1000 years after its writing. It is referred to extensively in that period. The first probably before 46 B.C.E. by Cicero in "Brutus, or the History of Eloquence". That there is not an original copy does nothing to diminish the validity of the text. This argument is disingenuous at best and an out right lie at its worst.In comparison there is NO evidence of the historicity of christ or anything in the gospels other than the gospels themselves. This is not a true comparison. It is intellectual dishonesty to state it is. Again, I need to ask. Do you have any extrabiblical evidence? We know you have no contemporary evidence.Edited by Theodoric, : spellingEdited by Theodoric, : changed subtitle

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Sorry it took me so long to respond. I was away fishing in Canada all last week. UMMM, I don't think so. The passages in Josephus have been shown by quite a few scholars to not be real reliable. If this is the best you got you have got some trouble.As for the Caesar issue. There have been numerous posters here claiming that Jesus has more historical evidence than Caesar. I wanted to nip that thought in the bud.My arguments still stand. There is tons of external evidence for Caesars writings on the Gallic wars that is contemporary to shgow that it is legitimate. The oldest existing copy has no bearing on the legitimacy of the writings

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

But you can not show this with biblical manuscripts. You want names? If my list of names is longer than your list do I win? Do some objective research on the issue.

quote:

---

"The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations."

​

- Catholic Encyclopedia.

---

SourceAny names I bring up you will assault as having some sort of anti-christian agenda. Do a simple search on google. Josephus debunk. Read the evidence. Can you do that?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Since there is such a controversy I think you christianists would think twice about using such a tenuous easily questioned source.Your condescension does not reinforce your argument. There is no need to be an ass.Josephus is a questionable resource to use for the historicity of Jesus Christ. I find the evidence of a later interpolation is overwhelming.You might actually want to read other sources and READ the arguments. I have yet to read an argument that uses actual reasonable arguments to show that they are not later interpolations. If you know of one please let me hear it.These sites use actual historical and literary analysis to look at the evidence.
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp16.htm
Non-Christian Testimony for Jesus? – From the authentic pen of lying Christian scribes !!Is there a problem with their arguments? If so what?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Why would questioning christian sources for historicity of Jesus be off topic?There can be no divinity without existence.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Amazing.First of all to say that GA Wells Earl Doherty are the only proponents of the Jesus Myth is ludicrous. It is disingenuous at best and and an outright lie at worst.I am not going to get into a listing of proponents for or against the theory. This is not a numbers game. It is a strength of argument game.As for your link, I am not sure where to start. First of all if you are going to use someone as a reference maybe you should actually know their name. His name is James Hannam, with an M not an N. He has published one book. This has just been published by a small boutique publisher in Great Britain. I can't tell you a thing about his research on that book.I can tell you about his webpage. His arguments have nothing to back them up. He makes assertions, but has nor references or backing documentation. His main support for Josephus comes from Origen who was born in 182 C.E.(not a contemporary).Hannam's arguments. Lots of supposition. NO evidence.As for his arguments of James the Just again he provides no evidence.

quote:

---

And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the "Antiquities of the Jews" in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ.

---

Origen never stated where he got this info. This does no exist in any extant copies of Josephus writing. No where does Josephus say that the destruction of the Temple was tied to the execution of James. This whole idea seems to have originated with Origen. Eusebius later used this and quoted it as coming directly from Josephus.

quote:

---

“These things happened to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, called Christ, for the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.”

---

This exists nowhere in Josephus' wrtings. But Eusebius presents it as a direct quote for Josephus. It is actually a rehashing of the writings or Origen. Not at all.This does not sound like PhD history level writing. He provides no evidence for his theories. It is classic apologetics. I guess that is explained by his motivation.Mr. Hannam makes it clear on his website that he has no intention of being objective.Here is his belief statement
My opinions, beliefs and biases

quote:

---

It is one thing to respect other religions and see God working through them. It is another to say that they are all 'equivalent'. For the avoidance of doubt I have printed below the Apostles Creed which is the oldest and simplest. In my opinion it is the minimum that one can say and remain within the broad Christian fold.

​

I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth
And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary
Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried
He descended into hell
The third day he rose again from the dead
He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead
I believe in the Holy Ghost
I believe in the holy catholic church, the communion of saints
The forgiveness of sins
The resurrection of the body
And the life everlasting.

---

Hardly an objective researcher and writer.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Ummm WTF? Well first of all you and slevesque are misrepresenting Wells. He still does not believe in the historical jesus you do.
Quick snippet form Wikipedia

quote:

---

However, Wells still argues that Paul's Jesus was "a heavenly, pre-existent figure who had come to earth at some uncertain point in the past and lived an obscure life, perhaps one or two centuries before his own time.

---

I still think he is wrong. Minucius Felix in Octavius.In it he disavows that christianity was based upon "a man that suffered death as a criminal"The key is how many people in the first 2 centuries of the common era did not mention this guy.By the way there are only 100 years in a century.Edited by Theodoric, : Fixed error

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Objectivity is something you fundies don't understand. Let me try to explain it to you. This is important because it ties into the whole ID thing.The people that post on sites like humanist.net tend to use evidence. Earl Doherty and others do not start with a premise. They, like scientists, go where the evidence takes them. They have no overarching statement of belief. They have come to their conclusions based upon the evidence they have in front of them. Sort of like scientists and the Theory of Evolution. Now if there were evidence counter to their ideas they would reconsider their ideas and reexamine their premise. This is objectivity. Going where the evidence takes you.Now people like Mr. James Hannam think they are objective, but his statement of belief refutes this. He, like you, are not going to consider any evidence that goes against entrenched belief. Like ID, on the subject of Jesus you have a conclusion you want to get to so you interpret, translate, manipulate, massage and change the evidence in order to get to a predetermined conclusion. That conclusion is the existence of the biblical Jesus. This is not objectivity. Maybe you are one of those fundies that believe objectivity has no place in a discussion about Jesus and christianity. There are many who believe an open mind is a very dangerous thing and to question is anathema.Back to evidence. I repeatedly asked you and sleveesque to provide contemporary, extra biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. Neither of you, and no one else, have or can provide this evidence. If you provide such evidence I would certainly examine the evidence and, if it was verifiable, reconsider my position on this subject. That sir is objectivity.A person that comes to a conclusion based upon evidence is objective. A person that searches for evidence to confirm a preexisting belief is not.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

So then as a christian you can have no objectivity on the issue. I have no clue what you are trying to say in the first sentence. They never heard about him. They don't mention him one way of the other. Your sacred Christ never even entered into their thought processes. Why would they disavow something they didn't even know about. By the time christianity became developed it was developing outside of Palestine. The early strength were in Asia Minor Rome and the North of Africa. By this time the Jews wouldn't have even a memory of the time period never mind the events themselves. It amazes me that you think just because no one disputed his existence in the first decades after his purported death that somehow this is proof of his existence. This is ludicrous. The lack of someone disputing his existence is not proof of existence. I have never seen anything written trying to prove the nonexistence of Paul Bunyan. Does this mean Paul Bunyan existed? Again I ask, do you or don't you have any non biblical, contemporary evidence for a Jesus Christ.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts