Divinity of Jesus

No... What I don't like is being discriminated by religious fanatics who make it a practice to gain ground by categorizing others based on scriptural reasoning. Not everyone was raised in religious indoctrinated families, and not all people will responds to indifference by inherited emotion either. I happen to believe that religions are discriminatory enterprises that have ruined the pure worship of God. And I take offense to anyone trying to categorize me as such.Furthermore, I don't know of any JW who is ashamed of his or her beliefs(hiding etc) in fact who ever does such things? You're abilities to identify people is about as accurate as your interpretations of the scriptures.If you want to continue on such behavior, I will file a complaint with the forum moderators.

quote:

---

No... What I don't like is being discriminated by religious fanatics who make it a practice to gain ground by categorizing others based on scriptural reasoning.

---

Since that isn't what is happening here I don't know what you're complaining about. So far as I can see the only religious fanatic here is you.

quote:

---

I happen to believe that religions are discriminatory enterprises that have ruined the pure worship of God. And I take offense to anyone trying to categorize me as such.

---

That doesn't change the fact that the whole 1914 prophecy is Jehovah's Witness doctrine. No other group believes it.

quote:

---

You're abilities to identify people is about as accurate as your interpretations of the scriptures.

---

It seems to be rather better than your ability to identify religious discrimination.

quote:

---

If you want to continue on such behavior, I will file a complaint with the forum moderators.

---

Good luck getting Percy to believe your false and baseless accusations. You'll need it. If I wasn't involved in this conversation I'd suspend you myself for your atrocious behaviour.

Might I ask that we follow the Forum Guidelines in regards for respecting each other? Since this thread is focusing on the historical aspects of Jesus, any scripture used as documentation is open to question and alternative theories of the interpretation of such scripture are not in and of themselves discriminatory.Stick to the texts that you wish to quote, and I want to encourage everyone to respect one another. Edited by AdminPhat, : eliminated admin box

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

quote:

---

Good luck getting Percy to believe your false and baseless accusations. You'll need it. If I wasn't involved in this conversation I'd suspend you myself for your atrocious behaviour.

---

This is a-typical behavior for religious fanaticism. In a case where one cannot deal with indifference, he or she will scramble to elude the original topic. Though you may feel as though you are on top of things, the only thing you have proven here is your limited insight and capacity to reason.You thought you knew, and your emotions drove you to rush out and accuse me of a religious standing with a few good rehearsed lines only to prove that arrogance is alive and well within you. We have a front line example of the religious failures our nations suffer under. The results of followers deluded into blindly rearranging scriptural content to support an inherited belief over independent reasoning.

quote:

---

Since that isn't what is happening here I don't know what you're complaining about. So far as I can see the only religious fanatic here is you.

---

In a place such as this(based on your mentality) everyone would be accusing and categorizing others. Did I accuse you of being the Antichrist? Have I stuck religious labels on you or anyone else for that matter? You can try and cover your ass, the fact is... you categorizes me with a religious group for no other reason than to set the stage and apply your usual collection of antics afterwards.You have brought nothing to this argument but your own emotions. So why don't you step up the the plate and lay down some justifications your beliefs instead of diverting attention elsewhere. Edited by pbee, : edit

I missed your post while writing my response. (sorry)

In deference to the moderator request I will not produce a point by point rebuttal of your latest post.Instead I simply ask that you retract all your false accusations and apologise.As the victim of your emotional rants and your repeated false accusations I feel the right to at least that much.(I'll add that my Message 6 is so far one of only two attempts to address the issue raised by the OP. The other is Jar's Message 19. At the time of writing, nobody else can claim to have contibuted anything of consequence).Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Early Christianity faced the threat of death and in no way was in any kind of position of power until Constantine. It also vied for popularity between Zoroastrianism and Mithraism, which was the dominant religion of Rome.It grew because people were persuaded by it. It makes sense to them. I thought you, being a self-professed Christian and all, might understand that. The Rylands Papyrus, juxtaposed by early manuscripts of a similar era, unequivocally places the gospel in the First Century.Secondly, in order for it to have been "revised," you first must provide evidence of tampering with a supposed original copy. They all write about Jesus differently, just like all authors write differently. Matthew wrote about Him from the perspective of the Moshiac, Mark wrote about Him as the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, Luke wrote of His humanity, and John wrote of His divinity. The total picture is that Jesus is all of these things, being completely man, and completely God.“Last eve I passed beside a blacksmith’s door and heard the anvil ring the vesper chime: Then looking in, I saw upon the floor old hammers, worn with beatings of time. ”How many anvils have you had,’ said I, ”to wear and batter all these hammers so?’ ”Just one,’ said he, and then, with twinkling of eye, ”The anvil wears the hammer out, you know.’ And so, thought I, the anvil is God’s word. For ages skeptic blows have beat upon; yet though the noise of falling blows was heard, the anvil is unharmed, but the hammer’s are gone.” -UnknownEdited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

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

From quoted source....

quote:

---

This papyrus was found in Egypt, and has been dated at about 125 A.D.

---

For sake of correctness that would be Second Century.

You didn't have to since I speak the English language. If you say someone is a revisionist, then you are saying they have revised something. And many could rightly say that you are attempting revisionist history lessons right now. The deal is, it refutes your claim of the Evil Christ Monster that swallows everything in its path. If it can be shown that Christianity was a fledgling religion, dying for survival, then it tends to undermine your point that the only reason it was made popular was because it had "deep pockets." Yes, but you glibly overlook the entirety of its preceding history. Can I take a ride in your magic time machine so we can see evidence of this copying? You are certainly welcome to believe in whatever you want, but it would do more to advance your assertion to back it up with something more than personal opinion. Do you have some sort of reason for why you believe this is the case?

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

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

Much like with evolution, most of the evidence here exists in the current texts--the things that still exist, that we still can have access to.Anyway...Jon

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

quote:

---

The Rylands Papyrus, juxtaposed by early manuscripts of a similar era, unequivocally places the gospel in the First Century.

​

Secondly, in order for it to have been "revised," you first must provide evidence of tampering with a supposed original copy.

---

Because it had everything to do with the discussion! This is what you do when you're presented with questions you presumably can't answer with integrity.

• You claim the person is perennially off topic so that you can gain control of the conversation and direct it where you want it to go.
• Use the words and phrases "palm the pea," "irrelevant," "bullshit," "strawman," as a way for you to palm the pea with irrelevant bullshit. In other words, its a strawman.
• You then answer questions with questions, which is no answer at all, or you refuse to answer and pretend the question was never asked.
• And lastly, you deride the people you are chatting with, provided, of course, they are Christian and/or creationists, bashing them incessantly.

Now that your tactics are exposed (as if most people didn't already know) maybe we can just discuss the topic. Boy, wouldn't that be refreshing change of pace? You have plainly stated that all writings are scripture-- even Archie comic books. Why then do you only attack what is well understood to be scripture, the very same kinds of writings you refer to as 'maps'? So we are basically relying on your incredulity at this point as some sort of evidentiary claim. Your argument is tantamount to, "it looks different from the other gospels, so it must be phony." Then lets look at something more tangible. Authors, far more contemporaneous with that time frame, all point to the authenticity of the John's gospel. Polycarp, Iraneus, Ignatius, etc have all attested for the authenticity. If a later translation, after their death, came to be which butchered the original, this would be something to consider. But the Rylands Papyrus is clear evidence that one of the original gospel of John's existed during the time of these early disciples. It only solidifies the notion that it is substantiated through corroboration.All of the biblical and extrabibilical evidence suggests authenticity, whereas your "evidence" is basically tongue-in-cheek.

quote:

---

The deal is, it refutes your claim of the Evil Christ Monster that swallows everything in its path. If it can be shown that Christianity was a fledgling religion, dying for survival, then it tends to undermine your point that the only reason it was made popular was because it had "deep pockets."

---

You are constantly alluding that grand conspiracy pervades most of Christendom as a way to malign the gospel. You're welcome to do that, but don't be surprised when somebody points out that this is what you're doing. Well ain't that the pot calling the kettle black?

---

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias