Did Jesus say he was God???

[AmbiguousGuy]

Would you stop referring to am imaginary army of people who live in your pocket and agree with you.

I've never made such a reference. It's just more of your imagination at work.

Your original post was thoughtful and relevant. I knew that would not last. I answered the transitional post but gave up and just gave the post that resumed your normal insincerity the label it deserved.

You are continually claiming to give up on other debaters because they're insincere, dishonest, inept, etc., but you never carry through.

So I have no fear that you'll actually abandon me.

 

[1robin]

In Indo-Euro cultures the deification of heroes was intentional...now add with the Hellenism of the Jews at the time :areyoucra

In mystery cult tradition the movement survived by being "underground" for a few decades.

I wonder what the estimated numbers were for Christians 100 A.D. and 300 A.D.?

I do not remember the exact numbers but I do remember reading of church's springing up everywhere almost over night. Even by 70Ad churches exist in Rome, Greece, and Africa. Christianity literally exploded in the face of oppression. There is not really any criteria by which to say it was a lot or a little but when compared to Islam it is night and day. Islam's first 10 peaceful years saw a total of 250 converts (mostly Muhammad's friends and family), however during Islam's next 12 caravan raiding, battle fighting, loot stealing, head chopping years it grew to 100,000 followers. If peace sells Islam is not buying. Christianity's rise was exactly the opposite but explosive.

 

[1robin]

I have not seen numbers estimates, but at least a few theologians I have read have it quite low until Constantine. A Lutheran theologian, Martin Marty, hypothesizes that at three different times the church was in danger of being mostly or even entirely wiped out.

I do not remember the exact numbers but I do remember reading of church's springing up everywhere almost over night. Even by 70Ad churches existed in Rome, Greece, and Africa. Christianity literally exploded in the face of oppression. There is not really any criteria by which to say it was a lot or a little but when compared to Islam, it is night and day. Islam's first 10 peaceful years saw a total of 250 converts (mostly Muhammad's friends and family), however during Islam's next 12 caravan raiding, battle fighting, loot stealing, head chopping years it grew to 100,000 followers. If peace sells Islam is not buying. Christianity's rise was exactly the opposite but explosive.

I am certainly no church scholar but I am unaware of any point that the Christian Church in general ever came close to being extinguished. Can you elaborate?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The same with the rest of them, and claiming he fed 5000 or healed the blind, deaf, and dumb, or said he could take away sin is simply not going to survive scrutiny recorded within eyewitness lifetimes. Yet not a single I was there and that did not happen claim exists at all.

2nd John. 1:7. I say this because many deceivers have gone out into the world. They deny that Jesus Christ came in a real body.

Even the Bible claims you are wrong about the existence of Jesus deniers.

 

[Sees]

I do not remember the exact numbers but I do remember reading of church's springing up everywhere almost over night. Even by 70Ad churches exist in Rome, Greece, and Africa. Christianity literally exploded in the face of oppression. There is not really any criteria by which to say it was a lot or a little but when compared to Islam it is night and day. Islam's first 10 peaceful years saw a total of 250 converts (mostly Muhammad's friends and family), however during Islam's next 12 caravan raiding, battle fighting, loot stealing, head chopping years it grew to 100,000 followers. If peace sells Islam is not buying. Christianity's rise was exactly the opposite but explosive.

Thank you, will have to add to notes to look up.

 

[1robin]

I've never made such a reference. It's just more of your imagination at work.



You are continually claiming to give up on other debaters because they're insincere, dishonest, inept, etc., but you never carry through.

So I have no fear that you'll actually abandon me.

I both carry through and eventually give them another chance and the reasons I do so are all different. You are insincere and trivial. Others may by semantically based (which is legit but boring), others may use double standards. But most are none of these and have never justified my taking a break from them. I get tired of some things and give them a break but unless they are hostile and sarcastic never totally abandon them. And my recent posts mentioned none of these things anyway.

 

[1robin]

So a Great Dane and a Chihuahua are different kinds, since they can't mate?

You told me to drop you in another post. I am inclined to do so even though this post was not such a triviality.

I will address that first sentence though. You can fertilize a great dame egg with Chihuahua sperm. I am not sure if you going to get a totally healthy creature but there is no fertility barrier. I assume you thought fertility barriers meant physical mating mechanics.

Anyway I will take you advice and leave you to it for now.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I both carry through and eventually give them another chance and the reasons I do so are all different. You are insincere and trivial.

I once knew a tone-deaf country bumpkin who stumbled into an orchestral performance of Beethoven's Ninth.

"Music? That's ain't music!" he shouted at the conductor. "You ain't even got nobody on a washtub!"

Some in the audience didn't take the bumpkin's opinion too seriously.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

You told me to drop you in another post.

I think you must be confused. I can't imagine living without you.

You can fertilize a great dame egg with Chihuahua sperm. I am not sure if you going to get a totally healthy creature but there is no fertility barrier.

I see. So when God spoke of 'kinds', He was not referring to natural creatures mating. Rather, He was taking into consideration man's willingness to artificially combine sperm and eggs. Some kinds can only be kinds with man's help.

I see.

 

[metis]

So you are resting your case on later deification of a person within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses? Try and deify Ronald Regan or Margaret Thatcher and see if it will be accepted by anyone. This was not my point anyway. The story about existing before the universe was not in a text attempting to deify Christ. The same with the rest of them, and claiming he fed 5000 or healed the blind, deaf, and dumb, or said he could take away sin is simply not going to survive scrutiny recorded within eyewitness lifetimes. Yet not a single I was there and that did not happen claim exists at all.

Saying that much later some scribes for whatever reasons attempted to change a few texts here and there for specific purposes. Yet all are known to be later changes and are clearly marked in all modern bibles. So are no issue at all. Christ's divinity does not come from claims of divinity but from acts of divinity.

There are supposed acts of divinity found in almost all religions, including from supposed witnesses, so which are we to believe are supposedly true? Also, most of the "N.T." was not written by eyewitnesses, plus it was written decades after Jesus was gone, so there was plenty of time for additions, subtractions, and enhancement.

BTW, it was believed, and it shows up throughout the scriptures, that a great many people performed miracles, and Jesus was certainly no exception to that. Did he perform miracles? I simply do not know because there's no way of telling for certain, but because of this uncertainty, there's simply no reason why I have to believe he did-- or didn't. If you believe, and I know you do, that's fine-- but you ain't me.

 

[metis]

I do not remember the exact numbers but I do remember reading of church's springing up everywhere almost over night. Even by 70Ad churches existed in Rome, Greece, and Africa. Christianity literally exploded in the face of oppression...

That's not the same as numbers, which is what was asked for. Yes, the church spread out of eretz Israel, but I have read several theologians, and not just Marty, that have said that the numbers were really quite small, especially early on. Had it not been for Constantine, or someone like him, Christianity might have remained a very minor religion worldwide, and Marty is not the only Christian theologian to feel that way.

 

[1robin]

There are supposed acts of divinity found in almost all religions, including from supposed witnesses, so which are we to believe are supposedly true? Also, most of the "N.T." was not written by eyewitnesses, plus it was written decades after Jesus was gone, so there was plenty of time for additions, subtractions, and enhancement.

First I believe I have given many times over an exhaustive explanation of the astronomical numbers gap between Christianity and any other faith concerning those who claim personal experience with God. There is not even a second place in sight, and I may be being a bit aggressive here but not unreasonably so. I would bet Christianity contains more people who make that type of claim than all other faiths combined. Second no other major faith makes the same general guarantees of experience with God to all believers in their doctrine, as in God coming to live permanently in every believers heart.

If there was a village with 1000 people isolated from the rest of the world that you visited. If 350 of them said they met a guy named Bill who taught them all types of things that changed their lives in obvious ways, but had moved far away years ago. 300 others suggested they felt a guy by different names probably existed and some small groups claimed to have seen him but to some he was tall, others short, and none in these groups agreed on that the taught or what exactly he was like and few saw him and only an elite few at that. 200 that have no claims and remain unconvinced either way. The last 250 never saw anyone and determined no bills or anyone else like that could possibly exist. Now what is the best conclusion?

1. That bill's followers are probably in the best position to know about the existence and character of this (to some) mysterious person. That Bill is probably a real person and some have met him, but others are simply intuitively seeing bill in people who are not him, inventing Bill sightings but giving them their own stories to suite their cultures expectations, or simply making up stories?

Or.

2. That there are many bills running around teaching conflicting things from the same source and despite 350 people's direct experience with Bill all fleeting claims to have seen Bill but in a unrecognizable form and contradictory actions are equally valid?

Or. As the 200 suggests 350 eyewitnesses to Bill are not enough info to have faith Bill exists?

Or.

3. The 250 left are correct and there has never been nor can be a Bill and the other 650 are insane?

Most of the New testament was written by eyewitnesses if you take witnessing Christ as a witness. However it would not matter if you were right. Your faith grants the existence of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was sent for several reason after Christ died. One specific one being to bring to mind all the events that writers recorded. I would not expect that to convince an atheist but another person of faith should have no issue with that. It was two eyewitnesses directly two Christ, one who met Christ but did not experience his ministry, and two that meticulously pointed out they used eyewitness accounts and carefully compared them. All supervised by the Holy spirit. Not too much too complain about there.




]quote]BTW, it was believed, and it shows up throughout the scriptures, that a great many people performed miracles, and Jesus was certainly no exception to that. Did he perform miracles? I simply do not know because there's no way of telling for certain, but because of this uncertainty, there's simply no reason why I have to believe he did-- or didn't. If you believe, and I know you do, that's fine-- but you ain't me.[/QUOTE]

1. The bible does not posit a great many people doing miracle and Christ did by far the most and many miracles that were unprecedented.
2. I do not understand the relevance of these miracle claims.

We were talking about numbers who claim person experiences with God and Biblical changes.

 

[1robin]

That's not the same as numbers, which is what was asked for. Yes, the church spread out of eretz Israel, but I have read several theologians, and not just Marty, that have said that the numbers were really quite small, especially early on. Had it not been for Constantine, or someone like him, Christianity might have remained a very minor religion worldwide, and Marty is not the only Christian theologian to feel that way.

1. I did not reply to a request but a subject.
2. Even if I gave you numbers like 5000 or 100,000 what exactly are you going to compare them with? There is no standard by which to compare it except other faiths of which it's most similar cousin faith I did provide.
3. There were not too many early church census that were taken or survived. You can only go by the prevalence of he faith in secular texts and the spread of churches. The faith that was exploding in a backwater of the Roman empire was mentioned in no less than 40 major secular works of the time.
4. I can think of no other faith that was not initially spread by force that grew as fast, especially when being persecuted by the most powerful empire in history.
5. I have never made any argument that Christianity is true because it spread so fast. I only reject the opposite claim. I also point out it went from being persecuted by a primary world empire to converting that empire based only on it's merits alone. Not something Islam or Buddhism had done.
6. The most relevant comparison possible is Christianity against Islam and Islam holds every advantage minus one (it message) yet did not equal Christianity in peaceful early conversion despite coming along in a much more populous time and not being persecuted by a great empire.

 

[metis]

First I believe I have given many times over an exhaustive explanation of the astronomical numbers gap between Christianity and any other faith concerning those who claim personal experience with God. There is not even a second place in sight, and I may be being a bit aggressive here but not unreasonably so. I would bet Christianity contains more people who make that type of claim than all other faiths combined. Second no other major faith makes the same general guarantees of experience with God to all believers in their doctrine, as in God coming to live permanently in every believers heart.

If there was a village with 1000 people isolated from the rest of the world that you visited. If 350 of them said they met a guy named Bill who taught them all types of things that changed their lives in obvious ways, but had moved far away years ago. 300 others suggested they felt a guy by different names probably existed and some small groups claimed to have seen him but to some he was tall, others short, and none in these groups agreed on that the taught or what exactly he was like and few saw him and only an elite few at that. 200 that have no claims and remain unconvinced either way. The last 250 never saw anyone and determined no bills or anyone else like that could possibly exist. Now what is the best conclusion?

1. That bill's followers are probably in the best position to know about the existence and character of this (to some) mysterious person. That Bill is probably a real person and some have met him, but others are simply intuitively seeing bill in people who are not him, inventing Bill sightings but giving them their own stories to suite their cultures expectations, or simply making up stories?

Or.

2. That there are many bills running around teaching conflicting things from the same source and despite 350 people's direct experience with Bill all fleeting claims to have seen Bill but in a unrecognizable form and contradictory actions are equally valid?

Or. As the 200 suggests 350 eyewitnesses to Bill are not enough info to have faith Bill exists?

Or.

3. The 250 left are correct and there has never been nor can be a Bill and the other 650 are insane?

Most of the New testament was written by eyewitnesses if you take witnessing Christ as a witness. However it would not matter if you were right. Your faith grants the existence of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was sent for several reason after Christ died. One specific one being to bring to mind all the events that writers recorded. I would not expect that to convince an atheist but another person of faith should have no issue with that. It was two eyewitnesses directly two Christ, one who met Christ but did not experience his ministry, and two that meticulously pointed out they used eyewitness accounts and carefully compared them. All supervised by the Holy spirit. Not too much too complain about there.




]quote]BTW, it was believed, and it shows up throughout the scriptures, that a great many people performed miracles, and Jesus was certainly no exception to that. Did he perform miracles? I simply do not know because there's no way of telling for certain, but because of this uncertainty, there's simply no reason why I have to believe he did-- or didn't. If you believe, and I know you do, that's fine-- but you ain't me.

1. The bible does not posit a great many people doing miracle and Christ did by far the most and many miracles that were unprecedented.
2. I do not understand the relevance of these miracle claims.

We were talking about numbers who claim person experiences with God and Biblical changes.

It's the same old "numbers" game, which I find basically illogical for reasons previously expressed. You can repeat the above a million times, but it simply doesn't add up. It's like saying that since most people centuries ago believed the Earth was flat, then it must have been flat-- and they "saw" it for themselves.

On top of that, you have these "witnesses" witnessing things they did not or may not have witnessed at all, and then supposedly reporting this all objectively whereas we well know that this was done at a time when religious "witnessing" and beliefs were generally subjective.

Instead, I much prefer a different approach based on objectively-derived evidence, which is why I prefer the Buddhist approach to dharma, or even just a strict scientific approach. Therefore, to me, the importance is the teachings, which then may be applied if they seem reasonable.

Whether Jesus, the Buddha, Mohammed, Moses, or any other religious figure even existed is far less important to me than what they supposedly taught.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

5. I have never made any argument that Christianity is true because it spread so fast. I only reject the opposite claim. I also point out it went from being persecuted by a primary world empire to converting that empire based only on it's merits alone. Not something Islam or Buddhism had done.

Christianity converted no empire based on its merits.

Try not to believe everything told you by Christian historians.

 

[metis]

1. I did not reply to a request but a subject.
2. Even if I gave you numbers like 5000 or 100,000 what exactly are you going to compare them with? There is no standard by which to compare it except other faiths of which it's most similar cousin faith I did provide.
3. There were not too many early church census that were taken or survived. You can only go by the prevalence of he faith in secular texts and the spread of churches. The faith that was exploding in a backwater of the Roman empire was mentioned in no less than 40 major secular works of the time.
4. I can think of no other faith that was not initially spread by force that grew as fast, especially when being persecuted by the most powerful empire in history.
5. I have never made any argument that Christianity is true because it spread so fast. I only reject the opposite claim. I also point out it went from being persecuted by a primary world empire to converting that empire based only on it's merits alone. Not something Islam or Buddhism had done.
6. The most relevant comparison possible is Christianity against Islam and Islam holds every advantage minus one (it message) yet did not equal Christianity in peaceful early conversion despite coming along in a much more populous time and not being persecuted by a great empire.

The part of what you wrote I underlined above makes no sense when rubbed against what else you said in that post. We simply do not know what the numbers are, and estimates are going to be highly suspect because we have no census data. Even Marty's estimates I take with a large grain of salt.

But what we do know is that under Constantine, the church spread over a much wider area, and that those who declared themselves to be "Christian" expanded very significantly. But even with this, numbers are hard to come by. Plus it's pretty much irrelevant anyway. What it was, it was.

 

[Muffled]

I don't. The "N.T." consists of various peoples' takes on Jesus, including trying to cite from memory or hear-say information what Jesus said. And as with Gandhi after he was assassinated, there may well have been a tendency to deify him, which could have been a rather logical tendency.

However I believe that is not what the Paraclete says but He says that the reported sayings of Jesus are accurate and not an attempt to deify Jesus.

 

[1robin]

The part of what you wrote I underlined above makes no sense when rubbed against what else you said in that post. We simply do not know what the numbers are, and estimates are going to be highly suspect because we have no census data. Even Marty's estimates I take with a large grain of salt.

But what we do know is that under Constantine, the church spread over a much wider area, and that those who declared themselves to be "Christian" expanded very significantly. But even with this, numbers are hard to come by. Plus it's pretty much irrelevant anyway. What it was, it was.

You must not have understood it.

I can think of no other faith that was not initially spread by force that grew as fast, especially when being persecuted by the most powerful empire in history.

Constantine is not even part of Christianity's initial explosion. My statement meant I can think of no other faith that spread only by it's merits that increased so fast in the face of such opposition. For example Islam languished in it first non retaliatory years while being under far milder opposition. Only when Muhammad was given bands of soldiers to use to raid caravans and kill the opposition did it start to really grow. You can dismiss it if you want but again it is another factor that is consistent with the bibles merits as truth.

Of course Christianity spread faster when not being hunted by the largest empire on earth but it grew significantly long before that. In ways I can think of no parallel to. Islam grew on blood and loot, Hinduism grew almost unopposed, paganism was forced on others by armies, and even Judaism took hold by conquest to some extent.

 

[Muffled]

Christianity converted no empire based on its merits.

Try not to believe everything told you by Christian historians.

I believe this is incorrect. Constantine changed His empire around because he found merit in Christianity.

I believe all historians hold to this view.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I believe this is incorrect. Constantine changed His empire around because he found merit in Christianity.

Yeah, he picked the one most likely to further his political ambitions.