Did Jesus say he was God???

[Muffled]

It is a further proof that Christians believe a mythical Jesus. If you speak of the Gospel of John; that is a book of anonymous authorship, named after John just for identity.

It is not a reliable book for the accounts of a real Jesus.

Gospel of John - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Chapter 21 states that the book derives from the testimony of the "disciple whom Jesus loved" and early churchtradition identified him as John the Apostle, one of Jesus' Twelve Apostles. The gospel is closely related in style and content to the three surviving Epistles of John such that commentators treat the four books,[1] along with the Book of Revelation, as a single body of Johannine literature. According to most modern scholars, however, the apostle John was not the author of any of these books.[2]

Within this view of a complex and multi-layered history, it is meaningless to speak of a single "author" of John, but the title perhaps belongs best to the evangelist who came at the end of this process.[24] The final composition's comparatively late date, and its insistence upon Jesus as a divine being walking the earth in human form, renders it highly problematical to scholars who attempt to evaluate Jesus' life in terms of literal historical truth.[25][26]"

Gospel of John - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We can conclude that the Gospels don't present accounts of a real Jesus but of a fictional or mythical Jesus whom the Christians wrongly believe to be literal or physical god or son of god.

Regards

I have it straight from the mouth of Jesus that John wrote his own book. I always find Jesus to be reliable and the speculations of men to be not dependable.

 

[1robin]

I don't agree with you.

NT Bible is errant; written by errant scribes. It is neither authored by the One-True- God whom Jesus used to call God-the-Father nor by Jesus himself. It is not even dictated by Jesus; not even written by men authorized in writing by Jesus to write it on his behalf.

Gospels are not work of inspiration either; angels cannot inspire such incorrect information as we find many contradictory accounts of Jesus’ life in the Bible.
It is wrong to say that it was written by person who got inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not inspire to errant and sinful persons. The contradictions show, if at all, it is the evil spirit in them which inspired them.
Gospels did not record event of crucifixion and resurrection by the eye-witnesses; it is written that they all deserted Jesus and fled away.

Bible presents Jesus as god; on what basis?

If it is on the basis of Paul or Gospels; that makes it a circular argument and Christianity reduces to a misnomer; it should be named after Paul.

The reasons or arguments should be from elsewhere; from a book or Gospel written by Jesus himself or dictated by Jesus, if it is to be truly called Christianity.

Regards

Errant and inerrant are two of the most misunderstood words by non-theists. My views on inerrancy are consistent with the Chicago statement of faith. If you want to look at them in scholarly form please look it up. The only claim is that the revelation as first given was perfect but does not prescribe perfection to the transcribing of it. So we both agree that any given modern bible has flaws but I think we disagree on how many faults. Theologians in general say the bible is 99.5% textually accurate. Secular textual critics usually assign around 95% accuracy to any accepted modern bible version. I'm sure you disagree but you would be wrong. I will show why in a minute but you can do this your self. There are programs designed to find every single textual discrepancy in every single major bible version. They all return figures consistent with the above. Now to scholarship. The most famous and respected non-theist biblical textual critic today is Bart Ehrman. I think his numbers are wrong but will use them anyway to show just how wrong your estimation is. By his numbers the entire biblical tradition contains 3 - 4 hundred thousand errors. If you divide the number of words in the tradition by that figure you wind up with about one meaningful error every 7 pages and even he admits that not one single error exists in core doctrine. Let me give a quick quote by him.

Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant; in fact most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple—slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort or another when scribes made intentional changes, sometimes their motives were as pure as the driven snow. And so we must rest content knowing that getting back
to the earliest attainable version is the best we can do, whether or not we have reached back to the “original” text. This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely) related to what the author originally wrote, and so it is the basis for our interpretation of his teaching.

The gentleman that I’m quoting is Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus. [audience laughter]

So according to the bibles most famous critic it is 95% accurate and contains all core doctrine as it was revealed. Just how amazing is the bible compared to any other work of ancient history.

Colleges all over the world teach Caesar's Gallic wars as reliable history. Yet we only have two copies from 800 years later and the variance is below 80%. Most are even worse and none is even a close second. The Peloponnesian wars is the next best and it isn't even in the same ballpark. We have fragments that date to within the first century of the bible and the bible has every single thing needed to know what he originals said even if lost.

1. Early copying.
2. Independent copying. No one around dictating what everything must be like Uthman did with the Quran and burned the rest.
3. Parallel traditions.
4. Extreme duplicity.
5. Works lost extremely early on only discovered much much later.

If you have this then you have everything you need to reliably establish what an original said.

If you want to see how the bible compares to most of the great works of ancient history and how lopsided it is see this link.
How Do Other Ancient Texts Compare to the New Testament? #10 Post of 2012 | Tough Questions Answered

Now I think your textual inaccuracy claim has been defeated or at least the foundations for it's defeat have been laid. Did you have another complaint or counter argument that was not textually related?

 

[`mud]

And the man wrote not one word !
~
That's keeping it inerrant.
~
'mud

 

[1robin]

And the man wrote not one word !
~
That's keeping it inerrant.
~
'mud

Your posting thought fragments prevents me from offering any response because I do not understand them. I am not sure what you get out of this.

 

[`mud]

hey Robin,
Jesus wrote not one word, except maybe in the sand one time.
Do you really believe that ?
~
The wind blew those words away, now we'll never know will we.
Maybe Simon knows.
~
`mud

 

[1robin]

hey Robin,
Jesus wrote not one word, except maybe in the sand one time.
Do you really believe that ?
~
The wind blew those words away, now we'll never know will we.
Maybe Simon knows.
~
`mud

The historical and theological veracity of he bible is not dependent on Jesus having written anything. BTW among the 2 or 3 stories believed to have not been in the original text (or at least not substantiated at this time) is the one you are referring to. So no my faith does not include Christ writing in the sand, though it is a valid moral parable even if it wasn't original. Between 95% and 99.5% of the bible is reliable textually, how did you manage to pick a story from the tiny fraction that isn't?

 

[`mud]

The tiny fractile example of the lack of perfomance of atuity of writing is an indication of Jesus' lack of ability to write anything.
What bothers me is the given synopsis in the NT that Jesus in his early teens, about 12 as I recall, could read aloud to sermonize to the elders of the temple.
If he could read aloud the writings of Abraham and Isaiah, why couldn't He write them.
Just thinking aloud, and writing my thoughts, whether in sand or to protect a whore,
what's the difference.
~
If you can't follow my thinking, then I'm at fault, probably because of my stroke.
I'll not try to explain any further, just think about it.....but you won't.
~
'mud

 

[idav]

The tiny fractile example of the lack of perfomance of atuity of writing is an indication of Jesus' lack of ability to write anything.
What bothers me is the given synopsis in the NT that Jesus in his early teens, about 12 as I recall, could read aloud to sermonize to the elders of the temple.
If he could read aloud the writings of Abraham and Isaiah, why couldn't He write them.
Just thinking aloud, and writing my thoughts, whether in sand or to protect a whore,
what's the difference.
~
If you can't follow my thinking, then I'm at fault, probably because of my stroke.
I'll not try to explain any further, just think about it.....but you wont.
~
'mud

Those are interesting thoughts. A person could read but not write, very peculiar. He was supposed to have a jewish education which would lend him to have the ability to read scripture, so I'm told. Still nothing from the source and that is the biggest issue. Everything is then second hand accounts, third hand if we are honest with history and who actually did the writing.

 

[paarsurrey]

Originally Posted by paarsurrey
Did Jesus say he was God???

Jesus created nothing; everything existed before his birth from Mary; how could a real Jesus claim to be a literal or physical god?

What the heck? Are you familiar with the book or story your denying?

I just stated the facts.

Regards

 

[1robin]

The tiny fractile example of the lack of perfomance of atuity of writing is an indication of Jesus' lack of ability to write anything.
What bothers me is the given synopsis in the NT that Jesus in his early teens, about 12 as I recall, could read aloud to sermonize to the elders of the temple.
If he could read aloud the writings of Abraham and Isaiah, why couldn't He write them.
Just thinking aloud, and writing my thoughts, whether in sand or to protect a whore,
what's the difference.
~
If you can't follow my thinking, then I'm at fault, probably because of my stroke.
I'll not try to explain any further, just think about it.....but you won't.
~
'mud

I do not know whether I am too stupid to understand you or not, or whether you are truly not making any sense. One thing I do know is your avatar perfectly suits your posts. I guess that is something anyway.

 

[1robin]

Those are interesting thoughts. A person could read but not write, very peculiar. He was supposed to have a jewish education which would lend him to have the ability to read scripture, so I'm told. Still nothing from the source and that is the biggest issue. Everything is then second hand accounts, third hand if we are honest with history and who actually did the writing.

You are the first person I have ever read or heard about who had the omniscience, omnipresence, and arrogance to claim hat you know Jesus could not write. Today has been one for firsts and for making claims that simply exhaust me so at least your timing was on.

 

[1robin]

I just stated the facts.

Regards

If you have some capacity for theological revelation about past events above that of the bible than please state what it is, because the same book that you get your knowledge of Christ from stated many times that Jesus created and had unprecedented divine authority and power. Even if what you stated was factual you could possibly know it was.

 

[Muffled]

hey Robin,
Jesus wrote not one word, except maybe in the sand one time.
Do you really believe that ?
~
The wind blew those words away, now we'll never know will we.
Maybe Simon knows.
~
`mud

I believe there are too many tears and one can't depend on what is written in mud.

 

[idav]

You are the first person I have ever read or heard about who had the omniscience, omnipresence, and arrogance to claim hat you know Jesus could not write. Today has been one for firsts and for making claims that simply exhaust me so at least your timing was on.

On the contrary, I assume from the stories he could indeed write. However we have nothing from him, that is the issue I raised.

edit: Same for the buddha, only his followers wrote his stuff down, in case thats any consolation for anyone lol.

 

[Muffled]

The tiny fractile example of the lack of perfomance of atuity of writing is an indication of Jesus' lack of ability to write anything.
What bothers me is the given synopsis in the NT that Jesus in his early teens, about 12 as I recall, could read aloud to sermonize to the elders of the temple.
If he could read aloud the writings of Abraham and Isaiah, why couldn't He write them.
Just thinking aloud, and writing my thoughts, whether in sand or to protect a whore,
what's the difference.
~
If you can't follow my thinking, then I'm at fault, probably because of my stroke.
I'll not try to explain any further, just think about it.....but you won't.
~
'mud

Different strokes for different folks. Lyrics in a song by Fly and the Family Stone.

God is efficient. He doesn't bother doing what He can get others to do for Him.

 

[paarsurrey]

If you have some capacity for theological revelation about past events above that of the bible than please state what it is, because the same book that you get your knowledge of Christ from stated many times that Jesus created and had unprecedented divine authority and power. Even if what you stated was factual you could possibly know it was.

NT Bible is a mix; if it states a correct thing I accept it; if it states something wrong I reject it on merit.

Regards

 

[`mud]

hey Muffled,
I don't get your inference to "Fly and Family Stone"
but I'm not into music or lyrics....any lyrics in particular ?
Now about "God"....do you think that Jesus and "God" are the same ?
You mention that "God" doesn't bother with stuff that other entities can do,
like referring to Jesus in this instance ?
What does "God" have to with Jesus writing anything or not ?
~
And to that thought....I made a reference about "Simon" to 1Robin in referrence to "Peter",
you know...the inventer of all the stories of Jesus' escapades with the disciples,
and the apostles....that "Paul" and "Simon"....maybe I got names wrong,
wasn't Simon known, to Jesus, named Peter, by Jesus.
Oh well.......doesn't matter.
But you probably don't get that either, do you ?
~
Where in the new testament, or any other scripture, does it be said that Jesus could write anything ?
Where does it say that Jesus could write at all, or did He write anything...ever....
except once that was mentioned in the sand before a crowd that gathered to stone a hooker ?
~
Now can you explain any of this to me....about the writing of course...and the lyrics,
please explain the lyrics.....very confusing this is...but I did have a stroke once !
~
forever in debt to the confusion here,
I remain faithfully yours,
'mud....writing as we go

 

[paarsurrey]

Did Jesus say he was God???

Even if a human claims for himself that he is god; that claim does not make him a god.

Regards

 

[1robin]

Did Jesus say he was God???

Even if a human claims for himself that he is god; that claim does not make him a god.

Regards

I 100% agree. It is what things do that tells us most about who they are. Jesus claimed to forgive sin (only God can do so), he claimed to have been eternal in the past (no angel claimed this), he claimed to be co-occupant of the throne of God (no man has claimed this). Now if he claimed these and other things similar by the truck load then if God resurrected him he put his stamp of approval on his message. Jesus claimed to be immortal and acted divine, that at least is enough for faith that he was.

 

[1robin]

hey Muffled,
I don't get your inference to "Fly and Family Stone"
but I'm not into music or lyrics....any lyrics in particular ?
Now about "God"....do you think that Jesus and "God" are the same ?
You mention that "God" doesn't bother with stuff that other entities can do,
like referring to Jesus in this instance ?
What does "God" have to with Jesus writing anything or not ?
~
And to that thought....I made a reference about "Simon" to 1Robin in referrence to "Peter",
you know...the inventer of all the stories of Jesus' escapades with the disciples,
and the apostles....that "Paul" and "Simon"....maybe I got names wrong,
wasn't Simon known, to Jesus, named Peter, by Jesus.
Oh well.......doesn't matter.
But you probably don't get that either, do you ?
~
Where in the new testament, or any other scripture, does it be said that Jesus could write anything ?
Where does it say that Jesus could write at all, or did He write anything...ever....
except once that was mentioned in the sand before a crowd that gathered to stone a hooker ?
~
Now can you explain any of this to me....about the writing of course...and the lyrics,
please explain the lyrics.....very confusing this is...but I did have a stroke once !
~
forever in debt to the confusion here,
I remain faithfully yours,
'mud....writing as we go

I did not read the above but am only using it to add something from previous discussions. You claimed that Jesus did not write the bible to apparently be an indictment of what is said about him. I thought of another example. General Lee never wrote his account of the civil war yet his existence and character is never questioned. The war is not denied. The events are not given up as hopelessly unknowable. His role in it is a matter of entire volumes taught in colleges around the world as fact. The same can be said of Caesar or Plato even though the sources left behind by them are not even in the same realm as the biblical sources. Why is there such a double standard?